Aceshardware

DUCK of DEATH · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 104

P4man wrote:

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

LOL!!!! Yeah a million have been killed.

Some people are stupid enough to believe anything.

If they said a Billion people had been killed in Iraq, I'll bet the penny still wouldn't have dropped for you lot.

Care to explain to us on why think you are clever to ridicule the conclusions of the only (to my knowledge) scientific attempt, by one of the most respectable scientific journals, to determine the number of excess deaths?

Did you laugh just as hard when the same methodology was used to determine the number of causalities in Congo, Darfur or after the tsunami in South Asia ? In fact, care to share with us what reasons you have -other than an unwillingness to face a harsh reality- to believe the number would be substantially lower ?

For a million people to have been killed, that means approx 600 people a day, every single day since the war started.

If a bomb takes out 5 people it makes the headlines, and yet we are to believe that 600 a day, every single day on average, have been killed.

If someone said there were 200,000 gun related deaths in the USA every year, would you believe that or would you do some basic maths to see how much shit that is.

cornelius785 · Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 74

couple links that i turned up from something i like to call 'www.google.com':

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/14/news/casualties.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/17/africa/web.0117iraq.php

that 600/day is starting to smell awfully fishy.

kinkozmasta · Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 1

cornelius785 wrote:

couple links that i turned up from something i like to call 'www.google.com':

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/14/news/casualties.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/17/africa/web.0117iraq.php

that 600/day is starting to smell awfully fishy.

These links all telp the same old media story and don't seem to be very trustworthy (in the sense of accuracy not necessarily intentionally misleading). They are either "reported" deaths, compiled by the Iraqi government (is there really such a thing), or some other mysterious unspecified method.

The report (http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf) last year that estimated ~650,000 deaths at least details their methodology.

This site seems to give a decent criticism of the report but ultimately concludes it is at least in the right ball park.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/884

600 a day might be fishy but so is 20-30.

edit: fixed a few typos

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

DUCK of DEATH wrote:

For a million people to have been killed, that means approx 600 people a day, every single day since the war started.

If a bomb takes out 5 people it makes the headlines, and yet we are to believe that 600 a day, every single day on average, have been killed.

Yes, bombs in Iraq still make news sometimes, but according to the report they are responsible for no more than 13% of all casualties.

Quote:

If someone said there were 200,000 gun related deaths in the USA every year, would you believe that or would you do some basic maths to see how much shit that is.

In 2004 there where 29,569 gun deaths in the US. How many of those did you notice in the news ? It doesnt take too much imagination to believe that number to be MUCH higher in Iraq, even adjusting for population size. Now how many reports of shootings in Iraq have you seen ? The only recent shooting I know of that made any headlines was the recent Blackwater killing. You must be extremely naive to not believe that is just the tip of the iceberg. Not even that.

Outside of Baghdad where no camera's or journalists are, shootings don't get reported, period. Especially not if they are done by rivaling Iraqi fractions, or by US troops. You'll either hear nothing, or something like "anti-coalition forces fired on US troops, who returned fire, destroying several vehicles, and killing a number of them.." (In reality it was a wedding party and 40 innocent people where slaughtered by helicopters 'responding' to iraqi's shooting in the air for celebration; many of the victims where children).

Doc Zoiberg · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 16

Well i think apart of the numbers, that are scaring anyways because you forget the injured (with an optimistic rate of 5 injured for 1 dead ), i d like to take account a general figure of the USA foreign politic.

1)Afghan war against Russia = USA gives money and train Islamic fundamentalist to fight them.
2)Democratic elected premier and prime minister in Pakistan = Insurrection of Pakistan Army with the benediction of USA (another dictator... may be good one for the USA Governments...)
3)Iran revolution = USA, after training Saddam as CIA agent and with help of other European countries, install Saddam as leader of IRAQ to start a war against Iran.

After

1) Afghanistan is the country of terrorists (they were heroes for USA against Russia ... See Rambo 3 movie)
2)Pakistan is more instable than before, they have nukes, and the Islamic fundamentalist have a easy game with population... yep they are the only ones "opposing" to "government" (that for not having problems leave them in their heavens)
3)Iraq now is ridden by Islamic fundamentalist (not existent before with saddam because killed, as the communist and who opposed him)

So 20 years of stupid, egoist and short sighted decision make up what we have. Instead of hitting them were it hurts (money) they just drop a bomb killing civilians, instead of capitalizing the global commotion for the twin towers they acted like their typical cop (abuse and violence)

So lets hope that the next target (Iran) don't get the nukes... or our life on this planet will be shortened

Zoiberg

(i hope that you note i'm speaking of USA governments, no generally of Americans)

Paranoid · Joined: 02 Aug 2007 Posts: 224

1 million fewer terrorists sounds like a good start.

Doc Zoiberg · Joined: 31 Jul 2007 Posts: 16

Trolling?

Wierdo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 184

Doc Zoiberg wrote:

Trolling?

Like Osama, he believes the ends justify the means, and the civilians are obstacles to the ultimate goal and even deserve it for complicating that task. The extremist mentality is not limited to a specific region as you can tell.

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

Paranoid is just an incredible hypocrite. One of millions. I get so sick of this "terrorist" mantra, it makes me want to puke.

If there is any nation in the world with a history of supporting "terrorism", it has to be the US. From Guatemala to Iran, Indonesia, East Timor, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Congo, Panama, .. to name just a few. The list is endless, the death tolls in the millions. And even today in Palestine, supporting, funding and arming both Fatah and the IDF. In Iraq they "lost" a few 100k weapons to terrorist groups, they actively arm and train other known terrorist groups to fight for them as their proxy armies. They support terrorists to destabilize Iran (while accusing Iran of doing the same in Iraq of course) and God knows where else.

Of course, if you support them, you call them "freedom fighters" or something, not terrorists, but if "supporting terrorism" would be a reason to invade a country, the US should be on the top of anyone's list, near Saudi Arabia and Israel.

GMDavis · Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 42

SIGH
And most of the events and counties you mentioned happened during the Cold War.
You never cease to amaze me how you take US actions in a vacuum. Look at what the USSR was doing at the same time and then compare. You will also find that some of the events you listed were the US combating USSR installed regimes.

A little balance is always a good thing

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

Yes, a little balance is a good thing. How about balancing the million dead Iraqi's against Saddam's non existing WMDs, and its "terrorist funding" when he gave $10.000 to Palestinian families who's houses where demolished. Like balancing God knows how many Iranians will die in the next Gulf war against the non existing Iranian nuclear bomb threat?

BTW, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (if it was Saddam, that isnt even completely clear) also happened during the Cold War. I never heard any warmongers bring that up as a justification.

GMDavis · Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Posts: 42

P4man wrote:

Yes, a little balance is a good thing.

Glad you think so

Quote:

How about balancing the million dead Iraqi's against Saddam's non existing WMDs, and its "terrorist funding" when he gave $10.000 to Palestinian families who's houses where demolished.

Two things:
A) the 1,000,000 number you seem to be so fond of was an OPINION poll. There was no foundation in fact other than what someone said. This poll is just like the discredited Lancet poll, which had not facts to back up its numbers. There is a site that has factual numbers on the war, but I think the numbers to be low. At least its numbers are based on facts.
As an aside, when we discussed global warming you got angry and demanded peer-review data to support a contrarian view. If a peer-review article didn't exist, you were right. Well, you don't get it both ways. You cant take the studies that you like when they have no evidence, while demanding others show proof in your other arguments.

B) He gave more than $10.

Quote:

He further endeared himself to the Palestinians during the recent uprising against Israel by giving $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber and $10,000 for each Palestinian killed in fighting. The stipends totaled an estimated $35 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123001231.html

Pesky things those facts.

Quote:

Like balancing God knows how many Iranians will die in the next Gulf war against the non existing Iranian nuclear bomb threat?

Its not going to happen. The majority of the US troops are committed to Iraq. The US public also won't go for another war. You seem to have a profound lack of knowledge about how the US works

Quote:

BTW, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (if it was Saddam, that isnt even completely clear) also happened during the Cold War. I never heard any warmongers bring that up as a justification.

Who else would gas the Kurds?
You have more conspiracy theories to share with us?
As to that happening during the Cold War, this is irrelevant.
My whole point was that if you are going to hold the US accountable you darn well need to view the things in perspective. I know, I know, this is not your strong suit, but if you are going to bring up Nicaragua, you might also want to mention that the Sandanista's were funded and supported but the USSR.

Lastly, I was not war mongering. I am asking you to use a little balance.

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

GMDavis wrote:

Two things:
A) the 1,000,000 number you seem to be so fond of was an OPINION poll. There was no foundation in fact other than what someone said. This poll is just like the discredited Lancet poll, which had not facts to back up its numbers.

Wrong, in 92% of the cases a death certificate was produced when requested.

These "opinion polls" are the standard way to measure casualties, they are in fact, the only scientific way to do so in a crisis situation. The same methodology has been used in numerous other conflicts, I never heard anyone question the outcome of similar studies in Congo or Darfour. The number is not accurate to 1%, but it is the single best scientific study we have. So maybe the real number is 100.000 less (or more), it doesnt change a whole lot, does it ?

Quote:

There is a site that has factual numbers on the war,

Yes, Iraq Body Count. They have counted ~80.0000 violent deaths since the invasion, but that is not a "more factual" number, it is the number of deaths that have been confirmed by either eye witness reports or by the media. (further limited to civilian deaths, caused by violence).

You don't have to be a genius to understand that in the current mess that Iraq is in, with no media whatsoever outside Baghdad, only a tiny fraction of all casualties would end up being reported individually, which is what they say themselves. BTW, their numbers and trendlines almost perfectly match those of the Lancet study.

Quote:

As an aside, when we discussed global warming you got angry and demanded peer-review data to support a contrarian view. If a peer-review article didn't exist, you were right. Well, you don't get it both ways. You cant take the studies that you like when they have no evidence, while demanding others show proof in your other arguments.

I'm not sure what your point is. The Lancet article was a peer reviewed scientific publication (in one of the most respected scientifical journals). If you are going to argue its conclusions, what is your source again ?

Quote:

B) He gave more than $10.

Not the entire world uses the point as decimal separator. I thought you would have at least understood that much.

Quote:

He further endeared himself to the Palestinians during the recent uprising against Israel by giving $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber and $10,000 for each Palestinian killed in fighting. The stipends totaled an estimated $35 million.

So in a political publicity stunt he gave money to people who's houses where demolished, and who lost family members in a fight with an occupation army. You tell me, is that supporting terrorism or charity ? How is that related to attacks on the US ? And how do you think these sums compare to US contributions to (state) terrorism ?

Quote:

Its not going to happen. The majority of the US troops are committed to Iraq. The US public also won't go for another war. You seem to have a profound lack of knowledge about how the US works

We shall see what happens when a crude dirty bomb goes off somewhere in Israel with uranium that allegedly came from Iran reactors. Or when a US warship gets hit by an Iranian missile. Or whatever those fruitcases intend to provoke or stage as the next pretext.

Quote:

Who else would gas the Kurds?
You have more conspiracy theories to share with us?

Sure:

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

From an obscure source, being the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E7DD1638F932A05752C0A9659C8B63

Quote:

My whole point was that if you are going to hold the US accountable you darn well need to view the things in perspective. I know, I know, this is not your strong suit, but if you are going to bring up Nicaragua, you might also want to mention that the Sandanista's were funded and supported but the USSR.

Sure you can bring that up, in fact, I welcome it. The Russians have certainly done their part too, even in more recent history, and they have been just as hypocritical to abuse it to invade Chechnya and commit their own massacre over there, fighting for oilfields under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

My point is that totally unproven accusations of a very limited (possibly not government sanctioned) "supporting of terrorism" (/freedom fighters) is not exactly a compelling reason to invade and occupy a nation, and kill hundreds of thousands of its civilians. Especially not by a country that itself is more guilty of doing that than any other nation on earth.

iiB · Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 66

P4man wrote:

We shall see what happens when a crude dirty bomb goes off somewhere in Israel with uranium that allegedly came from Iran reactors. Or when a US warship gets hit by an Iranian missile. Or whatever those fruitcases intend to provoke or stage as the next pretext.

No actually it's unnecessary. Israel has every pretext it needs to attack Iran - it's been actively arming Hezzbollah as its (active) forward striking force with more then 30,000+ rockets and constantly disrupting the border by firing and kidnapping (well up until the war in 2006).

You know Lebanon is a nice modern day example for hypocrites like you. it's been in hostage by Palestinians prior to 82', hostage to syria form 82' to like 2005 (which still assassinates anti syria government/media representative now and then - like happened 2 weeks ago), and is still hostage by Iran's need to have a forward striking position to Israel.
and Yet all you hear about is how Israel occupied a few meaningless kilometers in southern Lebanon to protect itself - and even that ended in 2000 - not that it brought about any peace as Hizzbolla continued to disrupt the border.
Truth is - no one would want a free Lebanon more then Israel (and well, Lebanon itself). but the world gives a shit about anything unless Israel or the US are the ones wrong doing.

P4man · Joined: 26 Jun 2007 Posts: 540

Quote:

You know Lebanon is a nice modern day example for hypocrites like you. it's been in hostage by Palestinians prior to 82', hostage to syria form 82' to like 2005

Maybe you also should also try and remember how hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees ended up there (and what happened to hem when Israel occupied Lebanon). If you are going to ethnically cleans your country, you shouldnt expect those refugees to be very friendly towards you.

Quote:

(which still assassinates anti syria government/media representative now and then - like happened 2 weeks ago), and is still hostage by Iran's need to have a forward striking position to Israel.

but Israel is no different. They assassinate and abduct Lebanese or Palestinian leadership and politicians all the time just as well. They just don't do it with carbombs, they use F16s.

Now I certainly don't condone Syria's meddling in Lebanon or Iran's meddling in Palestine, but unless Israel stops doing the exact same thing, and stops occupying Palestine, you should be more careful calling others hypocrites.

You can not see Lebanon independently from the Palestinian problem. Withdraw from Palestine, stop overthrowing democratically elected governments, evacuate the settlements, allow Palestinians to return to their homes and then you'll have my full sympathy if Hezbollah, Hamas or whomever attacks you. Until then, it is impossible to distinguish between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Quote:

Truth is - no one would want a free Lebanon more then Israel (and well, Lebanon itself).

"Free" as in 1982 when Israel tried to install a puppet regime ? Israel doesnt want a "free" Lebanon any more than it wants a free Palestine. In a free Lebanon, Hezbollah would probably lead the government. Israel wants an Israel friendly Lebanon like it wants a government of collaborators in Palestine. Democracy be damned.

Quote:

but the world gives a shit about anything unless Israel or the US are the ones wrong doing.

Weighing injustice done to Palestinians against that committed against Israelis, you shouldn't expect anything else. Weren't you the one that called the mass rape and murder of 1500 refugees "an incident"?

Quote:

Israel has every pretext it needs to attack Iran - it's been actively arming Hezzbollah as its (active) forward striking force with more then 30,000+ rockets and constantly disrupting the border by firing and kidnapping (well up until the war in 2006).

Using that logic, Arab nations and Iran have all the reasons they need to invade Israel. Or the US for that matter.