Amnesty International: Thousands disappeared under Saddam

[geek tragedy]

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140051997?open&of=ENG-IRQ

<snip>
"I cannot believe he is dead because there is no body and no grave. I cannot rest my heart or mind until I know the truth".

These were the words of a mother who wrote to Amnesty International in February 1996 about her son, Mazin. He was arrested in Baghdad in 1988 and nothing has been heard of him since. Nearly ten years on and his "disappearance" remains without an answer. The Iraqi authorities have remained silent about Mazin’s case and about the cases of hundreds of thousands of others who have "disappeared" since the early 1980s.

In April 1997 the UN Commission on Human Rights in its fifty-third session passed a resolution condemning: "... the massive and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq..." <1>. A month earlier, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances submitted its report to the UN Commission on Human Rights. Among the countries where "disappearances" remain a major concern, Iraq topped the list with more than 16,000 submitted cases still unresolved.

Amnesty International has on numerous occasions over the years expressed its concern at the practice of "disappearances" by the Iraqi authorities. Cases have been documented in several reports <2>. The organization has obtained and continues to receive the names of thousands of victims whose fate and whereabouts remain unknown. As an example, according to some estimates over 100,000 Kurdish civilians "disappeared" in 1988 alone, in a space of three to four months, in the so-called Operation Anfal when the Iraqi Government implemented a program of destruction of villages and towns all over Iraqi Kurdistan, ostensibly in order to resettle the inhabitants in areas which offered improved conditions. An estimated 4,000 villages and towns were destroyed and razed to the ground and decrees were issued giving military and security personnel the authority to execute any persons attempting to return to their homes. Some Kurdish estimates put the figure at 150,000 to 180,000 "disappeared" victims. Amnesty International has the names of about 17,000 people who "disappeared" during that time.

About five years earlier, in August 1983, Iraqi forces arrested some 8,000 men and boys, aged between 8 and 70, from the Barzani clan near Arbil. A group of 315 children and young people, aged between eight and 17 at the time of their arrest, were among those arrested. They were first taken to Baghdad and then transferred to unknown places. All have "disappeared". The operation was believed to have been carried out as retaliation for alleged Kurdish support for the Iranian armed forces during the Iran-Iraq war. On 12 September 1983, President Saddam Hussain said in a speech: "We will punish those who co-operate with Barzani’s sons, just as we punished the Barzani sons themselves and those who co-operated with them in the past. Those people were severely punished and went to Hell...".

Ever since the 1960s and 1970s entire families have been deported to Iran by the Iraqi authorities. With the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war in September 1980, the practice became widespread and thousands of families were forcibly sent to Iran. They included Arab Shi‘a Muslim families who were declared by the authorities to be "of Iranian descent", taba‘iyya, and Feily Kurds who, unlike the majority of Kurds, are Shi‘a Muslims <3>. However, thousands of male members, including minors, of those families who were deported to Iran, were arrested and detained. Although the majority were kept in acknowledged places of detention and had access to relatives, thousands were later transferred to unknown places and "disappeared".
<snip>

Shame, shame, shame on the so-called progressives here who are smearing and insulting organizations like Amnesty and HRW in order to minimize or deny Saddam's atrocities. You are the rightwing's useful idiots. You aid the neocons propaganda by holding yourself out as pro-fascists who call themselves progressives.

[eallen]

1. Yep. You don't have to whitewash Saddam to hate Bush.

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

[wtmusic]

2. blah blah blah

And you are aiding the neocons by parroting their overstating of Saddam's war crimes. Read this and get back to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3780745#3780778

[geek tragedy]

3. Amnesty International is a neocon organization?

Tell that to George W. Bush!

[wtmusic]

4. Tsk tsk tsk

You didn't read, now did you? Shame...

[geek tragedy]

5. How is posting Amnesty International's reports about Saddam's

atrocities the same as spreading Neocon propaganda?

And why are so many so-called progressives so goddamned worried about protecting the reputation of a mass-murdering fascist dictator?

[wtmusic]

7. And why are you so goddamned worried about pointing out

what has been old news for 10 years?

What is the purpose of your post? Waiting...

[geek tragedy]

9. Because some people here are engaging in the equivalent

of Holocaust denial, and are a living stain upon the progressive community.

I'm making it clear that the pro-Saddam folks here DO NOT SPEAK FOR MOST PROGRESSIVES.

[DemonFighterLives]

12. Who's the stain here again?

:evilfrown:

[geek tragedy]

15. Uh, the Saddam apologists.

And notice that I'm not saying anything nice about the war criminal Bush, who ought to go on trial himself.

[DemonFighterLives]

22. Well if you put them both in the hague then

I might forgive your W apologist positions.
The War sucks! Get with it!

Dubby's daddy left plenty of bodies behind in Iraq.

[geek tragedy]

31. Where am I apologizing for Bush? He's guilty for the deaths of thousands

and thousands of innocent Iraqis.

See? I proclaim that loudly and proudly about Bush. But when I say it about Saddam, I get attacked by his fanclub around here.

[DemonFighterLives]

58. Good then!

The numbers for Saddam were surely inflated though there are enough.
I think the Iranians gassed the Kurds and Cheney and W1 were murderous thugs. By trying to justify this war is what gets everyones ire up. I don't really care what saddam did as long as he stayed in Iraq, which is where he was bottled up.

[geek tragedy]

63. The war could never be justified on human rights grounds, and in fact

it never was. The lie before the war was WMD's; the lie after the war was launched was humanitarian grounds.

I disagree about not caring about what happened under Saddam--Iraqis suffering under him were/are human beings too. Had the United Nations or Arab League decided it was time for him to go, my position on such an effort might have been more supportive (depending on who was leading it, etc etc).

[tx_dem41]

44. "W apologist positions"...

??? I must have missed those. Can you point to the post?

[DemonFighterLives]

60. Maybe you ought to look around

Geek has been stirring up people with justifying the war and bashing Galloway. It has now gone far enough to get my attention. His positions are not progressive from what I can see. But you can pick and choose as you like. :nuke:

[tx_dem41]

65. I liked what you said in post #58 better.

It was constructive.

[geek tragedy]

71. Which of these positions of mine are a progressive not allowed to hold?

1) That Saddam was a horrible mass-murdering dictator.

2) That the war was still unjustified, immoral, and a disaster for humanity.

3) That George Galloway, despite being right about the Iraq war, is not a true progressive and in fact is far too cozy with fascists and totalitarian interests.

4) That moral clarity for progressives means opposing all forms of tyranny and oppression, and to judge them on their own terms, not in the context of "what Bush says."

[FreedomAngel82]

96. Yes

Daddy dearest did nothing for the violence there while he was taking their oil. They also sent tons of old vaccines and so many children died from that as well.

[wtmusic]

16. It sounds a lot like you're an apologist for Junior's war

Let's talk about the ongoing holocaust that we can do something about. Otherwise, I know why you're here, and we have no discussion.

[geek tragedy]

19. I'm here because of garbage threads like the linked below:

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

Saddam is a mass-murdering monster. The progressive community was decrying his atrocities while the rightwingers were in bed with him.

Now, some leftwingers are jumping in bed with him, and that royally sucks.

[wtmusic]

23. Why are you posting? n/t

[wtmusic]

28. Sorry it bothers you so much

I'm only jumping in bed with him to the extent that the admin has exaggerated his crimes to justify their own. If that bothers you you need to do some more research. I won't do it for you. Now go read...

[FreedomAngel82]

97. And so is

George W. Bush. So what?

[Jack Rabbit]

94. Really, Mr. Music?

Do you want to accuse me of being a Bush apologist? Because I just happen to agree with geek tragedy on this one.

Saddam was a monster and the one and only good thing about invading Iraq was removing him from power. It did not justify the invasion by itself.

Saddam murdered Kurds with poison gas in 1988. The Reagan administration winked and nodded at the time because Saddam, much to the embarrassment of many, was regarded a US ally; he murdered those people with gas sold to him by the US. He murdered a number of Shias in the wake of the 1991 war. He ran a brutal police state in which thousands of people were murdered or disappeared. There is no point in either minimizing his atrocities or exaggerating them.

It would do some good for Saddam to answer for his crimes. That he was deposed in what was an unjust war against the Iraqi people for the purposes of robbing them of the bounty of their land is a red herring. That his opposition may have committed atrocities is also a red herring. That he acted with the tacit approval of the US government is a red herring. That the Bush regime unnecessarily exaggerated the number of his victims is a red herring.

I do not believe that Saddam could get the fair trial that even he deserves in neoconservative-occupied Iraq, and to that end I favor turning him over to an international tribunal.

None of that means that Bush is off the hook for his own crimes. He is a far more dangerous man, if not as brutal, than Saddam could ever dream of being. Saddam is out of power and behind bars where he couldn't threaten his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction even if possessed any, which it seems he hasn't since the early nineties. Bush is in power and possesses the world's largest stockpile of destructive weapons, and he has in fact invaded a sovereign state on false pretenses and reserves the right of first strike against whoever he likes.

There is no black and white here and it does no good to try to paint it as something other than it is. This is not St. George slaying the Dragon or the dragon devouring a maiden; this is more like the St. Valentine's Day massacre, where some gangsters were rubbed out by bigger gangsters.

[drdon326]

98. Jack......D U C K !!!!!!!

SOMEONE is about to accuse you of posting "rw talking points" by ACTUALLY claiming "the only good thing about invading Iraq was removing him from power."










btw......i like your post.

[Jack Rabbit]

105. Hey, remember when I was accused of being . . .

. . . an apologist for colonialism on the I/P forum?

I still get a boot out that one.

[FreedomAngel82]

99. First of all

because people point out the truth does not make them a Saddam apologist. Duh. Second of all there is no proof that Saddam did that to the Kurds. The Army College released a report about a month or two ago stating that there was no proof. For all we know it could've been Poppy Bush and his first war with them. Second of all Saddam Hussein got his weapons from George H. W. Bush and destroyed them all in the early-mid '90's so there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. If you want to call it a war. I call it a mass killing of innocent people. It would do some good if George W. Bush would answer for his crimes. But I'm not holding my breath for that.

[wtmusic]

104. JR, I couldn't agree more

but here's the rub: gt's link is from 1997.

1997.

I have read that report. I would like to read it again. But he is bringing it up here to refute what he says are 'Saddam apologists', and has in no way whatsoever demonstrated there is any apologizing going on.

[tx_dem41]

18. There are PRO-Saddam people here at DU?

Wow. If true, that is a stain, I agree. I need to do a bit of research.

[geek tragedy]

21. To the extent that David Irving is pro-Hitler

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

[wtmusic]

24. Why are you posting? n/t

[geek tragedy]

27. Why are you stalking me? eom

[wtmusic]

30. Answer the question. n/t

[tx_dem41]

33. Interesting question.....what's more interesting is....

why are you trying to keep him/her from posting by "shouting" them down?

[Psephos]

49. wtmusic, disagreement is cool, suppression is not

Lay off geek. Whether or not you agree with him, he has a right to state his opinion without ad hominem attacks.

There are a few too many post police prowling DU, and you're a good example of how this gestapo tactic harms us all. Diversity of opinion is a good thing - right?

I want to hear what everyone has to say, and then I'll make up MY OWN MIND. I can't do it if I'm only reading "approved" posts...and I don't remember seeing in the DU rules that you were appointed to screen posts.

There's a Chinese proverb: The person who strikes first admits their ideas have given out.

Win me over with the strength of your argument and your evidence, wtmusic. That's the whole idea of a discussion.

Peace.

[wtmusic]

76. There were no ad hominem attacks

and gt was ignoring my request to state his purpose. I think it's still uncertain.

[Psephos]

90. Ad hominem is when you question/attack the person instead of the argument

Which is exactly what you have been doing. Casting aspersions about geek's motives, instead of refuting his arguments.

It sux, cut it out.

Peace.


From your posts:

you are aiding the neocons by parroting their overstating of Saddam's war crimes

why are you so goddamned worried about pointing out what has been old news for 10 years? What is the purpose of your post?

It sounds a lot like you're an apologist for Junior's war

Why are you posting? (x3) Answer the question.

Otherwise every post you've made this morning sounds like you're spewing RW propaganda.

Show me where. Otherwise you get sent to your room.

by all appearances you have an agenda which is decidedly anti-Democratic

When you learn what that phrase means let me know, 'kay?

All I ask is that you know WTF you are talking about and you don't.

[wtmusic]

93. Psephos, WADR,

I don't see how one of those can be considered "ad hominem".

Ad hominem is addressing a person rather than their argument. Questioning a person's motive is not an ad hominem, especially when the post provides no new information.

I admit I get emotional when I see what I feel are politically-motivated posts contrary to the spirit of DU, or "generally supportive of progressive ideals". I'm sorry you feel it sux. I'm not going to cut it out.

[CatWoman]

6. I didn't know Sean Hannity posted on DU

:wow:

[goclark]

8. I didn't know that either - welcome Sean

[geek tragedy]

11. Hello, Saddam! eom

[CatWoman]

42. Did you like the picture of me in my underwear?

Didn't I look "manly"?

[geek tragedy]

10. Quoting Amnesty International makes someone a rightwinger?

Please explain that extraordinary leap in logic.

Do you think Saddam is an okay fellow too?

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

[LuPeRcALiO]

29. Rumsfeld also used to flog Amnesty's Iraq report

in 2003. Not before, and definitely not after.

[geek tragedy]

34. That makes Amnesty's report false?

Uh, take a course in logic.

Some people need to defend anyone Bush attacks. That indicates a complete lack of moral reasoning.

[LuPeRcALiO]

39. They are reports of investigations, and they were used as false pretexts,

so yes, absolutely.

[geek tragedy]

41. Amnesty has 17,000 NAMES of people who were disappeared.

Is it all a great big hoax that was started when Iraq was a US ally?

[LuPeRcALiO]

52. Why don't you have a look at what Amnesty actually says

about these numbers:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9045.htm

[geek tragedy]

56. Uh, the theory that Iran gassed the Kurds was pushed by the REAGAN

administration.

Being good progressives, Amnesty and HRW rejected that nonsense.

[LuPeRcALiO]

68. It says "The scale of 'disappearances' remains difficult to gauge

precisely."

p.s. What are you talking about? Did you follow the link?

[geek tragedy]

69. Does anyone deny that the Saddam regime was responsible for the murder of

thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis?

Well, the person who started the "26 bodies" thread seems to think so, and a bunch of people thought it was great stuff.

Those people need to be set straight.

[LuPeRcALiO]

13. This is about Galloway, which is about something else.

And once again Amnesty International is being exploited as a flimsy pretext.

[Spazito]

14. LOL, it says they have 16,000 cases UNRESOLVED

it doesn't say they have evidence of 100,000 killed. They say some ESTIMATES, estimates are not evidence, imo. Even Blair has said there have not been mass graves uncovered:

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'

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

It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research - admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

more

It is interesting that wanting the facts out regarding the numbers of Iraqis killed under Saddam's regime is taken by some to mean we are all Saddam apologists. That's like saying wanting all the facts regarding the bush cabal's illegal actions regarding the invasion of Iraq makes us pro-Islamists. Neither is true, wanting facts is simply that, wanting the facts and the truth on important issues, imo.

[geek tragedy]

17. What happened to the bodies of all the Jews from the Holocaust?

Amnesty has the NAMES of 17,000 people who were disappeared under Saddam.

[wtmusic]

20. Why are you posting? n/t

[geek tragedy]

25. Because the progressive movement belongs to me as well, and I won't

have places like this turned into Exhibit A for Neocon propaganda campaigns to label all progressives as "anti-freedom" and "pro-fascist."

[wtmusic]

32. You can't even respond to a specific post supporting Saddam

so by all appearances you have an agenda which is decidedly anti-Democratic.

[geek tragedy]

35. I linked to a pro-Saddam thread. eom

[wtmusic]

38. Not a "pro-Saddam" thread

Show me where. Otherwise you get sent to your room.

[geek tragedy]

40. Just as Holocaust denial is pro-Hitler, denying the crimes committed

against the Kurds and other Iraqis by Saddam--including the smearing of his progressive critics--is objectively pro-Saddam.

[wtmusic]

43. Now we're getting somewhere

If you can specifically refute some of the allegations in the so-called "garbage post", I'd like to hear it. Can you? Hmm?

Otherwise every post you've made this morning sounds like you're spewing RW propaganda. Every one.

[geek tragedy]

45. Amnesty International has 17,000 names of people who were disappeared.

Do y'all know what disappeared means? It means that the bodies haven't been found yet.

Or do you think Jimmy Hoffa is still alive, as well as all of those people from the Holocaust?

They haven't found the mass graves for those disappeared by the rightwing juntas in Argentina and Chile. Should we deny those atrocities as well?

[wtmusic]

51. Yeah, and we don't have any names for the 100,000 we "disappeared"

We know Saddam is a bad dude. No one is supporting him, and you haven't come up with one (1) thing to refute one (1) fact in the so-called "garbage" thread. Yawn...

[geek tragedy]

53. I refuted the false logic upon which it is based.

By the logic in that thread, there was no mass murder conducted by the rightwing junta in Argentina, because the great majority of the bodies were never found.

[tx_dem41]

54. Moral relativism....

Yawn.

[wtmusic]

70. When you learn what that phrase means

let me know, 'kay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[tx_dem41]

73. Thanks....yep...

moral relativism, it is.

While your looking up definitions, try "suppression" and "boorishness". Report back.

[wtmusic]

81. All I ask is that you know WTF you are talking about

and you don't. 100K deaths are worse than 17K deaths in anyone's frame of reference. Has nothing to do with moral relativism. :eyes:

[tx_dem41]

87. "100K deaths are worse than 17K deaths in anyone's frame of reference."

Well, we will agree to disagree.

[FreedomAngel82]

103. Oh that is such shit

And you know it. Just because you deny something happened, like the Holocaust, does not make one pro-Hitler. Give me a fucking break.

[Spazito]

36. You do seem to want to bring Jewish issues into every thread

whether it be Galloway or the question of how many really died in Iraq. I, on the other hand, would rather deal with the issue at hand. What facts are available that can help illuminate how many Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam? Lynn provided some links as have I that may help in the search for the facts.

[geek tragedy]

48. What about the 17,000 names that Amnesty International has?

Tens of thousands of people were similarly disappeared in Argentina and Chile. No mass graves were found.

I don't recall anyone, even rightwing Republicans, using the idiotic logic of "no body, no crime" in those instances.

Why is Iraq different?

[Spazito]

62. I have not argued against the 17,000 names, 16,000 of which

remain unresolved as stated in your posted article. My point was, and continues to be, there is a question of how many did die under Saddam's regime and the 100,000 estimate has been questioned even by those very organizations that first expressed concern:

From the Guardian article link I posted earlier:

It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research - admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'

A further difficulty, according to Inforce, a group of British forensic experts in mass grave sites based at Bournemouth University who visited Iraq last year, was in the constant over-estimation of site sizes by Iraqis they met. 'Witnesses were often likely to have unrealistic ideas of the numbers of people in grave areas that they knew about,' said Jonathan Forrest.

'Local people would tell us of 10,000s of people buried at single grave sites and when we would get there they would be in multiple hundreds.'

Would you agree the 100,000 number is in question? Is that not what previous threads have been about? Not whether Saddam was a bad man or not but the NUMBER of 100,000 being credible or not.

[geek tragedy]

67. I think the exact number is both in doubt and ultimately irrelevant.

A mass-murderer of 20,000 and 100,000 occupy the same moral plane.

A thread implying that there were only 26 were dead because of Saddam, as that one posted today did, is repulsive however.

[Spazito]

74. Ahhh, okay, we can agree the number is in doubt...

and that is what I found Lynn's OP pointing out. Links were posted regarding the numbers that have been factually accounted for in various articles and excluded those that were based on 'anecdotal estimates'. I did not find the search for facts repulsive at all.

As to whether the number is 20,000 or 100,000 equates to mass murder, I agree, but I don't think trying to find out the factual number is irrelevant. Facts are educational and bolster one's argument as opposed to 'anecdotal estimates' which can cause some to totally dismiss any numbers put forth.

[geek tragedy]

80. The title of that thread was " 26 bodies, and HRW calls it a "genocide"?

That is apologism and denial, not a clarification.

[Spazito]

88. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the HRW itself has backed

off on that original report, backed WAY off so the thread isn't inaccurate. I know you saw my post containing the Guardian article quoting the HRW backing off because you responded to my post but ignored the article.

[geek tragedy]

89. The purpose of that thread was pretty damn clear.

It basically said "Only 26 bodies."

[Spazito]

92. Your take on it differs from mine and that is the glorious thing

about DU, debate and free speech. DUers provide links backing up their posts, most do anyway; debate about the issues assures ALL views are aired and free speech allows that not ONE view, when based on opinion, takes precedence over other and different views also based on opinion.

What is also great is that when a poster provides facts based on research backed up by credible links, it is expected those arguing a different point of view will also research and provide credible links with facts that dispute the OP. Ain't democracy grand!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Saddam was a murderous rightwing thug supported by the US.

Not unlike, Pinochet, Duvalier, the Shah of Iran, Pol Pot and a long list of others that America embraced when it served its interests. If Saddam hadn't threatened the oil supply he'd still be in power with Bush's blessings.

That alleged progressives are defending him is as appalling as the "moderates" who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq.

[tx_dem41]

37. Spot on, TyL! n/t

[geek tragedy]

75. Bingo!

Saddam is no less evil because his enemy is Bush instead of the mullahcracy in Iran.

Bush pere and Reagan's crowd ought to stand trial with him.

[FreedomAngel82]

106. Exactly

you got it Tierra_y_Libertad. The US put Saddam in the first place and then used him to get all the oil during George H. W. Bush's term. He went to war with them and while that was going on took all their oil. He could've EASILY took out Saddam then but he didn't. He got the oil and ran. They also sent so many old vaccines to them to help with illness and so many children died from that. If you haven't visit http://www.gregpalast.com and watch his segment on Iraq and oil. He shows how the Bush administration didn't even want "elections" in Iraq and they already had someone in mind to put in power (my guess is Allwai) but he was under a lot of pressure from people to have "elections." After the first week or so of counting the Bush administration cried "fraud". Before this Allwai had 5% of the vote and after the cry of "fraud" he had 14%. Hmm....

[bpilgrim]

46. OLD NEWS: now it's THOUSANDS disappeared under U.S.

fyi

peace

[ms. contrary]

47. thanks for posting this ...

I was so disturbed by the Saddam apologists this morning that, as a I newbie, I wasn't sure I wanted to hang around DU. Now I might!

We may never know the scope of Saddam's human rights violations. In part, this can be blamed on US forces who have not moved to adequately preserve evidence --- see http://hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq051303.htm
But there's no question that Saddam was a bad, bad guy. This has little bearing on the question of whether the current war is justified.

[tx_dem41]

50. Exactly....

stick with DU. We argue about everything. :) The entire progressive spectrum is represented, so don't let it scare you.

And welcome to DU!

[Spazito]

55. No one has said Saddam wasn't a bad, bad guy...

that I have seen. I stand to be corrected on that if someone can post someone saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy.

What has been posted is the question of how many Iraqis actually died under his regime and what facts are available to help answer that question. I think it is a valid question to ask, especially as his trial nears. No one has said Iraqis did not die under his regime, again, that I have seen. I stand to be corrected on that as well if someone can provide a post saying no one died.

[bpilgrim]

64. no one has said that

and i am waiting for a link, too

peace

[bpilgrim]

57. Saddam apologists?!?

fyi: on DU we have a tradition of backing up claims.

welcome to DU :toast:

peace

[ms. contrary]

66. backing up

The pro-Saddam stuff was this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3788607

Nobody wrote "I heart Saddam," but the rhetorical underpinning of the post was obviously "Saddam's not so bad." That post also drew my attention because the allegations against HRW/Soros in it are old and tired -- I believe they were concocted by Milosevic supporters some years ago and have been hanging around the net ever since. So the post seemed to me to be obvious pro-Saddam propogandizing, rather than providing new arguments and links to bring the discussion foward.

And thanks for the welcomes, everyone. I expect DU to be a nice distraction from studying for the bar this summer!

[geek tragedy]

78. The title of that thread was:

"26 bodies, and HRW calls it a "genocide"??? Where'd the other 99,974 go?"

Obvious apologism.

[Spazito]

85. Looking for factual numbers as regards the question of how

many actually died under Saddam's regime equates to 'Saddam's not so bad'??? I guess that means asking questions of how many Iraqis died during Shock and Awe would make me to be saying 'bush isn't so bad'? Wow!

Even the HRW has backed off their original numbers:

Taken from the Guardian link I posted above:

snip

It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research - admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'

A further difficulty, according to Inforce, a group of British forensic experts in mass grave sites based at Bournemouth University who visited Iraq last year, was in the constant over-estimation of site sizes by Iraqis they met. 'Witnesses were often likely to have unrealistic ideas of the numbers of people in grave areas that they knew about,' said Jonathan Forrest.

'Local people would tell us of 10,000s of people buried at single grave sites and when we would get there they would be in multiple hundreds.'


Link again for those who seem to have missed it:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

[ms. contrary]

95. Why are you looking now, is the question?

Are you one of Chemical Ali's lawyers?

[Spazito]

101. Whoa and WOW!

I am sorry you feel facts and the search for them threaten your view of the world but DU trades in facts and not spurious attacks unlike other sites. One has to wonder why the search for facts and the truth is so disturbing to you?

[wtmusic]

107. agree

ugly, pretty, or pretty ugly, the truth will set us free

:toast:

[bpilgrim]

86. well, questioning statistics and evidence does NOT make you 'pro saddam'

that kinda black&white thinking is best left to reTHUGs.

and the rhetorical underpinning of the post was obviously NOT "Saddam's not so bad." it was who are we to judge since we SUPPORTED HIM, he wasn't and isn't the ONLY ONE and HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION is a common tactic to INVADE COUNTRIES these days so obviously many folks are rightly suspicious of these kinds of claims.

be prepared to hear lots of discussion that goes into details of our foreign policy the past 60 years but especially our most recent DISASTROUS policies.

until we rid ourselves of this CARTOON WORLD VIEW it will be the DEATH of us all.

looking forward to your contributions.

:hi:

peace

[Psephos]

59. Good link

Thanks, I was unfamiliar with that site, and it looks to be excellent.

Welcome to DU. Don't worry, you'll fit right in. Ignore the thought police, every organization has a few. 99% of DUers are very, very cool.

Peace.

[geek tragedy]

61. Welcome to DU!

It was really disgusting to see presidents Reagan and Bush pere deny and minimize the atrocities committed by Saddam.

It's even worse to see leftists doing it.

Will we ever know the exact number or have a body for each victim? Of course not--repressive regimes spend a lot of time and effort in hiding the evidence of their crimes.

Now, does Saddam's badness mean that the war was justified? Of course not!

[wtmusic]

72. Saddam Is A Bad Guy...should be in LBN n/t

:crazy:

[ComerPerro]

77. Spare me your bullshit. Fuck the right wing.

If they are so concerned about human rights and about Saddams genocide, then why is it that one important detial is always left out:

These atrocities happened under Reagan and Bush I. Many of the same people from those administrations are either in the Bush administration or are helping shape policy for the administration.

Who gives a fuck if the right wing thinks we are "useful idiots" or if they accuse us of supporting Saddam and fascism.

They are the ones with blood on their hands.

They are the ones who aided Saddam.

[bvar22]

79. A couple of issues in the OP deserve some attention.

The numbers of the disappeared in the OP are blurred (intentionally). According to Amnesty International between 16,000-17,000 Iraqis have disappeared. The "hundreds of thousands" is not supported by ANY documentation or credible sources beyond some Kurds estimate.

The Persian Gulf War (Iran Iraq War) was fought between 1980 - 1988.
This war was instigated, funded, and abetted by the United States who backed Saddam. The US is therefore complicit in ALL the crimes that occurred in Iraq between 1980 - 1988. Saddam IS a sociopath, but from 1980-1988, he was OUR sociopath.

Some of the anti-Saddam Kurdish Tribes fought for the Iranians. I personally don't feel that a State of War justifies murder and torture, I do understand that a head-of-state (commander of armed forces) would suppress those who are fighting for the other side.

The Iran/Iraq War was a hideous waste of lives. Neither side seemed to care much for the lives of their soldiers. They used human wave attacks against fortified positions and artillery. There were over 1 Million causalities from this WAR. (1980-1988) Most of the disappearances in the OP occurred during this time frame. How many of the disappearances were forced conscription to fight this WAR? How many Iraqis and Iranis disappeared in this WAR?

In 1991 Desert Storm and again in 2003, the US destroyed most of the Iraqi agencies that would be responsible for keeping these records. It is horrible that so many families DON'T KNOW what happened to loved ones, but without these records, they may NEVER know what really happened to their loved ones.

This reply is NOT an attempt to excuse Saddam and his government. It is an attempt to address some of the propaganda that is being spread about him, and also an attempt to understand what happened inside Iraq from 1980-2004. So far, the cold hard facts do NOT support numbers in the hundreds of thousands. I'm sure that Saddam personally disappeared many Iraqis. For that, he should be held accountable, the same as OUR government officials who are disappearing Iraqis and Afghanis.

[CatWoman]

82. Gee, Saddam sounds like my kind of man!!!

can't wait to date him!!!!

[wtmusic]

83. I thought you WERE Saddam

somehow I couldn't imagine that was CatWoman in her underwear...

[CatWoman]

84. tee hee

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

91. Nah he has scrotum hang disease!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. Should we attack Israel for it's policies against the Palestinians?

Do you agree with AI's frequent condemnations against Israel's policies?

Just curious.

[wtmusic]

102. delete

[Moderator]

108. Locking.....

This is flamebait.



DU Moderator