Propaganda Revealed: 400,000 Iraqis in Mass Graves

chewy

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.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.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

---

'Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves'
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
Download it:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf

---

ok so there no doubt saddam was **** a brutal dictator who killed people on a whim....

but they can't even deal with his killings right..... shows how desperate they were to exaggerrate everything....

arcadegame2004

Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

400,000 - 5,000 = 395,000.

That would be rather widespread then...

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

This "widespread and spontaneous removal"....that wouldn't have been something Mr. Blair was also insisting was true, or is there actual evidence to show that somewhere in the region of 395,000 bodies disappeared in this way?

jc

cleareyed

Only about 5000.
Not so bad so.

chewy

no terrible but as opposed to the wmd which they thought did exist and were only doing what they thought was right god love em... they knew the info on 400,00 graves was wrong when they said it... why exaggerate a thing like that

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Only about 5000.
Not so bad so.

Only half as bad as the invasion, in fact....

shotamoose

Originally posted by chewy
why exaggerate a thing like that

It sounded good at the time.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sparks
Only half as bad as the invasion, in fact....

I think we're in danger of unfairly maligning Saddam's record as a tyrannical despot. Just because there may not be tens of thousands of his victims in mass graves, it doesn't mean there's not tens of thousands buried in more private accommodation around Iraq.

chewy

you try not to underestimate saddam cruelty and then blair lies about it and undermines the whole idea not us, him

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
This "widespread and spontaneous removal"....that wouldn't have been something Mr. Blair was also insisting was true, or is there actual evidence to show that somewhere in the region of 395,000 bodies disappeared in this way?

There were many reports on the news media, especially on TV, showing families removing the remains of their loved ones from mass-graves, with the US troops doing nothing to stop them, such was the disorganisation of the US troops after the war had ended in Iraq.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
with the US troops doing nothing to stop them, such was the disorganisation of the US troops after the war had ended in Iraq.

But they weren't that disorganised that they weren't able to count the corpses first?

arcadegame2004

But they weren't that disorganised that they weren't able to count the corpses first?

Wouldn't surprise me.

dahamsta

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

The lengths people will go to... the imaginative gobbledegook they will create... the lies upon lies they will develop... to excuse the lies of warmongers, is utterly mind-boggling.

I try to avoid being personal on the Politics forum this days, but it can't be avoided on this occasion: Only a fool would utter or believe a ridiculous theory like the above. Seek help.

adam

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

So, say, your brother disappeared 10 years ago, about the time that big hole outside town was filled in by the government. You go along with your cousins and dig up the hole. You find, say 50 bodies (to keep it simple).

Which is your brother?

arcadegame2004

So, say, your brother disappeared 10 years ago, about the time that big hole outside town was filled in by the government. You go along with your cousins and dig up the hole. You find, say 50 bodies (to keep it simple).

Victor, the absence of certain person's remains in a mass-grave does not necessarily mean they are not buried somewhere else. And you can hardly compare our Government (regardless of how criticised it is) to that of Saddam.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Victor, the absence of certain person's remains in a mass-grave does not necessarily mean they are not buried somewhere else.

What I am doing is debunking the theory that lots of people wnet to mass graves, sorted through 400,000 bodies, did DNA tests, sorted out who got to take what and reburied the bodies without anybody noticing.

Of course if whole families and villages were killed, who would do the reburying? Wouldn't those mass graves remain intact, certainly long enough for them to be identified as mass graves.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And you can hardly compare our Government (regardless of how criticised it is) to that of Saddam.

LOL (and I feel bad for LOLing in this thread). I was hypothesising about an Iraqi, I wasn't talking about you or the Irish government.

BUMP!

Another debate on this? Fair nuff but most people either hate or love the US and wont see facts... here are some points on the war in which I'm trying not to let my opinions cloud the facts so comment away....

Was Sadam a Tyrant? -Yes.
Was he the worst? -Not even top 10 I'd imagine.
Should he have been removed? -Yes.
By the US? - No, the UN.
Why were the US interested? -Personal grudge by junior to restore some pride after 9/11, soft target, Oil, money, greed...
Should war have been used? -Only as a very last resort.
Future ramifications? -Hatred incited against the US and its allies. Can't see any good coming from this.
Who's at fault? - The UN mainly for being weak and indecisive. There have been incidents in the past here the UN should have acted and did not which paves the way for vigilante action (so to speak). Should have stopped the US from invading illegally.

bonkey

Originally posted by BUMP!
...and wont see facts...

But there's very little that you've posted thats fact. Most of it is interpretation and opinion.

Who's at fault? - The UN mainly for being weak and indecisive. There have been incidents in the past here the UN should have acted and did not which paves the way for vigilante action (so to speak). Should have stopped the US from invading illegally.

Umm, and how do you propose that the UN could have stopped the US?

Lets assume that its 2 years ago, and the US is making its "Saddam must go" sabre-rattling noises. You're the UN. What can you do to stop them?

(Please bear in mind while responding that the US is on the UNSC and can therefore veto any SC Resolution it doesn't like)

jc

Big Ears

some other country could Veto they're Veto .

ionapaul

Originally posted by Big Ears
some other country could Veto they're Veto .

The UN was never going to do anything to physically get rid of Saddam. I think the UN is a great idea, but without teeth what can it do? Plus having countries like Syria on the counter-terrorism committee is a little offputting - and provides a source for criticism of the UN.

cleareyed

Only half as bad as the invasion, in fact....

Does that mean that only 50,000 Irish ppl should have protested against Sadamm?

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Does that mean that only 50,000 Irish ppl should have protested against Sadamm?

Or maybe we should only have sold him half the beef for his army that we did?

cleareyed

Or maybe we should only have sold him half the beef for his army that we did?

Would that mean that he would have only half invaded Kuwait?
Or that when we sell beef it should be supervised so that no soldiers are allowed eat it?
Interesting one that. How would you enforce it?

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Would that mean that he would have only half invaded Kuwait?

Or maybe the US would have only half-pre-approved the invasion?

Or that when we sell beef it should be supervised so that no soldiers are allowed eat it?
Interesting one that. How would you enforce it?

Well, since we sold it directly to the Iraqi Army for consumption by soldiers, I'm pretty sure we couldn't - false advertising and all that...

cleareyed

Or maybe the US would have only half-pre-approved the invasion?

Really? Are you suggesting that the US preapproved the invasion of Kuwait by Sadamm?

Well, since we sold it directly to the Iraqi Army for consumption by soldiers, I'm pretty sure we couldn't - false advertising and all that...

That would be breach of contract you mean. If the contract specified for military consumption only. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't engage in trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.?

You have to stop doing things by halves you know. Spit it out!

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Really? Are you suggesting that the US preapproved the invasion of Kuwait by Sadamm?

Is it a suggestion when you're recalling the content of a conversation between the US ambassador and Hussein prior to the invasion?

That would be breach of contract you mean. If the contract specified for military consumption only. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't engage in trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.?
You have to stop doing things by halves you know. Spit it out!

Who, me? Suggest that we engage in ethical behaviour? Don't be silly!

Victor

Originally posted by cleareyed
Really? Are you suggesting that the US preapproved the invasion of Kuwait by Sadamm?

There was pre-knowledge and ambivalence.

cleareyed

Is it a suggestion when you're recalling the content of a conversation between the US ambassador and Hussein prior to the invasion?

No. That would be an assertion based on your specific memory of the event (that implies that you were present.) However if you are repeating something that someone else claims they heard or said that would be called hearsay. (And very like the band.) You will note Victor's more measured language: he claims "pre knowledge" which is not pre approval and he claims ambivalence, not a granting of approval either.
Were you present at the meeting?

It would be worse than silly for you to suggest we engage in ethical behaviour. It would be disingenuous. I bring you back to my initial post and invite you to reply. In fact I invite you to answer the questions posed to you. As you and I both know you are evading the issue. Why?

Sparks

Evading the issue, eh?
And here I was thinking I was attempting to engage in an ironic discussion...

The serious answer would be that noone has ever said Saddam was a decent chap. In fact the ones decrying him the most have been those in the anti-war camp; because they were decrying him (in Ireland at least) as far back as the beef deal (the comments from David Norris are on the Seanad records if you care to go look) while the more right-wing people were desperately looking the other way for expediency. So when he gassed 5,000 people or more at fallujah, the left-wing people were decrying him as a tyrant and as being guilty of crimes against humanity. While the right-wing people merrily funded him to replace those weapons used, because for expediency, it was easier to support Saddam than take him on.

The reason the left-wing people came out and called for the US not to invade was neither disingenous nor hypocritical nor even very complex - killing tens of thousands (and indeed the best estimates were in the hundreds of thousands at the time) of innocent civilians when the UN inspectorate were accomplishing the job with no casualties was a heinous act, and one which had a very transparent ulterior motive - the control of the supply of oil from the region.

The fact that after killing an estimated ten thousand civilians (and noone knows the final total because the US ordered that the count be halted before it was completed), not one of the now-infamous WMDs was located; that the entire region is now highly unstable; that the civilian infrastucture is in tatters and will in all liklihood remain so for a decade or more; that the newly-appointed ruler of Iraq is already being charged with murdering people out-of-hand; that the number of people who have seen their lives destroyed and who are now prime targets for terrorist recruiters is mind-numbingly high; and the evidence now emerging to support the long-held assertions of war crimes committed by the US forces; all combined are supposedly excused because mass graves with 400,000 bodies and other such horrific things are now over. Except that there were no mass graves with 400,000 bodies, but closer to 5,000 bodies and those from the Iran-Iraq war, which saw both sides encouraged by the same people now claiming those deaths as justification for their own acts.

Does that address the issue directly enough for your tastes?

cleareyed

Does that address the issue directly enough for your tastes?

You haven't addressed them at all.

You alleged that the US gave approval for the invasion of Kuwait.
You were asked about your presence at a conversation.
You were asked about trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.
You never answered the criticism of the numbers game implied in my first post.

Those are the issues I asked.

The issues you chose to hear are your own. You are talking to yourself. You haven't dealt with the issues I raised. Why not? Why do you consider it to be direct to talk off the point? In short , no, your attempt to address the issue is not to my taste. But you are far more concerned with your assumptions about my taste and assumptions about my opinions for that to register with you.

Your final paragraph is a mixture of fact and fiction and is woefully unbalanced.