Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
"I never made so many coffins a day" - A Diary from Iraq
electroniciraq.net — "Before the war, we were making about two or maximum three coffins a day for people who had died from diseases or car accidents. But today we make at least 20 a day for victims of the violence." - This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service.
zaibatsu- 453 diggs
- digg it
- TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -24/+7Business is so good at the al-Qarah Cemetery that people are dying to get in. Wocka Wocka.
- finknottle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1A touch close to the bone :/
- Steelfox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This really isn't surprising. There's a war, there's more people. Of course you're gonna need to be making more things, especially coffins. Every type of industry can come out and say they're making more of something.
- Sealab2021, on 10/12/2007, -33/+25This wonderful story was made possible by one man...
***** Bush- BubbaShuv, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9@sealab2021
Oh thank you for that wonderful, and totally unexpected insight. I didnt see that one coming.
Why didnt I think of that? Gee, let's blame Bush for something bad. - Olle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Bubba,
Not that Sealab was very eloquent, but honestly, are you saying that Bush doesn't have a hand in this? - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5The struggle in Iraq is the front line in this terror war. It is made so by the terrorists.
They cannot afford there to be the choice of democracy in the Middle East. In fact,
they don't want anything like choices for people.
The Ayatollah's revolution, and the jihad encouraged by al Qaeda, although in competition
with one another, both vie for uniting the Middle East under one Caliphate. And they're
not talking democracy either.
This view is unpopular with the Hate Bush Blame Bush liberals. They don't want to hear it,
or read it, or discuss it. Instead, they want to find some sort of wedge issue in the war.
"Bush started it." No he didn't. If the front line was to be postponed in Iraq, then it would
have focused in Afghanistan, or Lebanon, wherever democracy threatened the Ayatollah's
revolution or aL Qaeda's Jihad. Don't think for a second that the majority of people in
Iraq want Hussein alive and back in power. - headswine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Actually, it wasn't the front line for the war on terror until GW made it so. Iraq was justa screwed up country run by a nasty dictator. Now it breeds terrorists.
By the way M99, it isn't just bleeding liberals who blame Bush for this. Look how the Republicans are running away from him now as well. GW is left alone in his stupidity. - bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Mu99ins
It is not terrorism in Iraq. It is desperation, anarchy, an insurgency and civil war.
Sure there are elements that would like a fundamentalist Middle East. But it is the power vacume that allowed all of it to flourish, and *that* is caused by your war. They are just dealing with the consequenses.
Front line in the war on terror indeed. What a joke. This is the same mess your government left Afganistan in the 80s. That cess pool did a fat lot of good didn't it?
It isn't just Bush's war. It's your war because people with your ideology pushed for it before, during and after. Take credit where credit is due. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2How can you contend there isn't terrorism?
Al Qaeda is there to foment civil war by attacking
innocent men, women and children. That's the
definition of terrorism. The Ayatollah is funding
al Sadr and others to attack Sunnies and try to
dominate the present govt. in Iraq, that too is
terrorism. There are a lot of other things happening,
as in everywhere else, but terrorism is happening in
spades in Iraq. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@headswine
Hussein used and supported terrorism within and outside Iraq.
Zarkawi was a terrorist leader inside Iraq who was targeting Kurdish leaders.
Like I said, the terrorists chose to make Iraq a proxy war in their
attempt to take control of the Middle East. The majority of the Iraqis
didn't want Hussein, don't want al Qaeda running their country, nor
the Sunnies by themselves, or whomever the Ayatollah wants to dominate.
It's isn't Bush who is bombing the civilians. The blame rests entirely on
the forces pitted against what the majority of the people want in Iraq.
And if you think life was swell under Hussein, go to the Iraqi websites
and tell them. I dare you to do this. - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, Iraq was the frontline in the war on terror because the entire world *is* the front line and has been so since the international terrorist movement signaled its existence with the murder of Israeli athletes at the '72 Olympics in Munich.
The only thing I've never been able to fathom is why it took the noble left so long to figure out a way to convince yourselves that Yassir Arafat and his like were the poor, set-upon underdogs who deserve the, primarily, verbal support of the left as typified by Sealab2021.
What were you guys waiting for?
There's hardly a *****-heel monster in recent history that you guys haven't found some redeeming quality to pretend you give a damn about and hardly a crime those monsters have committed that you haven't managed to remain noticeably quiet about.
No thanks to the likes of you there's one less, real bogeyman in the world and the guy who's ultimately responsible for putting that real bogeyman in his well-deserved grave did it by acting, which puts your endless whining in the harsh, unflattering light it deserves.
Of course you hate President Bush, of course you have to demean him and the people who support him and the men and women who've participated in the achievement of the goal of putting Saddam Hussein in his grave. Otherwise it might be impossible to overlook the self-involved nature of your "concern" and "compassion".
- BubbaShuv, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9@sealab2021
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -17/+26He is making so many coffins now because when Saddam was in power they just dumped all the bodies in mass graves and the families never knew what happened to them.
- footballboy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Thank you Mr Bush! I'm sure daddy is proud of you.
- dkbeers, on 10/12/2007, -15/+22I would say that this is because Saddam used mass graves for his victims. You don't need coffins when your dumping hundreds of people in a ditch and covering them with dirt.
sorry, plumcrazy typed faster then i.- HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Isn't the mass graves point legitimate? Or don't Diggers have open minds anymore?
- FoxtrotYankee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17Open minds? Nah. The haters don't want to miss a chance to bash the President.
(I'm not crazy about the man either, but I don't blindly hate everything he does because that's just juvenile). - rbanffy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14How many deaths per month under Saddam compared to how many deaths per month under the invasion?
I think that, although Saddam was sure not a nice guy, the number of violent deaths rose sharply after his removal. There is no way a police state with a couple genocides happening every once and then can compare to the all-out civil war we currently see. - cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No opinion, just the numbers:
Saddam was responsible for about 2million deaths during his 24 year reign.
The current war has caused about 655.000 deaths in 4 years. - Asdfglpwglion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Numbers _are_ opinion.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Asdfglpwglion:
Wow, I just hope you don't work in scientific research. - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I hope he does work in the sciences since he's not as willing to accept numbers that fit his preconceptions as you seem to be.
Without identifying the source of the numbers you quote why would any scientist accept them? Why would any *one* accept them? How do the numbers you quote square with the fact that Hussein started *two* wars and was extraordinarily inept in both? How do the numbers you quote square with single-day totals that exceed the monthly average to which your numbers equate? - cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh my god, if you don't know where the number of 655.000 comes from you definately shouldn't bother commenting on current news events like this one.
And as a little homework I will let you try to find out the source yourself.
- finknottle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17.....I think the Shiites and Kurds might beg to disagree....the kurds needed 12,000 coffins in one day during the "Anfal Campaign".
- wisam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This comparison diggers are making is sick. It doesn't matter how many you killed, you're still a murderer. Saddam was a murderer, so is the people killing hundreds in Iraq these days. Not to forgot those who caused the choas and helped fuel it.
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The people killing hundreds of Iraqis today are other Iraqis. The cause of the killing is freedom. The same thing happened in India when the Brits left (that's how Pakistan was formed) and in Kosovo after the fall of the Soviet Union.
The U.S. is staying in there trying to keep a cap on it for better or worse. Personally; I think we should leave and let them have their civil war. It's probably inevitable anyways.
. - wisam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3PLUMCARZY, You have a faulty understanding of history. The formation of independent Pakistan was by no means a civil war. And what happened in Kosovo were one-sided atrocities by the Serbs against the Albanians. It can hardly be named a civil war since the weapons were nearly exclusively in the hands of the Serbs.
All that doesn't matter. What matters is that the US "intervention" caused much more destruction and death. Not that Saddam was an angel to be left in regime, but the mess and chaos caused by invading Iraq is overwhelming. Contrarly to you're thinking, the existence of the troops is not doing any good. It caused the troubles in the first place. - greenreefer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Iran promises to Nuke Israel,
no need for coffins and other silly formalities.
Iran is actively publicly pursuing Nukes,
actively expressing the desire to Nuke Israel.
This is real.
What do you suggest?
Regarding all this blame Bush business, are you aware that there
is a belief that FDR knew about and enabled the attack on Pearl Harbor?
The fight was brought here. Both times. We currently keep them busy there.
That is it. I wish we had a bit more help.
Anyway sir, what do you suggest regarding Israel?
Let them, be nuked? Say it is someone else's problem?
What would you do? - greenreefer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wisam, the above post was not directed at you, Sorry about that. My bad click.
An open question for you loudmouth,lightweight,left wing,lying,agitprop experts..
That get your attention, did it?
You know who you are.
Iran promises to nuke Israel.
What would you do?
- piradians, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yo, greenreefer, Iran has said no such thing. Check your sources and do a bit more research on the subject. If Iran ever publicly does admit the intention and means to nuke Israel we'd all hear about it and freak out equally. Not that I think they'd ever publicly announce it like you claim they already have. People certainly suspect Iran of many things, but no such confirmation has ever come to light.
I'm hoping, just maybe, you are seriously concerned about what really is happening and would appreciate some correction.
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The people killing hundreds of Iraqis today are other Iraqis. The cause of the killing is freedom. The same thing happened in India when the Brits left (that's how Pakistan was formed) and in Kosovo after the fall of the Soviet Union.
- Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Reminds me of Kurosawa's Yoyimbo. In the end the prosperous coffin maker became sad because at that rate no one would be left to buy his coffins.
- xsecretfiles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3What do we have here?
A blame Bush Party?
ok my turn
Keep doing a good job on blowing your member to pieces dear extremist, so we dont longer have to count you- LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"What do we have here? A blame Bush Party?"
At what point have you seen any other kind of party on Digg? Lately it seems that if a cow farts in Siberia, Digg just can't wait to blame that on Bush, claiming that it's yet another cause of global warming and that Bush did nothing to stop that cow from farting. We also can't forget the "I don't agree with you so I'm going to censor^H^H^H^H^H^Hdigg you down while simultaneously bitching when free speech is attacked" parties.
- LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"What do we have here? A blame Bush Party?"
- aratika, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the murderous tyrant that hung the other day was given a coffin as well.
- dbradley96, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ plumcrazy
I love it...you people never cease to amaze me. Yeah the real reason the are dieing is freedom.- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3You People?
You racist son of a bitch.
***** You ! - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You're so deep!
- PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3You People?
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This guy must not have been working in Kurdistan when Saddam gassed 180,000 Kurds.
- finknottle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds."
(Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)
- finknottle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds."
- inquebiss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why are we blaming Bush? I'm not a a fan of Bush, but these people would be killing each other regardless of whether we are there or not. Clearly the article states that people were "killed by militias or insurgents or in bomb explosions. Others have been killed by gangsters for money or in senseless sectarian violence." You can hate Bush all you like, but this is why we are there. At least that's what our troops believe in.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I'm not a a fan of Bush, but these people would be killing each other regardless of whether we are there or not."
I completely agree with you. Bush was just the one opening this Pandora's box.
And we all just disagree about his motivations to do so. - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Who is "we all?" Think for yourself rather than in political party groupism.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Huh? I was reffering to all the people here commenting.
There are obviously some who believe his motivation was to "spread democracy" while others (like me) disagree and believe he had different motivations. - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Cyberdork
The Bush strategy in the Middle East is to spread democracy.
It's not done out of a heart felt need to be charitable....it's done
strategically, to give the people something other than choosing
between secular dictatorships or religious dictatorships. Democracy
is kryptonite to the Jihad of al Qaeda or the revolution of the Ayatollah.
Democracy offers the hope of freedom and prosperity, something
worth fighting for. It's not worth taking a risk if all you have to
chose from is one form of dictatorship or another.
Meanwhile, the Ayatollah is drawing nearer and nearer to nuclear capability.
He already has ICBMs. - Mr.Ortiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I'm not a a fan of Bush, but these people would be killing each other regardless of whether we are there or not."
That's funny, they weren't doing it 4 years ago. Bush removed an oppressive dictatorship and replaced it with chaos. Turns out chaos is far worse, unless you're still clinging to dreams of the "potential" for peace that exists without Saddam. It's easy to sit in your chair and say "Saddam was bad, so getting rid of him was good," but the daily lives of actual Iraqis has gotten worse, and it will get even worse still before it gets better, if it ever gets better. A lot of people here feel good about themselves for supporting a war that removed a brutal dictator from power, that's fine, just don't expect a thank you note from an Iraqi child anytime soon. - inquebiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Mr.Ortiz These people have been killing each other for centuries. I don't know where you get your info.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I'm not a a fan of Bush, but these people would be killing each other regardless of whether we are there or not."
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's because Saddam just dug big ditches to dump the tens of thousands of murdered people. It's not like they haven't found tons of them;
- mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I really wanted to say the same thing, but you and a half dozen people in this thread already beat me to it.
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2So this story is from the UN
Why isn't the UN in Iraq trying to help people? One of their sanctuaries gets bombed and they move out. But hey they still have money to send reporters there- just not distributors of medicine and doctors.
The UN is broken.
Why not do a story on coffin makers in Darfur?
Why didn't they do a story on mass graves in Iraq 10 years ago?- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because the UN is only about one thing: allowing "leaders" from 3rd world countries to live in the US on the US dime without even a need to pay parking tickets.
- Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The terrorists are asking the question, "How many innocent people do we
have to murder before you retreat?" The West will retreat. Asymmetrical
warfare does erode the will of the people to fight, as demonstrated by the Spanish
in their election after the Madrid train bombing. The Democrats in the U.S. are
threatening to cut off funding for the U.S. support of the Iraqi government.
It would not be inaccurate to say that worldwide, the majority of people want their
govts. to either stay out of Iraq, or withdraw immediately from Iraq. The press,
almost everyday, runs stories or finds someone to interview who agrees that the
West is losing in Iraq. It's not going to miraculously stop with Iraq. There is
Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the rest of the stans, and more, enveloping
all of the Islamic world and beyond. Is there anyone who thinks their borders can keep
out infiltrators?- felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You sir, are ignorant and idiotic.
Do you really believe that a group of people just one day woke up and thought we hate "freedom", we hate everything "America" stands for. No, they woke up one day and had missiles falling on their heads with a flag which despite meaning freedom to you meant death for them.
The US ***** up big time. And the rest of the world is able to say "I told you so". Now clean up your mess properly and don't make excuses! - Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@felyduw
Thank you for those kind words.
No, "I don't think people woke up one day...." all the rest of that,
nor did I say anything of the sort. The U.S. did not "...***** up
big time..." as you so eloquently argue, we are instead in a world
war, with Iraq now the proxy of that war. Although there are Sunnies
who are discontented with democracy, and al Qaeda has done everything
in it's power to foment civil war,....the majority of the people want
good governance in their country, and al Qaeda, or those loyal to
the dictatorship of Hussein, or those being controlled by the Ayatollah
do not offer good governence. Neither did Saddam The fact that al Qaeda
and the Ayatollah choose to take a stand in Iraq, as I pointed out, would
have happened instead in Afghanistan or by stronger means in Lebanon,
Pakistan and beyond. You're Anti-Americanism is mis-directed. - LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@felyduw
Ah, yes. "Clean up your mess." Do you realize how pathetic that makes the rest of the world look? A first the U.S. asked for help, and the world denied it hoping that it would stop the U.S. from going in. Now, when the U.S. needs the help no country is willing to help out of complete spite against the U.S., allowing the bloodshed to continue. The rest of the world is condoning the deaths of thousands of Iraqis **because** the U.S. can't get out of there. And yet the U.S. can't get out of there **because** the world has spitefully turned its back on the U.S. and by direct association Iraq.
So, don't give us this ***** about how the rest of the world is so rightous by allowing the U.S. to continue to go it alone. The rest of the world (save England) is refusing to help because of their hatred for the U.S., which by direct association is nothing more than turning their backs on the Iraqis. If you think that the rest of the world is guiltless in what's happening you're completely wrong.
"Oh, we can't help the Iraqis because it might look as though we're helping the U.S., which our massive pride refuses to let us do. Sorry about that. You're just going to have to die because our pride might get dinged."
You say, "Clean up your mess." I say, "***** you and your damned holier-than-thou dogma. Swallow your pride and help to get this mess cleaned up sooner. I'm sure that you'll have no problems hanging it over our heads later on."
- felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You sir, are ignorant and idiotic.
- ironpirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Maybe because when Saddam had people killed they would just dig a hole and throw them in.
- heliox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Before the war, we were making about two or maximum three coffins a day for people who had died from diseases or car accidents. But today we make at least 20 a day for victims of the violence."
What about the days Saddam got a hair up his ass and gassed 100,000 Kurds? Oh wait, THEY didn't get coffins. - freesoul1971, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I heard Chenney just setup a coffin business in Iraq to milk more money :D
- iEnigma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wait a minute, more people died AFTER the war started? That's just crazy talk.
- jhaitas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1more coffins are needed daily to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa...
they cannot make them fast enough to deal with all the bodies
does anyone care about that?- spjmm0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1apparently they do. Have you seen a concert for Iraq? A comedy special to raise money for iraq? They have had both multiple times for AIDS.
before you think that I do not care about people that have or have died of AIDS. I do care and do give money.
- spjmm0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1apparently they do. Have you seen a concert for Iraq? A comedy special to raise money for iraq? They have had both multiple times for AIDS.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is