How much are the deaths of over 6000 soldiers to you?

reply to post by Stylez


this is NOT an abortion thread and i don't want it going off the rails but sorry i just can't let that psudo-science stand uncorrected!!!

Here is a link to a picture of a four week old embrio, it's four weeks after the last cycle ended (the mothers last period) - this could maybe be considered 2 1//2 weeks of pregnancy (as fertalizeation doesn't happen on the same day the semen is inserted) but it's certainly not before the point you talk of....

www.babycenter.com...

take a good look, can you see the central nervous system as its connects to the brainstem, the mass of neural pathways which form the developing brain? If you can then i would love you to point them out to me...... all i see is a developing cavity containing epiblast and hypoblast?!?

It's not untill around week eight that the brain starts to wire itself together, the brain is the organ for feeling pain - strips of conductive nerve covered in protective mylar act like the switches under say keyboard keys, they relay the message to the brain which then decodes the signal and reacts to it (even automatic reflex actions happen in the brain)

The embrio is barely out of the zona pellucida at the time you're talking about - even if you're asumeing early development of the neuromeres (the bits that turn into the brain) and a working notochord you're still along way from having anything to even stick your probes into, let alone anything able to feel pain.

I don't know which woefully dishonest christian scientist or point scoring attention junky wrote this nonsense report (if indeed anyone actually ever wrote anything of the sort) but i sure would love to see you post it so i can fully explain it's flaws (although maybe in a new thread and u2u me a link ).

reply to post by Jenna


this is getting painfull! It's almost as if you're scared to debate me on any of the many other points i've raised, i've already said that it doesn't matter if they're all murderers or not - they're still in a country they shouldn't be in which is why they are dead.

I do totally conseed that i said something stupid in my last post and you are right, i do think some killing is justified you are right - killing in self-defence if someone intends to kill you. However this isn't the point we were really talking about is it? You were trying to make it sound like i support the terrorist bombs in market places -of course i don't, unless they're very well placed and ONLY invading troops are killed of course. My argument was that they wouldn't need to plant IED's to kill troops if there were no troops there - i'm sure you're going to tell me that they plant bombs in marketplaces all the time and millions of innocent people die every day because of terrorist - the point is they wouldn't be our troops... Had the headline been HOW MUCH ARE THE DEATH OF OVER A MILLION INNOCENT ARABS TO YOU? then it would be a much more complex issue for me, however that isn't the question.

Do i want innocent people to get killed by thugs anywhere in the world? NO. Did i support the ira when they bombed london? no of course i didn't (unlike FAR too many americans, see noraid) - did i support whoever blewup the towers? of course not and i've said as much. Had those box cutter carrying arabs been beaten to death by the passengers before they managed to crash the second jet then i would have been over the moon with joy at their deaths.

Basically i want whoever starts a fight to loose it, kinda a karmic reaction.

While i do agree totally that if you aren't actively against the wars and economic terrorism then you're guilty by assosiation - i'm not such a fool tho as to think that people have a choice, didn't i cover in my very first post that i don't blame conscripts? The anti-war movement can't choose not to pay tax, everyone would end up in jail only to be let out when the government had to close them all due to lack of funds (see cali) - however people who have said, 'oh wow yeah i totally wanna go get some revenge for 911 and im not going to rest untill i killed me 6000 muj's / arabs' they have made a choice to go into the theater of war. I even have deep, deep respect for those who have already having been signed up refused to go on an agressive invading war.

The people are born slaves to the system, hopefully that will change soon (some of us are trying to work on making a positive difference) but those in the army are there by choice. Would you maybe prefer it if i said i don't really care if bush & the rest of the neocon chickenhawks die in this war somehow - maybe regium change? lol, it's fairly unlikey though isn't it the ones who choose to go to war nolonger lead the troops into battle.

Now that i've covered that for the millionth time how about you take me up on my challange and actually debate the points i've raised, not just the semantics of laungage use.

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TROOPS IN IRAQ OF AFGHAN

WE ARE ONLY THERE FOR OIL (see the many deatailed descriptions of how this works i've alraedy provided in the thread)

THIS IS A COUNTERPRODUCTIVE ACTION AND IS CAUSING MORE DAMAGE THAN..... NO WAIT IT'S ONLY CAUSING DAMAGE, LOTS OF IT (also explained ad nausium in previous posts)


oh and just a quick few things.....

simply for being in the military

Sneeky, actually i said #JUST# for invading someone and trying to kill them, i've been quite clear on this - defending armys deserve to live and win and be happy.

So if your brother kills innocent people, you being uninvolved in those killings are innocent. But if a soldier kills an innocent person, another soldier being uninvolved in that killing is guilty anyway. This is why your logic makes no sense.

oh my lord please are you crazy? i didn't give my brother the gun, train him how to shoot, drive him to the mall, use satalites to give him combat tips, provide suppressing fire or anything of the sort. I am not part of a group of people who have gone somewhere to kill people, i just happen to share more DNA with my brother than most other people on the planet.

Also i'm not just talking about innocent people, i'm talking about every single person who died at the hands of western forces in this conflict in irsq and afghan - we shouldn't be killing anyone in iraq terrorist or not because we shouldn't be there, we say terroist they say freedom fighter.

now please for the love of sence debate a point other than if everyone is guilty for one mans crime, what i'm saying is the dead people i dont care about woldn't have died if they hadn't been part of the army tasked with going into a country which doesn't want them and trying to install a government which will allow us to maintain financhial dominance.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by NatureBoy

 

Read that already. I'm taking that to mean that you don't actually have proof since you've resorted to repeating yourself. Especially in light of the fact that you continue to ignore that not every soldier has been in a fire-fight and that many of those innocent people have been killed by insurgents not our military.

Yeah most of the violence has been Iraqi on Iraqi for the past two or three years. What they also count are the deaths caused by insurgents as being victims of the US


I threw in a little story about how Iraq may have to return to a police state in order to maintain peace just like Good old Saddam did in order to stop the violence between the two groups who are now blowing each other up again.

After Years of Secrecy, a Glimpse Into the Numbers of Civilians Dead in Iraq

As sectarian violence drove the number of civilian deaths in Iraq to thousands per month in 2006 and 2007, many Iraqi ministries, morgues and hospitals were under government order not to release the embarrassing figures, and the prime minister’s office generally disputed the ones that did leak out.

American forces in Iraq were no more helpful, often refusing to release figures or claiming that they did not exist. Obtaining information on the deaths was an exhausting, grisly and often clandestine affair, and — Iraq being Iraq — no two sets of figures ever seemed to match exactly.

11 Iraqi soldiers killed in bomb disposal accident

MOSUL, Iraq, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Eleven Iraqi soldiers were killed on Friday in a roadside bomb disposal accident in northern Iraq, Iraqi security officials said.

Bombs kill 3 near Shiite shrine in central Baghdad

BAGHDAD — Two bombs exploded moments apart near the tomb of a revered Shiite religious figure in central Baghdad on Saturday, killing three people and wounding 22, police and hospital officials said.

The first bomb went off next to the tomb of the ninth-century sheik, Othman al-Omari, where a number of people were praying. A few minutes later, a car bomb exploded in a nearby parking lot as crowds were gathering. The shrine was damaged.

Iraq civilian deaths are highest since April

BAGHDAD, Sept 1 (Reuters) - The number of civilians recorded killed in violence in Iraq shot up to 393 in August, its highest level since April, after a spate of huge bombings caused carnage in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

Figures from the ministry of health showed a big increase on last month's 224 violent deaths in Iraq. The figure was also slightly higher than the 382 killed in August last year.

Iraq death toll in August highest in 13 months

BAGHDAD — Violent deaths in Iraq hit a 13-month high in August, official figures showed on Tuesday, raising fresh concerns about the country's stability after the government admitted that security is worsening.

Statistics compiled by the defence, interior and health ministries showed that 456 people -- 393 civilians, 48 police and 15 Iraqi soldiers -- were killed, the highest toll since July last year when 465 died in unrest.

There were also 1,592 civilians, 129 police and 20 soldiers wounded.

Iraqi death toll in August is the highest in more than a year

A total of 456 Iraqi civilians and security personnel were killed in attacks in August, the government figures show. It was the deadliest month since July 2008, when 465 Iraqis died violently, though the tally was far lower than at the height of the civil war in 2006 and 2007 when monthly tolls sometimes soared past 2,000.

Could a police state return?

He had a point. The Shia-led government has overseen a ballooning of the country’s security apparatus. Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state.

reply to post by SLAYER69


why is that going to make me care about the 6000 dead grunts? I already said it's real sad that people die in civil wars, this thread is however about the 6000 idiots who choose to take a gun and go into someone elses country on the orders of a robberbarron run, totally courrupt and immoral leadership.

-edit to add, sorry if u weren't trying to prove me wrong - i had been anticipating that line of attack but i think you were actually using it to prove my point, thanks and sorry lol, indeed so far the war has done nothing but increase the chaos and suffering - when we're gone it will almost certainly either return to a saddam like leader or remain a bannarepublic with a puppet governement.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by NatureBoy]

reply to post by NatureBoy


See here's the thing. I first posted in response to you specifically addressing your claim that every soldier is a murderer and a thief. Since then you've tried to get me to respond to other claims in an effort I suppose to side-track me. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to dictate what I respond to and what I don't. And now that it's abundantly clear that your logic on that point is horribly flawed you're claiming I'm scared to debate you on anything else? Hardly.

If you'd like to know my position on the wars re-read my posts starting with the very first one in this thread. I've already stated it, no need to do it again a few pages later and it's not my fault if you didn't read it.

Sneeky, actually i said #JUST# for invading someone and trying to kill them, i've been quite clear on this - defending armys deserve to live and win and be happy.

Nope, sure didn't. Here I'll quote your words again.

if they signed up to fight then i'm glad they're dead.

If you are willing to sign up to fight to protect anglo-american dominance of the middle eastern oil pipelines just because you're unwilling to educate yourself and do something worthwhile then quiet frankly the world is better off without those people.

Well done for guessing i've never been in the army, did u get that from when i said anyone stupid enough to join the army deserves to die?

Just signing up is all it takes for them to deserve to die according to you.

oh my lord please are you crazy?

Nope, not the last time I checked. I just recognize faulty logic and backtracking when I see it. Speaking of which..

Also i'm not just talking about innocent people

Changing your tune again?

All those people are responceable for the unlawful deaths of dozerns of innocent people - thus they are murderers.

they are willing to kill or be involved in the killing of innocent people

Sure looks like you said innocent people when claiming that all soldiers are guilty regardless of their involvement. Maybe I'm seeing things though.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I've looked several times and it's practically impossible to get an accurate count of how many civilians have been killed by our soldiers and how many were killed by their own countrymen. Very few sources that talk about civilian deaths bother to separate the two and the ones I've found who do make you dig for the information instead of being up front about it.

6000 thieves,murderers,rapists etc. or should i say american soldiers dead ?

good good , the more american soldiers die the merrier it is . these murderers hopefully pay for their karma.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
why don't you rather than smugly smerk that you know the secret answer which proves us wrong actually hit a few more keys and enlighten us?!? That's why we came here, i didn't bother writing a full and frank set of arguments just to have someone giggle and say, oh no actually i know better -just take my word for it because i'm telling you how great i am so i must be right.

As I said before, if you were me, you'd be arrogant, too. Sorry that my attitude hurts your feelings. Nah, not really. I'm not sorry at all.

Killing in wartime isn't murder. Never has been, never will be. Killing in wartime is killing. It's not nice, but it sometimes has to be done.

Shooting a guy for taking your parking spot is murder.

Shooting the enemy in combat is killing.

Got it?

Originally posted by NatureBoy
Ever here the words DENY IGNORANCE? it's sorta a motto around thsse parts, people flock to this sight to read and participate in the frank and open sharing, debating and contesting of ideas - just telling us you have the magicly correct answer but not sharing it is an insult to everyone here, including yourself.

Yeah, right. Deny Ignorance, my white Irish ass.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
Had the headline been HOW MUCH ARE THE DEATH OF OVER A MILLION INNOCENT ARABS TO YOU?

You do know that those "million dead Arabs" were mostly killed by other Arabs. You know, the ones with car bombs that go off in crowded markets and kill civilians. But, as I've seen time and time again, this isn't addressed at ATS.

So, how does an insurgent blowing up a market and killing innocent women and children somehow "strike a blow against the US?"

Originally posted by sadchild01
6000 thieves,murderers,rapists etc. or should i say american soldiers dead ?

good good , the more american soldiers die the merrier it is . these murderers hopefully pay for their karma.

Another "I love dead US Soldiers" post on ATS. And the second for this thread, too.

I'm telling your mom when I see her tonight.

reply to post by jerico65


nope i don't got it. The statement was made that this isn't an actual difference it's just a line drawn in your mind to justify and normalize the actions which without the rose tinted glasses you would view as abhorrant.

Shooting someone for stealing your car parking space = murder

shooting someone for stealing the land you want to put an oil pipeline in = murder

shooting someone to defend yourself = self defence

shooting someone who is part of an invading army = national defence.

see what we're saying?

it's the same split as freedom-fighter and terrorist or land of the free home of the brave and the great satan. in each case both of these refer to the exact same physical objet - One side would prefer to use one description while the other would prefer to use the other.


Jenna


Hope you were paying attention, i think maybe you haven't been following well enough... when i say murder i mean what you think of as kill, ok? when i say innocent i mean somoene that hasn't left the country they live in to start or involve themselves in$ a war.

Now you've taken a few lines of mine which seem to say that i want everyone to die, no no no - this thread if you've noticed is about weather or not we care about 6000 dead jarheads, it shouldn't be too much of a leap to assume that as we're debating the current conflict in iraqastan i might be talking about the current conflict. What gets me is that to mine these quotes you actually had to read past countless times that i clarify that this war is an aggressive act and motivated by greed and the desire to steal oil wealth.

if i have to explain everything everytime my already verbose posts will turn into small novels "Signing up to fight of your own freewill in the current conflict in iraq and afghanistan is in my opinion a valid reason for me not to care two hoot if for whatever reason that person should then be killed while invading said nations in a conflice which is nothing more than an attempt to secure oil trade routes.....etc etc etc.

Also i'm not just talking about innocent people

ok i admit again you are sort of right, when i said i'm not just talking about innocent people i should have said 'and i'm not just talking about people who while i would consider them to be freedom fighters who have done no wrong, you would consider to be enemy combatants or terrorists or badguys'

I admit i could have been clearer in expressing my change of word useage - i stand by all the statements i made, that i don't think people who i consider innocent but under the defactolaw in place in occupied iraq are automatically guilty and in the eyes of many hawks are also seen to be 'guilty' (guilty of what i'm not entirely sure) should be being killed by our troops just because we want to control their nation.

you're claiming I'm scared to debate you on anything else? Hardly.

Ok, so why then are you still running round and round in circles debating a stilly semantic point which hinges on nothing more than which synonym happens to be placed in a sentence when you could be providing valid and compelling reasons for us to be smashing our way though places which aren't really anything to do with us? It really does seem that rather than debate the meat and potatoes of the issue you would rather pick at the pastry crust.

I said they're all murderers and theives meaning the collective army is killing without any justification (hence murder) and they are doing this because they want to take something which they have no right to (hence theft) - how about in the name of good debate we accept that and move on? I believe what they are doing is murder and theft, the whole collective army. Not sure if you know this little nugget of truth but in army they're quiet big on team work, they love all that 'we're all part of the same body' 'everyone has a vital role to play like well oiled gears' and of course the famously irionic slogan 'you don't need to be pilot to fly in the RAF' from English adverts. -i think they would agree, maybe not with the terms, certainly with the meaning - every member of the army is every bit as important in reaching the end goal of mission complete (attrositty commited, opps there i go with my loaded terms again )

did u listen to that universal soldier song someone posted a few posts ago, ita rather good and explains the point very well.

I almost wish i had kept my deep understanding of geopolitical happenings underwraps then maybe you wouldn't be too scared to debate the real issues...

Originally posted by NatureBoy
nope i don't got it.

Obviously.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
The statement was made that this isn't an actual difference it's just a line drawn in your mind to justify and normalize the actions which without the rose tinted glasses you would view as abhorrant.

There is a difference, or every Soldier that's ever been in combat would be tried for murder. They aren't, because you aren't murdering anyone, you're killing them.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
it's the same split as freedom-fighter and terrorist or land of the free home of the brave and the great satan. in each case both of these refer to the exact same physical objet - One side would prefer to use one description while the other would prefer to use the other.

Are these the same "freedom fighters" that are blowing up women and children in the markets? Who's "freedom" are they fighting for?

Originally posted by NatureBoy
I almost wish i had kept my deep understanding of geopolitical happenings underwraps then maybe you wouldn't be too scared to debate the real issues...

You have to butter your head to get it thru doorways, don't you? Too bad you don't have a dollar to buy a clue. I heard they're on sale down at the 7-11.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
when i say murder i mean what you think of as kill, ok? when i say innocent i mean somoene that hasn't left the country they live in to start or involve themselves in$ a war.

Oh, so since your logic makes no sense you can change the definitions of words to suit your needs? Doesn't work that way sorry.

Now you've taken a few lines of mine which seem to say that i want everyone to die

Nope, I've quoted your own words back at you and they do indeed say that you think all soldiers deserve to die simply for signing up. You can try to back track or you can admit that was indeed what you said. Your choice. The latter option would be the grown up choice, but it's a choice you get to make for yourself.

What gets me is that to mine these quotes you actually had to read past countless times that i clarify that this war is an aggressive act and motivated by greed and the desire to steal oil wealth.

From your very first post in this thread:

if they signed up to fight then i'm glad they're dead.

No qualifiers, no clarifications to read past, just your glad they're dead if they signed up. Those are your words. They belong to you.

if i have to explain everything everytime my already verbose posts will turn into small novels

My posts can get rather verbose at times as well. (This post, for example.) It's much easier to say exactly what you mean the first time so you're not back tracking and trying to deny what you've said. (That would be what you call "explaining".) Just a friendly tip for future reference.

"Signing up to fight of your own freewill in the current conflict in iraq and afghanistan is in my opinion a valid reason for me not to care two hoot if for whatever reason that person should then be killed while invading said nations in a conflice which is nothing more than an attempt to secure oil trade routes.....etc etc etc.

There's quite a bit of a difference between simply not caring if they die or not and thinking they deserve to die.

ok i admit again you are sort of right

Thank you.

when i said i'm not just talking about innocent people i should have said 'and i'm not just talking about people who while i would consider them to be freedom fighters who have done no wrong, you would consider to be enemy combatants or terrorists or badguys'

I consider someone who blows up innocent people in civilian markets without any soldiers being in the vicinity to be the complete opposite of a freedom fighter. A true freedom fighter wouldn't be killing innocent civilians when they were supposedly fighting occupiers.

I admit i could have been clearer in expressing my change of word useage

Or, and this is just an idea, you could stick with the same word usage instead of claiming you changed it.

i stand by all the statements i made, that i don't think people who i consider innocent but under the defactolaw in place in occupied iraq are automatically guilty and in the eyes of many hawks are also seen to be 'guilty' (guilty of what i'm not entirely sure) should be being killed by our troops just because we want to control their nation.

So you stand by your statements that everyone who signs up for the military deserves to die simply for the act of signing up? You stand by your statements that every single soldier is personally responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians? I would remind you that there are hundreds upon hundreds of people who have only recently joined the military and are currently in basic training. Are those people guilty as well?

Ok, so why then are you still running round and round in circles debating a stilly semantic point which hinges on nothing more than which synonym happens to be placed in a sentence when you could be providing valid and compelling reasons for us to be smashing our way though places which aren't really anything to do with us?

I'm not running in circles, and I don't see any semantic points about synonyms being debated. Unless of course you consider terming someone who blows up innocent civilians in markets without any soldiers around a 'freedom fighter' to be a case of semantics and synonyms. I certainly don't. And once again, I've already stated my position on the wars. Did you bother to read it? Or do I need to post it again just for you?

I said they're all murderers and theives meaning the collective army is killing without any justification (hence murder)

Jerico has been trying to explain this to you but I'll give it a go and see if I fare any better than he has. Here's a definition for you:

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The key word in that definition is "unlawful". That word is very important, and I'm sure I don't need to define it so I won't patronize you by doing so.

War was declared and in instances of war the killing of an enemy combatant is not murder because it's not unlawful. Willfully killing a civilian (or other protected person) would be, but the key term there is willfully. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the military who would willfully kill an unarmed civilian. Have some been killed by our troops? Yes they have. Was it willfully done? Nope.

and they are doing this because they want to take something which they have no right to (hence theft)

Please enlighten me as to what exactly it is the soldiers are stealing. I've yet to see any reports of soldiers making off with treasure troves or barrels of oil, but perhaps I missed it.

how about in the name of good debate we accept that and move on?

Or, and again just a suggestion, you could own up to your words and not try changing definitions and back-tracking to distance yourself from what you actually said?

did u listen to that universal soldier song someone posted a few posts ago, ita rather good and explains the point very well.

Nope, I must have missed it. I'll give it a listen though.

I almost wish i had kept my deep understanding of geopolitical happenings underwraps then maybe you wouldn't be too scared to debate the real issues...

You are too funny.


Edit: Belatedly fixed quote tags.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Amagnon
It would be nice if every single American soldier was killed off

Wishing death on people you don't even know? I can't imagine being so hateful and self-righteous as to wish death on a group of people simply because they belong to a certain group.

In the interest of not breaking the T&C's I'll keep the rest of my opinions to myself.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by Jenna]

Without the support of the American people Iraq and Afghanistan would never have been invaded - 1.5 million Iraqi's would not be dead.

So much for not imagining being so hateful and self righteous - look around you at your fellow Americans - they supported a criminal war. My feelings are not out of hate, but rather compassion for the victims - as I would wish that any murderer fall dead before killing again.

The difference is that my feelings are not likely to support policy for a war machine bent on killing millions.

Originally posted by jerico65

Killing in wartime isn't murder. Never has been, never will be. Killing in wartime is killing. It's not nice, but it sometimes has to be done.

Shooting a guy for taking your parking spot is murder.

Shooting the enemy in combat is killing.

Got it?

Soldiers are indemnified by their respective governments - so sure - it's legal, you won't go to jail for doing it.

Doesn't it occur somewhere though, in your mind - that killing people just doesn't seem quite right?

Especially when you are killing them, not for a parking lot, but for some gas? Doesn't it seem that even if the soldier himself doesn't have to be accountable - that surely someone does? That human life and their freedom, and capacity to pursue happiness has more value than some gasoline for your boss?

Law is a construct to control the common man, so their freedoms can be infringed and their morals impaired. Law is not justice, neither is it morality - it is a device.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Amagnon]

reply to post by jerico65


nah, I hate imperial US empire automatons i.e soldiers

don't worry, soon your gfs AND sisters will serving UN troops for passtime
when Obama brings in UN troops to stop american revolution

Originally posted by sadchild01
nah, I hate imperial US empire automatons i.e soldiers

Don't worry, little girl. We hate you right back. And we have heavy weapons, too.

Originally posted by sadchild01
don't worry, soon your gfs AND sisters will serving UN troops for passtime

when Obama brings in UN troops to stop american revolution

Weren't you singing the same song about Bush, and were wrong then?

When I with your Mom last night, she said for you to clean the basement and get a job.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Doesn't it occur somewhere though, in your mind - that killing people just doesn't seem quite right?

Nope, not at all. Killing in combat is a necessary evil at times. Don't have to like it, just have to do it.

Originally posted by Amagnon
Especially when you are killing them, not for a parking lot, but for some gas? Doesn't it seem that even if the soldier himself doesn't have to be accountable - that surely someone does? That human life and their freedom, and capacity to pursue happiness has more value than some gasoline for your boss?

Ah, the "war for oil". If this were a war for oil, the US would have just overrun the oilfields and secured them, and bombed the rest of the country flat. I didn't see that happen; did you?

reply to post by jerico65


don't worry,UN forces will protect and take very nice care of your sisters/gfs well . go serve blackwater ,Dynacorp and obamamessiah well , murderer .
obama loves automatons like you , who will enable him to crush the coming american revolution
don't worry , karma is going to bite your rear , whether today or tomorrow .

6000 murderers,rapists more kicked their buckets oi oi oi ....





[edit on 28-9-2009 by sadchild01]

Originally posted by Amagnon
Without the support of the American people Iraq and Afghanistan would never have been invaded - 1.5 million Iraqi's would not be dead.

Without the towers being turned into a smoking pile of rubble, the American people would never have supported going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan. We'd have been quite content with all our troops staying home if it weren't for that.

I'd like to see your sources for that number if you don't mind. Iraq Body Count and the Associated Press both have numbers around 110k for civilians, the Iraqi Health Ministry's most recent number is around 88k, WHO puts it at 151k. So unless there have been 900k Iraq soldiers who've been killed in the last 8 years that weren't included in any of those studies your number is grossly over-inflated.

The Lancet study that was done three years ago didn't separate deaths by cause and is an unreliable figure since it included death caused by poor health in their figure. The Opinion Research Business poll was updated not long ago to bring their original number down which should tell any sane thinking person that something was wrong with their research the first time and as such it is not reliable in any way.

So much for not imagining being so hateful and self righteous - look around you at your fellow Americans - they supported a criminal war. My feelings are not out of hate, but rather compassion for the victims - as I would wish that any murderer fall dead before killing again.

Wishing death on a group of people is hate no matter how you try to dress it up. It's no different than someone saying they wished all the Jews were dead because it's still hating a group of people simply for belonging to that group. Go ahead and tell yourself differently if it makes you feel better, the rest of us know the better.

Originally posted by sadchild01
don't worry,UN forces will protect and take very nice care of your sisters/gfs...

Just like I do your mom. Face down on the parade ground.

Originally posted by sadchild01
... go serve blackwater ,Dynacorp and obamamessiah well , murderer .
obama loves automatons like you , who will enable him to crush the coming american revolution
don't worry , karma is going to bite your rear , whether today or tomorrow .

6000 murderers,rapists more kicked their buckets oi oi oi ....

Blackwater? Now that's an actual insult!

But anyway, do you have something to contribute to this thread, or are you just trolling along like you always do, just spouting your petty, lame insults?

And did you get that basement cleaned up? Mom's going to kick you out of the garage if you don't clean it. Oh, excuse me, it's not a garage, it's a "carriage house".