Iraq Bodycount Released (UPI)

  • #1
The Smoking Man
47
0
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r [Broken]

Iraqi civilian casualties
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published July 12, 2005

BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

The number includes those who died during the U.S. assaults on al-Fallujah and al-Qa'im. 'Iraqiyun's figures conflict with the Iraqi Body Count public database compiled by Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies' database, 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since March 2003. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued by the Pentagon, which insists that it does not do "body counts." The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
The Smoking Man said:
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r [Broken]

Iraqi civilian casualties
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published July 12, 2005

BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.
As 1,755 is approximately the same number of Iraqi troops thought to have been killed during the 2003 war does that make it a military draw? :tongue2:

Correction: 1700 - 2200 is the estimate for Iraqi forces killed by air attack. The total of Iraqi combatants killed between 20 March - 20 April is thought to be between 4900 - 6370.

Reported Iraqi Combatant Fatalities in the 2003 War
(adjusted to correct for casualty inflation)

Baghdad area 1,700 - 2,120
Basra area (including Rumaylah, Az Zubayr, Abu al Khasib, Safwan, Umm Qasr, and Al Faw) 425 - 555
Nasiriyah area (including Tallil and areas to the north toward As Samawah and Ashatrah) 360 - 430
Samawah area 150 - 210
Diwaniyah area and Afak 95 - 120
Najaf area 590 - 780
Al Hillah area including Kifl 295 - 365
Hindiyah area 40 - 50
Al Kut area (including Numaniyah) 190 - 225
Karbala, Karbala gap, and north to Baghdad
(including Mussayib and Latifiyah) 800 - 1,100
Northern Front (including Kirkuk, Mosul, Tikrit) 230 - 375
Special operations in western Iraq 20 - 40
Total observed and reported Iraqi combatant fatalities
-- Baghdad: 1,700 - 2,120
-- Outside Baghdad: 3,195 - 4,250
-- Total 4,895 - 6,370
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
21,953
8,987
Art said:
As 1,755 is approximately the same number of Iraqi troops thought to have been killed during the 1993 war...
Source...?
 
  • #4
Townsend
221
0
Art said:
As 1,755 is approximately the same number of Iraqi troops thought to have been killed during the 2003 war does that make it a military draw? :tongue2:

Number of troops killed does not make a difference...The North won against the South but the South killed a lot more Yankees...agreed?
 
  • #5
stoned
82
0
we have to multiply that number by 10.
 
  • #6
Spin_Network
375
0
The Smoking Man said:
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r [Broken]

Iraqi civilian casualties
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published July 12, 2005

BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

The number includes those who died during the U.S. assaults on al-Fallujah and al-Qa'im. 'Iraqiyun's figures conflict with the Iraqi Body Count public database compiled by Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies' database, 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since March 2003. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued by the Pentagon, which insists that it does not do "body counts." The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.

And it is known that most of the innocent casualties killed, have been by 'suicide bombers'!..by insurgents.

Have the American's had a 'suicide policy', then no doubt the head-count would be vastly increased.

Do the Maths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
one_raven
203
0
Spin_Network said:
And it is known that most of the innocent casualties killed, have been by 'suicide bombers'!..by insurgents.

No one has disputed that many (though, I seriously doubt MOST, please quote a source of who "knows" that) deaths were caused by suicide bombers.

The statement is, "This is how many deaths there were."

The question is, "How many deaths due to suicide bombers were there BEFORE the US led invasion?"
 
  • #8
Spin_Network
375
0
one_raven said:
No one has disputed that many (though, I seriously doubt MOST, please quote a source of who "knows" that) deaths were caused by suicide bombers.

The statement is, "This is how many deaths there were."

The question is, "How many deaths due to suicide bombers were there BEFORE the US led invasion?"

Well depending on how one looks at things, I would say that the Iraq><Iran skirmish, constitues 'Suicidal-Tendancies', in that most Iraqi's were 'not' press-ganged into the conflict by Saddam Insane, they were up for a "mass-suicide" conflict.

So if one goes back to the late 1970s, who knows?

Currently, I think personally that everyday 'suicide-bombings' are by non-iraqi's, this is not to say that there are no local idiology driven idiots, it just seems plausable.
 
  • #9
The Smoking Man
47
0
Spin_Network said:
Well depending on how one looks at things, I would say that the Iraq><Iran skirmish, constitues 'Suicidal-Tendancies', in that most Iraqi's were 'not' press-ganged into the conflict by Saddam Insane, they were up for a "mass-suicide" conflict.

So if one goes back to the late 1970s, who knows?

Currently, I think personally that everyday 'suicide-bombings' are by non-iraqi's, this is not to say that there are no local idiology driven idiots, it just seems plausable.
Oh, I don't know ... there were cases of soldiers turning up in dancing shoes in Gulf War 1. They were the ones who threw their hands in the air upon seeing a GI.

Also, considering that the Sunis were and ARE of the same religious sect, there would NOT have been a race to sign up.

Neither were they keen on fighting for a secular leader AGAINST Moslems since Islam provides for some nasty sentencing for Moslem killing Moslem.

So what is it you're trying to prove? That Saddam was training suicide bombers? LOL.
 
  • #10
one_raven
203
0
Spin_Network said:
Currently, I think personally that everyday 'suicide-bombings' are by non-iraqi's, this is not to say that there are no local idiology driven idiots, it just seems plausable.

I agree.
And they weren't happening before.
Which, if you want to look at it pragmatically, seems to me that the US led invasion of Iraq has made the country a much more violent and dangerous place and is at least partly to blame for the majority of the current wave of suicide bombings.
 
  • #11
The Smoking Man
47
0
one_raven said:
I agree.
And they weren't happening before.
Which, if you want to look at it pragmatically, seems to me that the US led invasion of Iraq has made the country a much more violent and dangerous place and is at least partly to blame for the majority of the current wave of suicide bombings.
The converse view is that Saddam actually had managed to keep his country free of terrorism simply by enacting massive reprisals when an attack might occur.

While we look at the Northern Kurds as people fighting a just war against Saddam, he looked upon them as rebels and terrorists. He just gassed them.

Similar things have been noted after the downfall of the USSR. Lots of nations devolved into internal wars with ethnic cleansing upon receiving their freedom.

Does anyone here think that if China was to have capitulated to the demands of Tianmen protestors that they would NOT have devolved back into the 'Warring States' period of their history with none of the subsequent 'nation states' represented in the UN?

Brutal regimes may be nasty but they certainly limit the number of terrorist attacks in their areas.

And NO I don't support all these brutal dictators just becasue I make an observation about reality.
(That's for those of you who have a penchant for reading in about 10 lines of things I didn't say.)
 
  • #12
Spin_Network said:
Currently, I think personally that everyday 'suicide-bombings' are by non-iraqi's, this is not to say that there are no local idiology driven idiots, it just seems plausable.
Your use of the words 'local ideology driven idiots' to describe people who are fighting against the invasion and occupation of their country is interesting; if your country were invaded, I imagine you would want some such 'idiots' to do something about the situation.

EDIT: I do not condone suicide-bombings as a tactic of resistance to foreign invasion. I do, however, understand why people would want to resist domination by foreign forces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
The Smoking Man
47
0
alexandra said:
EDIT: I do not condone suicide-bombings as a tactic of resistance to foreign invasion. I do, however, understand why people would want to resist domination by foreign forces.
It truly is a shame that we are now required to post these disclaimers or risk being accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
 
  • #14
The Smoking Man said:
It truly is a shame that we are now required to post these disclaimers or risk being accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
Sign of the times, TSM - remember, 'you're either with us or against us' :uhh: It's all 'black' or 'white' nowadays, so if you mean a specific shade of grey, you'd better state this explicitly. It is a shame, I agree - but, oh well: our brave new world (the second time I've used this phrase tonight - I think this is all really getting at me now) :cry:
 
  • #15
Spin_Network said:
And it is known that most of the innocent casualties killed, have been by 'suicide bombers'!..by insurgents.

Have the American's had a 'suicide policy', then no doubt the head-count would be vastly increased.

Do the Maths.
Actually it is known (per link posted on other thread) that US forces are responsible for 37% of civilian deaths and the 'suicide bombers' for just 9.5% (and that's including police and recruits as civilians)
 
  • #16
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
Also a question to ask is how does the body count in Iraq compare with 9-11? Seems we're running more and more of a deficit with each passing day. In the meantime, I found this site that has a lot of detail on the death toll in Iraq:

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=2062346627585&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
Art said:
Actually it is known (per link posted on other thread) that US forces are responsible for 37% of civilian deaths and the 'suicide bombers' for just 9.5% (and that's including police and recruits as civilians)
Actually it is not known fact. The figures come from A Dossier on Civilain Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005. These figures were arrived at via the numbers printed news articles sorted by people here in the US from various different media sources. I'd have to say that the source material is relatively dubious to begin with but then supposedly the project manager for the dossier has used questionable methodology, not having any qualification as a statistician from what I have read, and has refused to allow certain persons to evaluate his methodology and source material(again, this is what I have read). I'm not saying that it's all fiction just that it seems somewhat questionable.
Secondly how about we check what exactly the source of these statistics says anyway. The dossier states that 30% of the total were killed by the US in the initial invasion, while the US was fighting the Iraqi military forces. Considering this then, during the time that the US has been dealing with the insurgent forces, the US has been responsable for 7% of the total which is lower(granted not by much) than the percentage attributed to the insurgents. The only insurgent attacks that were counted among the 9.5% you mention were ones specifically aimed at military targets. Any attacks that were not specifically aimed at military targets fell under Unknown Agents which makes up 11%. Then there is also the rather fuzzy category of Predominantly Criminal Killings. This may seem like I'm being nit picky but I think it paints a more accurate picture of what these statistics you are citing say.

Also here's a link to the source straight from the IBC press releases page...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php
Another thing to point out is that this disagrees rather wildly with the subject of the OP.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
TheStatutoryApe said:
Actually it is not known fact. The figures come from A Dossier on Civilain Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005. These figures were arrived at via the numbers printed news articles sorted by people here in the US from various different media sources. I'd have to say that the source material is relatively dubious to begin with but then supposedly the project manager for the dossier has used questionable methodology, not having any qualification as a statistician from what I have read, and has refused to allow certain persons to evaluate his methodology and source material (again, this is what I have read). I'm not saying that it's all fiction just that it seems somewhat questionable.
Secondly how about we check what exactly the source of these statistics says anyway. The dossier states that 30% of the total were killed by the US in the initial invasion, while the US was fighting the Iraqi military forces. Considering this then, during the time that the US has been dealing with the insurgent forces, the US has been responsable for 7% of the total which is lower(granted not by much) than the percentage attributed to the insurgents. The only insurgent attacks that were counted among the 9.5% you mention were ones specifically aimed at military targets. Any attacks that were not specifically aimed at military targets fell under Unknown Agents which makes up 11%. Then there is also the rather fuzzy category of Predominantly Criminal Killings. This may seem like I'm being nit picky but I think it paints a more accurate picture of what these statistics you are citing say.

Also here's a link to the source straight from the IBC press releases page...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php
Another thing to point out is that this disagrees rather wildly with the subject of the OP.
This posting is very reminiscent of the poem Tomlinson's Ghost by R. Kipling :smile:
Perhaps you should read the report before criticising it. At least you could then critique it from a position of knowledge rather than 'I read a piece that said this or I heard a guy who thought that' You will find the methodology and source material is extremely well documented throughout.

BTW in relation to the insurgents and unknown agents you referenced above you neglected to mention that the report says
The ‘unknown agents’ category is therefore likely to overlap to an extent with the ‘crime’ and ‘anti-occupation forces’ categories, but may also overlap with the ‘US-led forces’ category, since some of those killed were clearly opposed to the military occupation.
Perhaps you should also have a look at the Oxford Research Groups's home page to view their credentials before trying to dismiss their report. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/aims.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
21,953
8,987
alexandra said:
Your use of the words 'local ideology driven idiots' to describe people who are fighting against the invasion and occupation of their country is interesting; if your country were invaded, I imagine you would want some such 'idiots' to do something about the situation.

EDIT: I do not condone suicide-bombings as a tactic of resistance to foreign invasion. I do, however, understand why people would want to resist domination by foreign forces.
The Smoking Man said:
It truly is a shame that we are now required to post these disclaimers or risk being accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
Be careful saying you can see things from behind the eyes of people who may become murderers. It makes your condemnation appear self-contradictory.

[edited on request from Evo]
 
Last edited:
  • #20
russ_watters said:
Risk being accused?? She said flat out in the disclaimer that she is a terrorist sympathizer! - to "understand" their situation/position/emotions is the definition of the word "sympathize".
I thought we had settled the debate over what constitutes terrorism?? Insurgents fighting against an occupying army are not terrorists. Check with D. Rumsfeld if you doubt this.
russ_watters said:
I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder.
That's an interesting point of view because the excuse used by the apologists when US forces inflict civilian deaths or torture prisoners is that we need to 'understand' the pressure etc. that they are under. Double standards perhaps? Or just plain bias?
 
  • #21
El Hombre Invisible
691
0
Art said:
Double standards perhaps? Or just plain bias?
Remove the 'i' and the 'a' from 'bias' and you'll be nearer the mark. Alexandra did not offer sympathy with those who would strap on bombs and cause terror, but with those that would seek to 'resist domination by foreign forces'. No method of resistance was suggested in her disclaimer. Russ is simply flinging propaganda around with his usual lack of respect for others' feelings.

As for 'understanding' being an unacceptable response to murder, I wonder where criminal profilers would be without it.
 
  • #22
russ_watters said:
Risk being accused?? She said flat out in the disclaimer that she is a terrorist sympathizer! - to "understand" their situation/position/emotions is the definition of the word "sympathize". I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder.

And that's even setting aside the fact that the vast majority of these attacks are not directed against the US, as she suggested in her first paragraph.
No, Russ, I do not condone those tactics. Don't you dare accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser! This is a personal attack, and I wonder why no-one in authority is intervening to tell you to delete this. Oh well, I guess I should not expect any such (official) support here. But I cannot say this any more clearly than this:
I do not support terrorist attacks of civilians - emphasis!
Here is what I do support: I support the right of people not to have their country invaded by foreign forces. No country has the right to decide to invade another country; the territorial integrity of sovereign countries should be respected. Now, Russ, I expect an apology - I am incredibly upset that you should accuse me of this. It is unfair.

EDIT: It is more than unfair - it is libel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Just in case anyone has not got the message yet:

Terrorist attacks on innocent civilian targets are totally unacceptable. I do not now, have not ever, and will not ever in the future support such actions. It is despicable to kill civilians, no matter what one's purpose is. I hope I have made my position completely and totally clear now.

EDIT: I am a real Marxist. What that means is that I do not believe in effecting change through sectarian violence - it can never happen that way; random acts of violence against civilians are evil as well as being foolish and counterproductive (and if anyone cares to read any of my posts they will see that this has been my position consistently throughout all my communications; never once have I even so much as suggested that terrorist tactics are acceptable).

I believe that the only way to effect change is through broad-based popular, intelligent, reasoned action based on the desire of the bulk of the population to change the kind of society they are living in. This involves educating people to critically analyse and understand the kind of society they are living in. It does NOT involve killing people. Now get that straight in your heads, all those who do not understand what a Marxist is, ok? Forget what the mass media tells you, and the crazy destructive groups they choose to call 'marxists' for their propaganda purposes. I am not that sort of so-called miserable excuse of a human being who condones the killing of innocent civilians. You can easily confirm this by reading every one of my posts - but of course, those who hate me (for ideological reasons, I imagine) have already made their minds up and won't bother to give me a fair hearing by doing as I suggest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Oh, and one more thing: don't think that you can intimidate me by accusing me falsely like this, Russ. It is my duty as a human being to speak out against injustice when I see it and to speak the truth as I understand it. If I let your false accusations silence me, I would be (in my own eyes and as a human being) beneath contempt. My life would not be worth living. So these dirty tactics will not silence me. I am not a coward.
 
  • #25
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
901
1
russ_watters said:
Risk being accused?? She said flat out in the disclaimer that she is a terrorist sympathizer! - to "understand" their situation/position/emotions is the definition of the word "sympathize". I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder.

Trying to understand why someone does whatever someone is doing is not synonymous to accepting, or sympathizing, or even taking a moral stand on the action itself. This awkward fallacy seems to be responsible for quite a bit of ranting overall, and what is weird is how can this be turned against Alexandra who is categorically representing the humane side in these discussions.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
hypatia
1,189
9
Yes, understanding and supporting are 2 different things. I understand a lot of things I would never support. As do most of us.
 
  • #27
Nomy-the wanderer
172
1
I would agree with the two gentlemen above, many people are accused of being synmpathizers with soemthing just because they r trying to understand it, not because they accept it...

That's a new problem, people shouldn't judge others this way..Be carefull.
 
  • #28
Smurf
396
3
Don't worry alexandra, Me and Art have been called Terrorist Sympathizers more often than we can count :rofl:
 
  • #29
MaxS
33
0
russ_watters said:
Risk being accused?? She said flat out in the disclaimer that she is a terrorist sympathizer! - to "understand" their situation/position/emotions is the definition of the word "sympathize". I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder.

And that's even setting aside the fact that the vast majority of these attacks are not directed against the US, as she suggested in her first paragraph.

edit - rewriting what i really meant:

Just because you sympathise doesn't mean you agree it simply means you understand.

I guess you're not very big on compassion russ.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
How can you solve the problem if you don't try to understand it? How can you make peace if you ignore one of the parties in a dispute? Why is military action always the solution? IMO, the neocon/hawks in the US are not really interested in solving the problem.
 
  • #31
Bladibla
354
1
MaxS said:
edit - rewriting what i really meant:

Just because you sympathise doesn't mean you agree it simply means you understand.

I guess you're not very big on compassion russ.

Erm..

He said understanding *is* sympathising.

Analyse more carefully before jumping to inane conclusions.
 
  • #32
The Smoking Man
47
0
Bladibla said:
Erm..

He said understanding *is* sympathising.

Analyse more carefully before jumping to inane conclusions.
All well and good except for one thing ... he used the word sympathizer:

sym·pa·thize Audio pronunciation of "sympathizer" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smp-thz)
intr.v. sym·pa·thized, sym·pa·thiz·ing, sym·pa·thiz·es

1. To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.
2. To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another: sympathized with the goals of the committee.
3. To be in accord; correspond.


sympa·thizer n.
sympa·thizing·ly adv.

sympathizer

n
1: commiserates with someone who has had misfortune [syn: sympathiser, comforter]
2: someone who shares your feelings and expresses sympathy or hopes that something will be successful [syn: sympathiser, well-wisher]
Used in conjunction with the word terrorist gives it a connotation that is quite nasty.

She sympathizes with the people who were invaded not terrorism.
 
  • #33
MaxS
33
0
Bladibla said:
Erm..

He said understanding *is* sympathising.

Analyse more carefully before jumping to inane conclusions.

Uh... let's see here:

"I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder."

I think its quite plain what he was trying to imply and watch your mouth.
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
21,953
8,987
Art said:
That's an interesting point of view because the excuse used by the apologists when US forces inflict civilian deaths or torture prisoners is that we need to 'understand' the pressure etc. that they are under. Double standards perhaps? Or just plain bias?
I've never heard that justification. Source?
 
  • #35
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
Art said:
This posting is very reminiscent of the poem Tomlinson's Ghost by R. Kipling :smile:
Perhaps you should read the report before criticising it. At least you could then critique it from a position of knowledge rather than 'I read a piece that said this or I heard a guy who thought that' You will find the methodology and source material is extremely well documented throughout.
Perhaps you could have seen that I have read the report considering that I was quoting it's material and numbers and even provided a link to it. And no the source material is not "extremely well documented", it is just a long winded description of still mostly anonymous material. A description that you more or less have to take on faith because there is no bibliography of the actual source material. Yes I pointed out that I had read negative things in regard to the report and I added that this is simply what I had read, meaning not necessarily true, as opposed to others who parrot numbers from news articles and refer to them as known fact.

BTW in relation to the insurgents and unknown agents you referenced above you neglected to mention that the report says
The ‘unknown agents’ category is therefore likely to overlap to an extent with the ‘crime’ and ‘anti-occupation forces’ categories, but may also overlap with the ‘US-led forces’ category, since some of those killed were clearly opposed to the military occupation.
And? Does this in anyway clarify anything? Or does it just state that these catagories are fuzzy and continue with the reports trend of not clarifying it's numbers very well which I have already intimated?

Perhaps you should also have a look at the Oxford Research Groups's home page to view their credentials before trying to dismiss their report. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/aims.htm [Broken]
Firstly if you paid attention to what I wrote you would see that I have not dismissed the report but only shown hisitation to accept it as being very accurate or athoritative. Secondly http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ps/jasbiog.htm is the individual who lead the project and whose credentials I was concerned with, not in fact the entirety of the Oxford Research Group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: Iraq Bodycount Released (UPI)

  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
353
Replies
3
Views
260
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
13K
News Iraq WMDs
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
68
Views
7K
Top