Al-Qaeda Barbarism in Iraq Ignored

[dangerclose]

Thyestean feast?

Greek mythology often encapsulated an entire culture's worst fears and depravities-and over centuries of story-telling became ever more complex and layered and bizarre.

But what is strange about reading Michael Yon's graphic descriptions from Iraq is that al Qaeda (or its kindred) seems almost in a single generation to be outdoing a millennium of savagery present in Greek history and myth. You have to go to Thucydides's Mycalessus to find a parallel of wiping out even the animals of a small village.

On Friday, Yon reported that al Qaeda served up a son for dinner to his own family— a barbarism reminiscent of Atreus (hence the "curse" on the House of Atreus) cooking (sans feet and hands) and then serving his twin brother's sons to their unsuspecting father Thyestes. So Yon reports a revolting modern-day Thysestean feast:


The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.
What is striking about all this savagery—whether with the filmed beheadings of Westerners in Iraq to the recent flaming Johnny Storm human torch at Glasgow, screaming epithets as he sought to engulf bystanders and ignite his canisters — is the absolute silence of the West, either distracted by Paris and i-Phones or suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and obsessed with Guantanamo.

It is hard to recall an enemy so savage and yet one so largely ignored by rich affluent and distracted elites as the radical jihadists, as we have to evoke everything from mythology to comic books to find analogies to their extra-human viciousness.

For a self-congratulatory culture issuing moral lectures on everything from global warming to the dangers of smoking, the silence of the West toward the primordial horror from Gaza to Anbar is, well, horrific in its own way as well...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTUzNmIyNDUyMmRjZTk0OTYwZTRhZTVmNzFkOGIwMGY=

**GRAPHIC**
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

[Jobu]

Reporting Al Qaeda's atrocities does not fit the agenda of the liberal media unless they can find a way to blame it on the President.

[ex1cdo]

Reporting Al Qaeda's atrocities does not fit the agenda of the liberal media unless they can find a way to blame it on the President.

As soon as you see "agenda" and "liberal media" in the same sentence, run for cover.

My bull**** detector just went off scale.

[MonkeyLibFront]

Until you have a news channel dedicated to iraq then current channels will not be able to cover all the stories, i'm sure the 130 dead in a car bomb will just have to do.

[Group9]

Sometimes, the depths of depravity that human beings are capable of, just cannot be dealt with by a large percentage of the people.

You don't have to look any farther than the Holocaust, and the number of people who still refuse to acknowledge that it happened, some for political reasons no doubt, but many who just don't believe that people could have done such horrible things.

And, that's why we have to lie to our kids at night and tell them there are no such things as "monsters", when we know good and well that there are.

[Dasein]

Have these alleged atrocities been verified by any other sources like the Red Cross? Rumors of barbarism are common throughout the history of warfare, and the amount of misinformation circulating over the current war in Iraq should make anyone skeptical of extreme claims.

[Mailman]

Verified? Gee, thats a word you should introduce ******* to :D

Mailman

[BugHunt]

Can any1 link the actual Yon report were he mentions AQ actually cooking children?

Ive seen the NRO page - where it talks about Greeks etc - but it links to a different Yon report...

EDIT found it now - http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/second-chances.htm


From - http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Even Yons not sure about the veracity of the reports...


Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.


At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.



Every syllable I wrote about this reported incident was in that paragraph, which offers no opinion about the veracity of his words.
Mr. Abdul Jabar had lived near the al Hamari village. He had more details about what happened there, and he was willing to go on the record. The reported incidents, wretching though they were and are, were reported “as is.”

[dangerclose]

Have these alleged atrocities been verified by any other sources like the Red Cross?


The Red Cross tried to verify the story but they were beheaded and their bodies ****y-trapped.

[Mailman]

Bughunt, this puts it all in context I guess;


In the more than two years since that awful day in May 2005, I’ve witnessed innumerable instances of the work of terrorists of many stripes. One clear indicator of just how bad a terrorist group is, is when battle-hardened soldiers—and writers like me who travel with them—don’t find it hard to believe a story which purports that al Qaeda had baked a child and set his roasted body out as the main course at a lunch for his parents.

People at home might find it incredible, improbable, even impossible. Yet here in combat with al Qaeda, the idea is no more improbable-sounding than someone saying “The chicken crossed the road.” Maybe the chicken crossed the road. Maybe not. The veterans I’ve been talking with here have no difficulty imagining the chicken crossing the road, or al Qaeda roasting kids. Sickening, yes. Improbable, no.

Mailman

[Flamming_Python]

I have no doubt atrocities are commited like they always are in warfare. But to be honest i'm pretty skeptical about this, despite the fact that things tend to be very barbourous down there...


The Red Cross tried to verify the story but they were beheaded and their bodies ****y-trapped.

roflroflroflrofl

[Laworkerbee]

Have these alleged atrocities been verified by any other sources like the Red Cross? Rumors of barbarism are common throughout the history of warfare, and the amount of misinformation circulating over the current war in Iraq should make anyone skeptical of extreme claims.

Micheal Yon's name sake is good enough for me

[shocker1]

Micheal Yon's name sake is good enough for me
x2 he is an honest unbiased source of front line events.

[Hollis]

Micheal Yon's name sake is good enough for me


Same here. I guess a few here just thinks AQ is just misunderstood and need hugs.

[CPLHUNTER]

It would not suprise me at all...more desperate they get.

I read the same thing from Yon.

[Con-man]

I agree, Yon relies on readers for funding not news corporations or other organisations.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

We in the UK have coverage of Al-Q's acts of terror on the general population in Iraq and Afghanistan but the massive car bombings and the deaths of allied troops do take the lead most of the time.

[Mailman]

I have no doubt atrocities are commited like they always are in warfare. But to be honest i'm pretty skeptical about this, despite the fact that things tend to be very barbourous down there...



roflroflroflrofl


Geez, did you miss the post of mine DIRECTLY above your one?

If you did, here it is again...putting everything in context;


In the more than two years since that awful day in May 2005, I’ve witnessed innumerable instances of the work of terrorists of many stripes. One clear indicator of just how bad a terrorist group is, is when battle-hardened soldiers—and writers like me who travel with them—don’t find it hard to believe a story which purports that al Qaeda had baked a child and set his roasted body out as the main course at a lunch for his parents.

People at home might find it incredible, improbable, even impossible. Yet here in combat with al Qaeda, the idea is no more improbable-sounding than someone saying “The chicken crossed the road.” Maybe the chicken crossed the road. Maybe not. The veterans I’ve been talking with here have no difficulty imagining the chicken crossing the road, or al Qaeda roasting kids. Sickening, yes. Improbable, no.

I especially like the last 4 words.

Regards

Mailman

[Flamming_Python]

Geez, did you miss the post of mine DIRECTLY above your one?

If you did, here it is again...putting everything in context;



I especially like the last 4 words.

Regards

Mailman

A little bit of persuasive writing is not going to persuade me. Like I said, i'm skeptical. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, as I don't really know, but somehow the whole EVI1 AL-KAEDA EATS BABIES (or even better; feeds babies to parents) thing resembles propaganda so much, that i'm just going to have to call a spade, a spade.

[Durandal]

Reporting Al Qaeda's atrocities does not fit the agenda of the liberal media unless they can find a way to blame it on the President.

Sorry, AQ is bad, true enough, but labeling all bad things "AQ" does a real disservice to the reality of the region.

AQ is just ONE of hundreds of factions in the region that do these things.

AQ, *snort*, if it only were that simple we would have won already.

[BugHunt]

Reporting Al Qaeda's atrocities does not fit the agenda of the liberal media unless they can find a way to blame it on the President



Sorry but you have to be pretty fukking blind NOT to hold the president directly responsible.

Maybe not for the invasion but ABSOLUTELY for swaggering in there without any aftermath plan worthy of the name.

[Con-man]

The president being directly responsible would be him telling Al Qaeda to do these things if not do it himself, the people in Al Qaeda are individuals who choose the way in which they decide to fight this war, so just because they have the ability to make a choice in that kind of situation doesn't mean they had to do it because of the president not having any real aftermath plan.

[BugHunt]

The president choose to bring his "terror war" to Iraq. AQ didnt exist in Iraq until Bush and co all but invited them in.

So yeah the president IS directly responsible.



Invited them as it makes perfect sense (from there POV) to attack there enemies - US and Shia when you have such a golden opportunity - ie the US blundering about in the aftermath.

Then admin sitting there in denial - "there is no insurgency", "just dead enders", " a touch of messiness" etc.


The conventions of war also recognize the occupation forces have a duty of care to populations under there power. You have CHOSEN to assume the mantle of responsibility for people in a failed state (who are in a extremely vulnerable position).

A man like Powel once said "you break it you own it".


Another way of looking at things ( i realize your republican) is rescuing a dog from a abusive owner - but then not bothering to find a home for the dog and merely releasing it onto the mean streets. YOU are then directly responsible for ill fates that might befall the dog ie it starving or getting run over.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Sorry, AQ is bad, true enough, but labeling all bad things "AQ" does a real disservice to the reality of the region.

AQ is just ONE of hundreds of factions in the region that do these things.

AQ, *snort*, if it only were that simple we would have won already.

The American public and particularly the politicians that hope to "guide them in the right direction" need boogeymen.

Bin Laden
Saddam
Sarakawi...
Al Queda.

It's much more convenient to focus the evils being done on a single source rather than face the complexities of the region.

Obviously this war is far from over with no convincing plan to win it on the table.

If America doesn't have the patience and the stomach for protracted and dirty wars, which we don't, we shouldn't start them.

The enemy knows we don't have the stomach for it and they have time to spare. Creating chaos is infinitely easier than preventing it. Breaking an egg easier than putting it back together.

[Con-man]

The president choose to bring his "terror war" to Iraq. AQ didnt exist in Iraq until Bush and co all but invited them in.

So yeah the president IS directly responsible.



Invited them as it makes perfect sense (from there POV) to attack there enemies - US and Shia when you have such a golden opportunity - ie the US blundering about in the aftermath.

Then admin sitting there in denial - "there is no insurgency", "just dead enders", " a touch of messiness" etc.


The conventions of war also recognize the occupation forces have a duty of care to populations under there power. You have CHOSEN to assume the mantle of responsibility for people in a failed state (who are in a extremely vulnerable position).

A man like Powel once said "you break it you own it".


Another way of looking at things ( i realize your republican) is rescuing a dog from a abusive owner - but then not bothering to find a home for the dog and merely releasing it onto the mean streets. YOU are then directly responsible for ill fates that might befall the dog ie it starving or getting run over.

You're missing the point I was making, despite there being a chance to attack coalition forces and shia's, the choice to do so in the manner they have chosen is theirs to make, not the presidents. There are other ways to fight the war from their point of view, and I don't think baking children then feeding them to their families is the only option they have at the moment.

As for the admin sitting there in denial, are you narrow minded enough to think that public statements reflect EXACTLY what the mindset of the government actually is? I'd like to think you don't play into what is said on the news without giving it some decent thought.

Furthermore I'm not republican, I find it quite difficult to be when I exist in a political system which doesn't even have a republican party, look to my location to find out where I'm from. Quite funny that you'd assume that I'm republican just because I found something wrong with your statement, do you believe that all people who call freedom fries their original name (French fries just to let you know) are French? I also find it amusing how you try to compare a situation of a dog with an abusive owner to that of the multilayered conflict happening in Iraq at the moment, try a different analogy.

[Durandal]

The president being directly responsible would be him telling Al Qaeda to do these things if not do it himself, the people in Al Qaeda are individuals who choose the way in which they decide to fight this war, so just because they have the ability to make a choice in that kind of situation doesn't mean they had to do it because of the president not having any real aftermath plan.

I think what Bug is saying...if I may be so bold...is that Saddam was a doing a good job on keeping a lid on radical Islam (the true enemy here). We decided to remove the one thing keeping all the BS in Iraq under control because he was a tyrant (the ONLY reason we are, to his day, still using). The President went to war not as action of last resort, but on a time table of his choosing, and ultimately, a lack of ANY credible threat to the United States (the ONLY time military forces should be used).

Thus, by removing rule of law and order (be in totalitarian or not) the U.S. is, effectively, responsible for current events.

Now that it has become easier to blame the Iraqi leadership, politicians that originally voted for the war can safely pull out laying the blame on the Iraqis.

Its their fault we took away their dictator and gave them chaos. Its their fault for not taking a bullet for freedom, democracy, and transparency.

Whatever...

AQ is just a boogeyman label. Yeah, they ARE our enemy, and they ARE a threat, but to label EVERYTHING that is wrong in Iraq as AQ is simply folly. Radical Islam is a mean beast, riddled with ignorance, poverty, and zealots. AQ is not the only the only subhuman group out there, they all are. The ones that stone women, the ones that kidnap people, the ones that preach one faith.

You remove them and you remove the problem.

Except no one is willing to wage that kind of war.

[Jobu]

Don't blame Bush for Al Qaeda's actions.

Blame the people who are committing them. They have free will just as you or I do. They sit down, plan out these atrocities in detail, train for them, and then go carry them out. Blame the people who choose to blow up the car bombs at the markets, not the people who try but fail to stop it from happening.

I'm sick of the "blame Bush" idiocy. Blame the ****ing terrorists you idiots.

[Durandal]

I'm sick of the "blame Bush" idiocy. Blame the ****ing terrorists you idiots.

And I am tired of sell out Americans who take it in the @ss for a corporate whore, near dictator, traitor.

Suck it up jobu, I can stand your filth, I am sure you can stand my common sense logic.

[Jobu]

And I am tired of sell out Americans who take it in the @ss for a corporate whore, near dictator, traitor.

Suck it up jobu, I can stand your filth, I am sure you can stand my common sense logic.


When I finally see some, I'll be sure to tolerate it. =)

[Con-man]

I think what Bug is saying...if I may be so bold...is that Saddam was a doing a good job on keeping a lid on radical Islam (the true enemy here). We decided to remove the one thing keeping all the BS in Iraq under control because he was a tyrant (the ONLY reason we are, to his day, still using). The President went to war not as action of last resort, but on a time table of his choosing, and ultimately, a lack of ANY credible threat to the United States (the ONLY time military forces should be used).

Thus, by removing rule of law and order (be in totalitarian or not) the U.S. is, effectively, responsible for current events.

Now that it has become easier to blame the Iraqi leadership, politicians that originally voted for the war can safely pull out laying the blame on the Iraqis.

Its their fault we took away their dictator and gave them chaos. Its their fault for not taking a bullet for freedom, democracy, and transparency.

Whatever...

AQ is just a boogeyman label. Yeah, they ARE our enemy, and they ARE a threat, but to label EVERYTHING that is wrong in Iraq as AQ is simply folly. Radical Islam is a mean beast, riddled with ignorance, poverty, and zealots. AQ is not the only the only subhuman group out there, they all are. The ones that stone women, the ones that kidnap people, the ones that preach one faith.

You remove them and you remove the problem.

Except no one is willing to wage that kind of war.

I can see his and your point there, but still I can't see it being a reason to make it the presidents fault that people decide to commit such horrible actions as those seen in this thread, calling it human nature might seem right but I thought we'd evolved to the point where we still killed each other just didn't like making a circus out of it. I guess to make a parallel to my point would be to bring up yours that everything bad is being labelled Al Qaefa. Not quite fair either way is it?

[Pigdog]

And I am tired of sell out Americans who take it in the @ss for a corporate whore, near dictator, traitor.

Suck it up jobu, I can stand your filth, I am sure you can stand my common sense logic.

True dat. It all falls back somewhere.

[Mailman]

And I am tired of sell out Americans who take it in the @ss for a corporate whore, near dictator, traitor.

Suck it up jobu, I can stand your filth, I am sure you can stand my common sense logic.

Haha...the only thing you left off was blaming this on oil! :D

Although I love it how this "collective" guilt sort of stops at GW but never actually goes to the root cause of all this...being 10 years of "f8ck you's" Madam Saddam threw at the UN (now there's a pointless, feckless, in it for themselves organisation if ever there was one...how do I get a job there? :D).

I guess its just much easier to hate Bush innit?

Mailman

[BugHunt]

Lemme get this straight mailman your saying the UN (over 10 years) is more responsible for the carnage in Iraq then say Bush? :D


Is that dumbarse of the week thing still going?


Durdandal is quite correct - there are atrocities going on with practically every organisation over there.

I think the Iraqi health and transport ministries have whole floors devoted to torture in them! How do we know - not least the US snipers in overwatch have complained about the "goings on".....

What about that Sadrist boasting about the people he buried alive etc....

Tbh the "barbarism ignored" title to this thread is more rightwing victim complex. There have been bodies showing up on Baghdads streets for years now. Beheaded and showing signs of torture, bit rich to cry about the media ignoring the carnage over there. It takes a simpleton/and or one who doesnt follow the news who needs these things retold again and again.

And lets face it the media aint gonna jump all over a unsubstantiated rumor. When theres plenty of horror verified lying in the streets.

Until recently complaining about that sort of stuff was dangerously like saying "the war wasnt going well".....so id thought the rightwing victims wouldve preferred the silence. But hey lets turn things around and blame the media!!

Now THATS good deflection ;)

[Durandal]

I guess to make a parallel to my point would be to bring up yours that everything bad is being labelled Al Qaefa. Not quite fair either way is it?

No and you are correct here. I agree its not all Bush's fault. Its Congress' as well. They all have BAD blood on their hands.

I blame Bush for picking a fight when he could have avoided it and then fighting it like moron.

I blame Congress for letting him pick it, then not having the sand to call him on it.

I blame both for not representing THE PEOPLE of this nation. I think NOW things have slipped so far to one side in the level of corruption in our government that people should be in the streets demanding justice.

But that won't happen. Not so long as there are enough people support the likes of Bush and Hillary or voting for one to avoid the other.

[Durandal]

Although I love it how this "collective" guilt sort of stops at GW but never actually goes to the root cause of all this...being 10 years of "f8ck you's" Madam Saddam threw at the UN (now there's a pointless, feckless, in it for themselves organisation if ever there was one...how do I get a job there? :D).

I guess its just much easier to hate Bush innit?

Yeah, good idea, lets make decisions on what the U.N. decides. WTF.

I guess you'll give up our 2nd Amendment too when the U.N. decides to close down private firearm ownership.

I guess if the U.N. says jump Mailman, will salute and give 'em a "Yes'm Mastah".

I guess we should invade a whole lot of other countries too then, if that is your litmus test of ƒucking brilliance: "They gave the U.N. the bird, so lets fight!"

You go girl.

[CPLHUNTER]

It easier to hate Bush for everything...it never ceases to amaze me how on one hand Bush is such a moron and idiot but then somehow smart enough to decieve the entire US public and government...

Crafty bast4rd he is.

[budgie]

Reporting Al Qaeda's atrocities does not fit the agenda of the liberal media unless they can find a way to blame it on the President.


Yet somehow they do, on a daily basis, report AQ atrocities without blaming them on Bush. You 'anti-media' types are so convinced that your right-wing bloggers are protecting you from this vast liberal conspiracy called 'free press' that you don't bother to crosscheck the crap they feed you. If they say it ain't in the news it ain't right? Wrong. It's there and we see it in the world every day.

[Mailman]

Lemme get this straight mailman your saying the UN (over 10 years) is more responsible for the carnage in Iraq then say Bush? :D

All Im pointing out is that for 10 years BEFORE the invasion Iraq had been telling the UN to go f8ck themselves.

Its not like GW woke up one Sunday morning, thumbed through his newspapers while eating lemmon and poppy seed muffins and then suddenly said "LETS INVADE IRAQ FOR THEIR OIL".

Although I suspect from your last ranting thats exactly what you think :D

Mailman

[loganinkosovo]

I think the fact that the Sunnis are turning on Al Quackers is proof that

1. The Al Quackers are rabid dogs who are there for no one but themselves and Iran.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9cc4d5f4-2be3-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html

2. We are winning on the ground.

70% of the "Insurgents" (F'n Terrorists) are not Iraqi and are not there for the good of the Iraqi people.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274952,00.html

[ElHombre]

I think the fact that the Sunnis are turning on Al Quackers is proof that

1. The Al Quackers are rabid dogs who are there for no one but themselves and Iran.

Fact check: AQ and Iran don't like each other. They're not allies.


2. We are winning on the ground.

70% of the "Insurgents" (F'n Terrorists) are not Iraqi and are not there for the good of the Iraqi people.

All well and good except for the elephant in the fridge: AQ is not the source of most of the problems in Iraq. The sectarian conflicts are the source of the problems in Iraq. AQ could shrivel and die tomorrow and the violence would continue unabated.