The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq

We were told that the Iraqis don't count. Before the invasion began, the head of US central command, General Thomas Franks, boasted that "we don't do body counts". His claim was repeated by Donald Rumsfeld in November 2003 ("We don't do body counts on other people") and the Pentagon last January ("The only thing we keep track of is casualties for US troops and civilians").

But it's not true. Almost every week the Pentagon claims to have killed 50 or 70 or 100 insurgents in its latest assault on the latest stronghold of the ubiquitous monster Zarqawi. In May the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that his soldiers had killed 250 of Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants" (or so 500 of his best friends had told him). But last week, the Pentagon did something new. Buried in its latest security report to Congress is a bar chart labelled "average daily casualties - Iraqi and coalition. 1 Jan 04-16 Sep 05". The claim that it kept no track of Iraqi deaths was false.

It was a household survey - of 988 homes in 33 randomly selected districts - and it suggested, on the basis of the mortality those households reported before and after the invasion, that the risk of death in Iraq had risen by a factor of 1.5; somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 extra people had died, with the most probable figure being 98,000. Around half the deaths, if Falluja was included, or 15% if it was not, were caused by violence, and the majority of those by attacks on the part of US forces.

In the US and the UK, the study was either ignored or torn to bits. The media described it as "inflated", "overstated", "politicised" and "out of proportion". Just about every possible misunderstanding and distortion of its statistics was published, of which the most remarkable was the Observer's claim that: "The report's authors admit it drew heavily on the rebel stronghold of Falluja, which has been plagued by fierce fighting. Strip out Falluja, as the study itself acknowledged, and the mortality rate is reduced dramatically." In fact, as they made clear on page one, the authors had stripped out Falluja; their estimate of 98,000 deaths would otherwise have been much higher.

And what of the idea that most of the violent deaths in Iraq are caused by coalition troops? Well according to the Houston Chronicle, even Blair's favourite data source, the Iraqi health ministry, reports that twice as many Iraqis - and most of them civilians - are being killed by US and UK forces as by insurgents. When the Pentagon claims that it has just killed 50 or 70 or 100 rebel fighters, we have no means of knowing who those people really were. Everyone it blows to pieces becomes a terrorist. In July Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the US army, claimed that coalition troops had killed or captured more than 50,000 "insurgents" since the start of the rebellion. Perhaps they were all Zarqawi's closest lieutenants.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Now that al Zarqawi has inflicted a fatal wound on his support base because of his murder of innocent Jordanians this past week, it won't be long before we see him hoisted by his own petard, swinging morosely in the wind.

Originally posted by Souljah

I do not think that Zarqawi would do anything like that.

If you check the facts, it is more likely that an Isreali Agency is behind that attack, since half of the Victims were Palestinian, and that it happened in His Home country.

trodas

Excellent Post!

Nov 11, 2005 — DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi married couple and two other men carried out the suicide bombings at three hotels in the Jordanian capital Amman which killed 57 people this week, al Qaeda in Iraq said in an Internet statement on Friday.
"A group of martyrdom-seekers carried out the planning and implementation. They comprised three men and a woman who decided to accompany her husband on the path to martyrdom," said the statement posted on a site often used by the al Qaeda in Iraq.
"It was agreed to use suicide belts for precision and to cause maximum damage," the statement said.
"The attackers managed to enter the targets bypassing all the security measures that the agent of the British, the treacherous (King) Abdullah, has always boasted about."
The statement said they were all Iraqis and gave their names.

Originally posted by Souljah

And I thought I was on a Conspiracy Board...

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Muslims Butchering fellow Muslims is a war crime!

Originally posted by Souljah

I do not think that Zarqawi would do anything like that.
If you check the facts...

Originally posted by Seekerof
Perhaps in your quest to check facts, you happened to miss this?
Zarqawi justifies killing innocent Muslims.

Incidentally, I failed to see your response to the factoid topic linked?
Ironic?
A Paradox?
Or simply a selective hypocrite?

Oh wait, perhaps in the further pursuit to check facts, you failed to miss these, as well? One started by you.
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the Occupation, not the Fundamentalism
Why It Makes “Sense” For the Resistance to Target Innocent Iraqis

Nothing more than 'a' typical Souljah selectiveness when it comes to minimizing insurgent and terrorist acts of war crimes and solely concentrating on the US and UK. Anti-war and pro-terrorism sentiments, nothing more, nothing less, Souljah. Your doing a fine job in staying in step...

Originally posted by Souljah

Now, how do we Know these are FACTS?

BTW, the Link provided in that post is gone bye-bye.

Originally posted by Souljah
I see you stay on your typical pro-war selectivness, minimizing US Acts of War crime and putting the Entire Blame on the Terrorists.

I see you stay on your typical pro-war selectivness

Originally posted by Souljah
And MUST IMPORTANT - US and UK tropps DO NOT Kill Civilans.

When they are killed by Coalition fire, they immediatly become Terrorists.

Originally posted by Souljah

What about US Troops Butcherng Muslims? In your book thats "War on Terrorism".