How many Muslims have died as a result of US bombing missions in the Middle East since 9/11

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: RomeByFire

You absolutely nailed it here.

What people need to learn, is that the normal Muslim, and the normal westerner are BOTH, largely speaking, groups which are controlled by small numbers of people who have either been given, or taken for themselves, power, power they either took with thanks, or stole without remorse, from the people over whom they administrate. Whether we are talking about the government of the United States (which does things its citizens should ALL be absolutely ashamed of, but is never fought, never prevented from acting as it pleases, never sanctioned for poor form or ill behaviour), or the radical Imams of the false caliphate in the Middle East, these things hold true for the people caught in the middle. The regular man or woman in the street, their children. These people are no different to you and me. They all want food in their guts, a place to rest their heads, and the peace and freedom to enjoy both. They, like us, are denied these things by the machinations of the control structures erected over them, control structures they do not agree with, but have no numbers or weapons with which to counteract these structures, none equal to the task at any rate.

We have far too much in common with one another, to be true enemies. But those who lead both groups? The powerful should be our enemies, no matter what power they have, or where they exercise it. The many must band together against the few. If it is to be any other way, the species will tear itself apart in war never ending. That is the only end result of permitting these idiotic conflicts to continue, despite knowing their origins to be false.

Then let the powerful be the people they terrorize. Because all i see is them killing innocent people as a statement.

At least the bombs we drop are meant for the bad ones and have collateral damage they target the innocent because of headlines.

a reply to: Shangralah

What you dont see... or fail to see... Are the thousands of families who have an electronic flying machine come from the horizon... Is this machine bringing food? Or water? Or clothes? No. this machine is coming to blow up your house... Why? Because powers above you have determined you are worth the loss. Heres the rub.. when you survive, yet every SINGLE member of your family is now dead, what do you think?

Do you say, a foreign government just blew up my town and killed my family, I guess I'll just be quiet and sit down.... Or do you say, I want revenge for my family.


Take two minutes and try and look at something from someone else's perspective. Maybe read a little bit and find out the bombs WE drop do not avoid civilians. The mere number of civilian deaths should be enough to make you go hmmm...

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: WUNK22
My good friend died in the twin towers, to answer your question, not enough!

And there are mulsims who have lost family to American bombing and say not enough Americans died in the twin towers.

Its a cycle of hate that has to stop.

Sadly it won't...
One thing history has taught us is that the expansion of Islam and the expansion of west are in direct conflict. Until one ideology is destroyed or reformed the killing will continue.

There are Muslim Americans...
But in other regions of the world Americans are not or would not be treated as Muslims are treated in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The simple question all who have input that must be entertained is-

If the USA was removed from it's position in the current world would those wanting the removal accept the new dominate Super power?

What Super power would that be if such a scenario occurred in a weeks amount of time from now?
No joking, a few simple psychological questions. Would you be happier with the new S.P? or feel more upset at your wishes?
1 would like to know without any who respond going off on wild tangents.
Something to consider-

NAMASTE*******

Orurosboros energy

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


Muslims have killed more in written history than anyone else.

Can't really argue history without going all the way back. If we just took a small segment you could pretty much make any historical point seem logical.

I thought Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in written history...estimates for him are over 90 million....

originally posted by: WUNK22
My good friend died in the twin towers, to answer your question, not enough!

This right here shows how rotten American education system is.
I only wonder what innocent Iraqis had to do with 9/11?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Any evangelical pacifists on ATS? I guess not. You would think Jesus-peaceniks would exist. I guess Christianity is just another war religion where there can BE only one chosen people.

Oh no you dont use turn the other cheek that way. That was for non life threatening slights and or picking. Jesus would not want you to Die or incur serious bodily harm instead of defending yourself.

See so many confuse that with being a pacifist. Jesus was not a pacifist but he did practice restraint. He even walked with armed guards from time to time,because sometimes the mountains needed to be moved. In other words sometimes a obstacle AKA a enemy AKA thug needed to be taken care of in self defense or defense of others.

Also CHristianity is not another war religion. Just as in Islam there are some who mis interpret it and twist it to their own ends. And I woudnt want to be the hebrew people. they are the chosen ones but we as gentiles are covered under the new covenant.

That means ANYONE can join regardless of past belief or non belief.

One more thing. just because the hebrews were chosen dont mean they have it easy. they have it worse.

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError

originally posted by: WUNK22
My good friend died in the twin towers, to answer your question, not enough!

This right here shows how rotten American education system is.
I only wonder what innocent Iraqis had to do with 9/11?

If you are alive no one but children are innocent because once you get old enough you understand Sin.

Also MOst would agree going back into iraq was a mistake. The death toll would had been less because the terrorist would not had used civilians as shields. Majority of attacks in Iraq were done by non iraqis from other countries so they didnt care about casualties.

bush jr was a dumbarse who tried to get daddy to pay attention to him. Nation building is wrong. You dont go back after you bomb some place and rebuild it. its stupid.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: FauxMulder

Your point is not lost on me but America has been in pretty much every major global conflict since WW1. We're not harbingers of peace or freedom by any stretch of the imagination, to think otherwise is to ignore history.

America is a threat to peace either way you shake it down, we wouldn't be involved in every major war if that weren't the case.

Easy man. without the US existing everywhere's(Navy, bases) as the ultimate arbiter there would have been many more conflicts around the world. Whenever a government thinks about taking a military action they have to worry about the US government blowing up their official forces with ease and getting assassinated.

There is a reason the world map has been as static as it has been since ww2/Formal imperialism ended.

No I do not defend many things the US has done, but I want to make this balanced.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: dfnj2015
"How many Muslims have to die before you will say enough?"

Do you see a lot of Polish people being killed?
Do you see a lot of Hindus being killed?
Of course not.
Because they are not terrorist.
Once the Muslims themselves stop killing people no one will be killing them in return.

Neither do Poles or Hindus (you do know only one of those is a religion, right?) have oil. See any relationship?

originally posted by: jellyrev
There is a reason the world map has been as static as it has been since ww2/Formal imperialism ended.

Static? Really? How many new countries added to the mix since then? The former Soviet republics, new nations in Africa and Europe...recall Yugoslavia? How about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh?

In many cases, you had countries that were cobbleled together by Imperialism and Colonialism of the late 1800s - early 1900s, and they were held together by 'strongmen' appointed by Western (and Russian) interests. When those strongmen got eliminated for the crime of forgetting who actually held the leash, the countries disintegrated along tribal lines and the fun ensured.

I'd read a little history before talking about a 'static' world map. Unless you were actually being facetious. In that case...my bad.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Hundreds of thousands if not millions.

In Syria alone, 425,000 have been killed

a reply to: jellyrev

That makes you wonder why we've been involved in so much war then. If our presence stops conflict then we must not make our presence known very well because we've been in virtually endless war since WW1.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: dfnj2015

In Syria alone, 425,000 have been killed

And there is the moot question - how many of those 425,000 died as a direct result of American bomb drops?

It was more than 6, granted, but it was not all 425,000 either.

If we isolate Syria in this topic, we know that the USA armed the rebel groups who turned into ISIS. ISIS in turn massacred so many people it hurts to think about it.

So perhaps we should be asking ourselves how many people have been able to commit atrocities because of US meddling and arming the wrong people?

originally posted by: markosity1973
So perhaps we should be asking ourselves how many people have been able to commit atrocities because of US meddling and arming the wrong people?

Gee...and stomping out Saddam seemed like such a good idea at the time. What could have gone wrong?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Lol, exactly.

Does anyone remember how Russia tried to warn everyone at the UN and voted against pretty much everything the USA has done in the Middle East?

Seems like their warnings that we would destabilise the entire Middle East were not just ex communist rhetoric aimed at stopping the USA being the world police after all.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I agree that for an issue to be looked at objectively, you must consider both sides. You need to be able look at the circumstances each side is facing; their resources, their beliefs, their tactics, their motivations, their sense of reasoning. This is extremely difficult to do if you have never been in the same situation as the people you are examining, but if you are able to tap into your sense of empathy, you will be far better in the position to understand where they are coming from than if you did not. Unless you are a sociopath/psychopath where you will struggle immensely to even tap a little into your sense of empathy (if you have any at all.)

The trouble with this issue of Islam vs. The West, and I would say it is true of 99% of every other global issue as well, is that there is no simple way to address the problem in the present. Yes, you can attempt to find a "root cause" but even that does not fix what is happening in the present. If you want to use the "finding the root cause of an issue" method, you can only do so if the root is happening right now and the trouble that has resulted is happening right now. You cannot find a root cause from the past and claim it is responsible for today and that justifies any action you take in the present. That route will eventually lead to genocide or extreme gorilla warfare.

The best method in my opinion is to identify the root cause in the past that has to be agreed upon by both sides first. In my opinion it would be "meddling in the affairs of a foreign population that did not by majority ask for you to interfere, completely disregarding and disrespecting their belief systems, ideals, political structure (or lack of) or needs in the process." I cannot see too many people from any perspective disagreeing with that statement. In this case, I don't believe either side (except the extremists on both sides) would disagree that the current global issue of Islam vs. the West was caused by either the West first meddling in the affairs of Islam, or Islam first meddling in the affairs of the West. If this is true, which I DO believe it is, how do we go about examining which side transgressed first?

Firstly, not every meddling incident that has occurred has been recorded. The overwhelming vast majority — especially before the adoption of modern technology — has not. It's only as technology advancement and technology accessibility have improved on a global scale that things have become far more easier to record and therefore be referred to as strong evidence. What I am saying is that it is literally impossible to objectively claim one side started the conflict when you cannot support this claim with strong evidence. You can cite key historical events (E.g. 9/11) as showing a shift or escalation in the conflict, but it doesn't take a key historical event to start a conflict. All it takes is the wrong type of perpetrator and the wrong type of victim for something to start.

So while both sides can agree that "unjust meddling" was responsible for the situation we face today, neither side can agree on which side was the initial unjust aggressor first. People that lack empathy will say "the other side, they are the bad guys!" and ignore everything I have just said. This will continue in an endless cycle where the problem grows worse and worse and will inevitably lead to Global Warfare. Therefore, finding the root cause of the "unjust meddling" is not only impossible, pointless and frustrating, it is actually counterproductive because it does not address what is happening NOW, in the present.

If you cannot understand now why using a simple method in an attempt to fix a complex problem is a bad idea, then you need to suggest an example of a simple method fixing a complex problem within the context of Global Politics that has worked and can be realistically applied to this specific case.

Despite being a logistical nightmare of unprecedented proportions that would take a very long period of time to accomplish, you cannot just say "stop all bombing of Muslims countries, get all Western military bases out of Muslim countries and treat all Muslims living in the West with respect, and don't support allies that do any of these things" and Islam will "completely stop attacking all Western countries, stop targeting Westerners when they are in Muslim countries and Muslims countries will stop supporting allies that do any of these things", EVEN if that scenario were possible (which it is not in any conceivable way), we would STILL have to consider the issue of individual Westerners moving to Muslim countries and failing to integrate there, and Muslims moving to Western countries and integrating there. By integrating I mean "Respecting (not necessarily agreeing with) the laws, core values and social norms of the state of which I a moving into and refraining from causing trouble when my knowledge of laws, core values and social norms from my old country clash with the ones in this new state.

Even if we COULD achieve this, how would we ever be able to stop a genocide of a group of people in either country when the victims in those countries have no way to prevent the genocide from happening? How could we ever stop the legal subjugation of half the population, or the unjust treatment of minority groups within these countries?

This is a complex problem, it will require a complex solution. It will involve empathy and compromise.

Can this all be fixed, should we even try? Is the survival of humanity at stake?