All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Are

[zameel]

Interesting article at loonwatch: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

In the comments I wrote:

If we are to believe Muslims over the last two decades were the most violent of all religious, ethnic and national communities, a look at the worst crimes against humanity in the last two decades should prove this to be the case. However, a list of these (Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur) reveals two of them were in fact directed against Muslims (Darfur by Muslims themselves and Bosnia by Christians with a strong Christian mythology motivating it), and the third (Rwanda) was against a rival Christian ethnic group but was supported to some degree by the Catholic clergy findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_13_128/ai_76915684/

1. Rwanda, Hutus killing Tutsis, 1994 – 800,000 civilians killed news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1288230.stm
2. Sudan in Darfur, 2003-9 – 200,000 civilians killed protection.unsudanig.org/data/darfur/papers/Hagan-%20Death%20in%20Darfur%20%28Sep06%29.pdf
3. Serbs in Bosnia, 1992-5 – 100,000 civilians killed srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2007/06/bosnian-book-of-dead.html

This excludes Iraq, the “largest major international conflict of the 21st century” web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf in which 655,000 were violently killed since the invasion (until 2006) with about half the violent deaths the result of attacks by coalition forces, and the remainder due to civil war in the aftermath of the invasion (see report).

It also excludes Liberia (1989-2003) in which many war crimes were reported (and many atrocities suffered by Muslims), and Russian wars against Chechan Muslims (1994-present) in which many war crimes were also reported (approximately 100,000 Chechan civilians lost their lives in both the first and second Chechan wars).

Civil wars are excluded, the most devestating being Africa’s World War or the Second Congo War (1998-2003), mostly between Christians, as a result of which 5 million lost their lives, and the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005), between Muslims, Animists and Christians, in which 1.9 million people died, as in these civil wars there is enough blame to go around.

There are of course many human rights abuses all over the world e.g. Zimbabwe, Burma, Philippines, West Papua, Thailand, Kashmir, India, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Somalia etc. but these are not nearly as devestating as the above.

I think it’s safe to conclude Muslims over the last two decades were not the most violent religious community and in fact bore the brunt of a large proportion of human conflicts and crimes.

[krkey1]

Interesting

You do realize that study stating that 655,000 thousand Iraqis is complete bunk.

www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/11Myths.htm#1

Speaking as someone who served over there is complete garbage. Realistically you are looking at 50K Iraqis killed and literally 99% by the insurgents.

Far more Iraqis would have died if Hussein had stayed in power. Do you honestly think the new Iraqi government is truly worse then the old one?

[krkey1]

I am going to post the link I used

1) Americans have killed 650,000 Iraqi Civilians



First, it is important to emphasize that nearly all of the civilians who are being deliberately killed in Iraq are dying at the hands of Islamic terrorists, the same demographic responsible for 9/11. For this reason, the percentage of civilians killed by collateral damage from US weapons is extremely small.



During all of 2006, one of the worst years in Iraq, less than 200 Iraqi civilians were killed by American bombs and bullets. All but a tiny handful occurred in action that involved the terrorists, and many (if not most) of these civilians may have been killed by the terrorists themselves in firefights with the Americans.



This actual number comes from news reports which are meticulously collected and tabulated by the anti-war web site IraqBodyCount.net. TheReligionofPeace carefully sifted through each incident to determine responsibility for 2006. (By contrast, about 16,000 Iraqi civilians were killed that year by Islamic terrorists).



2006 represents one of the more violent periods of the conflict, and it was intentionally set off by al-Qaeda when it destroyed the holy Shiite shrine in Karbala. Additional research ( from 11/28/05) shows that the number of civilians killed prior to this by collateral damage from coalition troops during the most intense period of conflict is probably about 1,000.



IraqBodyCount.net believes the total number of civilians killed from "the effects of war" during the first four months to be around 7,000. Even this statistic is highly exaggerated, since the enemy there is not known to fight in uniform. In all probability, the immense effort of coalition forces to avoid civilian casualties was quite successful and the true number is between 2,000 and 3,000, perhaps lower.



The ridiculous figure of 650,000 (which has since been upped to 1.5 million or more) was published by the same people who lumped victims of terror together with casualties of war to come up with the claim that 100,000 had been killed about halfway through the war (during the heaviest of combat operations). Apparently this didn't generate the sort of shock they were hoping for, so they went back to pull an even larger number out of their ass for a new Lancet article in October of 2006.



Iraq is not an inaccessible backwater. It has a modern communications infrastructure, as well as hospitals and morgues. It is simply unfeasible that 600 civilians could die everyday from violence without the morgues, news media, or the police knowing about it. One might also wonder why millions of others would decline to seek medical treatment for the serious injuries that they are alleged to have suffered (according to another part of the same report), since they never showed up in hospitals. Taken at face value, this would be about 1 in 3 residents of the Sunni triangle who are supposed to have been maimed.



These published studies are not based on real numbers, however, but rather extrapolated from an extremely small statistical sampling in the most violent areas of Iraq. So woefully unreliable was the methodology of the first one that it actually begrudged a 92% margin of error - meaning that its conclusions could be closer to 8,000 deaths, which would have put it in line with reliable news sources. Again however, the vast majority of casualties would have been at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Cluster bomb mishaps, for example, were both rare and highly publicized.



The figure of 1.5 million civilian deaths is not employed out of accuracy, but rather expediency. Public sympathy can be manipulated by arbitrarily inflating the number of civilians killed in the conflict. It also attempts to obscure the fact that nearly all of the deaths of innocents are occurring at the hands of the very people that coalition forces are trying to stop, as well as the fact that the actual civilian death rate was far higher under Saddam, and would be much worse in a future without a stable security force to support the democratic government.



Ultimate responsibility for the carnage in Iraq lies with the supremacist ideology that inspires young Muslims to throw bombs into marketplaces, neighborhoods and rival mosques - and not with the Western values that impel good men to lay down their lives in defense of the victims.

[penguinfan]

This excludes Iraq, the “largest major international conflict of the 21st century” web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf in which 655,000 were violently killed since the invasion (until 2006) with about half the violent deaths the result of attacks by coalition forces, and the remainder due to civil war in the aftermath of the invasion (see report).

LoL.

That would mean that Coalition forces were killing around 400 Iraqi civilians per day since the start of the war.

Do you realize why people don't take you seriously?

[krkey1]

The people who do most of the dying in Iraq are nutses. They don't count in the eyes of the vast majority of Muslims. They are worse then Jews, they are HERETICS.

[penguinfan]

and the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005), between Muslims, Animists and Christians, in which 1.9 million people died, as in these civil wars there is enough blame to go around.

So you say there was enough blame to go around. But who were the biggest victims and which side was doing most of the killing?

When you find out how many Christian, Animist and Muslim civilians were killed during the Sudanese civil war, go ahead and convert the numbers into percentages.

I would like to see what percentage of the dead were Christian and what percentage were Muslim - and also who was doing most of the killing.

We can compare these percentages to the number of Muslims killed in Yugoslavia out of the total number of civilians who died in the conflict and see if the percentages of people from different faiths who died in the conflict is similar to those in Sudan - where you claim that there is enough blame to go around.

[krkey1]

I have absolutely no idea why it put nutses in my post instead of Shia.

[zameel]

Jan 24, 2010 19:44:13 GMT krkey1 said:

These published studies are not based on real numbers, however, but rather extrapolated from an extremely small statistical sampling in the most violent areas of Iraq. So woefully unreliable was the methodology of the first one that it actually begrudged a 92% margin of error - meaning that its conclusions could be closer to 8,000 deaths, which would have put it in line with reliable news sources. Again however, the vast majority of casualties would have been at the hands of Islamic terrorists.

The claim that the "majority of casualties" would have had to be at the hands of Islamist terrorists and the disbelief that the coalition forces could have been responsible for such terrible crimes are mere assertions and expressions of incredulity. The 2006 paper in question was published by a peer-reviewed medical journal, The Lancet. With regards to the statistical probability of the results in this report, the researchers say:

"In the news media coverage of the 2004 survey report, much was made of the wide confidence intervals, which is a statistical technique that was frequently misunderstood.With the much larger sample of the 2006 survey, the confidence intervals are narrowed significantly. For the single most important category— the total number of deaths by violence during the war—the confidence interval ranges from 426,369 to 793,663. That means that we are 95% certain that the correct number is between those two, and
601,027, is the statistically most probable number. The likelihood that another number is the correct number decreases very rapidly as one moves up or down from the figure of 601,027."

[the number 655,000 is "excess death" and 600,000 "violent deaths" - I confused the two in the first post].

The numbers in the study are based on real numbers, of mortality rates in "cluster samples" that are randomly selected from the country's population, not from "the most violent areas". Your link has no academic credibility, and is cited here only for lack of an alternative critique of the study.

For details on the method (which "has been accepted as an effective tool for measuring deaths in previous conflict situations such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo,1 during post Gulf War sanctions,2 in Kosovo,3 in Darfur,4 and in Angola.5 The results of these studies were widely used to establish policy by governments and the United Nations."), see Appendix A - web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

The Iraq Body Count (IBC) and other accounts of mortality in Iraq are discussed in Appendix B. IBC is based on media reports (or "passive surveillance") and one member on the IBC team Marc Herold admits the counts are too low due to unreported deaths in media coverage. This study says "In the absence of active surveillance measures, passive surveillance is a useful and necessary tool to gather information, but it is important that the information is taken in the correct context. Unfortunately the
careful and conservative numbers recorded by IBC are often taken out of context and cited as the true body count, thus lulling people into thinking that the human consequence of the war is far less than it really is. IBC has played a highly commendable role in making people aware of the upward spiral of deaths in Iraq."

As it says earlier "Our best estimate is the 654,965 persons have died as a consequence of the conflict. Of these, 601,027
have died from violence...This is far greater than reported by various media accounts and morgue tallies. This is not surprising,
as reporting of events from incomplete sources cannot, in any statistically meaningful way, be converted into national death rates. Other than Bosnia, we are unable to find any major historical instances where passive surveillance methods (such as morgue and media reports) identify more than 20% of the deaths which were found through population-based survey methods [footnotes 10, 11, 12, 13 on examples from Kosovo, Malawi, Japan and Rwanda for inadequacy of passive surveillance - see link]."

Jan 24, 2010 19:44:13 GMT krkey1 said:

it is important to emphasize that nearly all of the civilians who are being deliberately killed in Iraq are dying at the hands of Islamic terrorists

The study shows about half the violent deaths are the result of coalition forces, and the remainder are due to civil war in the aftermath of the invasion (see page 9 of the report). For information on mortality I would suggest that you use credible sources; the IBC is credible but is "passive surveillance" and thus does not claim to be the true body count, and "thereligionofpeace" is an incredibly anti-Islam website that does not deserve attention.

[krkey1]

Yeah it was peer reviewed Zameel. It also had a 92% error rate. Guess you missed that little part. Basically they looked at small Sunni area in the middle of a war zone and assumed for whatever absurd reason it applied to all of Iraq. A study with a 92% error rate is worthless Zameel. Basically it showed we have approximately 52K -1,257,600 people were killed. Do you notice how wildly different those estimates are.

Speaking on my own experience over there the overwhelming killers of Iraqis were terrorist from abroad. But they don't count do they Zameel, they are Shia after all. And no the Iraqis were not starving to death either.

Tell me about all the US Soldiers doing suicide bombings in Iraq Zameel.

The fact you would believe such garbage proves just how blinkered you are.

go here- www.thereligionofpeace.com/ and look at the terror attacks for the past 2 months. Look for Iraq. Notice who is doing the killing.

For your absurd comical numbers to work you need an average of 600 per day! Do you think the news media just missed that, yet reported only those small incidents! Oh notice who did those attacks, Muslims. Do you think the same news media which reported Abu Ghraid would say nothing about 600 civilian deaths on a daily bases.

Your argument has yet to overcome this basic fact

Iraq is not an inaccessible backwater. It has a modern communications infrastructure, as well as hospitals and morgues. It is simply unfeasible that 600 civilians could die everyday from violence without the morgues, news media, or the police knowing about it. One might also wonder why millions of others would decline to seek medical treatment for the serious injuries that they are alleged to have suffered (according to another part of the same report), since they never showed up in hospitals. Taken at face value, this would be about 1 in 3 residents of the Sunni triangle who are supposed to have been maimed.

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 2:06:18 GMT krkey1 said:

Yeah it was peer reviewed Zameel. It also had a 92% error rate. Guess you missed that little part. Basically they looked at small Sunni area in the middle of a war zone and assumed for whatever absurd reason it applied to all of Iraq. A study with a 92% error rate is worthless Zameel. Basically it showed we have approximately 52K -1,257,600 people were killed. Do you notice how wildly different those estimates are.

I don't know how you deduced a "92% error rate" from the study. The "sample size was selected to be able to statistically detect death rates with 95% probability of obtaining the correct result", and the implication of this was explained above. As the study explains standard "body counts" are based on where the media and mortuaries were readily accessible, but the violence was spread throughout. It is closer to 500 violent deaths per day (600,000 in 40 months). This is a large number, but in the US approximately 45 died per day over the last 8 years, but there's no media outcry about that. And as described above, the media is severely limited in the deaths that it reports in conflict areas (with most cases not increasing 20% of the actual body count).

[krkey1]

How Zameel

The study admitted to a 92 percent error rate.

The study is garbage. Let me try to explain this.

It took a tremendously small Sunni neighborhood. It looked at the deaths resulting from the 2003 invasion.

It figured out the death ratio in that neighborhood then it figured 2004, 2005 and 2006 were the same . Then it multiplied it times the entire population of Iraq. Complete Trash.


This here is the problem with the absurd study and you have yet to overcome it

Iraq is not an inaccessible backwater. It has a modern communications infrastructure, as well as hospitals and morgues. It is simply unfeasible that 600 civilians could die everyday from violence without the morgues, news media, or the police knowing about it. One might also wonder why millions of others would decline to seek medical treatment for the serious injuries that they are alleged to have suffered (according to another part of the same report), since they never showed up in hospitals. Taken at face value, this would be about 1 in 3 residents of the Sunni triangle who are supposed to have been maimed

Where are the bodies Zameel?

Where is the Media Coverage?

The silence is deafening with this. Your argument is ashes.

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 2:28:46 GMT krkey1 said:

The study admitted to a 92 percent error rate.

Can you show where?

Jan 25, 2010 2:28:46 GMT krkey1 said:

It took a tremendously small Sunni neighborhood. It looked at the deaths resulting from the 2003 invasion.

It figured out the death ratio in that neighborhood then it figured 2004, 2005 and 2006 were the same . Then it multiplied it times the entire population of Iraq. Complete Trash.

That is not what the study did. It used a familiar methodology commonly used in conflict situations - cluster sampling. 50 "clusters" were randomly chosen throughout Iraq (more "clusters" in more populous areas to be proportionate) and then 40 households from each cluster were interviewed. I suggest you read the methods section in the study.

Jan 25, 2010 2:28:46 GMT krkey1 said:

Where are the bodies

Death certificates confirmed the deaths in most cases.

[himself]

Zameel is also confusing terrorism, per se, with guerrilla warfare and warfare in general.

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 2:51:06 GMT himself said:

Zameel is also confusing terrorism, per se, with guerrilla warfare and warfare in general.

Can you show me where I confused the two? The original post was about "crimes against humanity", although the link was to an article about terrorism.

[krkey1]

Zameel

Read this on the study

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

Just notice how the two lancet studies completely contradict each other. No other study on Iraq Civilian deaths shows a number that high. Even the Iraqi government puts the estimate at 150,000

Pics of the bodies Zameel, shouldn't be too hard

Can you actually provide an iota of evidence for 655K death certificates

News reports, Iraqi, Middle Eastern, Western, anyone documenting the approximate 600 necessary deaths per day for this number to work.