Are you interested in the habits or opinions of human rights violators?

[0rganism]

For example, GIs: Clean Freak Saddam Hussein Offers Fatherly Advice

Do such stories give us greater insight into human nature, or are they merely distractions from the overwhelming fact that the subjects perpetrated grotesque crimes against humanity?

[politicaholic]

1. Only drug habits and opinions on WH state dinner plate patterns. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

2. something else and yes.

Ignorance is only bliss for morans; I like learning opinions and facts and believe no one can ever learn too many opinions and facts.

Such as how do you know Hussein "perpetrated grotesque crimes against humanity"?

What "overwhelming facts" other than biased hearsay have you? Perhaps he has, perhaps he has not, but I like ALL the facts & opinions on any issues, not just "approved" ones from one side.

[geek tragedy]

3. Oh dear lord. I would question the credibility of anyone who ISN'T

biased against fascists.

I mean, should we expect Kurds and Shiites to be less biased against Saddam than Armenians were against the Turkish government?

Of course the victims are going to be 'biased.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/

[LynnTheDem]

6. So we should believe only the Kurds, when they've killed more Kurds

themselves than the number of Kurds killed by Turkey, Iran and Hussein combined? We should just totally ignore that fact, and blame only Hussein?

That would be biased, one-sided, and false.

And in US courts, do we only require the word of alleged victims to make the case against the accused? Better bloody hope not.

[geek tragedy]

7. I personally find the victims of atrocities more credible than

fascist dictators. I also find Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and every human rights group under the sun much more credible than fascist dictators.

And the testimony of victims of crimes is quite often the central evidence in criminal cases. Very often, the credibility of the victim and the defendant determine whether a conviction occurs.

Of course, there are also reams of other kinds of evidence--documentary, forensic, etc etc--that show Saddam's regime committed mass murder.

The evidence that Saddam's regime committed large-scale atrocities is OVERWHELMING. Some people just refuse to see it.

[LynnTheDem]

10. HRW was very credible about the "incubator babies" story that turned out

to be 100% total bullshit.

HRW was very credible when they said 180,000 Kurd men, women, girls & boys were gassed to death.

And then downgraded their "180,000" by over one-third...and "gassed" to "machine-gunned"...and then "women & girls" to just "men & boys".

Sorry, which HRW version did you find credible? All of them? Obviously they weren't all credible. Can you read the future and tell me what the next change HRW will make on this issue and whether that version will be the final version?

[geek tragedy]

14. How about Physicians for Human Rights?

http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/winds.html

[LynnTheDem]

20. Geek, the man in the moon can say the same things. It doesn't matter

who says it, the FACT is the stories have been changed so many times already.

I prefer FACTS and hearing BOTH sides of every story. What you have never been able to grasp is that I don't care if the FACTS and BOTH sides show HUSSEIN to be even worse than Hitler, worse than any human being in mankind's entire history...or if they show him to be an angel.

From the very start with you it's been 'anyone who posts any facts/opinions/conjectures that don't show Hussein in the very worst light possible must be a Saddam-lover'.

See, I don't get how anyone who thinks that is in any way different from our current government.

[geek tragedy]

24. No, I object to people who claim that whether Saddam's regime

was guilty of large-scale human rights abuses is an open question.

Do you want Saddam's side? Here is a summary of Baathist/Iraqi government documents recovered by HRW:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/iraq/TEXT.htm

<snip>
In two separate shipments in May 1992 and August 1993, eighteen tons of official Iraqi state documents captured by Kurdish parties in the March 1991 uprising arrived in the United States for safekeeping and analysis. A Middle East Watch-led team has conducted research on these documents since October 1992; to date, approximately forty percent of the materials has been catalogued and studied.
<snip>

<snip>
Most notable perhaps among our findings is the unequivocal evidence we have been able to accumulate of Iraq's repeated use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. To summarize the evidence: we have found several documents that report on specific air and artillery attacks carried out by Iraqi forces with chemical agents against Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988. These documents match in precise detail testimonial and forensic evidence collected by Middle East Watch in northern Iraq in 1992. The documents are crystal clear, for example, on the issue of culpability for the chemical attack on Halabja on March 16, 1988, in which some 5,000 Kurdish civilians were killed. While some writers in the United States continue mystifyingly toinsist that the attack was carried out by both Iraqi and Iranian forces,12 the Iraqi state documents, which report widely on Iranian military actions, make no reference to an Iranian gas attack on Halabja at all. Instead, they refer to the occupation of Halabja by Iranian troops and rebel forces belonging to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, as well as to the subsequent "Iraqi chemical attack on Halabja."13 In one very explicit case, an Istikhbarat document states that "as a result of the bombing by our planes and our artillery on the area of Halabja and Khurmal, approximately 2,000 enemy forces of the Persians and agents of Iran were killed."14

<snip>

[LynnTheDem]

32. I have read every document HRW has, geek. Why haven't you?

Because if you had, you wouldn't have posted it as your argument.

One quick example;

-In one very explicit case, an Istikhbarat document states that "as a result of the bombing by our planes and our artillery on the area of Halabja and Khurmal, approximately 2,000 enemy forces of the Persians and agents of Iran were killed."

Yes, there was a WAR going on, geek. And some Kurds were fighting with Iran against Iraq. (In fact most Kurds fought with the Iraqis against Iran.) And this document refers to the BOMBING of two towns where Iranian forces had a stronghold.

These documents do not talk about chemical attacks ordered on any civilians. And that's fact.

Now in my opinion, yes it is an open question. But I'm in damn fine company with that opinion, so until all the FACTS and both sides of the story are heard (hah, as if that's gonna happen) then for me it will remain an open question.

OPEN. QUESTION. Not "NO." Not "YES." But OPEN.

Have a nice day!

:)

[geek tragedy]

34. Oh dear.

"Instead, they refer to the occupation of Halabja by Iranian troops and rebel forces belonging to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, as well as to the subsequent "Iraqi chemical attack on Halabja."

Oh, that must have been that OTHER chemical attack on Halabja.

"To summarize the evidence: we have found several documents that report on specific air and artillery attacks carried out by Iraqi forces with chemical agents against Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988. These documents match in precise detail testimonial and forensic evidence collected by Middle East Watch in northern Iraq in 1992."

[LynnTheDem]

38. Geek, that's HRW's words, not quotes from the actual documents.

Go read the actual documents.

[geek tragedy]

51. You're right. They just refer to "special strikes" and "special ammuntion

in connection with attacks that exactly match the date, place, and time of eyewitness accounts of chemical attacks.

Zzzzzzzz

[LynnTheDem]

52. You have your beliefs and they are set in stone; I realize that.

And hey, you're totally entitled to your beliefs.

Too bad I'm not.

[geek tragedy]

53. Yep. You're free to disbelieve EVERY SINGLE human rights

group that has done research on Iraq.

You are most determined to bend over backwards to be fair to Saddam when it comes to defending Saddam's human rights record.

[LynnTheDem]

58. Actually that's incorrect.

Only 3 out of dozens; AI, HRW and Physicians.

But hey, just call me a "liar" and "Saddam-lover" et al, like always. ;)

[geek tragedy]

59. Name one credible human rights organization that departs from that account

of Saddam's crimes.

[LynnTheDem]

62. I can name several.

But you'll simply call them "rightwingnut", "liars", and "Saddam's defense lawyers".

So it's best for you to actually research that on your own. It's nice, huh, to sit back and simply call a DUer a "liar", wait for the DUer to provide links and sources, and then denigrate all links & sources, even those same sources you use.

I put up with that from rightwingnuts for a long time. I don't anymore. And I won't from you.

:)

[geek tragedy]

63. Just name them. Name credible human rights organizations that have

concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Saddam's regime was responsible for mass human rights violations.

Just a matter of typing. Go for it. If you don't, I gotta conclude you're bluffing.

[LynnTheDem]

Rightwingnuts always did that too; "PROVE IT or you're just bluffing"

Although usually they spelled it "or your bluffing".

Nope. Do your own research. Or not. Conclude whatever you like. :)

[geek tragedy]

66. I've never been able to find one. Neither have you.

You can't name them because they don't exist.

[LynnTheDem]

68. Hey, if that's what you wanna believe, fine!

:)

[geek tragedy]

70. That's the only rational conclusion. If you had credible organziations

backing you up, you'd use them to support your argument.

But, your bluff has been called. You have failed to provide the name of a SINGLE credible human rights organization that thinks there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam's regime was guilty of widespread human rights abuses.

Your claim is unsubstantiated, and thus not worth a damn.

[LynnTheDem]

72. LOL!!!

yeah, rightwingnuts are SOOOO logical!

:rofl:

Like I said, dear, believe whatever the hell you like. :)

[geek tragedy]

76. I am no wingnut, and merely asking you to provide support for a dubious

claim is perfectly rational.

[LynnTheDem]

77. Nope. You constantly hurl personal insults at me. I simply see no

reason whatsoever for me to do anything you "merely ask" after your constant & continuous rude hurling of insults at me.

In other words, get lost. :)

[geek tragedy]

79. Translation: "I don't know of any and you successfully called my bluff."

One would think you'd name at least 2-3 just to prove me wrong. Alas, you're unwilling to prove me wrong for some reason.

Oh well, I'll just have to settle for the point being conceded and being proven right.

[0rganism]

5. FYI, I posed that half of the question from the POV of a "believer"

in case you were thinking I was speaking for my own opinion. The adjective "overwhelming" applies to the role of such facts (accurately construed or otherwise) in determining one's opinion, were one to believe such a thing. In other words, everything else was "overwhelmed" by that aspect of a person's existence.

And yes, there are sources I consider credible, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which have had plenty to say about Saddam's crimes over the years. However, I too would prefer to hear what Saddam has to say -- albeit for different reasons than yours, apparently.

[LynnTheDem]

9. I see what yer saying, but take this further; take Human Rights Watch;

HRW went on and on in 1991 about the "incubator babies".

HRW later admitted they'd been had. The "incubator babies" was total bullshit, it never happened.

HRW's story on the "incubator babies" was in fact not credible.

1. HRW said 180,000 Kurds, men, women & boys & girls, were gassed to death in the Anfal campaign.

2. HRW later admitted they'd over-stated that figure by over one-third.

3. HRW changed their story again, to only men & boys being killed...by being shot.

4. HRW has admitted that they've not found one single body.

HRW's original story that 180,000 men, women & boys & girls were gassed was in fact not credible.

And they've not a single body as proof.

So when will HRWs story change again? And to what this time?

NOT HRWs fault, they only go by what they're told. But "credible" doesn't always equate with "correct". HRW has proved that many times.

[geek tragedy]

11. "Not a single body?" You can't possibly be serious with that crap.

You deny that there were bodies of Kurds found that had been killed by Saddam, or that had been killed by gas?

[LynnTheDem]

21. You don't know as much as you believe you do, geek.

HRW themselves admit they have not found one single body from the alleged Anfal campaign.

Which is exactly what I said in my post.

Now you can bring up your "gassed his own people" strawman all you like, but my post is clear and explicit for all to see.

[bicentennial_baby]

22. Can I get a link to this admission?

As of 2002, Kenneth Roth of HRW was saying this:

Several thousand Kurdish villages were destroyed, forcing residents to live in appalling camps. In at least 40 cases, Iraqi forces under Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, used chemical weapons to kill and chase Kurds from their villages. Then, during the Anfal campaign from February to September 1988, Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared "prohibited zones." Some 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote sites and executed. Only seven are known to have escaped.

The full scope of the Anfal horror became known only after Saddam's defeat in the Gulf War. The Iraqi military's withdrawal from the region in October 1991 after the imposition of a no-fly zone made it feasible for the first time in years for outsiders to reach the area.

Human Rights Watch investigators took advantage of this opening to enter northern Iraq and document Saddam's crimes. Some 350 witnesses and survivors were interviewed. Mass graves were exhumed. And Kurdish rebels were convinced to hand over some 18 tons of documents that they had seized during the brief post-war uprising from Iraqi police stations. These documents were airlifted to Washington, where Human Rights Watch researchers poured through this treasure trove of information about the inner workings of a ruthless regime.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm

[geek tragedy]

25. Looks like you caught someone in a fib. nt

[bicentennial_baby]

28. I'm genuinely curious

While skeptical, I'd like to hear what the poster has as proof of HRW's "admission" that no bodies were ever found.

[geek tragedy]

31. You're likely to be disappointed.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KORAP123.htm

[LynnTheDem]

37. Yes I have a link;

Joost Hilterman, HRW;

May 2002

"In fact, the graves of those who died during the Anfal campaign have not and cannot now be examined by forensic experts because they continue to be in areas under Iraqi government control; they are not in the Kurdish areas. The mass graves found and examined in the Kurdish areas are of people executed for primarily political offenses, for example membership in one of the banned Kurdish parties (before 1992). They would not contain more than a few hundred people, as far as I know.

Question: Anfal would constitute "genocide" by Iraq, on the other hand. But in your comments to me, you acknowledge there are still no bodies to be found.

Joost Hilterman, HRW: True, be we have eight survivors from the execution sites who managed to escape and were able to tell their stories. Very detailed and compelling stories, all described at length in the HRW report.

http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2497

Human Rights Watch Joost Hiltermann (Washington, DC) 1-202-371-6592


(PS to geek; I don't tell fibs. Sorry to disappoint you.)

[geek tragedy]

46. Oh dear II.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KOREME9.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KORAP123.htm

[bicentennial_baby]

49. I guess HRW needs to have a common stance on this

B/c in 2003, they were sticking by their original story, apparently:

(New York, January 17, 2003) Human Rights Watch called today for the immediate arrest and prosecution of Iraqi General Ali Hassan al-Majid, the architect of the 1988 genocidal "Anfal" campaign against the Iraqi Kurds, who is currently traveling through the Middle East.

General al-Majid arrived in Damascus, Syria, today for talks with President Bashar al-Assad, reportedly as part of efforts to avert a possible war against Iraq. According to press reports, he may also visit Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon in the coming days.

Al-Majid commanded Iraq's notorious "Anfal" campaign, which resulted in the murder and "disappearance" of some 100,000 Kurds and was marked by the use of chemical weapons, according to a Human Rights Watch book on that campaign, Genocide In Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/). Al-Majid is widely known in Iraq as "Chemical Ali" for his repeated use of outlawed chemical warfare. He was later in charge of Iraq's brutal military occupation of Kuwait.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm

And again in 2003:

"The capture of 'Chemical Ali' presents a rare opportunity to bring a measure of justice to the countless victims and their families who suffered under Ba'ath Party rule," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program. "International participation is essential for fair trials that will expose his crimes before independent and impartial courts."

Al-Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein, masterminded the genocidal 1988 campaign that resulted in the murder or "disappearance" of some 100,000 Kurds. He led the forces that suppressed the popular uprising in southern Iraq in March 1991, and reportedly played a principal role in a killing and repression campaign against Iraq's Marsh Arab population during the 1990s.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/08/iraq082203.htm

And again in 2004:

Second, we are aware of, but reject, the argument that past U.S. complicity in Iraqi repression should preclude U.S. intervention in Iraq on humanitarian grounds. This argument is built on the U.S. government’s sordid record in Iraq in the 1980s and early 1990s. When the Iraqi government was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops in the 1980s, the Reagan administration was giving it intelligence information. After the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds in 1988, the Reagan and first Bush administrations gave Baghdad billions of dollars in commodity credits and import loan guarantees. The Iraqi government’s ruthless suppression of the 1991 uprising was facilitated by the first Bush administration’s agreement to Iraq’s use of helicopters – permission made all the more callous because then-President Bush had encouraged the uprising in the first place. In each of these cases, Washington deemed it more important to defeat Iran or avoid Iranian influence in a potentially destabilized Iraq than to discourage or prevent large-scale slaughter. We condemn such calculations. However, we would not deny relief to, say, the potential victims of genocide simply because the proposed intervener had dirty hands in the past.

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Ok, I have to log off, but I think we can agree to disagree on this. I have read your posts before and know that you are pretty firmly set in your beliefs on this matter. Have a nice evening!

ps- Your quotes don't say that the bodies aren't there, but that they are inaccesible if there. The interviewer seems to twist the question some, but whatever...

[LynnTheDem]

55. Yet in all of your links, HRW doesn't mention a single body found and

exhumed and examined.

They do say "disappearance" and "reportedly" and such.

But my link does in fact say exactly what my original post -the one you demanded proof of- said it said; HRW admitted not one body has been found.

And gee, HRW's Hilterman sure "twisted" his words to that interviewer with his "True" reply to the interviewer.

Have a nice day, and I'll try not to be so slow in replying to your posts in future.

[geek tragedy]

57. Please tell the truth.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KORAP123.htm

<snip>
In the pits, excavation tools were confined to trowels, brushes, and bamboo picks. Standard professional procedures for excavating burials were followed at all times. Once remains were exhumation, the forensic team removed them following the system established by Dr. Snow in exhumations in Argentina. Artifacts, clothing, and skeletal remains were recorded on standard field inventory forms and removed from the grave pit in anatomical order (generally from foot to head in order). Evidence of trauma was noted on a skeletal checklist form as each bone was removed. All items were catalogued and bagged according to the numerical and pit designations assigned by the archaeologist in thefield. This information was transferred to Case File numbers assigned to each body as it was received in the morgue in the nearby city of Dohuk.
. . .

The forensic team exhumed 27 skeletons from two graves at Koreme. All 27 skeletons were male, ranging in age from early adolescent to approximately early 40s. All appeared to have suffered death by gunshot wounds.

In most of the 27 cases, detailed study of the fracture patterns in anatomical relation enabled the forensic team to determine the number of wounds suffered by each individual. Wherever possible, the forensic team also tried to establish the trajectory of the projectile.

<snip>

[LynnTheDem]

60. Those remains (26 in HRW's later report) were not part of Anfal.

Have you called up HRW's Joost Hilterman yet? The HRW guy who said no bodies from Anfal had been found yet?

While you're on the phone with him, ask him about those 26 (27) remains and how he denied they were part of Anfal.

But then you'd have to call him a "liar" and "Saddam's defense lawyer" too. ;)

[geek tragedy]

61. I have HRW's statements that these bodies were part of the Anfal

campaign. I'll take that over an informal email exchange conducted with a wingnut.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KOREME9.htm
<snip>
1. Koreme and Birjinni are Kurdish villages in Dohuk governorate that were enveloped by Iraqi army forces during August 1988 in the course of the Anfal campaign.
. . .

6. On August 28, 1988, Koreme villagers (including villagers from Chalkey), numbering between 150 and 300 men, women, and children, together with their animals, returned from an unsuccessful flight to Turkey, surrendering to an Iraqi army unit at the outskirts of Koreme village.

7. On the afternoon of August 28, 1988, two Iraqi army lieutenants in charge of the Iraqi army unit ordered a group of men and boys from Koreme to form a line and squat. They reduced the line to thirty three men and boys by removing some (apparently young boys) from the line and sending them to join their families, who were taken to a place near the village school, out of sight, but not out of earshot, of the line of men and boys.

8. One of the Iraqi army officers communicated with his headquarters in Mengish by walkie-talkie, asking for instructions on what to do with the prisoners in the line. Although there were no witnesses to the reply sent by walkie-talkie, he was apparently instructed to execute the prisoners. Evidence from other locations, e.g. the village of Mergatou, shows a similar pattern of executions on orders from local headquarters.

9. Immediately upon receiving a reply from headquarters in Mengish, the officer ordered the soldiers guarding the line of Koreme men and boys -- approximately fifteen soldiers armed with automatic rifles -- to open fire. At least seven soldiers did so, one approaching the victim line and having to reload at least once. Following several volleys of fire, several soldiers were ordered to approach the fallen men and boys, and they delivered additional shots as coups de grace into the mass of bodies.

10. Of the thirty three men and boys in the line, twenty seven died. Six survived the execution, one of whom later disappeared after being seized again by Iraqi forces.

11. The dead men and boys were left unburied for some time, and were eventually deposited in two mass graves near where they fell byIraqi soldiers. The graves were undisturbed from the time of burial to the time of exhumation by the forensic team.2
<snip>

[LynnTheDem]

64. Yes, HRW's Joost Hilterman is SUCH a total wingnut.

:rofl:

Buh bye. :)

[geek tragedy]

65. No, Jude Wanniski (who once named Paul Krugman as the most evil

man on Earth) is the wingnut.

P.S. Do you have the names of those credible human rights organizations that think there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam's regime was engaged in widespread human rights abuses?

[LynnTheDem]

67. I told you, call HRW's Joost Hilterman.

And nope, I'm not doing any more of your work for you. Go do your own research. Or not. And conclude whatever you like.

:)

[geek tragedy]

27. Link on that, please. I think you're not telling the truth. nt

[LynnTheDem]

41. The amazing thing is,

I don't care what you think. :)

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

45. Always calling me a liar. Too funny.

Joost Hilterman, HRW;

May 2002

"In fact, the graves of those who died during the Anfal campaign have not and cannot now be examined by forensic experts because they continue to be in areas under Iraqi government control; they are not in the Kurdish areas. The mass graves found and examined in the Kurdish areas are of people executed for primarily political offenses, for example membership in one of the banned Kurdish parties (before 1992). They would not contain more than a few hundred people, as far as I know.

Question: Anfal would constitute "genocide" by Iraq, on the other hand. But in your comments to me, you acknowledge there are still no bodies to be found.

Joost Hilterman, HRW: True, be we have eight survivors from the execution sites who managed to escape and were able to tell their stories. Very detailed and compelling stories, all described at length in the HRW report.

http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2497

Human Rights Watch Joost Hiltermann (Washington, DC) 1-202-371-6592

Wow! Posting the quotes from HRW's Joost Hilterman sure makes me a LIAR!

[geek tragedy]

48. I don't trust anything a rightwing crank like Jude Wanniski posts.

When HRW withdraws its own forensic reports of graves of massacre victims of the Anfal campaign in Koreme, then I'll reconsider.

[LynnTheDem]

50. So call Joost Hilterman yourself.

Or you could do some research.

NAAAAAH. You got yer beliefs and yer sticking with them, come hell or facts. ;)

And something else I find problematic with HRW reports; their language. Ever notice that? So much use of what the rightwignnuts call "knee-jerk emotional";

"like Nazi Germany, the Iraqi regime concealed its actions in euphemisms";

"the parallels (between the Holocaust and the alleged campaign against the Kurds) are apt, and often chillingly close";

"until (Lidice), there were supposedly only two possible attitudes for a conqueror toward a village that was considered rebellious."

That, and the fact that they've so often been wrong and so often have changed their own reports over & over & over again. Always downwards.

But of course you're free to believe as you will and personally attack me as you so often do. :)

[geek tragedy]

54. And you're free to continue to act like Saddam's defense lawyer.

Just don't pretend that you don't have a neutral agenda.

[LynnTheDem]

56. rotfl!!!

Any other personal attacks on me you'd care to launch? You've called me a "liar" and "Saddam's defense lawyer" far too many times already. It's boring.

I'm sure you can think up new insults to hurl at me. Hell with DU rules. ;)

:rofl:

[bicentennial_baby]

36. Crickets chirping...

"HRW themselves admit they have not found one single body from the alleged Anfal campaign."

C'mon, where's your link?

[LynnTheDem]

39. Please excuse my tardiness. I had other things to do and didn't realize

you were timing me.

[0rganism]

18. True enough, even credible sources can be mistaken

The hallmark of a credible source is that it admits its errors and revises estimates upon receiving further primary information. (As opposed to, say, cherry picking from the discredited data to construct a case for invasion...)

However, my question does not pertain to Saddam Hussein alone. There are others, e.g. Stalin or Ceausescu or Suharto, whose lives could be documented in similar detail. Of course, they aren't the dictator du jour, but we can always go back to the perennial favorite, Adolf Hitler, and ask whether Mein Kampf is literature that one who is not a professional historian might find worth reading for some reason other than prurient racist interests. I think so, but others could certainly disagree.

[LynnTheDem]

30. The problem is these credible yet mistaken several times sources

are taken as 100% absolute fact by far too many in this country.

We do not know if Hussein "mass graved" thousands (the number bush currently uses) or 300,000 (the most oft-cited rightwing pundit figure and previous bush fave) or 400,000 (bLiar's fave figure until he was forced to admit to only 5000 having been found) or the "millions" that extreme lunatics like to use.

We do not know how many of any such mass graves are filled with;

-Kurds killed by Kurds during their 30 years war against each other

-Kurds killed by Turkey, who is to this very day still killing Kurds in Iraq.

-Kurds killed by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war when most Kurds joined Saddam and the Iraqis to fight against Iran

-Kurds who fought with Iran against Iraq and were "collateral damage" or "friendly fire"

-Kurds killed by Iraqis during the war

-Anyone killed by US troops' massive bombing from 1992 until 2003 invasion in the US's illegal "no-fly zone" almost-daily bombings

-The tens of thousands of Iraqis bulldozed alive into mass graves in 1991

-The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US and coalition during the Gulf War

-The tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by the insurgency in 1991

-The tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by the Iraqi government in putting down the insurgency in 1991

-The extrajudicial killings/murders of Iraqis ordered by Hussein

-We DO KNOW about the mass graves in Baghdad and the airport that are filled with Iraqis killed by US troops during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks said 30,000 of them in the first 3 weeks of invasion.

It's not HRW's fault they are forced to keep changing their reports, but I personally won't make judgements on anyone one way or the other until the FACTS are known well enough to not need changing.

[geek tragedy]

33. I've got your facts for you:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KORAP123.htm

[LynnTheDem]

40. HRW; yes they sure were bang-on with that incubator babies atrocity.

[geek tragedy]

42. That's all you've got?

This is a forensic analysis of graves with real bodies.

You know, the ones you falsely said HRW admitted didn't exist?

[LynnTheDem]

44. Yes all 26 remains. That weren't part of Anfal.

You should just call Dr. Hilterman, HRW, and ask him if the quotes from him I posted are what he really said. You know, where he admits they've not found any bodies from Anfal.

Gee, maybe he'll say nope all lies, and you can call me a liar some more! That would really just make your week! :)

[geek tragedy]

47. The massacre at Koreme was indeed part of the Anfal campaign.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=anfal++koreme+bodies+site%3Ahrw.org&btnG=Search

[LynnTheDem]

71. HRW's Hilterman disagrees with you.

But assume he's a "liar" and a "Saddam defense lawyer"; those 26 (or 27, depends which HRW report one reads) corpses of shot Iraqis sure do prove genocide of 180,000! I betcha Hussein himself shot them. NO WAY could that have been KURDS who killed them, even though the Kurds have been slaughtering each other for 30 years. Or Turkey. Just becasue Turkey is to this day still slaughtering Kurds doesn't mean they did those unfortunate 26 (27) people.

Yep. Finding 26 (27?) corpses definitely proves the 180,000 Anfal genocide. No further proof required.

...oops wait, HRW reduced that 180,000 figure by "more than one-third"; now was that "reduced by more than one-third" of their "50,000 killed" or "reduced by more than one-third" of their "180,000" figure? Or maybe they mean "reduced by more than one-third" of an average on their "estimates of 50,000 to 180,000".

Have they again revised those figures downwards yet?

I think I'll just keep an open mind. At least until HRW comes out with a final version. Yeah I know, that's so incredibly "Saddam's defense lawyer" of me!

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

73. Can you name one credible human rights organization that isn't

convinced that Saddam was guilty of mass human rights abuses?

Just one. Go ahead. Name one. Just one. Ten seconds at the keyboard.

[LynnTheDem]

74. Repetition is also a common trait.

Yep I can name one.

With some research, so can you. :)

[geek tragedy]

75. To the best of my knowledge, after doing the research, I can't find any.

Every credible human rights organization that I know of and that has commented agrees with me.

Sorry, but you still haven't produced a single name. My claim is still uncontroverted. You can say that you know the earth is flat too, but without evidence it's just a bs claim.

[LynnTheDem]

78. I know the earth is not flat. I won't do your research for you again.

I'm tired of your constant hurling of rude insults at me. This is it, the end, no more, fini.

One of these days I'll do a post of the NGOs who disagreed with HRW's findings. I'm sure you'll see it. And equally sure you'll just launch your personal attacks on me.

Until then, you're talking to yourself, coz I think I've put up with your personal attacks far longer than anyone should reasonably expect.

:)

[geek tragedy]

81. How convenient that you choose to stop responding exactly

when I call you on an unsupportable claim.

Till then, enjoy your disagreement with the entire human rights community and your imaginary NGO's.

[TimeChaser]

4. Eh, maybe a little...

Nothing like the crap that article has, but something more along the lines of how there minds work. Similarly, I read a book about hate groups in the US because I was interested in what was wrong with those people.

BTW, I love your avatar and sig...

[0rganism]

29. Heh (ot)

> I love your avatar and sig...

Based on what's in your sig, you may be one of the few here who caught the reference. I'm working on an animated gif for my sig to replace the deprecated marquee thing, tho.

[UdoKier]

8. We are constantly fed fluff stories about Mass Murderer Dubya...

his Stepford wife and his stupid dog, so why not?

Besides, every bad thing I ever heard about Saddam was from right-wing Presidents Bush, Clinton, & Bush, so I'm not even 100% sure that all the "atrocities" he supposedly committed ever happened.

Why are we supposed to believe stories about this man from the same folks who cooked up the phony "baby incubator" stories back in 1989? People who have had an agenda of taking over Iraq and privatizing its industries for years?

I've never seen any proof that Saddam personally ever committed any atrocities, but I do know for a fact that Bush murdered thousands when he illegally invaded Iraq FOR NO DAMN REASON.

[geek tragedy]

12. Do you believe the far-right Amnesty International and Human Rights

Watch and Physicians for Human Rights?

They were denouncing Saddam back when he was Reagan's best buddy. Not their fault you weren't paying attention back then.

[UdoKier]

15. Like I said, I know for a fact what Bush has done.

Most reports of atrocities inside Iraq have been difficult to confirm, with the exception of the Kurds, but I believe many Iraqis would disagree that killing the Kurds amounted to "killing his own people". Saddam considered them an enemy of Iraq, right?. The "mass graves" were never found, at least not in the numbers the pro-war folks said there would be.

Hearing what Saddam has to say would be informative at the least. To what extent atrocities were committed, and how much he knew about them. Wasn't Uday the one who was supposed to be in charge of all the brutal stuff?


Anyway, I'm not saying that I believe Saddam to be innocent by any stretch, but just that I view any report from our government or media with a healthy skepticism.

[geek tragedy]

16. If they weren't his own people, then he should have given them their

independence. If they weren't his people, then any single act of violence against them was an act of war and aggression.

Sharon doesn't get a free pass because the people of occupied Palestine aren't "his people."

[0rganism]

23. Hypothetical: suppose George W. Bush were awaiting trial in the Hague

You say you know for a fact what Bush has done. Others allege to know for a fact what Saddam has done.

The facts, as you perceive them, are clear to you. Would you have any interest in what W's habits or opinions were, once he was in the cell?

[geek tragedy]

26. No. If he's unequivocally guilty, I don't care about his

psychological profile.

[UdoKier]

35. No, but it's only because we have had TONS of glimpses into Bush's psyche.

Saddam has been a mystery for 2 decades, a government and media-hyped monster, about whom we really know very little. I do think it's interesting to learn about him.

And when Bush finally has his day at the Hague, I will be interested in the details of who actually was the prime mover behind his decision to LIHOP 9/11, and to attack Iraq. How much did Bush actually understand what he was doing? Is he really the moronic puppet or the crazed ideologue. Cell-block intereviews from that angle would certainly be interesting. But I don't want to know any more about "the lump in the bed" or Barney.

[0rganism]

80. LOL! I feel that way too

For the "better" part of 6 years, there's been such a proliferation of W lore that it'd almost seem redundant. I'd really have to force myself to read any of the personal stuff. But I bet the Dutch would be very interested in how well he gets along with the prison guards.

For some reason, I imagine prisoner W as being pouty, uncommunicative and unkempt. But that's probably just personal bias speaking.

[lonestarnot]

13. Sadaam now bushitler's friend. LOL Friendly with the troops.

That's because we are killing more of his people than he did!

[amazona]

17. yes I am snoopy

I'm interested in everyone's bad habits. Doritos bulimia and relentless cleaning are not on my list of the most fascinating and twisted of bad habits though. I guess I was more entertained with the bald gay hooker posing as a White House Reporter we had in the news awhile back. A guy who likes to wash out his clothes a lot is just not in the same category of entertainment.

[geek tragedy]

19. If I were a psychoanalyst, sure. But I'm not, so I really don't care about

their psychological profiles. Only in seeming them brought to justice.

[Lilith Velkor]

69. I heard he wrote a romance novel

I'd read it if there were an English translation available. The very concept of a love story by Saddam Hussein is so damn creepy it's fascinating.