100,000 Innocent Iraqies Dead at the Hands of Bush (from ATSNN)

According to american public health experts 100,000 innocent people in Iraq have been murdered at than hands of the US military. A majority of these slayings seems to happen when the US drops bombs on civilian areas and a lot of the causalities are women and children.



Is this the freedom that Bush talks about? Where is the freedom for those kids? I think in the whole war on terror the US has killed more innocent people than terrorists, and has killed more innocent people than the terrorists have. Do you think the people in Iraq aren't huddled in their homes at night in fear for their lives than a bomb is going to drop on their house? This makes you ask your self who the real "terrorists" are.

People might want to look into this because we were all ready to press charges for war crimes in the slaughter of 100,000 innocent people, Now bush has done the same thing he claimed he was trying to stop.

www.dailytimes.com.pk...



Related News Links:
www.alertnet.org
abcnews.go.com

[edit on 28-10-2004 by J0HNSmith]

What about the 2,000,000 that died from the Embargo BEFORE the war? I was against the war myself but it seems to me that it has SAVED Iraqi lives.

So if someone concern is REALLY for the Iraqis it seems they would SUPPORT the war

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ohhh, I see. Well now that makes it ok to justify one massacre (that we helped cause with the embargo btw) during an illegal war (read the Geneva convention, I'm not going to argue this point it's a fact) with another. Yeah support bush, he saving lives by.... Ummmm, well actually he's killing a lot of people in the name of freedom from..... Ummm, yeah you justify that one man, I'm not dumb enough to.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by J0HNSmith]

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
. Yeah support bush, he saving lives by.... Ummmm, well actually he's killing a lot of people in the name of freedom from..... Ummm, yeah you justify that one man, I'm not dumb enough to.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by J0HNSmith]

Support Bush

What a freaking laugh, have you read ANY of my posts? I was and am against the war and think Bush is at best an idiot

What I am trying to say is by bringing the embargo to an end less people will die. Two million is larger than a hundred thousand if you dont have a calculater handy

I have always thought that if Bush wins the election and this instability continues in Iraq, some will contend that more innocent Iraqi's died under Bush's regime than Saddam's.

Sounds like we're headed in that direction...

All alone since the invasion of Iraq started it has been in my thoughts and post here in ATS that US is going to surpass the death toll in Iraq compare to Sadam regime, thanks chaosrain for reinforcing my thoughts.

I have always said also that this senseless war is a power struggle for oil and I will stand firm on my thoughts on this one also, who cares about the people of that country when all that country is good for is to become a milking cow for big oil corporations.

Originally posted by marg6043
All alone since the invasion of Iraq started it has been in my thoughts and post here in ATS that US is going to surpass the death toll in Iraq compare to Sadam regime, thanks chaosrain for reinforcing my thoughts.

I have always said also that this senseless war is a power struggle for oil and I will stand firm on my thoughts on this one also, who cares about the people of that country when all that country is good for is to become a milking cow for big oil corporations.

Kind of takes the wind out of the Bush's whole "Saddam was a grave threat to his own people and the world" sails.

I have contended many times that the only way to maintain order amongst a population comprised of individuals with extremely disparate religious and ethnic backgrounds is a dictatorship. These people never chose to be Iraqi's, the UK drew the borders in that region in the 40's. There is no common nationalism which Iraqi citizens share idealogically. Sure, they're all packed within this one border, but if it were up to them, they'd divide the country along ethic lines and never talk to each other again.

There are only two reasons Iraq had never self-divided to this point:

1. Saddam maintained unity through a brutal dictatorship
   
2. No one would be able to decide how to split the country's natural resources amongst the territories if they did split
   

If that country is not going to be run as a dictatorship, it should be divided. The oil revenues should go into a central pot from which money is doled to each ethnic territory according to population percentageof the whole, much like seats in the House of Representatives in the US.

But I digress...
How many innocent Iraqi's died while I typed this?
589 days of occupation
~100,000 dead civilians
=169.78 per day
=7.07 per hour
=.12 per minute

About one. Sad.

And again I agree with you, chaosrain, right now the "big plan" for the Iraqi oil is to become privatized, and guess who is going to big the "private" companies to pump that oil? yes you got it, they are all from the US.

OH, lets not forget that privatizing will bring more jobs to the country, well if you look at what happens in the niger valley with the chevron and the Texaco, well you very much will know what is going to happen to the Iraqi people and their oil, and lets not forget also how their lands or should we say "sands" will turn into.

Yes, I guess the Iraqi people are expendable.

So its all Bush's Fault huh?

Well it just tells me how your mind works. We get 3000 dead and you are mad that we took the war to them.

Maybe you can be Kerry's secretary and write that sternly worded memo the next time we are attacked.

Cant you get it? We WOULD have been attacked even if GORE won.

Originally posted by edsinger
So its all Bush's Fault huh?

Well it just tells me how your mind works. We get 3000 dead and you are mad that we took the war to them.

So Iraq was at fault for 9/11 huh?

Well it just tells me how your mind works. Every country we attack or evey person arrested is automatically responsible for 9/11 or was in the process thereof....

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by edsinger
So its all Bush's Fault huh?

Well it just tells me how your mind works. We get 3000 dead and you are mad that we took the war to them.

So Iraq was at fault for 9/11 huh?

Well it just tells me how your mind works. Every country we attack or evey person arrested is automatically responsible for 9/11 or was in the process thereof....

Look wether you believe it or not, Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda, but to what extent we probably will never know. The war on Terror DOES involve IRaq and if you cant see that then fine...there will be no convincing you. I am sure glad you are not in the federal government....and making decisions.
IMHO

Originally posted by edsinger
Look wether you believe it or not, Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda, but to what extent we probably will never know. The war on Terror DOES involve IRaq and if you cant see that then fine...there will be no convincing you. I am sure glad you are not in the federal government....and making decisions.
IMHO

Yea, I might actually listen to all the CIA intelligence, instead of making it up. I might actually make people free individually and economically. Terrible thing that would be. Well, I know which side you are on. We don't need any more untruthful and sadistic players in office....like Bush that is.

It seems here that a mini-debate has spawned about whether our invasion of Iraq actually made either the US or the world a safer place.

1. Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers
   
2. Like it or not, most of those suicide bombers were dying/killing in Israel
   
3. Israel's attitude toward Palestinians and non-Jews in Israel has aligned quite a lot of global opinion against Israel
   
4. This attitude exacerbated the Palestinian Infitada in Israel by giving the jihadists plenty of good reason to hate their neighboring Jews
   
5. The US had experienced some terrorist activity, but aside from the repeated ('93 & '99) operations against the WTC, had experienced most of it's losses abroad
   
6. The retalitory actions taken by GWB in Afghanistan inflamed Muslim opinion against the US
   
7. Those actions were acceptable by the world community and did not foment a massive anti-American sentiment worldwide
   
8. GWB then moved on to Iraq
   
9. World opinion was galvanized against the US as a result of pointed unilateralism on the part of the current administration
   
10. Iraq has become a magnet for jihadists with a blood-lust and a desire to kill Americans or, at least, to undermine any move the US chooses to make in that country
    
11. Although the US was never particularly well liked as a result of its tendancy toward heavy-handed sanctioning, diplomacy, and trade policy, it has never been held in as much contempt as it is now
    
12. GWB neither made the world safer by invading Iraq, nor did he make the US safer
    
13. GWB's comment of 'Bring 'em on' with respect to terrorists in Iraq was very telling. It is possible that his invasion of Iraq was designed to create a more convenient target for terrorists than US soil with an understanding that US geo-political moves in the future would further alienate the US from other nations politically.
    
14. Eventually, the terrorists will realize that they are attacking the most prepared, best armed and armored contingent of US citizens available worldwide and will realize that they are loosing their battle of attrition and will turn their focus back on US soil.
    
15. American citizens, not soldiers will die
    
16. The Muslim Jihad against the US would have probably happened eventually, but GWB just upped the time-table and the intensity of their effort by demonstrating that he will strike any country he feels necessary based on knee-jerk reactions.
    
17. Jihadists believe that there is no point in waiting for the best time and that pre-emptive strikes against the US are the only way to ensure that our oil-based imperialism doesn't get out of hand.
    

Now, to almost completely counteract my entire point, I made a comment on another thread...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
where I postulate that the current administration might have been forced into invading Iraq by the Pentagon so I don't think that this is all GWB's fault.

I will stick to my guns, however, in saying that our invasion of Iraq MOST CERTAINLY inflamed Muslim opinion against the US and put us into a position where we are the most hated and sought-after target of today's jihadists.

Originally posted by edsinger
We get 3000 dead and you are mad that we took the war to them.

Equating the war in Iraq to an avenging effort for the 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 means (if you keep in mind that 100,000 dead Iraqis figure) that 1 American life is worth 30 Iraqi lives.

So if I were you, I wouldn't say that the war in Iraq was to avenge the 9/11 victims.

Edsinger, did you not read the title thread? 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war. Are you trying to say that the lives of 3,000 Americans are worth the lives of 100,000+ Iraqis?

Yeah I have to admit.. Thanks.

Play nice now

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Amuk]

So its all Bush's Fault huh?

YES!!!! Why is it so hard to see that???

::bangs head against keyboard repeatively::

...including "estimates" based on "assumptions" that have been "fast-tracked" for um, "non-political" reasons.

Or as the article says, "The report came just days before the U.S. presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue." Wow, what a striking coincidence. I'm sure there's no connection between the two.

I'm not saying that 100,000 Iraqi "excess deaths" have not occurred, I don't know. The point is that these guys don't know either.

To assume that there is no political motive behind this press release is to make an assumption far less plausible than those admitted to in this "study" which uses questionable methodology.

Again, I don't know, but this story is extremely fishy and very likely to be debunked. Readers may want to consider that before flying off the handle -- or not, if they prefer to jump to erroneous conclusions.

People will believe what they want to believe, as usual. Truth has nothing to do with it.

Edit: To illustrate some of what I mean by "questionable methodology", note this:

"Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Falluja, the insurgent held city 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad which had been repeatedly hit by U.S. air strikes."

This means that 2/3 of the deaths they used to extrapolate the death toll occurred in one city: Fallujah. Apparently, they presumed that the rest of Iraq has the same mortality rate as Fallujah in order to arrive at a figure over five times higher than any credible worst case estimate to date.

Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 10/28/2004 by Majic]

Um, 2Cents... no personal attacks please, especially not the kind implying another poster's death. Stick to your point.

So you call me names? Look you just dont get it. 100000 dead? Who is doing the killling? How many died under saddam? So you blame us for them all right?

You liberals make me SICK. Give in an appease is no way to win. We all had a term for this type of behavior when we were younger. It was called Pussy. No who gets picked on? Yes, the puss....

Saddam, was a POS. and he SPONSERED terror. I do believe that sadda, had ties to AQaeda.. you dont.

What I am saying that you cant seem to get.....

IRAQ=terrorism=attacks=america

Therefore America attacked Saddam


So take the Baby killers attitude of yours and shove it!

Appeasment does not work, the UN does not work....


By your actions of constantly deriding the troops and that is what the 100000 statement means in real terms, you aid the enemy.