(the United State Of Mercy) Children Photo Album

very simple, whenever you want to know from where Just check the URL, but regarding these images to know more about them refer to the news archive, meet the families of their children in Iraq and ask Them, don't trust the news always.
BTW: Al-Qaeda- THE US Policy: I see no difference, they are playing a dirty Game

Click
​

Click here
​

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

Oh, this so clear to 99.99% of people all over the world, you do it.

Saddam ..Religious!!! HUH! The Arabia news channel broadcasted a document which shows Saddam and his stupid regime were mocking ,sneering, at Islam!!!! Do you think that they are really Muslims or claiming?
Peace

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

BTW: Hey matthew, pointbreak
here is some people who agree with me that the US caused this to the Iraqi children, you will find some same images there
Click

Yours Sincerely,
​

Cat Stevens
​

 

I do refer to the news..they tell me when and who ..Not just unsubstantiated pictures...that was my point. .. like i said

Posting pictures is fine..but how are we supposed to know where and who killed these kids.. | appreciate the point is 'we kill kids' with bombs dropped on innocent kids.. i understand that.. but balance is the key..
The 'other side' has killed and is killing kids and anyone it wishes on a daily basis.. Where is your hatred for that ?..




You don't seem to appreciate that i know where you are comeing from.. i could easily say speak with the families who have lost their loved ones at the hands of OBL and his cohorts ..due to road side bombs .. being taken hostage because they have voted or just simply worked with the coalition ... why not denounce that so stridently like you have against 'us policy-etc' in the countless threads you have started ???? .

You seriously need to appreciate the whole picture..


If you see no difference.. then highlight both not just one.. explain how they use your rhetoric to continue killing innocent people... mmm maybe a little difficult for you ?.

 

I could post thoughts from Iraqi people that agree with ME.. YOUR POINT IS ?.

 

Just posting images is pulling on heart-strings and ignoring issues.

 

Not pulling on heart strings.. missing the fucking point ....

 

Then why don't you dedicate threads to how dirty Al-Oaeda is as well as the US policy?
Are you a lawyer? you're arguing one side. I know you're Islamic but if you think that they're both the same then you're contradicting yourself by telling one side.

 

Have you only just noticed ?

 

No, but the fact he dedicated about 8 or 9 threads with all those pictures and links to tell HIS side was just way too much and kind of got to me. I don't know whether he's done that before, but it seems really manipulative to me.

 

I don't think he has.... ultimately i think this whole situation upsets him [wich i understand and respect] ..but he goes about 'dealing' with it in such a way that detracts from his point..well thats what i think.

I have had reasonable conversations with him.. but he has chosen to take the line that he will ignore and not respond too anyrhing he does not like ... sad really.

 

and this is how the bigger picture is lost in the "who's who in the world of murderers" ..and sadly, who goes on who's side. iraqi versus american, palestinian versus israeli, arab versus western, christian versus muslim

i see these pictures and i see some others and all i see is the sufferin of humanity, OUR children, OUR future ..in each of these pictures, try to see your face ..coz we all collectively are responsible for it, WE are not playin our part ..WE have let these children down

 

This links to a study which had nothing to do with calculating the number of deaths caused by sanctions. It refers to other sources for those figures within the text. So this is link spam. So when you say "Hmmm... No Saddam involved in the findings of this expert analysis", do you mean "nice title, didn't bother reading it though. I'll spam it in here anyway".

Your other article is editorial. Interesting that an oil for food programme is considered "genocidal" whereas your favorite website (globalresearch.ca) don't think rounding up thousands of muslims and executing them is genocide.

The article even concedes that - mysteriously - infant mortality actually fell in the Kurdish areas, even though they were under the same sanctions as the rest of the country. So it seems that the variable was Saddam himself - who managed to turn oil for food into oil for palaces, and who carried out a huge smuggling programme, the proceeds of which never seemed to benefit the Iraqi people.

====

But lets go back to the beginning. For those that say sanctions killed more children than Saddam ever did, how about providing a figure for how many children you think Saddam killed so we know what we are comparing.

 

So gullible as to be incapable of reasoning out the very clear difference in back channel relations and financial support between the Kurdish North and Washington? Or did that fact completely slip under your radar throughout the 90's and in the runup to the invasion?

Further, let us examine the division of OFF financial allocations as outlined in the CESR report (which you ignorantly call "spam" since it exposes you for the know-nothing you are):

So, not the same santions regime whatsoever pertaining to the Kurds who, once again for those in perpetual denial of reality, enjoyed preferential support from Washington.

Try again PB.

Oh and Id be ever so interested to see some validation for this wild assertion you make against globalresearch, given that it merely hosts an array of articles by countless analysts, many of whom are not directly tied to the organisation itself. Must be another fact that you selectively fail to admit in order to further insulate your snide and derisive self-congratulation.

But of course any claim to the contrary made by yourself derives its data from thin air rather than "other sources" (aka: expert corroborated investigatory data). I suspect others here with a mind not buried deep up their ideological heroes' asses will see the disparity of analytical credibility between the array of credentialled team members behind the linked report and a sad forum troll like yourself who dares not ever admit he has no clue.

 

Spam is a link which doesn't support the argument, which was how many children died as a result of sanctions. Neither of your articles do that, so the fact that they say a lot of other things you want to hear is irrelevant.

There is no "expert corroborated investigatory data". The stories don't concern themselves with deaths from sanctions, they refer to other studies for that.

Analytical credibility and credentialls mean nothing if the link is off topic.

It "hosts" a section devoted to demonisation of NATO, denial of Srebrenica, and apology for Milosevic. Chussodovsky is well known as a pro-Serbian propagandist. Are you saying you never noticed that globalresearch has a peculiar interest in Serbia? And lets not get into his crackpot theory that the US was behind the Rwandan genocide...

 

To the contrary, "link spam" as applied routinely by you is nothing more than your characteristically dishonest evasion of all presentation of data that substantiates all views you seek to deny at all costs. The mark of a true intellectual coward, as you have ever been on these forums.

Bearing this in mind, you fire up your next favorite evasion tactic, that of semantics...

Ah so the fact that the CESR team - in compiling their legitimate analyses of the breadth of human rights abuses inherent to the sanctions regime - referred to other equally non-"Saddam"-originated assessments of massive increases in childhood mortality (the claim which less ideologically-blinkered posters will clearly see has been duly debunked for yet another PB lie) is invalid despite the fact that inclusion of these critical findings IS their "expert-corroboration" of factuality.

Keep twisting and dodging, you only make yourself look all the more desperate and unwilling to apply morally- and ethically-consistent criticism to blatant Washington-led crimes against humanity.

As further evidence of the falsity of your first assertion above let us look at what the CESR team reporters conclude (aka "expert corroboration") from those "other reports"...

The report also outlines the correlation between the sanctions regime and the wholesale denial, not by Saddam but by the conditions imposed by the sanctions regime itself, of basic infrastructure equipment, medical supplies and numerous other interconnected needs for maintaining societal stability and public health (including all the contracts for water infrastructure entered into by Saddam which were forcibly cancelled by the sanctions).

Unfortunately for you, its very much ON topic as again demonstrated vividly above.

No, its quite clear that you cannot admit your lack of any valid argument against what has been provided to refute your repeated intimation that the sanctions regime (notwithstanding a decade of tacit ongoing illegal attacks on Iraq's infrastructure by US/UK forces in preparation of eventual invasion) was not responsible for such widespread intentional genocide.

Nevermind the additional confirmation of full knowledge by dear old Madeleine Albright of the impact of sanctions on child mortality rates when she claimed "it was worth it".

Having not read the section in question I cannot comment on it at this point, nor is it ON TOPIC (how telling that you make it a feature of your argumentation whilst calling relevant citations "off topic").

I will say however that your characteristically evasive and critically uninvestigated tabloid-quality claims on world affairs couldn't hold a candle to the depth of investigatory credibility which Chossudovsky possesses. Unsurprising that you should call him a crackpot, however, given your preference for ideologically-driven editorialists such as Hitchens, Krauthammer and their ilk.

 

But there was no presentation of data. The article was not about how many children died of sanctions!

You've finally figured it out. They refer to other studies - i.e. after all the vitriol you have written about "dishonest evasion of all presentation of the data", now you openly admit that the authors merely referred to a completely different study which they didn't write, and presents no data of its own, whasoever.

Referring to someone else's report is not "expert corroboration of factuality". It simply means they quoted someone.

That quote doesn't show them concluding anything based on their own research, it shows them mentioning other reports.

Let me remind you what the topic is since you have long ago lost the plot. The "topic" is dead Iraqi children. Someone said that sanctions killed "100 times" more children than Saddam, and I pointed out that such claims are made based on statistics provided by Saddam. You pasted two links, neither of which were studies of the number of infant deaths caused by sanctions, although they quoted other studies which referred to infant mortality. When I pointed out that your links didn't support your argument, you responded with the usual anger and bile and said that the writers had great credentials and I was a "gullible troll, know nothing, head buried deep in your ideological hero's asses". I pointed out that all the credentials in the world mean nothing if the article is off topic. Bizarrely, you further dug your own hole by suggesting that quoting another study is in itself "expert corroboration of factuality". But it isn't. Your links are to studies that have no data at all on the subject, so how can you claim it wasn't provided by Saddam?

Anyway, since you seem to be sliding further and further down the slippery slope of argumentativeness and belligerence, I've got a new rule. I'm not going to read your idiotic link spam to huge essays which may or may not, depending on my luck, have anything remotely related to the topic. Too many times I have done you the courtesty of reading through whatever garbage you link to, as if it my job to sift through it all and come up with what I must presume to be your argument. Too many times it has been secondary sources, tangential material or just editorial, which of course proves little or nothing other than the fact that somewhere out there on the internet, there's someone who shares your opinion. Learn to express your arguments in your own words and use links to back up facts, not as a substitute for a coherent, reasoned argument.

========

Now then, can anyone provide a figure for child deaths caused by Saddam, so we can see if the US killed "100 times more".

 

That is part of my point. I wonder why so many people try to come up with statistical projections of how many dead babies we can blame on America, but NOBODY studies how many Saddam actually killed? Because like I said before ("If a tree falls in the woods and there's nobody there to hear it...") if a baby dies and it isn't America's fault, does anybody care?

I mean are we going to use declining infant mortality in Afghanistan to project how many babies America has "saved"? No. There is a very specific political objective to these studies.

This is interesting, because these would be actual death, not statistical projections. Anyway ol' Lick believes that Saddam never gassed the Kurds and that is just another part of the conspiracy to made poor Saddam look bad.

 

Yes PB, we all recognise your twisted and evasive semantic games by now. Obviously the simple and plain logic of the shared conclusion of the validity of reported data for sanction-led genocide by the CESR team being very much a matter of expert corroboration is but one of the many points of your ideological-driven moral relativism that has been exposed.

The only one sinking ever further into laughable argumentation is yourself, as ever.

But we all recognise that no amount of credentialled analysis will ever dent your bubble of self-congratulatory delusion and hyper-nationalism.

The very point, as stated previously that has been shown to be just another of your wishful falsehoods (unless you can prove to us that both the FAO and WHO were incapable of independent statistical analysis). That you refuse to acknowledge that fact is the only issue upon which all your further blather hangs.

 

You have yet to explain what semantics or evasions were involved. CESR did not study the number of infant deaths. Therefore they cannot reach a "shared conclusion" on something they didn't study any more than you can, and they certainly can't vouch for the validity of or provide expert corroboration for it. This is quite simple. They didn't study it, they merely refer to other people who did.

This is idiotic. You are telling me that these people are such great scientists that even when they write a paper on a different subject, they are so brilliant that it can be used to validate something completely different! That by merely quoting someone, they provide expert corroboration!

What does that have to do with CESR?

===

Spooner! Where is your data!