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.

 

These are the spoils for which George W. Bush has killed more than 100,000 human beings.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Well said. The UN is weak and corrupt. It's just a toothless debating society these days. It will no doubt be happy to let Iran give it the run-around for the next decade as well...




posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
100,000??? LOL Riiiiiiiight!!! Try 2066 civilians died in the actual war to topple Saddam. All the res of the civiliand killed were either insurgents, or insurgent victims.

100,000 is a made up number by liberal losers looking to shock people into keeping the Iraqi's oppressed.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
How is this a conspiracy theory? I see that comment a lot, but it surely applies to this thread. How about if the Mods take a look and perhaps find somewhere else to move this ...



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   



Here they are. Take a closer look and remember them well, for their lies have changed the course of history and erased the pride of a once great nation. Remember them for the legacy of arrogance and disdain for truth they leave behind:

[edit on 14-2-2005 by dgtempe]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Propaganda Showcase


Originally posted by centurion1211
How is this a conspiracy theory? I see that comment a lot, but it surely applies to this thread. How about if the Mods take a look and perhaps find somewhere else to move this ...

The title of this thread is based on a discredited lie, and it goes downhill from there.

The only conspiracy here is the conspiracy to pollute ATS with baseless propaganda such as that which appears above.

I prefer to read threads containing facts. This one has proven somewhat sparse on them, unsurprisingly.

This post is a commentary on what I'm seeing in this thread.

This thread is based on and includes false information, personal attacks, bigotry, flame wars, gross off-topic digressions and contains almost nothing of value or that hasn't been repeated a thousand times elsewhere in this same forum.

It represents some of the worst ATS has to offer.

Of course, people are free to post what they want within the guidelines of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use, but there are several gross violations here, which is why it will be added to my list as an example of what a bad thread is like.

I do not wish to target any one individual for specific criticism in this post.

I do, however, want to point out to some of the contributors to this thread that I think some of you are better than this.

So please, show it.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

as posted by Majic
The title of this thread is based on a discredited lie, and it goes downhill from there.


As it was also debunked here when another most unfortunate member decided to opt to spread the same propaganda.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
A US military taking the here to fore unheard of preactice of NOT counting deaths, and you guys are trying to say the numbers are fudged?

So goes the mind of an Oceana citzien, eh?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Reading Is FUNdamental


Originally posted by Bout Time
A US military taking the here to fore unheard of preactice of NOT counting deaths, and you guys are trying to say the numbers are fudged?

Why not read the thread and see for yourself?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Reading Is FUNdamental


Originally posted by Bout Time
A US military taking the here to fore unheard of preactice of NOT counting deaths, and you guys are trying to say the numbers are fudged?

Why not read the thread and see for yourself?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
No matter what side your on. One thing is for certain weather justified or not. Bush gave orders to the US military that cause many many deaths and continues to do so. Any leader that orders its military to kill is a murderer. It is up to history and humanity to decide weather or not the murdering is justified or not and weather the means justify the ends.

Bush's decisions caused death of that their is no doubt or debate.

X

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Xeven]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
So What Are You Saying, Exactly?


Originally posted by Bout Time
What speculation? You've proven yourself a tool to the "movement", no matter what alias you're posting under. "Citizen of Oceana" was a softer prose.

Trying to pin labels on me is poor form.

Please address the topic.

Are you saying the 100,000 figure is correct or not? Yes or no?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
www.iraqbodycount.net...


Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others. At an earlier stage, we did indeed provide an assessment of other counting projects [link], to provide what clarity we could for better public understanding of the issues involved. In that instance the projects under review were similar to ours, in that they attempted to amass data on actual deaths (and some of their findings have subsequently been integrated into our own count). Nonetheless, the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 deaths - which is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima - has, if it is accurate, such serious implications that we may return to the subject in greater detail in the near future. As of this writing we are more concerned with renewed air and ground attacks on Falluja, which last April left over 800 Iraqis dead, some 600 of them civilians (see previous IBC press release below).

It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn't simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched (see IBC Press Release September 23rd 2003 [link]; also AP 24th May 2004 [graphic chart]).


Estimates.

So let's just say "between 15,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives due to the illegal invasion of their country by the United States and their Coalition".

So between five and thirty-three 9/11's have been visited upon them. For reasons that turned out to be total lies.

I have yet to see a list of wounded Iraqis, but I'd guess that it's at least 3-5 times the amount of those killed (remember the little kid whose arms and legs were blown off by a US bomb?).

If these were American lives maybe more Americans would pay attention. Or care.


jako



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
15,000 to 100,000 isn't an estimate. Estimates are supposed to give you a rough idea of what's going on, having an error rate of approaching 700% makes those numbers useless for any actual analysis.

Not discrediting the numbers either way, just pointing out that aren't actually useful in an analyitcal sense. Of course, 15,000 is alot of dead by any measure.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Half A Lie Is Still A Lie


Originally posted by Jakomo
So let's just say "between 15,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives due to the illegal invasion of their country by the United States and their Coalition".

In other words, let's perpetuate the 100,000 lie by legitimizing it that way.

No way. I respect myself too much to do that.

Why don't you?

Lies Stifle Discussion

This sort of disregard for the truth makes meaningful discussion impossible.

If we can't base our opinions on facts, they are nothing but fantasies.

If I want to fantasize, it will be about something other than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

So Why Not Just Stick To Facts?

Why is this so hard for some people to accept?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Majic:

If I want to fantasize, it will be about something other than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

So Why Not Just Stick To Facts?

Why is this so hard for some people to accept?


WHAT YOU FAIL TO SEE:

The REASON why there are no facts is that the Pentagon refuses to count civilian dead. They refuse to acknowledge civilian casualties and they lie and they lie and they lie.

So before you start in on your sanctimonious "Lies Stifle Discussion" BS, why don't you get it into your head that YOUR GOVERNMENT are the LIARS, your government are the STIFLERS, YOUR government are the illegal Occupiers!

YOU started this when you invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses.

Whether it's 15k or 100km, every single one of those civilians' death is on YOUR taxpaying hands if you did nothing to stop it.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Am I stifling you?


jako



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This NeoCon/Bu#e/NeoFascist tactic of trying to frame a discussion in selective reality, all the while feigning intellectual purity...being "above the fray", is transparent & exhausting, just for the sheer trogging through the bulls**t required.

Here are the facts:

- no one knows the exact numbers because:
a) Our government refuses to talley them
b) Those who can attempt the count are in harms way, thus making volunteers scarce

- the Iraqi war has relied heavily on air offensives
a) Gulf War - fought in the sands between Iraq & Kuwait
b) The government buildings in the cities are next to non-government buildings - residential & civy = within the perimeter of all ordinance dropped on those cities.

- the political arm of the government had headcount say over this adventure
a) that caused reliance on the missles
b) political considerations ( bad press, US election ) cause insurgent build up/regroupings that required more air offensives to hold down US troop body count

So, I believe the numbers of dead are far closer to the highpoint than the low; Remember that line of " Forgetting History" & repeating it?

We did fill mass graves the last time we were there via the
Highway of Death ; what makes you think we're above doing it again?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Bush is awesome, so what if some foriegners died, better them than Americans. Death to all liberals in my opinion!


What do you mean by "liberals," are you talking about ones like FDR, JFK, just who specifically?

Why is your statement "acceptable," while the converse is not?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Personally, it frightens me that the country to the immediate south of me thinks the word "LIBERAL" is a bad word.


Yikes.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Personally, it frightens me that the country to the immediate south of me thinks the word "LIBERAL" is a bad word.


Yikes.



No, actually, only idiots think that. Sorta like the ones that think 'conservative' is a bad word. And I'd almost say you're an idiot for thinking the internet is a good source for 'normal' Americans :p

Actually, no...49% of the nation voted for Kerry. So, um...yeah, you're an idiot for even thinking that



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Truth Allergy?


Originally posted by Bout Time
This NeoCon/Bu#e/NeoFascist tactic of trying to frame a discussion in selective reality, all the while feigning intellectual purity...being "above the fray", is transparent & exhausting, just for the sheer trogging through the bulls**t required.

Sarcasm is the first refuge of a scoundrel.

Using expressions like “NeoCon/Bu#e/NeoFascist” to pollute the discussion is childish and indicates nothing more than your own fear that you are being shown to be wrong.

Your labels of me are lies, by the way, betraying gross ignorance of who I am and what I stand for. So I already know you're wrong about me.

But this isn't about me. It's about truth versus lies, and Denying Ignorance.

You didn't answer the question. So what's your answer: Yes or No?

It's okay to say you can't answer the question.

It's also okay to admit you are wrong.

What's not okay, and why this discussion isn't getting anywhere, is when you choose to dissemble, evade the topic and throw epithets around.

That's not discussion, that's a tantrum, and it's not a very flattering way to present yourself to others.

If all you can do is insult people who disagree with you, I will never agree with you, nor would anyone with a shred of self-respect.

So one last time:

Is the 100,000 dead Iraqis figure referred to in the title of this thread true?

YES OR NO

Answer honestly, admit you are wrong, or let this thread serve as enduring proof of your inability to face facts.

Please, I urge you:

Deny Ignorance Instead Of The Truth.


[edit on 2/16/2005 by Majic]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join