Paris under attack

[StLucieBengal]

The White House couldn't change its rainbow bulbs out for some red white and blue I guess.

Priorities and all

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-14-2015, 08:18 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You mean, like you did?  You said "hundreds of thousands" as if it were fact when, in reality, the number is very much in dispute. 

The fact that the death toll for civilians is in the hundreds of thousands is very much "in dispute"---for people like you. However, for the organizations who have actually set out to record Iraqi civilian casualty numbers, it isn't in dispute at all. It's a bit like saying the theory of evolution is "in dispute". It's only being disputed by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Quote:And you implied all those deaths are attributable to the US which is, well, for lack of a better word a LIE.

Wait a minute, let's back up to what was actually said. You said:

(11-14-2015, 07:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't really disagree....but there is something to be said for the ineffectiveness of military intervention being due to overly handcuffing ourselves to rules the terrorists don't play by.

We literally spend hundreds of billions of dollars to spare sympathizers from collateral damage.  Personally, I'm for more just wars and more collateral damage.

Note that you have offered nothing to support your claim that we "literally spend hundreds of billions" to spare "sympathizers" (?) from "collateral damage".

Then, I said:

(11-14-2015, 05:04 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And yet still, somehow, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq died.

Either we did not "literally" spent hundred of billions of dollars on sparing civilians, or the money is being horribly mismanaged.

There is nothing inaccurate about that statement. Pick your source; find just one that says the civilian deaths in Iraq is not in the hundreds of thousands. Newsmax or some blogger sitting on his couch doesn't count, of course; cite real organizations that either have feet on the ground to investigate or use scientifically acceptable methodology to calculate a number.

As for "all those deaths being attributable to the U.S.", pretty much, yes. The war was started by the U.S. The U.S. was not attacked by Iraq. The blame for the war and all its after effects are shouldered by the U.S. and its military allies that invaded a country without cause. The opposition in Iraq only exists for one reason: the U.S. gave them something to oppose. I guess this mystery "hundreds of billions  of dollars" that goes towards sparing civilians didn't get invested in preventing a predicted insurgency from predictably costing civilian lives.

Of course, saying that makes it sound as though all the civilian deaths in Iraq are the fault of the opposition forces and not directly due to airstrikes etc. from the U.S. and its allies, which is also untrue. There has been plenty of what you callously call "collateral damage" directly due to U.S. military operations such as airstrikes. And even the highest of numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths have not been able to completely take into account deaths due to malnutrition and a depleted health system, another aspect the mystery "hundreds of billions" apparently failed to take into account.

Quote:One source, collated from newspapers, listed a little about 120k.  

Notice that the lowest number you could find exceeds 100k. Also, really ask yourself if using commercial news reports like the IBC number you're citing did is a great methodology.

Quote:Coalition forces and Iraq reported 165,000 civilian deaths directly resulting from war violence.   Other studies claimed 500k (which are including indirect causes). 

The so-called "indirect causes" still only accounted for roughly 1/3 of the deaths in that study, according to the researchers.

Notice that, again, all of your numbers are over 100,000.

Quote:But how many are directly attributable to the US?

You'll have to define what you consider "directly attributable". How many died directly from, say, the U.S. dropping a bomb right on their house? Is that the only thing you would consider "directly attributable"? How about the U.S. dropping a bombs on farms, neighborhoods, plants, etc.? Do the civilians who die in those count?

I personally would tend to blame war deaths on the aggressors. There are some notable exceptions, but it's a decent rule of thumb.

Quote:Or is it that if you don't like what the sources actually say you just make up your own numbers?

Let's recap.

You said the U.S. spends "hundreds of billions" on preventing "collateral damage" to "sympathizers"(?) without any evidence at all.  I said hundreds of thousands of civilians died in Iraq. You responded by citing a few surveys, all of which say over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq.

Your conclusion? I'm making up numbers.

You've attempted to argue that so-called "indirect" deaths don't count, but haven't offered any solid reasoning why they don't, and certainly haven't shown why these "hundreds of billions" supposedly being spent aren't helping prevent "indirect" deaths.

I get it. As you said, you, like Ted Cruz, want to see more innocent people die. That's a completely insane position you have every right to hold, but there's no sense in making an even bigger fool of yourself through disputing a claim I make by posting proof that it was accurate.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand: the attack on Paris, made possible by the Iraq war you wanted more innocent people to die in.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Windows "Tada" sound

And the thread is derailed

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2015, 09:35 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Windows "Tada" sound

And the thread is derailed

Sometimes you just have to stand back and ask: "What are they trying to prove?"

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-14-2015, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sometimes you just have to stand back and ask: "What are they trying to prove?"

In this case, it should be fairly obvious, even for you. Someone disputed the number of civilian deaths in Iraq because he agreed with Ted Cruz's call for the U.S. to kill more civilians after the Paris attack. I corrected him.

Moving right along.

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2015, 10:07 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: In this case, it should be fairly obvious, even for you. Someone disputed the number of civilian deaths in Iraq because he agreed with Ted Cruz's call for the U.S. to kill more civilians after the Paris attack. I corrected him.

Moving right along.

Guess I just missed the part where Ted Cruz called for us to kill more civilians. 

But folks often come into these threads with their own agendas. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-14-2015, 10:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess I just missed the part where Ted Cruz called for us to kill more civilians.

It was posted a few pages back if you're interested.

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2015, 10:13 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: It was posted a few pages back if you're interested.

Guess I just brings me back to this:

bfine32 Wrote:Sometimes you just have to stand back and ask: "What are they trying to prove?"

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-14-2015, 10:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess I just brings me back to this:

Hopelessly vague and completely uninformative.

One of these days you'll surprise me.

[SunsetBengal]

Getting back to the attack on Paris. Thought this was interesting.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/14/clemons-french-officials-criticizing-absence-of-us-leadership-against-terror/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Quote:MSNBC Contributor and Washington Editor-at-Large for the Atlantic, Steve Clemons stated that French officials he had talked with criticized lack of US support against fighting terrorism, with one arguing that, “ISIS has been incubated for two years with an absence of US leadership, and that the United States needs to take the security of its allies more seriously” during MSNBC’s coverage of the terrorist attacks in Paris on Saturday.

In response to a question about his conversations “with some French officials here in the United States expressing frustration about perhaps a lack of support from the US, in terms of France’s ability to fight this jihad.” Clemons said, “Well, the discussion I — was with French officials in Paris who were communicating this, and you know, in doing so, on a background basis, and on a personal basis, saying that one of the things that they’re facing is why did this happen, why did this happen? A lot of it has looked at their relation with the United States. I got an email this morning saying that’s not why, our proximity to Syria and all things Syria is profound and big, but he said the bigger part of this is that, for a variety of reasons, directly and indirectly, ISIS has been incubated for two years with an absence of US leadership, and that the United States needs to take the security of its allies more seriously, and it was a direct implication that we had not done and acted in a way to take action…he recognized in his email that I have a different view of that, that that’s not my view, but that — very clearly I sensed in these emails and the exchanges, frustration, tenseness, but also confidence. He said, we will prevail in this, but there was a real frustration and tenseness over that. And a frustration that — not only about what was happening and unfolding on the streets of Paris, but where it had come from, how it had been able to metastasize and to grow over the last two years.”

He added, “We may see within the next 24 hours some focus on Article 5 of NATO, and looking whether or not there will be a collective security commitment that we make, that almost compels us to move forward with a more muscular approach than we’ve given thusfar.”

And spare me the criticism of the source being Breitbart, there's actual footage of this, as it was aired on MSNBC.

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2015, 12:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Getting back to the attack on Paris.  Thought this was interesting.  

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/14/clemons-french-officials-criticizing-absence-of-us-leadership-against-terror/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


And spare me the criticism of the source being Breitbart, there's actual footage of this, as it was aired on MSNBC.

Anybody that knows anything, knows that the current administration feed ISIL. It is the sole reason we are hesitant to stop it. 

[SunsetBengal]

(11-15-2015, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Anybody that knows anything, knows that the current administration feed ISIL. It is the sole reason we are hesitant to stop it. 

I get that, completely.  It just confounds me that those on the left still continue to expound that it is "violent extremism", rather than Radical Islamic Terrorism.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sanders-criticizes-clinton-on-iraq-vote-as-debate-focuses-on-terror-attacks/ar-BBn0iO5?ocid=spartandhp

Quote:All three candidates rejected the phrase “radical Islam” to describe the militant groups opposed to the United States and its allies,

[Belsnickel]

(11-15-2015, 12:59 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I get that, completely.  It just confounds me that those on the left still continue to expound that it is "violent extremism", rather than Radical Islamic Terrorism.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sanders-criticizes-clinton-on-iraq-vote-as-debate-focuses-on-terror-attacks/ar-BBn0iO5?ocid=spartandhp

I don't get that. Saying it is radical Islam makes clear this is not the mainstream. What is wrong with that?

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2015, 12:59 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I get that, completely.  It just confounds me that those on the left still continue to expound that it is "violent extremism", rather than Radical Islamic Terrorism.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sanders-criticizes-clinton-on-iraq-vote-as-debate-focuses-on-terror-attacks/ar-BBn0iO5?ocid=spartandhp

Oh, it's because they are clowns.

Unfortunately for them; more and more Americans are getting tired of the circus. 

[SunsetBengal]

(11-15-2015, 01:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't get that. Saying it is radical Islam makes clear this is not the mainstream. What is wrong with that?

Exactly, call it what it is.  Radical Islam..  Don't try to whitewash the religious aspect, by simply referring to every terrorist action as "violent extremism".  Maybe it is wrong of me for feeling this way, but if it were really only a small portion of all Muslims that wanted to destroy Western Civilization, and anyone else that does not conform to Sharia Law, one would think that the majority would weed that small portion out.  Excommunicate them, if you will.

[GMDino]

So we're going to invade France then?

:snark:

The enemy is not a country...its an ideology. We can't march in, drop bombs, close borders, whatever.

Our only hope is that people stop fighting about which invisible man in the sky's story is "true".

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2015, 01:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: So we're going to invade France then?

:snark:

The enemy is not a country...its an ideology.  We can't march in, drop bombs, close borders, whatever.

Our only hope is that people stop fighting about which invisible man in the sky's story is "true".

Who the hell said invade France?

[Belsnickel]

(11-15-2015, 01:10 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exactly, call it what it is.  Radical Islam..  Don't try to whitewash the religious aspect, by simply referring to every terrorist action as "violent extremism".  Maybe it is wrong of me for feeling this way, but if it were really only a small portion of all Muslims that wanted to destroy Western Civilization, and anyone else that does not conform to Sharia Law, one would think that the majority would weed that small portion out.  Excommunicate them, if you will.

There is no formal structure like that. Besides, if there were it would be like the Vatican excommunicating Westboro Baptist. What different does that make? We can tell that many, and indeed most, do not support this radical version of their faith because they are fleeing from it. There are probably more refugees at this point than there are IS fighters.

[SunsetBengal]

(11-15-2015, 01:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no formal structure like that. Besides, if there were it would be like the Vatican excommunicating Westboro Baptist. What different does that make? We can tell that many, and indeed most, do not support this radical version of their faith because they are fleeing from it. There are probably more refugees at this point than there are IS fighters.

Isn't that part of the problem?  The fighters are now pretending to be refugees.

[Benton]

(11-15-2015, 01:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: So we're going to invade France then?

:snark:

.

Our only hope is that people stop fighting about which invisible man in the sky's story is "true".

well, that's not going to happen. If it's not religion, evil men will bring people to them with some other rally cry. Money. Power. Answers.

the problem isn't some invisible anything. It's people. Hungry, scared, lonely people.