Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hate preacher Choudary in fresh vile rant


Commander CMG
 Share

Recommended Posts

Caused by the invasion. No invasion, no deaths due to the conflict. Correct? Before the invasion there were no "militants" in Iraq. After, there were plenty.

And before the invasion they had Saddam :-

Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite Kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 182,000) people, many of them women and children

In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[5]

In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes.[6]

According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis

You can find more information here: http://en.wikipedia....sein's_Iraq

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

431444_199760093455346_106861425_n.jpg

yes you are ... proven liar too ... I've proven your lies on more than one occasion.

Oh ... I'm sure you know Choudary very well ... you two are two of a kind, a regular Bobbsey twins.

I am tired of your lying ... Ignore my posts and I will ignore yours.

I am saying this one last time ... cease your lies or I will request moderator intervention.

~

You have not proven any such thing.

And here is your vile hate rant that I take offence to. Report that.

If you put me on ignore I will consider that a courtesy.

ETA, ohh and I find you very rude as well.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not proven any such thing.

And here is your vile hate rant that I take offence to. Report that.

find one instance of "Australia" .... just one ...

was Australians involved ? Yes ... was all of them only Australians ? No ...

>my words ... from your link<

either you don't read too well or you can't see past your lies ... I didn't dig or bring it up ... you did ,

rant ? It was just facts of the situation and circumstance regarding the 'incident' even if you don't want to see it or acknowledge it //

If you put me on ignore I will consider that a courtesy.

ETA, ohh and I find you very rude as well.

which is it ? credit where credit's due ..

Let's take the high road shall we ? ... let's just ignore each other ... :tu:

9397_10152768493450475_2077954908_n.jpg

you have a nice day now .... ya'hear ?

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liken the KKK to Muslim extremists with their vile hate speech. Could someone explain the difference between the two?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before the invasion they had Saddam :-

Al-Anfal Campaign: In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The campaign was mostly directed at Shiite Kurds (Faili Kurds) who sided with Iranians during the Iraq-Iran War. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 182,000) people, many of them women and children

In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against several uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 20,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.[5]

In June 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion, while government members and Saddam's family members were immune from punishments ranging around these crimes.[6]

According to The New York Times, "he [saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis

You can find more information here: http://en.wikipedia....sein's_Iraq

I see. So we went in to save the Iraqi civilian populations from a murderous dictator and our invasion ends up causing a further one million deaths, directly and indirectly by our troops, and by insurgents and terrorists who weren’t even present in Iraq before we intervened. Above all we weren’t even invited. Bad planning on our behalf?

Of course I’m taking your view that this was the reason we invaded Iraq and not the official version which was GW Bush’s war on terror on enemies of the US (and its allies). Now the problem with the official version is that in 2001 Saddam was not in the conditions to be a threat to the US or its allies after Desert Storm in 1990-91. His military was decimated, there were no-fly zone restrictions and above all, he had no WMD, which was the main reason the US Govt proposed an intervention against Saddam in UNSC Resolution 1441. Above all, the invasion was declared illegal by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General at the time.

But who cares about a murderous dictator such as Saddam Hussein. The bast... got what he deserved and despite the fact the West ended up being participant to a further one million deaths during and after he was gone (by means of an illegal invasion let’s not forget), he did slaughter Kurds and Shiites and he was the main cause of the Iraq-Iran conflict which resulted in a further 600-700 thousand soldiers and 200 thousand civilians (all rough estimations).

The problem I have with this relates to two factual references, the Riegle Report and US-Iraqi relations.

The Riegle Report:

On February 9th, 1994, Donald W. Riegle, Jr. delivered a report, commonly referred to as The Riegle Report to the U.S. Senate regarding the health of Gulf War veterans. In the report, Senator Riegle cites evidence that biological and chemical weapons were used against American and Czechoslovakian troops, and that some of the bacteriological agents developed and used by Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War in Iraq originated from within the United States. Senator Riegle implicates the U.S. Department of Commerce as well as the American Type Culture Collection in the shipment of these agents:

"
provided by the supplier show that, from at least 1985 through 1989, the period for which records were available, the United States government approved for sale to Iraq quantities of potentially lethal biological agents that could have been cultured or grown in large volume in an Iraqi biological warfare program. These exported materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

My link

So, it’s highly likely the chemicals given to Saddam to bomb Kurds in 1988 were supplied by US companies under the approval from the US Dept of Commerce. Because they only have records from 1985 it’s also highly likely they were being supplied to Saddam during the war against Iran as well, which started in 1980 and lasted til 1988.

US-Iraqi relations:

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.[3][13]

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country.

&

The United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat...

My link

The West (the US mainly) supplied support, weapons and chemicals to Saddam, which were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths during the conflict with Iran and they were also used to slaughter the Kurds. Not until Desert Storm when Saddam overstepped the mark by invading Kuwait did the West decide “too much is too much”. Kuwait BTW is a staunch ally of Saudi Arabia.

Then GW Bush decides, 10 years later, to illegally invade Iraq after accusations Saddam is storing WMD (that the US supplied him) and found nothing.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:, you're a joke. No, you don't answer a question with a question. You keep on insisting on a point I've already answered you and then you fail to answer my questions by insisting on the same question!! I can see this is going nowhere.

Bye

A quick recap.....you ask a question that includes a statement forming a premise I may not think true rendering the rest of the question useless, the premise by the way was the unjustified invasion.

I ask you to explain your definition of responsibility and you google an answer...lol (what was that reference to joke?)

I then give you four

examples so you can help me understand what you mean by responsible.....sadly you avoid this....your further post below illustrates the reason for my initial question , define responsible. You see the problem with the discussion without the clarification I asked...I guess you dont.

Caused by the invasion. No invasion, no deaths due to the conflict. Correct? Before the invasion there were no "militants" in Iraq. After, there were plenty.

you then accuse me of twisting your words, and after asking you twice to show me where I have done so you have been unable to.

so rather than accusing people of twisting your words, calling people a joke insulting posters by saying they are white extremists maybe you should stop and think.

and yes, goodbye.....unless you prove what you accuse me of (which I know is an impossible task as I did no such thing) and if you dont, well the thread is here for anyone to see and follow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan and look at the actual history about the islamists!

Their religion is the problem, they have ALWAYS been at war with others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget Iraq, forget Afghanistan and look at the actual history about the islamists!

Their religion is the problem, they have ALWAYS been at war with others.

Need a bit of a balance here free ... what you repeat here is just half the story from only one side of the tellers ....

Jerusalem prior to the crusades was a place filled with a thriving trade, scholars and madrasas. The crusades destroyed all such wealth and, above all, scholarship. This destruction, which will be considered in some detail in the last part of this article, will show how learning declined in Jerusalem due to the devastation of war inflicted upon Islam. Despite some improvement following the recapture of the city by Salah–ud-din in 1187, the city never recovered its prime scholarly activity, and just like the rest of the Muslim world, also suffering from the same problems, fell into gradual decline.

The thriving character of the city prior to the crusades is caught by the traveller Nasr-ud-din Khusraw who saw the city in 1047 just decades before the crusades. He noted how things were cheap and plentiful and how the city had beautiful markets and high buildings. It had a great number of craftsmen and each craft had its market. The city was large with the number of inhabitants at about a hundred thousand. Nasr Khusraw refers to a great teaching hospital with rich waqfs dedicated to it, from which medicines for its numerous patients were dispensed and salaries for doctors were paid. He also refers to hostels for the Sufis by the mosque where they lived and prayed.

link with pdf resources

Middle East

Main articles: Muslim conquests, Great Seljuq Empire, Byzantine–Seljuq wars, and Arab–Byzantine wars

After 636 when Muslim forces defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk, control of Palestine passed [4] through the Umayyad Dynasty,[5] the Abbasid Dynasty [4] and the Fatimids.[6] Toleration, trade and political relationships between the Arabs and the Christian states of Europe ebbed and flowed until 1072 when the Fatimids lost control of Palestine to the rapidly expanding Great Seljuq Empire.[7]. This shown by the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordering the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre but his successor permitting the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it in 1036.[8] Pilgrimages by Christians to the holy sites were allowed.[7] However, under the Seljuqs the unsettled conditions were not conducive to either pilgrims or merchants.[9] This underpinned the support for the Crusades across the Christian world.[10]

The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs, and was further strengthened by religious propaganda, which advocated "Just War" in order to retake Palestine from the Muslims. Taking part in such a war was seen as a form of penance, which could remit sins.[15]

Holy War ... or where Islam learned to Jihad ....

The Eastern Empire also faced difficulties in the Danube river area, as the Petchenegs had allied with the Seljuks and threatened the Empire until 1091 when they were defeated by Emperor Alexius. Alexius still needed to rebuild his armies, and sought to increase his military forces by hiring mercenaries. The Byzantine envoys to Piacenza in March 1095 likely were more concerned to secure mercenaries for Alexius' armies and may have exaggerated the dangers facing the Eastern Empire in order to secure the needed troops.[18]

Propaganda ... black ops ....

Anti-Semitism

See also: Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade

On a popular level, the preaching of the First Crusade unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied and preceded the movement of the crusaders through Europe,[28] as well as the violent treatment of the "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east.[29]

It's like everybody at the table picking teeth when the bill is brought up ...

Main article: Siege of Jerusalem (1099)

The Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks. They were unsuccessful though and on 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.[46] As a result of the First Crusade, four main Crusader states were created: the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and Kingdom of Jerusalem.[47]

Historiography

Main article: Historiography of the Crusades

During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the 16th centuries, historians saw the Crusades through the prism of their own religious beliefs. Protestants saw the crusades as a manifestation of the evils of the papacy, while Catholics viewed the crusading movement as a force for good.[130] During the Enlightenment, historians tended to view both the Crusades and the entire Middle Ages as the efforts of barbarian cultures driven by fanaticism.[131] By the 19th century, with the dawning of Romanticism, this harsh view of the Crusades and its time period was mitigated somewhat,[132] with later 19th century crusade scholarship focusing on increasing specialization of study and more detailed works on subjects.[133] The 20th century saw three important works covering the entire history of the crusades – those of Rene Grousset, Steven Runciman, and the multi-author work edited by K. M. Stetton.[134] The 20th century also saw the development of the pluralist view of crusading, that saw the Crusades as not just confined to the Holy Land but inclusive of all papal-led efforts whether in the Middle East or in Europe.[135]

wiki link

It is all a continuation of the crusading tit for tat ... from all involved ....

Introduction - Jerusalem's Significance to Islam

While Jerusalem was changing hands between Byzantine and Christian rulers, the prophet Mohammed was forming a new religion in the Arabian Peninsula - Islam. Mohammed and his early followers knew of the sanctity of Jerusalem and maintained a theoretical closeness to Judaism. During Islam's early years the qibla (direction of prayer) was north towards Jerusalem, only later during Mohammed's stay in Medina did begin to face Mecca (south) instead.

The Moslem Conquest of Jerusalem

In 638, following a protracted siege, the residents of Jerusalem surrendered to the Caliph Omar ibn Khattib. Accounts of the actual surrender vary, but both Christian and Moslem sources describe Omar entering the city dressed in a simple camel hair cloak and presenting its residents with a letter of protection. In this letter they were guaranteed protection for person and property under the condition they pay a tax, (levied as form of humiliation on "protected" minorities), known as Jiziya. The early Arab historian Tabari claims that the original letter of protection included a prohibition on Jewish residence in Jerusalem, however this seems unlikely given that other sources mention Omar seeking Jewish advice on matters dealing with Jerusalem.

Abbasid Rule - 'Off The Beaten Track'

..... The medieval Chronicle of William of Tyre informs us that in the mid-eleventh century the Fatimid caliph Mustansir rebuilt the walls and towers of Jerusalem. The cost was to be born by the city's residents. The Christians, who were unable to bear their share of the financial burden. The Byzantine emperor Constantine IX intervened on their behalf, agreeing to pay their share of the building costs on the condition that an internal wall be built around the Christian quarter and that only Christians would reside there. Mustansir accepted this condition and even removed Moslems from this neighborhood of the city. Among the Christians who settled in Jerusalem at this time were merchants from the Italian city of Amalfi. They would play an important role in the development of the Crusader city fifty years later.

.....

link

Massacre of Jews and Moslems

The Crusaders savagely murdered the Jewish and Moslem inhabitants of Jerusalem. The dimensions of the massacre were so horrific that 'rivers of blood' flowed through the streets and even covered the horses hooves. William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'. The Jewish community was locked in the central synagogue and burnt alive. The few thousand survivors, out of a population of 40,000, were sold as slaves at the city gates. When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks.

The conquest of the city completed, the Crusaders selected Godrey de Bouillon as the city's ruler. He received the title 'Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre' and established Jerusalem as the capital of the country - 'The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'. This was the first time in over one thousand years that Jerusalem functioned as the country's capital. The city underwent several major transformations as a result of the conquest, especially in terms of population, major edifices and economy, in addition to the change in political leadership.

Jews in Crusader Jerusalem

The Crusaders forbid Jews and Moslems to live in Jerusalem, claiming it defiled the sanctity of the city. In the 12th century Rabbi Benjamin of Tudella visited the city and reported that there were three Jewish residents, who worked as dyers. A Jewish community, however, was not renewed until the early Mamluke period, circa 1270.

link

Jerusalem remembers even if the rest of the world tries to forget ........

from

INGEBORG RENNERT CENTER FOR JERUSALEM STUDIES

Bar-Ilan University

Ramat-Gan, Israel

link

~

~edit : youtube added

.

Edited by third_eye
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, why not, lets forget. Lets all wear our rose colored glasses, hold hands together, sing Xmas Carols and offer a prayer to the millions we've affected by our ruthless foreign policies, shall we.

How dare those meanies interfere with our western values and wayS of life when we allow them to live amongst us. They should be grateful we don't send them back to their old country (and who cares if they are second or third generation natives) which we've invaded, interfered with, murdered and destroyed.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick recap.....you ask a question that includes a statement forming a premise I may not think true rendering the rest of the question useless, the premise by the way was the unjustified invasion.

I ask you to explain your definition of responsibility and you google an answer...lol (what was that reference to joke?)

I then give you four

examples so you can help me understand what you mean by responsible.....sadly you avoid this....your further post below illustrates the reason for my initial question , define responsible. You see the problem with the discussion without the clarification I asked...I guess you dont.

you then accuse me of twisting your words, and after asking you twice to show me where I have done so you have been unable to.

so rather than accusing people of twisting your words, calling people a joke insulting posters by saying they are white extremists maybe you should stop and think.

and yes, goodbye.....unless you prove what you accuse me of (which I know is an impossible task as I did no such thing) and if you dont, well the thread is here for anyone to see and follow

Did you put a lot of effort into this post? I hope not, because it must be, by far, the most useless, baseless, mindless, unrelated and pathetic 4 lines I've ever read so far, since being on UM.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope not, because it must be, by far, the most useless, baseless, mindless, unrelated and pathetic 4 lines I've ever read so far, since being on UM.

So it's true?...People CAN flunk anger management classes ? .......I learn something every day lol

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you keep on quoting this 'one million deaths' thing BRD, even when it's been pointed out to you time & time again that it's simply not true.

there's a dozen websites that'll tell you the death toll in iraq, and the highest figure quoted is only a quarter of what you say, and the coalition-responsible deaths only a quarter of them.

you can say 'no invasion, no deaths' over and over again, even when it's been pointed out to you that saddam had already killed more people than the total since 2003 but it won't do any good.

fact of the matter is, is it's iraqi killing iraqi, not us, and blaming us for it isn't washing.

we KNOW who's causing the deaths.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIRD EYE SAID-

Quote

Abbasid Rule - 'Off The Beaten

Track'

.

I must admit, when I first saw this, my brain scanned it as 'offside rule beaten back'

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you keep on quoting this 'one million deaths' thing BRD, even when it's been pointed out to you time & time again that it's simply not true.

there's a dozen websites that'll tell you the death toll in iraq, and the highest figure quoted is only a quarter of what you say, and the coalition-responsible deaths only a quarter of them.

you can say 'no invasion, no deaths' over and over again, even when it's been pointed out to you that saddam had already killed more people than the total since 2003 but it won't do any good.

fact of the matter is, is it's iraqi killing iraqi, not us, and blaming us for it isn't washing.

we KNOW who's causing the deaths.

http://www.huffingto...te_b_60396.html

http://www.reuters.c...048857920080130

The top link is based on the Lancet survey and the second on ORB, a polling agency. Considering that NOBODY, not even you, know EXACTLY how many have died in Iraq since the invasion or for that matter, by Saddam during his reign of terror, which you all seem to be willing to accept as a certainty to support your argument, then I'm afraid I'll just have to take the results from two credible sources.

Since you have half a dozen links, where are they? Make sure these links are providing deaths of Iraqi's since the invasion, caused by the invasion, not by direct conflict.

Your statement that my argument doesn't wash is up to you, how open you are and receptive you are. I can't change that. My thoughts are, if you believe an illegal invasion which caused over a million deaths has nothing to do with the perpetrators of the invasion then you're living in some oblivious world which I'd love to be a part of.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's true?...People CAN flunk anger management classes ? .......I learn something every day lol

Why, you had to do the full term did you? In the end, did it work for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIRD EYE SAID-

Quote

Abbasid Rule - 'Off The Beaten

Track'

.

I must admit, when I first saw this, my brain scanned it as 'offside rule beaten back'

:-)

modern reading skills gets it wrong all the time ... something to do with the way modern media messes with the brain

try this

534573_396230883776323_1509017812_n.jpg

don't worry ... 98% of all sexes and aged 60 and below gets it wrong ... seriously

:lol:

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first up, we'll go for this shall we?

.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

.

since I knew you'd be pulling it outta your ass as the ONLY ''survey'' that's quoted the pathetically high number you quoted.

if you'd like to join the REAL world, with the rest of us, you'll pay particular attention to the way it's been universally condemned as being grossly over-exaggerated, and the part that shows just how deeply flawed the ORB's ''methods'' of gathering information were.

have fun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't suppose you'd trust the guardian, would you?

.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/03/iraq-body-count-report-data

.

especially as they count the number of dead DIRECTLY attributed to the coalition forces, and NOT insurgents, as a couple over 4000.

hardly the 'million deaths' the US butchers have caused hmm?

smelling coffee yet are we....?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

first up, we'll go for this shall we?

.

http://en.m.wikipedi..._War_casualties

.

since I knew you'd be pulling it outta your ass as the ONLY ''survey'' that's quoted the pathetically high number you quoted.

if you'd like to join the REAL world, with the rest of us, you'll pay particular attention to the way it's been universally condemned as being grossly over-exaggerated, and the part that shows just how deeply flawed the ORB's ''methods'' of gathering information were.

have fun.

Well your ass must be between your ears because I posted two links, not one.

Universally condemned??! LMFAO By who, by biased hypocrites like you maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or how about this-

.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

.

you can't get any more relevant than 'iraq body count .com' really can you?

and their figure of 142,000 is nowhere near the fantasy number you've been throwing around.

How about this?

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

  • IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
  • IBC records solely violent deaths.
  • IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
  • IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.

link

The figures are grossly limited. How about deaths by disease caused by the war? How about people missing, disappearing, blown up where they never find a body etc.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

or how about this-

.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

.

you can't get any more relevant than 'iraq body count .com' really can you?

and their figure of 142,000 is nowhere near the fantasy number you've been throwing around.

Nope, can't get more relevant.

Some critics, often on the political right, claimed that the IBC numbers were an overcount, and that the numbers were suspect due to the antiwar bias of the IBC members. For example; the 26 July 2005 National Review article, "Bad Counts. An unquestioning media."[19]

Others, often on the political left, criticized media and government willingness to quote IBC figures more approvingly than the much higher estimate coming from the Lancet study[20] that came out in October 2004.

Journalists included Lila Guterman,[21][22] Andrew Cockburn,[23] John Pilger, and George Monbiot[24]

In a 27 January 2005 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education Lila Guterman wrote: "The Lancet released the paper on October 29, the Friday before the election, when many reporters were busy with political coverage. That day, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune each dedicated only about 400 words to the study and placed the articles inside their front sections, on Pages A4 and A11, respectively. (The news media in Europe gave the study much more play; many newspapers put articles about it on their front pages.) In a short article about the study on Page A8, The New York Times noted that the Iraq Body Count, a project to tally civilian deaths reported in the news media, had put the maximum death toll at around 17,000. The new study, the article said, 'is certain to generate intense controversy.' But the Times has not published any further news articles about the paper."

In late 2005 and early 2006 some on the left began criticizing IBC itself. This criticism of IBC came mainly from the British website Media Lens which published four pieces[18][25][26][27] on what they saw as the "massive bias and gaps" reflected in the IBC database and their totals. David Edwards of Media Lens also wrote for other websites.[28]

This view of IBC was based on the belief that IBC figures are extremely low due to pro-US media bias and inadequate reporting due to its heavy (though not exclusive) reliance on Western media sources, which has led some of these critics to claim IBC should be called the "Iraq Western Media Body Count". These biases and inadequacies, they claim, mean IBC's count is low by up to a factor of 10, and that it specifically minimizes the proportion of deaths caused by US forces.

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or how about a wikileaks report?

.

http://m.guardian.co...q-war-logs-iraq

.

which brings the total up to 150,000, but still nowhere near your scaremongering million i'm afraid.....

:lol: From your link,

The detailed incident report (# 342:001) recorded by the US military is now available thanks to Wikileaks.

Anything less biased or is this the best you've got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.