The Battle for Iraq - Ethnic Cleansing

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, June 22, 2025 01:22
VIEWED: 23789
PAGE 2 of 18

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Monday, November 15, 2004 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This very much reminds me of Gulf War I. When we bragging about dropping thousands of bombs per day, Saddam was admitting to eight civilian casualties and we were admitting to none. And everyone (except the Iraq victims of course) was happy with that little fantasy. But Geezer, with his vast intellect and great skepticism, can't see past that.

You see Geezer need PROOF. Photos! Body counts! Certs of death! Notes from Bush to Rumie detailing how many Iraqis need to be killed today! He needs these irrefutable facts brought to him because if he had to engage the truth then he might have to admit moral culpability. And that might make him uncomfortable. It's just so much easier to rationalize it all away....

Geezer, I'm going to stop responding to your posts for a while. I'm not sure even a note from God would satisfy you.

Actually, A cite from the Lancet report backing up the figure Ghoulman (and you, as I recall) claim of 100,000 women and children killed by US bombing would suffice. But it's not there. So you'll retreat into name-calling and high dudgeon.

If you want to make a point, make it with the truth, not distortions and assumptions. There are plenty of facts out there you could use to support your arguments, but you'd rather resort to hyperbole.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, November 15, 2004 11:20 PM

Why should I go thru the donkey-work of finding out something that you should be looking into on your own, if you had any interest in the truth? You never contribute anything positive to these discussions anyway. So- you tell me- how many people do YOU think we killed in Iraq? I propose that YOU go find the facts and let ME reject them! Over and out.

DITHER

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:42 AM

This site has a slightly different number. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

And this from MSN:

...The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

"That's why I never kiss 'em on the mouth."

GEEZER

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why should I go thru the donkey-work of finding out something that you should be looking into on your own, if you had any interest in the truth? You never contribute anything positive to these discussions anyway. So- you tell me- how many people do YOU think we killed in Iraq? I propose that YOU go find the facts and let ME reject them! Over and out.

Okay. I have noted before that the figures on the Iraq Body Count site seem to have been verified pretty well. It trys to capture the number of civilians killed by either coalition or anti-coalition forces. It also provides, if you're willing to clean up their data (allocating prime cause of death to one side or the other when possible, cleaning up the dates into one format, etc.), the ability to actually do some research and statisitical analysis. They show 14,378 to 16,514 and figure that's conservative, but at least verifiable.

As to contributing "anything positive"...I consider that calling bullshit on your exaggerated claims is positive. I simply asked you to find, somewhere in the eight page article on Iraqi casualties published in the Lancet, any support for the allegation, stated by both you and Ghoulman as being shown by that article, that 100,000+ Iraqi women and children have been killed by (mostly) US bombing. I've looked for it and can't find it. I noted in another thread that the Lancet article doesn't even support that the number of dead they arrived at are all civilians. If you can prove this wrong, please do so, and I'll certainly apologize.

If you don't use at least verifiable figures in your argument, how do you expect folk to believe that you're not just making it all up?

Edit: "calling bullshit" is an internet term of art, meaning to cast doubt on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:36 AM

Geezer- "This is a test". Have you actually looked at the IBC sources? What do they all have in common?

BTW- I never said that we killed 100,000 women and children mostly by bombing. Comb through my posts. You are wrong on that point, so I'm calling bullshit on THAT point!

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:38 AM

Dither- I adressed this point in another post and did my own stats to come up with a more accurate estimate. Look at the actual report, not newpaper articles.

DEBIJI

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Is the "Battle for Iraq" really just ethnic cleansing?

The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries. It's not like there is a bus tour from Syria. The insurgents are the people of Iraq. They are the people of Fallujah. They are the people defending thier homes. Defending them from an American attack.

As has been mentioned, many of the captured insurgents appear to have recently immigrated to Iraq. One of the hostages who had been held in Fallujah indicated that his captors were Syrian.

Quote:

Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists. Never were. They have only ever wanted two things... Saddam dead. And an Islamic State.

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim. Fallujah is in the Sunni Triangle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_triangle) where most of top level Ba'ath party officials came from. Saddam is known to have favored Sunnis and oppressed Shiites, who make up most of the victims in the mass graves that have been discovered.

Quote:

The first is a no brainer. The second is the undeclared enemy of the Bush/Cheney war machine.

This is the real reason to attack the people of Iraq - because 80% of Iraq desires an Islamic State Government. Everyone but those old pals of the USA, the Bathists in Bagdadh. This is the unspoken political objective of the White House.

Bush has publicly stated ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm) that an Islamic government in Iraq is acceptable.

Quote:

...
If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?

Is this hyperbole? I think you are saying that the Americans are killing everyone in the city of Fallujah. Do you mean this? Clearly, there are better ways to do such a thing, ways that prevent 38 Americans from dying and 275 from being wounded.

IMO, hyperbole contributes little to meaningful discussion. It may be cathartic, but it isn't constructive.

It is being reported that some Iraqis support the actions of the US and Iraqi military in Falluja, and some do not:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4002233.stm

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:41 PM

RE: The news article is concerned, it represents only BBC readers, which is already a large variance from most of the ppl in Iraq. And what does it say anyway? That "some" support, "some" condemn. Not much of a news item there.

But it was my understanding that all of the Sunnis in the provisional govt resigned bc of Falujah. You would prolly find that most Sunnis were against US military action and Shiites (Allawi's sect) were less against. What you WILL find in surveys is that about 90% Iraqis want the US out.

RE: Bush will tolerate ANY government, Islamic or not, that is willing to cut a deal on Iraqi oil.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:46 PM

The numbers only verify the horror.
Whether it's 100 dead or 100,000, I think we should be appalled at and held responsible for every civilian death.

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by debiji:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Is the "Battle for Iraq" really just ethnic cleansing?

The "insurgents" are not terrorrists from neighboring countries. It's not like there is a bus tour from Syria. The insurgents are the people of Iraq. They are the people of Fallujah. They are the people defending thier homes. Defending them from an American attack.

As has been mentioned, many of the captured insurgents appear to have recently immigrated to Iraq. One of the hostages who had been held in Fallujah indicated that his captors were Syrian.

Quote:

Fallujah is a Sunni town. That is, they are not Saddam supporters or even supporters of terrorists. Never were. They have only ever wanted two things... Saddam dead. And an Islamic State.

Saddam is a Sunni Muslim. Fallujah is in the Sunni Triangle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_triangle) where most of top level Ba'ath party officials came from. Saddam is known to have favored Sunnis and oppressed Shiites, who make up most of the victims in the mass graves that have been discovered.

Quote:

The first is a no brainer. The second is the undeclared enemy of the Bush/Cheney war machine.

This is the real reason to attack the people of Iraq - because 80% of Iraq desires an Islamic State Government. Everyone but those old pals of the USA, the Bathists in Bagdadh. This is the unspoken political objective of the White House.

Bush has publicly stated ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm) that an Islamic government in Iraq is acceptable.

Quote:

...
If that's the case then why are the Americans attacking and killing an entire city with it's massive military might?

Is this hyperbole? I think you are saying that the Americans are killing everyone in the city of Fallujah. Do you mean this? Clearly, there are better ways to do such a thing, ways that prevent 38 Americans from dying and 275 from being wounded.

IMO, hyperbole contributes little to meaningful discussion. It may be cathartic, but it isn't constructive.

It is being reported that some Iraqis support the actions of the US and Iraqi military in Falluja, and some do not:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4002233.stm

You asked for it.

You accuse me of hyperbole, which is fine, but your post is nothing but trit refutations of facts you fail to understand. Take Saddam being a Sunni... that's like saying Hitler was a Christian.

You refute my essay with meaningless, perhaps I should say contextless, fact. You wouldn't get far in debate class with crap like that so please, don't go around defining my essay as meaningless until you graduate.

Refute what I've written all you want. I think your information isn't anything but shallow misdirection of the debate. Forgive me if I'm coming off as an arrogant prick, but the information from the US sources these days is often nothing but propognda perpetuated by a paralized culture of fear, greed, and CNN whores.

My information comes from the best sources online, around the world, and my own clear thinking. Geezer may be a cracking researcher but it's telling he can't find information unless it's some web page. Same with you debiji, as you are presenting mere factuals which are contradictory to historic verity.

Do you really want me to believe the GWB White House will accept an Islamic Government? You really want me to believe Iraqies are happy to see the USA bomb 100000 people to death? What reality are you on???

Take how you redefine my point about Ethnic Cleansing and Saddam actually being Sunni just as the people of Fallujah are mostly Sunni. You have reframed my sentence into a conflict between particular sects. Well, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It is beside the point. And it isn't what's going on. But it made me seem wrong... which was all you cared about.

I'm concerned with the 100000 people murdered, tortured, and bombed

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE