Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

LightningStrikesHere does not support Terrorism !

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Does anyone else notice that it's almost ALWAYS religous extremists from one belief system or another that is responsible for terrorism? Not religious people in general, but the extremists.
al qaeda = religious extremists = terrorists (9/11 ...supposedly, this is ATS....other bombings and acts)
fundamental evangelicals= religious extremists = terrorists (bush's war on Iraq)
Radical Zionists = religious extremists= terrorists

www.globalfocus.org...




posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Does anyone else notice that it's almost ALWAYS religous extremists from one belief system or another that is responsible for terrorism? Not religious people in general, but the extremists.
al qaeda = religious extremists = terrorists (9/11 ...supposedly, this is ATS....other bombings and acts)
fundamental evangelicals= religious extremists = terrorists (bush's war on Iraq)
Radical Zionists = religious extremists= terrorists

www.globalfocus.org...


One of the most important teachings by Imam Ali (as) imho was when He (as) said not to take the path that is to either extreme, for truth can never be found in extremes... (not exact wording but meaning is intact)

no truer words can be spoken!
edit on 25-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



I am not defending him... I am speaking the truth... both you and he are doing the exact same thing in this thread... trying to convince the other only one party is wrong... this is what happens when ego gets in the way of truth... and I repeat... quit defending your brothers for committing acts of terrorism while at the same time condemning the US for the exact same thing!

I can admit both sides are wrong, he is the only ignorant one here.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Also, the Iraq war killed over 1 million Iraqis (just in this go around) and US did not apparently care who they killed, as most incidences of deaths were not soldiers but civilians.



Those numbers have been hashed and rehashed all across the internet, including right here at ATS. Other posters have already pretty much said it all, and there really isn't much I can add to it, but here are some links:

Exaggerated claims, substandard research, and a disservice to truth

ORB's "million Iraqi deaths" survey seriously flawed, new study shows

There have been several survey-based attempts to roughly estimate the number of Iraqis killed as a result of the 2003 invasion and subsequent conflict. It is unfortunate that the most careful and well-resourced survey work in this area (from the UNDP and WHO)1 has been scarcely visible, while the most flawed and inadequate work has dominated public discourse. This has been largely due to the shocking (but ultimately numbing) effect of their hugely exaggerated death toll figures.

Iraq Body Count (IBC) applied an early and so far unanswered set of reality checks2 to the Johns Hopkins survey published in the Lancet in October 2006, a paper which has recently been comprehensively discredited in a new study3 by Prof. Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway University. Even among the generally inexact survey results for deaths in Iraq the "Lancet estimate" was an extreme outlier, asserting 450,000 more deaths from violence than the much larger WHO-funded study that estimated 151,000 such deaths by July 2006. The only evidence that appeared to support the Lancet finding was published by a polling company, Opinion Research Business (ORB), which estimated 1 million violent Iraqi deaths by August 2007.




The second survey published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006. More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).


SOURCE



Originally posted by SLAYER69


The report the OP is posting has been posted here a few times. But what everybody just LOVES to leave out is that it also includes but not limited to....

Sectarian Violence, Crime related murders, Automobile accidents, Fire related deaths AND Heart attacks.

Most of the civilians that were killed were done so by Iraqi hands. It would do many some good to actually read the details of that report. It's in there. It is a far cry of the "Millions Killed" claim that was ramped here at ATS over the past few years. But every so often somebody new "Rediscovers it" and thinks they found the Holy Grail
pffft


They've linked to a truncated list.----Source---- Look at the civilian murder numbers and the number of Iraqis killed from IEDs. Those are Muslim on Muslim killings done in the name of their Allah. Iraqi Sunni vs Iraqi Shiite with Iran and Saudi Arabia supplying and funding either side the weapons.

The US military nor the Iraqi military need to use IEDs because we have the real deal.


Source Post



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

I can admit both sides are wrong, he is the only ignorant one here.



Of course I am


If you "can admit that both sides are wrong", why are you trying to whip up excuses for one side and vilifying the other?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by HumanCondition

I can admit both sides are wrong, he is the only ignorant one here.



Of course I am


If you "can admit that both sides are wrong", why are you trying to whip up excuses for one side and vilifying the other?

Because we attacked them first.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Never mind. Too broad an argument.

Instead, let me ask you who is "we", who is "them", and when did you attack "them" first?







edit on 2012/6/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Never mind. Too broad an argument.

Instead, let me ask you who is "we", who is "them", and when did you attack "them" first?







edit on 2012/6/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)
We is the west, them is basically the rest of the world but particularly the middle east in this instance.
Just put yourself in their position, imagine if the US was the one being attacked for decades. Times 9/11 by 1000 and think.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by nenothtu
Never mind. Too broad an argument.

Instead, let me ask you who is "we", who is "them", and when did you attack "them" first?


We is the west, them is basically the rest of the world but particularly the middle east in this instance.
Just put yourself in their position, imagine if the US was the one being attacked for decades. Times 9/11 by 1000 and think.


So then, when did you attack them first?

You said "for decades", so when did you attack them first?





edit on 2012/6/26 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Since ATS is not where I come up with my figures I would not know what has been posted here in the past. I say a million using logical reasoning. Allow me to share with you my logic.

The US government is accepting a figure of about 650 thousand since the start of the Iraq war (in this go around) While the Iraqi government states a figure of close to 1.5 million. (big difference huh?) Now, lets examine where I come up aproximately 1 million. First, neither 'government is going to be saying the whole truth, both are doing their fair share of exaggeration in what figures they will accept because they will only accept what makes their side look good.

The US would have you believe that they had not one thing to do with any death in Iraq short of 75,000 or so... the rest died old and in their beds, or of course it was the Iraqis killing Iraqis right? And the Iraqis claim that the US had something to do with every single death, and had no fault in any matter either. lol.... this is why I do not take government 'statistics' as fact.

That said, you quoted Slayer as saying "Sectarian Violence, Crime related murders, Automobile accidents, Fire related deaths AND Heart attacks.

Most of the civilians that were killed were done so by Iraqi hands."

However, lets break this down. Did you know for instance that sectarian violence not committed by the baath party under Saddam was almost non-existent? Take away Saddam and enter US military, and all of the sudden sectarian violence abounds! Did you ever wonder why? Did you ever wonder at the fact the second US was in control the level of shia and sunni wars increased a hundred fold or more? Did you ever pause to consider what hand the US might have in that one? Why do you think the biggest call right now among sunni and shia is not to listen to the propaganda being spewed forth from US? (and of course all the arms that the US is busy arming them for all these sectarian wars) Divide and conquer is key US strategy.... in case you did not know.

automobile accidents... yes oddly many accidents can and apparently do happen when the road you are traveling down (at a decent rate of speed) suddenly has bombs raining down on it.

Fire related deaths: odd to imagine that bomb which caused the fire would have been causal to any death... nope... definitely just a fire related death...lol

heart attacks: sad but true, older people with weaker hearts cannot survive the fear of your country being attacked, your home raided by foreign military personell, or your loved ones killed because they went out for some food.

When there is chaos, oddly, the looters and criminals find themselves with free reign. Same thing happens in America (see Katrina) and people do die as a result of actions taken by criminals during a time of total chaos.


then we have other: yes, people do die at checkpoints trying to get to hospital when they are prevented from passing through the checkpoint quickly.... (the list can go on)

As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis, the US hired in their chosen Iraqis to play police etc, and then the US would turn over peoples they did not want to torture or kill (bad PR I tell you, if you do it yourself!) and had those Iraqis they hired do the torturing and killing. While I blame Iraqis for this, again, it would not have happened without the US involvement so both are equally culpable here!

So, as you can see, without the war most of these deaths would never have happened. (as I am positive more than a million people do not die every decade in Iraq unless there is a war going on!)

Some people, I am sure, did die of unrelated events than war, because people do die, but I am certain that these are the minority and not the majority of deaths. If it were not for the war, these deaths would either not have happened or could have been prevented. Therefore, in effect, war did cause these deaths.

And while I do not agree with either governments approved numbers, I do believe the truth lies somewhere in between these two figures. That put it somewhere around 1 million since the start of the Iraqi war.

This is not a reply for you to reply to. You said your piece now I said mine, and there is no need to argue over it.
edit on 27-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join