• news
  • TUESDAY APRIL 25 2006 2:00 PM

Success! Only 20,000 Kidnapped in Iraq Since January

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by Rahodeb

A report prepared by a group of 125 non-governmental organizations in Iraq has discovered some shocking numbers. 20,000 Iraqis, who don’t seem to understand they are better off not living under Saddam Hussein, have been kidnapped.

The survey, which underscores the massive social upheaval caused by rebel activity and increasing sectarian conflict, does not give the number of people killed. However, it says that 15,462 people have been wounded.

The 19,548 people kidnapped includes 4,959 women and 2,350 children...The thousands of Iraqis being kidnapped are primarily the victims of political rivalry and of common criminal gangs seeking ransom.

The report states 80 percent of the current violence is politically motivated. Civil war, anyone?

The violence is generated by armed militias linked to political parties and is fed by the [Iraq’s] porous borders and by the delay in forming a new government.

The survey does not record the number of people killed but on-line website Iraqbodycount.org has estimated that between 34,511 and 38,660 civilians have lost their lives since the invasion. That count is taken from media reports. No word on whether the dead think they are “better off.”

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 7

Next

Comments
Attack_Macaque

Attack_Macaque

Mesquite, TX
September 2004

APR 25, 2006 08:52 PM

UpTight said:
Anyway, I'm bored of Iraq. Bring on the sequel.


Yeah, it's pretty easy to get bored with a war when you're not the one fighting it.

So will you actually be enlisting for this next war, or are you just going to be sitting it out on the sidelines with pompons in hand, screaming fight songs into a megaphone like you're doing now with Iraq?

"We've got spirit, yes we do, but we're not fighting, we'll leave it to you! YEAY BUSH!!!"

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

APR 25, 2006 08:56 PM

Attack_Macaque said:

UpTight said:
Anyway, I'm bored of Iraq. Bring on the sequel.


Yeah, it's pretty easy to get bored with a war when you're not the one fighting it.

So will you actually be enlisting for this next war, or are you just going to be sitting it out on the sidelines with pompons in hand, screaming fight songs into a megaphone like you're doing now with Iraq?

"We've got spirit, yes we do, but we're not fighting, we'll leave it to you! YEAY BUSH!!!"


He'll claim that he's (conveniently) too old.

AdamJ

AdamJ

Revere, MA
February 2005

APR 25, 2006 09:00 PM

UpTight said:

MetaTag said:

UpTight said:
Anyway, I'm bored of Iraq. Bring on the sequel.



How would you feel if we said that we are bored of hearing about people in Israel being killed by suicide bombs. I think you would have a different opinion in that case.



well evidently someone is - cos we hardly hear a thing about suicide bombers in Israel

What a luxury it is, to be bored of the the killing and chaos in Iraq. Imagine if you lived there?



If I lived there, I'd blame the people killing Iraqis - namely Jordanain and Syrian terrorists



Of course, you wouldn't take up arms to actually defend your fellow countrymen, but you'd post a fierce denounciation of the violence in your blog! Such a trooper you are, UpAlbion. It makes me shudder to think that, a hundred years from now, the world will be left to struggle on without you. Truly, I weep for the future.

AdamJ

AdamJ

Revere, MA
February 2005

APR 25, 2006 09:07 PM

FireBomber said:
"Yeah, before Team America went to Iraq, there were rivers of chocolate, and children danced and played with gumdrop smiles!"

Unless you count these few trifling annoyances:


-- Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.

-- According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

-- Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

-- Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.

-- Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

-- Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

-- The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths.

-- 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

-- Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.

-- According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."

-- Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."

-- The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."

-- "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003)

-- Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies.

-- Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

-- The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.

-- The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law."

Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including:

-- 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984;
-- 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998;
-- 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign";
-- 22 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;
-- 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001;
-- At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001;



Do you ever get tired of strawmen? Ever?

Who here is claiming that Iraq was a perfect utopia before the invasion? Go ahead, point them out. Don't be shy.

FireBomber

FireBomber

Leesburg, FL
March 2005

APR 25, 2006 09:29 PM

The survey does not record the number of people killed but on-line website Iraqbodycount.org has estimated that between 34,511 and 38,660 civilians have lost their lives since the invasion. That count is taken from media reports. No word on whether the dead think they are “better off.”



This is intended to imply that things are no better now than under Saddam.

Iraq became a hotbed of Islamic terrorism under OUR watch. Got it?



They only trained there before we invaded. Now they just import them from neighboring countries. The only reason Iraq is a "hotbed of Islamic terrorism" now is because they are attempting to erode support of a mission that undermines their zany politics. It worked on you.

Well, I was gonna say that this is the same White House that insisted there were WMD in there, too...



Here we go with the WMDs again...Here's a video montage of a whole shitload of people whose initials are not George W. Bush stating emphatically that Iraq has WMDs and needs to be invaded: Click me for revisionist history!

Stop using the "straw man" rebuttal when you don't have anything to say. I responded to this comment..

Iraqis weren't afraid to leave their homes after five PM prior to March '03.

...by pointing out the fact that there were plenty of atrocities worse than a curfew and kidnappings before we got there. No straw man present.

The opening quote of my post was sarcasm.

sar·casm Audio pronunciation of "sarcasm" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.





xrinti

xrinti

Madison, WI
April 2006

APR 25, 2006 09:54 PM

Even though he's trolling horribly, I find it necessary to respond to some of his more egregious misstatements:

FireBomber said:

The survey does not record the number of people killed but on-line website Iraqbodycount.org has estimated that between 34,511 and 38,660 civilians have lost their lives since the invasion. That count is taken from media reports. No word on whether the dead think they are “better off.”



This is intended to imply that things are no better now than under Saddam.



Since there has been a reduction in the amount of hospitals, doctors, electricity, and water while increasing disorder and lawlessness, I think that we can say that things are no better than under Saddam.


Iraq became a hotbed of Islamic terrorism under OUR watch. Got it?



They only trained there before we invaded. Now they just import them from neighboring countries. The only reason Iraq is a "hotbed of Islamic terrorism" now is because they are attempting to erode support of a mission that undermines their zany politics. It worked on you.



Actually, there is no evidence that Saddam trained terrorists in Iraq. So, there has been a massive increase in terrorists and terrorism training camps in Iraq.

Also, it's their politics. Since we're supposed to be supporting democracy there, shouldn't we assume that their politics are right for them?


Well, I was gonna say that this is the same White House that insisted there were WMD in there, too...



Here we go with the WMDs again...Here's a video montage of a whole shitload of people whose initials are not George W. Bush stating emphatically that Iraq has WMDs and needs to be invaded: Click me for revisionist history!



Since these people were all relying the cooked intelligence given to them by the GWB White House, all of these comments can be laid at the feet of GWB.

FireBomber

FireBomber

Leesburg, FL
March 2005

APR 25, 2006 10:09 PM

*sigh*

Here's an interview from PBS with the ex-head of the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992, describing in detail some of the terrorist training camps in Iraq. Interview here

Need more? How about The Weekly standard, Jamestown Foundation and Commonvoice.com. I'd post more, but it's awfully late for me to be doing everyone's research for them.

Cooked intelligence given to them by GWB? So you're saying that Bush was secretly controlling President Clinton and all the Democrats in that video who were speaking in 1998? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

For a group of people who complain about Bush distorting facts, there's sure an awful lot of gaping holes in your argument there.

I'm not trolling, either. I honestly hope that just one of you people who hear nothing but "Bush is satan" rhetoric will take the time to consider the facts that I present, and possibly open your mind to the fact not all of what is wrong with the world today is George Bush's fault.

If I were trolling however, I wouldn't consider it horrible. I'd say I'm doing quite well, actually.

smile

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by FireBomber]

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

APR 25, 2006 11:25 PM

FireBomber said:
Here we go with the WMDs again...


It's not about the WMD, it's about the White House that swore up and down about something that turned out not to be true, and therefore citing the White House completely lacks credibility.

I didn't bother watching your video (from politicalteen.com surreal ), but I'm assuming that that it's about a bunch of non-Republicans believing that Saddam had WMD...but unless they were members of the Bush administration, those people are irrelevant to this discussion.

Stop using the "straw man" rebuttal when you don't have anything to say. I responded to this comment..


I didn't use the strawman argument, I used the false dilema, which is...

by pointing out the fact that there were plenty of atrocities worse


...still there.

than a curfew and kidnappings before we got there.


I'm not talking about a fucking curfew. Iraqis are terrified to be out at night. They used to be able to stay out all night partying after a wedding. Now they have a lunch because no one in their right mind goes out at night for fear of bing kidnapped or caught in the crossfire. This was has not exactly been an unqualified success.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

APR 26, 2006 12:52 AM

Landed said:

UpTight said:

FearTheReaper said:
A report prepared by a group of 125 non-governmental organizations in Iraq has discovered some shocking numbers. 20,000 Iraqis, who don’t seem to understand they are better off not living under Saddam Hussein,



but it doesn't cross your mind to...you know...blame the fucking kidnappers!!!!

nah

course not



Clearly, CLEARLY, nobody was ever kidnapped or gunned down or bombed to pieces in Iraq before March 03. Fuck you, GWB! *middle finger*



IOW "BRING BACK SADDAM"

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

APR 26, 2006 01:01 AM

troglodyte said:

FireBomber said:
Here we go with the WMDs again...


It's not about the WMD, it's about the White House that swore up and down about something that turned out not to be true, and therefore citing the White House completely lacks credibility.



it can do

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..." Al Gore, Dec 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Bill Clinton, Feb 1998

"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq." Bill Richardson, May 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." John Kerry, Feb 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." Bill Clinton, Feb 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madeleine Albright, Feb 1998

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Dick Durbin, Sept 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeleine Albright, Nov 1999

"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Tom Daschle, Feb 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Feb 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi, Dec 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Bill Clinton, Dec 1998

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

APR 26, 2006 05:32 AM

UpTight said:

troglodyte said:

FireBomber said:
Here we go with the WMDs again...


It's not about the WMD, it's about the White House that swore up and down about something that turned out not to be true, and therefore citing the White House completely lacks credibility.



it can do

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..." Al Gore, Dec 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Bill Clinton, Feb 1998

"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq." Bill Richardson, May 1998

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." John Kerry, Feb 1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." Bill Clinton, Feb 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." Madeleine Albright, Feb 1998

"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Dick Durbin, Sept 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeleine Albright, Nov 1999

"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Tom Daschle, Feb 1998

"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Feb 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Nancy Pelosi, Dec 1998

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Bill Clinton, Dec 1998



Jesus Christ

Every time you post this (I am convinced you keep it in a text file on the desktop, so you can do a quick cut and paste every time you see the letters WMD in a thread), someone will point out to you that there is no one who is questioning that people thought Saddam had WMD in 1998 and that - based on the data that the President of the United States was presenting - people agreed that a danger was present in 2002.

The point is that the evidence was cooked.

The reason that the evidence was cooked was that, back in 1992, when the neocon wackos that conceived this war started planning, they were not interested in WMDs. Their dream was to implant a "democracy" in the Middle East that would insure Israel's future, balance Iran and give the US unfettered access to Iraqi oil reserves.

So, in 2002 when the events of 9/11/2001 gave the folks the excuse they need to put the plan they had urged onto President Clinton in 1996 into action, they seized upon the fear of Arabs with nukes to prosecute the it.

They believed - based on Chalabi's self serving predictions - that the Iraq's would welcome them like the GIs in Paris in 1944. The invasion and occupation were poorly planned and executed and the result is a fucking mess.

To say that Saddam was bad (and to date, I have read no comments supporting him) does not refute that we have made a fucking mess and many, many innocent people have died for it.

Is it okay to be responsible for the death, injury and destruction of the lives of 100,000 innocent people, so long as it is not as many as Saddam did?

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by NickFaust]

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

APR 26, 2006 05:57 AM

NickFaust said:
The point is that the evidence was cooked.

The reason that the evidence was cooked was that, back in 1992, when the neocon wackos that conceived this war started planning, they were not interested in WMDs. Their dream was to implant a "democracy" in the Middle East that would insure Israel's future, balance Iran and give the US unfettered access to Iraqi oil reserves.



Have you been drinking from David Duke's cup?

I ask because that is the same zionophobic shit that he has been peddling for a few years.

see: http://www.nowarforisrael.com

Hatred has driven many left wingers to such wacko extremes, that they have become indistinguishable from Duke.

Well - almost indistinuishable - at least Neo Nazi prejudice isn't cloaked in mawkish santimony - even if their conspiracy theories are the same

Is it okay to be responsible for the death, injury and destruction of the lives of 100,000 innocent people, so long as it is not as many as Saddam did?



not only are you quoting the Lancet's whimsical tombola figure, you STILL seem to be blaming our side for the murders carried out by the enemy.

Admit it Nick - you do not give a FLYING FUCK about Iraqis or the Middle East. Like so many Neolibs you wear a mask of concern, but baulk at the proespect of giving the people a chance of freedom.

You braisenly brandish the casualty figures, but not out of concern or sadness for those who lost their lives - you wield these figures as a Cudgel - a weapon brandished in the only cause you care about...the war on Bush.

If you actually actualy CARED you would direct your anger at those that did the killing. The terrorists.

If the evil media, clerics & regimes you refuse to condemn didn't foster terrorism, those people wouldn't be dead. THEY ARE TO BLAME.


[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

APR 26, 2006 06:03 AM

UpTight said:

NickFaust said:
The point is that the evidence was cooked.

The reason that the evidence was cooked was that, back in 1992, when the neocon wackos that conceived this war started planning, they were not interested in WMDs. Their dream was to implant a "democracy" in the Middle East that would insure Israel's future, balance Iran and give the US unfettered access to Iraqi oil reserves.



Have you been drinking from David Duke's cup?

I ask because that is the same zionophobic shit that he has been peddling for a few years.

see: http://www.nowarforisrael.com

Hatred has driven many left wingers to such wacko extremes, that they have become indistinguishable from Duke.

Well - almost indistinuishable - at least Neo Nazi prejudice isn't cloaked in mawkish santimony - even if their conspiracy theories are the same

Is it okay to be responsible for the death, injury and destruction of the lives of 100,000 innocent people, so long as it is not as many as Saddam did?



not only are you quoting the Lancet's whimsical tombola figure, you STILL seem to be blaming our side for the murders carried out by the enemy.

Admit it Nick - you do not give a FLYING FUCK about Iraqis or the Middle East. Like so many Neolibs you wear a mask of concern, but baulk at the proespect of giving the people a chance of freedom.

You braisenly brandish the casualty figures, but not out of concern or sadness for those who lost their lives - you wield these figures as a Cudgel - a weapon brandished in the only cause you care about...the war on Bush.

If you actually actualy CARED you would direct your anger at those that did the killing. The terrorists.

If the evil media, clerics & regimes you refuse to condemn didn't foster terrorism, those people wouldn't be dead. THEY ARE TO BLAME.


[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]



What, its zionophobic because I mention Israel? The US is committed to Israeli security - has been since '48. Across party lines. Get the fuck over yourself.

And what you don't get, fuckwad, is that I condemn IT ALL! They are wrong AND we are wrong.

In your simplistic world the fact that they are wrong must mean that we are right. Sorry, but adult reality is just more complex than that.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

APR 26, 2006 06:09 AM

And PS, I am not quoting Lancet - I said dead, wounded and lives destroyed - they were talking dead.

For the category I established my number is probably way, way conservative.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

APR 26, 2006 06:29 AM

NickFaust said:

What, its zionophobic because I mention Israel? The US is committed to Israeli security - has been since '48. Across party lines. Get the fuck over yourself.



Perhaps "zionophobic" is the wrong word. I use it out of sensitivity to you because I know you aren't a concious antisemite, but really Nick - you are touting the same arsehat theory that David Duke and his NeoNazi comrades are touting - that the Iraq war was instigated by some secret cabal on behalf of Israel.

The words "enormous, festering crock of SHIT" do not do justice

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 7

Next

featured interviews