News How Many Iraqi Civilians Have Died Since the 2003 U.S. Invasion?

[The Smoking Man]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r

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.

 

[Art]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r

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?

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

 

[russ_watters]

As 1,755 is approximately the same number of Iraqi troops thought to have been killed during the 1993 war...

Source...?

 

[Townsend]

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?

Number of troops killed does not make a difference...The North won against the South but the South killed a lot more Yankees...agreed?

 

[stoned]

we have to multiply that number by 10.

 

[Spin_Network]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r

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.

 

[one_raven]

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?"

 

[Spin_Network]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

 

[one_raven]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.)

 

[alexandra]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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' 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)

 

[Art]

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)

 

[SOS2008]

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[Art]

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
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

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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]

 

[Art]

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.

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?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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.

 

[PerennialII]

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.

 

[hypatia]

Yes, understanding and supporting are 2 different things. I understand a lot of things I would never support. As do most of us.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

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.

 

[Smurf]

Don't worry alexandra, Me and Art have been called Terrorist Sympathizers more often than we can count

 

[MaxS]

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.

 

[Informal Logic]

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.

 

[Bladibla]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

 

[MaxS]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This posting is very reminiscent of the poem Tomlinson's Ghost by R. Kipling
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

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.

 

[MaxS]

russ you hear it from pundits like hannity, rush limbaugh etc. I remember them talking about this stuff when the f18 bombed a wedding a couple years back i can't give you a direct source but i doubt i would be the only one who has heard them speak that way, or that they are the only ones doing so.

 

[russ_watters]

As for 'understanding' being an unacceptable response to murder, I wonder where criminal profilers would be without it.

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.

The word "understand" has multiple meanings depending on the context. You can "understand" calculus but not sympathize with it. In the context of a criminal profiler, sympathy is not implied, just like it isn't implied with understanding calculus.

Perhaps you see one context implied and I see the other. On request from Evo, though, I won't pursue this line of discussion. Decide for yourself and I'll decide for myself.

 

[MaxS]

Speaking of pundits, this off snopes:

Claim: Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, pagans, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for the terrorist attacks on the USA because their actions have turned God's anger against America.

Status: True.

Origins: During
a September 13 appearance by Jerry Falwell on the Christian Broadcasting Network's TV program "700 Club," hosted by Pat Robertson, the following exchange occurred:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

The story was covered in the next day's Washington Post, and a partial transcript of the broadcast was published on the website of People for the American Way.

In a disingenuous attempt to put a good face on this one, Pat Robertson and CBN subsequently issued a press release in which they maintained that the whole thing was Jerry Falwell's fault, claimed that they didn't understand what he was saying, and blamed People for the American Way for "taking statements out of context and spinning them to the press for their own political ends." (If Mr. Robertson truly didn't understand Mr. Falwell's remarks, one has to wonder why he responded to them by saying "I concur totally" and then elaborating on the remarks he supposedly hadn't understood.)

Falwell attempted to quell the furor he caused by issuing a series of increasingly insincere "I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm really sorry people are mad at me" apologies.

 

[russ_watters]

No, Russ, I do not condone those tactics. Don't you dare accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser!

I didn't say you "condone" the attacks, alexandra. You're talking about two different things and not disagreeing with what I said. If you want me to clarify that, PM me - I'm dropping this part of the conversation on request from Evo.

[edited on request from Evo.

 

[MaxS]

You know what's sick russ? Is that you would call her a "terrorist sympathiser" in a derogatory context for exploring their motives.

I guess we should just bomb them all that'll solve all our problems!

 

[russ_watters]

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...

You can easily confirm this by reading every one of my posts

I'm a little unclear on what you mean by "sectarian violence", but you were quite clear in other threads in saying that you do support violent revolution because that's what a "Marxist revolution" is. Further, you acknowledged that you understand that people will not willfully give up their material possessions and as a result it will need to be taken from them by force. You can't have it both ways.

...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.

I assume you mean me - I don't hate you. I honestly don't understand how you can hold some of your opinions, but heck - I don't even dislike you: You're relatively polite for someone with such an unpopular point of view.

 

[russ_watters]

russ you hear it from pundits like hannity, rush limbaugh etc.

I know it probably makes it easier to believe that I listen to those guys, but I don't. I abhor Rush Limbaugh. Hannity I have no opinion of, since I don't recall ever listening to him.

Its probably comfortable to believe that I'm the sterotypical Republican, but I'm not. I'm not very religious, I'm not pro-life, I'm not anti-gun control. Scary as it probably seems, I'm quite moderate.

 

[MaxS]

FFS I never said you listened to them you asked for sources and I told you where I heard it.

 

[Burnsys]

A real supporter of terrorism

Bill O'Reilly Calls for Mass Starvation of Civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya
Aim Is to Force Civilians to Overthrow Those Governments
September 17, 2001

Bill O'Reilly, Fox News talk show star, called tonight for mass terrorism against the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

O'Reilly advocated completely destroying the civilian infrastructure of those countries, as well as mining the harbors of Tripoli, Libya.

Then, O'Reilly said, those populations will have two choices: starve, or overthrow their governments.

"Knock their food supply out and their water supply out and those people will have to overthrow the Taliban. It's either that or they die."

"The population must be made to endure another round of intense pain" O'Reilly said of Iraqi civilians.

Note: Targeting and harming civilians for political purposes is the very definition of terrorism.

 

[russ_watters]

FFS I never said you listened to them you asked for sources and I told you where I heard it.

Um, so when you say "you hear it..." you didn't mean that "you listened to them"?

So does anyone really wonder how misunderstandings happen here?

 

[MaxS]

oh sorry i see how that could be mis interpreted pretty easily, its just a figure of speech, some times typing the way you talk doesn't pay off i guess =P

When I said "you hear it" I meant to imply its something one would hear listening to those folks etc, not specifically you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

oh sorry i see how that could be mis interpreted pretty easily, its just a figure of speech, some times typing the way you talk doesn't pay off i guess =P

When I said "you hear it" I meant to imply its something one would hear listening to those folks etc, not specifically you.

Listen ... I've told you a thousand times and I'm telling you again... Be clear with your posts.

We have all heard what it says in the rules.

Evo told me to read them.




Edit: That's a joke, Evo.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Decide for yourself and I'll decide for myself.

You're free to decide to yourself. But for the sake of common decency, please keep it to yourself. I certainly don't include you in this, but some people on this forum are basically decent people and don't deserve that kind of BS.

As for your 'sympathy' comment - YOUR statement was that UNDERSTANDING is not a reasonable response, not sympathy. Defending your argument by changing it is not really defending your argument. Give it up.

 

[russ_watters]

As for your 'sympathy' comment - YOUR statement was that UNDERSTANDING is not a reasonable response, not sympathy. Defending your argument by changing it is not really defending your argument. Give it up.

Since they are exact synonyms in some contexts, saying that "understanding" is unacceptable is the same as saying "sympathy" is unacceptable if the context is the same. For clarity, here's me saying that both are unacceptable.

 

[Art]

Since they are exact synonyms in some contexts, saying that "understanding" is unacceptable is the same as saying "sympathy" is unacceptable if the context is the same. For clarity, here's me saying that both are unacceptable.

This is getting lost in semantics to get back to the issue are you still saying that Alexandra is a terrorist sympathiser?