The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Illegal Alien Kills Muslim: It's Trump's Fault
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

Nabra Hassanen and the Lost Innocence of Ramadan IHOP Nights
By SAHAR HABIB GHAZI JUNE 24, 2017

I can’t recall a Ramadan in America during my teens and 20s when I didn’t meet my Muslims friends at IHOP at 3 a.m. …

Lots of Muslims get fat during the Ramadan fast month because of the unhealthy behavior it encourages, like binge eating at IHOP at 3 am.

According to the police, Darwin Martinez Torres had a dispute with one of the teenagers whom Ms. Hassanen was walking with on their way back from suhoor at IHOP around 4 a.m. Mr. Torres then followed the group, first in his car and then on foot, striking Ms. Hassanen with a metal baseball bat and taking her with him when he left the scene. An hour later, he was arrested. The young woman’s lifeless body was found in a nearby pond. …

But whether her killer’s actions are officially characterized as “road rage” or ever described as a “hate crime” won’t change the fact that Muslim spaces — the religious ones and the ones we’ve created — are increasingly under attack. And visibly Muslim women, especially Muslim women of color, are the most vulnerable.

Here’s the most popular comment on this op-ed from an NYT reader:

I’m going to lay the blame at the feet of our cruel, narcissistic president. He started this: his campaign launched on a barrage of demagoguery against Mexicans, and later amped up to the “Muslim Ban.”

After his election, the Times started tracking weekly Hate Crimes, which I’d dutifully read because I felt they weren’t getting the publicity they deserved. The rise of hate crimes against Muslims and anyone who resembled them–including Sikhs and other Indians–was noteworthy, as was the rise of anti-Semitism.

This young woman didn’t deserve to die any more than anyone does, particularly while observing a religious holiday. But somehow in the past 2 years, because of a candidate who exploited voters’ most vile instincts, it’s become permissible to spew venom, or even attack people based on their ethnicity and their religion.

Under Trump, we’re becoming a meaner, cruel, more selfish nation.

What goes unmentioned in this op-ed, even though this news article appeared four days ago in the NYT:

Man Charged With Killing Muslim Teenager Entered United States Illegally, Authorities Say
By MATTHEW HAAG JUNE 20, 2017

A 22-year-old man accused of killing a Muslim teenager with a baseball bat in Virginia on Sunday is an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States illegally, federal authorities said on Tuesday.

The man, Darwin Martinez Torres, who was charged with murder in the death of Nabra Hassanen, 17, is believed to be from El Salvador, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman said.

Like I said, it’s Trump’s fault.

 
Hide 147 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Here’s the most popular comment from on this op-ed from an NYT reader:”

    I have nothing in common with this delusional fool.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. After his election, the Times started tracking weekly Hate Crimes, which I’d dutifully read because I felt they weren’t getting the publicity they deserved.

    One of the most famous and widely-circulated newspapers in the world started highlighting “hate crimes,” very selectively and including some cases of outright fraud, with no statistical backing that there had been an actual uptick in “hate crimes,”…. and this commenter is worried about a lack of “publicity” (because we all know the media goes out of it’s way to cover up “hate crimes” committed by whites against non-whites).

    These people are clinical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    These people are clinical.
     
    Clinical is right, Sandlapper. I wouldn't even know what kind of a clinic to refer this guy to. It'd be somewhere that they could work with people who have intelligence but an emotional state of a kid under 5 y/o. Let me explain that:

    Per Steve's time-line, and this guy's obvious rapt attention to everything the ROR* spews, he must know about the undocumentedness of the murderer Torres. That means life is just all about words to this commenter; actions and logic mean nothing. He knows candidate Trump talked about people's whose loved ones had been murdered, raped, etc. by illegal aliens, and he promised to do something about it. Doing something about it would mean controlling the borders. This illegal alien murdered the young girl, and this commenter knows that!

    It's just "bad" words and phrases that these clinically-emotionally-regressed NYT readers (not you, Steve) care about. What actually is happening in the world doesn't matter so much as not hearing anything "bad". I know 5-year olds that are way ahead of this guy in development. He's a sick mofo.


    * Rag Of Record
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Yes, it is fun to note that Liberals are always going to blame Whitey Christian – and any politician or cultural figure who is backed by Middle American Whitey – for anything they deem wrong. But the fact is that Liberals are more insanely violent now than they were even 2 years ago, and then they were more insanely violent than they were since the late 1960s/early 1970s.

    Those people are preparing to revolt. They are readying to slaughter the evil Middle American Whites they see as preventing Liberal paradise from flourishing. Like their French and Russian forebears, they are itching to ignite the conflagration that they are confident will consume those they hate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    It is not in the liberals' interest to revolt, which is why we are not seeing any calls for blue state secession. What they are pining for is a coup, where the right wing is hunted down by the security apparatus. The average white/(((white))) liberal is inexperienced in terms of carrying out violence, the antifa movement is notable for bringing itself into public scorn rather than the acclamation it receives in Europe.

    They believe we are in the death rattles, it may be in our interest to appear to confirm it. Lull them back to sleep.
    , @Pericles
    Modern politics is built on the tantrum-placate cycle, which, as we know, is the key to successful parenting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. affordable family formation addressed here:

    https://www.steynonline.com/7939/a-continent-in-existential-crisis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Checking out Ms. Ghazi’s Twitter I saw this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/google-search-harming-muslims_us_59415359e4b0d31854867de8

    Google Search Is Doing Irreparable Harm To Muslims
    A Dallas imam and his organization are taking on the world’s largest search engine to stop it from spreading hate.

    … “Ninety percent of people don’t make it past the first page [of Google search results],” Heidi Beirich, a project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told HuffPost. “It’s miseducating millions, if not billions of people on many subjects.”

    … Suleiman and his team have been publishing reports on controversial topics in Islam ― like jihad ― in the hopes of influencing the search algorithm. His goal is to flood the search results with accurate information on Islam.

    Here’s one such report:

    https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/islam-is-not-the-cause-of-honor-killings-its-part-of-the-solution/

    Islam is not the Cause of Honor Killings. It’s Part of the Solution
    Jonathan Brown

    … But none of these laws has any basis in the Shariah or Islamic teachings. In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858 …

    … In Pakistan, another country regularly in the news over honor crimes, we find a similar case with British law. Despite having a legal system influenced by the Shariah, Pakistan’s criminal law remains based in the 1860 code that the British imported to rule colonial India. … Sadly, Pakistani courts sometimes still hand down reduced punishments for the men who commit honor killings. But the judges who do so have justified this by once again citing the “grave and sudden provocation” suffered by the murderer – the exact wording of the British law[3].

    Left unaddressed is why Pakistanis think a daughter dishonoring the family is a “grave and sudden provocation”, something that it would occur to you to murder her over, like some guy diddling your wife might make you want to kill him (as in the example of British law in Nigeria it opens with — not even a female victim!).

    Pakistani kills female relative for bringing dishonor to his family: it’s Westerners’ fault. Now let’s SEO this mother****** to the top of Google!

    P.S. Did you know there’s a $57 million slush fund for us? https://islamophobianetwork.com/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon

    In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858....
     
    Ah, yes, it just doesn't get any more Western than the Turkish Caliphate, now, does it, kids?

    They are expanding moral relativism into geographic relativism. Sure, every place is to the west (and east) of someplace else, but there are in fact official, universal, longitudinal designations of the eastern and western hemispheres, as well as milennia of tradition, convention, literature, and historiography such that anyone save the utterly disingenuous and willfully obtuse knows damned good and well the Ottoman Empire is not Western in the sense that adjective is being used here.

    The mendacity and conniving – the very torture of the English language – simply never ends for these shameless savages.
    , @El Dato
    The Jonathan Brown guy skillfully mixes "crimes of passion" (a claim about which may indeed yield a "get out of jail" card in the "West") and so-called "honor killings".

    Honor killings are found with prevalence in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Hindustan (not regions that are the original source of Islam) and in regions where people from said regions have settled (like, uh, Germany).

    Should we care about Pashtun customs? Probably not. But:

    http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings

    Tempted by Western ideas, desiring to assimilate, and hoping to escape lives of subordination, those girls and women who exercise their option to be Western are killed—at early ages and in particularly gruesome ways. Frightening honor murders may constitute an object lesson to other Muslim girls and women about what may happen to them if they act on the temptation to do more than serve their fathers and brothers as domestic servants, marry their first cousin, and breed as many children as possible. The deaths of females already living in the West may also be intended as lessons for other female immigrants who are expected to lead subordinate and segregated lives amid the temptations and privileges of freedom. This is especially true in Europe where large Muslim ghettos have formed in the past few decades. It is particularly alarming to note that in Europe 96 percent of the honor killing perpetrators are Muslims. (...)

    In addition, clear government warnings must be issued to Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu immigrants and citizens: Honor killings must be prosecuted in the West, and perpetrators, accomplices, and enablers must all be prosecuted. Participating families should be publicly shamed. Criminals must be deported after they have served their sentences.
     
    , @Anonymous
    "But none of these laws has any basis in the Shariah or Islamic teachings. In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858 …"

    The Ottomans were Muslim, and its blatantly misleading to call them Western.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Like I said, it’s Trump’s fault.

    Absolutely, it is. If he’d gotten the wall done before this guy Torres had already broken into the country, this girl would still be alive, and her family would not have to fly in for a funeral (and they wouldn’t have been able to anyway had the travel ban been implemented as planned).

    This commenter is on onto something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. This reminds me of a joke I heard at the time of the Trayvon Martin incident and George Zimmerman’s subsequent acquittal:

    A Hispanic guy shot a black guy and was acquitted by a female jury, but it’s still the white man’s fault.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Darwin. How appropriate!

    Is cousin Galton far behind?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. If you’re a devout enough Muslim to fast during the day during Ramadan, why would you break your fast at IHOP, where they’re grilling sausage and bacon on the same stove as your pancakes? Unless there are halal IHOPs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You've heard of cafeteria Catholics, haven't you? These are pancake-house Muslims. Same thing, only different in the specifics.

    Motor City Madman vs Rubber City Ruminant. Vastly different buildout, same basic pathologies.
    , @Anon7
    Halal IHOP halal IHOP halal halal halal IHOP

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=3rYoRaxgOE0

    Couldn't resist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Wow, every day is a Reichstag fire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Muslim spaces — the religious ones and the ones we’ve created — are increasingly under attack. And visibly Muslim women, especially Muslim women of color, are the most vulnerable.

    How sad. And yet, I’m fairly certain she won’t be leaving anytime soon. Not even to go just a short distance away to Trudeaupia in the north.

    It’s strange. Do you know what I mean? Strange.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Its not strange at all. The Puritans of Massachusetts didn't go back to England when Cromwell won the civil war.

    The Muslims are here to conquer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. New top comment:

    “I find this op ed confusing. The police found that bias was not a factor. Publicly available details seem to support their conclusion. Mr. Torres was not an American citizen and was here illegally. So what does this horrific incident have to do with anti-Muslim sentiment among Americans?

    The author seems to want to appropriate this tragedy to serve her own political aims. Yet it probably says more about immigration policy than it does about prejudice against Muslim-Americans.”

    Read More
    • Agree: eah
    • Replies: @anon
    That comment is better. But I still won't be fully satisfied until the top comment is something like "What is this woman complaining about? Doesn't she know that she's more likely to die in a bathtub than to be killed by an Islamophobe?".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. America’s “War on Terror” has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn’t run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to “draw attention” and “I don’t know what the guy’s cause is.”

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange……….

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn’t make much of an issue of this.

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange…….

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn’t get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn’t seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn’t run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    Read More
    • Agree: prole
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Great post, Johnny.
    , @anon
    My guess is that after dying, they didn’t get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn’t seem very interested in these people.

    Maybe you should try Google, Johnny. I found this in less than five seconds.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=0&referer=

    (Please note: This was back when Wikileaks was considered the good guys.)

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they've talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I'm sure it's not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

    , @JohnnyWalker123
    John McCain made up a song about bombing Iran.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxV9oCUPeSc

    McCain also joked how we could kill Iranians by giving them more cigarettes and causing cancer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LldjTWx4cJQ

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't seem much concerned about this. You would think that since the Iranians are non-white, the media would be mortified and McCain would've gotten himself into a lot of trouble. Yet, for some reason, McCain got a pass.........

    Perhaps the New York Times should run an editorial in which a Muslim Iranian discusses McCain's genocidal hatred of Iranian people.
    , @syonredux

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s.
     
    Various estimates:


    Iraq (1990-2003): 350,000
    International Embargo
    Kaplow, Larry, “Consequences Of Kuwait: Sanctions have Iraq withering”, 13 June 1999, Atlanta Journal and Constitution: 110,000
    Project on Defense Alternatives, 20 Oct. 2003: "[T]he sanction regime probably cost the lives of 170,000 children. (Much higher estimates for 1992-1998 sanction deaths ... are based on faulty baseline statistics for prewar childhood mortality in Iraq)." [http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html#N_93_]
    Chris Suellentrop, “Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?” Slate Magazine, October 9, 2001, acknowledged the possibility of 350,000-500,000 excess deaths among children since 1991, but points out that Saddam blames the UN and the US blames Saddam
    UNICEF: 500,000 excess child deaths (under-five) 1991 to 1998 [http://www.unicef.org.uk/index_s.asp?sct=news&filen=../news/iraq1.htm]
    Philip Shenon, “Washington and Baghdad Agree on One Point: Sanctions Hurt”, 22 Nov. 1998, New York Times: 700,000
    Leon Howell, “Churches Regret Calling for Sanctions”, March 21, 1998, [Albany, NY] Times Union: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 1,000,000 Iraqis, incl. 560,000 children, died as a result of malnutrition and disease caused by the international embargo imposed following the invasion of Kuwait. The article mentions the use of these numbers by an official of the United Church of Christ, and also labels the figures "commonly used -- but also disputed".
    6 Aug. 1999 CNN [http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9908/06/iraq.sanctions/]
    UN: 1M excess deaths
    Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5M
    Ramsey Clark: 1,500,000 including 750,000 children [http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Ramsey.html]
    Brian Nelson and Jane Arraf, “Ten Years After Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and U.N. Sanctions Still Stand”, 18:00 August 6, 2000, CNN Worldview: 1.5 million
     

    Gulf War I:

    Shortly after the war, the US Defense Intelligence Agency made a very rough estimate of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and this order of magnitude is widely accepted -- even improved upon:
    B&J: 50,000 to 100,000
    Compton's: 150,000 Iraqi soldiers killed
    World Political Almanac 3rd: 150,000 incl. civilians.
    Our Times: 200,000.
    Other authoritative sources working with more detailed data have come up with lower numbers:
    The British govt. put the death toll at 30,000 (War Annual 6, 1994)
    A May 1992 report by the US House Armed Services Committee estimated that 9,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed by the air campaign. [http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/aspin_rpt.html]
    The PBS news show Frontline estimates 2300 civilians, 10-20,000 military in air war and, 10,000 military in the ground war; for a total of 27,300 ±5000. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html)
    Because the advancing American Army found only 577 dead bodies and captured only 800 wounded/sick prisoners (compared to 37,000 healthy prisoners), John Heidenrich ("The Gulf War: how many Iraqis died?", Foreign Policy, 22 March 1993) plausibly estimates the number of Iraqi military killed at 1,500 (probable) to 9,500 (absolute maximum), with fewer than 1000 civilians.
    29 April 1999 AP: 4,500 to 45,000
    Civilian death toll is put at 2,500 by US and 35,000 by Iraqis
    The US lost 147 killed in battle and 289 dead otherwise. The other Coalition members lost 92 dead.
    NOTE: Subtracting the civilian estimates from the estimated total indicates that AP puts the military deaths in roughly the same range as Heidenrich: 2,000 to 10,000
    Dict.Wars: 85,000 Iraqi and 240 Coalition soldiers.
    Wm Arkin: 3,200 Iraqi civilians (cited in 4 Dec. 2001 WSJ [http://wsjclassroomedition.com/tj_120401_casu.htm] and 13 Jan. 2002 San Francisco Chronicle)
    Martin Gilbert:
    Coalition
    USA: 145 k. in action and 121 k. in accidents.
    UK: 24
    Egypt: 10
    UAE: 6

    Iraqis: at least 8,000 in battle, and 5,000 civilians
    25 July 1991 The Gazette (Montreal), citing a Greenpeace report by Wm Arkin:
    Iraqi
    Military: 100,000-120,000
    Civilian: 62,400 to 99,400 (87% of dis./mal. after fighting stopped)
    Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 30,000-100,000
    Kuwaitis: 2,000-5,000
    Coalition
    US: 145 KIA + 2 mortally wd. + 121 in accidents = 268
    Allies: 77
    TOTAL: 345
    8 Jan. 1992 Interpress, citing a later Greenpeace report by Arkin:
    Iraqis
    Military: 72,500-118,000
    Civilian: 2,500-3,000 in bombing + 49,000-56,000 from dis./mal in 1990-91
    Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 102,000-150,000 civilians & rebels + 5,000 Iraqi soldiers
    16 Feb. 2003 Pittsbugh Post-Gazette [http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualtiesbox0216p9.asp]
    Iraqi soldiers killed
    Beth Daponte / William Arkin: 56,000
    Army War College: 10,000-20,000
    John Heidenrich / John Mueller: 1,000-6,000
    Iraqi civilians killed
    Daponte / Arkin: 3,500
    Government of Iraq: 2,248
    Army War College: 1,000-3,000
    Heidenrich/Mueller: Fewer than 1,000
    Indirect civilian deaths
    Daponte: 111,000
    19 March 2004 NY Post
    Iraqi soldiers: 40,000
    Iraqi civilians: 2,300

    Project on Defense Alternatives, 20 Oct. 2003 [http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html]
    War dead
    Iraqi civilians: 3,500
    Iraqi military: 20,000 - 26,000
    Post-war
    Anti-regime uprisings: 30,000 civilians + 5,000 military
    Health-related deaths: 60,000-100,000
    11 Nov. 2000 Times [London]: 47 British soldiers
    Kuwaiti civilians
    24 Feb. 1991 St. Petersburg Times: acc2 Pentagon, 2,000-10,000 killed by Iraqis "in recent days"
    7 March 1996, Guardian [London]: 600 missing since Iraqi occupation.
    MEDIAN
    Direct civilian deaths
    Iraqi: 2,625
    Kuwaitis: 4,750
    [Total: 7,375]
    Iraqi Soldiers: 25,000
    TOTAL: 75,000 (The whole appears to be greater than the sum of its parts because many estimates tally the war's dead without differentiating between military and civilian.)
     

    Iraq War and Occupation:

    Running Online Tallies:
    Iraq Body Count: 105,721 to 115,476 civilians killed as of March 18, 2012
    Iraq Coalition Casualty Count: 4,485 USAns killed 2003-2011
    BBC, “Iraqi official: War dead 100,000,” 10 November 2006, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6135526.stm
    Kim Gamel, Associated Press, April 24, 2009: over 110,000 Iraqi deaths since 2003
    BBC, “New study says 151,000 Iraqi dead”, 10 January 2008 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180055.stm]
    Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg, "What is the real death toll in Iraq?" Guardian, 19 March 2008, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq]
    Tina Susman, "Poll: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million", Los Angeles Times, 14 September 2007: 1.2 million
    Rebecca Santana, "85,000 Iraqis killed in almost 5 years of war", Associated Press, October 14, 2009
    Iraqi Human Rights Ministry: 85,694 Iraqis killed 1 Jan. 2004 to 31 Oct. 2008 including Iraqi civilians, military and police, but not insurgents or foreigners.
    Associated Press: 110,600 Iraqis died violently, 2003 invasion through early 2009
    World Health Organization (2007): 151,000 Iraqis died from violence, 2003-05, including insurgents.
    Johns Hopkins University study published in Lancet (2006): 601,027 Iraqis died as a result of violence.
    Pentagon: 4,349 Americans k. (as of 14 Oct 2009)
    Lara Jakes, "US says Iraq War led to 77k deaths over 5 years", Associated Press, Oct 14, 2010
    US Military estimate: 76,939 Iraqi security officials and civilians killed
    Iraq Body Count: 98,252 to 107,235 Iraqi civilians were killed (March 2003 to 19 Sept 2010)
    2009 Iraqi Human Rights Ministry: 85,694
    Crawford, Boston University, "Civilian Death and Injury in Iraq, 2003-2011" [http://costsofwar.org/article/iraqi-civilians]
    Iraqi civilians: 126,000+
    Iraqi military killed at the outset of the war: ca. 10,000
    insurgents: ca. 19,000 killed (June 2003-Sept. 2007)
    Iraqi military and police: 10,100+ killed since June 2003
    US, allied soldiers and contractors: ca. 6,300
    Total: ca. 171,000
    ABC News [Australia], "162,000 people killed in Iraq war: NGO", January 03, 2012. citing Iraq Body Count [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-03/iraq-war-death-toll-put-at-162000/3755768?section=world]
    Iraqi civilians: 114,000+
    Iraqi police: 9,019
    US soldiers: 4,474
    Total: 162,000
     
    So, White's best guess would be:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000 +350,000 + 171,000= 596,000


    I wonder why NYT doesn’t run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.
     
    They need to move to the USA. Then the NYTIMES will be quite happy to interview them about how racist White Americans are....
    , @syonredux
    And then there are the people killed by Saddam Hussein. Some estimates:

    Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300,000 [make link]
    Roth, “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention,” Human Rights Watch, January 2004: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
    Price, "Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad", 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
    New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
    US Government estimates a total of 300,000 killed by Saddam across Iraq
    180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
    60,000 Shiites in 1991
    50,000 misc. others executed
    "Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
    Iraqi politicians: over a million

     

    And then there's the Iran-Iraq War. Various estimates:

    Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 700,000
    Most newpaper articles agree on the number, but they can't agree on the number of what. They talk of a million "killed", a million "killed and wounded", or a million "casualties". Here are the estimates among the sources which specify the number as killed:
    Dilip Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (1991), p.250:
    Conservative western est: 262,000 Iranians + 105,000 Iraqis = 367,000
    Iran, officially: 123,220 KIA + 60,711 MIA + 11,000 civilians [= 194,931]
    Iran, according to Baghdad: 800,000
    Eckhardt: 377,000 as of 1987
    Potter, Iran, Iraq, and the Legacies of War, p.8 (2006):
    Iranian deaths "more or less consistent": 213,000 (Gen. Safavi); 204,795 incl. civilians (Qalamnevis); 220,000 (Rafiqdust)
    Iraqis: 180,000 (al-Samarrai); 150,000 Baram
    [TOTAL: 354,795 to 400,000]
    Hammond: 400,000
    5 March 1991 AP
    Iran has acknowledged 135,000 mil. + civ. k.
    Western military analysts: 2 or 3 times higher
    Diplomats in Baghdad: 100,000 Iraqi dead
    [Total: (?) 437,500 ± 67,500]
    Conservative Western estimates: 1M k. or wd.
    Dunnigan (1991): over 500,000
    Dictionary of 20C World History: >500,000
    Bulloch & Morris, The Gulf War (1989): 500,000
    SIPRI 1989: 532,000
    Clodfelter
    Iranians: best est. 450,000 (as high as 730,000)
    Iraqis: 150,000 (as high as 340,000)
    [TOTAL: 600,000 (as high as 1,070,000)
    Chirot
    Iranians: 400,000-600,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    [TOTAL: 700,000 ± 100,000]

    MEDIAN: 700,000
    Iranians: 400,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    WPA3: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    Compton's Encyclopedia: 1,000,000
    Encarta: 1,000,000
    Toronto Star (11 Dec 88): 1,000,000
    San Francisco Chronicle (29 Jan. 1991): 1,000,000
    Our Times: at least 1,000,000
    War Annual 4: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    B&J: 1,000,000 (400,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqis)
    Timeframe: 1,200,000 (900,000 Iranians and 300,000 Iraqis)
     
    , @Kaz
    No one cares about Iraq anymore, like people don't care about Libya, and soon they won't care about Syria once we set it on a dysgenic pace for the next half century.

    The invasion business must go on.
    , @syonredux
    And then there are the estimates on people killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300,000 [make link]
    Roth, “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention,” Human Rights Watch, January 2004: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
    Price, "Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad", 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
    New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
    US Government estimates a total of 300,000 killed by Saddam across Iraq
    180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
    60,000 Shiites in 1991
    50,000 misc. others executed
    "Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
    Iraqi politicians: over a million


    And then there's the Iran-Iraq War. Various estimates:

    Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 700,000
    Most newpaper articles agree on the number, but they can't agree on the number of what. They talk of a million "killed", a million "killed and wounded", or a million "casualties". Here are the estimates among the sources which specify the number as killed:
    Dilip Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (1991), p.250:
    Conservative western est: 262,000 Iranians + 105,000 Iraqis = 367,000
    Iran, officially: 123,220 KIA + 60,711 MIA + 11,000 civilians [= 194,931]
    Iran, according to Baghdad: 800,000
    Eckhardt: 377,000 as of 1987
    Potter, Iran, Iraq, and the Legacies of War, p.8 (2006):
    Iranian deaths "more or less consistent": 213,000 (Gen. Safavi); 204,795 incl. civilians (Qalamnevis); 220,000 (Rafiqdust)
    Iraqis: 180,000 (al-Samarrai); 150,000 Baram
    [TOTAL: 354,795 to 400,000]
    Hammond: 400,000
    5 March 1991 AP
    Iran has acknowledged 135,000 mil. + civ. k.
    Western military analysts: 2 or 3 times higher
    Diplomats in Baghdad: 100,000 Iraqi dead
    [Total: (?) 437,500 ± 67,500]
    Conservative Western estimates: 1M k. or wd.
    Dunnigan (1991): over 500,000
    Dictionary of 20C World History: >500,000
    Bulloch & Morris, The Gulf War (1989): 500,000
    SIPRI 1989: 532,000
    Clodfelter
    Iranians: best est. 450,000 (as high as 730,000)
    Iraqis: 150,000 (as high as 340,000)
    [TOTAL: 600,000 (as high as 1,070,000)
    Chirot
    Iranians: 400,000-600,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    [TOTAL: 700,000 ± 100,000]

    MEDIAN: 700,000
    Iranians: 400,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    WPA3: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    Compton's Encyclopedia: 1,000,000
    Encarta: 1,000,000
    Toronto Star (11 Dec 88): 1,000,000
    San Francisco Chronicle (29 Jan. 1991): 1,000,000
    Our Times: at least 1,000,000
    War Annual 4: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    B&J: 1,000,000 (400,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqis)
    Timeframe: 1,200,000 (900,000 Iranians and 300,000 Iraqis)
    , @syonredux
    Odd. My comments are being processed rather strangely. Oh, well, perhaps something shorter will work.

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s.
     
    Two million seems a bit high. Here are Matthew White's estimates:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    And, for comparison's sake, his estimates on the total killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million
    , @Lot
    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Don't think of them as "sanctions". Think of them as externally enacted protectionism. Think of all the Iraqis who got their jobs back with the end of free trade. A boon to their pharmaceutical industry in particular.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness
     
    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt. So he's just carrying on their own tradition, which their own "self-awareness" demands must avoid scrutiny.

    Were the German pilots who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes? Or were they conveniently forgiven?

    , @biz
    As I understand it, a problem with all of these frequently cited Iraq war casualty statistics is that they count all supposed excess deaths (or in the case of the Lancet article all non-standard deaths) since 2003 as being the fault of the US war. It hardly seems honest to blame all of the deaths in that country's ongoing and morphing Sunni/Shia/Kurd/Turkmen sectarian conflict, and the ongoing murder/expulsion of the ancient Christian, Yezidi, and Mandean communities, on the US invasion. Perhaps Saddam would have been able to keep a lid on that indefinitely had the US not deposed him, and perhaps not. But in either case the fault clearly lies with the tribal and sectarian ethos of that society. The number of Iraqis actually directly killed by the US was quite small.

    The other problem with those stats, in addition to being so thoroughly dubious, is that their purpose is to obfuscate the actual motivation for Islamic terrorism against the West (and against the East, and against Muslims from other sects) which has absolutely nothing to do with Western foreign policy and is solely the result of a religious doctrine of martyrdom and absolutism. I could go into all of the cases and evidence that disprove the legitimate grievance (tm) hypothesis of Islamic terror, but I've done that enough already. Suffice it to say that no legitimate grievance theory can explain why Al Shabbab massacred hundreds of black Kenyans in a mall after attempting to separate the sufficiently observant Muslim black Kenyans from the Christian and insufficiently observant Muslim black Kenyans, or why Aby Sayyaf did the same thing but replace black Kenyans with Filipinos.
    , @Paul Jolliffe
    We may forget that the NYT is not merely about "invite the world", but "invade the world". JW123, you've commented before about the JFK assassination and its importance to the interventionist arm of American Foreign Policy over the last half-century.

    Interventionists have been in control of the White House and our policies for a long time, and the NYT is merely their mouthpiece.

    So,while you're right to wonder why the NYT doesn't deliver on "all the news that fits we'll print", well the answer is simple:

    What you've noticed "doesn't fit", therefore they won't print.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Patrick in SC

    After his election, the Times started tracking weekly Hate Crimes, which I’d dutifully read because I felt they weren’t getting the publicity they deserved.
     
    One of the most famous and widely-circulated newspapers in the world started highlighting "hate crimes," very selectively and including some cases of outright fraud, with no statistical backing that there had been an actual uptick in "hate crimes,".... and this commenter is worried about a lack of "publicity" (because we all know the media goes out of it's way to cover up "hate crimes" committed by whites against non-whites).

    These people are clinical.

    These people are clinical.

    Clinical is right, Sandlapper. I wouldn’t even know what kind of a clinic to refer this guy to. It’d be somewhere that they could work with people who have intelligence but an emotional state of a kid under 5 y/o. Let me explain that:

    Per Steve’s time-line, and this guy’s obvious rapt attention to everything the ROR* spews, he must know about the undocumentedness of the murderer Torres. That means life is just all about words to this commenter; actions and logic mean nothing. He knows candidate Trump talked about people’s whose loved ones had been murdered, raped, etc. by illegal aliens, and he promised to do something about it. Doing something about it would mean controlling the borders. This illegal alien murdered the young girl, and this commenter knows that!

    It’s just “bad” words and phrases that these clinically-emotionally-regressed NYT readers (not you, Steve) care about. What actually is happening in the world doesn’t matter so much as not hearing anything “bad”. I know 5-year olds that are way ahead of this guy in development. He’s a sick mofo.

    * Rag Of Record

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    Great post, Johnny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    My guess is that after dying, they didn’t get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn’t seem very interested in these people.

    Maybe you should try Google, Johnny. I found this in less than five seconds.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=0&referer=

    (Please note: This was back when Wikileaks was considered the good guys.)

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you'd think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was "liberal" and "hated Republicans."

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

     

    At least on broadcast news, there's almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it's still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There's a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don't think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it's job, how did this happen?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    John McCain made up a song about bombing Iran.

    McCain also joked how we could kill Iranians by giving them more cigarettes and causing cancer.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t seem much concerned about this. You would think that since the Iranians are non-white, the media would be mortified and McCain would’ve gotten himself into a lot of trouble. Yet, for some reason, McCain got a pass………

    Perhaps the New York Times should run an editorial in which a Muslim Iranian discusses McCain’s genocidal hatred of Iranian people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t seem much concerned about this.

    Actually, Johnny, it was pretty widely criticized at the time. Even reporters who were there at the time were bothered by it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000020_pf.html.

    If "media liberals" hadn't been kind of upset about it, I doubt you would have even heard about it in the first place.

    , @Rob McX
    The guy is unhinged. Maybe the Vietnamese were using his headphone cable as a lightning conductor when he made those alleged broadcasts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Jake
    Yes, it is fun to note that Liberals are always going to blame Whitey Christian - and any politician or cultural figure who is backed by Middle American Whitey - for anything they deem wrong. But the fact is that Liberals are more insanely violent now than they were even 2 years ago, and then they were more insanely violent than they were since the late 1960s/early 1970s.

    Those people are preparing to revolt. They are readying to slaughter the evil Middle American Whites they see as preventing Liberal paradise from flourishing. Like their French and Russian forebears, they are itching to ignite the conflagration that they are confident will consume those they hate.

    It is not in the liberals’ interest to revolt, which is why we are not seeing any calls for blue state secession. What they are pining for is a coup, where the right wing is hunted down by the security apparatus. The average white/(((white))) liberal is inexperienced in terms of carrying out violence, the antifa movement is notable for bringing itself into public scorn rather than the acclamation it receives in Europe.

    They believe we are in the death rattles, it may be in our interest to appear to confirm it. Lull them back to sleep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Ive always thought "rely on the white police and soldiers we hate to kill the white civilians we hate" to be pretty indicative of the schizophrenia that progressive thought induces.

    Right up there with "import violent muslims to fight homophobia".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Dave Pinsen
    If you're a devout enough Muslim to fast during the day during Ramadan, why would you break your fast at IHOP, where they're grilling sausage and bacon on the same stove as your pancakes? Unless there are halal IHOPs?

    You’ve heard of cafeteria Catholics, haven’t you? These are pancake-house Muslims. Same thing, only different in the specifics.

    Motor City Madman vs Rubber City Ruminant. Vastly different buildout, same basic pathologies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @anon

    Muslim spaces — the religious ones and the ones we’ve created — are increasingly under attack. And visibly Muslim women, especially Muslim women of color, are the most vulnerable.
     
    How sad. And yet, I'm fairly certain she won't be leaving anytime soon. Not even to go just a short distance away to Trudeaupia in the north.

    It's strange. Do you know what I mean? Strange.

    Its not strange at all. The Puritans of Massachusetts didn’t go back to England when Cromwell won the civil war.

    The Muslims are here to conquer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    And the Miami Cubans aren't going to be going back to Cuba either.
    , @anon
    There was no jet travel in the 1640's either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s.

    Various estimates:

    Iraq (1990-2003): 350,000
    International Embargo
    Kaplow, Larry, “Consequences Of Kuwait: Sanctions have Iraq withering”, 13 June 1999, Atlanta Journal and Constitution: 110,000
    Project on Defense Alternatives, 20 Oct. 2003: “[T]he sanction regime probably cost the lives of 170,000 children. (Much higher estimates for 1992-1998 sanction deaths … are based on faulty baseline statistics for prewar childhood mortality in Iraq).” (http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html#N_93_
    Chris Suellentrop, “Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?” Slate Magazine, October 9, 2001, acknowledged the possibility of 350,000-500,000 excess deaths among children since 1991, but points out that Saddam blames the UN and the US blames Saddam
    UNICEF: 500,000 excess child deaths (under-five) 1991 to 1998 (http://www.unicef.org.uk/index_s.asp?sct=news&filen=../news/iraq1.htm]
    Philip Shenon, “Washington and Baghdad Agree on One Point: Sanctions Hurt”, 22 Nov. 1998, New York Times: 700,000
    Leon Howell, “Churches Regret Calling for Sanctions”, March 21, 1998, [Albany, NY] Times Union: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 1,000,000 Iraqis, incl. 560,000 children, died as a result of malnutrition and disease caused by the international embargo imposed following the invasion of Kuwait. The article mentions the use of these numbers by an official of the United Church of Christ, and also labels the figures “commonly used — but also disputed”.
    6 Aug. 1999 CNN (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9908/06/iraq.sanctions/
    UN: 1M excess deaths
    Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5M
    Ramsey Clark: 1,500,000 including 750,000 children (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Ramsey.html
    Brian Nelson and Jane Arraf, “Ten Years After Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait and U.N. Sanctions Still Stand”, 18:00 August 6, 2000, CNN Worldview: 1.5 million

    Gulf War I:

    Shortly after the war, the US Defense Intelligence Agency made a very rough estimate of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and this order of magnitude is widely accepted — even improved upon:
    B&J: 50,000 to 100,000
    Compton’s: 150,000 Iraqi soldiers killed
    World Political Almanac 3rd: 150,000 incl. civilians.
    Our Times: 200,000.
    Other authoritative sources working with more detailed data have come up with lower numbers:
    The British govt. put the death toll at 30,000 (War Annual 6, 1994)
    A May 1992 report by the US House Armed Services Committee estimated that 9,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed by the air campaign. (http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/aspin_rpt.html
    The PBS news show Frontline estimates 2300 civilians, 10-20,000 military in air war and, 10,000 military in the ground war; for a total of 27,300 ±5000. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html)
    Because the advancing American Army found only 577 dead bodies and captured only 800 wounded/sick prisoners (compared to 37,000 healthy prisoners), John Heidenrich (“The Gulf War: how many Iraqis died?”, Foreign Policy, 22 March 1993) plausibly estimates the number of Iraqi military killed at 1,500 (probable) to 9,500 (absolute maximum), with fewer than 1000 civilians.
    29 April 1999 AP: 4,500 to 45,000
    Civilian death toll is put at 2,500 by US and 35,000 by Iraqis
    The US lost 147 killed in battle and 289 dead otherwise. The other Coalition members lost 92 dead.
    NOTE: Subtracting the civilian estimates from the estimated total indicates that AP puts the military deaths in roughly the same range as Heidenrich: 2,000 to 10,000
    Dict.Wars: 85,000 Iraqi and 240 Coalition soldiers.
    Wm Arkin: 3,200 Iraqi civilians (cited in 4 Dec. 2001 WSJ (http://wsjclassroomedition.com/tj_120401_casu.htm and 13 Jan. 2002 San Francisco Chronicle)
    Martin Gilbert:
    Coalition
    USA: 145 k. in action and 121 k. in accidents.
    UK: 24
    Egypt: 10
    UAE: 6

    Iraqis: at least 8,000 in battle, and 5,000 civilians
    25 July 1991 The Gazette (Montreal), citing a Greenpeace report by Wm Arkin:
    Iraqi
    Military: 100,000-120,000
    Civilian: 62,400 to 99,400 (87% of dis./mal. after fighting stopped)
    Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 30,000-100,000
    Kuwaitis: 2,000-5,000
    Coalition
    US: 145 KIA + 2 mortally wd. + 121 in accidents = 268
    Allies: 77
    TOTAL: 345
    8 Jan. 1992 Interpress, citing a later Greenpeace report by Arkin:
    Iraqis
    Military: 72,500-118,000
    Civilian: 2,500-3,000 in bombing + 49,000-56,000 from dis./mal in 1990-91
    Post-war revolts in N + S Iraq: 102,000-150,000 civilians & rebels + 5,000 Iraqi soldiers
    16 Feb. 2003 Pittsbugh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030216casualtiesbox0216p9.asp
    Iraqi soldiers killed
    Beth Daponte / William Arkin: 56,000
    Army War College: 10,000-20,000
    John Heidenrich / John Mueller: 1,000-6,000
    Iraqi civilians killed
    Daponte / Arkin: 3,500
    Government of Iraq: 2,248
    Army War College: 1,000-3,000
    Heidenrich/Mueller: Fewer than 1,000
    Indirect civilian deaths
    Daponte: 111,000
    19 March 2004 NY Post
    Iraqi soldiers: 40,000
    Iraqi civilians: 2,300

    Project on Defense Alternatives, 20 Oct. 2003 (http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html
    War dead
    Iraqi civilians: 3,500
    Iraqi military: 20,000 – 26,000
    Post-war
    Anti-regime uprisings: 30,000 civilians + 5,000 military
    Health-related deaths: 60,000-100,000
    11 Nov. 2000 Times [London]: 47 British soldiers
    Kuwaiti civilians
    24 Feb. 1991 St. Petersburg Times: acc2 Pentagon, 2,000-10,000 killed by Iraqis “in recent days”
    7 March 1996, Guardian [London]: 600 missing since Iraqi occupation.
    MEDIAN
    Direct civilian deaths
    Iraqi: 2,625
    Kuwaitis: 4,750
    [Total: 7,375]
    Iraqi Soldiers: 25,000
    TOTAL: 75,000 (The whole appears to be greater than the sum of its parts because many estimates tally the war’s dead without differentiating between military and civilian.)

    Iraq War and Occupation:

    Running Online Tallies:
    Iraq Body Count: 105,721 to 115,476 civilians killed as of March 18, 2012
    Iraq Coalition Casualty Count: 4,485 USAns killed 2003-2011
    BBC, “Iraqi official: War dead 100,000,” 10 November 2006, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6135526.stm
    Kim Gamel, Associated Press, April 24, 2009: over 110,000 Iraqi deaths since 2003
    BBC, “New study says 151,000 Iraqi dead”, 10 January 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180055.stm
    Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg, “What is the real death toll in Iraq?” Guardian, 19 March 2008, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
    Tina Susman, “Poll: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million”, Los Angeles Times, 14 September 2007: 1.2 million
    Rebecca Santana, “85,000 Iraqis killed in almost 5 years of war”, Associated Press, October 14, 2009
    Iraqi Human Rights Ministry: 85,694 Iraqis killed 1 Jan. 2004 to 31 Oct. 2008 including Iraqi civilians, military and police, but not insurgents or foreigners.
    Associated Press: 110,600 Iraqis died violently, 2003 invasion through early 2009
    World Health Organization (2007): 151,000 Iraqis died from violence, 2003-05, including insurgents.
    Johns Hopkins University study published in Lancet (2006): 601,027 Iraqis died as a result of violence.
    Pentagon: 4,349 Americans k. (as of 14 Oct 2009)
    Lara Jakes, “US says Iraq War led to 77k deaths over 5 years”, Associated Press, Oct 14, 2010
    US Military estimate: 76,939 Iraqi security officials and civilians killed
    Iraq Body Count: 98,252 to 107,235 Iraqi civilians were killed (March 2003 to 19 Sept 2010)
    2009 Iraqi Human Rights Ministry: 85,694
    Crawford, Boston University, “Civilian Death and Injury in Iraq, 2003-2011″ (http://costsofwar.org/article/iraqi-civilians
    Iraqi civilians: 126,000+
    Iraqi military killed at the outset of the war: ca. 10,000
    insurgents: ca. 19,000 killed (June 2003-Sept. 2007)
    Iraqi military and police: 10,100+ killed since June 2003
    US, allied soldiers and contractors: ca. 6,300
    Total: ca. 171,000
    ABC News [Australia], “162,000 people killed in Iraq war: NGO”, January 03, 2012. citing Iraq Body Count (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-03/iraq-war-death-toll-put-at-162000/3755768?section=world
    Iraqi civilians: 114,000+
    Iraqi police: 9,019
    US soldiers: 4,474
    Total: 162,000

    So, White’s best guess would be:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000 +350,000 + 171,000= 596,000

    I wonder why NYT doesn’t run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    They need to move to the USA. Then the NYTIMES will be quite happy to interview them about how racist White Americans are….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Achmed E. Newman
    Great post, Johnny.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @JohnnyWalker123
    John McCain made up a song about bombing Iran.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxV9oCUPeSc

    McCain also joked how we could kill Iranians by giving them more cigarettes and causing cancer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LldjTWx4cJQ

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't seem much concerned about this. You would think that since the Iranians are non-white, the media would be mortified and McCain would've gotten himself into a lot of trouble. Yet, for some reason, McCain got a pass.........

    Perhaps the New York Times should run an editorial in which a Muslim Iranian discusses McCain's genocidal hatred of Iranian people.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t seem much concerned about this.

    Actually, Johnny, it was pretty widely criticized at the time. Even reporters who were there at the time were bothered by it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000020_pf.html.

    If “media liberals” hadn’t been kind of upset about it, I doubt you would have even heard about it in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    "Liberal media."

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office. In America, it earns laughs from the media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    And then there are the people killed by Saddam Hussein. Some estimates:

    Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300,000 [make link]
    Roth, “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention,” Human Rights Watch, January 2004: “twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule … murdered or ‘disappeared’ some quarter of a million Iraqis” (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
    Price, “Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad”, 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
    New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
    US Government estimates a total of 300,000 killed by Saddam across Iraq
    180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
    60,000 Shiites in 1991
    50,000 misc. others executed
    “Human rights officials” est.: 500,000
    Iraqi politicians: over a million

    And then there’s the Iran-Iraq War. Various estimates:

    Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 700,000
    Most newpaper articles agree on the number, but they can’t agree on the number of what. They talk of a million “killed”, a million “killed and wounded”, or a million “casualties”. Here are the estimates among the sources which specify the number as killed:
    Dilip Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (1991), p.250:
    Conservative western est: 262,000 Iranians + 105,000 Iraqis = 367,000
    Iran, officially: 123,220 KIA + 60,711 MIA + 11,000 civilians [= 194,931]
    Iran, according to Baghdad: 800,000
    Eckhardt: 377,000 as of 1987
    Potter, Iran, Iraq, and the Legacies of War, p.8 (2006):
    Iranian deaths “more or less consistent”: 213,000 (Gen. Safavi); 204,795 incl. civilians (Qalamnevis); 220,000 (Rafiqdust)
    Iraqis: 180,000 (al-Samarrai); 150,000 Baram
    [TOTAL: 354,795 to 400,000]
    Hammond: 400,000
    5 March 1991 AP
    Iran has acknowledged 135,000 mil. + civ. k.
    Western military analysts: 2 or 3 times higher
    Diplomats in Baghdad: 100,000 Iraqi dead
    [Total: (?) 437,500 ± 67,500]
    Conservative Western estimates: 1M k. or wd.
    Dunnigan (1991): over 500,000
    Dictionary of 20C World History: >500,000
    Bulloch & Morris, The Gulf War (1989): 500,000
    SIPRI 1989: 532,000
    Clodfelter
    Iranians: best est. 450,000 (as high as 730,000)
    Iraqis: 150,000 (as high as 340,000)
    [TOTAL: 600,000 (as high as 1,070,000)
    Chirot
    Iranians: 400,000-600,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    [TOTAL: 700,000 ± 100,000]

    MEDIAN: 700,000
    Iranians: 400,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    WPA3: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    Compton’s Encyclopedia: 1,000,000
    Encarta: 1,000,000
    Toronto Star (11 Dec 88): 1,000,000
    San Francisco Chronicle (29 Jan. 1991): 1,000,000
    Our Times: at least 1,000,000
    War Annual 4: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    B&J: 1,000,000 (400,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqis)
    Timeframe: 1,200,000 (900,000 Iranians and 300,000 Iraqis)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. The man, Darwin Martinez Torres, who was charged with murder in the death of Nabra Hassanen, 17, is believed to be from El Salvador….

    Illegal immigration……………..red in tooth and claw.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    No one cares about Iraq anymore, like people don’t care about Libya, and soon they won’t care about Syria once we set it on a dysgenic pace for the next half century.

    The invasion business must go on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    And then there are the estimates on people killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300,000 [make link]
    Roth, “War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention,” Human Rights Watch, January 2004: “twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule … murdered or ‘disappeared’ some quarter of a million Iraqis” (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
    Price, “Survey: Saddam Killed 61,000 in Baghdad”, 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
    New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
    US Government estimates a total of 300,000 killed by Saddam across Iraq
    180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
    60,000 Shiites in 1991
    50,000 misc. others executed
    “Human rights officials” est.: 500,000
    Iraqi politicians: over a million

    And then there’s the Iran-Iraq War. Various estimates:

    Iran-Iraq War (1980-88): 700,000
    Most newpaper articles agree on the number, but they can’t agree on the number of what. They talk of a million “killed”, a million “killed and wounded”, or a million “casualties”. Here are the estimates among the sources which specify the number as killed:
    Dilip Hiro, The Longest War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict (1991), p.250:
    Conservative western est: 262,000 Iranians + 105,000 Iraqis = 367,000
    Iran, officially: 123,220 KIA + 60,711 MIA + 11,000 civilians [= 194,931]
    Iran, according to Baghdad: 800,000
    Eckhardt: 377,000 as of 1987
    Potter, Iran, Iraq, and the Legacies of War, p.8 (2006):
    Iranian deaths “more or less consistent”: 213,000 (Gen. Safavi); 204,795 incl. civilians (Qalamnevis); 220,000 (Rafiqdust)
    Iraqis: 180,000 (al-Samarrai); 150,000 Baram
    [TOTAL: 354,795 to 400,000]
    Hammond: 400,000
    5 March 1991 AP
    Iran has acknowledged 135,000 mil. + civ. k.
    Western military analysts: 2 or 3 times higher
    Diplomats in Baghdad: 100,000 Iraqi dead
    [Total: (?) 437,500 ± 67,500]
    Conservative Western estimates: 1M k. or wd.
    Dunnigan (1991): over 500,000
    Dictionary of 20C World History: >500,000
    Bulloch & Morris, The Gulf War (1989): 500,000
    SIPRI 1989: 532,000
    Clodfelter
    Iranians: best est. 450,000 (as high as 730,000)
    Iraqis: 150,000 (as high as 340,000)
    [TOTAL: 600,000 (as high as 1,070,000)
    Chirot
    Iranians: 400,000-600,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    [TOTAL: 700,000 ± 100,000]

    MEDIAN: 700,000
    Iranians: 400,000
    Iraqis: 200,000
    WPA3: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    Compton’s Encyclopedia: 1,000,000
    Encarta: 1,000,000
    Toronto Star (11 Dec 88): 1,000,000
    San Francisco Chronicle (29 Jan. 1991): 1,000,000
    Our Times: at least 1,000,000
    War Annual 4: 1,000,000 (600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis)
    B&J: 1,000,000 (400,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqis)
    Timeframe: 1,200,000 (900,000 Iranians and 300,000 Iraqis)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @anon
    My guess is that after dying, they didn’t get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn’t seem very interested in these people.

    Maybe you should try Google, Johnny. I found this in less than five seconds.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=0&referer=

    (Please note: This was back when Wikileaks was considered the good guys.)

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they've talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I'm sure it's not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you’d think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was “liberal” and “hated Republicans.”

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

    At least on broadcast news, there’s almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it’s still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There’s a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don’t think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.
     
    Iraqis need to immigrate to the USA and start complaining about racism.
    , @anon
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek.

    Well then, if you're sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don't know how to search.

    http://world.time.com/2013/10/15/new-study-estimates-nearly-500000-died-in-iraq-war/

    http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-growing-body-count-111915.

    https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/new-approach-to-count-of-iraqi-civilian-deaths-250/

    That was in about one minute of searching, Johnny.

    I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe switch to Bing?

    , @syonredux

    If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?
     
    #BlackLivesMatter
    , @Mr. Anon

    If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?
     
    The media is doing its job. It's job is not to inform.
    , @William Badwhite
    "If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?"

    Of course they're not doing their job. Where have you been?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    Odd. My comments are being processed rather strangely. Oh, well, perhaps something shorter will work.

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s.

    Two million seems a bit high. Here are Matthew White’s estimates:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    And, for comparison’s sake, his estimates on the total killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    I note that the population of Afghanistan was 20m in 2001 and 34m in 2017. Iraq's was 24m in 2001, and 38m in 2017. In the same timespan, Sweden went from 8.8m to 9.9m, including a top-up from Afghanistan and Iraq.

    (Source, e.g.: http://www.countrymeters.info/en/Iraq/#historical_population)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.
     
    See my previous post.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    As for the second Gulf War, WMDs and 9/11 had something to do with that.
    , @guest
    Provoked how? First, I suppose, by invading some country that wasn't the U.S.

    Second, by...I'm not clear on that. Existing in the same general region from which a group of people who attacked the U.S. came?
    , @David
    Your kind of relentless bullshit is amazingly destructive to our nation and takes ten times the effort to undo as to do. Congrats, looks like your kind are winning.
    , @WJ
    Saddam "provoked" us by having a non existent WMD program, and by having a non existent connection to 9/11. The gall of that man.

    The first Gulf war was also built on pack of lies but not nearly as egregious as those of the second war.

    But what the hey, it was only 2 trillion of my tas dollars , thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @JohnnyWalker123
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you'd think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was "liberal" and "hated Republicans."

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

     

    At least on broadcast news, there's almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it's still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There's a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don't think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it's job, how did this happen?

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    Iraqis need to immigrate to the USA and start complaining about racism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    They already do.
    , @Anonymous
    "Iraqis need to immigrate to the USA and start complaining about racism."

    The Iraqis in the US I've known personally have been friendly, hard-working, decent people. Granted, n=4 is not a hugely representative sampling...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you'd think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was "liberal" and "hated Republicans."

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

     

    At least on broadcast news, there's almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it's still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There's a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don't think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it's job, how did this happen?

    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek.

    Well then, if you’re sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don’t know how to search.

    http://world.time.com/2013/10/15/new-study-estimates-nearly-500000-died-in-iraq-war/

    http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-growing-body-count-111915.

    https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/new-approach-to-count-of-iraqi-civilian-deaths-250/

    That was in about one minute of searching, Johnny.

    I don’t really know what to tell you. Maybe switch to Bing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I was referring to the Suskind story about the CIA forging the document.

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was "biased." Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.

    Over 40% of Americans support the Iraq War and think WMDs were found. The public's median estimate of dead Iraqi civilians is 10,000. These numbers are utterly astonishing beyond all belief. They are an indicator that the U.S. media is woefully inadequate at informing the public discourse.

    The Soviets would be proud.

    As Ron Unz says, "American Pravda."
    , @for-the-record

    Well then, if you’re sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don’t know how to search.
     
    Actually it seems to be your reading comprehension that is at fault, as it was very evident that JW123's statement was in reference to the Susskind article not civilian casualties.

    JW123's point is a very good one. Despite being quite well-read on this issue, I had never heard of this before, which precisely illustrates his point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you'd think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was "liberal" and "hated Republicans."

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

     

    At least on broadcast news, there's almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it's still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There's a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don't think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it's job, how did this happen?

    If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?

    #BlackLivesMatter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Darwin Martinez Torres, who was charged with murder in the death of Nabra Hassanen, 17, is believed to be from El Salvador, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman said.

    Mexico isn’t sending their best. In fact, they didn’t send Darwin. Gotta thank El Salvador for that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    Don’t think of them as “sanctions”. Think of them as externally enacted protectionism. Think of all the Iraqis who got their jobs back with the end of free trade. A boon to their pharmaceutical industry in particular.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness

    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt. So he’s just carrying on their own tradition, which their own “self-awareness” demands must avoid scrutiny.

    Were the German pilots who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes? Or were they conveniently forgiven?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt.
     
    Nowadays, of course, we know that the racist tyrant FDR was responsible for the national sin of redlining.

    #BlackLivesMatter
    , @Autochthon
    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and Germany was overruning Europe.

    Iraq was................
    , @guest
    "Were the Germans who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes?"

    Why do you ask?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Reg Cæsar
    Don't think of them as "sanctions". Think of them as externally enacted protectionism. Think of all the Iraqis who got their jobs back with the end of free trade. A boon to their pharmaceutical industry in particular.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness
     
    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt. So he's just carrying on their own tradition, which their own "self-awareness" demands must avoid scrutiny.

    Were the German pilots who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes? Or were they conveniently forgiven?

    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt.

    Nowadays, of course, we know that the racist tyrant FDR was responsible for the national sin of redlining.

    #BlackLivesMatter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. we’ve created

    I hope it’s not being too bold to suggest 1) America is also “under attack” demographically, as everything about this story shows, and 2) muslims have not “created” much of anything here (or anywhere, for that matter); in fact, they come because of what Whites created in America.

    Read More
    • Agree: David
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Libtards are at a loss, they can’t decide who’s a bigger victim, the Muslim or the illegal immigrant, so the safest thing is to blame Trump. Truly pathetic and brain dead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Anonymous
    Checking out Ms. Ghazi's Twitter I saw this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/google-search-harming-muslims_us_59415359e4b0d31854867de8


    Google Search Is Doing Irreparable Harm To Muslims
    A Dallas imam and his organization are taking on the world’s largest search engine to stop it from spreading hate.

    ... “Ninety percent of people don’t make it past the first page [of Google search results],” Heidi Beirich, a project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told HuffPost. “It’s miseducating millions, if not billions of people on many subjects.”

    ... Suleiman and his team have been publishing reports on controversial topics in Islam ― like jihad ― in the hopes of influencing the search algorithm. His goal is to flood the search results with accurate information on Islam.
     

    Here's one such report:

    https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/islam-is-not-the-cause-of-honor-killings-its-part-of-the-solution/


    Islam is not the Cause of Honor Killings. It’s Part of the Solution
    Jonathan Brown

    ... But none of these laws has any basis in the Shariah or Islamic teachings. In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858 ...

    ... In Pakistan, another country regularly in the news over honor crimes, we find a similar case with British law. Despite having a legal system influenced by the Shariah, Pakistan’s criminal law remains based in the 1860 code that the British imported to rule colonial India. ... Sadly, Pakistani courts sometimes still hand down reduced punishments for the men who commit honor killings. But the judges who do so have justified this by once again citing the “grave and sudden provocation” suffered by the murderer – the exact wording of the British law[3].
     

    Left unaddressed is why Pakistanis think a daughter dishonoring the family is a "grave and sudden provocation", something that it would occur to you to murder her over, like some guy diddling your wife might make you want to kill him (as in the example of British law in Nigeria it opens with -- not even a female victim!).

    Pakistani kills female relative for bringing dishonor to his family: it's Westerners' fault. Now let's SEO this mother****** to the top of Google!

    P.S. Did you know there's a $57 million slush fund for us? https://islamophobianetwork.com/

    In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858….

    Ah, yes, it just doesn’t get any more Western than the Turkish Caliphate, now, does it, kids?

    They are expanding moral relativism into geographic relativism. Sure, every place is to the west (and east) of someplace else, but there are in fact official, universal, longitudinal designations of the eastern and western hemispheres, as well as milennia of tradition, convention, literature, and historiography such that anyone save the utterly disingenuous and willfully obtuse knows damned good and well the Ottoman Empire is not Western in the sense that adjective is being used here.

    The mendacity and conniving – the very torture of the English language – simply never ends for these shameless savages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @syonredux

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.
     
    Iraqis need to immigrate to the USA and start complaining about racism.

    They already do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    They already do.
     
    Not enough. Iraq has 36 million people. The USA is morally obligated to take in every single one of them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Reg Cæsar
    Don't think of them as "sanctions". Think of them as externally enacted protectionism. Think of all the Iraqis who got their jobs back with the end of free trade. A boon to their pharmaceutical industry in particular.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness
     
    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt. So he's just carrying on their own tradition, which their own "self-awareness" demands must avoid scrutiny.

    Were the German pilots who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes? Or were they conveniently forgiven?

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.
     
    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn't a monstrosity, I don't know what is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Dave Pinsen
    If you're a devout enough Muslim to fast during the day during Ramadan, why would you break your fast at IHOP, where they're grilling sausage and bacon on the same stove as your pancakes? Unless there are halal IHOPs?

    Halal IHOP halal IHOP halal halal halal IHOP

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=3rYoRaxgOE0

    Couldn’t resist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. “I felt they weren’t getting the publicity they deserved”

    I agree. They deserve much, much less publicity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Here’s the most popular comment on this op-ed from an NYT reader:

    –I’m invoking Poe’s Law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Autochthon
    They already do.

    They already do.

    Not enough. Iraq has 36 million people. The USA is morally obligated to take in every single one of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Oh, but the obligation extends to all eight billions humans, under the Zeroth Amendment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Illegal immigrants…always doing the jobs Americans are too lazy to do themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. @anon
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek.

    Well then, if you're sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don't know how to search.

    http://world.time.com/2013/10/15/new-study-estimates-nearly-500000-died-in-iraq-war/

    http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-growing-body-count-111915.

    https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/new-approach-to-count-of-iraqi-civilian-deaths-250/

    That was in about one minute of searching, Johnny.

    I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe switch to Bing?

    I was referring to the Suskind story about the CIA forging the document.

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was “biased.” Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.

    Over 40% of Americans support the Iraq War and think WMDs were found. The public’s median estimate of dead Iraqi civilians is 10,000. These numbers are utterly astonishing beyond all belief. They are an indicator that the U.S. media is woefully inadequate at informing the public discourse.

    The Soviets would be proud.

    As Ron Unz says, “American Pravda.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered.

    Good. I'm glad we both agree that you were wrong.

    However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was “biased.”

    Well. They would, wouldn't they? Still doesn't change the fact that the story was covered.

    Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days.

    I could go ahead and Google a bunch more stories about it if you wanted me to, but what would be the point? You'd just say that, since they're not still talking about it every single day, it would be "seldom".

    Over 40% of Americans support the Iraq War and think WMDs were found.

    Technically, they're right, if you count sarin gas as a "WMD".

    These numbers are utterly astonishing beyond all belief. They are an indicator that the U.S. media is woefully inadequate at informing the public discourse.

    Johnny. Only around 40% of people can even name a single Supreme Court justice.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/324834-survey-only-43-percent-can-name-a-supreme-court-justice

    Are you going to go on some long tirade about how the media just doesn't talk enough about the Supreme Court enough? Or are you just going to realize, someday, that there are just a lot of people who have essentially no knowledge of things happening in the political world?

    Which is a problem, of course, but hardly one that can be laid at the feet of the media.

    , @syonredux

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was “biased.” Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.
     
    600,000 sounds about right for total deaths (Gulf War+ Embargo+Iraq War and Occupation):

    Matthew Whites'e estimates:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    And, for comparison’s sake, his estimates on the total killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Reg Cæsar
    Don't think of them as "sanctions". Think of them as externally enacted protectionism. Think of all the Iraqis who got their jobs back with the end of free trade. A boon to their pharmaceutical industry in particular.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness
     
    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt. So he's just carrying on their own tradition, which their own "self-awareness" demands must avoid scrutiny.

    Were the German pilots who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes? Or were they conveniently forgiven?

    Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and Germany was overruning Europe.

    Iraq was…………….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    You understand jus ad bellum. Now read the sequel, jus in bello.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Lot
    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.

    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.

    See my previous post.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    As for the second Gulf War, WMDs and 9/11 had something to do with that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WJ
    It's quite surprising that these obvious truths still have to be stated here. Sometimes I feel like I am back in 2003 and some neocon is telling me " we have to fight them over there so they don't come over here" or that we can't just "cut and run" (one of the most trite phrases) now that we are winning.
    , @Mr. Anon

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.
     
    The war wasn't started by the phony incubator-baby story. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. he really did that - that was no hoax. Now, you could well argue that it was none of our business, and you wouldn't get much argument from me on that score. But the incubator story was just a bit of war propaganda, not the actual causus-belli itself.
    , @syonredux

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.
     
    Nah. That was just a propaganda talking point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Reg Cæsar
    Don't think of them as "sanctions". Think of them as externally enacted protectionism. Think of all the Iraqis who got their jobs back with the end of free trade. A boon to their pharmaceutical industry in particular.

    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t make an issue of Bush’s utterly stunning lack of self awareness
     
    Bush grew up in a country that lionized monsters like Truman and the second Roosevelt. So he's just carrying on their own tradition, which their own "self-awareness" demands must avoid scrutiny.

    Were the German pilots who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes? Or were they conveniently forgiven?

    “Were the Germans who bombed Coventry ever tried for their war crimes?”

    Why do you ask?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Lot
    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.

    Provoked how? First, I suppose, by invading some country that wasn’t the U.S.

    Second, by…I’m not clear on that. Existing in the same general region from which a group of people who attacked the U.S. came?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @anon
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek.

    Well then, if you're sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don't know how to search.

    http://world.time.com/2013/10/15/new-study-estimates-nearly-500000-died-in-iraq-war/

    http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-growing-body-count-111915.

    https://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/new-approach-to-count-of-iraqi-civilian-deaths-250/

    That was in about one minute of searching, Johnny.

    I don't really know what to tell you. Maybe switch to Bing?

    Well then, if you’re sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don’t know how to search.

    Actually it seems to be your reading comprehension that is at fault, as it was very evident that JW123′s statement was in reference to the Susskind article not civilian casualties.

    JW123′s point is a very good one. Despite being quite well-read on this issue, I had never heard of this before, which precisely illustrates his point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Actually it seems to be your reading comprehension that is at fault, as it was very evident that JW123′s statement was in reference to the Susskind article not civilian casualties.

    Well, in that case, HIS reading comprehension was at fault, because he said "this claim" in response to a comment of mine, which was about the Iraqi civilian casualties.

    JW123′s point is a very good one. Despite being quite well-read on this issue, I had never heard of this before, which precisely illustrates his point.

    Then, again, I don't know what to tell you. The letter Suskind referred to was already known about years before, and debunked back then. The only issue when Suskind brought it up again was whether or not Bush himself had made someone write it. The problem was that he didn't really have any proof of it, and the head of the CIA pointed out that, all along, the CIA had denied any connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, so it wouldn't have made any sense to put out such a letter, that undermined that point.

    As to why Suskind's claim wasn't a bigger deal, it probably has something to do with the fact that support for the war had already plummetted, and because it was known that the fraudulent letter had been produced by somebody, that particular issue seemed fairly trivial. But, as you can see by the video with the NBC logo, it did actually make it to TV.

    What was it you never heard about, incidentally? The letter itself, or this particular allegation of Suskind's?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @syonredux

    They already do.
     
    Not enough. Iraq has 36 million people. The USA is morally obligated to take in every single one of them.

    Oh, but the obligation extends to all eight billions humans, under the Zeroth Amendment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Oh, but the obligation extends to all eight billions humans, under the Zeroth Amendment.
     
    Wouldn't that be going too far, though? Some of those billions are hideously White. Do we really want to allow more White people to immigrate to the USA? To be fully PC, the Zeroth Amendment should read:"The USA must allow unlimited immigration by non-Whites*"

    *Special exception for White Jews, who will have the status of honorary POC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Anonymous
    Checking out Ms. Ghazi's Twitter I saw this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/google-search-harming-muslims_us_59415359e4b0d31854867de8


    Google Search Is Doing Irreparable Harm To Muslims
    A Dallas imam and his organization are taking on the world’s largest search engine to stop it from spreading hate.

    ... “Ninety percent of people don’t make it past the first page [of Google search results],” Heidi Beirich, a project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told HuffPost. “It’s miseducating millions, if not billions of people on many subjects.”

    ... Suleiman and his team have been publishing reports on controversial topics in Islam ― like jihad ― in the hopes of influencing the search algorithm. His goal is to flood the search results with accurate information on Islam.
     

    Here's one such report:

    https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/islam-is-not-the-cause-of-honor-killings-its-part-of-the-solution/


    Islam is not the Cause of Honor Killings. It’s Part of the Solution
    Jonathan Brown

    ... But none of these laws has any basis in the Shariah or Islamic teachings. In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858 ...

    ... In Pakistan, another country regularly in the news over honor crimes, we find a similar case with British law. Despite having a legal system influenced by the Shariah, Pakistan’s criminal law remains based in the 1860 code that the British imported to rule colonial India. ... Sadly, Pakistani courts sometimes still hand down reduced punishments for the men who commit honor killings. But the judges who do so have justified this by once again citing the “grave and sudden provocation” suffered by the murderer – the exact wording of the British law[3].
     

    Left unaddressed is why Pakistanis think a daughter dishonoring the family is a "grave and sudden provocation", something that it would occur to you to murder her over, like some guy diddling your wife might make you want to kill him (as in the example of British law in Nigeria it opens with -- not even a female victim!).

    Pakistani kills female relative for bringing dishonor to his family: it's Westerners' fault. Now let's SEO this mother****** to the top of Google!

    P.S. Did you know there's a $57 million slush fund for us? https://islamophobianetwork.com/

    The Jonathan Brown guy skillfully mixes “crimes of passion” (a claim about which may indeed yield a “get out of jail” card in the “West”) and so-called “honor killings”.

    Honor killings are found with prevalence in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Hindustan (not regions that are the original source of Islam) and in regions where people from said regions have settled (like, uh, Germany).

    Should we care about Pashtun customs? Probably not. But:

    http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings

    Tempted by Western ideas, desiring to assimilate, and hoping to escape lives of subordination, those girls and women who exercise their option to be Western are killed—at early ages and in particularly gruesome ways. Frightening honor murders may constitute an object lesson to other Muslim girls and women about what may happen to them if they act on the temptation to do more than serve their fathers and brothers as domestic servants, marry their first cousin, and breed as many children as possible. The deaths of females already living in the West may also be intended as lessons for other female immigrants who are expected to lead subordinate and segregated lives amid the temptations and privileges of freedom. This is especially true in Europe where large Muslim ghettos have formed in the past few decades. It is particularly alarming to note that in Europe 96 percent of the honor killing perpetrators are Muslims. (…)

    In addition, clear government warnings must be issued to Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu immigrants and citizens: Honor killings must be prosecuted in the West, and perpetrators, accomplices, and enablers must all be prosecuted. Participating families should be publicly shamed. Criminals must be deported after they have served their sentences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. “After his election, the Times started tracking weekly Hate Crimes, which I’d dutifully read because I felt they weren’t getting the publicity they deserved….”

    “Hate crimes” and mass immigration, the one-two punch of one-world-poor world leftists.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/06/angela-merkel-stalin-in-drag.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Liberals – – – or “progressives” – – – live in a permanent fantasy world. What really happened on Nov. 8, 2016 was that the Russians got into the off-line voting machines and somehow flipped votes from Hillary to Trump.

    After Nov. 8, 2016, the Green Party candidate demanded a recount in Michigan, which Trump had won by about 10,000 votes. When it was discovered that Black poll watchers had repeatedly fed dummy paper ballots into optical scanners in certain Detroit EDs, thereby racking up the Dem. vote for Hillary but also racking up the number of Dems on the registry rolls, so that an overall 110% turnout in an average Detroit ED was achieved, a US District Court judge, appointed by Obama, stopped the statewide recount in every ED in Michigan. Cheating by Michigan Democrats had just become too obvious – – – and too embarrassing.

    A Black woman, whom I know, thinks that the Russians funneled billions into the Trump campaign via a secret slush fund, located in the Cayman Islands, and that Trump campaign workers were poisoning Hillary’s iced tea, causing her to fall down and to provoke her into having seizures over a period of weeks in September & October, 2016. She also believes that the local K-Mart frames Blacks for shoplifting and is a place to avoid at all costs if you are a person of color. She thinks this the reason K-Mart is going bankrupt because Blacks refuse to shop there.

    To argue with a Democrat about politics or even everyday events is to know what it feels like to go insane by inches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    She thinks this the reason K-Mart is going bankrupt because Blacks refuse to shop there.
     
    Hahaaa... not lacking in self-esteem. I think we've licked that problem.
    , @Alfa158
    I thought they were using legitimate ballots, but feeding them through the machine multiple times? Where I vote in California, you feed the ballot into a counter and it gets scanned and spit back out the other side. If there was a problem with the votes, like more than one candidate marked for a single selection office, then the machine indicates you have to do a new one. If everything is OK, it gets tabulated and the poll worker drops it into ballot box for review if needed.
    I'm not aware if there is any unique marking for each ballot that would stop the workers from setting valid ballots aside and then running them through the counting machine multiple times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. so this muslim woman is upset that another muslim is killed by a non muslim, she doesn’t get irony does she?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @Jake
    Yes, it is fun to note that Liberals are always going to blame Whitey Christian - and any politician or cultural figure who is backed by Middle American Whitey - for anything they deem wrong. But the fact is that Liberals are more insanely violent now than they were even 2 years ago, and then they were more insanely violent than they were since the late 1960s/early 1970s.

    Those people are preparing to revolt. They are readying to slaughter the evil Middle American Whites they see as preventing Liberal paradise from flourishing. Like their French and Russian forebears, they are itching to ignite the conflagration that they are confident will consume those they hate.

    Modern politics is built on the tantrum-placate cycle, which, as we know, is the key to successful parenting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @syonredux
    Odd. My comments are being processed rather strangely. Oh, well, perhaps something shorter will work.

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s.
     
    Two million seems a bit high. Here are Matthew White's estimates:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    And, for comparison's sake, his estimates on the total killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million

    I note that the population of Afghanistan was 20m in 2001 and 34m in 2017. Iraq’s was 24m in 2001, and 38m in 2017. In the same timespan, Sweden went from 8.8m to 9.9m, including a top-up from Afghanistan and Iraq.

    (Source, e.g.: http://www.countrymeters.info/en/Iraq/#historical_population)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Detective Club
    Liberals - - - or "progressives" - - - live in a permanent fantasy world. What really happened on Nov. 8, 2016 was that the Russians got into the off-line voting machines and somehow flipped votes from Hillary to Trump.

    After Nov. 8, 2016, the Green Party candidate demanded a recount in Michigan, which Trump had won by about 10,000 votes. When it was discovered that Black poll watchers had repeatedly fed dummy paper ballots into optical scanners in certain Detroit EDs, thereby racking up the Dem. vote for Hillary but also racking up the number of Dems on the registry rolls, so that an overall 110% turnout in an average Detroit ED was achieved, a US District Court judge, appointed by Obama, stopped the statewide recount in every ED in Michigan. Cheating by Michigan Democrats had just become too obvious - - - and too embarrassing.
    https://youtu.be/iFBTTdM7v5w
    A Black woman, whom I know, thinks that the Russians funneled billions into the Trump campaign via a secret slush fund, located in the Cayman Islands, and that Trump campaign workers were poisoning Hillary's iced tea, causing her to fall down and to provoke her into having seizures over a period of weeks in September & October, 2016. She also believes that the local K-Mart frames Blacks for shoplifting and is a place to avoid at all costs if you are a person of color. She thinks this the reason K-Mart is going bankrupt because Blacks refuse to shop there.

    To argue with a Democrat about politics or even everyday events is to know what it feels like to go insane by inches.

    She thinks this the reason K-Mart is going bankrupt because Blacks refuse to shop there.

    Hahaaa… not lacking in self-esteem. I think we’ve licked that problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Checking out Ms. Ghazi's Twitter I saw this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/google-search-harming-muslims_us_59415359e4b0d31854867de8


    Google Search Is Doing Irreparable Harm To Muslims
    A Dallas imam and his organization are taking on the world’s largest search engine to stop it from spreading hate.

    ... “Ninety percent of people don’t make it past the first page [of Google search results],” Heidi Beirich, a project director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told HuffPost. “It’s miseducating millions, if not billions of people on many subjects.”

    ... Suleiman and his team have been publishing reports on controversial topics in Islam ― like jihad ― in the hopes of influencing the search algorithm. His goal is to flood the search results with accurate information on Islam.
     

    Here's one such report:

    https://yaqeeninstitute.org/en/jonathan-brown/islam-is-not-the-cause-of-honor-killings-its-part-of-the-solution/


    Islam is not the Cause of Honor Killings. It’s Part of the Solution
    Jonathan Brown

    ... But none of these laws has any basis in the Shariah or Islamic teachings. In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858 ...

    ... In Pakistan, another country regularly in the news over honor crimes, we find a similar case with British law. Despite having a legal system influenced by the Shariah, Pakistan’s criminal law remains based in the 1860 code that the British imported to rule colonial India. ... Sadly, Pakistani courts sometimes still hand down reduced punishments for the men who commit honor killings. But the judges who do so have justified this by once again citing the “grave and sudden provocation” suffered by the murderer – the exact wording of the British law[3].
     

    Left unaddressed is why Pakistanis think a daughter dishonoring the family is a "grave and sudden provocation", something that it would occur to you to murder her over, like some guy diddling your wife might make you want to kill him (as in the example of British law in Nigeria it opens with -- not even a female victim!).

    Pakistani kills female relative for bringing dishonor to his family: it's Westerners' fault. Now let's SEO this mother****** to the top of Google!

    P.S. Did you know there's a $57 million slush fund for us? https://islamophobianetwork.com/

    “But none of these laws has any basis in the Shariah or Islamic teachings. In fact, they were originally imported from the West. Criminal law in the Middle East today was shaped by the Ottoman Criminal Code of 1858 …”

    The Ottomans were Muslim, and its blatantly misleading to call them Western.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @syonredux

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.
     
    Iraqis need to immigrate to the USA and start complaining about racism.

    “Iraqis need to immigrate to the USA and start complaining about racism.”

    The Iraqis in the US I’ve known personally have been friendly, hard-working, decent people. Granted, n=4 is not a hugely representative sampling…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Lot
    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.

    Your kind of relentless bullshit is amazingly destructive to our nation and takes ten times the effort to undo as to do. Congrats, looks like your kind are winning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Maj. Kong
    Its not strange at all. The Puritans of Massachusetts didn't go back to England when Cromwell won the civil war.

    The Muslims are here to conquer.

    And the Miami Cubans aren’t going to be going back to Cuba either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. biz says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    As I understand it, a problem with all of these frequently cited Iraq war casualty statistics is that they count all supposed excess deaths (or in the case of the Lancet article all non-standard deaths) since 2003 as being the fault of the US war. It hardly seems honest to blame all of the deaths in that country’s ongoing and morphing Sunni/Shia/Kurd/Turkmen sectarian conflict, and the ongoing murder/expulsion of the ancient Christian, Yezidi, and Mandean communities, on the US invasion. Perhaps Saddam would have been able to keep a lid on that indefinitely had the US not deposed him, and perhaps not. But in either case the fault clearly lies with the tribal and sectarian ethos of that society. The number of Iraqis actually directly killed by the US was quite small.

    The other problem with those stats, in addition to being so thoroughly dubious, is that their purpose is to obfuscate the actual motivation for Islamic terrorism against the West (and against the East, and against Muslims from other sects) which has absolutely nothing to do with Western foreign policy and is solely the result of a religious doctrine of martyrdom and absolutism. I could go into all of the cases and evidence that disprove the legitimate grievance ™ hypothesis of Islamic terror, but I’ve done that enough already. Suffice it to say that no legitimate grievance theory can explain why Al Shabbab massacred hundreds of black Kenyans in a mall after attempting to separate the sufficiently observant Muslim black Kenyans from the Christian and insufficiently observant Muslim black Kenyans, or why Aby Sayyaf did the same thing but replace black Kenyans with Filipinos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    tracking weekly Hate Crimes, which I’d dutifully read because I felt they weren’t getting the publicity they deserved. The rise of hate crimes against Muslims

    Is this person also tracking the mass murder and persecution of Christians in Muslim countries? How about the bombing of the Coptic Christians in their own churches on Palm Sunday in Egypt? The killing of Christians in Syria and Iraq? Can a church be opened in Saudi Arabia? No, obviously not, they have no interest whatsoever and would lie and rationalize all that away. This is all very one sided.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. APL says:

    The part of the op-ed that struck me most was the quote: “Muslim spaces — the religious ones and the ones we’ve created — are increasingly under attack”. So IHOP at 3:00am is now a “Muslim space”? Since when? So for decades, IHOP in the early mornings was simply a place to hang out when the bars closed and one was feeling hungry. Now it is described by a Muslim author as a “Muslim space”, and yet apologists scoff when some describe the current immigration dynamics as more akin to an invasion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @for-the-record

    Well then, if you’re sticking to your claim, all I can really say is that you simply don’t know how to search.
     
    Actually it seems to be your reading comprehension that is at fault, as it was very evident that JW123's statement was in reference to the Susskind article not civilian casualties.

    JW123's point is a very good one. Despite being quite well-read on this issue, I had never heard of this before, which precisely illustrates his point.

    Actually it seems to be your reading comprehension that is at fault, as it was very evident that JW123′s statement was in reference to the Susskind article not civilian casualties.

    Well, in that case, HIS reading comprehension was at fault, because he said “this claim” in response to a comment of mine, which was about the Iraqi civilian casualties.

    JW123′s point is a very good one. Despite being quite well-read on this issue, I had never heard of this before, which precisely illustrates his point.

    Then, again, I don’t know what to tell you. The letter Suskind referred to was already known about years before, and debunked back then. The only issue when Suskind brought it up again was whether or not Bush himself had made someone write it. The problem was that he didn’t really have any proof of it, and the head of the CIA pointed out that, all along, the CIA had denied any connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, so it wouldn’t have made any sense to put out such a letter, that undermined that point.

    As to why Suskind’s claim wasn’t a bigger deal, it probably has something to do with the fact that support for the war had already plummetted, and because it was known that the fraudulent letter had been produced by somebody, that particular issue seemed fairly trivial. But, as you can see by the video with the NBC logo, it did actually make it to TV.

    What was it you never heard about, incidentally? The letter itself, or this particular allegation of Suskind’s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Then, again, I don’t know what to tell you. The letter Suskind referred to was already known about years before, and debunked back then.

     

    The letter showing a supposed Iraq-9/11 link ("yellowcake") was debunked back in 2003, but no one knew who actually forged the letter. Years later, Suskind found out that the CIA (under Bush's orders) did the forgery.

    This is a stunning allegation. In any reasonable country, Bush would've been impeached and jailed for this. WaterGate is almost irrelevant in comparison to this.

    A $5 trillion war (lasting almost 15 years now) that's killed 5,000 American troops and injured 1 million. It was started by lies, including a CIA forgery. Absolutely stunning.

    Even more stunning is how little the media cares.

    When Ron Unz wrote his "American Pravda" article, he understated this case.

    The only issue when Suskind brought it up again was whether or not Bush himself had made someone write it. The problem was that he didn’t really have any proof of it, and the head of the CIA pointed out that, all along, the CIA had denied any connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, so it wouldn’t have made any sense to put out such a letter, that undermined that point.
     
    Suskind has a tape-recorded interview with a senior CIA intelligence officer named Robert Richer. Richer was the CIA Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admits this. So this is new evidence and absolutely damning.

    As to why Suskind’s claim wasn’t a bigger deal, it probably has something to do with the fact that support for the war had already plummetted, and because it was known that the fraudulent letter had been produced by somebody, that particular issue seemed fairly trivial. But, as you can see by the video with the NBC logo, it did actually make it to TV.

     

    Why is it trivial? If the CIA forges a letter that helps lead to a fradulent massive-sized war, is that trivial?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I was referring to the Suskind story about the CIA forging the document.

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was "biased." Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.

    Over 40% of Americans support the Iraq War and think WMDs were found. The public's median estimate of dead Iraqi civilians is 10,000. These numbers are utterly astonishing beyond all belief. They are an indicator that the U.S. media is woefully inadequate at informing the public discourse.

    The Soviets would be proud.

    As Ron Unz says, "American Pravda."

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered.

    Good. I’m glad we both agree that you were wrong.

    However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was “biased.”

    Well. They would, wouldn’t they? Still doesn’t change the fact that the story was covered.

    Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days.

    I could go ahead and Google a bunch more stories about it if you wanted me to, but what would be the point? You’d just say that, since they’re not still talking about it every single day, it would be “seldom”.

    Over 40% of Americans support the Iraq War and think WMDs were found.

    Technically, they’re right, if you count sarin gas as a “WMD”.

    These numbers are utterly astonishing beyond all belief. They are an indicator that the U.S. media is woefully inadequate at informing the public discourse.

    Johnny. Only around 40% of people can even name a single Supreme Court justice.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/324834-survey-only-43-percent-can-name-a-supreme-court-justice

    Are you going to go on some long tirade about how the media just doesn’t talk enough about the Supreme Court enough? Or are you just going to realize, someday, that there are just a lot of people who have essentially no knowledge of things happening in the political world?

    Which is a problem, of course, but hardly one that can be laid at the feet of the media.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @JohnnyWalker123
    America's "War on Terror" has killed 1 million Iraqis, 220,000 Afghans, and 80,000 Pakistanis. I wonder why the New York Times doesn't run more editorials about this interesting fact.

    I remember back in 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at President George W. Bush.

    Here were his words.

    “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4

    There are also 1.5 million widows. Iraq also has 1.45 million orphans, of which 600,00 are homeless and live in the streets.

    Bush responded by saying the shoe thrower was trying to "draw attention" and "I don't know what the guy's cause is."

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't make an issue of Bush's utterly stunning lack of self awareness.

    Very strange..........

    Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind claims that Bush had the CIA forge a letter showing a 9/11-Iraq link. Suskind has a tape recorded interview with CIA agent Robert Richer, the Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admitted he was apart of the CIA forgery. For some reason, the media didn't make much of an issue of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFI3_k5obZc

    By the way, back in 1990, President George H.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was killing Kuwaiti babies in their incubators. The Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter also made this claim. This increased public support for the first Gulf War, leading to our entry into that conflict. Later it turned out that no incubator babies were killed.

    135,000 Iraqis were killed by the first Gulf War. 1 million more Iraqis died due to US-imposed subsequent sanctions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v94WsjWKQ3U

    Oddly enough, the New York Times rarely discusses this.

    Very strange.......

    So U.S. military action and sanctions have killed more than 2 million Iraqis since the early 90s. My guess is that after dying, they didn't get too many opportunities to celebrate Ramadan. The New York Times doesn't seem very interested in these people. I wonder why NYT doesn't run more articles from regular Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed by America over the last quarter century.

    We may forget that the NYT is not merely about “invite the world”, but “invade the world”. JW123, you’ve commented before about the JFK assassination and its importance to the interventionist arm of American Foreign Policy over the last half-century.

    Interventionists have been in control of the White House and our policies for a long time, and the NYT is merely their mouthpiece.

    So,while you’re right to wonder why the NYT doesn’t deliver on “all the news that fits we’ll print”, well the answer is simple:

    What you’ve noticed “doesn’t fit”, therefore they won’t print.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Yeah.

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a "liberal" publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims, they're already somewhat innoculated from criticism.

    Let's say that I give thousands of dollars to LGBT. Then I become president and eliminate all funding for AIDS treatment and research. Maybe even with all that, I might still have a positive reputation among LGBTs.

    Maybe even with all the genocidal policies the NYT has advocated for over the years, they're still seen as "liberal" because they occasionally run stories about Islamophobia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @JohnnyWalker123
    John McCain made up a song about bombing Iran.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxV9oCUPeSc

    McCain also joked how we could kill Iranians by giving them more cigarettes and causing cancer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LldjTWx4cJQ

    For some reason, "media liberals" didn't seem much concerned about this. You would think that since the Iranians are non-white, the media would be mortified and McCain would've gotten himself into a lot of trouble. Yet, for some reason, McCain got a pass.........

    Perhaps the New York Times should run an editorial in which a Muslim Iranian discusses McCain's genocidal hatred of Iranian people.

    The guy is unhinged. Maybe the Vietnamese were using his headphone cable as a lightning conductor when he made those alleged broadcasts.

    Read More
    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The guy is unhinged. Maybe the Vietnamese were using his headphone cable as a lightning conductor when he made those alleged broadcasts.
     
    It isn't merely alleged:

    John McCain's Broadcast
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. But whether her killer’s actions are officially characterized as “road rage” or ever described as a “hate crime” won’t change the fact that Muslim spaces — the religious ones and the ones we’ve created — are increasingly under attack.

    The spaces they’ve “created,” like IHOP, which was founded by…

    “Jerry Lapin, Al Lapin, and Albert Kallis founded International House of Pancakes in 1958 with the help of Sherwood Rosenberg and William Kaye”

    …a bunch of Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. I’m going to lay the blame at the feet of our cruel, narcissistic president. He started this: his campaign launched on a barrage of demagoguery against Mexicans, and later amped up to the “Muslim Ban.”

    Right, because in their own countries Salvadorans and Muslims are the most peaceful people in the world.

    El Salvador has the highest homicide rate on the planet, at 108.64 homicides per 100,000 people annually. That, of course, is quite often used as an argument for letting them come to our country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Detective Club
    Salvadorans have invented many Latino means of homicide that US Whitey, without the help of Salvadoran immigrants, could have never conceived, not in a million years of backwards evolution. To hell with Edison and the light bulb! Let there be Darkness at Noon!
    https://youtu.be/eszNKHrXxgY
    Whitey, get your priorities straight! It's the killing - - - and the killing of you - - - that really counts!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. WJ says:
    @Lot
    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.

    Saddam “provoked” us by having a non existent WMD program, and by having a non existent connection to 9/11. The gall of that man.

    The first Gulf war was also built on pack of lies but not nearly as egregious as those of the second war.

    But what the hey, it was only 2 trillion of my tas dollars , thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I agree the war was a practical mistake and sold with lies. That is separate from the moral question I addressed.

    Of course, more than the war itself, the mistake was the long occupation and attempt to set up a multiethnic Muslim democracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. WJ says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.
     
    See my previous post.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    As for the second Gulf War, WMDs and 9/11 had something to do with that.

    It’s quite surprising that these obvious truths still have to be stated here. Sometimes I feel like I am back in 2003 and some neocon is telling me ” we have to fight them over there so they don’t come over here” or that we can’t just “cut and run” (one of the most trite phrases) now that we are winning.

    Read More
    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    ” we have to fight them over there so they don’t come over here”

    The funny part of that is you could almost imagine some Iranian saying that about our presence in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Wilkey
    I’m going to lay the blame at the feet of our cruel, narcissistic president. He started this: his campaign launched on a barrage of demagoguery against Mexicans, and later amped up to the “Muslim Ban.”

    Right, because in their own countries Salvadorans and Muslims are the most peaceful people in the world.

    El Salvador has the highest homicide rate on the planet, at 108.64 homicides per 100,000 people annually. That, of course, is quite often used as an argument for letting them come to our country.

    Salvadorans have invented many Latino means of homicide that US Whitey, without the help of Salvadoran immigrants, could have never conceived, not in a million years of backwards evolution. To hell with Edison and the light bulb! Let there be Darkness at Noon!

    Whitey, get your priorities straight! It’s the killing – – – and the killing of you – – – that really counts!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Detective Club
    Liberals - - - or "progressives" - - - live in a permanent fantasy world. What really happened on Nov. 8, 2016 was that the Russians got into the off-line voting machines and somehow flipped votes from Hillary to Trump.

    After Nov. 8, 2016, the Green Party candidate demanded a recount in Michigan, which Trump had won by about 10,000 votes. When it was discovered that Black poll watchers had repeatedly fed dummy paper ballots into optical scanners in certain Detroit EDs, thereby racking up the Dem. vote for Hillary but also racking up the number of Dems on the registry rolls, so that an overall 110% turnout in an average Detroit ED was achieved, a US District Court judge, appointed by Obama, stopped the statewide recount in every ED in Michigan. Cheating by Michigan Democrats had just become too obvious - - - and too embarrassing.
    https://youtu.be/iFBTTdM7v5w
    A Black woman, whom I know, thinks that the Russians funneled billions into the Trump campaign via a secret slush fund, located in the Cayman Islands, and that Trump campaign workers were poisoning Hillary's iced tea, causing her to fall down and to provoke her into having seizures over a period of weeks in September & October, 2016. She also believes that the local K-Mart frames Blacks for shoplifting and is a place to avoid at all costs if you are a person of color. She thinks this the reason K-Mart is going bankrupt because Blacks refuse to shop there.

    To argue with a Democrat about politics or even everyday events is to know what it feels like to go insane by inches.

    I thought they were using legitimate ballots, but feeding them through the machine multiple times? Where I vote in California, you feed the ballot into a counter and it gets scanned and spit back out the other side. If there was a problem with the votes, like more than one candidate marked for a single selection office, then the machine indicates you have to do a new one. If everything is OK, it gets tabulated and the poll worker drops it into ballot box for review if needed.
    I’m not aware if there is any unique marking for each ballot that would stop the workers from setting valid ballots aside and then running them through the counting machine multiple times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Detective Club
    Setting what happened with the General Election recount in Michigan aside for the moment, I do recall reading about one ED in lower Manhattan in the 2016 Dem. primary (Hillary vs. Bernie) that was fixed. The ink in the pens would not be recognized by the optical scanner, so Hillary poll watchers would use a different ink after the polls had closed and feed the paper ballots for Hillary marked with "good" or Hillary ink that the optical scanner would ultimately recognize.

    I encountered something like this when I went to vote for Trump in a Black Queens ED on primary day. There were so few Republicans registered in this ED that I had to wait for a considerable period of time before the Black poll watchers could find the bound registry-roll of Republicans, which proved I was eligible to vote in Republican primary. I also had to show my US passport and my NYC Board of Elections voter-registration card in order to prove that me was really me (the illiterate Hispanic illegals in same ED were not asked for any identification whatsoever). I probably had my voting rights violated by having to show identification but no Black Panther brandished a weapon in my general direction so I can't complaint. Perhaps in this Black ED, the mindset was that Republican voters were committing vote-fraud simply because they were registered Republicans!

    I marked my Republican ballot for Trump using that ED's pen & ink, which was promptly rejected by the ED's optical scanner. Perhaps the optical scanner was programmed to reject any ballot that wasn't marked for Hillary. I wound up using my own pen & ink and the optical scanner seemed to accept my ballot. But God knows if my Trump vote was actually counted. At least, the optical scanner probably didn't register a vote for Ted Cruz or that wacko Car-Sick. Maybe I wound up voting for Hillary after all!

    NB : youtube is full of videos about how optical scanners can be manipulated. The old-style paper ballots are still the most difficult way to fake a final vote count. But even with paper ballots and a manual hand count, where there's a will to pervert a final count, there is certainly more than one way to do so - - - just ask 19th Century Tammany Hall and the New York & Boston Irish! "I seen my opportunities & I took 'em" - - - bent Irish politicians used to say, back in the just-off-the-boat old days!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Yak-15
    New top comment:

    "I find this op ed confusing. The police found that bias was not a factor. Publicly available details seem to support their conclusion. Mr. Torres was not an American citizen and was here illegally. So what does this horrific incident have to do with anti-Muslim sentiment among Americans?

    The author seems to want to appropriate this tragedy to serve her own political aims. Yet it probably says more about immigration policy than it does about prejudice against Muslim-Americans."

    That comment is better. But I still won’t be fully satisfied until the top comment is something like “What is this woman complaining about? Doesn’t she know that she’s more likely to die in a bathtub than to be killed by an Islamophobe?”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Rob McX
    The guy is unhinged. Maybe the Vietnamese were using his headphone cable as a lightning conductor when he made those alleged broadcasts.

    The guy is unhinged. Maybe the Vietnamese were using his headphone cable as a lightning conductor when he made those alleged broadcasts.

    It isn’t merely alleged:

    John McCain’s Broadcast

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Alfa158
    I thought they were using legitimate ballots, but feeding them through the machine multiple times? Where I vote in California, you feed the ballot into a counter and it gets scanned and spit back out the other side. If there was a problem with the votes, like more than one candidate marked for a single selection office, then the machine indicates you have to do a new one. If everything is OK, it gets tabulated and the poll worker drops it into ballot box for review if needed.
    I'm not aware if there is any unique marking for each ballot that would stop the workers from setting valid ballots aside and then running them through the counting machine multiple times.

    Setting what happened with the General Election recount in Michigan aside for the moment, I do recall reading about one ED in lower Manhattan in the 2016 Dem. primary (Hillary vs. Bernie) that was fixed. The ink in the pens would not be recognized by the optical scanner, so Hillary poll watchers would use a different ink after the polls had closed and feed the paper ballots for Hillary marked with “good” or Hillary ink that the optical scanner would ultimately recognize.

    I encountered something like this when I went to vote for Trump in a Black Queens ED on primary day. There were so few Republicans registered in this ED that I had to wait for a considerable period of time before the Black poll watchers could find the bound registry-roll of Republicans, which proved I was eligible to vote in Republican primary. I also had to show my US passport and my NYC Board of Elections voter-registration card in order to prove that me was really me (the illiterate Hispanic illegals in same ED were not asked for any identification whatsoever). I probably had my voting rights violated by having to show identification but no Black Panther brandished a weapon in my general direction so I can’t complaint. Perhaps in this Black ED, the mindset was that Republican voters were committing vote-fraud simply because they were registered Republicans!

    I marked my Republican ballot for Trump using that ED’s pen & ink, which was promptly rejected by the ED’s optical scanner. Perhaps the optical scanner was programmed to reject any ballot that wasn’t marked for Hillary. I wound up using my own pen & ink and the optical scanner seemed to accept my ballot. But God knows if my Trump vote was actually counted. At least, the optical scanner probably didn’t register a vote for Ted Cruz or that wacko Car-Sick. Maybe I wound up voting for Hillary after all!

    NB : youtube is full of videos about how optical scanners can be manipulated. The old-style paper ballots are still the most difficult way to fake a final vote count. But even with paper ballots and a manual hand count, where there’s a will to pervert a final count, there is certainly more than one way to do so – – – just ask 19th Century Tammany Hall and the New York & Boston Irish! “I seen my opportunities & I took ‘em” – – – bent Irish politicians used to say, back in the just-off-the-boat old days!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @JohnnyWalker123

    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.
     
    See my previous post.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    As for the second Gulf War, WMDs and 9/11 had something to do with that.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    The war wasn’t started by the phony incubator-baby story. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. he really did that – that was no hoax. Now, you could well argue that it was none of our business, and you wouldn’t get much argument from me on that score. But the incubator story was just a bit of war propaganda, not the actual causus-belli itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Before invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein (who was a close ally of America at the time) had a conversation with U.S. ambassador April Glaspie. At that time, Iraq was placing its troops near the Kuwaiti border. Here was what she said.

    In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait."

     

    So the U.S. basically greenlighted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Then acted shocked at what Iraq had done. Then concocted a false story about incubator babies being killed. Then perpetrated a very violent war on Iraq (in which 135,000 were killed). Then occupied the country for many years, during which economic sanctions killed over half a million Iraqi children. Then started a second war (due to "WMDs" and "9/11"), which killed another 1 million Iraqis. Then after ISIS arose, the U.S. decided to go back to war in Iraq. Now 2 million Iraqis are dead and the country is in total chaos.

    My general sense is that if a foreign power did that to America, some of the posters here might be slightly irritated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @JohnnyWalker123
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you'd think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was "liberal" and "hated Republicans."

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

     

    At least on broadcast news, there's almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it's still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There's a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don't think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it's job, how did this happen?

    If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?

    The media is doing its job. It’s job is not to inform.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @Autochthon
    Oh, but the obligation extends to all eight billions humans, under the Zeroth Amendment.

    Oh, but the obligation extends to all eight billions humans, under the Zeroth Amendment.

    Wouldn’t that be going too far, though? Some of those billions are hideously White. Do we really want to allow more White people to immigrate to the USA? To be fully PC, the Zeroth Amendment should read:”The USA must allow unlimited immigration by non-Whites*”

    *Special exception for White Jews, who will have the status of honorary POC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon

    The U.S.A. Thanoccident must allow unlimited immigration by non-Whites.*
     
    There you go.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @JohnnyWalker123

    the Iraqis were just as much killed by their own evil morality and weakness in allowing themselves to be governed by a tyrant who twice provoked war with the United States.
     
    See my previous post.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    As for the second Gulf War, WMDs and 9/11 had something to do with that.

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    Nah. That was just a propaganda talking point.

    Read More
    • Disagree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @anon
    Nah. That was just a propaganda talking point.

    That was always my impression of that story too. I was pretty young at the time of the Gulf War, but I never heard anyone talking about the incubator babies story. Looking at things like old episodes of Saturday Night Live and stuff like that from the time, nobody seemed to make a very big deal out of it.

    The real reasons for the Gulf War were bad enough, but the incubator babies story seems to have entered liberal folklore as being THE reason people supported it. Probably because of Michael Moore.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @JohnnyWalker123
    I was referring to the Suskind story about the CIA forging the document.

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was "biased." Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.

    Over 40% of Americans support the Iraq War and think WMDs were found. The public's median estimate of dead Iraqi civilians is 10,000. These numbers are utterly astonishing beyond all belief. They are an indicator that the U.S. media is woefully inadequate at informing the public discourse.

    The Soviets would be proud.

    As Ron Unz says, "American Pravda."

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was “biased.” Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.

    600,000 sounds about right for total deaths (Gulf War+ Embargo+Iraq War and Occupation):

    Matthew Whites’e estimates:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    And, for comparison’s sake, his estimates on the total killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    No, not 600,000 total deaths.

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.

    1 million deaths due to the second Gulf War (of which 600,000 had died as of 2006).
    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.
    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.

    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.
     
    Nah. That was just a propaganda talking point.

    Nah. That was just a propaganda talking point.

    That was always my impression of that story too. I was pretty young at the time of the Gulf War, but I never heard anyone talking about the incubator babies story. Looking at things like old episodes of Saturday Night Live and stuff like that from the time, nobody seemed to make a very big deal out of it.

    The real reasons for the Gulf War were bad enough, but the incubator babies story seems to have entered liberal folklore as being THE reason people supported it. Probably because of Michael Moore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    This is incorrect.

    After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. public support for military action was about 50%. So the U.S. govt (with the help of PR firm Hill&Knowlton) had the Kuwaiti ambassador's claim that Iraq was killing incubator babies. This claim was broadcast in front of Congress and repeated many times by President George H.W. Bush.

    Following this propaganda campaign, U.S. public support for military action leaped to 80%.

    The incubator babies story was a key in selling the Gulf War to the public. It pushed support from 50% to 80%.

    The incubator babies story was told to the Congress (while also being broadcast to the public) and repeated many times by our president.


    That was always my impression of that story too. I was pretty young at the time of the Gulf War, but I never heard anyone talking about the incubator babies story. Looking at things like old episodes of Saturday Night Live and stuff like that from the time, nobody seemed to make a very big deal out of it.
     
    While that may have been your "impression," the reality is that it was discussed widely at the time. Especially by the president. Given that you claim that you were "pretty young" at the time, do you think it's possible that maybe you weren't following events closely?

    Why exactly would a comedy show like SNL make an issue out of dead babies?

    The real reasons for the Gulf War were bad enough, but the incubator babies story seems to have entered liberal folklore as being THE reason people supported it. Probably because of Michael Moore.

     

    There is no "liberal folklore." It is a fact that the incubator babies propaganda was widely used many, many times by the govt to sell the war. It's also a fact that 2 million Iraqis are now dead.

    Michael Moore was right about the second Iraq War too. He claimed the war was being sold under false pretenses. Years later, he was validated. He also claimed that Haliburton (Dick Cheney was their previous CEO) was ripping off the U.S taxpayer, which was also validated in later years. Its turns out that Haliburton and other politically connected contractors stole tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. govt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Why is it the fault of White men, every time, particularly and especially when no White men are involved at all? Because of the rage of White women who find their men don’t measure up in casual violence, physical domination, intimidation, fear, and cruelty. All elements they find arousing in men. And all elements which when lacking in men, they find the men … deplorable.

    White men, compared to other races (save NE Asians who White women and gays find similarly deplorable) lack on a constant basis the cruelty, the dominance, the errupting sudden violence that women crave in their men like an episode of Sons of Anarchy.

    Women and gays will continue to act like this unless and until White men can up the ante and be even more of that which they desire — violent, erratic, dominant, cruel, and generating raw naked fear. That is all there is to this story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. @WJ
    It's quite surprising that these obvious truths still have to be stated here. Sometimes I feel like I am back in 2003 and some neocon is telling me " we have to fight them over there so they don't come over here" or that we can't just "cut and run" (one of the most trite phrases) now that we are winning.

    ” we have to fight them over there so they don’t come over here”

    The funny part of that is you could almost imagine some Iranian saying that about our presence in Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @syonredux

    Oh, but the obligation extends to all eight billions humans, under the Zeroth Amendment.
     
    Wouldn't that be going too far, though? Some of those billions are hideously White. Do we really want to allow more White people to immigrate to the USA? To be fully PC, the Zeroth Amendment should read:"The USA must allow unlimited immigration by non-Whites*"

    *Special exception for White Jews, who will have the status of honorary POC.

    The U.S.A. Thanoccident must allow unlimited immigration by non-Whites.*

    There you go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @syonredux

    The Lancet story (600,000+ deaths in Iraq) was, to the credit of the media, widely covered. However, Bush and conservatives claimed the study was “biased.” Soon after, the study got buried. Seldomly does anyone ever talk about all the deaths in Iraq these days. This is why the American public estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll to be only 10,000.
     
    600,000 sounds about right for total deaths (Gulf War+ Embargo+Iraq War and Occupation):

    Matthew Whites'e estimates:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    And, for comparison’s sake, his estimates on the total killed by Saddam Hussein:

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million

    No, not 600,000 total deaths.

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.

    1 million deaths due to the second Gulf War (of which 600,000 had died as of 2006).
    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.
    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.

    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?

    Well, I can't speak for syonredux, but I certainly don't.

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

    It's this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

    It's like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you'd run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about "the sixties, maaaaan!". For the rest of my life, I feel like I'm going to keep running into libs who seem like they've just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

    I can't say it's a particularly pleasant idea.
    , @syonredux

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.
     
    Doubtful.For 2003-2011, Matthew White estimates 171,000 (Iraq War plus Occupation)

    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.
     
    Maybe if you factor in deaths from the Uprising.....but shouldn't Saddam take some of the credit for those?

    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.
     
    All the stats people that I've talked to at my uni have problems with that study.Matthew White's 350,000 (1990-2003) sounds more plausible.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.
     
    Nah. Too high. Remember, people love big numbers:

    Stalin: People love to cite the 20 million figure, but he actually killed approx 9 million

    German WWI Blockade Deaths: 763,000 deaths is the popular tally. Actual losses:424,000

    Expulsion of Germans (1944-50): German government offers estimates of approx 2 million. Actual total: 500,000-600,000

    So, I'll go with these numbers:



    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @anon
    Nah. That was just a propaganda talking point.

    That was always my impression of that story too. I was pretty young at the time of the Gulf War, but I never heard anyone talking about the incubator babies story. Looking at things like old episodes of Saturday Night Live and stuff like that from the time, nobody seemed to make a very big deal out of it.

    The real reasons for the Gulf War were bad enough, but the incubator babies story seems to have entered liberal folklore as being THE reason people supported it. Probably because of Michael Moore.

    This is incorrect.

    After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, U.S. public support for military action was about 50%. So the U.S. govt (with the help of PR firm Hill&Knowlton) had the Kuwaiti ambassador’s claim that Iraq was killing incubator babies. This claim was broadcast in front of Congress and repeated many times by President George H.W. Bush.

    Following this propaganda campaign, U.S. public support for military action leaped to 80%.

    The incubator babies story was a key in selling the Gulf War to the public. It pushed support from 50% to 80%.

    The incubator babies story was told to the Congress (while also being broadcast to the public) and repeated many times by our president.

    That was always my impression of that story too. I was pretty young at the time of the Gulf War, but I never heard anyone talking about the incubator babies story. Looking at things like old episodes of Saturday Night Live and stuff like that from the time, nobody seemed to make a very big deal out of it.

    While that may have been your “impression,” the reality is that it was discussed widely at the time. Especially by the president. Given that you claim that you were “pretty young” at the time, do you think it’s possible that maybe you weren’t following events closely?

    Why exactly would a comedy show like SNL make an issue out of dead babies?

    The real reasons for the Gulf War were bad enough, but the incubator babies story seems to have entered liberal folklore as being THE reason people supported it. Probably because of Michael Moore.

    There is no “liberal folklore.” It is a fact that the incubator babies propaganda was widely used many, many times by the govt to sell the war. It’s also a fact that 2 million Iraqis are now dead.

    Michael Moore was right about the second Iraq War too. He claimed the war was being sold under false pretenses. Years later, he was validated. He also claimed that Haliburton (Dick Cheney was their previous CEO) was ripping off the U.S taxpayer, which was also validated in later years. Its turns out that Haliburton and other politically connected contractors stole tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. govt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    So the U.S. govt (with the help of PR firm Hill&Knowlton) had the Kuwaiti ambassador’s claim that Iraq was killing incubator babies. This claim was broadcast in front of Congress and repeated many times by President George H.W. Bush.

    Following this propaganda campaign, U.S. public support for military action leaped to 80%.

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID.

    But it wasn't. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

    As I said, if Bush had just gone onstage and said "Iraqi soldiers took babies out of their incubators!" and then walked off the stage, and THEN support had grown, you would have a point. But I'm beginning to feel like, if you were to ever have a point, the universe would explode and then condense into an infinitely-small point of unimaginable mass.

    While that may have been your “impression,” the reality is that it was discussed widely at the time. Especially by the president. Given that you claim that you were “pretty young” at the time, do you think it’s possible that maybe you weren’t following events closely?

    I didn't say that nobody discussed them. Nobody denied that people mentioned it in Congress. I am simply telling you the absolute fact that, when people talked about all the reasons they needed to go to war in Iraq, never once did I hear anyone mention incubator babies. They talked quite a bit about the invasion of Kuwait. Which really did happen. I remember them talking about that. Because, get this. That really IS why people supported the Iraq war. You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you're wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you have this bizarre fixation with BEING wrong, and I don't really know how else to explain it, other than the fact that this piece of liberal folklore means so much to you that you just can't let it go.

    It's weird, man. You know what I mean? Weird.

    Why exactly would a comedy show like SNL make an issue out of dead babies?

    I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

    There is no “liberal folklore.”

    Oh, no, of course not. Don't know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was "liberal folklore" that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    No, not 600,000 total deaths.

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.

    1 million deaths due to the second Gulf War (of which 600,000 had died as of 2006).
    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.
    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.

    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?

    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?

    Well, I can’t speak for syonredux, but I certainly don’t.

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

    It’s this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

    It’s like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you’d run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about “the sixties, maaaaan!”. For the rest of my life, I feel like I’m going to keep running into libs who seem like they’ve just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

    I can’t say it’s a particularly pleasant idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

     

    because it's not said enough.

    Hardly anyone ever talks about the costs of this war. These topics should be mentioned on a nightly basis in America, not occasionally mentioned.

    Steve Sailer blogs about immigration every day. Does that change the importance of the message?

    It’s this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

     

    The U.S. has been up to the same shenanigans in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Which has killed many more people. At some point, it'd be nice if we stopped.

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange........ I wonder why.............

    It’s like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you’d run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about “the sixties, maaaaan!”. For the rest of my life, I feel like I’m going to keep running into libs who seem like they’ve just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

     

    Well, the long-term cost of the Iraq War is $5 trillion. So that's $50,000 for an average 3-person family. Paying that off is going to take decades, perhaps longer.

    You better pay attention to Iraq. As a taxpayer, you (and your children) are going to spend years paying for it. A little outrage wouldn't be a bad thing.

    If I stole $50,000 from your family, would you be angry?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @JohnnyWalker123
    Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and Germany was overruning Europe.

    Iraq was................

    You understand jus ad bellum. Now read the sequel, jus in bello.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    This is incorrect.

    After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, U.S. public support for military action was about 50%. So the U.S. govt (with the help of PR firm Hill&Knowlton) had the Kuwaiti ambassador's claim that Iraq was killing incubator babies. This claim was broadcast in front of Congress and repeated many times by President George H.W. Bush.

    Following this propaganda campaign, U.S. public support for military action leaped to 80%.

    The incubator babies story was a key in selling the Gulf War to the public. It pushed support from 50% to 80%.

    The incubator babies story was told to the Congress (while also being broadcast to the public) and repeated many times by our president.


    That was always my impression of that story too. I was pretty young at the time of the Gulf War, but I never heard anyone talking about the incubator babies story. Looking at things like old episodes of Saturday Night Live and stuff like that from the time, nobody seemed to make a very big deal out of it.
     
    While that may have been your "impression," the reality is that it was discussed widely at the time. Especially by the president. Given that you claim that you were "pretty young" at the time, do you think it's possible that maybe you weren't following events closely?

    Why exactly would a comedy show like SNL make an issue out of dead babies?

    The real reasons for the Gulf War were bad enough, but the incubator babies story seems to have entered liberal folklore as being THE reason people supported it. Probably because of Michael Moore.

     

    There is no "liberal folklore." It is a fact that the incubator babies propaganda was widely used many, many times by the govt to sell the war. It's also a fact that 2 million Iraqis are now dead.

    Michael Moore was right about the second Iraq War too. He claimed the war was being sold under false pretenses. Years later, he was validated. He also claimed that Haliburton (Dick Cheney was their previous CEO) was ripping off the U.S taxpayer, which was also validated in later years. Its turns out that Haliburton and other politically connected contractors stole tens of billions of dollars from the U.S. govt.

    So the U.S. govt (with the help of PR firm Hill&Knowlton) had the Kuwaiti ambassador’s claim that Iraq was killing incubator babies. This claim was broadcast in front of Congress and repeated many times by President George H.W. Bush.

    Following this propaganda campaign, U.S. public support for military action leaped to 80%.

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID.

    But it wasn’t. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

    As I said, if Bush had just gone onstage and said “Iraqi soldiers took babies out of their incubators!” and then walked off the stage, and THEN support had grown, you would have a point. But I’m beginning to feel like, if you were to ever have a point, the universe would explode and then condense into an infinitely-small point of unimaginable mass.

    While that may have been your “impression,” the reality is that it was discussed widely at the time. Especially by the president. Given that you claim that you were “pretty young” at the time, do you think it’s possible that maybe you weren’t following events closely?

    I didn’t say that nobody discussed them. Nobody denied that people mentioned it in Congress. I am simply telling you the absolute fact that, when people talked about all the reasons they needed to go to war in Iraq, never once did I hear anyone mention incubator babies. They talked quite a bit about the invasion of Kuwait. Which really did happen. I remember them talking about that. Because, get this. That really IS why people supported the Iraq war. You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you’re wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you have this bizarre fixation with BEING wrong, and I don’t really know how else to explain it, other than the fact that this piece of liberal folklore means so much to you that you just can’t let it go.

    It’s weird, man. You know what I mean? Weird.

    Why exactly would a comedy show like SNL make an issue out of dead babies?

    I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.

    There is no “liberal folklore.”

    Oh, no, of course not. Don’t know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was “liberal folklore” that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID. But it wasn’t. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

     

    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points. One major point was that Iraq was killing incubator babies (which was a lie). Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border. This was later proven false too.

    See below.



    One of the main reasons for America’s going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared that there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. They were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification for war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West.

    Yet the supposed aerial photos proving the accusation were never released. First the Pentagon said they had to remain secret because of the war effort. Then the White House kept hedging and finally the issue died down with the supposed photos still not released. Iraq all along denied that it had any intention of threatening Saudi Arabia and was only reuniting itself with its (claimed) province of Kuwait. See link below about Russian satellite photos showing no large concentrations of troops.

    On February 27, 1991, an article appeared in "IN THESE TIMES" telling how typical consumers of mainstream news were dazzled and deluded by the manipulators of images. The article, "Public Doesn't Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos," reported that when president George Bush began his massive deployment of American troops to the Gulf in August 1990, he claimed that Iraq, which had just entered Kuwait, had set its sights on Saudi Arabia. On September 11, 1990, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, "We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia".

    On January 6, 1991, however, Jean Heller had reported in the ST. PETERSBURG (Fla.) TIMES that satellite photos taken the same day the president Bush addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of a massive Iraqi troops buildup in Kuwait.

    Heller told IN THESE TIMES, "The troops that were said to be massing on the Saudi border and that constituted the possible threat to Saudi Arabia that justified the US sending of troops do not show up in these photographs. And when the Department of Defense was asked to provide evidence that would contradict our satellite evidence, it refused to do so".

    But the national media has chosen to ignore Heller's story. ST. PETERSBURG TIMES’ editors approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service, of which the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES is a member, chose not to distribute the story. "I think part of the reason the story was ignored was that it was published too close to the start of the war," says Heller. "Second, and more importantly, I do not think people wanted to hear that we might have been deceived. A lot of the reporters who have seen the story think it is dynamite, but the editors who have seen it seem to have the attitude. "At this point, who cares? If the war ends badly with a lot of casualties, more than the administration had led us to expect, you might hear of this story again".

    Heller said in her story that Soviet satellite photos taken five weeks after August 2, 1990 suggest that the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.
     
    So another fabrication.

    You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you’re wrong.

     

    Given that you were "young" at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression. We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned "incubator babies" in his speeches. Also, let's ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador's daughter. Let's just trust your impression. We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That's a coincidence.

    Oh, no, of course not. Don’t know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was “liberal folklore” that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

     

    Most of the pro-war people are also pro-immigration too. Such as the Bushes. A lot of the anti-war people (like Buchanan) are anti-immigration.

    As for "liberal folklore," the fact is that the liberals failed to prevent the first or second Gulf War. They sort of just rolled over on both wars. The Clintons and Kerry supported the Iraq War. Obama did oppose it, but never made much of an issue of it after his 2008 election.

    So in conclusion:

    -Iraq didn't kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn't massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie
    -Liberals didn't oppose either Iraq War very hard or very successfully
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Mr. Anon

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.
     
    The war wasn't started by the phony incubator-baby story. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. he really did that - that was no hoax. Now, you could well argue that it was none of our business, and you wouldn't get much argument from me on that score. But the incubator story was just a bit of war propaganda, not the actual causus-belli itself.

    Before invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein (who was a close ally of America at the time) had a conversation with U.S. ambassador April Glaspie. At that time, Iraq was placing its troops near the Kuwaiti border. Here was what she said.

    In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.”

    So the U.S. basically greenlighted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Then acted shocked at what Iraq had done. Then concocted a false story about incubator babies being killed. Then perpetrated a very violent war on Iraq (in which 135,000 were killed). Then occupied the country for many years, during which economic sanctions killed over half a million Iraqi children. Then started a second war (due to “WMDs” and “9/11″), which killed another 1 million Iraqis. Then after ISIS arose, the U.S. decided to go back to war in Iraq. Now 2 million Iraqis are dead and the country is in total chaos.

    My general sense is that if a foreign power did that to America, some of the posters here might be slightly irritated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Autochthon
    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.

    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn’t a monstrosity, I don’t know what is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.

    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn’t a monstrosity, I don’t know what is.
     
    Tu quoque. German airmen weren't prosecuted for bombing civilians because the Allies also bombed civilians. Imagine the defense calling Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris to the stand and asking him a few questions about Operation Gomorrah....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II#Battle_of_Hamburg
    , @Autochthon
    This guy could give you some guidance about monstrosities.

    Many a Londonder bereaved during the blitz could also contribute to the conversation, nevermind what the inhabitants of Nanking might have to say.

    One cannot stab a man and then condemn him for a monster if he responds by shooting. Its a shame when civilians suffer for the sins of their wicked governments, but it is unavoidable, in war as in peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Paul Jolliffe
    We may forget that the NYT is not merely about "invite the world", but "invade the world". JW123, you've commented before about the JFK assassination and its importance to the interventionist arm of American Foreign Policy over the last half-century.

    Interventionists have been in control of the White House and our policies for a long time, and the NYT is merely their mouthpiece.

    So,while you're right to wonder why the NYT doesn't deliver on "all the news that fits we'll print", well the answer is simple:

    What you've noticed "doesn't fit", therefore they won't print.

    Yeah.

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a “liberal” publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims, they’re already somewhat innoculated from criticism.

    Let’s say that I give thousands of dollars to LGBT. Then I become president and eliminate all funding for AIDS treatment and research. Maybe even with all that, I might still have a positive reputation among LGBTs.

    Maybe even with all the genocidal policies the NYT has advocated for over the years, they’re still seen as “liberal” because they occasionally run stories about Islamophobia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a “liberal” publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims,
     
    The Iraq War was supposed to be "genocidal?"

    population Iraq 1990:17.48 million

    population Iraq 2017: 38,654,287

    Yeesh. That's gotta be one of the must unsuccessful genocides in history.....Clearly, they need to consult the Qianlong Emperor. Just look at what he did to the Dzungar. During the period 1755-58, approx 480,000 Dzungars were killed (out of total population numbering approx 600,000).....Now that's how you do it....
    , @syonredux

    Maybe even with all the genocidal policies the NYT has advocated for over the years, they’re still seen as “liberal” because they occasionally run stories about Islamophobia.
     
    Hey, give the NYTIMES some credit. They are, after all, fully in support of the Muslim takeover of Europe....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @JohnnyWalker123
    No, not 600,000 total deaths.

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.

    1 million deaths due to the second Gulf War (of which 600,000 had died as of 2006).
    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.
    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.

    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.

    Doubtful.For 2003-2011, Matthew White estimates 171,000 (Iraq War plus Occupation)

    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.

    Maybe if you factor in deaths from the Uprising…..but shouldn’t Saddam take some of the credit for those?

    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.

    All the stats people that I’ve talked to at my uni have problems with that study.Matthew White’s 350,000 (1990-2003) sounds more plausible.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.

    Nah. Too high. Remember, people love big numbers:

    Stalin: People love to cite the 20 million figure, but he actually killed approx 9 million

    German WWI Blockade Deaths: 763,000 deaths is the popular tally. Actual losses:424,000

    Expulsion of Germans (1944-50): German government offers estimates of approx 2 million. Actual total: 500,000-600,000

    So, I’ll go with these numbers:

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Doubtful.For 2003-2011, Matthew White estimates 171,000 (Iraq War plus Occupation)

     

    Matthew White didn't do any studies in Iraq. He just took a figure based on deaths recorded in papers. It's well known that enormous numbers of deaths go unreported in war zones.

    The Lancet study was meticulous and done on a very large scale. About 85% of sampled Iraqi respondents produced death certificates, so we can be certain they were telling the truth. Actually, if anything, the Lancet may have understated the death toll, as many dead families are no longer around to tell their story. The study had a 99% response rate.

    So the 600,000 figure (as of the study completion in 2006) is very reasonable. As of now, 1 million is perfectly plausible. Maybe higher.

    Maybe if you factor in deaths from the Uprising…..but shouldn’t Saddam take some of the credit for those?

     

    You might be right about that. Estimates initially showed 100,000 dead, but later were downgraded to about 10,000 dead.


    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

     

    The first two numbers are somewhat plausible. The last number is not. No way only 171,000 died in this current Iraq war. Lancet and various other studies contradict that. Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Conservatively, you could estimate the total deaths to be half the 2 million figure. Even that's still atrocious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @anon
    For some reason, “media liberals” didn’t seem much concerned about this.

    Actually, Johnny, it was pretty widely criticized at the time. Even reporters who were there at the time were bothered by it.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042000020_pf.html.

    If "media liberals" hadn't been kind of upset about it, I doubt you would have even heard about it in the first place.

    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    “Liberal media.”

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office. In America, it earns laughs from the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.
     
    But, on the positive side, the media know that he's in favor of mass immigration......Making him the poster boy for Invade the World, Invite the World....
    , @anon
    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    Actually, Johnny, no they don't. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

    McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not "committing genocide", as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn't really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

    The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    The laughing wasn't coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke. You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren't inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yeah.

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a "liberal" publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims, they're already somewhat innoculated from criticism.

    Let's say that I give thousands of dollars to LGBT. Then I become president and eliminate all funding for AIDS treatment and research. Maybe even with all that, I might still have a positive reputation among LGBTs.

    Maybe even with all the genocidal policies the NYT has advocated for over the years, they're still seen as "liberal" because they occasionally run stories about Islamophobia.

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a “liberal” publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims,

    The Iraq War was supposed to be “genocidal?”

    population Iraq 1990:17.48 million

    population Iraq 2017: 38,654,287

    Yeesh. That’s gotta be one of the must unsuccessful genocides in history…..Clearly, they need to consult the Qianlong Emperor. Just look at what he did to the Dzungar. During the period 1755-58, approx 480,000 Dzungars were killed (out of total population numbering approx 600,000)…..Now that’s how you do it….

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Well, Rwanda's population is larger than ever. That doesn't negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

    Anyway, genocide can sometimes increase a population's growth rate. If lots of babies die or if family planning services are eliminated by war chaos, birth rates often increase.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @JohnnyWalker123
    Yeah.

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a "liberal" publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims, they're already somewhat innoculated from criticism.

    Let's say that I give thousands of dollars to LGBT. Then I become president and eliminate all funding for AIDS treatment and research. Maybe even with all that, I might still have a positive reputation among LGBTs.

    Maybe even with all the genocidal policies the NYT has advocated for over the years, they're still seen as "liberal" because they occasionally run stories about Islamophobia.

    Maybe even with all the genocidal policies the NYT has advocated for over the years, they’re still seen as “liberal” because they occasionally run stories about Islamophobia.

    Hey, give the NYTIMES some credit. They are, after all, fully in support of the Muslim takeover of Europe….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @JohnnyWalker123
    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    "Liberal media."

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office. In America, it earns laughs from the media.

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    But, on the positive side, the media know that he’s in favor of mass immigration……Making him the poster boy for Invade the World, Invite the World….

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    McCain is scum. Back in 2010, immigration restrictionist JD Hayworth tried to unseat McCain in the Republican primary and, unfortunately, lost. Palin's endorsement of McCain was a major factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @syonredux

    600,000 deaths due to the 2nd Gulf War. This study was published in 2006. Since then, there obviously have been an additional large number of deaths. At this point, over 1 million deaths is definitely plausible. Maybe even higher.
     
    Doubtful.For 2003-2011, Matthew White estimates 171,000 (Iraq War plus Occupation)

    135,000 deaths due to the first Gulf War.
     
    Maybe if you factor in deaths from the Uprising.....but shouldn't Saddam take some of the credit for those?

    In 1995, Lancet estimated the number of under-5 deaths (due to sanctions) to be about 600,000.
     
    All the stats people that I've talked to at my uni have problems with that study.Matthew White's 350,000 (1990-2003) sounds more plausible.

    Around 2 million deaths is a reasonable estimate.
     
    Nah. Too high. Remember, people love big numbers:

    Stalin: People love to cite the 20 million figure, but he actually killed approx 9 million

    German WWI Blockade Deaths: 763,000 deaths is the popular tally. Actual losses:424,000

    Expulsion of Germans (1944-50): German government offers estimates of approx 2 million. Actual total: 500,000-600,000

    So, I'll go with these numbers:



    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    Doubtful.For 2003-2011, Matthew White estimates 171,000 (Iraq War plus Occupation)

    Matthew White didn’t do any studies in Iraq. He just took a figure based on deaths recorded in papers. It’s well known that enormous numbers of deaths go unreported in war zones.

    The Lancet study was meticulous and done on a very large scale. About 85% of sampled Iraqi respondents produced death certificates, so we can be certain they were telling the truth. Actually, if anything, the Lancet may have understated the death toll, as many dead families are no longer around to tell their story. The study had a 99% response rate.

    So the 600,000 figure (as of the study completion in 2006) is very reasonable. As of now, 1 million is perfectly plausible. Maybe higher.

    Maybe if you factor in deaths from the Uprising…..but shouldn’t Saddam take some of the credit for those?

    You might be right about that. Estimates initially showed 100,000 dead, but later were downgraded to about 10,000 dead.

    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

    The first two numbers are somewhat plausible. The last number is not. No way only 171,000 died in this current Iraq war. Lancet and various other studies contradict that. Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Conservatively, you could estimate the total deaths to be half the 2 million figure. Even that’s still atrocious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Lancet study was meticulous and done on a very large scale.
     
    Nah. The more I study it, the worse it sounds:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

    So the 600,000 figure (as of the study completion in 2006) is very reasonable. As of now, 1 million is perfectly plausible. Maybe higher.
     
    Nah. I go with White's estimate:171,000

    No way only 171,000 died in this current Iraq war. Lancet and various other studies contradict that.
     
    Dunno. 171,000 sounds pretty solid to me....

    Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

     

    Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Well, for one thing, gotta factor in all the widows caused by Saddam's regime.....


    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    "Liberal media."

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office. In America, it earns laughs from the media.

    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    Actually, Johnny, no they don’t. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

    McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not “committing genocide”, as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn’t really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

    The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    The laughing wasn’t coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke. You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren’t inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Actually, Johnny, no they don’t. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

     

    There are plenty of reporters covering every detail of a campaign. Like what the candidate ate for breakfast and what wardrobe he was wearing. McCain, more than other politicians, brings the media around with him. After the 2008 election, some reporters created a tell-all book with an amazing amount of detail about the McCain-Palin campaign.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not “committing genocide”, as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn’t really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

     

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to"kill" them is certainly genocide. Phillip-Morris may want to sell cigarettes in Iran, but it doesn't joke about causing deaths.

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    How often do leading politicians joke about murdering the citizens of a foreign country?

    The laughing wasn’t coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke.

     

    If you watch the tape again, the reporters were laughing too. They thought it was funny.

    You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren’t inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

     

    McCain has always been a fervent supporter of the Iraq Wars and sanctions, which have killed 2 million people. So given his support of the genocide there, it doesn't strike me as implausible that he has no problem with doing the same thing to Iran. Especially given his jokes and his bellicose anti-Iranian rhetoric.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

     

    Sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @syonredux

    What is significant is this. McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off. The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.
     
    But, on the positive side, the media know that he's in favor of mass immigration......Making him the poster boy for Invade the World, Invite the World....

    McCain is scum. Back in 2010, immigration restrictionist JD Hayworth tried to unseat McCain in the Republican primary and, unfortunately, lost. Palin’s endorsement of McCain was a major factor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    McCain is scum. Back in 2010, immigration restrictionist JD Hayworth tried to unseat McCain in the Republican primary and, unfortunately, lost. Palin’s endorsement of McCain was a major factor.
     
    But he's the right kind of scum. See, if he was only in favor of bombing foreign countries, that would be bad. But he's also in favor of mass immigration, and that is doubleplusgood. It's the PC dialectic.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. I think soon there will be problems of Muslims with Mexicans because they are natural enemies due to their religion. Mexicans worship religious images of Saints and Virgins in thousands of churches in Mexico, but Muslims prohibit to adore human images in any way. They dont even have any statue or representation of their God or prophets. THis may be a source of conflicts among them, as soon as more MUslims enter USA and Mexico. Mexico is supporting open borders, so they HAVE to allow MUslims to migrate to Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CJ

    Mexico is supporting open borders, so they HAVE to allow MUslims to migrate to Mexico.
     
    Say what? Mexico doesn't have open borders for itself, and doesn't tolerate illegals living there.

    Mexico’s illegals laws tougher than Arizona’s

    In fact, Mexico has built its own border wall ... on the border with Guatemala.

    Mexico moves to lock down its OTHER border wall

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Reg Cæsar

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.
     
    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn't a monstrosity, I don't know what is.

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.

    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn’t a monstrosity, I don’t know what is.

    Tu quoque. German airmen weren’t prosecuted for bombing civilians because the Allies also bombed civilians. Imagine the defense calling Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris to the stand and asking him a few questions about Operation Gomorrah….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II#Battle_of_Hamburg

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    The allies weren't above prosecuting Germans for crimes they shared. That's true even if you discount the Evil Empire. But with Russia on the bench, the idea the allies couldn't charge what they themselves had done is laughable. They did it all: conspiracy to invade, slave labor, murder of innocents, the whole shebang.

    Perhaps most infamously, they went after the Nazis for invading Norway when everyone knew the French and British were moving to occupy it, and had even gone so far as to mine harbors. At least the others held the Soviets back from including the Katyn massacre like they wanted.

    Why they didn't prosecute Germans for terror bombing, I don't know. Perhaps it was too obvious who got the worst of it. Then again, I don't know if people outside Germany and Japan really got the conflagration thing (or would have cared if they had, on the other hand). Perhaps the fact that the British started it was too big a secret. I'm not sure how many people are aware of it to this day. The Coventry Myth is strong.

    Certainly it wasn't for a general fear of looking the hypocrite. They weren't otherwise afraid of that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @syonredux

    Also, by showing special concern to this dead Muslim woman, the New York Times has gained a reputation as a “liberal” publication. So when they push genocidal foreign wars that kill millions of Muslims,
     
    The Iraq War was supposed to be "genocidal?"

    population Iraq 1990:17.48 million

    population Iraq 2017: 38,654,287

    Yeesh. That's gotta be one of the must unsuccessful genocides in history.....Clearly, they need to consult the Qianlong Emperor. Just look at what he did to the Dzungar. During the period 1755-58, approx 480,000 Dzungars were killed (out of total population numbering approx 600,000).....Now that's how you do it....

    Well, Rwanda’s population is larger than ever. That doesn’t negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

    Anyway, genocide can sometimes increase a population’s growth rate. If lots of babies die or if family planning services are eliminated by war chaos, birth rates often increase.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Well, Rwanda’s population is larger than ever. That doesn’t negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.
     
    Yeah, but I would like to think that the USA could do better than a bunch of Hutus and Tutsis...

    Really, it's so depressing....According to you, the USA tried to exterminate the Iraqis, and we barely made a dent in their numbers....If we ever needed evidence that Anglo-America is in decline...
    , @Reg Cæsar

    That doesn’t negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.
     
    Everybody forgets the Tutsi-Hutu genocide in Burundi.

    Anyway, genocide can sometimes increase a population’s growth rate. If lots of babies die or if family planning services are eliminated by war chaos, birth rates often increase.
     
    Now we're talkin' "affordable family formation"!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @JohnnyWalker123
    McCain is scum. Back in 2010, immigration restrictionist JD Hayworth tried to unseat McCain in the Republican primary and, unfortunately, lost. Palin's endorsement of McCain was a major factor.

    McCain is scum. Back in 2010, immigration restrictionist JD Hayworth tried to unseat McCain in the Republican primary and, unfortunately, lost. Palin’s endorsement of McCain was a major factor.

    But he’s the right kind of scum. See, if he was only in favor of bombing foreign countries, that would be bad. But he’s also in favor of mass immigration, and that is doubleplusgood. It’s the PC dialectic…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @JohnnyWalker123
    Well, Rwanda's population is larger than ever. That doesn't negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

    Anyway, genocide can sometimes increase a population's growth rate. If lots of babies die or if family planning services are eliminated by war chaos, birth rates often increase.

    Well, Rwanda’s population is larger than ever. That doesn’t negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

    Yeah, but I would like to think that the USA could do better than a bunch of Hutus and Tutsis…

    Really, it’s so depressing….According to you, the USA tried to exterminate the Iraqis, and we barely made a dent in their numbers….If we ever needed evidence that Anglo-America is in decline…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Our military-industrial complex started a frivolous to extract billions of dollars out of U.S. taxpayer pockets. They were successful at that. Genocide of Iraqis wasn't the purpose of the war, it was just collateral damage.

    I don't think U.S. policymakers have a desire to kill Iraqis, but they don't mind stepping over dead Iraqi (and American) bodies if it leads them to more wealth&power.

    The events of the last quarter century confirm that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @anon
    So the U.S. govt (with the help of PR firm Hill&Knowlton) had the Kuwaiti ambassador’s claim that Iraq was killing incubator babies. This claim was broadcast in front of Congress and repeated many times by President George H.W. Bush.

    Following this propaganda campaign, U.S. public support for military action leaped to 80%.

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID.

    But it wasn't. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

    As I said, if Bush had just gone onstage and said "Iraqi soldiers took babies out of their incubators!" and then walked off the stage, and THEN support had grown, you would have a point. But I'm beginning to feel like, if you were to ever have a point, the universe would explode and then condense into an infinitely-small point of unimaginable mass.

    While that may have been your “impression,” the reality is that it was discussed widely at the time. Especially by the president. Given that you claim that you were “pretty young” at the time, do you think it’s possible that maybe you weren’t following events closely?

    I didn't say that nobody discussed them. Nobody denied that people mentioned it in Congress. I am simply telling you the absolute fact that, when people talked about all the reasons they needed to go to war in Iraq, never once did I hear anyone mention incubator babies. They talked quite a bit about the invasion of Kuwait. Which really did happen. I remember them talking about that. Because, get this. That really IS why people supported the Iraq war. You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you're wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you have this bizarre fixation with BEING wrong, and I don't really know how else to explain it, other than the fact that this piece of liberal folklore means so much to you that you just can't let it go.

    It's weird, man. You know what I mean? Weird.

    Why exactly would a comedy show like SNL make an issue out of dead babies?

    I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

    There is no “liberal folklore.”

    Oh, no, of course not. Don't know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was "liberal folklore" that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID. But it wasn’t. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points. One major point was that Iraq was killing incubator babies (which was a lie). Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border. This was later proven false too.

    See below.

    One of the main reasons for America’s going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared that there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. They were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification for war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West.

    Yet the supposed aerial photos proving the accusation were never released. First the Pentagon said they had to remain secret because of the war effort. Then the White House kept hedging and finally the issue died down with the supposed photos still not released. Iraq all along denied that it had any intention of threatening Saudi Arabia and was only reuniting itself with its (claimed) province of Kuwait. See link below about Russian satellite photos showing no large concentrations of troops.

    On February 27, 1991, an article appeared in “IN THESE TIMES” telling how typical consumers of mainstream news were dazzled and deluded by the manipulators of images. The article, “Public Doesn’t Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos,” reported that when president George Bush began his massive deployment of American troops to the Gulf in August 1990, he claimed that Iraq, which had just entered Kuwait, had set its sights on Saudi Arabia. On September 11, 1990, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, “We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia”.

    On January 6, 1991, however, Jean Heller had reported in the ST. PETERSBURG (Fla.) TIMES that satellite photos taken the same day the president Bush addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of a massive Iraqi troops buildup in Kuwait.

    Heller told IN THESE TIMES, “The troops that were said to be massing on the Saudi border and that constituted the possible threat to Saudi Arabia that justified the US sending of troops do not show up in these photographs. And when the Department of Defense was asked to provide evidence that would contradict our satellite evidence, it refused to do so”.

    But the national media has chosen to ignore Heller’s story. ST. PETERSBURG TIMES’ editors approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service, of which the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES is a member, chose not to distribute the story. “I think part of the reason the story was ignored was that it was published too close to the start of the war,” says Heller. “Second, and more importantly, I do not think people wanted to hear that we might have been deceived. A lot of the reporters who have seen the story think it is dynamite, but the editors who have seen it seem to have the attitude. “At this point, who cares? If the war ends badly with a lot of casualties, more than the administration had led us to expect, you might hear of this story again”.

    Heller said in her story that Soviet satellite photos taken five weeks after August 2, 1990 suggest that the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq’s military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.

    So another fabrication.

    You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you’re wrong.

    Given that you were “young” at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression. We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned “incubator babies” in his speeches. Also, let’s ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador’s daughter. Let’s just trust your impression. We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That’s a coincidence.

    Oh, no, of course not. Don’t know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was “liberal folklore” that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

    Most of the pro-war people are also pro-immigration too. Such as the Bushes. A lot of the anti-war people (like Buchanan) are anti-immigration.

    As for “liberal folklore,” the fact is that the liberals failed to prevent the first or second Gulf War. They sort of just rolled over on both wars. The Clintons and Kerry supported the Iraq War. Obama did oppose it, but never made much of an issue of it after his 2008 election.

    So in conclusion:

    -Iraq didn’t kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn’t massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie
    -Liberals didn’t oppose either Iraq War very hard or very successfully

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Iraq didn’t kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn’t massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie
     
    Eh. Saddam was stupid. And vain. He should have pulled out....

    I'm OK with the Gulf War.....We should have just dropped the whole sanctions bit after the war and let bygones be bygones...The Iraq War was..weird....the whole fantasy that Iraq was like post-WW2 Germany and Japan.....total idiocy....As though a bunch of Muslim morons in Iraq have anything in common with the Japanese....
    , @anon
    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points.

    Well, according to you, they shouldn't. They wasted their time, because, from what you've said, the reason we went into Iraq was because of the Kuwaiti incubator babies.

    Your words:

    The incubator babies story was a key in selling the Gulf War to the public. It pushed support from 50% to 80%.


    See? That ONE thing. That's all it took to raise things to 80%. Bush was just wasting his time talking about anything else, because it was the incubator baby story that did it.

    Also:

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.


    Just that one thing. That was all that did it.

    Now, I suppose, if you didn't just have a weird idee fixe that you got from Michael Moore, you could simply admit that you were wrong in your earlier statements. But I have a feeling that you're not going to do that, are you?

    Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border.

    Nope. That had nothing to do with it. It was ALL incubator babies, Johnny. You said so yourself.

    Given that you were “young” at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression.

    Given that you can't even keep your own story straight, I suppose we shouldn't trust yours.

    We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned “incubator babies” in his speeches. Also, let’s ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador’s daughter.

    You are, without question, one of the most incredibly tiresome people I have talked to in a long time. And, for whatever reason, I feel like I talk to an abnormally large number of tiresome people.

    We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That’s a coincidence.


    I JUST talked about how that would only prove anything if that was the only thing he said in the case he made.

    For the love of Christ, it's like Waiting For Godot around here, without all the variety.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @JohnnyWalker123

    Doubtful.For 2003-2011, Matthew White estimates 171,000 (Iraq War plus Occupation)

     

    Matthew White didn't do any studies in Iraq. He just took a figure based on deaths recorded in papers. It's well known that enormous numbers of deaths go unreported in war zones.

    The Lancet study was meticulous and done on a very large scale. About 85% of sampled Iraqi respondents produced death certificates, so we can be certain they were telling the truth. Actually, if anything, the Lancet may have understated the death toll, as many dead families are no longer around to tell their story. The study had a 99% response rate.

    So the 600,000 figure (as of the study completion in 2006) is very reasonable. As of now, 1 million is perfectly plausible. Maybe higher.

    Maybe if you factor in deaths from the Uprising…..but shouldn’t Saddam take some of the credit for those?

     

    You might be right about that. Estimates initially showed 100,000 dead, but later were downgraded to about 10,000 dead.


    Gulf War: 75,000

    International Embargo: 350,000

    Iraq War and Occupation: 171,000

    75,000+350,000+ 171,000= 596,000

     

    The first two numbers are somewhat plausible. The last number is not. No way only 171,000 died in this current Iraq war. Lancet and various other studies contradict that. Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Conservatively, you could estimate the total deaths to be half the 2 million figure. Even that's still atrocious.

    The Lancet study was meticulous and done on a very large scale.

    Nah. The more I study it, the worse it sounds:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

    So the 600,000 figure (as of the study completion in 2006) is very reasonable. As of now, 1 million is perfectly plausible. Maybe higher.

    Nah. I go with White’s estimate:171,000

    No way only 171,000 died in this current Iraq war. Lancet and various other studies contradict that.

    Dunno. 171,000 sounds pretty solid to me….

    Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Well, for one thing, gotta factor in all the widows caused by Saddam’s regime…..

    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don't get more solid than that. Anyway Lancet is highly respected, unlike Bush and the Iraq War architects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @syonredux

    Well, Rwanda’s population is larger than ever. That doesn’t negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.
     
    Yeah, but I would like to think that the USA could do better than a bunch of Hutus and Tutsis...

    Really, it's so depressing....According to you, the USA tried to exterminate the Iraqis, and we barely made a dent in their numbers....If we ever needed evidence that Anglo-America is in decline...

    Our military-industrial complex started a frivolous to extract billions of dollars out of U.S. taxpayer pockets. They were successful at that. Genocide of Iraqis wasn’t the purpose of the war, it was just collateral damage.

    I don’t think U.S. policymakers have a desire to kill Iraqis, but they don’t mind stepping over dead Iraqi (and American) bodies if it leads them to more wealth&power.

    The events of the last quarter century confirm that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Genocide of Iraqis wasn’t the purpose of the war, it was just collateral damage.
     
    Even so, I would like to think that we could do better.... In 2003, the population of Iraq was 25.63 million...couldn't we have killed 12.815 million? A 50% die off would have been far more respectable....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @syonredux

    The Lancet study was meticulous and done on a very large scale.
     
    Nah. The more I study it, the worse it sounds:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

    So the 600,000 figure (as of the study completion in 2006) is very reasonable. As of now, 1 million is perfectly plausible. Maybe higher.
     
    Nah. I go with White's estimate:171,000

    No way only 171,000 died in this current Iraq war. Lancet and various other studies contradict that.
     
    Dunno. 171,000 sounds pretty solid to me....

    Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

     

    Anyway, Iraq has 1.45 million orphans and 1.5 million widows. So why is 1 million deaths implausible?

    Well, for one thing, gotta factor in all the widows caused by Saddam's regime.....


    Deaths in Iraq: 300,000

    Iran-Iraq War: 700,000

    300,000 + 700,000= 1 million

    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don’t get more solid than that. Anyway Lancet is highly respected, unlike Bush and the Iraq War architects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don’t get more solid than that.
     
    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing....And lots of people have objections to this study....


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticisms

    Anyway Lancet is highly respected,
     
    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe....Cf their stance on race and IQ....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @JohnnyWalker123

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID. But it wasn’t. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

     

    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points. One major point was that Iraq was killing incubator babies (which was a lie). Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border. This was later proven false too.

    See below.



    One of the main reasons for America’s going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared that there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. They were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification for war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West.

    Yet the supposed aerial photos proving the accusation were never released. First the Pentagon said they had to remain secret because of the war effort. Then the White House kept hedging and finally the issue died down with the supposed photos still not released. Iraq all along denied that it had any intention of threatening Saudi Arabia and was only reuniting itself with its (claimed) province of Kuwait. See link below about Russian satellite photos showing no large concentrations of troops.

    On February 27, 1991, an article appeared in "IN THESE TIMES" telling how typical consumers of mainstream news were dazzled and deluded by the manipulators of images. The article, "Public Doesn't Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos," reported that when president George Bush began his massive deployment of American troops to the Gulf in August 1990, he claimed that Iraq, which had just entered Kuwait, had set its sights on Saudi Arabia. On September 11, 1990, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, "We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia".

    On January 6, 1991, however, Jean Heller had reported in the ST. PETERSBURG (Fla.) TIMES that satellite photos taken the same day the president Bush addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of a massive Iraqi troops buildup in Kuwait.

    Heller told IN THESE TIMES, "The troops that were said to be massing on the Saudi border and that constituted the possible threat to Saudi Arabia that justified the US sending of troops do not show up in these photographs. And when the Department of Defense was asked to provide evidence that would contradict our satellite evidence, it refused to do so".

    But the national media has chosen to ignore Heller's story. ST. PETERSBURG TIMES’ editors approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service, of which the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES is a member, chose not to distribute the story. "I think part of the reason the story was ignored was that it was published too close to the start of the war," says Heller. "Second, and more importantly, I do not think people wanted to hear that we might have been deceived. A lot of the reporters who have seen the story think it is dynamite, but the editors who have seen it seem to have the attitude. "At this point, who cares? If the war ends badly with a lot of casualties, more than the administration had led us to expect, you might hear of this story again".

    Heller said in her story that Soviet satellite photos taken five weeks after August 2, 1990 suggest that the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.
     
    So another fabrication.

    You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you’re wrong.

     

    Given that you were "young" at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression. We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned "incubator babies" in his speeches. Also, let's ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador's daughter. Let's just trust your impression. We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That's a coincidence.

    Oh, no, of course not. Don’t know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was “liberal folklore” that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

     

    Most of the pro-war people are also pro-immigration too. Such as the Bushes. A lot of the anti-war people (like Buchanan) are anti-immigration.

    As for "liberal folklore," the fact is that the liberals failed to prevent the first or second Gulf War. They sort of just rolled over on both wars. The Clintons and Kerry supported the Iraq War. Obama did oppose it, but never made much of an issue of it after his 2008 election.

    So in conclusion:

    -Iraq didn't kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn't massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie
    -Liberals didn't oppose either Iraq War very hard or very successfully

    Iraq didn’t kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn’t massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie

    Eh. Saddam was stupid. And vain. He should have pulled out….

    I’m OK with the Gulf War…..We should have just dropped the whole sanctions bit after the war and let bygones be bygones…The Iraq War was..weird….the whole fantasy that Iraq was like post-WW2 Germany and Japan…..total idiocy….As though a bunch of Muslim morons in Iraq have anything in common with the Japanese….

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    The second Iraq War has a long-term cost of $5 trillion. Which is about $50,000 in tax dollars for an average 3-person American family. That should bother people.

    Also, 1 million U.S. troops have been injured in Iraq. That's an astronomical (and generally underreported) statistic.

    $5 trillion spent in Iraq ($50,000 for an average family).
    1 million U.S. soldiers injured.
    1 million Iraqis dead, with millions more injured/widowed/orphaned/displaced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @JohnnyWalker123
    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don't get more solid than that. Anyway Lancet is highly respected, unlike Bush and the Iraq War architects.

    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don’t get more solid than that.

    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing….And lots of people have objections to this study….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticisms

    Anyway Lancet is highly respected,

    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe….Cf their stance on race and IQ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing….And lots of people have objections to this study….

     

    Given the amount spent on the Iraq War ($5 trillion), why is a high death toll implausible? $4.1 trillion (inflation-adjusted) was spent on WWII by the U.S., which killed far more people.

    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe….Cf their stance on race and IQ….

     

    Of course George W. Bush, the Iraq War architects, the MSM, and Matthew White all have these same beliefs on race/IQ. For some reason, racial liberalism doesn't discredit them. It only discredits Lancet.
    , @Steve Sailer
    I looked into the Lancet study of Iraq casualties. I started out sympathetic but it was implausible their researchers went around knocking on doors at scientific random in Iraq in the worst days of c. 2006. That would be a quick way to get a hole drilled in your head back then. Either it was a sample of convenience or just made up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @anon
    Reporters constantly cover everything candidates say. So it means nothing that it was covered.

    Actually, Johnny, no they don't. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

    McCain joked twice about comitting genocide against a particular ethnic group and the media laughed it off.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not "committing genocide", as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn't really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

    The amount of laughing is absolutely remarkable.

    The laughing wasn't coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke. You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren't inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

    In some countries, this type of remark would disqualify one for higher office.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

    Actually, Johnny, no they don’t. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

    There are plenty of reporters covering every detail of a campaign. Like what the candidate ate for breakfast and what wardrobe he was wearing. McCain, more than other politicians, brings the media around with him. After the 2008 election, some reporters created a tell-all book with an amazing amount of detail about the McCain-Palin campaign.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not “committing genocide”, as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn’t really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to”kill” them is certainly genocide. Phillip-Morris may want to sell cigarettes in Iran, but it doesn’t joke about causing deaths.

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    How often do leading politicians joke about murdering the citizens of a foreign country?

    The laughing wasn’t coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke.

    If you watch the tape again, the reporters were laughing too. They thought it was funny.

    You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren’t inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

    McCain has always been a fervent supporter of the Iraq Wars and sanctions, which have killed 2 million people. So given his support of the genocide there, it doesn’t strike me as implausible that he has no problem with doing the same thing to Iran. Especially given his jokes and his bellicose anti-Iranian rhetoric.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

    Sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to”kill” them is certainly genocide.
     
    Gosh, guess that that means that cigarette companies are guilty of genocide in the USA.....Gotta tell the Blacks about the real purpose of those menthol kools...

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.
     
    So, Hitler tried to exterminate the British? That's a new one...

    McCain has always been a fervent supporter of the Iraq Wars and sanctions, which have killed 2 million people. So given his support of the genocide there,
     
    Whatta wimp....All that talk, and only 2 million* dead.....And he's willing to allow billions of Muslims to immigrate to the USA....Where's Hitler when you need him....


    *Almost certainly fewer than that...
    , @anon
    There are plenty of reporters covering every detail of a campaign. Like what the candidate ate for breakfast and what wardrobe he was wearing. McCain, more than other politicians, brings the media around with him.

    All right, then, so what did Donald Trump have for breakfast on October 3, 2016? He had two campaign stops that day, so look it up in the New York Times and tell me.

    Hey, for that matter, tell me what McCain ate for breakfast on the day of the cigarette comment. The papers report EVERYTHING he said, so look it up. Tell me.

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to”kill” them is certainly genocide.

    No. No, Johnny, it is not. I don't know if you know this, but not everybody smokes. I don't. I mean. Someone could offer me a pack of cigarettes. They could even force me to buy some somehow. And I'd just throw them in the trash. I'd be mad that I spent the twenty bucks or however much a pack of cigarettes costs these days, but I'd be alive and free and non-genocided.

    Honestly. Why are you like this? It's like, are you at the developmental stage where you not only can't admit that you were wrong, but you can't even just walk away and avoid making things worse? Why is that? What happened to you?

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    Oh, I see. So now you're just using the liberal tactic of just making up new definitions for words, that nobody else has ever used before.

    Well, that sounds like a fun thing to do, I guess. Kind of makes it pointless to try to have a rational discussion with you, though.

    Wow. You've finally done it. You've made me decide to quit engaging you. Usually, I have some weird, compulsive habit to keep talking to people, even when it's obvious they're not really up to having an adult discussion, but I think I've abused the patience of our gracious host enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @JohnnyWalker123
    Our military-industrial complex started a frivolous to extract billions of dollars out of U.S. taxpayer pockets. They were successful at that. Genocide of Iraqis wasn't the purpose of the war, it was just collateral damage.

    I don't think U.S. policymakers have a desire to kill Iraqis, but they don't mind stepping over dead Iraqi (and American) bodies if it leads them to more wealth&power.

    The events of the last quarter century confirm that.

    Genocide of Iraqis wasn’t the purpose of the war, it was just collateral damage.

    Even so, I would like to think that we could do better…. In 2003, the population of Iraq was 25.63 million…couldn’t we have killed 12.815 million? A 50% die off would have been far more respectable….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @syonredux

    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don’t get more solid than that.
     
    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing....And lots of people have objections to this study....


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticisms

    Anyway Lancet is highly respected,
     
    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe....Cf their stance on race and IQ....

    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing….And lots of people have objections to this study….

    Given the amount spent on the Iraq War ($5 trillion), why is a high death toll implausible? $4.1 trillion (inflation-adjusted) was spent on WWII by the U.S., which killed far more people.

    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe….Cf their stance on race and IQ….

    Of course George W. Bush, the Iraq War architects, the MSM, and Matthew White all have these same beliefs on race/IQ. For some reason, racial liberalism doesn’t discredit them. It only discredits Lancet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Given the amount spent on the Iraq War ($5 trillion), why is a high death toll implausible? $4.1 trillion (inflation-adjusted) was spent on WWII by the U.S., which killed far more people.
     
    That was the old USA. You know, the country that got the Yorktown repaired in time for Midway....

    Of course George W. Bush, the Iraq War architects, the MSM, and Matthew White all have these same beliefs on race/IQ. For some reason, racial liberalism doesn’t discredit them. It only discredits Lancet.
     
    Just pointing out that journals like the Lancet are, shall we say, unreliable on certain topics.....Combine that with the fact that high death toll estimates tend to be unreliable....I'm gonna go with low estimates...At least for now....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Johnny. You would have a point if that was the ONLY THING BUSH EVER SAID. But it wasn’t. Most of what he said was about the invasion of Kuwait, which really and truly did happen.

     

    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points. One major point was that Iraq was killing incubator babies (which was a lie). Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border. This was later proven false too.

    See below.



    One of the main reasons for America’s going to war against Iraq in 1990 was because the White House declared that there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia. The reports fueled the war hysteria and frightened the Saudis, who then agreed to full cooperation with US military forces. They were a major reason used to convince the American people of the justification for war to protect and defend the oil supplies so vital to the West.

    Yet the supposed aerial photos proving the accusation were never released. First the Pentagon said they had to remain secret because of the war effort. Then the White House kept hedging and finally the issue died down with the supposed photos still not released. Iraq all along denied that it had any intention of threatening Saudi Arabia and was only reuniting itself with its (claimed) province of Kuwait. See link below about Russian satellite photos showing no large concentrations of troops.

    On February 27, 1991, an article appeared in "IN THESE TIMES" telling how typical consumers of mainstream news were dazzled and deluded by the manipulators of images. The article, "Public Doesn't Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos," reported that when president George Bush began his massive deployment of American troops to the Gulf in August 1990, he claimed that Iraq, which had just entered Kuwait, had set its sights on Saudi Arabia. On September 11, 1990, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, "We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia".

    On January 6, 1991, however, Jean Heller had reported in the ST. PETERSBURG (Fla.) TIMES that satellite photos taken the same day the president Bush addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of a massive Iraqi troops buildup in Kuwait.

    Heller told IN THESE TIMES, "The troops that were said to be massing on the Saudi border and that constituted the possible threat to Saudi Arabia that justified the US sending of troops do not show up in these photographs. And when the Department of Defense was asked to provide evidence that would contradict our satellite evidence, it refused to do so".

    But the national media has chosen to ignore Heller's story. ST. PETERSBURG TIMES’ editors approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service, of which the ST. PETERSBURG TIMES is a member, chose not to distribute the story. "I think part of the reason the story was ignored was that it was published too close to the start of the war," says Heller. "Second, and more importantly, I do not think people wanted to hear that we might have been deceived. A lot of the reporters who have seen the story think it is dynamite, but the editors who have seen it seem to have the attitude. "At this point, who cares? If the war ends badly with a lot of casualties, more than the administration had led us to expect, you might hear of this story again".

    Heller said in her story that Soviet satellite photos taken five weeks after August 2, 1990 suggest that the Bush administration might have exaggerated the scope of Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia at the time.
     
    So another fabrication.

    You might like to live in your parallel dimension where people were talking all the time about incubator babies, but the simple fact is, you’re wrong.

     

    Given that you were "young" at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression. We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned "incubator babies" in his speeches. Also, let's ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador's daughter. Let's just trust your impression. We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That's a coincidence.

    Oh, no, of course not. Don’t know what I could possibly be thinking of there, Johnny. Like, I used to think it was “liberal folklore” that America has always and only ever been about multiculturalism and bringing in as many immigrants as we can possibly stuff into this country. But no. That really is what it always was about.

     

    Most of the pro-war people are also pro-immigration too. Such as the Bushes. A lot of the anti-war people (like Buchanan) are anti-immigration.

    As for "liberal folklore," the fact is that the liberals failed to prevent the first or second Gulf War. They sort of just rolled over on both wars. The Clintons and Kerry supported the Iraq War. Obama did oppose it, but never made much of an issue of it after his 2008 election.

    So in conclusion:

    -Iraq didn't kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn't massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie
    -Liberals didn't oppose either Iraq War very hard or very successfully

    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points.

    Well, according to you, they shouldn’t. They wasted their time, because, from what you’ve said, the reason we went into Iraq was because of the Kuwaiti incubator babies.

    Your words:

    The incubator babies story was a key in selling the Gulf War to the public. It pushed support from 50% to 80%.

    See? That ONE thing. That’s all it took to raise things to 80%. Bush was just wasting his time talking about anything else, because it was the incubator baby story that did it.

    Also:

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.

    Just that one thing. That was all that did it.

    Now, I suppose, if you didn’t just have a weird idee fixe that you got from Michael Moore, you could simply admit that you were wrong in your earlier statements. But I have a feeling that you’re not going to do that, are you?

    Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border.

    Nope. That had nothing to do with it. It was ALL incubator babies, Johnny. You said so yourself.

    Given that you were “young” at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression.

    Given that you can’t even keep your own story straight, I suppose we shouldn’t trust yours.

    We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned “incubator babies” in his speeches. Also, let’s ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador’s daughter.

    You are, without question, one of the most incredibly tiresome people I have talked to in a long time. And, for whatever reason, I feel like I talk to an abnormally large number of tiresome people.

    We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That’s a coincidence.

    I JUST talked about how that would only prove anything if that was the only thing he said in the case he made.

    For the love of Christ, it’s like Waiting For Godot around here, without all the variety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    After the Iraq incubator baby allegation, pro-war support jumped from 50% to 80%.

    Anyway, countries have been portraying their enemies as totally immoral/villainous for centuries. It's a very effective technique for generating pro-war sentiment. Just look at WWI and WWII. It's an old trick and a smart trick.

    Now, I suppose, if you didn’t just have a weird idee fixe that you got from Michael Moore, you could simply admit that you were wrong in your earlier statements. But I have a feeling that you’re not going to do that, are you?

     

    Actually, the incubator baby lie is widely documented. I didn't get that from Michael Moore. Though Moore makes some good points about the second 2003 Iraq War. Especially about how the war was sold fradulent and how contractors (like Cheney's Haliburton) stole billions of dollars. It's interesting that defense contractors stole billions of dollars, but never were prosecuted for their theft. Maybe Cheney's role as former Haliburton CEO had something to do with that.

    Summary:

    -The first Iraq War was sold fradulently. False allegations were made about "incubator babies" and Iraq massing troops near Saudi Arabia. The one true allegation (the invasion of Kuwait) neglected to mention the role Ambassador Glaspie played in greenlighting the invasion.

    -The second Iraq War was also sold fradulently. WMDs and 9/11 links.

    -Now 2 million Iraqis are dead, with millions more displaced/orphaned/widowed. 5,000 U.S. soldiers are dead, with over 1 million injured. $5 trillion has been wasted ($50,000 of taxpayer dollars for an average 3-person family in America).

    -Contractors (like Cheney's Haliburton) stole billions.

    -The American public estimates only 10,000 Iraqis died. 40% of Americans believe WMDs were found and think Iraq was the right war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @syonredux

    Iraq didn’t kill incubator babies
    -Iraq wasn’t massing troops near Saudi Arabia
    -Iraq did invade Kuwait, but only after being greenlighted by U.S. ambassador April Glaspie
     
    Eh. Saddam was stupid. And vain. He should have pulled out....

    I'm OK with the Gulf War.....We should have just dropped the whole sanctions bit after the war and let bygones be bygones...The Iraq War was..weird....the whole fantasy that Iraq was like post-WW2 Germany and Japan.....total idiocy....As though a bunch of Muslim morons in Iraq have anything in common with the Japanese....

    The second Iraq War has a long-term cost of $5 trillion. Which is about $50,000 in tax dollars for an average 3-person American family. That should bother people.

    Also, 1 million U.S. troops have been injured in Iraq. That’s an astronomical (and generally underreported) statistic.

    $5 trillion spent in Iraq ($50,000 for an average family).
    1 million U.S. soldiers injured.
    1 million Iraqis dead, with millions more injured/widowed/orphaned/displaced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    The second Iraq War has a long-term cost of $5 trillion. Which is about $50,000 in tax dollars for an average 3-person American family. That should bother people.
     
    It bothers me. We could have spent that money on a barrier with Mexico. Now that would have been money well spent...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @WJ
    Saddam "provoked" us by having a non existent WMD program, and by having a non existent connection to 9/11. The gall of that man.

    The first Gulf war was also built on pack of lies but not nearly as egregious as those of the second war.

    But what the hey, it was only 2 trillion of my tas dollars , thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

    I agree the war was a practical mistake and sold with lies. That is separate from the moral question I addressed.

    Of course, more than the war itself, the mistake was the long occupation and attempt to set up a multiethnic Muslim democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @JohnnyWalker123

    Actually, Johnny, no they don’t. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

     

    There are plenty of reporters covering every detail of a campaign. Like what the candidate ate for breakfast and what wardrobe he was wearing. McCain, more than other politicians, brings the media around with him. After the 2008 election, some reporters created a tell-all book with an amazing amount of detail about the McCain-Palin campaign.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not “committing genocide”, as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn’t really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

     

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to"kill" them is certainly genocide. Phillip-Morris may want to sell cigarettes in Iran, but it doesn't joke about causing deaths.

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    How often do leading politicians joke about murdering the citizens of a foreign country?

    The laughing wasn’t coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke.

     

    If you watch the tape again, the reporters were laughing too. They thought it was funny.

    You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren’t inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

     

    McCain has always been a fervent supporter of the Iraq Wars and sanctions, which have killed 2 million people. So given his support of the genocide there, it doesn't strike me as implausible that he has no problem with doing the same thing to Iran. Especially given his jokes and his bellicose anti-Iranian rhetoric.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

     

    Sure.

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to”kill” them is certainly genocide.

    Gosh, guess that that means that cigarette companies are guilty of genocide in the USA…..Gotta tell the Blacks about the real purpose of those menthol kools…

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    So, Hitler tried to exterminate the British? That’s a new one…

    McCain has always been a fervent supporter of the Iraq Wars and sanctions, which have killed 2 million people. So given his support of the genocide there,

    Whatta wimp….All that talk, and only 2 million* dead…..And he’s willing to allow billions of Muslims to immigrate to the USA….Where’s Hitler when you need him….

    *Almost certainly fewer than that…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @JohnnyWalker123
    The second Iraq War has a long-term cost of $5 trillion. Which is about $50,000 in tax dollars for an average 3-person American family. That should bother people.

    Also, 1 million U.S. troops have been injured in Iraq. That's an astronomical (and generally underreported) statistic.

    $5 trillion spent in Iraq ($50,000 for an average family).
    1 million U.S. soldiers injured.
    1 million Iraqis dead, with millions more injured/widowed/orphaned/displaced.

    The second Iraq War has a long-term cost of $5 trillion. Which is about $50,000 in tax dollars for an average 3-person American family. That should bother people.

    It bothers me. We could have spent that money on a barrier with Mexico. Now that would have been money well spent…

    Read More
    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @anon
    Do you think any of those 2 million dead Iraqis will be celebrating Ramadan at IHOP?

    Well, I can't speak for syonredux, but I certainly don't.

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

    It's this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

    It's like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you'd run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about "the sixties, maaaaan!". For the rest of my life, I feel like I'm going to keep running into libs who seem like they've just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

    I can't say it's a particularly pleasant idea.

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

    because it’s not said enough.

    Hardly anyone ever talks about the costs of this war. These topics should be mentioned on a nightly basis in America, not occasionally mentioned.

    Steve Sailer blogs about immigration every day. Does that change the importance of the message?

    It’s this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

    The U.S. has been up to the same shenanigans in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Which has killed many more people. At some point, it’d be nice if we stopped.

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange…….. I wonder why………….

    It’s like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you’d run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about “the sixties, maaaaan!”. For the rest of my life, I feel like I’m going to keep running into libs who seem like they’ve just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

    Well, the long-term cost of the Iraq War is $5 trillion. So that’s $50,000 for an average 3-person family. Paying that off is going to take decades, perhaps longer.

    You better pay attention to Iraq. As a taxpayer, you (and your children) are going to spend years paying for it. A little outrage wouldn’t be a bad thing.

    If I stole $50,000 from your family, would you be angry?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Hardly anyone ever talks about the costs of this war.

    Hardly anyone. OK. I mean. It was a major issue in two presidential campaigns, and well, you could find people talking about it all the time for several years, but I guess since there are a few people that don't go on and on about it constantly, that means "hardly anyone" does it.

    For Christ's sake, Johnny...

    If I stole $50,000 from your family, would you be angry?


    Well, probably. I mean, I voluntarily gave up quite a bit of time today talking to you, and I feel kind of angry about that, so yes. I imagine I would.
    , @syonredux

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange…….. I wonder why………….
     
    The Saudis play the game of nations very well...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Actually, Johnny, no they don’t. If they did, every single comment at every single campaign stop (which sometimes happen several times a day) would be in the newspaper, which I can tell you for a fact is simply not true, but I feel that doing so would be ultimately pointless, since you really already know that.

     

    There are plenty of reporters covering every detail of a campaign. Like what the candidate ate for breakfast and what wardrobe he was wearing. McCain, more than other politicians, brings the media around with him. After the 2008 election, some reporters created a tell-all book with an amazing amount of detail about the McCain-Palin campaign.

    You also know that selling people cigarettes is not “committing genocide”, as nobody is forcing anyone to smoke. And you also know that bombing a country isn’t really genocide either. Why you choose to be wrong is beyond me.

     

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to"kill" them is certainly genocide. Phillip-Morris may want to sell cigarettes in Iran, but it doesn't joke about causing deaths.

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    How often do leading politicians joke about murdering the citizens of a foreign country?

    The laughing wasn’t coming from the media, clown. It was coming from the people in the audience. And the cigarette thing was, after all, a joke.

     

    If you watch the tape again, the reporters were laughing too. They thought it was funny.

    You have to work really, really hard to believe that he seriously wanted to commit genocide by selling cigarettes to people who, presumably, wanted to buy them. Most people aren’t inclined to twist reality in such a fashion.

     

    McCain has always been a fervent supporter of the Iraq Wars and sanctions, which have killed 2 million people. So given his support of the genocide there, it doesn't strike me as implausible that he has no problem with doing the same thing to Iran. Especially given his jokes and his bellicose anti-Iranian rhetoric.

    Those countries are run by little girls.

     

    Sure.

    There are plenty of reporters covering every detail of a campaign. Like what the candidate ate for breakfast and what wardrobe he was wearing. McCain, more than other politicians, brings the media around with him.

    All right, then, so what did Donald Trump have for breakfast on October 3, 2016? He had two campaign stops that day, so look it up in the New York Times and tell me.

    Hey, for that matter, tell me what McCain ate for breakfast on the day of the cigarette comment. The papers report EVERYTHING he said, so look it up. Tell me.

    Joking about how we should sell Iranians cigarettes to”kill” them is certainly genocide.

    No. No, Johnny, it is not. I don’t know if you know this, but not everybody smokes. I don’t. I mean. Someone could offer me a pack of cigarettes. They could even force me to buy some somehow. And I’d just throw them in the trash. I’d be mad that I spent the twenty bucks or however much a pack of cigarettes costs these days, but I’d be alive and free and non-genocided.

    Honestly. Why are you like this? It’s like, are you at the developmental stage where you not only can’t admit that you were wrong, but you can’t even just walk away and avoid making things worse? Why is that? What happened to you?

    Yes, bombing a country is genocide.

    Oh, I see. So now you’re just using the liberal tactic of just making up new definitions for words, that nobody else has ever used before.

    Well, that sounds like a fun thing to do, I guess. Kind of makes it pointless to try to have a rational discussion with you, though.

    Wow. You’ve finally done it. You’ve made me decide to quit engaging you. Usually, I have some weird, compulsive habit to keep talking to people, even when it’s obvious they’re not really up to having an adult discussion, but I think I’ve abused the patience of our gracious host enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

     

    because it's not said enough.

    Hardly anyone ever talks about the costs of this war. These topics should be mentioned on a nightly basis in America, not occasionally mentioned.

    Steve Sailer blogs about immigration every day. Does that change the importance of the message?

    It’s this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

     

    The U.S. has been up to the same shenanigans in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Which has killed many more people. At some point, it'd be nice if we stopped.

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange........ I wonder why.............

    It’s like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you’d run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about “the sixties, maaaaan!”. For the rest of my life, I feel like I’m going to keep running into libs who seem like they’ve just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

     

    Well, the long-term cost of the Iraq War is $5 trillion. So that's $50,000 for an average 3-person family. Paying that off is going to take decades, perhaps longer.

    You better pay attention to Iraq. As a taxpayer, you (and your children) are going to spend years paying for it. A little outrage wouldn't be a bad thing.

    If I stole $50,000 from your family, would you be angry?

    Hardly anyone ever talks about the costs of this war.

    Hardly anyone. OK. I mean. It was a major issue in two presidential campaigns, and well, you could find people talking about it all the time for several years, but I guess since there are a few people that don’t go on and on about it constantly, that means “hardly anyone” does it.

    For Christ’s sake, Johnny…

    If I stole $50,000 from your family, would you be angry?

    Well, probably. I mean, I voluntarily gave up quite a bit of time today talking to you, and I feel kind of angry about that, so yes. I imagine I would.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @JohnnyWalker123

    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing….And lots of people have objections to this study….

     

    Given the amount spent on the Iraq War ($5 trillion), why is a high death toll implausible? $4.1 trillion (inflation-adjusted) was spent on WWII by the U.S., which killed far more people.

    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe….Cf their stance on race and IQ….

     

    Of course George W. Bush, the Iraq War architects, the MSM, and Matthew White all have these same beliefs on race/IQ. For some reason, racial liberalism doesn't discredit them. It only discredits Lancet.

    Given the amount spent on the Iraq War ($5 trillion), why is a high death toll implausible? $4.1 trillion (inflation-adjusted) was spent on WWII by the U.S., which killed far more people.

    That was the old USA. You know, the country that got the Yorktown repaired in time for Midway….

    Of course George W. Bush, the Iraq War architects, the MSM, and Matthew White all have these same beliefs on race/IQ. For some reason, racial liberalism doesn’t discredit them. It only discredits Lancet.

    Just pointing out that journals like the Lancet are, shall we say, unreliable on certain topics…..Combine that with the fact that high death toll estimates tend to be unreliable….I’m gonna go with low estimates…At least for now….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @JohnnyWalker123

    Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to bring it up. What is with this need to endlessly re-litigate the Iraq War, with a bunch of people who, by and large, agree with you?

     

    because it's not said enough.

    Hardly anyone ever talks about the costs of this war. These topics should be mentioned on a nightly basis in America, not occasionally mentioned.

    Steve Sailer blogs about immigration every day. Does that change the importance of the message?

    It’s this weird thing where liberals seem to be stuck in, like, 2006 or 2007 or so, because that was the last time they had facts and morality on their side.

     

    The U.S. has been up to the same shenanigans in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Which has killed many more people. At some point, it'd be nice if we stopped.

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange........ I wonder why.............

    It’s like how, sometimes, in the eighties, and even sporadically after that, you’d run into an old hippie who was endlessly going on about “the sixties, maaaaan!”. For the rest of my life, I feel like I’m going to keep running into libs who seem like they’ve just emerged from a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11, and are just waiting for Jon Stewart to ANNIHILATE somebody.

     

    Well, the long-term cost of the Iraq War is $5 trillion. So that's $50,000 for an average 3-person family. Paying that off is going to take decades, perhaps longer.

    You better pay attention to Iraq. As a taxpayer, you (and your children) are going to spend years paying for it. A little outrage wouldn't be a bad thing.

    If I stole $50,000 from your family, would you be angry?

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange…….. I wonder why………….

    The Saudis play the game of nations very well…

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    The Curse of Petro Dollar.


    bored identity would be willing to pay- per-view Ajrenians & Saudis in Armageddon World Cup Super Finals.


    Pass the popcorn and hazmat suits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @anon
    Actually it seems to be your reading comprehension that is at fault, as it was very evident that JW123′s statement was in reference to the Susskind article not civilian casualties.

    Well, in that case, HIS reading comprehension was at fault, because he said "this claim" in response to a comment of mine, which was about the Iraqi civilian casualties.

    JW123′s point is a very good one. Despite being quite well-read on this issue, I had never heard of this before, which precisely illustrates his point.

    Then, again, I don't know what to tell you. The letter Suskind referred to was already known about years before, and debunked back then. The only issue when Suskind brought it up again was whether or not Bush himself had made someone write it. The problem was that he didn't really have any proof of it, and the head of the CIA pointed out that, all along, the CIA had denied any connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, so it wouldn't have made any sense to put out such a letter, that undermined that point.

    As to why Suskind's claim wasn't a bigger deal, it probably has something to do with the fact that support for the war had already plummetted, and because it was known that the fraudulent letter had been produced by somebody, that particular issue seemed fairly trivial. But, as you can see by the video with the NBC logo, it did actually make it to TV.

    What was it you never heard about, incidentally? The letter itself, or this particular allegation of Suskind's?

    Then, again, I don’t know what to tell you. The letter Suskind referred to was already known about years before, and debunked back then.

    The letter showing a supposed Iraq-9/11 link (“yellowcake”) was debunked back in 2003, but no one knew who actually forged the letter. Years later, Suskind found out that the CIA (under Bush’s orders) did the forgery.

    This is a stunning allegation. In any reasonable country, Bush would’ve been impeached and jailed for this. WaterGate is almost irrelevant in comparison to this.

    A $5 trillion war (lasting almost 15 years now) that’s killed 5,000 American troops and injured 1 million. It was started by lies, including a CIA forgery. Absolutely stunning.

    Even more stunning is how little the media cares.

    When Ron Unz wrote his “American Pravda” article, he understated this case.

    The only issue when Suskind brought it up again was whether or not Bush himself had made someone write it. The problem was that he didn’t really have any proof of it, and the head of the CIA pointed out that, all along, the CIA had denied any connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, so it wouldn’t have made any sense to put out such a letter, that undermined that point.

    Suskind has a tape-recorded interview with a senior CIA intelligence officer named Robert Richer. Richer was the CIA Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admits this. So this is new evidence and absolutely damning.

    As to why Suskind’s claim wasn’t a bigger deal, it probably has something to do with the fact that support for the war had already plummetted, and because it was known that the fraudulent letter had been produced by somebody, that particular issue seemed fairly trivial. But, as you can see by the video with the NBC logo, it did actually make it to TV.

    Why is it trivial? If the CIA forges a letter that helps lead to a fradulent massive-sized war, is that trivial?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    This is a stunning allegation. In any reasonable country, Bush would’ve been impeached and jailed for this. WaterGate is almost irrelevant in comparison to this.

    A $5 trillion war (lasting almost 15 years now) that’s killed 5,000 American troops and injured 1 million. It was started by lies, including a CIA forgery. Absolutely stunning.

    Even more stunning is how little the media cares.
     
    The media care a lot. That's why they worked so hard to provide pretexts and justifications for the invasion before, during, and after. The media wanted the invasion of Iraq, and they got it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @anon
    Nobody makes a case based on one brief point. They make many points.

    Well, according to you, they shouldn't. They wasted their time, because, from what you've said, the reason we went into Iraq was because of the Kuwaiti incubator babies.

    Your words:

    The incubator babies story was a key in selling the Gulf War to the public. It pushed support from 50% to 80%.


    See? That ONE thing. That's all it took to raise things to 80%. Bush was just wasting his time talking about anything else, because it was the incubator baby story that did it.

    Also:

    The US govt lied about Saddam Hussein killing Kuwaiti incubator babies, which started the first Gulf War.


    Just that one thing. That was all that did it.

    Now, I suppose, if you didn't just have a weird idee fixe that you got from Michael Moore, you could simply admit that you were wrong in your earlier statements. But I have a feeling that you're not going to do that, are you?

    Another major point was that Iraq was planning an invasion of Saudi Arabia and had amassed troops near the Saudi border.

    Nope. That had nothing to do with it. It was ALL incubator babies, Johnny. You said so yourself.

    Given that you were “young” at the time, I suppose we should just trust your impression.

    Given that you can't even keep your own story straight, I suppose we shouldn't trust yours.

    We should ignore all the times that President HW Bush mentioned “incubator babies” in his speeches. Also, let’s ignore the Congressional testimony of the Kuwait ambassador’s daughter.

    You are, without question, one of the most incredibly tiresome people I have talked to in a long time. And, for whatever reason, I feel like I talk to an abnormally large number of tiresome people.

    We should ignore that opinion polls went from 50% pro-war (pre-incubator) to 80% pro-war (post-incubator). That’s a coincidence.


    I JUST talked about how that would only prove anything if that was the only thing he said in the case he made.

    For the love of Christ, it's like Waiting For Godot around here, without all the variety.

    After the Iraq incubator baby allegation, pro-war support jumped from 50% to 80%.

    Anyway, countries have been portraying their enemies as totally immoral/villainous for centuries. It’s a very effective technique for generating pro-war sentiment. Just look at WWI and WWII. It’s an old trick and a smart trick.

    Now, I suppose, if you didn’t just have a weird idee fixe that you got from Michael Moore, you could simply admit that you were wrong in your earlier statements. But I have a feeling that you’re not going to do that, are you?

    Actually, the incubator baby lie is widely documented. I didn’t get that from Michael Moore. Though Moore makes some good points about the second 2003 Iraq War. Especially about how the war was sold fradulent and how contractors (like Cheney’s Haliburton) stole billions of dollars. It’s interesting that defense contractors stole billions of dollars, but never were prosecuted for their theft. Maybe Cheney’s role as former Haliburton CEO had something to do with that.

    Summary:

    -The first Iraq War was sold fradulently. False allegations were made about “incubator babies” and Iraq massing troops near Saudi Arabia. The one true allegation (the invasion of Kuwait) neglected to mention the role Ambassador Glaspie played in greenlighting the invasion.

    -The second Iraq War was also sold fradulently. WMDs and 9/11 links.

    -Now 2 million Iraqis are dead, with millions more displaced/orphaned/widowed. 5,000 U.S. soldiers are dead, with over 1 million injured. $5 trillion has been wasted ($50,000 of taxpayer dollars for an average 3-person family in America).

    -Contractors (like Cheney’s Haliburton) stole billions.

    -The American public estimates only 10,000 Iraqis died. 40% of Americans believe WMDs were found and think Iraq was the right war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. After the Iraq incubator baby allegation, pro-war support jumped from 50% to 80%.

    After the Coca-Cola company stopped manufacturing Surge soda in the United States, we invaded Iraq again. Only possible explanation.

    Don’t you remember what a big deal it was when we finally had a surge again in 2007?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. @Maj. Kong
    Its not strange at all. The Puritans of Massachusetts didn't go back to England when Cromwell won the civil war.

    The Muslims are here to conquer.

    There was no jet travel in the 1640′s either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @syonredux

    Lancet had a 99% response rate and something like 85% could produce death certificates. Studies don’t get more solid than that.
     
    Eh. As I said elsewhere, high numbers are always suspect in this kind of thing....And lots of people have objections to this study....


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticisms

    Anyway Lancet is highly respected,
     
    Eh. On certain matters, science journals believe what they want to believe....Cf their stance on race and IQ....

    I looked into the Lancet study of Iraq casualties. I started out sympathetic but it was implausible their researchers went around knocking on doors at scientific random in Iraq in the worst days of c. 2006. That would be a quick way to get a hole drilled in your head back then. Either it was a sample of convenience or just made up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Which means that the Lancet researchers likely avoided the worst neighborhoods and only went where it was safe for them to be. Which likely lead them to underestimating the death toll. Also, lots hard-hit families likely fled or, in some cases, were totally eliminated.

    The researchers totally excluded Fallujah, which was one of the most violence-wracked cities in Iraq.

    Given the limitations of the study, 600,000 should be seen as a low-bound estimate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Steve Sailer
    I looked into the Lancet study of Iraq casualties. I started out sympathetic but it was implausible their researchers went around knocking on doors at scientific random in Iraq in the worst days of c. 2006. That would be a quick way to get a hole drilled in your head back then. Either it was a sample of convenience or just made up.

    Which means that the Lancet researchers likely avoided the worst neighborhoods and only went where it was safe for them to be. Which likely lead them to underestimating the death toll. Also, lots hard-hit families likely fled or, in some cases, were totally eliminated.

    The researchers totally excluded Fallujah, which was one of the most violence-wracked cities in Iraq.

    Given the limitations of the study, 600,000 should be seen as a low-bound estimate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. CJ says:
    @George Ham
    I think soon there will be problems of Muslims with Mexicans because they are natural enemies due to their religion. Mexicans worship religious images of Saints and Virgins in thousands of churches in Mexico, but Muslims prohibit to adore human images in any way. They dont even have any statue or representation of their God or prophets. THis may be a source of conflicts among them, as soon as more MUslims enter USA and Mexico. Mexico is supporting open borders, so they HAVE to allow MUslims to migrate to Mexico.

    Mexico is supporting open borders, so they HAVE to allow MUslims to migrate to Mexico.

    Say what? Mexico doesn’t have open borders for itself, and doesn’t tolerate illegals living there.

    Mexico’s illegals laws tougher than Arizona’s

    In fact, Mexico has built its own border wall … on the border with Guatemala.

    Mexico moves to lock down its OTHER border wall

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @JohnnyWalker123

    Then, again, I don’t know what to tell you. The letter Suskind referred to was already known about years before, and debunked back then.

     

    The letter showing a supposed Iraq-9/11 link ("yellowcake") was debunked back in 2003, but no one knew who actually forged the letter. Years later, Suskind found out that the CIA (under Bush's orders) did the forgery.

    This is a stunning allegation. In any reasonable country, Bush would've been impeached and jailed for this. WaterGate is almost irrelevant in comparison to this.

    A $5 trillion war (lasting almost 15 years now) that's killed 5,000 American troops and injured 1 million. It was started by lies, including a CIA forgery. Absolutely stunning.

    Even more stunning is how little the media cares.

    When Ron Unz wrote his "American Pravda" article, he understated this case.

    The only issue when Suskind brought it up again was whether or not Bush himself had made someone write it. The problem was that he didn’t really have any proof of it, and the head of the CIA pointed out that, all along, the CIA had denied any connection between Hussein and al-Qaeda, so it wouldn’t have made any sense to put out such a letter, that undermined that point.
     
    Suskind has a tape-recorded interview with a senior CIA intelligence officer named Robert Richer. Richer was the CIA Associate Deputy Director of Operations. In the interview, Richer admits this. So this is new evidence and absolutely damning.

    As to why Suskind’s claim wasn’t a bigger deal, it probably has something to do with the fact that support for the war had already plummetted, and because it was known that the fraudulent letter had been produced by somebody, that particular issue seemed fairly trivial. But, as you can see by the video with the NBC logo, it did actually make it to TV.

     

    Why is it trivial? If the CIA forges a letter that helps lead to a fradulent massive-sized war, is that trivial?

    This is a stunning allegation. In any reasonable country, Bush would’ve been impeached and jailed for this. WaterGate is almost irrelevant in comparison to this.

    A $5 trillion war (lasting almost 15 years now) that’s killed 5,000 American troops and injured 1 million. It was started by lies, including a CIA forgery. Absolutely stunning.

    Even more stunning is how little the media cares.

    The media care a lot. That’s why they worked so hard to provide pretexts and justifications for the invasion before, during, and after. The media wanted the invasion of Iraq, and they got it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @syonredux

    Oddly enough, Saudi Arabia (which funded the 9/11 attacks and supplied 75% of the hijackers) has evaded any regime change or instability. Very strange…….. I wonder why………….
     
    The Saudis play the game of nations very well...

    The Curse of Petro Dollar.

    bored identity would be willing to pay- per-view Ajrenians & Saudis in Armageddon World Cup Super Finals.

    Pass the popcorn and hazmat suits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @JohnnyWalker123
    Well, Rwanda's population is larger than ever. That doesn't negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

    Anyway, genocide can sometimes increase a population's growth rate. If lots of babies die or if family planning services are eliminated by war chaos, birth rates often increase.

    That doesn’t negate the fact that there was a Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda.

    Everybody forgets the Tutsi-Hutu genocide in Burundi.

    Anyway, genocide can sometimes increase a population’s growth rate. If lots of babies die or if family planning services are eliminated by war chaos, birth rates often increase.

    Now we’re talkin’ “affordable family formation”!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Reg Cæsar

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.
     
    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn't a monstrosity, I don't know what is.

    This guy could give you some guidance about monstrosities.

    Many a Londonder bereaved during the blitz could also contribute to the conversation, nevermind what the inhabitants of Nanking might have to say.

    One cannot stab a man and then condemn him for a monster if he responds by shooting. Its a shame when civilians suffer for the sins of their wicked governments, but it is unavoidable, in war as in peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Many a Londonder Bereaved during the blitz could also contribute to the conversation, nevermind what the inhabitants of Nanking might have to say.
     
    If a man rapes your sister, the civilized response is to apprehend, try, convict, and imprison or execute him. Or, slightly less civilized, to apply rough justice. It is not to rape his sister yourself.

    The apology we owe is not to our enemy, but to our Creator.

    By the way, we lost 2000 uniformed servicemen at Pearl Harbor. We lost 3000 civilians, a quarter of them female, a handful under age 5, on 9/11/01. So it was Bush, not FDR, who had the moderate, more "measured", response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @syonredux

    Please elaborate upon the alleged monstrosity.

    If the deliberate carpet firebombing of civilians isn’t a monstrosity, I don’t know what is.
     
    Tu quoque. German airmen weren't prosecuted for bombing civilians because the Allies also bombed civilians. Imagine the defense calling Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris to the stand and asking him a few questions about Operation Gomorrah....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II#Battle_of_Hamburg

    The allies weren’t above prosecuting Germans for crimes they shared. That’s true even if you discount the Evil Empire. But with Russia on the bench, the idea the allies couldn’t charge what they themselves had done is laughable. They did it all: conspiracy to invade, slave labor, murder of innocents, the whole shebang.

    Perhaps most infamously, they went after the Nazis for invading Norway when everyone knew the French and British were moving to occupy it, and had even gone so far as to mine harbors. At least the others held the Soviets back from including the Katyn massacre like they wanted.

    Why they didn’t prosecute Germans for terror bombing, I don’t know. Perhaps it was too obvious who got the worst of it. Then again, I don’t know if people outside Germany and Japan really got the conflagration thing (or would have cared if they had, on the other hand). Perhaps the fact that the British started it was too big a secret. I’m not sure how many people are aware of it to this day. The Coventry Myth is strong.

    Certainly it wasn’t for a general fear of looking the hypocrite. They weren’t otherwise afraid of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Maj. Kong
    It is not in the liberals' interest to revolt, which is why we are not seeing any calls for blue state secession. What they are pining for is a coup, where the right wing is hunted down by the security apparatus. The average white/(((white))) liberal is inexperienced in terms of carrying out violence, the antifa movement is notable for bringing itself into public scorn rather than the acclamation it receives in Europe.

    They believe we are in the death rattles, it may be in our interest to appear to confirm it. Lull them back to sleep.

    Ive always thought “rely on the white police and soldiers we hate to kill the white civilians we hate” to be pretty indicative of the schizophrenia that progressive thought induces.

    Right up there with “import violent muslims to fight homophobia”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. FFS Johnny, is your job to drive topics off tangent with your pedantic BS arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    At the least barn burners here about NAME THE JEW are entertaining sometimes. When I see you posting multiple times in a thread I know its going to be a bunch of BS no one but one or two people will respond to, with you arguing a edge so fine in difference, one could shave with it.

    And the original discussions get lost in a Walker Spergathon. Every single time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    He had 18 comments on this thread - 12.5% of the total (as of 4:37pm ET).

    Never has adding a commenter to my "Commenters to Ignore" list been more overdue. Except for Corvair or Corduroy or whatever he goes by.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @JohnnyWalker123
    I actually did google this. The NYT had 3 articles on this claim. The Washington Post had 5 articles. None in the Wall Street Journal, Time, or Newsweek. USA Today had 3 articles.

    Considering that this allegation is far more serious than even WaterGate (and the allegation comes from a Pulitzer Prize journalist), you'd think the media would be covering this story 24/7 and doing massive amounts of investigative journalism. Instead, they treated this as a minor detail.

    I though the media was "liberal" and "hated Republicans."

    I was no fan of the Iraq war either, but they’ve talked about civilian casualties quite a bit. I’m sure it’s not enough to satisfy you, but then, what would be?

     

    At least on broadcast news, there's almost zero discussion of civilian deaths. Papers have a little more discussion, but it's still a minor topic.

    The media should be discussing civilian deaths at least as often as the Comey story. It should be a daily scandal.

    When asked for the number of deaths in Iraq, the median estimate (by the American public) was about 10,000.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17310383/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/americans-unaware-iraqi-death-toll/

    There's a reason why the public has given such a low estimate.

    According to a poll, 51% of Americans said the Iraq War was a mistake. 46% said Iraq was not a mistake.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanistan-wars-mistakes.aspx

    So about half of Americans don't think Iraq was a mistake. Utterly unbelievable.

    42% of Americans believe WMDs were found in Iraq.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/228733-poll-4-in-10-think-us-found-wmds-in-iraq

    If the media is doing it's job, how did this happen?

    “If the media is doing it’s job, how did this happen?”

    Of course they’re not doing their job. Where have you been?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Jack Hanson
    FFS Johnny, is your job to drive topics off tangent with your pedantic BS arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    At the least barn burners here about NAME THE JEW are entertaining sometimes. When I see you posting multiple times in a thread I know its going to be a bunch of BS no one but one or two people will respond to, with you arguing a edge so fine in difference, one could shave with it.

    And the original discussions get lost in a Walker Spergathon. Every single time.

    He had 18 comments on this thread – 12.5% of the total (as of 4:37pm ET).

    Never has adding a commenter to my “Commenters to Ignore” list been more overdue. Except for Corvair or Corduroy or whatever he goes by.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Autochthon
    This guy could give you some guidance about monstrosities.

    Many a Londonder bereaved during the blitz could also contribute to the conversation, nevermind what the inhabitants of Nanking might have to say.

    One cannot stab a man and then condemn him for a monster if he responds by shooting. Its a shame when civilians suffer for the sins of their wicked governments, but it is unavoidable, in war as in peace.

    Many a Londonder Bereaved during the blitz could also contribute to the conversation, nevermind what the inhabitants of Nanking might have to say.

    If a man rapes your sister, the civilized response is to apprehend, try, convict, and imprison or execute him. Or, slightly less civilized, to apply rough justice. It is not to rape his sister yourself.

    The apology we owe is not to our enemy, but to our Creator.

    By the way, we lost 2000 uniformed servicemen at Pearl Harbor. We lost 3000 civilians, a quarter of them female, a handful under age 5, on 9/11/01. So it was Bush, not FDR, who had the moderate, more “measured”, response.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored