Re: 17,000 deaths a year from the cold

"Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > Spewing insults does not change the facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > No but telling it like it is makes me feel good.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm so happy for you.
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > the non-sequitor is to connect the loss of a family member with
any
> > > > actions.
> > > > > Until you show that the missing relative was killed by saddam and
> was
> > > not
> > > > a
> > > > > victim of war or a combatant in a civil war, you have no basis for
> > your
> > > > > 'sympathy vote' claims.
> > > >
> > > > Let's try that rationale.
> > >
> > > If you can get through it without adding a dose of bullshit.
> > >
> > > > Families report that Saddam's henchmen dragged
> > > > their loved ones away in the night, never to be seen again.
> > >
> > > They reported it? What did Saddam do? Guess they didn't report it so
> much
> > as
> > > tell stories years later.
> >
> > And you think that comment is unbiased?
> Certyainly. I am simply pointing out that you are making up the part where
> they 'report' it. No matter whether the claims are true or not they are
> merely assertions made years after the fact to an invader who is almost
> throwing money at anyone who will give them material for propaganda
> purposes. I will wait on the facts if you don't mind.
>
> >  If you had lived under Saddam Hussein's rule,
>
> Geese. I have to live under Jean Cretiens rule.

You have my sympathy.

>Guess what? It doesn't
> bother me. Jean hasn't got the time to hastle me personally. Most Iraqis
are
> also 'under the radar'.  Saddam was mostly concerned with higher level
> politics. The exceptions would be major criminals ( which went into exile
in
> Ameircan and are now fronting for the invaders.) and leaders of resistance
> groups ( mostly Kurds and Shiites ). There is no quesiton that when you
have
> ethnic rivalries, you are going to get more deaths and claims of injustice
> no matter what you do.

So its ok to commit genocide if they are Kurds and Shiites, eh?

>
> > and your family was dragged away in the night,
>
> FIRST YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE DRAGGED AWAY IN THE NIGHT. YOU
> FUCKING CLUELESS BOOB. Hell.. So I tell you that Jean Cretien had my
family
> hauled away in the middle of the night. What do you do? Do you believe me
by
> default and drop bombs on him???

By the sound of your apparent dissatisfaction with your leader, it might not
be a bad idea.

>
> >  who would you
> > tell?  Now that he is no longer in control, would you keep your mouth
> shut?
>
> Whether it were true or not, if I was a sworn political enemy or expected
to
> profit, I might say it whether it is true or not. There is no denying that
> many stories provided by Iraqis in return for money and immigrant visas
> later turned out to be false. I am not saying that you should believe
every
> story and I am not saying that you should deny every story. I am saying
that
> the story only tells you what to investigate. It does NOT secure a
> conviction. Do you not know the rules of evidence???

Apparently, in your world view, witnesses don't hold any weight.

> >
> > > > Years later,
> > > > they are found in a mass grave, but surely that's just a coincident,
> > > right?
> > >
> > > Nope. That is bullshit. Please show where ANY of the bodies have been
> > > positively identified.
> > >
> > > The real stupidity here is your ignorance of the fact that tens of
> > thousands
> > > died in the Iran/Iraq war and yet every grave that is dug up seems to
be
> > > evidence of mass murder to you. Your biases are humorous.
> >
> > And what of yours?
>
> I have no biases. I am merely stating the facts that the evidence you
claim
> does not support your assertions of guilt. You still evade the fact that
> MOST of the mass graves are almost undoubtably from the Iran/Iraq war,
which
> was noted for many casualties.

And where is this evidence that MOST of the mass graves...blah blah blah?  I
thought you were going to wait until the forensic results were in.  Is that
not what you have stated?  That is not an unbiased claim.  You give Saddam
Hussein too much benefit of a doubt, that's for sure.

> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > I don't disagree with you that the task is daunting.
> > >
> > > Better that Ameirca get out of Iraq and turn the investigation over to
> the
> > > resources of the U.N.
> >
> > The UN?  HA!  The UN cannot even stomach one bombing before they pull
> their
> > people out.  And they are going to run things in Iraq?  Surely you jest.
>
> Without an enemy occupation they wouldn't HAVE to stomach bombings.
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's good to see that you admit that you don't know either.
> > >
> > > I never said I knew. I suspect that a lot of Iraqis don't know either,
> but
> > > are merely repeating rumors. The truth is always hard to find and
never
> by
> > > word of mouth.
> >
> > Even if that word comes from first hand witnesses?
>
> YOU FUCKING MORON. PROVE THAT THEY ARE WITNESSES TO WHAT THEY CLAIM.

Prove that they are not!

> >Might as well get rid of
> > using witnesses in every trial in the world.
>
> Impartial witnesses are often used as they can be counted on to try to be
> honest.

If a person witnesses first hand a crime committed against a family member,
how is that person impartial?

>Taking the word of criminals looking to reduce their sentences ( or
> other benefits )  usually leads to wrongful convictions.

Again, a biased assumption on your part that these people are criminals.

>Often it may be the criminal who provides the evidence that is the actual
perpetrator.

Maybe in that backward part of Canada where you live, this could be true.  I
have seen no evidence that this is the case as a general rule.

>One has to judge the motives of the witness. In the case of Iraq, many of
the so
> called 'witnesses' have motive either from dislike of the Saddam regime,
or
> expectations of reward from the Ameircans.

And your evidence for this is?

>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > False. Until you separate out the war dead, and the executions for
high
> > > crimes, you have nothing but the usual pile of bodies that every
country
> > > accumulates over the years.
> >
> > Since the war has only been going on since March, separating out the
dead
> > shouldn't be too difficult.  So, you are saying that the Kurds were
never
> > gassed?
>
> What kind of moron are you?

How many kinds are there?  :-)

>There is no 'the war'.

Right.  We are not fighting there as we write these posts.  Is that what you
are saying?  Perhaps you should read more current news.

>Causalties of war have
> been accumulating ever since civilisatons invented it.

Do you think no one can tell the difference between a human physical
evidence from last month, or last year, compared with human physical
evidence from 2,000 years ago?  If you do, then I think you have just
re-defined the term moron!

>You will probably
> find mass graves from the British, Alexander the Great, the Iran/Iraq war,
> Shiite rebellions, etc. All perfectly legitimate.

So you think that tying a person's hands behind his/her back, and shooting
him/her in the head is legitimate?

>As to the Kurds, nobody
> knows who gassed them. The Iranians were supposed to be investing the town
> so the Iraqis had motive.

There is no right or excuse for using mustard gas, period.  It is a banned
weapon, and has been banned for about 80 years.

>On the other hand, the Kurds would be considered
> Iraqi enemies by the Iranian invaders and thus they had a motive.

They had no right, under any circumstances to use mustard gas on anyone,
Kurd or Iranian!  Why are you apologizing for Saddam Hussein, and his
regime's actions?

>Both sides
> used gas. This is known. Nor did the international community make any
waves
> about it as the U;.S. was supplying it ( or the means and materials ).

Careful with your accusations.  We supplied duel use chemicals, chemicals
which are needed in the petroleum industry, I might add.  We could no easier
control how those chemicals were used than Germany could control how the
chemical suits they sold to the Iraqis were used.  After the Kurds were
attacked, we quit supplying those chemicals to Iraq.

> >
> > >I have no doubt that if they looked hard they
> > > could find some of Alexander the Greats big battles. The dry desert
> > > preserves bodies for millenia..
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > So, you want to play the apologist for Saddam Hussein, do you?  I
> understand
> > Bagdad Bob's job is up for grabs.  Any takers?  Ian?
>
> I do not appologise for anyone. If an honest jury can be found and the
facts
> shown then an honest trial can commence. It will have to wait, however,
for
> evidence to be brought to light. The problem here is not my pointing this
> out, but you apparent 'conviction' based on nothign but the accusations.
Do
> try to understand how truth and justice works.
> >

More than a quarter of a million people disappeared during the long rule of
Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.  Tens of thousands of Iraqis are still
looking for loved ones who disappeared under Saddam Hussein.  But that's ok
by you.  They were just criminals.