IAEA Iran 6 to 8 months away from having nuclear weapons .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Its right in that data set. I more than enough covered the 50's, 60's and 70's, with but a handful of the total examples from that old thread (which isnt even a complete list).

Then you basically say 'no way jose' (without actually refuting anything).

If you're going to be so thick about this, I mean damn dude.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

If it’s so easy to see it should be easy for you to explain. Again I don’t have to refute anything you have to prove it .

Yes or no ?

Did you account for deaths caused by opposing forces ?


I’ll bet you won’t answer and a yes or no fashion. I’ll get a reply with the song and dance again .


Pretty sure we’re gonna be arguing over this every time you bring that inflated nonsense up .

a reply to: Fallingdown

What the hell does that matter?

The ruling elites that set policy start a war in our name.

I'll tell you what it matters: our killed and maimed, if you support the elites diabolical wars then our killed and maimed is on your hands too.

My million per year assertion is generously covered by average. Not even counting all the wars. I already covered the 50's 60's 70's without even calling in every example (from my list thats incomplete).

If youd actually read the thread, pull up some of the basic history on those events, you'd be like damn.

Instead you're arguing from ignorance and demanding I rewrite that entire piece just for you(r laziness), with this bizarre implication that if I dont then I'm wrong and American Imperialism is still worthy of fashion.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

First off this thread is on Iran. You’re the one taking it off topic .

Give me a link to your Thread again.

I bet the only thing I’m going to see is you blaming every single death in every war on the US .

Basically he just cherry-picks from the range of death estimates in each war to get the figure he wants. It's not a serious thread.

A proper refutation woukld include new data, not just a mere claim / assertion / denial.

What am I doing? Proving that x many million people didn't die? You realize how absurd that sounds right? You know damn well you just added up whichever numbers you wanted to make the claim sound good.

Again, anyone with even passing familiarity with this subject knows there are often wide-ranging estimates of casualties in armed conflicts. The fact you're asking me to cite that shows you're so uninformed on this subject that it must take an incredible amount of gall to even be here trying to discuss it. Either that or you're being purposefully dishonest. How did you decide which numbers among the various estimates for each conflict you would use? We all know the answer to that question. You went into this with an agenda, and you picked the numbers accordingly.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

By the start I guess you mean 1776 ?

That’s a little over 1 million per decade.

Every single death was at the US hand .

Take Vietnam as an example. Between 1 and 2 million dead. Did you use that number and say the US caused all the deaths or did you take into account the Vietnamese and Viet cong’s Civilian death totals ?

What they do is they take not only combat deaths, but also anyone who died of famine, disease, or any other peripheral causes that may or may not have had anything to do with the war--as if no one dies of those causes in the country before the evil US showed up--and they add all that to the total to inflate it. It's like how the media adds BB gun incidents to the "school shooting" tallies to make the numbers bigger. It's not a scientific enterprise. The goal is to paint a bad picture, and they pick the data accordingly. It's the opposite of science. They start with the conclusion, or narrative, that they want and then collect whatever data proves their conclusion and throw out anything that doesn't fit.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It matters because you said the US kills 1,000,000+ per decade.

So what you’re doing is pretending like no one else would’ve died unless the US is involved.

So again yes or no did you take the death tolls from opposing forces into account ?

Can’t you answer that question we will move on .

this is just another example of your inability to admit any small portion of your claim is wrong. Pretty childish on the whole .

a reply to: face23785

That is completely obvious with this guy.

They researche what he wants to hear.

Then avoid’s answering direct questions anyway he can .

a reply to: face23785

We go start a war, drop millions of tons of bombs and such like agent orange, everywhere, destroying their infrastructure, and so on, ideally with a proxy civil war, but NOPE dont count those various civilian death tolls numbers in there only count the parts where our soldier shot another soldier with government issue ordinance.

And that just makes total sense because we're a raving lunatic imbecile of a society.



If thats how it was going to be then the DOD just stop counting the bodies. Actually they did LOL whats that old quote "We dont do body counts".

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: face23785

And that just makes total sense because we're a raving lunatic imbecile of a society.

If you want to fix that you can start by moving. We won't miss you and it'll raise our collective average IQ a bit.

a reply to: Fallingdown

So there's been more than 27 decades since 1776??

The tally is in there the numbers are you can follow along.

Debunk it.

Or are you chicken?

a reply to: face23785

If you dont like backwards fallacious chicken snip logic used to defend the killing of millions of people killed in your name during your lifetime (for the imperialist ambitions of some ruthless elites that have plundered our wealth too and divided our nation to cover it up), you can get out!

Saddle up the mule!

Slide me some grits!

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: face23785

If you dont like backwards fallacious chicken snip logic, and millions of people killed in your name during your lifetime (for the imperial ambitions of some ruthless elites that have plundered our wealth too and divided our nation to cover it up), you can get out!

Saddle up the mule!

Slide me some grits!

Some empire. How many decades now? And we've taken over precisely zero countries.

This stuff just doesn't stand up to the reality test. You heard them somewhere some time ago and thought it was some major revelation but you didn't think it through. Now you're so invested in it you can't let it go. You'd have to admit you were -gasp- wrong.

I know these claims make you feel smart but you look like a fool.

I'm gonna bow out now. We're just talking in circle around your spurious claims. You can have the last word but you're still wrong.

originally posted by: face23785

Some empire. How many decades now? And we've taken over precisely zero countries.

If thats your take then youre completely 100% delusional and/or 100% completely ignorant to the dark history of US Foreign Policy.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: face23785

Some empire. How many decades now? And we've taken over precisely zero countries.

If thats your take then youre completely 100% delusional and/or 100% completely ignorant to the dark history of US Foreign Policy.

I just had to come back to ask you to name the countries that we are currently governing as an empire would. There would be no elections or even the pretense of elections. We would simply tell them who is in charge. Please name me all of those countries. I'll wait. We conquered Germany, they have no elections right? Japan? Afghanistan, Iraq? Panama? No elections in any of these countries, they are all administrated by Americans, correct?

That's a tight corner you backed yourself into, dumbass. Your claims are demonstrably and factually false. I'm out for real now.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The data is corrupt if you held the US responsible for every death .

So like I said prove your claim or admit it was an exaggeration .

It’s your claim I don’t have to prove anything. You need to back your words or they’re meaningless .

Was 24 decades by the way .

Our elite masters start a war then the deaths that flow from it is all on them. And its on the people that support them and their evil wars.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Once again you’ve given me nothing .

And we've taken over precisely zero countries.

Ask Iran about the taken over thing. It explains their less than glowing reviews of the USA.

a reply to: roadgravel

That's no fun for the sheep.

To have to acknowledge that their "Iranian Revolution", that event that climaxed in that 'infamous' "Hostage Crisis", that was their version of what we call Independence Day / the Forth of July. Except in that tale we were in the role of an even more tyrannical England, than was the case during "ours". Which is no fun for subscribers of Government / MSM propaganda, as then they have to realize that the embassy was a subversion factory of their national sovereignty. Which is a real mind job, as the sorts in our society that most subscribe to the "Iranian THREAT" narrative tend to be "conservative" (Republican), whom also tend to romanticize the Revolutionary War far more than their main counterpart, wherein there by definition the "Founding Fathers" were in fact "terrorists".

But then the Government / MSM says "Turban Men Bad" and they start chirping, and self-deceiving, hyper-hypocriticizing, and so on.

a reply to: face23785

The modern empire, in the hyper-connected, mass media 'global village' of a world, operates by other means than outright pure domination as say in the proper colonialist period. Communications wrecked that little fairy tale existence they had. In the modern world of propaganda, you have to be slick. This is a world of Spooks, Vassal States, Economic WARFARE bent on creating and maintaining said Vassal States, and ideally Proxy Wars, over sending in your own troops. Its an age where trying to rule the world via outright Domination ensures "quagmires" of resistance, the sorts that 'one' alone can stretch an empire beyond its means and towards its own downfall (which is inevitable outcome for every empire). The modern approach goes like this:



That second image there barely even shows all the 'data points', as does the first, but it gives a pretty good idea.