Middle East News
Najaf toll rises to 263; Shiites attacked during Ashura (Roundup)
Jan 30, 2007, 17:20 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Explosion in southern Iraq kills at least 12
- Five killed in northern Iraq bomb attacks
- Car bombs kill two people in northern Iraq
- Iraqi officers targeted by bombings amid security handover
- Attacks kill six in northern Iraq
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Radical Muslim cleric freed on bail in Britain after court ruling
- 2. Israeli military court rejects appeal of Palestinian hunger striker
- 3. Police disperse protesters in Bahrain with tear gas
- 4. Violence in Syria continues as UN holds debate
- 5. Arab League calls for adoption of plan to end Syria unrest
Older Talkback
page: 1
Why did USA invade Iraq again? It wasn't this bad when Sadam was around!!!!
Hundreds of thousands dead, Kurds gassed, Saudi arabia, Iran and Kuwait attacked, terroists funded. Which Saddam are you discussing?
Saddam was better? Ask the Kurds. Hell, ask the sunnis. They've stated, publicly that they want the USA there.
Rumors and conspiracy theories abound. Blog sites are reporting a story that the killed Shiite insurgents were in fact pilgrims from the Shiite Hawatmaa tribe in Diywannia south of Najaf. This tribe is said to have political differences with the ruling SCIRI and Dawaa Party of Mr. Maliki. Given the little credibility this sectarian government has, it difficult to believe its story at face value. Somehow the story reminds me of the story propagated by Saddam in 1979 when he violently purged his rivals in the Baath party.
They're just settling old scores? Even if not true, it's a good lie.
sp4 the number of people killed in Iraq since the American invasion 3 years ago is more than double the amount killed in Sadam's 30 years of power.
I am not saying that he was a good man because he was'nt, he was a loon but look at what george has brought there. George and dick will be remembered in history as the biggest spreaders of hatred and ethnic cleansing this planet has seen since hitler and I hope your proud to support them. I hope you hear the screaming children in your dreams. God bless america and some day forgive it.
'sp4 the number of people killed in Iraq since the American invasion 3 years ago is more than double the amount killed in Sadam's 30 years of power.'
That is just not true.
Hey, the other Brian, what support to you have for your numbers claim?
Brian, your figures do not reflect the casualties caused by US invasion but rather the work of Al-Quada as it described its actions in a number of intercepted letters from Al-Quada in Iraq to Bin Laden. On the one hand its easy to say since US invasion x amount have died, but wouldnt it be fair to conceed that much, if not all the current chaos, has been caused by a combination of secterian factors including Iran, Al-Quada and the internal divides in Iraq.
Even if that is true, it is Iraqi's that are doing most of the killing. The other facts here, which folks like you ignore:
I million dead from Iran-Iraq war.
Invasion of Kuwait - 180,000 dead (Iraqi casualties, but, they started it)
Invasion of Saudi Arabia
State Sponsoring of terror(Abu Nidal, Zarqawi)
Mass Murder of Kurds
Mass Murder of Shiites
According to the 'second Lancet survey of mortality,' 655,000 total excess deaths due to the war. Although the Bush administration does not accept the methods used to calculate these figures in Iraq. Ironically, the same group, using the same calculation methods in Darfur, saw it's results accepted by the Bush Administration...Go figure.
The U.S. military has suffered too, '3,080 dead. 22,834 wounded in action...TOTAL - NON-MORTAL CASUALTIES 47,657.'
Anyway one wants to look at it, it does'nt look good over there at the moment.
'According to the 'second Lancet survey of mortality,' 655,000 total excess deaths due to the war'
What does that even mean, 'Excess deaths.' You regurgitate that figure '655,000 total excess ' like it meant something. Look up Sampling error and sampling error, the absurdly large confidence interval,(the first study the authors were 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled 'some number between 8,000 and 194,000.'....
I am 99% confident the population of New York city is somewhere between 2 and 9000 trillion...
So what are you saying? Are you attempting to minimize the estimated death toll, if that's even possible, or are you questioning the study groups methods of calculation? Methods previously accepted by the groups critics when applied in a different theater?
'So what are you saying?
Obviously what I am saying is that those numbers are an absurdly long range, they don't say that '655,000' people were killed in Iraq and they are only (mis)quoted by propagandists. You are not doing your 'cause' any good by citing such garbage as evidence.
The only number that would be applicable to your argument would be the amount of 'innocent, non-combatant Iraqis' who were killed by coalition forces incidental to combat operations.
'Are you attempting to minimize the estimated death toll'
The particular 'estimated death toll' that you refer to is a ridiculous exaggeration, many times greater then any other estimate. By citing it you state that the coalition is responsible for these deaths (In other words we have killed '655,000' people) which is a miserable slander.
The vast amount of Iraqis killed have been killed by Iraqis, not innocent, non-combatant Iraqis who were killed by coalition forces incidental to combat operations. Is it our fault that the first thing they do with their freedom is turn around and start massacring each other?
', or are you questioning the study groups methods of calculation? '
Uhhhh Yes, Kyle, that is what I am doing. I also question the reasoning behind citing these figures like they were gospel. Obviously to make the case that Iraqis were better off under Saddam which is a reprehensible idea.
' Methods previously accepted by the groups critics when applied in a different theater?'
I think they are probably exaggerated in Sudan as well. China is preventing any action on Darfur to protect their oil leases so the point is moot. I don't hear the noise machines chanting No blood for oil regarding Sudan, i guess it is only 'cool' when you trash your own country.
This article is total bs.
The headline makes it appear as a great atrocity has occurred in Najaf, 'death toll rises to 263' but its 263 TERRORISTS that have been killed by the Iraqi Army, assisted by U.S. airpower.
If you want a concrete example of press bias, its here if you dare to look.
Mr. Clear?
'Obviously what I am saying is that those numbers are an absurdly long range, they don't say that '655,000' people were killed in Iraq and they are only (mis)quoted by propagandists.'
What you were truly saying was not obvious to me, sorry.
'You are not doing your 'cause' any good by citing such garbage as evidence. '
What is my cause Mr. Clear? I simply quoted casualty figures? Casualty figures despite your ranting accepted as sound by the United States government when applied to the Sudan, but not when applied to Iraq....Can you explain why?
' Is it our fault that the first thing they do with their freedom is turn around and start massacring each other?'
Have you studied no history? What do you think will happen in this part of the world when you create a power vacuum by removing the strong man, hello? Even Bush Sr 'knew' this would occur during the first Gulf War, which is why in large part he did not go into Baghdad. This was known. If you knowingly create a situation, than you must accept some measure of accountability for the consequences, which our current President has only started to do very recently.
'Obviously to make the case that Iraqis were better off under Saddam which is a reprehensible idea.'
Mr. Clear, that was actually not the case I was trying to make, however since you bring it up, when good ole Saddam was our friend in the region and the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and company were kissing his arse and supplying him and his reqime with weapons, it seems the United States thought then the Iraqi people were fine under Saddam, or have you forgetten that part too?
'China is preventing any action on Darfur to protect their oil leases so the point is moot. I don't hear the noise machines chanting No blood for oil regarding Sudan...'
Mr. Clear, please, China can use there veto on the Security Council and that is all. If the United States really wished to take action, do you think a U.N. veto would stop this President? Where have you been? Our do you think the United States has complied with international laws and norms the past 5 or so years? At least as it applies to this theater. As to you not being able to hear the 'noise machines chanting,' that's because China has not invaded that Nation at this time to secure their oil interests...Give it time.
'i guess it is only 'cool' when you trash your own country.'
I only have to fitting quotes to respond to that statement;
'When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.'
and but ofcourse,
'We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.'
Mr. Clear, such is the burden of living in a democracy.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story