Remember this? See men shredded, then say you don't back war - March 18, 2003

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article1120757.ece

By Ann Clwyd

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay personally supervise these murders.”

This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks.

Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.”

The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.


Do you also remember it was all bullshit?

[sniffa]

1. i remember the anime they did for it

to show a cartoon iraqi faLLing into the cartoon shredder.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Never Remember!

The new rallying cry of the 'progressive' blogosphere.

[bryant69]

3. Ah so when I see pictures of Gays being executed in Iran I should assume it is bullshit?

For the record I oppose any military intervention in Iran. And if you say that I do support military intervention in Iran I will be forced to call you an asshole.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NNN0LHI]

4. I have no idea of knowing whether you do or don't support military intervention in Iran

We are on an anonymous chat board. How could I know?

So anyone who suggests that I have some way of knowing whats really inside their mind from this vantage point is actually the real asshole.

Don

[bryant69]

5. Hmmmmmmm.

I'm pretty sure in any conversation with you I will turn out to be the asshole, but let's see if I can unpack this.

I think the President of Iran is a bad guy; I think he's doing a lot of bad things. And I'm not afraid to say so.

To some people that means I'm supporting Cheney, that I want to bomb Iran.

Those people would say "So why do you want to bomb Iran?" or something similar. (Some guy with indiana in his name went around doing it all day yesterday).

If you were to follow their lead and accuse me of supporting bombing Iran, than I would call you an asshole. If on the other hand, you didn't, I would not call you an asshole.

Is that clear enough for you?

Incidentally if we are all honest actors (and I appreciate that you might not see me as an honest actor) than me saying I don't support bombing Iran should be enough to convince you I don't want to bomb Iran.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DeepModem Mom]

17. When you say "you," who ARE you addressing? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

10. However you could be unwittingly enabling that war.

Which is the point. Did you notice that the Bush administration would probably like to go bomb the crap out of Iran? Do you think it is any coincidence that we are having this mess here on DU at the same time that Washington is pushing for a resolution of its fake nukular crisis in Iran?

[Kelly Rupert]

12. Just like people pointing out Bush's failings were

"unwittingly enabling the terrorists." Take your false dichotomies and stuff them.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. It might be a false argument but it ain't a dichotomy.

My argument here is to avoid inadvertently getting on the War Party Bomb Iran Bandwagon by joining in the current hate-Ahmadinejad festival. The point is not that all criticism of Ahmadinejad is support for War with Iran, it is that right now at this point in time the regime in Washington is in fact pushing for a military intervention in Iran and now is not a good time to help that effort by demonizing Ahmadinejad. If there is a dichotomy there, false or otherwise, please share what it is.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Sure there is, and you see it all the time.

Bush did it to great success with his "With us or with the terrorists" garbage; people were afraid to dissent for fear of "helping the terrorists." That's simply false; one can easily be against both.

This is the same with-or-against-Bush argument--according to you, you may either turn a blind eye to Ahmadinejad's failings, or you are on the War Party Bomb Iran Bandwagon. Again, that's simply false; you can easily be against both M.A. and war against Iran, as most DUers are.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Sorry but that is not my argument.

Once again, I am not saying that criticism of Ahmadinejad is support for war with Iran, I am saying that right now is not a good time to join in the hate fest. Don't turn a blind eye, turn a critical eye and ask "is Iran worse that all of the regimes we support in the region?" and if the answer to that is "no, we support regimes that are just as despicable as Iran if not worse", then you have to also ask "why Ahmadinejad, why now?" and when I ask that question the answer I get is "the Bush administration is beating the war drums again". Helping them in that effort is not a good idea.

[LSK]

14. tell me what you have done to independently verify those pictures?

[Javaman]

6. So perhaps the rallying cry for the war should have been for human rights...

and not fake WMD's. I could have worked with that, but if you recall, the human rights issue was low in the totem pole. Everyone was hell bent on going after fictitious mobile chem labs.

And if this horrible act is your reason for justifying the war, then why don't we invade Uzbekistan, the leader there loved to boil people alive. And this same leader was one of our "friends" and had a number of dark sites where moron* would send "terrorists" to be disappeared?

If you are going to point fingers make sure you point them far and wide. The only difference between those we invade and those we don't is how much oil a particular country has.

[electron_blue]

7. I'm confused. Are you saying those stories were all made up?

[angstlessk]

9. Actually they shredded the babies they threw out of the incubators

in Kuwait..remember THAT story? IT TOO WAS ALL BULLSHIT!

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Some of the more absurd were in fact made up.

Yes Saddam's regime was a brutal military dictatorship. In 2002 its activities did not constitute the level of crimes against humanity that would have justified the carnage that would obviously ensue from a military intervention. That level of activities occurred during the Iran-Iraq war when Iraq was essentially our proxy against Iran, and in the aftermath of Gulf Farce I when we green-lit the regime's repression of the shiite south after first encouraging those same shiites to rebel against the Baath regime. We have been up to our elbows in mesopotamian bloodletting for at least the last 20 years; our using that as an excuse for more war making is a sick farce.

[hedgehog]

8. So, it's better if we do the torture because we don't leave marks?

What was done to Jose Padilla (interrogating him 20 some hours a day for several months) is as horrific as these stories, just not as bloody.

[LSK]

13. the machines were shipped to Syria along with the WMD

:crazy: