4 million Muslims killed by U.S.A since 1990?

[Andylusion]

Jews took back what was stolen from them.
Anyone who is able can fight back. Palestinians aren't able to win so there is no point to fighting back. Israel should've ended this a long time ago by fighting the war like a war and killing all the potential combatants instead of pulling back allowing them to regroup and recharge.

Catholics should re-take the U.S.A, and England.
That would solve a huge chunk of the Zionist issue, right there.

I mean the French, and Spanish empires made up most of the U.S.A territory.

I mean the Roman territory (Now Italy) made up most of England.

When are you leaving from the lands you stole?

We are not. Unless you can make us.

Just like the Jews are not, unless you can make them.

You can't. So, there you go. Can we move on to a new topic?

You are a hypocrite, and a immoral one at that.

Instead of knowing right vs wrong, you only know might is right.

How am I hypocritical? As for you claiming I'm immoral, coming from someone like you, that's a compliment.

You are a hypocrite, because you think Jews deserve rights to displace people because they lived there long ago, but then get all hypocritical refusing to give previous tribes America, or England.

It seems it's all about getting yours at all costs.

But, we already know Zionists are a primitive World problem.

First, I deny that anyone anywhere has an inherent right to land.

The Jews have been persecuted throughout the entire world. They needed a home land.

As for the people who were in the land of Israel, all of them moved there. I didn't see you saying the Muslims who moved to Israel, should give the land back either.

There are no indigenous non-jews in Israel. None. All of the Muslims in Israel, moved there. The only people who have lived in Israel continuously for the last 2,000 years, are the Jews.

Now if you don't believe that the Jews should have their homeland of Israel, where do you think they should go to have their own homeland?

As for the Muslims, I think they have many places they can go.

There are plenty of places that Muslims can go, to live under Muslim rule.

The Jews need their own place, and the most logical place for them to go, is their ancient homeland.

The irony is, prior to the Jews going back, Israel was a dump. In fact, the Ottomans actually encouraged Jews to go back to Israel, because the Muslims refused to settle the land, it was so bad off.

The only reason the Muslims want Israel today, is because the Jews did what the Muslims could not.... they made the land prosperous.

 

[kiwiman127]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

4 million? Is that all? We need to pick up the pace.

I see we have several little Trumpsters who mirror the post above
Whatever you do, never, ever claim to be Christians, because you are not!
=======================================================
In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the sixth commandment "thou shall not kill." He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them
What does THOU SHALL NOT KILL mean?
There you go. Your morals and hate are in the dumpster.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Catholics should re-take the U.S.A, and England.
That would solve a huge chunk of the Zionist issue, right there.

I mean the French, and Spanish empires made up most of the U.S.A territory.

I mean the Roman territory (Now Italy) made up most of England.

When are you leaving from the lands you stole?

We are not. Unless you can make us.

Just like the Jews are not, unless you can make them.

You can't. So, there you go. Can we move on to a new topic?

You are a hypocrite, and a immoral one at that.

Instead of knowing right vs wrong, you only know might is right.

How am I hypocritical? As for you claiming I'm immoral, coming from someone like you, that's a compliment.

You are a hypocrite, because you think Jews deserve rights to displace people because they lived there long ago, but then get all hypocritical refusing to give previous tribes America, or England.

It seems it's all about getting yours at all costs.

But, we already know Zionists are a primitive World problem.

First, I deny that anyone anywhere has an inherent right to land.

The Jews have been persecuted throughout the entire world. They needed a home land.

As for the people who were in the land of Israel, all of them moved there. I didn't see you saying the Muslims who moved to Israel, should give the land back either.

There are no indigenous non-jews in Israel. None. All of the Muslims in Israel, moved there. The only people who have lived in Israel continuously for the last 2,000 years, are the Jews.

Now if you don't believe that the Jews should have their homeland of Israel, where do you think they should go to have their own homeland?

As for the Muslims, I think they have many places they can go.

View attachment 195062

There are plenty of places that Muslims can go, to live under Muslim rule.

The Jews need their own place, and the most logical place for them to go, is their ancient homeland.

The irony is, prior to the Jews going back, Israel was a dump. In fact, the Ottomans actually encouraged Jews to go back to Israel, because the Muslims refused to settle the land, it was so bad off.

The only reason the Muslims want Israel today, is because the Jews did what the Muslims could not.... they made the land prosperous.

You say nobody has an inherent right to land, but then argue Jews do? WTF?

So, it's okay for Jews to steal land, kill, oppress, and displace Palestinians, because they were once there?

Jews only exist because they didn't assimilate to their host nations.

Really kind of an insulting debacle, when you think about it.

In Poland for example, they spent 1,000 years speaking Yiddish a German based language, and rejecting Jesus Christ.

 

[Andylusion]

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

Rockefeller, did a congressional investigation. The fact is, what was said for why we were going into Iraq, was entirely supported by the intelligence information that we had, and other intelligence agencies had.

Pointing out factoids that are not relevant to the discussion, isn't a valid argument.

As for the supposed 30 million since WW2... that claim is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

If you actually believe that America has killed 30 million people since WW2.... then you are no longer worth talking to, because you are nutz.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

There are a ton of lies and half truths in that link.

For example, the claim we intervened in Chile is false. I've researched that issue on 4 or 5 separate occasions. Each time the evidence suggest the CIA did absolutely nothing, and that an internal cue was underway without any help from the CIA. Until I am presented with real evidence, this is mere left-wing ideological mythology to push a false narrative.

Additionally, the people who wrote this, are including people who were backed by the US who did horrible things after the fact.

This is also a false presupposition. When I lived at home, my father let me drive his car. If I then used the ability given to me, to run people over, is that my fathers fault?

No.

Similarly, it is true that the US backed people they thought would be good leaders, who then turned into evil tyrants. Unless you think the US had divine fortune tellers who knew exactly what these people would do later on, then it is not the fault of the US that these people abused their power later.

CIA Admits Involvement in Chile

• By DAVID BRISCOE

W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 20

• Email

The CIA is acknowledging for the first time the extent of its deep involvement in Chile, where it dealt with coup-plotters, false propagandists and assassins.

The agency planned to post a declassified report required by Congress on its Web site today that admits CIA support for the 1970 kidnapping of Chile’s top general for refusing to use the Army to prevent the country’s congress from confirming the election of socialist Salvador Allende as president. The kidnapping failed, but Gen. Rene Schneider was shot and died two days later, the day Allende’s election was confirmed.

The CIA admits prior knowledge of the plot that overthrew Allende three years later but denies direct involvement. The report says the agency had no idea that Allende would refuse safe passage with his palace under bombardment and apparently kill himself. He was found dead of gunshot wounds.

There is no evidence the CIA wanted Schneider killed for refusing to join the coup attempt in 1970, the report said, although the agency later paid $35,000 to the group that botched his capture.

CIA Payment to Secret Police Chief

The report also disclosed a CIA payment to Gen. Manuel Contreras Sepulveda, head of the Chilean secret police, whom it knew to be involved in post-Allende human rights abuses. In 1993, Contreras was sentenced to prison for a rare act of foreign-sponsored terrorism on American soil — the 1976 car-bomb killing of a Chilean diplomat and an American associate on Embassy Row in Washington.


CIA Admits Involvement in Chile

So let's read exactly what you just posted.

The CIA admitted to a botched kidnapping, whose goal was to stop Salvador Allende from being confirmed as president.

Result.... Allende was confirmed as president anyway. In other words... nothing changed.

The CIA did know of the plot to overthrow Allende. But had no involvement.


So what exactly changed because of the US involvement or non-involvement? Nothing changed. We accomplished nothing, and had no effect.

In other words, you just re-confirmed everything I already knew from my prior research.

 

[Meathead]

We can do much better than 4 million. We're not trying hard enough.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

Rockefeller, did a congressional investigation. The fact is, what was said for why we were going into Iraq, was entirely supported by the intelligence information that we had, and other intelligence agencies had.

Pointing out factoids that are not relevant to the discussion, isn't a valid argument.

As for the supposed 30 million since WW2... that claim is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

If you actually believe that America has killed 30 million people since WW2.... then you are no longer worth talking to, because you are nutz.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

There are a ton of lies and half truths in that link.

For example, the claim we intervened in Chile is false. I've researched that issue on 4 or 5 separate occasions. Each time the evidence suggest the CIA did absolutely nothing, and that an internal cue was underway without any help from the CIA. Until I am presented with real evidence, this is mere left-wing ideological mythology to push a false narrative.

Additionally, the people who wrote this, are including people who were backed by the US who did horrible things after the fact.

This is also a false presupposition. When I lived at home, my father let me drive his car. If I then used the ability given to me, to run people over, is that my fathers fault?

No.

Similarly, it is true that the US backed people they thought would be good leaders, who then turned into evil tyrants. Unless you think the US had divine fortune tellers who knew exactly what these people would do later on, then it is not the fault of the US that these people abused their power later.

CIA Admits Involvement in Chile

• By DAVID BRISCOE

W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 20

• Email

The CIA is acknowledging for the first time the extent of its deep involvement in Chile, where it dealt with coup-plotters, false propagandists and assassins.

The agency planned to post a declassified report required by Congress on its Web site today that admits CIA support for the 1970 kidnapping of Chile’s top general for refusing to use the Army to prevent the country’s congress from confirming the election of socialist Salvador Allende as president. The kidnapping failed, but Gen. Rene Schneider was shot and died two days later, the day Allende’s election was confirmed.

The CIA admits prior knowledge of the plot that overthrew Allende three years later but denies direct involvement. The report says the agency had no idea that Allende would refuse safe passage with his palace under bombardment and apparently kill himself. He was found dead of gunshot wounds.

There is no evidence the CIA wanted Schneider killed for refusing to join the coup attempt in 1970, the report said, although the agency later paid $35,000 to the group that botched his capture.

CIA Payment to Secret Police Chief

The report also disclosed a CIA payment to Gen. Manuel Contreras Sepulveda, head of the Chilean secret police, whom it knew to be involved in post-Allende human rights abuses. In 1993, Contreras was sentenced to prison for a rare act of foreign-sponsored terrorism on American soil — the 1976 car-bomb killing of a Chilean diplomat and an American associate on Embassy Row in Washington.


CIA Admits Involvement in Chile

So let's read exactly what you just posted.

The CIA admitted to a botched kidnapping, whose goal was to stop Salvador Allende from being confirmed as president.

Result.... Allende was confirmed as president anyway. In other words... nothing changed.

The CIA did know of the plot to overthrow Allende. But had no involvement.


So what exactly changed because of the US involvement or non-involvement? Nothing changed. We accomplished nothing, and had no effect.

In other words, you just re-confirmed everything I already knew from my prior research.

With, or without Chile listed, it wouldn't really matter much, it hardly hits the radar of the 10's of millions killed by American wars, and sanctions.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

4 million? Is that all? We need to pick up the pace.

I see we have several little Trumpsters who mirror the post above
Whatever you do, never, ever claim to be Christians, because you are not!
=======================================================
In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the sixth commandment "thou shall not kill." He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them
What does THOU SHALL NOT KILL mean?
There you go. Your morals and hate are in the dumpster.

They cry crocodile tears for Holocaust victim Jews, or for victims of Communism, or victims of Islamic genocides.

But, when it comes to Capitalist Zionists killing in a similar manner, they cheer for more blood, death, and despair.

 

[Slyhunter]

Jews took back what was stolen from them.
Anyone who is able can fight back. Palestinians aren't able to win so there is no point to fighting back. Israel should've ended this a long time ago by fighting the war like a war and killing all the potential combatants instead of pulling back allowing them to regroup and recharge.

Catholics should re-take the U.S.A, and England.
That would solve a huge chunk of the Zionist issue, right there.

I mean the French, and Spanish empires made up most of the U.S.A territory.

I mean the Roman territory (Now Italy) made up most of England.

When are you leaving from the lands you stole?

We are not. Unless you can make us.

Just like the Jews are not, unless you can make them.

You can't. So, there you go. Can we move on to a new topic?

You are a hypocrite, and a immoral one at that.

Instead of knowing right vs wrong, you only know might is right.

How am I hypocritical? As for you claiming I'm immoral, coming from someone like you, that's a compliment.

You are a hypocrite, because you think Jews deserve rights to displace people because they lived there long ago, but then get all hypocritical refusing to give previous tribes America, or England.

It seems it's all about getting yours at all costs.

But, we already know Zionists are a primitive World problem.

Might does make right.
It's the winners who write the History books. It's the mighty that inherent lands. If the Palestinians can't take it from Israel then they should give up or die.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Catholics should re-take the U.S.A, and England.
That would solve a huge chunk of the Zionist issue, right there.

I mean the French, and Spanish empires made up most of the U.S.A territory.

I mean the Roman territory (Now Italy) made up most of England.

When are you leaving from the lands you stole?

We are not. Unless you can make us.

Just like the Jews are not, unless you can make them.

You can't. So, there you go. Can we move on to a new topic?

You are a hypocrite, and a immoral one at that.

Instead of knowing right vs wrong, you only know might is right.

How am I hypocritical? As for you claiming I'm immoral, coming from someone like you, that's a compliment.

You are a hypocrite, because you think Jews deserve rights to displace people because they lived there long ago, but then get all hypocritical refusing to give previous tribes America, or England.

It seems it's all about getting yours at all costs.

But, we already know Zionists are a primitive World problem.

Might does make right.
It's the winners who write the History books. It's the mighty that inherent lands. If the Palestinians can't take it from Israel then they should give up or die.

Much of us decided since WW2, that morality is right, apparently Jews are a major exception, however.

It seems that while the West scoffs at Russia for taking a Russian majority Crimea, and killing basically no one in Crimea, somehow deserves sanctions upon them,

But at same time Israel which has stole Palestinian land since the mid 1940's, and continues to build settlements which steal Palestinian land, and bulldoze their homes, somehow doesn't deserve sanctions upon them.

It truly boggles the mind, the hypocrisy is outrageous.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Catholics should re-take the U.S.A, and England.
That would solve a huge chunk of the Zionist issue, right there.

I mean the French, and Spanish empires made up most of the U.S.A territory.

I mean the Roman territory (Now Italy) made up most of England.

When are you leaving from the lands you stole?

We are not. Unless you can make us.

Just like the Jews are not, unless you can make them.

You can't. So, there you go. Can we move on to a new topic?

You are a hypocrite, and a immoral one at that.

Instead of knowing right vs wrong, you only know might is right.

How am I hypocritical? As for you claiming I'm immoral, coming from someone like you, that's a compliment.

You are a hypocrite, because you think Jews deserve rights to displace people because they lived there long ago, but then get all hypocritical refusing to give previous tribes America, or England.

It seems it's all about getting yours at all costs.

But, we already know Zionists are a primitive World problem.

Might does make right.
It's the winners who write the History books. It's the mighty that inherent lands. If the Palestinians can't take it from Israel then they should give up or die.

Aren't you the guy who told me on another thread that I shouldn't post because I'm a radical White Nationalist, and therefor I make Right-Wingers look bad?

Which I'm not even, I'm a Polish Nationalist.
(I actually don't even like most White people)

But, how do you cry about "Prejudiced opinions" but "Brush off genocide upon Muslims" or even support "Israel's theft upon Palestine"

It boggles the mind how senseless most in Western society are today.

You just do as you're told, just puppets.

 

[irosie91]

Israel has only killed people, when people tried to kill them. Self defense is entirely 100% justified.

As for the rest..... again... give me an example. Tell me which time you think we should have stayed out.

You support Saddam slaughtering people with chemical weapons?
You support Assad slaughtering people?
You support Ghaddafi slaughtering people?

Which one would you say we should not do anything about?

Give me a specific answer. Because if you really are saying we should not be involved in anything, then I have to assume you love watching people being brutalized by cruel dictators.

And by the way, why are all these people asking us to be involved? What is it, that apparently they know, that you don't?

The irony in all this, is that part of me, even agrees with you.

To some extent, I think we should let the Muslims slaughter themselves, and say screw you, to those like YOU who claim we're the bad guys.

Maybe if enough Muslims kill each other non-stop, you'll stop being so ungrateful for our help.

The Nazis made up the Gleiwitz Incident to invade Poland as a "Fake justification" for war.
(Sound familiar?)
How about the U.S.A made up "WMD's" to invade Iraq as a "Fake justification" for war.

The Nazis also used the same excuse in the Soviet Union, they were killing their own nation, and were a threat to the World.

As Nazis killed over 20 million in Russia, more than half of them Civilians.

The U.S.A seems to only follow the Nazis, in the most wrong way possible being "Genocide"

Not in good ways like preserving, or promoting Heritage, or going against Capitalists from being Liberal anti-Patriots, or in promoting greater Worker's rights.

I see nothing admirable in modern America, this country has become sadistic abroad, and masochistic at home. (Nothing I support)

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

Rockefeller, did a congressional investigation. The fact is, what was said for why we were going into Iraq, was entirely supported by the intelligence information that we had, and other intelligence agencies had.

Pointing out factoids that are not relevant to the discussion, isn't a valid argument.

As for the supposed 30 million since WW2... that claim is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

If you actually believe that America has killed 30 million people since WW2.... then you are no longer worth talking to, because you are nutz.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

try again----globalresearch is a polack-Nazi site

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The Nazis made up the Gleiwitz Incident to invade Poland as a "Fake justification" for war.
(Sound familiar?)
How about the U.S.A made up "WMD's" to invade Iraq as a "Fake justification" for war.

The Nazis also used the same excuse in the Soviet Union, they were killing their own nation, and were a threat to the World.

As Nazis killed over 20 million in Russia, more than half of them Civilians.

The U.S.A seems to only follow the Nazis, in the most wrong way possible being "Genocide"

Not in good ways like preserving, or promoting Heritage, or going against Capitalists from being Liberal anti-Patriots, or in promoting greater Worker's rights.

I see nothing admirable in modern America, this country has become sadistic abroad, and masochistic at home. (Nothing I support)

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

Rockefeller, did a congressional investigation. The fact is, what was said for why we were going into Iraq, was entirely supported by the intelligence information that we had, and other intelligence agencies had.

Pointing out factoids that are not relevant to the discussion, isn't a valid argument.

As for the supposed 30 million since WW2... that claim is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

If you actually believe that America has killed 30 million people since WW2.... then you are no longer worth talking to, because you are nutz.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

try again----globalresearch is a polack-Nazi site

He's actually a Russian Jew.
Michel Chossudovsky - Wikipedia

 

[hjmick]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

Fascinating...

Where do you stand on the Holocaust?

 

[irosie91]

No, it doesn't sound familiar at all.

The intelligence information that was the basis for the invasion of Iraq, was investigated by the Rockefeller committee. They discovered, that unsurprisingly, all the justifications for the war, were in fact backed by the intelligence at the time, and supported by intelligence agencies around the world.

The fact is, it was not made up.

Additionally, the WMDs did exist, and were found in usable condition. Which isn't a surprise, because maybe you are ignorant of history, but Saddam used WMDs in the past. The idea that he didn't have WMDs, when he in fact used WMDs is ridiculous.

Again, you are saying that you fully supported Saddam slaughtering his people? You are perfectly fine with that? You are ok with mass murder, provided it isn't the US doing it apparently?

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

Rockefeller, did a congressional investigation. The fact is, what was said for why we were going into Iraq, was entirely supported by the intelligence information that we had, and other intelligence agencies had.

Pointing out factoids that are not relevant to the discussion, isn't a valid argument.

As for the supposed 30 million since WW2... that claim is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

If you actually believe that America has killed 30 million people since WW2.... then you are no longer worth talking to, because you are nutz.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

try again----globalresearch is a polack-Nazi site

He's actually a Russian Jew.
Michel Chossudovsky - Wikipedia

wrong again-----his MOTHER is not a jew-----only his father------If he wants to be a jew he would have to
convert

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

LOL, Rockerfeller? That Globalist Liberal family who backed Nazis, Soviet, and also American genocides?

Are you fully aware that America killed millions of Iraqis?

America's killed up to 20 - 30 million since WW2.

The U.S.A is in line with Hitler, or even Stalin in that period for killings.

Saddam Hussein was a pip-squeak in comparison.

That doesn't begin to speak of the genocides the U.S.A dealt in during it's early days (Which were presumably smaller, but none the less present)

Rockefeller, did a congressional investigation. The fact is, what was said for why we were going into Iraq, was entirely supported by the intelligence information that we had, and other intelligence agencies had.

Pointing out factoids that are not relevant to the discussion, isn't a valid argument.

As for the supposed 30 million since WW2... that claim is not just wrong, but ridiculous.

If you actually believe that America has killed 30 million people since WW2.... then you are no longer worth talking to, because you are nutz.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-ha...-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

try again----globalresearch is a polack-Nazi site

He's actually a Russian Jew.
Michel Chossudovsky - Wikipedia

wrong again-----his MOTHER is not a jew-----only his father------If he wants to be a jew he would have to
convert

Bottom-line is he's not Polish as you just claimed.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

Fascinating...

Where do you stand on the Holocaust?

My stand on the Holocaust, is that while it was a tragedy, Jews typically take advantage of it.

A lot of Jews only think their suffering matters in this World.

 

[hjmick]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

Fascinating...

Where do you stand on the Holocaust?

My stand on the Holocaust, is that while it was a tragedy, Jews typically take advantage of it.

A lot of Jews only think their suffering matters in this World.

Thank you.

And for the record, it's my suffering that matters. Just ask my wife...

 

[AmericanTruther]

Sometimes it's best for Two Scoops to dance with Muslims and wave a war sword in the process.

 

[PredFan]

No matter the total, it's far too much.

Why do so many Zionists call for genocide?

I'm tired of this country calling for more death, and despair (Genocide)

Now here go the Zionists calling for Sanctions on Iran, the same kind of sanctions that killed millions in Iraq.

Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990


Unworthy victims: Western wars have killed four million Muslims since 1990
#HumanRights


Landmark research proves that the US-led ‘war on terror’ has killed as many as 2 million people, but this is a fraction of Western responsibility for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two decades

Nafeez Ahmed
Wednesday 8 April 2015 15:12 UTC
Monday 18 April 2016 7:50 UTC
reddit googleplus 65.2K
Topics:
HumanRights
Tags:
war, USA, Humanitarian Crisis, IDP's, Refugees
Show comments
Last month, the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million.

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Yet it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media, despite being the first effort by a world-leading public health organisation to produce a scientifically robust calculation of the number of people killed by the US-UK-led “war on terror”.

Mind the gaps
The PSR report is described by Dr Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates of victims of war, especially civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”.

The report conducts a critical review of previous death toll estimates of “war on terror” casualties. It is heavily critical of the figure most widely cited by mainstream media as authoritative, namely, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate of 110,000 dead. That figure is derived from collating media reports of civilian killings, but the PSR report identifies serious gaps and methodological problems in this approach.

For instance, although 40,000 corpses had been buried in Najaf since the launch of the war, IBC recorded only 1,354 deaths in Najaf for the same period. That example shows how wide the gap is between IBC’s Najaf figure and the actual death toll – in this case, by a factor of over 30.

Such gaps are replete throughout IBC’s database. In another instance, IBC recorded just three airstrikes in a period in 2005, when the number of air attacks had in fact increased from 25 to 120 that year. Again, the gap here is by a factor of 40.

According to the PSR study, the much-disputed Lancet study that estimated 655,000 Iraq deaths up to 2006 (and over a million until today by extrapolation) was likely to be far more accurate than IBC’s figures. In fact, the report confirms a virtual consensus among epidemiologists on the reliability of the Lancet study.

Despite some legitimate criticisms, the statistical methodology it applied is the universally recognised standard to determine deaths from conflict zones, used by international agencies and governments.

Politicised denial
PSR also reviewed the methodology and design of other studies showing a lower death toll, such as a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which had a range of serious limitations.

That paper ignored the areas subject to the heaviest violence, namely Baghdad, Anbar and Nineveh, relying on flawed IBC data to extrapolate for those regions. It also imposed “politically-motivated restrictions” on collection and analysis of the data - interviews were conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which was “totally dependent on the occupying power” and had refused to release data on Iraqi registered deaths under US pressure.

In particular, PSR assessed the claims of Michael Spaget, John Sloboda and others who questioned the Lancet study data collection methods as potentially fraudulent. All such claims, PSR found, were spurious.

The few “justified criticisms,” PSR concludes, “do not call into question the results of the Lancet studies as a whole. These figures still represent the best estimates that are currently available”. The Lancet findings are also corroborated by the data from a new study in PLOS Medicine, finding 500,000 Iraqi deaths from the war. Overall, PSR concludes that the most likely number for the civilian death toll in Iraq since 2003 to date is about 1 million.

To this, the PSR study adds at least 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, killed as the direct or indirect consequence of US-led war: a “conservative” total of 1.3 million. The real figure could easily be “in excess of 2 million”.

Yet even the PSR study suffers from limitations. Firstly, the post-9/11 “war on terror” was not new, but merely extended previous interventionist policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Secondly, the huge paucity of data on Afghanistan meant the PSR study probably underestimated the Afghan death toll.

Iraq
The war on Iraq did not begin in 2003, but in 1991 with the first Gulf War, which was followed by the UN sanctions regime.

An early PSR study by Beth Daponte, then a US government Census Bureau demographer, found that Iraq deaths caused by the direct and indirect impact of the first Gulf War amounted to around 200,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians. Meanwhile, her internal government study was suppressed.

After US-led forces pulled out, the war on Iraq continued in economic form through the US-UK imposed UN sanctions regime, on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures show that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were children.

The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were chemicals and equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system. A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted, he said, to “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars at the University of Manitoba, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade. The sanctions policy would create “the conditions for widespread disease, including full scale epidemics,” thus “liquidating a significant portion of the population of Iraq”.

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-led war from 1991 to 2003 killed 1.9 million Iraqis; then from 2003 onwards around 1 million: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead over two decades.

Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, PSR’s estimate of overall casualties could also be very conservative. Six months after the 2001 bombing campaign, The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele revealed that anywhere between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghans were killed directly, and as many as a further 50,000 people died avoidably as an indirect result of the war.

In his book, Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950 (2007), Professor Gideon Polya applied the same methodology used by The Guardian to UN Population Division annual mortality data to calculate plausible figures for excess deaths. A retired biochemist at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Polya concludes that total avoidable Afghan deaths since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around 3 million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under five.

Although Professor Polya’s findings are not published in an academic journal, his 2007 Body Count study has been recommended by California State University sociologist Professor Jacqueline Carrigan as “a data-rich profile of the global mortality situation” in a reviewpublished by the Routledge journal, Socialism and Democracy.

As with Iraq, US intervention in Afghanistan began long before 9/11 in the form of covert military, logistical and financial aid to the Taliban from around 1992 onwards. This US assistance propelled the Taliban’s violent conquest of nearly 90 percent of Afghan territory.

In a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, Forced Migration and Mortality, leading epidemiologist Steven Hansch, a director of Relief International, noted that total excess mortality in Afghanistan due to the indirect impacts of war through the 1990s could be anywhere between 200,000 and 2 million. The Soviet Union, of course, also bore responsibility for its role in devastating civilian infrastructure, thus paving the way for these deaths.

Altogether, this suggests that the total Afghan death toll due to the direct and indirect impacts of US-led intervention since the early nineties until now could be as high 3-5 million.

Denial
According to the figures explored here, total deaths from Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan since the 1990s - from direct killings and the longer-term impact of war-imposed deprivation - likely constitute around 4 million (2 million in Iraq from 1991-2003, plus 2 million from the “war on terror”), and could be as high as 6-8 million people when accounting for higher avoidable death estimates in Afghanistan.

4 million? Is that all? We need to pick up the pace.

I see we have several little Trumpsters who mirror the post above
Whatever you do, never, ever claim to be Christians, because you are not!
=======================================================
In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the sixth commandment "thou shall not kill." He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them
What does THOU SHALL NOT KILL mean?
There you go. Your morals and hate are in the dumpster.

And you would be wrong yet again.

 

[PredFan]

Catholics should re-take the U.S.A, and England.
That would solve a huge chunk of the Zionist issue, right there.

I mean the French, and Spanish empires made up most of the U.S.A territory.

I mean the Roman territory (Now Italy) made up most of England.

When are you leaving from the lands you stole?

We are not. Unless you can make us.

Just like the Jews are not, unless you can make them.

You can't. So, there you go. Can we move on to a new topic?

You are a hypocrite, and a immoral one at that.

Instead of knowing right vs wrong, you only know might is right.

How am I hypocritical? As for you claiming I'm immoral, coming from someone like you, that's a compliment.

You are a hypocrite, because you think Jews deserve rights to displace people because they lived there long ago, but then get all hypocritical refusing to give previous tribes America, or England.

It seems it's all about getting yours at all costs.

But, we already know Zionists are a primitive World problem.

Might does make right.
It's the winners who write the History books. It's the mighty that inherent lands. If the Palestinians can't take it from Israel then they should give up or die.

And the problem is?