Syria ponders filing UN complaint following helicopter attack

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
So wait a minute, if borders are so sacrosanct why are they crossing the border into Iraq to blow up some Shia children for daring to oppose their one true version of Islam?

Sez who? The US?

And even if they were, does that mean the US get's to stoop to the same level and commit the same crimes they accuse Syria of doing?

Such benevolent examples of "Good Guys" :roll:

For loving children they sure seem to love killing Iraqi children.

First, get a clue... it's not the entire Syrian nation or government doing this, it's a select few, just as a "Select Few" Iraqis within Iraq are commiting the same acts..... should we label all of Iraq in the same way? And besides, the US is killing more then enough Iraqi women and children on their own.... before they or you begin to point fingers, maybe the US should lead by example, rather then stooping to the exact same tactics they claim to be fighting.

So, what is your logic that farmers and wives don't kill people? Are you aware those special forces soldiers are also probably married and have pre military jobs, possibley including farmer?

Who gives a sh*t about them? They shouldn't be there in the first place.... every single one of them can die and I won't hold a lick of sympathy for them or their families.... they created the situation, they're the one's breaking the rules, anything after the fact is irrelevent and all criticism of the US for their actions are justified.

If their families don't want their soldiers to die as they are, then perhaps they should fight their leaders and bring them back home.

If this farmer was actually within Iraq's borders and strapped up with bombs and weapons ready to attack, I might have a different story, but that wasn't the case, they were home, doing nothing and clearly were not hiding this speculative enemy force everybody claims was there, or else there'd be a bigger body count then this family with their kids.

You think the US flew all the way out to Syria, to shoot at random Barn?

Yup.

But hey, its Just Syria, its not like Syria has currently occupying a foreign nation and assasinating its leaders when they propose Syria leave them the hell alone.

And yet the US spouting democracy is justified in acting in the exact same manner as those they claim to be freeing/ocupying?

Im sure its easily trusted and only up to noble intentions.

I don't mind the critisicm of the US, but show some freaking comparable level of skeptisicm to Syria, you know, the nation that frequently invades and assasinates its neighbours.

Sez the US.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Afghanistan, except in the illustration of the principle.

9-11 was a bad thing (are you serious????) because 3000 people died, including 24 Canadians.

After it was established were the attacks were planned, where the attackers' leaders were based, the USA gave the Afghanis (the Taliban then) every opportunity to hand over the guilty......the Taliban tried to wiggle out of that, and so........

The attacks originated from Afghanistan, therefore Canadian participation in the attacks on Afghanistan were not only justified, but necessary as part of our treaty obligations.

It was so obvious that the attacks were partly the responsibility of the Afghan gov't that the bloody useless UN has sanctioned themission there.

Iraq is not part of any Canadian treaty......Iraq is not our problem. we have no commitment there......but the Americans have every right to defend themselves from attack in Iraq by terrorists aided and abetted by the Syrian gov't.

I'd like to see proof that the Taliban were involved in the planning and execution of 9/11. At best they are accessories after the fact. Even that's debatable. Their main crime was refusing to hand over their "guests". Anyone who knows about the customs of this area could have predicted the Taliban would not do that.

Speech by Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Umar

Reuters - Wednesday, September 19, 2001

Error - BostonHerald.com

The following is the text of a speech by Mullah Mohammad Omar read out today at a meeting of Afghan clerics gathered in the capital, Kabul, to discuss the fate of Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden.

"The Ulema (Scholars) have always guided the nation.

Our Islamic state is the true Islamic state in the world and for this reason the enemies of our religion and our country look on us as a thorn in their eyes and use different pretexts to try to finish it, including the one about the presence of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

They put the blame for Washington and New York on him. The the question is how did Osama tell the pilots? And which airports did they use? And whose planes were those? The answer is that it is America.

In this regard, Afghanistan does not have the resources and neither does Osama have the strength or resources. He is not in contact with anyone and neither have we given permission to anyone to use the Afghan land against anyone.

We have not tried to create friction with America. We have had several talks with the present and past American governments and we are ready for more talks.

We have told America that we have taken all resources from Osama and he cannot contact the outside world. And we have told America that neither the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan or Osama are involved in the American events. But it is sad that America does not listen to our word.

America always repeats threats and makes various accusations and now it is threatening military attack.

This is being done in circumstances in which we have offered alternatives on the Osama issue.

We have said, if you have evidence against Osama, give it to the Afghan Supreme Court or the ulema (clerics) of three Islamic countries, or have OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) observers keep an eye on Osama.

But America rejected these, one by one. If America had considered these suggestions there would not have been a chance of such a great misunderstanding.

We appeal to the American government to exercise complete patience, and we want America to gather complete information and find the actual culprits.

We assure the whole world that neither Osama nor anyone else can use the Afghan land against anyone else.

And if even after this, America wants to use force and wants to attack Afghanistan and our innocent and oppressed people and wants to destroy the Islamic emirate, we seek your guidance and a fatwa (ruling) on the issue in the light of Islamic Sharia."

Servant of Islam, Leader of the Faithful, Mullah Mohammad Omar, 19th September, 2001

Speech by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar September 19 2001

The Taliban were the de facto Afghanistan government. The only legal way to get the Taliban to hand over those accused of involvement in 9/11 would be to recognize their authority and seek extradition.

Its the same thing with this US raid in Syria. If the US had proof that these people in Syria were committing crimes or acts of terrorism, they should use diplomatic channels first to seek their extradition. The Syrians are obligated to act on US complaints about their citizens aiding Iraqi insurgents. Even if they can't hand them over to the US, they can lock them up. Did the US attempt to resolve this problem through diplomacy first?

The problem with the decision to send commandos into another sovereign nation is that it is an act of war. Criminal activity not sanctioned by a government is not an act of war. Syria would be completely justified in attacking the US in response. Lets put it this way. If Syria sent a commando team into the US and killed a bunch of Americans including children, how would the US react?

Another reason this mission was ill conceived is that it could have turned out very badly for the US. Imagine where we would be if the Syrians shot down the invading American helicopters and captured the surviving American commandos...
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Earth explains it pretty clearly.

As an update:

Thousands of Syrians protest U.S. raid
Thousands of Syrians protest U.S. raid

Hundreds of Syrian riot police ringed the closed U.S. Embassy in Damascus on Thursday as tens of thousands of people gathered for a government-orchestrated protest to denounce a deadly U.S. raid near the Iraqi border.

The troops, wearing helmets and armed with batons and shields, took up positions around the embassy and the adjacent U.S. residence building. The embassy was closed because of security concerns related to the protest, and the American school in Damascus was also shut for the day.

Thursday's peaceful protest came as Syria demanded a formal apology from the U.S. for Sunday's attack in the eastern border community of Abu Kamal that Damascus says killed eight civilians. It threatened to cut off co-operation on Iraqi border security if there are more American raids on Syrian territory.

There has been no formal acknowledgment of the raid from Washington. But U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said the target of the raid was Badran Turki al-Mazidih, a top al-Qaeda in Iraq figure who operated a network that smuggles fighters into the war-torn country. The Iraqi national also goes by the name Abu Ghadiyah.

Syria insists the dead were civilians and has challenged Americans to provide evidence to the contrary.

"This aggression did not succeed," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal. "It was supposed to yield a catch so that they could show it to the world…But the catch turned out to be an innocent family."

As the protesters filled the Youssef al-Azmi square and surrounding streets in the upscale al-Maliki neighbourhood, some Syrians formed circles and danced traditional dances while women and students joined the peaceful crowds.

The protesters waved national flags, carried pictures of President Bashar Assad and held banners, one of which called America "the sponsor of destruction and wars."

Hussam Baayoun, a 20-year-old university student at the rally, said the U.S. raid was a "criminal act" and added: "We want the Americans to stop their acts of terrorism in Syria, in Iraq and the rest of the world."

In Washington, State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood said Wednesday that Syria had formally notified the U.S. of the closure order for the cultural centre, effective immediately, and the school by Nov. 6.

Wood said Washington was considering how to respond and that the U.S. expects the Syrian government to "provide adequate security for the buildings."

Though Syria has long been viewed by the U.S. as a destabilizing country in the Middle East, in recent months, Damascus has been trying to change its image and end years of global seclusion.

But American accusations that Syria wasn't doing enough to prevent foreign fighters from crossing its borders into Iraq remains a sore point in relations. Syria says it is doing all it can to safeguard its long, porous border.

Gotta love those yanks..... always demanding this and demanding that, and when other nations actually do what is requested "It's not good enough" so they go and blow more sh*t up and kill more civilians.

Pretty interesting that it's not just the middle east who sees the US as a Global Terrorist organization, but it would seem by many responses here and elsewhere, that their allies are thinking the same thing...... and they're right. The US is the largest Global Terrorist Organization in the world today and have killed more civilians so far since 2001 then the Taliban or Al'Q could ever fathom.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Sez the US.

And lebanon, and the US, and you know, SYRIA.

Why is it so hard to believe that brutal dictatorship does bad things. Get a sense of perspective here. The US is not the source of all evil in the world, bad things happen even when the US isn't around, and many bad people in the world, aren't even remotely connected to the US.

The US isn't magic.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Pretty interesting that it's not just the middle east who sees the US as a Global Terrorist organization, but it would seem by many responses here and elsewhere, that their allies are thinking the same thing...... and they're right. The US is the largest Global Terrorist Organization in the world today and have killed more civilians so far since 2001 then the Taliban or Al'Q could ever fathom.

Wanna pull some numbers on that? maybe some "civilians killed by the US" versus "civilians killed by enemies of the US"

wanna pull up some fun numbers? Are we going direct or indirect? Should we get a little chart?

What are the criteria? Does Gitmo count as destroying lives? If so, does that mean all nations which lock up people with kangaroo courts count?

Perspective. The US is not the be all end all. Even if it wanted to be, it doesn't have that kind of manpower.

The US is not the den of villainy in the world, while it does have bad people, not in any greater numbers than anywhere else. making it about 1/15th-1/20th of the worlds problem.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Wanna pull some numbers on that? maybe some "civilians killed by the US" versus "civilians killed by enemies of the US"

wanna pull up some fun numbers? Are we going direct or indirect? Should we get a little chart?

What are the criteria? Does Gitmo count as destroying lives? If so, does that mean all nations which lock up people with kangaroo courts count?

Perspective. The US is not the be all end all. Even if it wanted to be, it doesn't have that kind of manpower.

The US is not the den of villainy in the world, while it does have bad people, not in any greater numbers than anywhere else. making it about 1/15th-1/20th of the worlds problem.

Oh you want me to pull up some numbers do you?

A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003–2005
Iraq Body Count Press Release 12 (19 Jul 2005) :: Iraq Body Count

Findings include:

Who was killed?

  • 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
  • Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
  • Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
When did they die?

  • 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
  • Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
Who did the killing?

  • US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
  • Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
  • Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
  • Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
What was the most lethal weaponry?

  • Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
  • Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
  • Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).
Want some more? Sure.....

Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has caused the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians directly from insurgent and foreign military action, as well as the deaths of possibly tens of thousands of Afghan civilians indirectly as a consequence of displacement, starvation, disease, exposure, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness resulting from the war. The war, launched by the United States as "Operation Enduring Freedom" in 2001, began with an initial air campaign that almost immediately prompted concerns over the number of Afghan civilians being killed......

^ There's plenty of numbers on this page for you to skim through, as there's too many for me to organize in a forum matter.

But would you still like to have more? Sure.....

Study Shows Civilian Death Toll in Iraq More Than 100,000
Democracy Now! | Study Shows Civilian Death Toll in Iraq More Than 100,000

On the 1,000th day of the U.S. war on Iraq, we look at a subject that usually receives little attention—the Iraqi civilian death toll since the war began. We speak with Dr. Les Roberts, the lead researcher of a study released last year on the number of deaths in Iraq, which put the toll at more than 100,000.

Hell, I could go on forever linking pages apon pages of reports, studies, first hand encounters, etc. on how many civilians have died..... put some effort in and look it up.

The FACT is that the majority of these civilians would still be alive and decently well today if the US didn't take the action of invading Afghanistan or Iraq in the first damn place. The only reason why you think insurgents and taliban have killed more is becase they're reported more in the media to make everybody feel better.

And no matter how you wish to spin this situation, the amount of civilians killed by US air strikes and the initial invasions trump any civilian talleys by the Taliban and Al'Q combined in both nations easily.

The US invaded these two countries for two obvious reasons..... #1 - Revenge and to Cause suffering on civilians as they have suffered, only worse in order to make an example and #2 - Distraction from the truths.

The other fact of the matter is that the US simply doesn't give a sh*t about any civilians other then their own, and even that is a small amount of care. They don't care about who they kill or how they are killed, or else they would have changed their tactics.... they talk about looking into it... blah blah bullsh*t... nothing is ever done.

So when you add up all the numbers of civilians who have died directly by the actions the US has taken since 2001..... tell me.... Who Are the Real Terrorists?

If you want to fight terrorism, then lead by example.... don't stoop to terrorist ways and out shine them with monsterous numbers of innocents killed by your decisions and actions.

AKA: The US is the largest Global Terrorist Organization in todays world.... hands down. It doesn't matter if you kill civilians by car bomb, suicide bomb or by cluster bombs and other air strikes..... they're killed and that is a terrorist act.

I stand by what I say and I'll be damned if I'll retract. I'm not about to skew the truth just to make everybody feel all sunshine and happy about their lives and who they call their allies..... I'll speak the truth, even if it may hurt or offend some..... deal with it.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
But the thing is Prax... those sites credit every kill as a US Kill. Even sectarian violence and they are SO SLANTED against the war that it's laughable.

So...Therefor... Canada slaughtered over 800,000 Rawandans. Want a link?
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
But the thing is Prax... those sites credit every kill as a US Kill. Even sectarian violence and they are SO SLANTED against the war that it's laughable.

So...Therefor... Canada slaughtered over 800,000 Rawandans. Want a link?

Who invaded whom Eagle?

You war lovers are sick beyond belief.:roll:
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
But the thing is Prax... those sites credit every kill as a US Kill. Even sectarian violence and they are SO SLANTED against the war that it's laughable.

You didn't even bother to read the parts I put right in front of you ffs.... so I'm doubting you even bothered to look into those sites to actually know wtf you're talking about.

Above I posted, and it clearly states in at least one report:

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
^ That's before the insurgency even existed.

30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
^ That's a pretty big number when you compare it to the totals adding up the overall amount as of today.

US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
^ Anti-Occupation Forces/Insurgents connection to civilian deaths pale in comparison to what the US has done..... 9% is not greater then 37%

Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
^ And what made up the majority of those deaths relating to explosives?

Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
^ Do you get the picture yet, or are numbers and % too difficult for you to read?

Last I checked, Insurgents don't have aircraft to conduct air strikes. And this is just Iraq.... I didn't even touch base with Afghanistan. Do I even have to? The Tactics in both by the US are the same.

And if all of that doesn't make the case, then the simple fact that none of them would be dead by any of these methods if you guys used your god damn brains before hand and not invaded either nation.... you started the ball rolling in these situation, you sure as hell can't wipe your hands clean from any responsibility for this mess.

Then again, that's what you guys do best.

So...Therefor... Canada slaughtered over 800,000 Rawandans. Want a link?

I couldn't care less because you once again, as I predicted, attempted to skew the facts for your own little agenda.... and failed I might add. #1 We didn't start the mess over there, and #2 yes, we had some screwed up soldiers doing some screwed up things, but we delt with them, corrected our mistakes, accepted our responsibility in those matters and that situation isn't continuing by our hands today, unlike you guys who can not accept responsibility, will not change your ways, don't give a sh*t about those you make suffer and try to trivialize the situation just as you are doing right now.

The moment you guys haul your asses out of Iraq and end this BS in Afghanistan, and stop crossing into the borders of Pakistan and Syria, will be the moment I stop counting the deaths of civilians as your responsibility.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Did you read those numbers?


Less than 1/3rd of all deaths are US caused. Most are caused by Iraqi's. A third from Crime and about another third (not listed the last third of deaths) would be Sectarian violence, aka, Iraqi's killing Iraqi's.

Only 20% of the deaths are women and children, out of more than 75% of the population.

Now assuming the US is as likely to kill women and children as anyone else(even though its less likely than sectarian violence or crime) that would still show well above average targeting capabilities and fire control.

And all your example shows is that you are wrong. The US is not the biggest terrorist organization or civilian killer in the world.

In the country its most active in, its still not in first place.


Did you just post the stats or did you read them and understand what that all means?

The airstrike and explosive numbers are contradictory to the information above.

Do you get that? If the airstriker numbers are correct then the US pretty much doesn't have ground forces involved in Iraq, only 12% of their inflicted deaths would be from ground forces.

It also means that insurgents (to make up the numbers to make them at all balance) would not be using explosives to any great degree.

IED's, car bombs and suicide bombers that kill dozens at once in the markets? The ones with photographic evidence?

Apparently they don't actually kill anyone. Must be confetti car bombs.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
But Prax...those high numbers have been disputed over and over. Some numbers have an extreme percentage of the population killed! Iraqi Bodycount website is a fabricated site with made up numbers to suit THEIR agenda as well. Their agenda is your agenda so you buy into it.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Did you read those numbers?


Less than 1/3rd of all deaths are US caused. Most are caused by Iraqi's. A third from Crime and about another third (not listed the last third of deaths) would be Sectarian violence, aka, Iraqi's killing Iraqi's.

Only 20% of the deaths are women and children, out of more than 75% of the population.

Now assuming the US is as likely to kill women and children as anyone else(even though its less likely than sectarian violence or crime) that would still show well above average targeting capabilities and fire control.

And all your example shows is that you are wrong. The US is not the biggest terrorist organization or civilian killer in the world.

In the country its most active in, its still not in first place.


Did you just post the stats or did you read them and understand what that all means?

The airstrike and explosive numbers are contradictory to the information above.

Do you get that? If the airstriker numbers are correct then the US pretty much doesn't have ground forces involved in Iraq, only 12% of their inflicted deaths would be from ground forces.

It also means that insurgents (to make up the numbers to make them at all balance) would not be using explosives to any great degree.

IED's, car bombs and suicide bombers that kill dozens at once in the markets? The ones with photographic evidence?

Apparently they don't actually kill anyone. Must be confetti car bombs.

Allow me to explain this in pre school format for you:

The above numbers were compiled between 2003 to 2005.... of that total amount of civilian deaths between those years 30% of those deaths occured during the invasion. After the invasion there were almost double the 24,865 killed during the invasion.

Out of that total, 37% of those killed were linked to US forces, 9% due to insurgents, post invasion violence was 36% (Which could be pretty much anything, US, Insurgent, etc.) ..... 37 + 9 + 36 = 82% total... the remain % are unknown or being investigated. Out of the known % The US is 1% worse then the general pot-invasion violence.

The majority of those civilians killed between 2003-2005, 53% of them were killed by explosive weapons.... 64% of those deaths involving explosive weaponry were due to US Air Strikes.... worse then IEDs, Suicide Bombs and the sort.

So you didn't read the numbers correct, not I. the largest responsible % of the deaths are the US, mostly due to air strikes.

Which makes perfect sense if you follow the news and reports each day that list each air strike or raid that involves the US... there are always civilians killed.

Now check out how many civilians are killed by other allied nations and you might start to figure out something isn't right.

And it really doesn't matter how you slice the numbers, none of this should have happened in the first place, therefore the responsibility of those deaths lie at the US's feet for invading in the first place, as there was no violence of this magnitude prior to their unjust invasion. Whether you like Saddam or the way the country was run before, it still was a hell of a lot better then it is now..... ask any Iraqi and they pray for the days where Saddam ruled.... they could at least still walk down their streets without having to worry about being blown up by some crazy nutbag or by the forign occupying force.

They were supposed to "Bring Democracy, Freedom and Security" to Iraq. The democracy is there, if you could call it that, but the other two have failed.

The amount of % that are directed towards the US as known, whether or not they are higher or lower, the % is still extremely high considering they're the one's supposed to bring security, not terror. They entered a country they didn't know anything about, a culture and faith they knew nothing about and their ignorance and total disregard for civilian life is what created the situation in the first place.

And now they're trying to do the same thing in Syria.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
But Prax...those high numbers have been disputed over and over. Some numbers have an extreme percentage of the population killed! Iraqi Bodycount website is a fabricated site with made up numbers to suit THEIR agenda as well. Their agenda is your agenda so you buy into it.

Oh yes, that must be it :roll: They must be lying.

I didn't hear a comment on the Wiki page..... oh but then you or someone else will just say Wiki is unreliable and written up by any joe schmo.

Very well:

How many civilians have died?
TheStar.com | columnists | How many civilians have died?

How many civilians have been killed, maimed and displaced in Iraq and Afghanistan? I spoke to four leading experts on this grim topic, which governments avoid and the media don't seem to care much about.

Gen. Tommy Franks, who oversaw the U.S. invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, famously said: "We don't do body counts."

His words now headline the website of Iraq Body Count, the U.K.-based non-profit group that does count the Iraqi dead.

Others do as well, albeit periodically. The latest is a British polling firm that puts the Iraqi dead at 1.22 million. That's roughly five times the number killed in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

Opinion Research Business conducted face-to-face interviews last month with a representative sample of 1,461 Iraqis.

Nearly one in two said their households had suffered at least one death by violence. Many reported multiple deaths. Projecting the findings on to Iraq's 4 million households, ORB estimated the death toll at more than a million.

The methodology is not universally accepted, though variations of it have been used to measure mortality figures in the conflicts in Congo, Kosovo, Sudan, etc.

Questions were also raised last year about a study by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, done in partnership with Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

Surveyors knocked on 1,849 doors asking if the household had suffered a death by violence. Projecting the responses nationally, the study put the toll at 654,965.

Oops.... that non-profit organization which actually does count the dead was listed, so I guess the above is not valid based on your unfounded claim they are "Biased" ~ From what I gather is because their numbers don't do well for your war.

So, let's check out what a US University has to say shall we?

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls
BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.


The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq.

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

It is vigorously disputed by supporters of the war in Iraq, including US President George W Bush.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimate that the mortality rates have more than doubled since the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, causing an average of 500 deaths a day......

..... Sharp rise

The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country.

Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families since early 2002, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards.


Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000 - meaning the deaths of some 2.5% of Iraq's 25 million citizens in the last three-and-a-half years.
The researchers say that in nearly 80% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers......

.... The survey is to be published in a UK medical journal, the Lancet, on Thursday.

In an accompanying comment, the Lancet's Richard Horton acknowledges that the 2004 survey provoked controversy, but emphasises that the 2006 follow-up has been recommended by "four expert peers... with relatively minor revisions".

Then again, if you have anything valid in regards to counter reports on the numbers and deaths, by all means, provide them to refute these reports.

Then again, anything you provide, I guess all I have to do is say those sites are biased as well and not reliable.... so it goes both ways in that regard.

That is why none of these report's numbers really matter to the bigger picture, which is the fact that the great majority of these deaths wouldn't have occured if your president didn't start this corrupt invasion in the first place.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
67
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
"Keep in mind, your beloved United States has created a lot of dissent in the "lesser nations" since it emerged as a poor winner following WW2"


McCain supported Contra terrorists in Nicaragua thereby killing thousands of civilians.

If Colpy is to be consistant in his "principles", he would allow Nicaraguans to invade the USA in order to return the favor. Perhaps Colpy would like it if Iraqis helped them.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
"Keep in mind, your beloved United States has created a lot of dissent in the "lesser nations" since it emerged as a poor winner following WW2"


McCain supported Contra terrorists in Nicaragua thereby killing thousands of civilians.

If Colpy is to be consistant in his "principles", he would allow Nicaraguans to invade the USA in order to return the favor. Perhaps Colpy would like it if Iraqis helped them.

Actually, I had no problem with the Sandinista gov't of Daniel Ortega......other than the company he kept, and it is not like he had a choice.

The proof of the Sandinista's sincerity was that they left office when defeated in a fair vote..........good enough for me. And I liked them better than the Contras long before that......

The entire Iran - Contra thing was a travesty.

McCain was wrong on that one......
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Oh yes, that must be it :roll: They must be lying.

I didn't hear a comment on the Wiki page..... oh but then you or someone else will just say Wiki is unreliable and written up by any joe schmo.

Why should I say that... you mentioned it because you know it is a fact... any Joe schmo can write it!

Very well:



Oops.... that non-profit organization which actually does count the dead was listed, so I guess the above is not valid based on your unfounded claim they are "Biased" ~ From what I gather is because their numbers don't do well for your war.

1.2 Million... 600,000+... quite a swing huh? I even find it hard that you posted that Prax.

With numbers that far off...do you think there is some guess work? Fabrication? Biased? Fantasy?

So, let's check out what a US University has to say shall we?

Oh a US University... well since our education SUCKS so bad as you keep reminding us... that means our University Surveys and Research must suck too! All the Professors and Students are idiots so their data is a big pile of stupid US junk.

Thanks for the help in proving my point.



Then again, if you have anything valid in regards to counter reports on the numbers and deaths, by all means, provide them to refute these reports.

Yeah there is something out there that refuted the door to door survey. The surveyors were counting EVERY death including illness and old age. I'll try and find it.

Then again, anything you provide, I guess all I have to do is say those sites are biased as well and not reliable.... so it goes both ways in that regard.

Good point...you saved me time.

That is why none of these report's numbers really matter to the bigger picture, which is the fact that the great majority of these deaths wouldn't have occured if your president didn't start this corrupt invasion in the first place.

Really? Wasn't Saddam Hussein the leader? Is he no longer the mass murderer or did he somehow in death gets absolved of all his sins.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The fact is, Iraq was quiet before the US led invasion. Even the American government doesn't attribute any deaths to the Hussein regime for nearly 2 years before the invasion.
Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime

During the invasion its estimated the US killed about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers most of whom were conscripts. Those people would still be alive if they hadn't been forced to defend their country from an unprovoked attack.

It is completely fair to blame the US for the consequences of their actions in Iraq. That includes civilians killed as collateral damage by US soldiers as well as civilians killed in the crossfire by Iraqi soldiers defending their country and insurgents attempting to rid their country of foreigners. Its also legitimate to attribute the increased violent deaths as a result of general lawlessness, internacine fighting and so on.

I noticed that Americans don't have any problems attibuting hundreds of thousands of similar deaths to Saddam Hussein as a result of his invasion of Kuwait and Iran, and crushing rebellions and internal dissent.

The US invaded Iraq without provocation. We were fed a pack of lies and most of us believed them.

Back on subject. Here is the latest wrinkle. It appears that Syria may have approved the US attack:

Questions raised over Syrian complicity in US raid

Syria has denounced a US strike on its territory but sources say Damascus secretly backed the raid

The 38-year-old farmer was watering his maize in the scrubby vastness of eastern Syria when four Black Hawk helicopters swooped in low over the palm trees, heading from the border with Iraq formed by the Euphrates River.

It was late afternoon. The light was fading and the chill of the desert winter night was setting in. The helicopters, following their leader in a disciplined arc, hovered just above the one-storey concrete and mud homes of the village of Sukariyeh before the attack began.
Two of them landed next to a ramshackle building site and uniformed men hit the ground firing. Two other helicopters gave aerial cover.

To begin with I thought they were Syrian helicopters, but then I saw eight or nine soldiers armed to the teeth. They carried big black M16s,” said Mohammad al-Ali, the farmer. His land lies closest to the site where an American commando squad last week staged an unprecedented strike in Syrian territory.

The guns were the clue to their identity – only Americans or their allies carry M16s; the Syrian army has Russian-made AK47s.

Ali said the troops raced to a compound of new homes, where men of the al-Hamad family were working. “Even before they ran from their helicopters they began to shoot at the workers,” Ali said. “The whole operation took 10 to 15 minutes and they left behind seven corpses.”

According to one eyewitness, the Americans took two men, alive or dead, back with them.
The Americans’ target was an Al-Qaeda commander identified as Badran Turki Hashim al-Mazidih, also known as Abu Ghadiya, an Iraqi-born terrorist in his late twenties. It is believed that he died in the firefight and his body was removed.

The Syrian regime immediately denounced the raid for violating its sovereignty, froze high-level diplomatic relations with Washington and protested at the United Nations in a ritualised show of anger.

However, sources in Washington last week revealed to The Sunday Times an intriguingly different background to the events in Sukariyeh.

According to one source, the special forces operation had taken place with the full cooperation of the Syrian intelligence services.

“Immediately after 9/11, Syrian intelligence cooperation was remarkable,” said the Washington source. “Then ties were broken off, but they have resumed recently.”
Abu Ghadiya was feared by the Syrians as an agent of Islamic fundamentalism who was hostile to the secular regime in Damascus. It would be expedient for Syria if America would eliminate him.

The threat to the Syrian government has made the regime of President Bashar al-Assad jittery. In September a car bomb exploded in Damascus near its intelligence headquarters. Many of the 17 victims were Shi’ite Muslim pilgrims at a nearby shrine.

The Washington source said the Americans regularly communicate with the Syrians through a back channel that runs through Syria’s air force intelligence, the Idarat al-Mukhabarat al-Jawiyya.

In the time-honoured tradition of covert US operations in the Middle East, this one seems to have gone spectacularly wrong. The Syrians, who had agreed to turn a blind eye to a supposedly quiet “snatch and grab” raid, could not keep the lid on a firefight in which so many people had died.

The operation should have been fast and bloodless. According to the sources, Syrian intelligence tipped off the Americans about Abu Ghadiya’s whereabouts. US electronic intelligence then tracked his exact location, possibly by tracing his satellite telephone, and the helicopters were directed to him. They were supposed to kidnap him and take him to Iraq for questioning.

According to defence sources, when the four US helicopters approached the Syrian border, they were detected by Syrian radar. Air force headquarters in Damascus was asked for permission to intercept.

After an Israeli airstrike against a suspected nuclear reactor in the same region last year, Syrian air defence has been on high alert. The request was turned down by senior officers because the American operation was expected.

It is not clear what went wrong, but it is believed that the helicopters were spotted by the militants on their final approach and a gun battle broke out. That is supported by an account from a local tribal leader, who said a rocket-propelled grenade had been launched from the compound at the helicopter. The firefight blew the cover on a supposedly covert operation.
Ninety minutes after the raid, according to a local tribal leader, agents of the feared Mukhabarat, the Syrian intelligence service, flooded into the village. “They threatened us that if anyone said anything about what happened in this area, their family members would die,” he said.

Local residents were happy to identify the seven dead villagers as Daoud al-Hamad, who owned the land, and his four sons, who were helping him to build the new houses, along with the site watchman and his cousin. The area is isolated and poor. Locals speak with Iraqi accents, as their tribe extends across the border, and smuggling is the most lucrative local profession.

The tribal leader revealed that everyone in the village knew that “jihadis” – extremist Islamic fighters – were operating in the area.

“You could often hear shooting from close to the border, which was not clashes but fighters training,” he said.

“There are areas along the border where the Mukhabarat doesn’t let people go and that’s where I think the jihadis are. The areas are some of the best ways into Iraq.”

Despite the furore over the raid, there can be little doubt that the Americans will celebrate the death of Abu Ghadiya, whom they described as the “most prominent” smuggler for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He allegedly ran guns, money and foreign fighters along the “rat lines” that lead across the desert into northern Iraq and sometimes led raids himself.

In February the US Treasury Department identified Abu Ghadiya as a “high value” Al-Qaeda commander in charge of smuggling “money, weapons, terrorists and other resources . . . to Al-Qaeda in Iraq”.

It described him as a Sunni Muslim born in the late 1970s in Mosul and said he had been an aide to the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006.
Damascus may have other motives for its cooperation with Washington. Some diplomats in the capital think the regime would like to stage its own cross-border strikes against terror groups in Lebanon, which it sees as a threat.

“Syrian cross-border incursions into northern Lebanon in pursuit of Fatah al–Islam [a group affiliated with Al-Qaeda] are plausible,” said one source. They may be relying on the United States to turn a blind eye to do so.

American officials refused to apologise for the botched raid on Syria. They said the administration was determined to operate under a definition of self-defence that provided for strikes on terrorist targets in any sovereign state.

For Al-Qaeda militants, the safe haven of Syria will be looking decidedly cooler as winter sets in.

Additional reporting: Hugh MacLeod in Beirut

Questions raised over Syrian complicity in US raid - Times Online

I suppose its possible...
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
The fact is, Iraq was quiet before the US led invasion. Even the American government doesn't attribute any deaths to the Hussein regime for nearly 2 years before the invasion.
Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime

During the invasion its estimated the US killed about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers most of whom were conscripts. Those people would still be alive if they hadn't been forced to defend their country from an unprovoked attack.

It is completely fair to blame the US for the consequences of their actions in Iraq. That includes civilians killed as collateral damage by US soldiers as well as civilians killed in the crossfire by Iraqi soldiers defending their country and insurgents attempting to rid their country of foreigners. Its also legitimate to attribute the increased violent deaths as a result of general lawlessness, internacine fighting and so on.

I noticed that Americans don't have any problems attibuting hundreds of thousands of similar deaths to Saddam Hussein as a result of his invasion of Kuwait and Iran, and crushing rebellions and internal dissent.

The US invaded Iraq without provocation. We were fed a pack of lies and most of us believed them.

Back on subject. Here is the latest wrinkle. It appears that Syria may have approved the US attack:



I suppose its possible...
Ergo the hesitancy to file a formal complaint (fearing this info might see the light of day) with the U.N. Although I just can't see Syria and the U.S. working together. Then again stranger things have happened.
scratch