Jump to content


New mass grave filled with women and children discovered in Iraq


Accord
 Share

Recommended Posts

KARBALA: The remains of women and children, believed to be victims of Saddam Hussein?s ousted regime, have been found in a mass grave dug up by workers who were laying down pipes in Karbala, a local official said Tuesday.

 

The mass grave was uncovered by chance on Monday, some 500 metres from Imam Hussain?s mausoleum, in the centre of the Shiite town. ?The skulls of children and women with long hair were found in the grave,? Abdel Rahman Meshawi, a Karbala spokesman told AFP. ?Inhabitants who lost relatives when a Shiite rebellion was crushed in 1991 have come in to help assist with the identification,? he added.

 

31 bodies have been taken to the local hospital for DNA tests. ?We?re still testing but it appears they are victims of Saddam?s bloody suppression of a Shiite uprising in 1991,? the official told Reuters.

 

There had been confusion over the scale of the find at a building site for a sewage project in the city centre, with police initially saying there were 150 bodies; police spokesman Rahman Mishawi later revised that to ?dozens? of sets of remains. A Reuters reporter at the scene saw one sack filled with what appeared to be human bones. A 50-year-old local man, Salman Saadoun, 50, said he remembered seeing bulldozers digging in the area after Saddam Hussein?s elite Republican Guard entered the town to crush the rebellion in 1991. A small public park was later built there. The US-installed provisional authority suggested in 2004 that some 259 mass graves containing some 300,000 people had been discovered in the country since the fall of Saddam. Most are concentrated in the south, where Saddam put down Shiites who rebelled against his rule after the 1991 Gulf war, and in the north, where Iraqi forces clamped down on Kurdish rebels.

 

 

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...-12-2005_pg7_46

 

Another article....

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq ? Municipal workers in the Shiite holy city of Karbala found remains believed to be from a mass grave dating to 1991, when Saddam Hussein's regime put down a Shiite uprising in the south.

 

Also, more than 10,000 people marched through Baghdad in support of a national unity government of Sunnis and Shiites, while insurgent attacks killed six Iraqi policemen and two civilians in a fresh surge of violence.

 

The remains were discovered Monday and were sent for testing Tuesday in an effort to identify the bodies, said Rahman Mashawy, a Karbala police spokesman. He did not say how many bodies were found, and the police claim could not be independently verified.

 

Human rights organizations estimate that more than 300,000 people, mainly Kurds and Shiite Muslims, were killed and buried in mass graves during Saddam's 23-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003. Saddam and seven co-defendants are now on trial for the deaths of more than 140 Shiites after a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad.

 

Violence has increased across Iraq after a lull following the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, with at least two dozen people ? including two U.S. soldiers ? killed in shootings and bombings Monday and 18 on Sunday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179819,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Let's step away from the Iraq justification debate that rages on in every one of these threads. I think it's pretty evident that Saddam Hussein was a horrible human being and his regime used brutal tactics. That has never been in debate. The question now is what should we do to prevent future actions from happening. Should we always involve ourselves to remove brutal regimes from power? In light of the alleged failures of the UN, should we establish a new international agency with us at the lead? How involved should we be? What should the standard for intervention be? Should we be responsible for civilian deaths in Iraq? Im not trying to be a moral relativist. What Hussen did was much worse than anything we did because he intended to do so(though Id argue people like Rumsfield know full well what they are doing). Id like to hear what we need to do to prevent this from happening again.

 

My personal views have always leaned towards internationalism. I would like involvment in some form or another in many of the other human rights violations happening today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal views have always leaned towards internationalism.

 

Mine too. The problem is that the UN is a paper tiger. They have absolutely no authority and no credibility. Granted, Bush didn't help matters any when he decided to ignore the UN and do his own thing anyway but he never should have been allowed to think that it would be okay to do so.

 

If there was an international government with the authority to pass laws that affect ALL countries, the potential for a more peaceful planet exists. It would be pretty tough for another Saddam Hussein to invade another country when he knows that he will face punishment from the entire world - guaranteed.

 

Two major problems with this idea revolve around funding and fair representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus you know very well that the U.S. will never submit to that.

 

Issues with Environmental Laws perhaps? :mischief

 

Well yeah, but that's not even the half of it. Look, yes the UN is lame and often has no real authority, but I just don't see the U.S. granting any global body the kind of legal or military authority it would need to effect real change. You think men like Cheney want to have to ask permission first? The first time the U.S. disagreed with something, we'd simply thumb our nose at the rest of the world.

 

you see how little support there is for the ICC/World Court here (& with perhaps good reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal views have always leaned towards internationalism.

 

Mine too. The problem is that the UN is a paper tiger. They have absolutely no authority and no credibility. Granted, Bush didn't help matters any when he decided to ignore the UN and do his own thing anyway but he never should have been allowed to think that it would be okay to do so.

 

If there was an international government with the authority to pass laws that affect ALL countries, the potential for a more peaceful planet exists. It would be pretty tough for another Saddam Hussein to invade another country when he knows that he will face punishment from the entire world - guaranteed.

 

Two major problems with this idea revolve around funding and fair representation.

 

as have i believed for years now that a more international world ultimately is better for us. you have to find some way to make it happen, one of the things that truly disgusted me the most about this war is how Bush basically gave the entire world the big middle finger. I fear what that could do in the future, even if we dont see it now....

 

I wish there were some international body that truly was respected and had real power....

 

We would be on the way then to living in a better global society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to care about massacred Iraqi civilians? Boo frickin hoo. If the mass graves had some weapons of mass destruction, it might mean something. This war wasn't about digging up mass graves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to care about massacred Iraqi civilians? Boo frickin hoo. If the mass graves had some weapons of mass destruction, it might mean something. This war wasn't about digging up mass graves.

 

Should we have gone in under the false pretenses of there being WMD's and whatnot? Absolutely not, but we're there and a lot of good is being done, just because these good things have nothing to do with the original reason for going to war is no reason to discredit it. No matter how you slice it, there will never be mass graves like this ever again in Iraq all because we ousted Saddam. Sure there were no WMD's, but that's irrelevant now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to care about massacred Iraqi civilians? Boo frickin hoo. If the mass graves had some weapons of mass destruction, it might mean something. This war wasn't about digging up mass graves.

 

Should we have gone in under the false pretenses of there being WMD's and whatnot? Absolutely not, but we're there and a lot of good is being done, just because these good things have nothing to do with the original reason for going to war is no reason to discredit it. No matter how you slice it, there will never be mass graves like this ever again in Iraq all because we ousted Saddam. Sure there were no WMD's, but that's irrelevant now.

Ousting Saddam killed at least 30,000 Iraqis. How many did he kill by himself? This wasn't supposed to be a humanitarian war. If they tried to pitch that angle, you could name 10 other countries that would also need to be "liberated" by us. We don't have the military power to free everyone from totalitarian rule. I wish we could, but it's just not realistic. It would also cost many more American lives than the 2200 or so we've lost already in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to care about massacred Iraqi civilians? Boo frickin hoo. If the mass graves had some weapons of mass destruction, it might mean something. This war wasn't about digging up mass graves.

 

Should we have gone in under the false pretenses of there being WMD's and whatnot? Absolutely not, but we're there and a lot of good is being done, just because these good things have nothing to do with the original reason for going to war is no reason to discredit it. No matter how you slice it, there will never be mass graves like this ever again in Iraq all because we ousted Saddam. Sure there were no WMD's, but that's irrelevant now.

Ousting Saddam killed at least 30,000 Iraqis. How many did he kill by himself? This wasn't supposed to be a humanitarian war. If they tried to pitch that angle, you could name 10 other countries that would also need to be "liberated" by us. We don't have the military power to free everyone from totalitarian rule. I wish we could, but it's just not realistic. It would also cost many more American lives than the 2200 or so we've lost already in Iraq.

 

You guys are essentially saying the same thing. You just need to see past the fact that you are on the left and he is on the right, and likewise with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to care about massacred Iraqi civilians? Boo frickin hoo. If the mass graves had some weapons of mass destruction, it might mean something. This war wasn't about digging up mass graves.

 

Should we have gone in under the false pretenses of there being WMD's and whatnot? Absolutely not, but we're there and a lot of good is being done, just because these good things have nothing to do with the original reason for going to war is no reason to discredit it. No matter how you slice it, there will never be mass graves like this ever again in Iraq all because we ousted Saddam. Sure there were no WMD's, but that's irrelevant now.

Who cares? I'd rather we found a huge stockpile of WMDs than a friggin' mass grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was an international government with the authority to pass laws that affect ALL countries, the potential for a more peaceful planet exists. It would be pretty tough for another Saddam Hussein to invade another country when he knows that he will face punishment from the entire world - guaranteed.

 

Two major problems with this idea revolve around funding and fair representation

 

Yeah totally agree that thats probably the most effective way to attain human rights and prevent massacred like this into the future. But like hotcorner pointed out, I dont think the US would ever buy into it. I think fair representation and US involvement run counter to each other. There are also issues of our own guys getting punished, ie some people want Kissinger for war crimes. Moreover, the world court is ripped on as an idea by many people, Bush included(might be wrong on the reason but Ive always thought it contradicted his view on Iraq). Im totally on board for more international cooperation though.

 

That said, I think its going to have to come from our country as a whole coming together on some sort of unified policy. Excuse me for labelling, but I think opposition to internationalism often comes from the right or right leaners, probably not universal though. As a liberal, Im all up for international agencies. But like I said, I dont think it can happen from our country. So assuming we should even care about people buried in mass graves, what foreign policy should be formulated for the future? Or does Iraq finds its way into the history books as a war fought for all the wrong reasons(WMDs, 9-11 link) that just so happend to inadvertently help people over there. But helping people is not part of our policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as there are different cultures and different morays around the world there is no way that the entire world will ever be governed and ruled by one governing body. Corruption would be more rampant than you could ever imagine. It would last a day before the first military uprising occurs in some part of the world.

 

Do I want some governing body telling me how to conduct my business as a soverign nation? Hell No and I doubt any other nation would want that.

 

Is it right leaning or left leaning...I lean right and I for one would NOT agree to something like this.

 

Im not even gonna comment at the actual topic of this thread. All the right/left stereotypical garbage is being spitted out and I would probably end up sounding redundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I supposed to care about massacred Iraqi civilians? Boo frickin hoo. If the mass graves had some weapons of mass destruction, it might mean something. This war wasn't about digging up mass graves.

 

Should we have gone in under the false pretenses of there being WMD's and whatnot? Absolutely not, but we're there and a lot of good is being done, just because these good things have nothing to do with the original reason for going to war is no reason to discredit it. No matter how you slice it, there will never be mass graves like this ever again in Iraq all because we ousted Saddam. Sure there were no WMD's, but that's irrelevant now.

Who cares? I'd rather we found a huge stockpile of WMDs than a friggin' mass grave.

 

Ummm...

 

Yeah, finding those graves really wasn't of a big deal. It had been reported that Saddam had done some mass executions. Hell, one of the main reasons he's on trial is for mass murder.

 

We didn't go to war under the pretense, as stated before, that they've got a whole bunch of bodies dug in that sand over there. We went to war under the pretense that 1) Saddam had WMD's and could use them to get at us through either Al Qaeda or other means and 2) he had helped Al Qaeda in some way and there was some link between Iraq, Saddham Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.

 

As of today, both reasons are still bulls***. Just like the war. At this point the evidence still leads me to believe this administration lied and cost American families some innocent soldier lives for this crap. We found bodies in a mass grave? GOOD! More evidence to use against Saddam in his trial.

 

Other than that, it doesn't do us much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as there are different cultures and different morays around the world there is no way that the entire world will ever be governed and ruled by one governing body. Corruption would be more rampant than you could ever imagine. It would last a day before the first military uprising occurs in some part of the world.

 

Do I want some governing body telling me how to conduct my business as a soverign nation? Hell No and I doubt any other nation would want that.

 

Is it right leaning or left leaning...I lean right and I for one would NOT agree to something like this.

 

Im not even gonna comment at the actual topic of this thread. All the right/left stereotypical garbage is being spitted out and I would probably end up sounding redundant.

 

Forget the left/right stuff. Im trying to get some understanding of what our foreign policy should be towards helping people we know full well are being oppressed or tortured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as there are different cultures and different morays around the world there is no way that the entire world will ever be governed and ruled by one governing body. Corruption would be more rampant than you could ever imagine. It would last a day before the first military uprising occurs in some part of the world.

 

Do I want some governing body telling me how to conduct my business as a soverign nation? Hell No and I doubt any other nation would want that.

 

Is it right leaning or left leaning...I lean right and I for one would NOT agree to something like this.

 

Im not even gonna comment at the actual topic of this thread. All the right/left stereotypical garbage is being spitted out and I would probably end up sounding redundant.

 

Forget the left/right stuff. Im trying to get some understanding of what our foreign policy should be towards helping people we know full well are being oppressed or tortured.

In a perfect world the US and other great powers should intervene and help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as there are different cultures and different morays around the world there is no way that the entire world will ever be governed and ruled by one governing body. Corruption would be more rampant than you could ever imagine. It would last a day before the first military uprising occurs in some part of the world.

 

Do I want some governing body telling me how to conduct my business as a soverign nation? Hell No and I doubt any other nation would want that.

 

Is it right leaning or left leaning...I lean right and I for one would NOT agree to something like this.

 

Im not even gonna comment at the actual topic of this thread. All the right/left stereotypical garbage is being spitted out and I would probably end up sounding redundant.

Well, the US government if you think about it is a bunch of different cultures governed under one roof. But before any global government were to take foot, we'd have to eliminate the hegemon system and countries would have to be on relatively equal footing financially. And there's absolutely no reason to believe that's going to happen anytime soon, because for as long as there have been countries (and much, much longer than there has been official 'nation-states' there has been a hegemon dominating the global landscape).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...