THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Oh, I thought you were talking about mass murdering fanatics in general.

So, the standards change, then, according to the different mass murdering fanatics?

What do we do about the mass murdering fanatic coalition forces that mass murder, er collaterally damage, in the name of exterminating Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al mass murdering fanatics?

0 Replies

Revel, by the way, your 2nd link doesn't work. Perhaps you inadvertently cut off the tail of that link like I did my (2) link.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Oh, I thought you were talking about mass murdering fanatics in general.

So, the standards change, then, according to the different mass murdering fanatics?

What do we do about the mass murdering fanatic coalition forces that mass murder, er collaterally damage, in the name of exterminating Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al mass murdering fanatics?

Who are they? Are they intentionally killing (i.e., murdering) civilians or inadvertently killing civilians?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

...

If you think that's what's happening (God knows why) then it explains why the customary face you show to the world is an inane grin.

If you think that's not what's happening (God knows why) then it explains why you show posters in this forum your unsupported and unsupportable opinions. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

...
So, the standards change, then, according to the different mass murdering fanatics?
...

I forgot to respond to this statement of yours.

Yes, the standards are different for "mass murdering fanatics" that can be stopped, or at least curtailed, by normal domestic police and court actions.

If the "mass murdering fanatics" cannot be stopped, or at least curtailed, by normal domestic police and court actions, then I recommend they be exterminated.

0 Replies

ican wrote:

Who are they? Are they intentionally killing (i.e., murdering) civilians or inadvertently killing civilians?

They are the mass murdering fanatic coallition forces. They are killing civilians in their intentionally waged war against Iraq.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

...
So, the standards change, then, according to the different mass murdering fanatics?
...

I forgot to respond to this statement of yours.

Yes, the standards are different for "mass murdering fanatics" that can be stopped, or at least curtailed, by normal domestic police and court actions.

If the "mass murdering fanatics" cannot be stopped, or at least curtailed, by normal domestic police and court actions, then I recommend they be exterminated.

Do you think the mass murdering fanatic coallition forces could be stopped by normal domestic police and court actions?

If they can't be stopped, then how do you propose to exterminate the mass murdering fanatic coalition forces?

0 Replies

AN IDEA!

For sometime I've been perplexed by the fact that most of your opinions and allegations (i.e., the opinions and allegations of you on the left) simply do not make any sense to me.

I understand that most of my opinions and allegations do not make any sense to you.

I have tended to attribute the cause of your views to your hatred of George Bush.

I understand that you have tended to attribute the cause of my views to my love of George Bush.

I know for a fact that I do not love George Bush. I hardly like him.

I'm wondering if maybe you don't hate George Bush. You may like him a little.

So what explains our persistently significantly different interpretations of the same events?

Is the explanation attributable to the fact we grew up in different times. I don't think so, because, I know adamant people on the left who are the same age as I am. I know adamant people on the right who are much younger than I am.

Does it have anything to do with a difference in our parent's economic condition when we were growing up? I don't think so, because I have encountered people on the left and right whose parents had about the same economic condition when they were growing up.

I don't know the cause!

Between posts I have been reading Stephen Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time."

That has sparked my speculation that just as time is relative to the environment within which it is measured, perhaps political views are as well. Time measurements are relative to the movement, mass, and energy of their environmnent. Since we all seem to have pretty much the same physical environment, there has to be a different aspect of our environnments to explain the significant differences in our political views.

Oh I know we could try to explain these significant differences by citing the relative intelligence or sanity of those with whom we differ. Problem is I think you guys are generally just as intelligent and sane as I am.

Would any of you like to speculate on the cause or causes of our significant political differences?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

ican wrote:
Who are they? Are they intentionally killing (i.e., murdering) civilians or inadvertently killing civilians?

They are the mass murdering fanatic coallition forces. They are killing civilians in their intentionally waged war against Iraq.

Here's an example of a position that makes no sense to me. I simply cannot understand how it makes any sense to you.

I have not encountered any evidence, and therefore do not believe, that there are more than a very few coalition forces that are mass murdering civilians. Those few who are doing that are declared and are treated as criminals by the rest. I do think some coalition forces are inadvertently killing civilians in their attempts to kill or capture members of the Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al crowd. If you think otherwise, please tell me why you think so.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:
Ican, one of your links didn't work, the other is a conservative source writen by none other than Jeff Gannon, the planted news reporter by George Bush. Hardly an unbiased source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416370,00.html

Estimate of Saddam's Victims Tops One Million
Talon News ^ | 12/12/2003 | Jeff Gannon

http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php

Sorry about that bad (2) link! I inadvertently cut off its tail. Here's the correct (2) link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3889&R=C495A28

By the way the 2nd of the two links you provided doesn't work. Maybe you cut off its tail like I did mine.
How many do you infer from your sources (biased or not) that Saddam's regime murdered from 1979 to 2003? I looked at several estimates and inferred from them that Saddam's regime murdered more than 576,000 .

It really don't matter if the second link don't work, I meant to just provide the same link that you did with the article written by Jeff Gannon; but somehow I goofed.

All I am saying is that it is not really possible to get accurate data of civilian deaths for comparison purposes of before and the after the invasion of Iraq. It is enough to know that before we invaded Iraq, Saddam killed and oppressed his citizens, after we invaded Iraq the citizens are still getting killed everyday nearly three years later and their living conditions are deplorable and their political situation getting worse by the day. Like I said pages ago, they traded one bad situation for another.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

For sometime I've been perplexed by the fact that most of your opinions and allegations (i.e., the opinions and allegations of you on the left) simply do not make any sense to me.

How many people have you met that share and/or understand your reasoning? Perhaps one should look to the common element in determining where the communications failure lies.

0 Replies

Quote:

Iraq's Jaafari rejects U.S. sectarian warning
(By Michael Georgy, February 21, 2006)

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari angrily dismissed on Tuesday U.S. warnings to shun sectarianism in the country's new government, saying Iraqis would not accept interference in their affairs.

Speaking after talks with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who echoed the U.S. call for a government of national unity in Iraq, the normally calm and diplomatic Jaafari said Iraq knew its own best interests.

"When someone asks us whether we want a sectarian government the answer is 'no we do not want a sectarian government' -- not because the U.S. ambassador says so or issues a warning," he told a news conference.
"...We do not need anybody to remind us, thank you."

U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said on Monday the United States, which led the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, was investing billions of dollars in Iraq and did not want to see that money go to support sectarian politics.

His comments were echoed less bluntly on Tuesday by Straw, who said after a meeting with President Jalal Talabani that Iraq's parliamentary elections in December showed that no single group can dominate Iraq's new political landscape.

"This is a crucial moment today for the people of Iraq. We had the elections on December 15th. We've now had the final accredited results. What they show is that no party, no ethnic or religious grouping can dominate government in Iraq," Straw said.

"This therefore gives further impetus to what Iraqis tell us they want, which is a government of national unity bringing together all the different elements of Iraqi society."

While Arab Sunni participation in the polls raised hopes that peaceful politics could defuse the Sunni insurgency, voting patterns suggested ballots were cast based on sect, not political and economic programmes offered by candidates.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

...

Do you think the mass murdering fanatic coallition forces could be stopped by normal domestic police and court actions?
The size of the group of mass murdering fanatics among the coalition forces is small. They are a small enough number to be stopped, or at least curtailed, by the Coalition forces themselves and/or the Iraq police and courts.

If they can't be stopped, then how do you propose to exterminate the mass murdering fanatic coalition forces?
In the unlikely event this small group of mass murdering fanatics among the coalition forces cannot be stopped by the larger Iraqi police and courts, then the coalition forces must treat them in the same manner as they must treat the far larger group of Saddanist & al-Qaeda et al forces in the event they cannot be stopped. That is, this small group must be exterminated too by killing them on site, on sight.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...
All I am saying is that it is not really possible to get accurate data of civilian deaths for comparison purposes of before and the after the invasion of Iraq. It is enough to know that before we invaded Iraq, Saddam killed and oppressed his citizens, after we invaded Iraq the citizens are still getting killed everyday nearly three years later and their living conditions are deplorable and their political situation getting worse by the day. Like I said pages ago, they traded one bad situation for another.

I disagree!

We have data accurate enough to permit a meaningful comparison between SR, the average daily rate at which the Saddam regime intentionally killed Iraqi civilians, and SQ+C, the average daily rate at which the Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al has been intentionally killing Iraqi civilians plus the Coalition has been unintentionally killing Iraqi civilians. That SR average daily killing rate is more than twice what that SQ+C average daily killing rate has been.

Based on that and the fact that the SQ+C rate is decreasing over time, it seems to me that Iraqi civilians are better off since the Coalition invasion.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
For sometime I've been perplexed by the fact that most of your opinions and allegations (i.e., the opinions and allegations of you on the left) simply do not make any sense to me.

How many people have you met that share and/or understand your reasoning? Perhaps one should look to the common element in determining where the communications failure lies.

All the people I have met or with whom I'm acquainted (liberal and conservative) understand my reasoning. Those that disagree with my reasoning, disagree with me about how best to stop the terrorist mass murder of both Iraqi and American civilians.

They do not disagree with me that it was necessary to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan to begin the process of stopping these mass murders of civilians.

They do not disagree with me that by waiting until the terrorist threat was imminent we waited too long to invade Afghanistan.

They do not disagree with me that we had to invade Iraq before the terrorist threat became imminent again.

They do disagree with me about how best to have eliminated the terrorist threats in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think we had to invade both countries on the ground and replace their governments to be effective. Those that disagree, believe that we should have launched short special forces invasions in both countries to destroy their terrorist camps and then leave. They think that when these terrorist camps reformed again, as they expected they would, we should launch another set of special forces attacks.

I think establishing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is feasible and necessary to our security. They disagree. They think establishing democracies in either country is unachievable, and is not necessary to our security.

DrewDad wrote:

Perhaps one should look to the common element in determining where the communications failure lies.

0 Replies

let me see now : the united states hires a united emirates company (a country which does not have a democratically elected government) to look after u.s. port security, but the united states thinks it can establish democracies in iraq and afghanistan .
i have a bit of a mental block to understand that, sorry . hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

let me see now : the united states hires a united emirates company (a country which does not have a democratically elected government) to look after u.s. port security, but the united states thinks it can establish democracies in iraq and afghanistan .
i have a bit of a mental block to understand that, sorry . hbg

You are not alone!

The alleged problem is that the USA and its multi-trillion-economy doesn't have any companies in its midst that can look after port security.

Gee, I thought the USA Cost Guard could be trained to do that! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

...

Do you think the mass murdering fanatic coallition forces could be stopped by normal domestic police and court actions?
The size of the group of mass murdering fanatics among the coalition forces is small. They are a small enough number to be stopped, or at least curtailed, by the Coalition forces themselves and/or the Iraq police and courts.

If they can't be stopped, then how do you propose to exterminate the mass murdering fanatic coalition forces?
In the unlikely event this small group of mass murdering fanatics among the coalition forces cannot be stopped by the larger Iraqi police and courts, then the coalition forces must treat them in the same manner as they must treat the far larger group of Saddanist & al-Qaeda et al forces in the event they cannot be stopped. That is, this small group must be exterminated too by killing them on site, on sight.

According to your source, as of 2/10/2006 the number of civilians killed directly by and in the war the US and its coalition forces has waged in Iraq is 32,041.

The US and the coalition forces did not inadvertently wage war in Iraq. The US and the coalition forces waged this war deliberately. The civilians murdered by and in this war are directly the result of this deliberately war waged by the US and the coalition forces. According to what you've written, mass murder is fanatical, and mass murder is a malignancy.

Had the US and the coalition forces not waged war against Iraq, the US and the coalition forces would not be murdering civilians in their attempts to kill or capture members of the Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al crowd, and the Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al crowd would not be mass murdering civilians in response to the US' and the coalition forces war waged against Iraq.

Even if you argue that this mass murdering fanaticism is necessary, the fact remains that it is mass murdering fanaticism. The difference, merely, is that you support the mass murdering fanaticism of the US and coalition forces malignancy over the fanaticism of the Saddamist & al-Qaeda et al mass murdering malignancies.

ican wrote:

Would any of you like to speculate on the cause or causes of our significant political differences?

It's pretty simple, really. You support mass murdering fanatical malignancy. Others, including I, do not.

0 Replies

Hey
Big important Shia mosque blown up today.

Sunnis are trying to start a civil war.

Americans are also being criticised for not taking care of security. (which seems a bit harsh)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4738472.stm

0 Replies

Saw it too, Mctag.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41361000/jpg/_41361578_reu_samarra416.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41361000/jpg/_41361520_shrine2ap.jpg

Reportedly, Shias attacked at least 5 Sunni mosques in Baghdad in retaliation.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know