Yes: I understand that in the next day or so, additional information will come out, and that we should not (as I have recently done) over-react to this information.
But it's here, waiting for us to come back and read it in a mood of calm dispasssion, once the initial shock and awe have worn off.
BTW, just to be inflammatory: that's a ratio of what? 33:1 Iraqis vs. American citizens, when you compare how many we've killed vs. how many thay've killed?
Oh, wait...[snark meter peaks, needle breaks]...they had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center
(Actually--no need to be snarky, as our own administration has admitted as much)
And I apologize, since most of those 100,000 were killed in air strikes, and we know that Poland and Tazmania were responsible for at least 0.001% of those airborne missions. I should really round down to 30:1.
quote:Study: 100,000 Excess Civilian Iraqi Deaths Since War
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.
The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities.
"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.
The report came just days before the U.S. presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue.
Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations sanctions blocking food and medical imports but the researchers described what they found as shocking.
The new figures are based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq in September 2004. They compared Iraqi deaths during 14.6 months before the invasion in March 2003 and the 17.8 months after it by conducting household surveys in randomly selected neighborhoods.
Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.
By comparison about 849 U.S. military were killed in combat or attacks and another 258 died in accidents or incidents not related to fighting, according to the Pentagon.
VERY BAD FOR IRAQI CIVILIANS
The researchers blamed air strikes for many of the deaths.
"What we have evidence of is the use of air power in populated urban areas and the bad consequences of it," Roberts said.
Gilbert Burnham, who collaborated on the research, said U.S. military action in Iraq was "very bad for Iraqi civilians."
"We were not expecting the level of deaths from violence that we found in this study and we hope this will lead to some serious discussions of how military and political aims can be achieved in a way that is not so detrimental to civilians populations," he told Reuters in an interview.
The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths.
They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.
Before the war the major causes of death were heart attacks, chronic disorders and accidents. That changed after the war.
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.
"Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes," Roberts added in the study.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal earlier this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq.
"But these findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq -- in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war," Horton said in an editorial.
I'm Steve Sywak, and I rate this post a 7 on the SSS (Sywak Snark-o-meter Scale)
posted
This war is going to create more terrorist for every woman and child that dies in airstrikes. *rage*
Edited to add- Wouldn't common sense TELL them that you cannot make democracy an appealing system if you are bombing the hell out of people on a daily basis? Violence creates more violence. Hatred breeds hatred. Attack them and they will attack back! There had to be some better way to handle this. There had to be! And do not tell me, "Well, it's only 10,000 people. It could be worse." Because I AM NOT BUYING IT! On a human scale it is worse and in the eyes of individual family members it is unbelievable pain and for what? For what purpose? Why?
posted
I think it's VERY important to note how many of those deaths came at the hands of Insurgents/Terrorists. There have been quite a few.
Civillian casualties are always the worst aspect in war.
EDIT:
quote: Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.
posted
Hmmm, I'm a little skeptical of the sampling methodology, and extrapolating to the whole country from a sample of roughly 1000 households.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.
Chad, why? The other numbers come from the calculations of "American public health experts" Why do you trust the media numbers more? Is it because it fits nicely with your views?
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would bet the true numbers of Iraqi dead lie somewhere in the middle.
Yes, I agree, but I think Chad is changing the facts to fit his views and not the other way around. He dismisses the 100,000 for no reason at all.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Lancet has published numbers in the past that proved to be over-estimates. I also question the methodology.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
EDIT: And the site I linked to is including those killed by insurgents as well. Basically all civillian deaths due to "violence" since the invasion began.
I don't mean to sound critical, but that report, when taken into consideration the timing, and of course the LAST STATEMENT by the researcher, makes it sound more political propaganda than factual.
posted
My reaction: I'm skeptical of the methodology, but have no basis for disputing the report right now. My skepticism is enough to defer accepting the numbers as accurate but not enough to argue against them.
posted
I'm really sceptical as well. None of the body-counts I've heard so far has put it higher than 17,000, but I just find it annoying that Chad dismisses the new numbers out of hand.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
But this is a "limited war" that didn't have to see a full declaration of war from our Congress and president. We didn't have to fully invoke the War Powers Act. We weren't going full out, like in World War II. This was just a little war, a limited war. It wasn't going to be as dangerous as a "Real" war, so we didn't have to go through all the steps we are supposed to for starting a "real" war.
But people died. Lots of people died. A few thousand Americans, too.
When will we realize that there really isn't such a thing as a "limited war."
Our elected officials, Republican and Democrat, still think there is.
They are probably shocked at the casualties, too.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi and U.S. rights investigators said on Saturday they suspected Iraq had up to 260 mass graves containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people murdered by the former regime of Saddam Hussein.
They told a conference that the task of identifying bodies and preparing evidence for tribunals could take years and millions of dollars, but the long process would be worth it to heal the wounds of three decades of brutal Baath Party rule.
"We have reports of 260 mass graves and we have confirmed approximately 40 of them," said Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA) mass grave action plan'.
"We believe, based on what Iraqis have reported to us, that there are 300,000 dead and that's the lower end of the estimates. "
quote:Deaths outside the war One thing to note is that, even if we accept Lopez's point about deaths after the war due to damage to infrastructure, and sanctions, then over 90 percent of Iraqi deaths were caused because the war was aborted - because Iraq was not liberated. Had it been liberated, these deaths would not have occurred. How many Iraqis has Saddam killed through sanctions? - perhaps 1,000,000. And that is not to mention a further perhaps 100,000 people Saddam has directly killed since, because he was left in power. Finishing the war would have saved these lives too. How many Shia rebels did Saddam kill? - perhaps 50,000. How many Kurdish rebels did Saddam kill? - perhaps 300,000 in total. Walter Russell Mead on the disaster of the first Gulf War - "Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq" [instead of defeating it] "is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy."
This doesn't justify the death of so many civillians, but remember that Iraq was not a safe and happy place before the invasion.
I feel the most for the Iraqi people if these numbers are accurate, because it seems either way--invasion or no invasion--they lose.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several problems with the study. For one they asked for death certificates and in a signifcant number of cases they were not provided. Why in the world other than to appeal to emotions would woman and children be more likely to be affected than males? How many of the people died are actually insurgents but the family claims they were "civilians?" How many actually died because they were murdered by insurgents, but the families either believe or falsely claimed that they murdered by insurgents? How many really died of natural causes, but the family blames it on Americans anyways? There's also the whole problem with Fallujah skewing the scale. On top of all this there is experimenter bias because as the person announcing the report admitted, she was against the Iraq War from the beginning.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure it will ever be possible to calculate the number of civilian dead in Iraq by cause.
It seems even less possible that we could reliably estimate the numbers who would have died if Saddam had stayed in power, and thus arrive at an estimated number of "extra" deaths.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Not to compare Iraq with the Holocaust (because it's nowhere near that bad, but I, at least, know more about the history of the Holocaust). Would you also state that we can never be sure of the 6 million killed by the Germans in WWII because most did not have death certificates? Maybe we should reduce the number to 600,000? This is a rhetorical question.
Are we to look for death certificates in Rwanda? The Sudan? Bosnia?
Pooka,
100,000 / 33 = 3,000
We lost about 3,00 in the WTC and related attacks in the US (a little less, but everyone uses the 3,000 as a quick reference)
Everyone,
Is it just me, or is anyone else here bothered that we (US citizens) are now in the position of saying "See, we're not as bad as Hussein. We didn't kill nearly as many civilians as he did. We didn't torture nearly the number of innocents."
That's like the Son of Sam killer asking to be let free because at least he didn't eat his victims like Jeffrey Dahmer did...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't know how many people actually died in the Holocaust. We can only guess because of the amazing records that were kept. Many countries had lists of their citizens who were Jews and the Nazi documented everything they did, and everything they did was methodical. Compare that it Iraq where you have random bombings and shooting and you can claim any number of things happened to any number of people. If they can't prove death how do we know they aren't lying especially considering how much higher it is than other estimates.
The US isn't trying to kill civilians, the US is trying to save civilians from being exterminated by Saddam.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
But we're doing such a piss-poor job of it, that we're apparently killing off a substantiol percentage of the people that we allegedly went in there to free.
Um, that is why we went in, isn't it? I've forgotten. Was it
a) To Get rid of Hussein b) Get his Weapons of Mass Destruction c) Free the Iraqi people d) Stop Hussein's intended plans to have WMD Programs.
If I recall, we originally claimed (a) and (b); and when we achieved (a) and "found" (b) to be a lie, we then changed our claims to (c) and (d).
Though, of course, none of it had anything to do with 9/11, just in case anyone forgot.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it very upsetting that there are those who would attempt to justify the actions of the U.S. military in Iraq. If this is a limited war, as some have stated, does that justify the billions and billions of dollars that were spent on the war? Does it justify the tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths that have occurred? Whether these numbers are accurate for 'military-related' deaths, the point is that the people of Iraq hate Americans more now than they ever did.
To denounce the Iraqi fighters as 'terrorists' is a pathetic attempt to deny the justice in their cause. They are making an attempt to rid their country of a foreign invader, in the same way that France and Poland did during World War II. I do not want to hear any bull about this not being an invasion but rather a liberation. The Soviet Union used the same excuse in the formation of the Soviet Bloc as they 'liberated' Eastern Europe. So let us not speak of liberation. The labeling of these Iraqis as 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' is a political statement only. An attempt to sway fools. Politicians have been using such words for years. 'Freedom-fighters' when we side with them and 'terrorists' when we dislike them. We have called the Kurds and the Northern Alliance 'freedom-fighters' but declare the Iraqi groups, 'terrorists'. Do not use such ignorant words. Those are words for governments and polititians, not for human beings.
At a bare minimum, let us say that in the last 18 months that at least 20,000 people have died in military-related events in Iraq, on both sides. To some 20,000 would be a reasonable amount of death for a 'limited war'. Yet how many have died or are in ruin because they have not enough food or clean water due to the war? How many have lost their jobs to American workers?
As Americans many believe that we are superior to the rest of the world. Yet were another country to 'liberate' the United States, there are many that would take up arms against the 'invaders'. They would not be called 'freedom-fighters', however. They would be terrorists and insurgents. Perspective is the key, my friends. You denounce the actions of the Iraqis, yet ignore the situation they are in.
A life has the potential for greatness. All life has that potential. Instead of working with the Iraqis, we have created a police state while our own nation sinks into the darkness. The only way to truly 'stop terrorism' from the rest of the world would be to commit mass extermination of the planet. Nuke the world and no terrorist outside of the U.S. can harm us.
The cost of war is always too high.
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the figure is accurate, 100,000 killed in a little over a year outpaces even the highest estimates of the rate at which Saddam killed during his rule.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I tried to say before, we've kidded ourselves into believing that "little" wars or "limited" ones are more humanitarian.
History has proven that they are not. And American history has proven that these wars become more protracted than "traditional" destroy the enemy wars.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People whose cause is just don't resort to murdering people in cold blood. You know blowing up random civilians, killing people who are signing up to be cops, murdering unarmed cadets on their way home. If those actions are justified, do you seek to justify flying airliners into building as well?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give me a cause then that was just that has not spilled blood. It is laughable to call it 'cold' blood. Was the American Revolution just? The Americans used any tactics they could for the cause. War is hell.
I find it laughable that once more someone has found a way to beat their breast and declare how they have been wronged. Come, let us destroy the world for the actions that the dead have enacted. Once more a fool has arose to show his ignornace by relating Iraq to 9/11. These events never have and never will have a connection, no matter how many times you declare it. If you wish to wonder how I can justify 9/11, perhaps you should first ask, what atrocities did the United States bring to those who committed them. Your search doesn't start at 9/11, it starts long before, during the Cold War. Seek history books, and perhaps you may increase your wisdom.
But in your defense, you do bring up a valid point, though not the one i'm sure you believed in. Why are their cadets there? If the Iraqi people had wanted the American troops there, as was the case made by the administration, the people would have welcomed them with open arms. But we found that in very short supply. And with every attack and each passing day, the people of Iraq become more vengeful. Those who have sided with the Americans are just as guilty as those who invaded their country. To side with the invader is, and has always been seen as treason, no matter what country you are from.
Tell me why we have sent our companies and workers there, taking over the oil industries and turning thousands out onto the streets. If you have an answer to such an atrocity I'd like to hear it. For to me, there is no reason to cause these people so much pain and suffering. If you truly are a liberator, you help the people, not further their destruction.
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Give me a cause then that was just that has not spilled blood. It is laughable to call it 'cold' blood. Was the American Revolution just? The Americans used any tactics they could for the cause. War is hell.
The successful part of the American civil rights movement didn't spill any blood on the part of the "oppressors." (I use quotes because while I do believe Blacks were oppressed, I don't believe American soldiers are oppressing Iraqis.) The Indian independence movement didn't see Ghandi spilling any blood. If blowing up civilians WHO ARE YOUR OWN COUNTRYMEN is not cold blood, then what is? What type of action are beheadings? What about the murder of unarmed cadets?
quote: Once more a fool has arose to show his ignornace by relating Iraq to 9/11. These events never have and never will have a connection, no matter how many times you declare it. If you wish to wonder how I can justify 9/11, perhaps you should first ask, what atrocities did the United States bring to those who committed them. Your search doesn't start at 9/11, it starts long before, during the Cold War. Seek history books, and perhaps you may increase your wisdom.
For one I'm glad you're using words that will gain you instant popularity here. For another what is occurring in Iraq is terrorism. You have said that terrorism is justified. So I'm asking you was 9/11 justified.
quote: But in your defense, you do bring up a valid point, though not the one i'm sure you believed in. Why are their cadets there? If the Iraqi people had wanted the American troops there, as was the case made by the administration, the people would have welcomed them with open arms. But we found that in very short supply. And with every attack and each passing day, the people of Iraq become more vengeful. Those who have sided with the Americans are just as guilty as those who invaded their country. To side with the invader is, and has always been seen as treason, no matter what country you are from.
You don't need a history book, you need a newspaper. The cadets weren't Americans as you seem to believe. They were Iraqis training to join an Iraqi army. Why would there be American cadets in Iraq?
quote: Tell me why we have sent our companies and workers there, taking over the oil industries and turning thousands out onto the streets. If you have an answer to such an atrocity I'd like to hear it. For to me, there is no reason to cause these people so much pain and suffering. If you truly are a liberator, you help the people, not further their destruction.
American workers are there, risking their lives to do things that Iraqis don't have the capabilities to do. Congradulations, you've managed to twist free aid into something completely different.
Syn, just because someone shares the same viewpoint as you doesn't make what he says fact. At best its opinion and more often plain lies.
posted
'part of the American civil rights movement' to quote yourself. So you have resorted to picking and choosing various parts of events to simulate your point. Your own countrymen is as well a very vague word choice. The Kurds as well qualify as Iraqis, yet I do not believe that non-Kurds would be ripe to jump to their aid after their numerous attempts at rebellion. Do you honestly believe that these people want to commit murder? Their actions are a plea to remove troops from their country. Tell me what choices they have? If you are so wise in the ways of the world, tell me how you prove that you want the invader to leave?
As well, an individual may choose not to spill blood, but do you honestly believe that no Indian killed a British person?
In cold blood is an attempt to show that these people enjoy the actions that they take. In cold blood means that you are a casual killer. If these people were such casual killers, they would have been dead during Saddam's reign. To kill a traitor to your country has oftimes been seen as just. We have killed numerous of traitors to our country. If you wish me to define traitor, I'll be happy to oblige.
As well I noticed that you choose to ignore the actions of the United States military and the industries we are sending there; ignorance may be your choice, but it is not mine. If you feel that taking away Iraqi jobs and giving them to Americans, enforcing curfews and the like is not oppression that is your opinion.
* As well, I feel your attempt to mock me for an obvious typo by quoting most of it, I find laughable. *
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't commenting on your poor typing skills. I was quoting the part of your argument that I was refuting or is that now an unacceptable debating tactic. I was referring to the fact that you're calling me "ignorant" and a "fool" for disagreeing with your point that terrorism is justified.
What you said:
quote: 'part of the American civil rights movement' to quote yourself.
What I actually said:
quote: The successful part of the American civil rights movement didn't spill any blood on the part of the "oppressors."
The militant factions of the civil rights movement were not successful in facilitating change. Martin Luther King's movement was successful. I'm also glad you chose to ignore the second example.
quote: To kill a traitor to your country has oftimes been seen as just.
Its never seen as just to intentionally murder those who are unarmed even in combat. You mean those traitors who are civilians walking on sidewalks?
You can't just claim there are actions, not claim what they are and not back up your claims, that's not how a "debate" or a "discussion" works.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Kurds as well qualify as Iraqis, yet I do not believe that non-Kurds would be ripe to jump to their aid after their numerous attempts at rebellion
Johivin. What's your point here exactly? The Kurds have been revolting practically forever, with numerous revolts against their British and later Iraqi rulers. Sometimes the US has helped them, more often not.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are individuals who have lost everything in this war. They have been left with nothing and turn against their invaders. Have your entire life blown away and see how you see your invaders.
However, not once have I stated that terrorism is justified. My point is not the justification of terrorism. Far from it. My point is that you assume that these individuals are doing these acts with the purpose of inflicting terror upon individuals. That is not the goal of 'terrorists'. Mass murderers maybe but not these Iraqi people. Terrorists is a media-based word, same as freedom-fighter and all the rest of them, as I have said.
You have accused these individuals of being terrorists and perhaps I have not been altogether clear. These people have had their country invaded, whether you want to admit it or not. Some have been imprisoned for their defense of their country, some have been even blacklisted for their previous support during the Saddam era. They are fighting to rid their country of these invaders so they can go back to their daily lives.
Governments fight wars. People fight to live their lives. The people of Iraq are fighting to keep what they have strived for by whatever means they can. As would any human being. We fight when your way of life has been overthrown.
The Iraqi people don't know how to get oil? They haven't been dealing in the oil business for generations? What free aid do the Iraqis need when it comes to oil? After you sweep in and destroy half of a country, how nice of you to attempt to repair the damage by taking over their businesses. If you do not believe that we are taking over the oil business in Iraq, I suggest you look at news out of Iraq from Iraqis themselves, not from the twisted views you get here.
As to your reference once more to 9/11 and comparing it to Iraq, you say you are speaking of terrorism. If a group were to arise in North Korea and start attacking and blowing up people, do you honestly believe we would call them terrorists? They United States would call them 'freedom-fighters' and the like. Same type of person, different name. They are people trying to make a stand anyway they can.
*As to my inappropriate taunting, I'd like to apologize to you. I had just been told of the 60,000 missing votes in Florida and it really rattled me.*
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point, Morbo, is that more often than not, those in the mass graves, those who are often targeted are Kurds. A people who have continued to rebel, to attack and kill Sunni and Shiite (sp?) civilians. Yet never has the United States considered them terrorists.
Why haven't the Israelis been accused of terrorizing the Palestinians?
Why wasn't the United States accused of terrorism in Venezuela when we hired a group of 'freedom-fighters' to overthrow the government?
My entire point has been, that just because you name someone to belong to a particular group, does not make it true. War has no rules, and these people are at war with their counterparts. These words we throw around only serve to label individuals and drive a wedge between groups. My point, in all of this madness, is that we are all HUMAN BEINGS; and we need to stop fighting each other over nationality bull.
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, now here's the problem. If civilians died "unjustly" then our soldiers are murderers. If our soldiers are murderers, the people who commanded them to do the killing are also murderers. Then, the people who elected the people who did the murders are also murderers.
So, before we abstract this "situation" too far, we have to answer questions about ourselves. There aren't any easy ways to hate wars. People say there are, but there aren't. Because you ultimately turn on yourself and absorb the guilt of being part of a society that sent the people who did the acts.
This is why a President should not send our troops into situations where the justness of our cause is "debatable."
Ah, but! Everything is debatable to some.
So then what do you do?
Do you wait until at least 51% of people see it your way?
Do you try to get the rest of the world's nations to go along with you?
Or do you just go it alone and assert that you are right and anyone who doesn't agree with you is just being "negative?"
There are a number of ways that we delude ourselves about war.
Some of us say that because we don't support the war, we are blameless for what our government does in our name.
Some of us say that we support our commander in chief no matter what because even though the conflict is distasteful, we are right in the "long view" and failure to do anything is a sign of weakness that our enemies will exploit.
Then there are those who believe that the enemy is attacking God and this is really a war between their evil and our good. And good must win through might and Providence.
I think that for most people it's all a matter of which delusion your stomach will tolerate best.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whiny, shrill liberal on the Mclaughlin Report used the 100,000 figure on this weekend's show. I consider myself a social liberal/fiscal conservative, but she is just shrill. Anyway, it just illustrates how figures get bandied about with little fact-checking, accountability or consensus: each side chooses extreme figures to support their current stance.
OK, Johivan, I see your point now. At some point, it's a question of semantics: terrorists vs freedom fighters or soldiers vs insurgents.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
