It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Gorman91
Excellent observation.
Thanks for contributing some level headed non overemotional clear thoughts on the subject
Originally posted by ignant
...
i guess we 'helped' Iraq cope with Iranian terrorists by killing Saddam and millions of civilians
...
The Anbar Tribes vs. al Qaeda, Continued
By Bill RoggioNovember 22, 2006
Sunnis continue to turn on al Qaeda in the heart of the Sunni Triangle
Iraq. Click map to view.
The Anbar tribes' turn against al Qaeda has developed significantly since the end of the Anbar Campaign late last year, which swept al Qaeda and the insurgency from the major towns and cities west of Ramadi. Over the past year, the majority of the tribes have denounced al Qaeda and formed alliances with the Iraqi government and U.S. forces operating in the region. Numerous 'foreign fighters' have been killed or captured by the tribes. The tribes are working to restore order, and are providing recruits for the police and Army, despite horrific suicide attacks on recruiting centers. These attacks have not deterred the recruiting, but in fact have motivated the tribes to fight al Qaeda.
...
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).
en.wikipedia.org...
I recently listened to a radio programme that put the total deaths of the war at well over a million...
Originally posted by purplemer
The Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties from 2003-2006 estimates 601,027 Iraqi deaths.. Incase you do not know what the lancet is...
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by purplemer
You don't attribute ALL of those deaths entirely on the US do you?
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by purplemer
not the picture though, and indeed no historical context.
Historical context is everything. See I'd have no problem nuclear bombing nazi Germany for 50 years and more and destroying 75% of Germans in Europe. When nations elect war hawks whom see no purpose but to kill, I have no choice but the greet them with similar mindsets.
That's the difference then. I'd destroy whole nations in war for the goal of building schools over their corpses.
When war is not occurring peace is the highest goal.
When peace is ended, war begins.
In war, genocide is the goal. I have no problem with body counts, so long victory occurs.edit on 10-11-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)edit on 10-11-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)edit on 10-11-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by purplemer
I knew you'd ignore the sectarian violence.
And the fact that the Lancet report was based largely on unverified accounts.edit on 10-11-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by purplemer
You don't attribute ALL of those deaths entirely on the US do you?
And on 20 October, Science Magazine reported the queries of researchers at Oxford and Royal Holloway universities. One of them, Sean Gourley of the Physics department at Oxford, said their studies "have found fundamental flaws [in the Lancet report] that lead to an over-estimation of the number of deaths. "
One aspect they questioned was the selection of sample households chosen for interviews. There could be "main street bias", they said, in that households on main streets were more likely to suffer casualties from car bombings. They want an inquiry into the methodology. "It's almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," said Neil Johnson of Oxford.
That report, based on the extrapolation of limited surveys, was later found by some in the academic community to have serious flaws.
Now The Lancet has published another report on casualties in Iraq, looking narrowly at the toll on civilians from suicide bombers. Their data was drawn from Iraqbodycount.org, which has kept track of casualties in Iraq using press reporting since the start of the war. The numbers – almost certainly an understatement since not every act of violence makes it into the press – are staggering.
Originally posted by purplemer
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by purplemer
You don't attribute ALL of those deaths entirely on the US do you?
Well whos idea was it to invade Iraq...
Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
Originally posted by TechniXcality
reply to post by purplemer
Historical context dosent matter! ok cool so the countless number of attacks funded and carried out by the extremist Iranian government. Need not context. So i guess we understand eachother
Originally posted by purplemer
Yes it gives an idea of the amount of the people that would still be alive if the coalition forces had not been there....
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by sonnny1
WTF This thread has nothing to do with the deaths under Saddam.. ! You are in some kind of error...!
Originally posted by purplemer
Well whos idea was it to invade Iraq...