|
Post by Eater on Nov 12, 2004 14:23:05 GMT -5
Uh.. The allies in WW II didn't start the war whereas GWB (and his administration) did start the invasion of Iraq. That's a really stupid justification, especially as his own definition of terrorism says nothing aboutl starting the war, just that deliberate targeting of civilians is terrorism. And the allies in WW2, who delibereatly targeted and killed millions of civilians, would most certainly qualify. You're saying Germany was a terrorist or what? Does vocabulary mean nothing to you? do you recognize that words have distinct means for a reason? Not everyone you dislike is a nazi, and not everyone who kills someone else is a terrorist. Words have very specific meanings, and not under any logical and reasonable definition of terrorist does the United States qualify.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Nov 12, 2004 14:24:11 GMT -5
Every number you've listed for the number of Iraqi deaths since the coalition led invasion of Iraq began. There is no official count. What the hell is this in regards to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2004 15:24:13 GMT -5
Dropping bombs on civilian neighborhoods in the hope one is killing terrorists = terrorism.
I'm fine if you don't want to call it that. Let's call it Calmism if you want.
But it won't change the fact that it is just as immoral. They kill civilians for their "cause." We do the same and say it's different. And OK.
Is it necessary? Maybe. But don't tell me it's moral.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 12, 2004 16:02:49 GMT -5
That's a really stupid justification, especially as his own definition of terrorism says nothing aboutl starting the war, just that deliberate targeting of civilians is terrorism. And the allies in WW2, who delibereatly targeted and killed millions of civilians, would most certainly qualify. You're saying Germany was a terrorist or what? Does vocabulary mean nothing to you? do you recognize that words have distinct means for a reason? Not everyone you dislike is a nazi, and not everyone who kills someone else is a terrorist. Words have very specific meanings, and not under any logical and reasonable definition of terrorist does the United States qualify. Would you like to rephrase this in some form of english combined with some coherent thought process behind it? Why not give us your own definition of terrorism? How does it exclude the actions of the coalition forces during the invasion and war efforts in Iraq in terms of causing civilian deaths?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 12, 2004 16:04:18 GMT -5
What the heck is this in regards to? You do get lost easily don't you? You asked a question, I answered your question. The 100k number is BS. they just guessed. The 95% confidence interval for the study puts the deaths somewhere beween 30k and 190k or something. Apparently they just picked a number in the middle that sounded nice and said it was right. The article you reference here made up numbers regarding the MIT article claiming 100,000 deaths higher than expected happening in Iraq since the time of the invasion as compared to what would have been normal had there been no invasion. Your numbers weren't even mentioned in the article you're referencing so you're compounding their made up numbers. The "Iraq Body Count" site referenced in the supposedly "refuting" article only counts civilian deaths that are attributed directly to coalition actions and responsibilities. It also includes only those deaths reported by the news media, and those openly reported by hospitals and morgues as a result of coalition actions. The article that estimates 100,000 deaths is attributed to all civilian having died since the time of the invasion - including those killed by insurgents. It is an estimated impact on the Iraqi civilian popularion since the time of the invasion. Would you care to throw a WAG (wild a**ed guess) at the number of civilians killed by insurgent actions and those that have died because of malnutrition, unsafe / unsanitary conditions that haven't been reported by the news media out there and added it to the "confirmed" 16,000+ that are reported by the Iraq Body Count site?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 12, 2004 17:27:10 GMT -5
But it won't change the fact that it is just as immoral. They kill civilians for their "cause." We do the same and say it's different. And OK. "But it won't change the fact that it is just as immoral. They kill civilians for their "cause." We do the same" Terrorists PURPOSELY seek out civilians for harm. Are you implying that Americans involved in combat operations in Iraq deliberately seek out civilians for harm? Do you not see the distinction between the two? How can the two be the same? It is not the same.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Nov 12, 2004 22:46:23 GMT -5
100,000+ people killed in NY and Chicago last year? I think not. . Still throwing around a number with no basis in reality? You should have at least taken the time to see what the study was trying to say. They never said 100,000 people had been killed, just that 100,000 or so more died from various causes (including disease, etc.) then would have if there had been no war.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Nov 12, 2004 22:48:25 GMT -5
Dropping bombs on civilian neighborhoods in the hope one is killing terrorists = terrorism. So in WW2, when we bombed civilians, was that terrorism? And we weren't even trying to kill nazis, we WANTED to kill civilians. We DELIBERATLY MURDERED MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS in Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, etc.,
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 13, 2004 0:48:39 GMT -5
So in WW2, when we bombed civilians, was that terrorism? And we weren't even trying to kill nazis, we WANTED to kill civilians. We DELIBERATLY MURDERED MILLIONS OF CIVILIANS in Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, etc., Then obviously those were terrorist level acts. Is there a difference between doing such things in retaliation for those other countries either attacking us first or attacking countries with which we were allied? In Iraq WE initiated the war with no evidence of any connection at all between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, with no evidence of any impending attacks on the US by Iraq, with no evidence of WMD's. All of which GWB's administration claimed they had. Removing an evil dictator from power and replacing their government with a democracy is not a reasonable excuse for starting a war. Do you advocate that we send our troops to every country that has an evil despot as a leader to remove them from power? What is YOUR definition of terrorism? How is initiating an unprovoked war against Iraq not an act of terror? How is replacing Hussein with another known terrorist as the interim Iraqi leader not fostering additional terrorism? How is starting a war that has help increase the level of terrorism around the world considered an effective effort in the "war on terror"? You're very good at calling other stupid for their opinions, however, you don't seem to state your own opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Nov 13, 2004 0:56:39 GMT -5
Still throwing around a number with no basis in reality? You should have at least taken the time to see what the study was trying to say. They never said 100,000 people had been killed, just that 100,000 or so more died from various causes (including disease, etc.) then would have if there had been no war. The article did state that the majority of those 100,000+ extra deaths were caused by military actions. Even if 100,000 is high, since there is no official count, what is YOUR estimate? There are 16,000+ confirmed civilian deaths reported by the Iraq Body Count site. Those numbers are only made up of reports by the media and reports from hospitals and morgues that list the deaths as being war related and caused by the actions of the coalition forces. What percentage of the civlian deaths don't get reported? How many civilian deaths have been caused by acts of the insurgent forces (which frequently seem to target only civilian areas)? How many more civilians has been serious injured? Is it an something on the order of a 10:1 ratio as it is for the US forces that have been sent to Iraq?
|
|