More Mass Graves Found

Mass Graves Found at Two Iraq Sites

By THOMAS WAGNER
.c The Associated Press

LONDON (AP) - More mass graves have been found in two new locations in Iraq, together containing at least 4,000 bodies and perhaps as many as 15,000, human rights groups and a British news report said Tuesday.

If forensic experts confirm the findings, the mass graves at Hillah and the village of Muhammed Sakran would be the largest discovered since Saddam Hussein's regime collapsed in the U.S.-led war.

Residents using tractors and, later, their hands excavated bodies this week from graves in the central Iraqi town of Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad.

In a news release Tuesday, New York-based Human Rights Watch said the United States had known about the Hillah site since early May when the mayor of the city asked for help in guarding the graves, and U.S. forces refused.

``The U.S. government has not acted on important information about mass graves in Iraq,'' said Peter Bouckaert, of Human Rights Watch in Baghdad.

``The result is desperate families trying to dig up the site themselves - disturbing the evidence for forensic experts who could professionally establish the identities of the victims.''

The British Broadcasting Corp., which showed television footage of the grisly scene, said at least 3,000 bodies were exhumed. It quoted unidentified human rights groups as saying the graves could contain 10,000 to 15,000 bodies. While Human Rights Watch confirmed the existence of the Hillah graves, it did not confirm estimates of the number of people buried there.

Another grave containing more than 1,000 Iraqis was recently found in Muhammad Sakran village, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, Human Rights Watch said.

Entifadh Qanbar, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, a London-based exile group close to the U.S. military, said Tuesday in Baghdad that four graves found in Hillah could contain about 15,000 bodies.

``The citizens of the area are excavating these sites with a great deal of sadness and absolutely no assistance,'' Qanbar said. ``Mothers and fathers are trying to identify their children by ID cards and the clothing they were last seen in.'' He called for help from U.S. civilian administrators.

The reports came a day after Iraqis pulled bodies from a newly discovered mass grave near Basra, the country's second-largest city. The site was believed to contain remains of up to 150 Shiite Muslims killed by Saddam's regime after a rebellion in 1999.

Human Rights Watch also criticized U.S. forces for not guarding the grave in Muhammad Sakran, which it said contained the remains of civilians executed by Saddam's regime in the 1980s.

The BBC said it did not know how or when the victims in the Hillah graves were killed. But it said they could have been Shiite Muslims massacred by Iraqi forces after a Shiite uprising against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War.

BBC television footage of Hillah showed a tractor quickly excavating decomposed remains of men, women and children.

Large crowds of Iraqi men and women, many of them crying, picked through the mud by hand, pulling out skulls and body parts of decayed corpses and putting them in plastic bags.

Many victims appeared to have been executed by gunshot, the BBC reported.



05/13/03 18:34 EDT

Were is the justice, the US is the justice, hope Saddam burns.

those were brave people who died against sudam and suppressed by murdering them.I bet other ppl wouldnt have the balls to fight because of the example that sudam put. I bet alot of ppl were traumatized about that. If i was there, i would of even be more pissed off and not scared.even though i would be very concerned about my family so i would of been scared. i have grief for those people who got tortured and executed in Iraq
like the saying i will always keep in mind
"Fight to die,Kill to Survive"


[Edited on 14-5-2003 by MorbidAngel2010]

Its apparent that site was chosen because it is in the Babylon Province, the location of the Ancient City.

The land was ear marked by Saddam Hussein as sacred and so it was considered a crime to even walk in that area.

Another article....


more.abcnews.go.com...

Just another case in which the USA and UK are not fulfilling their obligations as the occupying powers.

In Bosnia the UK military immediately called in the UN to archive mass graves so that those responsible could be tried.Many have been tried and found guilty on the evidence preserved by the UN.

The only cases in which the USA/UK have fulfilled their legal obligations as occupying powers was in securing oil wells and guarding the oil ministry.

I believe it would be wrong to deny that there are mass graves but in 10 years time watch out for some smart Alec asking where the proof is.The existence of these mass graves is a conspiracy theory of the future similar to those vile people who deny the holocaust and that is why everything should be done to recognise the authority of the UN in Iraq so they can chronicle these gross violations of human rights.

Or should we leave it to journalists???

John Bull the whole reason that there is a Mass grave being found today in Iraq of almost 15000 people, is because that said UN did not want us in 1990 to get rid of Saddam. Where was the UN's Legal Obligations there huh?

God you type of people make me sick.

So please take your crap elsewhere.

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by ELSFAW]

The reason there are mass graves is because of a vile dictator armed and supprted by the USA,UK,France,Russia amoung others.

The reason why the war in 1991 did not conclude in the removal of Saddam was because the UN resolution tabled by the US/UK only called for the removal of Iraqi forces fro Kuwait.

Personal attacks on me will not make you right just show you up as being immature and uneducated.

History is not something that can be redrawn just to suit your prejudices.

Think again John Bull.

Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam, not through death however, but the UN said "STOP".

I'm running into this problem of ignorance everywhere now it seems, in another thread some one just tried to say that the Iraq war was the first time in history that a war was not justified.

*shakes head*.

Will you people PLEASE actually research something before talking about it?

*Oh and don't pull that immaturity bull crap on me. You make yourself look bad by posting wrong and biased information*

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by ELSFAW]

Honestly mate, a lot of people think the Iraq war is unjustified aggression by a neo-conservative controlled superpower. Maybe you should examine why people claim that. Because if you did, you'd realise that there is substantial evidence to back up that view.

I did like the way that you ignored the history of US arming of Iraq, the fact that the US continued to deal with Saddam even after he'd launched chemical attacks on Halabja. Do you think that's similarly wrong? Who kept Saddam in power if it wasn't the US? Who allowed the Iraqi airforce overflight rights at the end of the Gulf War after encouraging a revolt against the authorities in the South of the country? Who guarded the oil ministry but allowed the museums to be ransacked and the libraries to be burned?

These things all happened, do the research, the world is not black and white.

ELSFAW,You are very arogant for a newbie.
Why don't you come back with links substantiating your assertions.
I can come back with the resolution text if you want.

How old were you in 1991?

"I'm running into this problem of ignorance everywhere now it seems, in another thread some one just tried to say that the Iraq war was the first time in history that a war was not justified."

My God!You don't say!People are disagreeing with you?
Get used to it!If you want to come play on this board expect to have to substantiate your arguments.
Other Conservatives here do and they do it with some grace and are therefore listened to.

You have the same style of debate as MT69.Perhap someone should check that out.

John Bull you bring up that resolution post haste. And find me where we did not allow all necissary materials into the country.

It's not that people disagree with me, it's that the ones who do are ignorant, such as you, claiming that we with held food or something from the Iraqi people.

It's YOUR claim you need to back up, if you can't, I'll probably have found a doccument or two to back mine up.

However like I said, you must at least attempt to prove that the US or any other nation, did not allow essential products to the Iraqi people.

You will find it, impossible to prove.

Third party websites don't count as information either, so don't waste your time with those.

Dom my point about the "justification" isn't is the war justified or not.

It's that if it wasn't justified (which we already proved it was so shut up), it still was not the FIRST case in human history as the other person claimed.

As for the other stuff see the other thread I've been in...started by Cold Anger, the "Pro-war, pro-troops" thread...there is where I discuss my feelings about the US's involvement in dealing with Iraq and Iran during their war.

I'm not an idiot, I know more history off hand then you could ever find in 1000 books had you 10 years to look through them all.

"I'm not an idiot, I know more history off hand then you could ever find in 1000 books had you 10 years to look through them all."

Yeh right! Dismissed!

The subject in hand,if anyone can remember ,is the discovery of Mass Graves in Iraq.
I have asserted that it is remiss of the occupying powers to leave the recording of these atrocities to journalists and by doing so they are weakening their strongest argument for the war,that Saddam's regime committed these crimes on a huge scale.

When somebody finally officially records these crimes there will not be the proof.

It's that if it wasn't justified (which we already proved it was so shut up), it still was not the FIRST case in human history as the other person claimed.

Hi !

I'm not an idiot

nobody has told you this on ATS

I know more history off hand then you could ever find in 1000 books had you 10 years to look through them all.

You didn' t answer to one of my prevoius question : How old are you?

Elsfaw~ On the subject of war justification, I found this for you :

www.madkane.com...Posted by Gary Huygen on March 09, 2003 at 16:29:12:

For the first time in my lifetime, America is going to attack a sovereign country before any direct and pending threat to our national security has developed. The world of "pre-emptive" war has arrived.

Granted there have been many on the fringe demonstrating against the war with Iraq. But when the Pope takes a stand against one nation invading another without justification, what are we, as American Citizens, supposed to do? Dismiss the Pope as just another pacifist nut?

As a Viet Nam Vet, I served my country, fighting a war based on a lie. The pending war with Iraq is based on nothing. I understand why people spit on me when I returned -- my country called, I went and was treated by some as the symbol of the Government Lie that started the Viet Nam War. I have moved on from that point. If more have demonstrated earlier, maybe more veterans would have come home alive and whole.

As our first ever pre-emptive war, I cannot balance my support for our military troops with their implementing this new war policy. If I don't support Bush and his Hawks, I am letting the troops down. If I support the troops, I am supporting Bush and the war.

It has been suggested I support the troops, knowing full well they are "just following orders", and not to hold the dishonor this war will bring to America against them. Do I really want to repeat a piece of brutal history, given the 200 plus years where at least America could hold its head up with honor whenever our military was sent in harm's way? I think not.

[n]As to any war being "moral", mass killing is never moral. The atrocities committed in Viet Nam are not justifiable but they were relatively isolated incidents. The entire nation of Iraq will be one giant atrocity from the first day. This is the new and improved American way of resolving our problems?

For everyone who does support the coming war with Iraq, where is your sense of honor? Where is your sense of outrage that Saudi Arabia, the home of the 9/11 hijackers, is not the target? And again, what has Iraq actually done to date that threatens the United States? If we are going to lay waste to their population, should we have at least a lame excuse, or no excuse at all? Does it not matter now that we are the lone Super Power in the world?

Does North Korea actually represent a lesser threat than Iraq? Or is Iraq just an easier conquest?

This Veteran cannot, in good conscience, support our military actions in Iraq. The target is wrong, the reason is wrong, the results will not be "honorable". And I will be damned if I will make the rationalization "they were just following orders".

Not again.

gary huygen, USN
1036 daniel drive
petaluma, ca 94954
707 762 2114

ELFSAW - It may not be the first case in history, but it certainly is the first time that I can think of since 1938 that a Western nation has attacked another country without any clear and present threat to their own country (1938 Germany->Czechoslovakia being the last example). The exception being Kosovo, but that was to prevent ethnic cleansing and a major humanitarian disaster.

Anyway, that's what makes the attack on Iraq unprecedented, and in my opinion, unjustified.

Anyway, if you could just stick to the facts, and which bit of the facts you'd like us to back up, that'll probably lead to a better debate than if you just continue to call everyone ignorant, and acuse us all of calling you an idiot.

Do you disagree with the idea that the US has played a part in the humanitarian situation in Iraq? Do you think the UN sanctions had nothing to do with the suffering of the Iraqi people?