Iraq is much worse that we thought.

Akrasia

According to a Maltese U.N. inspector in Iraq, almost 1000 iraqis are being tortured to death per month in Baghdad alone

He says the Baghdad morgue received 1,100 bodies in July alone, about 900 of whom bore evidence of torture or summary execution. That continued throughout the year and last December there were 780 bodies, including 400 having gunshot wounds or wounds as those caused by electric drills.

In a frank interview with The Times, Dr Pace says photos and forensic records have proved that torture was rife inside detention centres. Though the process of release has been speeded up, there are an estimated 23,000 people in detention, of whom 80 to 90 per cent are innocent.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=215387
In a Washington Post article, it is claimed that Iraqi officials overseeing the morgue have been put under pressure not to investigate the number of suspicious deaths and to understate the mortality figures

Many of the recent killings by torture and execution have been blamed on forces of the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, as well as allied Shiite militias of Al-Sadr's group and of one of the other ruling Shiite religious parties in the government. Shiite leaders have repeatedly denied accusations of any involvement with death squads.

Pace, speaking by phone from his home in Sydney, Australia, said some of the officials connected with the morgue had been put "under a lot of these pressures"and had been threatened in the past and told not to investigate the killings of those brought to the morgue "precisely because it was considered a way of attributing responsibility for such crimes."

The pressure would be to underreport the numbers "or to ignore them," Pace said. "I think the pressure would be not to take into account the totality of cases."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/REPOSITORY/603010359/1013/NEWS03

Ag marbh

Much worse than you thought. Not one bit of that suprised me at all.

Akrasia

10,000 people being tortured to death in a year in Baghdad alone is a massive massive problem, and that was even before those shrines were attacked.
The fact that this torture is happening mainly in Government instalations is massive, the fact that the U.S. knows about it is Massive.

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

Ag marbh

Akrasia wrote:

10,000 people being tortured to death in a year in Baghdad alone is a massive massive problem, and that was even before those shrines were attacked.
The fact that this torture is happening mainly in Government instalations is massive, the fact that the U.S. knows about it is Massive.

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

They've been getting away with atrocities for years and I don't see it about to change any time soon.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

You don't think it already counts as one?

jc

Hobbes

Clearly it is better then Saddams days though and your just seeing the last throws of these evil Saddamites. Anyone questioning this is because they hate our freedoms. :v:

TBH I can't see an outcry that much in the US unless they can prove US troops were doing it (which I doubt very much they are) or it is US people who are being killed/tourtured.

popinfresh

I doubt there was THIS much crap like this going on when Saddam was in power. Oh well, I suppose the important thing as far as the US is concerned is that they were tortured and killed under a freedom loving democratic government.:rolleyes:

ISAW

Ag marbh wrote:

Much worse than you thought. Not one bit of that suprised me at all.

Indeed I wondered who the "we" were in "Worse than "WE" thought"

ISAW

Akrasia wrote:

10,000 people being tortured to death in a year in Baghdad alone is a massive massive problem, and that was even before those shrines were attacked.
The fact that this torture is happening mainly in Government instalations is massive, the fact that the U.S. knows about it is Massive.

This is gearing up for an utter blood bath

Hmmm? The Congo? Mugabe? Iraq under Saddam? Pinochet ( Chile 9/11) ? Suharto (Indonesia)? Didn't the US authorities know about them? Didn't torture and whole scale bloodbaths occur?

I fail to see your point. What is your point exactly?

ISAW

Hobbes wrote:

Clearly it is better then Saddams days though and your just seeing the last throws of these evil Saddamites.

Really? I suppose you have evidence to support this? Maybe it is with the evidence of WMD in Iraq ior with the evidence that Saddam supported Al Khyda.

In fact Bin Laden was supported by the US administration. For that matter so was Saddam. and the Us currently tout the link that rather than Saddam supporters the insurgents are "islamo facist fundamentalists" from OUTSIDE Iraq. It is quite clear that Saddam didn't support Islamic fundamentalists!

Anyone questioning this is because they hate our freedoms. :v:

i.e. accuse anyone who does not agree with you in spite of your lack of evidence as being "anti american" and "anti democracy". the same was said of anti vietnam protestors. Is this the same sort of democracy they supports dictators like Pinochet in chile over elected Allende or over chaves in Venezuala or the likes of Suharto and Mugabe?
the same democracy they sends black and poor white GIs to the front when only one of the children of the whole Congress signs up.

TBH I can't see an outcry that much in the US unless they can prove US troops were doing it (which I doubt very much they are) or it is US people who are being killed/tourtured.

It is already proven that the US supported dictators including Saddam! It is already proven they used white phosphorus in Iraq. The treatement of prisioners (and their names ) in Guantanamo Bay will be shown this week.

Why do you apply different standards to the lives of US people than you do to other people. I thought the US constitution says "all people are equal" and that that was a self evidence truth. Apparently you honestly believe it is not the truth! And while you can hold the troops guilty it is those who control them and those who order them who take the blame in the final instance. Such a line was argued by Jackson the Chief American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

Sand

Remember kids, dont try sarcasm at home...

Sleipnir

Hobbes wrote:

Clearly it is better then Saddams days though and your just seeing the last throws of these evil Saddamites. Anyone questioning this is because they hate our freedoms. :v:

TBH I can't see an outcry that much in the US unless they can prove US troops were doing it (which I doubt very much they are) or it is US people who are being killed/tourtured.

1,100 people per month were not showing up in the morgue under Saddam's reign. I'm not saying he didn't execute people, but it wasn't anywhere near the number of people dying there daily.

Isn't it great that you can sit in your chair and say it's much better now than it was?
How would you feel if you were holding the blackened corpse of your month old child as you watched the bomber-saviours flying above you? Would you be happier?


Oh, it's already been proved that U.S. soldiers are torturing Iraqis. What else do you need? Video evidence that ALL soldiers are doing it?

When/how did Saddam threaten your freedoms?

Sand

1,100 people per month were not showing up in the morgue under Saddam's reign. I'm not saying he didn't execute people, but it wasn't anywhere near the number of people dying there daily.

Isn't it great that you can sit in your chair and say it's much better now than it was?
How would you feel if you were holding the blackened corpse of your month old child as you watched the bomber-saviours flying above you? Would you be happier?


Oh, it's already been proved that U.S. soldiers are torturing Iraqis. What else do you need? Video evidence that ALL soldiers are doing it?

When/how did Saddam threaten your freedoms?

Yeah Hobbes, what have you got to say for yourself? :v:

Sleipnir

Sand, are you the George Costanza of boards or have you actually got something to add to the thread? You have posted twice and said nothing. Why are you here?
Go for a walk or something if you're that bored.

Captain Trips

Look stop bickering. Saddam hated the freedoms of the US and attacked New York on Sept. 11th with terrorists. To fight this terror, and defend those freedoms, some people may suffer, gobble gobble, September 11th. And as such, it's vitally important that the US goes on from strength to strength to rid the world from evil doers and terrorists who are trying to destroy us and those who want to try and repeat September 11th. The terrors and dangers that are being created by evil nations abroad will not sway us from the task of ensuring endless freedom from more terror and fear attacks like Septmeber 11th.

Gobble gobble blah blah September 11th blah gobble gobble you see terrorists blah blah September 11th blah blah Saddam Husein blah blah blah freedom blah terror blah September 11th.

The above is the reason the US got support from it's own people to invade Iraq. Seeing as they have been starting wars, everywhere basically, for decades, including napalm on Vietnamese, starting coups in South America and basically being a complete wanker, it should come as no surprise that some torture is going on. As long as it's population continue to form opinions based on things being black/white (i.e., evil nations, allies, good vs bad, freedom vs tyranny republican vs democrat dog vs cat), torture will continue.

I don't think the US is on the way to bring freedom to the people of Tibet, or Somalia, any time soon.

Sand

Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing. Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be, supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions - and hes probably less than optimistic about anything positive coming from it. Unfortunately for him, his corner of the ring is shared by people who are so determined to find and clobber "dem dammed bush lovers" that he got trampled in his attempt at sarcasm...Friendly fire. Now keep on attacking Hobbes if you want, but you really shouldnt. See, I did have something useful to contribute.

FYI - Tripps is being sarcastic too.

ISAW

Captain Trips wrote:

Look stop bickering. Saddam hated the freedoms of the US and attacked New York on Sept. 11th with terrorists.

No he didn't! Actually AFAIK Bush has admitted that Saddam and Al Khyda were not linked and Saddam had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. But since you claim it I suppose you might supply some evidence for your claim that Saddam was behind Sept 11th? Also the US administration supported Saddam so how could he hate them? sure Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand didn't he? That isnt a sign of hatred is it?

To fight this terror, and defend those freedoms, some people may suffer, gobble gobble, September 11th.

What do you mean? what had saddam to do with Sept 11th? You sound like dick Chaney. I am sorry but the principle of justice is not that some innocents suffer . the point is that even the muilty must go free if youhave no evidence. One is assumed innocent[/] Guilt must be proven. Now where is your proof saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he had WMD when the US occupied Iraq?

And as such, it's vitally important that the US goes on from strength to strength to rid the world from evil doers and terrorists who are trying to destroy us and those who want to try and repeat September 11th.

But where is there any evidence that
1. Saddam had WMD when the Us invaded?
2. Saddam supported muslim fundamentalist terror?

You claimn it! Can you provide the evidence? Or do you always lynch people without trial and evidence in your country?

The terrors and dangers that are being created by evil nations abroad will not sway us from the task of ensuring endless freedom from more terror and fear attacks like Septmeber 11th.

there you go again! Where is you evidence of this in relation to Iraq? There is plenty of evidence of terror by Mugabe Suharto Pinochet and a host of others supported by the US? Why didnt the US "ensue freedom" by capturing them? why did they instead support military dictatros over elected leaders like Allende (happened on Sept 11th) or chaves?

Gobble gobble blah blah September 11th blah gobble gobble you see terrorists blah blah September 11th blah blah Saddam Husein blah blah blah freedom blah terror blah September 11th.

The above is the reason the US got support from it's own people to invade Iraq. Seeing as they have been starting wars, everywhere basically, for decades, including napalm on Vietnamese, starting coups in South America and basically being a complete wanker, it should come as no surprise that some torture is going on. As long as it's population continue to form opinions based on things being black/white (i.e., evil nations, allies, good vs bad, freedom vs tyranny republican vs democrat dog vs cat), torture will continue.

I don't think the US is on the way to bring freedom to the people of Tibet, or Somalia, any time soon.

Well this is just showing up the double standards and hypocracy demonstrated by the militarist element of the US administration!

Sand

What do you mean? what had saddam to do with Sept 11th? You sound like dick Chaney. I am sorry but the principle of justice is not that some innocents suffer . the point is that even the muilty must go free if youhave no evidence. One is assumed innocent[/] Guilt must be proven. Now where is your proof saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he had WMD when the US occupied Iraq?

ISAW, Captain Trips is on your side. Hes being sarcastic and parodying the pro-war camp. He doesnt believe what he is writing so he will not provide evidence to back it up as you demand.

This thread is a prime example of what happens when sarcasm goes wrong.

Captain Trips

Okay, sorry if the sarcasm didn't come over very well.

ON the actual topic, I recommend reading Baghdad Year Zero which I think is on harpers.org. It's a very good essay on the viewpoint (or at least what the wanted Iraq to be) of the original US-controlled administration after the end of "major hostilities" (off topic, that sounds like a joke after the past week).

The "map" I suppose, is purely drawn by the western influences of the time, including the British. In reality, I imagine that the groups who exist under one "government" be it Saddam, US or whoever, can be just as disparate and unmixable as say the North and South of Ireland. From an outsiders POV, we are basically a bunch of Christian white folk with too much booze and guns.

So likewise, over there, of course equal differences exist, but probably with that separate layer of cultural heterogony thrown in, so it's no wonder as it's been there forever. Saddam was just an administrator, as is the US at the moment. If there is a peace locally or not depends less on who is doing the administrating.

In retrospect, it's clear that the US viewed "Iraq" as a single adminstration country, like the US is or England, but it isn't as the culture there is totally different to the Anglo-Saxon style of rule which we are all used to, but there is different.

The war was designed and run by MBAs and accountants and manager types who have all sorts of opinions but little reality base to go on. There isn't a long thick black straight line around Iraq like there is on a British map of the world, but it does give us a layer of understanding of the rough geography but absolutely, in reality, no understanding at all of the real differences culturally that were only held together loosely by a dictator like Saddam.

If anything, it shows us that the US is not as good a dictator as Saddam, which ironically is a sort of plus point.

News in brief, December 2006: US shown to be "not as bad as South Africa" in providing healthcare to citizens. I think I'll send it to The Onion.

SpAcEd OuT

ISAW wrote:

No he didn't! Actually AFAIK Bush has admitted that Saddam and Al Khyda were not linked and Saddam had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. But since you claim it I suppose you might supply some evidence for your claim that Saddam was behind Sept 11th? Also the US administration supported Saddam so how could he hate them? sure Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand didn't he? That isnt a sign of hatred is it?



What do you mean? what had saddam to do with Sept 11th? You sound like dick Chaney. I am sorry but the principle of justice is not that some innocents suffer . the point is that even the muilty must go free if youhave no evidence. One is assumed innocent[/] Guilt must be proven. Now where is your proof saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he had WMD when the US occupied Iraq?



But where is there any evidence that
1. Saddam had WMD when the Us invaded?
2. Saddam supported muslim fundamentalist terror?

You claimn it! Can you provide the evidence? Or do you always lynch people without trial and evidence in your country?



there you go again! Where is you evidence of this in relation to Iraq? There is plenty of evidence of terror by Mugabe Suharto Pinochet and a host of others supported by the US? Why didnt the US "ensue freedom" by capturing them? why did they instead support military dictatros over elected leaders like Allende (happened on Sept 11th) or chaves?



Well this is just showing up the double standards and hypocracy demonstrated by the militarist element of the US administration!

LOL he was clearly being sarcstic

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Alright Sleip, Ill let you in on a little secret. Hobbes is being sarcastic, hence the use of the :v: and indeed the whole phrasing.

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?

Hobbes has never been, and probably never will be,

Oh! apparently you do?

supportive of deposing Saddam Hussein and ending the UN sanctions

these are contradictory aims. One could not support deposing Saddam and also be against ending UN sanctions since the sanctions were against the rule of Saddam over Iraq! so nobody could be both one and the other. So you are providing no new information about hobbes in spite of you claim to know about what he actually thinks

- and hes probably less than optimistic about anything positive coming from it.

Now you contradict yourself since by that statement you support the idea that two mutually contradictory paths are acceptable. Not surprising if you subscribe to a double standards US foreign policy.

Unfortunately for him, his corner of the ring is shared by people who are so determined to find and clobber "dem dammed bush lovers" that he got trampled in his attempt at sarcasm...

I am not so much anti-Bush as pro truth and having common values and standards. Displaying double standards and resorting to duplicity to conceal them is something I oppose.

Friendly fire. Now keep on attacking Hobbes if you want, but you really shouldnt. See, I did have something useful to contribute.

Did you? What was it?

FYI - Tripps is being sarcastic too.

Really? How so ? And so what?

ISAW

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

LOL he was clearly being sarcstic

So what? I only notices the attempt when I got to the "blah bl;ah b;lah" bits. But even if it was a poor attempt so what? Why do you consider it a valid retort to a valid point to state "he was only trying to be funny" or "it was only a joke"?

So what about the person behind it or the words he used? surely the content of his argument is the important thing? Whether or not he considers it a joke to quip about deaths in Iraq, muslim cartoons, torture is all well and good. Whether there is any validity to the ideas he expresses whether expressed in humour is what is at issue. Being funny or trying to be funny about a point is all well and good. Whether the fun being poked actually has any validity e.g. that some ignorant US policy directors really can't justify their hypocritical double standards, is what is important in the political forum.

Akrasia

ISAW wrote:

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?



Oh! apparently you do?


these are contradictory aims. One could not support deposing Saddam and also be against ending UN sanctions since the sanctions were against the rule of Saddam over Iraq! so nobody could be both one and the other. So you are providing no new information about hobbes in spite of you claim to know about what he actually thinks



Now you contradict yourself since by that statement you support the idea that two mutually contradictory paths are acceptable. Not surprising if you subscribe to a double standards US foreign policy.



I am not so much anti-Bush as pro truth and having common values and standards. Displaying double standards and resorting to duplicity to conceal them is something I oppose.



Did you? What was it?



Really? How so ? And so what?

What are you talking about? You're not reading anything properly. Do you not understand what sarcasm is? Slow down and take your time

Hobbes

Sleipnir wrote:

1,100 people per month were not showing up in the morgue under Saddam's reign. I'm not saying he didn't execute people, but it wasn't anywhere near the number of people dying there daily.

Maybe Saddam was better at hiding the bodies? :v:

solas

captain trips wrote:

Okay, sorry if the sarcasm didn't come over very well.

funniest thing I've seen on the web in ages.

Sand

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?

Meh, do what you want.

Hobbes

ISAW wrote:

So what?
And I suppose you speak for Hobbes now?

No hes right. :v: = sarcasm. There was a thread a long time ago where I wrote something but left out the smileys and only the long standing posters knew I was being sarcastic (as pretty much everyone knows my views at this point). Was still funny people getting confused over it though.

ishmael whale

Is this meant to be sarcastic too?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319967978568410735&q=george+bush

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Why do you apply different standards to the lives of US people than you do to other people.

Because they do it themselves?
Because its right?
Because they deserve it?

The possibilities are endless...

I thought the US constitution says "all people are equal" and that that was a self evidence truth.

Aren't you thinking of the Declaration?

Besides, as supporters of the current Administration's activities will point out, that statement is only intended to refer to Americans.

I also think you'll find it only refers to all men being created equal, so it completely ignores whether or not women are equal to each other and/or to men.

I wouldn't put too much weight behind such a loaded statement.

And while you can hold the troops guilty it is those who control them and those who order them who take the blame in the final instance. Such a line was argued by Jackson the Chief American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.

Clearly, Jackson's comments were only intended to be applied to the losing side in a war. Everyone knows victors don't commit atrocities (just like winners don't do drugs).

Jaden

This thread should be used as a shining example of the inability of some people to spot sarcasm.

And remember kids, if you can't spot the sarcasm, just keep ploughing along with indignant posts saying that you don't care. Bonus points for line-by-line rebutting.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

This thread is a prime example of what happens when sarcasm goes wrong.

This is why we should take the warning labels off potentially harmful products.

Either that or it may be time to reconsider universal suffrage.