Iraqi government: Civilian deaths exceed Iraqi military and police deaths

after alll your words words words, it is a very good thing Sadam was removed. Even at the great costs.
For which many people are grateful. This can change a lot in the middle east.
this removal can actually change a lot in the world.
The long media drag ,of which you are part , only contributes to the hate, and the lengthening of their ordeal.

remember also that
the real misery of people is in Congo,Rwanda,Darfur,Niger,
it is with mlaria, aids, drinking water.

this site , and your article,is just navel staring, hypocritical politics, and nitwits filling their idle time in a decadent space.

go get a life

That the war in Iraq was a good thing? If you have the ability to engage in a true debate, let me know, and we'll discuss it. I don't think you can really back up your assertions.

Getting rid of Sadaam was a good thing. What you see now is the minority group doing everything in it's power to ruin if for the rest. You have Sunnis from other countries showing up to kill Shias so there will be no Shia Arab Govt. These same people get a hard on when thinking about killing Americans, but find it easier to just blow people up.

We will leave that country as fast as possible, but not before it can be done in a way that does not make us look run out. Remember Vietnam? This is kind of the same story. Lots of corruption, lots of ethnic strife, tribal warfare and all the other goodies .

I have quite a few friends that have been there, are there, or are going there. The issue is a very personal one to me.

Didn't quite turn out as intended...Then again, installing democracy at the barrel of a gun is anti-thetical to the idea of a democratic society. Oh yeah, that wasn't the original reason, it was WMD's--what a mess, all because of lies used to further a neo conservative agenda that was pushed after 9-11. Sad.

What is that? Some of the terms used here kind of throw me.What's the difference between a conservative and a neocon?
I won't debate that Hussein was an asshole who had it coming to him. Invading Iraq really was not on my agenda. My daughter goes there in 30 days. I did a little time there last year and have friends there now.

The shit there will not stop anytime soon. Those that can are robbing the place blind, killing off any in their way and making their own private armies. it's like 1964 all over again. just want to see us finished with this in a way that we don't return in 5 years to deal with a worse problem.

A neocon usu. means a neo-conservative--usu. referring to the new breed of right-wingers who don't carry alot of the traditional conservative values, esp. in regards to foriegn policy. see http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
for a glimpse--and the names at the bottom--into the agenda that we now see unfolding...Yeah, Saddam was a sleazebag--supported by the U.S. when it was convenient--but that's no excuse for going in there--there's plenty of sleazebags out there--many propped up/supported overtly/covertly by us--but we aren't going in and 'regime-changing' them--but of course, it was never about that, as it was never about wmd's or installing democracy. Bush, Cheney et. al. should be tried for war crimes. Certainly there is a responsibility now that we are there, but the biggest folks 'robbing' have been Halliburton/KBR and the other war profiteers...

<<I have quite a few friends that have been there, are there, or are going there. The issue is a very personal one to me.>>

Yes--and the personal nature of the "issue" clouds your judgement. Perhaps it explains your malleability in the face of the propaganda blitz concocted by Madison Ave. con-men and other professional liars.

It's a lie that only Sunnis oppose the US presence in Iraq. You must know it's a bullshit thing to say--but, then again, it must be a comforting notion for a poor sap who's lost friends to embrace.

Aaron- The Kurds support the occupation. The Shia for the most part aren't violently resisting the US. The Shia leadership hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of the US because they don't want to take on the insurgents alone. The matter is more nuanced then you say it is. And before you call me names, I support a fairly immediate US withdrawal.

Really tried to be objective about the issue, but yeah feelings do get in the way. None of it is as simple as you want to make it and yet it can be simple. The rebels, insurgents, whatever you want to call them want to see the current government fail. Whatever it takes to get there is okay by them. The Shias want it to succeed because it represents them for once. Al Sadr is the Shia leader that hates us the most vocally and his forces have fought us openly in the past. Right now he's behaving, because he knows he will get what he wants soon.

Nothing that comes from any official is comforting. i do, however refuse to play the hate everything game that seems to go on here. I see the presidents people tossing out propaganda just like some of the anti war crowd do. it just gives me a case of the red ass seeing the quibbling for minor moral victory points like this is a debate over a teen curfew or something along those lines. What this was in 2003 changed in 2004 and now is different in 2005. The war is ever changing ever evolving. You want to be pissed off about Bush and what he did in 2003? OK, but what about what's happening this week?

What's happening this week is a direct result of what happened before---did you check out the link?

<<And before you call me names, I support a fairly immediate US withdrawal.>>

In other words, you support the occupation. Thanks for being so frank.

I have little time to get into a back-and-forth with you about these matters, but suffice to say you're tendency to view Iraqi society as composed of discrete, politically homogeneous, ethnic/religious groups is the path that leads you to take George Bush's position on the occupation (while, amazingly, berating the "left" for not being able to galvanize effective opposition!).

I've pasted the following excerpt from a recent LA Times article--note the Kurd's thoughts on why the US continues "each day to make new enemies" in Iraq:

"Shots to the Heart of Iraq"
Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2005

"The U.S. military says it investigates all shootings by American personnel that result in death. But U.S. Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the multinational force in Iraq, said he was unaware of any soldier disciplined for shooting a civilian at a checkpoint or in traffic. Findings are seldom made public.

A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said "making no new enemies" was one of the military's priorities. At the same time, he said, "it's still a combat zone. There are going to be times when what the soldier needs to do and what the civilian feels he should be able to do come into conflict."

On June 27, the day he turned 49, Salah Jmor arrived in Baghdad to visit his family.

His father, Abdul-Rihman Jmor, is the chief of a Kurdish clan that numbers more than 20,000. Salah had left Iraq 25 years ago for Switzerland, where he earned a doctorate in international relations and eventually became a Swiss citizen.

For a decade, he represented Iraqi Kurds at the United Nations Office at Geneva. In 1988, he helped call the world's attention to Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja and the massacre of at least 100,000 Kurds in what is known as the Anfal campaign.

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Salah Jmor was offered a post in the new Iraqi government. But he turned it down, preferring to remain in Geneva, where he was an associate professor at the Center for International and Comparative Programs of Kent State University of Ohio.

The morning after he arrived in Baghdad, he decided to go with his younger brother, architect Abdul-Jabbar Jmor, to his office. Abdul-Jabbar, 38, drove his Opel hatchback down the eight-lane Mohammed Qasim highway through central Baghdad. It was 9:30 a.m. and many vehicles were on the road.

The Opel hatchback is a model favored by insurgents.

The brothers were in the fast lane as a U.S. military convoy of three Humvees was entering the highway from the Gailani onramp. Neither of them saw the soldiers, Abdul-Jabbar said.

Abruptly, Salah slumped over into his brother's lap. Abdul-Jabbar asked what was wrong and then saw blood pouring from Salah's head. There was a single bullet hole in the windshield.

He saw the convoy moving ahead as he pulled over to the side of the road. He said he had seen no signal to slow down and heard no warning shot.

The soldiers turned around and came back a few minutes later. One said he was sorry, Abdul-Jabbar said. Together they waited more than an hour for an ambulance to arrive.

"I asked them, 'Why didn't you shoot me? I am the driver,' " Abdul-Jabbar recalled. "But they didn't answer me."

Abdul-Jabbar said he and his family had supported the U.S. troops when they first invaded Iraq, but no longer.

"This kind of incident makes people hate the Americans more and more," he said. "They don't care about the lives of the people. Each day they make new enemies."

as they tend to be based upon media accounts, which report deaths resulting from suicide bombings and resistance attacks fairly well, but report deaths resulting from coalition forces infrequently

no doubt bombings have killed a lot of people, but, how many people were killed in Falluja by US forces? they won't say, so it is assumed that the number is zero?

--Richard

Have you guys talked to anybody from any of the units? It's easy enough to find out what unit was where and lots of people get out every year and are under no constraints to keep them from discussing what happened. Just be aware of pretenders. If they can't tell you their MOS, CO, BN, BDE, they're more than likely full of shit.

Try that. Look for guys that were there and ask them. Don't marginalize them and cast them aside.

"We Regard Falluja as a Large Prison"

http://www.mojones.com/news/update/2005/07/falluja.html

article by journalist David Enders

note that the following:

"In the last week, they have received three civilian casualties of US fire, and say that this week has been below average — normally, says Ahmed, they see one or two dead civilians every day, and that hundreds have been killed by coalition forces since the city was taken over by the US."

none, of course, reported by media anywhere, as reporters don't go to Falluja (the Marines visited by Enders said that they hadn't seen one for 4 months, and couldn't speak for the record)

--Richard

So you are saying that talking to Americans that were there is not appropriate, or worthy of your time? Are you afraid they will say something different than what you want to hear?

Did you check out the project for the new american century link? http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

On War Crimes

Noam Chomsky Interview -- Excerpts

Interviewed by M. Junaid Alam

December 27, 2004



On the Lancet Report

...Chomsky: In fact the way the media treated this Lancet report is kind of interesting. I mean it was mentioned - it's not that you couldn't find it. But it was either ignored or downplayed. The standard reaction to it was well, that it was just a sample.

Alam: Exactly

Chomsky: How do you know it was accurate, and maybe the number was smaller - and they [Lancet] actually did give a spread, which was 8,000 to 200,000, which is -

Alam: Excluding Fallujah, too.

Chomsky: Well, let's look at how they did it. The highest probability estimate was around 100,000. The immediate reaction has been well, maybe it's much lower. Yeah, maybe it's much lower - maybe it's much higher. In fact they did it very conservatively. They excluded Fallujah because that would have raised the estimate, the extrapolated estimate, they included the Kurdish areas, no fighting there, which would reduce the extrapolated estimate, and in general they did a careful and rather conservative analysis.

But it's either been ignored or the silly claim has been made that, well it's only an estimate, so maybe it's too high - true, it's only an estimate, so maybe it's too low. In fact that's the way every study is done of estimated casualties or health studies and so on. But whatever it is, whether it's 50,000 or 150,000, or whatever the number might be, it's obviously a major atrocity.

On the Devastation of Fallujah

And in fact, it's not exactly correct that the media haven't reported the war crimes. They often report them and celebrate them. So take for example the invasion of Fallujah, which is one of the -- it's a major war crime, it's very similar to the Russian destruction of Grozny 10 years earlier, a city of approximately the same size, bombed to rubble, people driven out.

Alam: They herded all the males, I think, they didn't let them escape the corridor.

Chomsky: Which incidentally is very much like Srebrenica - which is universally condemned as genocide -- Srebrenica was an enclave, lightly protected by UN forces, which was being used as a base for attacking nearby Serb villages. It was known that there's going to be retaliation. When there was a retaliation, it was vicious. They trucked out all the women and children, they kept the men inside, and apparently slaughtered them. The estimates are thousands of people slaughtered.

Well, with Fallujah, the US didn't truck out the women and children, it bombed them out. There was about a month of bombing, bombed out of the city, if they could get out somehow, a couple hundred thousand people fled, or somehow got out, and as you say men were kept in and we don't know what happened after that, we don't estimate [the casualties for which we are responsible].

But what was dramatic about Fallujah was that it was not kept secret. So you could see on the front page of the New York Times, a big picture of the first major…step in the offensive, namely the capture of the Fallujah general hospital. And there's a picture of people lying on the ground, soldier guarding them, and then there's a story that tells that patients and doctors were taken from - patients were taken from their beds, patients and doctors were forced to lie on the floor and manacled, under guard, and the picture described it.

On War Crimes

The president of the United States is subject to death penalty under US law for that crime - alone. I mean that's a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, Geneva Conventions say explicitly and unambiguously that hospitals must be protected, hospitals and medical staff and patients must be protected by all combatants in any conflict. You couldn't have a more grave breach of the Geneva Conventions than that.

There's a War Crimes Act in the United States passed by a Republican Congress in 1996, which says that grave breaches of the Geneva Convention are subject to the death penalty. And that doesn't mean the soldier that committed them, that means the commanders. They weren't thinking about the United States of course, but take it literally, that's what it means.

And then they went onto explain why they carried out this war crime in the general hospital. New York Times explained calmly that it was done because the US command described the Fallujah general hospital as a propaganda outlet for the guerrillas because they were reporting casualties. I -- don't know if the Nazis produced things like that. Of course the Times said it was "inflated" casualties - how do we know it was inflated?

Alam: We don't even count 'em.

Chomsky: Well our Dear Leader said it was inflated, so that means that since we're like North Korea, it has to be inflated. But suppose it was. I mean the idea of carrying out a major war crime, explicit, because the hospital was a propaganda weapon by distributing casualty figures, I mean you really have to work to find an analog to that.

And then it went on, destroying the whole city. Finally they end up saying well the Marines are going to face a serious challenge of regaining the confidence of the people of Fallujah after having destroyed their city. Yeah, it's going to be a pretty serious challenge. It's also described how they're going to do it - by instituting a police state.

Alam: Right.

Chomsky: Nobody will be allowed into Fallujah until they undergo retinal scans and fingerprinting and they're going to be marked and identified, do everything except put chips in them, maybe they'll get to that next time, organize them into work gangs, in which they'll be compelled under the order to rebuild what the US has destroyed. Try and find a counterpart to that. And that's just one war crime, one part of the general atrocities.

Nuremberg Principles

In fact, you could argue that it's insignificant. By the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which the US initiated and carried out, it concluded that the supreme international crime is invasion, aggression, and that supreme crime includes within it all the evil that follows. So therefore the doubling of malnutrition rates, the maybe 100,000 casualties, the grave war crimes in Fallujah, they're all footnotes, they're footnotes to the supreme international crime.

And that crime is taken pretty seriously. In Nuremberg they did not try soldiers, and they didn't try company commanders, they tried the - the people who were on trial and hanged - were the top command. Like the German Foreign Minister was hanged. Because of participation in the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows. Do we hear anything about that?

Alam: Right.

Chomsky: But you can't say it's concealed. What I've just talked about is all quoted from the front pages. Which is even more astonishing. ...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=6925

________________________________________________________________________________



To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

--Nuremberg Trial Proceedings, 30 Sept. 46

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:fsqcbxy9VNkJ:http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/09-30-46.htm+Nuremberg+%22the+supreme+international+crime%22&hl=en%20target=nw

I give up. You got me. I'm a war criminal. As is every soldier, even your hero Kevin Bederman. Just by showing up we are guilty according to these stories. I can se why you don't want to talk to us. I guess it never occured to you that all wars, all conflict are illegal and a crime. That the people with the guns that start the wars don;t really care either. Some countries try to regulate the brutality, but how do you regulate killing.
What you all are pissed about is the method of killing. The slow starvation of the sanctions or the quick death from a bullet. And who is pulling the trigger. if a "Freedom Fighter" from the UAE guns down a few people to get at an American soldier it's ok,right? But if the soldier returns fire he's a criminal. He should not have been there to begin with right?

If we are such an awesome killing machine and a bunch of bloodthirsty savage criminals, how come we have not killed all the people there yet?

<<<<<<<<. I guess it never occured to you that all wars, all conflict are illegal and a crime.

And who is pulling the trigger. if a "Freedom Fighter" from the UAE guns down a few people to get at an American soldier it's ok,right? >>>>>>

NOT REALLY.

Missing the point, but its understandable:

Iraq is a war of aggression because one of two things had not been satisfied:

(A) We needed to receive UN Security Council Approval - we did not, because although the council might have approved it, it was outraged about the torture photos that came out of Abu Ghraib. OR

(B) You have to prove that Iraq was an aggressor itself. If so, then the probably would never have needed the Council's approval. It could have reasonably expected it would get it later.

But Sadaam never invaded anyone.

NEITHER OF THESE TOOK PLACE, THUS BUSH SHOULD BE SENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR CONVICTION AND HANGING. MERCENARIES ON THE GROUND WILL NEVER BE CONVICTED - THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY - ONLY THE DEAR LEADERS GET HANGED.

Note Bene:

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE US BELIEVES IT DOESN'T NEED SECURITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL - IT NEVER HAS AND IT NEVER WILL.

THE US IS A ROGUE STATE. IT'S SORT OF LIKE BEING AN ITALIAN GANGSTER WALKING INTO A RESTAURANT AND GUNNING DOWN A FEW PEOPLE AND THEN LEAVING.

NOBODY WILL CALL THE POLICE BECAUSE OF FEAR OF RETALIATION.

IN ANY CASE IT WOULD BE AN ADMISSION OF WEAKNESS BY THE ITALIAN MAFIA TO GO DOWN THE STREET TO THE POLICE AND ASK THEM TO ARREST ONE OF THEIR ITALIAN SOLDERS FOR PUTTING HIS HAND IN THE TILL.

NO WAY THE US WOULD ASK THE UN - IT'S AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY: IF RIVAL MAFIA LEADERS GOT WORD OF IT THEY'D NO DOUBT PUT A CONTRACT OUT ON HIM.



















?

Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 09 November 2004

Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In his report to the State Department, Justice Jackson wrote: "No political or economic situation can justify" the crime of aggression. He also said: "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

Between 10,000 and 15,000 U.S. troops with warplanes and artillery have begun to invade the Iraqi city of Fallujah. To "soften up" the rebels, American forces dropped five 500-pound bombs on "insurgent targets." The Americans destroyed the Nazzal Emergency Hospital in the center of town. They stormed and occupied the Fallujah General Hospital, and have not agreed to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the wounded, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The battle of Fallujah promises to be far more shocking and aweful than the bombardment of Baghdad that kicked off Operation "Iraqi Freedom" in April 2003. A senior Marine Corps surgeon warned that casualties will surpass any level seen since the Vietnam War.

There have already been 100,000 "excess" Iraqi deaths since Bush launched his first strike on Iraq 18 months ago - that is, above and beyond those killed by Saddam Hussein, sanctions, U.S. bombings, and disease, all put together, in the 15 months prior to the invasion.

A study published by the Lancet found that the risk of death by violence for Iraqi civilians is now 58 times higher than before Bush began to liberate them in April 2003.

Bush's war on Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition," according to General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam.

The only two situations where the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is in self-defense, or when authorized by the Security Council. Iraq had not invaded the U.S., or any other country, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to any country, and the Security Council never sanctioned Bush's war. Bush and the officials in his administration are committing the crime of aggression.

Virtually every Western democracy has ratified the treaty of the International Criminal Court, except the United States. Bush knows that the Court will eventually prosecute leaders for the crime of aggression. Mindful that he and his officials could become defendants, Bush renounced the Court, and extracted bilateral immunity agreements from more than 80 countries.

This year, however, Bush unsuccessfully sought to ram through the Security Council an immunity resolution that would exempt U.S. personnel from the Court's jurisdiction. But shortly after the photographs of U.S. torture of Iraqi prisoners emerged, the Council refused to put its imprimatur on preferential treatment for the United States.

Bush knows that the Court will also punish war crimes. Pursuant to policies promulgated by Bush and Rumsfeld, U.S. forces have engaged in widespread torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush admitted in his 2003 State of the Union address that he had sanctioned summary executions of suspected terrorists.

Torture, inhuman treatment, and willful killing are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, treaties ratified by the United States. Grave breaches of Geneva are considered war crimes under our federal War Crimes Act of 1996. American nationals who commit war crimes abroad can receive life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to prevent or stop them.

The first U.S. attack on Fallujah, last April, killed 900-1000 people, mostly noncombatants. It was conducted in retaliation for the killing and mutilation of the bodies of four Blackwater Security Consulting mercenaries. Collective punishment against an occupied population for offenses committed by others also violates the Geneva Conventions.

Bush has sought to cover his crimes by putting an Iraqi face on his brutal war. The New York Times reported: "Thousands of Iraqi troops have moved into position with their American counterparts and are expected to take part ... American soldiers are to do most of the fighting on the way in, clearing the way for the Iraqi security forces to take control once the insurgents are defeated. With this method, Iraqi and American leaders hope for the best of both worlds: American muscle and an Iraqi face."

If Bush were a student of history, he would realize that Iraqization, like Vietnamization, will fail to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Working hand-in-glove with the U.S. government, interim puppet prime minister Iyad Allawi helped to soften up the rebels by declaring martial law throughout most of Iraq. His authority came from legislation the human rights minister characterized as "very similar to the Patriot Act of the United States." It enables Allawi to conduct extensive surveillance, impose cordons and curfews, limit freedom of movement and association, and freeze bank accounts and seize assets.

"Iraqi confidence in the interim government has plummeted in recent months as the insurgency in Falluja and elsewhere has gained in strength and lethality," according to The New York Times.

And although foreign Islamic extremists have joined the fight, most resisting the American occupation are Iraqi. "Didn't the Americans bring with them the British and the Italians?" asked Suhail al Abdali. "Well, we have multinational forces, too," he said wryly. Then al Abdali added, "They will pay the price with the blood of American sons who came to occupy Iraq. They won't take Fallujah unless they fight street to street, house to house."

Twenty-six prominent Saudi scholars and preachers wrote in an open letter to the Iraqi people: "The U.S. forces are still destroying towns on the heads of their people and killing women and children. What's going on in Iraq is a result of the big crime of America's occupation of Iraq." They stressed that armed attacks by militant Iraqi groups on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq represent "legitimate resistance."

"The attack on Fallujah is an illegal and illegitimate action against civilians and innocent people," said the Association of Muslim Scholars, an influential Sunni clerics group. "We denounce this operation which will have a grave consequence on the situation in Iraq," declared spokesman Mohammed Bashar al-Faidhi.

Baghdad University political science professor Salman al-Jumaili warns, "What happens in Fallujah will spread out across other Sunni cities, including Baghdad." Al-Jumaili expects the Fallujah offensive will spin out of control, with fighting hop-scotching from one town to the next.

A senior U.S. diplomat agrees. "I would never tell you that violence in Sunni areas won't get worse when you open up a battle," he told the Los Angeles Times, on condition of anonymity.

Following the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Bush's aggressive war against the people of Iraq promises to kill many more American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson labeled the crime of aggression "the greatest menace of our times." More than 50 years later, his words still ring true.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn, a contributing editor to t r u t h o u t, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
-------

Bush: "Oh look there's a neat picture of Grand Daddy Bush having Dinner with Hitler and Eichman. Look there's an old Bush Family Friend the Head of IG Farbin. There's Daddy Bush and Grand Daddy having Lunch with Joseph Mengele in Paraguay. Oooh! Look at the Picture Me and Daddy with Licio Gelli in Milan. That's me being sworn in at the Skull and Bones Headquarters. There's Me and Daddy Bush Dining with Khalid bin Mafouz at a BCCI Function. There's me and Ariel Sharon shaking hands after I sold him Bunker Buster Nukes so he could Nuke Iran. Wow! Great picture of Me and Tony Blair at the Azores Summit Lying to start the next War in Iraq. Such Memories. Look there's me reading a book about Goats, while I did 9-11. Well you can't dwell on Yesterday's War Crimes. Not while you have Tommorrow's War Crimes to Commit."

<<<<<George W Bush and the Bush Family War Criminal Alblum by George W Bush War Criminal and PROUD OF IT Thursday, Jul. 28, 2005 at 5:20 PM>>>

Anonymous IndyBay bloggers contribute specifics to record of war crimes, Bush culpability.

Bush has right to decide if he wants to go by the needle, the noose or the chair. Its a free country.

Let's use the other 9-11 as an example, 9-11-73, south of the rio grande. Pinochet has been extradited, his defenses eviscerated, and members of DINA and his generals will likely be tried. His end is near.

Of course we should add the names of the CIA, Mr. Kissinger, and the Dear Leaders of Great Britain and the US.

Found out my kid is going to the Tikrit AO. So I have family or friends all the way from Hilla-Mosul and out to Al Assad. means nothing to you. I'm sure that your buddies their would never lie to further their goals. Who can forget the story of the marines that fed a child to their dog? you did not hear that one? Just made it up. Just like most of the stories you all repeat as gospel.
next time you do communicate with your friends there, ask them if the insurgency is haraam. A forbidden activity banned for the greater good. For some reason my koran says it is. That violence for the sake of violence thing.
probably hurts your head to think like that, so just go back to hating Bush for everything.