Destruction at Babylon

[ThetaOrionis01]

A report published by the British Museum expressed grave concern about damage done to the world's most important archaeological site.

 

Babylon. The cradle of civilisation.

 

Being irreparably damaged by a coalition forces camp right on the site.

 

The report outlines the damage done both to archaeological deposits and existing structures - the full report can be found here.

 

 

From reading the report it is clear that little or no thought was given to preserving the enormously valuable site - from scooping cuneiform fragments into sandbags to driving heavy vehicles across 2500 year old brick pavements to damaging ancient statues... Far from safeguarding the site, as I believe was the initial intent, the camp is causing massive damage.

 

It is an outrage that one of the world's most important cultural heritage sites should be treated in such a fashion - we will probably never know just how much has been destroyed.

 

 

Using the site of Babylon as a military camp is also in breach of international conventions - http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/i...1256E9300563CBE

 

IMO, what the coalition forces have done at Babylon is more than cultural vandalism - I would call it a war crime, and I hope that those responsible for it will have to answer for their careless, negligent and wilfull destruction of this site.

 

:angry2:

[loveme4whoiam]

Absolutely, i completely agree with you. The desecration of this site is one for the worst tragedies to befall historial and archaeological study in recent years. I would be interested in knowing exactly what punishment can be brought to bear for violating that convention - the damage has already been done.

 

I am not entirely sure if this counts as cultural vandalism or war crimes. I would err towards the latter, since from what you have said the soldiers were ordered to use that place as a camp, rather than choosing it themselves. Either way, it is a travesty that should never have occurred.

[Guest]

Listen, people. We are at war. If our soldiers are out there fighting for our countries in the wastelands of Iraq, then we shouldn't berate them for disturbing an archaelogical site, no matter how valuable or how much they defiled it. I don't care if they nuked the whole place; they are out there risking their necks for us every day, and we shouldn't start this. The brave men and women in Iraq have more than enough to worry about already.

[Dark0ne]

Listen, people. We are at war. If our soldiers are out there fighting for our countries in the wastelands of Iraq, then we shouldn't berate them for disturbing an archaelogical site, no matter how valuable or how much they defiled it. I don't care if they nuked the whole place; they are out there risking their necks for us every day, and we shouldn't start this. The brave men and women in Iraq have more than enough to worry about already.

 

I hate the whole "Exalt the Army as if they're saviours" mentality that many war countries seem to adopt. I would go as far to say I was disgusted when, over in America Sunday before last watching the Super Bowl, I had to put up with these pathetic " *ZOMG* THE SOLDIERS ARE OUR SAVIOURS..BOW..BOW! " adverts which made many yanks around me cheer and clap while myself and a friend sat there in dismay.

 

These people are doing their job and supporting their country as much as Jimbo down the local offices, who's supporting your country by paying his taxing that go towards education, healthcare (or lack of in America) and so on and so forth. Jimbo doesn't get a clap though, because he's not getting shot at. Being a soldier is a job one that they weren't conscripted or forced into, but one they volunteered to because they felt it either their duty or felt it was a good job for them to be in. Similarly I could say my duty is to provide a source of relief and entertainment for people, a humble reason if there were any, as Dicken's would say "th' people must be entertained, squire".

 

Now what really pisses me off are the people who signed up for the army, knowing full well what it entailed, who refused to go to war when told to because it was against their religion or against their thinking. Its like signing up to be a butcher when you're a vegetarian. Pointless.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way, and I'm sure I've insulted quite a few people too -- but its absolute bollocks.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Listen, people.  We are at war.  If our soldiers are out there fighting for our countries in the wastelands of Iraq, then we shouldn't berate them for disturbing an archaelogical site, no matter how valuable or how much they defiled it.  I don't care if they nuked the whole place; they are out there risking their necks for us every day, and we shouldn't start this.  The brave men and women in Iraq have more than enough to worry about already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Fighting for your country? What threat was Iraq to your country, precisely?

 

Lets face it, the US & allies have no right to be there, and destroying a part of the world's heritage during their illegal occupation is a war crime.

 

They're not risking their neck for me, but for big business - for OIL.

[Wookiee]

Listen, people.  We are at war.  If our soldiers are out there fighting for our countries in the wastelands of Iraq, then we shouldn't berate them for disturbing an archaelogical site, no matter how valuable or how much they defiled it.  I don't care if they nuked the whole place; they are out there risking their necks for us every day, and we shouldn't start this.  The brave men and women in Iraq have more than enough to worry about already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So then the 2 towers was also compleatly aceptable in your eyes?

[Abramul]

I believe this is relevant:

4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol: (a) the transfer by the occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention; (b) unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians; © practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination; (d) making the clearly-recognized historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and to which special protection has been given by special arrangement, for example, within the framework of a competent international organization, the object of attack, causing as a result extensive destruction thereof, where there is no evidence of the violation by the adverse Party of Article 53, subparagraph (b), and when such historic monuments, works of art and places of worship are not located in the immediate proximity of military objectives; (e) depriving a person protected by the Conventions or referred to in paragraph 2 or this Article of the rights of fair and regular trial.

SOURCE: Geneva Conventions, Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D

GenevaConventions.org

Courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists

[Malchik]

I agree with both Theta and Dark0ne.

 

Abramul perhaps you have not heard this:-

 

Quote George W Bush

 

"I am in the smallest room in the White House. I have the Geneva Convention in front of me. It will shortly be behind me!"

 

Wish on.