Those who claim there are no mass graves in Iraq, please explain this:

[geek tragedy]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=717402

<snip>
BAGHDAD, Iraq Apr 30, 2005 — Investigators have uncovered a large grave in Iraq that may contain the bodies of 1,500 Kurds killed in the 1980s. It could produce evidence needed to prosecute ousted leader Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants for mass killings during his regime.

International forensic experts this week examined the mass grave site in Samawa, on the Euphrates River, about 230 miles southeast of Baghdad. Many of those buried in the 18 trenches were believed to be Kurds killed in 1987 and 1988 during a scorched-earth campaign, said Gregg Nivala, from the U.S. government's Regime Crimes Liaison Office.

"These were not combatants," he said. "They were women and children."
<snip>

<snip>
The Samawa site contained a skull with pink and white dentures belongs to an old woman, investigators said. A skeleton nearby was that of a teenage girl, still clutching a brightly colored bag of possessions. The trenches were full of the skeletons of Iraqi Kurds, still in their distinctive, colorful garb, buried where they fell after being shot dead nearly 20 years ago. . . . Identification cards found on as many as 15 percent of the victims link them to Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. The clothing reinforces that those found in the graves were Kurds, Nivala said.
<snip>


I eagerly await a response from the "there was no genocide!" crowd.

[Kipling]

1. Of course there was a genocide.

People who say otherwise are no better than Bush: twisting the truth against their enemies without caring what gets destroyed.

[geek tragedy]

2. There was a thread claiming that only 26 Kurdish bodies had been found

I just wanted to educate that particularly misinformed poster, as well as any that believed her.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

34. Got a link?

[geek tragedy]

39. Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3788607

[Media_Lies_Daily]

179. And that proves what exactly?

[hector459]

Anybody count the number of Kurd killed by Kurds? n/t

[notadmblnd]

247. or the number of Kurds killed in the 80's with the US blessings?

That is when this genocide occured. Donald Rumsfeld was playing nice with Saddam then.

[starroute]

3. What are you trying to prove?

I understand that you're further to the right than most posters at DU, and that's fine. But I really don't understand what your point is in posting administration talking points.

This thread in particular seems designed just to stir up trouble -- as your "eagerly await a response" commentalso implies -- and to make others here look bad. That's not particularly constructive behavior.

[geek tragedy]

8. There is a thread on "Greatest" that suggests that there were only

26 Kurds killed by Saddam.

As long as that immoral, disgusting revisionist garbage is up on greatest, those of us with a conscience have work to do here.

[EFerrari]

27. In an era of lies, revision is not only not garbage, it's crucial

It's called "reality checking".

WMD
9/11
Election 2000
Election 2004
Saddamn gassed his own people
It's only a few deadenders
We are against torture, it's a tactic of terrorists to complian, damn those digital cameras
Clear Skies
Healthy Forests
No Child Left Behind
We're spreading Freedom and Democracy, not depleted uranium
The Democrats have lost the Black, Latino, Women's, Youth, Labor vote


sheesh

[geek tragedy]

35. Saddam did gas his own people. That's what every reliable

authority on the matter says.

[EFerrari]

If you need to believe this, far be it from me to get in your way. n/t

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0201-GasKurds.html

[geek tragedy]

46. Uh, the sane world agrees with me. You have no reliable proof to

contradict HRW, AI, PHR, the UN, etc etc. All you have is Reagan-era liars and cranks.

[EFerrari]

56. Also untrue.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0201-GasKurds.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0301-06.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html

[geek tragedy]

64. Uh, you just proved my point.

Do you know who the author of that article at TWF.org is?

[EFerrari]

77. You take one of three links and come up with that?

Surely, we both can do better.

[geek tragedy]

85. Stephen C. Pelletiere served in the CIA under RONALD REAGAN.

He is not a credible source.

Moreover, his op-ed piece in the Times serves as the basis for the other article you linked to.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

182. So, only the links you provide are credible? Whatever you say.

[Violet_Crumble]

222. But that wasn't what he said...

He said something completely different about ONE specific link. Yr the one who chose to pretend that he made the comment about EVERY link...

Violet...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

176. Right. Prattle on.

[FreedomAngel82]

114. Did you not see the report

from the Army College that said THERE IS NO PROOF?? I'm sure someone here can find it for you.

[geek tragedy]

125. You mean the REAGAN/BUSH administration's report

generated while Saddam was still a US ally? Umm, I'll take the word of human rights activists over that pile of garbage, thank you.

[LynnTheDem]

51. You mean the Human Rights Watch Report that says 26 Kurds found?

The thread that includes the LINK to the Human Rights Watch report about the Anfal that itself says they have found 26 bodies?

And by the way, LOVE the hyperbole, but NO ONE said there is "no mass graves in Iraq".

Of course there are, there always are in countries that have had wars. Have you never visited the mass graves in America?

[geek tragedy]

54. You asked where the other 99,974 were.

That OBVIOUSLY implies that there have only been 26 found. Which is obviously false.

I'm just helping you find the other 99,974. These are 1500. Care to amend your thread, or do you only care about disproving Saddam's atrocities, not proving them?

[LynnTheDem]

72. What does the Human Rights Watch report on Anfal say? It says 26.

That's fact.

You are again indulging in bullshit; your own link says:

"may contain the bodies of 1,500"

BBC:

Of 113 bodies taken out of the ground so far...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4501737.stm

Care to amend YOUR post, where you (falsely) assert as fact "1500"?

[geek tragedy]

81. You are truly unbelievable.

They've taken out 113 so far--the counting is incomplete. The 1500 number is a rough estimate.

Why are you so desperate to minimize the evil that Saddam's regime did? You sound like his defense lawyer.

[LynnTheDem]

95. I like FACTS.

Not speculation. Not belief. Not your inferences.

FACTS.

And I don't care if the facts make someone look good, or look bad.

I care about the facts.

[geek tragedy]

104. Like the fact that Iraq gassed the Kurd?

Btw, Saddam gassed the Kurds in places other than Halabja. There is no credible debate on this point:

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v19n2p17.htm

<snip>
The documentary record on the Anfal is extensive. An account which concentrates on the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, and US official attitudes to this use, is found in Samantha Power's A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (Basic/New Republic, 2002). The 1993 Human Rights Watch report; Anfal: Genocide Against the Kurds. is a key document for students of genocide. Following the 1991 uprising against the Baghdad regime, several tons of government documents were seized and eventually smuggled out of the country. These papers revealed extensive details about the Anfal, including orders which explicitly show genocidal intent.
<snip>

Funny how you only seek to disprove anti-Saddam claims, but never try to debunk claims which try to exonerate him. Gee, I wonder what your agenda is.

[FreedomAngel82]

117. Look

there is NO PROOF he did that. I'm not sticking up for Hussein, but like another poster I'm sticking up for the facts. The Army College last month put out a report that said they had NO P-R-O-O-F that it was Saddam Hussein who did it.

[geek tragedy]

119. There is proof, if you're willing to do a tiny amount of research on the

subject. Eyewitness accounts, in the field investigations, forensic examinations, documentary evidence. It's actually overwhelming:

<snip>The documentary record on the Anfal is extensive. An account which concentrates on the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, and US official attitudes to this use, is found in Samantha Power's A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (Basic/New Republic, 2002). The 1993 Human Rights Watch report; Anfal: Genocide Against the Kurds. is a key document for students of genocide. Following the 1991 uprising against the Baghdad regime, several tons of government documents were seized and eventually smuggled out of the country. These papers revealed extensive details about the Anfal, including orders which explicitly show genocidal intent.
<snip>

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v19n2p17.htm

The US Army report was written before the first Gulf War--back when Saddam was a US ally and the Republicans wanted to prevent anti-Saddam sanctions in Congress. How convenient.

[LynnTheDem]

141. Anfal: Genocide Against the Kurds. by HRW is the report I used and linked

to, in my thread that you're busy calling me a liar over.

And in that "Anfal: Genocide Against the Kurds" the forensic evidence is 26 bodies.

I also discussed their 350 eyewitness accounts evidence, with HRW's own quotes, and the documentary evidence, to which I posted a link to the HRW's file of the documents.

But rather than discuss the HRW's actual Anfal report, as I and several other posters are doing on my thread, you just attacked me with I believe among other things; "Lynn is Saddam's most loyal fan".

How convenient.

[ms. contrary]

146. that report DID NOT say there were ONLY 26 bodies

...only that they personally had only found 26.

[LynnTheDem]

150. I know. And I never said otherwise.

In fact my entire OP was asking where are the other 99,974 because HRW's report said they'd found 26.

My thread also goes on to give the HRW opinion as to where those missing 99,974 are.

I never said HRW said there were ONLY 26.

And that's a fact. :)

[ms. contrary]

152. ok, so you think

that the bodies are somewhere else?

[LynnTheDem]

156. Read my thread.

And let's discuss that thread on that thread. :)

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

197. Holocaust Deniers say they like FACTS too...

n/t

[LynnTheDem]

228. Do they? So you're saying people who say they like facts are actually

just liars and "holocaust deniers"?

Please post links to your sources for this fact of yours.

Otherwise, I'd be forced to conclude that you just made that up.

[Violet_Crumble]

231. No, where did I say that?

I usually find when people respond with a 'so you're saying' they tend to follow it up with something the person they're replying to didn't say. I think anyone with a bit of nouse can work out what I was saying...

Sheez, of course Holocaust Deniers claim they like facts. Have you heard of a wondrous invention called Google? I imagine going there and tracking down the Institute of Historical Review won't be a problem for someone so besotted with *facts*.

Violet...

[Spazito]

230. I see no mention of the Holocaust or Holocaust deniers

ANYWHERE in the article about Iraq, please point out to me where I am missing it or could this be, to use ms. contrary's word, a 'non sequitur' post?

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said


ummm, yep, I think it is.

[Violet_Crumble]

232. I don't recall myself saying it was in the article...

non sequitur, my arse. I'll spell out my point reaaaaal slow for you in the hope that you may grasp it: One poster appears to be claiming that what she believes is *fact* and as *fact* it trumps all else. I was merely pointing out that claiming something is a fact doesn't necessarily make it so and used a very famous example....

Violet...

[Spazito]

235. The facts she is referring to relate to Iraq and, indeed, the WHOLE

thread relates to is Iraq, so it would be helpful to the debate if you could stay on that issue instead of meandering off in a direction that has nothing to do with the question of facts regarding IRAQ.

I would suggest you read the definition I posted regarding non sequitur, it most certainly does fit.

2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said

[Violet_Crumble]

237. I'd suggest you read my post...

It's quite clear you haven't bothered. And since when has there been a rule that every post in every thread must be totally devoted to a particular keyword in the OP? You've had it explained to you very slowly and carefully what the discussion in this sub-thread was about. If yr unable to grasp it, then in future maybe you should think twice before jumping in with incessant incorrect accusations of non sequitur, eh?



Violet...

[Spazito]

238. Seeing as you cannot seem to understand what the thread is

about, there is no more need for me to continue to point out what you seem to be insistent on ignoring, eh!

Carry on by yourself if you feel the need.

[Violet_Crumble]

241. What crap. Of course I know what the thread is about...

Just because in all my years at DU, I was never aware that EVERY FUCKING POST in a thread had to fall within the narrow confines of a keyword, in this case Iraq, doesn't mean that I don't know what the thread was about. If I'd have known I'd have peppered every sentence with 'Iraq' to keep you quiet. Meanwhile I'm more than satisfied that someone referring to her opinions being *facts* being told that historical 'revisionists' of another stripe also insist they have the *facts* is not a non sequitar...


Sheez...

Violet...

[LynnTheDem]

240. "Holocaust Deniers say they like FACTS too..."

SOME people say...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ET Awful]

243. Yup, see Violet, when it comes to the holocaust we are indeed describing

genocide because there was a systematic, concerted, continuing and repetitive effort to eliminate the entire population of Jews in Europe.

None of the same can be said of the Kurds in Iraq.

Good job of invoking Godwin's Law when you can't present facts to support your argument though.

[Violet_Crumble]

248. But the problem is...

That some of the arguments I'm seeing voiced in this thread (eg where are all the bodies??) are very reminiscent of the tactics of the Holocaust deniers. So it wasn't Godwin's Law, but in order to avoid that accusation, I maybe should have used another example, like the pained and obsessive attempts by Zionist sources to deny that the Nakba happened, or that if it did, not one iota of it is the fault of Israel. Yeah, in hindsight that would have been a much better and (for my own personal reasons) amusing approach...

I'm not really sure what argument you think I'm supporting, btw. I'm just in this thread out of an amateur interest and unlike what seems to be the vast majority of participants in it, haven't got my mind closed to anything...well, except for claims that there wasn't large-scale slaughter of Kurds or that Saddam was really unlike any other leaders with Kurdish minorities and treated his quite fairly...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

245. Is that an attempt to reply to my post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3791437#3792749

Or some sort of bizarre hiccup? What exactly is yr issue? That you doubt Holocaust Deniers claim they have the *facts* on their side? Instead of doing cutesy wutesy emoticon posts that don't make much sense, why don't you go to the site I suggested and find out what most people already know?

Violet...

[LynnTheDem]

249. In fact that was my reply to your post, uh huh.

And thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested in Holocaust Deniers, or their websites or anything else about them.

I'm interested in the facts dealing with Iraq. :)

[Violet_Crumble]

250. It'd help to hit the reply button under my post then...

And make up yr mind, ferdogssake! First you demand to see websites, now you don't....

Well, hurry on yr way to uncover more amazing facts!!! about Iraq. And just remember that while everything you uncover is fact, anything you disagree with can be discarded as mere opinion! Good luck on yr quest!!

Violet...

[LynnTheDem]

255. Thanks for your wishes of good luck! That's very considerate and

kind of you!

;)

[starroute]

177. Immoral? Disgusting? Garbage?

Here's my problem:

It is perfectly acceptable for reasonable people to argue about whether mass graves will be found in Iraq. That could still happen -- though it seems like they've been looking for them as long as they've been looking for WMD's, and with no greater success.

But what is not acceptable in polite discourse is to call your opponents' arguments "immoral," "disgusting," or "garbage." Why is it immoral to suggest that Saddam, despite his acknowledged brutality against individuals, may not have been a mass murderer? Is it that he has to be defined as precisely equivalent to Hitler to justify our invading his country and conquering his people, because anything less casts doubt on the moral rectitude of the United States?

That would make a certain amount of sense. All too often the United States' self-justifications over the last 60 years have boiled down to "We're not Hitler."

And then there's the "those of us with a conscience have work to do here" part. Patronizing much? Do you really regard your position at DU as that of a missionary attempting to convert the conscienceless heathen?

I'm perfectly glad to argue in a friendly manner with someone who doesn't share my opinions. I'm not sure I want to have anything to do with someone who considers themself my moral superior simply because my view of the world is not as black-and-white as theirs.

[TxRoadHawg]

4. Can you hear the crickets chirping?

Let's just forget the whole thing and just say bush lied.

[Lerkfish]

13. hmmmm....considering he was right about everything in Iraq, I'm willing

to glorify Bush and his completely truth telling ways. He truly is a saint, and even though I'm a straight man, I'd be his "mandate" in a heartbeat. I'd pretend to be a horse so he could milk me.


(where is that sarcasm smiley?)

:)

[EFerrari]

40. LOL! Here you go

:sarcasm:

[wookie294]

5. Too many lies make me skeptical

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday July 18, 2004
The Observer

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

more...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

[Trajan]

6. Wasnt there a Kurdish civil war in that region ? ...

I understand that at least SOME of the deaths can be attributed to THAT strife as well ...

I think Saddam is a vicious asshole .. I am QUITE sure he acted the Stalinist, and brutally purged his enemies ... I have no doubt about that ...

BUT .....

Can ALL deaths be placed SOLEY on his shoulders alone ? ....

Are there some Iranians who were killed during the Iraq/Iran conflict ? ... are there some IRAQI's from that conflict as well ? ..

Did Elder Bush and Rumsfeld AID Saddam in creating that death and destruction ? ...

As far as Im concerned: YES, there are mass graves ... and YES: those who are responsible for killing innocents should be held accountable ..

That includes those in the Bush I and Reagan regimes who aided in the killings .... even 'unknowingly' ...

[LynnTheDem]

60. Yep, for 30 years. Talabani vs Barzani.

And never mind what the Kurdistan Observer had to say about more Kurds having been killed by Kurds during that 30 years than the number of Kurds killed by Turkey, Iran and Hussein combined.

Facts are not welcome to the OPer.

[leftchick]

155. if those names don't sound like something from "The GodFather" movies

amazing isn't it?

[LynnTheDem]

158. So much so that in my post yesterday I spelled it "Barzanio" I kid you not

LOL!

[Inland]

7. Didn't our invasion bring all 1500 back to life?

You mean, we didn't kill thirty thousand Iraqi non-combatents in order to resurrect 1500?

By the bye, if 1500 is genocide---aw, fuck it. It's only bad when someone else does it.

[Sleepless In NY]

18. And Saddam was our "friend" while this was going on

Check the dates. Saddam "friend" of Reagan/Bush. You want real Genocide? Check The Sudan, try "thousands" a day.

[Inland]

25. Yeah, he was okay with us when he was a mass murderer THEN.

Say, whose that guy with the toothy grin shaking hands with Saddam on December 19, 1983?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[geek tragedy]

28. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

The Reagan admin flunkies are the ones who invented most of the propaganda that denies Saddam's atrocities.

[Inland]

62. And Bush repeated it, didn't he?

Both Bush and Reagan decided that whether civilian deaths matter is whether you side with the killer or not.

Reagan sided with Saddam. Now Americans brush off civilian deaths with the same singlemindedness.

They may be killing Iraqi civilians, but hey, they are OUR killers.

[geek tragedy]

68. I agree with everything you said.

My point is that progressives can't view everything through the prism of Bush-hatred.

Just because Bush says something doesn't make it false, just as it doesn't make it true. If credible, enlightened sources agree with Bush, he's probably telling the truth. If they disagree with him, he's probably lying.

[Inland]

80. Or the prism of Saddam hatred, either.

That's why it doesn't make any sense to announce a paltry 1500 deaths from twenty years ago, when we did that and ten times more two years ago.

Saddam was a bad guy. So what.

[geek tragedy]

83. It does when there's a strong push being made here to whitewash

Saddam's record and past. There are going to be people here that claim that he shouldn't stand trial, or that the eventual conviction will be a travesty against justice.

Those people need to be refuted.

[FreedomAngel82]

139. Show those people

Show the posts those people made where they are doing so.

[Inland]

178. Not so important. Saddam's crimes are the post hoc justification for war.

THAT'S what's important.

That's why I don't quibble with the fact of Saddam's killings, merely compare them to the war that follows.

That's why I ask if invasion brought any of those dead back to life. That's why I compared the number we killed in the invasion against the number Saddam killed.

After all, what's the relevance of Saddam's crimes to DU? Are we a Iraq interest group? Sure, we are generally for good and against bad, but there are dozens of dictators, armed groups, terrorists and organized criminal elements.

The difference is that there is a president who is trying to pretend that Saddam's crimes are the reason to have a war against him, first, then against Iraq, second. It wasn't the reason he had, and wasn't good enough post hoc, and we see the same sort of tortured, drip drip drip piling on of shit for the next war, too.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

184. The only reason Saddam is going on trial is because of our illegal...

...invasion and current illegal occupation.

Tell us again why we invaded Iraq...if you can.

[FreedomAngel82]

137. How do you know that?

How do you know that for sure? You don't. That's why you need at least three different valid sources for your argument. Repeating the same lines and the same sources does nothing for your argument.

[Coexist]

43. In 2003? Was he good that year? I'll have to check with Santa

We just loved him when he sold us oil when OPEC wouldn't, too.

[Inland]

65. DOH. 1983,. now fixed on edit.

[Coexist]

70. LOL! that's okay... I got a giggle out of it

If we had that picture of him in 2003, we would have won in a landslide, evoting machines and all!

[FreedomAngel82]

130. And from what I've read about Hussein

he didn't shake hands with anybody but Rumsfeld. Why? He was giving him weapons.

[LynnTheDem]

162. But Kurd leader and now current Iraq president Talabani hugged & kissed

Hussein.

In 1991.

After the Gulf War.

After the uprisings and the putting down of the uprisings.

And then the other main Kurd warlord Barzani asked Hussein for his help in Barzani's on-going 3 decades long war against his fellow Kurd warlord Talabani.

And called Hussein his ally.

In 1996.

Them damn Kurds sure are a buncha "Saddam-lovers".

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

9. The problem with your illustration is that Iraq did not possess

the blood agent that killed the Kurds but Iran did.

I still don't know why you're going down this road.

[geek tragedy]

19. Uh, HRW's research says otherwise. Moreover, Saddam had Kurds

shot as well as gassed. He murdered in many different ways.

[wookie294]

86. HRW did not make any claims regarding the blood agent used

eom

[geek tragedy]

98. Iraq was using not only mustard gas, but also nerve agents

which would cause the same symptoms that the Saddam-apologists claim only cyanide can create.

http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v19n2p17.htm

[Media_Lies_Daily]

201. Not according to the initial reports of the Defense Intelligence Agency...

A War Crime or an Act of War?
<http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm>

QUOTE:

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
==============================

Encyclopedia: Halabja poison gas attack
<http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Halabja-poison-gas-attack>

QUOTE:

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war <1> (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/) which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. In a January 31, 2003 New York Times <2> (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482) opinion piece, Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible. Pelletiere also felt that the administration of George W. Bush was not being forthright when squarely placing blame on Iraq, since it contradicted the conclusion of the DIA study. However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988" <3> (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm). The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion <4> (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01) Overview The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), designated in 1986 as a United States Department of Defense combat support intelligence agency was established in 1961. ... The CIA Seal The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is one of the American foreign intelligence agencies, responsible for obtaining and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and individuals, and reporting such information to the various branches of the U.S. Government. ... Order: 43rd President Vice President: Dick Cheney Term of office: January 20, 2001 – present Preceded by: Bill Clinton Succeeded by: Incumbent Date of birth: July 6, 1946 Place of birth: New Haven, Connecticut First Lady: Laura Welch Bush Political party: Republican George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the...

[stepnw1f]

113. You Sound Like Bush's Defense

for removing Sadam. Is this because of the Downing Street Memo that proves Bush lied to America and the rest of the world about the intelligence used for a "PRE-Emptive Strike"?

[geek tragedy]

124. Except I explicitly have stated that those past crimes did not justify

the war.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

203. Then what's the point of this entire thread? Please share.

[FreedomAngel82]

143. Can you give any other evidence of your claim

besides HRW?

[wookie294]

10. Here's some reading for you

The CIA officer in charge of watching the Iran-Iraq war said "accusing him (Saddam) of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct."

He also said "immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

More info here….

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24480

[geek tragedy]

21. Why should I believe Reagan-era CIA flunkies?

They were covering it up because Saddam was a US ally at the time.

[wookie294]

37. Why should you believe Bush-era flunkies ?

After Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.S. government decided to blame him for the gassing of the Kurds. They needed a political reason to get Americans to support war with Saddma in 1991. So, they decided to blame him. In any event, it shows that somebody is lying, which was a big reason why I opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[geek tragedy]

41. I believe the work of the human rights activists--ALL of whom

support my position.

[wookie294]

45. Those human rights activists have not found genocide in Iraq

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday July 18, 2004
The Observer

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

[geek tragedy]

49. So, you're willing to take the position that Saddam committed

mass murder but not genocide?

That's a respectable position.

[wookie294]

57. I'm not willing to accept anything until you show me the proof

So far, Blair and Bush have lied about practically EVERYTHING. Why should I believe them on the genocide claims? And Human Rights Watch's "evidence" for genocide is THIN, as the other thread accurately proved.

[geek tragedy]

63. Do you believe there was mass murder?

Or do you choose to disbelieve this link?

[wookie294]

76. I believe Saddam likely engaged in mass murder

But I'm less willing to believe it now. The WMD lies and the bogus Saddam link to 9/11 make me EXTREMELY skeptical of people who say Saddam engaged in "mass murder."

[geek tragedy]

100. What about progressives who opposed the war and opposed Saddam

when he was a US ally? Why not believe them?

[Tinoire]

159. Lol & LMAO! You mean like George Galloway?

You mean like George Galloway? Who opposed Saddam in the 80s when the US and the Brits were supporting Saddam?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

211. Quite a few people chose to believe, contrary to all previous incidents...

...since FDR, that a sitting president would not lie to the American people about a subject as serious as going to war. Those that chose to believe Herr Busch were not limited to ultra-right conservative Republicans.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

[mike_c]

53. with all due respect...

...you'd rather believe the neo-con's version? I suspect the truth is far more complex-- and probably more tragic-- than "Saddam is a monster who gassed his own people."

Here's another account of mass graves:

http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm

U.S. Defends Burying Iraqi Troops Alive
Pentagon Cites "Gap" in International Law
Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle

The Pentagon said that a "gap" in the laws governing warfare made it legally permissible during the gulf war for U.S. tanks to bury thousands of Iraqi troops in their trenches and for U.S. warplanes to bomb the enemy retreating along the so-called Highway of Death.

An elaborate legal justification was contained in an appendix to the report on the war sent to Congress by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The section also accused Iraq of "widespread and premeditated" war crimes and environmental terrorism.

<more>

Here's more information on that "tactical" use of mass graves:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3016

[geek tragedy]

127. Uh, I usually don't use Holocaust-denying sources like thetruthseeker

to support my arguments in debates over genocide and mass murder.

Nor do I respect the opinions of people who do.

[mike_c]

144. got a problem with the san francisco chronicle...?

Frankly, I've never heard of thetruthseeker before-- the link was one of many that came up on a google search. Your comments conveniently sidestepped the larger issue of who's tale is more likely true, Saddam Hussein's or George Bush's. Events have generally weighed in on Saddam's side in that comparison, notwithstanding the denials from the American leadership and press.

So setting aside your lack of respect for that site, how about the National Catholic Register:

http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/120802war.htm

He'd been a U.S. Army captain at the time, commanding U.S. troops that swept across the Iraqi front line trenches, quickly breaking the resistance of thousands of Saddam Hussein's conscript soldiers, who surrendered en masse - or tried to.

"They made it look like a video game on CNN," I began. "But I'm sure it wasn't."

He snorted, and took a gulp. "It was just about that easy. The fighting part, I mean - after we'd bombed the daylights out of them for months, then shelled them for more than 24 hours. We barely had to show up for those guys to throw down their guns and beg us to take them captive." My friend shook his head and looked away. "I wish we could have."

He took a deep breath, and waved for another beer. "After so many thousands of prisoners, the order came down that it was endangering our men to capture any more. There were so many at once - it seemed like a trick. So we called in the bulldozers." No one knows how many of those soldiers were trying to surrender, since U.S. forces stopped offering them the opportunity, as the Pentagon has admitted.

My friend, the veteran, shoved his empty glass away. "I had to give the order, order men who drove the earth-movers to just cover up the trenches. To bury those poor bastards alive."

I'm sure you can do your own research if you're really interested in who's done what to populate "mass graves" in Iraq.

[Maraya1969]

42. Thanks for those links. eom

[slor]

11. Were they victims of the uprising that was encouraged...

by dubya's daddy, who then failed to support them, after allowing hussein to keep armed helicopters, as admitted by schwartzkopf. Or are they the victims of the Iran-Iraq war, that the U.S. encouraged, and actually gave intel and weapons to BOTH sides, before siding with our creation, saddam? Or were they merely family members of the enemies of saddam, that our govt. informed him about? I do not know, but you get my point.

[geek tragedy]

22. No, these were from 1988-89.

Bush deserves to rot in hell for betraying the Kurds, though.

[slor]

26. What year did rumsfeld shake his hands? n/t

[geek tragedy]

33. Not sure. No doubt he would have shaken hands knowing that

Saddam was a mass murderer.

[LynnTheDem]

We don't know yet what year; the forensic team believe 1987-1988

But they won't be able to pin the timeframe down that narrowly by forensics; after 15 years especially, they won't be able to rule out 2-3 years' variance on each side.

And if the forensics team have finished their tests on dating the remains, they've not said so publicly AFAIK.


"killed in the 1980s."

"believed to be Kurds killed in 1987 and 1988

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=717402

[FreedomAngel82]

160. If I was to go by the picture a lone

to figure out the year I'd say at least the mid eighties. Why? Look at the hair style, clothes style, glasses.

[XNASA]

12. This happened in '87 & '88?

I'm trying hard to remember who was President then. :think:

In any case, whatever you believe, even if there were no mass graves then......

....there are now.

[geek tragedy]

24. Yeah, that's the really ironic thing. People trying to protect Saddam's

reputation today are relying on propaganda generated by the filthy liars in the Reagan adminstration.

Reagan administration flunkies vs. the UN, HRW, and Amnesty International and every other human rights organization under the sun.

Who would you believe?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

61. Uh, I'm not a Bush flunkie, brainiac.

I don't believe anything because Bush says it. Other, much more credible sources all confirm Saddam's atrocities.

[wookie294]

67. You have supplied only one link as proof

You have Human Rights Watch and the Bush administration to support your claims. You'll need more than that as proof of your claims.

[geek tragedy]

71. You want more proof of mass murder besides a pile of dead murder

victims and the work of every major international human rights organization, including but definitely not limited to HRW and AI?

Maybe you're waiting for God himself to give you a sign.

[slor]

94. Hey, do not forget to throw in the fake...

turkey!

[FreedomAngel82]

161. And you're believing George Bush?

Ha!

[Maraya1969]

14. I never said it: I thought every knew that Saddam killed the Kurds

From what I have read it is the number of deaths that are argued over.

[Coexist]

15. No one is arguing that - however we have created some there ourselves.

"So many Fallujahans have been killed by the U.S. marines that residents have had to dig mass graves. The city's football stadium now holds more than 200 bodies."

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23398

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Inland]

16. I'm waiting to hear how 1500 civilian deaths twenty years ago justifies

our killing ten times that many as collateral damage.

Of course, it wasn't used as justification until AFTER the invasion, when the WMD didn't show up. Nobody thought it was justification until Bush had already done it.

[geek tragedy]

31. Not justifying, just correcting some lies that someone posted earlier. eom

[Inland]

58. Then you admit it's an irrelevant fact.

At least, irrelevant to us AND the people we killed.

I await eagerly your response.

[geek tragedy]

66. That progressives acknowledge that the Saddam regime was evil

is necessary. Either a great many folks or a very loud few don't believe that.

[Inland]

252. Actually, it isn't.

Yes, it's an interesting bit of history, but Americans managed to get along okay without a precise knowledge of who Saddam killed and why. Mainly because we weren't using it as a BAD excuse for war.

THe important fact to Americans is the American invasion, what WE did, not what someone else did. The relevance of Saddam's brutality is only that it is BUsh's crap excuse now that all the others have ended up false. Since I'm not buying it, I'm not counting bodies. The US isn't counting the civilians it has killed, so I'm not counting Saddam's./

[LynnTheDem]

101. HRW lied in their Anfal report about finding 26 bodies?

No way!

[ogradda]

44. Well, that's the thing.

It can't justfy it. At least my mind can't twist the facts into justifying it.

[Inland]

75. You would THINK that's the thing.

Not whether Saddam was bad, but whether said fact or any other set of facts justified the war.

We sure knew Saddam was bad long before Bush got into office, but nobody publically called for war on those grounds until the war had already happened and all other grounds proved false.

So the excuse that George wouldn't have used in 2001-2003 becomes the last reason standing. Even a bad reason is better than all the ones proven false. All you have to do is change your mind about what it's worth fighting over.

And not surprisingly, because the Bush need for justification is the tail that wags the dog of the national interest, he denounces not invading Eastern Europe and fighting the SU after WWII too.

[geek tragedy]

87. Not justifying it. But it's also wrong to deny that these crimes

happened.

[wookie294]

90. Why?

We're still waiting to see the mass graves that contain "hundreds of thousands" of dead Iraqis and Kurds. Where is the evidence for this?

[geek tragedy]

92. There's a mass grave story right under your nose.

And we may never find all of the graves--that's what happens frequently in such cases--such as in Argentina.

[wookie294]

93. 1,500 skeletons is not what Americans thought were mass graves

Americans thought TENS OF THOUSANDS and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of skeletons would be found. We have not found them. Why is that? Wake up!

[geek tragedy]

99. They haven't been properly investigated and documented yet.

Just because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist. Duh.

[wookie294]

105. Ahem

Nor does it mean they DO exist. If you're so certain these mass graves exist, how come we MAY have found found only 1,500 skeletons. Your little link says we "may" have found 1,500. Where are the TENS OF THOUSANDS of skeletons? Well? WHERE?

[geek tragedy]

107. What do you think happened to the people who disappeared--the

tens of thousands of people who have been named and never found.

Do you suggest that aliens abducted them? The only reasonable inference is that Saddam liquidated them.

[wookie294]

115. What happened to the 100,000 people killed since 2003 ?

Guys like you discount the study that says 100,000 Iraqis died since the useless invasion of 2003. My point is that numbers can be tricky things. And you had people like the Kurds and Chalabi who exaggerated the numbers to tug at the heart of Americans in order to make us invade Iraq. They succeeded in those lies.

[geek tragedy]

118. So the Kurds are just lying about the whole thing?

Nice--just call the victims liars. Right out of the IHR playbook.

[wookie294]

120. Yeah, I think it's quite possible the Kurds lied

I think the Kurds were definitely oppressed and they hated Saddam. They were desperate for American help, just as Chalabi's liars were desperate. When people are desperate, they lie -- just as the Kuwaitis lied in 1991 when they said Saddam's soldiers were "ripping babies from incubators." It was all a lie to tug at the hearts of people like you. And the American people were the biggest SUCKERS on the planet. When you show me the evidence of tens of thousands of Iraqis in mass graves, I will grant that you were correct.

[geek tragedy]

123. No, you'll just call it all a hoax.

I've seen this kind of nonsense before. The human rights community, without exception, believes Saddam was guilty of horrendous crimes and mass murders.

Those idiots who choose to whitewash him are not credible voices.

[wookie294]

126. I agree Saddam is guilty of horrendous crimes

But I'm still waiting to see the evidence of the "tens of thousands" and even "hundreds of thousands" of skeletons. You've had over two years to show us the evidence and you have failed.

[geek tragedy]

129. Stuff like this takes decades to uncover.

They STILL haven't found the great majority of the bodies in Argentina.

[wookie294]

136. Mass graves can easily be found

The killings in Argentina were not done in one day or one week, so people weren't buried together (for the most part). But Iraq is alleged to have murdered hundreds of thousands in a few weeks, then the bodies were dumped into mass graves. I think we could have found these graves over the last 2 years if they existed. When all of this is over, I think Bush will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam killed.

[FreedomAngel82]

164. And please explain

how you're a reliable source? People here have given you valid sources and MULTIPLE sources. You just keep repeating the same old crap.

[Violet_Crumble]

220. Why should he explain something he didn't claim?

He didn't claim he was a reliable source. But like him, I believe groups like HRW and AI are reliable sources, unlike sites like WhatReallyHappened.com, which can sometimes be a bit out there...

Violet...

[Spazito]

106. ROFLMAO! I think bush said the same about the WMDs!!

In fact, I am positive he did and more than once!

[geek tragedy]

109. Do you think the rightwing junta disappeared and murdered tens

of thousands in Argentina? Or do you distrust those claims because the mass graves were never found?

[Spazito]

133. I do not quote figures that cannot be substantiated by facts...

it is as simple as that whether it be in Saddam's Iraq, bush's Iraq or Argentina.

That has been the WHOLE point, the search for facts and not just relying on 'anecdotal estimates' which seems to unduly disturb you for some reason. The search for facts is simply that: a search for facts.

[geek tragedy]

135. When the bodies disappear, one has to rely on other sources of proof

There is AMPLE evidence of mass atrocities in both cases.

[LynnTheDem]

111. WMD; Just because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist.

Duh.

[geek tragedy]

116. Do you believe that the rightwing junta disappeared and murdered thousands

upon thousands of its opponents in Argentina--even though most of the bodies have never been found?

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davekriss]

226. So you would agree with this:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

I claim that beneath the sea we'll find a great city, Atlantis. Just because we haven't found it yet is no reason for you to treat my claim with skepticism. Did I also tell you about the UFO aliens that picked up my cousin?

Uh-huh.

You say, "Just because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist." While that may be so, the burden of proof lies not with those who claim there is insufficient evidence, but on those that proclaim the atrocities occurred and to the high numbers stated.

I grant you that claims about Hussein atrocities are more probable than Atlantis and aliens, but on this, this particular evidence, there seems to be some dispute.

On edit: Oops. I see several have already raised the Rumsfeld quip. Sorry, I read down to post 99 and couldn't help myself!

[rfranklin]

17. What crowd is that?

But just for comparison, how many Iraqi non-combatants have died because of George Bush's blunder so far? Far more than 1500.

[AlCzervik]

20. Who ever said that didn't happen?

[EFerrari]

73. The problem is, there was a LOT of dying during this time

and our government either absolves Saddam or blames him, depending on what they need at the moment.

But, I guess that's just "nuance" like most of shared reality. :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

91. This poster:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3788607

[okieinpain]

23. yeah, and who was saddam's biggest supporter during that

time period.

[oneighty]

29. "international forensic experts"

said Gregg Nivala from the U.S Government's Regime Crimes Liaison Office.

They do not have an agenda? How can we believe what they say?

Might be true what they be telling us. Might not be true too.

People with an agenda bother me.

But I will wait for the trial which will be televised for all to see. Right?

180

[LuPeRcALiO]

108. "from the U.S Government's Regime Crimes Liaison Office"

good grief.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. I'm curious, but what does that have to do with why we illegally....

...invaded and still occupy Iraq at a rising death toll for all concerned?

Care to comment on that?

By the way...how do you open a mass grave and then make the comment that it "might contain the bodies of 1,500 kurds"? You either have 1,500 Kurd bodies, or you don't. You either have Kurds, or you don't.

Care to comment on that?

And how does 1,500 dead Kurds compare to the nearly 100,000 Iraqis that we've killed since the beginning of our illegal invasion?

Care to comment on that?

[pk_du]

32. Oh ......you mean the '80's genocides

...the ones we (at best?) tacitly supported.

[blm]

36. Did Hussein use the chems he got from Poppy Bush and Rumsfeld?

Has ANY Republican morality hawk answered WHY Poppy Bush and his thugs kept funnelling billions of our dollars and tons of weapons to Iraq AFTER Saddam gassed these people and the Dems in Congress demanded cutting off financial aid to Iraq?

Has the term Iraqgate come up yet? You know, the "lone wolf" 35yo bank manager from Atlanta who BushInc blamed for all our billions of tax dollars going to Iraq? He also supposedly "died" of natural causes in an Atlanta prison. The press was told a week after he supposedly "died" and after doing about 5 yrs of his sentence.

Any Republican Bushlover care to comment?

[EFerrari]

55. The poor Kurds in Halbja were gassed by an agent

Saddam didn't have.

But it is true, they were caught in the cross fire. And no amount of blame shifting can bring them back.

[ET Awful]

38. 1500? 1500 is hardly genocide.

1500 out of a population of millions is atrocious, and is a crime, but is not genocide.

If you're going to call that genocide, you must also call the US invasion genocide because it has killed far more people than those 1500.

1,500 people killed 20 years ago hardly justifies over 100,000 killed in the past 3 due to the US invasion.

Odd that the same person who started up a thread attacking Galloway in the past couple of days would now start a thread like this and try to twist facts.


The dictionary definition of genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Saddam had 20 years to commit genocide. In 20 years time, a mass grave containing 1,500 does not constitute genocide. Mass killing? Yep. Murder? Yep. Genocide? Nope.

[Roland99]

47. And some evidence suggests the Kurds killed themselves OR

Iran had a hand in it.

[LynnTheDem]

122. Don't forget Turkey.

They've been killing off Kurds in Iraq for decades and still are today.

[ms. contrary]

151. incorrect. 1500 with genocidal intent would be genocide.

The total number killed is irrelevant -- under international law (which is what we should be considering here, not the dictionary) the key is that there be intent to extinguish a certain ethnic group, not the numer killed.

Here's the definition used by the International Criminal Court (which I believe is more extensive than that used in other parts of international law:

"'enocide' means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a)Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm

Of course, past genocide does not justify present invasion. No one is saying that!!!

[ET Awful]

154. For it to be called "genocide" it would have been a continued effort, NOT

a single event 20 years ago. Persecution? Definitely.

A single event encompassing 1,500 persons does not constitute genocide. It's not extensive enough, and a charge of genocide for such numbers would never hold up in any legitimate court.

[ms. contrary]

163. if the intent was to extinguish the population, then it's genocide

The actual extent of the killing or number of events doesn't matter. "Only" 4000 Indians died during the single event known as the Trail of Tears -- does that make it not genocidal?

If you go back and read the ICC definition of genocide I posted, you'll see that clearly one event is enough to constitute genocide, if done with the proper intent.

[ET Awful]

172. If the intent was to extinguish the population, it would not have ended

at one event involving 1,500 people. To show that the intent was to extinguish a population you would have to show a repeated attempt, not one attempt then nothing for 20 years.

It wouldn't hold up in court without further events.

The trail of tears was one of hundreds of documented attempts to kill off native populations. From the campaigns of Custer to the giving of Small Pox infested blankets. It was a repeated and far-reaching effort that continued for a century or more. Entire tribes were killed off in their entirety, as in extinct, they no longer exist.

1,500 out of a population of millions in a still thriving ethnicity is hardly comparable.

[ms. contrary]

180. you don't know much about criminal law

apparently

[ET Awful]

187. I'd be willing to bet I know a good deal more than you.

For a charge of genocide to hold up, you must show a concerted effort to eliminated an entire population, a single event involving 1,500 people does not and will not fit that description in any legitimate court.

Murder? Yup. Mass murder? Definitely. Genocide? No. It doesn't fit the legal requirements.

[ms. contrary]

195. look again at the ICC definition

and show me where it says there must be a "concerted effort."

[ET Awful]

198. I'm talking about what would hold up in court.

The ICC definition requires that you show intent. Without intent, you have no case. A single event and then nothing for 20 years does not contain the required aspect of intent to eliminate the ethnic group.

If you knew anything about law in general, you would understand this.

Much like a RICO violation, you cannot prove it based on a single action, it must be based on numerous actions leading to a common conclusion.

A one time event does not meet the requirement of intent in order to gain a conviction under the law.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

48. Did we bury 20,000,000 native Americans..... or did we just

leave them to the buzzards and jackals?

[geek tragedy]

50. Where are the graves!!!!

Prove it!

:sarcasm:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

78. You've not heard of the trail of tears?? Here, take

a gander... no take two. Tell me again about the moral highground that America has a lock on. Please do.

>>The Removal Act of 1830 set into motion a series of events which led to the "Trail of Tears" in 1838, a forced march of the Cherokees, resulting in the destruction of most of the Cherokee population." The concentration of American Indians in small geographic areas, and the scattering of them from their homelands, caused increased death, primarily because of associated military actions, disease, starvation, extremely harsh conditions during the moves, and the resulting destruction of ways of life.<<

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html
Native American
Genocide Still Haunts
United States

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Leah Trabich
Cold Spring Harbor High School
New York, USA

In the past, the main thrust of the Holocaust/Genocide Project's magazine, An End To Intolerance, has been the genocides that occurred in history and outside of the United States. Still, what we mustn't forget is that mass killing of Native Americans occurred in our own country. As a result, bigotry and racial discrimination still exist.

"In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" . . . and made the first contact with the "Indians." For Native Americans, the world after 1492 would never be the same. This date marked the beginning of the long road of persecution and genocide of Native Americans, our indigenous people. Genocide was an important cause of the decline for many tribes.

"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand.


If you think there isn't a plethora of data on what we done to them savages..... here's your sign.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=native+american+genocide

[geek tragedy]

110. You must have missed my sarcasm.

[wtmusic]

59. I think in general we left them laying by the side of the road. n/t

[BurtWorm]

69. How did they move 1500 bodies from Kurdish Iraq N of Baghdad

230 miles SE of Baghdad? :wtf:

[geek tragedy]

79. How did all of those Jews wind up in Auschwitz?

Dear lord.

[BurtWorm]

82. How does that answer the question?

What's the actual answer to the question? Good lord indeed! :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

88. Trucks, trains, cars--who knows?

They could have been brought there while alive and then shot.

Not really important.

[BurtWorm]

112. So you take this as gospel without knowing how they got there?

You want us to take it as gospel because you do?

A possible answer to the question is actually suggested in the article, but evidently you didn't read anything but the first two paragraphs. Of course the whole story is not important to you. To some of us, though, it is.

[geek tragedy]

121. So, you're just going to disregard the dead bodies because you

don't know how they were transported there?

Stunning.

[BurtWorm]

131. It's very clear you're more interested in the effect this news has on

your "fellow progressives" than on the news itself. This thread is not about the content of the report, is it? It's about you painting yourself as holier than anyone who is more nuanced about Iraq than you and the Bushists are. You're being a bit of a self-righteous gasbag, if you'll pardon my frankness. And a stunning phoney.

[geek tragedy]

134. Better than being an apologist for mass murder and genocide.

Some people here would turn us into the very caricature that the rightwingers love to portray.

I mean, can you imagine if Democratic leaders started suggesting that Saddam wasn't guilty of horrendous crimes against humanity and mass murder?

[BurtWorm]

142. Stop speaking in the first person plural. Speak for yourself.

Stop being such a self-righteous judge of DUers. Please. What you're doing is called initiating a flame war and its against the rules. If you want to make a point about Saddam's genocide, you ought to be able to do it without insulting the rest of us.

[wookie294]

145. That's a cheap shot

So far, we have alot of reasons to distrust people who say Saddam murdered "millions." I bet you would agree Saddam did not murder "millions." Would you be an apologist for Saddam by arguing against people who say Saddam murdered "millions"??

[Inland]

183. Now, now: doubting the extent of the crimes isn't apologizing for them.

If they accepted the extent of the crimes and then ignored them, like Rummy and Reagan, that's apologizing.

If they demand proof, that's skepticism.

If they simply don't see how any of it has to do with us, that's concentrating on the relevant.

[BurtWorm]

209. Exactly.

Well said.

We know geek isn't interested in Saddam's crimes so much as in DU's "crimes" against his own sensibilities.

[starroute]

229. That's kind of an indictment of Democratic leaders, isn't it?

In fact, there's probably a Tom Tomorrow cartoon on the topic out there somewhere.

If the Republicans said that Saddam ate babies, the Democratic leadership would be terrified of suggesting that Saddam didn't eat babies.

If the Republicans said Saddam had signed a pact with the Devil in his own blood -- and that the fact they hadn't found the paper yet was no proof it didn't exist -- the Democratic leadership would do everything in its power to avoid suggesting Saddam had not signed a pact with the Devil in his own blood.

If the Republicans said that Saddam was the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler, bent on exacting revenge against the United States for his defeat and death in 1945, the Democratic leadership would smile and change the subject if anyone suggested that Saddam was not really the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler.

The Republicans are prepared to accuse anyone of treason who doesn't agree with even their most outlandish fairy-tales, and the Democratic leadership is too scared to even say "boo" to them about it.

So just why, again, are you suggesting that we emulate the Democratic leadership?

[ms. contrary]

157. Saddam pursued a policy of forcibly relocating Kurds to the South

The massacre presumably took place where they were relocated to the south, not that the bodies were sent there. The "Arabization" of the oil-rich Kurdish areas entailed moving Arabs in up north and sending Kurds to the South. Such forced relocation is by itself a serious violation of international law, of course.

http://tinyurl.com/c5bws

[BurtWorm]

213. geek could have told me that if he'd read the actual article.

But of course he wasn't interested in actually answering the question.

[Toby109]

74. Is this the 'Would you rather have Saddam

in power' bullshit that the right loves to spout? And, to be technical, Kurds are not "his own people" in Iraq. Saddam is a Sunni. This is some of the same red-dirt ignorance that got us into this illegal war in the first place.

Or just useless propaganda.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

84. How well the peoples of other lands know how we have

played some of these nations/rulers. How well they see through the rhetoric, the two timing, the schizophrenic foreign policy, the lies.

We wouldn't need a foreign policy if we knew how to play well with others. There's a concept for you. Too bad G_d put all those natural resources in lands where they shouldn't be. Pity.

[gmaki]

89. Your excerpt for one leaves a lot of room for doubt

BAGHDAD, Iraq Apr 30, 2005 — Investigators have uncovered a large grave in Iraq that may contain the bodies of 1,500 Kurds killed in the 1980s. It could produce evidence needed to prosecute ousted leader Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants for mass killings during his regime.

International forensic experts this week examined the mass grave site in Samawa, on the Euphrates River, about 230 miles southeast of Baghdad. Many of those buried in the 18 trenches were believed to be Kurds killed in 1987 and 1988 during a scorched-earth campaign, said Gregg Nivala, from the U.S. government's Regime Crimes Liaison Office.

Not saying it didn't happen, just waiting for proof.

I don't want to hear what "may" have happened, what "could" have happened or what someone "believed" happened. I want to hear what DID happen.

[Spazito]

97. Exactly!

I, too, would like to know what DID happen and hear it from independent sources other than the US Regime Crimes Liaison Office.

[wookie294]

96. Kurds and Shiites have already begun creating mass graves

There is nobody in this fight who is noble. The United States should never have joined the thousand year war in Iraq.


Iraq Admits Targeting Sunnis in Crackdown

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Shiite-led Iraqi government acknowledged Sunday that its forces may have targeted innocent Sunni Muslims in a drive to crush the insurgency in southwestern Baghdad and its suburbs. Saddam Hussein will go on trial within two months on a dozen charges of crimes against humanity, a spokesman for the prime minister said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20050605/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[LuPeRcALiO]

102. In 1991, when thousands fled Baghdad, we bombed the roads repeatedly.

They would have had to bury all those bodies somewhere. The girl clutching her belongings suggests as much.

[LuPeRcALiO]

128. We also strafed civilian convoys

with machine gun fire under some ridiculous pretext which would explain the bullets.

p.s. I remember watching this happening live on CNN.

[SoCalDem]

103. Despots and tyrants always kill those who oppose them..

Saddam had carte blanche to do whatever he pleased with his "people" until he crossed his ally (the US). Bush1 even CALLED for the uprising in the south, after the GW1, BUT he also left Saddam the means with which to obliterate them. I watched it on TV, and was flabberghasted.. We encouraged them, and then let their enemy kill them..and never tried to intervene.:cry:.. Those are the ones in the mass graves.. Poppy helped to DIG those graves:grr:

[LynnTheDem]

132. "I'm not sure whose side you'd want to be on," Cheney the Dick

Colin Powell, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Shiites, as well as the Kurds in the north, "never had a chance of succeeding, and their success was not a goal for the administration."

"Our practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to an Iran that remained bitterly hostile toward the United States,"

Analysts like the University of Haifa's Baram estimate the number of civilian dead in the Shi'ite intifada at between 30,000 and 60,000. Marlin Fitzwater, the White House spokesman at the time, said the administration felt no guilt for refusing to aid the rebels.

COLIN POWELL: "The only issue that came up is, "Should we do something about the Iraqi helicopters?" It had never been one of our objectives to get involved in this kind of civil uprising between factions within Iraq and the Iraqi government. And so it was not clear what purpose would have been achieved by getting ourselves mixed up in the middle of that."

GHW Bush; "I do not want to push American forces beyond our mandate. We've done the heavy lifting. Our kids performed with superior courage and they don't need to be thrust into a war that's been going on for years."

[gmaki]

138. And now they have uprisings against us

and WE have carte blanche to whatever we please, and more mass graves are created. One of them is called "fallujah".

[FreedomAngel82]

167. Exactly

Poppy was a two bit jackass.

[expatriot]

140. geek tragedy and LynntheDem: IMHO both your arguments are irresponsible

First of all, by trying to dismiss Bush's claim that "Saddam is a bad guy that killed his own people" you are nearly inherently defending him.
I am not saying that Saddam should not be permitted a defense, yes he should. But to create a case in his defense in order to debunk Bush's claim that "Saddam is a bad guy that killed his own people," in that context a defense of Saddam turns into Saddam v. Bush with you taking the side of Saddam in whether Saddam was a brutal dictator. Now I KNOW you are talking about a particular case, a particular event, yada yada yada... but this is best for the historians and Saddam's defense team to sort out and to put forward... to put it as a political argument against Bush really, really makes it look like you are defending Saddam's entire record against Bush's charge that "Saddam is a bad guy that killed his own people."

By making such claims and posting these threads that led mr. greektragedy to post this thread.... you are opening yourself up and the whole 'progressive left' to such cheap yet effective, albeat it inaccurate, accusations that you are saying there were no mass graves in Iraq and then they make you look like a crackpot.

Now, Mr. Geektragedy was totally off base with the accusation that you claimed there were no mass graves in Iraq. But there is no way around it, by trying to come up with a defense of Saddam to Bush's charge that he was a "bad guy that killed his own people" he can make you APPEAR to be very much a Saddam sympathizer which the Bushies love nothing more RE:this war than to make us look like.

He has doen such a good job in this even my gut reaction is: Are you sympathizing with Saddam? I know your response will be something like this: I am not a Saddam sympathizer, I sympathize with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed by Bush's lies.

Fine, I would be the first to echo your sympathies but you don't have to defend Saddam just because Bush lied. What's wrong with the argument: Just because Saddam was a tyrant that killed his own people, does not make it right to invade and occupy Iraq?

Let some lawyer defend Saddam, I certainly wouldn't want the job and although I am opposed to the death penalty, I care not what happens to the man.

[LynnTheDem]

147. 1. You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

2. I'm not "defending Saddam". I am wanting to know FACTS.

Not facts that make Hussein look bad.

Not facts that make Hussein look good.

JUST FACTS.

Such as the FACT that the Human Rights Watch report itself says their forensic evidence for their "estimate of an estimate" of "50,000 - 100,000" that HRW admits they have recently downsized "by more than one-third", is in fact 26 bodies.

It's very sad that you see that as "defending Saddam". Such thinking is a large part of why over 1600 Americans are dead. Must silence dissent; must not question facts.

Sorry but fuck that. :)

Oh and by the way, unless you are a mind-reader, you don't know what my response would be. If you rally are a mind-reader... ;)

[wookie294]

149. Well said. EOM

[LynnTheDem]

169. Responses (not DU) on boards to my posts in 2003-2004...

I posted about the "purple plastic people-shredders" being a load of bullshit.

Some responses;

"F*ck you, c*nt-bitch go blow Hussein's c**k like you want to"

"SHUT UP! Stop defending the Butcher of Baghdad! HOW DARE you defend Saddam!"

"You should be drugged through the streets of America until yor dead Saddam bitch f*ck you"

And they didn't shut me up about the FACTS, either. ;)

[ms. contrary]

166. what part of "estimate" don't you understand?

Lynn, those 26 bodies were a SAMPLE, a small portion of one kind of evidence from which HRW extrapolated their estimated total number. Yes, they have revised downward since their initial estimate. Estimates are by nature provisional.

You seem to be suggesting that because one small research team digging for a very short period of time uncovered a few dozen bodies, that only a small number total exist. That's simply poor reasoning. So what are you getting at? Are you a forensic scientist or a geographer or an anthropologist, is there some reason I should believe you rather than a universally well-respected human rights organization?

For those of you just tuning in, the key part of the report being discussed is here:
http://hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KOREME9.htm

[wookie294]

168. The estimates on WMD turned out to be false

The estimates on Saddam's "link" to the Sept. 11 attacks turned out to be false. The estimates on Jessica Lynch's "rescue" turned out to be false, as did the estimates on how Pat Tillman was killed.

Fake toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad
Fake plastic turkey dinner in Baghdad
Fake Jessica Lynch rescue
Fake Pat Tillman cause of death
Fake WMDs
Forged yellow-cake memo from Niger
Fake cell phone intercepts presented by Powell to the UN.
Fake Bio Weapons labs.
Misrepresented aluminum tubes.
Fake satellite photos (Bush I prior to Gulf War I)
Fake testimony about Iraqis throwing babies from incubators (Bush I prior to Gulf War I)
Denial that Bush 41 knew in advance of Saddam's plans to invade kuwait and offered no objection

BE SKEPTICAL. BE VERY SKEPTICAL ... OF EVERYTHING.

[ms. contrary]

173. skepticism is not always a hallmark of intelligence

Of course I'm skeptical. That's why I chose only sources I can reasonably rely on -- like HRW. I can't repeat all their investigations, but I can trust their methodology and their good faith.

But skepticism has to have a limit. You have to accept some sources of information as better than others, otherwise you have no way of operating in the world. I would hope that people would be smarter than to think that just because a certain source, like HRW, has been exploited by politicians, that the source itself is untrustworthy.

And of course you realize that you're twisting around the meaning of "estimate" in your post.

[LynnTheDem]

170. No they weren't a "sample", they were the sum total found and listed

in that HRW report.

HRW's director said the remaining 99,974 of their estimate of an estimate were "mass graved" somewhere that hasn't been found.

And I stated MY OPINION about the HRW's OPINION.

Go and actually READ my post on that other thread.

Your inference of what you believe I am "suggesting" is incorrect, but you are of course free to infer anything you like. :)

[ms. contrary]

175. so all you are saying is that HRW once found 26 bodies?

What inferences are you drawing from that? Please summarize for me.

[LynnTheDem]

188. As I've already posted to you, go to THAT other thread, READ THAT

other thread, and let's DISCUSS THAT other thread ON THAT other thread.

;)

[ms. contrary]

191. this thread is a continuation of that one

and frankly, I didn't understand the gist of your argument on the other thread either. So please, summarize: What inference do you draw from the fact that HRW found 26 bodies in its non-exhaustive investigation, and the fact that HRW later downwardly revised its estimate?

[LynnTheDem]

200. No. I will not discuss MY thread on someone else's thread.

Go to MY thread if you wish to discuss MY thread.

Period.

[drdon326]

165. GT....GREAT PROOF,GREAT ARGUMENT

sh is/was a genocidal psycho.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

174. Interesting that so many posts disagreed with "GT" and offered....

...a number of reasons why.

Why do you consider his post to be so "great"?

[drdon326]

193. It proved what people said wasnt true.

SH is a mass murderer and I for one am very happy this monster is locked away. And while I generally dont support the death penalty , I would make am exception for this monster.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

214. It proved nothing of the sort. If you believe the did, you're welcome....

...to express your opinion, as misguided as it is.

[IdaBriggs]

171. Mass Graves were DEBUNKED by Tony Blair & Crew

NOT saying Saddam was a good guy, but most of the corpses apparently came from when the US told them to "rise up" in 1991, and then Bush Sr didn't support them.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves. <snip>

[LynnTheDem]

181. Sick isn't it, saying "already found 400,000" oops we mean "5100".

But there will be more found, beyond question.

HOWEVER...using the putting down of armed insurgents who were slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis against a government???

Hey Americans (the stupid ones); arm thousands of you, slaughter tens of thousands of fellow Americans in the streets of America on your way to the White House to overthrow/kill the US government...let's see what the reaction of the US government would be.

:eyes:

Oh and don't forget Fallujah 2004. And 2005. And the 1991 Basra Highway massacre. And the US bulldozings in 1991, and the US bombed and US shot estimated 30,000 Iraqis during the 2003 invasion; and then there are the thousands of Kurds killed by the Turks, the tens of thousands killed by other Kurds in their 3 decades long war against each other, and the thousands of Shia killed by radical Shia; plus the thousands of Kurds gassed by the UK, and the tens of thousands of Iraqis in general slaughtered by the UK during their first occupation...wouldn't want any of these deaths blamed on the wrong government, would we.

[trumad]

185. The way the thread starter is using the word Progressives

sure sounds a lot like "you Liberals".

[LynnTheDem]

204. Hmmm yes, I see what you're saying.

Sure does.

[gmaki]

186. Doubly sick is creating the environment

where merely questioning the numbers warrants a personal attack, even here on DU where people are supposedly more open minded.

It's truly truly sad, the state we are in.

[ms. contrary]

189. apologism for genocide

is what's sick.

[wookie294]

190. Ms. Contrary, did Saddam murder "millions"?

??

[ms. contrary]

192. that's a nonresponsive comment

[wookie294]

194. So what? I'd like an answer

Please?

[ms. contrary]

199. I don't engage with nonsequiturs

[wookie294]

205. You're afraid of the answer to my question

In 2003, we were told Saddam murdered "millions." LOL. People like me questioned that statistic. By 2004, Human Rights Watch lowered their 300,000 estimate. Tony Blair admitted they had found only a few thousand skeletons, not "400,000" as he claimed earlier. The trend is your friend and the trend says REVISE DOWNWARD. Why does America insist on being the sucker?

[LynnTheDem]

221. HRW first said 50,000 - 100,000, many women & girls, gassed.

HRW then revised their opinion to 100,000 men & boys. Shot.

HRW has recently again revised their opinion; their estimate was "over-inflated" by "more than 1/3".

I'm not accusing HRW of lying or any "conpsiracy story"; I'm questioning their "fact" of "100,00 Kurds murdered by Hussein in Anfal", using the finding of 26 bodies, 350 eyewitnesses, and documents I've read top to bottom that don't prove HRW's case in the slightest.

And so far, HRW has proven me correct in questioning their figures, as so far they've revised their number, gender, and cause of death.

[wookie294]

224. Thanks for the correction

Physicians say 100,000 Iraqis were killed by Bush's war since 2003. Many "Democrats" frantically criticized that figure, but won't criticize a less-scientific study done by Human Rights Watch.

[gmaki]

202. You obviously don't know what an apologist is

You should look up the word before throwing it around like that.

[LynnTheDem]

215. Yes, somehow questioning the veracity of facts = apologizing for what the

stated facts state.

Stated and used as fact:

est 100,000 Kurds murdered in 1988.

Questioning the stated as fact:

26 bodies found; 1/3 of the estimated stated as fact has already been downsized. Is that est 100,000 really fact?

Apologizing for the est stated as fact;

It was a GOOD THING to kill them 100,000! Well it was the fault of them 100,000 anyways, they asked for it!

Seems quite the difference between the two, to me. I've never seen DUers apologize for Hussein. I have seen DUers try to question things stated as facts.

[ET Awful]

206. Nobody here as done any "apologism for genocide"

Many have questioned whether genocide actually occured because the facts do not support the charge.

If you accuse someone of murder and your are asked to prove it, does that make the person asking for proof an apologist for murder? Nope, it makes them a seeker of FACT.

[ms. contrary]

212. giving Saddam a presumption of innocence

is apologism for genocide. Mind you, I'm talking "the court of public opinion," not a real court.

[ET Awful]

217. LOL . . . I see, so now your position is that conviction before trial is

acceptable.

Odd, isn't that one of the main complaints about Saddam?

Sorry, for there to be apologism for genocide, you must first show that genocide occurred. That is something you have failed completely to do.

[gmaki]

218. Make up your mind

Is your point a pragmatic one about winning "hearts and minds" or are you debating the issue of what is truly right or wrong?

Do you even know the difference?

[wtmusic]

223. Glad to have you back, ms. contrary!

Your name fits you! :thumbsup:

[LynnTheDem]

196. "merely questioning the numbers warrants a personal attack, even here..."

I find that so incredibly sad.

The attempts by warmongering bushbots to silence dissent, to silence discussing of plain ol' FACTS, and the "Saddam-lover" personal attacks prior to bush's invasion of Iraq is why 1600+ US, 200+ other troops, and possibly 100,000 Iraqis are now dead. Not to mention the tens of thousands -at the very least- of people now wounded and lives destroyed

To see so-called progressives do it is so much worse. Very sad.

[ms. contrary]

207. No one is silencing you.

We're just shocked that you & yours seem to be minimizing the reality of horrendous crimes in order to advance your own agenda of juvenile charicaturing of the "bushbots," which makes you look like a whack-o to the rest of the world, and thereby allows Bush/Rove to go on happily consolidating power.

[wookie294]

210. 57% of America say Bush lied about Iraq

So, you're incorrect to say we are "promoting" the Bush/Rove agenda. Most of America already agrees with Howard Dean and Ralph Nader on the issue of whether Bush lied.

[ET Awful]

219. Gee, so now asking for FACTS and EVIDENCE is juvenile charicaturing?

Makes US look whacko to the rest of the world? Here's a little clue for you . . .

THE REST OF THE WORLD AGREES WITH US.

[Violet_Crumble]

225. Hey, I'm from 'the rest of the world'

I think there's a fair bit of over-the-toppedness going on in this thread by folk who'd deny the organised killing of a group of people in order to justify their own opposition to the invasion. I really don't get it, because there's plenty of reasons why the invasion was illegal without having to deny what Saddam did to Iraqi Kurds...

Violet...

[ET Awful]

227. Nobody has denied that Saddam killed Kurds. What has been denied

was that the killing of 1,500 people amounts to genocide, because it does not.

The Turks have killed more Kurds than Saddam ever did, yet nobody mentions that.

What people have denied was the perpetual non-truth that there were hundreds of thousands in mass graves (which Blair has admitted to).

[Violet_Crumble]

234. How many have to be killed before it's genocide?

As far as I was aware, the number isn't halfway as important as other factors, such as the intent to wipe out the particular group, whether by murder, expulsion from their territory, attempts to wipe out the culture, etc...

I doubt many more than a few thousand Aboriginals were murdered by European settlers in Australia, but anyone who claims that wasn't genocide is quite frankly pulling themselves. While genocide as a term only came into being after WWII (and the US for a long, long time refused to ratify the Genocide Convention), it's unfortunately gone on for a long time...

I'm aware of the abuse of the Kurds in countries like Turkey. Looking at how they've been treated in other countries makes it more likely that Saddam attempted to wipe out the Kurdish minority in Iraq...

Violet...

[ET Awful]

236. Once again, in order for it to be genocide, you must prove intent.

A single episode does not prove intent, especially when followed by nearly 20 years of no actions against that group.

If he had attempted to wipe out the Kurdish population the effort would have continued rather than stopping on its own and no further action against them taking place.

The number isn't important, the intent is. A single event does not constitute intent.

[Violet_Crumble]

239. I didn't think that was a single event...

It's been a while since I read the chapter on Iraqi Kurds in Samantha Power's 'A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide", but I remember reading about the govt of Saddam forcing rural Kurds to move to specific urban areas. Isn't that one of the little pointers in the definition of genocide that hints of what may come? Mind you, Turkey's done similar things to its Kurdish population, and the blame for that should fall fair and square with the Turkish leadership, just like the blame for what was done to Iraqi Kurds falls right on Saddam....

Violet...

[ET Awful]

242. You're oversimplifying things by a huge amount.

Saying that what was done to the Kurds falls right on Saddam is like saying that what was done to Native Americans falls right on George Washington. It's an oversimplification of a much more complex set of events.

You leave out of your equation totally the fact that Kurds began an uprising against Saddams government and this uprising led to deaths.

You also left out that animosity between the Kurdish population, the Arabic population, the Persian population and other ethnicities existed for decades before Saddam ever came to power.

Once again, you can not take 1,500 deaths and label it genocide absent a provable intent to eliminate the ethnic group in question. When there has been no action taken against that group for over a decade, it's hardly an example of genocide.

[Violet_Crumble]

251. I don't think so...

How does any of those actions by the Kurds justify what was done to them? It doesn't...

Violet...

[LynnTheDem]

244. Hussein's attempt to wipe out Kurds; so how come Talabani KISSED

and HUGGED Saddam Hussein in 1991, after Gulf War, and after the uprisings?

And how come the other main Kurd leader, Barzani, asked Hussein for his help in Barzani's war against Talabani, and declared Hussein an ally.

In 1996.

And how come those who are attacking for us daring to question what actually happened, have not bothered to explain Kurd leader Talabani (now president of Iraq) being an ally of Hussein's AFTER all the 1980s and 1991 atrocities, and the other main Kurd leader being Hussein's ally ALSO AFTER the 1980s and 1991 atrocities...WAY after?

Guess Hussein changed his mind about "wiping out the Kurds" and the Kurds forgave him and decided to be buddies again.

Strange.

[ET Awful]

246. Bingo.

As I said, a charge of genocide would never hold up in any legitimate court.

Mass murder? You could probably find a charge for that, but genocide could in no way be proven.

[wookie294]

253. Actually, the CIA denied Saddam killed the Kurds

The CIA officer in charge of watching the Iran-Iraq war said "accusing him (Saddam) of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct."

He also said "immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

More info here….

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24480

[LynnTheDem]

257. So did the US State Dept, US Marine Corps, US Army War College,

the Pentagon, the DIA...

And no one disputes the fact of who first gassed the Kurds...Britain.

But hey, the US State Dept, US Marine Corps, US Army War College, the Pentagon, the DIA and the CIA are all just Saddam-lover apologists.

The UK "gassed the Kurds" during their own previous occupation of Iraq, 1917-1952, something Winston Churchill said was a good thing to do;

"I do not understand squeamishness about the use of gas," Churchill wrote. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq

http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm

The US State Department found both sides were using chemical weapons.

"There are indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in this fighting," spokesman Charles Redman told the press a week after the attack. "We call on Iran and Iraq to desist immediately from the use of any chemical weapons."

On May 3, 1990, referring to yet another study, "A Defense Department reconstruction of the final stages of the Iran-Iraq war has assembled what analysts say is conclusive intelligence that one of the worst civilian massacres of the war, in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Halabja, was caused by "repeated chemical bombardments from both belligerent armies." "
Washington Post (May 3, 1990)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0218,trilling,34389,1.html

The US government itself later confirmed the fact that both sides had used gas and that, in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds.

A Pentagon report, ‘Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East’ published in 1990 states (Chapter 5): “In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.”
-United Nations: No Proof Saddam Gassed the Kurds
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

The Pentagon's USAWC and US Marine Corps report concluded Iran gassed the Kurds at Halbjah, not Iraq.

Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War
by Dr. Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson
U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other
observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."

US Marine Corps document FMFRP 3

"Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents—and the Iranians do—we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

The DIA's report concluded Iran had gassed the Kurds & Iranians of Halabjah;

Immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas -which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

http://truthout.org/docs_02/020303C.htm

The CIA's report mentions "hundreds" killed, not "5000" and against the Iranians primarily w Kurds caught in the cross-fire. This report is still on the US government CIA website.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Halabaja, the town where it took place, was at the time occupied by invading Iranian forces, and, according to news reports at the time and up until the looming 1991 Gulf War, hundreds of Iranians and civilians were killed, not thousands.

Just ignore all these reports though. Total Saddam-lovers.

[ET Awful]

208. What I find exceedingly odd is that the word genocide appears NOWHERE

in the article, it seems to be something that YOU CREATED.

Odd.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

216. Bingo.

[pinto]

233. It appears Mr. Hussein will stand trial. And it seems the world will

be watching - as much as possible - locally, regionally, in print, on TV and the internet - I'm OK with waiting to see how the world's assessment of Mr. Hussein shakes out then.

[Sparkle]

254. uh, I think everyone knows that Saddam did these things. He's no saint.

If one or two posters claim otherwise, they were probably freepers. And keep in mind, this wasn't the reason Bush and his cronies started this war and captured Saddam.

[ck4829]

256. Saddam Hussein was a murderer with help by the RW

[Moderator]

258. Locking.

This thread has become an argument about the purpose of the thread, who said what, why they may have said that, if they said that, and similar circular conversations.

Maybe it could be dropped for a while and revisited in some other context or at another time, after a break.

Sorry to be so blunt. Thanks for your consideration,
DU Mod