Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on February 28, 2005, 09:47:21 AM
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20050228/mdf877485.jpg)
wtg "freedom fighters"
-
Just carpet bomb Iraq with a bunch of MOABS, We'll get our point across! :aok
-
Real heroes aren't they.
-
That's why we have to kill them. We know the USA's going to hit again, knowing not when but how and how hard this time, we gotta do something drastic to let people know that "We're not gonna let up on Terrorists". Jeez these idiotc myth believing terrorists are stupid. Half of their attacks are not even hitting. We outta just Carpet bomb baghdad with MOAB's on C130's.
-
oh ya, that would definately work.
:rolleyes:
(i cant believe that i share air with that comment)
-
I was being Sarcastic. Surely your not one of those idiots to think that these "freedom fighters" are doing the right thing? If you are then I pity you.
-
The intelligent responses this BBs generates are truly impressive no? Carpet Bomb baghdad? Sir you are very very misguided.
-
no. i don't. but i do understand why they fight. i would if they were here. they are brainwashed thier way. we are in ours.
be lets not forget that we have killed enough innocent civilians over there with our bombs to make thier numbers statistically pale in comparison i am sure.
ya know?
-
This just in... some people in Iraq do not want a democratic form of government.
-
silence BLASPHEMER!
-
Actually I'm not, I'm rather completely sick of the anti-war a-holes that roam around preaching how America's so bad for defending it's freedom against these terrorists. It's simple, 9/11 we lost over 2,000 innocent lives. Speak to those families that lost those people. People can make a difference in this world. But you can't bring back a loved one's life. Can You? Remember this.
" It's the Soldier who serves under the flag, Who salutes the flag, Who's coffin's draped by the flag, For the protestors to be eligible to burn the flag"
We have Men and Women that are dying for Freedom that we will be able to tell our kids about one day. America is a Nation United, a Country full of Freedom, it's a shame that for these Soldiers that serve for freedom, get spit on and humilitated for reasons that Anti-War mongers (most) have never even seen or could come close to seeing what soldiers go through.
Zulu, Thanks for being an Anti-War monger. Just one more person in this world that can't get over the fact that we are fighting bad guys that must be dealt with.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
This just in... some people in Iraq do not want a democratic form of government.
I do not think they are the majority, just the most violent, savage, insane
-
Three years ago, the case against Iraq because of terrorist activity was rather weak.
Not so, today. Congratulations! You now have the war on terror you were looking for.
Woot!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I do not think they are the majority, just the most violent, savage, insane
Hence the use of the word "some" instead of "most".
:aok
-
JB88 Civilians are expected to die in ANY War. We're not there to kill civilians, No... We're there to give the iraqi people something they never had... FREEDOM
-
frankly. it is american to have an opinion.
even if it means listening to Aholes talking about Aholes.
if you are tired of it, then perhaps i might watch out for you as you might be one of the creeping seeds too far right of the light to have been loved that wants to ban everything, stop all dissent that ruins the ride to the head whacking gadget at the end of a tyranical ropeswing.
an anti-war monger?
thats silly.
and its hateful.
you made a frikkin joke about killing thousands of people to prove your point.
whos the monger?
really.
killing is KILLING.
is it funny?
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
JB88 Civilians are expected to die in ANY War. We're not there to kill civilians, No... We're there to give the iraqi people something they never had... FREEDOM
the only things that i have ever appreciated or succeeded at in my life have been the things that i have done FOR MYSELF.
we came to give the iraqis what theyve already had by way of english imperialism previous to ours.
sorry charlie.
-
This whole damn thread is in poor taste. :(
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Three years ago, the case against Iraq because of terrorist activity was rather weak.
Not so, today. Congratulations! You now have the war on terror you were looking for.
Woot!
same carbonated bottle of terror that was always there
we just shook it up a bit and removed the cork
-
i remember talking to a relative about war...he said, "you have to find something to make it right for yourself, or you couldnt live with yourself knowing what you were doing."
that is what alot of people are doing.
do i agree that thier system sucks? yes.
do i believe that we lied about why we went there? YES.
do i believe that the soldiers want to help them? YES.
and kill them too at times.
thats war.
but it isnt, wasnt and shouldnt have been our war.
it was thiers.
and the other nations in the world have just as much right to thier opinion on the matter as we ever do.
its thiers too.
THAT is the spirit of democracy.
-
JB88, War is War. I'd hate to see you lead the US. I could see it now, We get attacked, and you'd sit back with your Pantyhose stretched and say "Oh, we can't attack back, that's the wrong thing" You just don't get it. Too many people don't get it. It's sad too. You are totally dis-respectful towards the US and it's allies along with troops overseas.
-
You also seem to care about yourself and only YOURSELF. That's sad aswell. You lives off of riches of the US's believes but yet still have nerve to talk trash about our ways of freedom and helping others.
-
NO. i would have torn osama bid laden to frikkin ribbons.
i would have organized a coalition just like GB1 did with a clear objective.
i would have savored the world sympathy post 9/11 and turned it into a positive for leading the battle against REAL terrorism rather than creating some fuzzy war with no end in sight.
i would have made it a point to demonstrate to the world that i value thier opinion and i would have made damn sure that i didnt endanger our freedoms by turning my paranoia on my own countrymen.
here sign this loyalty oath.
any leader that needs a loyalty oath is pathetic.
-
Uhh.....hello? Saddam's regime harbored terrorists. Iraq had Al-Qaeda in it to begin with. Bush stated to begind with, "Those who harbor terrorists will be dealt with Justice". "You are either with us, or against us". There, End of Case.
-
War is war?
Okay... tell us, when and how we know we've won the war on terror.
-
i am against that type of thinking.
sorry.
so were you at one point i suspect.
THAT is the ultimate form of narcissism.
and NO. there isnt any real correllation between saddam and al queda that has been determined.
its cowboys and indians friend.
cowboys and indians.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
same carbonated bottle of terror that was always there
we just shook it up a bit and removed the cork
Terrorism in a bottle?.................Brilliant!!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Terrorism in a bottle?.................Brilliant!!
lol
(http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/03/08/guinness-thumb.jpg)
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
Uhh.....hello? Saddam's regime harbored terrorists. Iraq had Al-Qaeda in it to begin with. Bush stated to begind with, "Those who harbor terrorists will be dealt with Justice". "You are either with us, or against us". There, End of Case.
Not according to the 9/11 commission..
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
Commission opens final hearing before release of report.
-
I on't know when the war will end what the hell do you think I am the US President>? Lol be glad i'm not.
I don't know when it will end but i know one thing. I am glad to say we're fighting Terrorism, and bringing hell to those that DO terrorize. I'm Proud to say that I like Bush. That is my opinion. I believe in this War and you don't, My opinion. You are not getting the point that we have to fight it now no matter what.
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
You are not getting the point that we have to fight it now no matter what.
This too, is your opinion. ;)
-
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - george orwell, 1984
always curious why those who preach it here are not fighting it there.
-
JB88 You are a rare ( in here ) voice of sanity. i cannot disagree with any of your posts.
Cue the paranoid right wing response?
-
i am sure that many here would beg to differ...though i appreciate the compliment.
-
A compliment from zulu7? I'm sure that's worth it's weight in gold! :rolleyes:
Does everyone here understand the concept of "More then one?" I.E. Plurality? Like one cat, many cats?
-
i have absolutely no problem appreciating zulu as a respectable denizen of this board. he has made many interesting points, as have many many others here...i have changed my mind about many things since i first started posting here.
alas, this is what we do in free societies.
WE ASK QUESTIONS. WE MAKE CHOICES.
i respect that. just because it doesnt make you comfortable doesnt mean that it isnt valid.
hell, in a free society we can even find fault in our own beliefs and change them from time to time.
its really NEAT!
:)
-
Originally posted by JB88
hell, in a free society we can even find fault in our own beliefs and change them from time to time.
Be careful you'll be accused of flip-flopping lol
-
probably.
some people see it being 'once they have convinced you, they are your enemy...but that is ego really. its like when clinton agreed with the republicans and passed sweeping welfare reform and balanced the budget. ooooooh they hated that.
i happen to like it when i can convince another or be swayed by an arguement.
it is one of the great things about having a brain and using it.
-
Originally posted by Kegger26
This whole damn thread is in poor taste. :(
yea but your avatar raised the bar :)
-
Obviously since no one has responded to it, you don't understand the meaning of plural.
-
or perhaps you don't grasp the significance of being "ignored"?
"its inconcievable!!!!"
"he keeps saying that word, but i don't think that he knows what it means."
- princess bride.
-
Many people find it hard to believe that there are still americans that think that Iraq was in some way involved in 9/11.
Yet here we have the proof for those who doubted it.
The only justification that Airwolf has for the many many many thousands of dead in Iraq is preventing another 9/11.
Maybe this is the painful birthing process of a free country, maybe it is the begining of a 10 year civil war that will see SH II or OBL in power in the end.
But one thing is absolutly clear and irrifutable. It is nothing to do with the security of the US.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Many people find it hard to believe that there are still americans that think that Iraq was in some way involved in 9/11.
Yet here we have the proof for those who doubted it.
The only justification that Airwolf has for the many many many thousands of dead in Iraq is preventing another 9/11.
Maybe this is the painful birthing process of a free country, maybe it is the begining of a 10 year civil war that will see SH II or OBL in power in the end.
But one thing is absolutly clear and irrifutable. It is nothing to do with the security of the US.
"When President Bush stated that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, his critics quickly spun this into "Saddam Hussein had no links to terrorism." This was despite the fact that in the same breath the president had said, "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." According to Editor & Publisher, the story got little play, though it is certain to come back to haunt the president during the election campaign when Democrats seek to wedge the Iraq and al Qaeda issues. Thus, it is useful to review the bidding on the known facts of the relationship between the two."
-
be lets not forget that we have killed enough innocent civilians over there with our bombs to make thier numbers statistically pale in comparison i am sure.
Really? You're sure? Just a gut feeling huh? We are using ordnance, we are bad people so we MUST be killing more civilians thant the terrorists!
Do you have ANY evidence? Because quick research done by me shows you are a fricking idiot.
-
But one thing is absolutly clear and irrifutable. It is nothing to do with the security of the US.
Ummm no it's not irrefutable. I hereby refute it.
Hussein was aiding therrorists that are at war with our country.
Case closed, now go away.
-
Looks to be less than 20k...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Not sure on the reliability but other sites link to them as the know-all on casualties. THey put it between 16-18,000
-
link one (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/)
WASHINGTON POST
100,000 Iraq civilians killed in war, study says
Questions raised about small size of research sample
Rob Stein, Washington Post
Friday, October 29, 2004
* Printable Version
* Email This Article
Washington -- One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.
The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of actual documented deaths, indicated that many of the deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers who made the calculations.
Pentagon officials say they do not keep tallies of civilian casualties, and a spokesman said Thursday there is no way to validate estimates by others. The past 18 months of fighting in Iraq have been "prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare," and "the loss of any innocent lives is a tragedy, something that Iraqi security forces and the multinational force painstakingly work to avoid," the spokesman said.
Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq have been far lower, never exceeding 16,000, and other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of actual documented deaths upon which it was based made the conclusions suspect.
"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."
The estimate is based on a door-to-door survey conducted in September of 988 Iraqi households containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases.
The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of the Al- Mustansiriya University College of Medicine in Baghdad.
Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent since the invasion. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.
The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and accounted for a disproportionately large number of the deaths in the survey.
"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said.
When the researchers examined the specific causes of the 73 violent deaths collected in the study, 84 percent were due to the actions of coalition forces, although the researchers stressed that none were the result of what would have been considered misconduct. Ninety-five percent were due to air strikes by helicopter gunships, rockets or other types of aerial weaponry.
Forty-six percent of the violent deaths involving coalition forces were men ages 15 to 60, but 46 percent were children younger than 15, and 7 percent were women, the researchers reported.
The researchers and the editors at the Lancet acknowledged that the study had clear limitations, including a relatively small sample of violent deaths that were examined directly and the researchers' reliance on individual memories for some of the information. But the researchers said the findings represented the most reliable estimate to date.
Roberts, the lead researcher from Johns Hopkins, said the timing of the article's release was up to him.
"I e-mailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election," Roberts told the Associated Press. "My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq."
-
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
part 1.
Specials > Iraq in Transition
from the May 22, 2003 edition
Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq
Preliminary reports suggest casualties well above the Gulf War.
By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BAGHDAD – Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country.
None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.
Related stories
02/28/2005
Opposing agendas snarl Shiite, Kurd cooperation in Iraq
more stories...
Reporters on
the Job
The Monitor gives the story behind the story.
Archive packages
Looking Back: The First Gulf War $
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.
Though it is still too early for anything like a definitive estimate, the surveyors warn, preliminary reports from hospitals, morgues, mosques, and homes point to a level of civilian casualties far exceeding the Gulf War, when 3,500 civilians are thought to have died.
"Thousands are dead, thousands are missing, thousands are captured," says Haidar Taie, head of the tracing department for the Iraqi Red Crescent in Baghdad. "It is a big disaster."
By one measure of violence against noncombatants, as compared with resistance faced by soldiers, the war in Iraq was particularly brutal. In Operation Just Cause, the 1989 US invasion of Panama, 13 Panamanian civilians died for every US military fatality. If 5,000 Iraqi civilians died in the latest war, that proportion would be 33 to 1.
US and British military officials insisted throughout the war that their forces did all they could to avoid civilian casualties. But it has become clear since the fighting ended that bombs did go astray, that targets were chosen in error, and that as US troops pushed rapidly north toward the capital they killed thousands of civilians from the air and from the ground.
There are no figures at all for Iraqi military casualties, which Iraqi officials kept secret. One factor that led to many civilian deaths, and which complicates the task of counting them accurately, is that irregular fedayeen militia hid in civilian homes as they fought advancing coalition troops, and dressed as civilians.
Nor are hospital records - kept in the heat of war under intense pressure on doctors and staff - necessarily accurate, some observers warn. That means they probably underestimate the real scale of civilian deaths, although at the same time they may have recorded some combatant casualties as civilian ones.
"We had some figures from hospital sources but we realized very quickly that they were very partial," says Nada Doumani, an official with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad. "It is very difficult to keep track of everyone who was killed, and we were afraid the numbers could be misinterpreted, so we refrained from giving them out."
"During the war, some people brought bodies to the hospitals to get death certificates; others just buried them where they were found in the street, or in schools," adds Faik Amin Bakr, director of the Baghdad morgue. "I don't think anyone in Iraq could give you the figure of civilian deaths at the moment."
House-to-house survey
The chaos of the war and the confusion that persists in Iraq, where central government is still not functioning, have led one US human rights group with experience in counting civilian casualties in Afghanistan to launch a nationwide house-to-house survey of areas where fighting was fierce.
The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) has mobilized 150 surveyors to carry out detailed interviews with victims of the war; recording deaths, injuries, and damage to property with a view to securing assistance from US government funds.
A full accounting could take months, says CIVIC coordinator Marla Ruzicka, and the group is still compiling its data. But its volunteers have already recorded more than 1,000 civilian deaths in the southern town of Nasariyah, and almost as many in the capital.
"In Baghdad, we have discovered 1,000 graves, and that is not the final figure," says Ali Ismail, a Red Crescent official. "Every day we discover more" where local residents say civilians were buried.
Researchers say they have found particularly high levels of civilian casualties along the Euphrates River, between Nasariyah and Najaf, where US Marines fought their way toward Baghdad.
"The biggest contrast between Afghan- istan (where an estimated 1,800 civilians died during the US-led campaign there in 2001) and Iraq is that Afghanistan was predominantly an air war and this was a ground/air battle," says Reuben Brigety, a researcher for Human Rights Watch.
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
Uhh.....hello? Saddam's regime harbored terrorists. Iraq had Al-Qaeda in it to begin with. Bush stated to begind with, "Those who harbor terrorists will be dealt with Justice". "You are either with us, or against us". There, End of Case.
Then why US gives political asylum and highly-payed government jobs to known Chechen terrorists?
I still want to hear an answer. The only answer so far was "it was an immigration court in Boston who gave Ahmadov political asylum". Then - bomb the bloody court to ashes, isn't it an obvious decision?
-
PART 2
"Air wars are not flawless, but if you have precision weapons you can do a lot to make them more accurate," he adds. "The same is not yet true of ground combat. It is clear the ground battle took a toll; ground war is nasty."
A focus on cluster bombs
Dr. Brigety and his colleagues in Baghdad say they are especially concerned by the wide use of cluster bombs during the war in Iraq.
They say they have found evidence of "massive use of cluster bombs in densely populated areas," according to Human Rights Watch researcher Marc Galasco, contradicting coalition claims that such munitions were used only in deserted areas.
Dispersing thousands of bomblets that shoot out shards of shrapnel over an area the size of a football field, such weapons become indiscriminate and thus illegal under the laws of war, if used in civilian neighborhoods, Human Rights Watch has argued during past conflicts.
"At one level it is unhelpful to talk about large or small numbers" of civilian casualties, says Brigety. "It is more important to ask if the deaths were preventable."
The combination of cluster-bomb use, inaccurate artillery fire at Iraqi troops concentrated near civilian areas, and street fighting in towns throughout Iraq means that the number of civilian deaths might be as high as 10,000, say two researchers from two different teams who asked not to be identified until the evidence was clearer.
Also waiting for clearer evidence are US government agencies mandated by Congress to assist civilian victims of the war in Iraq.
At the instigation of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, the Iraq war supplemental bill, signed by President Bush April 16, directs that an unspecified amount of the $2.4 billion appropriated for relief and reconstruction in Iraq should pay for "assistance for families of innocent Iraqi civilians who suffer losses as a result of military operations."
"Perhaps it is impossible to eliminate these kinds of mistakes, but you can do something for the victims after the fact," says Tim Rieser, an aide to Senator Leahy.
Mourning his children
But that is little comfort to Mahmoud Ali Hamadi. Hugging his 18-month-old son, Haidar, to his breast for comfort, he cannot hold back his sobs as he recounts how a US missile that landed by his front gate killed his wife and three elder children on the night of April 5.
"My children were the brightest in the whole school," he recalls, looking fondly at an old family photograph through his tears. "Eleven years I spent raising them, and in one instant I lost them."
Mr. Hamadi's family died in Rashidiya, a village of palm groves and vegetable plots on the banks of the Tigris, half an hour north of Baghdad.
Nearly 100 villagers were killed by US bombing and strafing on April 5, including 43 in one house, for reasons that they do not understand. "There was no military base here," says Hamadi. "We are not military personnel. This is just a peasant village."
The need to provide assistance
Civilian victims of US military action in Afghanistan - identified by a team led by Ruzicka - are also supposed to receive assistance. So far, however, USAID has not disbursed any of that money, citing security risks and other problems in the parts of Afghanistan where the money is meant to be spent.
"We have a responsibility to provide assistance, especially when we were the cause," says Mr. Rieser.
"It is in our interest to make the point that this was not a war against the Iraqi people," he says. Senator Leahy's hope, he adds, is that the aid will "build goodwill for the US, which seems to be shrinking by the day in Iraq."
That would appear to be a vain hope in the case of Hamadi, as he mourns the loss of his family. "The Americans are assassins," he says wearily, his face worn by grief. "I haven't complained to the Americans. What would I get if I complained to them? I have complained only to God."
Iraqi civilian deaths
• Nongovernmental and media organizations have produced widely varying figures on the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the recent conflict. The range is a result of incomplete, unconfirmable, and unavailable information.
• Iraqbodycount.net, a website that draws on media accounts and eyewitness reports, estimates that between 4,065 and 5,223 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of coalition military action, both during and after the war.
• A May 15 Associated Press report gives an estimate of 2,100 to 2,600 civilian deaths, without citing sources.
• The US Department of Defense has refused to give any sort of estimate on deaths.
• Two news organizations have produced estimates of civilian casualties in just the Baghdad area by canvassing hospitals and tallying their records. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 18 that probably between 1,700 and 2,700 civilians were killed in and around Baghdad. The Knight Ridder agency published an estimate of between 1,100 and 2,355 on May 4.
-
Catholic new times
9,000 civilians killed in Iraq - World - Brief Article
Catholic New Times, Nov 2, 2003
new
Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. Get started now. (It's free.)
DUBAI -- According to Itar-Tass, from seven to nine thousand civilians were killed in Iraq since the beginning of the U.S. and British operation against the Hussein regime.
The "Iraq Body Count" group of experts from the United States and Britain, headed by a retired American officer, which is now working in Baghdad, claims that the biggest number of losses among the civilian population were caused by air raids on the country's largest cities. As many as 2,700 people were killed by cluster bombs, which were used in the course of at least two hundred operations. The coalition troops, the experts note, did not spare any civilian buildings. They bombed the historically important Abu Hanifa Mosque, a hospital for children in the town of Rutbah, and the Red Crescent Maternity Home in Baghdad. The number of killed civilians increased several-fold over after President Bush's May 1st announcement of the end of large-scale military operations.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
-
Originally posted by Steve
Ummm no it's not irrefutable. I hereby refute it.
Hussein was aiding therrorists that are at war with our country.
Case closed, now go away.
Prove it.
:)
-
Originally posted by JB88
Prove it.
:)
^^^
Repost.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=134141&referrerid=11174
-
wow, looks like you guys are starting to string things together much like conspiracy theorists that you so despise.
paper boat.
large lake.
911 report, the final authority found no conclusive proof.
the one that bush didnt want to have done...ya, that one.
-
Originally posted by JB88
wow, looks like you guys are starting to string things together much like conspiracy theorists that you so despise.
paper boat.
large lake.
911 report, the final authority found no conclusive proof.
the one that bush didnt want to have done...ya, that one.
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.
The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html
-
sweeping!
-
Thats a lot more than one word!
:lol
-
Wow....
So you think that by attacking Iraq and killing terrorists it makes us bad? You think that Iraq didnt have any Al-qaeda in it? You think that 9/11 was prety much nothing that should have been dealt with? You think that we are in the wrong for doing to those that we had done to us? you think that these terrorists have nothing to do with attacking the US? You also think that terrorists are not going to attack us again? Do you think that we should have said "Now stop that, attacking us is not nice"? Do you NOT think that we are defending our freedom? Well I'll tell you what.
We are defending our freedom. How would ya like to bet that the US WILL IN FACT, we hit again? There is known knowledge of their plan to attack us again it's a matter of when... Also, By fighting these terrorists, we are lessening their chances of future terrorism in the US. We are also in fact, defending our Freedom and helping the Iraqis. Yes civilians will die, that is a sacrifice in war. WAR IS WAR FRIGGIN MORONS!!! THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED TO WW2! Let's go back to WW2 and bomb cities the way we used to! Then let's see how bad we're doing compared to what was destroyed back then. You can live off of America's fredom and riches all you want but remember one thing, Where does this freedom come from, how to we get it? and how do we keep it? BY DEFENDING IT AND FIGHTING FOR IT!!!!
-
Originally posted by JB88
Catholic new times
9,000 civilians killed in Iraq - World - Brief Article
Catholic New Times, Nov 2, 2003
new
Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. Get started now. (It's free.)
DUBAI -- According to Itar-Tass, from seven to nine thousand civilians were killed in Iraq since the beginning of the U.S. and British operation against the Hussein regime.
The "Iraq Body Count" group of experts from the United States and Britain, headed by a retired American officer, which is now working in Baghdad, claims that the biggest number of losses among the civilian population were caused by air raids on the country's largest cities. As many as 2,700 people were killed by cluster bombs, which were used in the course of at least two hundred operations. The coalition troops, the experts note, did not spare any civilian buildings. They bombed the historically important Abu Hanifa Mosque, a hospital for children in the town of Rutbah, and the Red Crescent Maternity Home in Baghdad. The number of killed civilians increased several-fold over after President Bush's May 1st announcement of the end of large-scale military operations.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
So you think just because there is a Mosque, we can't destroy it? What if the terrorists are hiding in there? what would you do, wait forever for them to come out knowingly that they can stay in there quite some time because we "are too nice to destroy a damn building? Your pathetic. You also seem to think that 3,000 civilians killed is a big thing? Hello!!!!! That is nothing compared to past Major Wars. Your making this seem like that the US is such a murderous country and Military. STFU.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Thats a lot more than one word!
:lol
quote[/size]
-
al quida had nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with defending america. That you need to insist otherwise is pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
al quida had nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with defending america. That you need to insist otherwise is pathetic.
terroism has many faces
al_Q was just one of them
IRaq was the right move at the right time .. see Syria, Lybia, Palestine, etc
too bad your hatred of this admin blinds you from this obvious fact
-
"From where Winston stood it was just possible to read.........the three slogans of the party.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"
George Orwell 1984.
Aptly describes many of the attitudes I see in here. And we all thought The Soviet Union was the model for Orwells vision! Maybe someone in the Bush administration read it too?
-
Circumventing the language filter/Personal attack
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
pongo are you really that thick headed and stubborn??
Iraq harbors Terrorists moron! they are in Iraq! Jeezzus..
We ARE defending freedom because if we didnt attack the terrorists it would just give them easier chances to attack us. Our security levels are up, we're fighting back, therefor killing off many terrorists, and eliminating the threat of another 9/11. Yes we'll probably get hit again that is no doubt at all. But atleast America can stand up and fight for what's right. Your f*king stupid.
I kinda subscribe to the "we created 1000 Bin ladens" camp. We should have increased security, we should have caught Osama. Iraq should have been on the back burner. Increasing our security would make it harder for them to attack us, attacking Iraq made it easier. All that did is create a huge recruiting camp for them.(not to mention we did exactly what Islamic extremists have been saying we were gonna do) And if we are destined to be hit by another 9/11 type event like you say, then what the hell good is the war? Dont get me wrong I am not saying leave Iraq hanging but I do think we got our priorities wrong.
-
Circumventing the language filter/Personal attack
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.
The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden
I always wonder what is that so particularly interesting for the federal republic of the United States of America in keeping the safety of the ruling family of the monarchic state of Saudi Arabia.
But this is huge ! The USA started the war against Iraq because the Iraqi intelligence agents cooperated with Osama bin Laden in a plot against Saudi ruling family !
Really huge ! That's what the real friends are for ! :D :rofl
-
Originally posted by AirWölf
JB88 Civilians are expected to die in ANY War. We're not there to kill civilians, No... We're there to give the iraqi people something they never had... FREEDOM
There are plenty of countries in Africa and one North Korea that could definitely use some freedom, why arent we replacing their dictatorial governments and saving their populations from genocide and mass starvation?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Circumventing the language filter/Personal attack
Bah... That wasn't a personal attack, but it was indeed a circumvention of the ******* language filter. :cool:
-
Originally posted by DmdBT
There are plenty of countries in Africa and one North Korea that could definitely use some freedom, why arent we replacing their dictatorial governments and saving their populations from genocide and mass starvation?
One thing is the black gold that dont exist in the countrys you named,
back to topic, for how long suicide bombings going on in
israel-palestina?
then you know what to expect in iraq the next eternity...
-
I wonder if the US will learn from its current folly like your nation has done Gh0stFT?
-
Wow....I'm just so glad we're increasing our troop numbers again...what a great wonderful Iraqi war on terror it is to be involved in....with such clear and concise adjectives...a cleary defined enemy too.....hopefully this will go on for at least another 10 more years just like that other equally well defined war we were involved in 40 years ago....
Tronsky
-
You read 1984 too?
Big brother is watching you
(http://www.dubbydub.com/pictures/images/5-bigbrother-1.gif)
:lol
-
88, you loon! LOL
I don't need to debate w/ you, those articles counterpoint nicely... did you read them? LOL
-
yes, i did steve. and though i have been unable to dig up the number of CIVILIANS killed by the insurgency, even the low estimates put the number of civilians killed by us at over 10,000 with the long number being 100, 000. thats a pretty hefty number for such smart bombers as us.
you see steve, it all depends upon how you view these people. are they humans like us or savages. if you see them as humans you say, i mourn for thier loss as it is the same as my own. if you see them as savages then you have to drop the whole "we are only there to help them" crap and admit that it is a territorial war for oil.
you can try to clean your conscience all that you want, but the fact remains that you are cheerleading bloodletting.
which you are only cheerleading btw.
do you actually have the stones to go over there and fight for what you spout off about here?
-
you can try to clean your conscience all that you want, but the fact remains that you are cheerleading bloodletting
Aww shaddup a**hole.
How many Iraqi's would be dead if Saddam was still in power? ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
-
as you say...read the articles.
in one it says that there has been an increased percentage of civilian casualties there somewhere.
ah... here it is...
Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent since the invasion. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.
The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and accounted for a disproportionately large number of the deaths in the survey.
"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said.
:cool:
-
Let's assume for this brief moment the argument is correct.
One day order will be restored, civilian casualties will diminsh to peaceful levels(comparably, those moron extremists will never go away completely).
what then? What will your excuse be then? Because if Saddam was not deposed the deaths would continue.
100,000 now to save millions later. What's your excuse for condoning the continuation of Saddam's regime?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Let's assume for this brief moment the argument is correct.
One day order will be restored, civilian casualties will diminsh to peaceful levels(comparably, those moron extremists will never go away completely).
what then? What will your excuse be then? Because if Saddam was not deposed the deaths would continue.
100,000 now to save millions later. What's your excuse for condoning the continuation of Saddam's regime?
Steve If ya lived near me I'd pay for your next drink! to you mate!:aok
-
He means like Israel.
:aok
-
whats your excuse to justify imperialism?
you know, the stuff that we use to hate the soviets for...(being the evil incarnate that they were.)
and then, what would you be saying about it if it was your mother lying in a pool of blood at your feet for a lie and an bunch of excuses aimed at justifying that imperialism.
i am sure that you would be so happy about it you could poop.
nice try to switch it steve, but facts are facts. lies are lies. excuses are excuses.
just own it brother.
but know what you own.
(oh, and get up off your butt and go fight over there too. im sure they need the help)
-
Aswer the question 88 or go away.
-
alright steve.
i will, though you do not afford the same courtesy nor deresrve my respect as i am what you call an "ahole".
the question.
Let's assume for this brief moment the argument is correct.
I ALREADY HAVE ASSUMED THAT THANKS.
-----
One day order will be restored, civilian casualties will diminsh to peaceful levels(comparably, those moron extremists will never go away completely).
YOU MEAN WARMONGERS RIGHT?
ONE DAY ORDER WILL BE RESTORED? hmmm. did it work for the brits when they tried to restore order in the middle east...or the romans when they did?
lets say that it does though. so far there is nothing to make me believe that it will, but ok. UM NO. it is thier job as a sovereign nation to lift themselves up. not mine or yours. there are far worse examples of human rights abuses in the world that the united states turns a blind eye too that such an excuse would be better used for.
you are not ever going to convince me that we are there for humanitarian reasons. we are not. if order is restored it will be by virtue of a walmart on thier front lawn. i dont think that is much of an alternative either, but then, i view all humans as humans so i value them as my equals.
---
what then? What will your excuse be then? Because if Saddam was not deposed the deaths would continue.
----
The deaths have increased post saddam, not decreased... the region is ripe with the possibility of civil war and the insurgensy continues long after the glorious carrier landing.
there is no clear cut end in site. now we are saying the same thing about IRAN and SYRIA etc.
show me the peace first. you are assuming that there is an end to the war on terror...why dont you tell me where that line is? tell me what the goal is? please enlighten me so i can work toward that end without lying to myself like you do.
100,000 now to save millions later. What's your excuse for condoning the continuation of Saddam's regime?
i do not condone the continuation of saddams regime. never have. just think that there were better ways of dealing with it and i dont think wholesale slaughter is anyway to run a railroad. sorry bout your mom...its for frreeeeedom.
WE STILL HAVENT DEALT WITH THE ACTUAL TERRORISTS.
(you know, the ones from saudi arabia)
now steve, you might afford me the respect that you so readilly place for yourself, or do ME a favor and quit responding to my posts.
capice?
-
I'm going to have to stop responding. You're so out of touch with logic and reality that there is no point.
I could rebuke the BS you are spewing, but you're tinfoil hat is on so tight that there is obviously a reduced bloodflow to your brain, further diminishing an already negligible ability to reason.
You cannot be saved, 88. May God never allow you to spread your lies to anyone who will ever cast a vote here in the US.
-
ya. that was pretty logical and all.
great job steve.
:aok
-
Then why US gives political asylum and highly-payed government jobs to known Chechen terrorists?
====
does anyone know what boroda talks about? or are these more typical soviet urban legends from the good old days?
-
JB88
A voice of sanity in a puddle of Paranoia and unreason.
:aok
-
funny how the kooks stick together on this board
too bad you can't filter who responses in your thread, some are a waste of space, breath and time
-
hey eagler...you know that witches don't float right?
-
Originally posted by JB88
Catholic new times
9,000 civilians killed in Iraq - World - Brief Article
Catholic New Times, Nov 2, 2003
new
Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. Get started now. (It's free.)
DUBAI -- According to Itar-Tass, from seven to nine thousand civilians were killed in Iraq since the beginning of the U.S. and British operation against the Hussein regime.
The "Iraq Body Count" group of experts from the United States and Britain, headed by a retired American officer, which is now working in Baghdad, claims that the biggest number of losses among the civilian population were caused by air raids on the country's largest cities. As many as 2,700 people were killed by cluster bombs, which were used in the course of at least two hundred operations. The coalition troops, the experts note, did not spare any civilian buildings. They bombed the historically important Abu Hanifa Mosque, a hospital for children in the town of Rutbah, and the Red Crescent Maternity Home in Baghdad. The number of killed civilians increased several-fold over after President Bush's May 1st announcement of the end of large-scale military operations.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
The AP's survey was not a comprehensive compilation of the nationwide death toll, but was a sampling intended to assess the levels of violence. Figures for violent deaths in the months before the war showed a far lower rate.
That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.
"We cannot compare the situation now with how it was before," Nouri Jaber al-Nouri, inspector general of the Interior Ministry, said recently. "Iraqis used to fear everything. ... But now, despite all that is happening, we feel safe."
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
^^^
Repost.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=134141&referrerid=11174
Not one of the organisations listed on that http://www.husseinandterror.com/ (http://www.husseinandterror.com/) website as recieving support from Ba'athist Iraq have a history of attacking US interests or citizens.
Interestingly, if you do a domain look-up on husseinandterror.com, you'll see it is owned by Loud and Clear Communications, a PR and lobbying firm owned by GOP cheerleader Deroy Murdock.
Keep on spinning. :lol
-
88 is being foolish and not thinking things through.. he claims that if our country were "invaded" he would be fighting the same way the "freedom fighters" in iraq are..
this is bull since he has no conception... In order for his scenario to play out the U.S. would have to be under a murdering torturing scumbag like the sadman with no elections and a death toll of about 100,000 of our population a year... then.... some country like england or norway would have to come over and depsose said scumbag and stop the killings... he would then have to join the hardcore inner circle torturers and outside terrorists from other countries that were still murdering and torturing and supressing freedom in thier own country and..
murder his fellow countrymen just like him and his cronies did before..
let me go on record as saying in the above case... being a citizen here... I would be doing my best (with my foreign friends)to hunt down and kill him and his foriegn friends..
what is that horrible noise? sounds like someone going
" NNAAAAAA NAAAAA NAAAAA I can't herar you!!!"
lazs
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Not one of the organisations listed on that http://www.husseinandterror.com/ (http://www.husseinandterror.com/) website as recieving support from Ba'athist Iraq have a history of attacking US interests or citizens.
Interestingly, if you do a domain look-up on husseinandterror.com, you'll see it is owned by Loud and Clear Communications, a PR and lobbying firm owned by GOP cheerleader Deroy Murdock.
Keep on spinning. :lol
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.
The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html
-
If you want peace you must be prepared for war.
-
Circumventing Personal/attack the language filter.
Circumventing Personal/attack the language filter.
Circumventing Personal/attack the language filter.
Circumventing Personal/attack the language filter.
Circumventing Personal/attack the language filter.
Circumventing Personal/attack the language filter.
Muhahhahhahhahaaaaa....
:D
-
2,000 Demonstrate at Iraqi Bombing Site (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050301/D88IBJF00.html)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
One thing is the black gold that dont exist in the countrys you named,
back to topic, for how long suicide bombings going on in
israel-palestina?
then you know what to expect in iraq the next eternity...
you wish, if it justifies your POV
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
I wonder if the US will learn from its current folly like your nation has done Gh0stFT?
to compare Germany in the 30's and 40's to the USA today shows an amazing lack of perception.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.
The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/politics/25TERR.html
You're still spinning. And since that link is subscription-only I don't believe you have even read the whole article quoted.
I believe the "document" in question was allegedly found by sources close to Ahmed Chalabi, source of much of the Pentagon's now discredited intelligence on Iraqs non-existent WMD stockpiles, as well as the originator of such demonstrable disinformation as the allegations against British MP George Galloway amongst others. Chalabi had a nice habit of finding "documents" that lent credence to the neo-con war rationalisations but which didn't stand up to later scrutiny.
Having said that, you need to examine the section you have actually quoted, because I don't think it actually says what you think. Iraq was allegedly working with elements in opposition to the House of Saud? This is supposed to be news? Where does it say that Iraq was actively engaging with AQ to target the US? Where does it say that Iraq and AQ actually came to any kind of agreement over cooperation? Surely if this had been the case, ample evidence would have emerged by now, other than one unsubstantiated "document"? There was more than one western intelligence agency engaging with radical islamists during the 1990s, for example in Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan; do these cases also stand as evidence of their respective governments being hand in glove with Bin Laden and his ilk?