http://gamingtrend.com
August 01, 2014, 01:45:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama 1, Osama 0.  (Read 3179 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9863


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 04, 2011, 03:54:49 AM »

Quote from: hepcat on May 04, 2011, 01:25:28 AM

icon_lol

Zeke's method of selecting a leader: 

"Can I eat it or have sex with it?  If so, I will follow it!"   icon_wink

aske, ande ye shall provideth the body or our savior,


Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 674



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 04, 2011, 04:24:57 AM »

I don't see how anyone could claim Osama was scoreless.

Ale
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 04, 2011, 02:23:57 PM »

Quote from: Alefroth on May 04, 2011, 04:24:57 AM

I don't see how anyone could claim Osama was scoreless.

Ale

Well, I'm thinking it had to do with Obama's term as Prez.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 04, 2011, 02:26:01 PM »

Quote from: Caine on May 04, 2011, 03:54:49 AM

Quote from: hepcat on May 04, 2011, 01:25:28 AM

icon_lol

Zeke's method of selecting a leader: 

"Can I eat it or have sex with it?  If so, I will follow it!"   icon_wink

aske, ande ye shall provideth the body or our savior,




wow, when I hit the last post' icon it olnly brough up the bottom 4 fifths of that pic and in my still waking up state that looked like something entirely else  icon_lol
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9147


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 04, 2011, 02:35:44 PM »

bringing this over from general to R&P where it belongs:

Quote from: Purge on May 04, 2011, 02:14:52 PM

This has headed right into R&P, so I'm not going to respond or elaborate.

Morlac, thanks for the link.

Hep, if you want to discuss aborigines, feel free to start an R&P and I'd gladly share my thoughts. I'd already tried to move any elaboration in the other non-r&p thread over to obama 1 osama 0 thread.

P.S. RE: natives - remember, we didn't commit genocide, we're just bigots. Roll Eyes

Cheeba, thanks for the insult. thumbsup

[edit] clarified my comment(s).

I'm not contributing to this thread any further.

Purge, I'm not sure how you can throw out assertions that our government is so blatantly corrupt and even evil and not expect a citizen of that country to call you out on it.  You can't make the claims you did and then not back them up with any "facts" other than those found in Oliver Stone movies and Hugo Chavez speeches.  

I made some claims against Canada in my reply to you using the same logic you employed and your reply to me wasn't one of acceptance, but rather a defensive one.  Shouldn't we be able to do the same when you attack our integrity?  But at the end of the day, I don't believe Canada is a bigoted nation based on a selective viewing of its historical treatment of its native population. 

it's one thing to question our country's policies.  It's another to simply label us as war criminals without looking at the underlying cause and effect behind our actions.  
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 02:48:17 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 04, 2011, 03:07:50 PM »

Quote from: Purge on May 03, 2011, 07:35:20 PM

I'm not going to bother putting effort into showing you what I mean if you're just going to disagree on the basis that looking at headcount isn't a measurement.

You know that managing people means managing numbers, right? Death count matters, and while I don't agree that the entire 9/11 fiasco was staged, it's not beyond plausible. Killing the figurehead without trial certainly isn't going to quiet those accusations (even though he is a known terrorist).

Ok, I'm seeing two different arguments from you here. The first one, which I will respond to, is that 9/11 wasn't that big of a deal because "only" 3,000 people died, and the media made it a bigger event than it really was. The other point is that there's a chance that 9/11 was staged, and killing Osama was a way for the US government to cover it up. I'm not going to respond to the latter, because I don't want to spend the time going through that argument again.

Anyway, my response to you is headcount does NOT matter in determining how tragic the event was. About a month ago I was driving on the turnpike and came upon the scene of an accident moments after it happened. Three children were thrown from their vehicle and died that day. I saw their bodies lying in the road. I know nothing about the families of those people and had no emotional ties to any of them, but that image kept me up at night for a few days and still bothers me whenever I think about it. I guess all along I should have just told myself that it's just three people. Or that we should tell the family members who have to bury their children that there were 32,708 people who died last year in motor vehicle accidents in just the United States. Why get upset over 0.009172% of the motor vehicle deaths this year?

Quote
Getting back to the point: in my opinion, the difference between the travesties in the last 100 years compared to modern events are all about the event becoming a key point in peoples personal lives.

Do you remember what you were doing at the ACTUAL time that George Carlin died? No? How about Princess Diana? One had every ounce of press both before, during, and after the tragedy. You *knew* about it, it was a social event, so you remember.

No, I don't. All I remember from Carlin's death is that HBO played all of his comedy specials right after he died.

Quote
3000 head count is TINY in comparison to either earthquake in Indonesia (2004) or Haiti (2010) which tally up to almost half a million dead combined.

Come on man. All of these events are tragic, but if you can't see why a deliberate attack on innocent civilians gets people more worked up than a natural disaster that kills even an order of magnitude more people, then I don't know if there's a point in us having this conversation.

Quote
Ok, not American, and not a socially charged subject. Healthcare then? 45000 died in 2009 according to some reports. Even if 10% were actually fully at fault, that is still more people across your nation than two buildings as retaliation from a US trained Muslim extremist group.

Both events occurred during the "media age" so you've got your apples there. Problem is, there is no figurehead, and there are so many people who are making tons of money that have a vested interest in that story falling apart.

If 45,000 Americans dropped dead on the same day because they didn't have insurance, I guarantee you there would be universal healthcare in this country the next day.
Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5356


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 04, 2011, 03:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Purge on May 03, 2011, 07:35:20 PM

You know that managing people means managing numbers, right? Death count matters, and while I don't agree that the entire 9/11 fiasco was staged, it's not beyond plausible. Killing the figurehead without trial certainly isn't going to quiet those accusations (even though he is a known terrorist).

The fact that you even bring up the possibility of 9/11 being staged is asinine.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1089


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 04, 2011, 04:36:41 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on May 04, 2011, 03:37:09 PM

Quote from: Purge on May 03, 2011, 07:35:20 PM

You know that managing people means managing numbers, right? Death count matters, and while I don't agree that the entire 9/11 fiasco was staged, it's not beyond plausible. Killing the figurehead without trial certainly isn't going to quiet those accusations (even though he is a known terrorist).

The fact that you even bring up the possibility of 9/11 being staged is asinine.

While I don't think that 9/11 was being staged (by Americans or US allies), it is still better to capture Osama alive so that there are more intel info that they can get out of him that can help bring down Al Qaeda.

Of course, we don't know for sure that Osama is really dead because there is no corpse and the story about how Osama died kept changing. First the story was US had the body. Then they didn't have it because they buried him at sea to respect Islam rule about burial within 24 hours. First the story was Osama was killed when he grabbed a rifle. Then the story changed to Osama was unarmed. First Osama used his wife as human shield and the wife died, later the story changed to the wife assaulted the US soldiers but survived.

That made it hard to believe anything that the US government told us. So maybe Osama is still alive and being held in secret, but that is also hard to believe since US government seem to be so bad at it. I would think that a government that can fake Osama's death and then held him in secret should be better at getting their story straight.
Logged
Scuzz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1700



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 04, 2011, 04:54:15 PM »

Quote
My point is this: 3000 lives are a drop in the bucket when it comes to controlling the masses. It was all the media push and the hype that made that event important. If you want to argue attack on civilian targets, look at your uninsured death count PER YEAR. By making that event important it gave people, both local and foreign, an unreasonable grip on the American population.


You really went there. A terrorist attack on a civilian location killing over 3,000 people and changing the lives of millions is somehow equivilant to the "uninsured" death count. And without the "media push" and "hype" the event wouldn't have been important.

You sir, with all due respect, are a moron.

There are arguments you can make about the subsequent military actions of the US...Iraq being the prime one. But saying the above makes any other statement you might make irrelevant.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3360



View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 04, 2011, 05:18:41 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on May 03, 2011, 06:13:28 PM

So in short, you want a highly emotional, grudge holding member of the A Team as your president?

Good luck with that.  I'll take the elder statesman/leader over the frat boy/warrior any day of the week.

Some of us prefer Klingon rulers and some of us prefer Vulcans.

Quote from: hepcat on May 03, 2011, 06:13:28 PM

Quote from: Zekester on May 03, 2011, 09:17:42 PM

I'll take Palin, complete with moose-killin' rifle slung over her shoulder  icon_smile

And I'll take the guy with book learnin'   Tongue

The logical choice.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2011, 06:50:29 PM »

While I don't necessarily agree with what Purge is saying, it's depressing to me to see a respected member of this community being attacked just because he holds a different opinion to most of the rest of you.  In fact I find it extremely distasteful.  Maybe I'm reading his posts differently to the rest of you, but what he's saying doesn't seem to be trivialising 9/11 at all; he's just saying that things like 45,000 Americans dying each year because of a lack of health insurance is the larger crime.

Msteelers - in the very post that you quoted, Purge clearly says that he doesn't agree that 9/11 was staged.  All he said was that it isn't beyond plausible.  What's wrong with saying that?

Again, perhaps it is I who have misread Purge's posts, in which case I'll be happy to be corrected.
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9147


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: May 04, 2011, 07:07:33 PM »

I'm not angry with Purge, I just thought his post was uncharacteristically anti-American in nature.  I took  slight offense to it, as I'm sure anyone would if their country was being unfairly portrayed in such a negative light...

...except for the French.  They deserve whatever they get.

But if Purge comes back here and promises to apologize for Celine Dion, I'm sure we'll let bygones be bygones and we can go back to picking on Zeke for having a homemade love doll and believing that labor unions want him snuffed out and have hired ninjas to do so.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 04, 2011, 07:26:02 PM »

Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 04, 2011, 06:50:29 PM

Msteelers - in the very post that you quoted, Purge clearly says that he doesn't agree that 9/11 was staged.  All he said was that it isn't beyond plausible.  What's wrong with saying that?

Again, perhaps it is I who have misread Purge's posts, in which case I'll be happy to be corrected.

Where did I attack Purge for saying those things? All I said was I'm not going to respond to that part of his posts, because I don't want to go down that road again. Those debates have been going on for years now, and I'm not going to waste my time going through the same arguments again. My problem with Purge's comments is that he thinks that 9/11 isn't that big of a deal because not enough people died and that we only care about it at all because of the media coverage of it.
Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 04, 2011, 07:55:11 PM »

Quote from: msteelers on May 04, 2011, 07:26:02 PM

Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 04, 2011, 06:50:29 PM

Msteelers - in the very post that you quoted, Purge clearly says that he doesn't agree that 9/11 was staged.  All he said was that it isn't beyond plausible.  What's wrong with saying that?

Again, perhaps it is I who have misread Purge's posts, in which case I'll be happy to be corrected.

Where did I attack Purge for saying those things? All I said was I'm not going to respond to that part of his posts, because I don't want to go down that road again. Those debates have been going on for years now, and I'm not going to waste my time going through the same arguments again. My problem with Purge's comments is that he thinks that 9/11 isn't that big of a deal because not enough people died and that we only care about it at all because of the media coverage of it.

I entirely agree.  I chose not to respond because I'd have lost my temper a bit.  Trying to say that the importance of 3,000 civilians being murdered in a single day is largely due to media coverage is just wrong.  It's one of the most horrific events in our lifetime for many reasons. 

Trying to compare that one day death toll to yearly death tolls is just logically wrong. 

Trying to compare murders to deaths due to natural disasters is just wrong.

In other words, his post was just...wrong.  Not in the Kevin Spacey Superman sense of the word, but in a sad, "if that's what you think then there really is no helping you" sense of the word.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5356


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 04, 2011, 08:07:37 PM »

Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 04, 2011, 06:50:29 PM

While I don't necessarily agree with what Purge is saying, it's depressing to me to see a respected member of this community being attacked just because he holds a different opinion to most of the rest of you.  In fact I find it extremely distasteful.  Maybe I'm reading his posts differently to the rest of you, but what he's saying doesn't seem to be trivialising 9/11 at all; he's just saying that things like 45,000 Americans dying each year because of a lack of health insurance is the larger crime.

Msteelers - in the very post that you quoted, Purge clearly says that he doesn't agree that 9/11 was staged.  All he said was that it isn't beyond plausible.  What's wrong with saying that?

Again, perhaps it is I who have misread Purge's posts, in which case I'll be happy to be corrected.

Like what happened to metallicorphan, question/trivialize the events of September 11, 2001 and get throttled as a result.  End of story.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2011, 08:15:28 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on May 04, 2011, 08:07:37 PM

Quote from: Huw the Poo on May 04, 2011, 06:50:29 PM

While I don't necessarily agree with what Purge is saying, it's depressing to me to see a respected member of this community being attacked just because he holds a different opinion to most of the rest of you.  In fact I find it extremely distasteful.  Maybe I'm reading his posts differently to the rest of you, but what he's saying doesn't seem to be trivialising 9/11 at all; he's just saying that things like 45,000 Americans dying each year because of a lack of health insurance is the larger crime.

Msteelers - in the very post that you quoted, Purge clearly says that he doesn't agree that 9/11 was staged.  All he said was that it isn't beyond plausible.  What's wrong with saying that?

Again, perhaps it is I who have misread Purge's posts, in which case I'll be happy to be corrected.

Like what happened to metallicorphan, question/trivialize the events of September 11, 2001 and get throttled as a result.  End of story.

Rightfully so.  Those who espouse tin-foil theories based on widely-debunked "evidence" shouldn't expect their ideas to be entertained as legitimate points of discussion.  It's like a Birther repeating something that's widely known to be a lie - it's not inaccurate to call them a liar. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 04, 2011, 08:37:11 PM »

This is not intended to draw up feelings of rage. First and foremost, remember that I am both rational, and while the tone of this message may be direct, only read it if you're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not some crackpot.

I've not been calling people names, I would hope you can use words like "I think you're wrong" or "perhaps you should read this because you're way off base" rather than tossing words like moron at me. I am more than capable of attacking others - I don't do so here because I generally respect everyone here (note: CeeKay is a bot, so he doesn't count. slywink)

Spoiler for By clicking this, you agree to consider my entire statement, and recognize it is only an opinion.:

Hep, I think the underlying difference is that you are taking it personally rather than understanding that its a criticism of the administration. Is your government not corrupt? Mine is as are all of them since they will act to rule even if they should not. Mine doesn't -generally- go fucking around with other peoples governments as a normal course of action. Also, mine isn't telling the world that they're doing it wrong. Feel free to look up Canadian foreign policy. Generally, we're in peace-keeping operations.

I feel that US exporting democracy isn't because democracy is better (which it is over most-if-not-all other current governing models), but it was being done because it lies in the best interests of the US. If human rights were observed and maintained to a global standard that western societies could agree to, it wouldn't matter how the other governments chose their leadership, IMHO. But human rights can't be forced, nor can the desire for a different body of government. Revolution comes from within, and doesn't always require bloodshed. Look at Egypt (which is currently hosing the 20 odd year peace between Egypt and Israel).

Human rights happens to be a nice bi-product of democracy, but by no means are elected officials required by the very structure to not commit violation of said rights, they just need to be able to hide the skeletons better.

Also, IMO, neither Canada nor the USA has it right in terms of democracy. Sure, it's better here than in a LOT of countries, but that doesn't make it perfect by any stretch or the best implementation. There are things I like about the US model (eg: our Justice system is tainted by a Law Society that pillages families for the sake of profit).

Big difference here is that I'm not pretending that our shit don't stink, and I object (obviously) to mindless celebration of the death of a villain simply because the US media engine sold your country on the idea that this is by far the biggest risk to your wellbeing, when in fact its flaccid healthcare system has killed more CIVILIANS (on average, based on the wiki article which I've cited before) in 4 weeks in 2009 then the WTC attack and rescue attempt, or the fallout of how many civilian deaths in Iraq all in the name of "liberation" and "looking for WMDs".

Which is worse? Does "oops, that was an accident" cover it? How about "hrm... nope, your life doesn't have coverage. Neither does your burial."?

As to tinfoil hats, perhaps this clears some things up:

Do I think the US government DID do it? No.
Do I think the idea is at least plausible? Yes.

Why? Because people are greedy. Also, I have no hard evidence to disprove it, and the same administration that stated the "facts" also put a hush on media (something that goes against the whole concept of freedom of speech), and blatantly lied to you, and me, and the rest of the world about Iraq. WTF. Trust is earned, in the same measure that mistrust is.

I shave with Occam's razor on a pretty regular basis; it is most likely that the recently deceased is the villain and not a puppet (which I've always believed) and had a hand in killing thousands of civilians of multiple nations in the attack on the WTC.

That said, I am EXTREMELY disappointed with people who say that they support the American way, export democracy abroad, and then FAIL to practice it. Does the system not work? What are they selling, snake oil? There is a reason sites like Gitmo exist, as it's generally believed to be set up in a way in which the US can function that does not fall within the legal actions allowed its own borders.

As to context: US forces went over to Afghanistan and covertly trained the locals and had them and fight and die for US causes. That IS relevant, because I feel it's main reason WTC ended up with planes smashing into it. You are aware that the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan due in part by US means, yes? I know, old dogs.

Regardless, Osama has a death count on his head, and would have fully supported a death penalty for the crime he committed. Sad thing is that the military framing (IMO) is based on the context given to by  the US administration. Why didn't they kill Saddam outright, and instead put him on trial? Perhaps the question of their actions were being validated, whereas Osama was a slam-dunk. Or, they had reason to want to just end it. Election, perhaps? Something else to hide? Conflict avoidance by committing an irrevocable action? All plausible reasons, and some less insidious. He was considered a terrorist and as such they got to shoot first, and have no questions to answer.

As to Al-Qaeda, I hadn't heard of any further successful Al-Qaeda attack on US soil, and 9/11 certainly wasn't the first attack. If moron, tin-foil-hat-wearing-nutjob or whatever other derogatory label you want to cast on me is your intent, then go for it. I don't know all the shit that goes on in your house, I'm just your neighbor and all I see is the outside perception (with some insight from some family and friends in and from the USA) and the trash you leave at the end of your driveway (aka the internet Tongue).

Feel free to continue to insult me. I'm not calling anyone willfully ignorant, sheep or whatever. Perhaps you don't recall all the "if you don't go buy groceries, the terrorists won!" "If you don't go out on black friday, the terrorists won!" "If you don't smurf your smurf until you can't smurf no more, the terrorists won!" propaganda, or talk-show hosts and comedians being told that they should not be criticizing the US president during that time as they needed the USA to be united. I recall watching, seeing and reading statements from people AS it happened, only to have those things somehow disappear.

And if you think that the media doesn't have some measure of framing or control, and that the governing body doesn't exert pressure on them to do so, (and you are willing to refuse even the possibility) then I suppose there really is no point in my further contribution to this topic at all.

Lastly, numbers are numbers. People are people. Numbers are used to manage, and people are more important than numbers. If (whosoever is calling me out on minimizing 3000 dead) doesn't understand the concept, then you must be a basketcase unable to function at all EVER over the Indonesian earthquake, which had 100x the death, and a lot of it was long and drawn out via starvation and thirst.

Moreover, I was shocked and appalled that our western culture was directly attacked, and terribly saddened at the loss of life. I respected the hardworking Emergency Response people who did their job and went into harms way (and in doing so, faced a most gruesome situation and in a lot of cases, gave their lives to it).

I was disgusted when theirs, among thousands of victims, tragic loss and sacrifice was held up as a way to shift the focus of the populace, and allowed their administration use the fear, grief and loss as a way to rally support to invade a country that had nothing to do with "the war on terror" on false pretenses.

If Obama was caught lying about a bunch of other things in his life, then the credibility of his statement is valid. When documents available have been provided, it would be arguing that water(by the very definition of it being in a liquid state) wasn't wet. There are some very ridiculous theories out there. Saying that I don't trust the administration = I believe they demolished the building themselves is irresponsible and wildly incorrect.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 08:43:03 PM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 04, 2011, 09:07:24 PM »

Msteelers - I do apologise; I somehow merged your post in my mind with that of someone else's in the same thread.

I won't bother commenting any more, chiefly because Purge is standing up for himself, but partially because at least one comment in this thread has made it clear that some people don't welcome debate on this subject at all.
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8748



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 04, 2011, 09:08:28 PM »

Quote from: Purge on May 04, 2011, 08:37:11 PM

I shave with Occam's razor on a pretty regular basis;
...
Why didn't they kill Saddam outright, and instead put him on trial? Perhaps the question of their actions were being validated, whereas Osama was a slam-dunk. Or, they had reason to want to just end it. Election, perhaps? Something else to hide? Conflict avoidance by committing an irrevocable action? All plausible reasons, and some less insidious. He was considered a terrorist and as such they got to shoot first, and have no questions to answer.

I think you missed some stubble there. 

Saddam surrendered despite being armed.  And he was turned over to the new government of Iraq for their dispensation.  Osama bin Laden resisted his capture and was shot for his trouble.  Unarmed or not, assaulting armed military forces is a good way to end up dead very quickly.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 04, 2011, 09:14:43 PM »

Goddamn Purge, you have a lot in there.  And a LOT of it is indisputable fact.  It's just that many of your conclusions are wrong.

I agree with your first 4 paragraphs and even the notion that the US doesn't think their shit stinks and it really does.

Many of us didn't buy into the fear of OBL.  Some of us were even against the Iraq War at the very start of it.  Unfortunately, we're the minority, but we do exist.  I won't apologize for the Iraq War, because I won't apologize for something I've been steadfastly against since Day 1.  Having worked in the US Government and having a good understanding of how intelligence is put together, it wasn't hard to see beyond the whole "OML and Saddam, WMD" bullshit excuse.  I'm more than happy to discuss the misuse of power and the events leading up and after 9/11.  

But comparing death tolls due to health care or natural disasters just doesn't make any logical sense.  Death by murder isn't the same as death by natural causes.  Applying your same logic, you're arguing that Pearl Harbor shouldn't have been a national event or a cause to go to war.  After all, malnutrition killed more people in 1941 than deaths at Pearl.  You talk about the Indonesian earthquake as if it's some kind of equivalency even though it wasn't caused by anyone.  As such, it's an absolutely absurd comparison.  Numbers aren't just numbers - that's far too simple of an abstraction.  If we drop a nuke on Stratford, ON because it's the birthplace of Justin Bieber, is that event unimportant because it kills fewer people than those who died of heart attacks in Canada?  

3,000 innocent civilians died within two hours because someone decided to use planes as bombs.  Thousands of families were directly impacted, billions (trillions, if you factor in the economic impact) of dollars of damage was done, etc.  This wasn't a media event.  This was a once-in-a-lifetime absolute shock and fully deserves the importance it's been given.  

Whether or not our leaders misused that shock to further pre-planned and unrelated aims is an entirely different subject.  On this, you'll find we probably agree on a lot of things.  I disagree with Gitmo, forced rendition, "enhanced interrogation" techniques, the TSA and a whole host of shit that were justified on the basis of 9/11.  The fucking American public let that crap happen and as such they (we) deserve the blame for those things.  But that doesn't lessen the importance of the event that took place on September 11, 2001.

I'm not going to address the plausibility of the government directly causing 9/11.  It's a dead-end subject.  I can't provide evidence that disproves something that didn't happen.

I know all about the Taliban and our involvement in Afghanistan.  I know why we were there and how badly we dropped the ball when we left.  We should have been there - it's not like the Soviets were doing the Afghan people any favors when occupying their country.  We fucked up when we just up and left when the Soviets did.  But our involvement and our subsequent disengagement in that no way justifies 9/11 and frankly I resent your implication that it does.  It's like you're telling a rape victim that she deserved it because she wore a low-cut blouse.  Quit it.

I have no qualms about killing OBL - he declared war on us and that's what happens to people who not only declare war, but have the means to back it up.  War has always been defined as a nation v. nation enterprise...but not in the 21st Century.  This is a fairly new type of war and there's no way I'll apologize for killing the man who is (not probably, IS) responsible for killing 3,000 innocent civilians.

As I said, it's your conclusions that are all wrong.  You're looking for cause and effect when it's irrelevant.  You're making false comparisons.  You have good reason to mistrust and be pissed off at the USA - God knows, I am.  But don't confuse the misuse of the 9/11 excuse to (often wrongfully) further American aims with the event itself.  If you do that, you not only lose your audience, you show a lot of disrespect to a lot of people who lived, and died, on 9/11.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 04, 2011, 09:42:16 PM »

Purge, rather than respond to you directly I'll just point to Blackadar's post since it is pretty much exactly what I was going to say only stated much better.
Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5356


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 04, 2011, 10:17:07 PM »

Leaving without comment, the definition of plausible:

Quote
Seeming reasonable or probable

Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 04, 2011, 10:30:50 PM »

You seriously believe it is even plausible that the United States government hired and trained 19 muslim Saudi nationals to kill themselves and murder thousands of others by simultaneously hijacking and flying airplanes into American targets, including the Pentagon, the headquarters of the American military?

Take your pick:

« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 10:36:38 PM by cheeba » Logged
Scuzz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1700



View Profile
« Reply #63 on: May 04, 2011, 10:37:54 PM »

Quote from: msteelers on May 04, 2011, 09:42:16 PM

Purge, rather than respond to you directly I'll just point to Blackadar's post since it is pretty much exactly what I was going to say only stated much better.


I agree... Blackader pretty much summed up my feeling.

I am sorry if I crossed the line with the "moron", however I do believe the basic premise of your argument is poorly thought out. The media did not make 9-11 what we all remember, anymore than the media created Pearl Harbor for my fathers generation.
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3890



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: May 04, 2011, 11:25:13 PM »

Quote from: Scuzz on May 04, 2011, 10:37:54 PM

Quote from: msteelers on May 04, 2011, 09:42:16 PM

Purge, rather than respond to you directly I'll just point to Blackadar's post since it is pretty much exactly what I was going to say only stated much better.


I agree... Blackader pretty much summed up my feeling.

I am sorry if I crossed the line with the "moron", however I do believe the basic premise of your argument is poorly thought out. The media did not make 9-11 what we all remember, anymore than the media created Pearl Harbor for my fathers generation.

I clicked on Purge's link, but didnt read it. Does that make me a bad person?
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Arnir
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 973


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: May 05, 2011, 12:03:04 AM »

I'm starting to think that there is something in the water in my native country.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/04/pol-mulcair-osama.html

The gist of the article is that the second in command of the NDP (New Democratic Party) that is now the loyal opposition is doubting if the US has any photos of Osama Bin Laden, etc.  He also thinks the legality of the killing needs a "full analysis."  edit:  The NDP is distancing itself rapidly from the comments.

I have to agree with some of the others who have put this better than I could, but comparing the murder of 3000 people in one morning to a year's worth of deaths by disease, etc., is pretty poor stuff.  Trying to suggest that there are other explanations that are "plausible" for 9/11 is silly besides wrong.  Most of the world knows what happened.  The attackers proclaimed what they did.  The recipients claim the same thing.  Outside scientists have explained the science of how it happened how it did.  Why is it so hard to believe it?  

This is not a lot different than the Iranian president denying that he "denies" the Holocaust.  He just wants scholars to get together to discuss what really happened.  What really happened?  Except in the minds of deniers, there is no substantive doubt about the facts.  My students can tell me that I can't prove that Pearl Harbour wasn't actually attacked by the US flying Japanese planes, but that doesn't mean I have to take their assertions seriously.  In fact, I have an obligation to point out how silly and stupid it is.

People can have whatever opinions they want, I respect their right to their opinions.  I don't have to respect the opinions themselves.  
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 12:43:36 AM by Arnir » Logged

If the road home crosses any landscape features that include words like "forgotten," "void," "razorthorn," "shadowmist," or "doom," then I vote that we take a nap first.
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 05, 2011, 01:15:00 AM »

Cheeba, clearly you didn't read my post. Was it the big words, or was it the fact that before you read anything you make sure that you're mantra is intact. "I am right, and no one is going to change that".

I asked people who didn't have me pegged as a crackpot to read it, so I guess I got what I asked for.

Pr0ner, My bad on the word plausible. It was meant as possible. Also, congrats on taking 1252 words, all of which loaded with the context that supports the idea that it MAY HAVE BEEN possible.

I am not minimizing the event. It was horrid, it was tragic and innocent lives were lost in an act of aggression and violence. Your airwaves were pumped for 3 years of almost continuous reminders of the act. To this day, homeland security and invasive investigations on airlines and shady lists based on numerous factors including alias names and racial profiling continues.

Throughout the eighties and early nineties, news was peppered with hijacking attempts, bomb threats etc from countless Muslim extremist groups declaring jihads (which translates to "struggle", if the internet is to be believed). This attack wasn't so much unexpected or unprovoked or out of nature, it was simply executed and they changed the target from being people on planes to instead using them as the payload for a larger target.

I'm going to address your comparison to a rape victim - that example only fits if THEY IN FACT RAPED THEIR ATTACKER FIRST, and didn't even own up to it. This is more like them giving the US no room but to draw the US armed forces out to fight on their own home turf (since they had no weapons to reach that distance).

Natural disasters are unprovoked, and there is no one to blame, so I agree they aren't the best example. Healthcare? That does fit. Here's a quote that connects those dots for you.

There *is* someone responsible for those deaths - your administration. Canada's healthcare could be a hell of a lot better (no question). We have problems that need to be fixed. But the fact that innocent civilians are dying in significant numbers that could have otherwise been saved if only they had the medical attention they needed is a sick reality. Once again, no one to shoot.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8748



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: May 05, 2011, 02:10:27 AM »

Where are these stories of people dying because they have no health coverage?  Is that a legal cause of death now?  Our emergency rooms are overflowing with people seeking medical care.

Here, I'll even run down a source for you:

Quote
A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.  What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

These people all made a choice based on financial decisions that overrode their caution in seeking medical care.  It's regrettable, but not proximate.  These people make decisions every day that factor in for a lot of us, even those that are insured.

I'll summarize the cases for you:

Spoiler for Patient 1:
Felt bad on Sunday, felt worse on Monday, died on Thursday after finally going to the hospital.  He was from Denver.  The state of Colorado has a Indigent Care Program to assist people with income and insurance issues.  But as he was a photographer for the World Poker Tour, I have to wonder at his income and making the choice to go without medical insurance.

And his symptom progression is something that could result in my death as well, as something like that would weigh on my mind, insurance or no.

Spoiler for Patient 2:
Undiagnosed heart disease.  Didn't qualify for Medicaid.  I found a tribute video of her, and she is not the picture of health, likely exacerbated by her back injury limiting her ability to exercise and maintain her weight.  Also, she lived in North Carolina.  Which has the Free Clinic Network

Spoiler for Patient 3:
Age 26, was advised to go to the doctor, didn't want to burden her parents.  The coroner could not determine a cause of her death.  Not sure how having health insurance would have saved this one.

Yeah, I'm coming across as insensitive, but to me, these three cases that are cited in the argument are people that are making decisions that are gambling with their lives.  Yes, money is an important factor to living, but it's secondary to your health.  And there are options on the table that these people are not exploring that could provide the assistance that they need.  It's not like the government decided that they don't get to have medical coverage and are doomed to die in the street.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5356


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: May 05, 2011, 02:43:32 AM »

Zekester:Birther::Purge:Truther

 icon_frown
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
msteelers
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1790



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 05, 2011, 02:58:46 AM »

Quote from: Purge on May 05, 2011, 01:15:00 AM

I am not minimizing the event.

Actually that's exactly what you have been doing, even if you don't think so. You can't say that 3,000 deaths is nothing compared to the 45,000 deaths from the uninsured and say that you are not minimizing the event.

Quote
I'm going to address your comparison to a rape victim - that example only fits if THEY IN FACT RAPED THEIR ATTACKER FIRST, and didn't even own up to it.

Wait... so we deserved to be attacked on 9/11?  icon_rolleyes

Quote
Natural disasters are unprovoked, and there is no one to blame, so I agree they aren't the best example. Healthcare? That does fit. Here's a quote that connects those dots for you.

There *is* someone responsible for those deaths - your administration. Canada's healthcare could be a hell of a lot better (no question). We have problems that need to be fixed. But the fact that innocent civilians are dying in significant numbers that could have otherwise been saved if only they had the medical attention they needed is a sick reality. Once again, no one to shoot.

You keep stretching that analogy to try and make it work, but it just keeps getting weaker and weaker. What point are you trying to make with this analogy again? If you're trying to say that we don't care about people who die because of a lack of insurance, I think you need to brush up on the 2008 and 2010 elections. And maybe a google search on Obamacare. We know our healthcare is broken.
Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2011, 03:36:43 AM »

Did those 3000 people deserve to die for the sins of their fathers? Hell no. Did you see me ever say that they weren't important? No. Have I used numbers and other examples of modern tragedy to show context to loss of life? Yes.

In the case of that horrible metaphor the US of A was the "rape victim", so while none of its civilian masses DESERVED it, it was a backlash and was most certainly not the first attempt at vengeance or a way to influence the States from pushing influence on other unwilling nations? Wait, you're the ones in the arms race and all of the nukes, right? So you, the one with the GUN, got raped? Give me a break.


Talk about civilian losses due to what some feel was an unprovoked attack, and yet some 6000+ Iraqi civilians died as an unprovoked attack in what was the most blatant and public raping of a nation by the US in which the UN was totally and completely ignored. That's 2:1 deathcount on civilian casualties, and the USA hit them with such force that they were in disarray. Oh wait, those weren't American civilians, so they don't count. Or perhaps it was a natural disaster? That was what, an administration you VOTED IN TWICE?

I have no interest in arguing anecdotal examples of healthcare with anyone. More American civilians died in 2009 due to no coverage, NOT inadequate service, while your administration bickers about how to do it. If you want to go change the Wiki article, be my guest. The example stands, IMO.

I don't hold Canadian lives as more valuable than foreign lives - I think they are both important. I fully support my nations goals in peace-keeping, and shake my head at the "America FUCK YEAH!" attitude. Go ahead, dance on graves. It'll just get you a twisted ankle, and you'll look like a retard.

As for this thread, I'm not checking it anymore. Clearly labeling and name calling is going to continue.  
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 03:38:44 AM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8748



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 05, 2011, 04:26:28 AM »

Quote from: Purge on May 05, 2011, 03:36:43 AM

Talk about civilian losses due to what some feel was an unprovoked attack, and yet some 6000+ Iraqi civilians died as an unprovoked attack in what was the most blatant and public raping of a nation by the US in which the UN was totally and completely ignored. That's 2:1 deathcount on civilian casualties, and the USA hit them with such force that they were in disarray.

A number disputed in your source not only by the U.S. military but such partisan sources as National Geographic.  I regret the loss of civilian life in any war, but it does happen.  And the regime that we deposed was a bigger threat to Iraqi civilians than we ever were.  Ask the Kurds.

And as for the medical care issue, you still haven't met to my mind any reasonable burden of proof that the lack of medical coverage is a proximate cause of death.  People are admitted to emergency rooms without checking to see if they have the ability to pay. 

Administrations bicker, it's what they do.  Canada holds votes of no confidence and throw each other out whenever they see fit.

Yeah, great, Canada has noble goals of peacekeeping.  That's because no one is attacking them directly.  Canada gains a lot by being next door to us.  If push had come to shove and the Russians had come over the pole, it would have been Americans coming to help well before your Queen of the Commonwealth could have mustered a response. 

And I'll note that you don't see fit to address me directly, as I haven't engaged in labeling you or calling you names.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1089


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 05, 2011, 04:30:59 AM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on May 05, 2011, 04:26:28 AM

I regret the loss of civilian life in any war, but it does happen.  And the regime that we deposed was a bigger threat to Iraqi civilians than we ever were.  Ask the Kurds.

Any number to back that up? How many civilians killed per year during Saddam rule, how many civilians killed per year during the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Who caused more deaths? Ask the Iraqis.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 04:41:25 AM by Victoria Raverna » Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8748



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2011, 04:41:40 AM »

There's the Al Anfal Campaign:

Quote
The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

Thousands of civilians were killed during the anti-insurgent campaigns stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed approximately 4,500 Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 1,100,000 to more than 2,150,000 deaths and as many as 860,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans. Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988.[6] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East.[7] According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 182,000 people were killed.[8]

As to others:

Quote
Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[38] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[39] to over 600,000,[40] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[42] to 200,000.[40] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.

Using the low estimate of 300,000 across his tenure of 24 years ('79 to '03) equates to 12,500 per year on average. 
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2011, 04:45:47 AM »

Quote from: Purge on May 05, 2011, 01:15:00 AM

Cheeba, clearly you didn't read my post. Was it the big words, or was it the fact that before you read anything you make sure that you're mantra is intact. "I am right, and no one is going to change that".

No, I read it. And your words were pretty small so I think I understood that you called America's involvement in 9/11 plausible. See? Watch:
Quote
Do I think the US government DID do it? No.
Do I think the idea is at least plausible? Yes.

There is NOTHING plausible about "the idea" to anyone who comes anywhere close to sanity and rationality. But now you go on to change your tune, imagine that:
Quote
Pr0ner, My bad on the word plausible. It was meant as possible.

That's kind of a BIG HUGE CHANGE don't you think? Plausible is very much different from possible if you were not aware. So you're bitching at me for calling you out on something you admit to screwing up? Was it the big word you screwed up or was it that your mantra is intact? "I am right, even though I'm using words that don't mean what I think they mean?"

Quote
There *is* someone responsible for those deaths - your administration.

Unbelievable. You are now forever branded as a kook. Well done. The responsibility for those deaths rests upon the people who murdered them. They had a choice.
Logged
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1089


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2011, 05:01:43 AM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on May 05, 2011, 04:41:40 AM

There's the Al Anfal Campaign:

Quote
The Anfal campaign began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, and was headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid (a cousin of then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit). The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

Thousands of civilians were killed during the anti-insurgent campaigns stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed approximately 4,500 Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 1,100,000 to more than 2,150,000 deaths and as many as 860,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans. Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988.[6] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East.[7] According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 182,000 people were killed.[8]

As to others:

Quote
Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[38] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[39] to over 600,000,[40] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[42] to 200,000.[40] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.

Using the low estimate of 300,000 across his tenure of 24 years ('79 to '03) equates to 12,500 per year on average.  

Okay and the casualties caused by the invasion and occupation?

Maybe use this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Quote
Source   Iraqi casualties   Time period
Iraq Family Health Survey   151,000 deaths   March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey   601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths   March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey   1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict   March 2003 to August 2007
Associated Press   110,600 deaths   March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project   98,170 107,152 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. 150,726 civilian and combatant deaths[1]   March 2003 to October 2010
WikiLeaks. Classified Iraq war logs[1][2][3][4]   104,924 recorded iraqi deaths, including 92,003[5] (or 66,081[6]) civilian deaths.   January 2004 to December 2009

Now the per year statistic:
Iraq Family Heatlh Survey 151,000 divides by 2.25 years = 67111 per year.
Lancet survey  601,027 divides by 2.25 years = 267123 per year.
Opinion Research Business 1,033,000 divides by 4.41 years = 234240 per year.
Associated Press 110,600 divides by 6.08 years = 18190 per year
Iraqi Body Count 98,170 divides by 7.58 years = 12951 per year
Wikileaks 66081 divides by 6 years = 11013 per year

Based on that the casualties rate is between 11023 per year with the low estimate to 267123 per year versus 12500 per year during Saddam era. So the US invasion on the best estimate save about 1500 per year or with worst estimate kill 250000 more per year.

Doesn't seem like Saddam was a bigger threat to Iraqi compare to US. At best, it was about equally bad for Iraqi. At worst, US invasion was much bigger threat to Iraqi.

Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2011, 05:07:41 AM »

So you use worst case numbers for the US, against best case numbers for saddam.   Nice job there, might want to compare the same things, worst case to worst case from the numbers.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8748



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2011, 05:13:22 AM »

The numbers you're using are in general terms.  The invasion as a whole may have been a threat, but you can't lay every last civilian death on the U.S. forces.  I'm sure the insurgents had their own tally of bodies in those numbers, as U.S. forces aren't prone to detonating truck bombs in the middle of marketplaces.  

Yes, living in a war zone is a dangerous thing.  But which has the better long term outlook?  Assume an equal per-year risk of death.  Would you rather live in a war zone with the prospect of a safer government and society after a few years or continue to live in a society where the people that purport to govern you after their landslide re-election that rapes, pillages, and murders its own citizens with the added prospect that when the dictator dies, one of his kids is going to take over and keep going?
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5356


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2011, 05:54:30 AM »

Quote from: Purge on May 05, 2011, 03:36:43 AM

As for this thread, I'm not checking it anymore. Clearly labeling and name calling is going to continue.  

So you can sit back, say 9/11 was "plausible" (and no, I don't buy your backtracking to "possible" for one minute), and then take your ball and go home when people call you out on it?  Typical.  My analogy is even more appropriate now, unlike your multitude of misguided ones that do not support your misguided, offensive, and wrong belief that 9/11 was an inside job.  1252 words of fury, signifying absurdity.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1089


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: May 05, 2011, 08:43:56 AM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on May 05, 2011, 05:13:22 AM

The numbers you're using are in general terms.  The invasion as a whole may have been a threat, but you can't lay every last civilian death on the U.S. forces.  I'm sure the insurgents had their own tally of bodies in those numbers, as U.S. forces aren't prone to detonating truck bombs in the middle of marketplaces.  

Yes, living in a war zone is a dangerous thing.  But which has the better long term outlook?  Assume an equal per-year risk of death.  Would you rather live in a war zone with the prospect of a safer government and society after a few years or continue to live in a society where the people that purport to govern you after their landslide re-election that rapes, pillages, and murders its own citizens with the added prospect that when the dictator dies, one of his kids is going to take over and keep going?

While I can't lay every last civilian death on the US force, those death are indirectly caused by the invasion. If US didn't invade, there is no reason for the freedom fighter or terrorist to detonate truck bombs in the middle of a marketplace. So who did the killing doesn't matter, those civilian death were still caused by US attacking Iraq. There would not be any anti-US insurgents killing Iraqi if US didn't invade Iraq.

People who choose to living in a war zone with the prospect of a safer government after a few years are fool since there is a good chance you won't survive long enough to reach that future.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 08:51:39 AM by Victoria Raverna » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.311 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.186s, 2q)