Finally, some sense occurs in the press.
dallasnews.com/sharedcontent … 5158b.html
[quote]
Call Them What They Are: Those who murder Iraqi civilians are terrorists
09:02 AM CDT on Friday, July 15, 2005
Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are “resolve” and “sacrifice,” especially as they relate to war.
Today, this editorial board resolves to sacrifice another word
Murdering silly-billies is what they are.
news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … nm/iraq_dc
[quote]KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - A murdering silly-billy bomber in a fuel truck killed at least 60 people near a crowded vegetable market in a town south of Baghdad on Saturday and al Qaeda warned of more violence in a bid to seize the Iraqi capital.
The blast near a Shi’ite mosque in Musayyib, near Kerbala, also wounded 82 people and destroyed nine cars, police said.
“This is a black day in the history of the town,” Musayyib police chief Yas Khudayr told Reuters by telephone.
Some people who rushed to the scene discovered they had lost loved ones. “After the bomb I went over there and found my son’s head. I could not find his body,” said Mohsen Jassim of his 18-year-old son.
Al Qaeda, which inspires murdering silly-billy bombers from across the Arab world to wage holy war in Iraq, claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing campaign in its second day and said more violence would follow[/quote]
sigh…
Terrorists with stir fried brains they are :fume:
Belgian Pie, I can’t believe what a small minded bigot you have turned out to be. How can you tar all bombers with the same brush and call them “terrorists.”
You might offend others who don’tsee themselves as terrorists but as Martyrs and they have the right to be seen as such.
I can’t believe how racist you are being:
I give up
Full story here:
Even when they are ‘martyrs’ they don’t have the right to take other peoples lives … that makes them terrorists … no excuses :s
Oh yeah … because some people piss me off once in a while doesn’t mean that i’m gonna blow up a MRT train.
Even when I was out off work I wouldn’t do that …
Even when people would call me bloody catholic I wouldn’t …
did someone forget a winkie guy??
Anyone who attacks a military target knowing that innocent civilians – particularly children – are certain to die is murderous scum in my book.
Close behind them on the murderous scum scale are those zealots who attempt to whitewash or explain away the deaths of the children as the necessary price for waging their zealots’ war.
So nearly 1,800 US troops have been killed since 2003 in Iraq. Though I read yesterday that 800 Iraqis are killed a month — one an hour. I just don’t understand this. If it were a fight for freedom, how could they kill so many of the people they were liberating? I am surprised they still have a support base. Boggles the mind to think of such crazies. :s
Unboggle yourself by doing some research.
The overwhelming majority of “civilian - non-combatant” deaths in Iraq are the result of terrorist (a large % of whom are non-Iraqui actors there for the $$$'s), collateral damage from homicide bombers and IED’s.
[b]" The mission of the foreign suicide bombers is simply to kill as many Iraqi Shiite civilians
For Belgian Pie:
I think that if and when we catch these terrorists we should keep our values of freedom at the cornerstone of our thoughts and feelings. We are trying to instill democratic values upon a region that for the most part has never had a legitimate option of “choice”. And so it is our responsibility to show them that being able to make a choice in self determining what is best for them as individuals is paramount.
Therefore, I suggest that when we catch of these dudes we use this situation as a learning tool. We first find them guilty. Then we walk them up the mountain to a shack. We hand them a rusty-razor and then we nail their balls to the wooden walls and set the shack on fire. Yes, they have been given a choice…unlike their victims. I think teaching self-determination is a very noble effort.
I’m waiting for someone to say, “But the real terrorist is George W.”
The wait for the truth may almost be over:
"There has been huge public concern over the cost of the Iraq intervention in human lives. Despite this, no comprehensive official analysis exists.
To fill the information vacuum, the Iraq Body Count team, in association with Oxford Research Group, will provide the first detailed overview of those non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the ongoing conflict, up to 19 March 2005.
Data has been extracted from a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 press and media reports published since March 2003 and summarised on the Iraq Body Count website.
The dossier provides authoritative answers to a wide range of questions, such as:
* How many women and children were killed?
* Which cities lost the most people?
* Who killed more civilians, the USA or the insurgents?
* How have casualty rates changed over time?
* What weapons caused the highest number of injuries?
* How precise were
Spook:
Right on schedule, eh? I have a feeling that not much of use will be gleaned from this report if painting George W. with the terrorism brush is what you are after. I find it VERY interesting that those who were most critical of the US for failing to act in Rwanda are now criticizing the US for acting in Afghanistan but especially Iraq because there is OIL there you know? To which a simple question: if Iraq had no oil, would intervention have been justified? usually just about does the trick.
Remember that there has been a long litany of complaints from nuanced and sophisticated Europeans even during Clinton. Remember the howls of complaint about the US “not doing anything” regarding Bosnia and Rwanda? or Africa and its problems? This is not about what one believes is right or wrong for most of these people. It is about resentment and a history of ganging up on whichever power seemed strongest in Europe to keep anyone from becoming too strong. The US has become that strong nation that Europeans instinctively gang up against to keep anyone from becoming king of the hill. The irony that is lost however on so many of these nuanced, highly informed individuals is that the US is the No. 1 enforcer of those goals and objectives that they claim to care about most. It would be amusing if it were not so pathetic.
I think keeping track of civilian deaths is a good thing although I have a problem with Iraq Body Count in that they seem to lay everything at the feet of the US military. I am sure that the US military is directly responsible for a number of civilian casualties but I don’t lay direct blame on them for everything. IBC blames the occupation forces for deaths as a result of bad water and even blames them for the killings of civilians by insurgents.
I suppose an argument could be made that if the occupation forces were not there then the insurgents would not be blowing things up and therefore it is still the occupation forces responsibility but I think most of the responsibility has to be laid on the people who are doing the actual killing.
“A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005”
“This is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict.”
* "24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years."
* US-led forces killed 9,200 civilians.
* Insurgents killed 2,238 civilians.
* Criminal violence accounted for 8,951 civilian deaths.
* "Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets)."
* "At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded."I just took a quick look at this report. At least they seem to do a better job here than they do on their website in categorizing who is responsible for what. They broke the killings down to who was directly responsible.
It’s interesting that the number of deaths caused by the insurgent/terrorists is so low, compared to the deaths caused by US troops.
How can this be so, as the insurgency is made to appear overwhelming when reported in the MSM? And how many of these civilian deaths were children or victims of car bombs?
How many of the civilians deaths caused by US troops were actually insurgents? And what was the cause of these deaths? Targetting civilians or civilians getting caught in the crossfire?
And look at the number of criminal violence deaths…you’d think this would take even more headline spaces. It’s like they don’t have enough Police there…
Statistics don’t tell everything…anyone else want crack at breaking these ones down?
from the link:
[quote]Findings include:
Who was killed?
24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
When did they die?
30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
What was the most lethal weaponry?
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
How many were injured?
At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase. [/quote]