Saddam's Mass Murders: 1.5 Million...and counting!

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:09 pm

Saddam's Mass Murders: 1.5 Million...and counting!

Postby 8x57 » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:01 pm)

Although this subject seems a little off topic, on the eve of the "war crimes trial" of Saddam and the assumption that his guilt is a foregone conclusion in the face of "uncontrovertable evidence," I think the use of "overwhelming propaganda" to create an atmosphere of hysteria against Saddam may give us revisionists, and even some believers who have some vestige of intellectual honesty, some useful insight into how war time propaganda can create the belief in the guilt of a defendant and the facts of "war crimes" notwithstanding the absense of any actual evidence supporting them.

When the Iraq war began, we were told that Saddam was a mass murder who had killed 300,000 people.

Last October (2003) I heard Tony Blair on the radio and he raised the number to 400,000.

A couple of months ago, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilley (no spin?) raised the figure to 1 million!

Yesterday, July 11, 2004, on am 790 KABC radio in Los Angeles, Stephen Moore, an advisor to the Bush administration who was being interviewed about his recent experiences in Iraq, raised the number of Saddam's mass murder victims to 1.5 million(!)

Since the number of Saddam's mass murder victims seems to be quadrupling every six months, it is a fair question to ask: WHERE DO THESE NUMBERS COME FROM AND WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, IF ANY, SUPPORTING THEM?

The editorial cartoon in this morning's LA Times (July 12, 2004) showed a Saddam caricature standing in the dock surrouded by a mountain of human skulls and daring his accusers to "Prove it" (i.e. that he committed mass murder).

How interesting. The cartoon of a pile of human skulls is the only "evidence" of mass murder I have as yet seen in the media. As yet, no photos, no "eye witness accounts" or any of the other props and state managed devices used to frame people.

Do they plan to introduce this editorial cartoon at Saddam's trial as "evidence" of his guilt?

When I have pointed out these facts to people who have condemned me for my "denier" beliefs, they kind of stop and think. Most are Bush haters and they find themselves in the interesting position of having to re-think (or perhaps even think) their position on Bush and the war. If someone like Saddam could be framed and convicted by war time propaganda today after a comparatively brief war in the age of the internet, satellite TV and mass communications, then why could not the same thing have been possible in the 1940's when none of these alterantive media were available?

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10132
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:52 pm)

Yeah, we keep hearing about 'mass graves', but are never shown any which fit the accusations.

Undoubtedly Iraq-Iran war graves will be called something else, as will combat victims of the Kurdish rebellion after the Gulf War.

It all sounds so familiar.

gas chambers/WMD: the lie is the same, the liars the same

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Chile

Postby Juan » 1 decade 6 years ago (Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:31 pm)

Reds have this tendency to lie and exaggerate when their interests are at stake.

A very close example, you may still have misconceptions about:


Widely reviled as "another Hitler". The boogey man of Latin America. Cruelest dictator, ever. CIA's SOB. More than 30.000 deaths during his regime. Marches organized by teenagers who think this is an "African dictator". No kidding here, this was in Sweden, home to a large quantity of chilean "exiles".

- Reluctantly led a highly efficient coup, leaving less than 3.000 deaths spread over the whole 17 year long regime, including police and military casualties fighting against communist insurgency.
- Deposed an extremely corrupt socialist government (maybe his mortal sin), perhaps preempting a civil war.
- "CIA aid" consisted of a grand total of 8 Million $ to a rightist paper. In fact, US government decreed an arms embargo that almost costed a bloody war with Argentina in 1978 (Argentina later attacked the Falklands), and staged an affair with poisoned grapes to damage our exports.
- This "bloody tyrant" succesfully avoided 2 wars (Perú 1974; Argentina 1978) and tried to solve the sea acces of landlocked Bolivia (1975).
- Resurrected Chilean economy, with so much success that Democratic governments, while politically opposed to Pinochet, didn't change anything from his gov't economic policies.

Now Santiago is the safest capital city of Latin America and tourists are warned not to try to bribe the police. That's Pinochet's legacy.

"Victims" of Pinochet's regime today are getting lots of money from the Gov't. Sound familiar? Of course some of them are real victims.

Chilean exiles' behaviour abroad gave us the reputation of being pathetic lazy thieves. :oops:

I don't know Iraq, but maybe Saddam (and for that matter, Milosevic, the Irani mullahs who are hosting Jurgen Graf, and every other media monster) is not the monster they paint. Revisionism gives you this healthy scepticism.

The media would make you believe a lot of stupid thigs about stuff you really don't know nothing about. Even Rudolf in one of his articles wrote shit about Pinochet, but I wouldn't bother him over an insignificant detail.

Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 4:57 am

Postby montague » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:10 am)

I don't know if the Saddam in the courtroom is the real Saddam: it seems very unlikely...

As for Saddam's war crimes, real or alleged, the financial journalist Jude Wanniski has written some great things debunking these stories, particularly the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja. The way he (and others) explain it, the Iranians gassed those Kurds with cyanide gas in an attack on a pro-Saddam Kurdish village. (Only Iran used cyanide gas in the Iran-Iraq War; the Iraquis used mustard gas). Pentagon studies gave reasonable evidence for this...

But the Kurds, seeing an advantage, have stuck with the story. On the TV news the other day, I saw that the Kurds had taped 'Chemical' Ali ordering the gassing attack! Utter fraud and mendacity.

Anyway, here's Jude Wanniski's latest on Saddam, hot off the presses. It's a pity he can't use the same objectivity with regard to the Holocaust, and I wrote to him on the subject (and never received a reply).

Memo on the Margin

The Iraqi Body Counts
July 13, 2004
Send to a Colleague
Printer-Friendly Version

Memo To: Sen. Pat Roberts [R KS]
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: More Bad Intelligence

As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, you have done the country a great service by issuing the committee’s report on the errors made by the Intelligence Community [IC] that led to the President’s decision to war against Iraq. You have also been good enough to acknowledge that if what is now known to be true – that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and no connection with 9-11 – there would not have been the votes in the Senate in November 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq should diplomacy fail. What seems to be the consensus view of the Intelligence Committee, especially its vice chairman Jay Rockefeller [D WV], is that the IC came to believe the administration was bent on regime change in Iraq and the “group think” produced the erroneous intelligence. That is, the “process” was flawed, directing information up the ladder to the Oval Office in ways that would support a war decision and suppress counter arguments that would prevent that flawed information flow.

It is human nature, Senator, that when you know the Boss wants information to justify an action he really wants to take, that’s the way the process will work. Even when “Ombudsmen” are put in place as a check on this human tendency, as already exist in the IC, the “truth” can always be subverted at the last minute at the very top of the information ladder – as it was when CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush it would be a “slam dunk” to prove Iraq had WMD, when Tenet knew full well that the IC could only speculate on that point.

The reason I write you today, Senator, is that a similar problem has come up with you. I’m afraid you are still relying on faulty intelligence in saying, as you did on the weekend talk shows, that the war could be justified because of Saddam’s cruelty to his own people. Here is how you put it on “Meet the Press,” in response to a question from Tim Russert:

SEN. ROBERTS: Well, that was then. This is now. I know I stood on a gravesite at Hillah in Iraq and looked at 18,000 bodies being unearthed, you know, one at a time; 500,000 were dead. I think we're probably in better shape. I know the people in Iraq are in better shape, if we can achieve the stability, which is a very tough challenge over there. But I don't think anybody in terms of threat to regional stability, to Israel, the possibility of reconstituting--he did have the capability of the weapons of mass destruction. I think we're better off without Saddam there.

I was a bit puzzled, Senator, because I have been following the “genocide” issue in Iraq for several years and wondered how you could get these numbers. If you were not chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I wouldn’t bother you today, because most members of Congress have bought the genocide story that has become embedded in the national consciousness because it has been repeated to many times. As a result, I contacted your staff {your eyes and ears, so to speak), and asked: “Can you help me better understand where Senator Roberts gets the numbers of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein... particularly the number 500,000. He used it several times in the weekend talk shows. There have been reports of as many as 200,000 killed in the Anfal campaign of 1987-88, but so far no mass graves have been found in Kurdistan, none at all. The Senator also says he watched 18,000 bodies being unearthed at a gravesite at Hillah. The most recent number I've seen relating to that area is 2,200. The Senator's inference is that these dead were victims of genocide, when all the accounts say the victims were Shiite rebels who were attempting to overthrow the government -- and were of the belief the USA would come to protect them because they were incited to rebel by CIA agents.”

Your staff responded with an e-mail referring me to the now defunct website of the Coalition Provisional Authority, with the comment that my numbers were “way too low.”

I went to the website and found a press release of the CPA that referred to a press conference given March 17 by US AID director Andrew Natsios: “Iraqi and U.S. officials have prepared a long-range plan to excavate mass graves in Iraq and prepare forensic evidence of crimes against humanity…There are 300,000-400,000 bodies reported to lie in mass graves in Iraq.” The way Natsios put it: “How many died in these mass murders? Some say 300,000. Some say 400,000. We are helping the Iraqis as they begin the terrible task of counting.”

See what I mean, you have already added another 100,000 to the mass murders, and as far as I know from following these accounts, not one body has been unearthed that can be identified as a victim of genocide. There are gravesites all over Iraq, but the “forensic evidence of crimes against humanity” has yet to be presented. As I pointed out in my note to your staff, I previously seen “reports” of as many as 200,000 Iraqi Kurds killed by the Iraqi army at the end of the Iraq/Iran war, but if you would now ask your staff to check, they will have to tell you that so far no bodies at all have been found in connection with that “Anfal” campaign. The original charge of mass murder by gassing of the Kurds was made by then Secretary of State George Shultz on September 8, 1988, but when the Iraqi foreign minister asked Shultz for proof, Shultz said he could not do so as it would compromise his sources. Sadoun Mahmoudi, the foreign minister, then asked: “Where are the victims?”

No kidding, Senator. It is now almost 16 years later and the victims have yet to be found. If you ask your top intelligence people on your committee to check, they will find articles in the contemporaneous press by journalists who traveled to Kurdistan during this uproar over genocide, and who could find no evidence of it. In fact, I think your committee staff will admit to you, if you asked, that the Intelligence Community has never been able to confirm these deaths. Indeed, if you read Page 400 of your own committee’s report, you will find under “1. Information sources,” the following: “According to comments from IC analysts who spoke to Committee staff, a large part of the information available to the IC concerning human rights abuses was from refugees, defectors and opposition groups. The IC also depended on the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS). In all cases, verification of the reporting on human rights abuses was difficult… Unfortunately, the immigrant/refugee reporting usually could not be verified on the ground in Iraq.”

I hope you understand what’s going on here, Senator. The IC is telling you the same people who supplied the erroneous intelligence about WMD and Al Qaeda connections to Iraq are the people who cooked up the genocide stories. Of course it is human nature for you to want to believe our government can be ultimately vindicated by a trial of Saddam that proves he was the mass murderer you believe him to be. The Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee should not have been snookered, but you were, and it has to be an embarrassment to suspect as much. But as I indicated to your staff, it will be an even greater embarrassment for you to discover how to this day you are relying on bad intelligence in your public statements. There were, for example, no 18,000 bodies at Hillah, a number suggested at the time when bodies in this battlefield area were unearthed. The latest number after 14 months of counting before the forensic experts left the area was 2,200. That’s a lot of dead Iraqis, but they were encouraged to overthrow their government by our CIA, were they not? Kind of like the Bay of Pigs, yes? We can't really accuse Fidel Castro of genocide when he put down the rebellion, or we would have to file charges against Abraham Lincoln.

In addition, Senator, there are fairly careful estimates that as many as 90,000 Iraqis – civilian and military – have died since we decided we had to save Iraq from Saddam and his genocidal impulses. That's a lot of dead Iraqis.

You can go to Google as I did and run this down for yourself. It may not be a happy experience for you, but it should make you a better chairman.

* * * * *

Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:09 pm

Postby 8x57 » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:05 pm)

UPDATE: Blair admits that his bogus 400,000 figure was a lie.

Check this out at at the Observer: ... enied.html

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:49 am)

8x57 submitted among other things -

'When the Iraq war began, we were told that Saddam was a mass murder who had killed 300,000 people.

Last October (2003) I heard Tony Blair on the radio and he raised the number to 400,000.

A couple of months ago, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilley (no spin?) raised the figure to 1 million!


How interesting. The cartoon of a pile of human skulls is the only "evidence" of mass murder I have as yet seen in the media. As yet, no photos, no "eye witness accounts" or any of the other props and state managed devices used to frame people.



For a while there were almost daily reports about mass graves being discovered in Iraq. The only photos we got, for a 3000 corpse grave for instance, was a few bodies in the back ground. I have most of those articles from the likes of the N.Y. and L.A. Times along with the dates, of course. Now I haven't seen any in many months. Not even with the reports about a upcoming trial for Saddam.

Many of the reports cited a 'Human Rights Watch' as the authority. No U.S. agency was cited other than a few voices mumbling something about it.

Human Rights Watch is the same organization that reported on various alleged atrocities carried out by the Serbs, with one classic example utilizing eyewitness accounts. Some 46 Kosovos were supposed to have been herded into a group and gunned down. The other, true side of the story was reported by French and Spanish news sources who were there along with U.N. observers called in by the Serbs to witness a police action. It turned out there was a skirmish and the living Kosovos gathered up the bodies of their comrades during the night and piled them up for the frame job. Some might recall how Clinton, Albright and Cohen all claimed there were 1,000,000 victims of mass extermination. Some might realize we haven't seen any reports associated with the Miloshevic trial about any vast mass graves. As far as I know not even the above mentioned incident has been introduced to the trial even though it was the most notorious.

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests