War in Iraq has killed over 100.000 Iraqis

[chen zhen]

Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:29:19 EDT

LONDON - Nearly 100,000 more Iraqis have died during the American-led occupation than would have been expected otherwise, a study posted on The Lancet medical journal's website Thursday estimates.

Most of the extra deaths in the first 18 months of the occupation were due to violence, the researchers said – in particular, air strikes that claimed civilian casualties.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they wrote.

Previous estimates of the number of Iraqis killed during the American-led air strikes and occupation have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The authors acknowledge that the data cited in the study might be of "limited precision."

However, similar methodology was used in the late 1990s to calculate the number of deaths from the war in Kosovo, put at 10,000.

The information was obtained as Iraqi interviewers surveyed 808 families, consisting of 7,868 people, in 33 different "clusters" or neighbourhoods spread across the country.

In each case, they asked how many births and deaths there had been in the home since January 2002.

That information was then compared with the death rates in each neighbourhood in the 15 months before the invasion that toppled president Saddam Hussein, adjusted for the different time frames, and extrapolated to cover the entire 24.4 million population of Iraq.

The researchers came up with the figure of 100,000 extra deaths based on the fact that the rate rose from five deaths per 1,000 people before the war to 12.3 deaths per 1,000 in the 18 months that followed its start.

Fallujah neighbourhood factored out

One neighbourhood in the besieged city of Fallujah may have boosted the numbers unnaturally, the researchers pointed out.

But even with that neighbourhood taken out, the death rate was 7.9 per 1,000 people – 50 per cent higher during the occupation than in the months before.

"We estimate that there were 98,000 extra deaths during the post-war period in the 97 per cent of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Fallujah," the researchers said in the journal.

Nearly 1,100 American soldiers have also died in the conflict.

Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases, the Lancet report said.

Since early 2002, violence was by far the main cause of death, linked to coalition air strikes in about 95 per cent of cases where people died by the intentional act of others. Infant mortality also rose significantly.


Written by CBC News Online staff
-------

time to get out now yankees:)

[El Tejon]

Not yet. God's monkey house still needs to be cleaned.:)

[Kristoffer]

Indiana?

[CaptinPickAxe]

That's sad...

These are people' sons, fathers, brothers, etc.
A lack of compassion for the dead is a lack of compassion for life...

I don't feel anger towards people like you who discount peoples death because they fight in what they've come to belive (our troops as well), I feel pity. Pity that you are too obtuse to see a life extinguished is a sad thing.

[El Tejon]

Of course, it is a pity that they are dead. Just as it was a pity when people died at Dresden or Aachen. They had a choice to avoid it, but failed to do so, but perhaps this is human nature.

However, the National Socialists of Germany were defeated. The nations of Europe are now composed of peaceful democracies (while some were on the take from Iraq) who do not invade their neighbors.

Nazi Germany was defeated. The USSR, the largest terrorist regime in history, was defeated. The thugs and Jihadists of the Middle East will be defeated.

Not to finish the fight and win the war and rebuild is to dishonor the dead.

[Kristoffer]

"he USSR, the largest terrorist regime in history, was defeated."

MOAHAHAHAHAHA
good one

[norther practitioner]

That number isn't widely accepted.

[El Tejon]

Kristoffer, what's so funny about the USSR's use of terror and murder? Why laugh at the death and suffering of hundreds of millions?:confused:

[Kristoffer]

Oh so you're not a joke? Sorry, you come off as one.
Why laugh?
why calling a whole culture and country 'an ape house' ?

[El Tejon]

"God's Monkey House" is a quotation from P.J. O'Rourke a writerRolling Stone magazine. It refers to the endless quarreling and mischief of that area of the world.

As the old joke goes (Golda's favorite), "But the Scorpion said to the Turtle, 'ahhh, but this is the Middle East.'"

[chen zhen]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Of course, it is a pity that they are dead. Just as it was a pity when people died at Dresden or Aachen. They had a choice to avoid it, but failed to do so, but perhaps this is human nature.

However, the National Socialists of Germany were defeated. The nations of Europe are now composed of peaceful democracies (while some were on the take from Iraq) who do not invade their neighbors.

Nazi Germany was defeated. The USSR, the largest terrorist regime in history, was defeated. The thugs and Jihadists of the Middle East will be defeated.

Not to finish the fight and win the war and rebuild is to dishonor the dead.

And WHAT, may I ask, has this to do with the topic? The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the "facts" you stated above.

[chen zhen]

Originally posted by norther practitioner
That number isn't widely accepted.

Then what is the true number, can you tell me that?
And btw, as long as there is ANY number of deaths to be counted, it's wrong. Doesn't matter how many.

[El Tejon]

chen, the War of Continuation in Iraq has everything to do with what I stated. It means that in order to defeat great evil, such as the National Socialists in Germany or the USSR, bloodshed is necessary. In order to destroy the evil in the Middle East, bloodshed is necessary so innocent life may be protected.

chen, avoid death at any cost? So, no war should be fought? The U.S. should have ignored Hitler's declaration of war and not fought to free Europe and end his genocide of millions?

Was it wrong for the U.S. to defeat Japan and liberate China and end the genocide and oppression of the Chinese people because death was involved?

Was it wrong to defeat the USSR and end its murder of tens if not hundreds of millions?

Is self-defense wrong because it involves the death of your attacker?

[Toby]

Originally posted by El Tejon
So, no war should be fought?Iraq isn't a war, it's an invasion of a sovereign country.

Originally posted by El Tejon
Was it wrong to defeat the USSR ...Which war was that in?

Originally posted by El Tejon
Is self-defense wrong because it involves the death of your attacker? Self-defense? Against whose attack? Did Saddam attack the U.S.?

[El Tejon]

Toby, the war in Iraq is a continuation of the 1991 ceasefire. Kindly Uncle Saddam failed to maintain the terms of the ceasefire and the U.S. renewed its offensive in 2003.

The defeat of the USSR was the ending of the Cold War, 1945 to 1989.

Self-defense question is asked of any actor, nation state or individual.

Saddam violated the terms of his probation and failed to honor the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

[Radhnoti]

Just for accuracy, Saddam killed an estimated 1.3 million of his own citizens during his 30 year reign of terror. That would be 43,333 people each and every year.
Add to this the fact that he ruled with terror and torture, and you'll understand why I roll my eyes when U.S. administration opponents cite the current Iraq casualties.

Here's a speech given to call attention to Saddam's evil by the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues. Note the date places the speaker within the time span of the administration of President Clinton.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

[Spark]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Kristoffer, what's so funny about the USSR's use of terror and murder? Why laugh at the death and suffering of hundreds of millions?:confused:

Because when you point a finger, three point back.

[Kristoffer]

If we're really gonna stur up things, maybe we should make clear who put Saddam in power in the first place? Or is that irrelevent?

[Radhnoti]

So...then it's your position that the U.S. had a responsibility to remove him from power to make amends for past mistakes?
;)

[CaptinPickAxe]

Aye.
But if we would of kept our meddeling noses out of their business, we would of never had to outst the tyrant we put in there. The same thing with Osama Bin Laden.

So we're playing janitors not to the woes of the world, but to mistakes we made by trying to destroy nations without sending a single soul in.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Thats a beautiful America.

Manipulative.

[Kristoffer]

"So...then it's your position that the U.S. had a responsibility to remove him from power to make amends for past mistakes?"

You should run for president :)
-yes. but but did u hafta make such a mess

[chen zhen]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
So...then it's your position that the U.S. had a responsibility to remove him from power to make amends for past mistakes?
;)

sure.. but that wasnt the "point" of the war, was it?

[El Tejon]

That was exactly the point of the war. Kindly Uncle Saddam was on probation. As dictated by the 1991 ceasefire, Saddam refused to comply with the terms of his probation by accounting for his weaponry, the US then resumed its offensive and removed him from power.

Attempting to remove Saddam for his continued violations of his agreement has been US policy for some time. Bill Clinton tried to remove him from power by attempting to kill him over kindly Uncle Saddam's assassination plot against George Herbert Walker Bush was discovered.

Kristoffer, make such a mess? Hmmm, well Europe after Hitler was a mess. Just look at it now!

That said Iraq may be much further down the road with European help, but France and Germany are steamed that we cut off their money from the oil-for-food kickbacks (finally that sordid scandal is coming to light as the reason for the footdragging on Iraq; it's all about the francs, or the geld). We strangled their Golden Goose of corruption and, Iraqis be ****ed, they are striking back.

[Kristoffer]

uh, yeah Europe is fine. But you can't compare pre-Iraq from before you invaded them with Europe before WW2. There was and is an infrastructure, resources etc. What does Iraq have? Oil? Is there any left?

havn't heard anything about the scandal you write about. So you're blaming the catastophic outcome in Iraq on german troops? Is that what you're saying?

You put Saddam in place (bad). You wage war and fail (bad). You wage war again, gets rid of Saddam (good). But now the entire Middle East is a monkey house. And what should we do to solve this problem? I'm more interested in discission solutions to a stable middle east.

[El Tejon]

Kristoffer, Europe after WWII was a wreck--displaced persons, nonexistant economies, terrorists committing terrorism, the Soviets enslaving half of Europe, etc, inter alia, ad naseum. Europe came back, so will Iraq. Iraq has many resources including the greatest resource of any nations--its people.

The Oil-for-Food scandal is a huge disaster for the United Nations (European countries were taking kickbacks from Saddam and arming him in violation of international law). Remember it was this slush fund that European politicians were taking bribes from to oppose the War of Continuation in Iraq, including British MPs. The UN is now scrambling to bury the fact that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar by issuing this latest silly "reform" proposal(s).

I cannot believe the Swedish media is not running stories about this disgrace.:confused:

Saddam put himself in place by killing off potential rivals. The UN kept him there after the First Iraq war (the U.S. unfortunately agreed as the UN mandate was only to liberate Kuwait), but put him on probation. He violated the terms of his probation. The U.S. executed the suspended portion of his sentence during the War of Continuation.

To solve the problem, Iraq, like Germany and Japan, will be liberated and will serve as a model and island of civility for the Middle East. It will also serve as an excellent platform for SEAL and Special Forces teams to hunt and kill those that wish to harm the West in Saudia Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, inter alia--"blockbusting" as the British call it in their urban warfare jargon.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by El Tejon
To solve the problem, Iraq, like Germany and Japan, will be liberated and will serve as a model and island of civility for the Middle East. It will also serve as an excellent platform for SEAL and Special Forces teams to hunt and kill those that wish to harm the West in Saudia Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, inter alia--"blockbusting" as the British call it in their urban warfare jargon. Fantasy at best.

Yet more tyranny-creating/supporting meddling at worst.

Japan and Germany are kind of, how shall I put this... very different to each other and to Iraq. The terms of their peace and responsibilities and how these were achieved were also completely different. You are comparing at best incomplete history (no history is complete, both due to differences of opinion on hostorical subjects, and to the fact that time hasn't stopped. We'll see just how effective the taming of Japan was if your idiot govt convinces it's idiot govt to alter Article 9 of its constitution and rearm creating a far more volatile Cold War - or maybe a very hot one - in the East) with incomplete history in the making. Apples and oranges.

Kris
You put Saddam in place (bad). You wage war and fail (bad). You wage war again, gets rid of Saddam (good).You forgot the part about continuing to authorize the sale and the selling of biological and chemical weapons to him right up to six months (tops) before the Gulf War (bad).

[Kristoffer]

Mat- Yeah that was kinda what I meant when I said the US put him power. Meaning he wouldn't have been so 'succesfull' being it not for the support from US.

And You also point out stuff about WW2 Europe I'm too lazy to write about. (and not really that interested in dwelling on. It's not relvent to what we're talking about).

El Tejon - The Oil for Food scandal has probebly been in the news but I havn't followed this as precise as before. I'm just tired of hearing of this over and over. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. Men with power are bound to abuse it some time, no matter where they're from.

Also I asked you what you think is the solution to a stable middle east (and stable Iraq). You said Iraq qill be liberated and then serve as a model of civility. And that it will become a base for US troops.

Okay. Well seeing that Iraq IS free from it's dictator now, would you call Iraq libirated? It seems alot of Iraqis hate you guys (and us) more than they hated Saddam. It seems that US troops isn't really well liked over there at all in fact. And you expect these people to stop fighting and settle down anytime soon? You're still in a war.
You're right that having special forces based in Iraq would be strategically wise, it's right in the middle of it. But I don't see how having more of you're 'not so liked' people based over there would make Iraq a better place.

[Spark]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Europe came back, so will Iraq. Iraq has many resources including the greatest resource of any nations--its people.


That general statement shows your complete lack of understanding of the history of the middle east and multiple layers of complexity in this region of the world.

[Radhnoti]

Kristopher - "...It seems alot of Iraqis hate you guys (and us) more than they hated Saddam..."

I'd venture to guess that the 1.3 million Saddam killed aren't his biggest fans. I'd also guess that their family (if any were left alive) support the U.S. more than Saddam.
I know people in Iraq, they indicate that a large portion of the population appreciate the U.S.-led forces over there. Of course, that doesn't make a good story for the nightly news...

The Oil for Food scandal is a big deal. It shows that the U.N. and the countries protesting the U.S. led invasion had financial reasons to be doing so. You folks who protest for reasons of real principal should be furious with them, I think.

[El Tejon]

Mat, Germany and Japan may be different situations in 1945 but same result: docile prosperous nations that have not started trouble with their neighbors.

Kristoffer, Germans fought us after May 7, 1945 after the US and allies liberated Germany. Some Germans hated us. Our troops pacified Germany and saved Western Europe from the USSR.

The solution is to allow the Iraqis to work it out. Just like Germany.

I would think you would have paid more attention to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal as it shows the ulterior motives (money) of those nations against the War of Continuation. It constitutes a stab in the back to those who pro-claim to be "anti-war" for non monetary reasons.

Spark, were not Germany and Japan complex situations? I cannot image a war that was/would not be complex. If you have no faith in the Iraqi people, then that is your opinion. The Iraqis will have problems and then will fix them. The end result is to the benefit of the West just as Germany's and Japan's end result.

[Spark]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Spark, were not Germany and Japan complex situations? I cannot image a war that was/would not be complex. If you have no faith in the Iraqi people, then that is your opinion. The Iraqis will have problems and then will fix them. The end result is to the benefit of the West just as Germany's and Japan's end result.

Of course they were complex situations, I'm not denying that. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Just because Germany turned out ok certainly doesn't mean Iraq will.
Faith has nothing to do with it. If you followed the news, or again had even a basic understanding of middle east politics, religion, culture etc ... you would see how the statement "the Iraqi people will come back" is nothing more than a catch phrase.

[jun_erh]

the US is in Iraq because of Saddam hussein

People are dying today because of the actions of terroists and insurgents.

THEY are responsible for 100,000 iraqis being dead.

The US is innocent and, in fact, themselves victims of coward terrorists who hide behind women and children adn crowds of people.

Do yu think the US army is killing people because it's sadistic or because of terrorism?

[David Jamieson]

jun, you sound like a neo con ditto head.

you're not in bed with Rove are you as you type?

lol

it's the Iraqi peoples fault that Iraqis are dead?
are you on glue?

dude, If we put a standing arab army of 138,000 into let's say pennsylvania, would the penn staters who take up arms to get rid of the invading army only be killing themselves?

Your logic is skewed, or missing entirely in your pro-america war mongering philosophy...or pardon me, it isn't your philosophy seeing as it's all too clear you are incapable of thinking for yourself and will eat up whatever propaganda you are fed by teh Bush admin andwhite house press corps.

whatever...redneck

[jun_erh]

yes, the terrorist and dictator supporters among them would be respnsible for the deaths of themselves and others.

please anwer my previous question in regards to the motivations of the Coalition forces.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by jun_erh
the US is in Iraq because of Saddam hussein

People are dying today because of the actions of terroists and insurgents.

THEY are responsible for 100,000 iraqis being dead.

The US is innocent and, in fact, themselves victims of coward terrorists who hide behind women and children adn crowds of people. No. What you are saying is black and white, and somewhat surprising from you jun.

Yes, terrorists, insurgents, and even some freedom fighters are responsible for a lot of deaths in Iraq. But so are the 'allied' armies.

No-one is innocent.
Do yu think the US army is killing people because it's sadistic or because of terrorism? In some cases, because they are confused as to who is a combatant and who is a civilian. In some cases this is an acceptible example of collateral damage.

In some cases because they no longer care who is a combatant and who is a civilian. This is not acceptible.

In some cases because they are suffering from PTSD (although not actually 'Post' - don't know the expression... is it Combat Stress Disorder?). This isn 't acceptible, and they should be treated, as it will cause more problems when they finally get back home.

Again jun, your offering of two alternatives, sadism or terrorism, is equivalent to Bush saying other countries agree with him or they support terrorism. The presentation of only two alternatives rarely actually means that there are actually only two alternatives. It is a simplistic form of obedience test and thus, by extension can be taken to be an infringement on the liberties of an intellectually and/or cognitive-logically challenged or otherwise uninformed population.

[jun_erh]

My point wasn't that it's one or the other. My point was that in general do you think americans are there to rape pillage and plunder like the iraqis did in Kuwait circa '91? or are they there because because of terrorists, baathists, arab natinalists, old iraqi grandmothers, are causing a lack of security? I'm not a dittohead, but if you want to see some real dittoheads, guys who believe to the death every last thing ther master says, just go to iran or Gaza. Those guys take conservatism to the hilt

[PangQuan]

Remember the word Jihad? Know what that means? Ignorance and hate are what killed every person in this war, on both sides. All parties are responsible in different ways. It is the loss of life that should be mourned, for all lives lost. This is a debate that could continue endlessly because it is a subject created upon opinion and belief. There for there will always be contradictions and differences in opinions. This Jihad has been around for much longer than we think. It is a very old way. A very new way has imposed itself. I DO NOT in any way condone the actions of terrorists, I would pull the **** trigger myslef. But we must remember that each pesron killed in the war (on both sides) is merely doing what their country tells them to do. If your country came to you and said "kill them" you would kill them or you would die. Look at vietnam. We did what our country told us to do. And it was the wrong thing to do. Women and children did not need to die by american hands, yet they did. Very similar situation on the part of iraqi soldiers. They do what they are told. Period. It does not mean it was the right choice. But it is non the less the choice that is imposed on their culture by thier leaders. The word Leader is exactly that. They lead. Others follow. It is the chain of command. Only the leaders are to blame. Not the followers. To blame a soldier for following orders is to blame the sun for burning you. It is called duty. This is a very misfortunate turn of events that have led us to this path. But this is, in the sum total of all wars ever waged, very small. Alexander, Kahn, Qin, Ceaser, Vlad, Hitler, Tokugawa. Remember the past. We are humans. This may end one day, and another shall arise, until all mankind excepts the gift of enlightenment. Peace.:D

[Newb]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Toby, the war in Iraq is a continuation of the 1991 ceasefire. Kindly Uncle Saddam failed to maintain the terms of the ceasefire and the U.S. renewed its offensive in 2003.

The defeat of the USSR was the ending of the Cold War, 1945 to 1989.

Self-defense question is asked of any actor, nation state or individual.

Saddam violated the terms of his probation and failed to honor the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

This form of sophistry is not good for the US or the world. The reason we invaded Iraq was for the non existant Weapons of Mass Distruction. If the US were to spend over $200 Billion dollars every year for every single incident involving some made up or real cease fire violation, we would have been in the doghouse years ago.

/edit
Which is why Congress would never have authorized a pre-empitve invasion on a simple 10 year old (and unfair) cease fire agreement. They authorized it on the false and fraudulant claims of 'weapons of mass distruction'.

[Newb]

Originally posted by El Tejon
Mat, Germany and Japan may be different situations in 1945 but same result: docile prosperous nations that have not started trouble with their neighbors.

Kristoffer, Germans fought us after May 7, 1945 after the US and allies liberated Germany. Some Germans hated us. Our troops pacified Germany and saved Western Europe from the USSR.

The solution is to allow the Iraqis to work it out. Just like Germany.

I would think you would have paid more attention to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal as it shows the ulterior motives (money) of those nations against the War of Continuation. It constitutes a stab in the back to those who pro-claim to be "anti-war" for non monetary reasons.

Spark, were not Germany and Japan complex situations? I cannot image a war that was/would not be complex. If you have no faith in the Iraqi people, then that is your opinion. The Iraqis will have problems and then will fix them. The end result is to the benefit of the West just as Germany's and Japan's end result.


The policies that rebuilt Germany and Japan were the policies of Eisenhower and Gen. Doughlas Macarthur. I studied Macarthurs reconstruction of Japan and his campaign in the Pacific in detail. With a FDR President, the USA was the most productive per capita nation in the entire world. We were able to have a physical economy that could outproduce most of the world combined. The fact is, the Bush administration does not have the policies that will rebuild Iraq, or the USA. Their policies will continue to spread death, chaos, poverty, and delibrate misinformation like we've seen. Can you tell me what the Bush policy for a solution is? You can't, because they don't have a solution.


Edit: Also, it's not about having faith in Iraqis, it's not having faith in the Bush Administration to do the right thing. They have been more concerned with their own pocketbooks and personal intrests, than they have in winning the peace.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
dude, If we put a standing arab army of 138,000 into let's say pennsylvania, would the penn staters who take up arms to get rid of the invading army only be killing themselves?

KL,

The short answer is "Yes." and as in most cases that kind of comparison leads to fallacy. The expectations of you or I to believe that the Middle Eastern world to react as ours would is un-founded. Americans and Canadians have elected Gay government officials, they bury those people up to their waste in sand and stone them to death. We conduct a criminal investigation when a criminal accusation is made, while they have the relatives of the suspects beaten, raped and killed off until someone, anyone confesses. True we all breathe, breed and bleed the same but similarities do come to an end.

As for your question:

If the Governer of Penn. were murdering, raping common citizens and gassing minorities on an industrial scale was a hobby of his 10 or 15 years ago, if he was taking food and medicine donated to ease suffering and usingthose resources to fuel his private armies and line his coffers, then the people of that great state would welcome an outside army to depose him. Those who opposed a return to civility and order would, of course, be getting themselves killed.

[Newb]

Originally posted by MonkeyBoy
KL,

The short answer is "Yes." and as in most cases that kind of comparison leads to fallacy. The expectations of you or I to believe that the Middle Eastern world to react as ours would is un-founded. Americans and Canadians have elected Gay government officials, they bury those people up to their waste in sand and stone them to death. We conduct a criminal investigation when a criminal accusation is made, while they have the relatives of the suspects beaten, raped and killed off until someone, anyone confesses. True we all breathe, breed and bleed the same but similarities do come to an end.

As for your question:

If the Governer of Penn. were murdering, raping common citizens and gassing minorities on an industrial scale was a hobby of his 10 or 15 years ago, if he was taking food and medicine donated to ease suffering and usingthose resources to fuel his private armies and line his coffers, then the people of that great state would welcome an outside army to depose him. Those who opposed a return to civility and order would, of course, be getting themselves killed.

The imperial policies of the United States and "Great" Britain have been responsible for more deaths, rapings, poverty, slavery, and looting of nations than Saddam could even dream of. The greatest damage Saddam did was when he was a direct ally of the US using US weapons.

[El Tejon]

The policies of the US and the UK ended slavery as a global enterprise. The policies of the US and UK have ended rape and looting and lessened poverty across the globe. The policies of the US and the UK have brought liberation to dozens upon dozens of nations across the globe.

The policies of kindly Uncle Saddam brought death, rape, murder, theft, thuggery and corruption, especially with the Oil for Food scandal, across the globe.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally posted by MonkeyBoy
KL,

The short answer is "Yes." and as in most cases that kind of comparison leads to fallacy. The expectations of you or I to believe that the Middle Eastern world to react as ours would is un-founded. Americans and Canadians have elected Gay government officials, they bury those people up to their waste in sand and stone them to death. We conduct a criminal investigation when a criminal accusation is made, while they have the relatives of the suspects beaten, raped and killed off until someone, anyone confesses. True we all breathe, breed and bleed the same but similarities do come to an end.

As for your question:

If the Governer of Penn. were murdering, raping common citizens and gassing minorities on an industrial scale was a hobby of his 10 or 15 years ago, if he was taking food and medicine donated to ease suffering and usingthose resources to fuel his private armies and line his coffers, then the people of that great state would welcome an outside army to depose him. Those who opposed a return to civility and order would, of course, be getting themselves killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Newb
The imperial policies of the United States and "Great" Britain have been responsible for more deaths, rapings, poverty, slavery, and looting of nations than Saddam could even dream of. The greatest damage Saddam did was when he was a direct ally of the US using US weapons.

Newb,

If Kung Lek wants to answer me, he will and he'll pick on my post.

You replied and it didn't have anything to do with my post, what gives?

Why didn't you mention that the USA and Britain were responsible for ending more poverty, preventing more deaths, raising the standard of education, raising the standard of medicine, ending slavery, securing rights for women and protecting the sovereignty of more nations than all other nations combined in all of human history so far?

[jun_erh]

so a suicide bomber blows up twenty people in a mosque. Are you attributing that to the US???

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
so a suicide bomber blows up twenty people in a mosque. Are you attributing that to the US???

I suppose that question is given to me Jun_erth. Let's look at the process required for a suicide bomber to blow up 20 people in a mosque:

1.) Be recruited to some kind of terrorist organization that has the knowledge, resources, and logistics to get you there. This also requires religious brainwashing such as the idea that 20 virgins will also be waiting for you (and you know their going to be hot if they are heavenly virgins).

2.) Internaltaion Terrorism launders over $600 Billion dollars of drug money each year by US govt. commisioned studies, and closer to a Trillion dollars by EIR estimates. This money is laundered largely in London. London financeer bankers such as the British Monarchy use that drug money as leverage to create trillions upon trillions of dollars in deriviative bets. They are addicted to Drug Money. Wallstreet of course, also is addicted to drug money. They openly launder columbian drug lord money as 'investments in peace'. Without the British/US backing, terrorists woudlnt' be able to launder $600 bilion in drug money

3.) Every single terorrist organization has had their HQ in London. They are granted *FULL POLITICAL* immunity from prosecution from other govts. Without their protection, they would not be able to continue their actions freely.


4.) There were no terrorist attacks inside Iraq, much better security, safer population, less death, and the US was much richer and powerful before we needlessly invaded Iraq. Taking out Saddam Hussein and his sons served no strategical value at this point, because of the immerse and utter damage done. Saddam wasn't a threat to begin with, he had no WMD, we were more likely to be invaded by the moon than some Iraq sponsored attack.


5.) Arial Sharon of Israel has been a long term gangster, and open supporter of Hamas when they were formed. As finance minister of Israel, UN aid had to go through Israel, get an OK, then go to the "Occupied Territories" (Palestine). Instead of having that money go to Arafats PLO (Palestanian Liberation Organization), Arial Sharon personally oversaw that money going ot HAMAS. Hamas used that money, along with their drug money, to create religious schools, soup kitchens, hospitals, and other things to help take control away from Arafat. The governments of USA and Britain are largely influenced by big money financeers. Oligarchies own some people on all parts and levels of the government. The trillions of dollars they create from using $600 billion in drug money allow them to buy people out, and so fourth. These people are the people who financed the Nazis, helped them escape, and use them a thugs to commit acts of terror to make other national leaders to submit to their IMF demands and so fourth.


In conclusion, the majority of major terrorist incidents are done by these international drug lord gangsters, the remenents of the Nazis that people like Allen Dulles helped escaped, are still at large. that work for the oligarchy and they are fully protected by the oligarchy as in the case of London and Wallstreet. Even the old terrorist of the high seas, Captain Kidd was a British agent. The "Privateer" Pirates were tools of the British as a way of controlling the seas. If you remember, after Captain Kidd got too hot, the British had no problem killing him once he served his purpose. Just like Osama Bin Ladin or Kenneth Lay of Enron, they have no problem killing you if it benefits them after you've outlived your usefullness. I wouldn't be suprised if I saw good 'ol Henry Kissinger or **** Cheney tossed out if things got too hot. My final answer is, yes, the US IS responsible for that terrorist bomb in the mosque that killed 20 people.

[David Jamieson]

Just refound this here in the ora...

Monkeyboy, when we are outside what is happening, I guess we can make all the supposition we want to. I do not agree that defiance of your oppressor is tantamount to suicide.

It is the fundamental basis of the formation of the USA itself to rise up and rage against the machine. Why should it be different elsewhere.


The current occupation of Iraq was an attack on a severly weakened nation. More people died BECAUSE of sanctions and it is likely that if the same were true of any nation then the military built to defend teh nation would get special treatment to keep it strong and able.

The corruption of Saddam Hussein is no different from the corruption of any militaristic leader. People will try to find justification for their misdeeds no matter what, I suppose and there is certainly no shortage of propaganda fed to the US to help the folks feel better about the expansionist policies of that country.

It's ok if you're after a guy in a black hat apparently. But there are hundreds of guys in black hats all over the world that have the full support of the USA in their doings and often the US turns a blind eye to the attrocities commited by state leaders that they support in return for political footholds or resources from those nations.

It probably wouldn't hurt to have a look at Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States writings on the topic of US expansionism and how it has been a constant in the history of the US.

Zinn tends to use more factual evidence than your average Chomsky bots and tells a very convincing story and shows us where and what we can do to sit back and reconsider that which we thought was correct.

Now I have done my best to understand the Bush admin and the new world order and even the neo con movement stemming into the political wing of US government from the Pentagon. I've Read Frums books and Perles books and still cannot see eye to eye on what I consider to be manipulated and seriously flawed stances on the situation.

I would also add that the US was complicit with Saddam in his heyday of abuse as leader of Iraq and in fact assisted him in many ways directly and indirectly in his spiraling into the hellish man he became. Rumsfeld is equally as dangerous as Hussein was and frankly, Bush is looking more and more like and idealistic Naive person serving as puppet to the warhawks and religious right in America.

Ultimately, when we look back at this in 20 years, I wonder if it won't be another iteration of the extreme error that was vietnam or any other of a number of actions the USA has taken around the world as manipulators and aggressors.

[Newb]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Just refound this here in the ora...

Monkeyboy, when we are outside what is happening, I guess we can make all the supposition we want to. I do not agree that defiance of your oppressor is tantamount to suicide.

It is the fundamental basis of the formation of the USA itself to rise up and rage against the machine. Why should it be different elsewhere.


The current occupation of Iraq was an attack on a severly weakened nation. More people died BECAUSE of sanctions and it is likely that if the same were true of any nation then the military built to defend teh nation would get special treatment to keep it strong and able.

The corruption of Saddam Hussein is no different from the corruption of any militaristic leader. People will try to find justification for their misdeeds no matter what, I suppose and there is certainly no shortage of propaganda fed to the US to help the folks feel better about the expansionist policies of that country.

It's ok if you're after a guy in a black hat apparently. But there are hundreds of guys in black hats all over the world that have the full support of the USA in their doings and often the US turns a blind eye to the attrocities commited by state leaders that they support in return for political footholds or resources from those nations.

It probably wouldn't hurt to have a look at Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States writings on the topic of US expansionism and how it has been a constant in the history of the US.

Zinn tends to use more factual evidence than your average Chomsky bots and tells a very convincing story and shows us where and what we can do to sit back and reconsider that which we thought was correct.

Now I have done my best to understand the Bush admin and the new world order and even the neo con movement stemming into the political wing of US government from the Pentagon. I've Read Frums books and Perles books and still cannot see eye to eye on what I consider to be manipulated and seriously flawed stances on the situation.

I would also add that the US was complicit with Saddam in his heyday of abuse as leader of Iraq and in fact assisted him in many ways directly and indirectly in his spiraling into the hellish man he became. Rumsfeld is equally as dangerous as Hussein was and frankly, Bush is looking more and more like and idealistic Naive person serving as puppet to the warhawks and religious right in America.

Ultimately, when we look back at this in 20 years, I wonder if it won't be another iteration of the extreme error that was vietnam or any other of a number of actions the USA has taken around the world as manipulators and aggressors.


I saw Zinn on "The Daily Show" last night and found him intresting. However, someone even better than Zinn is 8 time Presidental Candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. He has actually identified the oligarchy by name, proposed and still has plausable and sound solutions accepted by numerous world leaders, and bore the blunt of the fight. Lyndon LaRouche has fought the oligarchy directly since 1971, has written more, and accomplished more than many of these modern left leaders put together. Check out:

Http://www.larouchepac.com
http://www.larouchepub.com

I know you'll find the information very well researched.

[jun_erh]

newb - I don't think you can count the greed and short sightedness of certain big money people as being themselves terrorist acts. IN fact, I would define terrorism as people who use this greed to their own violent political advantage. But the difference between the two is this: the CIA trained al queda in afghanistan. that is true. But the CIA did not teach them wahabism. Plus, you are too easy n hussein. Just because someone is a dictator doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same criticisms as democracies (and vice versa). I'm sure husseins banking and laundering and whatnot practices were far more unethical than the british. Ariel Sharon and the likud are strong in Israel because of cynicism towards the arabs because they've been offred peace a million times and don't seem to want it.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
newb - I don't think you can count the greed and short sightedness of certain big money people as being themselves terrorist acts.

The greed itself isn't a terrorist act, however, when they get $600 Billion a year in drug money from terrorists that have no problem laundering their money in London and Wallstreet, you can say they are *sponsers* of terrorism.



IN fact, I would define terrorism as people who use this greed to their own violent political advantage.

Then by your own defination, the banking elite who are addicted to drug money are terrorists.



But the difference between the two is this: the CIA trained al queda in afghanistan. that is true. But the CIA did not teach them wahabism.

The US and British Government DID teach them extreme religious brainwashing. Some US Agent with a turbin and a CIA badge didn't go in and do it, however, as in the case of Arial Sharon, they made sure the money went to HAMAS and other religious freaks who used the money to brainwash the people and recruit them to fight 'for Holy Islam against evil Soviet Russia'.




Plus, you are too easy n hussein.

Not at all. I was in Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. I've had family die in that war. I remember the bombings every night. I have been affected the most by Saddam Hussein than anyone on this forum (if I am mistaken, whoever u are, speak up). The fact is, Saddam Hussein couldn't have done what he did, without the explicit backing of the USA. Without our backing, Saddam would have continued to be a nobody without the power he had.



Just because someone is a dictator doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same criticisms as democracies (and vice versa).

Sure, that's a given. Regardless this war had alot less to do with Saddam Hussein than the strategic location Iraq had along with it's natural resources. Saddam and Bin Ladin are the 2 old goats that have outlived their usefullness. They are simply being used now as boogie men, since we don't have much use for them anymore.



I'm sure husseins banking and laundering and whatnot practices were far more unethical than the british.

Absolutely not. You cannot compare Saddams banking to $600 Billion of narco-terrorist drug money and the amount of terrorists that were protected in Britain.


Ariel Sharon and the likud are strong in Israel because of cynicism towards the arabs because they've been offred peace a million times and don't seem to want it.

That's a media lie. Yassar Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin both agreed to OSLO and both stuck to it. The first 'terrorist' was a Jewish man from Brooklyn by the name of "Baruch Goldstein" that went into a mosque in Hebron and machine gunned over 50 people to death. Yitzhak Rabin and Arafat didn't let that affect the peace,a nd pushed foreward stronger in a peace based on justice, equality, and fairness. It was the extreme right wing of Israel who claim to have a claim on the land 'Eretz Israeal' or 'Greater Israel' that wanted Rabin did. NetenYAHOO stated OSLO is dead before Rabin was shot. Sharon did everything he could to make sure it couldn't happen. A few weeks before Rabins assassination at the hand of a right wing Israeli Extremist, Yigal Amir; Sharon and Netenyahou were marching down Tel Aviv saying they will overthrow the government and so fourth. You had people having effigys of Rabin being hung in Prison with a nazi SS uniform with a gun to his head saying 'Are you comming to the funeral'?!?

It was Netenyahou who backed out of OSLO, Arafat never backed off it. Also, In Camp David, they did not let Palestine have any control over the Al-Asqa mosque. The 3rd holiest site in all of Islam. Barak pushed that issue hard, stating htat Israel will deffinately have control over the mosque, or there is no deal. With Rabin, they said htey will take care of jerusalem in a few years, once they started working togehter and have more trust and so fourth. barak pushed it and said no deal if Israel doesn't control the Al-Asqa mosque. Arafat said this is a Islamic Holy site, not a Palestanian site alone. He said he cannot do it, since the site belonged to all muslims. Imagine if Arafat demanded he control all of the Wailing Wall or some other holy Jewish site. It is redicilious. The fact is, the peace of the extreme right wing of Israel is the peace of a graveyard. Our media is one of the best oiled propoganda machines in the world, and can every easily hide this fact from most people who don't do some deep research.

[jun_erh]

there are isolated terror incidents with any fundamentalists. we have an abortion bombing once every ten years or something in this country. Baruch Gldstein was a nut and if he derailed the entire peace process than there wasn't much there was there. They had a huge protest condeemning what he did, the biggest in Israel's history. The radical right in israel is miniscule compared to the muslim fundamentalists and aren't connected to kidnapping and narcotics and organized crime. They beleive god gave them israel and they are entitled to that opinion.

I also disagree with your characterization of camp David. Clinton's final offer was more than generous. Arafat didn't accept it because he is a fat egyptian coward who made a fortune of the intifada.

You continue to try to blame other people for acts of terrorists. MUSLIMS are behind terrorism today. If you can't see that you're blind.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
there are isolated terror incidents with any fundamentalists. we have an abortion bombing once every ten years or something in this country. Baruch Gldstein was a nut and if he derailed the entire peace process than there wasn't much there was there. They had a huge protest condeemning what he did, the biggest in Israel's history. The radical right in israel is miniscule compared to the muslim fundamentalists and aren't connected to kidnapping and narcotics and organized crime. They beleive god gave them israel and they are entitled to that opinion.

I never stated Baruch Goldstein derailed Oslo, he was an example of a extremist right winger in the tradition of the right wingers who killed Rabin, and demanded an end to Oslo (Netenyahou and Sharon).


I also disagree with your characterization of camp David. Clinton's final offer was more than generous. Arafat didn't accept it because he is a fat egyptian coward who made a fortune of the intifada.

Wether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact. The fact remains Oslo was able to go on because they put Jerusalem on hold. They would discuss Jerusalem 5 years later, after the peace foundation has already been set. Most likely, it would have led to a joint capitol in Jerusalem; with the Al Asqa mosque in Palestine, and the wailing wall in Israel. The offer given by Yitzhak Rabin was much more fair. The less generous Barak offer *did not* allow any control of the 3rd holiest Islamic site in the world, the Al Asqa mosque. He absolutely refused to even have talks of Jerusalem 5 years later. That was the ONLY thing that stopped it, Barak refusing to talk about Jerusalem 5 years later. Arafat could not simply hand over a holy ancient islamic site, it wasn't his, it belongs to the people of Islam.

Why do you think barak is guilt free? His offer was less 'generous' (AKA: Fair) than Rabins, and he wouldn't budge an inch on Jerusalem, which killed the peace process and led way for Sharons right wing policies that killed Rabin.


You continue to try to blame other people for acts of terrorists. MUSLIMS are behind terrorism today. If you can't see that you're blind.

In the mass media and movies Muslims are the terrorists. Many Jewish terrorists still exist today that terrify Muslims every single day in the occupied territories. What the extreme right wing settlers do to the Arabs is a form of cultural Genocide and fascism. They are acting no better than the nazis in 1935. If you don't know that, it's time for you to perhaps get off this moral high ground and do some research into what the settlers have been doing, and are doing today to terrorize the arabs for the past 40 years.

Besides, Islamic Terrorism couldn't continue if Britain wouldn't allow them to launder 600 billion dollars of drug money that t hey are addicted to. Islamic Terrorism was created and sponsored by the US, Britain, and Arial Sharon in the 1980s, and continues to florish thanks to US and British protection. For example, the Chechnian terrorist warlords have their headquarters in Washington DC down from the white house! War on terror my ass. Confiscate the drug money then. That $600 billion dollars can help rebuild the entire world.

[jun_erh]

Newb's conspirqacy theories are good for one thing. I live near Cambridge, MA and there are lots of hardcore leftist and arabic chicks who LOVE this ****. Just mumble something abuot the jews and they think you are really sexy terrorist. Believe me, arab chicks aren't as repressed here as they may be in their own countries. Alls fair in love and war right newb?


and plant some high tech listening devices for MOSSAD while your at it.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
Newb's conspirqacy theories are good for one thing. I live near Cambridge, MA and there are lots of hardcore leftist and arabic chicks who LOVE this ****. Just mumble something abuot the jews and they think you are really sexy terrorist. Believe me, arab chicks aren't as repressed here as they may be in their own countries. Alls fair in love and war right newb?


and plant some high tech listening devices for MOSSAD while your at it.


Jun, you're the one that is obsessed with this Israel thing. Excuse me for daring to state that Israel isn't the holiest and best country in the whole world, and that it too, like most nations, has some very bad bloodmarks in it's recent history.

[jun_erh]

your a wacko, not to be taken seriously

[Newb]

Jun, you're the one that is obsessed with this Israel thing. Excuse me for daring to state that Israel isn't the holiest and best country in the whole world, and that it too, like most nations, has some very bad bloodmarks in it's recent history.


Originally posted by jun_erh
your a wacko, not to be taken seriously .

So does that mean you disagree? Do you then believe Israel is the holiest and best country in the whole world, and doesn't have any horrible human rights violations?

[jun_erh]

that's right. I guess that's why people keep moving there. That's why even withut oil (which they culd have had but they gave that land to egypt in exchange for peace) they prosper. Iran has tons of oil but the people are starving. Countries like Norway have oil and use it for their people and their society whereas the countries you like take what belongs to their people then makes out like a bandit by perpetuating stupid conspiracy theories. Terrorists and dictators make tons of money and have the same enemy= jews and america. People like you are suckers because your not getting any of that money but you tow their line. If muslims put a fractin of their energy into attacking the problems in their own societies DIRECTLY, not some convuluted thing of goin for the "ones who are pulling the strings" they wuld have been free a long time ago.

terrorism and conspiracy theories have accomplished nothing. They are lame tactics.


Newb, my guess is you are working for the US government. Am I correct in this?

[Newb]

Wow, let me get this streight. I asked you "Do you then believe Israel is the holiest and best country in the whole world, and doesn't have any horrible human rights violations?"

and you replied:
that's right. I guess that's why people keep moving there.




You seriously believe that Israel is the holiest and best country in the whole world, and doesn't have any horrible human rights violations?




PS: No, I do not work for the US Govt.

[jun_erh]

I don't know about "holy" but they don't stone people to death for adultery or because they are from some "rival sect' of judaism. There have never been any human rights violations there to my knowledge. that is what I'm saying and yes you do work for the US government

[mortal]

"I don't know about "holy" but they don't stone people to death for adultery"

Is that really so wrong? They might have a point here. lolo

Just kidding.

[jun_erh]

I wouldn't mind if star Jones was forced to wear a burka.

[Newb]

635 Israeli Soldiers from all kinds of rank have signed a letter stating the reasons they have refused to serve in the occupied territories of Palestine. They will gladly Israeli homeland, or another country if there is a war. This is a grassroots organization of soldiers that cannot be discounted as 'cowards', 'terrorists', etc. Many of them have proved their bravery and dedication to securinng Israel and it's moral values. Here is the letter:
http://www.seruv.org.il/english/combatants_letter.asp


Some parts of the letter read:

We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Occupied Territories destroy all the values that we were raised upon,

We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society,

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.


I would also like you to read some of the tactics Nazi General Jurgen Stroops "Stroop Report" The Warsaw Ghetto is no more

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/stroop-report/htm/intro000.htm

I have also read the writings of some of the survivors of the Ghetto. Ha'aretz, Israels 3rd largest newspaper reported that the IDF has been studying the Stroop Report in ways of putting down the Palestanians. Some of the similar tactics used, in such operations like "Operation: Defensive Shield" against Jenin.

- Burying people as they bulldoze their house if they can't get out in time.

- cutting off water and electricity, imposing impossible curfews. Shoot to kill if you're out on curfew.

- Not allowing any ambulances to help you and shooting ambulances.



Does the IDF Refusal to serve letter and the Stroop report studies tarnish your staunch support for Israel, and perhaps allow you to cut the Palestanians a little bit of slack, seeing what they are going through? Are Palestanian lives worth less than Israeli lives? More Palestanian women and children have died than numbers of israelis, including millitary have died in this Intifada. Those are people too.


It is not a conspiracy theory to say a policy of perpetual war will only distroy Israel. Yitzhak Rabin understood it when he changed and decided to make peace. He realized that Israel will not be able to engage in constant warfare against the Palestanians. In order to have peace, you have to go back to the principles of Oslo and Yitzhak Rabin. If the ring wing of Israel doesn't want to go back to Oslo, as they often tried to kill it (literally and politically), then you get rid of the Jabotinsky-ite right wing of Israel. Bring in Yossi Beilin and his crowd. The policies of perpetual warfare are beastial, and will solve no problems, as well as create many new ones. It is not in the intrest of Israel to be at war with the Palestanians, when they can go back to Oslo and have peace.

[jun_erh]

Israelis are civilized. Of course they're squeamish about using violent tactics. But all the stuff is a reaction to terrorism. it's self defense. so I maintain israel has no human rights violatins. Any rational person can see the difference between sodliers trying to stop suicide bmbers and women being beaten and set on fire. or having acid thrown in their face for dating white men. The muslims in palestine are no different than the ones in thailand and the ones in th Sudan. There are no jews or oil in thailand or Yemen and the same stuff happens. and if "good" or "moderate" muslims don't want to get caught up in the net, they'll do something abuot it themselves.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
Israelis are civilized. Of course they're squeamish about using violent tactics. But all the stuff is a reaction to terrorism. it's self defense. so I maintain israel has no human rights violatins. Any rational person can see the difference between sodliers trying to stop suicide bmbers and women being beaten and set on fire. or having acid thrown in their face for dating white men. The muslims in palestine are no different than the ones in thailand and the ones in th Sudan. There are no jews or oil in thailand or Yemen and the same stuff happens. and if "good" or "moderate" muslims don't want to get caught up in the net, they'll do something abuot it themselves.



So far from what you are desrcibing is that Israel is a civilized society, where as islamic countries are not civilized. what do you think the 635 Israeli Soldiers who signed this letter were thinking?

We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society,

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.



Don't you think it's rather rascist to say Israel (the Jewish state) is such a great society while the muslim people surrounding them are barbarians?

[mortal]

"Don't you think it's rather rascist to say Israel (the Jewish state) is such a great society while the muslim people surrounding them are barbarians?"

I don't know about rascist. I feel that way. So do many other arab nations who refuse to let the palestinians live in their states. Nobody wants them. Would you want people in your country that think it is ok to blow up innocent peolpe. They are clearly barbarians. The Jews are clearly civilized. They are defending themselves from sneaky attacks. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Newb]

Originally posted by mortal
"Don't you think it's rather rascist to say Israel (the Jewish state) is such a great society while the muslim people surrounding them are barbarians?"

I don't know about rascist. I feel that way. So do many other arab nations who refuse to let the palestinians live in their states. Nobody wants them. Would you want people in your country that think it is ok to blow up innocent peolpe. They are clearly barbarians. The Jews are clearly civilized. They are defending themselves from sneaky attacks. I see nothing wrong with it.


First point: Why do you think these people who'se families have lived there for over a millinium, who'se houses are there, should simply be forced to move to another nation? What is the difference when then Nazis did that to the Jews (before the Final Solution was implemented), and to what you are proposing?


2nd point: How about the fact that more Palestanian women and children have died in this Intifada, than the total deaths of Israelis including millitary personnel. That doesn't raise questions at all? You don't think that's worth looking into, to see perhaps if more Palestanian women and children are dead, than the total amount of israelis, that perhaps something might be wrong with your analysis?

[Kristoffer]

The palestinian people is occupied. Surrounded and seperated by walls, ak's and hate. Israel is the modern Nazis, they use the same methods (remember the polish ghettos?).
Instead of saying ''oh they crazy they blow themself up'', try figure out what extreme mistreatment could drive a man to actually do that. Mortal, please explain how Israel is 'civilized'? You a big fan of Hitler too?

[mortal]

Comparing the nazi's to Israel just shows how completely twisted your logic has become. If israel were like the nazis they would have slaughtered all the Palestinians by now.

Nothing I say will change your mind. And nothing you say will change mine. I expressed my opnions and you expressed yours. Let us just leave it at that for now. How much pent up America hating do you really have in you?

Let us leave it at that and go chat about gung fu.

[Newb]

Originally posted by mortal
Comparing the nazi's to Israel just shows how completely twisted your logic has become. If israel were like the nazis they would have slaughtered all the Palestinians by now.

Nothing I say will change your mind. And nothing you say will change mine. I expressed my opnions and you expressed yours. Let us just leave it at that for now. How much pent up America hating do you really have in you?

Let us leave it at that and go chat about gung fu.


/agreed
no hard feelings.

(agreed on lets just move on, but the Nazis didn't carry out the "final solution" well into 1939. The actions of the Nazi Government from 1933-1938 have many similarities)

[Kristoffer]

so u'r saying you don't have any good way to answer my question? And how did my post make me an america hater?? :confused:

whatever

[mortal]

I don't want to get back into this but nothing justifies suicide bombing. Attack the military if you are desperate. Blowing up buses with people going to work is unacceptable.

If you guys want to blame the US and Israel for the worlds problems that is up to you. But it is ass backwards thinking in my humble opinion.

I hate when people say whatever! lolol That is the first time I heard a male say it. :)

[Kristoffer]

On the behalf of the America Haters Inc. I appologize for having upset you're feelings and pointing out you're inferior mental capabillitys prehibiting you to answer questions.

I'm sorry

[jun_erh]

newb- your bading your whole arguement on a form letter signed by a small portion of the israeli military. flimsy. The israeli military is mandatory for all israeli citizens (thanks to their violent neighbors) and yu get a broad political spectrum there. I've seen other stuff from the army that is totally in the other direction politically.


kristoffer- anti-semitism has been in the middle east for a long time. way before this conflict. Jewish kids in Iran had to stay home from school when it rained because iranians didn't want the rainwater that touched a jew to possible contaminate them.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
newb- your bading your whole arguement on a form letter signed by a small portion of the israeli military. flimsy. The israeli military is mandatory for all israeli citizens (thanks to their violent neighbors) and yu get a broad political spectrum there. I've seen other stuff from the army that is totally in the other direction politically.

Those people represent a grass roots movement in Israel. The point i'm making Jun, is very fair and balanced. Israel itself has had a very bloody human rights record, espcially through the extreme right wing following Vladamir Jabotinsky. Blaming 90 or 80% on everyone else, is just plain rascist and silly.



kristoffer- anti-semitism has been in the middle east for a long time. way before this conflict. Jewish kids in Iran had to stay home from school when it rained because iranians didn't want the rainwater that touched a jew to possible contaminate them.

Your comments are really out there. I know Jews in Iran live in peace. I am going back tommorow in fact, and will take pictures of the temples. Is it possible a small minority of people thought that? sure. There are crazy people all over the world. Just look at the Southern states in the USA.

[jun_erh]

what about the soldiers who didn't sign that letter?


So your saying there is no anti-semetism in the arab world? or that it is only related to the Palestine-israel conflict? I could show you a plethora of evidence to the contrary


In 2005 in the "suthern states" jews and blacks have the same rights as anyone else.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
what about the soldiers who didn't sign that letter?


So your saying there is no anti-semetism in the arab world? or that it is only related to the Palestine-israel conflict? I could show you a plethora of evidence to the contrary


In 2005 in the "suthern states" jews and blacks have the same rights as anyone else.


The point is that at least 600 something Israeli soldiers, many of whom are the rank of Captain or Major, have signed that letter stating that this is what they have seen. Many of them have served in wars in defending Israel, as troops on the front line. Like it or not, which I suspect you don't like, the IDF has horrible human rights voilations, as these soldiers have also signed. That is what matters.


I never claimed that there isn't any anti-semitism in other Arab nations, or anywhere in the world. All kinds of people hate all kinds of people. White Anglo or Black Christain fundies hate Jews since they are 'Christ killers' (it's one of the oldest and worst slanders, Jews didn't kill Christ, the Roman Emperor did). The KKK hates jews, muslims, black people, etc. Some radical black panthers hate white people and so on, I was speaking to 2 representatives of the "Armenian Genocide" and both said "Fvck the Jews". Yes, i know the Irony. I told them that their representation of their movement is very ethno-centric, and a fight against Genocide should be against all forms of it.

[jun_erh]

arab anti-semitism is not in the same catagory as those other things. They hate jews and america alot more than most kkk hate blacks. and no one cares about the KKK in this country. They have a couple ****ty parades that are mostly attended by protesters.



If you want to use your little petition to say Israel commits human rights vilations then fine. But they don't do it out of sadism, they do it becuase of terrorism. The jewish israeli people dn't get stned to death and whatnot is what I'm saying. they don't shot adulterus woman in the head in the town square. that's what I mean by human rights. Not some political stuff involving Palestine.


So, in th end, you haven't made your point that arab anti-semtism is nothing special or that Israel is in any way shape or form similar to the Sudan or Yemen in terms of how fair a society it is. Seriously, they are preposterous arguements. But then again you probably believe the janjaweed militias are jewish.



and how can you defend the shah? It was his oppresive regime that paved the way for the whle muslim revolution.

[Newb]

Originally posted by jun_erh
arab anti-semitism is not in the same catagory as those other things. They hate jews and america alot more than most kkk hate blacks. and no one cares about the KKK in this country. They have a couple ****ty parades that are mostly attended by protesters.

Quite simply, you're wrong. Perhaps you have not seen what the KKK has done, or continues to do to black people. It is a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are on the same level. Sure, some are more gruesome. Skinning someone alive is more gruesome than drowning them in carosine and lighting them on fire, but at that point, does it really make a difference? Read the Israeli papers like Ha'aretz, you will see report after report of settlers going out of hteir way to beat up school children trying to go school, settlers shooting palestanians who are trying to harvest their olives, and so fourth.




If you want to use your little petition to say Israel commits human rights vilations then fine. But they don't do it out of sadism, they do it becuase of terrorism. The jewish israeli people dn't get stned to death and whatnot is what I'm saying. they don't shot adulterus woman in the head in the town square. that's what I mean by human rights. Not some political stuff involving Palestine.



Where do you get this propoganda that it's normal for the PLO goes around today shooting women in the head? it's hysterical propoganda. Even if it is true, the IDF has treated the palestanians like dogs, much like we treat the Iraqi prisoners. There is simply no excuse. Look at the deaths. More Palestanian women and children have died in this intifada, than the total # of all isralies killed. Are they also not human? Don't they hurt as bad as Israelis when their children are killed by IDF snipers and tanks? Of course they are. Don't go defending this crap Jun, it's not good for you. You should denounce the actoins of the IDF that leads to civilian killing as much as you denounce terrorism.




and how can you defend the shah? It was his oppresive regime that paved the way for the whle muslim revolution.


I didn't defend the Shah Jun, I told the truth. Life was MUCH better under him. Shah didn't lead the way to the Muslim revolution, Zbignew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger did during their Iran-Contra mujahadeen operations when they were supporting and sponsering terrorists like Bin Ladin, Khomeini with BBC out of France, and others to recruit people for the holy fight in Irans neighbor, Afghanistan.

[jun_erh]

your out of your mind. The KKK is not nearly in the same universe a threat to black people as islamic anti-semtism is to jews or towards americans for that matter (hatrd towartds americans). I can't believe yu wuld write that the phenomenon of islamic hatred towards jews is not relatively significant. Do you realize what you're saying? Khomenie took over the entire country and his people still rule. Most people in this country have never seen a KKK person in real life unless they live in the deep deep south and even then they probably get killed by Ludacris and his crew. The focus of the ENTIRE WORLD is on muslims and their hatred of americans and jews. If you think that's justified fine, but you need to stop insulting peoples intelligence. read a newspaper for gods sake.


and you still haven't shown that israel has ever commited any human rights violations. Settlers have killed people and been the target of killings themselves. If people are at war how can you say one and not the other is guilty of human rights vilations??? I never said palestinians "went arund" shootinf women in the head, my point was about the the variations of sharia-type laws practiced in the middle east. When Amnesty internatinal is talking about human rights and dictatorships they don't mean people in France or England or Israel for that matter, they mean people like Saddam Hussein and the taliban and of course Yassir arafat. Countries that don't hav free speech.


Zbignew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger did during their Iran-Contra mujahadeen operations when they were supporting and sponsering terrorists like Bin Ladin, Khomeini with BBC out of France, and others to recruit people for the holy fight in Irans neighbor, Afghanistan.


yeah millions of iranians were follwing jimmy carter. It had NOTHING to do with the Shah. hahaha the shah and his minions were great guys. You are absolutely and totally unable to accept ANY RESPONSIBILITY for what is happening in the middle east. you are so lost and hopeless it's scary. I can admit when the US screws up. inciting the shia to ris against saddam then not backing them up was WRONG. Vietnam was WRONG. Now you say: Muslim terrorism is wrong.

[Kristoffer]

Actually the jews in Iran have been living there amongst the muslims since before christ. There was a big article lately about that. How they continue to tolerate eachoter. (in reflection to Israel/Palestine) So where you're rain story comes from I have no idea.

[David Jamieson]

anyone on the terror train on any side is a whacko with a whacko agenda.

That includes both Bush and Bin Laden, Blair and Sharon, any arab who blows himself up and any Israeli who shoots a person at a checkpoint into the ghetto teh Israelis have created for them.

If only we could somehow do away with them all. lol ...like that's gonna happen.

To many greedy mofos out there and they are all nutbags with a nutbag cause.

Just my humble opinion.

[jun_erh]

kristoffer- believe it or not there is more to this issue than what yu read in some article.

kung lek- everyone is on one side or the other. everyone who matters anyway.

[mortal]

Bush and Bin Laden

There is no comparison. I always get pulled back into threads when I read stuff like this.

Are you kidding. If they traded places bin laden would use nuclear weapons instantly on us. That alone proves who is worse. Lets try to get some perspective here. You guys get so lost in your lefty worlds.

[CaptinPickAxe]

I found a paradox of sorts.

In the inagural address, Bush said he will not force our views on people...and in the same breath said he will spread democracy around the world.

Now, without flamming me till I'm no longer able to be identified, why must we force democracy on the world? He is so twisted...He is borderline insane. He is talking of invading other countries. Mainly, Iran. I know their rep is anything but pristine, but look at this

Iraq---->Iran<----Afghanistan

It seems like more than a coincidence.

And I'll ask y'all another thing...How many wars will we start before we finish one? Can you honestly agree with his plan of action? Or do you think it would be in his best interest to finish at least one endevour before starting another.

I'm afraid, friends. I hate to sound like a loon, but this is looking like another crusade...under the veil of "democracy"

Our boat isn't sinking yet, but bush sure is insistant of ****ing it up. I think he wants to be the first ruler of the USA (or the world)

Are you ready to go and die in a war that has no meaning? Are you ready to send your son or daughter off to do the same?

Why the **** did we get Saddam when we didn't have Bin Laden? He was cornered and we backed out...fishy if you ask me. How hard is it to catch a man who has to be connected to a dialisys machine at least 4 hours a day? We found Saddam relatively easy...

I think Bush wants another 9/11 because 4 more isn't enough for this brat.

[red5angel]

I'm afraid, friends. I hate to sound like a loon, but this is looking like another crusade...under the veil of "democracy"


LOL, crusade.....


Why the **** did we get Saddam when we didn't have Bin Laden?


easy, saddam was a dictator who wasn't interested in fighting like a terrorist, really. He wanted to stay and lead a revolt is what he wanted to do. Bin Laden has lived the life of an underground terrorist pig just about all his life, or atleast long enough to know how to do it well.

[CaptinPickAxe]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush/index.html

"But he vowed to make history and pursue the goal of democracy worldwide."

This doesn't seem odd to you. We've fought wars with people who tried to do the same

[CaptinPickAxe]

Red, you failed to answer my question on why we need global democracy

[CaptinPickAxe]

I could of sworn one of the principals of Democracy was freedom of choice....

So since when is forcing Democracy on others democracy?
If they choose to not have democracy, doesn't that qualify as the freedom of choice?

[CaptinPickAxe]

....I'm waiting for the horror stories of what the Iranian government does to it's people so it will become "humanitarian effort" and uphold our "protector and all-round goodguy" image that we think we have...

[jun_erh]

cpa- even newb laughs at your left wing rhetoric. What are you even talking about?

[CaptinPickAxe]

I'm laughing cause none of you republicans can answer why we need a global democracy.

Then again that's what republicans do when they can't answer....change the subject

And I don't give two drops of monkey **** about who laughs at me...it was a question not rhetoric, ****.

[jun_erh]

we need global democracy because dictatorships seem to be at the root of all internatinal problems such as terrorism, refugees, human rights abuses.

[David Jamieson]

dictatorships?

dude, now who's the brainwashed one.

Try this instead.

Socio-Economics.

Or

Sanctions

or Embargos

or Unfair trade practices that favour the G8 and do not favour everyone else.

or

Tariffs

or

Occupational forces.

or

Subsidies that lock out other countries from doing business where your goods are worth nothing, but the taxpayer foots the bill for them to be viable.

Dictatorships. What piffle. Dude, you live in a dictatoirship right now. It's a dictatorship of the Majority. GUided by the geo-political ideals of an immensely smaller group who forge laws that do not bear there full weight and manifestation until long after the party who implemented them is gone. At which point, It is a lot of work to undo and usually because your average politician is typically someone who can't actually get a good job in the private sector nothing is done about the mess.

Man, get with the times. And stop watching the Propaganda stations. :p

[CaptinPickAxe]

Dude....WTF do you think a global democracy is? DICTATORSHIP! It's not democracy, it's the world under American Democracy i.e. in our pockets. Spare me the humanitarian bull****...this is a hostile business takeover and an attempt to rule to the world through economy.

Maybe if you republicans (fat cats) would get off your knees, pop the dick out of your mouth, and look around Bush, you'd see exactly what is going on here. How is taking over the middle east anything but a crusade? What's after Iran? Saudi Arabia...

[CaptinPickAxe]

And dictatorship isn't the root of terrorism, retard. It's low living standards...if you lived in a ply-wood shanty wouldn't you want to blow some **** up?

A dictator isn't entirely responsible for low living standards.

[jun_erh]

most of the 9/11 terrorists were upper middle class guys with good educations. there are poor people all over the world who aren't terrorists.

a democracy can't be any kind of dictatorship by it's definition. If the US were to push IT'S form of democracy that would be somewhat of a hostile dictatorial action but that is not what they are doing.

Dictators are responsible for their peoples poverty, at least in the middle east. Iran makes trillions of dollars in oil yet the buidings it puts up for it's people fall apart when theres a medium level earthquake killing thousands. If Saddam had ran for president like anyone else and won, allowed free speech/press, the US would never have been able to go there, whether they just wanted the oil or not. Anymore than they could invade England.

The other problem is ISlam itself. Even with a "muslim democracy" they will never be able to compete if half their workforce (women)isn't allowed to work. In general the least religious muslim countries ar ethe most stable ones. Kurdistan and turkey are far less volitile than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

In Palestine nearly 30 percent of the population is Christian. NONE of these people participate in terrorism.

[CaptinPickAxe]

The other problem is ISlam itself

And you say it's not a crusade? How can you say this and not have a crusade?

[CaptinPickAxe]

or is it genocide?

[jun_erh]

so what if it is? Maybe they need to be crusaded upon. Maybe your life depends on it.

[CaptinPickAxe]

:rolleyes:

Typical Republican Propaganda...

[CaptinPickAxe]

My life depends on it because I have Al Qaida living three apartments over:rolleyes:

Because Iraqi Militants are everywhere here in the states:rolleyes:

Because bush reallyl doesn't have personal motives:rolleyes:


Thanks friend.....You just completely ruined your credibility.

[jun_erh]

relax. I was just trying to get a rise out of you. i'm just not interested in what religious fanatics, be they christian or jewish or muslim, have to say and i don't think it is of much use to most people. I think Pat robertson and Osama bin Laden should go off in the desert and live in monasteries. I think there's a religious double standard.

here's an example: the crap documentary/fantasy "Control Room". at one point the marine goes "Al jezeera is sort of like the FOX News of the middle east" so people laude this documentary but still hate FOX News. Shouldn't you hate them both? Besides al Jezeera is a thousand times more dangerous. FOX is annoying more than dangerous. When pat Robertson tries to blow up his sneakers on an airplane maybe I'll change that ratio.

[chen zhen]

Originally posted by jun_erh
most of the 9/11 terrorists were upper middle class guys with good educations. there are poor people all over the world who aren't terrorists.

most of the 9/11 terrorists are still alive:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

FBI director Mueller acknowleded that, but we still havent gotten an explanation on who was aboard the planes instead of these guys.

[FuXnDajenariht]

wait... are they saying thats the suspects who hijacked the planes on 9/11 are still alive? that doesn't make any sense. :confused:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
How can you say this and not have a crusade?

What do people mean by 'crusade' in this context?

[jun_erh]

that article is from like september 12, 2001. I think the 9/11 commision report would have covered something that major