61,000 Baghdad residents 'executed'

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Lefty Wilbury, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. Lefty Wilbury
    Offline

    Lefty Wilbury Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +36
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8110691%5E1702,00.html

    61,000 Baghdad residents 'executed'
    From correspondents in Baghdad
    December 09, 2003

    SADDAM Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained today by The Associated Press.

    The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shi'ite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.

    The survey, which the polling firm planned to release tomorrow, asked 1178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 per cent said yes.

    The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population - 6.39 million - and average household size - 6.9 people - to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.

    The US-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.


    Without exhumations of those graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure. Scientists said during a recent investigation that they have confirmed 41 mass graves on a list of suspected sites that currently includes 270 locations.

    Forensic teams will begin to exhume four of those graves next month in search of evidence for a new tribunal, expected to be established this week, that will try members of the former regime for crimes against humanity and genocide. More graves will later be added to the list.

    But nobody expects all the mass graves to be exhumed, and nobody expects to ever know the full number of Iraqis executed by their government.

    Richard Burkholder, who headed Gallup's Baghdad team, said the numbers in Baghdad could be high for two reasons: People may have understood "household" to be broader than just the people living at their address; and some families may have moved to the capital from other areas since the executions occurred.

    "Anecdotal accounts start to support it, but they don't get you to 60,000," he said in a telephone interview from Princeton, New Jersey.

    Even reducing the numbers slightly because of those possibilities, however, Burkholder said the number of executions the data suggest is higher than previously estimated, in the low tens of thousands.

    The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the "Anfal", in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert.

    Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.

    Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the US-led occupation authority's human rights office, estimated that some 50,000 others were executed during Saddam's reign, including Kurds killed in chemical attacks and political prisoners sent to execution.

    That 50,000 figure also would include prisoners killed in Baghdad.

    The survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, was conducted in face-to-face interviews in Baghdad residents' homes from August 28 and September 4.

    The people were selected at random from all geographic sectors of the Baghdad metropolitan area, and more than nine in 10 agreed to participate. That's at least double the response rate for many US telephone polls.
     
  2. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    this is reason enough for the U.S.of A and the few other brave countrys to be in the middle east right now. we should of stopped the brutal reign of saddam and co long ago. shame on us.:(
     
  3. dijetlo
    Online

    dijetlo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Hey Jon, Cuba is 90 miles away, bright sunny beaches, warm friendly people. Same thing happens every day. The difference that stands out for me is the fact the Cuba isn't sitting on the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve.
    Brave is not the adjective I'd use to describe our actions....
     
  4. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    are you to imply that castro is killing like saddam? I am sure that if castro was doing this there would not be a cuban left in cuba, they would all be in maimi! your flawed logic is right up there with a few others that use this board but your opinion is respected, how ever flawed it may be. to think that we would allow something of this nature to happen so close to our borders is pure fantasy on your part.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    so now all we have to do is define 'brutal regime'. where do we cut off the body count? 50,000? 20,000? maybe we can cut it down to 100, that would certainly qualify the US as a brutal regime as well, do you think?

    Also, did we not form this country to be independent of others? In the beginning did we not respect another sovereign countries right to rule as they see fit? When did the US change its policy of enforcing benevolent rule throughout the world? It certainly wasnt during the nicaraguan conflict. We certainly don't support all democracies, legitimate ones anyway.

    Do we need to amend the constitution of the united states so that we can correct injustice everywhere?
     
  6. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    if we dont care, who will??? also this isnt the 1700's and times have changed even from the nicaraguan conflict. While I am not calling for open season on below par regimes per se, would it not appear that almost all terrorism seems to be rooted in 'sub-standard' countrys where these below par regimes flourish? While I dont claim to have all or even one answer, idly standing by and watching this country come under attack is not in my playbook, nor is it an option!
     
  7. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    admirable, but I daresay thats why the league of nations and later the UN, was founded, was it not? To not only contain less than hospitable regimes and protect/provide for those civilians as they work to change the regime?

    and obviously our thinking patterns haven't. we still havent gotten the idea that force doesn't solve all our problems.

    Most terrorism comes from sub-standard countries because these people feel like they have nothing left to lose. Its not necessarily attributed to the ironfisted rule of its leaders, but how economically disadvantaged these people are. Case in point is Palestine. While there is Hamas that has latched on to the BS ideology of no peace, most of its volunteer bombers come from economic disadvantage. If these people were given opportunity to change that via honest and lawful means then there would be much less volunteers.

    Are you saying that we should only change those regimes who allow terrorists that attack the US while those that attack others (chechnya) can do fine without our assistance?
     
  8. Lefty Wilbury
    Offline

    Lefty Wilbury Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +36
    we intervened in bosnia and kosovo for far less.
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    But we did so at NATO's request, did we not? Is that not supporting our european allies request as well as a humanitarian gesture?

    I'm not suggesting that we abandon humanitarian ideas but we cannot be the worlds policemen unless every country on the planet wishes to help us, either financially or with personnel and equipment. Unilateral choices to change the leadership of countries who's methods we don't agree with makes us little better than the romans or egyptians.
     
  10. Lefty Wilbury
    Offline

    Lefty Wilbury Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +36
    in the case of bosnia we went as the un as for kosovo it was clinton pushing us into it. at first he wanted the un in on it but russia threated a veto so we said we would go it alone then nato hoped on board literally at the last minute. it was the first time nato went on the offensive in it's history.
     

Share This Page