6000 American deaths including and since 9/11. Over 600,000 Arab deaths
I am not one to quibble with the statistics. Arabs have died in numbers over 100 times the amount that Americans have. I tend to think this is the reason they have not attacked the US in 5 years. I am not even including Afghans or the Lebanese, also killed because of attempts to strike at the US through Israel. Muslims are dying in droves everywhere you go.
9/11 was an idiotic idea in the first place. Monumentally stupid. They got their momentary satisfaction, then payback was the usual evil bitch. Now they are pissing and moaning about all the Muslims killed by the Bush administration. They were dancing in the streets over 9/11. They thought it was a great idea at the time.
What did they expect us to do? Fall down on our knees and pray to Mecca? Recognize the superiority of Islam? Say, oh my God, you are all so nice and the Israelis are so mean, thank you for proving it to us? We feel your pain? They wanted to bring the fight to us and so they did. We brought it right back to them. They got what they wanted. No use in crying over it now.
posted by Miss Carnivorous @ 3:38 PM
20 Comments:
The 650,000 killed was an estimate of Iraqi civilians killed, from an article in the British medical journal Lancet, one of the most prestigious scientific publications. Killing civilians doesn't help us win the so-called War on Terror. To the contary. Everyone of those civilians have relatives who will spend the rest of their lives trying to kill us.
Oh yes, we must respect the overblown casualty count by the
hardcore leftwing medical journal.
We have run a very low civilian casualty war. Try putting the blame on the civilian deaths where
it belongs the Muslims themselves.
Hell Saddam killed that many people per year and lefties still defended him. Gary why don't you cut the moral relativist crap.
Since when are doctors hardcore leftwing? From what I've read about the Lancet study they used some fairly standard statistical polling methodology, and Lancet is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.650,000 is an estimate but it is the best estimate available. Lets say they're off by a factor of two. That's still a lot of dead civilians. But you know that the Lancet study is wrong because ... why exactly?
short, sweet, and to the point, Miss C. That's why I keep comin' back!
Hey Gary how about some actual verifiable proof to back up their claims. What no proof...? Exactly.
Lancet is the Al Gore of political medicine. Where is the proof Gary?
I believe the number. It would be hard not to have had as many killed. Whether they kill each other or we kill them is immaterial. The result is the same.
To me Gary there is no difference between "civilian" casualties and "military" casualties. We are not fighting the military in Iraq.
The 9/11 hijackers were "civilians" not a member of an army, unless it was the army of Allah. And the hijackers targeted "civilans purposely.
You seem to hate the military and yet expect them to abide by all sorts of ridiculous, "civilized" rules. Civilian Muslims are our enemies. We can no longer afford to be merciful toward them, it only gets more of them killed in the long run.
By civilian I mean, and I believe the Lancet researchers meant, Iraqis not connected to the insurgency. Just Iraqi citizens. I know you don't care how many of them have been killed. But the Iraqis do. How many relatives would you suppose 650,000 Iraqis have? This is why a majority of Iraqis want us out, and even support killing our troops. We are creating more insurgents than we are killing.
Texas: what sort of proof are you looking for? I didn't go to Iraq and count the bodies. The Lancet study is the best evidence available. But I suppose you think "science" has a liberal bias.
Actually Donkey you are wrong. A group of John Hopkins researchers did a study in 2004, which they published in Lancet,estimating 100,000 deaths. The same group did a 2006 study estimating 650,000 deaths, also published in Lancet. Which means that a lot of civilians were killed between 2004 and 2006.
Gary, those that hate us now, already hated us. Except for the moderates, who don't. Why do you accept the position of the "haters as legitimate but don't accept the validity of the moderates? The trouble with liberals is that they are too concerned with being liked, especially by "people of color." Just because they will kill you last, doesn't make you their buddy! I am not interested in being liked. It does not concern me at all. I consider the source. If a bunch of crazy, mysoginistic inbreds are hatin' on me I must be doing something right.
The Japanese got over their hatred, real quicklike, after we dropped a couple of nukes on them. They recognized their master. Decisive defeat, as in a lot of deaths, is about the only thing the Muslim world understands, why else do they keep killing each other? if they don;t think violence is a valuable tool why are they so fond of it themselves.
It's you who claims that violence doesn't work, no Arab would agree with you. They love violence in every form. Spouting your peacenik crap would not earn you any kudos with them. Al Qaeda would laugh in your face before relieving you of your head!
I recently read a book "How America Lost Iraq" by one of the few unembedded journalists in Iraq. When he went to Iraq right after the war started he was suprised to find that a lot of Iraqis supported us, probably most of them. They were glad Saddam was gone, people were naming children after Bush. They didn't hate us. But they do now. He saw the change over the next two years. Thanks to civilian casualties, Abu Ghraib, the failure of reconstruction, and monumental incompetence. Too bad. This was Bush's war and he lost it.
Gary what science are you talking about? I asked you for proof. Where did they get those numbers? How did they verify those numbers? Did they break down the casualties by cause? How does one make an accurate count in a war zone? Don't give me you condescending bull about science being unbiased. There are plenty of examples of men and women of science lying or adjusting results to try to receive more funding or to acheive their own political gains. History is full of liars in any occupation.
You have presented nothing to bolster you claim. Have you even read the study and seen the data or do you just believe it out of blind faith in the infallibility of scientists? Now on to your other statements. You state that Bush has lost Iraq because of civilian casualties. The terrorists sent to Iraq by Iran and Syria along with the home grown Iraqi ones were aided and abetted by the media which has been caught making multiple false claims about the war. The Democrat Party that has such a hardon to regain power that they have undermined the war effort from day one. And last but not least by those of either liberal or hardcore marxist persuasion who have done their best to give terrorists the same rights as American citizens, who have tried to block intelligence gathering and who have even tried to give aid and in some cases have tried to join the terrorists in their fight against the U.S.. So yes Gary if we have lost this war you and your kind have helped defeat us.
If you are interested in the details of the Lancer study, then I suggest you read it. I have not, as statistics is not my field. Their statistical methodology has not been challenged to my knowledge. All I said is that it is the best estimate available. They polled households using cluster sampling.
Science is not perfect but is better than talking out of your ass, as you do.
Gary you are an idiot. It is not the Lancer study it is the Lancet study. You have not read it. You have no idea how the study was actually done. There is an old hominy taught in all college statistics courses " there are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics".
I've been around the world a few times little boy and I have done and seen more than you will ever know and I suggest that if you wish to smart off to grown ups that you be prepared to have your ass kicked.
I know it's Lancet. I said Lancet in my first two comments. Lancer was a typo.
No reason to talk down to me like I'm a kid. I am well into my middle years, believe me.
You don't want to know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed.
I talk to you as if you are a child because you behave as one.
I really do not know how many civilians have been killed. I have worked for the government, I have worked for ngo's and I have worked in the private sector. I have seen statistics used to prove what ever the group using them wants to prove. You accept as proof what the Lancet study states and yet you accuse me of talking out of my ass. You are an immature man who is prone to name calling and personal attacks. I have read your previous posts as both Zontar and Gary and I am convinced that you accept only that which fits your narrow world view. I will continue to call you on every uninformed statement that you make.
Likewise.
Gary, you are right. Violence begets violence. End of story. The rest of you are dipshits that don't know what the hell you're talking about. Especially, Donkeyhue, what kind of fucking name is that anyway. You mind as well call yourself Jackass because you're dumb as dirt. Let me break it down for you s-l-o-w-l-y so you will understand. Collective identity (I'm talking about Muslim extremists for you retards that can't figure it out) is fashioned and defines itself in opposition to an oppressive group (that's us shit-for-brains). We have been over there messing with their goddamn lives since before any of us were born. If we stop fucking with them, they stop fucking with us. Being rational and practicing restraint does not equate to being a "pussy." Go fuck your donkey hole or whatever the fuck your name is and think before you open your mouth.
oh yeah, and Texas...keep sucking your own dick.
Nobody's messing with them, it's in their imagination. They would be sucking on sand if American and British petroleum companies had not discovered oil for them.
Yes and rich Saudi boys have no complaint against the US except a massive inferiority complex.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home