Report details 'industrial' killing of 11,000 in Assad jails

Yahoo/Reuters ^

[cunning_fish]

>>>In the press coverage of the Saudi intel chief and his meeting with Putin, he pointed to Egypt as the example. They would use the jihadists as a battering ram against Assad but they would not be allowed to rule. He implied that the military coup that removed Morsi was their idea and is what would ultimately happen in Syria if the jihadists won. Do I believe that?

Can you trust the Saudis? Meanwhile, the battering ram is slaughtering Christians.<<<

Do you really think Egypt is pro-Saudi now? Prince Bandar is an opportunist, trying to make a bitter defeat to look like a victory. Every two-bit Egyptian anti-Morsi protester is able to connect dots between MB, AQ, Saudis and Obama.
And who the hug is about to be an obstacle to a jihadist rule once they have an upper hand? Assad’s regime and alikes were that obstacles since WWII, after the British left the area. Not the Saudis for sure. Saudi position is pretty much complicated to say the least. Their central idea in factual support of jihadis is to look like their own and deflect possible jihadi wrath from the Saudi royals.
They are pretty comfortable as soon as Arabs are busy to blame the Jews, America and Russia for their misery, instead of Arab ruling class.
IMO, Saudis went too far but result is still not guaranteed for them.

[cunning_fish]

The Nayirah testimony was the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[1] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country. An ABC report found that "patients, including premature babies, did die, when many of Kuwait's nurses and doctors...fled" but Iraqi troops "almost certainly had not stolen hospital incubators and left hundreds of Kuwaiti babies to die."[2][3] In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern wartime propaganda.[4][5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

[dfwgator]

Yep, I have come to the conclusion that the first Gulf War was a colossal mistake.

Especially in the end, since we left Saddam in power, who from that point on vowed revenge against the US, and ultimately led to the second Iraq war to remove him.

Up to the First Gulf War, while he was a bad guy, he served as a buffer against the Iranians.

[cunning_fish]

>>>Up to the First Gulf War, while he was a bad guy, he served as a buffer against the Iranians.<<<

Not only he was a buffer against Iranians, he was also a buffer against Sunni radicals, known as Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood.

The latter was probably a real reason of the Gulf War. Religious Arabs couldn’t stand it and joined their efforts to suck US into it.

It short, Saddam was a model secular dictator aimed to behead islamists of all colors.

Assad is similar in many ways but he is not in the same league. He also depends on Iranians for survival and for that reason only useful against Sunni terrorists, not the Shia ones.

[Paul R.]

The Nayirah testimony... was propaganda, true, but had nothing to do with the real reason to move against Saddam Hussein.

The real reason was that Saddam Hussein stood to end up with control, either direct or effective, of most of the Middle Eastern oil supply. 23 years ago, that was a much bigger deal than it would be today.

I suppose one can make the argument that if the US truly was an "Imperialist" power, we should allied even more closely with Saddam, say in return for leaving Israel alone. That would have given US defacto control of all that oil. But Saddam was such an unreliable, despicable sort, that it never would have worked for long.

[cunning_fish]

You are right. Testimony was instrumental in a way to form a public opinion against Saddam, because a few people could buy this war as straight as you described it.

Anyway, Middle East is not any better place right now and I think it made sense to seek leverage and keep Saddam in place.

It could have solved numerous problems, including muzzie terrorist threat.

[wiggen]

normally i find people here way too quick to be skeptical of a story, a report or claim in which the findings oppose what they believe. This story however, the numbers make little sense and they help vindicate Obama’s interference.

[Elsie]

Yet he captured the camera's attention.

Why make up a thousand word lie, when one photo will work better?

[Elsie]

So many wars; so few rumors of war...

[gr8eman]

This seems like agitprop...why not make it 10 BILLION people tortured? Those photos could have been taken anywhere, -possibly by the “rebels”.

[NFHale]

“...Every time we’ve removed a strongman in the mideast the country has collapsed into an endless cycle of violence with Christians taking the brunt of it...”

Good point.

[eleni121]

No credibility in this report.

[istandwithsarah]

Much of US foreign policy in recent years is working towards restoring the caliphate that was abolished in 1924.