JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:22:53 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

You should go read your sources.

Harry stated, "There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of
10,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

I accused him of telling a lie.

You made your statement above.

Reading the source of the data shows this for the city of Baghdad during the
period from April 14 to August 31:

"The morgue is said to record some 90% of "violent, suspicious" deaths in the
city. Currently about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot
wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition
forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue
according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi."

Note that the great majority of deaths were "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" with only 15-20%
killed by coalition forces. Note also that these are not categorized as
"innocent woman and children."

These comments by Harry, supported by you, are intended to reflect badly on the
military and the administration, and are bull****.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I see. The death count includes only those bodies brought to the morgue
in Baghdad.



--
Email sent to is never read.

WaIIy wrote:


The sick part about their line of reasoning is they know it's a lie
before they hit the "send" button.

They don't care about integrity, honesty or sense of values.


Hmmm. Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush and his criminal
cadre...



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:59:16 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:22:53 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

You should go read your sources.

Harry stated, "There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of
10,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

I accused him of telling a lie.

You made your statement above.

Reading the source of the data shows this for the city of Baghdad during the
period from April 14 to August 31:

"The morgue is said to record some 90% of "violent, suspicious" deaths in the
city. Currently about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot
wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition
forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue
according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi."

Note that the great majority of deaths were "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" with only 15-20%
killed by coalition forces. Note also that these are not categorized as
"innocent woman and children."

These comments by Harry, supported by you, are intended to reflect badly on the
military and the administration, and are bull****.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

I see. The death count includes only those bodies brought to the morgue
in Baghdad.

Go read the sources.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:23:41 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:


The sick part about their line of reasoning is they know it's a lie
before they hit the "send" button.

They don't care about integrity, honesty or sense of values.


Hmmm. Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush and his criminal
cadre...

No, he's talking about you, et al.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:38:36 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Your search skills are lacking.

You have shown yourself to be devoid of credibility and integrity, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:38:36 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Your search skills are lacking.

You have shown yourself to be devoid of credibility and integrity, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Because you found a site that shows deaths in Baghdad? What a giggle.
Keep looking, John.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

The sick part about their line of reasoning is they know it's a lie
before they hit the "send" button.

They don't care about integrity, honesty or sense of values.

Hmmm. Sounds like you are describing George W. Bush and his criminal
cadre...


Perhaps, but it also describes you perfectly.

We're supposed to believe in either case that adding your lies to
anything solves things?

Yea right.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
JohnH wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:10 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:06:08 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith
wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.


K

Thanks, K!

Now I'm waiting to see how many congratulatory messages are posted by
Harry,
jps, basskisser, et al. Should be interesting reading.

They are so immersed in hatred for everything Bush and anything
patriotic, there will be no positive comments.

Dean in '04 LOL


There is no connection whatsoever between true patriotism and the Bush
Adminstration. Bush and his crew are nothing but right-wing whores.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.
Yippee. Can't wait to hear Dean. Gotta be fun to watch.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Huh, the way I understand it, it was the 4th infantry, and that was
with information supplied by Iraqis.

I understand the maon info was not supplied knowingly. The cell phones were
monitored and the info was developed that way. Final location by
interrogation of a captive.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:18:38 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:


You have shown yourself to be devoid of credibility and integrity, Harry.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Because you found a site that shows deaths in Baghdad? What a giggle.
Keep looking, John.

What I found shows your statement to have been a lie.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

No quibbling, no nothing, just a lie. As I said, you have shown yourself to be
devoid of integrity.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

What I found shows your statement to have been a lie.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

No quibbling, no nothing, just a lie. As I said, you have shown yourself to be
devoid of integrity.


Krause has *never* *ever* been about telling the truth. He's a
pathological liar.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---