Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006
PING: William Graham
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Annika1980 - 08 Dec 2006 05:29 GMT Here is an article you might find interesting, given your interest in Iraqi life spans and such.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_ pf.html
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.
It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.
The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.
Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.
The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.
The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.
Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.
While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.
"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.
A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate.
"The Department of Defense always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "The coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries."
He added that "it would be difficult for the U.S. to precisely determine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of insurgent activity. The Iraqi Ministry of Health would be in a better position, with all of its records, to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
This viewed was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, who said, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.
"I expect that people will be surprised by these figures," she said. "I think it is very important that, rather than questioning them, people realize there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq."
The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after.
The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates.
According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."
Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.
Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.
Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results.
He thinks further evidence of the survey's robustness is that the steepness of the upward trend it found in excess deaths in the last two years is roughly the same tendency found by other groups -- even though the actual numbers differ greatly.
An independent group of researchers and biostatisticians based in England produces the Iraq Body Count. It estimates that there have been 44,000 to 49,000 civilian deaths since the invasion. An Iraqi nongovernmental organization estimated 128,000 deaths between the invasion and July 2005.
The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies.
m II - 08 Dec 2006 05:49 GMT > The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts > Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. Well, what would you expect from this hotbed of subversive Islamo-Fascist misfits? Of COURSE they're going to say whatever will put the present administration in a bad light. I understand this campus of n'er-do-wells actually has BEARDED misanthropes walking it's halls.
Sheeeshh...whatever happened to unbiased, SCIENTIFIC research?
mike
niceparking - 08 Dec 2006 19:48 GMT > > The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts > > Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sheeeshh...whatever happened to unbiased, SCIENTIFIC research? Hello, are you paying attention? The scientific research is being conducted by doctors from the must illustrious institutions in the world. You didn't like what they had to say, is my guess...
Scott W - 08 Dec 2006 19:54 GMT > > > The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts > > > Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > world. > You didn't like what they had to say, is my guess... I belive you might have missed the humor in m II's post? The "BEARDED misanthropes" is your clue.
Scott
William Graham - 09 Dec 2006 00:14 GMT >> > > The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts >> > > Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Scott I caught your irony, Scott.....:^)
William Graham - 08 Dec 2006 07:03 GMT > Here is an article you might find interesting, given your interest in > Iraqi life spans and such. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March > 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. (snip details of report)
Yes....I have heard about this report, and have little reason to doubt it's findings. the question that I have about it all is this: Should the people in this world who can do something about the tyrants and murders actually try to help, or should they just turn their backs on the carnage and hide from it? IOW, what would you have us do about people like Saddam Hussein? - He was not likely to cause us personally any harm, since both we and the Israelis could (apparently) tell if he had nuclear capability, so perhaps we shouldn't have attacked him for that reason. But the world is full of maniacs like him and Kim Jong Ill, and the Iranian and Syrian governments and those rebels in Darfor and other places where people are living miserable lives, and being slaughtered wantonly while we live high on the hog here in the US, and eat up the environment to feed our fat faces. To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of the world is going to stomp us into the dirt. We can't keep them from learning how to build the wmd's and from stealing enough money from their people to buy them from idiots like the French and Russians, and we are living on borrowed time. We can just appease these tyrants, and stand idly by while they eat their own people alive, and hope that they will leave us alone. This seemed to work as long as they were afraid of us and didn't want us to kill them. But now, they have this ridiculous religion where they believe the only way into heaven is by killing "Infidels", and this means that leaving us alone isn't going to satisfy them. They are going to come over here and either destroy us, or make life miserable for us by trying. So what do you want to do about it? - Just hide from them, or take the bull by the horns and bring the fight to them on their own soil? I liken that Iraq report to the idea that we could save tons of money in this country by eliminating all our police forces and just turning out backs on criminals. For a while, we would be way ahead of the game, because it costs us a bundle to maintain a police force in every little town and berg in this country. But, sooner or later, the criminals would become more and more numerous, and there would be terror on the streets....the lights would go out, and the land would become a bad, bad place to be. You have to consider two things.....Not only how many lives have been lost, but exactly whose lives? Saddam was killing innocents, and our armed forces are killing Saddam's elite guard, and terrorists. It's just like the anti gunners throwing everyone who gets killed by a gun in the same "no-no" basket.....While people like me say, "But some of those people should have been killed." So, if you just throw everyone into one basket, then yes, the war has cost a lot of lives. But if most of those lives were rapists and murderers, then maybe it was still worth while. - I don't know the answer either....I just know that I am afraid of powerful people who aren't afraid to die, because they think they will go to some happy hunting ground for all eternity, and I can't convince them that that isn't true, because I can't even convince my own friends and relatives that their Christian myth isn't true either......I am just glad that I have lived most of my life fat and happy, without a care in the world. I'm glad that I was born in 1935, instead of 2135, or even 2035......
Joseph Kewfi - 08 Dec 2006 08:53 GMT > To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of the > world is going to stomp us into the dirt. If the "rest of the world" wanted to do that it would have been done already, by stopping buying American products, removing the Dollar as a global reserve currency etc etc etc....
The real questions are not explicitly answered in the report, that's should not be construed as meaning the report is worthless, it's worth is mainly as a historical document in relation to how not to handle an occupation/nation building project in a land with extreme sectarian divides, nevermind the minor irritation that is Al-Qaeda.
Which side is the USA taking in this war? when Bush talks about the 'Iraqi people' who is he talking about? Sunni's, Shia or Kurds, they are all engaging in the violence that has taken over that former nation state Iraq. Bush is embracing Nouri Al-Maliki (Shia) as if he can do something about the violence, considering he is partnered with Al-Sadr in the 'Iraqi Parliament', who was previously (2004) being called a terrorist for the attacks his private army was levelling on US forces. Al-Sadr's militia are the ones who have infiltrated the Iraqi police forces and the Iraqi Army, they are the ones operating the targeted death squads on members of the other main sect the Sunni's, by their capturing of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, through the new made in the USA democratic process, the Interior Ministry is now a major intelligence gathering hub for Iran and it's Shia surrogates in Iraq itself. The Sunni's are the main resistance to the illegal foreign invasion and occupation, oppose Shia (Iranian) domination which is the main by product of the made in the USA democratic process, the numerical majority Shia and the Kurds supporting them for their own selfish ends, have pushed the Nationalistic Iraqi Sunni's into an unholy alliance with Al-Qaeda out of protective necessity, Al-Qaeda are brutal fundamentalist savages and have been responsible for the more spectacular attacks on Shia civilians, having no natural ties to either the Nationalistic Iraqi Sunni's or the old Iraqi nation generally, they are only motivated by their draconian interpretation of Islam and scoring a tactical defeat of the occupation forces (US mainly) for the purposes of further recruitment in other arenas of conflict between Western foreign policy and their interpretation of Islamic values.
My solution is based on the realities of the region, if America favours the Shia (through democratic election) who are more loyal to Iran than their own mothers, America will be giving Iran the area of the former Iraq that contains 60% of it's mineral resources, Iran is already in a very strong position in the region, due to high oil prices, it's alliance with Syria and their shared success with Hezbollah over Israel this past summer, their power over Lebanon and their growing influence on Russia and China at the UN Security Council, giving them the continuing ability to thwart the possibility of any real sanctions regime being applied over their nuclear program. They can continue to thumb their noses at the USA and are high unlikely to do anything to help stabilise Iraq when they are gaining leverage in the region and the humiliation of an American President through the escalating chaos. It is clear that American troops and the other foreign forces cannot remain indefinitely in Iraq to play the part of a rag doll being tossed around for Iranian amusement. George W.Bush needs to make his excuses (national security, threat of civil war etc) and abandon the ill-feted, fantasy based democrazy project for Iraq by dissolving the parliament and presidency. Recognise if however belatedly, that Saddam was not a brutal fluke, but merely a product of his environment, promptly have the US government itself take control of the organs of power that are left of the Iraqi state, on an interim basis until a new Nationalistic Sunni dictatorship allowing a higher degree of freedom than the previous, can be installed to take firm control of Iraq and uphold inherent Western interests through a treaty of alliance, use the remaining time until January 2009 to train an all-Sunni Iraqi army while having all coalition forces pacify any resistance adding additional troops if required, a total media blackout will be necessary, to prevent reporting of any potential atrocities during the pacification process.
Although it is regrettable that none of the President's advisers bothered to explain the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims pre-invasion, George W. Bush need not leave office a total failure, he'll have removed Saddam and installed a more friendly, stable, secure Iraqi regime damaging Iran's ambitions in the process, or he can keep doing nothing and hope for the best, which is merely Iranian domination with the figleaf of Iraqi democracy, more slaughter and serious problems for future American Presidents and the world in the Middle East. At worst total collapse, full blown civil war in all area's of Iraq, leading to military interventions by Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia with likely annexations of parts of the former Iraq, to any or all of the above, nightmare scenario decades of war and instability. Total cluster fu*k failure for Dubya's legacy, you're the decider George, hurry up, stop fu*king dabbling and decide, enough resources have been squandered human and material.
>> Here is an article you might find interesting, given your interest in >> Iraqi life spans and such. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > most of my life fat and happy, without a care in the world. I'm glad that > I was born in 1935, instead of 2135, or even 2035...... Pudentame - 09 Dec 2006 00:34 GMT >> To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of the >> world is going to stomp us into the dirt. > > If the "rest of the world" wanted to do that it would have been done > already, by stopping buying American products, removing the Dollar as a > global reserve currency etc etc etc.... I expect we're headed that way anyway, not because the rest of the world hates us, but what with record deficits, and record trade imbalances ... we're bankrupting the nation to line the pockets of a few corporate campaign contributers.
I wonder which the current administration sees as a bigger threat ... Iran's nuclear ambitions or Iran's proposed Euro-denominated Oil bourse? Funny, the former didn't become such a big issue until the latter surfaced.
If memory serves, Saddam proposed to trade Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars just before the PNAC crazies decided we needed to take him out.
William Graham - 09 Dec 2006 01:29 GMT >>> To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of >>> the world is going to stomp us into the dirt. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > we're bankrupting the nation to line the pockets of a few corporate > campaign contributers. This I have to disagree with. the stock market continues to climb, and like it or not, these people (the stock buying public) are the most skittish people on earth. If there were any potential problem, they would never have driven the Dow up over the 12 thousand mark.
> I wonder which the current administration sees as a bigger threat ... > Iran's nuclear ambitions or Iran's proposed Euro-denominated Oil bourse? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If memory serves, Saddam proposed to trade Iraqi oil in Euros instead of > dollars just before the PNAC crazies decided we needed to take him out. Another non-sequitor.....The name of the currency doesn't make a damn....You can buy and sell any of it on the market on a daily basis....If you don't like dollars, well then trade them for Euros....."Es macht nichts."
Joseph Kewfi - 09 Dec 2006 20:55 GMT > Another non-sequitor.....The name of the currency doesn't make a > damn....You can buy and sell any of it on the market on a daily > basis....If you don't like dollars, well then trade them for Euros....."Es > macht nichts." You don't understand oil politics if you believe it "doesn't make a damn" whether the US Dollar is a reserve currency or not, without the Dollar being a global reserve currency you certainly would not have the same level of living standards you currently enjoy in the US, and the US government would be able to afford to do the things it does militararily in the world, you should do some research about this issue.
>>>> To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of >>>> the world is going to stomp us into the dirt. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > basis....If you don't like dollars, well then trade them for Euros....."Es > macht nichts." Walter Banks - 10 Dec 2006 14:02 GMT > This I have to disagree with. the stock market continues to climb, and like > it or not, these people (the stock buying public) are the most skittish > people on earth. If there were any potential problem, they would never have > driven the Dow up over the 12 thousand mark. How much of the stock market growth has been due to the decline in the US dollar against other world currencies?
If you normalize value against world currencies the US stock market has lost 30 -35% in the last 6 years.
w..
William Graham - 10 Dec 2006 23:41 GMT >> This I have to disagree with. the stock market continues to climb, and >> like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > w.. There has to be something wrong with your assessment. I am living better now than I have ever lived, and 3/4 of my income comes from the stock market. I haven't earned a dime since August, 1996 when I retired. If the buying power of my money had deteriorated as much as you say, I would be in very bad shape right now....We are living high on the hog, with two cars, a motorcycle, a 5 bedroom 3-1/2 bath two story house, and four cats eating us out of house and home. In fact, most of our consumables have decreased in price over the last ten years because of the cheap Chinese labor, and the stores like Wal-Mart that utilize it. For example: 10 years ago, I was buying 60 watt incandescent light bulbs for $2.00 each, and they only lasted less than 500 hours. Today, I can buy fluorescents that only draw 12 watts each, put out the same amount of light, and last over 1000 hours, and they only cost me $1.20 each.....I have a case of 50 of them on my kitchen floor right now. As a matter of fact, my electric bill is about 20% smaller today than it was 10 years ago, and my income (from the stock market) has increased by over 20% during that same time period. So I don't know who you are talking about when you say that things are worse.......30 years ago I went to Europe with some friends of mine, and we had to pay $3.50 a gallon for gasoline in Austria. Today, 30 years later, I just filled my tank for $2.50 a gallon here in Salem, Oregon. My wife's daughter and her husband are both Nurses in the Bay Area in California, and they are making about $70 an hour. Their daughter and her husband are both lawyers, and I hesitate to tell you what they are making....You wouldn't believe it.......Let's just say that they just (about two years ago) bought a house in Hillsborough for 600 thousand....It was a "fixer upper" and they put less than a hundred thousand in it and it's now worth over a million...... So I keep hearing about how bad things are from the Democrats, but I don't see it.......
William Graham - 09 Dec 2006 00:39 GMT >> To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of >> the world is going to stomp us into the dirt. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > occupation/nation building project in a land with extreme sectarian > divides, nevermind the minor irritation that is Al-Qaeda. Yes. I see the report as basically telling us that Bush has been doing the right thing all along, (once the mistake of attacking Iraq in the first place had been accomplished) No one could have predicted that the various religious fanatics wouldn't have been able to accept a democratic form of government. Apparently the only way to keep people like that in check is by keeping a knife at their throats 24/7. A couple of years ago I posted that I thought there was a possibility that Iraq would erupt into a cival war......It is still a very big possibility.....Especially if we pull out now.
> Which side is the USA taking in this war? when Bush talks about the 'Iraqi > people' who is he talking about? Sunni's, Shia or Kurds, they are all > engaging in the violence that has taken over that former nation state > Iraq. This is why I would like to see a new Iraqi election, where we ask the question, "Would you like to see the American (Coalition) forces leave right now? (yes or no) At least we would know for sure whether the majority of the Iraqis want us to leave.
> Bush is embracing Nouri Al-Maliki (Shia) as if he can do something about > the violence, considering he is partnered with Al-Sadr in the 'Iraqi [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > you're the decider George, hurry up, stop fu*king dabbling and decide, > enough resources have been squandered human and material. Any attempt we make to guide a new theocracy in Iraq will be ill taken by everyone except the particular theocracy that ends up in power. If we have to leave, then we should just leave, and let whatever transpires after that just happen. Apparently those people cannot be democratically governed. I believe the reason for this is several centuries of religious schooling, but what do I know?
Annika1980 - 09 Dec 2006 03:29 GMT > No one could have predicted that the various > religious fanatics wouldn't have been able to accept a democratic form of > government. I think almost everyone with a brain could have predicted that.
Someone e-mailed me about a Bush bumper sticker with his photo on it. Above the pic it said, "BUSH, LIKE A ROCK...." Below the pic it read, "ONLY DUMBER!"
William Graham - 09 Dec 2006 06:31 GMT >> No one could have predicted that the various >> religious fanatics wouldn't have been able to accept a democratic form of >> government. > > I think almost everyone with a brain could have predicted that. IIRC, an awful lot of Democrats didn't predict it.....Oh, they sure did on the next Monday morning, but not on Friday evening.......
Joseph Kewfi - 09 Dec 2006 22:03 GMT >Yes. I see the report as basically telling us that Bush has been doing the >right thing all along, (once the mistake of attacking Iraq in the first >place had been accomplished) No one could have predicted that the various >religious fanatics wouldn't have been able to accept a democratic form of >government. I don't accept the logic of this statement, If they're "religious fanatics" and that is supposedly known before hand, why would they have any interest in democracy?
> This is why I would like to see a new Iraqi election, where we ask the > question, "Would you like to see the American (Coalition) forces leave > right now? (yes or no) At least we would know for sure whether the > majority of the Iraqis want us to leave. It was never about what Iraqi's want, the invasion of Iraq is about cold hard Western interests, withdrawal now is an absolute impossibility, the situation will have to be brought to a decisive conclusion one way or another first, at the moment everything is up in the air with all sides jockeying for power and influence, using violence as their principal tool. Bush must decide how Western interests are best served, either by turning Iraq over to Iran (through democratic elections) where the majority (Shia) will prevail, or by installing a new (Sunni) dictator compliant with Western needs with the ability to secure Iraq from neighbouring states interference, and provide a stable environment for Iraqi's to live with limited freedoms as before. Democracy is a luxury, it is not necessary to have a successful state, look at China. I am a realist, it has been said that Bush is a dogmatic ideologue, I do hope that really isn't the case.
> Any attempt we make to guide a new theocracy in Iraq will be ill taken by > everyone except the particular theocracy that ends up in power. If we have > to leave, then we should just leave, and let whatever transpires after > that just happen. Apparently those people cannot be democratically > governed. I believe the reason for this is several centuries of religious > schooling, but what do I know? Who cares who's feelings get hurt, the invasion and occupation are a Western power play that the whole world has been turned off by anyway, history will forgive Bush for installing a new dictatorship as it is proven that Iraqi democracy cannot even provide for the most basic need of the population : personal security. Leaving the situation and saying to hell with it, is not an option, you will be proving that the West is weak and decadent, cannot sustain even minor human casualties (3000) and gives up easily when things don't go right. Nothing that is going on in Iraq is really about religion, it's about power and influence and which group has the most, Islam is just their figleaf.
When the Pentagon report comes out it will be very interesting to see the differences with respect to Baker/Hamilton Report. http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2712135&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Notice the part where it advises: Taking steps to curb Iranian interference in Iraq & Using U.S. special operations troops to target the leaders in Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army. That's a controversial and dangerous proposition that would be done only if the Iraqi government agrees to it. (which it won't of course because its dominated by Shia Muslims)
Can't say I'm unhappy about this either. http://cbs11tv.com/worldwire/Iraq-SaddamsNephew_a_i_-----/resources_news_html
>>> To me, the handwriting is on the wall. Sooner of later, the rest of >>> the world is going to stomp us into the dirt. [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > governed. I believe the reason for this is several centuries of religious > schooling, but what do I know? William Graham - 10 Dec 2006 04:34 GMT > I don't accept the logic of this statement, If they're "religious > fanatics" and that is supposedly known before hand, why would they have > any interest in democracy? Well, the world (including the United States) is full of religious fanatics. It's just that most of them aren't willing to die for their beliefs. It seems that these Moslim radicals do, and that puts them in a totally different category in my book....Anyone who thinks like that is damn dangerous, and I really don't think they and I can share the same earth together....IOW, this planet isn't big enough to house me and people like that. so I am committed to killing as many of them as I can, before they can kill me. I'm not sure that we were really well advised on this point before 9/11. IOW, 9/11 brought it to our attention in spades.........At least it has been brought to MY attention....I fear that there are too many other Americans that still don't really understand the problem. The problem is this: These people want us dead. Nothing short of that will ever satisfy them. So, I suggest that you choose sides now. Either join them or us. As an atheist, I have little choice. It's just that I see no point in pussy footing around. It doesn't matter how or why we start killing them, We should just do it now, as soon as possible, before they become any stronger or better able to defend themselves.
Joseph Kewfi - 10 Dec 2006 04:55 GMT > So, I suggest that you choose sides now. Either join them or us. As an > atheist, I have little choice. It's just that I see no point in pussy > footing around. It doesn't matter how or why we start killing them, We > should just do it now, as soon as possible, before they become any > stronger or better able to defend themselves. You're talking and thinking like a fanatic. It is not a simple black and white question of one side versus the other, you are suggesting, that because there are a handful of Muslim extremists then that justifies genocide of all Muslims, you fail to realise there are 1 billion+ Muslims in the world, how many are Al Qaeda maybe 5,000? killing people off isn't the answer to complex political questions, if it were Hitler would have been a real winner.
>> I don't accept the logic of this statement, If they're "religious >> fanatics" and that is supposedly known before hand, why would they have [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > killing them, We should just do it now, as soon as possible, before they > become any stronger or better able to defend themselves. William Graham - 10 Dec 2006 05:38 GMT >> So, I suggest that you choose sides now. Either join them or us. As an >> atheist, I have little choice. It's just that I see no point in pussy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the answer to complex political questions, if it were Hitler would have > been a real winner. I didn't say kill all Muslims. But I do expect those who want to join my side to be very clear about it....It is not the time to hide and not make your allegiance known. So far, I haven't seen a lot of support for my side from the Muslim community....So, if I were to start shooting right now, the distinctions might be a little blurred...... In any case, the primary reason why I support George Bush in this "war" is because he is commissioning soldiers to kill these terrorists, and many of the ones he is killing are these fanatical Muslims who believe that Allah wants me dead. So, I am willing to live with one less SUV so I can support the effort. This is, in the long run, a good thing, and especially so since the killing is taking place on the other side of the world from me and mine. I don't even stand much chance of getting hurt as a result of, "peripheral damage."
m II - 10 Dec 2006 05:45 GMT > In any case, the primary reason why I support George Bush in this "war" > is because he is commissioning soldiers to kill these terrorists, and many > of the ones he is killing are these fanatical Muslims who believe that Allah > wants me dead. Those commissioned murderers don't know when to stop.
========================================= "The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed the animals." The report includes the observation of local medics that all of the bodies had bullet wounds in the head.
http://snipurl.com/14oy8 =========================================
William Graham - 10 Dec 2006 05:57 GMT >> In any case, the primary reason why I support George Bush in this >> "war" is because he is commissioning soldiers to kill these terrorists, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://snipurl.com/14oy8 Sorry, but I don't like (know) your sources.....Not that mistakes are never made, or bad things never happen, but at least it's not our normal policy to kill innocents. Whereas, the radical Muslims are busy right now, even as we speak, teaching their grammar schoolers that the only way to get into heaven is by killing infidels. (Defined as Jews and Americans) We happen to be teaching our grammar schoolers reading, writing, and arithmetic. - Makes a big difference to me.
m II - 10 Dec 2006 16:31 GMT > Sorry, but I don't like (know) your sources.. A convenient way of side stepping atrocities. Wake up, Mister Graham.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7przeLpl2s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja8kuAHQaWQ http://egyptelection.com/content/view/207/35/ http://www.jimmacmillan.com/iraq/images/35.jpg http://dailymailnews.com/200603/27/news/dmboxitem.html
http://www.bartcop.com/plane-know.gif
mike
m II - 10 Dec 2006 05:18 GMT > Apparently the only way to keep people like that in check is by > keeping a knife at their throats 24/7. I thought Saddam was already doing that for free. Why is the US spending so much money in order to duplicate an existing service? He was also keeping Iran in check, if memory serves.
Your tax dollars at work:
=============================================== On March 11, the occupation soldiers raided the house, grabbed the girl, raped her and burned her body. Then they shot dead the rest of the family members, including a child.
http://snipurl.com/14ox6 ===============================================
mike
William Graham - 10 Dec 2006 05:41 GMT >> Apparently the only way to keep people like that in check is by keeping a >> knife at their throats 24/7. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Your tax dollars at work: You are right about that. Of course, he wasn't killing them off. (at least, not the right ones) And they were (and are) still teaching their kids to kill us in order to get into heaven, so the conflict was inevitable.....I just think that the sooner, the better.
Doug Robbins - 08 Dec 2006 14:40 GMT What does this have to do with photography? Post your off topic BS somewhere else.
> Here is an article you might find interesting, given your interest in > Iraqi life spans and such. [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts > Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. Annika1980 - 08 Dec 2006 14:42 GMT > What does this have to do with photography? Post your off topic BS somewhere > else. The 20D would love to photograph you kissin my a.s.
Doug Robbins - 08 Dec 2006 14:53 GMT Why don't you take your Canon IS zoom lens and shove it up there.
>> What does this have to do with photography? Post your off topic BS >> somewhere >> else. > > The 20D would love to photograph you kissin my a.s. Colin_D - 08 Dec 2006 20:11 GMT > Why don't you take your Canon IS zoom lens and shove it up there. > >>> What does this have to do with photography? Post your off topic BS >>> somewhere >>> else. >> The 20D would love to photograph you kissin my a.s. Geez Doug, lighten up some. You've got zero sense of humor.
Colin D.
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Annika1980 - 08 Dec 2006 23:29 GMT > >> The 20D would love to photograph you kissin my a.s. > >> > > Why don't you take your Canon IS zoom lens and shove it up there.
> Geez Doug, lighten up some. You've got zero sense of humor. That's the thanks I get for bringing this post back on topic.
Scott W - 08 Dec 2006 23:47 GMT > > >> The 20D would love to photograph you kissin my a.s. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's the thanks I get for bringing this post back on topic. Whereas I am sure we all appreciate your attempt to get back on topic in the highly unlikely event you do get the aforementioned photo please oh please do not post it.
We all thank you,
Scott
William Graham - 09 Dec 2006 00:44 GMT >> > >> The 20D would love to photograph you kissin my a.s. >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott I wish you guys wouldn't title these threads with my name....I don't know if I wrote the posts myself or not....(Life is confusing enough for me as it is.....:^)
|
|
|