The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on July 21st, 2017 at 03:25 pm
Why do terrorists attack innocent civilians? Bob Ellis explains:
Well, they hold that a democracy elects a government, and if that government bombs, invades, and subjugates another country in an illegal baseless war involving innumerable war crimes, house demolitions, desecrations of cemetaries and holy shrines, torturing of innocents and burnings of libraries, then the electors of that government can be held accountable for what the government they elected subsequently does.
Quite eloquent, these terrorists. Ellis also claims that war and sanctions have killed 500,000 Iraqi children, and that 150,000 have died in the current conflict. Those figures may be a little inflated:
The number of Iraqi civilians who met violent deaths in the two years after the US-led invasion was today put at 24,865 by an independent research team …
The Iraq Body Count project is the most complete attempt of its kind to record the civilian dead in Iraq. The researchers work from media reports, information from mortuary officials and on-the-ground research projects. Its figures, which the group regards as conservative estimates, do not include irregular fighters or others who died while attacking coalition or Iraqi government forces.
A report published last year in the medical journal the Lancet suggested the chances of a violent death in Iraq were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.
The study was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors, but conceded that the data on which the projections were based was of “limited precision”.
Limited? Limited? If coalition weapons were that imprecise, the Lancet study may have been believable.
(Via Ellis editor Raff)
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.