Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 28 Sep 2002 03:28:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
638 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> When you said: "Of course, if you asked why bother with *anyone*, I'd be on
> your side!" I understood you to mean you'd bother with nobody - that is not my
> view.
So you *would* bother to attack somebody? I wouldn't, so yes, we are in
disagreement. So much for your holier than thou stance.
(and by "bother" it was pretty darn clear I was refering to attacking Iraq,
so let me anticipate your mindless denial that you said nothing about "attack")
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > > But 3000-5000 of them ended up dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1: You don't mention who actually killed them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you want the pilots' names?
> > > >
> > > > No, the name of side that actually killed them. Saying 3000-5000 died and
> > > > leaving it hanging by implication that the U.S. killed them is yet another
> > > > of your "facts" that doesn't tell the whole story.
> > >
> > >
> > > I expect the vast majority of the deaths were due to US actions. I only recall
> > > 1 or 2 being due to UK forces.
> >
> > Quote me the sources, quote me the civilian casualties directly caused by
> > U.S. arms, quote me the civilian casualties caused by Taliban/Al Queda arms,
> > quote me the civilian casualties caused by others. You spout off how you
> > stick to facts, and then you come up with these singularly lame and vague
> > numbers that you "expect" where caused by the U.S.
>
> Do you disagree with my view?
A "view" is an opinion, and not fact. I thought you only dealt in the latter.
>
> March 2002: Afghanistan's civilian deaths mount
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm
>
> August 2002: Counting the dead
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,770915,00.html
> ==+==
"quote me the civilian casualties caused by Taliban/Al Queda arms,
quote me the civilian casualties caused by others"
Bets that you gave me only half the facts, as I claim you do? Okay...having
said that, now I'll look....
Hahahahahah. Yup. Half the facts.
You seem to be under the impression that I was actually disputing the
numbers. I'm not. I'm disputing your one-sided, slanted, half-the-story
presentations. Just another example of the way you try and deceive people
with only part of the story.
> For political reasons, it has been necessary to hide the human carnage on
> Afghan soil as much as possible from the western public. Given that many of the
> bombing attacks - such as those on civilian infrastructure (cars, clinics,
> radio stations, bridges) and those during November and December on anything
> rolling on the roads of southern Afghanistan - violated the rules of war, there
> are war crimes that need to be investigated. An inadequate count will make it
> impossible for the families of those wrongfully killed to get the compensation
> to which they are entitled. It will also impede international justice.
I'm sure that they'll get their compensation right after Afghanistan
compensates all the people that suffered loss at the World Trade Center.
> > > > > > 3: Even if the U.S. is solely responsible for 3000-5000 deaths,
> > > > > > that is a fantastically low number all considered, which would indicate that
> > > > > > the U.S. really wasn't targeting civilians. The high civilian deaths are
> > > > > fodder for the "West's" critics.
> > > >
> > > > Whoa. Wait a minute. I didn't type that last sentence, you did. If the
> > > > high civilian deaths are fodder for the West's critics, why do you use the
> > > > same tactic? It's like admitting, "Oh, I want to use the same B.S. because
> > > > it is convenient for me."
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps it’s not BS? Perhaps the critics of the west are correct on that issue?
> >
> > Then you'll be able to back up your claims, won't you, instead of
> > insinuating that you may be correct?
>
> Marc Herold: "My most recent figures show that between 3,125 and 3,620 Afghan
> civilians were killed between October 7 and July 31."
>
> OK?
Why is it like pulling teeth to get anything out of you? Of those 3,000 odd
civilians, who killed them? Is Mr. Harold actually trying to claim every
single civilian death between said dates was at the hands of the U.S.?
> > I rather imagine the average Iranian and Kuwaiti will disagree, and with a
> > lot of evidence, on the part of Iraq. The average Afghani wasn't targeted
> > (hey, you are claiming you never said they were) so what's your beef on that
> > account?
>
> OK, let's nuke Iraq... lets bomb them into the Stone Age!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just another dodge. Toss out something stupid and hope
that I don't notice I tripped you up yet again. Scott, it's getting old.
>
> >
> > And to
> > > award Jo Iraq during desert storm we broke Article 54 of the Geneva Convention
> > > targeted his survival and killed 1000’s of his countrymen. Feel proud?
> >
> > Oh no. Who the hell is proud of war? War is hell. That doesn't mean you
> > are doing anyone any favors by being paralyzed by the fear of it.
> >
> > Feel proud of the Kuwait dead?
>
>
> I don't feel proud that UK etc gave SH the power to invade Iraq.
Is that a no, you aren't proud or just weasle words so that you can maintain
that you never said no you aren't proud of it?
> Do you?
I have no say in what the UK does, so the question does not apply. It's
your cross to bear, not mine. But it figures that you'd try and twist it
into a new attack.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
