Lancet-1 study vindicated by NEJM/WHO study?

I've been scanning this and will be the first to admit I probably missed something, but does anyone else get a funny feeling about something akin to the twilight zone jingle when discussing the finer point of politically biased statistical claims to deaths caused by one or the other parties?

How about just getting back to basics? Are there good guys, or are all humans evil? Does one side make an honest, if human, effort to avoid death or do all try to cause as much as possible?

Do the statistically inclined give a damn either way, or are they just trying to create smart ass points; or could they have a political agenda after all, and not give a damn for the dead?

Does one arguer care more than the other who wins in the end? Do they know what winning means?

There comes a time when a debate regresses to the point where it loses all human value and it comes the time to raise an ad hominem from the dead.
 
I've been scanning this and will be the first to admit I probably missed something, but does anyone else get a funny feeling about something akin to the twilight zone jingle when discussing the finer point of politically biased statistical claims to deaths caused by one or the other parties?

I think the very same people who want to condemn the Bush administration for its politically motivated science are willing to put blinders on when the bad science supports their world view.
 
Use the same methodology as was used in the Lancet 1 study and NEJM estimate of deaths during the period in question would drop, making the comparison with Lancet results even worse.

But they come up with the same number of deaths. How many times? They only differ in the ratio of violent to non-violent deaths.

IBC does not record non-violent deaths.
I want to know how the use of IBC data affected the ratio of violent to non-violent deaths.

Mycroft said:
I think the very same people who want to condemn the Bush administration for its politically motivated science are willing to put blinders on when the bad science supports their world view.

As I said in another thread, the NEJM survey is almost certainly better than the Lancet surveys. And I don't need the Lancet surveys to be true in order to point how bad the Iraq war has been. NEJM says the death rate has doubled since the invasion. That's bad enough. Almost as bad as the Lancet's number: a 2.4 fold increase

Some people feel that 150,000 is easier to defend than 600,000. Or that 400,000 is easier to defend than 650,000.... That's up to them.


In this thread, I'm only interested in why the NEJM and Lancet-1 numbers for total deaths agree. While their numbers for violent deaths do not.
 
Most of whom never left the US.

So you're saying that wiki lists the total size of the US military? What do you say the size of the deployment was? I couldn't find a better source than the wiki article I gave earlier. The closest turned out to be a wiki article on Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...nd_World_War#Mobilization_of_the_Armed_Forces

"Approximately half of Canada's army and three-quarters of its air-force personnel never left the country, compared to the overseas deployment of approximately three-quarters of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States."

So, according to wiki, you're wrong to say that most of US forces never left the US. Of course, world war 2 wasn't equally violent for all deployments. I'd guess that most of the deaths occured in prominent battles.

Unless you think the WWII US Navy, for example, had over 4,000 ships carrying 1,000 sailors each. :rolleyes:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/okinawa/default.aspx

The United States Navy assembled an unprecedented armada in April of 1945, with 1,300 ships laying in wait off the coast of Okinawa.[18]

So that's 1300 ships accounted for. Not with 1000 per ship, of course.

Perhaps it's time for you to give us your numbers for US deployment in WW2
 
Perhaps it's time for you to give us your numbers for US deployment in WW2
I don't have to. Your source was clearly counting all US military personnel on hand during WWII, whether deployed or not. Using the same criteria for Iraq we get ~3.3 deaths per 10,000 per year.

Your source is shown to have a habit of fudging the numbers to support his politics, this is your problem not mine. I'm not the one using that guys numbers to prove anything, you are. And the fact is he fudges numbers to suit his purposes.
 
Most of the violence in Iraq is ethnic cleansing

Sorry but that's not what either of the Lancet studies (or the NEJM study, for that matter) concluded.

According to the Lancet 1 report, their polling data indicated that 79 percent of violent deaths were caused by "US forces" using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry". Another 5 percent were reported to be the result of "American" ground forces killing Iraqis with "small arms fire". So ethnic cleansing was not the purported cause of "most" violence.

The Lancet 2 report stated the most common cause of death was "gunfire". This held true over the entire study period. So strangely enough in the first 18 month period (during the time of the Lancet 1 study period), the Lancet 2 data indicated that only 13-14% of deaths were due to air strikes. That's completely inconsistent with what the Lancet 1 study claimed. No I ask you, why would that be, given how *precise* direct polling is claimed to be by your side in this debate?

The overall percentages of the violent deaths in Lancet 2 were 56% due to gunfire, 14% due to "other explosion/ordnance", 13% due to "air strike", 13% due to "car bomb", 2% due to "unknown" and 2% due to "accident". Out of those categories, gunfire, other explosion/ordnance, car bomb, and unknown might be caused by ethnic cleansing and those categories total 85% of violent deaths.

But not all of the deaths in those categories would be due to ethnic cleansing. Right? After all, we were shooting at Iraqis too. In fact, the Lancet 2 report states that deaths attributable to the coalition accounted for 31% of post-invasion violent deaths. Take away the 13% supposedly due to airstrikes (that remained constant during the entire survey period, by the way) and that leaves 18% that coalition ground forces, not ethnic cleasing forces, must have killed by gunfire, explosives, etc. So that leaves 67% that MIGHT be due to ethnic cleansing.

But al-Qaeda killed a lot of people in it's effort to destabilize Iraq. Certainly, the percentage due to car bombs went up from 2% at the beginning of the Lancet 2 survey period to 18% by the end of the period, and most sources seem to agree that al-Qaeda was and is the major car bombing faction. So it's probably safe to assume that 10% of the total violent deaths should not be classified as "ethnic cleansing" but al-Qaeda car bombings. That would leave only about 57% that still MIGHT be called ethnic cleansing.

But al-Qaeda wasn't just killing people with car bombs. Then, as now, they were using people with explosives strapped to themselves. So some portion of the "other explosives/ordnance" category should probably be assigned to al-Qaeda instead of ethnic cleansing. Indeed, the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html ) reported in May 2005, that most (60-70%) of the suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudis. Another sizeable fraction were Syrians and Kuwaitis. Our military sources have been saying for some time that in 80-90 percent of the suicide bombings al-Qaeda is responsible. So what portion of the "other explosion/ordnance" category should we assign to al-Qaeda? I'm going to suggest just a third, 4%. Seem reasonable? Seems conservative. That leaves only 53% of the violent deaths that MIGHT be called ethnic cleansing.

But al-Qaeda wasn't the only group indiscriminately killing Iraqis with bombs. Iraqi insurgents whose primary motivation was to get the Coalition to leave (not ethnic cleansing) were waging an IED war against coalition forces. IEDs in 2004 accounted for about one quarter of US deaths. By 2005, about half the deaths were due to IEDs. And often as not, more innocent Iraqis would be killed in those attacks than US soldiers. Thousands and thousands of civilians died. Not because of deliberate ethnic cleansing ... but because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because there was a war going on. And if even 6000 Iraqis died in these attacks, that's another 1% to take off the total that might be assigned to ethnic cleansing.

The insurgents also carried out a campaign of targeted attacks on Iraqi government officials, Iraqi military and police forces, and their families. This activity shouldn't be called ethnic cleansing either. It was an attack on a government made up of all ethnic groups in order to make it fall. Pure and simple. UPI reported that 2700 Iraqi officials and Iraqi forces were killed in 2005 alone by such activities. Again, if even 6000 died during the Lancet study period, that would remove another 1% from any ethnic cleansing claim.

And I could keep logically pecking away at whatever is left. It won't end up above 50% so your claim that "most" deaths are due to ethnic cleansing is highly suspect, even if we thought the Lancet 2 results had ANY basis in fact. In any case, the Lancet 2 report doesn't even mention ethnic cleansing. Curious. Especially since it's a poll driven study. You'd think those interviewed might have been honest. :)

And one more point. It's widely recognized that major ethnic cleansing in Iraq didn't occur until the Askariya shrine in Sumarra was attacked ... in February of 2006. So on that basis alone, one might question whether anything more than a small fraction of the 601,000 total violent deaths in the March 2003 to June 2006 Lancet 2 study were actually due to "ethnic cleansing".

Now I'm not suggesting that ethnic cleansing didn't take place to some degree, especially starting in 2006, but I think that when you claim most of those who died in the Mar 2003 - June 2006 timeframe died because of ethnic cleansing, you are spinning again ... simply because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that there was something deeply wrong with both the Lancet 1 and Lancet 2 studies.

And by the way, do you think that ethnic cleansing wasn't going on in Iraq before we invaded? Why do you think the Kurds and Shiites were so persecuted?

During WW2, millions of people died in an ethnic cleansing campaign. They were not killed by bombs falling from above, most were simply taken away and murdered. If your only source of information was newspaper accounts printed at the time, you would not know that it was happening.

But we have plenty of photographic evidence to prove the WW2 ethnic cleansing campaigns actually happened. We don't have to depend solely on a poll of people who didn't like Germans or Japanese. We found the facilities where the Nazis incinerated millions. We found horrific mass graves. We have NAMED eyewitnesses to the slaughters. We found documentation to prove the events. Where's that evidence in Iraq? You simply don't have it. NOTHING in the way of hard evidence supports the death toll claimed in Iraq by the Lancet researchers. NOTHING. They are claiming that some 25,000 Iraqis were dying EVERY MONTH in 2005-2006 due to violence. EVERY MONTH. I ask you again, where's the evidence of that?
 
Last edited:
Sorry but that's not what either of the Lancet studies (or the NEJM study, for that matter) concluded.

According to the Lancet 1 report, their polling data indicated that 79 percent of violent deaths were caused by "US forces" using "helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry". Another 5 percent were reported to be the result of "American" ground forces killing Iraqis with "small arms fire". So ethnic cleansing was not the purported cause of "most" violence.

The Lancet 2 report stated the most common cause of death was "gunfire". This held true over the entire study period. So strangely enough in the first 18 month period (during the time of the Lancet 1 study period), the Lancet 2 data indicated that only 13-14% of deaths were due to air strikes. That's completely inconsistent with what the Lancet 1 study claimed. No I ask you, why would that be, given how *precise* direct polling is claimed to be by your side in this debate?

It's entirely consistent with the history. Lancet 1 was about the invasion phase, Lancet to was about the aftermath.
 
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Use the same methodology as was used in the Lancet 1 study and NEJM estimate of deaths during the period in question would drop, making the comparison with Lancet results even worse.

But they come up with the same number of deaths.

No, they do not.

I think we agreed earlier that the NEJM data multiplied by 1.5 (their underreporting factor) indicates only about 24% of the deaths were due to violence ... even if one makes the mistake they did and considers unintentional injuries to be violent deaths (which Lancet 1 did not do). Thus, NEJM is claiming that about 4 * 151,000 = 600,000 total deaths occurred over the 39 months of the survey. Now assuming the death rate was constant, 18/39 * 600,000 = 277,000 deaths occurring in the first 18 months. Lancet 1 said it was only 98,000. So I'm sorry to tell you that the two studies did NOT come up with anywhere near the same number of total deaths in the first 18 months.

They only differ in the ratio of violent to non-violent deaths.

A monumental discrepancy that you seem desperate to ignore. Odd, given the claims from your side of this debate that polling studies are more accurate than studies based on death certificates.

I want to know how the use of IBC data affected the ratio of violent to non-violent deaths.

No, what you want to do is obfuscate and ignore the obvious. :)

NEJM says the death rate has doubled since the invasion.

But curiously, NEJM is claiming that the pre-war death rate is just half of what even the Lancet 1 researchers claimed ... and their estimate was significantly less than what the UN, WHO and UNICEF had said the pre-war death rate was just prior to the war. Perhaps that discrepancy accounts for the increase they found? :)

In this thread, I'm only interested in why the NEJM and Lancet-1 numbers for total deaths agree.

As I showed above, they don't. :D And you still need to address the Lancet 2 data since the same researchers did it and they said it was a better study. ROTFLOL!
 
Originally Posted by BeAChooser The Lancet 2 report stated the most common cause of death was "gunfire". This held true over the entire study period. So strangely enough in the first 18 month period (during the time of the Lancet 1 study period), the Lancet 2 data indicated that only 13-14% of deaths were due to air strikes. That's completely inconsistent with what the Lancet 1 study claimed. No I ask you, why would that be, given how *precise* direct polling is claimed to be by your side in this debate?

It's entirely consistent with the history. Lancet 1 was about the invasion phase, Lancet to was about the aftermath.

FALSE. The Lancet 2 study included the invasion phase and in fact broke it out seperately. During that phase it states that air strikes accounted for 13 percent of violent deaths. That's compared to Lancet 1 stating it was 79 percent of violent deaths. It's fascinating to watch your inability to acknowledge that is there something seriously wrong with either Lancet 1 or Lancet 2 or perhaps both. You won't because you are agenda driven.
 
No, they do not.

You're going back and forth ignoring what "total" means and then accepting the difference between "total" and "violent".

From post 1:
According to Table 4 from the Supplementary Materials (of NEJM):

Mortality Rate All causes Pre-Invasion = 3.17
Mortality Rate All causes for Mar03 to Dec04 = 5.92

The excess death for Mar03 to Sep04 period ( = Lancet 1):

(5.92-3.17)/1000 * (17.8/12) * 24400000 = 99531

So NEJM estimates about 100,000 deaths for the period of Lancet-1 -- Just like Lancet-1.


According to your own calculations, about 1/4 of NEJM's total were due to violence. Lancet-1 says about 60%
 
I don't have to. Your source was clearly counting all US military personnel on hand during WWII, whether deployed or not.

That's what you claim. But you only have your own claim to back it up. You said that most American forces stayed at home. I found a source that said 3/4 were deployed overseas. So you clearly don't know the size of American deployments.


And, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that wiki listed the entire size of the US military. About 16 million. 3/4 of that is 12 million.

400,000/12,000,000

gives about 83 per 10,000 per year.

That's the best result you can get, even assuming you are right about wiki. And you don't even change the figure given by an order of magnitude.

Not to mention 2,345 military deaths in Pearl Harbour, which indicates that perhaps some of the military in American territory should also be counted as combatants.

America is not a theatre of war in the current conflict. Iraq can't hit America. Japan did.
 
That's what you claim. But you only have your own claim to back it up. You said that most American forces stayed at home. I found a source that said 3/4 were deployed overseas. So you clearly don't know the size of American deployments.


And, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that wiki listed the entire size of the US military. About 16 million. 3/4 of that is 12 million.

400,000/12,000,000

gives about 83 per 10,000 per year.

That's the best result you can get, even assuming you are right about wiki. And you don't even change the figure given by an order of magnitude.

Not to mention 2,345 military deaths in Pearl Harbour, which indicates that perhaps some of the military in American territory should also be counted as combatants.

America is not a theatre of war in the current conflict. Iraq can't hit America. Japan did.
You're really stretching now FireGarden. Your source fudged the numbers, deal with it.

There was nowhere near 11 million troops stationed overseas during WWII. The planned invasion of Japan, IIRC, called for a little over 1 million troops. A similar number was probably involved in the European theater, and there was overlap between the two. I did a job for a veteran a few years ago who told me he had fought in Italy and Germany, and when the war in Europe was over he was shipped to the Pacific theater, where his unit was one of the first to occupy Hiroshima after the atomic bomb leveled it (it was a black unit, surprise surprise!).

And Hawaii was not a state back then, it was a territory much as Guam is today. Neither Japan nor Germany had the capability to hit the US mainland with anything bigger than a balloon bomb or a small gun fired from a U-Boat (the former happened, I don't think the latter did).

And at any rate, al Qaeda certainly hit the US mainland on 9/11.
 
From post 1:
According to Table 4 from the Supplementary Materials (of NEJM):

Mortality Rate All causes Pre-Invasion = 3.17
Mortality Rate All causes for Mar03 to Dec04 = 5.92

The excess death for Mar03 to Sep04 period ( = Lancet 1):

(5.92-3.17)/1000 * (17.8/12) * 24400000 = 99531

So NEJM estimates about 100,000 deaths for the period of Lancet-1 -- Just like Lancet-1.

You want to use what Table 4 in the supplement says, to look at total deaths? Sure. Let's see what we get for the total number of excess death in the period Mar 03 to Jun 06 according that table. It states the mortality rate for all causes from Mar 03 to Dec 04 is 5.92/1000/year and that it was 6.11/1000/year from Jan 05 - Jun06. So let's use the average, 6.02/1000/year.

(6.02 - 3.17)/1000 * 40/12 *24400000 = 230,000

That's only about 1/3 the number that the Lancet 2 report claimed during that same time period. Do you see a problem ... especially considering that the same researchers did both reports and those researchers have stated the Lancet 2 report was more accurate?

And Lancet 1 claimed that the percent that died by violence in the Mar 03 to Sept 04 time frame was about 60,000/98000 = 61 percent, compared to Lancet 2's claim of about 92 percent. Even more striking, and difficult to understand, is that Lancet 1 claimed that 79% of the violent deaths were due to air strikes while Lancet 2 said that only 13% were due to air strikes during the same timeperiod. It's like they interviewed two completely different populations ... yet they said they used the same procedures.

Anyway you look at it, either the Lancet 1 report was wrong or the Lancet 2 report was wrong or both. If Lancet 2 is wrong then the researchers were wrong to conclude they did a better job the second time around. Wouldn't you agree? If Lancet 1 was wrong, why are you defending it? Why can't you just admit that something is seriously wrong with either the Lancet 1 or Lancet 2 report ... or possibly both? Is your need to make the US the bad guy and pull us out of Iraq just when it looks like we may have the conflict won that strong? If so, what's your motivation in that? Politics?
 
America is not a theatre of war in the current conflict. Iraq can't hit America.

You are wrong. The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq, al-Qaeda, certainly did hit us once and were they to gain a safe haven in Iraq would undoubtedly do it again. Prior to the invasion, al-Qaeda located in Iraq (Baghdad, specifically) plotted and funded a chemically laced bomb attack in Jordan that would killed everyone in the US embassy in Amman (and tens of thousands of Jordanians nearby) had it been successful. The failure of that plot may be a result of our invasion of Iraq ... which put the plot's top leader, the mastermind, on the run so he couldn't monitor the plot's progress as much as perhaps he would have liked. It may be that materials captured during the invasion and in the months afterwards provided intel that led to the defeat of the plot before it could be carried out. Remember, Jordan caught the terrorists soon after they entered the country with the vehicles, explosives and chemicals they were going to use in hand. It's almost as if Jordanian officials knew they were coming. ;)
 
Originally Posted by FireGarden
68 deaths per 10,000 soldiers per year in the fighting of WW2.

The US would have had to deploy nearly 15 million troops to the theater of operation (all year, every year) for this to be accurate. In other words, can't possibly be true.

According to http://www.census.gov/Press-Release...cts_for_features_special_editions/001747.html

- 16.1 million
The number of U.S. armed forces personnel who served in World War II between Dec. 1, 1941, and Dec. 31, 1946.

- 73%
The proportion of U.S. military personnel who served abroad during WWII.

- 16 months
The average time U.S. personnel served overseas during WWII.

- 92,000
The number of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines killed in battle in WWII.

The average time served of 16 months means that on average, there were

16,100,000 * 0.73 * (16/(5*12)) = 3.13 million soldiers abroad at any given time.

92,000 deaths over a 5 year period means that about 18,400 died each year.

So wouldn't that mean a rate of 18,400/3130 = 5.9 deaths / 1000 / year or 59 / 10000 / year ... not all that different from FireGarden's 69/10000 figure?
 
You are wrong. The terrorists we are fighting in Iraq, al-Qaeda, certainly did hit us once and were they to gain a safe haven in Iraq would undoubtedly do it again. Prior to the invasion, al-Qaeda located in Iraq (Baghdad, specifically) plotted and funded a chemically laced bomb attack in Jordan that would killed everyone in the US embassy in Amman (and tens of thousands of Jordanians nearby) had it been successful. The failure of that plot may be a result of our invasion of Iraq ... which put the plot's top leader, the mastermind, on the run so he couldn't monitor the plot's progress as much as perhaps he would have liked. It may be that materials captured during the invasion and in the months afterwards provided intel that led to the defeat of the plot before it could be carried out. Remember, Jordan caught the terrorists soon after they entered the country with the vehicles, explosives and chemicals they were going to use in hand. It's almost as if Jordanian officials knew they were coming. ;)

Al Qaeda were not there in significant numbers, and were not there because Saddam wanted them there. The numbers of Al Qaeda multiplied after the invasion because of the chaotic state the country was in. Now, given the progress against Al Qaeda that has been achieved to date in that country, was it worth a trillion dollars and all those deaths. Would there have been a better way of dealing with them?
 
Al Qaeda were not there in significant numbers

Define significant. Nineteen terrorists killed over 3000 people on 9/11. A handful plotted and planned an attack on Jordan from Baghdad before the invasion of Iraq ... an attack that they hoped would kill tens of thousands (some estimates are as high as 80,000) ... including EVERYONE in the US embassy in Amman. It doesn't take very many terrorists to do significant damage or kill huge numbers of people ... especially if they were to get access to WMD.

and were not there because Saddam wanted them there.

You have no basis at all for claiming that. None whatsoever.

Saddam OPENLY APPLAUDED the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. He was the ONLY head of state in the entire world to do that. After 9/11, he had murals with his face celebrating the event painted and put up in Iraq. Like this one: http://www.nationalreview.com/images/mural3.jpg . We know that Saddam gave safe haven to one of the 1991 WTC bombers and other notorious terrorists.

We know that in the decade before our invasion, all the way up to the invasion itself, that Saddam's regime was friendly with and supportive of terrorist movements around the world. Saddam awarded the families of homicide bombers in Israel cash, thus encouraging such attacks. He supported the terrorist movement in the Philippines. In fact, a fax sent on June 6, 2001 shows that Saddam's government provided financial aid to Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is an al-Qaida offshoot co-founded by bin Laden's brother-in-law.

But not just money was provided. http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/031706_iraq.asp reports that "Declassified documents from Iraq show 3,000 Saudi and Iraqi mujihideen depart Iraq in Nov 2001 to fight US in Afghanistan. The newly declassified documents ... snip ... show that Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan."

During the invasion, our forces discovered suicide bomb making factories and were attacked by numerous individuals clearly using terrorist tactics and Iraqi civilians as shields. Numerous sources indicate that camps for training terrorists were built by Saddam's regime including the notorious Salman Pak. During the invasion, our soldiers found clear evidence (including videos) that show the camp was used to train terrorists. Numerous non-Iraqis were encountered in the vicinity and locals said the camp was used to train al-Qaeda. Marine Corp General Vincent Brooks stated on April 6, 2003: "There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Salman Pak....This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics.... That's just one of a number of examples we've found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places, and we've killed a number of them and we've captured a number of them."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp "John Murtha's claim--that there was no connection "with terrorism in Iraq itself"--might come as a surprise to the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines. In early April 2003, they found a ten-acre terrorist training camp ten miles outside of Baghdad. In an interview at the time with an embedded reporter from Stars & Stripes, Captain Aaron Robertson said: "We believe this is a training camp where Iraqis trained forces for the Palestine Liberation Front. This is what we would refer to as a sensitive site. This is clearly a terrorist training camp, the type Iraq claimed did not exist." ... snip ... The Marines recovered training manuals in Arabic and English, along with rosters of Palestinians trained there. Last week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an Iraqi "intelligence-coded" memo that included lists of "Palestinians trained in Iraq." In fact, Saddam Hussein boasted of his support for Palestinian terrorists and provided the families of Palestinian "martyrs" rewards of $25,000. Another captured document details those payments."

And Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported similar training also took place at camps in Samarra and Ramadi under the direction of elite Iraqi military units. He reported (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp ) that documents reveal that "in 1998, Iraq began training 2,000 Arab Islamic terrorists a year and that this training continued through 2002. ... snip ... As a U.S. intelligence official explained to this author, the United States has interrogated the Iraqis who trained the foreign terrorists and has their accounts of that training, along with material like group pictures of the graduating classes."

The 9/11 Commission Report clearly states, “There are indications that [by 2001] the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam (BAC - the al-Qaeda group in Northern Iraq) against the common Kurdish enemy.” In her book, Masters of Chaos, author and U.S. News & World Report senior writer Linda Robinson describes Ansar al Islam's camp at Sargat near the Iranian border. “[A Special Forces sergeant] believed, given the heavy fortifications, ample weaponry, and quality of the fighters, that his team had just invaded the world’s largest existing terrorist training camp since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” writes Robinson. “This was no way-station, in his view. It was remote yet in the heart of the region, so radicals could wreak havoc all over the Middle East.” According to Robinson, the American Green Berets discovered among the dead in Sargat: foreign ID cards, airline-ticket receipts, visas, and passports from Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, and Iran."

“There were terrorists training in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country,” said retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. John Bruce Blount, former chief of staff of Allied Forces Southern Europe. “No question about it. There also were many things Saddam was doing – money, passports, visas, you name it – to further the terrorists ability to operate in other places throughout the world.”

After the fall of Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi received medical care in one of Baghdad's hospitals. While he was there, terrorist plots were hatched against us and our allies, including the one against Jordan and the US embassy in Amman. And when Iraq was told about the presence of al-Zarqawi, nothing was done to capture him. In fact, when one of al-Zarqawi's *associates*, Abu Yasim Sayyem, finally was detained by the IIS, the CIA reported that Saddam himself ordered his release ... even over the objections of the IIS official who detained the man. And documents discovered after the war and publically released confirm this event. And according to the CIA, a former IIS officer believed that Saddam released Sayyem because he "would participate in striking U.S. forces when they entered Iraq."

A 2002 CIA document summarized its overall view of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities this way: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence."

During a 2004 visit to Kazakhstan, the Russian president said that between 9-11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, "Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received . . . information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the U.S. and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

US intelligence revealed a letter by a member of Saddam's Al Mukabarat to a superior, dated Sept. 15, 2001, reporting on a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani consul. The letter indicated bin Laden and the Taliban were in contact with Iraq, made a specific visit to Baghdad, and said the U.S. had proof Saddam's regime and al-Qaida were cooperating to hit a target in the U.S..

Among the documents captured during the invasion was a letter dated March 11, 2001, written by Abdel Magid Hammod Ali, one of Saddam's air force generals. The letter asks members of Saddam's military for "the names of those who desire to volunteer for a suicide mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American interests." http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/ "You will note that all three translations of this document -- performed by three different people working independently of each other -- all translate this section almost identically. All three explicitly show that the Iraqi military had ordered a call for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks on American interests, six months before 9/11 and two years almost to the day prior to our invasion."

Another document, from 1999, revealed plans for a "Blessed July" operation. According to a translation on the Foreign Military Studies Office's Joint Reserve Intelligence Center Web site, Saddam's older son Uday ordered 50 members of the fanatical "Fedayeen Saddam" group to stage bombings and assassinations in Iraq and Europe. Looking at the "Blessed July" document, the magazine Foreign Affairs notes this "regime-directed wave of 'martyrdom' operations against targets in the West (was) well under way at the time of the coalition invasion."

Saddam is heard on a 1997 tape predicting terrorism would soon be coming to the U.S., while his son-in-law, who was in charge of Saddam's WMD effort, gloats about lying to U.N. weapons inspectors to hide the extent of Iraq's WMD program. Saddam, knowing he's being taped, declares Iraq would never be the one to do that ... but the statements made by his staff on the tape seem almost enthusiatic about the prospect.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/768rwsbj.asp "From the March 1, 2004 issue: An Iraqi prisoner details Saddam's links to Osama bin Laden's terror network. ... snip ... a recent interview with Abdul Rahman al-Shamari, who served in Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarat, from 1997 to 2002, and is currently sitting in a Kurdish prison. Al-Shamari says that he worked for a man who was Saddam's envoy to al Qaeda." Read that carefully ... it's an eye opener. There were far more connections between Saddam's regime and Ansar al Islam than the anti-war community will acknowledge.

In the above, I've only touched the surface of the evidence showing you are completely wrong about Saddam's links to terrorism and the threat he posed to us in that regard. Care to comment?

Would there have been a better way of dealing with them?

And I'd really like to hear what you would have done about that if you want to insist that invasion was not the solution. Specifics, please. And don't just ignore the rest of the threat posed by Saddam, either. :)
 
And I'd really like to hear what you would have done about that if you want to insist that invasion was not the solution. Specifics, please. And don't just ignore the rest of the threat posed by Saddam, either. :)

What I would have done doesn't matter. It's just curious that out of all the problematic areas of the world, an invasion was undertaken here. Afghanistan had some kind of rationale, at least. One Trillion Dollars, thousands of American lives lost, many more permanently damaged, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead. Does the price paid justify the output?
 

Back
Top Bottom