Study: 100,000 Excess Civilian Iraqi Deaths Since War

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Jonas Strider: i almost cried when i saw the figures of death and wounded tolls for both sides. yet what really irks me are the many fellow americans who are still for the war when it has been made clear that there was an error in intelligence. no womd, no connections to osama. wrong country we've attacked.

You got this partially right....There were no stockpiles of WoMD, however the final analysis of the data and the 9/11 reports show there was connections between terrorism and Saddam, no one in the Bush administration said Saddam was behind 9/11.[/QUOTE]You got this partially right What the administration did do was repeatedly and repeatedly say that there were links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (cleverly not specifically saying September 11th). Even the day after the 9/11 commission report concluding there were no links, Cheney gave a news conference and repeated that there was a connection.

This administration just lies to your face man, constantly. The upshot of all this misinformation was that over 66% of the American public thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th, rising to over 80% in America's armed forces. It's true that the administration didn't specifically link Sep 11th with Iraq, but you can be sure as hell that they wanted the American people to make that little extra (and, from the public's point of view, reasonable) assumption.

Now, you may not think this is much of a problem. But mass deception and delusion like this strikes at the core of democracy in your country.

Edits for clarity and corrections

[ 11-02-2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: No, it isn't. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Technically, if the Coalition troops were to leave to where THEY come, most of the killings would stop as well as the attacks are aimed at foreigners. Can't do that. "With great Power comes Great Responsibility"...we had to get rid of Saddam...and we HAVE to help the people of Iraq to get back on their feet and to a place where they can join the rest of the modern world. The coalition forces cannot just pick up and leave. It would be a completely morraly corrupt thing to do. Now, I don't support the troops just leaving, I just wanted to point out that it's not reasonable to blame the insurgents alone on the deaths. It's sounds like you're saying "Sure, we bombed some people, but THEY made us do it". You cannot and must not judge both sides as if they are the same or equal or even that both ideologies are valid... in this conflict. Both sides do not have to be suicidal immoral anti-humanitarian religious zealots...only one side has to be. The sides are not even, one side is for Human liberty and for freedoms and rights, the other represents islamofacism and supression of human rights and equality. No, the Coalition is to be "blamed" for the death they cause, just as the insurgents/terrorists are to be blamed for theirs. Again, you are placing both sides on the same moral level and this is wrong. (in my opinion...I know people who can justify any murder or killing so others may have different views)

[/QUOTE]I wont try to put my answers inside the box above, I would just mess up the tags. I'll quote directly.

"You cannot and must not judge both sides as if they are the same or equal or even that both ideologies are valid... in this conflict"
If you don't judge them by the same standards, then what standards to use and what are then the justifications for them? If you judge the two sides by the same, or similar standards, you are automatically doing a comparison between them and I would bet the insurgents and terrorists wont score high at all. Issues can be raised on how the Coalition have handled the conlict, but the terrorists are just a hopeless case.

"Both sides do not have to be suicidal immoral anti-humanitarian religious zealots...only one side has to be."
Not all of them are all these, there are many different insurgent groups. Just wondering, what exactly do you mean by immoral and anti-humanitarian?

" The sides are not even, one side is for Human liberty and for freedoms and rights, the other represents islamofacism and supression of human rights and equality."
Only from our perspective. They appearantly think they're doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If it's right or wrong in a absolute way is a different matter. In any case, they islamists have their own brand of human rights and equality based on religious laws. They don't like ours and believe theirs is superior.

"Again, you are placing both sides on the same moral level and this is wrong. (in my opinion...I know people who can justify any murder or killing so others may have different views)"
Whomever pulls the trigger is responsible for the resulting death. It might be seen as justified given the situation, perhaps, but the responsibility is clear, in my opinion.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Jonas Strider: i almost cried when i saw the figures of death and wounded tolls for both sides. yet what really irks me are the many fellow americans who are still for the war when it has been made clear that there was an error in intelligence. no womd, no connections to osama. wrong country we've attacked.

You got this partially right....There were no stockpiles of WoMD, however the final analysis of the data and the 9/11 reports show there was connections between terrorism and Saddam, no one in the Bush administration said Saddam was behind 9/11.[/QUOTE]You got this partially right What the administration did do was repeatedly and repeatedly say that there were links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (cleverly not specifically saying September 11th). Even the day after the 9/11 commission report concluding there were no links, Cheney gave a news conference and repeated that there was a connection.

This administration just lies to your face man, constantly. The upshot of all this misinformation was that over 66% of the American public thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th, rising to over 80% in America's armed forces. It's true that the administration didn't specifically link Sep 11th with Iraq, but you can be sure as hell that they wanted the American people to make that little extra (and, from the public's point of view, reasonable) assumption.

Now, you may not think this is much of a problem. But mass deception and delusion like this strikes at the core of democracy in your country.

Edits for clarity and corrections [/QUOTE]
I have a copy of the report...there is credible evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism and Al-queda. THere is no credible link between Hussein and 9/11 the Bush administration wasn't being "clever" when they didn't link him to 9/11...they were being honest andusing the intelligence they had on hand. If I get the chance tonight after my math homework is done I'll quote the document directly.


See it's people like you who make those kind of statements as if it's fact....as if you KNOW what they are thinking so that you can claim what they were doing even though they never said it...and never implied it...you just Bet to hell they were thinking this or that... brother....


[ 11-02-2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Stratos: I wont try to put my answers inside the box above, I would just mess up the tags. I'll quote directly. "You cannot and must not judge both sides as if they are the same or equal or even that both ideologies are valid... in this conflict" If you don't judge them by the same standards, then what standards to use and what are then the justifications for them? If you judge the two sides by the same, or similar standards, you are automatically doing a comparison between them and I would bet the insurgents and terrorists wont score high at all. Issues can be raised on how the Coalition have handled the conlict, but the terrorists are just a hopeless case. I hate to go back to the old story. By your logic The Nazi's had every right to murder Gypsies and Jews because "they Believed it was right". Sorry not every side is equally moral in conflict. "Both sides do not have to be suicidal immoral anti-humanitarian religious zealots...only one side has to be." Not all of them are all these, there are many different insurgent groups. Just wondering, what exactly do you mean by immoral and anti-humanitarian? Ohh say expressly targeting...blowing up innocent women and children...that is immoral and anti-humanitarian...making non-military civilians the target of your terror campaign is immoral and anti-humanitarian....I hope you can see that. " The sides are not even, one side is for Human liberty and for freedoms and rights, the other represents islamofacism and supression of human rights and equality." Only from our perspective. They appearantly think they're doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If it's right or wrong in a absolute way is a different matter. In any case, they islamists have their own brand of human rights and equality based on religious laws. They don't like ours and believe theirs is superior. no...not just from our perspective...the islamofascists are all about subjugating the people to the will of the religious leaders, removing human rights from women and for killing on site any homesexual....basicly they are against every personal freedom the west has "advanced" in the last 200 years or so. "Again, you are placing both sides on the same moral level and this is wrong. (in my opinion...I know people who can justify any murder or killing so others may have different views)" Whomever pulls the trigger is responsible for the resulting death. It might be seen as justified given the situation, perhaps, but the responsibility is clear, in my opinion. Being responsible for a death is not the same as being responsible for a wanton act of murder and terror. A bomb that malfunctions and hits the wrong target is not the same as a suicide car driver exploding his car load of explosivesin the middle of men women and children who are trying to go about their daily lives...to morally equate these two incidents is to be morally bankrupt.

[John D Harris]

I also have a copy of the 9/11 commision report, No links between Iraq and the terror atcks on 11 Sept., 2001 is what the report says. Not that there are no links between at all on anything between Iraq and Al Queda, as many try to make it say when they spout the "No Links" line of happy horse manure. If they are going to be honest at less finish the thought and idea presented by the report, there are no links between Iraq and Al Queda on the ATTACKS of 11 Sept., 2001. Anything else is deceitful at best plain old fashsioned out right lie at worse.

[shamrock_uk]

See it's people like you who make those kind of statements as if it's fact....as if you KNOW what they are thinking so that you can claim what they were doing even though they never said it...and never implied it...you just Bet to hell they were thinking this or that... brother....

And equally, it's people like you who make these kinds of statements as if they're fact. But lets not make this personal, as that has no place in a debate. Instead, I shall answer your accusation with a bundle of fact, because I have no interest in basing my opinions on anything but.

Allow me to quote from the 9/11 Commission panel responding directly to allegations by Bush and Cheney about Iraq and al-Qaeda links:

In a direct challenge to recent assertions by both President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the special bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York and the Pentagon has found "no credible evidence" of any operational link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

While the commission, which has had access to highly classified U.S. intelligence, said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had sought contacts with and support from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after his expulsion from Sudan in 1994, those appeals were ignored.

Of course they were ignored, the last people Saddam would have wanted to work with were Islamic fundamentalists. He's a Ba'athist not an Islamist.

Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda after bin Laden moved to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," according to the commission's report, which was released Wednesday morning. It added that two senior al-Qaeda officials now in U.S. custody "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

Yep, looking like they had a great working relationship here.

Briefly to respond to John D:

Are these quotes not in the report John D? Do you still think it's 'horse manure'? They are clearly referring to long-term possibilities of a relationship here. You can choose to interpret them as only saying they "didn't have a relationship for the attacks of Sep 11th" but it seems pretty clear upon reading that the intention of the wording is "didn't have a relationship, period".

Asked about Cheney's most recent remarks at a Tuesday press conference, Bush declined to answer directly, insisting instead that Hussein had ties with "terrorist organizations," of which he cited only the late Abu Nidal, a Palestinian who split from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the 1970s and created his own terrorist group.

Bush finally stops lying through his teeth months too late.

General Wesley Clark identifies the push by the administration to pin the two together:

"there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." "It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"

I mean, this guy was one of your top military men (the top?). Surely you're not going to tell me he's making this all up? The Bush administration wanted a link, even before September 11th ever happened.


Diplomats (who are, after all the Middle-East experts):

Retired senior U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have long doubted any operational link between al-Qaeda and Hussein, as noted by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, who signed a statement by former top-ranking diplomats and military officials that was released here Tuesday, denouncing U.S. policy in Iraq and the Middle East. "(Hussein) and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies during this period," Freeman told reporters, adding that administration assertions that the two had such links before the war were regarded by specialists in the region as "ludicrous." "Why the vice president continues to make that claim beats me," said another former top diplomat, Ambassador Robert Oakley. "I have no idea."

Former Bush administration intelligence figures:

"Our conclusion was that Saddam would certainly not provide weapons of mass destruction or WMD knowledge to al Qaeda because they were mortal enemies," said Greg Thielmann, who worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research on weapons intelligence until last fall. "Saddam would have seen al Qaeda as a threat, and al Qaeda would have opposed Saddam as the kind of secular government they hated." Other Bush veterans concur that the evidence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq was overblown. "Anyone who followed al Qaeda for a living would not have considered Iraq to be in the top tier of countries to be worried about," said Roger Cressey, who left the administration last fall after working on counterterrorism issues at the National Security Council and as a top aide to cyberterrorism czar Richard Clarke. "I'd argue that Iraq would be in the third tier." By contrast, Cressey said, Iran would rate in "the top tier." And Flynt Leverett, who worked on Middle East issues at the National Security Council until earlier this year and is now with the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said that some administration officials pushed the intelligence envelope on the Qaeda connection. "After September 11, there was a concrete effort by policy makers, particularly in the Pentagon and the vice president's office, to come up with links between al Qaeda and Iraq."

Donald Rumsfeld catching himself out:

"to my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two"

Comments from Al Gore

"The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." So claimed Al Gore in an August 7 speech."

Ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

"There is evidence of exaggeration" of Iraq-al Qaeda links, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who recently launched an investigation into prewar intelligence. "Clearly the al Qaeda connection was hyped and exaggerated, in my view," said Senator Dianne Feinsten. Chimed in Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, as reported in the National Journal, "The evidence on the al Qaeda links was sketchy." Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate side of that committee, agrees. "The evidence about the ties was not compelling."

I'm sure you'll discount this one out of hand because it was commissioned by the UN, but:

A United Nations terrorism committee has found no evidence of links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network, which it said had sprouted a third generation of suicide bombers in Morocco and elsewhere. The committee, charged with reporting on al-Qaeda and remnants of Afghanistan's Taliban, released a 42-page report on the state of international terrorism following the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. "Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links between Iraq and al-Qaeda," said Michael Chandler, one of five outside experts who prepared the report for the committee.

I might as well add this one in as there are no British documents as yet. This comes from a leaked intelligence document:

The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past. But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. That conclusion flatly contradicts one of the main charges laid against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by the United States and Britain - that he has cultivated contacts with the group blamed for the 11 September attacks.

With specific reference to the connection between Saddam and September 11th and your claim that the administration never claimed that:

“We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03

That's what they want you to believe of course. But look here:

President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Also Cheney:

Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 “I think it's not surprising that people make that connection” between Saddam and 9/11

Here he offers no evidence for links, and clearly is encouraging the American public to continue making the connection that I referred to in my original post. How can you tell me I'm making falsehoods about the attempts of the administration to not discourage links when you see a quote like that?


As for the more general link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda:

There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

Yet the New York Times reported that according to documents

"Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops. The document provides another piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda terrorists." [NY Times, 1/15/04]

I could go on for hours, but frankly, I'm getting bored and tired because its 3am. You are more than welcome to go on selectively interpreting the reports and playing with semantics about exactly what type of co-operation they did or did not engage in. You've heard it from the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, current and former Bush administration figures. I don't see how a greater body of evidence from so many separate sources can fail to convince people, when all you have is the word of an administration who hasn't been straight with the American people about the war from Day 1.

I think I'll leave you with this little gem from President Bush:

Bush said Wednesday that Saddam could use al Qaeda as a "forward army" that could attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction "and never leave a fingerprint behind."

I mean, come on! As if Osama would ever let himself be commanded by someone else. And as if Hussein would let anyone like that near him. These policy makers in the Bush administration just live in a different world to reality. That quote of his is straw-clutching at its very worst, and unfortunately some people just lap it up.

[ 11-02-2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Azred]

Bottom line, every death in Iraq due to conflict is the sole fault of the insurgents who want only to kill people regardless of national origin. We, of course, are not in the wrong.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: I wont try to put my answers inside the box above, I would just mess up the tags. I'll quote directly. "You cannot and must not judge both sides as if they are the same or equal or even that both ideologies are valid... in this conflict" If you don't judge them by the same standards, then what standards to use and what are then the justifications for them? If you judge the two sides by the same, or similar standards, you are automatically doing a comparison between them and I would bet the insurgents and terrorists wont score high at all. Issues can be raised on how the Coalition have handled the conlict, but the terrorists are just a hopeless case. I hate to go back to the old story. By your logic The Nazi's had every right to murder Gypsies and Jews because "they Believed it was right". Sorry not every side is equally moral in conflict. "Both sides do not have to be suicidal immoral anti-humanitarian religious zealots...only one side has to be." Not all of them are all these, there are many different insurgent groups. Just wondering, what exactly do you mean by immoral and anti-humanitarian? Ohh say expressly targeting...blowing up innocent women and children...that is immoral and anti-humanitarian...making non-military civilians the target of your terror campaign is immoral and anti-humanitarian....I hope you can see that. " The sides are not even, one side is for Human liberty and for freedoms and rights, the other represents islamofacism and supression of human rights and equality." Only from our perspective. They appearantly think they're doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If it's right or wrong in a absolute way is a different matter. In any case, they islamists have their own brand of human rights and equality based on religious laws. They don't like ours and believe theirs is superior. no...not just from our perspective...the islamofascists are all about subjugating the people to the will of the religious leaders, removing human rights from women and for killing on site any homesexual....basicly they are against every personal freedom the west has "advanced" in the last 200 years or so. "Again, you are placing both sides on the same moral level and this is wrong. (in my opinion...I know people who can justify any murder or killing so others may have different views)" Whomever pulls the trigger is responsible for the resulting death. It might be seen as justified given the situation, perhaps, but the responsibility is clear, in my opinion. Being responsible for a death is not the same as being responsible for a wanton act of murder and terror. A bomb that malfunctions and hits the wrong target is not the same as a suicide car driver exploding his car load of explosivesin the middle of men women and children who are trying to go about their daily lives...to morally equate these two incidents is to be morally bankrupt.

[/QUOTE]1. It doesn't matter if the Nazi's didn't have the right to commit genocide, they took themselves the "right" by might alone. In any case, a good deal of them had to have thought it was "right"; it would be impossible to carry out something like the Holocaust if you thought it was morally repulsive.

Now, this doesn't make it right, and I never claimed it did, I just wanted to point out that ALL people who commit genocide or carry out terrorist attacks believe they are doing the right thing. They sleep well at night because they think they did the "right thing", regardless of what they did. Further, I never said that they were equally moral, what I meant was that we should judge them by the same standards. As I see it, that's the only reasonable thing to do. Use different standards and your subjective opinion comes into play.

Only one side commited genocide during WW2, and only one side cut the heads of people in this current conflict in Iraq. That alone mean the both sides aren't on the same moral level, even if you judge them by the same standards.

2. I just found it mildly "amusing" that religionists such as the islamists always claim they're morally superior. How blowing up civilians is morally defencible is beyond me.

3. Yes, they are against several Western values regarding human rights, but they nonetheless claim their own version of human rights are better. The islamist would probably say that following the religious leader is the best thing to do since he's in better contact with God, that the womans role is in the home and that homosexuality is a mortal sin, punishable by death. They probably think God made these laws, and since God is absolutely fair, so are his laws.

4. I really wonders how many bombs dropped by American bombers malfunctions or hits the wrong target. No, civilians killed by these bombs died because the were near the spot the bombers aimed at. They were obviously not the target, but they were there. The motives and targets of the Coalition and the insurgents are completely different; they're not morally equal and I never said they were. What I meant was that you cannot judge them as morally inequal if you don't judge them by the same standards.

[ 11-03-2004, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Azred: Bottom line, every death in Iraq due to conflict is the sole fault of the insurgents who want only to kill people regardless of national origin. We, of course, are not in the wrong.

Hey, whatever makes you sleep well at night. [img]smile.gif[/img]