Michael Rubin makes a good point:

A McClatchy story yesterday read, “Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in September.” Well, who killed them? Baathist insurgents or Iranian-backed militias? If the public read that Iranian-backed militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to reward their murderers. From today’s New York Times: “Most of the 500 municipal workers who have been killed here since 2005 have been trash collectors.” Again, someone did the killing. Why hide it?

"Why hide it?"

Because telling Americans who did it might help Bush and Republicans?

Because getting to the "root" of the cause may call for some extensive effort. Selling news is a business; only so many hours can be allotted to each story and if information can be parroted from some other internet source, so much the better.

Would it matter?

Are you volunteering to fight the Pasdaran?

Are you out there buying war bonds for the fight?

Four posts and the Chicken Shitters have shown their rotten carcases. A new record Rand.

The Times article did say who was doing the killing. They said that insurgents often killed trash collectors who discoved bombs they had hidden in trash heaps, to prevent the locations of the de-vices from being uncovered.

They also stated that most of the trash collectors are Shiite, and that they have been killed far less frequently in Sadr City since the Mahdi Gang^H^H^H^H Army established dominance there. It sounds like the Iranians aren't the trash collectors chief concern. (Even if their lackeys *cough* Mahdi Gang *cough* are butchering everyone else.)

p.s. Yeah Rand, wtf is it with "de-vice?" I got a reproducible internal server error trying to preview with it in the text.

Third commenter -- "foo@bar.com," indeed. Buying war bonds? I'm paying $20,000 a year to DC and another $5,000 to state and local governments, not counting sales taxes.

I'm guessing that's several times as much money as you get in your allowance. You'll feel differently about these things if you ever get a real job.

I take the studied silence from Simberg means he's not
out there buying War Bonds or Liberty Bonds.

It's kind of sad the people who are out there screaming
for more war are the least likely to be out there
doing something real.

Who killed them? Oh what a silly question. The thoughtless experiment in wishful thinking by your demented leader and his necon attack dogs. Wasn't that obvious? The dots lead to what other than our great experiment in democracy, isn't that obvious? Obvious to all but equally demented pseudo scientists such as the idiots who dwell in this bog-blog. So let's hold Bush responsible for 625,000 Iraqi dead - twice the number killed by Saddam over a much longer period. An accounting is coming.

BTW a question for the tards:

Where does one go to buy WAR or LIBERTY Bonds?

"An accounting is coming."

Careful Anonatard, We all know you don't have the guts to pay the Butcher's bill so go strut somewhere else.

Anon says: An accounting is coming.

From who? God? No, you can't claim that, you're a liberal and God is bad. Hmm, Repubs? No, you're a liberal and Repubs are bad...Maybe Democrats? No, you're a liberal and Dems can't say they're liberal because liberals are bad. Oh I know, the accounting will come from you? Well make it a good one, becuase if your posts are any clue, you probably can't count or do math either.

"Why hide it?"

Because telling Americans who did it might help Bush and Republicans?
Posted by Barbara Skolaut at October 13, 2006 12:25 PM

actually, i think bush and the republicans want to downplay the nature of the violence. they dont accept that its a civil war. im quite confident bush is fine if it just says "2700 dead", that reads a lot better than "2700 dead from sectarian death squads", and even better than if they include the massive number of those dead who had been mutilated and tortured before their death. the administration would obviously rather the violence seem ambiguous.

how would telling who killed them help the republicans? the only way i can think is if they are trying to place the blame of the violence on iran, as michael rubin seems to be hinting at ("iranian-backed militias" rather than "shiite militias" as they are usually called). but thats insane, yes some militias probably recieve material support from iran, but iran's not responsible for the violence. i realize invading iran is on the republican agenda, but thats not gonna solve the civil war in iraq.