Skip to comments.The Missing People Shredder
Posted on 02/27/2004 6:56:37 AM PST by alpowolf
click here to read article
What do you need to refute? In a post 9/11 world, the planet is too small for the likes of Saddam. He didnt comply with orders from the civilized community, and he got his ass kicked. He was a monster on a par with Stalin and Hitler, who cares whats found and what is isnt? I saw the videos of trussed up people being tossed of roofs alive. Videos have been found with Qusay and his rape victims. Its amazing people still seek justification for our making the world a better place..
It's amazing how easily you fall for the Bush propaganda machine.
Don't you know those mass graves were planted at the end of the first war to justify our invasion the second time. See how easy it is for the Bush war machine to manipulate the teeming masses of sycophants. Sheesh.
< removing tongue from cheek >
For the record, these 'people' are ideologues, or outright enemies of America, or simply those mean-spirited who would never spit if they thought it would do anyone some good.
Permission has been granted, by Ann Clwyd, covering website/wireless file distribution, republication, translation of "See men shredded, then say you don't back war" by Ann Clwyd, published in TIMES OF LONDON, March 18, 2003 by our Public Diplomacy offices and in the local press outside the United States.
See Men Shredded, Then Say You Don't Back War
By Ann Clwyd
Labour MP for Cynon Valley
"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 [President Saddam Hussein's youngest son] 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.
For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam's Iraq.
Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq -- which some people still claim are illegal -- the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.
For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?
All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.
I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.
Actually, propaganda can be something that is factually TRUE as well. There were eyewitness accounts about the shredders from multiple sources. That is "evidence". Maybe not hard enough for you, but what can you expect in a country like Saddams Iraq?
Sure, there are a thousand different conceivable scenarios that would explain why there is no evidence. But that is true of virtually any assertion.
But there were eyewitness accounts, its not just an assertion. What made them believable is that people KNEW the nature of Saddams regime. Its like, if another woman had said that Clinton had an affair with her, and she had a friend that corroborated the story, one might tend to believe it because of Clintons KNOWN nature.
I could claim that Bush did indeed plant the shredder; what would you do? Demand proof of course. As you should.
Well sure, just show how he traveled back in time. Show me a few witnesses who saw him back in 1996 in Iraq..
People making reports of such does in fact = "evidence". What do you mean by "without evidence"?
Let's posit the shredding machine never is found. Do you concede that the tales of tongues and limbs being hacked off before crowds has been thoroughly documented via videotape that has been shown on tv? If the machine story turns out to be a hyperbolic invention from desperate people in order to get us in to help them from atrocities that were beyond any doubt occurring, do you then say we went in under false pretenses because one form of torture on the list of many documented did not exist?
SOURCE: In-denial Media
Ann Clwyd Iraq mass grave a staged photo-op
Tom Young, 12.12.2003 00:20
Ann Clwyd, the British politician who most strongly pushed the humanitarian case for war is shown posing in front of what is a manufactured mass grave photo-op
Note: this article draws no conclusions about human rights in Iraq and under Saddam Hussein. Or the extent of mass killings that took place. It solely concerns the ethics of British left wing politician Ann Clwyd.
Fresh from asserting in Parliament the truth rumours of prisoners in Iraq being fed head or feet first into plastic shredders, Ann Clwyd visited Iraq in the aftermath of the war. Returning to Parliament in tears she claimed that she personally had counted 10000 remains removed from a mass grave.
10 000 takes a while to count. In anycase it turns out that the site she visited had in fact yielded fewer than 3000 graves.
But a news photo found on the USinfo site casts doubt on Ann Clwyd's claim to have seen any bodies at all.
Ann Clwyd has shown standing at site, with a hillside in the background strewn with white plastic sacks. The viewer is invited to make the connection that these sacks contain human remains.
However, the sacks are both too bulky, the wrong shape and to be filled to the brim, to contain anything but sand or earth or some particulate matter. They appear to have been strewn across the hillside, quickly and at random, and have no indication of actually being excavated from anywhere.
The photo bears all signs of being a hurriedly constructed scene to provide a visiting politician with a nice photo-op. What does this say about the sincerity of Ann Clwyd and her views on the importance of human rights abuses and victims? What an utterly cynical display.
You've got me there, that is correct. I should have said "bullshit". For that's what it is sans evidence.
There were eyewitness accounts about the shredders from multiple sources.
Sources with an axe to grind--for example read the article posted in #28 by another poster. That person and her org plainly went into the exercise with the object of emotionally swaying people to their cause.
Maybe not hard enough for you, but what can you expect in a country like Saddams Iraq?
No, not hard enough for me. What can I expect? That anyone who asserts it as fact can back it up. If they can't they should make that clear.
I will concede that the story is believable. But that's not the same thing.
Interesting that someone finally brought up Clinton. I remember how people went over every little lie he and his sycophants told; and I thought that was a good thing. I remember people saying that they were doing it because the truth matters; because letting lies go unchallenged corrodes the moral fabric of society. I agree. So why have so many people abandoned that standard? Did they really mean it when they said it? I am increasingly coming to doubt it.
Yes. I never said otherwise.
If the machine story turns out to be a hyperbolic invention from desperate people in order to get us in to help them from atrocities that were beyond any doubt occurring, do you then say we went in under false pretenses because one form of torture on the list of many documented did not exist?
We went in under false pretense because a govt torturing its citizens is not a legitimate casus belli. We went in under the pretense of a threat to United States security. I seem to remember a politician saying that we are not the world's 9-1-1. Who was that....hmmm...I think his name was Bush.
No doubt, but believable because of what we knew about him.
That anyone who asserts it as fact can back it up. If they can't they should make that clear.
I actually agree with you, and now that, apparently, they cannot back it up, they should admit to it, but thats a long way from saying it was nothing but some propaganda lie.
I remember people saying that they were doing it because the truth matters; because letting lies go unchallenged corrodes the moral fabric of society. I agree. So why have so many people abandoned that standard? Did they really mean it when they said it? I am increasingly coming to doubt it.
There are lies, and there are mistakes, I don't see what is so difficult for some to see the difference. Clintons "lies" (I am not a Clinton hater BTW), were things that he knew for a fact were false. He bombed a Somali medicine factory based on faulty intelligence. That was not a lie (as far as I can tell that is). I just dont see the need to introduce boogymen into these arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.