quote:

---

>Let's all thank the Lord that this time the bombs didn't go off. I
>hope the perpetraters are caught and punished. But as I said in
>another thread: as long as Britain makes war on Muslims,

quote:

---

>it can expect
>retaliation from Muslims. The same goes for the US. If the US and
>Britain leave Iraq, the incidence of terrorism will subside. That's
>what history tells us. If the occupying force leaves, the terrorism
>stops. Oh there will still be Timothy McVeighs from time to time, but
>Muslim initiated terrorism will cease when the US and Britain get the
>hell out of Iraq.

quote:

---

>Mike,
>Bush and the White Christain Party (Republicans) want the whole world,
>too.
>Mike

quote:

---

> Re abortion I'm pro-choice. I consider a woman's right to privacy more
> important than the life of a fetus.
>
> Mike

quote:

---

> Let's all thank the Lord that this time the bombs didn't go off. I
> hope the perpetraters are caught and punished. But as I said in
> another thread: as long as Britain makes war on Muslims, it can expect
> retaliation from Muslims. The same goes for the US. If the US and
> Britain leave Iraq, the incidence of terrorism will subside. That's
> what history tells us. If the occupying force leaves, the terrorism
> stops. Oh there will still be Timothy McVeighs from time to time, but
> Muslim initiated terrorism will cease when the US and Britain get the
> hell out of Iraq. It will be forced eventually. The US murdered two
> million Vietnamese before it was forced out. Will the US approach that
> number in Iraq before it's forced out?
> Mike
>

quote:

---

> Mike,
> Bush and the White Christain Party (Republicans) want the whole world,
> too.
> Mike
>

quote:

---

> Does Bush (for all his faults) want to institute an empire where women are
> forced to wear veils, where alcohol is illegal, where wives are their
> husbands' property, where the penalty for practicing any but the official
> religion is death, where "infidels" are subject to the death penalty, where
> there is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, where the rights we enjoy
> under the first 10 amendments to our Constitution do not exist?

quote:

---

> On 22 Jul 2005 14:42:18 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> There's a big difference between advocacy of world-wide political
> systems (representative democracy, communism), world wide economic
> systems (capitalism, socialism) and a world-wide religion, whether
> through Christian missionaries or Islamic jihadists. Immortal souls
> and the known will of God have value beyond compromise and negotiation
> -- give me a little hypocrisy any day.
>
> I agree that the shrub's supporters on the religious right are getting
> pretty similar to the jihadists -- read some of the "fatwas" on the
> anti-abortion websites, for examples.

quote:

---

> The bombings probably would not have occurred had there been
> no war in Iraq. So while the individual, human, innocent victims
> certainly did not "have it coming" the country of Britain did. Maybe
> only crazy people like me can discern the distinction.
> Mike
>

quote:

---

> This statement is ludicrous. Were we fighting a war in Iraq on September 10,
> 2001? Were we fighting Afghanistan in August of that year? I seem to recall
> 19 assholes flying airplanes into a few buldings around that time. Was that
> in retaliation for something?

quote:

---

> The bombings probably would not have occurred had there been
> no war in Iraq. So while the individual, human, innocent victims
> certainly did not "have it coming" the country of Britain did.

quote:

---

> Maybe only crazy people like me can discern the distinction.
> Mike

quote:

---

>FYI
>The 4th Amendment to the Constitution has been repealed by the Patriot
>Act.
>Mike
>

quote:

---

> Matt,
> Are American soldiers slaughtering Iraqi patriots? Are they attacking
> the people of Iraq? The US Army is supposedly in possession of the
> "Big Picture". How do they excuse the slaughter of innocents? Perhaps
> you can explain it to this poor crazy lost soul.
> Mike

quote:

---

> So now that I've given you my opinion, let's have your eloquent version
> of events.

quote:

---

>Mike,
>I got an e-mail from you. How do you do that?
>
>It wasn't too long ago that a US Army general, in full uniform,
>announced from a pulpit that the Christain God was bigger than the
>Islamic God. After expressing shock and dismay, Bush quietly promoted
>him. The whole evangelical movement is based on spreading the gospel
>to the four corners of the world. I have little sympathy for
>extremists of any stripe, especially religious extremists.
>
>Re abortion I'm pro-choice. I consider a woman's right to privacy more
>important than the life of a fetus.
>
>Mike

quote:

---

> On 22 Jul 2005 11:29:35 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> I thought they were fighting Iraq.

quote:

---

>Hey stupid XXXXing XXXXXXX:
>
>The difference between the so-called "fatwas" on anti-abortion sites and the
>gratuitous death sentences passed by third-world towel-headed fascists is
>that our "fatwas" do not carry the force of government.

quote:

---

>You obviously don't
>understand the idea that people in this country can disagree and it usually
>doesn't cost them their lives. Of course there are accidents -- we are human
>beings, and there are assholes among us (of which you are a prime example).
>But we don't pass death sentences on people for writing books in this
>country, or for expressing their opinions.
>
>You're stupider, dumber, and a bigger XXXXXXX than I ever imagined.
>
>
>
>
>"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:3ot2e1hafqnnpb1vo8kiqjn73o60nqio08@4ax.com...
>

quote:

---

>Matt,
>Oh, I'm just as crazy as I sound. I don't follow how anything was
>deflected. The subject was changed. I'll return to the bombings if
>you wish. The bombings probably would not have occurred had there been
>no war in Iraq. So while the individual, human, innocent victims
>certainly did not "have it coming" the country of Britain did.

quote:

---

> Maybe
>only crazy people like me can discern the distinction.
>Mike

quote:

---

> To say the US and Britain have a hard-on for muslims is about the
> stupidest thing I've seen posted in this newsgroup.

quote:

---

> On 22 Jul 2005 18:44:32 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> This stupidity invalidates your entire argument.
>
> How do you propose to punish sinful 'Britain' without injury to the
> presumably innocent bystanders?

quote:

---

> 1. I'm not on your side. Your side has resulted in the slaughter of
> at least a hundred thousand people, and counting. Sadam was very evil,
> but he was not our problem.

quote:

---

> 1. I'm not on your side. Your side has resulted in the slaughter of
> at least a hundred thousand people, and counting. Sadam was very evil,
> but he was not our problem.
> 2. The terrorists are fighting to get the foriegn invaders out of
> their country. Others are fighting for Islam.
> 3. The terrorists represent only a small minority. They think they
> represent all Muslims. The US and Britain don't "have a hard-on for
> Muslims". But that is the widespread view among Muslims.
> 4. The majority of the world's people are against the US and Britain
> because of the wars against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. We used
> to be the good guys. Even after we murdered two million Vietnamese we
> were exonerated because we lost. We were still the good guys until
> Bush took over. That's no longer true.
>
> To explain a phenomena is not to condone it. To identify a cause for
> phenomena is not to morally justify it. I think the Bush
> Administration is "a rogue group of crazy people like you" who have
> done more to destroy America in a few short years than all the
> terrorists put together.
>
>
> Mike

quote:

---

> Jerzy,
> Precisely. He was a world-wide problem.

quote:

---

> So the UN should have ousted him.

quote:

---

> But the world would be a much better place if Sadam were still in
> power, and those 1800 Americans were still alive.
> Mike

quote:

---

> Matt,
> Let me guess:
> You are a Republican
> You live in 'red' state
> You have never protested a government action
> You enjoy putting down those who disagree with you.
>
> I stand by everything I said on this thread.
>
> Mike

quote:

---

> Angelo,
> I guess you're talking to me, though what you're saying doesn't respond
> to what I said. Where did I say disagreements in this country cost
> lives? Did I say anything about death sentences for opinions? I'm not
> a terrorist, and I'm not going to defend Islamic culture. The
> terrorists themselves are thugs, and deserve no sympathy. But these
> guys are financed and directed by much larger forces. Al Qaeda is a
> world-wide conspiracy, and it's useful to know how they think. Please
> keep it civil.
> Mike
>

quote:

---

> There is absolutely no contradiction between saying that deposing Sadam
> was a good thing, and saying the world would be a better place if 1800
> Americans had not died. None whatever. Your attitude toward killing
> people is the same as the attitude of the terrorists. It doesn't
> matter how many people die if something good came out of it. That
> appears to be your position.

quote:

---

>
> I think Sadam had to be ousted by force by the Iraqi people, with the
> help of the UN.

quote:

---

> Again, Sadam was no threat to America.

quote:

---

> Please, people, I don't think it's a war on Islam. The terrorists
> think it's a war on Islam. Many, many Muslims think it's a war on
> Islam. I realize the name of the game on this forum is to trip people
> up, to manufacture contradictions in what they say, but I haven't
> contradicted myself. It's useful to know, and discuss, how your
> adversaries think. In the terrorist mindset the enemy is the US and
> Britain, because of the war in Iraq. Now I know these thugs are really
> barbarians assaulting modern civilization, but they consider themselves
> to be holy warriors.

quote:

---

> Please, people, I don't think it's a war on Islam. The terrorists
> think it's a war on Islam. Many, many Muslims think it's a war on
> Islam.

quote:

---

>
> Hoping to add a few drops of information to the rgcp Sea of Opinion,
> I offer this link:
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2123010/

quote:

---

> http://slate.msn.com/id/2123010/

quote:

---

> I had long known that the USCF was caught in a Catch 22 with regard to
> Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

> George John wrote:
>
>
> George, I think you have been on the campaign trail a bit too long. I
> presume you meant the USA, not the USCF. Or does the chess federation
> have a policy with regard to Saudi Arabia? :-)

quote:

---

> Jerzy,
> I guess I was mistaken about Iraqi deaths. Maybe the hundred thousand
> figure refers to casualties, and I remembered it as deaths. The number
> doesn't modify my assertion, unless you think there is a qualitative
> difference between someone responsible for a hundred thousand deaths
> and someone responsible for twenty-five thousand deaths.

quote:

---

> I don't know how to parse messages. I'm sure it's very simple, but I'm
> very stupid when it comes to computers.

quote:

---

>
> If you read all of my responses on this thread I think I've made my
> position clear. I don't play 'gotcha!'.
>
> Let's get back to chess. They're about to retire this thread anyway

quote:

---

> Hi Jerzy,
>
> If you go the the Libertarian website: Anti-War.com and read the
> article by Justin Raimondo entitled: Over There-Hollywood Joins the War
> Party, you will note that Raimondo refers to "100,000 Iraqi dead".
> Apparently I'm not the only one who is mistaken.
>

quote:

---

> Still it`s less than 100.000 victims used by the so-called 'pacifists' in
> their anti-war rhetoric.

quote:

---

> "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> writes:

For the record, John Sloboda, a co-founder of the Iraq Body Count
project, has acknowledged in print (in the UK) that the figure(s)
given by the Iraq Body Count "does *not pretend to be a complete
count*" of deaths in Iraq.

Here's an article, "No excuses: We must count Iraqi casualties"
by Mike Rowson and John Sloboda for 'The Guardian' (9 December 2004),
in which the quotation (above) appears:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1369548,00.html

Some propagandists may be expected to continue misrepresenting the
figure(s)
given by the Iraq Body Count as a 'complete count' of deaths in Iraq.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 100k is the number of excess deaths reported. Excess deaths is a
> statistical concept and doesn't mean that many people were killed outright.
> It means there were 100k more deaths over some period than would otherwise
> have been expected. I think the figure is from The Lancet.

quote:

---

> Paul Rubin wrote (to Jerzy Ciruk):
>
> For the record, John Sloboda, a co-founder of the Iraq Body Count
> project, has acknowledged in print (in the UK) that the figure(s)
> given by the Iraq Body Count "does *not pretend to be a complete
> count*" of deaths in Iraq.
>
> Here's an article, "No excuses: We must count Iraqi casualties"
> by Mike Rowson and John Sloboda for 'The Guardian' (9 December 2004),
> in which the quotation (above) appears:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1369548,00.html
>
> Some propagandists may be expected to continue misrepresenting the
> figure(s)
> given by the Iraq Body Count as a 'complete count' of deaths in Iraq.
>
>
> An internationally peer-reviewed scientific study of deaths in Iraq
> has been published in 'The Lancet', an eminent British medical journal.
>
> Here's an article, "The Lancet and the bodies in question"
> by Jamie Doward for "The Observer" (7 November 2004):

quote:

---

> "...The Lancet study, from Iraqi field researchers *led by America's
> John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health*..."
> --Jamie Doward (7 November 2004, 'The Observer')
>
> 'The Lancet' study was done under the leadership of American
> scientists.
>
> Here's an article, "A man-made tsunami" by Terry Jones for
> "The Guardian" (11 January 2005):
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1387399,00.html
>
> "Nor are Bush and Blair falling over each other to show they recognise
> the scale of the disaster in Iraq. On the contrary, *they have been
> doing their best to conceal the numbers killed*.
> ...
> One of the authors of the forenamed report, Dr Gilbert Burnham. said:
> 'Our data have been back and forth many reviewers at the Lancet and
> here
> in the school (my note: John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
> Health),
> *so we have the scientific strength to say what we have said with
> great certainty*."
> --Terry Jones (11 January 2005, 'The Guardian')
>
> *If* 'The Lancet' study has any scientific error(s), then it should
> be challenged on scientific grounds. Of course, political and personal
> name-calling seems much easier to be practised by the people who prefer
> to believe the claims of US government propaganda rather than the
> conclusions of 'The Lancet' study about deaths in Iraq.
>
> --Nick

quote:

---

> Hi Jerzy,
>
> If you go the the Libertarian website: Anti-War.com and read the
> article by Justin Raimondo entitled: Over There-Hollywood Joins the War
> Party, you will note that Raimondo refers to "100,000 Iraqi dead".
> Apparently I'm not the only one who is mistaken.
>
> Mike
>

quote:

---

> http://antiwar.com/
>
> I don't know why the above isn't hot, but if you google it you'll get
> there.
>

quote:

---

>
> 100k is the number of excess deaths reported. Excess deaths is a
> statistical concept and doesn't mean that many people were killed
> outright. It means there were 100k more deaths over some period than
> would otherwise have been expected. I think the figure is from The
> Lancet.

quote:

---

> That`s what was discussed on the site iraqbodycount.net . The Lancet is not
> a trustworthy source of information.

quote:

---

>
> The Lancet is a venerable and prestigious medical journal and if IBC
> has a problem with it, they have an uphill battle making their case.

quote:

---

> Jerzy,
>
> http://antiwar.com/justin/
>
> Just click on the above, if it's blue.
>

quote:

---

> "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> writes:

Does Jerzy Ciruk have any relevant medical or scientific
qualifications?
[vbcol=seagreen]
> The Lancet is a venerable and prestigious medical journal and if IBC
> has a problem with it, they have an uphill battle making their case.

quote:

---

> I just took a look at IBC and their methodology is completely
> different than an excess death measurement. IBC counts specific
> fatalities from specific causes and only after a mini-investigation
> of each fatality.

quote:

---

> Excess deaths is a public health concept and is a statistical measure.
> It means the total number of deaths over some period from all causes,
> minus the number you'd expect over that period under normal circumstances.
> For example, if there's a chemical spill in some city and then the cancer
> rate there is a few percent higher over the next decade, you can't point
> to anyone who you can prove got killed by the spill (if some particular
> person dies of cancer, they might have gotten it anyway without the spill),
> but the total number of deaths is higher and you can compute the excess.
> That's legitimate and it's what the Lancet did, as I understand it.