Margaret Hassan

[Titch98]

Like millions of other people in the world, I never knew Margaret Hassan or her family. However, the diabolical execution of this aid worker, who's only aim during some of her life was to better the lives of people in Iraq, has angered many people - myself included.

I would like to send my sympathy to the family she leaves behind and hope that this situation over in Iraq is resolved as soon as possible to prevent further needless slaughter.

Oh yes - and should Mr. Blair accidentally come across this posting.......send in the SAS and wipe these scum off the face of the f'ing earth (only this time, keep it away from the media so that they don't blat it out all over the world that elite forces are moving in on the terrorists!!)

 

[SamT]

truly shocking really.

RIP.

Not really sure why Ken Bigley got so much attention and everybody had virtually forgotten about margaret hassan.

 

[bubba]

I agree, her death is a tragedy, but let's not let emotions cloud the issues here.

If the coalition forces weren't in Iraq, then she would almost certainly still be alive.

Her death is no sadder nor any less sad than the death of anyone caught up in this conflict, be it one of "our" soldiers or an innocent civilian.

Before you call for more action, try not to forget that around 15,000 Iraqi *civilians* have died so far in Bush and Blair's oil-games. They are the ones who've really suffered in this confilct, and I would count Mrs Hassan amongst them.

 

[SamT]

If the coalition forces weren't in Iraq, then she would almost certainly still be alive.

quite agree.

Her death is no sadder nor any less sad than the death of anyone caught up in this conflict, be it one of "our" soldiers or an innocent civilian.

dont know about that - a soldier has chosen a career where the prospect of being murdered in on the cards from the start and part of your job is to murder other people.

Hostage taking and public excecution is a another league compared to 'normal' war.

I would say her death was sadder that the death of say a black watch soldier. (to anyone uninvolved in their respective personal lives)

Before you call for more action, try not to forget that around 15,000 Iraqi *civilians* have died so far in Bush and Blair's oil-games. They are the ones who've really suffered in this confilct, and I would count Mrs Hassan amongst them.

yup - an eye for an eye has never really been the answer has it. Its a natural human emotion, but essentially its one of the major the root causes of all conflict in this world.
[/hippy shit]

mind you, if someone kidnapped my missus, held her for 2 months,videoed themselves shooting her through the head then broadcast it to the world and I happened to meet them on a dark night armed with a baseball bat........... what would you do.

 

[Dave H]

Working in the defence industry, I can honestly say that the longer this goes on and the more information I see, the less it seems to be about W M D and the more about securing more friendly oil reserves for the US to squander. :evil:

But on a positive, it means more work for me

 

[Dave H]

And everyone I work with is appalled by the death of inocent civillians (of any persuasion)

 

[rich]

Before you call for more action, try not to forget that around 15,000 Iraqi *civilians* have died so far in Bush and Blair's oil-games. They are the ones who've really suffered in this confilct, and I would count Mrs Hassan amongst them.

Actually 100, 000:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

 

[bubba]

I don't think anyone will really know for years - I've seen some people doubt the 100k figure - I usually check out Iraq body count where they make great effort to confirm reported deaths.

But whatever the exact figure, it's still a fucking disgrace. Liberation? Yeah right. Hearts and Minds? What a joke. WMD? Well there weren't any were there? An illegal war based on bogus "intelligence".

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad to see Saddam gone, and I'm in no way belittling the efforts of the poor bastards who are out there facing bullets and bombs; but the way this war has been conducted with minimal thought for the well being of the Iraqi population in the aftermath is just a travesty.

And Bush still talks about the "war on terror" - well thanks to you Dubya, you've now got a real war on your hands.....and dragged the UK into it too.

</rant>

 

[rich]

I don't think anyone will really know for years - I've seen some people doubt the 100k figure - I usually check out Iraq body count where they make great effort to confirm reported deaths.

Iraq Body Count only counts deaths that are specifically reported in the media. They state that their figures are understimates:

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.

The Lancet study may be an over- or underestimate (there are a few flaws that could push it either way) but it is the only scientific attempt so far carried out to attempt to get a true figure of the number of deaths. I'll take it as the best estimate so far until a better one is carried out.

 

[bubba]

Good point, though the IBC figures do go much deeper than just what's reported in our press (good link here about this).

Whatever the figure, it's still unacceptable, especially in light of this quote by Amnesty International (also in the above link):

Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

 

[mickw]

lets give the soldiers of the uk all r suport thay r there for use
mick a old soldier 9/12 RL