UK terrorism (part 2) by Latuff

The way Latuf scetches the situation is quite uncorrect. The problem - well one of them - with the terrorist reaction to the fact that western armies occupy Iraq, is that they do not aim at the soldiers or the politicians who send them. All these terrorist acts in the Western countries have been targetting innocent bystanders, on purpose and often the poorest people; those using public transport on the way to their work. It's a cowardly horrible crime, not resistance

1. That will be sKetches

2. I think the point is that with the oil we bring terrorism. The perpetrators are not necessarily Iraqi and the victims are not necessarily UK troops

"All these terrorist acts in the Western countries have been targetting innocent bystanders, on purpose and often the poorest people; those using public transport on the way to their work. It's a cowardly horrible crime, not resistance"


ie All these terrorist acts in the Eastern countries have been targetting innocent bystanders, on purpose and often the poorest people; those using public transport on the way to their work. It's a cowardly horrible crime, not occupation

READ THE FUCKING NEWS YOU TWAT!
Investigate for yourself beyond that.

Read the casuality lists. So over a million dead in Iraq, it must be approaching that in Afghanistan, more in Chechnya and in Kashmir, but for some reason you feel agreived ? How many dead in the UK again ? And none of those would be dead if we hadn't started this attack.


Here is a good solution to stopping the Terrorism war - stop encouraging it through your own ignorance ?! Oppose your government not your neighbours..

Does Iraq actually export any oil to the UK?
If 1m people have died did UK/US troops kill them or is it Iraqis killing Iraqis, certainly the Shia/Sunni ongoing violence is not done by those troops, part of the problem appears to be an unwillingness to actually share power, one that may be fuelled by neighbouring countries sponsoring proxies, so they get a government that does their bidding.
Should Iraq successfully export any oil where do you think it will go? Not a bad question I think but the answer may be an emerging Asian giant that has gobbled up oil rights across Africa already?
I think these are good questions that merit discussion, without calling someone an 'ignorant tw**' Latuff may be right in his cartoon that western countries went to Iraq with oil in mind, however they don't seem to want oil from there now and can't get it anyway, guess they'll leave it to the Chinese and gobble up the oil when the north pole melts.....?

I can't muster any respect for someone who demands facts but refuses to look for them. Especially when they pass off blatantly false supposition as self-evident truths.


"If 1m people have died did UK/US troops kill them or is it Iraqis killing Iraqis"

The 'million dead Iraqi' figure is the upper limit of the only proper study into Iraqi deaths released by the Lancet in October 2004 and updated in November 2006.

It found most of the deaths were caused by violence and most of the violent deaths were caused by US and UK airstikes. Whether that has changed since then is unknown since the US and UK have hindered further research. To portray these deaths as something we are not responsible for is simply false.


"however they don't seem to want oil from there now "

The Polish foriegn minister at the time of the invasion stated explicity that Poland was taking part for the oil, as was just stated by the Australian defence minister. Iraq exports 1.552 million barrels of oil a day. The US Department of Defense is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world and cosumes more oil than Sweden or Switzerland. Bush personally just bullied the Iraq government to allow foriegn companies to privatised wells through Production Sharing Agreements.

"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." -Ken Derr, Chairman and CEO, Chevron Corporation

I was trying to stimulate debate not ask someone else to look up facts for me, besides little point asking you if you don't actually like debate and prefer insults. Anyway the failure to exploit Iraq's oil reserves is laid bare by facts supplied by the US govt. Iraq exports 2.2millionbpd of oil ( a small figure compared to other Gulf states), in 2002 the figure was 2.3millionbbd! So in spite of sanctions Saddam actually exported more oil. My point was that it may have been a war for oil, but if so it has failed and the only countries that may in fact exploit the oil are the likes of China. A recent article in New Scientist magazine also highlighted the fact that there may be large oil reserves under the north pole. The US will get it's oil from there if it can and the repercussions globally are worse. That is regardless of what the Australian defence minister said.

Your point about the majority of deaths being caused by aerial bombing and or UK/US troops isn't true and you have entirely and perhaps deliberately misquoted the Lancet (which said 100 000 not a million in 2005). Either way we are talking about a catastrophe, but it is a civil war between ethnic and sectarian groups like Bosnia that kills most Iraqis. UK troops nor US troops do not drive car bombs into Shia mosques and detonate them in spite of what it says on prison planet and similar wacky sites. You can adopt an obnoxious tone Danny, but whilst I disagree with you on many things, I share the view that the war was for oil, my point is people are getting fucked over in different ways, the west shares much blame for it and western oil companies will drain the north pole whilst the Russian and Chinese ones swallow what they can get from the middle east. That is what I was seeking to focus the debate on.

>Your point about the majority of deaths being caused by aerial bombing and or UK/US troops isn't true and you have entirely and perhaps deliberately misquoted the Lancet (which said 100 000 not a million in 2005).

It actually said AT LEAST 100,000 deaths, and it said it in 1984 not 1985 - and it admitted those figures were already out of date by the time the report was published and that they were likely to be a conservative underestimate. The update in 2006 said the upper figure of a million with the same provisos..

For someone so demanding of facts, and in argument with someone you find obnoxious, perhaps you should read the actual 2004 report which clearly states the majority of violent deaths were caused by US and UK airstrikes. If you know that "isn't true" then why quote the report at all ? Take up your quibble with the scientifically qualified authors of that report and spare me your state of denial.

Your concern for the Artic is commendable but totally out of place on a thread discussing the genocide in Iraq. To blandly state those possible future "repercussions globally are worse" without supporting evidence or links is frankly distraction. Mosquitos have killed more humans than the Nazi death chambers ever did but that is hardly a defence of the Nazi death chambers. Some future US environmental rape does not justify the current slaughter one iota nor is it relevant. Better the Iraqis get airbombed so that the polar-bears are spared ?