Decomposing corpses found in Iraq.
By on Apr 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Decomposing corpses found in Iraq.
“Police in Ramadi uncovered 17 decomposing corpses buried beneath two schoolyards in a district that until recently was under the control of al-Qaida fighters. At least 85 people were killed or found dead across the country Tuesday. The adult bodies were discovered in the Anbar provincial capital after students and teachers returned to the schools a week ago and noticed an increasingly putrid odor and stray dogs digging in the area.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
these people are disgusting
April 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pmClinto, Pelosi, and Carter did it.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:39 pmThe surge: What a waste of time and money. We can’t stop the violence in Iraq, because our prescence is the fuel.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:02 pmBring our troops home. Now.
Dogs digging in the area, thats special.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pmHow come you aren’t reporting the good news?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:12 pmAl Quaida in Iraq? since when?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:31 pmFor the newbies reading this, you do know that the CIA INVENTED AQ, right?
Please write your representatives!
What if it was you?
Honorable Congressman Putnam,
Your thoughts about the senseless killings at Virginia Tech were very touching. We as Americans should be and are extremely distressed by this senseless violence. In a country of 300 million, to lose 30 young, innocent, students for nothing is a national tragedy. I’m with you 100% in concern for their parents and friends!
Now, imagine you are an average citizen in Iraq. Imagine trying to raise your children and get them the best education you can. Imagine in a country of only 30 million, over 30 innocent citizens die EVERY DAY! EVERY SINGLE DAY over 30 innocent citizens are killed by someone they don’t even know. Killed not by American soldiers, they are only doing their duty and God bless them, but through senseless sectarian violence for which our warmongering is responsible.
I realize as Senator Graham related you can get 5 rugs for 5 dollars which will look great in his den. The Iraqi people can only use these rugs to wrap their loved ones for their funeral.
The next time you vote, please think of what I’ve said.
Peace!
PeeJ
Colossians 3:23
April 17th, 2007 at 11:32 pmOur Esteemed King has it all figured out. By January 19, 2009 there won’t be any Iraqis left to fight our troops so he can order them home with a big “Heckuva job! Mission Accomplished, put my name in the Hall of Fame!”
I agree! Next to Napoleon, Joe Stalin, A. Hitler, F. Casto, et al. The AAA! (All Assholes Assuredly)
April 17th, 2007 at 11:34 pmBut democracy……is on the…..march….nevermind.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#7 PeeJ
AMEN! Well said!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#9 Clyde the Ripper
Thanks, but I was only inspired by Juan Cole. We must relate this tragedy to our “leaders”. It hurts so much to ponder these senseless deaths. My son is of college age. We go through a lot here and thank God we have some civil rights still, though after the Patriot Act I’m not completely clear what they are. We must put ourselves in the general Iraqi population. We have to agree they are not all jihadists! 80% of these people love their children and only want to make the best lives for them they have the power to control. These poor people have no control. Just as the suffering parents of the students at Virginia Tech. I couldn’t imagine the pain. I’m so thankful my son is only 7 miles away and doing well. God bless the average Iraqi citizen. We love you!
Peace!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:47 pmPeeJ
NEWS FLASH!
Decomposing bodies found in Washington, DC.
The bodies of King George the Dumb, “The Dick” Cheney, Condom (she needs all the protection she can get) Rice, and Abu Gone-zo, were found today in our Nation’s Capitol. There will be no mourning ceremonies as all potential mourners are suffering from the obligatory celebratory hangover. Also there were several score more bodies, tentatively identified as former (assuming they are now dead) Repuglican Senators and Representatives, in a state of suspended animation. Probably a poor choice of words because they all should be suspended from “the highest tree” and lain beneath the surrounding grass of “the old oak tree” in their respective home towns.
I will provide appropriate space for McCain and Kyl under Granny’s bird feeder.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:59 pmPeej, well said.
But it’s even worse. There are about 100 killed in Iraq everyday not counting even more who die from lack of clean water or healthcare due to our invasion. Their population is only 26 million compared to our 300 million. It’s like 36 “Virginia Tech’s” every day in the US.
There are 30,000 gun deaths every year in the US. It’s like a thousand “Virginia Tech’s” every year.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:07 am#10 PeeJ
Fortunately my sons are too old, my oldest grandson is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer, the second a Navy Diver (Not too much water in Iraq), and the rest too young, as are the greatgrandsons. My last comment, if allowed, offers my sarcastic response to the situation. The deaths in Iraq and in this Country can all be attributed to the collective greed of bushco. Impeachment and hanging is the only solution.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:10 amBUT, the schools were recently painted by our valiant troops.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:35 amtheres’ you God-damn GOOD NEWS, Cletus.
“that until recently was under the control of al-Qaida fighters.”
Wha???? Al Qaida showing a blatant disregard for human life and carrying out such an atrocity?????
As a New Yorker, I am shocked…SHOCKED!….that Al Qaida would act like this!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:53 amI was sickened when that F’er Bush did his speech offering condolences to the Virgina Tech victims…… Every day for over 4 years the citizens of Iraq go through much worse 10 fold because of Bush. “I’m a war president.” F*ck you.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:40 amNice work Exley, you’re thinking exactly what they tell you to.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:05 amThe surge is working….There is a surge of corpses.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:17 am#15 As a New Yorker, I am shocked…SHOCKED!….that Al Qaida would act like this!
Comment by Exley — April 18, 2007 @ 12:53 am
Don’t you love it when neocon trolls claim to be N.Yorkers, or war veterans, or Korean war veterans, etc. etc. etc. Trolling is hard weerrrk!
April 18th, 2007 at 6:23 amSince Zarqawi’s JTJ group agreed to rename itself and operate under the al Qaeda banner in Sept 2004.
And for the newbies who’ve been reading conspiracy theory blogs, you would know that’s complete bullshit if you actually got off your arse and purchased a researched, primary sourced, account of CIA involvement in Afghanistan instead of reading what anonymous no-nothings tell you in between talking about Jews planting bombs in the WTC.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:38 amKilo please give us a detailed account of the membership and capabilities of
“al-queda”… cited by actual facts and not just allegations.. and any comment on why the pansy british have stopped calling this a “war” on “terror”?
more people have died in the bathtub.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:50 amWhat would the point of either request be exactly ? Why would this interest me ?
Clearly neither relates to what I’ve written and what I’ve written doesn’t appear to be in dispute.
So HERE is a recipe for dip instead.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:03 amKilo sez:
Educate yourself.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 amBack when Salon had the article about sending unable troops back into battle, I wrote this to my Senator, Sherrod Brown.
Senator Brown,
I urge you to please read this letter on the floor of the Senate as a representative sample of those who support our troops and would like to bring them home.
A recent article by Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/) has shed light on how far we have pushed our troops in a war that has employed unwinnable strategies. Sending troops back into a situation that they are physically unable to handle is an atrocity and supersedes any reasonable expectation that those men and women had when they signed up to defend this nation. Never more so than now do our troops need our support, especially with the revelations about the Walter Reed V.A. Hospital. As I am sure you know, military preparedness is at a devastating low and our country has never been less ready to fight against post-9/11 terrorism. You need to take a stand and get our troops back home and take care of them. They are the defenders of our freedom and heroes to our nation. Until they are home, any use of the phrase “Support our Troops” that doesn’t accompany a plan to exit Iraq is hollow lip service that should be considered an insult to our men and women in Iraq.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:40 amComment by TripMaster Monkey — April 18, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Isn’t AQ a spring off of the Taliban?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:06 amAren’t the Taliban a springoff of the Mujhadeen?
Who started funding the Mujhadeen in 1979?
This is what I’m talking about.
I suggested reading researched accounts sourced from primary sources on such historical matters.
There are accounts of this history available with contributions from every level of muj, CIA, State and WH staff involved in those decisions and programs. There are tell-all accounts which reveal far more damaging claims that you or that idiot have suggested that have been praised and corroborated back and forth. Accounts which don’t make ridiculous claims based solely on the premise that they have NFI about the topic they are writing about.
Instead you’ve linked to Michel Chossudovsky, a conspiracy theorist who looks patently ridiculous in his conclusions to any reader who has even a brief acquaintance with any topic he writes on.
Clearly the problem of education lies only with the author. Common sense is what’s failing you.
There is a clear and obvious state of affairs evident when those who were involved in and championed the Afghanistan programs write books about how happy they were with those programs and how well they served the country before 9/11. Then amatuers like this guy reprint the same history on September 12th telling you they’ve uncovered some explosive, new and damaging account of the same thing,
That state of affairs is that these amatuer foreign policy analysts simply do not understand what they are writing about and never bothered to take an interest before there was a quick conspiracy-peddling buck in it. Also that you do not possess the knowledge to evaluate what is written or the common sense to reconcile it when you do.
The last article I read by this economist, for good reason, was another day-after-the-event expose based on his complete lack of knowledge of the subject, this time the Bali bombings. He wrote an article which suggested that because a western government gave it’s citizens a travel warning about a country that had been bombed 8 times this meant they clearly had inside knowledge if not involvement in bombing #9.
Do you really think it’s MY lack of education that’s the issue when it comes to discening bullshit from fact about clear and obvious misinterpretations of events and policies that that anyone graduating high school could spot ?
Yes ? Then continue believing what and who you do. And be amazed until the end of time at the fantastic improbable luck that every single world event turns out to be yet another conspiracy and that every piece of trivia about them supports those theories and none conradict them.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:47 amOh, and don’t forget to impart all this knowledge on your children. Don’t forget to warn them about the Jews, Hutton.
Well in summary, no. There’s no assumption there that is correct according to all knowledgable sources including those groups themselves.
But I’m sure TripMaster Monkey will have a link to an article by a Canadian who’s never interviewed anyone in any capacity of any of those groups who’ll confirm the exact opposite.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:55 amThis is what I’m talking about.
I suggested reading researched accounts sourced from primary sources on such historical matters.
There are accounts of this history available with contributions from every level of muj, CIA, State and WH staff involved in those decisions and programs. There are tell-all accounts which reveal far more damaging claims that you or that idiot have suggested that have been praised and corroborated back and forth. Accounts which don’t make ridiculous claims based solely on the premise that they have NFI about the topic they are writing about.
Instead you’ve linked to Michel Chossudovsky, a conspiracy theorist who looks patently ridiculous in his conclusions to any reader who has even a brief acquaintance with any topic he writes on.
Clearly the problem of education lies only with the author. Common sense is what’s failing you.
There is a clear and obvious state of affairs evident when those who were involved in and championed the Afghanistan programs write books about how happy they were with those programs and how well they served the country before 9/11. Then amatuers like this guy reprint the same history on September 12th telling you they’ve uncovered some explosive, new and damaging account of the same thing,
That state of affairs is that these amatuer foreign policy analysts simply do not understand what they are writing about and never bothered to take an interest before there was a quick conspiracy-peddling buck in it. Also that you do not possess the knowledge to evaluate what is written or the common sense to reconcile it when you do.
The last article I read by this economist, for good reason, was another day-after-the-event expose based on his complete lack of knowledge of the subject, this time the Bali bombings. He wrote an article which suggested that because a western government gave it’s citizens a travel warning about a country that had been bombed 8 times this meant they clearly had inside knowledge if not involvement in bombing #9.
Do you really think it’s MY lack of education that’s the issue when it comes to discening bullshit from fact about clear and obvious misinterpretations of events and policies that that anyone graduating high school could spot ?
Yes ? Then continue believing what and who you do. And be amazed until the end of time at the fantastic improbable luck that every single world event turns out to be yet another conspiracy and that every piece of trivia about them supports those theories and none conradict them.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:59 amOh, and don’t forget to impart all this knowledge on your children. Don’t forget to warn them about the Jews, Hutton.
Kilo sez:
Chossudovsky lists his references at the end of his article (which is more than you’ve done). If you dispute his claims, check his references.
But of course, he’s not to be taken seriously, because he’s <gasp!> Canadian!
Don’t make me laugh.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:23 amNice to see my old stomping grounds are the same as usual. Probably the Tameem district which was so bad we just tried a weird experiment of just turning over to the IA and sheiks private armies to see what they could do about the AQIZ infestation. AQ was setting up bombs big enough to tear apart tanks. Apparently they cleaned it up because the schools were nonoperational. Just goes to prove we dont need to be there to fight the regional AQ threat, that wasnt there before we invaded. So, they’re fighting the enemy we allowed to get in.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:44 amPay attention. I’ve disputed YOUR claims. You have disputed HIS. You check his references if you want to.
These are mentioned rather early in the piece…
I’m just assuming he doesn’t go on to suggest CIA training via MKULTRA remote mind control.
I’m also going to assume he didn’t contradict every other available, concurring, first hand and even documented accounts that al Qaeda wasn’t formed until the end of the Soviet occupation and that it in no way represented anything remotely close to the mainstream muj campaign the US, Saudis, Pakis, Egyptians and Chinese were funding to combat Communist dominance of central asia.
So your claim was simply wrong and the link you’ve provided to back it up confirmed you were wrong. Way to go sparky.
No, he’s not to be taken seriously because he’s someone who has never interviewed anyone in relation to the topic, deals exclusively in 2nd hand accounts which he fails to comprehend the context of and uses this as a premise for misinterpretation and drawing wild conspiracy theories.
If you thought the nationality mentioned was the significant factor there you’re not very bright.
I think the last article I read by him at globalresearch.ca was yet another day-after-the-fact account, that time about the Bali bombings. Where he claimed the fact that a western government had a travel warning for its citizens (as they had done for several years) about terrorist attacks in a country that had been bombed 8 times suggested they were behind bombing #9. Because otherwise how would they have known to warn their citizens the very day before the attacks and the several hundred before that.
If only he was a non-Canadian that would be a much more logical conclusion to draw from something a 10yo could figure out.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:52 amKilo sez:
And what exactly was ‘my claim’, Kilo?
Please indicate where I disputed his claims. Failing that, admit your rather transparent attempt at misdirection.
I’ve already checked his references, thanks. I’m not going to do your homework for you, however.
When (and if) you ever post some references, I’ll be happy to check those.
That’s quite a cute attempt to take the statement out of context. Let’s look at the statement in context now, shall we?
That was pretty pathetic, Kilo…honestly, we expect better of you.
I’m not sure what you hope to prove with these two excerpts. Merely because bin Laden and his Islamic warriors were initially unaware of America’s role does not mean that that role was absent.
Again, pathetic.
I’m just assuming he doesn’t go on to suggest CIA training via MKULTRA remote mind control.
Cute. Do you think you could stick to the topic at hand?
The date of the formation of al-Qaeda, or its similarity or differences to the ‘mainstream muj campaign’ have no bearing on the fact that al-Qaeda has its roots in the Mujahideen, however much you would like to convince us otherwise. I’m rather astonished that you would attempt to palm off such an obvious lie.
From an interview of Osama bin Laden in October 2001 (courtesy of Wikipedia):
And here’s some more relevant passages from Chossudovsky’s article:
Sorry I had to cut and paste so much, but given your limited attention span, I knew it would have been futile to provide the link again.
(BTW, the numbers 16 through 20 are references to sources. Again, please feel free to look up Chossudovsky’s references…just don’t demand I do your homework for you. I’ve done quite enough as it is.)
There’s more to your post, but since it’s exclusively a character assassination of Chossudovsky, there’s little point in addressing it. I will, however, address one more thing:
If the nationality wasn’t significant, why did you feel the need to mention it? Who’s ‘not very bright’, again?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pmYou appear to have understood nothing of what has been written here or in that article.
This is the claim I stated was BS….
Your response was to point to an article which confirmed this claim was BS.
If you didn’t think this article said the opposite of what it does why then did you point to it as something which would “educate” me on the topic discussed ?
That’s a rhetorical question BTW, I think the answer is quite clear already.
Indeed that is pathetic. Yes what could I possibly mean when disputing a claim that the CIA invented al Qaeda and suggesting that information confirming that bin Laden had already started his operations for his own reasons before the existance of the CIA was even apparent. Clealy I’m using that old space-time-continuum trick to imply one event predating another is an indication it wasn’t influenced by something that happened later.
You would clearly need a degree in physics to be able to understand this on your own which is why you haven’t yet.
The topic at hand was the suggestion the CIA invented al Qaeda. If they did this without the knowledge of those who formed al Qaeda or without any direct contact is it unreasonable to suggest remote mind control wankery was involved ?
… anything other than what I said it had a bearing on. The fact that the CIA was funding a popular insurgency and a group which has practically nothing in common with that insurgency that formed later isn’t representative of it nor of something the CIA was responsible for creating.
FFS already. WTF is it you think is being discussed ?
Except al Qaeda didn’t have it’s roots in the mujahideen of Afghanistan. So you’ll be finding yourself astonished by a lot of things. I would think first and foremost would be why the operations of al Qaeda and the mujahideen were so divergent at every point of its existance if they represented similar goals and ideology.
The rest of you objections cannot be resolved until you figure out what it is you are writing about.
For instance:
The information you are suggesting I hid from the first excerpt I quoted was included in the 3rd I quoted. 7 lines below it in the same quote. So you’re providing the disappointment here.
When I state that a claim the CIA invented al Qaeda is BS, you direct me to a link that confirms that and I quote the article saying just that, this isn’t me “taking something out of context”.
You’ve taken some time here to put quotes “back into context” which doesn’t change what they say in relation to what was being discussed.This should tell you that you have NFI what you is being discussed.
WTF kind of scenario did you think I was suggesting where the CIA was not involved in supporting the mujahideen directly but that the fact they were supporting them indirectly was a secret ?
That they were sponsoring the Saturday bake sale ? Doing their dry cleaning ?
Seriously WTF is wrong with you that I need to explain this and if I don’t I’m being deceptive ?
NOBODY else here has read the article you just pointed to and EVERYBODY knows the CIA was involved in the Afghan campaign.
If I refer to the Vietnam war will I need to point out the US was fighting with the South lest I be accused of covering that up also ?
Now you apparently see some significance in accounts that the US supported mujahadeen groups in insurgencies against soviet influence during the cold war. As they did with mass murdering dictators and literally any non-Communist form of life available.
I don’t know what you think the significance is but it is apparently that you’ve now learned this for the first time. There is no account written by far more reputable, knowledgable, professional and non-batshit-insane authors that wouldn’t have told you this already if you had read them. Hence my recommendation.
The fact that there are US architects of and participants in such policies providing the most revealing quotes about it from the 1980s and 90s in the context of how effective these policies were and how pleased they were with the results should have provided a hint as to whether this is something new, explosive or damaging.
I can recall pointing out earlier that a lack of understanding of a topic and its context coupled with a predisposition for paranoid misinterpretations rarely results in a useful analysis.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:21 amWay to drive that point home champ.
You appear to have no idea what is being discussed here or in that article.
This is the claim I disputed….
You responded to by referring me to that article with the recommendation that I educate myself.
Are you posting in this thread ?
If so where did that start ?
If that comment didn’t indicate your belief that the article referenced contradicted what I said the rest of this discussion about that article would appear to be a bizarre waste of time.
Pick one option, it doesn’t matter which. Both have the same result.
The ‘context’ you are suggesting I removed from the 1st excerpt I quoted was included in the 3rd. In the same block of quoted text. 7 lines below.
This isn’t called taking something out of context it’s called trimming redundant text which doesn’t relate to what is being discussed.
And you couldn’t even hazard a guess at why I quoted those two excerpts ?
Why when stating that the claim the CIA invented al Qaeda was BS I chose a quote that stated a founding member wasn’t aware of the CIA’s hand in the broader conflict let alone in creating his group. No bells ringing there at all ?
No space-time continuum issues apparent with the existance of a group predating any influence of those alleged to have created it ? No ?
In that case I’ll be claiming the invention of the television, despite it being older than I am and with just as much evidence to support my claim.
This is the topic at hand. It has been suggested that the CIA created al Qaeda and you apparently believe that this claim is supported by an account which states that the CIA had no direct contact with these people and that they were unaware of the CIAs actions during this period.
What alternative scenario remains if they didn’t do this remotely via super secret mind control ?
…anything except that it refutes the only topic we were discussing.
If it was an obvious lie as opposed to an undeniable truth we might have expected you to disagree with it.
As for being disappointed, you’ve indicated you think al Qaeda formed as an offshoot of the mujahideen, so you’ll have plenty more of that to come once you start reading about its formation, who formed them, what former groups they represent and what their ideology and goals have always been.
Well no they’re not. That’s kind of the problem.
Your belief that they are, coupled with the rest of what you’ve taken issue with here and quoting lengthy excerpts proving the fact that the US was involved in the cold war would indicate you are afflicted with the same defect as this Canadian idiot. That you cannot understand what is being discussed nor the context in which it occurred, hence this results in you misinterpreting it and drawing ridiculous conclusions. Then mistaking this for relevent or even new information.
If I say that the CIA was involved in a lot of things in Afghanistan but creation of al Qaeda and direct support of fighters wasn’t one of them WTF kind of scenario did you think I was proposing if you thought I was hiding indirect CIA support by not mentioning it ?
That the CIA was running a laundry service ? That they were advising on crop rotation methods ? That they were totally on holiday in sunny scenic Peshmerga and all this just happened as a coincidence ?
Nobody else here even looked at that article and every single one of them knew the CIA supported the muj in Afghanistan before you even posted it. This is common knowledge even among the frightfully uneducated.
There is no account of that conflict that doesn’t include the fact that the US provided support in opposition to their cold war enemy Russia. Yet you somehow think that this is worth telling people. Since it doesn’t contradict what is written you would appear to think this whole ‘cold war business’ is news.
Either way there’s a certain number of lines I’m willing to entertain in an “arguement” with someone who won’t even go on record to dispute what I’ve said, and you’re well past that now.
Anyone who can’t figure out you can spell “Canadian” without winning Scrabble by 40 points.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:43 am