This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

Dying for Islamic beliefs is 'just' Monday August 21, 02:01 AM

A firebrand Islamic academic, who has said he is prepared to be a suicide bomber, told a Muslim rally that dying for your beliefs was "just".

Dr Azzam Tamimi told the 8,000-strong crowd in Manchester that standing up for your beliefs was the "greatest act of martyrdom".

The self-styled Hamas sympathiser and adviser said Tony Blair and George Bush were not pursuing a path which was "just and fair". He said the government was attempting to make the war on terrorism a war on Islam.

Dr
Tamimi, 51, was speaking at the ExpoIslamia convention at the Manchester Evening News Arena.
The Palestinian, who now lives in London, denied Hamas was a terrorist group, despite it being banned in the UK.

He said: "The greatest act of martyrdom is standing up for what is true and just. Martyrs are those who stand up and stand up in defiance of George Bush and Tony Blair. You stand up to them and you say desist. Stop this injustice. Stop this oppression. We are Muslims in Europe, not European Muslims. Being fair and just means finding the middle path. The middle path is not rubbing shoulders with Tony Blair and George Bush. They say we are in difficult times. I tell you, we are in the best of times. We must just have confidence in ourselves.

"Just stand up and defend what is right."

The crowd erupted with cheering and applause when he said that Israel had been defeated by Hezbollah. He continued: "Hamas is making sacrifices for you. We tell this government Hamas is not a terrorist group. It is elected by the people of Palestine. We are not terrorists. We are defenders of the truth. Fighting those who invade Muslims is a just cause. The government is trying to turn the war on terror into the war on Islam."

Dr Tamimi had previously said, during the course of a BBC interview, that he was prepared to be a suicide bomber if the opportunity arose.

The day-long convention featured a number of high profile Muslim speakers, including the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari and former Sunday Express journalist, Yvonne Ridley, a Muslim convert who recently upset Jewish groups with her comments on Israel. This is the fifth time the ExpoIslamia convention has been held in the UK.

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=330

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists
7,762

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
59*

A Muslim on an airplane chanting "Allah Akbar"... what's there to worry about? This very self-absorbed, 27-year-old Muslim man says he can't understand why fellow passengers found his audible prayers unnerving. Islam is the Religion of Peace, after all.

The Sunday Times August 20, 2006


If you want sharia law, you should go and live in Saudi
Shahid Malik, the Labour MP, explains why he told fellow Muslims that if they dont like Britain they should pack their bags


Scotland Yard described it as a plot to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale. John Reid concurred: The terror threat to the public was unprecedented, the biggest that Britain had ever faced.
As it transpired, there was nothing melodramatic about these descriptions. It was to be a terror spectacular beyond our worst nightmares, involving blowing up a dozen aeroplanes in mid-air over the Atlantic Ocean, with the wilful massacre of more than 1,000 innocent men, women and children.



Last Tuesday, after a 90-minute meeting with John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to discuss the challenges of extremism and foreign policy, I emerged and was immediately asked by the media whether I agreed that what British Muslims needed were Islamic holidays and sharia (Islamic law). I thought I had walked into some parallel universe.

Sadly this was not a joke. These issues had apparently formed part of the discussion the day before between Prescott, Ruth Kelly, the communities minister, and a selection of Muslim leaders. I realised then that it wasnt me and the media who were living in a parallel universe although certain Muslim leaders might well be


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2320096,00.html

h-alan-6.
the muslim parliament is a joke. Who exactly do they represent? I don't recall ballot papers comeing through my door.I've yet to meet a muslim who does'nt agree with this.
As for community leaders- please.
If any muslim group has actively sponsored terrorism etc then it should be a banned oprganisation- as per the watch list.
if there are individuals who have actively spread terrorism doctorine then they should be dealt with under 40 or 41 of TACT.
Only be being able to rise above this petty name calling and blame culture, will a way forward be found.
I don't blame the bloke who sells me my newsparer or runs the local 7-11 for the 9-11 attacks or what happened on 7/7. But reading posts by BAWONI, you would think that all muslims are really evil and invclined to slit your throat at the slightest provocation, or want to take away your rights and freedoms and impose their own standards. When all most of them want is a job, a roof over their heads and a quiet life- like the rest of a decent society.
. This ignorance and acceptance of stereotypes is part of the problem.
You don't see the news networks showing interviews with the average muslim 'joe'.
It's always some crazy wierdo. I wonder why that is?????????

All religion is stupid. My god is just as stupid as yours.
This is the message that all churches/mosques/synagogues should be spreading.

As for the question of should bush or blair face war crimes- Who cares anymore.
***********we're all too busy blameing our neighbours*******************

Tweenie!!
Thats just the point I was making!!
Of course the BNP has its share of violent and intolerant idiots. It also has its share of respectable law abiding citizens, fed up with the softly softly hand wringing approach that allows Captain Hook to preach hatred for years.
The papers quickly show meetings of the BNP where people say racist things or commit racist acts, but they don't show the "average Joe".
I don't blame the BNP for "Pakki-bashing" in Bradford. By the same token, I don't blame Islam for 7/7. If one is due our respect as a choice of lifestyle, then both are. The claims abound that if we do not listen to, and adjust our lives to the Muslim community, then of course there will be terrorist outrages. So I make the counter claim that is equally valid. If we do not let the disaffected whites who feel their own agrievences speak out, then of course there will be race outrages.
Are we all not one species, thinking and reacting in a similar way. To treat groups differently truly is a racist approach, but the approach to extreme white groups is to shout them down and label them. Call them names and ban them. The approach for the extreme ethnic movements is to give them a disproportionate voice and try to understand, and where possible adapt.
Unlikely. Sad. But true.
Alan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 21, 2006
Violent Remarks
British Law Against Glorifying Terrorism Has Not Silenced Calls to Kill for Islam
By SOUAD MEKHENNET and DEXTER FILKINS
LONDON, Aug. 20 From his home on the northwest edge of this city, Muhamad al-Massari runs a Web site that celebrates the violent death of British and American soldiers. It is visited by tens of thousands of people every day, he said.

Mr. Massari maintains the Arabic-language site, tajdeed.org.uk, in the face of a strict new law aimed at curtailing violent speech and publishing. Just last week, the Council of Holy Warriors, a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, posted a declaration on the site praising a suicide bombing in Iraq that killed or wounded 55 people.

If you kill our civilians, we kill your civilians, Mr. Massari declared during an interview.

Mr. Massaris Web site, and his public remarks, appear to violate of the Antiterrorism Act of 2006, which makes it a crime to glorify or encourage political violence. Inciting violence has long been illegal here but the new rules, drawn up after the London subway and bus bombings in July 2005, are intended to be much tougher.

The laws underlying assumption is that speeches and publications by Britains more extreme Islamists may play a role in leading disgruntled young men toward violence. In addition to banning speech that encourages terrorism, the new law also criminalizes reckless speech that may have the same effect.

Yet despite the antiglorification law, and an array of other measures approved since last summers bombings, Islamist leaders like Mr. Massari persist, some of them declaring it the duty of British Muslims to kill in the name of Islam.

Some British leaders are beginning to publicly question why such clerics are allowed to continue. Last week, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, chastised the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair for failing to enforce laws intended to make it more difficult for political extremists to operate.

In remarks to the press, Mr. Cameron, a possible successor to Mr. Blair, accused the government of failing to follow through when the headlines have moved on.

I do not believe that our government is doing enough to fight Islamist extremists at home or to protect our security, he said. Why have so few, if any, preachers of hate been prosecuted or expelled, with those that have gone having done so voluntarily?

In addition to curtailing political speech, the British government outlawed 15 militant groups, most of them Muslim. It took a sterner attitude toward Islamists who had preached violence in the past, barring one well-known Syrian-born cleric, Omar Bakri Mohammed, from returning to the country. Earlier this year, it secured the conviction of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the countrys most militant cleric, for soliciting murder and racial hatred.

Yet for all those actions, the new measures do not appear to have silenced those either praising or calling for violence in the name of Islam. Some Islamist preachers have carefully scaled back their language, even if, in context, the meaning seems clear.

On Sunday, speaking before 8,000 followers in Manchester, Azam Tamimi extolled the glories of suffering for the faith.

The greatest act of martyrdom is standing up for that is true and just, Mr. Tamimi said. Martyrs are those who stand up in defiance of George Bush and Tony Blair.

The remarks by Mr. Tamimi, one in a line of Islamist scholars and clerics to address the Manchester crowd, were the latest in a series of carefully worded public statements by British Islamist leaders that seemed aimed at testing the limits of the new law. In the Islamic world, martyrdom means sacrificing ones life, often violently, for the faith.

Others, meanwhile, have carried on as before, speaking in support of political violence or publishing tracts that do the same.

One of them is Atilla Ahmet, leader of the Islamist group Supporters of Shariah. In meetings with supporters and in interviews, the British-born Mr. Ahmet speaks freely about what he considers the necessity for violent action, both here and abroad, to avenge what he considers unjustified attacks on Muslims abroad.

You are attacking our people in Muslim countries, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Mr. Ahmet said, referring to the British and American governments. So its legitimate to attack British soldiers and policemen, government officials, and even the White House.

Mr. Ahmet, a 42-year Briton of Cypriot descent, went on to include bank employees as legitimate targets because they charge interest, which he says is in violation of Islamic law.

Mr. Ahmet said he is aware of the new law, but that he could not shirk his duty to defend Islam, which he believes is under assault by Britain and the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He says he often addresses his followers, who he says number 3,000.

If you are going to kill a Muslim, then I will do everything in my power to kill you, he said.

Mr. Massari, the Web site operator, said he approved of violence against British and American soldiers in Iraq, as well as against most of the governments in the Middle East. He said, for instance, that it is legitimate for Iraqis to kill Tony Blair, the same with Bush.

The posting on his Web site about the Iraqi bombing said of the attackers, We ask God to accept our brothers as martyrs.

Mr. Massari makes several distinctions that he says insulate him from being deported or prosecuted by the British government. He says, for instance, that he does not post any material on the Web site himself; he lets his members do that, most of whom sign up anonymously. The other important distinction, he said, is that he does not call for violence in Britain.

It does not appear that British law makes such distinctions. The law on the books defines terrorism as violence, or the threat of violence, to influence a government or further a political or religious cause. It does not limit the application of the law to targets in Britain.

Some legal experts here say the British law is so broadly drawn that it may encompass speech that is not necessarily intended to promote terrorism.

A group of Britons of Pakistani descent arguing loudly on a street corner about British or American policy in Iraq, for example, could conceivably be prosecuted under the law, said Gareth Crossman, director of policy for Liberty, a nonprofit legal organization in London.

Its an extraordinarily vague statute, Mr. Crossman said. No two people can agree on what the law means.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Crossman said, it is hardly surprising that no one had been arrested under the law.

Asked why no one had been arrested or prosecuted for encouraging terrorism, a spokesman for Scotland Yard, the national police force, declined to comment.

The Bush administration, under laws toughened after the Sept. 11 attacks, has prosecuted a number of people for encouraging terrorism.

In one of the more high-profile cases, a Muslim scholar in northern Virginia, Ali al-Timimi, was sentenced to life in prison in 2005 for urging his young Muslim followers to wage war against the United States overseas.

At a dinner meeting on Sept. 16, 2001, Mr. Timimi told some of the men in the group that it was their Muslim duty to fight for Islam overseas and to defend the Taliban in Afghanistan against American forces, according to testimony at his trial. In an Internet message in 2003, he described the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia as a good omen for Muslims in an apocalyptic conflict with the West.

In Britain, some experts say they believe the difficulties in the law will be worked out in practice. Indeed, almost no one here is predicting that the recent attacks and plots described by the government will be the last, least of all the Islamists themselves.

Anyone who supports Tony Blair, said Khalid Kelley, an Irish-born convert to Islam, is not a civilian.

can not even play fair..........



Inzamam faces eight-match ban Monday August 21, 07:43 PM



LONDON (Reuters) - Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq could be banned for eight one-day internationals or four tests if he is found guilty of ball tampering and bringing the game into disrepute this Friday.

Inzamam was charged with both offences by the International Cricket Council (ICC) on Monday after his team forfeited the fourth and final test against England at The Oval on Sunday.

The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) immediately lodged an appeal but confirmed they would go ahead with the five one-day internationals against England and a Twenty/20 match starting next week even if Inzamam is suspended.
A hearing into the charges will be held in London on Friday by ICC chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle of Sri Lanka.

alan. a point well made, singing from the same hymn book? perhaps.

sadly , comments as above "Lowlifes can not even play fair.........."
just sum up the mentality and ignorance of the 'average joe'
As an avid follower of this great sport, For the record, every nation has been done for similar offences. Mike atherton was famously caught rubbing dirt into the ball in 1994 (in South africa). So it ai'nt just jonny foreigner.

we are all well and truly fucked. Hopefully seo will come good and i can buy my own little island, well you live in hope.
lol

I see 'bawoani' edited his comment and removed the 'lowlife' comment.

it just shows what an insecure xenophobic cock he is.

Woops wavey, another of our little bearded friends, hellooooooooooi.

By Kamal Nawash

This September 11 marks the unforgettable anniversary of the worst mass murder in American history.

After September 11, many in the Muslim world chose denial and hallucination rather than face up to the sad fact that Muslims perpetrated the 9-11 terrorist acts and that we have an enormous problem with extremism and support for terrorism. Many Muslims, including religious leaders, and ?intellectuals? blamed 9-11 on a Jewish conspiracy and went as far as fabricating a tale that 4000 Jews did not show up for work in the World Trade Center on 9-11. Yet others blamed 9-11 on an American right wing conspiracy or the U.S. Government which allegedly wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and ?steal? Iraqi oil.

After numerous admissions of guilt by Bin Laden and numerous corroborating admissions by captured top level Al-Qaida operatives, we wonder, does the Muslim leadership have the dignity and courage to apologize for 9-11? If not 9-11, will we apologize for the murder of school children in Russia? If not Russia, will we apologize for the train bombings in Madrid, Spain? If not Spain, will we apologize for suicide bombings in buses, restaurants and other public places? If not suicide bombings, will we apologize for the barbaric beheadings of human beings? If not beheadings, will we apologize for the rape and murder of thousands of innocent people in Darfour? If not Darfour, will we apologize for the blowing up of two Russian planes by Muslim women? What will we apologize for? What will it take for Muslims to realize that those who commit mass murder in the name of Islam are not just a few fringe elements? What will it take for Muslims to realize that we are facing a crisis that is more deadly than the Aids epidemic? What will it take for Muslims to realize that there is a large evil movement that is turning what was a peaceful religion into a cult?

Will Muslims wake up before it is too late? Or will we continue blaming the Jews and an imaginary Jewish conspiracy? The blaming of all Muslim problems on Jews is a cancer that is destroying Muslim society from within and it must stop.

Muslims must look inward and put a stop to many of our religious leaders who spend most of their sermons teaching hatred, intolerance and violent jihad. We should not be afraid to admit that as Muslims we have a problem with violent extremism. We should not be afraid to admit that so many of our religious leaders belong behind bars and not behind a pulpit. Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims. We can no longer afford to be silent. If we remain silent to the extremism within our community then we should not expect anyone to listen to us when we complain of stereotyping and discrimination by non-Muslims; we should not be surprised when the world treats all of us as terrorists; we should not be surprised when we are profiled at airports. Simply put, not only do Muslims need to join the war against terror, we need to take the lead in this war.

As to apologizing, we will no longer wait for our religious leaders and ?intellectuals? to do the right thing. Instead, we will start by apologizing for 9-11. We are so sorry that 3000 people were murdered in our name. We will never forget the sight of people jumping from two of the highest buildings in the world hoping against hope that if they moved their arms fast enough that they may fly and survive a certain death from burning. We are sorry for blaming 9-11 on a Jewish or right wing conspiracy. We are so sorry for the murder of more than three hundred school children and adults in Russia. We are so sorry for the murder of train passengers in Spain. We are so sorry for all the victims of suicide bombings. We are so sorry for the beheadings, abductions, rapes, violent Jihad and all the atrocities committed by Muslims around the world. We are so sorry for a religious education that raised killers rather than train people to do good in the world. We are sorry that we did not take the time to teach our children tolerance and respect for other people. We are so sorry for not rising up against the dictators who have ruled the Muslim world for decades. We are so sorry for allowing corruption to spread so fast and so deep in the Muslim world that many of our youth lost hope. We are so sorry for allowing our religious leaders to relegate women to the status of forth class citizens at best and sub-humans at worse.

We are so sorry.

Maybe one day you will have an origonal thought.

Cut and paste away.

It only proves the point already made.
You are a sheep.
:-)

What's the point your actually trying to make?

Anyway What has any of this got to do with the war on iraq?

Had Barwoni on squelch very early on.

waveydavey - 23 Aug 2006 12:47 - 681 of 682
Maybe one day you will have an origonal thought.


Maybe you should learn to spell, I see english is not your first lanquage.

Islam has touched the lives of all of us, yet we are forbidden even to use language that may offend petulant Muslims, who are far more concerned about their own sensibilities than even the most horrific terror attacks in the name of their religion.

Well, heres the truth. The religion of Islam makes it necessary for young mothers to have to empty baby bottles at the security gates of airports, because the Muslim parents of a 6-month-old infant (living on the welfare dime in Britain, no less) wanted to offer their entire family as a sacrifice to Allah and kill as many infidel airline passengers as possible in the process.

barwoni - 23 Aug 2006 13:47 - 683 of 685
Maybe you should learn to spell, I see english is not your first lanquage

those who live in glass houses.................................
LMAO.
:-))))))

bawoani said:
Well, heres the truth. The religion of Islam makes it necessary for young mothers to have to empty baby bottles at the security gates of airports, because the Muslim parents of a 6-month-old infant (living on the welfare dime in Britain, no less) wanted to offer their entire family as a sacrifice to Allah and kill as many infidel airline passengers as possible in the process.



Right. i'll have to stop my kids going to the kindergarden.
there's at least 3 kids in there that look a bit dark.
They've all got milk bottles strapped to their chests......... OH MY GOD..... I could swear one of them was whispering to the other ...........AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHH were all gonna die!!!!!!!!!

reminds me of the joke:

At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Attorney general John Ashcroft said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

"Al-gebra is a fearsome cult,", Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like "x" and "y" and refer to themselves as "unknowns", but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country.

Ya see. Debate is nigh on impossible.
The reason being that one may consider either side of the argument an extremist viewpoint. While those seeking to blame the Islamic faith for everything are labelled as racist and extreme, the current epidemic of terrorism is linked directly to Islamic fundamentalists, who by their nature are extreme.
Many have argued, eloquently and legitimately, that we would be well served to understand the reasons for the Muslim terror, for only then can we eradicate it. They argue that name-calling, insulting and marginalizing will only make them more extreme and violent. I understand, though not necessarily agree with this view.
What I fail to understand is why the same argument is shunned by them when we discuss "racist" attitudes. Surely the likes of the NF are no more than a group wishing to terrorise another group, and yet the people who argue for moderation and a listening and understanding brief are the same ones who will very happily insult and marginalize the NF or anyone else displaying any reactions they consider racist. Racism applies just as much to the skinhead marching through Bolton with a placard threatening Asians as it does to an Asian in London threatening death to infidels, or an Asian targetting a bomb on a plane because it contains mainly white Americans and british.
Alan

Whilst I agree whole-hearedly with what you are saying. You cannot take the moral highground like bawoani has and then hurl abuse and not be expected to be shot down or shown to be an insecure xenophobic cock.
An impasse may have been reached.The majority are being sidelined by the minority and the gulf is expanding.
Is their a way back?
I'll happily talk about anything to anyone. I would expect no less of another.
I have'nt labelled any particular group as evil or 'different' or 'inflexible'.
As always it is individuals- i.e .the minority that are fucking it up for the majority , who just want an easy life.

If we allow extremists to influence the views of the majority, we are truly lost.

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists
7,810

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
59*

Well for what its worth, WD, the moderate majority need to take a stance of either sideling both sides of the argument or engaging both sides. While it goes on that extreme Muslims have a voice and are encouraged to be vocal, and right wing extremists are ignored and insulted, then the muslim side will take the view that terror gets them what they want while right wing extremists will follow the lead of wreaking havoc until their demands are met.
personally I would sideline both, but as that would lead to claims that the policy was aimed at a religion (Islam), I would be labelled a racist for seeking a path of peace, when the truth is that I don't care which God you choose to worship, or how, but if that worship is attracting radicals, intent on the destruction of another way of life, then it must be stopped. We have no problem banning political marches, and meetings that we believe are inciting violence.
Alan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Real Iraq Body Count
8/18/06 | Larry Schweikart

How many Americans have been killed in Iraq? The media is quick to provide a number, currently at just over 2,500, and, for what its worth, some 500 of those have been non-combat fatalities (i.e., accidents). Left-wing web sites, such as the Iraq Body Count, (www.iraqbodycount.net), claim absurd numbers of up to 44,000 civilians killed in Iraq.

One number is never reported. No one even raises it in a question: how many of the enemy have been killed since the Iraq conflict began? One might find the complete absence of this number in any discussion of the war a tad curious, since, when one side runs out of fighters, it loses. Yet the mainstream media has been reluctant to even broach this issue, let alone try to answer it. Why? An obvious answer is that if Americans knew what havoc our excellent military is wreaking on these terrorists, support for the war would be substantially higher than it already is. The left-oriented media has staged an obvious morale war on Americans, and to some degree it has succeeded; and it has been made worse by the refusal of the Bush Administration (thanks to the Vietnam experience) to tout any enemy casualties as indicators of progress, when in fact they are, in most cases, the very best indicators.

My early estimates, based on back-of-the-envelope additions extracted from combat accounts since the war began, put the number of terrorists/insurgents killed at 20,000 since 2003. I was lowway low.

It takes some digging, but slowly the evidence is leaking out. (Special thanks to the anonymous S for some numbers). The sources are USA Today, July 26, 2006, and the New York Times of June 7. Both sources cite the statistic of 3,149 civilians killed in June 2006. This is consistent with UN reports of 100 civilians per day killed in Iraq in June. Yet the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count put the number of Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths in June at 870. If there were 3,149 civilians killed yet only 870 of them were genuinely civilians and security forces, what were the other 2,879 bodies? Terrorists and insurgents perhaps? Seems likely.

One of the difficulties that the UN and other objective observers have had is distinguishing civilians from terrorists. If the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count is anywhere near accurate, however, and some 2,800 non-civilian bodies were in Iraq morgues in June, then in fact some 93 terrorists/insurgents per day were being removed from the battlefield, or, since March 2003, it means well over 100,000 non-civilians have been killed by coalition forces since the beginning of combatperhaps upwards of 120,000. To be safe, using UN/New York Times numbers, we arrive at 75 terrorists/insurgents per day, or 36,000 dead enemy fighters since combat began.

Americans have experienced a killed in action/wounded ratio of 13% (although an astonishing 55% of American wounded return to duty in 72 hours!) Does anyone think the terrorists are experiencing that level of medical success with their wounded? Even at eight wounded for every terrorist killed, at the low end of 36,000 enemy dead, some 288,000 have been wounded since the beginning of combat, to a high-end estimate of 960,000 wounded. This doesnt even factor in the desertersall the jihadists who, upon seeing their vile brethren vaporized, quietly dropped the IED and went home, never to fight again. (One indicator that this is an impressive number is the surging size of the Iraqi national army and police forces, made up to some degree of former dead-enders who now hope to get on the winning side). Nor does it include the more than 5,000-plus known al-Qaeda dead in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom.

How realistic are these estimates? We glean some insight from reports of specific battles and campaigns that have already been published by the soldiers who were there. For example, Bing Wests book on Fallujah, No True Glory (Random House, 2005), offers insight on the incredible casualties inflicted on the jihadists in that 2004 battle, where one American sniper alone had 100 kills. Iraqi/Baghdad morgue totals, less actual identified civilian deaths, suggest more than 100,000 enemy dead in the last six months, a number consistent with individual battle reports over this time. This was further confirmed by Newsweeks report last year that the mullahs were running out of males to use as suicide bombers, and they had resorted to using women. Further, the statistics on IEDs, presented earlier in FrontPageMagazine.com, indicate that the terrorists are having to launch more and more attacks with fewer and fewer results.

In Americas Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars, I argued that Iraq was a giant Roach Motel, in which the terrorists check in, and only leave via the morgue. The real Iraq body count suggest I understated my case by several orders of magnitude. Let me reiterate that no one is looking at the enemy wounded, many of whom will never again fight, or deserters/quitters. As the Japanese found out with their kamikaze pilots, there is a finite number of warriors willing to commit suicide. There is alsoeven for the most fanatical of bushido-ist Japanese and Islamic jihadistsa critical mass in which fighters and would-be suicide bombers say no mas and quietly abandon the front.

The Roach Motel strategy, as bloody as it is, works as well for us in Iraq as it worked for Lord Chelmsford when he sent his army into Zululand in 1879 to draw out the Zulus and destroy them.

Zarqawis last memos testify to the effectiveness of this strategy, as does his corpse.

There are no winners in war.