Talk:Saddam Hussein's alleged shredder

People Shredder?

There is no conclusive evidence that this 'people shredder' ever existed and it seems that it was Blairist propaganda from before the war. I think this article should be deleted but I don't know how to tag something. Either that or it should be made much clearer that this shredder is alleged and there is very little evidence supporting its existence. Superdantaylor 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's in the very title...and frankly, I think the article does a very good job of suggesting that it was propaganda, any suggestions you have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherurcij (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

This article requires a big overhaul. Regardless of whether or not it existed, wikipedia is not a podium for speaking out against things. --Titan124 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not known whether the shredder actually existed or not, but I did find more sources of alleged witnesses who claim there is evidence the shredder did in fact exist. 2605:E000:CCC8:A300:7900:2BAD:1B47:CDE (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Plastic Shredder, Highly Doubtful

I worked in the plastic industry for nearly ten years (details of my former employer can be provided on request). I operated, with great frequency, granulators of different make and size. It would require a heavy duty granulator to successfully process a human being. However, I find Ahmed Hassan Mohammed's story highly suspect for two reasons. This witness testified that, many years ago, at the age of ten, he walked by a room and "saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath." In my experience, I have never seen a heavy duty plastic shredder of any make that spits material out onto an open floor. Old machines are generally boxy, very heavy, and for operational safety reasons require a low center of gravity. Material is always funneled into an internal container of sorts, which when full, requires emptying. In addition, these machines are difficult to clean. Internal filter plates need removing. These plates have small holes in them through which the plastic is forced. Granules get stuck almost everywhere and so we always used high-pressure air lines for this task. I always found it impossible to clean a shredder 100%. It was the same with my colleagues. This would be evident whenever one of these machines was opened up, wherein granules of various colour dating from earlier production runs were easily identifiable. I can only imagine what mess a human body would make. But here too, it would be impossible to clean completely, and so the stench of tiny bits of rotting flesh would make operation most difficult (people would be compelled to vomit endlessly). Interestingly and perhaps tellingly, accounts of a terrible odour emanating from the room are missing. And are we really expected to believe that peoples remains were put in bags and used as fish food? This story would be perfect in some Hollywood movie (see fiction) but in reality it would be infinitely easier and quicker to execute regime opponents by conventional means. SMB

- Mr Mohammed calls it a 'meat grinder', maybe that's a difference?--Lopakhin 22:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a direct quote from this witness? smb 00:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't, only what's in the article. By the way, he was 15 at the time - he was 38 in 2005, so that follows. It was another witness who was 10 at the time.--Lopakhin 13:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this story from Iraqi refugees, who believed it to be true. It was referrer to as a meat grinder or slicer. One walked out of the cinema during "Wind in the Willows" film which features a similar machine in its plot as he was terrified. Survivor testimony is going to be sparse if there were few survivors. Perhaps it was a symptom of the extreme terror used by Saddam to keep his countrymen under his rule. The allegation was "feet first". "Quick and easy" was not a feature of Saddam's executions, except for his own. --Streona (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard claims that it was more likely a wood chipper. 2605:E000:CCC8:A300:7900:2BAD:1B47:CDE (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There's still no hard evidence for it. Firsthand witnesses are lacking. The US and UK should have focused on the very real crimes of Saddam Hussein that are well documented (there's plenty of them) instead of turning him into a James Bond villain in order to help sway public opinion. — TPX 13:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

When people were supposedly being shredded in a wood chipper, it is likely there would be very few survivors who avoided being put into the shredder for testimony; making it harder to find hard evidence. 173.67.106.134 (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Joseph

I've trimmed information relevant to Ken Joseph, with the aim of keeping this page on topic. Also have removed some pretty blatant POV statements. smb 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do repetitive statements keep finding their way back into this page? There's no need to quote people so extensively around Kenneth Joseph. This article isn't about Joseph -- rather, it's about Saddam Hussein's alleged people shredder. Let's try not to overcomplicate things, and keep it lucid and concise. smb 18:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I liked it as it was, a story that broke in Parliament and the "sober" news, but was picked up, "corroborated" and run in the US by an American in the "talking heads" news. Oh, and RS's mostly back what I thought it was, a plastic (or possibly industrial) shredder, not a wood chipper. PR^talk 06:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken Joseph is a Presbyterian minister and missionary to Japan. He is the son of an Assyrian-American Presbyterian missionary to Japan (I have a copy of his father's book on learning Japanese). In early March or late February of 2003 he had an on-line article opposing the invasion, which he removed by late March. He has consistently been politically conservative, though the form this has taken varies with context, conservatism in Japan being rather more pacifist than conservatism in the US. His websites are assyrianchristians.com and keikyo.com. BobGriffin-Nukraya 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who cares about this topic should keep an eye on Ken Joseph's currently hagiographic as well as evasive wikipedia entry

(see http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Ken_Joseph_Jr. ),

which will need to be kept in line with the facts of this case. Pfistermeister (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

This article contains 1479 words; only 22 of which are relevant to the alleged shredder. This link does not further our understanding of the topic, so I'm not convinced it should remain. smb 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an extremist web-site as we should never be depending on anyway. Doesn't contain word shredder, I've taken it out. PR^talk 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremist web site? Where do you get that from ? It's one of pakistan's leading English Newspapers. Isarig 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the aforementioned link is "perfectly relevant". [1] The piece isn't about the alleged shredder, which receives only a fleeting reference, possibly leaving readers bemused -- is this chap regurgitating something he heard, or does he have evidence of the shredder? It adds nothing. smb 22:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are either adding independent claims, reporting on new claims, or a politician/PublicFigure backing the "story", then the fact you mentioned it isn't really relevant to understanding the context of how this "story" came into being. IMHO. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, to contradict myself, this is the first time I have seen anyone claim children were fed to the machine. So maybe it is worth a look. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right. However, the source is extremist as we should be very careful about quoting, and he's refering to a "meat-grinder", which is a totally different machine, much simpler, made to dissasemble for cleaning every day. His claim is quite different from the one that swung part of world opinion in favour of attacking Iraq. PR^talk 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Was it a plastic shredder or a wood chipper?

Should it be mentioned that the alleged shredder may have been a wood chipper? This says some troops claim that it was a wood chipper. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The brief description there is actually quite different from what's being described in the article. The article mentions a shredder used to execute victims. The source above mentions a wood chipper used to assist in the disposal of bodies after they were executed or tortured to death. There may still be merit to mention that in this article, but I would suggest better secondary sources than a 'news' piece on the US DOD website. Nil Einne (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Here, it states there may have been a wood chipper used to execute prisoners. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Counterpunch reliability

I asked the RSN if Counterpunch is reliable, they said it is too biased. I noticed Counterpunch is frequeltly cited in this article. Can someone please do omething about this? 173.67.106.134 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please link your recent discussion. The last archived entry from December 2014 says it's relaible for opinion with clear attribution. — TPX 10:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it only an opinion that is being presented in this article, or is it being presented as a fact? Did Counterpunch say it is certain there was no shredder? Counterpunch sometimes denies war crimes that are well-documented with hard evidence, like the Massacre at Hue and presents them as facts. My recent discussion is here. This was said to be clearly biased and not reliable in my recent discussion about the Hue massacre in Vietnam. I think Counterpunch is an unreliable left wing source and Worldnetdaily is an unreliable right wing source. 47.151.22.243 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The political persuasion of a publication does not discount its use. Its investigation is notable enough providing we employ clear attribution and neutral language. — TPX 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)