11-14-2015, 08:47 PM
The White House couldn't change its rainbow bulbs out for some red white and blue I guess.
Priorities and all
Priorities and all
Paris under attack
|
11-14-2015, 08:47 PM
The White House couldn't change its rainbow bulbs out for some red white and blue I guess.
Priorities and all
11-14-2015, 09:29 PM
(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. 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. 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.
11-14-2015, 09:35 PM
Windows "Tada" sound
And the thread is derailed
Song of Solomon 2:15
Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
11-14-2015, 09:51 PM
(11-14-2015, 09:35 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Windows "Tada" sound Sometimes you just have to stand back and ask: "What are they trying to prove?"
11-14-2015, 10:07 PM
(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.
11-14-2015, 10:11 PM
(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. 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.
11-14-2015, 10:13 PM
11-14-2015, 10:16 PM
(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?"
11-14-2015, 11:48 PM
11-15-2015, 12:17 AM
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. And spare me the criticism of the source being Breitbart, there's actual footage of this, as it was aired on MSNBC. Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations -Frank Booth 1/9/23
11-15-2015, 12:50 AM
(11-15-2015, 12:17 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Getting back to the attack on Paris. Thought this was interesting. Anybody that knows anything, knows that the current administration feed ISIL. It is the sole reason we are hesitant to stop it.
11-15-2015, 12:59 AM
(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, Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations -Frank Booth 1/9/23
11-15-2015, 01:01 AM
(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. I don't get that. Saying it is radical Islam makes clear this is not the mainstream. What is wrong with that?
11-15-2015, 01:06 AM
(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. Oh, it's because they are clowns. Unfortunately for them; more and more Americans are getting tired of the circus.
11-15-2015, 01:10 AM
(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. Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations -Frank Booth 1/9/23
11-15-2015, 01:11 AM
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". Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
11-15-2015, 01:13 AM
(11-15-2015, 01:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: So we're going to invade France then? Who the hell said invade France?
11-15-2015, 01:19 AM
(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.
11-15-2015, 01:31 AM
(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. Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations -Frank Booth 1/9/23
11-15-2015, 01:34 AM
(11-15-2015, 01:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: So we're going to invade France then? 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. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|