Hundie Jo [dot] Com » Blog Archive » Insurgents have killed over 26,000.

Honzo October 30th, 2005

Telegraph | News | Victims of insurgents in Iraq top 26,000

The paper says we killed 9,000 civilians and the ~~Insugency~~ outside Terrorist Forces have killed 26,000. We try our hardest not to kill the innocent and the terrorists’ goal is to kill innocents.

Who are you rooting for? If you are rooting for us, shouldn’t you
root for the mission? There is what it began as, and there is what it
has become. I am still for both, but I do recognize that there is a
difference.

Politics
Comments(7)

7 Responses to “Insurgents have killed over 26,000.”

# Kyle [Visitor]on 31 Oct 2005 at 8:00 am

The fact that the insurgents are more wrong than us doesn’t make us right.

9000 is 9000 too many.

Reply - Quote
# Honzo [Member]on 31 Oct 2005 at 10:49 am

9,000 accidents does not justify anything. But perhaps the 26,000 murders does.

This is all beside the fact that the numbers of lives lost annually has gone down since the invasion compared to Saddam’s reign as a whole.

Now we learn that 74% of the casualties are not from us, but from
outside Terrorist Forces, that put the perspective on the issue.

Reply - Quote
# dave [Visitor]on 31 Oct 2005 at 12:04 pm

Also…the insurgents are not killing anyone if we are not there.

You cannot ignore that factor.

Reply - Quote
# Honzo [Member]on 31 Oct 2005 at 12:05 pm

I am not, but Saddam would be.

While

“Also…the insurgents are not killing anyone if we are not there. You cannot ignore that factor.

is true, similarly you cannot ignore the following either, if you are being honest:

Certainly, President Bush made some mistakes in making his
case for war with Iraq and has made a number of strategic errors
conducting this war. If the president should be blamed for the deaths
of over 2,000 soldiers and injuring many more, he also deserves credit
for giving Iraq a chance to write a constitution by her people. Make no
mistake about it, if not for George W. Bush there would be no Iraqi
Constitution and Saddam Hussein would still be a threat in the region
and indeed the world. This is not even arguable.

You can’t have it both ways.

Reply - Quote
# dave [Visitor]on 31 Oct 2005 at 2:17 pm

Well…as I have mentioned before, I am not convinced that the constitution is that great of a thing.

Women in Iraq today have less freedom than they did under Saddam! We
now have a theocracy, were no law can contradict Islamic law.

Saddam Hussein would still be a threat in the region and indeed the world. This is not even arguable.

As for this? Saddam was not a threat to the world. Why would we think
he would be a threat to the world today if he sure was not two years
ago?

Reply - Quote
# Honzo [Member]on 31 Oct 2005 at 2:40 pm

Women in Iraq today have less freedom than they did under
Saddam! We now have a theocracy, were no law can contradict Islamic
law.

Show me where they are worse off under the new system. That position does not fly if you read the text of the new constitution.

Systematic and Random Rapes by the government? That was under Saddam. What will they have under the new government?

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.

Article (20): Citizens, male and female, have the right to participate in public matters and enjoy political rights, including the right to vote and run as candidates.

Article (35)….
2nd _ The state is committed to protecting the individual from coercion
in thought, religion or politics, and no one may be imprisoned on these
bases.

Article (39): Iraqis are free in their adherence to their personal
status according to their own religion, sect, belief and choice, and
that will be organized by law.

Article (40):

1st _ The followers of every religion and sect are free in:

(a) the practice of their religious rites, including the (Shiite) Husseiniya Rites.

(b) the administration of religious endowments and their affairs and
their religious institutions, and this will be organized by law.

2nd _ The state guarantees freedom of worship and the protection of its places.

Article (41): Every individual has freedom of thought and conscience.

Article (29),
Part 4:
4th - Violence and abuse in the family, school and society shall be forbidden.

Article (30): 1st - The state guarantees social and health insurance,
the basics for a free and honourable life for the individual and the
family - especially children and women -
and works to protect them from illiteracy, fear and poverty and
provides them with housing and the means to rehabilitate and take care
of them. This shall be regulated by law.

Article (34):
1st - Education is a main factor for the progress of society and it is
a right guaranteed by the state. It is mandatory in the primary school
and the state guarantees fighting illiteracy.

2nd - Free education is a right for Iraqis in all its stages.

Article (35)

3rd - Forced labour, slavery and the commerce in slaves is forbidden, as is the trading in women or children or the sex trade.

Where is the worseness? I cannot see it.

Reply - Quote
# dave [Visitor]on 01 Nov 2005 at 4:25 pm

I noticed that you left this out:

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source

of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.n turn…women will have little rights in terms of things like divorce or other related things.

Most of the things in the current constitution are rights that were present under Saddam.

Reply - Quote