The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike. See:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_explosions

Yawn...

Guess there's a new "leader" eh?

"Eric Moore" > wrote
>
> The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike.

In article <KRt7c.2566$Gg.1171@okepread03>,
"D. Strang" > wrote:

> "Eric Moore" > wrote
> >
> > The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike.
>
> Yawn...
>
> Guess there's a new "leader" eh?

Well, other than the fact that this guy *founded* Hamas and has led it
for 17 years.

A *huge* blow against the terrorists.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Eric Moore" > wrote in message
om...
> The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike. See:
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040322/a
p_on_re_mi_ea/gaza_explosions

2 observations.

1. The Israelis seem to have an absolute gift for picking off important
players.
2. They have solid titanium testicles considering the backlash this
might bring.

I guess they figure they have nothing much to lose. They might be
right.

The CO

In article >,
"The CO" > wrote:

> 2 observations.
>
> 1. The Israelis seem to have an absolute gift for picking off
> important players.
> 2. They have solid titanium testicles considering
> the backlash this might bring.

What backlash? More suicide bombers? They just killed the guy who's
been sending them in every day for the last several years. The
Palestinians have been looking to this guy as an example of defiance in
the face of Israel, and just found out that he was very, very mortal.

> I guess they figure they have nothing much to lose. They might be
> right.

Well, they lost one of the worst people on the face of the planet...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

>Israelis seem to have an absolute gift for picking off important
players.

It's not about hi-tech intelligence or attack choppers. Zionists rule
the world with their money. It is to find traitors even among the
palestinians, who work for 30 silver coins. I hope the PLA will find and
hang all the collaborants.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article <KRt7c.2566$Gg.1171@okepread03>,
> "D. Strang" > wrote:
> > "Eric Moore" > wrote
> > >
> > > The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike.
> >
> > Yawn...
> >
> > Guess there's a new "leader" eh?
>
> Well, other than the fact that this guy *founded* Hamas and has led it
> for 17 years.
>
> A *huge* blow against the terrorists.

Hmm...I see lot of people are mistaken about the actual signifance of this
event.

Yassin was a spiritual figurehead of Hamas. He was not an operational
leader. Israeli could have killed him many times over in the past. They
certainly knew all the time where he was and, being a nearly blind man in a
wheelchair, it was not like he was going to do much hiding anyway. Israeli
announced several months in advance that they're going to kill him this
time, and he said, bring it on, and they did.

I am not sure this was a smart move. On one hand, Yassin was a supporter of
terrorism and former active terrorist himself. On the other hand, he had no
touch with operations anymore, and he enjoyed signifant popularity even
amongst those who did not support Hamas or were kinda between. This may
produce severe backlash.

In article >,
says...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article <KRt7c.2566$Gg.1171@okepread03>,
> > "D. Strang" > wrote:
> > > "Eric Moore" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike.
> > >
> > > Yawn...
> > >
> > > Guess there's a new "leader" eh?
> >
> > Well, other than the fact that this guy *founded* Hamas and has led it
> > for 17 years.
> >
> > A *huge* blow against the terrorists.
>
> Hmm...I see lot of people are mistaken about the actual signifance of this
> event.
>
> Yassin was a spiritual figurehead of Hamas. He was not an operational
> leader. Israeli could have killed him many times over in the past. They
> certainly knew all the time where he was and, being a nearly blind man in a
> wheelchair, it was not like he was going to do much hiding anyway. Israeli
> announced several months in advance that they're going to kill him this
> time, and he said, bring it on, and they did.
>
> I am not sure this was a smart move. On one hand, Yassin was a supporter of
> terrorism and former active terrorist himself. On the other hand, he had no
> touch with operations anymore, and he enjoyed signifant popularity even
> amongst those who did not support Hamas or were kinda between. This may
> produce severe backlash.
>
>

Exactly Israel now is moving out of the region and they decided that
they want him out before they move out.


--
The freer the society, the more expensive the elections.

Observations of Bernard - No 55

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> Hmm...I see lot of people are mistaken about the actual signifance of this
> event.
>
> Yassin was a spiritual figurehead of Hamas. He was not an operational
> leader.

He was *certainly* an operational leader. Broad strategy for sure, and
he was the man behind most of the suicide bombers over the last couple
of decades.

Half-blind or not, he was an important man in Hamas operations, not just
a "spiritual figurehead" (which makes him sound like something other
than a murdering *******, so don't bother trying to use that phrase or
anything similar).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > Hmm...I see lot of people are mistaken about the actual signifance of
this
> > event.
> >
> > Yassin was a spiritual figurehead of Hamas. He was not an operational
> > leader.
>
> He was *certainly* an operational leader. Broad strategy for sure, and
> he was the man behind most of the suicide bombers over the last couple
> of decades.

Not really. He was in Israeli prison until 1997 where from he could hardly
plan any operations. After that he has spent considerable time in house
arrest placed by Palestinian authorities.

If Israeli really thought he was anything more than a figurehead, they would
have killed him years ago.

> Half-blind or not, he was an important man in Hamas operations, not just
> a "spiritual figurehead" (which makes him sound like something other
> than a murdering *******, so don't bother trying to use that phrase or
> anything similar).

He certainly was a supporter of suicide bombings. That said, it seems that
many Western countries are more or less condemning this move - including UK.
BBC: UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned the Israeli missile
attack on Ahmed Yassin as "unlawful".

Eric Moore > wrote in message
om...
> The leader of Hamas has been killed in an Israeli airstrike. See:
>

The sooner the Arabs are expelled or defeated, the sooner peace will
come. There already is a Palestinian state, it's called Jordan.

--
Scott
--------
Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens,
the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering
terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered,
"How high?" -- Ann Coulter

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
> BBC: UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned the Israeli missile
> attack on Ahmed Yassin as "unlawful".

Pot, kettle, black.

Si

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > He was *certainly* an operational leader. Broad strategy for sure, and
> > he was the man behind most of the suicide bombers over the last couple
> > of decades.
>
> Not really. He was in Israeli prison until 1997 where from he could hardly
> plan any operations. After that he has spent considerable time in house
> arrest placed by Palestinian authorities.

"House arrest," in Palestinian terms, means "paid his bills and gave him
bodyguards, but didn't stop him from working." When you're in house
arrest, you don't get a steady string of visitors, and you don't get to
make public statements about how nice it is to kill Jews.

> If Israeli really thought he was anything more than a figurehead, they would
> have killed him years ago.

They were too busy trying to placate Hamas. They finally decided that
was a stupid game.

> He certainly was a supporter of suicide bombings. That said, it seems that
> many Western countries are more or less condemning this move - including UK.
> BBC: UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned the Israeli missile
> attack on Ahmed Yassin as "unlawful".

Well, Jack Straw is entitled to his opinions. A lot of people have said
similar things at similar times. After the small spate of attacks that
are sure to come, we'll see how it works out in the long run.

Note that were were told that the whole Mideast would erupt in flames
when we took down Saddam, and how that didn't happen.

One telling thing: a Palestinian official was being interviewed on Fox
this morning, and after the first reference to Yassin as a "spiritual"
leader, he kept calling him a "political leader."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > If Israeli really thought he was anything more than a figurehead, they
would
> > have killed him years ago.
>
> They were too busy trying to placate Hamas. They finally decided that
> was a stupid game.

Oh, absolutely. Firing few Hellfire missiles in middle of group of civilians
hoping that enough people will die so that target is amongst them is so much
more smarter game. I mean, absolutely unlikely to trigger any sort of
retribution, right?

> > He certainly was a supporter of suicide bombings. That said, it seems
that
> > many Western countries are more or less condemning this move - including
UK.
> > BBC: UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned the Israeli missile
> > attack on Ahmed Yassin as "unlawful".
>
> Well, Jack Straw is entitled to his opinions.

Yes, he is only the foreign secretary of Israeli's second most important
potential supporter. Totally irrelevant.

> A lot of people have said
> similar things at similar times. After the small spate of attacks that
> are sure to come, we'll see how it works out in the long run.
>
> Note that were were told that the whole Mideast would erupt in flames
> when we took down Saddam, and how that didn't happen.

Who said so? Certainly not me.

On the other hand, Iraq certainly is a lot more dangerous place now. Was
that part of the plan too?

> One telling thing: a Palestinian official was being interviewed on Fox
> this morning, and after the first reference to Yassin as a "spiritual"
> leader, he kept calling him a "political leader."

So what?

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> Oh, absolutely. Firing few Hellfire missiles in middle of group of
> civilians hoping that enough people will die so that target is
> amongst them is so much more smarter game.

If that were what had happened, you might have a point. Since that
*wasn't* what happened, you have none.

> I mean, absolutely unlikely to trigger any sort of
> retribution, right?

When you have a bunch of people who have sworn to really, really kill
you, making them a bit madder won't do much but add another "really."
Hamas wants all Jews in the area *dead*. Not walled off, not living
peacefully, *dead*. And their message hasn;t changed since they started.

Every time Hamas screams about "retribution," it's because the Israelis
killed some of their people *after* Hamas sent in some more suicide
bombers.

Blowing up one of the most evil terrorists in the world and his
bodyguard does *not* compare to sending a ten year old kid with a bomb
in his bag to blow up a checkpoint, except as an object lesson.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Yama" > wrote
>
> On the other hand, Iraq certainly is a lot more dangerous place now.

Iraq was dangerous place since it was created. It is probably the least
dangerous place now since its creation.

I was there with my father in 1961-1962, and *nothing* I've seen so far
is even half as scary.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> One telling thing: a Palestinian official was being interviewed on Fox
> this morning, and after the first reference to Yassin as a "spiritual"
> leader, he kept calling him a "political leader."

In Islamic culture, the two are rarely distinguished between. They rule on
behalf of God according to God's law. Doesn't leave much room for weasely
politicians and spin-doctors.

Si

In article >,
"Simon Robbins" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > One telling thing: a Palestinian official was being interviewed on
> > Fox this morning, and after the first reference to Yassin as a
> > "spiritual" leader, he kept calling him a "political leader."
>
> In Islamic culture, the two are rarely distinguished between. They
> rule on behalf of God according to God's law. Doesn't leave much room
> for weasely politicians and spin-doctors.

Which is why Yassin didn't get an exemption from being a murderous
asshole, and why he got a missile in his lap.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "The CO" > wrote:
>
> > 2 observations.
> >
> > 1. The Israelis seem to have an absolute gift for picking off
> > important players.
> > 2. They have solid titanium testicles considering
> > the backlash this might bring.
>
> What backlash? More suicide bombers? They just killed the guy who's
> been sending them in every day for the last several years. The
> Palestinians have been looking to this guy as an example of defiance
in
> the face of Israel, and just found out that he was very, very mortal.

No real disagreement, I concur that half blind and wheelchair bound or
not,
he was well worth removing. However it may increase the level of
attacks and
inspire them to do something bigger. OTOH, if they keep nobbling the
top level
like this they might get less capable leadership to deal with.

> > I guess they figure they have nothing much to lose. They might be
> > right.
>
> Well, they lost one of the worst people on the face of the planet...

No argument with that either. I still essentially think they have
nothing to lose.

The CO

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >Israelis seem to have an absolute gift for picking off important
> players.
>
> It's not about hi-tech intelligence or attack choppers.

No? They seem to have a reasonable record of nobbling the big players.
That this particular one was not in hiding is not disputed, but he was a
player
none the less.

> Zionists rule the world with their money.

Didn't cost much for this now did it?

> It is to find traitors even among the
> palestinians, who work for 30 silver coins.

Or in this case none, since he really wasn't hiding.

> I hope the PLA will find and
> hang all the collaborants.

They would be better off finding and hanging the rest of the
Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc etc.

The CO

In article >,
"The CO" > wrote:

> No real disagreement, I concur that half blind and wheelchair bound
> or not, he was well worth removing. However it may increase the
> level of attacks and inspire them to do something bigger.

They're trying to kill all of the Israelis already. What are they going
to do, kill 110% of the Israelis?

Some of the Hamas idiots are claiming that Israel had to get the
permission of the US to blow this guy up, and declared they were going
to start going after the US now.

You could practically hear Arafat's asshole puckering when that comment
came out.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "The CO" > wrote:
>
> > 2 observations.
> >
> > 1. The Israelis seem to have an absolute gift for picking off
> > important players.
> > 2. They have solid titanium testicles considering
> > the backlash this might bring.
>
> What backlash? More suicide bombers? They just killed the guy who's
> been sending them in every day for the last several years. The
> Palestinians have been looking to this guy as an example of defiance in
> the face of Israel, and just found out that he was very, very mortal.
>
> > I guess they figure they have nothing much to lose. They might be
> > right.
>
> Well, they lost one of the worst people on the face of the planet...

It seems to me that the ultimate "target rich environment" is the
black-hooded screaming mob with the green and white flags who jog through
the streets with the shredded-meat remnants of their latest martyr.
A couple dozen Mavericks into that surging sea of hatred would be an
efficient way of making a point.
I mean those folks HAVE identified themselves as 'combatants', have they
not?
The latest pronouncments from Hamas indicate they are now at WAR with
Israel. Therefore, they're enemy combatants.


> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "The CO" > wrote:
>
> > No real disagreement, I concur that half blind and wheelchair bound
> > or not, he was well worth removing. However it may increase the
> > level of attacks and inspire them to do something bigger.
>
> They're trying to kill all of the Israelis already. What are they
going
> to do, kill 110% of the Israelis?

True enough. I suspect they'll be trying to come up with a Sept 11ish
mass killing
in revenge. Though it's fair to say that they would probably have done
that already
if they could.

> Some of the Hamas idiots are claiming that Israel had to get the
> permission of the US to blow this guy up, and declared they were going
> to start going after the US now.

LOL. Sounds like a drunk in a pub that wants to fight everyone in the
bar.

> You could practically hear Arafat's asshole puckering when that
comment
> came out.

One wonders if there is a Hellfire with his name on it in his future
somewhere.

The CO

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:NGK7c.126$zc1.1@okepread03...
> "Yama" > wrote
> >
> > On the other hand, Iraq certainly is a lot more dangerous place now.
>
> Iraq was dangerous place since it was created. It is probably the least
> dangerous place now since its creation.
>
> I was there with my father in 1961-1962, and *nothing* I've seen so far
> is even half as scary.

Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > Oh, absolutely. Firing few Hellfire missiles in middle of group of
> > civilians hoping that enough people will die so that target is
> > amongst them is so much more smarter game.
>
> If that were what had happened, you might have a point. Since that
> *wasn't* what happened, you have none.

Which is pretty much what happened. Hence, the point.

> Blowing up one of the most evil terrorists in the world and his
> bodyguard does *not* compare to sending a ten year old kid with a bomb
> in his bag to blow up a checkpoint, except as an object lesson.

If they'd only refrain to killing terrorists and their bodyguards. But they
don't.

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Yama" > wrote:
> > > Oh, absolutely. Firing few Hellfire missiles in middle of group of
> > > civilians hoping that enough people will die so that target is
> > > amongst them is so much more smarter game.
> >
> > If that were what had happened, you might have a point. Since that
> > *wasn't* what happened, you have none.
>
> Which is pretty much what happened. Hence, the point.

Nope. There was a small number of people, out in the open, and the
target was right there and easy to see. Hence his getting blown to
hell.

> > Blowing up one of the most evil terrorists in the world and his
> > bodyguard does *not* compare to sending a ten year old kid with a bomb
> > in his bag to blow up a checkpoint, except as an object lesson.
>
> If they'd only refrain to killing terrorists and their bodyguards. But they
> don't.

If the terrorists and their bodyguards would stop hiding among
civilians, that sort of things would also stop happening. Even so, the
amount of collateral deaths is pretty darned low.

Does it bother you that you're arguing on behalf of some of the worst
human beings ever to walk (or roll) the face of the planet?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> news:NGK7c.126$zc1.1@okepread03...
> > "Yama" > wrote
> > >
> > > On the other hand, Iraq certainly is a lot more dangerous place now.
> >
> > Iraq was dangerous place since it was created. It is probably the least
> > dangerous place now since its creation.
> >
> > I was there with my father in 1961-1962, and *nothing* I've seen so far
> > is even half as scary.
>
> Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.

Compare to the previous situation. They were averaging about _fifty_
times that, for the last twenty years or so.

Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.

But I guess it doesn't count if the killings were done by a murderous
dictator. They get a free pass, right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> > Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.
>
> Compare to the previous situation. They were averaging about _fifty_
> times that, for the last twenty years or so.

Not to claim that Saddam didn't get lot of people killed, but above is just
silly.

> Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
> been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > > If that were what had happened, you might have a point. Since that
> > > *wasn't* what happened, you have none.
> >
> > Which is pretty much what happened. Hence, the point.
>
> Nope. There was a small number of people, out in the open, and the
> target was right there and easy to see. Hence his getting blown to
> hell.

So, why they didn't use a sniper?

> > If they'd only refrain to killing terrorists and their bodyguards. But
they
> > don't.
>
> If the terrorists and their bodyguards would stop hiding among
> civilians, that sort of things would also stop happening. Even so, the
> amount of collateral deaths is pretty darned low.

Read: I, or any of my close one wasn't amongst the "collateral damage" so
it's acceptable.

> Does it bother you that you're arguing on behalf of some of the worst
> human beings ever to walk (or roll) the face of the planet?

Who says I'm arguing *behalf* of anyone? I just happen to think that killing
him (and especially way it was done) was pretty bad idea from Israeli. Funny
that most governments of Western countries seem to agree with me, including
the USA.

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> > > > On the other hand, Iraq certainly is a lot more dangerous place now.
> > >
> > > Iraq was dangerous place since it was created. It is probably the least
> > > dangerous place now since its creation.
> > >
> > > I was there with my father in 1961-1962, and *nothing* I've seen so far
> > > is even half as scary.
> >
> > Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.
>
> Compare to the previous situation. They were averaging about _fifty_
> times that, for the last twenty years or so.
>
> Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
> been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.

Yes, and we knew they were killing Kurds and looked the other way while
they were doing it during the 80's.

--Mike

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > > Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.
> >
> > Compare to the previous situation. They were averaging about _fifty_
> > times that, for the last twenty years or so.
>
> Not to claim that Saddam didn't get lot of people killed, but above is just
> silly.

No, it's just math. Average of about 40,000 per year, including all of
the wars. If you include Iranians killed in the war, double that.

> > Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
> > been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.
>
> Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more than
> 5000 people.

The worst estimates I've seen were around 10,000, and that was from one
of the most-loony left-wing sites. There would have been a lot more,
but there just wasn't that much fighting against active resistance.
General estimates are under 5,000, and that includes all of the
non-Iraqis Hussein hired from neighboring countries who got killed (and
who represent about half of the fatalities among the continuing active
"resistance").

> But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.

We're still waiting for your *first* fact.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
> > been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.
>
> Yes, and we knew they were killing Kurds and looked the other way while
> they were doing it during the 80's.

Except that the gas attacks on Kirkuk came about *after* we had dropped
most of our connections to Iraq, and brought about the end of the whole
deal.

On the other hand, we have a lot of people who didn't want us to remove
Hussein from power for... well, we never got a good reason for leaving
him in there.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > Nope. There was a small number of people, out in the open, and the
> > target was right there and easy to see. Hence his getting blown to
> > hell.
>
> So, why they didn't use a sniper?

Because it was in a part of the Strip that single Israelis can't get
into without getting shot or mobbed.

> > If the terrorists and their bodyguards would stop hiding among
> > civilians, that sort of things would also stop happening. Even so, the
> > amount of collateral deaths is pretty darned low.
>
> Read: I, or any of my close one wasn't amongst the "collateral damage" so
> it's acceptable.

No, read: "if you hang around a known terrorist, you can get blown up."

And before you go tossing around that "collateral damage" silliness, you
might note that Hamas is all *about* collateral damage, to the exclusion
of almost everything else.

If the Palestinians don't want to suffer for the efforts of their
terrorist buddies, they need to (and this is the part they can't seem to
understand) STOP supporting and protecting them. They've been offered
several very good packages, and Hamas always comes along and blows up a
bunch of Israelis to stop the process. The leaders of the Palestinians
could, in short order, put a complete stop to that sort of thing, but
they won't.

So the smart Israeli response is to make sure the Pali leaders know that
they are no longer safe, which has been the assumption by all sides for
the last couple of decades, and hasn't worked.

> > Does it bother you that you're arguing on behalf of some of the worst
> > human beings ever to walk (or roll) the face of the planet?
>
> Who says I'm arguing *behalf* of anyone?

I do. All of your comments are against going after the terrorists, and
at *best* you make excuses for them.

> I just happen to think that killing him (and especially way it was
> done) was pretty bad idea from Israeli. Funny that most governments
> of Western countries seem to agree with me, including the USA.

Well, most of the European countries don't like the idea, but they never
saw an Israeli action they would agree to.

And so far, the Bush administration remarks boil down to "hey, let's all
calm down." Not exactly a blanket condemnation of the idea of killing
terrorists.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> > > Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
> > > been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.
> >
> > Yes, and we knew they were killing Kurds and looked the other way while
> > they were doing it during the 80's.
>
> Except that the gas attacks on Kirkuk came about *after* we had dropped
> most of our connections to Iraq, and brought about the end of the whole
> deal.

Not sure what you're referring to in Kirkuk, but the largest (in terms
of deaths [5000+]) was in Halabja in 1988. What "connections" did we
supposedly drop then? And since you used the word "most" what
"connections" remained? And what did it bring and end to? Answer:
nothing but the lives of 5000+ Kurds.

Funny how in 1991, the Bush I admin (and the regime of his idiot son
years later) all of the sudden cared about Kurds. WTF were they when the
Kurds really needed their help?

I'll tell you where: leaving Saddam alone because he was going
toe-to-toe with Iran.


--Mike

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > > > Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
> > > > been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.
> > >
> > > Yes, and we knew they were killing Kurds and looked the other way while
> > > they were doing it during the 80's.
> >
> > Except that the gas attacks on Kirkuk came about *after* we had dropped
> > most of our connections to Iraq, and brought about the end of the whole
> > deal.
>
> Not sure what you're referring to in Kirkuk, but the largest (in terms
> of deaths [5000+]) was in Halabja in 1988. What "connections" did we
> supposedly drop then?

The limited military sales we allowed in the early 1980s. Pretty much
stopped by 1988, and *all* ties were severed after Halabja (sorry about
the typo, I'd just read some stuff about events in Kirkuk).

> And since you used the word "most" what
> "connections" remained?

Diplomatic connections, nothing financial or military.

> And what did it bring and end to? Answer:
> nothing but the lives of 5000+ Kurds.

Actual answer: all connections and ties between the US and Iraq.

> Funny how in 1991, the Bush I admin (and the regime of his idiot son
> years later) all of the sudden cared about Kurds. WTF were they when the
> Kurds really needed their help?

They made the horrible mistake of listening to the UN. Which also,
incidentally, ignored the Kurds. At least the UN stayed consistent
about that over the last few years.

> I'll tell you where: leaving Saddam alone because he was going
> toe-to-toe with Iran.

So you think we should have ignored them completely, but should also
have stopped Iraq, but shouldn't have done anything.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > So, why they didn't use a sniper?
>
> Because it was in a part of the Strip that single Israelis can't get
> into without getting shot or mobbed.

Israeli are still occupying the Gaza strip, remember? And they likely have
dozens of undercover agents there anyway.

> > Read: I, or any of my close one wasn't amongst the "collateral damage"
so
> > it's acceptable.
>
> No, read: "if you hang around a known terrorist, you can get blown up."

So, anyone who passes by is guilty by default? Right.

> And before you go tossing around that "collateral damage" silliness, you
> might note that Hamas is all *about* collateral damage, to the exclusion
> of almost everything else.

So it's OK to descend to their level?

> If the Palestinians don't want to suffer for the efforts of their
> terrorist buddies, they need to (and this is the part they can't seem to
> understand) STOP supporting and protecting them. They've been offered
> several very good packages,

They are indeed. Unfortunately, not by Israeli who are not happy with those
"good packages".

> > I just happen to think that killing him (and especially way it was
> > done) was pretty bad idea from Israeli. Funny that most governments
> > of Western countries seem to agree with me, including the USA.
>
> Well, most of the European countries don't like the idea, but they never
> saw an Israeli action they would agree to.
>
> And so far, the Bush administration remarks boil down to "hey, let's all
> calm down."

--
State department spokesman Richard Boucher said Israel had the right to
defend itself against terror attacks.

But Mr Boucher said the assassination would not help efforts to resume the
peace process.

Mr Boucher said Washington was "deeply troubled by this morning's events".

He added: "We do think that this event increases tension and it doesn't help
efforts to resume progress towards peace."
--

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Yama" > wrote:
> > Not to claim that Saddam didn't get lot of people killed, but above is
just
> > silly.
>
> No, it's just math. Average of about 40,000 per year, including all of
> the wars. If you include Iranians killed in the war, double that.

This math comes from where? Iraq suffered some 200,000 dead in Iraq-Iran
war, that is considerably less than 40,000 per year even during the war.

> > Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
than
> > 5000 people.
>
> The worst estimates I've seen were around 10,000, and that was from one
> of the most-loony left-wing sites. There would have been a lot more,
> but there just wasn't that much fighting against active resistance.
> General estimates are under 5,000,

From where? Biggest estimates (from "loony left-wing sites") put the number
of civilian deaths alone to 13,000. Most reasonable estimate I've seen puts
the total amount of losses to 13,000, of which 4300 were civilians.

Hospitals of Basra alone reported receiving close to 2000 bodies before the
end of war. Neither the battles or the bombings in or around Basra were
anywhere near the intensity of those in Nasiriya, Karbala or Bagdad. US
military itself reported hundreds of dead Iraqi almost every day in ground
battles alone.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:46:05 +0200, "Yama" > wrote:

>
>"D. Strang" > wrote in message
>news:NGK7c.126$zc1.1@okepread03...
>> "Yama" > wrote
>> >
>> > On the other hand, Iraq certainly is a lot more dangerous place now.
>>
>> Iraq was dangerous place since it was created. It is probably the least
>> dangerous place now since its creation.
>>
>> I was there with my father in 1961-1962, and *nothing* I've seen so far
>> is even half as scary.
>
>Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.
>
And how many were killed in road accidents in the UK??

Al Minyard

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" > wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
>> In article >,
>> > Yes, just yesterday two of my countrymen were shot in this "safer" Iraq.
>>
>> Compare to the previous situation. They were averaging about _fifty_
>> times that, for the last twenty years or so.
>
>Not to claim that Saddam didn't get lot of people killed, but above is just
>silly.
>
>> Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there have
>> been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.
>
>Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more than
>5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.
>
>
What is your source for casualty numbers?

Al Minyard

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" > wrote:
>
> >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more than
> >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.
>
> What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health problems
(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> > > > > Hell, the Hussein regime killed more Kurds in one *day* than there
> > > > > have
> > > > > been Iraqis, American, Brits, and others killed in this entire *war*.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and we knew they were killing Kurds and looked the other way while
> > > > they were doing it during the 80's.
> > >
> > > Except that the gas attacks on Kirkuk came about *after* we had dropped
> > > most of our connections to Iraq, and brought about the end of the whole
> > > deal.
> >
> > Not sure what you're referring to in Kirkuk, but the largest (in terms
> > of deaths [5000+]) was in Halabja in 1988. What "connections" did we
> > supposedly drop then?
>
> The limited military sales we allowed in the early 1980s. Pretty much
> stopped by 1988, and *all* ties were severed after Halabja (sorry about
> the typo, I'd just read some stuff about events in Kirkuk).


What verifiable evidence do you have to support this claim?

>
> > And since you used the word "most" what
> > "connections" remained?
>
> Diplomatic connections, nothing financial or military.


Evidence?


>
> > And what did it bring and end to? Answer:
> > nothing but the lives of 5000+ Kurds.
>
> Actual answer: all connections and ties between the US and Iraq.


How can that be when, by your own admission, we still had diplomatic
relations with Iraq?


>
> > Funny how in 1991, the Bush I admin (and the regime of his idiot son
> > years later) all of the sudden cared about Kurds. WTF were they when the
> > Kurds really needed their help?
>
> They made the horrible mistake of listening to the UN.


Are you saying the UN ordered our government not to publicly condemn
Iraq's massacre of its own people?



>
> > I'll tell you where: leaving Saddam alone because he was going
> > toe-to-toe with Iran.
>
> So you think we should have ignored them completely, but should also
> have stopped Iraq, but shouldn't have done anything.

Your syntax escapes me. Can you rephrase the question please?


--Mike

An analysis of the Israeli strategy against Hamas:

http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/articles/2004323.asp

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
> > What is your source for casualty numbers?
>
> Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
> killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

Nope. Basra figure came from BBC. Associated Press reported 3200 civilian
deaths between March 20 and April 20 alone. Iraqbodycount.net puts civilian
death figure to over 10,000, which is signifantly higher than most other
sources.

For some reason, USA does not seem to be interested about Iraqi casualty
figures at all. That is sort of disturbing; if they promote war as a
solution to problem, one would expect that they at least are concerned about
it's actual cost.

In article >,
"Yama" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> > > What is your source for casualty numbers?
> >
> > Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
> > killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
>
> Nope. Basra figure came from BBC. Associated Press reported 3200 civilian
> deaths between March 20 and April 20 alone. Iraqbodycount.net puts civilian
> death figure to over 10,000, which is signifantly higher than most other
> sources.

In other words, according to your own cites, the most reliable figure
you can come up with shows that I was right in the first place.

Thanks.

> For some reason, USA does not seem to be interested about Iraqi casualty
> figures at all. That is sort of disturbing; if they promote war as a
> solution to problem, one would expect that they at least are concerned about
> it's actual cost.

....and it's *really* interesting that folks like yourself are so
unconcerned about Iraqis that the years and years they spent being
murdered in wholesale lots by their own rulers have no effect on you,
since you're more concerned about short-term losses in a war of
liberation than you are about the *hundred* times that many lost due to
Hussein's actions...

But I guess it's okay with you that many more Iraqis die, as long as
it's not done by the US.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" > wrote:
>>
>> >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more than
>> >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.
>>
>> What is your source for casualty numbers?
>
>Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
>killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
>
>Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
>their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
>the loonier folks swear by it.
>
>Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
>by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health problems
>(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
>infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).

Thanks, that is what I thought :-))

Al Minyard

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> > > > What is your source for casualty numbers?
> > >
> > > Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
> > > killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
> >
> > Nope. Basra figure came from BBC. Associated Press reported 3200 civilian
> > deaths between March 20 and April 20 alone. Iraqbodycount.net puts civilian
> > death figure to over 10,000, which is signifantly higher than most other
> > sources.
>
> In other words, according to your own cites, the most reliable figure
> you can come up with shows that I was right in the first place.


At least he has cites. You, on the other hand, keep making claims...but
when asked to back those claims up with verifiable evidence, don't even
bother responding.


How about backing up that which you have previously been asked to back
up (twice now)?

Don't you find

> > For some reason, USA does not seem to be interested about Iraqi casualty
> > figures at all. That is sort of disturbing; if they promote war as a
> > solution to problem, one would expect that they at least are concerned about
> > it's actual cost.
>
> ...and it's *really* interesting that folks like yourself are so
> unconcerned about Iraqis that the years and years they spent being
> murdered in wholesale lots by their own rulers have no effect on you,



And it's even more interesting that folks like yourself didn't seem to
be bothered one iota when these when these murders were actually
occuring during the 80's...and only now in recent times wax indignant
about them in some sort of retroactive justification for war.


--Mike

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > > > > What is your source for casualty numbers?
> > > >
> > > > Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
> > > > were
> > > > killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
> > >
> > > Nope. Basra figure came from BBC. Associated Press reported 3200 civilian
> > > deaths between March 20 and April 20 alone. Iraqbodycount.net puts
> > > civilian
> > > death figure to over 10,000, which is signifantly higher than most other
> > > sources.
> >
> > In other words, according to your own cites, the most reliable figure
> > you can come up with shows that I was right in the first place.
>
> At least he has cites.

....which prove my claims.

> You, on the other hand, keep making claims...but
> when asked to back those claims up with verifiable evidence, don't even
> bother responding.

Hey, his cites *made* my claims. Why bother adding icing to the cake?

> How about backing up that which you have previously been asked to back
> up (twice now)?

Already had someone else do it for me. Why bother?

> Don't you find
>
> > > For some reason, USA does not seem to be interested about Iraqi casualty
> > > figures at all. That is sort of disturbing; if they promote war as a
> > > solution to problem, one would expect that they at least are concerned
> > > about
> > > it's actual cost.
> >
> > ...and it's *really* interesting that folks like yourself are so
> > unconcerned about Iraqis that the years and years they spent being
> > murdered in wholesale lots by their own rulers have no effect on you,
>
> And it's even more interesting that folks like yourself didn't seem to
> be bothered one iota when these when these murders were actually
> occuring during the 80's...and only now in recent times wax indignant
> about them in some sort of retroactive justification for war.

So it's bad when I didn't care, but good when you didn't care?

Tell me more.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> > ...
> > How about backing up that which you have previously been asked to back
> > up (twice now)?
>
> Already had someone else do it for me. Why bother?


Even if we accept for a moment that you did (even though you did not),
are you accustomed to letting phantoms speak for you when directly asked
a question?


>
> > Don't you find
> >
> > > > For some reason, USA does not seem to be interested about Iraqi
> > > > casualty
> > > > figures at all. That is sort of disturbing; if they promote war as a
> > > > solution to problem, one would expect that they at least are concerned
> > > > about
> > > > it's actual cost.
> > >
> > > ...and it's *really* interesting that folks like yourself are so
> > > unconcerned about Iraqis that the years and years they spent being
> > > murdered in wholesale lots by their own rulers have no effect on you,
> >
> > And it's even more interesting that folks like yourself didn't seem to
> > be bothered one iota when these when these murders were actually
> > occuring during the 80's...and only now in recent times wax indignant
> > about them in some sort of retroactive justification for war.
>
> So it's bad when I didn't care, but good when you didn't care?


It's bad when you and people like you did not care....but now use it as
a pretext for war (as long as its not your ass doing the fighting).
Since I have never said or insinuated I did not care, your second clause
is nothing more than a lame attempt to deflect attention away from your
continued hypocrisy and crocodile tears for the Kurds.


--Mike

In article >,
Michael Wise > wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > How about backing up that which you have previously been asked to back
> > > up (twice now)?
> >
> > Already had someone else do it for me. Why bother?
>
> Even if we accept for a moment that you did (even though you did not),

I poijnted out that the cite that was supposed to be from the *other*
side addressed the issue quite nicely, and supported my point.

> are you accustomed to letting phantoms speak for you when directly asked
> a question?

No, but I'm very used to people shooting themselves in the foot with a
bad choice of data.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
wrote:
> >
> > >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
than
> > >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.
> >
> > What is your source for casualty numbers?
>
> Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
> killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

The loonies over at the Associated Press released a study of only the first
month, which only checked half of Iraq's hospitals, and they told us that
more than a couple thousand people were killed during the war.
Specifically, they said over 3,200 *civilians* died in that first month, not
just "people", which would also include the unknown thousands of soldiers
that were killed (but I can't *name* them all, so they don't exist). AP
also issued a disclaimer in this report saying specifically that their tally
was incomplete and an undercount.

> Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
> their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
> the loonier folks swear by it.

Could you point to a few of these instances of double-counting, so I can
check them?

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
wrote:
> >>
> >> >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
than
> >> >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.
> >>
> >> What is your source for casualty numbers?
> >
> >Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
> >killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
> >
> >Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
> >their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
> >the loonier folks swear by it.
> >
> >Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
> >by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health problems
> >(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
> >infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).
>
> Thanks, that is what I thought :-))
>
> Al Minyard

I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes along,
just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would like
to believe.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:35 -0500, "Josh Dougherty" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
>than
>> >> >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
>rant.
>> >>
>> >> What is your source for casualty numbers?
>> >
>> >Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
>> >killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
>> >
>> >Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
>> >their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
>> >the loonier folks swear by it.
>> >
>> >Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
>> >by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health problems
>> >(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
>> >infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).
>>
>> Thanks, that is what I thought :-))
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
>prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
>accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes along,
>just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would like
>to believe.

You come here with your fantastic, fictional claims and then berate me for
accepting facts. That is utterly stupid.
Get a life.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:35 -0500, "Josh Dougherty" >
wrote:
>
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT
more
> >than
> >> >> >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
> >rant.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is your source for casualty numbers?
> >> >
> >> >Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
were
> >> >killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
> >> >
> >> >Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
> >> >their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot
of
> >> >the loonier folks swear by it.
> >> >
> >> >Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
> >> >by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health
problems
> >> >(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
> >> >infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).
> >>
> >> Thanks, that is what I thought :-))
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
> >prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
> >accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes
along,
> >just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would
like
> >to believe.
>
> You come here with your fantastic, fictional claims and then berate me for
> accepting facts. That is utterly stupid.
> Get a life.

Which "fantastic, fictional claims" are you referring to? Please point them
out to me.

And yes I berate you for blindly accepting "facts" (iow fantastic fictional
claims such as "lots of double-counting") simply because they support your
pre-existing prejudice.

In article >,
"Josh Dougherty" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
> than
> > > >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.
> > >
> > > What is your source for casualty numbers?
> >
> > Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
> > killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
>
> The loonies over at the Associated Press released a study of only the first
> month, which only checked half of Iraq's hospitals, and they told us that
> more than a couple thousand people were killed during the war.

But, as anyone whow read any of the Iraq coverage would know, most of
the hard fighting in cities came from Iraqi military and foreign
mercenaries dressed in civilian clothes.

> Specifically, they said over 3,200 *civilians* died in that first month, not
> just "people", which would also include the unknown thousands of soldiers
> that were killed (but I can't *name* them all, so they don't exist). AP
> also issued a disclaimer in this report saying specifically that their tally
> was incomplete and an undercount.

One of the big assumptions was that "thousands of soldiers" died, but a
lot of the military just plain ran, leaving their equipment to be blown
up in place. There was very little actual fighting against large Iraqi
formations.

> > Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
> > their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
> > the loonier folks swear by it.
>
> Could you point to a few of these instances of double-counting, so I can
> check them?

Look at all of the "X number of deaths reported at Y Hospital" during
some time periods, and then note the number of overlapping deaths in the
same cities over that same time lapse, recorded individually.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Josh Dougherty" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT
more
> > than
> > > > >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.
> > > >
> > > > What is your source for casualty numbers?
> > >
> > > Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
were
> > > killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
> >
> > The loonies over at the Associated Press released a study of only the
first
> > month, which only checked half of Iraq's hospitals, and they told us
that
> > more than a couple thousand people were killed during the war.
>
> But, as anyone whow read any of the Iraq coverage would know, most of
> the hard fighting in cities came from Iraqi military and foreign
> mercenaries dressed in civilian clothes.
>
> > Specifically, they said over 3,200 *civilians* died in that first month,
not
> > just "people", which would also include the unknown thousands of
soldiers
> > that were killed (but I can't *name* them all, so they don't exist). AP
> > also issued a disclaimer in this report saying specifically that their
tally
> > was incomplete and an undercount.
>
> One of the big assumptions was that "thousands of soldiers" died, but a
> lot of the military just plain ran, leaving their equipment to be blown
> up in place. There was very little actual fighting against large Iraqi
> formations.

The assumption that thousands of soldiers died came from no less than the
lips of US military personnel. And from the lips of hospital and journalist
sources on the scene, and from every study (though few) that's been done on
it.

> > > Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
> > > their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot
of
> > > the loonier folks swear by it.
> >
> > Could you point to a few of these instances of double-counting, so I can
> > check them?
>
> Look at all of the "X number of deaths reported at Y Hospital" during
> some time periods, and then note the number of overlapping deaths in the
> same cities over that same time lapse, recorded individually.

I guess I have to ask again. Could you point to an instance where there is
double-counting? There's supposedly "lots", so I don't think pointing out
one or two instances of it should be very hard.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:59:21 -0500, "Josh Dougherty" > wrote:

>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:35 -0500, "Josh Dougherty" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama" >
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT
>more
>> >than
>> >> >> >5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
>> >rant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What is your source for casualty numbers?
>> >> >
>> >> >Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
>were
>> >> >killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
>> >> >their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot
>of
>> >> >the loonier folks swear by it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
>> >> >by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health
>problems
>> >> >(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
>> >> >infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, that is what I thought :-))
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>> >I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
>> >prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
>> >accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes
>along,
>> >just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would
>like
>> >to believe.
>>
>> You come here with your fantastic, fictional claims and then berate me for
>> accepting facts. That is utterly stupid.
>> Get a life.
>
>Which "fantastic, fictional claims" are you referring to? Please point them
>out to me.
>
>And yes I berate you for blindly accepting "facts" (iow fantastic fictional
>claims such as "lots of double-counting") simply because they support your
>pre-existing prejudice.


OFCS

PLONK

Al Minyard