Iraq Chilcot inquiry: Bitterness in Baghdad

Almost 24 hours after the massacre of civilians in Baghdad by so-called Islamic State, young men were digging frantically through the basement of one of the shopping centres that was destroyed.

They were looking for human remains. But all they found were some shoes and a pile of black ash. It was hot in the basement. The fire was still smouldering. Warm, scummy water dripped from the ceiling.

Outside, hundreds of people had gathered. Being there was a form of defiance. In the Iraqi capital, any crowded, dark street is a potential target for a suicide bomber.

Perhaps sharing infinite sadness makes it easier to bear. Many people cried, or prayed. I saw a Christian clergyman lighting candles and making the sign of the cross as well as young people chanting a Shia Muslim anthem for the dead.

Just because so many Iraqi civilians have been massacred does not make senseless killing any easier to bear for the survivors.

It is doubtful whether Iraqis who are so caught up in the pain of daily life will take much interest in the long-delayed publication of the UK's official inquiry into its part in the invasion of 2003.

Many people I have spoken to have already made up their minds about the impact of the invasion on Iraq. One of these is Kadhim al-Jabbouri, a man who became a symbol of the Iraqi peoples' rejection and hatred of Saddam Hussein.

On 9 April 2003, the American spearhead reached central Baghdad. Hours before they arrived, Kadhim, who was a champion weightlifter, decided to bring down the big bronze statue of Saddam Hussein that stood on a plinth in Firdous Square.

Kadhim owned a popular motorcycle shop and was a Harley-Davidson expert. For a while he fixed Saddam's bikes, but after the regime executed 14 members of his family he refused any more work. The regime's response to his effrontery was to put him in jail for two years on trumped-up charges.

Kadhim is a survivor. In prison, he started a gym and a weight-lifting club, and was eventually released in one of Saddam's periodic amnesties.

But on the morning of 9 April, Kadhim wanted his own personal moment of liberation and revenge. He took his sledgehammer and began to swing it at the plinth beneath the towering bronze dictator.

Journalists came out of the Palestine Hotel on the square and started broadcasting and taking pictures. Kadhim says their presence protected him from Saddam's secret policemen, who melted away as the sound of American guns came closer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36706265

This is a really interesting read and there's more to read in the link but here is a selected extract...

I asked Kadhim he would do if he could meet Tony Blair.

"I would say to him you are a criminal, and I'd spit in his face."

And what would he say to George Bush?

"I'd say you're criminal too. You killed the children of Iraq. You killed the women and you killed the innocent. I would say the same to Blair. And to the coalition that invaded Iraq. I will say to them you are criminals and you should be brought to justice.

So how many more Iraqi's feel like he does having their family killed and who decided to do something about it and fight and take revenge?

Well considering there were hardly any civillian casulities from the allies in the actual invasion and that the insurgents murderd hundreds of thousands shows again how a narative of hate is what drives people to hate the west and not lay the blame on the Saudi's and Iran, who funded and fueld the insurgency in Iraq.
I means lets look at this a moment, their country is freed from a tyrant that murdered hundreds of thousands. They cheered and celebrated this at the time and then hundreds of thousands are killed by Muslim extremists and they want to proritize hate to western leaders that gave them the opportunity of freedom?

How odd indeed

we should have left them alone to groan under sadams iron fist.....

Lord Foul wrote:we should have left them alone to groan under sadams iron fist.....

Which though, would just be another civil war being enacted out, as we are seeing in Syria, when the Arab spring would have come to Iraq and weakened by sanctions, the same situation would be the case with even countless more dead than any of the insurgency murdered.
The Middle East is now mainly the playground of Iran and Saudi for supremacy of who controls islam.

Didge wrote:Well considering there were hardly any civillian casulities from the allies in the actual invasion and that the insurgents murderd hundreds of thousands shows again how a narative of hate is what drives people to hate the west and not lay the blame on the Saudi's and Iran, who funded and fueld the insurgency in Iraq.
I means lets look at this a moment, their country is freed from a tyrant that murdered hundreds of thousands. They cheered and celebrated this at the time and then hundreds of thousands are killed by Muslim extremists and they want to proritize hate to western leaders that gave them the opportunity of freedom?

How odd indeed

Well Kadhim doesn't appear to be much of an islamist insurgent who is using hate. He appears to be just an ordinary Iraqi who was getting on with his life as best he coul. So if the West are not to blame and didn't cause hundreds of thousands deaths that resulted from the invasion and have now spilled over into Syria who should he blame?

He lives the life in Iraq, he walks the walk daily and that's how he feels whilst you are here in the UK. You were right a few months ago when you said the invasion of Iraq caused much of the global terrorism that we see today so what is it that changed your mind on such a fundemental issue of who caused the war and the terrorisim?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Well considering there were hardly any civillian casulities from the allies in the actual invasion and that the insurgents murderd hundreds of thousands shows again how a narative of hate is what drives people to hate the west and not lay the blame on the Saudi's and Iran, who funded and fueld the insurgency in Iraq.
I means lets look at this a moment, their country is freed from a tyrant that murdered hundreds of thousands. They cheered and celebrated this at the time and then hundreds of thousands are killed by Muslim extremists and they want to proritize hate to western leaders that gave them the opportunity of freedom?

How odd indeed

Well Kadhim doesn't appear to be much of an islamist insurgent who is using hate. He appears to be just an ordinary Iraqi who was getting on with his life as best he coul. So if the West are not to blame and didn't cause hundreds of thousands deaths that resulted from the invasion and have now spilled over into Syria who should he blame?

He lives the life in Iraq, he walks the walk daily and that's how he feels whilst you are here in the UK. You were right a few months ago when you said the invasion of Iraq caused much of the global terrorism that we see today so what is it that changed your mind on such a fundemental issue of who caused the war and the terrorisim?

So the bases of the claim is based on the views of one person?
Really?
The deaths were caused by insurgents trying to gain supremacy over Iraq.
Iraq had its freedom, are you saying its the fault of the west, that Saudi and Iran used it as a battleground in a proxy war?
I do not care if he jumps through hoops, he is one person who have been fed like many others a narative of hate against the west.
Where again I state, what did the Iraqi's do when when the allies ousted Saddam?
Celebrate
The root cause here is again the religion itself where two rival powers have been continuing a conflict that has been going on centuries for control of Islam itself.
Why do you always go off what i once thought as if you think by trying to discredit me makes you look clever.
It doesnt and proves you lack the ability to debate
The root cause is the loss and fear of control of Islam from both shias and sunni's

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:we should have left them alone to groan under sadams iron fist.....

Which though, would just be another civil war being enacted out, as we are seeing in Syria, when the Arab spring would have come to Iraq and weakened by sanctions, the same situation would be the case with even countless more dead than any of the insurgency murdered.
The Middle East is now mainly the playground of Iran and Saudi for supremacy of who controls islam.

true...but they wouldnt be able to blame us....

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which though, would just be another civil war being enacted out, as we are seeing in Syria, when the Arab spring would have come to Iraq and weakened by sanctions, the same situation would be the case with even countless more dead than any of the insurgency murdered.
The Middle East is now mainly the playground of Iran and Saudi for supremacy of who controls islam.

true...but they wouldnt be able to blame us....

Dont bet on it mate, they would then claim the First Iraq war was to blame

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:Well considering there were hardly any civillian casulities from the allies in the actual invasion and that the insurgents murderd hundreds of thousands shows again how a narative of hate is what drives people to hate the west and not lay the blame on the Saudi's and Iran, who funded and fueld the insurgency in Iraq.
I means lets look at this a moment, their country is freed from a tyrant that murdered hundreds of thousands. They cheered and celebrated this at the time and then hundreds of thousands are killed by Muslim extremists and they want to proritize hate to western leaders that gave them the opportunity of freedom?

How odd indeed

Well Kadhim doesn't appear to be much of an islamist insurgent who is using hate. He appears to be just an ordinary Iraqi who was getting on with his life as best he coul. So if the West are not to blame and didn't cause hundreds of thousands deaths that resulted from the invasion and have now spilled over into Syria who should he blame?

He lives the life in Iraq, he walks the walk daily and that's how he feels whilst you are here in the UK. You were right a few months ago when you said the invasion of Iraq caused much of the global terrorism that we see today so what is it that changed your mind on such a fundemental issue of who caused the war and the terrorisim?

So the bases of the claim is based on the views of one person?
Really?
The deaths were caused by insurgents trying to gain supremacy over Iraq.
Iraq had its freedom, are you saying its the fault of the west, that Saudi and Iran used it as a battleground in a proxy war?
I do not care if he jumps through hoops, he is one person who have been fed like many others a narative of hate against the west.
Where again I state, what did the Iraqi's do when when the allies ousted Saddam?
Celebrate
The root cause here is again the religion itself where two rival powers have been continuing a conflict that has been going on centuries for control of Islam itself.
Why do you always go off what i once thought as if you think by trying to discredit me makes you look clever.
It doesnt and proves you lack the ability to debate
The root cause is the loss and fear of control of Islam from both shias and sunni's

Where is his islamic hatred in what he says and who are you to say that he is just one voice and that his views are not shared by many of the Iraqi people who suffer daily from bombings and killings?

They did celebrate and the man states that he did the same and he goes on to explain how it all went wrong and now you see how it has all spilled over into Syria.

How big a recruiting tool do you think that was to the Islamic extremists a vew you held not that long ago so what changed your mind on such a fundemetal issue of who is responsible for the fall-out and the global terrorism that we see now?

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which though, would just be another civil war being enacted out, as we are seeing in Syria, when the Arab spring would have come to Iraq and weakened by sanctions, the same situation would be the case with even countless more dead than any of the insurgency murdered.
The Middle East is now mainly the playground of Iran and Saudi for supremacy of who controls islam.

true...but they wouldnt be able to blame us....

Dont bet on it mate, they would then claim the First Iraq war was to blame

Well you claimed it was the second Iraq war that was to blame didn't you?

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


So the bases of the claim is based on the views of one person?
Really?
The deaths were caused by insurgents trying to gain supremacy over Iraq.
Iraq had its freedom, are you saying its the fault of the west, that Saudi and Iran used it as a battleground in a proxy war?
I do not care if he jumps through hoops, he is one person who have been fed like many others a narative of hate against the west.
Where again I state, what did the Iraqi's do when when the allies ousted Saddam?
Celebrate
The root cause here is again the religion itself where two rival powers have been continuing a conflict that has been going on centuries for control of Islam itself.
Why do you always go off what i once thought as if you think by trying to discredit me makes you look clever.
It doesnt and proves you lack the ability to debate
The root cause is the loss and fear of control of Islam from both shias and sunni's

Where is his islamic hatred in what he says and who are you to say that he is just one voice and that his views are not shared by many of the Iraqi people who suffer daily from bombings and killings?

They did celebrate and the man states that he did the same and he goes on to explain how it all went wrong and now you see how it has all spilled over into Syria.

How big a recruiting tool do you think that was to the Islamic extremists a vew you held not that long ago so what changed your mind on such a fundemetal issue of who is responsible for the fall-out and the global terrorism that we see now?

I simply do not care what he says as he is utterly irrelevant and to me lying out of his backside.
What is evident is this.
The First Iraq War ended and Kurd, Shia Islamists and far left groups rose up against Saddam.
They were severely crushed by Saddam, where estimates place the death toll of up to 200,000 killed and murdered, many disapperaing and 2 million displaced. Now this more than anything is the root cause to the insurgency in Iraq after the second Iraq war. Once ousted people celebrated but many sought revenge and as the insurgency intensified, more money and arms were aided by both Iran and Saudi. As the insurgency took on a greater sphere of influence. Hence it is nonsense to claim the deaths were due to the Second iraq war when many of the casulities were minimal by the allies. The root cause was the decades of murder and hate and the uprsing only 12 years previously that had caused deep seated hatred in the country. This hate overflowed after the invasion, but the invasion did not cause them to act. Again as the insugrgency grew it became a battle for supremacy of islam and is still continuing to this day

Learn your history and what the real root cause is, because most nations when freed from tyrants dont start killing each other unless is in revenge for decades of persecution, murder and violence suffered by religious and ethnic groups in that country

Didge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


So the bases of the claim is based on the views of one person?
Really?
The deaths were caused by insurgents trying to gain supremacy over Iraq.
Iraq had its freedom, are you saying its the fault of the west, that Saudi and Iran used it as a battleground in a proxy war?
I do not care if he jumps through hoops, he is one person who have been fed like many others a narative of hate against the west.
Where again I state, what did the Iraqi's do when when the allies ousted Saddam?
Celebrate
The root cause here is again the religion itself where two rival powers have been continuing a conflict that has been going on centuries for control of Islam itself.
Why do you always go off what i once thought as if you think by trying to discredit me makes you look clever.
It doesnt and proves you lack the ability to debate
The root cause is the loss and fear of control of Islam from both shias and sunni's

Where is his islamic hatred in what he says and who are you to say that he is just one voice and that his views are not shared by many of the Iraqi people who suffer daily from bombings and killings?

They did celebrate and the man states that he did the same and he goes on to explain how it all went wrong and now you see how it has all spilled over into Syria.

How big a recruiting tool do you think that was to the Islamic extremists a vew you held not that long ago so what changed your mind on such a fundemetal issue of who is responsible for the fall-out and the global terrorism that we see now?

I simply do not care what he says as he is utterly irrelevant and to me lying out of his backside.
What is evident is this.
The First Iraq War ended and Kurd, Shia Islamists and far left groups rose up against Saddam.
They were severely crushed by Saddam, where estimates place the death toll of up to 200,000 killed and murdered, many disapperaing and 2 million displaced. Now this more than anything is the root cause to the insurgency in Iraq after the second Iraq war. Once ousted people celebrated but many sought revenge and as the insurgency intensified, more money and arms were aided by both Iran and Saudi. As the insurgency took on a greater sphere of influence. Hence it is nonsense to claim the deaths were due to the Second iraq war when many of the casulities were minimal by the allies. The root cause was the decades of murder and hate and the uprsing only 12 years previously that had caused deep seated hatred in the country. This hate overflowed after the invasion, but the invasion did not cause them to act. Again as the insugrgency grew it became a battle for supremacy of islam and is still continuing to this day

Learn your history and what the real root cause is, because most nations when freed from tyrants dont start killing each other unless is in revenge for decades of persecution, murder and violence suffered by religious and ethnic groups in that country

Of course you don't care what he says because you live in Merry olde England and don't have a clue what life must be like for him and the Iraqi people most of whom are touched in some way from losing family members and have to live daily with the fall-out from what took place as a result of the invasion. What you just said sums it all up really as someone who is immune from the effects of the bombings and the killings and just want to drop more bombs or another invasion this time Syria - or are nukes your answer?

And I don't need to learn history because you told me what it was and what was the real root cause the invasion of Iraq. So what changed your mind on such a fundemetal issue of who caused all the deaths and the global terrorism that we see now?

Don't you think...

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

And this time try and answer the question I keep asking you..
I'll read your excuse in the morning when I'm sure you will have thought up something.

Toodle pip old bean.

Irn Bru wrote:

Didge wrote:


I simply do not care what he says as he is utterly irrelevant and to me lying out of his backside.
What is evident is this.
The First Iraq War ended and Kurd, Shia Islamists and far left groups rose up against Saddam.
They were severely crushed by Saddam, where estimates place the death toll of up to 200,000 killed and murdered, many disapperaing and 2 million displaced. Now this more than anything is the root cause to the insurgency in Iraq after the second Iraq war. Once ousted people celebrated but many sought revenge and as the insurgency intensified, more money and arms were aided by both Iran and Saudi. As the insurgency took on a greater sphere of influence. Hence it is nonsense to claim the deaths were due to the Second iraq war when many of the casulities were minimal by the allies. The root cause was the decades of murder and hate and the uprsing only 12 years previously that had caused deep seated hatred in the country. This hate overflowed after the invasion, but the invasion did not cause them to act. Again as the insugrgency grew it became a battle for supremacy of islam and is still continuing to this day

Learn your history and what the real root cause is, because most nations when freed from tyrants dont start killing each other unless is in revenge for decades of persecution, murder and violence suffered by religious and ethnic groups in that country

Of course you don't care what he says because you live in Merry olde England and don't have a clue what life must be like for him and the Iraqi people most of whom are touched in some way from losing family members and have to live daily with the fall-out from what took place as a result of the invasion. What you just said sums it all up really as someone who is immune from the effects of the bombings and the killings and just want to drop more bombs or another invasion this time Syria - or are nukes your answer?

And I don't need to learn history because you told me what it was and what was the real root cause the invasion of Iraq. So what changed your mind on such a fundemetal issue of who caused all the deaths and the global terrorism that we see now?

Don't you think...

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

I do not care what he thinks because i know he is fundementally not telling the truth or believes he is telling the truth and simply does not have a clue. As I have just explained the real causes for you and have actually done this multiple times before. You take his opinion when it fails to register why many already held deep seated hatred based again on Shia and Sunni, which led later to Shia taking control eventually of Iraq. Without the hate and insurgency that failed against Iraq, without his genocide and persecution of Kurds, Shias etc. Then would the insurgency have even gotten oiff the grond after Saddam was ousted? Highly unlikely and remote to say the least and this is what you have failed to counter.
You can keep going on about what he thinks all night long.
So you certainly need to learn from hbistory as what did some Jews do after freed from the camps after WW2?
Sought out and murdered Nazi's from the camps
Like I say all you have to do is see where root causes form and you would never have had an insurgency if not for decades of violence in Iraq itself under Saddam.

Ref the op... man says 14 of his family killed by Saddam hussein... then says he was imprisoned for 2 years... then he is allegedly sledge hammering the Saddam hussein statue...


Here is a pic...






Funny he only has half a left foot...




And here's another picture...





Funny how the 2 people (man & woman) in the background are so far away but the same size and bigger than those in the foreground...

I make you right about the second picture actually.

Look at his foot and ankle compared to other foot and ankle...


Look at background between his legs... behind him there is the pair of legs in dark trousers... then just behind those is another set of legs in light brown trousers... but no body above...

Tommy has a point


I just enlarged that photo and the wall is coveriung where half his foot should be, which would be impossble. Its as if he has been added to the photo

The whole thing is a mock up... the statue panels are what's called 'textures'... computer generated background pieces like you see on computer games when you have your character running past wall backgrounds or ground backgrounds etc...

So... anyone care to talk about the wider implications of issues raised here...?

On dishonesty by people who claim to be witnesses?
Did I not cover that already?

And people who claimed to have witnessed and filmed this event are...?

Tommy Monk wrote:


And people who claimed to have witnessed and filmed this event are...?

Black Beauty?
Homer Simpson?


Who cares, that is not even the point of this debate

Stop attention seeking mate

No... try again... it is extremely significant...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... try again... it is extremely significant...

Try what?

I already explained the consequences of the uprising.

So point out what is frustrating you to ask me a question, you have not fully asked?

Didge wrote:Tommy has a point


I just enlarged that photo and the wall is coveriung where half his foot should be, which would be impossble. Its as if he has been added to the photo

Look again, the toe of his shoe is there, he's just wearing shoes that are a similar color to the wall, so it can be a bit hard to make out. Compare the white sole and brown upper of his right shoe to the left shoe and you can see how it extends past the wall.



As to the other photo, it's from an elevated vantage (at least as high up as the top of the statue), which tends to flatten the perspective. You wouldn't get the perspective you're used to seeing unless the photographer was farther down.

I thought that about the shoe but the body is definitely missing from the man behind.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:No... try again... it is extremely significant...

Try what?

I already explained the consequences of the uprising.

So point out what is frustrating you to ask me a question, you have not fully asked?

Who was doing the 'filming' and taking the 'pictures'...?



And Ben... the foot and ankle is all wrong...the other pic has a multitude of issues...


And if you look at other pics and bits of films you can see loads more problems...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


Try what?

I already explained the consequences of the uprising.

So point out what is frustrating you to ask me a question, you have not fully asked?

Who was doing the 'filming' and taking the 'pictures'...?

Who cares who did the filming when it has zero significance to my points

I frankly do not care, so you are flogging not only a dead horse but again of utterly no significance by even knowing who did

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html

PMSL

Excellent comedy Tommy

The evidence for this claim? Two pictures of two different people
I mean that is the biggest and quickest, beard hair growth I have ever seen in history.
In just 3 days



What is he a new x-men?
Name-Beardman
Special powers-spiderweb hair, that shoots out from his chin

PMSL again

That has to be the funniest made up narative to a video yet
Not a single piece of evidence was presented to the many claims
He just simply claimed them.

Classic Tommy, twice you have made me day more to the fact you are so utterly gullible. I mean do you even stop to question what you have posted today?
I mean the beard was hilarious and for you not to even question that?




I have things to do, but here is a good example of someone taking as gosple without even questioning. You see its actually the likes of me and others that do question everything. We have no motive either and if something after exhausting the evidence ticks the boxes. Then there is little to doubt this. What is easy to spot and doubt is poor claims made, when they have an ulterior motive.

This is easier to except for people who lack trust in the system, but fully trust people that have manipulated them.
Its a shame tommy, as you are alright, but have been easily manipulated.
I mean seriously, did you not even question why this video never even backed up a single claim made?

Laters

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/mar/09/saddam-hussein-statue-toppled-bagdhad-april-2003-video


Have a look at this video of statue... especially the man with sledgehammer...

PMSL again
So it shows one person with the sledge hammer and the video jumps to later.
Which means they did not show the whole entire scene




One moment



Even this one is edited and does not show all of the whole entire event.
They edited to capture peoples attention and this is your evidence again
I mean this video shows the man taking off his shirt tommy. Then hitting the wall, the same vest and all.
Like i say you never fully research anything and think a 2 second clip of them hitting the statue, without the full clip is evidence


PMSL

Like I say, look at the man taking off his white shirt

The point is that the whole scene was set up the the US army psy-ops!

Is that so Tommy?

Maybe it was and maybe it was not
Or maybe it was a spontaneous reaction, after knowing someone with such a grip of terror on its people. No longer had that power. I would dare to say it was a conbination of both. People were aroused and even a small gathering set a chain of reactions around the statue. I doubt the toppling was conceived no more than whenb it actually began. With Iraqi's gathering at its base talking how best to topple this. Then the Americans goit in the act and made it Hollywood.

But and here is the real but, it was not stage managed Tommy. As they would have pulled the statue down from the first moment with chains around its neck.
That shows more than anything ad lib. Some sought to bring this down and use the most basic methods. Then clearly someone with an engineering mind offered up an easier solution to the problem at hand and they all listened.

Something stage managed does cannot account for spontaneity.
Hence this was spontaneity, not staged managed. The conception of the yanks to help and or even film was after they twigged its significance whilst it was happenning.

Laters, but its been fun seeing you struggle.

A us military vehicles pulled it down... plenty of TV cameras about too...


How very spontaneous...

lol which shows why the gullible fail to even read or understand a simple thing I stated.

What do you understand about reaction Tommy?

Doh

Dodge... check it out... the whole area was cordoned off by US military with the small 'rent-a-mob' group round the statue...


Media cameras and film crews a plenty...

First of all the name is didge

Second you have failed to discount spontaneity.

Third countless media sources were already within the area due to the conflict

Fourth, this is a classic case of how something that starts out is contagious

Fifth, most of the evidence you have posted up, I have easily debunked