 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
2 users currently in General Chat:  Dark Vampriel |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Propaganda spam? (Really Effed up, read) |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75  Posts: 1127/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| "This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation." You said it yourself. It does count them. No, unfair would be something like the Iraquis got 3 free shots per soldier per second. |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 248/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| No, it's not unfair for one side to have an advantage somehow. Should we not use tanks, since they don't have tanks? Give me a break. If they get free shots somehow... fine. The database is divided into two parts: The "major-combat" phase, which is where the 7,350 figure comes from. Perhaps the grammar is somewhat ambiguous, but I interpreted it as saying that the law/order and health care deaths are in the second part only. The "this" in "this includes civilian deaths.." refers to the "occupation" phase, not both phases. And even so, if you cut the figure down.. what are you aiming for? 6,000 deaths because of U.S. soldiers? 5,000? Do you really think it'll be cut down significantly more than that? |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1128/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| What the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to prove a point with your first statement, because it goes against everything you've been saying. And then, the direct result of US troops would not be the figure you stake it as. |
|||
Setzer Popo Level: 36  Posts: 66/532 EXP: 290182 For next: 17928 Since: 04-22-04 From: Not Florida. because I'm going to sink it. Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 48 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh um... It's WAR, people die, they're supposed to die, we're over there shooting people. I'm not supporting bush, I'm simply saying that that is waht we are going to do when we come over there with a bunch of weapons. We should not feel sorry for people who are attacking us, and they should not feel sorry for us, if I catch you in a war, you'd better know damn well you're not going to be dining first class, you're not going to be dining at all unless I'm having a very nice day, I'd sooner throw you out to be dined upon by the dogs. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 249/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Are you trying to prove a point with your first statement, because it goes against everything you've been saying. No? I never said that battles had to be fair. I said that you have to not fucking abuse your enemy and treat him like shit after you win the battle. War is war. It's not about personal grudges, it's about fighting as an instrument of your state. You're not supposed to personally hate every enemy on the other side and want to see him tortured and killed. I mean, I'm sure having that view may help win battles, but it's not the ideal. It's not the kind of war we try to fight. And then, the direct result of US troops would not be the figure you stake it as. So you just dismiss the figure entirely, because it's pretty much fucking impossible to differentiate between who shot who when you have 7,000 corpses? You think thousands of Iraqis started randomly shooting civilians, while our bullets magically missed them? We should not feel sorry for people who are attacking us, and they should not feel sorry for us, if I catch you in a war, you'd better know damn well you're not going to be dining first class, you're not going to be dining at all unless I'm having a very nice day, I'd sooner throw you out to be dined upon by the dogs. You don't have to feel sorry for them, you just have to treat them like humans, not like you have some personal grudge or hatred towards them. |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1129/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| I'm not going to bother arguing the first point with you, not because you're right, but because you just won't accept anything other than what you say. And, you're the one who said that 7000 were dead, not me. I pointed out the flaws in your source. I know that we've hit civilians, but oh my, I forgot we were at war for a second, and stuff like that happens, wether we like it or not. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 250/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| You're not very good at arguing. You keep acting like I'm contradicting myself, but... I'm quite sure I haven't yet. I'll right up a short recap, because I really have studying to do. 1. There's no reason that military conflicts should have to be equal on the battlefield. There are no "underhanded tactics", unless they involve killing civilians, unnecessarily destroying civilians targets, or a few other things (possibly betrayals, or types of espionage.) 2. Once enemy soldiers no longer pose a threat to you, you capture them and treat them humanely. If you think they have important information, soft torture (sleep deprivation, etc.) is permissable. You're not supposed to be fighting them for personal reasons, you're not supposed to think they're brutal and depraved, so you should no more randomly beat them than you would beat a random person you see on the street. You shouldn't even have the urge to. 3. The line between battlefield and off-battlefield uses of violence is simple: In one case, you're defending yourself or your cause. In the other, you're just being sadistic and inhuman. There has to be a line drawn somewhere between acceptable and unacceptable uses of force. In anyone else has a better one, feel free to propose it. (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 07:29 PM) |
|||
|
Toxic in a sublime state of mind Level: 75 Posts: 1130/2857 EXP: 3732709 For next: 94195 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 8 hours |
| ||
| No, I'm not good, but I have effort. Again, I never said that military conflicts should have to be equal. I don't see how killing civillains would be "underhand," but then again it's convient that tourists getting held hostage, and killed doesn't count. You're not supposed to. That doesn't mean you won't? Stress + anger after seeing your bud's face blown off + having a friend or family killed somewhere would probably cloud your judgement somwhere. For your third point, just call it war. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 587/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| That latest American kidnapped...What was his name...Hamil or something. I find his story a joke. He wants the Iraqis that captured him to be brought to justice. Oddly enough they fed, sheltered, and treated him humanely. What a pickle... |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 251/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| You're not supposed to. That doesn't mean you won't? Stress + anger after seeing your bud's face blown off + having a friend or family killed somewhere would probably cloud your judgement somwhere. Yes, but revenge is not an excuse for your actions in our society, and I'm ashamed that people would imply that it is. If someone screws over someone you care about, you're not entitled to go break that person's leg, and if you did so, guess what? You'd end up in jail. If someone shoots your comrade in the routine events of war, waiting for your chance to videotape him masturbating is not a humane or excusable thing to do. You aren't supposed to derive pleasure from the suffering of others. Of course, I realize that that moral is not a very popular one, even in American society. To some extent, revenge is seen as a legitimate motivation for action. But no one would say that blind revenge is justified - Abu Gharib is more comparable to the actions of a lynch mob than any "acceptable" response. If a black person kills a white person, you don't go out and kill a random black person. If a brown person shoots a white person, you don't go out and sodomize a random brown person... even if he might have shot at a white person in the past as part of his duty. And it's clear that this wasn't just revenge. The torturers were having fun. They were enjoying it. You've seen the pictures. People who are acting out of simple revenge don't smile and gesture like England and whoever does. For your third point, just call it war. And the state of war ends against an enemy once he is no longer a threat, and then further violence becomes illegitimate. (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 07:57 PM) |
|||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get.  Level: 73  Posts: 218/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Heh, the Iraqi prisoners don't deserve to be tortured, I don't care if it's because they're soldiers or what. And I don't like the insinuation in the email that they're terrorists... they're just soldiers defending their country. What the US and UK soldiers did to the Iraqi prisoners classifies as torture. And under the Geneva Convention, they can't do that, even to get information out of them (but it seems clear that they're not doing this to get information). The Soldiers' judgement may have been wrong, I don't deny that, but I don't think that people should just say 'but it's okay, because Iraqis are terrorists and they want us dead". I know people who have families in Iraq and they DON'T hate the US or it's people, they just want to govern their own country by themselves, and they are getting frustrated with the US occupation of their land. |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 997/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahh Originally posted by hhallahh Originally posted by hhallahh Let's read some major causes of civilian death... 02 Apr 2004 - market, Ramadi - car bomb - 6 24 Apr 2004 - Haswa, near Iskandariya - target: bus carrying 21 - roadside bomb - 13-14 07 Mar 2004 8:00 AM - Al-Sukar, target: Mosul police station - rocket-propelled grenades - 2 17 Jan 2004 - Near Taji - target: US patrols - roadside bomb - 2 31 Jan 2004 - target: Mosul police station - car bomb - 8-9 14 Feb 2004 8:30 AM - target: Fallujah police HQ - automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades - 23 10 Feb 2004 9:15 AM - target: Iskandariyah police station - truck bomb - 55 ALMOST EVERY FUCKING DEATH on that page, gunfire, bombs, or whatever, is the DIRECT CAUSE or the INDIRECT RESULT of an IRAQI SOLDIER and/or TERRORIST. See, the US doesn't use car-bombs, doesn't fire at its own patrols or police stations, etc. If you're talking abotu stuff US troops themselves have caused, like: 03 Jan 2004 - Hantush - 'firefight between US forces and insurgents' - bystander hit - gunfire - 1 Deaths are minimal, and occurances are few and far between. That's a contradiction, you can't say the US has killed 7,000 civilians when less than 500 have been directly or indirectly killed by US troops in any way. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 252/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| I conceded that point a while ago. The rationale for blaming America for those attacks is that we're required to prevent them under the Geneva Conventions as an occupied force. So I deferred back to the 7350-before-may-'03 statistic, where I'm sure a much larger percentage of civilian casualties were a direct result of American attacks. Where do you pull the 500 deaths figure from? I'm not wed to the 7000 statistic.. I just said it because it was a nice, round number... 10x the amount of U.S. deaths. If I can't prove that it's exactly 7000, I don't really see it as my entire argument falling apart. (edited by hhallahh on 05-10-04 08:56 PM) |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 1002/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by hhallahhWell, if you can't prove that it's a signifigant number, IE anything around 2x the amount of US troop deaths or higher, then it's not an argument to begin with. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 253/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| Then couldn't we say it's a safe assumption that of the 7000 killed in the first 6 weeks of invasion, we killed most of them? Since the other explanation is that the Iraqis shot up their own people for some reason? | |||
Uncle Elmo Hammer Brother Partly Sweet, Helpful, good at advice and a half decent writer. Also modest. Level: 49 Posts: 379/1062 EXP: 845899 For next: 37984 Since: 03-15-04 From: Prestatyn, Uk Since last post: 23 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| hhallahh - I've got a very sick notion, perhaps when the COaliyion forces made gains, as the Iraqi forces were pushed back they slaughttered the Shiites, fearing that if Saddam lost power then the other religions may come to order, sort of a scrotched earth meets ethnic cleansing sort of deal? | |||
|
NightHawk Bob-Omb Level: 39  Posts: 66/621 EXP: 374743 For next: 30028 Since: 03-26-04 From: Switzerland Since last post: 432 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| hhallahh, you might want to check that source a bit better... last time I checked, they were counting EVERY Iraqi death, not just civilians, but also Iraqi soldiers from Saddam's regime, and the insurgents. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 254/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| No.. the statistic I posted was civilians only. I found a website somewhere else that said that the number of armed Iraqi soldiers killed is somewhere between 5000-6000... but I'm having trouble finding that link again at that moment. | |||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 232/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Ok, reading what is said in this thread here really pisses me off. My grandfather fought in the Norwegian Navy during the Second World War. He was captured by the Germans, and held as a P.O.W. He was released in 1945, when Germany surrendered, 3 years later, my father was born (which means I'd not been here today, had he died in Germany). I just thank God that the Nazis had the descency to treat him right according to the rules of how you treat P.O.W.s, and I am really glad none of you who want to beat up P.O.W.s will ever get close to having a say in how to treat them. | |||
|
Tarale I'm not under the alfluence of incohol like some thinkle peop I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get. Level: 73 Posts: 219/2720 EXP: 3458036 For next: 27832 Since: 03-18-04 From: Adelaide, Australia Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| *applauds SomerZ* Heh, I agree. I also think that it's stupid of Americans to act this way considering that their government proclaimed so loudly that going to Iraq was a goodwill mission of sorts.... kinda drags that whole concept through the mud a bit, doesn't it? I'm sure a lot of the American soldiers were just following orders, which means that if they had objections to the treatment of Iraqi's, they may not have been able to voice them, but their superiors should've known full well that torture, be it physical or mental, was disallowed according to the Geneva Convention, and they should've found other ways to question things. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Chat - Propaganda spam? (Really Effed up, read) |
| | |
