Did 100,000 Really Die?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
It’s frequently reported that 100k Iraqi civilian died in Operation Iraqi Terroristic & Corrupt Democracy (i.e. Freedom).
This figure comes from Iraq Body count, which actually reports 104,106, 133,755 and 148,755 civilian deaths (using only media reports).
www.iraqbodycount.org...
The lower end of figures are no estimate, but a recording. Apart from that the only vaguely reliable thing they report is (from their own measured figures) deaths today are higher than 2004, but reached a recent peak in 2006-2007

The figures are used because the British & American demonocracies believe Iraqi deaths are so worthless that they are literally not worth counting (obviously another reason is they have faith in the public making the correct conclusions against themselves, if only given the full truth).
Their “official” (and totally irrational) claim is Iraqi deaths are not counted as this could embolden extremists -a completely moronic (to be believed) claim as obviously not counting Iraqi deaths means extremist can & will make even more extreme claims, than had the worthless buggers been counted.

The Ugly Truth…
Back in October 2006 it was estimated by Lancet that 654, 965 Iraqi deaths could be attributed to the decision to “liberate” (liquidate) Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
en.wikipedia.org...

This report was instantly attacked by Downing Street, including the wicked witch of Margaret Becket

Speaking at the Foreign Office launch, the foreign secretary admitted that the British government did not keep a tally of fatalities, but "that doesn't mean that one has to accept every figure someone comes up with".
Her downplaying of the report was echoed by Downing Street, who rejected the Lancet figure outright, calling it not "anywhere near accurate."
Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "The problem with this is that they are using an extrapolation technique from a relatively small sample, from an area of Iraq which isn't representative of the country as a whole.
"We have questioned that technique right from the beginning and we continue to do so. www.guardian.co.uk...

The Truth…
“Iraq Deaths Study Robust”

The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.
But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".
Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".
news.bbc.co.uk...


Watch this 45 second Newsnight, YouTube. It’s starts talking of how the US Senate has voted for a “target date” of 31st March 2008 to withdraw US troops from Iraq, but then mentions how the Iraq Study is credible according Downing Street’s own, top advisors: www.youtube.com...

Since then…
In 2007 in was estimated 1.2 million had died. Admittedly these figures were obtained from samples nowhere near as big, as the 2006 study…

The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.
Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths. www.guardian.co.uk...


The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have been killed is most likely more than one million.

This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...


Then…
[size=125]Nothing

On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. en.wikipedia.org...


Finally Western academics seem to have realised (that if they know what’s good for them) they won’t speculate about the number of Iraqis killed, and if they do, well they’ll keep it to narrow academic circles.
This is how a dictatorship –dysfunctional democracy, information surpression operates, is it not?

Recent Propaganda Analysis….
“If I said more than 6 people died in the Nazi holocaust” this would clearly be propagandas since it implies at most 10, and much less than 100 died.


Some 4,500 US soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqis have died in the war. www.bbc.co.uk...

Why can’t the Bastards Brainwashing Corporation write the truth which is between 113 thousand, and a million Iraqis have died?


Some 100,000 Iraqis are also thought to have lost their lives.
www.dailymail.co.uk...


Other Facts…
So inspiring is the democracy the wasted deaths of our troops has given Iraqis, that Iraqi’s have been fleeing in their millions from the “non Saddam Iraq” our taxes, and our votes for Lab-Con-Dem have created them…

[size=125]So What Do you Think?
1. What number in your opinion, constitutes a fair estimate, of the number of Iraqis killed (directly and indirectly) by Iraq’s 2003 liberation?
2. How dictatorial (do you reckon) is the overall effect of our daily media bias (where 0 is no bias, and 10 is like the Soviet Union)?
3. Is it not time to defy the media, military industrial complex, and vote Ron Paul?
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
1. Around 500,000 i would guess.
2. Pretty close to the Soviet Union at the moment, 8.
3. Yes, Ron Paul 2012.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Pretty sure some mass grave sites were never documented in the fatality statistics. Ones done by the Iraqi police and army, not the US. They didn't send 'terror' suspects through their judicial system sometimes, but instead when they had their hands full of a large number of them, went and took them for a ride if you know what I mean.

What do I think? No one can say for certain, but can only speculate at numbers... It's not fun for anyone to admit the damage done there, it's all water under the bridge now though, as we leave Iraq and look ahead towards our next objective in our War of, er... on terror.

1) Somewhere between 100,000 and 1,300,000 fatalities
2) 7-9. They should be boycotted/occupied.
3) Yes it's time
edit on 17-12-2011 by Sek82 because: adhering to post format



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
You left Ron Paul right until the end. Nice propaganda


I agree with you. Ron Paul said he would offer friendship to Iran. He is the only person in the running that is not a psychopath. Unless a third party pops up that is better Ron Paul is the only choice.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


I believe there were over 200,000 deaths... But you will never have a guaranteed number. The estimate will always be less, by 10.000's.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


Over 1 million is the number, and as far as I am concerned war was never declared we invaded a country...so the people that took up arms against the US military (combatants) were also civilian casualties because all they were doing was defending their country. If Russia invaded USA and civilians fought Russia army they would be called what we now call taliban/terrorists.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
1. >500,000 directly and indirectly.
2. 9. It would be a 10 if not for Judge Napolitano.
3. Yes,RP 2012. It's all or nothing folks.

Iraq Numbers



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
If we consider that the US has been attacking Iraq since 1991, then yes. As reported by the Lancet and Johns Hopkins. Between the bombings, both in 1991 and 2003, the sanctions, the thousands of tons of highly radioactive depleted uranium, the estimates are above a million dead and millions displaced. Cancer rates and new born deformities are off the charts.



edit on 17-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


Over 1 million is the number, and as far as I am concerned war was never declared we invaded a country...so the people that took up arms against the US military (combatants) were also civilian casualties because all they were doing was defending their country. If Russia invaded USA and civilians fought Russia army they would be called what we now call taliban/terrorists.


You hit the nail right on the head as far as civilians just doing what we would do. Not sure about the death toll though. Who knows.
I hate how we label these people "insurgents" aka "bad guys". Wtf would anybody do to an invading force who killed your friends/family? I think RP is our last chance.. I am not portraying him as some "God" but he is WAY better than any we have had in the last how many years.


U



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
theovermensch

You left Ron Paul right until the end. Nice propaganda

Why is that propaganda?
I always thought propaganda was too “deliberately deceive”
Well how was I being deceiving???

Otherwise I’ll assume you’re the one being deceiving by miss-using the term “propaganda”.

Evanzsayz

Over 1 million is the number, and as far as I am concerned war was never declared we invaded a country...so the people that took up arms against the US military (combatants) were also civilian casualties because all they were doing was defending their country.

“Rebels” is what the allies call them in Libya
But then again, many of them really are terrorists…
Al Qaeda flag flies over Benghazi
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Thousands of Benghazian’s Protests Against their Own Corrupted Revolution
rt.com...

The common problem with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is they are all Tribal Societies. The problem with that democracy is incompatible with such a culture e.g. I was speaking to someone recently returned from Afghanistan who basically said “You’ll never have democracy over there, because the way they have done business for thousands of years is if you want to do a deal with a tribe you offer them a “gift” to the elders. If you gift-deal is the best, then the elders call a meeting, and instruct the rest of tribe to vote for you. Nobody puts a gun to their head but 99 percent vote for you out of “tribal loyalty”. Consequently democracy is corrupted from the word go.”

You only need look at the collapse of the British Empire to realise those places with tribal societies = places where there is no democracy today. Zimbabwe is a famous example, but even in South Africa (with a genuinely fair voting system) most people vote for the ANC –even when they themselves don’t agree with it. www.guardian.co.uk...


It’s partly out of tribal loyalty, but mostly because those people often have this belief (similar to voters who will always only ever vote Demo-Rep) that a vote for an opposition party, is a wasted vote.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Statistics.

Statistically, had Saddam remained in power he would have killed off more people, based on the number of deaths in his two decade tenure prior to Gulf War 2. On that basis alone, the invasion seems justified.

The problem for all these calculations is that most Iraqi deaths have been caused by internecine killings and not through the direct actions of the Coalition. Arguably, had the Coalition been better planned to maintain order once the Iraqi army collapsed, the number of Iraqi on Iraqi deaths could have been significantly reduced.

Regards



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


I think this subject is well worthy of discussion, but including those 2007 figures makes the entire thing seem like it isn't reputable. Why even include a study of just over 1000 people where they ask them how many people they know have died since the war due to violence? They may not tell the truth for one (although I believe they wouldn't have to exagerate people can use the argument still), 1000 people could be anywhere in Iraq, probably the same place or found in the same way, the most violent area or the most peaceful area would radically for example could have been used in the poll which would change the outcome immensely. polling such a tiny number of people will never get you a good result.

I know that you point out that it is only 1000 people polled, but including it in the post makes it look like there is not much hard evidence otherwise this would not need to have been brought up. Sad truth is we will never know. I just wanted to point out that this small bit of info really ruins the whole discussion I'm afraid. Media reports as well which are used in some of these tallys are not reliable. There is so much bias and flat out lying in al media that we can not take these as hard facts at all.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


Good argument, but I always think if we use this justification then why don't we go into countries where genocide is taking place for example? Obviously because they have nothing we want, no money to make from the conflict. When politicians have used this justification in the past it always angers me that nobody asked them 'so will we be going to liberate Darfur next then? Why not stop the worse bloodshed that's going on there instead if this is your reason for war?' I would like to see their attempt at a response.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 




Why is that propaganda? I always thought propaganda was too “deliberately deceive” Well how was I being deceiving??? Otherwise I’ll assume you’re the one being deceiving by miss-using the term “propaganda”.



TextPropaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group.


Its propaganda. You are a Ron Paul propagandist. That is pretty clear. You seem pretty defensive about it too. Its not a bad thing to try to influence opinion. Settle the [SNIP] down. Your agenda is quite clear. You are a paultard. You know the funny thing is I agreed with you. You should choose your battles better propagandist. If you like to use ats to as a vehicle to spread the word about how you support Ron Paul I think thats fine. But dont act like its a public service announcment.


As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda is often biased, with facts selectively presented (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, or other type of agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.


Doesnt sound like you at all does it?
edit on 17-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo
edit on 17-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo
edit on 17-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
theovermensch

Its propaganda. You are a Ron Paul propagandist. That is pretty clear. You seem pretty defensive about it too.

I only supported him once!
But evidently (whenever you support a political candidate) it’s not propaganda, but when someone else does, it is!


You know the funny thing is I agreed with you. You should choose your battles better propagandist.


I don’t believe in “sides” not in politics anyway. There is only groups, truth, agreements and conspiracies. And if even there were sides you wouldn’t be on mine –certainly not so long as you call me a propagandist!!

clintdelious

I think this subject is well worthy of discussion, but including those 2007 figures makes the entire thing seem like it isn't reputable.

Fair point, but it’s not like I didn’t say…
“Admittedly these figures were obtained from samples nowhere near as big, as the 2006 study…”
Personally I don’t regret giving the people of ATS as much information as possible (just so long as it’s quality –or lack of, is made reasonably clear).

Paraphi

Statistically, had Saddam remained in power he would have killed off more people, based on the number of deaths in his two decade tenure prior to Gulf War 2. On that basis alone, the invasion seems justified.


Absolute rubbish! However I’d be most intrigued to know where you got your made-up statistics from.
It’s true that 500,000 and 1000,000 died in the Iran-Iraq war, but this was a war where the West supplied both sides in the hope preventing either anti-Israeli side from winning, whilst inflicting most harm, and making (legally) legitimate profit en.wikipedia.org...–Contra_affair#Arms_sales_to_Iran

The Ba’ath Party came to power in 1968 (having earlier ruled in 1963). It took over a country which had suffered dozens of coups & government changes since it’s Independence from the British Mandate (Empire) in 1930. By 1991 Iraq enjoyed 93% access to free health care, some of the best in Middle East, and 92% literacy. Food & water (very important in the Middle East) plus university education were all heavily subsidised, because Saddam was fully aware the best way of fighting Radical Muslim Extremism (the people who actually posed his government the most internal threat) was through providing quality education, and at least rising living standards. This was also very much within the ideology of the Ba’ath Party which basically viewed the Muslim worlds as backward savages, and wanted a secular society like America. They were however expansionist, and sought to impose their capitalistic ideology on the rest of the Middle East.

America initially supported Saddam for being anti-Communist, then anti-Iranian. However it hated the fact, he and his movement, advocated a political ideology that wanted to make both itself (and the rest of the Middle East wealthy). We could tolerate it in Iraq, but the ideology would have to stay there, and Saddam never agreed to bargain over this -not even after 12 years of sanctions!
The reason why the Western World does not want a united, and Westernised-powerful Middle East is not only to do with the Muddle East getting a good price for their own oil, but also because it could threaten Israeli.

Basically…
In 1991 Iraq’s living standards were some of the highest in the Middle East, and would have returned this way if only sanctions were lifted. It’s no secret Saddam built dozens of palaces, but neither is it a secret that today no palaces are being built, no education, health, or food subsidies are being, and much of Iraq’s oil wealth is being stolen (through Iraqi corruption).
So if before was bad (and it was actually quite good providing you stayed out of Iraqi politics) today is truly terrible (quite regardless of whether you stay outside Iraqi politics as everybody with money is a potential kidnap victim).

Saddam’s secret police killed, but it was also safe to safely travel Baghdad without any fear of getting shot at. Saddam also encouraged Sunni & Shiites to live together (as a way of breaking fundamentalism) the policy worked –as long as he was in power.

What Went Wrong…
One of the first things Rumsfield did was sack Iraq’s entire police force. Not only did this create looting, but it very nearly instantly created “local self defence groups”. Then some of the fundamentalists (on both #-ite and So-Silly sides) decided to impose their religion on others, and did this by e.g. abducting Westernised, non-veil wearing Iraqi women, disembowelling them in a way sure to bring a slow death, and then dumping their bodies in the other sides street’s (sometimes with political messages). This was a typically Shiite crime against the Sunni’s, but Sunni’s had a thing for putting bombs in Shiite Mosques (since they insisted everybody attend them!)
The retaliation quickly grew, and soon enough a full scale religious war erupted

Saddam killed (perhaps) tens of thousands of Iraqis since 1979 (through political oppression) –many of whom were actually extremists supporters & sympathisers. But this is totally nothing, compared with those lost to the forces of religious extremism today (as the 2006 report shows). The fact the Iraqi government doesn’t function just adds insult to injury –and fuel to a real terrorist threat. Not that this matters (a lot) when the number of U.S service people killed in either[/b[ Iraq & Afghanistan now rivals 9/11.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


Invading Kuwait didnt exactly do him any favours, and yes i know Iraq essentially had there reasons, but Saddam probably should have thought a little bit more about that one.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 





I don’t believe in “sides” not in politics anyway. There is only groups, truth, agreements and conspiracies. And if even there were sides you wouldn’t be on mine –certainly not so long as you call me a propagandist!!


I am a propagandist. I mostly have threads that are to do with socialism. If you dont know what propaganda is dont blame me. I just showed you and it seems you still have trouble. Your propaganda is so blatant I assumed the leaving the Ron Paul bit to the end was almost like a punchline.

You dont know what propaganda is


And I dont believe in sides either,but its a strange thing to argue with a member about the fact you are a blatant propagandist when he star and flagged your funny propaganda.It made me laugh when I got to the end and see you are pushing Paul. Like I said,I thought that was a punchline. Arguing with me about the fact that you are a propagandist detracts from your propaganda.

Propaganda is when you try in influence people. Its doesnt have to be a bad thing. Its bad that you dont know what it is even though I have showed you.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 





Text I always thought propaganda was too “deliberately deceive”


Wrong. Alot of people believe in their propaganda.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
ixtab

Invading Kuwait didnt exactly do him any favours, and yes i know Iraq essentially had there reasons, but Saddam probably should have thought a little bit more about that one.


That is obviously a fact. But what isn’t so well known is the account I personally received talking to some Iraqi defectors (former Ba’athists) in 2005.
It’s how the US State Department basically told Saddam (pre-invasion) that invading Kuwait would be perfectly fine…

It is now more than fifteen years since that fateful meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a green light from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...



It seems far more likely that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait, but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law. en.wikipedia.org...



In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did." walt.foreignpolicy.com...


Here’s Why…
1. After the Iran-Iraq war Iraq was left with one of the largest militaries in the world. It’s equipment had been bought of the international market, and so was very dated in comparison to the e.g. cruise missiles, or stealth fighters the US had been developing. However it was huge, and was deemed a potential threat to Israel –not helped by Saddam’s (like many Muslim men’s) personal commitment to the Palestinian cause –including the occasional use of terrorism against both settlers-colonists, and legitimate Israeli citizens.

2. Worse: He wanted to spread his Ba’ath Party ideology (of Westernisation), and if he couldn’t do it through force, then he would do by backing revolution within our unstable allies, oil supplying, despotic regimes.

So…
3. We needed to “cut him down to size” but had zero excuse (as he wasn’t doing anything particularly wrong) (just yet, in the 3 years following the Iran-Iraq wars close). But Kuwait (under Western encouragement) was both stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling, and simultaneously flooding the market with it’s oil. (Kuwait was formally part of Mesopotamia –modern day Iraq) for thousands of years until the British Empire separated it by giving it independence in 1961 –30 years after doing the same for Iraq.
In the 1930’s we had included as much Iraqi oil as possible within it’s borders, in the name of preventing Iraq being too powerful in the then future)

This had caused an Iraqi recession as the country was loaded to the eye balls with war debt (primarily for weapons the US and Europe had made a small fortune by supplying both sides).

4. So having (in private) given him the impression it was ok, as a US ally, to reunite Kuwait with Iraq, we then immediately criticised him the moment he did it. Now a Western leader could just withdraw their forces. Unfortunately Arabs have this pride about not bowing down, and kissing the feet of Western forces. Consequently had Saddam just withdrawn –basically done a raid on Kuwait which would have taught them a lesson not to be forgotten lightly… Well… With the majority of the population Shiite -i.e. religiously hostile to him and his people, he realised the conditions would be right for a coup against him (since as said, these were heavily armed people, from his now oversized military). So he left the troops there until they were bombed out (thinking they would be less likely to rebel, and conditions would quickly return to normal). Afterwards there was a Shiite uprising anyway…
en.wikipedia.org...
However America betrayed them, when the president publically promised them support, only for the military to take photos as Iraqi helicopters poured petrol on the muteness crowds. Without US intervention, or even supply of weapons the rebellion which at one point had reached around 80% of Iraq’s cities was doomed.

Why We Didn’t Help the Uprising
1. Iraq had WMD’s: Not such a problem in Saddam’s hands as he already proven himself sane enough not to use them against coalition forces in Dessert Storm. However if his government was overthrown, you then get “the inevitable period of anarchy” in which people can walk into military bases, and deliver them into terrorists hands. Terrorists who could exercise exactly no control-influence on whatsoever, terrorists more than likely to e.g. use biological weapons against Israel’s tiny population of then 6 million.

2. We didn’t much like the idea of a Shiite population ruling Iraq anyway, as they would be (religiously & culturally) natural allies of the Iranian people & therefore regime.

3. There was much we liked about Saddam (being naturally both anti Communist, and anti-Iranian). In addition he had proven himself to be one of the few regimes (after many before him) capable of holding Iraq together (useful for Western businesses hoping to do productive business there).

All he had to agree to was…
A. Stop supporting the Palestinians (he never did)
B. Give up on any ideology ideas of spreading Ba’ath Party outside Iraq (again he never did)
C. Accept Kuwait is never going to be part of Iraq (he did by formally recognising it in 1994)
D. Agree to a reduced military even after sanctions (it never got that far)

Our Delusion…
After Saddam had disarmed Iraq of WMD’s (actually completed in 1995 after a close friend, and party member, betrayed the location of the remaining ones to the UN, he had tried to keep behind), and with Bush the 2nd coming to power (and now after 12 years of Saddam not even half complying with the above demands) we thought we could impose a “democracy” that would fulfil all the above demands, and keep the country reasonably stable, and therefore produce a good country to increase world oil market supply (and therefore price stability).

Unfortunately: Whilst the new Iraqi government is (currently) keeping to all the above demands, it’s new liberated Shiite nature, together with the low living standards, will quite inevitably make it (to all practical purposes) a territorial expansion of Iran (the only difference is the new Iraqi generation lack of education, grinding poverty, and experience of invasion, make it in many ways an even more religiously & ideologically extreme partner to their Iranian population counter-parts.
Furthermore: We have completely “shot to pieces” the idea a dictator can unilaterally get rid of his WMD’s, and not face “regime change” at the earliest, politically convenient opportunity (as Iraq and now Libya both confirm). This is bad news, as now we are currently trying to persuade Iran we’ll actually tolerate piece with them (without supporting regime change with external or internal) if only they would be stupid enough to get rid of their WMD’s.

theovermensch

Propaganda is when you try in influence people. Its doesnt have to be a bad thing. Its bad that you dont know what it is even though I have showed you.

When people try to influence others for commercial gain it’s called “Marketing” and when people do it in politics it’s “Campaigning”. I agree that both (are technically) propaganda, and therefore yes, you could say I was a propagandist. But in practice: To call someone a propagandist is to accuse them of campaigning-marketing with dubious tactics. I believe I’ve displayed none, and therefore reject to this term.
It’s rather like (how technically) the word “Nigger” is Latin for “black” or “gay” means “happy”. But you wouldn’t go casually calling people Gay-Nigger without expecting a rather different response to any obscure meaning you (may) have actually meant!
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


I dont think you are dubious.

I agree with you. Ron Paul is the best choice.

I meant it was good propaganda. Effective. If I was on the fence it could have helped sway me.

I agree with you that the word propaganda has a negative feel to it. And Im not saying you are dubious.

I agree.

Vote Ron Paul.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum