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

"Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war."

www.newscientist.com...

200 000 people dead!!! Was it worth it?? How many thousands more must die?? One million? When is it enough? I don't want to hear anything about fighting 'terrorists', giving them freedom etc. Bush propaganda. This is pure genocide!

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Samiralfey]

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
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.

 

cnn.netscape.cnn.com
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Roberts told Reuters.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

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]

Interesting everyone runs around this site shouting "Deny ignorance!" but when it comes to attacking Bush, the commonly distorted and fabricated word of CNN will do. Thats a big eye roller.

Originally posted by imas

Interesting everyone runs around this site shouting "Deny ignorance!" but when it comes to attacking Bush, the commonly distorted and fabricated word of CNN will do. Thats a big eye roller.

Those are the type of comments that we here at ATS try to avoid. It wasn't constructive, it had no facts no basis and was attacking an articles validity without any evidence that the article was false. Where did this so called distorted fabrication occur? What was being fabricated in the first place? Do you have facts to prove this is common? For someone claiming they are "denying ignorance" you sure state a lot of things with nothing to back your statements up.

Bush bombs for peace, rofl. God, Bombing for peace is like #ing for virginity. It can't happen. Bush knows where the residential area's are, he should have no excuse for bombing them, it was truly what he intended to do. Its all about money....

If you believe everything the mainstream media says then this discussion isn't worth having. The fact is that CNN shows extreme bias and often misrepresents facts.

I remember just recently when the assualt weapons ban expired CNN reported it as a disasterous failure by Bush. They said it was terrible because now "any terrorist can walk into a gun store or a gun show and buy an ak47."

Oh please. If you believe that pile then I think I found my first use for the ignore button. I read the 1994 crime bill and I know that CNN lied. Certain members of congress also lied to get it passed. It serves no purpose. The guns affected by it were almost never used in crimes before it was passed. Atleast thats what the FBI thought based on 10 years of statistical data. And guess what? Nothing has changed. It was a bill to solve a nonexistant problem. Just a tool for the democrats to advance their antigun agenda.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by imas]

Oh thats right..war for oil. Thats why gas is 95 cents right now.


Am I the only one that noticed this:
1. the number 100,000 is a vague ASSUMPTION
2. this vague assumption is being reported by a very biased news source with a long history of taking statistics out of context and misrepresenting facts (cnn is a finely tuned liberal propaganda machine)
3. thousands of these innocent iraqis were killed by terrorists

Iraq was a state that sponsered terrorism. We can fight them over there or fight them here.



[edit on 30-10-2004 by imas]

[edit on 31-10-2004 by imas]

Wow, once again, people are chanting ignorant rhetoric. Baby-killers, "fight them over here or over there", patriot, liberal, etc.

Do you guys consider this labeling and rhetoric citing as "proving your case"?

Anyone who can see what's going on clearly sees the absurdity of these "comebacks" and ignorant labeling of people who are compassionate about the lives of fellow human-beings.

Maybe when the dust of the Bush Administrations deceitful practices settles (maybe in 3 days, maybe 4 years) you'll realize that your misdirected "patriotism" was actually the same feeling that has provoked devastating wars and acts of terrorism in the past.

On behalf of anyone who sees the world as it is, I feel sorry for those spreading your hatred through rhetorical name-calling, insults and blind faith for those who are slowly taking your rights away.

By the way, for anyone saying that we should have fought them over there instead of over here, you obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, Iraq had no wmd's and did not pose an imminent threat. That's not my opinion that's the Bush administrations intelligence communitie's opinion.

And edsinger I am also a veteran, yet I am not voting for Bush. In fact if I were you I would investigate Bush's military record a little bit. And just because of that whole CBS thing, don't say anything about liberal attacks being unsubstantiated or whatever, I'm asking you to explain to me why W. joined a national guard unit that he knew would prevent him from going to the war if he was such a patriot. Also why was he missing for a while, why did he receive preferential treatment and why have his records been "accidentally" destroyed and misplaced.

Pretty convenient for W. and bad for Kerry to have fought in Vietnam. Wait to represent edsinger, you should be proud.

I think some comments are funny. So if you are for peace or if you are for thinking before acting then you are a liberal. So.... that means that if you are a war monger or a reactionary murder then you are a conservative? If a thinking man is a liberal then what does that make conservatives?

Bush COULD have said that Saddam needed to go because he was an evil man. I doubt many if any would have disputed that. Only dispute would have been timing. After all we were just hit by terrorists and THEY were a threat to the US. Not Saddam. We should have focused our guys on getting OBL and his right hand man. We should have focused our efforts on getting the people that funded him. That would be Omar the former head of Afghanistan who runs free. We should have taken out their financial supporters in the Saudi Royal Family. Those responsible for 9-11 are alive and free. They have not been brought to justice and chances are they never will. Not as long as Bush is in office. He wants them to continue to be free so he can keep waging war against countries that disagree with us. He'll lable them terrorists or terrorist supporters without proof. And if you question his war mongering style then you are unpatriotic or liberal. I'd rather be liberal than a tyrant any day.

As long as Bush is president and as long as Rumsfeld is part of his staff the war will never end and those responsible for 9-11 will never be brought to justice. That my friends is the Bush admin plan in a nutshell.

Originally posted by faddinglight
Bush bombs for peace, rofl. God, Bombing for peace is like #ing for virginity.

Kind of like how the US bombed Japan in WWII? Hmm aren't we allies now? Or think about the US fighting Britain in the revolutionary war. They are now our closest ally.

The examples are infinite. Whether you choose to believe it, or not, war leads to peace.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Jimi Hendrix]

War has never led to peace! Combating those aggressively spreading violence is what brought about ends of wars. Do you think Britain and Japan would be our allies if they were not forced to? Geez guys, come on. Warmongering is not macho, patriotic or aggressive peace-making, it's murder and deceit.

Like Churchill once said:

If you are 20 and a conservative you have no heart, but if you are 40 and a liberal you have no brain.


I had a point and I made it. I wasn't slinging mud or name calling. You stepped around my point and went into the typical Kerry rhetoric.

You are just like anyone else I've talked to that will be punching Kerry's name. You are not voting for Kerry. You are voting against Bush. You have been fooled.

Do you believe everything CNN tells you? That is generally the cause of such ignorance.



[edit on 30-10-2004 by imas]

I won't vote for Bush because I feel he is a liar and a traitor. He is an uneducated war monger. I have every reason in the world NOT to vote for him.

I won't vote for Kerry because he has had EVERY chance in the world to try and earn my vote. He at no point has ever come close. I don't trust him.

Neither candidate are worth 5 minutes of my time to go vote. I'd rather stare at a wall for that time then give either of those idiots a vote.

Bush lied? Kerry said Iraq had WMD so does that mean Kerry lied?

I know you're not voting for Kerry either but I find it interesting that people accuse Bush of lying about Iraq but don't hold Kerry to what he said.

Don't forget as Kerry pointed out the other day...Bush killed Christopher Reeves.........by not allowing stem cell research.

Which was odd because I was under the impression that Bush was the first pres to allow stem cell research.

I recall Kerry saying last December in an interview that he couldn't believe that Howard Dean wouldn't admit that we are better off now that Sadam has been taken out of power.

Warmonger? Talk about labeling. Sadam did not have anything to do with 9/11 but he did sponser terrorism. He was also corrupt and manipulating. What about the fact that Russian troops trucked weapons into Syria? We don't know what they were hiding. What were we going to do about Iraq? Maybe UN Resolution #18 would have worked. I'm sure Saddam would have noticed our failure to back up the other 17.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by imas]

[edit on 31-10-2004 by imas]

Originally posted by ledbedder20
Combating those aggressively spreading violence is what brought about ends of wars.

Translation: War (combating those aggressively spreading viloence) is what brought peace (end of wars)

Dictionary.com Definition for peace:
1.) The absence of war or other hostilities.
2.) An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities.

So if you see a threat in the world what do you do? Say we knew before hand about Japan and Pearl Harbor? Would it be best to sit on our hands and let them attack us?

If someone points a gun at me I will shoot them. Sure it will be violence but it was going to be bloody either way.

I want peace. I don't want war. Sometimes war is necessary.

I would like to point out that Kerry also said that with everything we know today he still would have invaded Iraq.

Unofrtunately imas, I think you fail to realize the nature of what's going on, Bush has screwed things up, not because CNN says so, but because that's really what's going on. I don't know what Kerry rhetoric you're speaking of, but I can back up something that you don't understand, just ask me.

Your point of sponsoring terrorism is very one-sided. The US has "sponsored" countless acts of unprovoked aggression throughout history and we never called it terrorism. The truth is Iraq didn't have a link to 9-11 and didn't have WMD's, please tell me another reason that the Bush administration used to justify the invasion.

I'll be the first one to admit that democrats spin things, I won't admit that CNN is biased, though. But you can't say that republicans don't spin things. Are you telling me that there has been no Bush propaganda presented to the American people?

The thing is, both sides present the facts to justify their actions/ideas/election, but now it just happens to have been W. in office for the past 4 years heading up this blunder of a presidency. If Clinton had done the same thing, he would havejust as many people criticizing him, just from the other direction, most democrats probably would have blindly defended his actions. And I would have criticized him just as I do W. But that's not the case, so Bush receives the fair criticism he deserves, but republicans call those criticizing him "liberal" or "un-patriotic". Guess what, I'm neither!

When you throw around labels and names, you're not fighting democrats, you're fighting the people who have the heart to stand against something that is obviously wrong. You know who else stood against their leadership, this country's founders! Would you have been someone defending her majesty's honor or would you have aided the rebels?

You see, there comes a time when those in power make bad decisions and they need to be brought down. Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a b.j., but Bush gets away with killing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, based on reasons that turned out to be false! Explain that one to me.

I'm not a democrat or a republican, but I will tell you that you are right, I'm voting against Bush. I don't like Kerry now, I think he had balls in the Vietnam era, but not anymore. But unfortunately, noone else has a chance of winning, I think, Nader and Badnarik would be much better presidents than either one, but I'd rather see Bush out than in and that's why Kerry gets my vote. I do think Kerry woud be a better president too. Why? Because he's obviously smarter than Bush, I don't think that hurts.

Believe me, I would rather see W. and his fellow "patriots" held accountable for their actions, but I don't think it's going to happen, so the most I can do is vote him out.

If I've said any circular phrases or rhetoric, please point them out, I don't want to contribute to any frivolous supporting of either candidate

1) Iraq did not "point a gun" at us. They didn't threaten us or help with the Sep. 11th attacks.

2) My point about combating those spreading violence was to show that if someone starts a war, e.g. Nazi Germany, then combatting it was necessary, e.g. U.K., U.S. and USSR. The difference is that we started the war in Iraq. UN inspectors were over there and doing their job and Saddam didn't attack us, therefor we were the aggressors.

3) If Iraq was sponsoring terror that didn't have anything to do with an attack on us, then why shouldn't we invade:
-Iran
-Palestine
-Pakistan
-Israel
-Sudan
-Morrocco
-Somalia
-Colombia
(Should I keep going)

4) So Bush was first to allow stem-cell research and now he thinks it's wrong? Talk about flip-flopping.



[edit on 30-10-2004 by ledbedder20]

I didn't say or imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I have never called anyone unpatriotic for disagreeing with me.

You trust CNN as a reliable and truthful news source. This explains why you think the things that you do. You are very confused. I showed you one recent and off topic example of how CNN lies and decieves on a daily basis.

Also Clinton was actually impeached he was just allowed to stay in office. It was not for a BJ either. It was for Purgery. People do jail time for that.

You are another victim of the Kerry machine. Another victim of CNN and ABC and the Associated Press. They intentionally distort the facts and news to push their own political agenda. Did you know that before Fox news came along you could not work in the media unless you were a diehard liberal? I'm not making that up.

Try getting your facts from a source that isn't so biased that you can't tell the facts from opinions. You can always tell the difference on Fox News. The report what happened and then they add what they want. The point is you can tell what their opinion is. With CNN they just warp it all together so that one is not distinghishable from the other.

When ever I talk to someone who feels the way you do I can point out the lies and deceit but it just gets shrugged off. They tell me "all polititians lie."

I wish I had time to go more into it but you seem to have honest and good hearted intentions so maybe i'll have some time tomorrow.

I believe in the president and I would hate to see Kerry win. I saw part of a rally the other day where he said it is time to make a difference, its time to get started. But in 20 years he has made no major accomplishment in the senate with all the opportunity in the world to make a difference. After 9/11 he didn't show up to any of the senate intelligence commitee meetings for a full year. He has had the opportunity to work and accomplish something but he has failed to do so. If he wants bin ladin so bad what was more important than those meetings?

[edit on 31-10-2004 by imas]

I'm guessing everybody who agrees with the 100,000 innocents claims, knew all 100,000 personally and could vouch for them that they were in fact innocent. Not saying there weren't innocents killed but who is it that are saying these people were innocent? most likely their family, and why are they saying this, because maybe they don't want to be next.