Death Toll in Iraq

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:48 pm

I'll take .500. Let me guess.....the ribbon, and the 8x10?

Still .500 my friend.

As for the NEWSMAX reference, I think that was brought up by your buddy "hanging chad" in the 911 vidoe piece.....and I only used it as an example of the types of "independent" and "credible" sources you always like to cite.

Take a look at my posts. I cite alot of people who aren't friends of this administration in other threads, I cite the study itself in this thread. Additionally the CDC is pro-Bush?? What color is the sky in your world????

Now let's examine this incredibly assinine diatribe of the 400 independent media sources in Iraq. YOU CRACK ME UP !!!!! You used to annoy me, now I anxiously await the next absurd statement because laughter is good for the soul.

Great... the feeling is mutual.

I don't know what collage you attended, but you should ask for your money back. LOL

Collage ?? I didn't attend a board full of different yet similar pictures pasted on it but had I done so, I'd surely ask for my money back as you suggest.

How many mainstream media outlets are in America? I don't know....10,000......20,000 ??? However many there are, they are all owned by 6 companies. General Electric ownes a large chunck of them, and they are also a major defense contractor.....no war bias there I'm sure. Would you like a reference? A chart?

1) General Electric

2) Time Warner

3) The Walt Disney Corp

4) Viacom

5) New Corporation

6) Vivendi Universal

But back to Iraq. Do you know that an Iraqi can't even run a fruit stand without permision papers and licenses by their military rulers? I expect the criteria for a TV station, Radio station, or News Paper might require some similar control structure?

You still seem to be confusing conditions in Saddam's Iraq with Iraq post-invasion.

Tell me...do you really believe your own BS, or are you just one of those types that like to argue.

i'm sorry...were you talking to me our yourself. Its hard to figure out which one based upon your completely logical "arguments" so far. :roll:

According to reports readily available....enough to stack as high as you are tall, describe the number of journalists killed in Iraq by coalition forces. Media housed in hotels attacked with US shells.....even today there is a report of a UK journalist killed by US forces.

Ok...so naturally reporters (who do get killed in wartime - it does happen) getting killed means that 650k people have died in Iraq... clearly you have a dizzying sense of logic.

Just how many of these Iraqi media do you subscribe to? How many are credible sources? Only the ones that support your arguments I'm sure.

Again, you completely missed the point. The individual Iraqi media outlets include those who would love nothing more than to see us leave. Are you saying they would intentionally not report the 15,000+ per month deaths that this study says have occurred?? :hmm:

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:48 pm

Fios wrote:I don't wanna go

You wouldn't be allowed - that straw just can't be camouflaged.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:54 pm

UK Skins Fan wrote:
Fios wrote:I don't wanna go

You wouldn't be allowed - that straw just can't be camouflaged.

Missiles rarely are

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:54 pm

Hahaha

College....coolege........collage......I's hard to type when experiencing uncontrollable laughter.

And just for you chaddukes, I'll look up the post where you most certainly did cite NEWSMAX as a source.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:07 pm

just for you Ray...

http://www.stanhopecentre.org/blogs/ira ... hrain.html

Its a nice story which includes the following...

..."Under Saddam, the media was a means for the government to send its message to the people," Gohar said recently by telephone from his Cairo office. "Now we have the means to help the people to get their message to the government." Private television broadcasters have been quietly springing up all over Iraq in the past year and currently number around a dozen. Most are formally licensed - either by the former U.S.-led coalition or by Iraq's new interim government - but they remain loosely regulated. Many are also being founded and financed by the country's various ethnic or religious factions, raising concerns among government officials and analysts that they are being used to serve the political interests of their benefactors. Nahrain, Gohar insists, is different. "We have no agenda," he said. "We just want to inform and entertain and basically to help people to cope with their daily lives in what is a very shaky and chaotic situation." Iraq's broadcasting scene has undergone a breathtaking transformation over the past year and a half. Under Saddam, Iraq's media were tightly controlled by the Information Ministry, which was headed by Uday Hussein, Saddam's mercurial eldest son. Uday, in addition to his role as chairman of the editorial boards of about a dozen daily and weekly newspapers, was also in charge of broadcast media and directly managed one of the three official television channels, Al Shabab. Owning a satellite dish was illegal, and Iraqis caught with one in their homes were subject to six months in prison and a stiff fine. Today, roughly one-third of Iraqi households own satellite dishes. There are more than 90 television and radio stations available in Iraq, according to BBC Monitoring, an arm of the BBC. Many, like the pan-Arab channels Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, are commercial stations broadcast from abroad and only available via satellite...

Again...if they are being founded and financed by different factions (many of which have an interest in seeing us lose and leave) then why wouldn't we be hearing of the 15,000+ (per month) deaths from them??

The answer, if one uses common sense, is that they wouldn't and would instead be reporting those deaths. The global media (including the Al-Jazeera and the BBC --> which are most definitely NOT pro-Bush) would've picked up on these deaths long before this "study" came out.

The "study" is wrong.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:08 pm

Quote:
George Tenant, former CIA Director has unequivocally stated in the news media and in a book that he personally warned C. Rice of an imminent attack on the United States two months before 911. Now who should I believe, the director of the CIA or you?

Moreover, the issue of insider trading is not only true, but has been well documented and linked to the Mossad and CIA. An interesting lecture on video tape given by a former LA police detective who previously worked in narcotics and counter terrorism covers the topic of insider trading put options on United and American airlines, along with other pieces of evidence uncovered outlining the CIA's role in the importation of cocaine and heroin, and other financial links to 911.

I'm sure that he did. There was a general warning for American's to avoid flight. That was the same warning that Willie Brown received. It was however only a general warning. The kind that was based on increased chatter. Its far from proof that he knew that Al-Qaeda was going to fly planes into American buildings.

As for the put options. There are far more sources than I list here but they all point to the same things, that there wasn't a statistically significant increase in the number of put options. The airline stocked that you mentioned were expected to fall in price.....therefore people used put options. Remember, the airlines were reeling before 9/11.

http://www.thestreet.com/comment/futures/10001556.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2018.shtml
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?. ... &mid=11686

Are you sure that these sources are unbiased enough for you? If I can't use these as sources then who can I?
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?. ... &mid=11673

Busted, tried, convicted, and what shall the punishment be?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:13 pm

<<Tapping Ray on the shoulder...>>

"Hey, I think he meant in this thread".

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:22 pm

OK, you busted me! I used newsmax as a source in a different thread, and then supported that report with the Wall Street Journal, and Yahoo News. If you found something wrong with the info in the newsmax link, why don't you take that issue up in the appropriate thread.

Why don't you take this argument up in Smack?

dnpmakkah · Post by **dnpmakkah** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:56 pm

America's ultimate goal is to wreak enough havoc in Iraq so that the country can split into many factions. Thus paving a path for its long desired goal of instability.

My theory (I am not alone in this). The U.S. has been systematically killing Iraqi citizens throughout the last 4 years and blaming one side against the other in hopes that the country would plunge into social, and political chaos. The U.S. government WANTS Iraq to plunge into civil war.

Why? If Iraq goes into civil war...the world would be more likely to accept a divided and separated Iraq split into 3 regions; Sunni, Shiite and Kurds. A divided Iraq is better for the U.S. however, a united Iraq is not.

If you divide Iraq up into 3 smaller countries the chance of those small nations mounting any kind of power is slim. Not only that but also those 3 nations will forever be fighting with each other thus pushing America off the agenda.

Don't believe it? This is the same technique both the British and Russian military tried when invading Afghanistan and more recently Pakistan attempted it too with the Taliban. After the defeat of Russia from Afghan soil, Pakistan quickly cooked up the Taliban and feed them money, power and supplies. Pakistan was already raging a war with India and Afghanistan has long been a friend of India. Pakistan did not want 2 neighbors who were allies on each border. You can't divide India that easily but trying to bring chaos and split a country that just came out of a 20 year war like Afghanistan was much easier.

So what happened? The Taliban gained control of the country and the nation was split in 2 socially. Those for the Taliban and those against it. This fighting allowed Pakistan to put its full concentration towards India. This is a classic technique used by nations for many centuries now. This is just my theory....I don't have facts since they will never admit it but I've seen it happen before.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:15 pm

dnpmakkah wrote:My theory (I am not alone in this). The U.S. has been systematically killing Iraqi citizens throughout the last 4 years and blaming one side against the other in hopes that the country would plunge into social, and political chaos. The U.S. government WANTS Iraq to plunge into civil war.

Well, its a theory. But I don't buy that the US is systematically killing civilians for the simple reason of plunging Iraq into civil war.....If that was the goal then we would simply leave. I don't buy the idea that we are seeking Iraq's destruction.

My theory is this; we are fighting a war against Terror and have successfully kept that war on someone elses territory. We invaded Iraq to remove an evil dictator that has killed over a million of his own citizens. We are staying there to stabilize the country. Then we will keep our military bases, and maintain a military and diplomatic presence in the region. We chose the region for its geography, that is we saw an opportunity to dispatch our enemy and keep a presence in a country that happens to be between Iran and Syria (who are a much bigger enemy than Iraq) and on the persian gulf.

Chad

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:15 pm

Iraq's good, free, independent news:

..."Under Saddam, the media was a means for the government to send its message to the people," Gohar said recently by telephone from his Cairo office. "Now we have the means to help the people to get their message to the government." Private television broadcasters have been quietly springing up all over Iraq in the past year and currently number around a dozen. Most are formally licensed - either by the former U.S.-led coalition or by Iraq's new interim government - but they remain loosely regulated. Many are also being founded and financed by the country's various ethnic or religious factions, raising concerns among government officials and analysts that they are being used to serve the political interests of their benefactors. Nahrain, Gohar insists, is different. "We have no agenda," he said. "We just want to inform and entertain and basically to help people to cope with their daily lives in what is a very shaky and chaotic situation." Iraq's broadcasting scene has undergone a breathtaking transformation over the past year and a half. Under Saddam, Iraq's media were tightly controlled by the Information Ministry, which was headed by Uday Hussein, Saddam's mercurial eldest son. Uday, in addition to his role as chairman of the editorial boards of about a dozen daily and weekly newspapers, was also in charge of broadcast media and directly managed one of the three official television channels, Al Shabab. Owning a satellite dish was illegal, and Iraqis caught with one in their homes were subject to six months in prison and a stiff fine. Today, roughly one-third of Iraqi households own satellite dishes. There are more than 90 television and radio stations available in Iraq, according to BBC Monitoring, an arm of the BBC. Many, like the pan-Arab channels Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, are commercial stations broadcast from abroad and only available via satellite...

There are endless stories and reports that certainly don't agree with this rosey picture of Iraqi's sitting back watching TV from their own stalelite dishes. These people are thankful if they get clean drinking water, and a little bit of electricity for a couple hours a day. What BS.

How can anyone take this or you seriously. You cherry pick propaganda, post it, and say AH HA!! SEE. What foolishness.

Exerpt from:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11179

"This isn't to say the Bush administration and the Pentagon won't welcome certain reports about projects undertaken by U.S. military contractors and the U.S. military in Iraq. Over the next two years, a D.C. based firm called the Lincoln Group will be paid 6.2 million dollars to develop positive talking points for the U.S. military. This firm was the subject of considerable controversy last year when it was part of a Pentagon project that paid Iraqi newspapers to publish positive articles about the U.S. Coalition."

More interesting reading: Hospitals Under Siege

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?
SectionID=15&ItemID=9225

The hospitals aren't safe....but all of those TV stations, [redio] stations, and newspapers are perfectly free to report genocidal activities of the invading forces.....why.....because those invading forces are American, and everybody knows how much the Americans protect freedom of the press......except in Amerika of course. Of course, there is no stinking genocide.....no stinking torture......no targeting of civilians....or journalists because if there were, those free Iraqis would report this horrible stuff. See.....case closed.

For your information, Iraq is in a full blown civil war. The death toll in Iraq based on comparitive populations of Iraq and the US would have 60,000 deaths per month here. Would you be suggesting that there is no problem if we had 20 911 attacks per month?

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:19 pm

RayNAustin wrote: The death toll in Iraq based on comparitive populations of Iraq and the US would have 60,000 deaths per month here.

But the death rate would be the same right?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:32 pm

There are endless stories and reports that certainly don't agree with this rosey picture of Iraqi's sitting back watching TV from their own stalelite dishes. These people are thankful if they get clean drinking water, and a little bit of electricity for a couple hours a day. What BS.

In many areas this is not the case. additionally, the fact that some Iraqis are dealing with a sewage standard that is not up to the U.S> does not invalidate the fact that there are over 100 stations. you have not invalidated my point. You've merely erected a straw man to easily knock down.

How can anyone take this or you seriously. You cherry pick propaganda, post it, and say AH HA!! SEE. What foolishness.

Again... are you speaking to me? Or to yourself??

"This isn't to say the Bush administration and the Pentagon won't welcome certain reports about projects undertaken by U.S. military contractors and the U.S. military in Iraq. Over the next two years, a D.C. based firm called the Lincoln Group will be paid 6.2 million dollars to develop positive talking points for the U.S. military. This firm was the subject of considerable controversy last year when it was part of a Pentagon project that paid Iraqi newspapers to publish positive articles about the U.S. Coalition."

Good god !! Use your common sense. Lets see... an Iraqi paper that is produced by Sunni groups or by Sadr's militia is going to take out money and produce pro-U.S. stories??

no, they most assuredly will not. Again if they are anti-U.S. then they would readily report the 15k+ monthly deaths that this "study" says has happened in Iraq. None have come anywhere close to reporting these deaths. Yet you trot out a quote about us getting our message out in some of the other media outlets...

Again...you have not invalidated my arguments. you've only erected straw man #2.

The hospitals aren't safe....but all of those TV stations, [redio] stations, and newspapers are perfectly free to report genocidal activities of the invading forces

Exactly

....why.....because those invading forces are American, and everybody knows how much the Americans protect freedom of the press......

Yup

except in Amerika of course. Of course, there is no stinking genocide.....no stinking torture......no targeting of civilians....or journalists because if there were, those free Iraqis would report this horrible stuff. See.....case closed.

Hey, you said it !!!

For your information, Iraq is in a full blown civil war. The death toll in Iraq based on comparitive populations of Iraq and the US would have 60,000 deaths per month here. Would you be suggesting that there is no problem if we had 20 911 attacks per month?

Again, use your common sense my friend. Where are the bodies?? Why would al-Jazeera and the BBC hide the body count then??? Look at the arguments I've presented instead of ignoringthem and trying to find another link that you think validates your arguments but instead just erects straw men .

Hell... look at your own link... from it and I quote;

Last summer, crimes piled up in Iraq. 3,590 people were killed in July '06; 3009 in August.

Thats a far cry from 15,000+ per month isn't it? And again I'm using YOUR source !!! Are you now goign to tell me that its right-wing biased???

The "study" is deeply flawed my friend. They took 547 deaths and extrapolated that out to 650k+...

If you cannot see the problem with that, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:46 pm

Perfect example of your circular logic.

Good god !! Use your common sense. Lets see... an Iraqi paper that is produced by Sunni groups or by Sadr's militia is going to take out money and produce pro-U.S. stories??

no, they most assuredly will not. Again if they are anti-U.S. then they would readily report the 15k+ monthly deaths that this "study" says has happened in Iraq. None have come anywhere close to reporting these deaths. Yet you trot out a quote about us getting our message out in some of the other media outlets...

Again...you have not invalidated my arguments. you've only erected straw man #2.

Common sense would tell you that we would not have to pay Iraqi newspapers to print positive stories unless they needed to pay them for positive stories. Read: They pay them NOT TO PRINT NEGATIVE STORIES ....as buggs bunny would say.....you ultra maroon!

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:56 pm

Common sense would tell you that we would not have to pay Iraqi newspapers to print positive stories unless they needed to pay them for positive stories. Read: They pay them NOT TO PRINT NEGATIVE STORIES

You're still not grasping the situation my friend. Its called information warfare. It happens in warfare the world over. The news media is still free to run whatever they want. We just are making sure that some stories get run from our perspective. Much the same as The RNC can take out a full page ad in a newspaper.

The problem you still cannot seem to grasp is that media outlets who are anti-U.S. will NOT report pro-US stories no matter if we tried to pay them or not.

It would be like you and CH1 voting for Bush. Just ain't gonna happen...

So why haven't we heard stories which add up to 15k+ deaths per month??

Hell, even your obviously left-wing biased link claims that there were less than 3500 per month for two of the months this year.

....as buggs bunny would say.....you ultra maroon!!

See...now you've gone to attacking the poster with your ad hominem attack...tsk, tsk ... and here I thought we were having a lovely conversation.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:12 pm

The real issue here is being obscured by stats and figures however. Everyone is tossing around figures that are contradicted by other sources, all of it being subjective rationalizations of what can only be viewed as souless individuals attempting to justify the unjustifiable. If the shoe fits, wear it!

What I find rather disgusting, and telling is how one can find even the lower figures "acceptable"

40 percent of the population are 1-14 years of age. That means for every 1000 civilian deaths amounts to 400 children killed. Forget 650,000 and let's take the low number of 100,000....that's 40,000 children dead in 3 years or 37 children daily.

Hell, when you look at it that way....what's the big fuss about, aye?

Before you continue showing everyone what soulless creatures you are, go visit: http://www.marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php

And view the photos. Take a hard look at what those numbers you so causually toss about look like in flesh and bones, and images of terrorized and maimed children!

I myself don't really care if the numbers are 50k or 650k, because 50k is still unacceptable.....if you actually possess a soul, which I'm not sure you do.

Go look. Shut up, and look....and then use your college degree and make us a collage of reasons and excuses why you find any of it acceptable.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:24 pm

The real issue here is being obscured by stats and figures however. Everyone is tossing around figures that are contradicted by other sources, all of it being subjective rationalizations of what can only be viewed as souless individuals attempting to justify the unjustifiable. If the shoe fits, wear it!

What I find rather disgusting, and telling is how one can find even the lower figures "acceptable"

40 percent of the population are 1-14 years of age. That means for every 1000 civilian deaths amounts to 400 children killed. Forget 650,000 and let's take the low number of 100,000....that's 40,000 children dead in 3 years or 37 children daily.

Hell, when you look at it that way....what's the big fuss about, aye?

Before you continue showing everyone what soulless creatures you are, go visit: http://www.marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php

And view the photos. Take a hard look at what those numbers you so causually toss about look like in flesh and bones, and images of terrorized and maimed children!

I myself don't really care if the numbers are 50k or 650k, because 50k is still unacceptable.....if you actually possess a soul, which I'm not sure you do.

Go look. Shut up, and look....and then use your college degree and make us a collage of reasons and excuses why you find any of it acceptable.

Seriously my friend... stop with the hyperbole and the caterwauling and look at the empirical data.

From the study itself (and even the same 2004 study that claimed 100,000 casualties)... and I quote ...

"Across Iraq, deaths and injuries from violent causes
were concentrated in adolescent to middle age men."

That's from Page 6...

Exactly the same age demographic that you would expect deaths in, when there are people who are doing the fighting. Kinda rules out collateral damage as the cause of death doesn't it??

I will ignore your attempts to claim I'm soulless (another ad hominem attack) by rhetorically "pounding the table". I would love for the fighting and death to stop this minute but it ain;t gonna happen. And it surely won't happen with people like you, weakly arguing that we're killing 650k people.

Oh i'm sorry .. .you're right... I forgot the usual leftist talking points... let me repeat them and save you and others the trouble of typing them out.

<sarcasm on> Iraq was an idyllic paradise where noone died...unequaled since the Garden of Eden during Saddams reign. Just ask Saddam. But please ignore those pesky Kurds or Shiites that were mass murdered.

But then...so was the Soviet Union except for those millions of people that just magically "disappeared" in Siberian camps. <sarcasm off>

You remind me of the old dictum...

"When the Law is on your side, argue the law. And when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When Neither is on your side... pound the table."

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:50 pm

Let me explain to some here what they support, and try so desperately to justify.

During the 10 years of US sponsored UN sanctions after gulf war I and before gulf war II, international human rights organizations, and UN agencies estimate that 1,5000,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions. Close to 750,000 of them children. When Madaline Albright was confronted with these figures, and asked if it was worth it, she calmly replied "We think it was worth it".

Now, the actual deaths in numbers only tell part of the story. The use of depleted uranium in both wars will ensure millions more die in the years and decades to come, while the birth defect rate in Iraq has increased ten-fold from 11 per 100,000 births in 1989 to 116 per 100,000 in 2001, and is continuing to increase. And if you don't care about Iraqis, you should know that the US Troops you say you suppport are being poisoned by DU as well, and veterans are experiencing similar birth defect rates way above the national average.

http://www.wandsworth-stopwar.org.uk/du/iraq.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/546/546p17.htm

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-slowburn.html

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has submitted a war crimes report to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal. A must read for anyone who believes we are bestowing freedom to the poor Saddam Hussien ravaged Iraqis.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

I'm certain that there are a couple on this board who will fill a page with BS, trying to obfuscate the truths here.....and you know who you are...and you know what I think of you for being soulless and and compliant?

The bottom line is that there is no longer an excuse. You can't say...oh I didn't know.....You've been told. You've been provided the information. If you choose to look the other way.....make excuses......rationalize.....and fabricate......well, it's who you are...isn't it?

Pathetic is what comes to my mind.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:55 pm

Ray - as for your allegation we killed a UK journalist... you're talking about the story today I believe about Terry Lloyd;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00842.html

From the AP report we find the details;

The coroner was unable to determine whether the bullets that killed Lloyd in southern Iraq on March 22, 2003, were fired by U.S. ground forces or helicopters.

Lloyd and the three other ITN crew members were some of the few Western reporters who covered the fighting on their own, while most others were embedded with U.S. or British forces. [...]
U.S. authorities didn't allow servicemen to testify at the inquest. Several submitted anonymous statements that the coroner ruled inadmissible.
"I should have heard all evidence from the American personnel," Walker said. "It was not satisfactory or appropriate to read these statements in place of that evidence."
The court watched a video Tuesday, filmed by a U.S. serviceman attached to one of the tanks accused of firing at the reporters' cars. The tape opens with images of Lloyd's vehicle and the Iraqi truck burning amid gunfire. The tanks drive to the cars and inspect them. A minivan — possibly the ambulance — appears and more shots are fired. At the end of the tape, a U.S. soldier shouts, "It's some media personnel! That's media down there!"

What, if you read the story, you come out of it with is that the journalists were taking their lives in their own hands by covering stories on their own in the middle of a war zone. You also see that the coroner ignored the US soldiers statements. The video of the engagement cannot allow anyone to determine if it was US tanks or helicopters who killed him (and indeed the coroner said he couldn't determine it either). But remember that one of the journalists who was with Lloyd stated this

..the forces in a tank would have been able to see that they were firing at a civilian vehicle, but a helicopter would not..

here's the link...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... 672&page=2

What the video does provide is exculpatory evidence that the US servicemembers were unaware of the media presence until after they arrived to the burning vehicle.

So your not-so-veiled accusation that we are intentionally targeting journalists (based upon this story) is denied...

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:04 pm

Please Ray. Those are obviously biased sources (an anti-US and anti-war websites??). And you complain about biased sources ??

Ray -- the old saying is "It is good that War is so Terrible, else we would grow too fond of it" is apt here.

War is terrible. But so is the mass murder of millions (Saddam, Stalin, Nazism, Communism,etc...) which you and that organization conveniently ignore.

Lots more civilian casualties were incurred in WWII. But I dare-say that you would think that that war needed fighting wouldn't you?

I'm sorry, I guess you and your organization wouldn't ... would you ?

Pathetic is what comes to my mind.

yup... exactly...

Call me what names you will my friend. It won't change the fact that we're still talking about a bogus study of Iraqi deaths since our invasion.

Nice try at "moving the goalposts though "

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:08 pm

RayNAustin wrote:Let me explain to some here what they support, and try so desperately to justify.

During the 10 years of US sponsored UN sanctions after gulf war I and before gulf war II, international human rights organizations, and UN agencies estimate that 1,5000,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions. Close to 750,000 of them children. When Madaline Albright was confronted with these figures, and asked if it was worth it, she calmly replied "We think it was worth it".

Well, that certainly jives with a 5.5 death rate!

Do you support this research or don't you? Because you so constantly contradict it....and yourself.

I'm glad that you believe that this is what we support.....it must make it easy for you to then ignore the sense that thiaphoon and I keep making.

This needs to go to the smack forum soon...before it gets ugly.....uglier.....

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:13 pm

This needs to go to the smack forum soon...before it gets ugly.....uglier.....

The funny thing is that you and I keep smacking him around with facts and logic and all he does is try to resort to what the Smack forum is about (i.e. - personal attacks)...

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:13 pm

quote]CNN Executive Says G.I.s in Iraq Target Journalists
by Roderick Boyd

The head of CNN's news division, Eason Jordan, ignited an Internet firestorm last week when he told a panel at a World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland, that the American military had targeted journalists during operations in Iraq.

Mr. Jordan, speaking in a panel discussion titled "Will Democracy Survive the Media?" said "he knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat of Massachusetts who was on the panel with Mr. Jordan.

In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Frank said Mr. Jordan discussed in detail the plight of an Al-Jazeera reporter who had been detained by American forces, was made to eat his shoes while incarcerated in the Abu Ghraib prison, and was repeatedly mocked by his interrogators as "Al-Jazeera boy."

A man who said he was a producer with Al-Jazeera at the network's headquarters in Doha, Qatar, said he was unaware of any such incident, "although we have had problems with American troops in and out of Iraq." The Al-Jazeera producer refused to give his name.

Mr. Jordan's comments - prompted by a broader discussion of the dangers of covering the war in Iraq, in which some 63 journalists have been killed - left Mr. Frank, usually an outspoken war opponent, speechless.

"I was agog," he said. "I took a few seconds and asked him to basically clarify the remarks. Did he have proof and if so, why hadn't CNN run with the story?"

A CNN spokeswoman did not return a phone call or e-mail seeking comment. Last week, CNN put out a statement that said Mr. Jordan's remarks had been taken out of context by several Web logs and that he was merely responding to an assertion by Mr. Frank that the dead journalists were "collateral damage."[/quote]

Taken out of context indeed.

There have been many mainstream reports of such activities.

The Baghdad hotel that was a well known place for Journalists was attacked by US rockets purposely.

The fact is, the US military doesn't want independent journalists covering Iraq....that's why they have the "embeded Journalists" that they can decide where and when and what these Journalists see and hear and report.

Of course this is a rather new development in military policy, but I supppose you could say the same thing about openly discussing the value of torture.

Torture? Didn't happen. Pictures? Made up. Real pictures....isolated incident....Generals quiting....rare instance of integrity.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:26 pm

Mr. Jordan has a long history of demeaning the US military, accusing them of targeting journalists and insulting their honor.

Jordan was challenged to back up his statements with proof. He could not deliver the proof so he resigned in disgrace.

In addition... this is the same Eason Jordan who admitted that under his watch, CNN refused to report stories critical of Saddam's
regime. In 2003 he admitted that he had visited the Baghdad bureau 13 times in the preceding twelve years, and was distressed
about the stories they could not report because to do so would lose them access to Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http: ... 25Q51pQ7Ch

*requires registration*

Here's a story which ran in the Washington Times that corroborates it...

(In Full) Mr. Eason Jordan's admission that CNN had to suppress the news from Baghdad in order to report it brought back memories for me.

In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in
Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War.

Now, Bill Clinton was about to be inaugurated and there was speculation that Saddam Hussein might "test" the new American president. Would the new
administration be willing to enforce the "no-fly" zones set up in northern and southern Iraq after the Gulf War?

CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom
Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for
an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton.

I took part in meetings between the CNN executives and various officials purported to be close to Saddam. We met with his personal translator; with a
foreign affairs adviser; with Information Minister Latif Jassim; and with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there
would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was
virtually groveling for the interview.

The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and
handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an
item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim.
Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a
TV monitor.
"You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam
Hussein's propaganda.

The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry

accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing
"innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU."
I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled.
Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no
victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible
against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to
Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe.
After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.

On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.

The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel.
He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah,"
he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."

So, we were supposed to shade the news to get an interview with Saddam?

As it happens, CNN never did get that interview. A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN.
I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned.

In my brief acquaintance with Mr. Jordan at CNN, I formed the impression of a decent man, someone with a conscience. On the day Mr. Jordan published
his piece in the New York Times, a panel on Fox News was discussing his astonishing admissions. Brit Hume wondered, "Why would he ever write such a
thing?" Another panelist suggested, "Perhaps his conscience is bothering him."

Mr. Eason, it should be.

Peter Collins has more than 30 years of experience in broadcast news, including outlets such as the Voice of America, BBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.

Whats funny is that in 1999 Eason Jordan gave a speech

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/events/ho ... orris.html

To wit I will quote the most salient passage;

CNN has had tremendous difficulties with the Iraqi government, a government that's accused me during my own trips to Baghdad of being a CIA station
chief for Iraq. I feel lucky to have emerged alive from that. But it's very difficult working from Baghdad. It was during the war, and it continues to be today.

Our view is, first of all, we will not consciously pull punches. If I ever find anybody doing it, then those people will be history at this
network, as well as with our Iraq coverage.

The man is a pathological liar.

And he's your source?? Yeah good call... :roll:

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:31 pm

respond to the issues.

Respond to DU

Don't compare one story and insunuate it references another.

The 1,500,000 million deaths were DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SANCTIONS. Get it?

That means....since I have to explain it to you.....that given historical death rates and other contributing factors, they concluded that 1.5 Million died because of the sanctions, over and above the expected normal death rates do to natural causes, accidents, etc. And totally unrelated to war deaths. These deaths ocurred between wars

This is what you do. Twist and turn, and try to suggest you are addressing the points. But you never do.

Address the points or don't, but don't twist my words.