It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100,000 Innocent Iraqies Dead at the Hands of Bush (from ATSNN)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   


Big difference between 16289 and 100000 huh?


I think everyone can see your true colors with this idiotic statement...




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Edsinger I wonder who pays your salary I bet you are under bushes payroll, they way you post and defend him, knowing very well what he has done to the people of Iraq, and to us the people of this nation.

I hope the salary is worth it.


Well no, Bush does not pay my salary. I defend anyone who defends our nation, He will have given them freedom from saddam if the folks would just quit bitching and give it chance....

I defend him because I feel he will be a much better president than one who has a other than honorable discharge and would require the French and Russians be on board before we protect our interests and populace. Sorry you just cant undertstand and I bet your husband knows why I feel the way I do....I am a veteran.

Just ask him if he would vote for Kerry if he knew he was dishonorably discharged?



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Neither Les Roberts or the Iraq Body Count folks make any distinction between "combatant" and "noncombatant" casualties.

So for their purposes, a guy who shoots at U.S. troops, dies during a "work accident" planting an I.E.D. or gets blown up because his RPG hits a target too close to him counts the same as a child killed in an airstrike. Or a child killed by an insurgent sniper, bomb or RPG.

How does this make any sense?

If this was WWII, we might just as well say that over 16 million people had died since the "U.S. aggression" against the continent. By this line of reasoning, the U.S. should have never entered the war.

Maybe next time we'll mind our own business, I suppose.

Speaking as an American, I would just like to point out that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to complain about the U.S. So why would anyone feel the need to make stuff like this up?

Those who choose to believe outrageous lies lead themselves into darkness. The power of some of my brothers and sisters to deceive themselves will never cease to amaze me.

It's just sad to see so many people willingly surrender themselves to evil.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So its all Bush's Fault huh?

Well it just tells me how your mind works. We get 3000 dead and you are mad that we took the war to them.

Maybe you can be Kerry's secretary and write that sternly worded memo the next time we are attacked.

Cant you get it? We WOULD have been attacked even if GORE won.

not. Not according to my news sources.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I am highly suspicious of these numbers. 100,000 dead due to the U.S.?

Maybe 100,000 dead TOTAL

How many of this 100,000 are the terrorists responsible for? I would wager a good high number.
Who do you people honestly think as killed more civilians in Iraq the U.S, or the 'terrorists'



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Just a little reminder I have handed out one warning and will hand out some more if we dont play nice now.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
It’s funny to me that we never hear about this side of the “War on Terrorism”.

If an invading force occupied LA and killed 100,000 citizens, trying to “round up” a few bad guys, I’d consider them terrorist, predatory animals with no value for human life! I would hate them, and they would be my enemy. In a situation that extreme I might even consider rounding up a few friends and making sneak attacks on the evil invaders. The last thing I’d do is greet them with open arms and invite them to dinner.

Who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy” just depends on which side you happen to fall on. It’s not a concrete, B & W issue. It wouldn’t hurt to think about this before damning everyone on Earth who isn’t just like us.

IMHO, us Americans could use an attitude adjustment …



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Oookay! If I may interject a note of relevency here. If I may be so bold:

FACT: Washington claims to be against "terrorism" but kills scores of times as many innocent civilians as died in the WTC tragedy.
FACT: The federal gov't has lied about Saddam's WMD --certainly as far as nukes are concerned, and blissfully ignoring the fact that chem & bio weapons were supplied to Iraq in the 80's by the US & Euro allies, so that they could attack Iran in the war the US demanded [the then subservient ally] Saddam wage on the nasty Iranians who revolted against a US-imposed dictator, Shah M. Reza Pahlavi.
FACT: The longest running terrorist training center that can be documented with universally accepted reports is at Fort Benning, Georgia. Nearly all the Central American death squads that assassinated public figures urging peace [such as Archbishop Romero] or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Guatamalans and Nicaraguans and El Savadorans who so much as dare organize village buying or labor co-operatives. . were trained at Fort Benning in the "School for the Americas."
School of the Americas
FACT: re: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." Tell that to the Continental Congress in 1777!!!
Or to the officers' corps of the American Expeditionary Force in 1917. And the War College at West Point is still teaching French military strategy to US cadets today!
FACT: Whether or not the results of the US bombing since the invasion reached 100,000 or not, it is acknowledged by none other than Clinton's Secretary of State, M. Albright, that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a direct result of US-imposed sanctions. When Leslie Stahl asked Albright on national TV if the price was worth it, Albright answered that it was.

Next, I'd like to bring up a few items that cannot be said to be absolutely irrefutable facts.
1] Who says the US has captured Saddam? The US claims it, but Saddam's wife & independent analysis of Saddam's teeth vs. the teeth of the guy they're holding say: "That's not Saddam." Maybe one of his known doubles??

2] Although the US is fond of putting out the idea that foreign terrorists are largely to blame for their lack of success in pacifying Iraq, numerous news stories indicate the the current US bete-noire "Zarqawi" has been dead over two years. Furthermore, the nature of the opposition regionally and tactically indicates to informed observers that the Baath Government is still a functioning entity and is co-ordinating resistance, at least in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," which is neither a triangle nor exclusively Sunni. And get this: they appear to be as effective as they are because they have the support of the local population who feel they've been screwed by the false claims of the Occupation.

Last: I'm not sure why this is a "numbers game." Murdering 2800 + people in NYC is a crime. Murdering however many civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq is also a crime. Morally speaking, the murder of innocents is evil and is terrorism, no matter who does it, no matter what their rationalizations. . .



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by netbound
It’s funny to me that we never hear about this side of the “War on Terrorism”.

If an invading force occupied LA and killed 100,000 citizens, trying to “round up” a few bad guys, I’d consider them terrorist, predatory animals with no value for human life!

IMHO, us Americans could use an attitude adjustment …


More like California, 25 million and size roughly equal.



Well we had one, 911 and now we are taking care of business.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
And the War College at West Point is still teaching French military strategy to US cadets today!


No they are not, but they did make a movie about it. Forrest Gump


Run Forestt Run!!!



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Well we had one, 911 and now we are taking care of business.

a) What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? Isn't it kind of lame and cruel taking out our aggression on the wrong people? Remember Osama bin Laden? Are we so inept we can't catch him?

b) Even if the Iraqi regime were responsible for 9/11 (which they weren't), don't you think killing innocent civilians (whether 1 or 100,000) is wrong? IMHO, if killing innocent people is OK with someone, then it's a thin line between them and John Wayne Gayce, Jeffery Dahmer and the Hillside Strangler. What if the innocent victims were your own family? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "No problem. War involves casualties."?
I hope not.

People who BLINDLY follow their leader, right or wrong, are a lot like computers (I happen to work on computers in a very technical way). They're dumb. They just do what they're told to do.

Face it, we have no business in Iraq (well, actually we do - we're there to steel their oil). We made a horrendous mistake invading it, and we have a lot of blood on our hands . If you don't believe it, ask most anyone around the world. At least anyone with half a brain ...



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
1] Who says the US has captured Saddam? The US claims it, but Saddam's wife & independent analysis of Saddam's teeth vs. the teeth of the guy they're holding say: "That's not Saddam." Maybe one of his known doubles??

Here Here!!! Well Said, I'm glad somebody brought this up, hey speaking of which, how's that Sadaam Trial going? What do you mean it isn't? What do you mean the US military wouldn't let media in there?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
The 100,000 deaths is putting the death toll in Iraq lightly in my opinion. In years to come people will be dying from the radiation, substandard living conditions, disease, and more intense military occupation from the coalition. This war in Iraq was totally wrong, Saddam had no ties to make believe Al-quaeda. You talk about IGNORANCE, when you post the most biased news articles operated by bush's group of loonies trying to justify this insanity being pushed upon the world by OUR presidency.
You're not even worth a name mention, and ALOT of others that visit this board feel the same way. Your bush family created Saddam and OSama, don't be so quick to worship him and his companions.
They war mongers woulda probably been better off dropping 1 nuke on 1 city instead of the countless amounts of DU all over iraq. Bush needs to go, and so does everyone that associates themselves with him.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...


The UK Government will "examine with very great care" claims around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion, Jack Straw has said.

A study in the Lancet said the majority of the victims were women and children killed due to military activity.

The UK foreign secretary told the BBC's Today programme that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The study by US and Iraq researchers was led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US.

It said poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" had led to the deaths in Iraq.

The risk of death from violence for civilians in Iraq was now 58 times higher than before the war, it said.


Hopefully we will get an accurate number by the end of the study.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I love how this is front page stuff for Ruters, the AP, abc, CNN. But ATS won't even put it up as a news story. Makes you think that there's a little bias here against the facts by some of the mods.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
I love how this is front page stuff for Ruters, the AP, abc, CNN. But ATS won't even put it up as a news story. Makes you think that there's a little bias here against the facts by some of the mods.


Very true, may they all suckle my zipple for such actions



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
100,000 dead Iraqis? Dont mourn for them. According to the "jihad", they just met martyrdom! w00t


uge

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Whenever there's a disaster of any kind where do the victims call for help?

The USA

Whenever there's a political crisis where do countries call for help?

The USA

Whenever blame needs to be placed who do we point at?

The USA

It's time the World stops biting the helping hand.

But most of all "Beggers can't be choose!"

I believe in the isolationist theory of dealing with global issues but that's me.

And for all those people out there that blame the USA for everything. I would like you to open your eyes and follow the money trail. You'll see that the trail leads back to corporations and those corporations only answer to their shareholders. And the shareholders are everywhere, every ethnicity, every religion. Get a list and lay the blame where it belongs. Money talks and we are the slaves



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
lol. i just got on, but i also posted this yesterday (www.abovetopsecret.com...), and since everybodys posting here, i'll just bring my entire thread here instead.






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.

www.reuters.com...

www.reuters.com...

Well, the last time i read anything about the amount of iraqis that have died was a couple of months ago and it was only at 10,000 then. This is probably estimating the deaths overall while the other source is just adding up all the iraqis deaths stated by the media, and of course the media wouldnt mention the civilian casualties caused by the Americans, and not other Iraqis. Also notice how this is considered a "conservative" assumption, so there may be much more and how "The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children." Even though the world is, without a doubt, much better without Saddam Hussein, was this really worth it considering how even though Saddam killed thousands of people at once sometimes, he probably hasnt killed as much people during his entire reign as Americans have within 18 months?



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
can we even begin to comprehend the amount of strucural damage inflicted by the coalition of the willing??? wats the bombed building count so far? i know if our military can decipher the occupants of a building they must surely know how many have been bombed. i wonder who reports on these kind of statistics? does any one even care?

i guess the reporters neo-patriots are too busy defending their oh so noble leader and justifying his actions, hogwash!

[edit on 29-10-2004 by sturod84]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join