arabs arrested in spain

[marksimons]

but answer me this.

were the people fighting for american independents, terrorists? or freedom fighters?

what were they at the time? what are they now? or does it all come down to the invidivdual and what they haven't done.

do you think america hasn't done things that deserve retribution, that by all rights people should have sought it out, but they haven't?

doesn't anyone see the hypocracy in condeming terrorism one moment, but supporting policies that, in practical terms, have terrorised people? that kill more people than al quaeda have.

do you all want suspected terrorists locked up without a trial? killed as quickly as possible? is that what you want? that sounds like somewhere I'd be scared of living. it sounds like life under saddam or someone.

I find it amazing, that you would rather just insult me, just belittle what I say with one word, than try and debate and tell me, rationally, calmy why you think I'm wrong, and then we could discuss more and work out where we stand, and more to the point where we want to get to.

do you want to see a better world for your children? a safer world? a less polluted one? less dangerous?

to achieve this it may mean talking to people you disagree with, arguing, but you have to talk to these people? otherwise what do we do? fight? regress?

fuck this. I thought this was the 21st century.

we have all of mankinds achievements and follies, we can read, see, hear, teach ourselves where we have gone wrong in the past, and we have the ability to put it right.

I can't believe there are people who are seemingly so unaware of what it this species has learned over the past few thousand years... or more to the point, how many countries they seem to have control of...

[marksimons]

but answer me this.

were the people fighting for american independents, terrorists? or freedom fighters?

what were they at the time? what are they now? or does it all come down to the invidivdual and what they haven't done.

do you think america hasn't done things that deserve retribution, that by all rights people should have sought it out, but they haven't?

doesn't anyone see the hypocracy in condeming terrorism one moment, but supporting policies that, in practical terms, have terrorised people? that kill more people than al quaeda have.

do you all want suspected terrorists locked up without a trial? killed as quickly as possible? is that what you want? that sounds like somewhere I'd be scared of living. it sounds like life under saddam or someone.

I find it amazing, that you would rather just insult me, just belittle what I say with one word, than try and debate and tell me, rationally, calmy why you think I'm wrong, and then we could discuss more and work out where we stand, and more to the point where we want to get to.

do you want to see a better world for your children? a safer world? a less polluted one? less dangerous?

to achieve this it may mean talking to people you disagree with, arguing, but you have to talk to these people? otherwise what do we do? fight? regress?

fuck this. I thought this was the 21st century.

we have all of mankinds achievements and follies, we can read, see, hear, teach ourselves where we have gone wrong in the past, and we have the ability to put it right.

I can't believe there are people who are seemingly so unaware of what it this species has learned over the past few thousand years... or more to the point, how many countries they seem to have control of...

[igloo]

marksimons: useful idiot for the terrorists

[normalnoises]

Igloo: Useful terrorist for the idiots

[pattbateman]

answer me this

when we got into power did we give all the people freedom????

what happens if these terrorists get into power???

they will kill all the jews first

then the world would be ran as a totalitarian

1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; especially : DESPOTIC b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)

2 a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency c : exercising autocratic powers : tending toward monopoly

do you really think simons, that they are fighting for the good of their people? for freedom from the people that rule them?

i find it disgusting that you can stick up for them

why are you trying to find excuse for the actions they do and trying to justify them????

[marksimons]

but the terrorists are not fighting a war to control the world, they patently can't win.

all terroists are not the same.

palestinian suicide bombings need a different solution from those attacks in iraq, and likewise we had to deal with irish terroism in our own way.

terroists don't want to rule the world.

that's a fucking crazy idea.

they don't have the manpower to take over the entire world, they can't, no-one has, no-one can.

the british empire did get a large chunk of the world under it's control, but I think that's the last example of a real empire we'll see.

american influence is interesting, but not the same as direct control...

anyway.

I'm just saying there are real issues here, real issues of inequality, of repression.

look.

if you feel that america and her allies have been helping to repress you for years, which in the middle east certainly looks like the case if you look at the last 50 years, then of course you might be willing to attack.

I'm not saying I think their actions are defensable, but I'm saying I can understand why they're doing somethin.

look, in the same way I understand but completely disagree with george bush's actions, it's the same with the terrorists. I'm not supporting them, or encouraging them to do more.

I'm just saying, if america and her allies keep acting in the way we all have done for the last 50 years or more, then we can expect more of these attacks.

in some cases they're probably not helping the cause of their people. the terroism in israel helps no-one, but there is terrorism from both sides there.

they BELIEVE they are fighting for their people, try and imagine yourself as someone who has lived on the west bank for their whole lives, grandparents there, friends and family having been killed by israel or whatever.

it's a messy, bloody, angry, confused fucked up situation.

I find it digusting that people here can defend some of America's actions, but you do.

please tell me, what is the moral difference between the 10,000+ civilian deaths in iraq, caused by the US, and the deaths caused in spain?

no warnings, no respect for civilian lives, people dead.

why is it okay for america to kill 10,000 people because they do it professionally?

[marksimons]

but the terrorists are not fighting a war to control the world, they patently can't win.

all terroists are not the same.

palestinian suicide bombings need a different solution from those attacks in iraq, and likewise we had to deal with irish terroism in our own way.

terroists don't want to rule the world.

that's a fucking crazy idea.

they don't have the manpower to take over the entire world, they can't, no-one has, no-one can.

the british empire did get a large chunk of the world under it's control, but I think that's the last example of a real empire we'll see.

american influence is interesting, but not the same as direct control...

anyway.

I'm just saying there are real issues here, real issues of inequality, of repression.

look.

if you feel that america and her allies have been helping to repress you for years, which in the middle east certainly looks like the case if you look at the last 50 years, then of course you might be willing to attack.

I'm not saying I think their actions are defensable, but I'm saying I can understand why they're doing somethin.

look, in the same way I understand but completely disagree with george bush's actions, it's the same with the terrorists. I'm not supporting them, or encouraging them to do more.

I'm just saying, if america and her allies keep acting in the way we all have done for the last 50 years or more, then we can expect more of these attacks.

in some cases they're probably not helping the cause of their people. the terroism in israel helps no-one, but there is terrorism from both sides there.

they BELIEVE they are fighting for their people, try and imagine yourself as someone who has lived on the west bank for their whole lives, grandparents there, friends and family having been killed by israel or whatever.

it's a messy, bloody, angry, confused fucked up situation.

I find it digusting that people here can defend some of America's actions, but you do.

please tell me, what is the moral difference between the 10,000+ civilian deaths in iraq, caused by the US, and the deaths caused in spain?

no warnings, no respect for civilian lives, people dead.

why is it okay for america to kill 10,000 people because they do it professionally?

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

but the terrorists are not fighting a war to control the world, they patently can't win.

all terroists are not the same.

palestinian suicide bombings need a different solution from those attacks in iraq, and likewise we had to deal with irish terroism in our own way.

terroists don't want to rule the world.

that's a fucking crazy idea.

they don't have the manpower to take over the entire world, they can't, no-one has, no-one can.

the british empire did get a large chunk of the world under it's control, but I think that's the last example of a real empire we'll see.

american influence is interesting, but not the same as direct control...

anyway.

I'm just saying there are real issues here, real issues of inequality, of repression.

look.

if you feel that america and her allies have been helping to repress you for years, which in the middle east certainly looks like the case if you look at the last 50 years, then of course you might be willing to attack.

I'm not saying I think their actions are defensable, but I'm saying I can understand why they're doing somethin.

look, in the same way I understand but completely disagree with george bush's actions, it's the same with the terrorists. I'm not supporting them, or encouraging them to do more.

I'm just saying, if america and her allies keep acting in the way we all have done for the last 50 years or more, then we can expect more of these attacks.

in some cases they're probably not helping the cause of their people. the terroism in israel helps no-one, but there is terrorism from both sides there.

they BELIEVE they are fighting for their people, try and imagine yourself as someone who has lived on the west bank for their whole lives, grandparents there, friends and family having been killed by israel or whatever.

it's a messy, bloody, angry, confused fucked up situation.

I find it digusting that people here can defend some of America's actions, but you do.

please tell me, what is the moral difference between the 10,000+ civilian deaths in iraq, caused by the US, and the deaths caused in spain?

no warnings, no respect for civilian lives, people dead.

why is it okay for america to kill 10,000 people because they do it professionally?

Where is the 10k civilians number coming from?

[igloo]

marksimons: useful idiot for the terrorists

[marksimons]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

because: 'We don't do body counts' - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Reported Minimum 8437

Reported Maximum 10282

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

because: 'We don't do body counts' - General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Reported Minimum 8437

Reported Maximum 10282

Colorful site CHAP... But the question is how did they get the 10k figure? all kidding around aside?

[marksimons]

. Overview

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

2. Sources

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).

ABC - ABC News (USA)

AFP - Agence France-Presse

AP - Associated Press

AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology

Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation

BG - Boston Globe

Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun

CT - Chicago Tribune

CO - Commondreams.org

CSM - Christian Science Monitor

DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

FOX - Fox News

GUA - The Guardian (London)

HRW - Human Rights Watch

HT - Hindustan Times

ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross

IND - The Independent (London)

IO - Intellnet.org

JT - Jordan Times

LAT - Los Angeles Times

MEN - Middle East Newsline

MEO - Middle East Online

MER - Middle East Report

MH - Miami Herald

NT - Nando Times

NYT - New York Times

Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)

SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation

SMH - Sydney Morning Herald

Sg.News - The Singapore News

Tel- The Telegraph (London)

Times - The Times (London)

TOI - Times of India

TS - Toronto Star

UPI - United Press International

WNN - World News Network

WP - Washington Post

For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.

The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.

Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.

3. Data extraction

Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.

Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.

Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.

Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.

The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:

Date of incident

Time of incident

Location of incident

Target as stated by military sources

Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)

Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)

Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)

Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)

Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.

Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum

Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.

Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.

Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.

As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA Factbook 2002.]

6. Limitations and scope of enquiry:

Any project has limitations and boundaries. Here are some FAQs about this topic and our answers to them.

Why don?t you report all civilian deaths in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ended?

Our decision to stick with deaths from Jan 2003 is mainly tactical, and based on the resources we have. We would rather provide one stream of verifiable evidence to a high degree of reliablity than spread ourselves too thin. Current deaths are more newsworthy than past deaths, and will be of more interest to the general websites who will carry the IBC Web Counters. We agree that reckoning total deaths since 1991 is a very worthwhile project. We would be happy to support someone wanting to do this, but we can't manage it ourselves with current resources.

Why don?t you report civilian injuries as well as deaths?

Injuries are difficult to quantify. Anything from shock to loss of limb can be classified as an injury. Also, injuries can recover, so that by the time there is independent verification the injury can have healed. The level of resource we would need to track and categorise the far higher number of injuries would likely overwhelm our resources. Deaths are irreversible and immutable. Again, they are the most "newsworthy" tip of the iceberg, and the greatest crime against innocents.

"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"

Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.

(The above FAQ does not apply to sanctions; although we are opposed to them, our study deals with the consequences of our current military actions in Iraq. It has also been newly revised due to our growing awareness that we were too narrowly-focused on bombs and other conventional weapons, neglecting the deadly effects of disrupted food, water, electricity and medical supplies. These effects, though relatively small at the outset of a war, are likely to become much more significant as time passes, and we will monitor media reports accordingly.)

Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.

Will you co-operate with other similar projects?

Many projects are needed to evaluate the full human cost of this war. We value them all, but this one is ours. We need to ensure that our study is focused and that its intent, scope and limits are widely and clearly understood. We will certainly build up and maintain our set of links to projects doing related work so that viewers of this site can be pointed to related activity.