Religion Of Peace Alert: Nearly 19,000 civilians killed in Iraq in 21-month period

RockX

Banned
Nearly 19,000 civilians killed in Iraq in 21-month period, report says

(CNN)Nearly 19,000 civilians were killed in Iraq between January 2014 and October 2015 -- a toll the United Nations calls "staggering" in a new report.

The report, released Tuesday
, outlines the horrific impact that Iraq's ongoing conflict is having on its civilian population.

The numbers are mind-boggling. In the 21-month period:

• At least 18,802 civilians were killed, about half of them in Baghdad.

• Another 36,245 were injured.

• About 3.2 million people were internally displaced, including a million school-aged children.

The actual figures could be much higher, the report said.


ISIS crimes: 'Possibly genocide'


Much of the suffering was attributed to ISIS, the brutal Islamist terror group which has declared an Islamic caliphate across the vast stretches of territory it holds in Iraq and neighboring Syria -- although the report also documented alleged abuses by Iraqi security forces and allied groups fighting ISIS.

"The so-called 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' (ISIL) continues to commit systematic and widespread violence and abuses of international human rights law and humanitarian law. These acts may, in some instances, amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide," the report said, using another name for ISIS.

The group, which has controlled Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, since June 2014, employed horrifying methods of killing, the report says, including beheading, bulldozing, burning alive and throwing people off the tops of buildings.

However, improvised explosive devices -- including explosives worn by suicide bombers and those carried in vehicles -- were the deadliest tactic used against civilians, it said.

The report was prepared by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and was based largely on testimony obtained directly from survivors or witnesses of rights violations, including interviews with internally displaced people.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/middleeast/iraq-civilian-death-toll/


JV-NRD-600-wLogo-2.jpg



Nothing to see here....move along.
 
(CNN)Nearly 19,000 civilians were killed in Iraq between January 2014 and October 2015 -- a toll the United Nations calls "staggering" in a new report.

I guess if you won't make a serious attempt to stop the killing of Iraqi Muslim civilians, you might rightly be accused of being a Muslim hater....
 
Iraq ? Isn't that the country that Dubbya Bush invaded- at the behest of Israel- without UN authorisation and for the purposes of illegal regime change ? Didn't this US Republican folly cost the lives of at least 5,000 American servicemen and women and leave a further 80,000 permanently disabled ? That Iraq ? Surely not. " Mission accomplished " I believe was the trumpet-call of the time. So who is complaining that Iraq is now a failed and barbaric state ? Wasn't that the objective ?
 
The numbers are mind-boggling. In the 21-month period:

• At least 18,802 civilians were killed, about half of them in Baghdad.

• Another 36,245 were injured.

• About 3.2 million people were internally displaced, including a million school-aged children.
damn.. that's not even including Syria?
 
Iraq ? Isn't that the country that Dubbya Bush invaded- at the behest of Israel- without UN authorisation and for the purposes of illegal regime change ? Didn't this US Republican folly cost the lives of at least 5,000 American servicemen and women and leave a further 80,000 permanently disabled ? That Iraq ? Surely not. " Mission accomplished " I believe was the trumpet-call of the time. So who is complaining that Iraq is now a failed and barbaric state ? Wasn't that the objective ?

Israel opposed the invasion, dumbfuck.
 
Iraq ? Isn't that the country that Dubbya Bush invaded- at the behest of Israel- without UN authorisation and for the purposes of illegal regime change ? Didn't this US Republican folly cost the lives of at least 5,000 American servicemen and women and leave a further 80,000 permanently disabled ? That Iraq ? Surely not. " Mission accomplished " I believe was the trumpet-call of the time. So who is complaining that Iraq is now a failed and barbaric state ? Wasn't that the objective ?

There was bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq, including Hillary Clinton.

Though Trump was against it lol. You anti-war democrats need to back the man that shares your sentiments.

The objective, however misplaced, was to install a functioning democracy in Iraq. It's not that it couldn't have been done so much as we lacked the political will sustain it. Iraq fell apart after Obama came into office. The only relevance to Bush was that he predicted what would happen if and when we abandoned Iraq.

So, ISIS comes along and fills the power vacuum and brutally murders tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process. They displaced millions more and caused a global immigration crisis that may well change Europe for ever and will affect the US as well before it's over, wait and see.

Elections have consequences.
 
There was bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq, including Hillary Clinton.

Of course there was. AIPAC have their feet under both tables. The point though is that Bush headed the disaster and the destruction of Iraq happened on his watch. Attempting to blame subsequent administrations is tantamount to rewriting history- and that's not going to happen. Has it escaped everybody's notice that the dismantling of any organised Iraqi opposition to Zionism was the underlying intent ?

Though Trump was against it lol. You anti-war democrats need to back the man that shares your sentiments.

Be reasonable. Trump is a dollar-stuffed adolescent and Palin is certifiable. Should Republicans choose these caricatures then the party will be on the fast-track to hell. Every reasoning Republican knows that.
As for Clinton- she'll do as AIPAC instructs her to do, as will almost every member of Congress and the Senate- and that will be very, very bad for America's international relations.

The objective, however misplaced, was to install a functioning democracy in Iraq.

The outcome was to replace a functioning dictatorship with a thousand malfunctioning dictatorships. Well done, George.

Elections have consequences.

Yes. We'd all better hope for the best of a very, very bad bunch.


"A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”
[27][28][29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders


Good luck, Sanders.
 
Last edited:
Of course there was. AIPAC have their feet under both tables. The point though is that Bush headed the disaster and the destruction of Iraq happened on his watch. Attempting to blame subsequent administrations is tantamount to rewriting history- and that's not going to happen. Has it escaped everybody's notice that the dismantling of any organised Iraqi opposition to Zionism was the underlying intent ?

You're quite the Zionism conspiracy theorist lol.

The destruction of Saddams regime happened under George's watch. The dissolution of a stable Iraq and the subsequent takeover by ISIS---Barack and Hillary own that one.

moon said:
Be reasonable. Trump is a dollar-stuffed adolescent and Palin is certifiable. Should Republicans choose these caricatures then the party will be on the fast-track to hell. Every reasoning Republican knows that.
As for Clinton- she'll do as AIPAC instructs her to do, as will almost every member of Congress and the Senate- and that will be very, very bad for America's international relations.

I am being reasonable. Trump is closer to a JFK style Democrat than any of the current Bolshevik contenders lol. JFK came from money too.

moon said:
The outcome was to replace a functioning dictatorship with a thousand malfunctioning dictatorships. Well done, George.

As much as you'd like to, you can pin the tail on George when he was out of office when ISIS erupted.
 
You're quite the Zionism conspiracy theorist lol.

That's a pro-Zionist term in itself. It isn't a matter of ' conspiracy theory ' at all. AIPAC's power over Washington is demonstrably real- and dangerous. The US would be at war with Iran right now if AIPAC had got its way- and AIPAC hasn't given up yet. Israelis are happy to have Americans die in their place.

The destruction of Saddams regime happened under George's watch. The dissolution of a stable Iraq and the subsequent takeover by ISIS---Barack and Hillary own that one.

The invasion turned opposition to Saddam- and other dictatorial regimes- into opposition to the West. Besides, it's wasteful to attempt to blame Obama for Bush's disaster when the real culprits - those who stoke and feed sectarian violence- are the Sauds. Just like Israel the Sauds are very happy to see a devastated Iraq- and both would like to see a devastated Iran too. Recognising these two as the root causes of Middle East conflict should be the most important policy-former of any incoming president and party.


I am being reasonable. Trump is closer to a JFK style Democrat than any of the current Bolshevik contenders lol. JFK came from money too.

Trump is a braggart and a dangerous fool. America's international isolation will begin the moment he is nominated, let alone elected. Of course, that won't matter to his deluded supporters.

As much as you'd like to, you can pin the tail on George when he was out of office when ISIS erupted.

He ploughed up Iraqi civilisation and sowed the seeds of murder and mayhem. Obama was simply president when the crop came in.
 
There was bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq, including Hillary Clinton.

Though Trump was against it lol. You anti-war democrats need to back the man that shares your sentiments.

The objective, however misplaced, was to install a functioning democracy in Iraq. It's not that it couldn't have been done so much as we lacked the political will sustain it. Iraq fell apart after Obama came into office. The only relevance to Bush was that he predicted what would happen if and when we abandoned Iraq.

So, ISIS comes along and fills the power vacuum and brutally murders tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process. They displaced millions more and caused a global immigration crisis that may well change Europe for ever and will affect the US as well before it's over, wait and see.

Elections have consequences.

He was against the Iraq war but now wants to kick ISIS butt, lol

He makes me laugh, a lot.

Bush predicted what would happen, that is a laugh, his administration was the one who negotiated the terms of our leaving Iraq and also invaded Iraq in the first place. Several of us predicted what would happen if Bush invaded Iraq and removed Saddam, and it has all come to pass. The ME would be destabilized and not in the good way Bush and Co. thought.
 
He was against the Iraq war but now wants to kick ISIS butt, lol

He makes me laugh, a lot.

Bush predicted what would happen, that is a laugh, his administration was the one who negotiated the terms of our leaving Iraq and also invaded Iraq in the first place. Several of us predicted what would happen if Bush invaded Iraq and removed Saddam, and it has all come to pass. The ME would be destabilized and not in the good way Bush and Co. thought.

If you and your several others had had your way ISIS would have taken over Iraq in 2008, as predicted by Bush.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=brTm0mxez6k

Bush also predicted we'd have to go back. That said, Trump was against the Iraq war and Hillary and wasn't, but you'll vote for Hillary instead.
 
Back
Top