If you're against the war, does that mean you favor torturing children?

M

miles

Guest
How else could it have been stopped? Give Iraq time out?

This is why I doubt the sincerity and political honesty of many anti-war people. They pick and choose their issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
How Saddam 'staged' fake baby funerals

The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands because of the West's embargoes. John Sweeney, in a TV documentary to be shown tonight, says the figures are bogus. Here he reports from Iraq on his findings
Terrorism crisis - Observer special
Observer Worldview

Sunday June 23, 2002
The Observer

The witness against the government of Iraq walked stiffly into the room, metal callipers buckled to heavy medical shoes. They had tortured her two years ago. She is now four.
Her father had been suspected of involvement in a plot to kill Saddam Hussein's psychopathic son, Uday. He fled to the north of Iraq, but the secret police, the mukhabarat, came for his wife, still in Baghdad, and tortured her. When she wouldn't break, they tortured 'Anna' in front of her.

Her father, 'Ali', is a thick-set Iraqi who worked in Saddam's privileged inner circle. He described what they did to her: 'They had a wooden stick. They would squeeze her feet and ask "Has Daddy called you?" - she understood - "Does Daddy contact you?"'

She is a victim of Saddam's brutality, proof that he is prepared to dispense violence against even his country's children. By a cruel irony, her father is also witness to Saddam's efforts to portray those same children as victims of Western sanctions, which he claims have cost hundreds of thousands of young lives.

Osama bin Laden justified the 11 September attack on America by referring to a million dead Iraqi children - killed by sanctions. But there is a belief among many Iraqis that Saddam is inventing the numbers.

Ali, outraged that Saddam's torturers may have crippled his daughter for life, spoke openly about how the regime's propaganda has faked mass baby funerals - 'evidence' of the 7,000 children under five the regime claims are being killed each month by sanctions.

Small coffins, decorated with grisly photographs of dead babies and their ages - 'three days', 'four days', written usefully for the English-speaking media - are paraded through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, the procession led by a throng of official mourners.

There is only one problem. Because there are not enough dead babies around, the regime prevents parents from burying infants immediately, in the Muslim tradition, to create more powerful propaganda.

The taxi drivers do what they are told - as everybody does in Saddam's Iraq - to their evident disgust. Before Ali defected to the north, one friend of his, a taxi driver, explained how it worked: 'I went to Najaf [a town 100 miles south of Baghdad] a couple of days ago. I brought back two bodies of children for one of the mass funerals. The smell was very strong.'

Ali continued: 'The taxi driver didn't know how long they'd been in freezers, perhaps six or seven months. The drivers would collect them from the regions and would be informed of when a mass funeral was arranged so they would be ready. Certainly, they would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for the mass processions.'

A second, Western source, went to visit visited a Baghdad hospital and, when the official Iraqi minder was absent, was taken to the mortuary. There, a doctor showed the source a number of dead babies, lying stacked in the mortuary, waiting for the next official procession.

Anna was the youngest witness to child torture by the Iraqi government in an investigation, The Mother of All Ironies, to be broadcast by BBC2's Correspondent today. It found six other adult witnesses in the Kurdish safe haven in the north - the only part of Iraq where people are free to speak.

The most chilling witness was one of Saddam's torturers, who was captured spying against the Kurds this year. 'Kamal' told us: 'They would bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied, and would start off with simple methods of torture, such as cigarette burns. Then they started using other methods of torture, more serious ones.

'They would tell the father that they'd slaughter his son, and they'd bring a bayonet out, and if the parents didn't confess they'd kill the child. 'The interrogator has the right to kill the child, or perform any other butchery, whatever's necessary.' And then Kamal chuckled.

It is an absolute of the government of Iraq - and others - that thousands of Iraqi children are dying every month because of sanctions. We managed to get a cameraman to accompany a fact-finding trip into Iraq this year by the Great Britain-Iraq Society, led by its chairman, Labour MP George Galloway.

At the start of the trip Galloway, in Iraq for the ninth time in two-and-a-half years, said: 'Every six minutes an Iraqi child will have died under the embargo. That's every six minutes of every day, of every night, every year for 12 years.'

In 1999 Unicef, in co-operation with the Iraqi government, made a retrospective projection of 500,000 excess child deaths in the 1990s. The projection is open to question. It was based on data from within a regime that tortures children with impunity. All but one of the researchers used by Unicef were employees of the Ministry of Health, according to the Lancet.

The dead babies are blamed by Saddam's regime on cancers and birth defects which first appeared in 1991 and were, it says, caused by depleted uranium weapons. While no one should underestimate the lethality of these weapons and the stupidity of the US military machine, the claim does not make radiological sense. According to Dr Nick Plowman, head of clinical oncology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, the claim 'is ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything learnt from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'

Cancers do not develop overnight. Bombs that fell in 1991 could not have caused cancers or birth defects in that year. Fast leukaemias might occur in four or five years, heavy tumours around now, said Plowman.

Richard Guthrie, a chemical weapons researcher at Sussex University, said: 'It's much more likely to be chemical weapons. There are serious clusters of cancers in the south of Iraq near Basra. In the late Eighties, Basra was almost taken by Iranian human-wave offensives, and Saddam stopped these by dropping chemical weapons on them and, by accident, on his own people.

· John Sweeney's report will be shown in Correspondent on BBC2 at 7.15pm today

http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,742303,00.html
 
Gee miles, no responses from the anti-american crowd yet?

No real surprise there, is there?

<Bump>

Ishmael
 
I am far from anti-american, and obviously I am against child-torture(well, maybe just the REALLY bad ones). However, I am strongly against Bush's crusade.
 
the money bush is spending on the war could have been better used to feed cloth and house the thousands that live on the streets. and that includes the children of this country.


i support the troops.....not the man who sent them.
 
Being anti-war requires no justification. The Quakers, Amish, and other groups are anti-war for it's own sake. They really on no political considerations. It is part of their moral code, and it makes no difference whether you agree or not. One has to respect the depth of their convictions.

If one requires political considerations to justify an anti-war stance, then it is left to the observer to wonder what the protestors 'real' moral convictions are?

Where were the protestors during the operations in Kosovo and Serbia? Or Somalia for that matter?

No, it's political and anti-american. Organized by radical Arab groups and other groups that are advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. Shallow and disengenuous protest to the contrary.

Ishmael
 
lorddragonwolf said:
the money bush is spending on the war could have been better used to feed cloth and house the thousands that live on the streets. and that includes the children of this country.


i support the troops.....not the man who sent them.

Kershner’s First Law: "When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process will not stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare."

Ishmael
 
Not even the words of a free Iraq itself sways these types.

Potential uni-bombers one and all...

The radical, anarchist left.
 
lorddragonwolf said:
the money bush is spending on the war could have been better used to feed cloth and house the thousands that live on the streets. and that includes the children of this country.


i support the troops.....not the man who sent them.

That is a noble but incredibly naive sentiment.

You propose to get the money/aid to them how?
 
Not everyone who's anti-war is so for the same reason. Some people are against the war because they are strict pacifists, some because they are anti-American, some because they question America's intentions, or because they feel that Iraq was no threat to us, some because they feel it is not in America's best interest, some feel it sets a precedent for bad foreign policy, others feel it will increase anti-American sentiments, some because they are anti-Bush, some because they worry about how long we will have to be there or how much it will cost, or because they feel there were just other ways to go about it. Opinions are spread evenly over all of these different reasons.

You may disagree with all of those reasons, but it would be wrong to put all anti-war protesters in the same box. That's why I disagree with anti-war protests - because everyone out there has a different agenda and a different reason for being against the war. Most of them would even protest each other if they knew what they really believed.

I can tell you one thing for certain though, our principle reason for ENGAGING in the war was not to liberate the Iraqi people. If you believe what Bush said, then if Saddam had disarmed we would have been happy to leave him in power and let him continue to torture his people. So this whole arguement of if you're anti-war then you support torture is ridiculous. The same could be said of those people who support the war for any other reason than liberation. And then if do support the war for the purpose of liberation, then you should also support US invading a whole LOT of countries that perpetrate human rights abuses. China? Zaire? North Korea? Where were you when South Africa was under Apartheid?
 
Last edited:
OH NOBLE AMERICANS!!! HOW I BOW DOWN TO YOU FOR RELEASING THE OPPRESSED MULTITUDES OF TORTURED IRAQIS FROM THEIR ENSLAVEMENT!!!!


I used to laugh bitterly at this back patting crap. But I don't find it the least beat humourous anymore.

If there wasnt oil there, you wouldnt be able to find Iraq on a goddamned map.

So spare me your high road ideals...

As a good friend of mind is so fond of saying...

"Don't piss up my back and call it rain."
 
breakwall said:
OH NOBLE AMERICANS!!! HOW I BOW DOWN TO YOU FOR RELEASING THE OPPRESSED MULTITUDES OF TORTURED IRAQIS FROM THEIR ENSLAVEMENT!!!!


I used to laugh bitterly at this back patting crap. But I don't find it the least beat humourous anymore.

If there wasnt oil there, you wouldnt be able to find Iraq on a goddamned map.

So spare me your high road ideals...

As a good friend of mind is so fond of saying...

"Don't piss up my back and call it rain."

How much do you personally value the oil against an end result that includes hundreds of thousands of lives saved and an end to institutionalised torture and direct oppression in one small part of the world as one of the outcomes.
The comment regarding the oil is pprobably accurate, to say that is the motive for the people that post pro war arguements here is both narrow minded and bigoted.
 
Marcel Duchamp, "The Bride Stripped Bare"

bride.jpg
 
sensational204 said:
Not everyone who's anti-war is so for the same reason. Some people are against the war because they are strict pacifists, some because they are anti-American, some because they question America's intentions, or because they feel that Iraq was no threat to us, some because they feel it is not in America's best interest, some feel it sets a precedent for bad foreign policy, others feel it will increase anti-American sentiments, some because they are anti-Bush, some because they worry about how long we will have to be there or how much it will cost, or because they feel there were just other ways to go about it. Opinions are spread evenly over all of these different reasons.

You may disagree with all of those reasons, but it would be wrong to put all anti-war protesters in the same box. That's why I disagree with anti-war protests - because everyone out there has a different agenda and a different reason for being against the war. Most of them would even protest each other if they knew what they really believed.

I can tell you one thing for certain though, our principle reason for ENGAGING in the war was not to liberate the Iraqi people. If you believe what Bush said, then if Saddam had disarmed we would have been happy to leave him in power and let him continue to torture his people. So this whole arguement of if you're anti-war then you support torture is ridiculous. The same could be said of those people who support the war for any other reason than liberation. And then if do support the war for the purpose of liberation, then you should also support US invading a whole LOT of countries that perpetrate human rights abuses. China? Zaire? North Korea? Where were you when South Africa was under Apartheid?

Of course it's ridiculous to say if you're anti-war you're in favor of tortuting children. It's absurd. But no more absurd than the people who oppose the war for no other reason than they hate the US and/or Bush.
 
breakwall said:
OH NOBLE AMERICANS!!! HOW I BOW DOWN TO YOU FOR RELEASING THE OPPRESSED MULTITUDES OF TORTURED IRAQIS FROM THEIR ENSLAVEMENT!!!!


I used to laugh bitterly at this back patting crap. But I don't find it the least beat humourous anymore.

If there wasnt oil there, you wouldnt be able to find Iraq on a goddamned map.

So spare me your high road ideals...

As a good friend of mind is so fond of saying...

"Don't piss up my back and call it rain."

Here comes the same "it's all about oil" shit from the intellectually challenged. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Ishmael
 
Bob_Bytchin said:
I smell an Oliver Stone movie in the works.

No kidding. Anyone else watching that crowd of paid CIA informants trying to topple that statue?

Ishmael
 
Fucknose said:
How much do you personally value the oil against an end result that includes hundreds of thousands of lives saved and an end to institutionalised torture and direct oppression in one small part of the world as one of the outcomes.
The comment regarding the oil is pprobably accurate, to say that is the motive for the people that post pro war arguements here is both narrow minded and bigoted.

Did I say it was a motive for the Pro War people? Please don't put words in my mouth, i have enough of my own.

It was motive enough for the Administration. This war has been about fostering misconception. First it was about terrorism. But the Pentagon couldn't find the link between Iraq and Al-Quaeda (or any other terrorist network for that matter). Then it was about WMD, which I don't doubt they possess, but weapons inspectors couldn't find them and the US was having a problem justifying a war against WMD that they could neither prove nor disprove. (It was this simple fact that turned the world opinion against them...it became obvious at this point that the US was hungering to invade Iraq and the justification for the attack became secondary). Then came the phrase "Regime Change". Remember, the final ultimatum wasn't to come clean on world terrorism involvement, it wasn't to reveal the presence of WMD, it was the 48 hour limit placed on Saddam leaving the country.

It was a facade. All a facade. This war was a fabrication of lies created by the US Administration, an Administration full of former oil men and former Geo. Bush, Sr. advisors...to finally gain control of the second largest oil reserve on the planet.

You can concentrate on the liberation of Iraqis. You can post your heartwarming stories, you can display the atrocities of the regime, do what you like. If it helps you feel better about this war, then by all means, go ahead.

Its a byproduct. But hey, it's a beneficial byproduct.


Remember. Congo, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia, even China, there are so many places on this planet that have far worse regimes in power.


Do I support the troops in Iraq. Of course I do...they are there doing the hard work, they are seeing the faces of Iraqis and facing the dangers of war.

Do I support the man behind the curtain, who orchestrates all this, tugging at the heartstrings of America using propaganda and cheap sentiment? Of course I don't. He is playing his nation for a sucker. And he is succeeding.

I know, I know. I will never change the minds of the pro war supporters out there. And I know they believe that the cause is just, and if it truly were, I would be on their side. I supported the first Gulf War. I supported the Bosnia/Kosovo action. I even supported the Afghanistan action, although I knew it was the first step on a dangerous road. (Pakistan was the real nest of Terrorism, but you don't attack a democracy, especially if they have the bomb).

But I can't support this one. Perhaps if they had been upfront about it. Recognizing that Oil is a World Resource and allowing it to be controlled by an unstable and unsavoury regime is not in the best interests of the global community...maybe.

But it's too late now.
 
Ishmael said:
No kidding. Anyone else watching that crowd of paid CIA informants trying to topple that statue?

Ishmael

Get it right Ish, its a Hollywood production taking place on a soundstage somewhere in LA. :D
 
Ishmael said:
Here comes the same "it's all about oil" shit from the intellectually challenged. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Ishmael

Cute.

Keep up those high quality flames and we may let you eat at the adult table some day.
 
breakwall said:
Remember. Congo, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia, even China, there are so many places on this planet that have far worse regimes in power.

Isn't the Ivory Coast the place the French are sending in troops without UN support...? I can't recall, but speaking of Rwanda, another incompetent adventure by the UN.


In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

US President Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

https://mail.lsit.ucsb.edu/pipermail/gordon-newspost/2001-June/001352.html

Later Clinton expressed his sorrow, "The international community must bear its share of responsibility. We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name, genocide. Never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence."
 
Ishmael said:
Being anti-war requires no justification. The Quakers, Amish, and other groups are anti-war for it's own sake. They really on no political considerations. It is part of their moral code, and it makes no difference whether you agree or not. One has to respect the depth of their convictions.

If one requires political considerations to justify an anti-war stance, then it is left to the observer to wonder what the protestors 'real' moral convictions are?

Where were the protestors during the operations in Kosovo and Serbia? Or Somalia for that matter?

No, it's political and anti-american. Organized by radical Arab groups and other groups that are advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. Shallow and disengenuous protest to the contrary.

Ishmael

There were protesters.

In proportion to the amount of hype. There has been much more attention and drama surrounding the Iraqi situation which will certainly stir up more people.

An anti-war stance and being a protestor are not mutually inclusive. I'll talk about my views here and amongst friends but I do my protesting at the polls.

Political considerations should be least in waging a war. And trying to prevent one.
 
SleepingWarrior said:
Get it right Ish, its a Hollywood production taking place on a soundstage somewhere in LA. :D

You can bet your ass that if it isn't now, it will be soon. :)

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
You can bet your ass that if it isn't now, it will be soon. :)

Ishmael


It damn well better be it is historic!

Best quote of this morning was said while the statue was hanging on by the legs.... "They said Saddam would do anything to cling to power and it looks like the statue is doing just that." :)
 
Gunner Dailey said:
Isn't the Ivory Coast the place the French are sending in troops without UN support...? I can't recall, but speaking of Rwanda, another incompetent adventure by the UN.


In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

US President Clinton refused to act as well, instructing the State Department not to use the word genocide because then the United States would be expected to do something. And President Clinton instructed Madeleine Albright, then our representative to the UN, to block any possible attempts to intervene despite Kofi Annan. Some 800,000 lives could have been saved.

https://mail.lsit.ucsb.edu/pipermail/gordon-newspost/2001-June/001352.html

Later Clinton expressed his sorrow, "The international community must bear its share of responsibility. We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name, genocide. Never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence."

Forget it Gunner. Don't confuse the poor boy with facts.

Facts like prior to the war we bought 30 some percent of our imported oil at world market prices, and that after the war we'll be buying about the same amount of Iraqi oil at whatever world market prices are.

So, if nothing has changed regarding the oil then there is NO argument that can use oil as a reason. The babbling of the uninformed.

Ishmael
 
miles said:
How else could it have been stopped? Give Iraq time out?


Tell that to the kid with his arms blown off and his family vaporized by American missiles.

I'm sure he'll enjoy your childlike sense of humour enormously.

The USA has in 21 days, on a per diem basis, come very close to matching the genocide of a generation of Iraqi children in the numbers racked up in the US-sponsored Iran-Iraq war.

Nobody funds the maiming of more children worldwide than the USA.

Only you, one of the keepers of the largest killing machine in history, can make it stop. Your tax dollars likely killed someone this month.
 
Back
Top