Posted on 01/02/2007 5:02:05 AM PST by tobyhill
The 600,000 was 3 months ago so it must be up to 1.5 million by now. /s
Last year in Brazil there was an average of 150 deaths per day yet their tourism is still booming and our MSM doesn't call that a civil war. Iraq may not be as attractive as Brazil but few would know that it's actually safer in 80% of the country.
It has occurred to me that we could appoint some big city dem mayor to oversee Baghdad. From a dem point of thew they would declare the sectarian violence just routine gang banging and tell everyone to stop being racists by mentioning it. They would also condone corruption and high unemployment. Republicans just have unrealistic expectations. :)
"The Real Iraq Body Count." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23950
In other words, by Iraqi/UN (unreported) numbers, we are killing 56 terrorists a day!
Now, folks, I don't care if you are importing these people from Antarctica, there is a finite number of 16-50-year-old males who are willing to strap bombs to themselves. Obviously, many, many more prefer to be in the Iraqi army or police, despite the dangers.
So we are exterminating an entire GENERATION of jihadis, and no one, anywhere, in the news is getting this.
killing more than 50 terrorists a day and it's largely unreported!!!!
The two sets of numbers do work out.
Could be... But I have serious doubts that the "civilians" in the Iraqi statistic, are all genuine civilians. The health ministry is headed by Sadrists, and they would have the greatest interest in designating killed militiamen (their own and of their rivals) as innocent civilians. As I said, the vast majority of victims are young males killed by gunfire, which is the group that makes up insurgents and militiamen.
Nonsense. For one thing, we're not killing 50 bombers a day, although 50 fighters is possible.
Second, Soviet Russia, with a WWII population of somewhere near 160,000,000, suffered almost 10 million war casualties, to say nothing of the civilian losses, which were higher still. It certainly didn't stop their next generation from breathing down our necks for another 40 years.
The Ummah, or Islamic world body, has several times the population of the Soviet Union to draw on, and is taking pinprick casualties. Those miniscule losses serve as propaganda tools to radicalize communities and to recruit new extremists. To propose that we're somehow bleeding Islamic fundamentalism dry with 50 casualties a day is absurd.
Second, there is a universe of difference between every man, woman, and child defending what they see as their country (Russia) and most men, women, and children siding with the government that is seeking to eliminate the sources of terror. Again, this is coming from reports IN THE FIELD, not some behind-the-keyboard "analysis."
So, bottom line, the numbers of these people are very, very limited, and one reason it's so difficult to EXPLAIN why we are winning is that there are these "every-Muslim-is-a-terrorist" types to try to turn 2 billion Muslims into 2 billion terrorists. Ain't happenin. We're kicking royal butt, and the terrorists know it.
Of course they do. And if you see the post above yours, you'll see that it's doubly difficult when you have these "every-Muslim-is-a-terrorist" types, which means, in their view, the war is unwinninable (unless you use nukes on more than 1/3 of the world, which isn't happening in any lifetime, so it's absurd.)
Shhh... Otherwise, the federally mandated speed limit will be 20 mph and we'll all be driving cars that look like Stay-Puft Marshmallows from all of the padding.
I'm not saying that 2 billion Muslims are terrorists, any more than I was saying that all 170 million Soviets were our enemy. But from that pool our enemies are drawn, armed, and supported. The loss of 50 a day is completely insignificant, while looking at the propaganda value of each death in recruiting and radicalizing Muslim communities. Rather than wiping out the next generation of terror, we're giving them heroes and martyrs to emulate, tactics to master, and grievences to nurse. To view this as a crushing defeat for militant Islam is to be unaware of the secondary effects.
..., despite the anti-Muslim bigotry evident in a lot of conversation, the large, large majority of Muslims are peaceful and certainly oppose the terrorists, especially in Iraq and Lebanon.
The large majority of any populace is always peaceful. As far as 'opposing' the terrorists, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Not so deep in the Sunni mind lurks a pride that enjoys seeing the United States suffer at the hands of Islamic militants. Many Muslims are willing to turn a blind eye to the lesser evil of terrorism in order to spite the greater evil of the United States.
While the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, I think you are misinterpreting what they oppose, and to what degree.
Or worse, we will all be riding bicycles year round.
Brazil is not safe and it's culture of crime is pretty well known by most. Between murders, abductions, political unrest and drug smuggling it might be the most dangerous place in South America. But I can't for the life of me see the purpose of comparing Iraq to Brazil, Baltimore or Detroit. Only in Iraq do the police discover 20 - 30 mutilated, tortured corpses every day. Only in Iraq do you read about dozens of people being blown up every single day, and being abducted en masse by death squads.
The most significant thing that you 'comparers' are leaving out is the fact that all these murders and slaughters are being perpetrated daily inspite of the best Army in the world standing perpetual guard over them and trying to prevent these crimes. And the 'murder rate' in Iraq that you folks are talking about doesn't even take into account the deaths that are caused every day by the war itself, (unless you're telling me that when insurgents and terrorists are killed by government/Coalition forces that is 'murder'). Also interesting is the fact that you're comparing a country to various cities, knowing full well that big cities are centers of crime, and entire countries are not.
Frankly, I don't know what the purpose is of making these comparisons anyway. Are you trying to tell people that Iraq isn't a corrupt, dangerous, violent culture tribalism and sectarian hatred, and that it's not a wartorn hell-hole?
The comparisons are to show the exaggerations that the MSM has been reporting as truths. Are there really 20-30 mutilated bodies turned up everyday or is it propaganda? Are there 100 "innocent" Iraqis killed everyday or is it 45 Innocent and 55 terrorist? The difference makes a huge physiological impression on Americans. For months now all the MSM has been claiming or insinuating is there is a massive "civil war" going on costing the lives of hundreds a day but 2 days after the new years we get that it's half of all the violence they've previously claimed. In this article the AP is claiming that based on these numbers they've been under-counting in their reporting which is the most laughable thing I've heard ever from the them. If they would have been telling the truth to start with then they wouldn't have to play the word game with the real facts.
This is such BS. Everyone with half a brain knows that at least - AT LEAST - 300,000 innocent women and children have died in Iraq. Why, after all, would Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand (BS) lie?
Of course all who believe the 300,000 figure are just as described above: Half a brain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.