'All-time high' in Baghdad violence

[KidRocks]

More proof that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a deadly choice indeed not only for our troops but for the people of Iraq as well.

This, after the Bush administration gloated how the forming of the Iraqi gov't was going to deliver a grave blow to the insurgency there in Iraq. President Bush's foreign policy is indeed a dismal failure all around!








http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-11-baghdad-violence_x.htm

BAGHDAD — The number of sectarian killings each month in Baghdad has more than tripled since February, and the violence has not slowed despite a major offensive in the capital.
Death squads killed 1,450 people in September, up from 450 in February, according to U.S. military statistics. In the first 10 days of October, death squads have killed about 770 Iraqis.

The increase in death squad killings reflects the level of religious warfare that is now the largest threat to security in Iraq.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman, acknowledged violence in Baghdad is at an "all-time high" and said U.S. commanders, in coordination with their Iraqi counterparts, are continuing to adjust the security plan to try to reduce the violence. "We've been working to keep it peaceful, and we've been frustrated that the extremists keep perpetuating the number of attacks," Garver said.

U.S. forces are also caught in the violence. At least 37 American troops have been killed in combat this month, about half of them in or around Baghdad, where Iraqi and U.S. forces are attempting to loosen the grip of armed militias. The weekly average of U.S. deaths since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in May 2003 has been about 14...

 

[Gibberish]

On the same daeth note Bush refuses to believe the number of total Iraqi deaths due to the US invasion since the day of invasion.

President Bush says he doesn't believe it. Some experts have a problem with it. But several others say it seems sound. Such was the varied reception for a controversial new study that estimated the
Iraq war has led to the deaths of nearly 655,000 Iraqis as of July.
...
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad derived that estimate from a door-to-door survey, conducted by doctors, of 1,849 households in Iraq. Taking the number of deaths reported by household residents, they extrapolated to a nationwide figure.
...
The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 percent certain that the real number lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths.

The study was released by The Lancet, a respected medical journal.

Bush's response: "I don't consider it a credible report,"

Gen. George W. Casey response: "That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give it that much credibility at all."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012...upX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

- Statistically 75% of all statistic’s are false.

 

[ProudAmerican]

that very same made up study also states that 70% of those deaths are due to the terrorists.

liberals always leave that part out.

 

[Kandahar]

that very same made up study also states that 70% of those deaths are due to the terrorists.

liberals always leave that part out.

There wouldn't BE any terrorists or insurgency or civil war if we hadn't invaded in the first place.

Neocons always leave that part out.

 

[Gibberish]

It doesn't matter how they died, just that they died within the invasion time frame and due to circumstances related to the invasion.

Would terrorists be killing Iraqi's and blowing up Iraq buildings if the US was not in Iraq?

Like the last line in my previous posts suggestions I don't believe statistics just thought it was relevant to point out what is out there.

Also the study is not made up, it is scientifically flawed. Made up implies they sat in the basement of their parents house and started throwing numbers around. There was an actual survey completed but those in the survey might have experiecened a high level of deaths not common to other people, hence you can't take their death totals and apply it nation wide.

 

[ProudAmerican]

There wouldn't BE any terrorists or insurgency or civil war if we hadn't invaded in the first place.

Neocons always leave that part out.

nonsense. you think terrorists just materialized before our very eyes? lol. they were there.

and they have killed 70% of the people you CLAIM to care so much about.

but its much easier to just blame America. I realize this.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Would terrorists be killing Iraqi's and blowing up Iraq buildings if the US was not in Iraq?

no, instead they would be planning attacks against Americans elsewhere.

 

[Gibberish]

no, instead they would be planning attacks against Americans elsewhere.

Thank you for proving my point. The terrorists would not be killing Iraq's if the US was not in Iraq, so those Iraqi deaths would have never occrured.

The question isn't the purpose we are in Iraq. I think it is more of an acknowledgement that it is obvious that an Iraqi life has less worth then an American life. "better to fight them over there then here" right? This war shows that Darwinist theory is very alive in American society and government.

 

[KidRocks]

nonsense. you think terrorists just materialized before our very eyes? lol. they were there.

and they have killed 70% of the people you CLAIM to care so much about.

but its much easier to just blame America. I realize this.

Not blaming America, blaming President Bush, dittoheads always leave that part out too.

The terrorists were there and that is exactly why Saddam kept a tight grip on Iraq, he knew what would happen if he were to loosen his hold on his people, everyone knew except that idiot President of ours.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Thank you for proving my point. The terrorists would not be killing Iraq's if the US was not in Iraq, so those Iraqi deaths would have never occrured.

I will concede this. no problem. I will add though, that they would be killing innocent people wherever they were attacking them from the plans they would be making since they had all that free time on their hands.

We have to fight them somewhere....and WHEREVER that is, innocent people will die.

Iraq, Paris, NYC, wherever.

and WHEREVER that happens to be, it will ALWAYS BE THE FAULT OF THE TERRORISTS....and not America.

 

[KidRocks]

no, instead they would be planning attacks against Americans elsewhere.

No, they were held in check by Saddam, it was Bush who unleashed the terrorists in Iraq and worldwide to plan attacks and kill Americans there in Iraq.

President Bush hand delivered Americans to Iraq for the terrorists to kill, why go to America when they can kill them there in there own back yard thanks to President Bush!

 

[Gibberish]

I will concede this. no problem. I will add though, that they would be killing innocent people wherever they were attacking them from the plans they would be making since they had all that free time on their hands.

We have to fight them somewhere....and WHEREVER that is, innocent people will die.

Iraq, Paris, NYC, wherever.

and WHEREVER that happens to be, it will ALWAYS BE THE FAULT OF THE TERRORISTS....and not America.

If I have a party and I take the party to your house and the party destroys your house would you say it was not my fault?

America chose Iraq as the battleground. That was the main reason to go into Iraq, to fight them over there and not here.

So America has no fault in fighting a war on the land of a country that was not at war and would not have been at war leading to the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of it's citizens? Keep in mind this is a war that is no closer to ending then it was when it started.

 

[ProudAmerican]

America chose Iraq as the battleground.

actually we didnt. we went to Iraq for many reasons. the TERRORISTS chose Iraq as a battle ground.

So America has no fault in fighting a war on the land of a country that was not at war and would not have been at war leading to the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of it's citizens?

hundreds of thousands of its citizens had already died due to a brutal dictator. it can certainly be argued we prevented more of those by removing Saddam and his sons.

its unfortunate the terrorists chose that country as a battle ground and caused unnecessary deaths there.

Keep in mind this is a war that is no closer to ending then it was when it started.

of course it is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Looks like the jihadists are stepping up their efforts to get their DNC allies elected in the USA.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Looks like the jihadists are stepping up their efforts to get their DNC allies elected in the USA.

I wont go quite so far as to call them "allies"

but there is no doubt the terrorists hear the DNC talking points and repeat them.

I think unfortunately the left is so blinded by their partisanship and hatred for Busht that they unintentionally support the terrorists.

 

[Kandahar]

I wont go quite so far as to call them "allies"

but there is no doubt the terrorists hear the DNC talking points and repeat them.

I think unfortunately the left is so blinded by their partisanship and hatred for Busht that they unintentionally support the terrorists.

What about that memo intercepted from Zawahiri that said it was in al-Qaeda's interests for America to remain in Iraq as long as possible?

 

[ProudAmerican]

What about that memo intercepted from Zawahiri that said it was in al-Qaeda's interests for America to remain in Iraq as long as possible?

do I need to dig up all the links TOT has posted here of letters from AQ members talking about how they are having their asses handed to them?

I will if you insist. but please just admit youve seen them so I dont have to go digging for the information.

 

[Kandahar]

do I need to dig up all the links TOT has posted here of letters from AQ members talking about how they are having their asses handed to them?

I will if you insist. but please just admit youve seen them so I dont have to go digging for the information.

Of course they're getting their asses handed to them in sheer numbers; they aren't a professional military, after all. But if they were really getting their asses handed to them in terms of being "defeated," you would expect Iraq to be stable by now. But it isn't.

After all, if they were really near defeat, then it wouldn't make much sense for Zawahiri to write that it was better for the Americans to stay in Iraq.

 

[TurtleDude]

What about that memo intercepted from Zawahiri that said it was in al-Qaeda's interests for America to remain in Iraq as long as possible?

hard to say if it wasn't a strategic "leak"

 

[Kandahar]

hard to say if it wasn't a strategic "leak"

You're saying that the Pentagon (controlled by Rumsfeld) leaked a document showing that the Iraq war was helping al-Qaeda?

 

[southern_liberal]

nonsense. you think terrorists just materialized before our very eyes? ...It's easier to blame America...
QUOTE]

Yes. I can't seem to recall news of bombs going off in markets, 60 or more bodies being discovered on a daily basis showing signs of torture, or huge population shifts because of ethnic tensions in Iraq prior to mission accomplished. The reports could be out there, but I haven't seen them. If you find them, please share. And remember, alot of this ethnic violence isn't carried out by outsiders, but Iraqi's themselves within t he last 3 and a half years.

Where did you say you saw reports of terrorist activities in Iraq on a daily basis? Please, don't talk about Saddam, this level of human carnage did not occur on a daily basis when he was in power. So yeah, It

I don't blame America, I Blame Bush.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Yes. I can't seem to recall news of bombs going off in markets, 60 or more bodies being discovered on a daily basis showing signs of torture

they werent discovered because SADDAM was the one in power. who the hell do you think was going to discover them before he was removed?

Where did you say you saw reports of terrorist activities in Iraq on a daily basis? Please, don't talk about Saddam, this level of human carnage did not occur on a daily basis when he was in power.

you have no clue what was occuring while he was in power. but we have found mass graves to confirm people were dying in huge numberrs.

I don't blame America, I Blame Bush.

of course you blame America. its the liberal way.

 

[TheNextEra]

nonsense. you think terrorists just materialized before our very eyes? lol. they were there.

and they have killed 70% of the people you CLAIM to care so much about.

but its much easier to just blame America. I realize this.

So you're actually trying to say that 70% of those deaths (due to terrorists) in the hundreds of thousands would have happened had we not been there?

 

[Gibberish]

of course you blame America. its the liberal way.

One man's decision does not define America. You can disagree with the President's choices and still love America, that is what makes America. The problem today is America has lost it's balls and would rather let the government wait out it's term besides demanding their right to immediate action. The citizens of America have no control over it's government unless its an election day.

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson

When a president is elected America does not become a fascist country for 4 years, try to udnerstand that. When someone disagrees with the President it does not automatically mean they hate or blame America.

 

[Gibberish]

actually we didnt. we went to Iraq for many reasons. the TERRORISTS chose Iraq as a battle ground.

Oh yes those factual proven reasons, I kept forgetting about all the WMD's and parades thrown for us as we entered Baghdad.

hundreds of thousands of its citizens had already died due to a brutal dictator. it can certainly be argued we prevented more of those by removing Saddam and his sons.

It can also be argued that we didn't prevent anything and ruined the country of Iraq. They are both theoretical stances, what's your point?

its unfortunate the terrorists chose that country as a battle ground and caused unnecessary deaths there.

Of course they are going to choose that country, it's next door to them. They think the same way we do, better to fight them there then here. The terrorists would rather keep out army occupied in Iraq so that they can continue planning attacks with minimal opposition in neighboring countries.

It's obvious this admin went into Iraq to save American lives by fighting a war in Iraq and not in America. The problem I have with this is they will not admit to it. The reason they won't admit to it is conservatives don't want to know. Their stance is just get the job done and don't tell me how you did it, that way I can claim I didn't know, stay innocent, and get into heaven.