100,000 excess deaths reported in Iraq since the war started

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
It is the special forces who are dressing up as terrorists.
Can you disprove that?

The Iraqi Baath party was responsible for the assasination of John F. Kennedy. Can you disprove that?

[Tripledoc]

How does it feel to be complicit in mass murder? I am curious.

[Arrian]

How does it feel to lap up every hysterical anti-U.S. article you find? Probably pretty good - makes you feel superior.

Do you apply any sort of critical thinking to the articles you post?

For instance "US, Israel prepare mass killings in Iraq" is riddled with spin, assumptions, and unsupported claims.

I for one am certainly willing to believe the U.S. has been intensifying the use of special forces to fight the insurgency, and furthermore that we're getting help from the Israelis, and finally that such cooperation is "hush-hush" since Israel is hated in the Arab world.

That does not add up to the U.S. preparing for mass killings in Iraq.

-Arrian

[imacowmoo 3-:-o]

Were losing. Of course there are civilian casualties sadly. But keep in mind we are fighting a pretty intense guerilla war.

I will also point out that Sanctions under the former regime killed around 20,000 per month.

It isnt too late to turn this thing around. But we wont. We seem to be ok with letting 3 groups run around and cause trouble

Lets look at the problem groups in there classifications

Tikrit,Mosul,Baghdad, Sammarra

I) Former Regime Loyalist- About 20,000 Ex Republican Gaurd and Ex Fedayeen. Including former Baath party militia. This is the biggest threat to the new Iraq. There Devotion to Saddam to stupid but more and more its becoming nationalism. We know that these guys are being led by Izzat Ibrahim.


II) Foriegn Fighters about 2,000 of them

Fallujah, Ramadi, Tal Afar, Baghdad

Foriegners linked with Abu Musab Zarqawi. Another large threat. You can bet every car bomb that goes off in Iraq is from this group. There seems to be an actual conflict between Saddam Loyal groups and the foriegn fighters. Some foriegn fighters had been found without heads and some shot execution style. The 2 groups dont seem to like each other. Evidence shows foriegn fighters arent responsible for many of the ambushes either. Thats probably cause there terrorists and not former soldiers.


III) Shiite

Led by Sadr. Fortunately this group has been knocked out of the equasion in the last 6 weeks


What we need to do.
I) Go into Fallujah guns blazing. Get control of the city. We havent patrolled the streets of fallujah sinch May of 2003! Go in hard. The city is really a dagger in the side


II) Restore the Iraqi economy. I mean REALLY restore it. Provide basic services, give the people something to do besides join rebel groups.


III) Legalize the baath party again. Outlawing was way too far. Let people be whatever political affiliiation they want to be. Half of the fighters loyal to saddam would of NEVER taken up arms against us had we promised them an actual future in the new iraq. Instead we told them they couldnt take part in the government, they couldnt vote, and they couldnt even get jobs. Did you know that? They arent allowed jobs in the new Iraq? No positions of power? Nothing...there expected to do what? Renounce there political beliefs and then what. They still are excluded from the New Iraq.

Geez if Bush had told me I couldnt get a job or couldnt call the fire department when my house was burned down cause i voted for clinton years ago. Of course Ide be pissed and take up arms

[Arrian]

Some foriegn fighters had been found without heads and some shot execution style.

Clearly the word of the Zionist-Crusader Death Squads brought to our attention by Tripledoc!

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

from rantingprofessors blog

"Well, I look forward to reading the full study in Lancet, but if you come up with more civilian deaths by an order of magnitude than the man who claimed more civilian deaths in Afghanistan than the Taliban, something just ain't right.

And this is supposed to be strictly counting deaths after the combat phase, and mostly in Fallujah?

Most of the casualties occurred after the end of major hostilities in May 2003, researchers said in the study. Observations suggest that civilian deaths since the war are mostly caused by air strikes, the survey said. Two-thirds of the deaths were in the insurgent-held Sunni Muslim Iraqi city of Fallujah, the study said.

Every airstrike on Fallujah is reported. To reach these levels we would have had to have seen a Dresden-level of destruction. Before civilians began to get out of dodge ahead of what looks to be coming, the size of the city's population was 300,000. If two thirds of the casualties were in the city, that isn't quite one third of the population dead, but it's close.

Is it even plausible that that level of destruction could have happened without the press screaming blue bloody murder? For God's sake, how many times did they report the false claim that the April seige had caused 600 casualties? This simply could not have happened without the press getting wind of it and reporting it. It. Is. Not. Plausible. Is it plausible that the city's population would have been so decimated, yet the terrorists (who claim that every airstrike hits civilians) wouldn't have mentioned anything? Even. Less. Plausible.

I would remind you that the firebombing of Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo killed 100,000.

While this researcher is apparently a very spiritual man, and that's lovely, his specialty does not seem to have much to do with the very arcane specialty of determining casualties due to the impact of war.

I'll read the Lancet study, but of course by then, everyone will "know" that the war caused 100,000 civilian deaths, won't they?"

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Arrian
I for one am certainly willing to believe the U.S. has been intensifying the use of special forces to fight the insurgency, and furthermore that we're getting help from the Israelis, and finally that such cooperation is "hush-hush" since Israel is hated in the Arab world.

This is what the article says, and its claims are fully supported.

That does not add up to the U.S. preparing for mass killings in Iraq.

-Arrian

They do have a good point with this, though:

the administration has authorized a policy that could well resemble the infamous “Operation Phoenix” assassination program run by the CIA during the Vietnam War. That operation claimed the lives of as many as 41,000 Vietnamese over a four-year period beginning in 1968.

The title may be exaggerated (papers always do that to draw readers) but the concerns it expresses are justified.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
How does it feel to be complicit in mass murder? I am curious.

You can go ahead and call it mass murder if it makes you feel like you have a bigger d!ck.

[Agathon]

Is it even plausible that that level of destruction could have happened without the press screaming blue bloody murder?

Al Jazeera?

[Arrian]

Fake Boris ( ) -

This is what the article says, and its claims are fully supported.

That's what the article's factual content says, yes. The article says more than that. Take, for instance, this segment:

“No one wants to talk about this; it’s incendiary,” an Israeli official told Hersh. “Both governments have decided at the highest level that it is in their interest to keep a low profile on US-Israeli cooperation” on the assassination program.

The last bit - on the assassination program is the article's spin. What the unnamed Israeli source actually SAID was that US-Israeli cooperation wrt Iraq is being kept hush-hush. The reasons for that ought to be obvious.

They do have a good point with this, though:

quote:
the administration has authorized a policy that could well resemble the infamous “Operation Phoenix” assassination program run by the CIA during the Vietnam War. That operation claimed the lives of as many as 41,000 Vietnamese over a four-year period beginning in 1968.

The title may be exaggerated (papers always do that to draw readers) but the concerns it expresses are justified.

I *do* understand that concern. I share it.

But I was talking to Tripledoc, Oncle. Specifically, I bit on his "mass murder" troll.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Al Jazeera?

even al jizz hasnt claimed 50000 plus deaths in Fallujah.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
using special forces to kill or capture terrorists seems like a good idea.

I fully agree, as long as they are brave enough to hold their fire until they have the correct target in their scope. But using heavy machine guns, AC-130's and F-16's is a bad idea.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I fully agree, as long as they are brave enough to hold their fire until they have the correct target in their scope. But using heavy machine guns, AC-130's and F-16's is a bad idea.

er, heavy machine guns? Youre supposed to go after people hitting you with RPGs and automatics using what, pistols?

Look, this is war. If its necessary, air support should certainly be used. Guarantee you, when we go into Fallujah it will be cleaner that what the Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis would have done on their own.

[Chemical Ollie]

Blaming Bush for the people killed by terrorists in Iraq is like blaming Hitler for the Dresden bombings

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



er, heavy machine guns? Youre supposed to go after people hitting you with RPGs and automatics using what, pistols?

Heavy machine gun bullets go right through concrete buildings, killing people you don't even see, a mile away.