It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Truth is Unspeakable; American Sniper unloads on 'American Sniper'

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: macman




Still don't get it. Oh well. My stance is pretty clear.


To a confused mind maybe.. Blindly support something if you wish but dont claim to me or anyone else that you approach the subject with any vestige of rationality.

Is such lack of rationality any different to peeps blowing themselves up to require their virgins in heaven. Maybe not both require a leap of non rational faith

take care...

purp.




posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: purplemer

NOT a million civillians by any means and WHAT peer reviewed paper are YOU refering to?
REMEMBER I suck at math,not history.


We all suck as something. I suck at spelling...

the lancet report..




The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).


en.wikipedia.org...


in three decades, about 900,000 Iraqis have died from violence, or well over 3% of the Iraqi population--the equivalent of more than 9 million people in a nation with a population as large as that of the United States. That's what Iraq will have to recover from over the next decades--not just the death toll of the last six years, but that of the last 30.


middleeast.about.com...



That study is fundamentally flawed because it was based on household survey data.

If you survey a bunch of people who hate America, of course they're going to flub the numbers.

That's like sending a survey to 2,000 Christian Conservatives and asking them if they think Obama is a Muslim.
edit on 2/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

No we killed more in Desert Storm that the followup conflicts YOU must be adding in the internal battles that were perpetuated by outside factions in that number.
HOW anyone could tell I have NO IDEA.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

the film is propoganda! I would not watch it.
edit on 6-2-2015 by fluff007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
MY art apparently worthless as it is...krithargus.deviantart.com...


this one reminds me of the work of Chris Foss.


krithargus.deviantart.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.chrisfossart.com...
edit on R2015th2015-02-06T16:20:46-06:0020150pm364 by RoScoLaz4 because: add link



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




That study is fundamentally flawed because it was based on household survey data


Show me real peer revirewed science to saythat it was flawed because its not there.. Funny the lancet report calcualted death tolls for many wars and confilcts in the past and no one said they where flawed.

It was a peer reviewed scientific report in of the oldest medical journals in the world there are no other. So cut the propoganda heres the science and you dont like it..

purp...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: fluff007
a reply to: Answer

the film is propoganda! I would not watch it.


Then you can't comment on it, can you?

At least I'm willing to sit through the crap I disagree with so I can make an informed comment. I did that with all of Michael Moore's drivel, The Hurt Locker, 9/11 Truther documentaries, etc.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RoScoLaz4

I WISH I was as clean as FOSS but he was an inspiration as well. MOST of the Dragon's Dream and Paper Tiger stuff was what I grew up on.
That was a commisioned piece for a guy who wanted to be put into the cockpit of a jedi fighter I didn't like it because the damn GUESSO got bumpy and I work in guasche.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: purplemer

No we killed more in Desert Storm that the followup conflicts YOU must be adding in the internal battles that were perpetuated by outside factions in that number.
HOW anyone could tell I have NO IDEA.


thank you for your reply.

Yes I think it is the total amount of people killed due to the occupation. So that would include people that may die for lack of electricity etc...

I tihnk the number is important it shows the consequence of our action. 1 million people died for no good reason mostly women and children. To me this is an act of mass murder and somone should be held to account for such playful destruction...

Films like American Sniper do nothing to show the true cost of war. If peeps could see the true cost of the Iraq invasion there would be outrage and rightly so..

purp..



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




Officers in charge of the death camps that slaughtered millions of civilians were put on trial. Nazi soldiers fighting on the front lines were not put on trial.


Wrong soliders can be prosocuted for just following orders..

Have a little read of Practice Relating to Rule 155. Defence of Superior Orders
www.icrc.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Answer




That study is fundamentally flawed because it was based on household survey data


Show me real peer revirewed science to saythat it was flawed because its not there.. Funny the lancet report calcualted death tolls for many wars and confilcts in the past and no one said they where flawed.

It was a peer reviewed scientific report in of the oldest medical journals in the world there are no other. So cut the propoganda heres the science and you dont like it..

purp...


Did you even read what I said or go to my linked source?

The study uses household survey data which is fundamentally flawed.

You like to selectively post quotes but how about these?


The Lancet surveys are controversial because their mortality figures are higher than most other reports, including those of the Iraqi Health Ministry and the United Nations, as well as other household surveys such as the Iraq Living Conditions Survey and the Iraq Family Health Survey. The 2007 ORB survey of Iraq War casualties estimated more deaths than the Lancet, though it covered a longer period of the conflict.[5][6] Out of all the Iraqi casualty surveys so far, only the Lancet surveys and the Iraq Family Health Survey were peer-reviewed. The Lancet surveys have triggered criticism and disbelief from some journalists, governments, the Iraq Body Count project, some epidemiologists and statisticians and others, but have also been supported by some journalists, governments, epidemiologists and statisticians.[7]



The Iraq Body Count project (IBC), who compiles a database of reported civilian deaths, has criticised the Lancet's estimate of 601,000 violent deaths[29] out of the Lancet estimate of 654,965 total excess deaths related to the war. An October 2006 article by IBC argues that the Lancet estimate is suspect "because of a very different conclusion reached by another random household survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS), using a comparable method but a considerably better-distributed and much larger sample." IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".[30] Later statements in a 2010 article by IBC say that the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" from the 2006 Lancet report have "been comprehensively discredited" by recently published research.[31]


Source

Presenting the Lancet Surveys as indisputable proof is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

If multiple other methods have produced numbers between 150k and 400k and two household surveys have produced number GROSSLY higher, any rational person without a glaring agenda would look at the higher numbers with great suspicion.

This study was also peer-reviewed... since you think that's the golden standard for truth:

Iraq Family Health Survey


edit on 2/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
There are a lot of charged emotions in this thread. And it's understandable to see why.

Nobody (unless they're total psychopaths) ever wants to end another human being's life. It's something that a person will carry with them for the rest of their lives, and I'm sure there's a guilt associated with it that can never be erased.

However, war has been a sad reality for a long time, and unfortunately barring any divine or extra terrestrial intervention, I don't see it ending any time soon. There will always be a need for soldiers, men and women willing to end the life of another in the name of their country, or in the defense of others.

There's a certain honor in being one of those people. You do something nobody would ever want to do, because you believe in your country. I don't think it's wrong to respect and admire the soldier, and I think this is where some people get the wrong message. It's fine to glorify the strength and resolve of a soldier. It is wrong to glorify war. You can respect the individual while disagreeing with conflict itself.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




Did you even read what I said or go to my linked source? The study uses household survey data which is fundamentally flawed


Did you understand me when I said that if you want to challange a peep reviewed paper do so with real science. I am aware that there has been critism of the report but no real science to back it up..

Can you deliver.....?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Answer




Did you even read what I said or go to my linked source? The study uses household survey data which is fundamentally flawed


Did you understand me when I said that if you want to challange a peep reviewed paper do so with real science. I am aware that there has been critism of the report but no real science to back it up..

Can you deliver.....?


See my now-edited thread.

You do realize that "Peer-reviewed" does not mean a study is infallible, right?

You do realize that several of the peer-reviewers had serious problems with the study, right?

You'd know that if you properly researched the study instead of taking snippets that support your agenda.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




But hey, who cares about facts... this is about whatever supports your agenda, right?


So you pertain to care about facts and quote me an argument based from wikipedia. Any tom, dick or harry can write on wikipedia.

The Lancet report was done by proffesional experienced scientists and still no one has provided me with any rean science to counter the paper.

And I will continue to voice that a million died in resepct to all those voiceless people that can no longer be heard or talk for themselves.

Certainly has a lot more respect for innocents that died in Iraq than for a paid murderer that managed to murder more people than the other paid murderers...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Ofc they where critical of the study they are scientists. But they did the study and fact remains to date it is the only scienitfic study on the total death count of Iraq. Most other figure have been provided by the likes of governments..

Now please be my guest and go on beleiving that governements dont lie. Did you know the US no longer count civilain deaths. They learnt that from the vietnam war. Public opionion is everything in war thats why the US stopped the Iraq government from releasing body bag counts..

If you cant see if thats kk

happy days

purp..



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7






AND purplemrer illustrates what I said to you earlier. THE liberal mind doesn't seem to grasp that warriors don't perpetuate war or violence we just try to stop


Well you have done a real good job of stopping violence in Iraq. The occupation killed far more people than Saddam did and heck they are still dying now..

Give yourself a pat on the back..:



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Answer




But hey, who cares about facts... this is about whatever supports your agenda, right?


So you pertain to care about facts and quote me an argument based from wikipedia. Any tom, dick or harry can write on wikipedia.


You're seriously going to use that old argument when we all know that's a bogus excuse to discount facts on Wiki that are verified by refrences? By that logic, no online source is presentable because "any tom, dick, or harry" can write an article. Please... the weakness of your argument is showing through.

How do you reconcile Lancet's numbers with this:

When the Iraq Family Health Survey was published in January 2008 the Iraqi health minister was Dr Salih al-Hasnawi.

The previous Iraqi health minister, Ali al-Shemari, in early November 2006 estimated between 100,000 and 150,000 people had been killed since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.[23][24][25][26] The Taipei Times reported on his methodology: "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2006] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals -- though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[23]

The Washington Post reported: "As al-Shemari issued the startling new estimate, the head of the Baghdad central morgue said Thursday he was receiving as many as 60 violent death victims each day at his facility alone. Dr. Abdul-Razzaq al-Obaidi said those deaths did not include victims of violence whose bodies were taken to the city's many hospital morgues or those who were removed from attack scenes by relatives and quickly buried according to Muslim custom."[26]

From a November 9, 2006 International Herald Tribune article:[24]

"Each day we lost 100 persons, that means per month 3,000, per year it's 36,000, plus or minus 10 percent," al-Shemari said. "So by three years, 120,000, half year 20,000, that means 140,000, plus or minus 10 percent," he said, explaining how he came to the figures. "This includes all Iraqis killed — police, ordinary people, children," he said, adding that people who were kidnapped and later found dead were also included in his estimate. He said the figures were compiled by counting bodies brought to "forensic institutes" or hospitals.

From the November 11, 2006 Taipei Times article:[23]

An official with the ministry also confirmed the figure yesterday [Nov. 10, 2006], but later said that the estimated deaths ranged between 100,000 and 150,000. "The minister was misquoted. He said between 100,000-150,000 people were killed in three-and-a-half years," the official said.


So, even IF the 100 dead per day number held true for the entire decade, that's only 360,000 dead compared to the insane numbers published by Lancet.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
There are a lot of charged emotions in this thread. And it's understandable to see why.

Nobody (unless they're total psychopaths) ever wants to end another human being's life. It's something that a person will carry with them for the rest of their lives, and I'm sure there's a guilt associated with it that can never be erased.

However, war has been a sad reality for a long time, and unfortunately barring any divine or extra terrestrial intervention, I don't see it ending any time soon. There will always be a need for soldiers, men and women willing to end the life of another in the name of their country, or in the defense of others.

There's a certain honor in being one of those people. You do something nobody would ever want to do, because you believe in your country. I don't think it's wrong to respect and admire the soldier, and I think this is where some people get the wrong message. It's fine to glorify the strength and resolve of a soldier. It is wrong to glorify war. You can respect the individual while disagreeing with conflict itself.
well said that person.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Answer




But hey, who cares about facts... this is about whatever supports your agenda, right?


So you pertain to care about facts and quote me an argument based from wikipedia. Any tom, dick or harry can write on wikipedia.

The Lancet report was done by proffesional experienced scientists and still no one has provided me with any rean science to counter the paper.

And I will continue to voice that a million died in resepct to all those voiceless people that can no longer be heard or talk for themselves.

Certainly has a lot more respect for innocents that died in Iraq than for a paid murderer that managed to murder more people than the other paid murderers...


By all means, continue to have respect and be a voice to a million innocent that died.

I will have respect for the men and women in the militaries across the world who've volunteered to prevent future millions of victims at the hands of scum like ISIS.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join