Poor Pacifists

[Cavalier22]

FORCED CONVERSIONS TO ISLAM IN IRAQ

By Charles Johnson

How did this one ever get past the Islamist sympathizers at the BBC? For once, they’ve published an honest look at the Religion of Peace and Tolerance™, and the jihad against non-Muslims in Iraq: Iraq’s Mandaeans ‘face extinction’. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

The Sabian Mandaeans - one of the oldest religious groups in the world - are facing extinction, according to its leaders. They claim that Islamic extremists in Iraq are trying to wipe them out through forced conversions, rape and murder.

The Mandaeans are pacifists, followers of Adam, Noah and John the Baptist. They have lived in what is now Iraq since before Islam and Christianity. More than 80% have been forced to flee the country and now live as refugees in Syria and Jordan. Even there they do not feel safe - but they say western governments are unwilling to take them in. ...

Nine-year-old Selwan likes watching cartoons and playing football. But he is too scared to leave his flat. The other children tease him. He has burns all down the side of his face and on 20% of his body.

He was kidnapped by Islamic militants who forced him to jump into a bonfire - because he is Mandaean. Now his family lives in a tiny flat in a slum in Damascus.

I meet Luay. He is too scared to be identified and does not want to use his full name. He was dragged off the street by armed men and forcibly circumcised - a practice not allowed in the Mandaean religion.

He is 19 and is now unlikely ever to find a bride from his own faith. Worse, he was forcibly converted. That means in the eyes of those same extremists if he now declares himself Mandaean he is apostate.

That makes him a traitor to Islam, who may be murdered. He says he will not be safe in any Muslim country.  Sunday, March 4, 2007

[24KT]

Prior to the US led invasion, Iraq was a secular state, where religious freedom existed.  ...now 

[Cavalier22]

I don't blame the US for this; i blame the peopel who are actually killing whole tribes for not believing in the same militant religion.

[BRUCE]

Prior to the US led invasion, Iraq was a secular state, where religious freedom existed.  ...now 

What a steaming load of you know what.  Are you aware of Saddam's persecution of Kurds in Iraq's north and the subsequent gassing of thousands?

[Camel Jockey]

What a steaming load of you know what.  Are you aware of Saddam's persecution of Kurds in Iraq's north and the subsequent gassing of thousands?

Gas the west provided.

[BRUCE]

Gas the west provided.

Thanks for posting something entirely incorrect.  Do you have any evidence that this was the case?

[24KT]

What a steaming load of you know what.  Are you aware of Saddam's persecution of Kurds in Iraq's north and the subsequent gassing of thousands?

Yes I am, ...are you aware of the funds Bush & Negroponte provide to AlQ organizations to fuel instability in Iraq?

[BRUCE]

Yes I am, ...are you aware of the funds Bush & Negroponte provide to AlQ organizations to fuel instability in Iraq?

That's your response - to make something up?  Do you actually debate what I said, or merely accept you made a huge error in judgement?

You really are not worth reading, you know that?

[24KT]

That's your response - to make something up?  Do you actually debate what I said, or merely accept you made a huge error in judgement?

You really are not worth reading, you know that?

Where the heck have you been?
This is now in the mainstream body of knowledge...even among Americans and their sycophants.
When you have democratic presidential candidates discussing it openly, ...is there any more need for denial?

[BRUCE]

Where the heck have you been?
This is now in the mainstream body of knowledge...even among Americans and their sycophants.
When you have democratic presidential candidates discussing it openly, ...is there any more need for denial?

Please, don't mistake your own idiocy for that of the majority’s.  If it's common knowledge you'll have no problem proving it to me, which I'd love for you to try and do.

[Cavalier22]

You already showed this is not the case, just dig up that old thread.

[BRUCE]

You already showed this is not the case, just dig up that old thread.

Thanks, Cav, isn't it incredible just how many here continue to believe things like the old 'US gave Iraq WMD' story?

What more can you do than give evidence proving without question the contrary?

[Cavalier22]

They want to believe America is bad, regardless of the truth

[OzmO]

The real questions here are:

Is Iraq a safer place if you belong to a  minority religion before the Iraq war or now?

Saddam Killed upwards of 300,000 according to the Kurds over the time of his reign if i remember it right.  Anywhere from 50k to 600k have died in the last 4 years due to this war. 

So i would say unless you are a Kurd, things were safer before the war.   If you are not a "what ever majority/faction is control your neighborhood"  then you are in danger now.

[BRUCE]

The real questions here are:

Is Iraq a safer place if you belong to a  minority religion before the Iraq war or now?

Saddam Killed upwards of 300,000 according to the Kurds over the time of his reign if i remember it right.  Anywhere from 50k to 600k have died in the last 4 years due to this war. 

So i would say unless you are a Kurd, things were safer before the war.   If you are not a "what ever majority/faction is control your neighborhood"  then you are in danger now.

I can assure you that Lancet study that placed the total deaths in Iraq from the war at around 650,000 is entirely inaccurate, Ozmo.

Recently, University of London statistician Professor Michael Spagat has this to say about the study:

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

[OzmO]

I can assure you that Lancet study that placed the total deaths in Iraq from the war at around 650,000 is entirely inaccurate, Ozmo.

Recently, University of London statistician Professor Michael Spagat has this to say about the study:

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

I can see you are still having problems reading past your stuck up nose Dean Pritchard.

Let me quote what i said for you again and this time read it slowly and out loud.

Anywhere from 50k to 600k have died in the last 4 years due to this war.

[OzmO]

Back to the point:

Is it safer now for the average person in Iraq then it was before the war?

NO.

Thanks to BUSH and his bumbling circus. 

[BRUCE]

I can see you are still having problems reading past your stuck up nose Dean Pritchard.
Let me quote what i said for you again and this time read it slowly and out loud.

Ah, okay, you're going to go back to acting foolishly.  I understand.

I was, after all, simply addressing what you had said - again.  I'll repeat it, since it appears to have upset you so - the death toll in Iraq is nowhere near 650,000.

[OzmO]

Ah, okay, you're going to go back to acting foolishly.  I understand.

I was, after all, simply addressing what you had said - again.  I'll repeat it, since it appears to have upset you so - the death toll in Iraq is nowhere near 650,000.

Sigh,  you didn't do what i said.  tisk tisk.

When i did i say 650,000?

And regarding your predictable post of a link:


How can anyone say for sure?

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,

Do you know exactly what contrary evidence they ignored?
Can you list all of it?
Do you know which evidence they cherry picked? 
Can you list all of it?
Do you know in what way they manipulated supporting evidence?
Can you list all of it? 
What inconvenient questions did they evade exactly?
Can you list all of it?

Because what you are doing here is citing a person's opinion as fact.  And unless you've done the research both sides have done all you are doing posting opinion.

So back to what you said.....

I can assure you that Lancet study that placed the total deaths in Iraq from the war at around 650,000 is entirely inaccurate, Ozmo.

You can't assure anyone of anything, because you have no idea outside of posting links of people's research you know nothing of as well as their motivations for such research.

The reality here is that we will probably never know exactly how many people have died since the start of this war. 

That's why i said 50k to 600k. 

chances are it's about 100k.

now go back and re-read everything again slowly before you jump to inaccurate conclusions again while trying to look past your stuck up nose Mr. Pritchard.   

[BRUCE]

Sigh,  you didn't do what i said.  tisk tisk.
When i did i say 650,000?

Did I accuse you of falsifying a figure or even supporting the Lancet study?

I simply provided both you, and the members here, with some information regarding the inaccuracy of this figure.  Calm down a little and you'll see that.

[OzmO]

Did I accuse you of falsifying a figure or even supporting the Lancet study?

I simply provided both you, and the members here, with some information regarding the inaccuracy of this figure.  Calm down a little and you'll see that.

The reality is we don't know what's accurate. 

You simply provided the opinion of 1 statistician as a fact. 

[24KT]

Please, don't mistake your own idiocy for that of the majority’s.  If it's common knowledge you'll have no problem proving it to me, which I'd love for you to try and do.

http://alternet.org/blogs/video/48501/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HER20070226&articleId=4945

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=002675

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=948

http://youtube.com/?v=Vd5_2xXK_Zc

[BRUCE]

The reality is we don't know what's accurate. 

You simply provided the opinion of 1 statistician as a fact. 

Ah, so you do defend the Lancet study?  Now I see why you would be upset by my post.

[OzmO]

Ah, so you do defend the Lancet study?  Now I see why you would be upset by my post.

Do i have to start saying you need to re-read everything again?   sigh.

where do i say or insinuate i believe the Lancet study?

where do i defend it?

I'm simply telling you we don't know how many and that your "fact" is nothing more than a person's opinion you're are passing on as fact.

Read this again:

Anywhere from 50k to 600k have died in the last 4 years due to this war.

you are being a little thick now.

[BRUCE]

So you show me where you have used this study to estimate the deaths in Iraq, and then you claim that my evidence proving it is false and that we 'don't know what's accurate'.  You then wonder why I present facts against this study, which is obviously something quite close to your heart, because instead of debating the facts you're resorting to telling me I'm 'thick'.

Also, in my last post I questioned whether you defend the study or not.  Thus my questions mark - I didn't accuse you of defending it, do I need to tell you to re-read things, or is your comprehension level adequate?

I'll start a thread shortly to completely debunk this Lancet study, for everyone else's benefit.