Who Killed Margaret Hassan?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by surenderer, Nov 20, 2004.

  1. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879
    Aid worker Margaret Hassan was not abducted by any known terrorist or insurgent organization. The videotapes released of Hassan were unlike any other hostage tape -- no orange prison suits, no masked captors, no jihadist banners. Iraqi citizens and even the leading insurgent cell lead by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi asked for Hassan's release. So who killed Hassan? Reporter Robert Fish observes that if someone like Margaret Hassan "can be kidnapped and murdered, how much further can we fall into the Iraqi pit? There are no barriers, no frontiers of immorality left."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk11182004.html

    (November 18, 2004 ) -- After the grief, the astonishment, heartbreak, anger and fury over the apparent murder of such a good and saintly woman, that is the question her friends -- and, quite possibly, the Iraqi insurgents -- will be asking. This Anglo-Irish woman held an Iraqi passport. She had lived in Iraq for 30 years, she had dedicated her life to the welfare of Iraqis in need.

    She hated the United Nations sanctions and opposed the Anglo-American invasion. So who killed Margaret Hassan?

    Of course, those of us who knew her will reflect on the appalling implications of the videotape (sent to Al Jazeera yesterday and apparently showing her execution). Her husband believes it is evidence of her death.

    If Margaret Hassan can be kidnapped and murdered, how much further can we fall into the Iraqi pit? There are no barriers, no frontiers of immorality left. What price is innocence now worth in the anarchy that we have brought to Iraq?

    The answer is simple: nothing. I remember Margaret arguing with doctors and truck drivers over a lorry-load of medicines for Iraq's children's cancer wards in 1998. She smiled, cajoled and pleaded to get these leukaemia drugs to Basra and Mosul.

    She would not have wished to be called an angel -- Margaret didn't like clichés. Even now I want to write "doesn't like clichés". Are we really permitted to say that she is dead? For the bureaucrats and the Western leaders who today will express their outrage and sorrow at her reported death, she had nothing but scorn.

    Yes, she knew the risks. Margaret Hassan was well aware that many Iraqi women had been kidnapped, raped, ransomed or murdered by the Baghdad mafia.

    Because she is a Western woman -- the first to be abducted and apparently murdered -- we forget how many Iraqi women have already suffered this terrible fate; largely unreported in a world which counts dead American soldiers but ignores the fatalities among those with darker skins and browner eyes and a different religion, whom we claimed to have liberated.

    Recalling the Odd, Appalling Videos
    And now let's remember the other, earlier videos. Margaret Hassan crying. Margaret Hassan fainting, Margaret Hassan having water thrown over her face to revive her, Margaret Hassan crying again, pleading for the withdrawal of the Black Watch regiment from the Euphrates River.

    In the background of these appalling pictures, there were none of the usual Islamic banners. There were none of the usual armed and hooded men. There were no Qur'anic recitations.

    And when it percolated through to Fallujah and Ramadi that the mere act of kidnapping Hassan was close to heresy, the combined resistance groups of Fallujah -- and the message genuinely came from them -- demanded her release.

    So, incredibly, did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda man whom the Americans falsely claimed was leading the Iraqi insurrection, but who has definitely been involved in the kidnappings and beheadings. Other abducted women were freed when their captors recognised their innocence.

    But not Margaret Hassan, even though she spoke fluent Arabic and could explain her work to her captors in their own language. If anyone doubted the murderous nature of the insurgents, what better way to prove their viciousness than to produce evidence of Margaret Hassan's murder?

    What more ruthless way could there be of demonstrating to the world that the US and Interim Prime Minister Iyad Alawi's tinpot army were fighting "evil" in Fallujah and the other Iraqi cities?


    November 19, 2004
    Robert Fisk / CounterPunch





    http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=2078
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    shes not dead, her death was faked, her entire kidnapping was faked.

    she got some iraqis to pretend to kidnapp her in an attemp to get british troops out of iraq, she new that she was highly regarded, and assumed that the brits wolud at least start to remove troops in order to ensure her safety, but they didnt.

    she knew that if she just walked out then the americans would know what she had done and torture her just like all the other "terrorists" they send to quintanemo.

    she knows that it is dangerous to hide in iraq, but it would be more desirable to be shot dead by american troops than to be "interrogated" by them
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    195
    Hassan was a nest egg -- pure and simple. Notice when she was killed? Just like Berg, amidst the Abu Ghraib scandal -- another nest egg, her death came at an apex moment of the Video Mosque Shooting, knocking the headline off the top.

    I maintain that her traumatised display during the video tapings was brought on by the insane knowledge of knowing who actually kidnapped her, i.e., the Americans. Hell -- she married an Iraqi and was against the war -- an American "enemy of war". Bloody Americans.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. M-16 Registered Militant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    How do we know the identity and race of men wearing masks?
     
  8. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Hang on a minute, as much as I am against the war in Iraq, its going a bit too far to say it was the Americans, without any evidence.
    But I'm sure we can agree that the people who did it were the kind of scum that needs shot immediately?
     
  9. M-16 Registered Militant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    There is no evidence that it was the insurgents either.....
     
  10. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    So nobody did it. Perhaps we need a proper investigation then.
     
  11. M-16 Registered Militant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    Yes we do. I expect the Mossad.
     
  12. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    You people and your paranoia amaze me. Is it that hard to believe the same people who have been cutting off innocent workers heads would have trouble removing hers? Many of these insurgents are the same baathist members who were torturing and killing their people before. You think Americans? Number one, for what reason would they do it? Secondly, if the americans are capable of doing that, why would they not fake a few WMD's while they were at it? There is no consistency or rationality to your beliefs, and no proof. I think you are willing to believe anything just to prove in your own minds the Americans are murders.

    I doubt the Mossad would do it, they already got what they wanted with the invasion of Iraq.
     
  13. an>roid.v2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    195
    I just can't give the Americans the benefit of the doubt. What, with four years -- four years -- of a constant inane "credibility", laced with lies, lies and more lies -- I'm not gonna be made into a fool. I mean, remember stuff like Yellow Cake and a plagiarized thesis and a whole lot of WMDs? A whole chunk of an American population may be a lot of "free-loving" people, and they may be made into fools -- but a whole chunk of an entire planet aren't so readily submissive to another country's president.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2004
  14. M-16 Registered Militant Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    Theres more in mind for them.
     
  15. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879


    Well actually Iran has been claiming that the US was trying to do that:

    http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.a...3472c49de99b88b300ee7c6bf&POS=11&CM=WPU&CE=11





    I think that people here are saying that it is the same people........maybe just not the same you say it is






    Do you ever notice when the more "news worthy" beheadings occur? Nick Burg quieted Abu Grahib disgrace which would be the worse time that an insurgent would want bad press because everyone was on the US case about that catostrophe.....then this happened right after the US gets caught committing more War Crimes in Fallujah.....if there were no beheadings can you imagine the world sympathy that the "insurgents" would be recieving right now?
     
  16. swam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    for all we know, and with the mess going on in Iraq, anyone could of killed her (that is if the body found was her's)

    and that "anyone" could be Muslim fundamentalist as well as from the Mossad or any sect. mo
     
  17. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "Well actually Iran has been claiming that the US was trying to do that:", Surenderer

    Iran news, now there is a fantastic source for information. If Bush were to try to bring in WMDs, why not bring them in before the election. It really does not matter to him now, considering that he is president for another four years.

    "I think that people here are saying that it is the same people........maybe just not the same you say it is", Surenderer

    Ok so now you believe it might not be the insurgents at all. All Americans and Mossad. How long do you think it would take for such a thing to become public? Old Willy could not even hide a simple sexual affair.

    "if there were no beheadings can you imagine the world sympathy that the "insurgents" would be recieving right now? ", Surenderer

    I guess it would require the Americans to be commiting war crimes in order to agree with this point. The beheadings have been going on endlessly throughout the year. Half of these may simply involve kidnapping for cash, which you see throughout the world.
     
  18. robtex Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    582
    Very perplexing. I was crushed because her husband saw it and thinks she is dead. I read before the tape was released that declared her dead that it was a group unnamed who was planning to hand her over to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3976433.stm)
    but the whole situation is kinda foggy. I don't know if you all watched the video tape but I don't think she faked her fear and misery on it. She looked terrified. It was heart wrenching to watch it. Hopefully DNA tests will be run on the undentifed womans body will be quick and that will reveal if it is her or someone else.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hassan
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/11/16/story176182.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3945443.stm
     
  19. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879



    Your kinda funny Towards because any news source that doesnt agree with your opinion you discredit.....as if a story like this would ever be on CNN or FOX(I guess you think that all other news sources lie about America yet the US always tells the truth).....and actually Iran had been making those claims well before Bush got elected...Why in the world would Insurgents want to kill her when they obviously accepted her for the last 30 years?.....and it could take a while when these people are (murderers) hooded......never caught and have no identity....Heck even the real groups fighting the occupation forces were calling for her release
     
  20. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Such a high moral self-righteousness from a person whose country’s troops burn people alive slowly&steadily with phosphorous bombs, napalm, etc. Whose country’s army shoots everything moving and prevents medical help to the wounded dying on streets (shoots wounded too). Whose country’s army doctors are shooting phosphorous rounds in a city full of civilians (for a sport). Would you rather die from white phosphorous eating your flesh slowly and painfully? Would you rather watch your open guts for a few hours before death? Wow, you are such a civilized humanitarian compared with head cutting folks of the unknown affiliation. USA troops commit war crimes every day. Americans voted for it. Still, they feel incredibly superior in the moral virtues department. What a fucking hypocrisy.
     
  21. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "Your kinda funny Towards because any news source that doesnt agree with your opinion you discredit", Surenderer

    I choose credible media sources, whether american or not. Iran is a nation controlled by a religious autocracy, with no free media. Why would any rational mind believe what they say? No other world media reported this, only Iran which obviously has other agendas. Just rational thought.

    "Why in the world would Insurgents want to kill her when they obviously accepted her for the last 30 years", Surenderer

    A ruthless dictator kept control over these people for the last 30 years. War brings out the worst elements of society. They killed her to remove the organization that she supported from Iraq, and they succeeded.

    and actually Iran had been making those claims well before Bush got elected, Surenderer

    Well then I guess they proved they were lying then, because Bush did not do it. And this would be extremely simple to pull off... since it would require a few amount of people.

    "Such a high moral self-righteousness from a person whose country’s troops burn people alive slowly&steadily with phosphorous bombs, napalm, etc. Whose country’s army shoots everything moving and prevents medical help to the wounded dying on streets (shoots wounded too). ", Preacher X

    I did not support Bush and believed his behavior should have had him impeached, but American fear allowed this war because of september 11th. Though I have never supported the war, I do not make the U.S. soldiers out to be the killers you pretend them to be. The situation of the soldier shooting the wounded man is common during every war in history with every army. You do not know what ordeal the soldier has been through, and it becomes a different world when everyone is shooting at you from around. If one cop is a murderer do I judge them all to be murderers? You take a few incidents and attribute them to the entire army. There is no proof to support the claims you make that the soldiers are deliberately targeting civilians, for if they were vastly huge amount of civilians would die. The amount of civilians killed in Iraq has been historically VERY low, and does not show signs of deliberate carelessness. You rant and show no proof of your claims
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2004
  22. dixonmassey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,151
    Soldiers during times of war=killers. There are plenty of witnesses (including American soldiers) of the deliberate killings in Iraq (if you care to find out). You chose to live in the patriotic "noble war" fair tale where the largest soldier's concern is how not to kill. Read some history for somebody's sake if you do not trust the present.

    You may use the very same line of reasoning to justify just about anything, including deliberate murder of non wounded, non armed civilians and toddlers. what if that soldier will come back to the USA and shoot you? Will you say "well, he lived through a lot. Let him go". Certainly, you will not do that. However, Iraqi lives are less valuable than yours; thus, the above logic applies.
    Soldiers were hired to kill. they do not want to get killed in an exchage for the college $, so they will kill just about anything they perceieve as a danger (this is normal behavior). Each army has certain % of sadists, etc. These will kill/torture for fun. Ever read Vietnam war eyewitness stories? It's lie too, I guess. Only small % of soldiers see firefight/has chances to kill somebody. So, obviously, majority of soldiers never killed because they had no chance.

    Bomber pilots are UNIVERSAL murderers. 500lbs bomb dropped on the densely population area do not have even superficial selectivity that foot soldiers have. Many people die in terrible pain. Still, "civilized" feel immensely morally superior to the unknown head cutting guys. It's just plain hypocritical and stupid. Have you heard the exchange between a bomber-fighter pilot and ground control. (There is a thread on sciforums about it)? Listening the record leaves no doubt about the murderous intent and disregard to human life.
    As I've said, entire army does not do fighting. Where is proof backing your faith? Did you count dead civilian death to be so certain about their small numbers? I listen eyewitness stories (American ones) broadcasted on small internet radio stations. Sure, Fox or Rush are way more reliable sources. Do you have the idea how Falludga was taken? the plan was nothing but deliberate killing of everything that moved on streets. Medical care/food/water were denied, people died on streets/inside of their homes slowly without help, whomever appeared to help wounded was shot at. Dogs were eating bodies for few days. Add there the use of napalm, cluster and white phosphorous bombs/shells, great humanitarian.

    Well, I did not mention numbers. You did. Thus, where is your proof that civilian death are historically low? There is bunch of info suggesting "deliberate" intent or "carelessness". It's just a top of the iceberg.
     
  23. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "Soldiers during times of war=killers.", Dixonmassey

    This does not make them murderers, or deliberately attempting to kill civilians. It has been generally accepted that soldiers fighting in war are not murders, and this includes insurgents attacking U.S. troops.

    "You chose to live in the patriotic "noble war" fair tale where the largest soldier's concern is how not to kill", Dixonmassey

    No, I am just not portraying them as murderers as you are, or implying that they target civilians as a policy.

    "Bomber pilots are UNIVERSAL murderers. 500lbs bomb dropped on the densely population area do not have even superficial selectivity that foot soldiers have", Dixonmassey

    You live in a fantasy world how you feel a war should be fought. They are not dropping those bombs in order to punish civilians, but to hit insurgents. Yes, it is inevitable that civilians will die in this process, but it does not prove there is a policy of ignoring civilian lives.


    "Many people die in terrible pain", Dixonmassey

    Yes, but they are not deliberately targeted

    "what if that soldier will come back to the USA and shoot you? Will you say "well, he lived through a lot. Let him go". Certainly, you will not do that", Dixonmassey

    I was attempting to explain why that happens, not inferring that soldier should not be punished. My point is that it is not a regular event and of policy of the great majority of soldiers.

    "Have you heard the exchange between a bomber-fighter pilot and ground control", Dixonmassey

    This only proves my point. The U.S. has thousands of hours of bombing footage and this is the only questionable video they have come out with. Even in that video, the whole conversation is not shown. We do not even know if the two were discussing that crowd before what we saw.

    "Where is proof backing your faith? Did you count dead civilian death to be so certain about their small numbers?", Dixonmassey

    I look at studies that use hospital totals, count dead bodies, in addition to a method similar to Les Robert's who claimed 100,000. Roberts study was severly flawed in the fact that it did a survey involving only 1000 households and a hostile population. His is the only study I have seen claiming those numbers, all others are websites which do not state the source of there beliefs. You mention Vietnam, which was an example of carpet bombing which claimed considerably more civilians. It would make sense that a ground directed bombing like in Iraq would take far fewer civilian lives.

    "Sure, Fox or Rush are way more reliable sources", Dixonmassey

    I read many sources, including Al Jazeera.

    "iincluding deliberate murder of non wounded, non armed civilians and toddlers.", Dixonmassey

    Inevitable in war but a reality. This was a situation that was unavoidable when invading Iraq, which was completely unnecessary. I blame Bush for this useless war, but I do not question the conduct of the vast majority of American soldiers. Compared to other scenarios throughout history similar to this, they have behaved very well. Just because you disagree with the war you choose to make the soldiers murderers, as well.

    "Still, "civilized" feel immensely morally superior to the unknown head cutting guys", Dixonmassey

    I am sorry, but I see a huge difference in an innocent civilian getting killed by a bomb unintentionally and a militant who kills a civilian in an act of revenge. So does every law in the law books. Simple common sense. Intent versus Nonintent
     

Share This Page