Saddam's Atrocities

  • Thread starter Thread starter AntonK
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 23
  • Views Views 5K
A

AntonK

Rising Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
3
Chronicle of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Hussein's actions.

Hussein has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000.

2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror

2001 Amnesty International report: "Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Human Rights Watch: Hussein's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

Refugees International: "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis"

Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, faced severe restrictions on their religious practice

FBI: Iraqi government was involved in a plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993 visit to Kuwait.

The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.
Click to expand...

(Sources: Office of the White House Press Secretary: Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime; April 4, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/iraq/20030404-1.html; "Iraq: Crimes Against Humanity," State Department, May 7, 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes; "Iraq: U.S. Alleges Role in Bush Death Plot," Facts on File May 20, 1993; http: www.2facts.com; http://www.2facts.com/stories/temp/10882temp1993053677.asp)
 
Salaam,

trully what an applaing history,

But the problem is Saddam death does not end the brutality.

For the coutnry or power that installed Saddam is ever present and maignant.

Saddam is the gun,the US is the trigger.
The US empowere Saddam and kept quite at the atrocities,only after Saddam fell out of favour did all the skeletons fall out of the closet.

It is happenign all over the world,US warlord in Samalia,Puppet goverment in Iraq,Ex shah in Iran and many more,,,all installed for US peace.

So perhaps the end can only come when the mastermind is destroyed or brought to justice.

So as long as a thief or murderer gives up his accomplices,does not mean the crime is solved,it just mean that the REAL MURDERER is off to do another murder.
 
:salamext:


O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.

[Qur'an Hujuraat 49:6]​
 
saddam was an evil terrible man, no doubt and few deserve death more but what about those that backed him?

what about those western governments that sold him the chemical weapons? surely those people should also be tried and executed?
 
Who supplied arms and ideas for Saddam to kill millions of people in Iran?

The ideal world would have been executing Saddam and his supporters together not only him.
 
worldpolice said:
Who supplied arms and ideas for Saddam to kill millions of people in Iran?

The ideal world would have been executing Saddam and his supporters together not only him.
Click to expand...

'Ideas' we can only speculate on. The arms were acquired from the following;

Soviet Union 61%
France 18%
China 5%
Brazil 4%
Egypt 4%
Sundry 6%

Source

Strangely, I haven't seen anything here yet about the Soviets 'building up' Saddam. Perhaps you might explain why?
 
Last edited:
what about those western governments that sold him the chemical weapons? surely those people should also be tried and executed?
Click to expand...

And in the US we're being accused of invading a country that had no such weapons. Boy am I confused. Did he or didn't he?
 
dougmusr said:
And in the US we're being accused of invading a country that had no such weapons. Boy am I confused. Did he or didn't he?
Click to expand...

I think you confusded between the past and the present.
In the past they may, but afterward they did not.
 
Skillganon said:
I think you confusded between the past and the present.
In the past they may, but afterward they did not.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that he used every one of them on say the Kurds, or transported them across the border as we believed? Sadam claimed to have them. You agree that he had them in the past. We were not allowed to inspect his country to find them. Why should we believe that he no longer had them?
 
dougmusr said:
Are you saying that he used every one of them on say the Kurds, or transported them across the border as we believed? Sadam claimed to have them. You agree that he had them in the past. We were not allowed to inspect his country to find them. Why should we believe that he no longer had them?
Click to expand...

The thing is most developed countries have chemical weapons, it's just not in the open, and probably haved used them. As in my scientific field I know that for sure they do have those chemicals/bio capabilites. Having those bio capabilites does not neccessitate an invasion of another country, or by using them in act of "agression in the past" (that they are no longer carrying out).

It is plausible that they been assisted by their comrades (arm industry) in the past in developing/acquiring weapons in general.

Next, the "current time" saddam did not have any chemical weapons/bio weapons as such.

It's a farce.

Another point to make "I do not think they really did it for the reason they stated"
 
Last edited:
Skillganon said:
The thing is most developed countries have chemical weapons, it's just not in the open, and probably haved used them. As in my scientific field I know that for sure they do have those chemicals/bio capabilites. Having those bio capabilites does not neccessitate an invasion of another country, or by using them in act of "agression in the past" (that they are no longer carrying out).

It is plausible that they been assisted by their comrades (arm industry) in the past in developing/acquiring weapons in general.

Next, the "current time" saddam did not have any chemical weapons/bio weapons as such.

It's a farce.

Another point to make "they really did not do it for the reason they stated"
Click to expand...

So what was this unstated reason for invading Iraq? If your answer is oil, as I suspect it might be, then consider what benefit the U.S. is currently getting out of the Iraqi oil industry? It is much cheaper for the U.S. to buy and refine oil based in North and South America. Plus, these oil sources are much more stable than those in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
 
Saddam real punishment is only beggining now!! He has to meet Allah in the day of judgement right! I believed they shld haf caged him 4 life! Or did the islamic punishment e.g crucifying, amputation, banishing or stoning to death! Then the terrorists and all other tyrants will tink twice before spreading mischeif on this EARTH!!!
 
Keltoi said:
So what was this unstated reason for invading Iraq? If your answer is oil, as I suspect it might be, then consider what benefit the U.S. is currently getting out of the Iraqi oil industry? It is much cheaper for the U.S. to buy and refine oil based in North and South America. Plus, these oil sources are much more stable than those in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Not really, what you mean by stable?

Possible reasons and objective is more of a economical reason and I will not solely put it on oil although indeed that is a major factor:

1. Gain "control", for ecomonic grip.
2. Their is a lot of profit in it for private contractors.
3. Strategical positioning.
4. Their enmity towards Islam (I stated that this can be a factor)
5. Glory.

Another thing to note the war might just be to costly since it exactly did not turn out the way they planned or go as smoothly, but the average joe might end up suffering than the profiteers.

I really do not think they went to "war" out of goodness of their heart and for the sacrilige of human life.
Another thing it is agreed it was an illegal war.
 
Saddam at least killed many innocent people and they are gone and also Saddam is a gone chapter.

Today, what America has done to this country is killed many innocent people like what Saddam did, additionally the most remarkable crime it has created a rift between the two major sects (Shia and Sunni) which will continue and put this country to more blood shed and at the end Muslim brothers will keep on fighting and the America / West well enjoy selling their arms.

So America and Bush has to take the full responsibility for what Iraq is today.
 
At the end of the day, might make right. It always has, it always will. Saddam was definitely a prisoner of war - and should have been turned over to the UN. Handing him over to his enemies is against international law. But like I said, might make right. A big bully was murdered by a stronger bully.

Pinnochet and Milosivic were also dictators, but they died with respect. Double standards and i for one shall not let this lie!
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
At the end of the day, might make right. It always has, it always will. Saddam was definitely a prisoner of war - and should have been turned over to the UN. Handing him over to his enemies is against international law. But like I said, might make right. A big bully was murdered by a stronger bully
Click to expand...

Saddam was tried by his own people, for crimes against his own people. He was a war criminal, not a prisoner of war. Even if he had been, since when has the Geneva Convention required PoW's to be "handed over to the UN"? Why?

Pinnochet and Milosivic were also dictators, but they died with respect. Double standards and i for one shall not let this lie![/B]
Click to expand...

What 'double standard'?! Pinochet was too ill (supposedly) to stand trial. Milosivic died while on trial (respect? from who?). Saddam was/did neither - or are you suggesting it should have been strung out for another 30 years so he could die of old age before he was executed?


worldpolice said:
So America and Bush has to take the full responsibility for what Iraq is today.
Click to expand...

No. Partial responsibility, certainly. But Iraqis are killing Iraqis, based on rivalries that were around long before US intervention, or even Saddam. They, too, are just as responsible. Just blaming everything on America is both simplistic and dangerous - unless the real problems are faced up to they will not be solved. That means accepting responsibility where it is due, not just shunting it on to the usual boogie man.
 
Last edited:
divide and rule- thats what the evil powers are doing

at the end of the day Allah will judge





anyway what are you so worried about, i heard that according to statistics
30 000 children die EVERY DAY

what about them?
 
isn't it funny how Bush makes Saddam sound evil for what he did to the Iraqis and he is doing the same thing but even worse:?
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top