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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
What Sticking To The Facts Actually Means


Originally posted by Jakomo
WHAT YOU FAIL TO SEE:

No, what you fail to see is my point.

I'm saying the title of this thread is based on a discredited lie. Please see my earlier posts.

You're implying that even if it's a lie, we can allow it anyway.

I say I won't. I will not accept proven lies as a basis for a discussion.

Now you're trying to change the subject.

I'm not talking about what the government body count is. I haven't referred to the U.S. government body count at all.

So why are you talking about the U.S. government body count?

Stifling Meaningful Discussion


Originally posted by Jakomo
DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Am I stifling you?

No, you are attempting to stifle meaningful discussion by attempting to justify a proven lie.

That doesn't stifle me personally at all – only your own ability to discuss a topic honestly.

The 100,000 figure is false propaganda and a proven lie. Why are you defending it?

If your purpose is to merely repeat and promote lies, there will be no agreement between us, rendering discussion pointless.

If you are willing to Deny Ignorance, then act like it.

If not, then continue to attack the truth and those who seek it.

But by doing so, you are making enemies of people who might otherwise be your allies.

Your call. Choose wisely.




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Majic:

I'm not talking about what the government body count is. I haven't referred to the U.S. government body count at all.


I said that the US is not counting civilian dead. I am saying the REASON why we don't know for sure how many have died is because the Pentagon doesn't want to know or report how many Iraqi civilians have died, and most of the country is too dangerous for independent reporters to report civilian casualties.

And when independent reporters DO report civilian deaths, people like you denounce them unless they're 100% quantifiable and 100% proveable according to your own criteria.



The 100,000 figure is false propaganda and a proven lie. Why are you defending it?


WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DEAD THERE ARE. Understand that? There could very well be 15,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 or 200,000, WE DON'T KNOW.

Feel free to jump all over every statement I have made, totally misunderstanding it and twisiting it into something incomprehensible. You've done it fairly well so far.

So let me boil it down:

WE DON'T KNOW. It could be 400,000 dead for all we know. It's 15,000 MINIMUM according to Iraqbodycount.net

Capisco?

jako



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
An Insistence On Ignorance


Originally posted by Jakomo
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DEAD THERE ARE. Understand that? There could very well be 15,000 or 30,000 or 100,000 or 200,000, WE DON'T KNOW.

Did you read the links posted above?

Have you examined how the IRAQ BODY COUNT Database works?

You posts suggest otherwise.

If you are going to choose deliberate ignorance and refuse to speak intelligently about the topic, then you're wasting my time.

One Last Favor

Since you have already repeatedly ignored what I have posted, please do me just one favor if you would and click on where it says "ignore" next to this post, and let's just stop wasting each other's time.

I'm sure everyone will be much happier then.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
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.


SEE ABOVE

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.

Really? How so?

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.


What exactly do you stand for? Except self aggrandizement? Please stop the catch phrase nonsense about ATS; it's a forum where, first and formost, you'll be taken to task for trying to pass off ideological drivel as common sense.


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

I did, pay attention.

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.

You've still got the vapor, I'm afraid, because you've not been insulted....merely drawn, measured & found wanting.

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

Thanks for the concern......anyone posting on these boards knows exactly how I present myself....and tantrums are never an assessment

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.

two times in one post....how old are you? You do put a phrase together well for your age, I'll give you that. I guess you did not like my tally of the facts, because you fail to see i answered your question or the underlying reasons for my answer.
Well, have at it then, I'm sure we're about to see a retort that somehow frames the deaths of civilians to total a far lower number than 100k.....accompanied by some sort of eggs & omelet analogy. Now anyone sensible agrees that we can not tally an accurate death count , so why are you so positive it's low, when the variables in play would indicate it higher, as outlined above?


Just for giggles....why did we invade Iraq again?

[edit on 2/16/2005 by Majic]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Majic: I'll start reading your whole post when you start making sense and paying attention. Deal?


Have you examined how the IRAQ BODY COUNT Database works?


Have you? They only count incidents that are verifiable by multiple sources, this limits the reports they follow.

So what does this mean? It's a LOW-END ESTIMATE.

FROM THEIR WEBSITE:


Still, your "maximum" count seems very low to me. Surely there must be many, many more civilian deaths than you've published.

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.


Please, if you are going to insult other people's intelligence, Majic, do your homework.

Better luck next time


jako



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Ignorance Declares Victory

People will believe what they want to believe.

The exchange above illustrates this. Confronted on a single lie, its defenders do everything to defend it except admit the truth.

Entertain whatever fantasies you like. My job is not to educate you, for which I am grateful, because with behavior like the above, I see little cause for optimism.

I also see no hope of agreement with those who deliberately seek to undermine honest discussion. Why should I agree with people who knowingly lie to me and everyone else?

Your insistence on using insults and misdirection instead of facts is your own admission that you are wrong.

You are, of course, free to be wrong.

But thankfully, I'm free to point it out, and more importantly, free to spend my time elsewhere when those who presume to post lies, propaganda and insults here try to pass them off as worthy of consideration.

You never answered my simple yes-or-no question, so I'll just leave it open.

I could try to dedicate myself to answering every lie I see posted here, but I've tried that before, and learned that for every lie that's debunked, ten more spring up to replace it.

It is this phenomenon that can turn what might otherwise be a valuable resource for exposing lies into a source of them.

To any who might be following this sad thread, I leave the decision as to which approach is better for ATS up to you.

This will be my last post to this thread. So for those with the alt.flame mentality who want to run out and call "spank!", go for it.

Feel free to throw in a few more gratuitous insults while you're at it. Let people know what you think.

Go ahead. Declare a victory for your ignorance.

But a victory for any form of ignorance is a defeat for all of us.

I will close by expressing hope that those here who have made it their business to lie, deceive and abuse other ATS members may someday decide to pursue truth instead.

In the meantime, there's nothing I can do for those who insist on deceiving themselves and others instead of searching for elusive truths that are becoming increasingly hard to find.

[edit on 2/16/2005 by Majic]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

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?

So goes the mind of an Oceana citzien, eh?


BT?
Wasn't you, among many others, that were 'showcasing' Iraqi Body Count and how viable those numbers were a year +/- ago? Whats the problem with them now, BT?! What, because they don't agree with the now discredited report of 100,000 that has and is being asserted and claimed? I even provided a link to the Iraqi Body Count explanation as to their reasoning why they didn't go with those alledged 100,000 figures.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
www.iraqbodycount.net...: "Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports."

And where do the media get their casualty reports from? Do they get it from the US military? US officials in Washington?

Here is some extracts from a conversation between John Simpson and John Negroponte (US Ambassador to Iraq) on the issue.




SIMPSON: "It's a really strange thing, I could give you an absolutely exact figure for the number of Coalition soldiers who have been killed in this whole conflict. I could give you a pretty clear idea how many foreign contractors and how many Iraqi soldiers and policemen have been killed. I can even tell you how many insurgents the Coalition claims it's killed. But when it comes to deaths among the ordinary Iraqi civilians, the people, after all, for whom this whole things was supposed to have been fought, but it's really hard to find anybody who can be bothered to get a precise figure for them."

SIMPSON: "How many civilians in Iraq do you think has died since the…"

NEGROPONTE: "I really do not.. ah.. know that.."

SIMPSON: "But you get those figures, don’t you, get those figures?"

NEGROPONTE: "I think you'd have to ask the Iraqi Ministry of Health for whatever estimates it might have but we.. I do not have the… I do not have that information."





NEGROPONTE: "My impression is that the largest amount of civilian casualties definitely is a result of these indiscriminate car bombings. You yourself are aware of those as they occur in the Baghdad area and more frequently than not the largest number of victims of these acts of terror are innocent civilian bystanders.

SIMPSON: But if you don’t innumerate the cases how can you know how many people are being killed by one side or another?

NEGROPONTE: Well… I don’t think I have anything further to say on that.



(Video link: Panorama: Exit strategy. Broadcast - BBC One, Sunday, 30 January 2005 at 22:15 GMT)

In my opinion a figure of 100,000+ dead as described by some sources could be quite viable, considering the lack of people actually keeping tabs on the body count.


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


Can you please show me exactly where in that thread it shows the estimated 100,000 dead figure discredited?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

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?

So goes the mind of an Oceana citzien, eh?


BT?
Wasn't you, among many others, that were 'showcasing' Iraqi Body Count and how viable those numbers were a year +/- ago? Whats the problem with them now, BT?! What, because they don't agree with the now discredited report of 100,000 that has and is being asserted and claimed? I even provided a link to the Iraqi Body Count explanation as to their reasoning why they didn't go with those alledged 100,000 figures.
seekerof


Seek, pal-O-mine....you're letting the windbags on your side of the aisle dictate your style!

That website has always been endorsed by me, it still is. As detailed above, they clearly state how they come about their numbers. But I know you're smart enough to realize that , as they admit, some of those sources are fudged downward, and that they readily admit that there's no way of getting an accurate count if the US government does not want an accurate count taken.
Of course the figures are closer to or over 100K; I explained why.

What's funny is that a certain vocal poster with the Bushlike repeat-it-till-it's-perceived-as-true mechanism in overdrive, has swayed you to argue for the fact of only a handful of civy deaths, in an action that had Daisy Cutters dropped in an Urban theater ( remember? 3 football field radius of death? ) & missle attacks on "insurgent strongholds" ( that happened to be in residential housing).....come on now, you're suppose to be the salvation of the Republican party!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join