reply to post by username371
You said, "All I've ever known for sure is that killing is wrong... and when the powers of the government are telling you that you must kill others
to be safe, something is rotten in Denmark."
Did you even think about this statement before you wrote it? Because if you did then you would realize that our government has been involved in many
wars and during those wars they said that we must kill the enemy to be safe.
Please go on the internet and research the Spanish American War, WWI, and WWII. Take a look at the propaganda that was published during those wars,
the ads, and the recruiting posters.
I am guessing that you would consider our former Presidents, Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley,Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman,
Eisenhauer, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, all "War Criminals"? They all fought wars for the safety and security of the
US. They all said that it was necessary to use violence to protect American interests.
Or is your indignation over the Iraq War, because of the audacity of a President, not of your party, to do something that you disagreed with?
Please go study some history to gain some clairity and perspective on the issue. Then think about it. When you do, you will realize that it is the
perogative of nations to go to war, when their security interests are threatened. No matter which country, no matter which political affiliation, and
yes, no matter what the rhetoric.
The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes, page 11
privacy
reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 07:21 PM by Absum!
Originally posted by Absum!
Our noble position on torture has helped us more than you can imagine. It is this position that made America the nation above all. This shameful erosion of our moral standing that recent leaders instilled is a cancerous blight on our proud country’s history.
To actually think that America has sunk so low as to torture human beings and be OK with it, well it tears at my soul. We shall judge our society by the manner in which we treat our prisoners.
We are Americans, we are better than that aren’t we? Or is that America gone?
posted by BlueRaja
Al Qaeda doesn't waterboard(and we only waterboarded 3 prisoners for that matter, and it's debatable as to whether it is in fact torture). They behead prisoners, of course sometimes they just shoot them. Of course this is in between them killing innocent men, women, and children(to include fellow Muslims as long as it serves their cause) in terror attacks.
[BlueRaja]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterboarding debatable eh? And only a few times is OK.
Maybe you could spend some time reading the The Guantánamo Testimonials Project
How's this for a quote;
"Those guys were using techniques that we didn't even want to be in the room for," one senior federal law enforcement official said. "The CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved." (FBI working to bolster Al Qaeda cases. By Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times, October 21, 2007).
Also, on killing innocents; How about these numbers Mon Feb 16, 2009 , and please pay particular attention to the largest number and multiply that grief by those that survive the dead and now have more reason to hate us. We are making more orphans and widows to be terrorists. Good christian nation that we are.
(Reuters) - A U.S. soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device in southern Iraq, the U.S. military said on Sunday.
Following are the latest figures for soldiers and civilians killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003:
U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES: (And they call it a coalition.)
United States 4,242
Britain 179
Other nations 139
IRAQIS:
Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#
Civilians Between 90,670 and 98,992*
reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 09:03 PM by lunarminer
reply to post by Absum!
About those numbers you quoted. They are most obviously in error.
During the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary personnel were killed. It was estimated that somewhere between 10,000 - 50,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the shootout in the desert when the American advance was stalled by a sandstorm. One US soldier was quoted by the media that they were affraid that they would run out of ammunition before the Iraqis ran out of men to throw in front of them.
The other problem with the numbers is that the numbers of terrorists, members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are counted as civilians, since they are not members of any military group. al-Qaeda in Iraq very clearly stated over 2 years ago that more than 16,000 of their number had been killed in action. I don't see those numbers in the ones that you quoted.
Another fact is those numbers that you quoted don't differentiate between civilians killed by American action or al-Qaeda in Iraq. Do you think that the mother of an Iraqi who was blown up by an al-Qaeda suicide bomber while he waited in line to join the Iraqi military blames the US? Somehow I doubt that.
So, if these facts are taken into account it gives a very different read on those numbers.
I would also like to address a very common falacy that you repeated and that I see repeated in the media as if it were a fact. That is, that civilian casualties generate more terrorists. The idea is that al-Qaeda's ranks are filled with grieving parents, widows, and orphans. That is simply not true. Sure, they will use these types of individuals as cannon fodder, or as suicide bombers, but al-Qaeda wants true believers, people with sharp minds, who can kill without emotion.
I would also point out that if civilian casualties automatically make more terrorists, then there would be hundreds of thousands of American terrorists, generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans killed by terrorists, or by fighting terrorists, over the past 40 years.
Also, the world would be soaked in blood from the angry Japanese terrorists generated by the civilians killed in WWII.
To say nothing of the German, French, and British terrorists generated by the millions of civilian deaths during WWII.
It just aint so that civilian casualties swell the ranks of terror groups. So please quit saying it.
About those numbers you quoted. They are most obviously in error.
During the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary personnel were killed. It was estimated that somewhere between 10,000 - 50,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the shootout in the desert when the American advance was stalled by a sandstorm. One US soldier was quoted by the media that they were affraid that they would run out of ammunition before the Iraqis ran out of men to throw in front of them.
The other problem with the numbers is that the numbers of terrorists, members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are counted as civilians, since they are not members of any military group. al-Qaeda in Iraq very clearly stated over 2 years ago that more than 16,000 of their number had been killed in action. I don't see those numbers in the ones that you quoted.
Another fact is those numbers that you quoted don't differentiate between civilians killed by American action or al-Qaeda in Iraq. Do you think that the mother of an Iraqi who was blown up by an al-Qaeda suicide bomber while he waited in line to join the Iraqi military blames the US? Somehow I doubt that.
So, if these facts are taken into account it gives a very different read on those numbers.
I would also like to address a very common falacy that you repeated and that I see repeated in the media as if it were a fact. That is, that civilian casualties generate more terrorists. The idea is that al-Qaeda's ranks are filled with grieving parents, widows, and orphans. That is simply not true. Sure, they will use these types of individuals as cannon fodder, or as suicide bombers, but al-Qaeda wants true believers, people with sharp minds, who can kill without emotion.
I would also point out that if civilian casualties automatically make more terrorists, then there would be hundreds of thousands of American terrorists, generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans killed by terrorists, or by fighting terrorists, over the past 40 years.
Also, the world would be soaked in blood from the angry Japanese terrorists generated by the civilians killed in WWII.
To say nothing of the German, French, and British terrorists generated by the millions of civilian deaths during WWII.
It just aint so that civilian casualties swell the ranks of terror groups. So please quit saying it.
reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 09:04 PM by lunarminer
reply to post by Absum!
About those numbers you quoted. They are most obviously in error.
During the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary personnel were killed. It was estimated that somewhere between 10,000 - 50,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the shootout in the desert when the American advance was stalled by a sandstorm. One US soldier was quoted by the media that they were affraid that they would run out of ammunition before the Iraqis ran out of men to throw in front of them.
The other problem with the numbers is that the numbers of terrorists, members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are counted as civilians, since they are not members of any military group. al-Qaeda in Iraq very clearly stated over 2 years ago that more than 16,000 of their number had been killed in action. I don't see those numbers in the ones that you quoted.
Another fact is those numbers that you quoted don't differentiate between civilians killed by American action or al-Qaeda in Iraq. Do you think that the mother of an Iraqi who was blown up by an al-Qaeda suicide bomber while he waited in line to join the Iraqi military blames the US? Somehow I doubt that.
So, if these facts are taken into account it gives a very different read on those numbers.
I would also like to address a very common falacy that you repeated and that I see repeated in the media as if it were a fact. That is, that civilian casualties generate more terrorists. The idea is that al-Qaeda's ranks are filled with grieving parents, widows, and orphans. That is simply not true. Sure, they will use these types of individuals as cannon fodder, or as suicide bombers, but al-Qaeda wants true believers, people with sharp minds, who can kill without emotion.
I would also point out that if civilian casualties automatically make more terrorists, then there would be hundreds of thousands of American terrorists, generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans killed by terrorists, or by fighting terrorists, over the past 40 years.
Also, the world would be soaked in blood from the angry Japanese terrorists generated by the civilians killed in WWII.
To say nothing of the German, French, and British terrorists generated by the millions of civilian deaths during WWII.
It just aint so that civilian casualties swell the ranks of terror groups. So please quit saying it.
About those numbers you quoted. They are most obviously in error.
During the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary personnel were killed. It was estimated that somewhere between 10,000 - 50,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed during the shootout in the desert when the American advance was stalled by a sandstorm. One US soldier was quoted by the media that they were affraid that they would run out of ammunition before the Iraqis ran out of men to throw in front of them.
The other problem with the numbers is that the numbers of terrorists, members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are counted as civilians, since they are not members of any military group. al-Qaeda in Iraq very clearly stated over 2 years ago that more than 16,000 of their number had been killed in action. I don't see those numbers in the ones that you quoted.
Another fact is those numbers that you quoted don't differentiate between civilians killed by American action or al-Qaeda in Iraq. Do you think that the mother of an Iraqi who was blown up by an al-Qaeda suicide bomber while he waited in line to join the Iraqi military blames the US? Somehow I doubt that.
So, if these facts are taken into account it gives a very different read on those numbers.
I would also like to address a very common falacy that you repeated and that I see repeated in the media as if it were a fact. That is, that civilian casualties generate more terrorists. The idea is that al-Qaeda's ranks are filled with grieving parents, widows, and orphans. That is simply not true. Sure, they will use these types of individuals as cannon fodder, or as suicide bombers, but al-Qaeda wants true believers, people with sharp minds, who can kill without emotion.
I would also point out that if civilian casualties automatically make more terrorists, then there would be hundreds of thousands of American terrorists, generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans killed by terrorists, or by fighting terrorists, over the past 40 years.
Also, the world would be soaked in blood from the angry Japanese terrorists generated by the civilians killed in WWII.
To say nothing of the German, French, and British terrorists generated by the millions of civilian deaths during WWII.
It just aint so that civilian casualties swell the ranks of terror groups. So please quit saying it.
reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 09:23 PM by Absum!
reply to post by lunarminer
I guess I should have quoted the source and special notes;
Reuters
IRAQIS:
Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#
Civilians Between 90,670 and 98,992*
# = Think-tank estimates for military under Saddam Hussein killed during the 2003 war. No reliable official figures have been issued since new security forces were set up in late 2003.
* = From www.iraqbodycount.net (IBC), run by academics and peace activists, based on reports from at least two media sources. The IBC says on its website the figure underestimates the true number of casualties.
I guess your right, we should not care, hell they are only numbers.
Heck, just tag a few more zeros on them. What does it matter.
I guess I should have quoted the source and special notes;
Reuters
IRAQIS:
Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#
Civilians Between 90,670 and 98,992*
# = Think-tank estimates for military under Saddam Hussein killed during the 2003 war. No reliable official figures have been issued since new security forces were set up in late 2003.
* = From www.iraqbodycount.net (IBC), run by academics and peace activists, based on reports from at least two media sources. The IBC says on its website the figure underestimates the true number of casualties.
I guess your right, we should not care, hell they are only numbers.
Heck, just tag a few more zeros on them. What does it matter.
reply posted on 19-2-2009 @ 09:37 PM by lunarminer
reply to post by Absum!
Where in anything that I said did you get the idea that "I don't care"?
I simply pointed out that the numbers that you quoted were very obviously in error. Then you come back and admit that you hid that fact in your original post. The source admits that the numbers are in error.
I also pointed out that any objective reporting on the Iraq War would break the numbers down by military, paramilitary, terror groups, and civilians. Instead they lump the terrorists in with the innocent civilians and taint the numbers and skew the facts.
I then pointed out that a civilian death does not automatically result in a grieving survivor joining a terror group and offered historical examples to prove that point.
Was that all too sophisticated, or did you simply choose to ignore what I said?
Where in anything that I said did you get the idea that "I don't care"?
I simply pointed out that the numbers that you quoted were very obviously in error. Then you come back and admit that you hid that fact in your original post. The source admits that the numbers are in error.
I also pointed out that any objective reporting on the Iraq War would break the numbers down by military, paramilitary, terror groups, and civilians. Instead they lump the terrorists in with the innocent civilians and taint the numbers and skew the facts.
I then pointed out that a civilian death does not automatically result in a grieving survivor joining a terror group and offered historical examples to prove that point.
Was that all too sophisticated, or did you simply choose to ignore what I said?
Ever wondered what it looks like on the floor when they vote for legislation?? It may surprise you.
Posted 19 days ago with 119 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 119 member flags
While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
Federal appeals court: Illinois cannot enforce ban on recording police officers
Posted 18 days ago with 45 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 45 member flags
Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
BREAKING: Sphere Deflects Solar Eruption! May 25, 2012 - SunsFlare
Space Exploration: 12 hours ago, 44 flags
Space Exploration: 12 hours ago, 44 flags
TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 20 flags
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 20 flags
Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 12 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 12 flags
U.S. Army General: The Whole Northern Hemisphere is at Risk of Becoming Largely Uninhabitable
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 11 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 11 flags
Oakland City Council Cowers In The Face Of Brutal Truth
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 7 hours ago, 10 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 7 hours ago, 10 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 64 replies
Science & Technology: 14 hours ago, 64 replies
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
Breaking Political News: 15 hours ago, 62 replies
Breaking Political News: 15 hours ago, 62 replies
Bombshell: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 49 replies
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 49 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.200 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.200 seconds
