You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iran
Lost from the Baghdad museum: truth
2003-06-11
I find this a remarkable admission from the UK's Left wing paper of record - Just the highlights but read the whole thing.
When, back in mid-April, the news first arrived of the looting at the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad, words hardly failed anyone. No fewer than 170,000 items had, it was universally reported, been stolen or destroyed, representing a large proportion of Iraq's tangible culture. And it had all happened as some US troops stood by and watched, and others had guarded the oil ministry.

One (room), which had clearly been used as a sniper point by Ba'ath forces, had also been looted of its best items, although they had been stacked in a far corner. The room had been opened with a key. Another storeroom looked as though the looters had just departed with broken artefacts all over the floor. But this, Cruikshank learned, was the way it had been left by the museum staff. No wonder, he told the viewers - the staff hadn't wanted anyone inside this room. Overall, he concluded, most of the serious looting "was an inside job".

Cruikshank also tackled George directly on events leading up to the looting. The Americans had said that the museum was a substantial point of Iraqi resistance, and this explained their reticence in occupying it. Not true, said George, a few militia-men had fired from the grounds and that was all. This, as Cruikshank heavily implied, was a lie. Not only were there firing positions in the grounds, but at the back of the museum there was a room that seemed to have been used as a military command post. And it was hardly credible that senior staff at the museum would not have known that. Cruikshank's closing thought was to wonder whether the museum's senior staff - all Ba'ath party appointees - could safely be left in post.

Furious, I conclude two things from all this. The first is the credulousness of many western academics and others who cannot conceive that a plausible and intelligent fellow-professional might have been an apparatchiks of a fascist regime and a propagandist for his own past. The second is that - these days - you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed.
As I said remarkable!

Posted by:Phil B

#7  I'll give the Guardian credit for following up on this story. Watch how little, if any, attention it gets in the major media in the U.S. They made quite a stink over the original story, but they'll probably see no reason to publish the real story.
Posted by: Ralph   2003-06-11 17:50:27  

#6  From "Merde in France": http://merdeinfrance.blogspot.com/

"Will Jacques Chiraq apologize for his outlandish remarks about 'veritable crimes against humanity'? No? Didn't think so."
Posted by: ColoradoConservative   2003-06-11 17:39:08  

#5  Cyber Sarge, I'm afraid you've got it round the wrong way. "Dan Cruikshank: Raiders of the Lost Art" was aired on BBC2 on Sunday. The press could have avoided this if half the interested population hadn't seen this story in all its detail on TV already. It was a very good, balanced programme, in which Cruikshank (who's been busy wandering around the middle east a lot lately) came across as a leftie beginning to see the light. He did his own investigations and came to the conclusion that despite claimns to the contrary, the Iraqis had turned the museum into a fortress, and the (Ba'athist - they were burning their membership ID papers as he arrived) staff were at least partly responsible for those artifacts that were missing.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-06-11 17:37:54  

#4  Where did you get the story, the link doesn't work. I want to send it to the Arab News Service and see if they publish it (it's a test).
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)   2003-06-11 17:14:07  

#3  Snellenr, This story would NEVER be reported by the BBC or Al Jihadeera. See last sentence, it explains all.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC California Chapter)   2003-06-11 17:10:32  

#2  Sorry! Should be filed under Middle East.

Of course, if this story had been reported by al Jazeera or the BBC, the filing category would be correct...
Posted by: snellenr   2003-06-11 17:08:25  

#1  Sorry! Should be filed under Middle East.
Posted by: Phil B   2003-06-11 16:26:04  

00:00