October 13, 200421 yr Bodies of babies found in Saddam's 'killing field' By Joe Murphy, Evening Standard Political Editor 13 October 2004 A mass grave containing the bodies of children, babies and their mothers has been unearthed in Iraq. Shocked investigators reported finding "thighbones the size of matchsticks" at what they believe is the site of one of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Among the findings-were the skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys. A baby had been shot in the back of its head and was found still being clutched by its mother, who had been shot in the face. The discovery was reported as Tony Blair came under mounting pressure to apologise to Parliament for the misleading intelligence claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It will strengthen the Prime Minister's case that despite the intelligencefailures the war to topple the Iraqi dictator was justified by his record as a mass killer of his own people. Mr Blair is facing MPs for the first time since the Iraq Survey Group report last week admitted there were no illegal chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy demanded he make a full Commons statement on the findings but Mr Blair was hoping to escape by merely answering questions at his regular weekly appearance. The mass grave was being excavated near Hatra, a village in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the Eighties. The bodies had been bulldozed into the ground. Evidence from the graves will be used at the Iraqi Special Tribunal where Saddam will face trial for war crimes. "It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," said Greg Kehoe, a US official. "Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take people up there and execute them." One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. "The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said a US investigating anthropologist. "Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick." Some 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam's regime. Iraq's human rights ministry has reportedly identified 40 possible mass graves across the country. Meanwhile, Saddam underwent an operation to repair a hernia about 10 days ago and has made a full recovery, Iraqi sources said today. He has been in US custody since 13 December and appeared in court in July for a preliminary hearing. http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...ning%20Standard
October 13, 200421 yr He killed all those people when we were still pals though. At any rate, I think it's horrific what he did, but there are plenty of genocidal despots still in power throughout the world. Probably ones far more dangerous than Saddam. Still a sad story though. Saddam is a nasty piece of work.
October 13, 200421 yr So why don't we go into Darfur. They are getting killed by the hundreds every day... Or how about Iran, they have the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for. And have killed their own people...
October 13, 200421 yr Unfortunately most of these horrible atrocities occurred when we were good friends with Hussein...and we knew this was going on. And seriously CFDodge your coming off as easily influenced. One moment you say we should withdrawal and nuke the f***ers and the next you say absolutely we should of invaded. And while we are at it what about American Indians that we slaughtered mercilessly? Should we cede all their land back to them and put ourselves in prison for all their children and women that were brutally murdered and raped? Why didnt we remove Sadaam in Gulf War I? Is Bush the Older a partisan piece of s***? Listen, nobody can defend what Sadaam did, but its partisan politics to put this across as a defense for current war for reasons listed above.
October 13, 200421 yr Author So why don't we go into Darfur. They are getting killed by the hundreds every day... Or how about Iran, they have the weapons of mass destruction we are looking for. And have killed their own people... 591132[/snapback] I agree 100%. Saddam is a weapon of mass destruction. I wonder why our "civlized" European friends won't take some initiative. Aghh.
October 13, 200421 yr Let the invasions commence! There are plenty more that fall under CFDodge's definition of a pretext than Drafur and Iran! Charge!!!!!!
October 13, 200421 yr Author Let the invasions commence! There are plenty more that fall under CFDodge's definition of a pretext than Drafur and Iran! Charge!!!!!! 591169[/snapback] Who's with me? :shifty
October 14, 200421 yr Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto....never heard a pipe out of conservatives and anytime a liberal brought it up..they were called bleading hearts. Now who's heart is bleeding?
October 14, 200421 yr Author Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto....never heard a pipe out of conservatives and anytime a liberal brought it up..they were called bleading hearts. Now who's heart is bleeding? 591231[/snapback] Don't think for a second that I fit the typical right wing mold.
October 14, 200421 yr I think I remember you making fun of "bleeding heart" liberals, but maybe that was somebody else.
October 14, 200421 yr Author I think I remember you making fun of "bleeding heart" liberals, but maybe that was somebody else. 591298[/snapback] I may have used the phrase, but never made fun of.
October 14, 200421 yr Screw the war. What does it have to do with Osama? Why is the fact that there are no WMD's not a big deal!? Seriously, the guy lied on why we went to war. His one argument didn't hold water. Oh, yeah, Saddham killed them while we were selling him our old weapons. (shrugs) Anyways, I say we keep him (Saddam) alive and make a monkey out of him. Bring him out to make us all laugh at the stupid thinking of a genocidal dictator so then mistakes like the ones in Iraq never happen again. It's not America's job to singlehandedly police the world.
October 14, 200421 yr Author Screw the war. What does it have to do with Osama? Why is the fact that there are no WMD's not a big deal!? Seriously, the guy lied on why we went to war. His one argument didn't hold water. Oh, yeah, Saddham killed them while we were selling him our old weapons. (shrugs) Anyways, I say we keep him (Saddam) alive and make a monkey out of him. Bring him out to make us all laugh at the stupid thinking of a genocidal dictator so then mistakes like the ones in Iraq never happen again. It's not America's job to singlehandedly police the world. 591339[/snapback] You're right, it's everyone's job.
October 14, 200421 yr Im 95% against war, it would have to be for a really good reason why a war would start thats just me
October 14, 200421 yr Let the invasions commence! There are plenty more that fall under CFDodge's definition of a pretext than Drafur and Iran! Charge!!!!!! 591169[/snapback] Exactly. We don't have a military that can just invade and occupy every country that we feel like invading. Thanks to this war, we're already stretched extremely thin in the number of available troops.
October 14, 200421 yr You're right. This means war. Only that these bodies were from a massacre in the late 1980s. So, thank you, CFDodge, for keeping ever-present the debate of whether we should go to war .... IN 1990!
October 14, 200421 yr I have to make a correction in the article...it says Saddam was "a mass killer of his own people." When in fact he was a mass killer of the Kurds. The Kurds are not Iraqis, they have been looking for independence for a long time from Iraq, Turkey, Iran (maybe another country?) where Kurdistan is. I don't want it to seem like I am justifying his mass killings, I am not, but for the sake of correct information I had to post this.
October 14, 200421 yr There are plenty of other places where people are being killed by their government now we don't pay attention to.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.