Hamas leader killed.

In article ,
"Yama" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
news
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 whe 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 whe 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
news
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
news
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.