News > Politics > Success! Only 20,000 Kidnapped in Iraq Since January

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 dont 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 [Iraqs] 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.

PAGE:

1 ...

4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Comments

UpTight

I'm lost

December 2003

APR 27, 2006 12:36 AM

oyaji said:

UpTight said:
Nick - you may not have spoken about the ethnicity of the Cabal - Duke certainly does - people get the message.

A small group of people of "undefined ethnicity"....er.... wolfowitz, perl, cohen, rumsfeld, get togther and decide to invent a war for Israel's benefit. The spilling of Christian blood for the Jewish state.

It's a modern day blood libel.

The war was fought because Saddam invaded kuwait and didn't adhere to the conditions of the ceasefire.

period

leave off the Dukeqsue "war fought for Israel" conspiracies and I'll lay off pointing out that you are propagating Dukesque conspiracy theories.

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]

Donald Rumsfeld is not jewish.

I did say "undefined", kemosabe

troglodyte

Victoria, BC

May 2003

APR 27, 2006 12:43 AM

UpTight said:
The allies didn't go to Iraq to create the terrorist blight but to stop a mafia clique from torturing the country and threatening the world.

A better analogy, I suppose, would be a government deciding to renovate a maximum security prison without bothering to make plans for securing that gaping hole in the wall, then wondering what went wrong after all the prisoners escape.

Iraq has a democratic process

Sticking feathers up your arse doesn't make you a chicken; walking into a garage doesn't make you a car; a country holding an election doesn't make it democratic.

I am confident, however, that Iraq will be democratic...in 70 or 80 years.

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

APR 27, 2006 01:51 AM

UpTight said:
The terrorists didn't enter because, thanks to the allies, they were sudden free to do. They went in to stop Iraq from becoming a democracy.

They failed - Iraq has a democratic process now and large voter turnouts, despite the threats, underline their failure.

While I applaud Iraq's progress toward democracy in the face of tremendous obstacles, young democracies are fragile things indeed, and whether or not the terrorists have failed won't be seen until the terrorists are actually stopped and we can see how Iraq's nascent government evolves. Furthermore, part of our mission there (indeed, one of our primary objectives) was establishing law, order, and security. None of those things are in place across the whole of Iraq right now. Yes, parts of Iraq are stable. Unfortunately, Iraq's most populous cities are not among those parts.

If you express regret about the invasion of Iraq, you not are only condemning the terrorist actions but everything else that goes with it - the freedom to practice a religion, the routing of Saddam and his monsterous sons, a free press, free speech, freedom to protest and the establishment of democracy.

Actually no. Expressing regret that our military leaders didn't listen to generals who said it would take a massive troop deployment to secure the country, pundits who suggested that an invasion wouldn't be the piece of cake one-year in-and-out affair Rumsfeld made it out to be, and inspectors who expressed doubts about Iraq's possession of WMD, and expressing dismay that a predictably inadequate initial troop deployment was insufficient to secure Iraq's streets and borders (the latter of which would have kept foreign terrorists from flooding over into the country) does not, in fact, indicate that we are expressing regret for any of the positive potential Iraq has or for the progress the country has made.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

APR 27, 2006 01:55 AM

UpTight said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
I am planning on going to the maximum security wing of the nearest jail and setting free a bunch of nasty hard-core violent criminals.

When they go on the inevitable murder/pillage rampage, I'll be confident that UpTight will be loudly defending my actions.

"TFOK is not to blame! It's the criminals who did this!"

Thanks in advance, UpTight, you're a chum!

Just a bump since you seem to be reading, UpTight. I want you to know I appreciate your defence of my actions, in advance.

this really puts the anal into analogy

The allies didn't go to Iraq to create the terrorist blight but to stop a mafia clique from torturing the country and threatening the world.

What?

I didn't free all the murderers to cause mayhem.

I'm an idealist, man.

*sips tea*

Akrasia

Ireland

August 2004

APR 27, 2006 01:58 AM

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

that is basically the right wing warmonger mindset in a nutshell.

oh and in relation to the number of dead in iraq, Never let facts get in the way of a good wank.. Not that the number of dead in iraq would bother someone like you, there could be a million dead and decaying bodies in Baghdad's mass graves and you'd still defend everything the bush government has done.

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

APR 27, 2006 05:48 AM

UpTight said:
this really puts the anal into analogy

The allies didn't go to Iraq to create the terrorist blight but to stop a mafia clique from torturing the country and threatening the world.

You are being idiotic. If I go to someone's house to stop a burglary and in doing so I start I fire, I am responsible for what the flames do, even if I am not the flames.

The terrorists didn't enter because, thanks to the allies, they were sudden free to do. They went in to stop Iraq from becoming a democracy.

You are being idiotic. They enter because they can. And they are doing what religious sects have done from time immemorial - slaughter each other. They are doing it because the US did not place enough troops in the country to handle the aftemath of the invasion - I don't think the invasion should have been done, but if it is going to be, it should have been done right.

They failed - Iraq has a democratic process now and large voter turnouts, despite the threats, underline their failure.

You are being idiotic. Iran has a "democratic process" too. Is that what you want all these lives sacrificed for?

You are being idiotic. The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. To say that is simply to say that there were other ways to achieve democratic ends besides through military intervention. And to date all the has really been accomplished is the end of Saddam's rule. The other things you mention are spotty at best and in some cases, for many people, worse than before. For billions of dollars and thousands of lives, what we will end up with is Iran, the sequel.

Think about that as you sip your tea in the comfort of Australia.

He says whilst sipping tea in the comfort of England.

And PS, you are being idiotic. I never once said the invasion was "for" Israel, in fact I specifically said it was not "for" Israel.

Nice strawman though.

Oh, yeah, in case you didn't get it, you are being idiotic.

[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by NickFaust]