Artifacts stolen by IS from Mosul museum recovered

Iraqi artifacts. File photo.

Mosul ( Eight artifacts, stolen by Islamic State from Mosul museum, have been recovered after a displaced family returned them to police, an official said.

“A displaced family found pivotal artifacts as it returned back to house in al-Zanjili district. The relics were returned back to Federal Police elements deployed there,” Moss’ab Jassim, head of Nineveh monuments department, told Baghdad Today on Sunday.

The artifacts, according to Jassim, “were stolen by IS from Mosul museum while the city was under the group’s control.”

The group, which considered sculptures as symbols of infidelity, posted footage showing its members axing down priceless Assyrian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Persian and Roman artifacts, many of them two millennia old or older, drawing international condemnation. Reports later showed that some antiquities were sold out in online auctions.

In March, Iraqi troops took the museum back from the militants, leaving its collection in a sorry state.

Mosul museum, which was built in 1952, housed more than 2,000 artifacts. Officials gave conflicting accounts of how many militants were there when the group overran the city in 2014.

The victory in Mosul in July marked an end of an eight-month campaign backed by a U.S.-led coalition and paramilitary forces which has displaced more than 900.000 civilians.


Leave a Reply
  1. Iraq and Syria were once peaceful and prosperous until US-Zionist conspirators decided to
    invade and destroy these glorious Arab countries. Arabs must now join Russia and defeat
    US and the Zionists. First priority should be the destruction of Israel. This can begin soon.

    • Same old Baathist Party (Arab form of N**i politics) blather. Give it a rest and catch up to the rest of the world.

  2. So Bond,James according to you Saddam Hussein, Uday Hussein,
    and Qusay Hussein were good people right?

    You are showing your stupidity, I hope you’re not the smartest
    member of your family.

    Again you are part of the problem and not part of the solution!
    Is violence all you know?

  3. I dont know you cannot apply Western ideals of democracy, which is what the West tried to do. A strong leader is required in these countries not ‘democracy’ . The reason being that you have religion and politics mixed up, with Allah leading half dozen, or so, factions in each country. The British learned the lesson when they were in Arabia, and they came to support it. A strong leader saves endless war. Yes a few people get on the wrong side of a dictator and a few die but eventually the dictator is killed .Yes a few people do die as a result of strong leadership. The alternative is that hundreds of thousands die when you try to impose democracy . All the Iraq war has done is kill and has made matters even worse by deposing Saddam Hussein. Now the West is trying to get rid of Assayd, who was running a reasonable country by Arab standards. Now it is just a constant civil war. West keep you nose out of Arabia , leave them to sort through their own problems. You cannot impose democracy with a gun , or a bomb it has to be learned and, in this, Arabia is 300 years behind the West . They will come round as Allah loses his hold on Arabs, at the moment the West’s actions are strengthening Allah

  4. The so called “Arab Spring” failed due to people too fragmented to be members of a Democracy. They wanted freedom. FREEDOM FROM WHAT? FREEDOM TO DO WHAT? Freedom? Democracy? What do those things mean to a fragmented millions of people?

    Some wanted socialism. Some wanted religious Islamic Sharia law states. Some wanted “Greater Arabia”.

    Even the ancient so called Greek Democracy had to have a slave class to support it. The USA is a constitutional federal republic that had to fight a terrible civil war for UNITED States rather than states going their own ways.

    As Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney so prophetically predicted in 1991:

    “Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing is casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had, but for the 146 Americans killed in action and for the families it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sixteen civilians executed in Islamic State-held towns in Anbar

Fifty IS militants killed in airstrikes over two months in northeast of Diyala: Official