Originally posted by edbert:You do realize that the majority of deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi?
Even according to AP, about 6000 civilians have been killed in Iraq.
aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.......
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:PHEW! That's okay then.
Originally posted by edbert:You do realize that the majority of deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi?
Even according to AP, about 6000 civilians have been killed in Iraq.
Do you also realize that most British deaths in Iraq have been Doodle on Brit?
Where do you get the wacky notion that shock and awe killed 6k civilians?
Also –
You are confusing the issue.
If the war was just, then the collateral damage, unfortunate as it is, 6k dead civilians, 60k dead civilians, is just as well. think of a just war – how about ww2? the allies killed alot of innocent civilians. that doesn't mean the allies were equivalent to terrorists.
If the war was unjust, then the deaths of innocent civilians is unjust.
However, even in that latter scenario, the purpose of the war – even if it is a bad purpose (oil, revenge, whatever you want to believe) – was not to kill innocent civilians. And that is what differentiates it from terrorism.
As for the al qaeda deaths, which grotty first complained about but dropped, they unquestionably deserve to die and i hope we kill more of them. as many as possible. members of al qaeda are dedicated to killing us, after all. it would be irrational to want them to live.
Also –
You are confusing the issue.
If the war was just, then the collateral damage, unfortunate as it is, 6k dead civilians, 60k dead civilians, is just as well. think of a just war – how about ww2? the allies killed alot of innocent civilians. that doesn't mean the allies were equivalent to terrorists.
If the war was unjust, then the deaths of innocent civilians is unjust.
However, even in that latter scenario, the purpose of the war – even if it is a bad purpose (oil, revenge, whatever you want to believe) – was not to kill innocent civilians. And that is what differentiates it from terrorism.
As for the al qaeda deaths, which grotty first complained about but dropped, they unquestionably deserve to die and i hope we kill more of them. as many as possible. members of al qaeda are dedicated to killing us, after all. it would be irrational to want them to live.
Originally posted by mankie:Unfortunately, we haven't met our quota of 6000 yet.
Do you also realize that most British deaths in Iraq have been Doodle on Brit?
Originally posted by mankie:I never said it was "okay." I'm simply making sure that when statements such as "Dude, you don't kill 6000 civilians if you only blow up empty government buildings! How do you think they died, suicide?" are made, that everybody is clear on what's really happening.
PHEW! That's okay then.
Originally posted by mankie:I think you're wrong:
Do you also realize that most British deaths in Iraq have been Doodle on Brit?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
I see British helicopters colliding with one another, British tanks firing on one another, lots of traffic accidents and lots of killed in action.
Takes a lot of charisma to compare a Jew to Hitler…not really, only as much charisma as it took Jim Moran to blame the Jews for the war in iraq
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:I just made that shit up so you'd run off and research it…..which you did!
Originally posted by mankie:I think you're wrong:
Do you also realize that most British deaths in Iraq have been Doodle on Brit?
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
I see British helicopters colliding with one another, British tanks firing on one another, lots of traffic accidents and lots of killed in action.
Originally posted by mankie:You know me too well….
I just made that shit up so you'd run off and research it…..which you did!
Originally posted by brennser:Listen, I don't care for Moran, but I think the Jew/Iraq comment was taken out of context,…..I saw the interview on the news the day he said it and what I got from it was that it's Americas strong bias towards Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that caused Bush to act so swiftly and without any forethought in Iraq….and the jewish vote in the US had a lot to do with it…and I can't say I disagree with him, nobody can deny that the US is totally in bed with Israel and completely shafting the Palestinians on the issue.
Takes a lot of charisma to compare a Jew to Hitler…not really, only as much charisma as it took Jim Moran to blame the Jews for the war in iraq
Having said that, Moran is a Moron regardless.
J'Mal, the terrorist purpose isn't to kill civilians: every terrorist group has a political agenda as their purpose. Their method of pursuing that purpose is to blow up American stuff with civilians inside. Equivalently, our purpose was not to kill civilians in Iraq. Whatever our purpose was, our method of achieving it included blowing up stuff where there were Iraqi civilians
Wait a minute- I just checked my facts again and you guys are correct, the 6000 civilians actually got trampled by other Iraqis who were running out of nightclub doing a Brit-pop night! That makes more sense
Wait a minute- I just checked my facts again and you guys are correct, the 6000 civilians actually got trampled by other Iraqis who were running out of nightclub doing a Brit-pop night! That makes more sense
edbert, your moral equivalence between war and terrorism is sick. do you really not understand the distinction between targeting innocent people, and conducting a war for a political objective, even where the political objective is unjust?
innocent people die in war. innocent people die in terrorist attacks. but that does NOT mean that war and terrorist attacks are the same thing.
innocent people die in war. innocent people die in terrorist attacks. but that does NOT mean that war and terrorist attacks are the same thing.
Originally posted by J'Mal:but doesnt it bother you that the US didnt REALLY attack Iraq because of 9/11?? US attacked Iraq because they didnt like them, and Bush and pals wanted him out and to be able to establish of government to thier liking in the Middle East.
edbert, your moral equivalence between war and terrorism is sick. do you really not understand the distinction between targeting innocent people, and conducting a war for a political objective, even where the political objective is unjust?
innocent people die in war. innocent people die in terrorist attacks. but that does NOT mean that war and terrorist attacks are the same thing.
nothing to do with WMD or terrorism.
and if that doesnt bother you, does it bother you that they LIED about why they were attacking Iraq?
and please dont call it "war". In war, both sides are generally prepared and willing to fight. It was an attack. I am suprised Franks didnt start taking Iraqis lunch money.
I always thought J'Mal and Sonick were the same person…maybe not.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:hahaha. nope. where did you get that? I only have one name on here. sorry :)
I always thought J'Mal and Sonick were the same person…maybe not.
well back in the days when the more paranoid board people were accusing me of having multiple board names, for some reason i got that idea.
i had long since stopped believing that idea, but it was funny to see you both on the same thread, in disagreement.
i had long since stopped believing that idea, but it was funny to see you both on the same thread, in disagreement.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:hahaha. nope. where did you get that? I only have one name on here. sorry :)
I always thought J'Mal and Sonick were the same person…maybe not.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
I am suprised Franks didnt start taking Iraqis lunch money.They had the Brits to take the lunch money…they always get the Brits to do the hard stuff for them.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:Sure they did.
but doesnt it bother you that the US didnt REALLY attack Iraq because of 9/11??
Coming into office, Bush was briefed by Clinton's people on the three potential threats to national security – Iraq, North Korea, and al-Qaeda. Ignoring the last one bit us in the ass. No, there is not a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq, but there was a lesson in 9/11 which was applicable to Iraq.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:Pick up the latest Atlantic Monthly. There's a good article by Kenneth Pollack, who was on Clinton's National Security team and was in charge of designing the policy toward Iraq. He shows that everybody – U.S., U.K., France, Russia, Germany, U.N. – agreed that Iraq had (at the very minimum) an operational program for building WMD. He tells of meeting with the twenty most senior U.N. weapons inspectors and asking them if anybody disagreed with the belief that Iraq was operating a centrifuge and attempting to produce nuclear materials. Not a single inspector disagreed, and several of them asserted that Iraq was much further along than that.
US attacked Iraq because they didnt like them, and Bush and pals wanted him out and to be able to establish of government to thier liking in the Middle East.
nothing to do with WMD or terrorism.
and if that doesnt bother you, does it bother you that they LIED about why they were attacking Iraq?
A lot has been made of this Niger thing. Perhaps that was an overstatement. Perhaps it was an outright falsehood. It's such a small part of the larger case that it is inconsequential. The case for Iraq possessing a WMD program was built on much more than that single item.
It may turn out that the intelligence was all wrong. But everybody – U.S., U.K., France, Russia, Germany, U.N.– genuinely believed it at the time. If it were all faked, it's a global conspiracy.
whatever helps you sleep at night.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:Don't confuse the subject. A lot of things bother me about the war in iraq.
but doesnt it bother you that the US didnt REALLY attack Iraq because of 9/11??
But that does not mean that the war in iraq is in any way similar to terrorism.