NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraq by the Numbers
As of March 28, 2006

2464 US armed forces deaths in Iraq, since invasion March 20, 2003 to May 28, 2006

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx]icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

2113 Coalition hostile fire deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003 invasion to March 28, 2006

573 Coalition non-combat deaths in Iraq since Mar 20, 2003 invasion to March 28, 2006

http://icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx]icasualties.org/oif/stats.aspx

2819 people killed in Sept 11, 2001 Al Queda attack on world trade Center
Wikipedia

1 Number of Iraqi Intelligence agents behind the 1st attack on world trade center.
1995 article on 1st WTC attack , re Ramzi Yousef

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

1 Number of Senior Iraqi intelligence agents at the Al Queda meeting where the Sept 11, 2001 WTC attack plan was agreed upon

500 Tonnes of Yellow Cake Uranium found in Iraq after March 20, 2003 invasion

BBC article, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm)
Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml)
Frontpage mag (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14295)
Little green footballs cpy of a yahoo article (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11621)

1.95 tonnes of enriched uranium found in Iraq after March 20, 2003 invasion
BBC article,
Newsmax
Frontpage mag
Little green footballs cpy of a yahoo article



1 Iraqi/UN ceasefire agreement which required Iraq to show to UN inspectors the destruction of all Iraqi WMDs within a few weeks of end of the 1st gulf war.

1000’s Number of attempts by Iraqi AA crews to down US/British aircraft patrolling the no fly zone after 1st Gulf War, in violation of the Iraq/UN Ceasefire agreement.

2 Number of Purple Hearts awarded to US military personal due to injuries from chemical weapons since Mar 20, 2003 invasion.

1 Passenger jet at Salman Pak, Iraq, used by Al Queda to practice aircraft takeover techniques, prior to Sept 11, 2001
911 commission report
GlobalSecurity report on Salman Pak
National review article re court testimony

911 commission report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm)
GlobalSecurity report on Salman Pak (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm)
National review article re court testimony (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp)

1000s Al queda operatives trained in Al Queda training camps in Iraq, prior to Sept 11, 2001
Weekly standard on captured docs

Weekly standard on captured docs (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp)


1 Al Queda chemical weapons lab found in northern Iraq

14 UN Security Council resolutions confirming that Iraq was violating the Cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war, and was not demonstrating the destruction of all their WMDs.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

UN resolutions


3.9 -- Number of tons of VX nerve gas Iraq produced in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War
25 -- Number of missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum) Iraq produced
157 -- Number of aerial bombs Iraq produced that were filled with germ agents
500 -- Number of bombs Iraq had fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads
550 -- Number of artillery shells Iraq had filled with mustard gas
805 -- Number of tons of ingredients for the production of more VX
4,000 -- Number of tons of ingredients to produce certain types of poison gas Saddam produced or imported
8,500 -- Number of liters of anthrax Saddam produced
107,500 -- Number of casings for chemical weapons Iraq had produced or imported

The war with Iran ended in August 1988. By this time, seven UN specialist missions had documented repeated use of chemicals in the war. According to Iraq, it consumed almost 19,500 chemical bombs, over 54,000 chemical artillery shells and 27,000 short-range chemical rockets between 1983 and 1988. Iraq declared it consumed about 1,800 tons of mustard gas, 140 tons of Tabun, and over 600 tons of Sarin. Almost two-thirds of the CW weapons were used in the last 18 months of the war. Examples of CW use by Iraq:

Use in Iran-Iraq war, 1983-1988
· August 1983 Haij Umran Mustard , fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
· October-November 1983 Panjwin Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
· February-March 1984 Majnoon Island Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties
· March 1984 al-Basrah Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties
· March 1985 Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties
· February 1986 al-Faw Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties
· December 1986 Um ar-Rasas Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties
· April 1987 al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties
· October 1987 Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties
· March 1988 Halabjah& Kurdish area Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties
· April 1988 al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties
· May 1988 Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
· June 1988 Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
· July 1988 South-central border Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
Use in Southern Iraq against the Popular Uprising, 1991
· March 1991, an-Najaf - Karbala area Nerve agent & CS, Shi’a casualties not known.


This is incomplete, still.

Why bother, dude?

Some of the numbers are wrong, some are right. Most are unconnected. By themselves, they prove nothing. All together, they are a non sequitur fallacy.

Plus, you missed an important one:
38,059 - 42,434: The number of civilians killed in Iraq according to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Why bother, dude?

Some of the numbers are wrong, some are right. Most are unconnected. By themselves, they prove nothing. All together, they are a non sequitur fallacy.

Plus, you missed an important one:
38,059 - 42,434: The number of civilians killed in Iraq according to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Damn insurgents and carbombs.

Iraq by the Numbers
As of March 28, 2006
1 Number of Iraqi Intelligence agents behind the 1st attack on world trade center. 1995 article on 1st WTC attack , re Ramzi Yousef
And this proves what, exactly?
An Iraqi was present when the first attack was agreed, in 1992. So that does that somehow prove in your feverish little mind that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Bloody contrived, even for you.
500 Tonnes of Yellow Cake Uranium found in Iraq after March 20, 2003 invasion
Found in Iraq, at the Iraq nuclear power station. Amazing you forgot to mention that. Wonder why? You're not trying to misuse statistics to prove a point, now are you? Surely not!

1.95 tonnes of enriched uranium found in Iraq after March 20, 2003 invasion
from one of your posted articles: 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility...could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.

In other words - stuff they knew about. Stuff that was used in a nuclear reactor to create power. Stuff that wasn't being used to make WMDs.
But I guess that doesn't matter squat to you, does it? Anything, not matter how tenuous, to keep you in denial about the Bush admins reasons for invading.



3.9 -- Number of tons of VX nerve gas Iraq produced in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War
25 -- Number of missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum) Iraq produced
157 -- Number of aerial bombs Iraq produced that were filled with germ agents
500 -- Number of bombs Iraq had fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads
550 -- Number of artillery shells Iraq had filled with mustard gas
805 -- Number of tons of ingredients for the production of more VX
4,000 -- Number of tons of ingredients to produce certain types of poison gas Saddam produced or imported
8,500 -- Number of liters of anthrax Saddam produced
107,500 -- Number of casings for chemical weapons Iraq had produced or imported

The war with Iran ended in August 1988. By this time, seven UN specialist missions had documented repeated use of chemicals in the war. According to Iraq, it consumed almost 19,500 chemical bombs, over 54,000 chemical artillery shells and 27,000 short-range chemical rockets between 1983 and 1988. Iraq declared it consumed about 1,800 tons of mustard gas, 140 tons of Tabun, and over 600 tons of Sarin. Almost two-thirds of the CW weapons were used in the last 18 months of the war. Examples of CW use by Iraq:

Use in Iran-Iraq war, 1983-1988
· August 1983 Haij Umran Mustard , fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
· October-November 1983 Panjwin Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
· February-March 1984 Majnoon Island Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties
· March 1984 al-Basrah Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties
· March 1985 Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties
· February 1986 al-Faw Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties
· December 1986 Um ar-Rasas Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties
· April 1987 al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties
· October 1987 Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties
· March 1988 Halabjah& Kurdish area Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties
· April 1988 al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties
· May 1988 Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
· June 1988 Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
· July 1988 South-central border Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
Use in Southern Iraq against the Popular Uprising, 1991
· March 1991, an-Najaf - Karbala area Nerve agent & CS, Shi’a casualties not known.
Wow. Amazing news! I didn't realise that Iraq had used chemical weapons TWENTY YEARS AGO!
How did the world miss that?!

Why did no-one say anything?

Why didn't the UN pass resolutions demanding Iraq to destroy it's chemical stockpiles?

Good God! Iraq might still have some. Because, you know. Using something 20 years ago is definite proof to having it now.


(what must be going through DM's mind when he posted this): "Ohh...look! a straw! Even though I'm drowning, no harm at clutching for it, eh?"

And this proves what, exactly?
An Iraqi was present when the first attack was agreed, in 1992. So that does that somehow prove in your feverish little mind that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Bloody contrived, even for you.

Found in Iraq, at the Iraq nuclear power station. Amazing you forgot to mention that. Wonder why? You're not trying to misuse statistics to prove a point, now are you? Surely not!


from one of your posted articles: 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and roughly 1000 highly radioactive sources from the former Iraq nuclear research facility...could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program.

In other words - stuff they knew about. Stuff that was used in a nuclear reactor to create power. Stuff that wasn't being used to make WMDs.
But I guess that doesn't matter squat to you, does it? Anything, not matter how tenuous, to keep you in denial about the Bush admins reasons for invading.



Wow. Amazing news! I didn't realise that Iraq had used chemical weapons TWENTY YEARS AGO!
How did the world miss that?!

Why did no-one say anything?

Why didn't the UN pass resolutions demanding Iraq to destroy it's chemical stockpiles?

Good God! Iraq might still have some. Because, you know. Using something 20 years ago is definite proof to having it now.


(what must be going through DM's mind when he posted this): "Ohh...look! a straw! Even though I'm drowning, no harm at clutching for it, eh?"

I'm always amazed the US didn't just publish the receipts for all the weapons it sold to Iraq when it was supporting them against Iran.

I'm always amazed the US didn't just publish the receipts for all the weapons it sold to Iraq when it was supporting them against Iran.

At least they'd have some proof then.

"See? They do have WMDs! We sold it to them."

I suppose you can't post this often enough: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

I suppose you can't post this often enough: http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.htmlWhen that first picture appeared, I couldn't help but notice a striking similarity to the shrub...

I'm always amazed the US didn't just publish the receipts for all the weapons it sold to Iraq when it was supporting them against Iran.

Or the many pictues of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a smiling Saddam Hussein. Like this one:

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg

Darned if I can figure out what this thread is about...
It seems a bit convoluted.



Let me ask a simple question, from a numerical point of view.

Number of Jihadis despatched to hell / divided by dollars expended:
how are we doing?

Darned if I can figure out what this thread is about...
It seems a bit convoluted.



Let me ask a simple question, from a numerical point of view.

Number of Jihadis despatched to hell / divided by dollars expended:
how are we doing?

I like your analysis but I fear the answer is still ; not well

Why bother, dude?

Some of the numbers are wrong, some are right. Most are unconnected. By themselves, they prove nothing. All together, they are a non sequitur fallacy.

Plus, you missed an important one:
38,059 - 42,434: The number of civilians killed in Iraq according to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


First, IBC is generally known to be upping it's numbers.

Second, it does not include only civilians, but also insurgents.

Third, it's still much less then what the Saddam Hussein regime would kill off in the same period of time.

Fourth it includes people killed by the insurgents.

Damn insurgents and carbombs.

Coalition forces killed over 1/3 of the people killed in Iraq*. Don't try to pass all the blame off onto the casualties caused by terrorists created by the civil war we created there.

*http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php

Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.

Um, what happened to the other 18% of victims?

The other 18% will have been the rest of the coalition, I think.

Um, what happened to the other 18% of victims?

"Natural" deaths, one would assume. One would also assume that the care that might have prevented them was kept from getting to them by the war.

That or the yeti got them.

I like your analysis but I fear the answer is still ; not well

I agree.

By any rational standard ( and you'll agree perhaps that mine is as rational as it is cold-hearted ), the entire invasion of Iraq is a show of incompetence.

The only solace I have is that those other fellows are doing even worse:
they're stopping our lads from leaving a place where both the other fellers and me think our lads should not be at all...

The other 18% will have been the rest of the coalition, I think.

US-led forces?

First, IBC is generally known to be upping it's numbers.

Second, it does not include only civilians, but also insurgents.

Third, it's still much less then what the Saddam Hussein regime would kill off in the same period of time.

Fourth it includes people killed by the insurgents.

First, provide an unbiased source supporting your claim.

Second, it deals with the Iraqi deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq, whether they be from the civil war we created, from the terrrorist recruiting state we created, or from our own bombs and missiles.

Third, back up your claims with a source please.

Fourth, they account for 36% of the deaths, which IBC reports in it's own Dosier, if you choose to read it.

First, provide an unbiased source supporting your claim.

Second, it deals with the Iraqi deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq, whether they be from the civil war we created, from the terrrorist recruiting state we created, or from our own bombs and missiles.

Third, back up your claims with a source please.

Fourth, they account for 36% of the deaths, which IBC reports in it's own Dosier, if you choose to read it.

... the Iraqi state recruits terrorists? I was under the impression it was too useless and ineffective to do anything at all.

... the Iraqi state recruits terrorists? I was under the impression it was too useless and ineffective to do anything at all.

Hardy Har Har. You know exactly what I meant. The nation of Iraq is in near anarchy, in many places, with resentment against the US bubbling over the top. Groups like Al Quaida, which never before were even allowed in Iraq, now pour over the border, and recruit from the populace, swelling their numbers and training their people.

Why bother, dude?

Some of the numbers are wrong, some are right. Most are unconnected. By themselves, they prove nothing. All together, they are a non sequitur fallacy.

Plus, you missed an important one:
38,059 - 42,434: The number of civilians killed in Iraq according to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

I remember when that site was claiming hudndreds of thousands killed killed, not even 3 weeks past the invasion beginning. It's not exactly a credible source, despite the recent attempts to give a much more realistic figure.

Oh, and Designated, you may as well not bother showing facts and figures to these people. A lot of them have a hard time remembering when they were critizing Bush for somehow being responsible for the break ins into a nuclear material storage depot they now deny ever existed.

I remember when that site was claiming hudndreds of thousands killed killed, not even 3 weeks past the invasion beginning. It's not exactly a credible source, despite the recent attempts to give a much more realistic figure.
Here's an idea: Before you blow something off as unreliable, you could always check it out first.

100,000: A Controversial Report From Johns Hopkins Researchers Estimates Iraq Civilian Death Toll

On the Friday before the election, Oct. 29, a startling claim hit the pages of mainstream newspapers like The Washington Post and The Sun, only to be dismissed out of hand and, apparently, forgotten.

The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, printed the results of the first and only scientific canvassing of Iraqis to determine how many had died as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation. The conclusion: 100,000. At least.
...
The study, which was carried out over four weeks by a team of seven medical researchers in Iraq, did not say that U.S. soldiers killed 100,000 noncombatants. It said that 100,000 excess deaths occurred since the start of the ground war. That counts the people shot or buried under rubble—and it also counts the people who died of malnutrition or starvation, who became sick and died from drinking polluted water, and people who died from all other causes directly and indirectly related to the war, including the skyrocketing crime rate.

The study was done by teams of interviewers who fanned out across Iraq, visiting 33 neighborhoods in 11 cities, knocking on doors and interviewing the occupants of 990 households. The researchers asked the families if anyone who had lived in the house had died in the preceding years, covering a period both before and after the U.S.-led invasion. By comparing the death rate before and after the military attack, the research team calculated the number of “excess deaths” attributable to the war.

This is the same methodology Roberts used in 2000 to estimate that the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo claimed at least 1.7 million lives. That estimate made the front page of The New York Times, without caveats about Roberts’ political beliefs.
100 000 deaths (http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=9349)

Read the article and you might just notice this bit:
The study, designed and led by a pair of researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, estimated the Iraqi death toll to be at least six times the tally published by Iraqi Body Count, the Britain-based nonprofit that compiles news reports of civilian casualties.
Which means your slagging off of a report into Iraqi deaths is wrong on many counts, not least atributing it to the wrong source.
Still regard the IBC as unreliable, do you?

First, IBC is generally known to be upping it's numbers.
And what part of your butt did you pull this 'generally known' fact from?
Do yourself a favour and actually check out who you're slagging off. stops one from looking like an idiot.
IBC methodology (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php#methods)
They use 38 international news agencies for their figures, including your beloved Fox. They only include it if it was reported in at least 2 of them, and can be verifed.
It goes on from there. Worth reading - except for the cognitive dissonance it'll no doubt give you.


Second, it does not include only civilians, but also insurgents.

Third, it's still much less then what the Saddam Hussein regime would kill off in the same period of time.

Fourth it includes people killed by the insurgents.
Rigghhttt...Again: Where did you pull this facts and figure from?
Here's an example of actually bothering to check before posting:
Iraqi government figures show civilian death rate highest
By Robert Reid, Associated Press
BAGHDAD — The death toll among Iraqi civilians in insurgency-related violence last year was more than twice as high as the country's soldiers and police combined, according to government figures obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
Civilian deaths (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-03-02-civilian-deaths_x.htm)
In 2004, the Associated Press completed a survey of the morgues in Baghdad and surrounding provinces, to tally violent deaths since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations. In Baghdad alone, they counted 4,279 such deaths in a city of 5.6 million; these deaths generally do not include combatants, because they are typically not brought to morgues. This death rate translates to 76 killings per 100,000 people, compared to 39 in crime-ridden Bogotá, Colombia, 7.5 in New York City, 3.0 in Baghdad itself in 2002 (the year before the war), and the international average rate of 5.5.
Baghdad death rates (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10210)

Oh, and btw:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/images/pr13-0.gif

I'm always amazed the US didn't just publish the receipts for all the weapons it sold to Iraq when it was supporting them against Iran.

And yet......

it was minuscule compare to umm France, Russia, and China. They supplied FAR MORE.

First, IBC is generally known to be upping it's numbers.

Second, it does not include only civilians, but also insurgents.

Third, it's still much less then what the Saddam Hussein regime would kill off in the same period of time.

Fourth it includes people killed by the insurgents.

hence why I do not trust their website.

this has to be one of the most appaling propaganda pieces i have ever had the misfortune to come across.

seamless intertwining of the war in iraq and the sept 11 attacks as if they were in any way connected? why not throw in 6,000,000 dead jews while you are at it.

pathetic

And yet......

it was minuscule compare to umm France, Russia, and China. They supplied FAR MORE.

If France, Russia, and China jumped off a cliff would you? :rolleyes:

If France, Russia, and China jumped off a cliff would you? :rolleyes:

Suicide goes against everything I was taught.

Suicide goes against everything I was taught.

You miss the point, I apologise if the phrase isn't widely used outside of the UK.

It basically means that just because someone else does a thing that doesn't make it justified/a good idea for you to do the same.

I was and am still for the war in Iraq.

But I am also realistic and realise that the people who are prosecuting the war have turned it into one big cluster fuck....its remarkable we are doing as well as we are and its a tribute to our soldiers... and the Iraqi people themselves ......not the political leadership .

hence why I do not trust their website.
I see you managed to totally ignore my response regarding Allanea's post.
Why am I not surprised?

I see you managed to totally ignore my response regarding Allanea's post.
Why am I not surprised?

No I saw and even read it. However, they were claiming well over 100,000 dead when everyone knew the number was nowhere near that high. Why do you think no one bothered with them? Why do you think no one uses their website except those who want to believe what they are saying?

You miss the point, I apologise if the phrase isn't widely used outside of the UK.

It basically means that just because someone else does a thing that doesn't make it justified/a good idea for you to do the same.

I know what the phrase means. I'm sorry if you didn't get the sarcasm.

Stop bothering.

I'm against this dirty little war and nothing you can say will change my mind on that. I don't care if 9/11 saw 10 million Americans dead, I would still be opposed to this war and Bush and consider anyone who supports him or his magical sky fairy my enemy.

If you're for it, then nothing I can say will change that.

So stop bothering.

Darned if I can figure out what this thread is about...
It seems a bit convoluted.



Let me ask a simple question, from a numerical point of view.

Number of Jihadis despatched to hell / divided by dollars expended:
how are we doing?

During Fallujah 2 it was between 1200-1600. Good numbers.

I've got tons of videos from iraq and Afghanistan....one interesting one is where about 20 or so Ragheads are heading towards a US patrol with weapons. An f-16 pilot hits them in the middle of a street with a 500lb dumb bomb.

The title of the vid? "US war crimes.."
:headbang:

Stop bothering.

I'm against this dirty little war and nothing you can say will change my mind on that. I don't care if 9/11 saw 10 million Americans dead, I would still be opposed to this war and Bush and consider anyone who supports him or his magical sky fairy my enemy.

If you're for it, then nothing I can say will change that.

So stop bothering.

You're hopeless.If 10 million Americans died on 9/11, I think it would be WW3 on all things islamic.....

I've got tons of videos from iraq and Afghanistan....one interesting one is where about 20 or so Ragheads are heading towards a US patrol with weapons.

And Americans wonder why we're so hated ...

You're hopeless.If 10 million Americans died on 9/11, I think it would be WW3 on all things islamic.....

Doubtful. Highly doubtful.

Not all Americans blanket all things Islamic under "ragheads" and whatnot. Some of us know who the actual enemy is and would like very much to get them.

You and Bush got the right ta-ta, but the wrong ho-ho.

By all means, though, keep up with what ya'll are doing. It's going oh so very well.

And Americans wonder why we're so hated ...

Because Muslims aren't prone to extremism?? But then I guess you'd be the first to speak out against anyone who "hates" them.

Because Muslims aren't prone to extremism?? But then I guess you'd be the first to speak out against anyone who "hates" them.

Muslim Extremists can burn in Hell.

No I saw and even read it. However, they were claiming well over 100,000 dead when everyone knew the number was nowhere near that high. Why do you think no one bothered with them? Why do you think no one uses their website except those who want to believe what they are saying?
So, you noted where it said that the IBC does not claim there to be over 100,000 casualities? Oh, right. You ignored that entirely. All they say is that there are between 30,000 and 40,000 verified deaths.

So, you noted where it said that the IBC does not claim there to be over 100,000 casualities? Oh, right. You ignored that entirely. All they say is that there are between 30,000 and 40,000 verified deaths.

To defend Corny, IBC used to claim over 100K dead for quite a while and it was the "truth" then as well.
Don't know when they changed it.

To defend Corny, IBC used to claim over 100K dead for quite a while and it was the "truth" then as well.
Don't know when they changed it.

I said that they claimed over 100,000 once. I guess it got ignored.