58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 07:09 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
Most were Saudis and the attack and preparations for it were well-funded. The post event record of their preparations and training, as well as communications associated with their hijacking of the four aircraft (all departing East Coast airports and bound for the West Coast 1,900 miles away) is detailed and complete. The actual crashes of the aircraft into the twin towers & the Pentagon were recorded on television and witnessed by thousands. The demise of the fourth aircraft after its hijacking (confirmed by radar tracking and cell phone communications from passengers, was also well confirmed and investigated. You haven't offered anything at all to controvert this abundant collection of evidence, substituting only fact-free fantasies.

What brought you to this country?
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 07:21 pm
@vikorr,
See link below, it should answer most of the questions you may have. Sometimes it is just the matter of finding the right resources.

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/debunking-the-real-9-11-myths

If you like to see documentaries then watch YouTube videos, links below. This is the most organized response I have seen so far. This documentary has three videos and each one is very detailed. It would take about 5 hours but it will be worth it to expose the lies which media has been telling us from last 2 decades.

https://youtu.be/UxF4HL-kIfo


https://youtu.be/XdRmnk6Q1VI

https://youtu.be/bVYpZeH3Cqw






0 Replies
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 07:26 pm
@georgeob1,
I gave several resources before and they all answer your questions. Give your self few hours to look at the evidence I am providing. If your evidence is media and TV then that is not an evidence. Media only show you Wahab they want to show with no explanation and fools like you buy non factual evidence of fake media.

I told you before than I am born US citizen but I don’t see the things as you see and we can have difference of opinion. Stop being an emotional fool.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 09:40 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
If your evidence is media and TV then that is not an evidence.

The "evidence" that the US invades other countries is also fake.

Those countries are just pretending that we invaded them as a scam to get people to send them aid.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 09:41 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
Still you believe that few men living in caves planned and carried out 9/11 attack in the heart of most powerful country?

Why do you believe that the US invades other countries when all the evidence of this is so clearly fake?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 09:42 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
The official report for the destruction of building seven was released 7 years after the incident. Why it took so long? Anyways you clearly are showing no proofs and ignoring many simple facts.

There's no proof that the US ever invaded anyone after WWII.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 09:43 pm
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
As usual fantasy statements but no facts and proofs.

Just like the fictitious claims that the US invades other countries.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 09:46 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
There's a significant range above, and it appears it depends on how you measure, and whether or not you include just direct deaths, or indirect deaths (that would not have occurred but for the war)

Those estimates are gross overcounts regardless of what they counted.

Every time Saddam's government concocted a claim about dead civilians, those bogus claims went right into those death tallies.

Later, during the insurgency, every time the insurgents concocted a bogus claim of civilian casualties, those got counted too.


vikorr wrote:
To me, indirect deaths are valid, as they measure the true cost of a war / of an invasion.

We are not in any way responsible for Muslims choosing to massacre each other.
HabibUrrehman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2019 10:39 pm
@oralloy,
You are contradicting yourself and should be in Trump administration. In one of your post few minutes ago you said US toppled dictatorship in Iraq and left democracy behind and still saying US did not invade any country after World War II. Something is seriously wrong with your brain?
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:00 am
@HabibUrrehman,
If you can accuse the US of faking 9/11, then I can accuse the rest of the world of faking our invasions.
HabibUrrehman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:20 am
@oralloy,
I am proving facts and proofs not just statements and you are living in your fantasies only proof you ever give is your statement as if those are reliable. Based on your mental condition, I don’t think any court would accept you as a witness. Seriously you should check with some psychiatrist. Mentally sick people are biggest threat to any society, especially in a society where guns are easy to buy.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:25 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Those estimates are gross overcounts regardless of what they counted.

Every time Saddam's government concocted a claim about dead civilians, those bogus claims went right into those death tallies.

Later, during the insurgency, every time the insurgents concocted a bogus claim of civilian casualties, those got counted too.
Do you have sources verifying such claims, or are you just making things up while claiming to tell the truth?

I'm not sure if you noticed, but one source I linked estimate the death toll at higher than the Iraqi govt's estimate.

Quote:
We are not in any way responsible for Muslims choosing to massacre each other.
I never said you were - I said such is part of the true cost of an invasion.

Ie.
No war, deaths per year = A
After war, deaths per year = B
The difference between A and B is part of the true cost.

Further, those deaths do not need to come just from violence, but from other sources where, but for the war, the survival rate would be higher, eg still births.

This is part of the true cost of any invasion. You can argue otherwise, but it's pretty much like an ostrich putting it's head in the sand.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:29 am
@HabibUrrehman,
HabibUrrehman wrote:
I am proving facts and proofs not just statements

Linking to goofy conspiracy nonsense does not prove anything.


HabibUrrehman wrote:
only proof you ever give is your statement as if those are reliable.

My statements are just as reliable as any goofy conspiracy nonsense that you linked to.


HabibUrrehman wrote:
Based on your mental condition, I don’t think any court would accept you as a witness. Seriously you should check with some psychiatrist. Mentally sick people are biggest threat to any society, especially in a society where guns are easy to buy.

Your name-calling doesn't prove anything either.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:33 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Do you have sources verifying such claims, or are you just making things up while claiming to tell the truth?

The Iraq Body Count website clearly stated that their methodology was to count any "deaths" that were reported in multiple news outlets.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:36 am
@oralloy,
Ah, you spoke like you were referring to all of them... perhaps if you were more specific? So are you saying that for you, one site, and one method of counting makes them all invalid?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:47 am
@vikorr,
It seems like there was some heavy criticism of the Lancet study, but I forget the details.

Logically speaking, if one site is clearly a vast overcount, then any claims that are similar or even larger are also likely to be a vast overcount.

Anyway, regarding IBC:

"Deaths in the database are derived from a comprehensive survey of commercial media and NGO-based reports, along with official records that have been released into the public sphere."
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/methods/1

"The IBC project is heavily reliant on the professional rigour of the press and media organisations that it monitors. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own veracity checks before publishing stories (including from eye-witness and confidential sources)."
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/methods/2
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 12:50 am
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001533

This one goes into quite a bit of detail about how it arrived at it's conclusions.
Quote:
Beyond expected rates, most mortality increases in Iraq can be attributed to direct violence, but about a third are attributable to indirect causes (such as from failures of health, sanitation, transportation, communication, and other systems). Approximately a half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war.



There are plenty of other sources too:
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37152.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a76861204b74
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797136/

And I stopped looking at this point.

The problem on your side is, your government was not at all interested in doing a body count (likely because it doesn't benefit them, at all, to do so). So to call anything bogus just because you don't like it isn't something that allows you a leg to stand on. You don't have counter studies showing otherwise, but are trying to claim as truth your version of events.

Quote:
Logically speaking, if one site is clearly a vast overcount, then any claims that are similar or even larger are also likely to be a vast overcount.
As I mentioned previously - it does depend on what you count, and how you count.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 01:12 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
The problem on your side is, your government was not at all interested in doing a body count (likely because it doesn't benefit them, at all, to do so). So to call anything bogus just because you don't like it isn't something that allows you a leg to stand on. You don't have counter studies showing otherwise, but are trying to claim as truth your version of events.

That's no problem at all. All I need to do is criticize their methodology.


vikorr wrote:
As I mentioned previously - it does depend on what you count, and how you count.

If they count deaths that are not the result of US action, I am content to merely point out that they are counting deaths that we are not responsible for.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 01:48 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
That's no problem at all. All I need to do is criticize their methodology.
Which is quite meaningless because those studies are all you have to go on.

I actually find it quite remarkable how many studies have been done. They all agree that the cost is in the hundreds of thousands. They just disagree how many hundred thousand.

You could go 'I have no idea how many died, and don't want to know', and that would be more honest than what you do now.

Quote:
If they count deaths that are not the result of US action, I am content to merely point out that they are counting deaths that we are not responsible for.
Which is both true and beside the point. Your actions contributed to the outcome. In other words, but for the US invasions those deaths would not have happened.

Now you can go on pretending that your countries actions have nothing to do with the outcomes, but that's all it would be - you pretending such.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 10:01 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Which is quite meaningless because those studies are all you have to go on.

Showing that a study is highly flawed due to a highly-flawed methodology is not at all meaningless.


vikorr wrote:
I actually find it quite remarkable how many studies have been done. They all agree that the cost is in the hundreds of thousands. They just disagree how many hundred thousand.

Those studies all count deaths that were not caused by American action.


vikorr wrote:
You could go 'I have no idea how many died, and don't want to know', and that would be more honest than what you do now.

That is incorrect. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the flaws in a study's methodology.


vikorr wrote:
Which is both true and beside the point. Your actions contributed to the outcome. In other words, but for the US invasions those deaths would not have happened.
Now you can go on pretending that your countries actions have nothing to do with the outcomes, but that's all it would be - you pretending such.

I reject the notion that we bear any responsibility when a bunch of Muslims kill each other.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:20:07