(WOT) Now the "mass graves" in Iraq an admitted fabrication?

imaginative

keep your eye on the ball
Really, I'm somewhat floored that this is now being revealed. Can anyone verify the truth of this story?


PM admits graves claim 'untrue'

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday July 18, 2004
The Observer

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

The admission that the figure has been hugely inflated follows a week in which Blair accepted responsibility for charges in the Butler report over the way in which Downing Street pushed intelligence reports 'to the outer limits' in the case for the threat posed by Iraq.

Downing Street's admission comes amid growing questions over precisely how many perished under Saddam's three decades of terror, and the location of the bodies of the dead.

The Baathist regime was responsible for massive human rights abuses and murder on a large scale - not least in well-documented campaigns including the gassing of Halabja, the al-Anfal campaign against Kurdish villages and the brutal repression of the Shia uprising - but serious questions are now emerging about the scale of Saddam Hussein's murders.

It comes amid inflation from an estimate by Human Rights Watch in May 2003 of 290,000 'missing' to the latest claims by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, that one million are missing.

At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies. Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected.

While some sites have contained hundreds of bodies - including a series around the town of Hilla and another near the Saudi border - others have contained no more than a dozen.

And while few have any doubts that Saddam's regime was responsible for serious crimes against humanity, the exact scale of those crimes has become increasingly politicised in both Washington and London as it has become clearer that the case against Iraq for retention of weapons of mass destruction has faded.

The USAID website, which quotes Blair's 400,000 assertion, states: 'If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.'

It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research - admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'

A further difficulty, according to Inforce, a group of British forensic experts in mass grave sites based at Bournemouth University who visited Iraq last year, was in the constant over-estimation of site sizes by Iraqis they met. 'Witnesses were often likely to have unrealistic ideas of the numbers of people in grave areas that they knew about,' said Jonathan Forrest.

'Local people would tell us of 10,000s of people buried at single grave sites and when we would get there they would be in multiple hundreds.'

A Downing Street spokesman said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq.'


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html
 
It's just like.........

Serbia! They claimed Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were the victims of Genocide....So we I.E the U.N. go in and destroy a viable country,Serbia!

Come to find out,It was feuding between Villages and their murdering each other...Tit for tat stuff....No thousands of Mass graves!

And oh yeah,The troops will be home for Christmas,They say for the Dozenth time!!!!!out of Bosnia!! Damn the pubilc is Stupid!
 

imaginative

keep your eye on the ball
It really is a lot like Serbia. Difference there was the fact that we were arming and assisting the Muslims. Ironic, huh? I guess that was the truth's flavor of the day.

A prescient article from Dr Steven Pelletiere written in Jan of 2003. And for those so inclined, don't waste your time trying to discredit Pelletiere. Ever since the incident in which the Kurds were gassed, Pelletiere has maintainted that the evidence pointed to Iranian- not Iraqi- complicity...



A War Crime or an Act of War?

By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html
 

freebyrd

Membership Revoked
yes your being manipulated and lied to, and i for one am getting tired of people posting these articles going like..oh my god could this possibly be true, i just can't believe that authority figures would bend the truth to suit there political agenda...my world is falling down around me :bwl:

a great majority of the bodies discovered in iraq were casualties of the iran iraq war, they had set up an exchange program to deliver there k.i.a.'s to each other,
but thats a little to much for people to hear or believe,

so let me set the record straight, the british papers are little more than tabloid rags masquerading as legetimate newspapers they have as much credibility as al jazeera, andbody listening to them or any other media outside the united states is a dangerous subversive and probably working for al queda,(ooops, forgoth the little sarcasm emoticon..here you go :rolleyes:
freebyrd
 
Last edited:

easy me

Inactive
During the first Iraq war the last Bush administration paid a Public Relation's firm $10,000,000 to come up with thing's that would pull at American's heartstrings.Remember the line of BS they came up with back then ? The babies being pulled from incubator's in Kuwait and being thrown to the floor so the Iraqi's could take the incubator's to Iraq.Turned out to be nothing but bullshit back then so it would'nt surprise me if what they are saying now about mass graves is bullshit too.
 

Atossa

Membership Revoked
freebyrd said:
so let me set the record straight, the british papers are little more than tabloid rags masquerading as legetimate newspapers they have as much credibility as al jazeera,
and anybody listening to them or any other media
outside the united states is a dangerous subversive
and probably working for al queda
,

freebyrd


:lol: :sb:
 

D_el

Veteran Member
"As long as the media and the Bush administration is talking and their lips are moving, they are lying!!! "
*****************************************

That's an interesting statement inasmuch as, for the most part, the media takes great delight in bashing Bush. Now, logically, if Bush were to lie, wouldn't the media have a field day? But wait! If the media is lying too, that means everything they say is false. Right? And if Bush is lying and the media is lying and everything both sides say is a lie, then doesn't the above statement contradict itself in principle if not in fact as well?

That ought to give you a headache. :lol:

D_el

apologies for the thread drift.
 
Last edited:

Caplock50

I am the Winter Warrior
Please re-read the article in the orginal post here. It **DID NOT** deny the fact that there are mass graves...just the number of bodies in those mass graves. And they **ARE NOT** talking about the KIA exchange program bodies either. The world news org's. reported that as soon as they could when they were found, way back when. Pay attention folks. You're getting things all screwed up.
 

sassy

Veteran Member
Thank you caplock. Your right.

What difference would it make? If it were "only" 5,000 or if it were 5 million?

Mass graves speak for themselves.....

An Iraqi website that was set up to post pics etc regarding the mass graves and can be found here........

http://massgraves.info/

56 pages...

take a look
 

fairbanksb

Freedom Isn't Free
easy me said:
During the first Iraq war the last Bush administration paid a Public Relation's firm $10,000,000 to come up with thing's that would pull at American's heartstrings.Remember the line of BS they came up with back then ? The babies being pulled from incubator's in Kuwait and being thrown to the floor so the Iraqi's could take the incubator's to Iraq.Turned out to be nothing but bullshit back then so it would'nt surprise me if what they are saying now about mass graves is bullshit too.

And Iraq never invaded Kuwait...
:zzz:
 

Atossa

Membership Revoked
You can thank the Brits for Kuwait.

Like father, like child, always messing
around in someone else's business.
 

Oilpatch Hand

3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
So, even though Saddam Hussein was liquidating thousands of his own citizens every year, he at least had the decency to give each one his or her own grave, rather than consigning all to one or a series of "mass graves."

Thanks...that's a relief! For a while I was starting to think that Saddam was some kind of bad guy. You know, the kind that would save on grave space by grinding up his political opponents in woodchippers. :lol:
 

sassy

Veteran Member
easy me said:
During the first Iraq war the last Bush administration paid a Public Relation's firm $10,000,000 to come up with thing's that would pull at American's heartstrings.Remember the line of BS they came up with back then ? The babies being pulled from incubator's in Kuwait and being thrown to the floor so the Iraqi's could take the incubator's to Iraq.Turned out to be nothing but bullshit back then so it would'nt surprise me if what they are saying now about mass graves is bullshit too.


Easy Me: you would not be surprise if the mass graves were bullshit?

Tell that to the Iraqis and our Soldiers.
 
Last edited:

Atossa

Membership Revoked
Those are photos of dead bodies...

Neither me nor you know WHO they are
or how they got there !!
 

Charlie

Membership Revoked
Gee.....didn't I read somewhere that the WWII Jewish Holicaust did not take place either? Hummmmmmm........darn........they fooled us again! (sarcasm off)
 
Top