Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [b]Babies found in Iraqi mass grave[/b]

    A US investigator said bodies were bulldozed into the graves
    A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.
    US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

    The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

    They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
    Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick

    "It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," Greg Kehoe, an American working with the IST, told reporters in Hatra, south of the city of Mosul.

    "Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take bodies up there, and to take people up there and execute them."

    The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead.


    One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men.

    The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face.

    "The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said US investigating anthropologist P Willey.

    "Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."

    Mr Kehoe investigated mass graves in the Balkans for five years but those burials mainly involved men of fighting age and the Iraqi finds were quite different, he said.

    "I've been doing grave sites for a long time, but I've never seen anything like this, women and children executed for no apparent reason," he said.

    Iraq's Kurds are hoping for justice at last. Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

    The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

    "We're trying to meet international standards that have been accepted by courts throughout the world," he added.

    "We're putting a package together on each body removed - pictures of bones, clothes, a forensic report."

    Iraq's human rights ministry has reportedly identified 40 possible mass graves across the country.

    The dig at Hatra, where a makeshift morgue has been erected, is due to be completed on Wednesday.

    [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm[/url]

  2. #2
    Iraq may or may not have been better under Saddam...

    is America better off with George Bush?

    with a staggeringly low approval rating of 47% it doesn't seem like the American people want him back for another term...

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 11:03 AM
    [b] Iraq may or may not have been better under Saddam...

    is America better off with George Bush?

    with a staggeringly low approval rating of 47% it doesn't seem like the American people want him back for another term... [/b][/quote]
    what's funny is the CNN poll is the only one that has the President's JA approval under 50%...and that's only after Moveon.org complained about the way they (CNN) did there polling....

    All but two others have his JA% over 50 the past month:

    [url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_ja.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html[/url]

    Further...this just proves how pathetic kerri is.

  4. #4
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 12:03 PM
    [b] Iraq may or may not have been better under Saddam...

    is America better off with George Bush?

    with a staggeringly low approval rating of 47% it doesn't seem like the American people want him back for another term... [/b][/quote]
    Americans are ABSOLUTELY better off with George Bush. Don't drink the Kerry/Edwards/Moore koolaid.

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 11:47 AM
    [b] [b]Babies found in Iraqi mass grave[/b]

    The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

    They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
    Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick

    [/b][/quote]
    Kerry and Edwards will downplay the number of deaths here since some of these bodies "technically" never delevoped enough to be considered human individuals. So, Saddam Hussein wasn't really all THAT bad. *rolls eyes*

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,262
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 12:03 PM
    [b] Iraq may or may not have been better under Saddam...

    is America better off with George Bush?

    [/b][/quote]
    Nice analogy Bit...

    ehh, forget it, I'm not going to get worked up over a remark that is so ridiculous it's comical. How people end up thinking like you are right now is beyond me.

  7. #7
    come back you are in denial

    go to google news and type in

    "Bush approval rating 47"

    you will get about 800 hits my friend. I think the poll was gallup and it's an actual poll. :lol:

    running for the hills! may the delusions never end!!!

    :lol:

  8. #8
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:00 PM
    [b] come back you are in denial

    go to google news and type in

    "Bush approval rating 47"

    you will get about 800 hits my friend. I think the poll was gallup and it's an actual poll. :lol:

    running for the hills! may the delusions never end!!!

    :lol: [/b][/quote]
    Gallop IS the CNN poll.

  9. #9
    iraq was safer under saddam..YEs..I'd take a weaponless (which he was) saddam over the mess it is now..
    WE didn't go to iraq to save babies!
    go to sudan if you want to save babies..
    let's invade China..their human rights abuses are terrible too...

  10. #10
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:11 PM
    [b] iraq was safer under saddam [/b][/quote]
    This is the most asinine statement I've yet to read on this board. I can't even respond.
    On the rest, though... Saddam did NOT have weapons, but all intelligence that our country had as well as the intelligence from Russia and Great Britain said he did. Bush AND Kerry both agreed that going into Iraq was the right thing to do given this information... poor as it may have been.

  11. #11
    WRONG!
    Kerry agreed to give the president the RIGHT to use troops..NOT to rush to war..
    INspectors were finding NOTHING..That's is why it was time to act! That's is why Bush gave saddam 48 hours to leave..The war descision was made loooong before that..
    SO Yes..I'll take a weaponless saddm over the current mess..The inspectors were telling Bush that Iraq didn't have any wmds..I knew there was no real qeada links...So if Saddam kept 60% of the radical shiites in check that is good! If he kept Iraq (which isn't even really a country) together that is good.,...


    America is safer with a stable iraq than it is with an iraq that resembles afghanistan circa 96!
    bottom line is that was was a HUGE mistake. People died for no reason other the securing oil contracts..

  12. #12
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:25 PM
    [b] WRONG!
    Kerry agreed to give the president the RIGHT to use troops..NOT to rush to war..
    INspectors were finding NOTHING..That's is why it was time to act! That's is why Bush gave saddam 48 hours to leave..The war descision was made loooong before that..
    SO Yes..I'll take a weaponless saddm over the current mess..The inspectors were telling Bush that Iraq didn't have any wmds..I knew there was no real qeada links...So if Saddam kept 60% of the radical shiites in check that is good! If he kept Iraq (which isn't even really a country) together that is good.,...


    America is safer with a stable iraq than it is with an iraq that resembles afghanistan circa 96!
    bottom line is that was was a HUGE mistake. People died for no reason other the securing oil contracts.. [/b][/quote]
    Hey... it's KERRY who said it... not me. The inspectors found nothing - true. But they didn't tell him there weren't any there... they only said they hadn't found any yet. Saddam continued to give the inspectors the run around... stalling stalling stalling. he was given the untilmatum. Let the inspectors have free reign to search or else. He chose to get his ass handed to him. Saddam kept the radical Shiites in check only because he was fine with harboring extremists like Al Zarqawi. I strongly disagree... and so does Kerry... that Saddam Hussein was dangerous.

  13. #13
    he wasn't harboring zarqawi..Zarqawi operated in Iraqui Kurdisstan with ansar al islamia...Their goal was to overthow saddam..And zarqawi is ONE man..Zarqawi was against the Jordanian govet and WAS NOT a qeada luitenant nor was even even known to us prior to 2002....
    there are a looot of bad guys living in NYC..Does that mean that Bloomberg is harboring them?

    I am not saying Kerry is great..I was against the iraqui invasion in 01-02-03-04 and I will continue to think that it complete BS that has made us more vulnerable.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Enrique Pallazzo+Oct 13 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Enrique Pallazzo &#064; Oct 13 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:25 PM
    [b] WRONG&#33;
    Kerry agreed to give the president the RIGHT to use troops..NOT to rush to war..
    INspectors were finding NOTHING..That&#39;s is why it was time to act&#33; That&#39;s is why Bush gave saddam 48 hours to leave..The war descision was made loooong before that..
    SO Yes..I&#39;ll take a weaponless saddm over the current mess..The inspectors were telling Bush that Iraq didn&#39;t have any wmds..I knew there was no real qeada links...So if Saddam kept 60% of the radical shiites in check that is good&#33; If he kept Iraq (which isn&#39;t even really a country) together that is good.,...


    America is safer with a stable iraq than it is with an iraq that resembles afghanistan circa 96&#33;
    bottom line is that was was a HUGE mistake. People died for no reason other the securing oil contracts.. [/b][/quote]
    Hey... it&#39;s KERRY who said it... not me. The inspectors found nothing - true. But they didn&#39;t tell him there weren&#39;t any there... they only said they hadn&#39;t found any yet. Saddam continued to give the inspectors the run around... stalling stalling stalling. he was given the untilmatum. Let the inspectors have free reign to search or else. He chose to get his ass handed to him. Saddam kept the radical Shiites in check only because he was fine with harboring extremists like Al Zarqawi. I strongly disagree... and so does Kerry... that Saddam Hussein was dangerous. [/b][/quote]
    You know whats dangerous is the thought that Saddam may have had the cowbell in his possesion. Imagine if the cowbell fell into the hands of Al Queda.

    The world can&#39;t handle more cowbell.

  15. #15
    the war based on imagination is the ultimate sign of Human stupidity&#33;
    "Just imaginge if in 30 years Saddam were to give a terrorist a weapon..just imagine it&#33;"
    I am surprised Cheney hasn&#39;t used that argument against Chirac yet&#33;

    "OK..everybody close their eyes and image France giving bin laden the bomb&#33;"

    Lets go..if they say it enough times (like bush/cheney mentioned saddam about 500 times) I bet 50% of americans would embrace it&#33;

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    If Zarquawi (sp?) weren&#39;t in Iraq right now leading the anti-Coalition and anti-Iraqi government insurgency...what do you think he&#39;d be doing?

  17. #17
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:58 PM
    [b] [/QUOTE]
    You know whats dangerous is the thought that Saddam may have had the cowbell in his possesion. Imagine if the cowbell fell into the hands of Al Queda.

    The world can&#39;t handle more cowbell. [/b][/quote]
    BWAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
    Oh I&#39;ve got FEVA&#33; and the only prescription is more COWBELL&#33;

  18. #18
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:56 PM
    [b] he wasn&#39;t harboring zarqawi..Zarqawi operated in Iraqui Kurdisstan with ansar al islamia...Their goal was to overthow saddam..And zarqawi is ONE man..Zarqawi was against the Jordanian govet and WAS NOT a qeada luitenant nor was even even known to us prior to 2002....
    there are a looot of bad guys living in NYC..Does that mean that Bloomberg is harboring them?

    I am not saying Kerry is great..I was against the iraqui invasion in 01-02-03-04 and I will continue to think that it complete BS that has made us more vulnerable. [/b][/quote]
    In that region people ally themselves with whomever can help them out at the time... ok that sort of goes for a lot of people in general in this world. They&#39;re opportunists. Yes, he was against Hussein, but then when looking for a place to go to he was welcomed by Hussein and given safe harbor to deal as he pleased. He is one man, but he&#39;s not acting alone.
    Bloomberg hasn&#39;t welcomed anyone bad and every mayor in America hopefully has his/her city&#39;s best interest at heart. Bloomberg has told no one (to my knowledge) to look the other way when it comes to that "loot of bad guys."

  19. #19
    [img]http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/GraveEvidence-X.gif[/img]

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Oct 13 2004, 01:25 PM
    [b] INspectors were finding NOTHING..That&#39;s is why it was time to act&#33; That&#39;s is why Bush gave saddam 48 hours to leave..

    America is safer with a stable iraq than it is with an iraq that resembles afghanistan circa 96&#33;
    bottom line is that was was a HUGE mistake. People died for no reason other the securing oil contracts.. [/b][/quote]
    There were no inspectors in Iraq just before the war, and hadn&#39;t been for years. And they didn&#39;t say there were no weapons, they said they hadn&#39;t found any because they went on guided tours, only where Hussein would let them go. All in violation of the UN. They also stated that Hussein repeatedly declined their invitations to prove he had gotten rid of the weapons he had in his possession.

    Don&#39;t let facts get in your way.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us