Iraq troops 'buried family alive'
- 10-09-2006, 02:11 PM
Iraq troops 'buried family alive'
This is the evil, whom the Democrats, the lefties, the liberals, the libertarians and the misguided Europeans all think the US is wrong to have removed from power.....
You have to be a total pervert to think that it is wrong to remove such evil.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq troops 'buried family alive'
Iraq troops 'buried family alive'
A witness in the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has said her family was "buried alive" by government forces who attacked her village.
She gave evidence as the trial for alleged war crimes and genocide resumed in Baghdad after a two-week break.
It was suspended after Saddam Hussein was ejected for defying the judge's instructions to be quiet.
The seven defendants were present, but a key defence lawyer says his team will continue to boycott the trial.
The 31-year-old woman was 13 when her northern Kurdish village was raided.
Speaking from behind a curtain to conceal her identity, she said: "I know the fate of my family. They were buried alive."
Identity cards belonging to five of her sisters were found in a mass grave in Samawa, south Iraq, the court heard.
"I would like to ask Saddam a question: 'What was the guilt of women and children?" she said through a translator.
The defence says the attacks were legitimate strikes against Kurds who were siding with Iranian forces.
The woman described how the Iraqi army burned her village in April 1988.
She was arrested with eight members of her family and held in prison.
She said one prison guard "used to drag women, their hands and feet shackled, and leave them in a scorching sun for several hours."
More than 100,000 Kurds are said to have died during the so-called Anfal operation in 1988.
Another witness, farmer Abdul-Hadi Abdullah Mohammed, said his pregnant wife, mother, two brothers and two sisters, and four of their children had been missing since Iraqi forces destroyed his village in 1988.
He told the court that he had learnt his mother had died in Nugrat Salman after becoming ill.
Identity cards of one sister and a brother had been found in the mass graves in Samawa.
"The fate of my family is still unknown up to now," he told the court.
Both witnesses spoke of a black dog that dug up remains of prisoners and ate them.
The judge adjourned the case until 10 October.
Claims of bias
The previous session of the current trial ended in chaos after Saddam Hussein and co-defendant, Ali Hassan al-Majid, were ejected.
The remaining five defendants rose to their feet, shouting at the judge.
The defence team of lawyers was also absent.
The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says the long break was clearly designed to calm things down and allow time for the defendants to consult their legal team.
The team met Saddam Hussein a week ago but leading defence counsel, Khalil al-Dulaimi, has said the defence will continue to boycott the trial.
The defence is protesting about the replacement of former chief judge, Abdullah al-Amiri, following accusations of bias towards the former president.
New Chief Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa has been much tougher on the defendants.
During the recess, the new judge's brother-in-law was murdered by gunmen in Baghdad.
Saddam Hussein has already been tried for the killing of 148 Shias in Dujail in 1982 and a judgement is awaited......"
- 10-09-2006, 02:23 PM
I personally at least, have never questioned that Sadaam was a sadistic, evil bastard who should have, by all means been removed from power. The how and true motives why he was removed was all, I personally at least, ever questioned.
10-09-2006, 02:27 PM
I dunno. May be you could have given him a Canadian citizenship, I suppose... I bet he would prefer that over his jail now.
10-09-2006, 02:32 PM
lol...Nah, although he has the beard thing down enough to be a Canadian, he is a little too twisted for our little country..
10-09-2006, 02:32 PM
You can't talk from both sides of your mouth there. You can't say on one hand he "should be removed by all means", and in the next sentence, raise issues about the 'how' and 'why' and what not. Self contradictory. No more 4.0 GPA for ya!Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
10-09-2006, 02:34 PM
By all means, used as a figure of speech meaning I agree with his removal.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Not by any means, big guy, meaning I agree with whatever tactics which were used.
I guess no 4.0 GPA for you either huh??
10-09-2006, 02:39 PM
" I agree with whatever tactics which were used."Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
"The how ...was all, I ..ever questioned."
See, I understood you correctly the first time. You reclarified that you "agree with whatever tactics which were used". Yet, you questioned the 'how'. You can't both agree with whatever tactics used and also questioned the how, at the same time. Unless you are John Kelly...
Edit: On second thought... What the hell you are trying to say anyway?
P/S I am not the one flaunting a 4.00 GPA. I graduated with distinction, in my MASTERS degree.. I had a social life in college and couldn't spent all the time studying..
10-09-2006, 02:44 PM
I dunno. May be ice fishing could be his new gig...Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
I mean, c'mon. He is so oppressed in his little jail, washing his own dirty underwear. Don't you Canadians have a thing for those being oppressed in jails?
10-09-2006, 02:50 PM
Allow me to summarize things for you, Mullet.
What you want to say is you are not a pervert who supports rape and mass murder. Ok, I can buy that. lol
Now onto the other part. If you have a better way to remove evil like Saddam, let's hear it. And if you can, please provide some examples or cases, showing that your methods/strategies have actually worked. Thankyou in advance.
10-09-2006, 03:26 PM
I don't have a degree but I can pull from mullet's statement what he was saying.
Yes Saddam is evil and should have been removed. However, what were the real motives behind him actually being removed when there were other threats around the world.
Isn't saying removed by any means. He's saying that they should have removed him.evil bastard who should have, by all means been removed from power.
We have N.Korea flaunting their nukes in our face yet we stand by. Now I know the politics aren't the same but people still question things.
Anyone questioning motive has about as much knowledge as those who claim the motives were just and genuine. Last I checked none of us had access insode people's brains.
10-09-2006, 03:42 PM
I question the government's REAL motives! I question Bush's TRUE motives. I question US's TRUE motives!
10-09-2006, 03:43 PM
The real motives for removing Saddam and his Baathist regime are explained here.
America's Secret War - George Friedman - American Foreign Policy Insight
You don't need to be able to dig inside someone's brain for it.
You only need $25.95 OR you can read it free at your local Barnes & Noble. lol
....and before anybody asks, yes, I do get a comission for pimping this book repeatedly...
10-09-2006, 04:05 PM
So besides the smilie faces what exactly is your point? Do you ever argue on a honest and mature level or do you resort to child-like comebacks and replies as your sole source of debate?
10-09-2006, 04:40 PM
10-09-2006, 04:50 PM
10-09-2006, 05:52 PM
Thanks, I thought no one had noticed!Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
How about the tactic of adding words to posted statements(that anyone could easily check), then replying to the imaginary post with an inflamatory provocation. Then "sealing the deal" by offering you an "imaginary" solutions for your "imaginary" problems. Anyone with 2-3 years reading experience would correlate "by all means" as a positive affirmation to the statement, which the phrase proceeds. It would require adding words and thereby "editing" the post to assume "by all means" would confer "by all means neccessary". He also seems to enjoy self-tagging his own original posts...."by any means neccessary!"
It's like the old Monte Python skit
" I am looking for an arguement "
"No, your not!"
"yes I am"
"Mear conjecture does not constitute an arguement!"
10-09-2006, 07:13 PM
Damnit, I had just got back from the gym and you fellas stole all my answers. I shall give some serious props to Anabolicrhino though, that is our man to a 'T'.
10-10-2006, 04:07 AM
1. We should have rid Iraq of Hussein back in 90/91 when the GOV had a somewhat legit reason for being there - Kuwait. As it stands now, everyone except the hardcore right, is questioning our presence to include many foreign GOV's. Of course what Saddam did was horrid and he should be held accountable. Does that mean we have to fight someone else's civil war for them just because our thoughts or beliefs are different from theirs? Who are we to say that he was not supposed to treat his people that way? Who are we to impose our will on anyone in that country?
2. If we were as committed to Afghanistan as heavily as we are to Iraq, we would be rid of the other guy as well and the US would not be in the FUBAR situation it is now and we could effectively deal with the other morons of the world. This is where we should be deployed. If OBL took credit for 911, then we should not rest until his head is on display in Times Square for everone to piss on. Instead, the opium trade has never been better and this idiot is still running from cave to cave and his terrorist group is slowly taking back Afghanistan. So where is the progress? Where is the justice?
...Back to my shell now.
10-10-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally Posted by tomall2
You make good logical sound points! further more;
1. The legitimaicy of the US invasion of Iraq(91) was based upon public opinion gathered after a Kuwaiti girl, (who refused to identify herself but was later outed as an ambassador's daughter) testified infront of congress that Iraqi soldiers were stealing incubators from hospitals. The Kuwati girl's tearful testimony included descriptions of "babies being left on cold hospital floors."
When the troops liberated the hospitals in Iraq, they were surprized to find that the incubators were still intact. It was all a deception. So was the alleged(d**k cheney) military might of Iraq. The US/UN soldiers were "shocked" because they were facing opponents with bolt action rifles. Most of the Iraqi armored vehicles broke down in desert heat. Some of the Iraqi army regulars surrendered to "news" teams! Once these "inacurracies" surfaced, American public support of the war wained in the polls. GHW Bush was seeking re-election, so he wisely pulled out. However the damage was done and he was crushed by Clinton in the elections.
2. Afghanistan is an after thought(a means to an end) The American public polls are showing similar "lack" of support at continuing the Iraqi occupation. This is a different siuation then 1991. GWB weathered the storm of 2004. He does not have to worry about his popularity. The US has been setting up many permanent military bases in Iraq. We will stay there for along time(cheney says 100 years) Meanwhile, there is a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. They always disliked eachother, but were reasonable enough to promote Iraqi unity under Sadaam. Iraq is not an ancient country it was formed(by the British) to unite the different muslim sects after the collapse of the Ottaman Empire.( Lawrence of Arabia) It actually worked in that regard for about 100 years.
The Iraq war is draining the US economy, which will only exasperate any "fall out" from the housing boom. The US tends to buck normal global economic trends. The US dominates the global market by being its biggest debtor! This works because of the US military presence and the US dollar being the reserve standard for the world. Our military is the best in the world. We just need to recuit more ground troops to replace the dead ones. This replacement cycle becomes easier as the domestic economy declines and the military service becomes a more viable option for the nations youth (until the drafting starts). This situation is a "social crisis" domestically. If the world banking community decides to switch from the "USdollar" to the "Euro" the domestic crisis will strain our entire economic structure. The rise and fall of the empire will be completed.....just like in Star Wars III once the deceptions were exposed!
Hey, thats only one opinion of a worst case scenario derived from a "drunken hillbilly non-entity" with a heartful of hate and fear in a virtual world of make-believe redundancies.
I AM SURE IT WILL ALL WORK OUT FINE!!!
... I hope you "shell" is secure just incase!
10-10-2006, 11:54 AM
Personally after being on the fence for a while, I don't think the invasion was warranted. He wasn't much of a threat to us, directly or indirectly, which I view as the only justification for going in. He was a murdering scumbag. I simply do not think it is the proper role of the US military to protect other people. I have no doubt a majority of Iraqis hated Hussein to varying degrees. However, if they were competent and that unanimous about it they could have removed him themselves. If they were incompetent or not so committed to getting rid of him then they couldn't do so, nor would they be able to step to the plate and fill the void his administration left which now seems to be the case.
Now we've got a country in chaos. Our troops and the Iraqis are dying regularly. The Iraqi military and police are getting their main training on policing their own population which means they're essentially being trained to be a very effective force in a coup once a new military strong man comes around. Our occupation is pretty much destined to go the same way the British occupation of Iraq went.
I'm surprised though you guys didn't see that this was a post meant to lead to an argument. Anyone who opposes the war is a pervert? Nonsense, no more true than saying anyone who opposes civil rights legislation is a bigot. There are simply other issues involved which make the argument and answer not so black and white. Whether or not Saddam was a thug is not arguable, but whether or not removing other nation's thugs from power is a proper role for our military is not so easily settled. Whether or not the inevitable costs of a war in dead soldiers and civilians on both sides is worth the end, especially when that end is doubtful, is not so easily settled. People can differ on those issues. But anyone who says there's one right answer, and that anyone who believes otherwise is a pervert, is either blind or looking for a fight plain and simple.
10-10-2006, 07:23 PM
How much money has this cost so far? and how is that justified to the starving, homeless down and out US citizens .
In other words, with all the happenings in this world with the things that happen daily and a healthy dose of natural disasters. How can you soup up your classic hot rod when you dont got the money or resources to fix your roof?
10-11-2006, 07:12 AM
Originally Posted by somewhatgifted
...about $500 Billion in taxpayer money.
...about 3000 young American lives.
well to be fair gas prices are cheaper in the US than the global average....although, in Iraq its only about $.50/gallon!
10-15-2006, 12:02 AM
What exactly is my point?Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
You seriously think that there is some so called debate going on in this section of the forum?
Hate to burst your security bubble there, but in order to have REAL and MEANINGFUL debate, you NEED to have REAL and MEANINGFUL knowledge.
Sorry dude, may be it has escaped you. There is not a whole lot of REAL and MEANINGFUL knowledge floating around here. What you have here, are tons and tons and tons of half baked OPINIONS, MONDAY NIGHT Quarterbacking, dry land swimming, etc etc etc.
That ought to be alll sooooo painfully obvious.
I was charitable enough to point people to the right direction, ie read that ****ing book and save your braincells.
Yeah. THe point is clear. Don't waste your time questioning motives when you don't have the knowledge base to do that. Go study and learn first! Duh! lol
But I am sure I have just wasted my breathe, again.
Actually I stand corrected. It makes no difference to me, whatsoever IF people choose to refuse to study and learn, and prefer to remain ignorant. The loss is not mine.
10-15-2006, 10:33 AM
10-15-2006, 11:58 AM
10-15-2006, 12:25 PM
I was wondering if he works on it, or something like this is simply natural. Either way, it's awe inspiring.Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
10-15-2006, 03:05 PM
You know I have been about as patient as I could be. I've served my country and i've attempted to have a polite conversation but if you think i'm going to just sit back while you talk **** and not even have the decency to just bow out if you had nothing to add but you had to come back. Enjoy a week to cool off.
10-15-2006, 07:15 PM
Nice thread! Buh-bye.
Anyway, i'm still on the fence, but quickly coming over to the 'it was not worth it/it was severely mishandled'. The only thing that can change that is if the US takes the opportunity to do the right thing about Iran. i've thought for a while that Iraq was simply a pretence to gain a foothold and surround Iran (Iraq on one side, Afganistan on the other, Uzbekistan on the third).
Word is that Iranian forces have been on high alert for a huge excercise over the last month; and the USS Eisenhower (carrier) is moving into the Gulf. Hmmm. I think Bush might be crazy (and smart) enough to do it.
10-16-2006, 10:42 AM
You do realize you've just cut smiley usage by 80%? We need you to work on the national budget.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
10-18-2006, 10:58 AM
Ill agree he was a bad guy, but i would have done things differently. After all although 'bad' he was the only one that could control the current situation that isoccurring between the shia and sunnis, by scaring the shlt outta everyone. I also find ironic that everything that is mentioned ofcourse are accusations that occured mostly in the 80's wit the kurds/iranians/minorites rather than any current stuff. lol thats like eisenhower telling stalin "oh after we kick hitler's azz, we are gonna pput u on trial for the shlt u did 10 yrs building Russia." lol just to let u know Stalin was even worse than hitler, but thats another debate for another day. lol if i was a 4 star general i would have just got good intl of where saddam was hiding and also chose 4 more possible locationsand bomb all of them bunkerbusters with no explosives in them. lol after they diged through the rubble and found the missiles, id make sure id put formal papers inside of them saying'" hey saddam, dam u almost died, that would have suked man. guess that means u better settle down or well just have to fill these bad boys wit the real thing, and if we cant find you well just bomb the hell outta your whole family till we are satisfied ur scared shltless. So staighten up azzbag, we are watchen you bud."
- bam and there it is. Even saddam at that point would realize dam, id rather abid by this shlt than to... i dont know, lose power and be courtmarshalled lol.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Omen in forum PoliticsReplies: 8Last Post: 11-17-2008, 10:07 PM
- By anabolicrhino in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 02-26-2007, 09:34 AM
- By snakeman458 in forum General ChatReplies: 16Last Post: 01-02-2003, 09:03 AM
- By whale in forum General ChatReplies: 20Last Post: 11-16-2002, 01:38 AM