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

[irosie91]

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

that's how muzzies dance------notice that Trump did not LIFT THE SWORD high-------he held it like he was
afraid of accidentally STICKING someone

 

[irosie91]

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?

I actually think Fascists are far more humane than Republicans.

Most Fascists, and Fascists supporters I've met have been against the War on Terror. (Which has caused millions of death)

Furthermore Fascists often are embarrassed by the Holocaust, so much so many even try to minimize, or deny it.

It seems many Republicans aren't embarrassed in the same manner, if we look at this Forum, they call for more blood, more death, more genocide, more suffering.

Yes, same with Fascists vs Republicans on healthcare, or welfare, Republicans think it's acceptable for more deaths to their own people who can't afford proper care.

I think Republicans actually make Fascists look bad.

You didn't answer the question.

What question is that to answer?

I understand clearly, too many Americans love the power, of looting, and shooting, genocide, land theft, and colonialism.

Like in the Wild, Wild West, the gun is King, and he who wins out with brute force wins.

I support Civilization, what ever you Hicks are, you're certainly not what I call a integral part of Civilization.

more BS, sobie----you are groping in the scum of your OWN national history

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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.

First, the Jews did not just steal, kill, and oppress, and displace immigrant Muslims. There are no Palestinians. No such people group exists. Palestine is a made up name, the Roman's gave. There were no indigenous people.

As for the Muslims who immigrated to Israel, if you go to the Israel Museum, you can still see the notes written in Arabic, that were distributed to the Muslim communities, urging them to NOT leave. This is a well documented fact. The Israelis did not want all the people to leave, resulting in a crash of the economy.

What happened was, the invading Muslim armies promised the Muslims there, that if they left, they would be able to plunder the Jewish people that they slaughtered after the invading Muslim armies won.

The Muslim people living in Israel's land, left of their own choice, believing they would plunder Israel after the Muslims wiped out the Jews.

Instead, they all lost to the Jews. The Jews had hundreds of thousands showing up, who were put into uniform and handed a gun, as soon as they stepped off the boat. The Israelis figured that since the Muslims deserted Israel, that these new people willing to fight to defend Israel that were just getting off the boat, naturally they should be given the homes the Muslims voluntarily deserted.

I completely support all of that. It was the right move, given the choices people made. Jews made the choice to come to Israel, knowing it was a war zone, and were willing to fight and die, to defend it. The Muslims made the choice to abandon their homes, believing they would plunder the Jews after the invading Muslims committed genocide.

All of this is well documented in numerous accounts.

 

[PredFan]

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?

I actually think Fascists are far more humane than Republicans.

Most Fascists, and Fascists supporters I've met have been against the War on Terror. (Which has caused millions of death)

Furthermore Fascists often are embarrassed by the Holocaust, so much so many even try to minimize, or deny it.

It seems many Republicans aren't embarrassed in the same manner, if we look at this Forum, they call for more blood, more death, more genocide, more suffering.

Yes, same with Fascists vs Republicans on healthcare, or welfare, Republicans think it's acceptable for more deaths to their own people who can't afford proper care.

I think Republicans actually make Fascists look bad.

You didn't answer the question.

What question is that to answer?

I understand clearly, too many Americans love the power, of looting, and shooting, genocide, land theft, and colonialism.

Like in the Wild, Wild West, the gun is King, and he who wins out with brute force wins.

I support Civilization, what ever you Hicks are, you're certainly not what I call a integral part of Civilization.

Ah! I see the problem. You think we give a shit what you think.

 

[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.

Many of the people here are pulling the little Trolls chain............As I said earlier most of the deaths are Muslim against Muslim.

As long as they promote Radicals that have done what groups like ISIS has done..........Then the phrase of an Eye for Eye fits.................perhaps they can get their asses out of the 7th Century and put their Radicals on a dang Leash.........

Little trolls chain, eh?

If I made jokes about the Jewish Holocaust in a similar manner, I'd probably be banned, and you guys would be crying profusely.

The bottom line is that the U.S.A has killed more than Saddam, and Osama combined.

But, that's "Good" eh?

But still, only 4 million. That’s not even a tenth of what’s out there. We need to try harder.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

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.

First, the Jews did not just steal, kill, and oppress, and displace immigrant Muslims. There are no Palestinians. No such people group exists. Palestine is a made up name, the Roman's gave. There were no indigenous people.

As for the Muslims who immigrated to Israel, if you go to the Israel Museum, you can still see the notes written in Arabic, that were distributed to the Muslim communities, urging them to NOT leave. This is a well documented fact. The Israelis did not want all the people to leave, resulting in a crash of the economy.

What happened was, the invading Muslim armies promised the Muslims there, that if they left, they would be able to plunder the Jewish people that they slaughtered after the invading Muslim armies won.

The Muslim people living in Israel's land, left of their own choice, believing they would plunder Israel after the Muslims wiped out the Jews.

Instead, they all lost to the Jews. The Jews had hundreds of thousands showing up, who were put into uniform and handed a gun, as soon as they stepped off the boat. The Israelis figured that since the Muslims deserted Israel, that these new people willing to fight to defend Israel that were just getting off the boat, naturally they should be given the homes the Muslims voluntarily deserted.

I completely support all of that. It was the right move, given the choices people made. Jews made the choice to come to Israel, knowing it was a war zone, and were willing to fight and die, to defend it. The Muslims made the choice to abandon their homes, believing they would plunder the Jews after the invading Muslims committed genocide.

All of this is well documented in numerous accounts.

Haha, that's hilarious.

The census says that in 1517 only 1.7% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1918 8.1% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1946 30.0% of Palestine was Jewish.

Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)

It's pretty clear the Israelis stole the land.

Then you say that it's Muslims faults for abandoning their homes from Jewish terror?
Oh, but I thought such a people didn't exist?

You Zionists are such scum.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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?

I actually think Fascists are far more humane than Republicans.

Most Fascists, and Fascists supporters I've met have been against the War on Terror. (Which has caused millions of death)

Furthermore Fascists often are embarrassed by the Holocaust, so much so many even try to minimize, or deny it.

It seems many Republicans aren't embarrassed in the same manner, if we look at this Forum, they call for more blood, more death, more genocide, more suffering.

Yes, same with Fascists vs Republicans on healthcare, or welfare, Republicans think it's acceptable for more deaths to their own people who can't afford proper care.

I think Republicans actually make Fascists look bad.

You didn't answer the question.

What question is that to answer?

I understand clearly, too many Americans love the power, of looting, and shooting, genocide, land theft, and colonialism.

Like in the Wild, Wild West, the gun is King, and he who wins out with brute force wins.

I support Civilization, what ever you Hicks are, you're certainly not what I call a integral part of Civilization.

more BS, sobie----you are groping in the scum of your OWN national history

Poland killed hardly anyone, unlike Zionists scums.

 

[Correll]

My point was not the numbers, though I have no confidence in them,


my point was putting all the blame on the West, and no responsibility on the Muslims for their actions.


Saddam is a fine example. Why does he not have any responsibility for his actions?

Saddam killed quite a few in the Iraq - Iran war, but the U.S.A had supported him there, no?

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

None the less the millions of Iraqi civilians killed by sanctions weren't Saddam Hussein, now were they?

It is not reasonable to say, "the USA supported Saddam".


We did not want Iran overrunning his country and becoming a regional powerhouse.


We gave a tiny, tiny amount of support to try to prevent that.


Using that as an excuse to put the responsibility for his actions on the West, is greatly dishonest.



Saddam was a real player, with real power. His actions were his.

It's amazing that the boogie-man of the U.S.A, and Israel is so often propped up by themselves.
....

No, it's not. We didn't want one of our enemies to eat the other and grow more powerful.


There is nothing amazing about that.


And the small amount of our involvement, does not make the Iran Iraq War our responsibility.


Acting like it does, in not honest.

I don't believe this study of 4 million includes the Iraq - Iran war where the U.S.A had backed Saddam, and Israel backed Iran.

Just think, how much more they could kill with each of them backing them?

Not saying that the Iraq - Iran War was not Saddam's responsibility, but this big blunder was supported by the U.S.A, now why is that?

It was not.


Why do you feel a need to lie about that?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Your premise is faulty. Isael didn't steal land, they took back what was theirs.

Catholics should take back what's there's, considering that America was mostly France, and Spain before it was the U.S.A, and England was mostly Rome (Italy)

I don't recognize your foul Anglo Zionists, we want a World where you are kicked to the curb, like the Palestinians.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

how do you know that his ancestral line is not
TAINTED with the filth of Polack?

Nothing's worse than your Zionists, they go nuts committing genocide in the Mid-East, and then go nuts supporting America to replace themselves ethnically in what some call White genocide.

 

[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.

Many of the people here are pulling the little Trolls chain............As I said earlier most of the deaths are Muslim against Muslim.

As long as they promote Radicals that have done what groups like ISIS has done..........Then the phrase of an Eye for Eye fits.................perhaps they can get their asses out of the 7th Century and put their Radicals on a dang Leash.........

Little trolls chain, eh?

If I made jokes about the Jewish Holocaust in a similar manner, I'd probably be banned, and you guys would be crying profusely.

The bottom line is that the U.S.A has killed more than Saddam, and Osama combined.

But, that's "Good" eh?

If we behaved like you say...........there would be nothing left of the middle east................

We are very capable of destroying the entire region without Nukes............Be GLAD we aren't like Radical Islam.

And I doubt you are Polish...........Put the radicals over there on a dang leash.

I don't want Muslims here, nor do I want to commit genocide on Muslims abroad.

Why does our dysfunctional (Zionist) country the U.S.A do both?

I'm of a Polish heritage, why should I like Zionist scums, exactly?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Actually, the British, French, and Australians took the land from the Ottoman Empire............the same Muslims claiming the Deserts didn't own it............Unless their stance was it was Turkey's Land............

Those who bled for the land in WWI...........owned it and created every country over there now including Israel.

The majority of Palestine was Arab, and more Arabs owned the land there, than Jews.

When are you Zionists going to admit Israel stole it?

 

[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.

a lot of polack pigs molest children

To think I'm the one who gets banned sometimes, and Irosie is free to continiously go off topic, with trolling without reprisal.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Saddam killed quite a few in the Iraq - Iran war, but the U.S.A had supported him there, no?

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

None the less the millions of Iraqi civilians killed by sanctions weren't Saddam Hussein, now were they?

It is not reasonable to say, "the USA supported Saddam".


We did not want Iran overrunning his country and becoming a regional powerhouse.


We gave a tiny, tiny amount of support to try to prevent that.


Using that as an excuse to put the responsibility for his actions on the West, is greatly dishonest.



Saddam was a real player, with real power. His actions were his.

It's amazing that the boogie-man of the U.S.A, and Israel is so often propped up by themselves.
....

No, it's not. We didn't want one of our enemies to eat the other and grow more powerful.


There is nothing amazing about that.


And the small amount of our involvement, does not make the Iran Iraq War our responsibility.


Acting like it does, in not honest.

I don't believe this study of 4 million includes the Iraq - Iran war where the U.S.A had backed Saddam, and Israel backed Iran.

Just think, how much more they could kill with each of them backing them?

Not saying that the Iraq - Iran War was not Saddam's responsibility, but this big blunder was supported by the U.S.A, now why is that?

It was not.


Why do you feel a need to lie about that?

If Saddam was such bad news, why did the U.S.A support him at his worst?

 

[saltydancin]

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

Catholics should take back what's there's, considering that America was mostly France, and Spain before it was the U.S.A, and England was mostly Rome (Italy)

I don't recognize your foul Anglo Zionists, we want a World where you are kicked to the curb, like the Palestinians.[/QUOTE]

Find cognitive dissonance amusing as this schizophrenia of a Christian Nation which had Knights of Columbus in the 1950's dictate it's one nation under God while Catholic Church "serve the Pope or die" totalitarianism tautology is that of Anglo Zionists being responsible for those "death to the infidels jihads"....[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[irosie91]

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.

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.

First, the Jews did not just steal, kill, and oppress, and displace immigrant Muslims. There are no Palestinians. No such people group exists. Palestine is a made up name, the Roman's gave. There were no indigenous people.

As for the Muslims who immigrated to Israel, if you go to the Israel Museum, you can still see the notes written in Arabic, that were distributed to the Muslim communities, urging them to NOT leave. This is a well documented fact. The Israelis did not want all the people to leave, resulting in a crash of the economy.

What happened was, the invading Muslim armies promised the Muslims there, that if they left, they would be able to plunder the Jewish people that they slaughtered after the invading Muslim armies won.

The Muslim people living in Israel's land, left of their own choice, believing they would plunder Israel after the Muslims wiped out the Jews.

Instead, they all lost to the Jews. The Jews had hundreds of thousands showing up, who were put into uniform and handed a gun, as soon as they stepped off the boat. The Israelis figured that since the Muslims deserted Israel, that these new people willing to fight to defend Israel that were just getting off the boat, naturally they should be given the homes the Muslims voluntarily deserted.

I completely support all of that. It was the right move, given the choices people made. Jews made the choice to come to Israel, knowing it was a war zone, and were willing to fight and die, to defend it. The Muslims made the choice to abandon their homes, believing they would plunder the Jews after the invading Muslims committed genocide.

All of this is well documented in numerous accounts.

Haha, that's hilarious.

The census says that in 1517 only 1.7% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1918 8.1% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1946 30.0% of Palestine was Jewish.

Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)

It's pretty clear the Israelis stole the land.

Then you say that it's Muslims faults for abandoning their homes from Jewish terror?
Oh, but I thought such a people didn't exist?

You Zionists are such scum.

Polack logic-----kill'em, rape 'em------and OWN their wealth, The Polack pigs did the same thing in the 1940s in Krakow, Warsaw and Levov

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

\

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.

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.

First, the Jews did not just steal, kill, and oppress, and displace immigrant Muslims. There are no Palestinians. No such people group exists. Palestine is a made up name, the Roman's gave. There were no indigenous people.

As for the Muslims who immigrated to Israel, if you go to the Israel Museum, you can still see the notes written in Arabic, that were distributed to the Muslim communities, urging them to NOT leave. This is a well documented fact. The Israelis did not want all the people to leave, resulting in a crash of the economy.

What happened was, the invading Muslim armies promised the Muslims there, that if they left, they would be able to plunder the Jewish people that they slaughtered after the invading Muslim armies won.

The Muslim people living in Israel's land, left of their own choice, believing they would plunder Israel after the Muslims wiped out the Jews.

Instead, they all lost to the Jews. The Jews had hundreds of thousands showing up, who were put into uniform and handed a gun, as soon as they stepped off the boat. The Israelis figured that since the Muslims deserted Israel, that these new people willing to fight to defend Israel that were just getting off the boat, naturally they should be given the homes the Muslims voluntarily deserted.

I completely support all of that. It was the right move, given the choices people made. Jews made the choice to come to Israel, knowing it was a war zone, and were willing to fight and die, to defend it. The Muslims made the choice to abandon their homes, believing they would plunder the Jews after the invading Muslims committed genocide.

All of this is well documented in numerous accounts.

Haha, that's hilarious.

The census says that in 1517 only 1.7% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1918 8.1% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1946 30.0% of Palestine was Jewish.

Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)

It's pretty clear the Israelis stole the land.

Then you say that it's Muslims faults for abandoning their homes from Jewish terror?
Oh, but I thought such a people didn't exist?

You Zionists are such scum.

Polack logic-----kill'em, rape 'em------and OWN their wealth, The Polack pigs did the same thing in the 1940s in Krakow, Warsaw and Levov

A.) More like Nazi Germans did that, I'm so sorry you like most Jews aren't intelligent enough to tell the difference between Poland an Allied power, and Nazi Germany an Axis power.

B.) What do you mean "Their wealth" more like Jews out muscled Poles out of their own wealth.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

Catholics should take back what's there's, considering that America was mostly France, and Spain before it was the U.S.A, and England was mostly Rome (Italy)

I don't recognize your foul Anglo Zionists, we want a World where you are kicked to the curb, like the Palestinians.

Find cognitive dissonance amusing as this schizophrenia of a Christian Nation which had Knights of Columbus in the 1950's dictate it's one nation under God while Catholic Church "serve the Pope or die" totalitarianism tautology is that of Anglo Zionists being responsible for those "death to the infidels jihads"....[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

So, it's "Cool" when Jews take back their land, but "Not cool" when Catholics take back their land?

 

[irosie91]

\

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.

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.

First, the Jews did not just steal, kill, and oppress, and displace immigrant Muslims. There are no Palestinians. No such people group exists. Palestine is a made up name, the Roman's gave. There were no indigenous people.

As for the Muslims who immigrated to Israel, if you go to the Israel Museum, you can still see the notes written in Arabic, that were distributed to the Muslim communities, urging them to NOT leave. This is a well documented fact. The Israelis did not want all the people to leave, resulting in a crash of the economy.

What happened was, the invading Muslim armies promised the Muslims there, that if they left, they would be able to plunder the Jewish people that they slaughtered after the invading Muslim armies won.

The Muslim people living in Israel's land, left of their own choice, believing they would plunder Israel after the Muslims wiped out the Jews.

Instead, they all lost to the Jews. The Jews had hundreds of thousands showing up, who were put into uniform and handed a gun, as soon as they stepped off the boat. The Israelis figured that since the Muslims deserted Israel, that these new people willing to fight to defend Israel that were just getting off the boat, naturally they should be given the homes the Muslims voluntarily deserted.

I completely support all of that. It was the right move, given the choices people made. Jews made the choice to come to Israel, knowing it was a war zone, and were willing to fight and die, to defend it. The Muslims made the choice to abandon their homes, believing they would plunder the Jews after the invading Muslims committed genocide.

All of this is well documented in numerous accounts.

Haha, that's hilarious.

The census says that in 1517 only 1.7% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1918 8.1% of Palestine was Jewish, in 1946 30.0% of Palestine was Jewish.

Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)

It's pretty clear the Israelis stole the land.

Then you say that it's Muslims faults for abandoning their homes from Jewish terror?
Oh, but I thought such a people didn't exist?

You Zionists are such scum.

Polack logic-----kill'em, rape 'em------and OWN their wealth, The Polack pigs did the same thing in the 1940s in Krakow, Warsaw and Levov

A.) More like Nazi Germans did that, I'm so sorry you like most Jews aren't intelligent enough to tell the difference between Poland an Allied power, and Nazi Germany an Axis power.

B.) What do you mean "Their wealth" more like Jews out muscled Poles out of their own wealth.

you need not tell me what stink from the ass , inebriated Polack
grandmas teach their grandchildren-----I already know. Polack
pigs have been murdering jews for centuries-----the dogs did not
NEED germans-----they have their grandmas-----with the rosary
beads

 

[irosie91]

Actually, the British, French, and Australians took the land from the Ottoman Empire............the same Muslims claiming the Deserts didn't own it............Unless their stance was it was Turkey's Land............

Those who bled for the land in WWI...........owned it and created every country over there now including Israel.

The majority of Palestine was Arab, and more Arabs owned the land there, than Jews.

When are you Zionists going to admit Israel stole it?

you got your stat very wrong this time------arabs owned VIRTUALLY
no land-----turks owned a little. Jews began buying land in Palestine
at the beginning of the 1800s BECAUSE THEY COULD-----they did not have
to deal with the STINK AND FILTH of the catholic church or shariah---
when buying land from the turks. Got that? BUYING-----not pillage
rape and steal like the polack and arab dogs