Old 29th October 2004, 14:41   #81
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Gaekwad2, keep quoting that radical shit. It does wonders for your credibility.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 14:44   #82
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
No, it would be worse because the entire population of the USA would go up in arms and nuke the shit out of anyone who so much as says "well, he was a bit of a cunt."
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 14:49   #83
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
It's a bit over the top (only a bit though).
Hmmm...
Quote:
I agree with the writer's frustration about the rest of the world being held hostage by a nation of religious morons.
His and your frustration is aimed at the wrong people!
It should be aimed at the Islamic extremists who have the
world being held hostage by their Jihad and their terrorism.
Quote:
Of course killing Bush wouldn't achieve anything.
Agreed.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 14:56   #84
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
the average Iraq has fallen into line. only like 3-5% are still fighting US forces, and they have been mostly focused in Fallujah.
3-5% active combatants is more than enough to indicate widespread discontent, isn't it?

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 14:57   #85
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Gaekwad2, keep quoting that radical shit. It does wonders for your credibility.
You mean radical like the BBC?

Reading the article to see that it's based on a scientific study might help yours.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 14:57   #86
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
The guy who wrote that, calling for the assassination of Bush, seems to have been fired. He's been removed from the Columnists list on the Guardian's website. Personally, I think it would be more useful to get rid of Cheney than Bush, though I agree, killing him is not exactly civilised.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:06   #87
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
The Guardian left out a very important point in their article:

"The scientists who wrote the report concede
that the data they based their projections on
were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information
depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study."
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:07   #88
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
So what does that mean?

Maybe your proud troups slaughtered only 50,000 innocent people?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:11   #89
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:38   #90
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by papadoc
His and your frustration is aimed at the wrong people!
It should be aimed at the Islamic extremists who have the
world being held hostage by their Jihad and their terrorism.
Well it's a common concensus of most Europeans that the present US administration are very much fueling the fire of the islamic fundamentalists,

And most Europeans certainly fail to see the connection between the war on Al Qaeda and the assault on Iraq (which seems to be valid to alot of americans since Bush can have the ratings he has). And if Gallup is right on this (a matter of believing polls or not) - imagine how muslims feel....

and just for the record, i don't believe in assasinating Bush, even though he deserves it more than most people.... i'm against the deathpenalty - so wanting one for Bush would be hipocracy...
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:42   #91
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
Go ertmann.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:44   #92
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
So what does that mean?

Maybe your proud troups slaughtered only 50,000 innocent people?
I think I can say this with absolute certainty.
Not one of our troops is ever proud of killing anyone.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:48   #93
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
No? Several are definitely trigger happy and enjoyed abusing Iraqi prisoners.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 15:59   #94
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
You mean radical like the BBC?

Reading the article to see that it's based on a scientific study might help yours.
That study and those conclusions were bullshit. From Your reference, here's why...
Quote:
The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.
...
"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families.

"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.
They only studied 33 neighborhoods in Iraq that someone said were representative of the whole country. Bullshit. The study only found 61 deaths attributed to US fire. They extrapolated that number to be 100,000. That is statistical lunacy.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 16:04   #95
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
No? Several are definitely trigger happy and enjoyed abusing Iraqi prisoners.
Show me the accounts of trigger happy troops killing innocent people,
and then saying they were proud of it?
Then show me the statements of those who are being punished for abusing prisoners,
saying they were proud of their actions.
Please, I'd like to see these facts, if you don't mind.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 16:07   #96
Blayze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 159
Well, well...

guess they found it

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html
Blayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 16:31   #97
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
I never mentioned anything about pride. But do abuse the prisoners, smiling and posing... they seemed to be enjoying it. Whether they're proud or not, they're still scum.

As for many American soldiers being trigger-happy, I remember seeing it on the news (BBC World). American soldiers were being interviewed in Iraq (Basra I think) and the more reasonable of them told of how they were disgusted by how some of their platoon mates (or whatever the units are called) were shooting people for the pettiest of reasons. One of the soldiers who was asked to comment said that the lives of American soldiers there were much more important than those of Iraqi civilians. I despaired.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 16:52   #98
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
No? Several are definitely trigger happy and enjoyed abusing Iraqi prisoners.
Terrorists are purposely and publicly exicuting people. Why let them win?

Pulling out now would only show that terrorism is an effective means of negotiation, and spread this evil.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 18:55   #99
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Blayze
Well, well...

guess they found it

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137017,00.html
Quote:
A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003.
Wow! Such an outpouring of silence from the Kerry camp!

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 18:58   #100
Blayze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 159
the sad thing is...I found that front page on Fox news
and it was buried on CNN.

You know, that is just not right.
Blayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 19:01   #101
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Well it's a common concensus of most Europeans that the present US administration are very much fueling the fire of the islamic fundamentalists,

And most Europeans certainly fail to see the connection between the war on Al Qaeda and the assault on Iraq (which seems to be valid to alot of americans since Bush can have the ratings he has). And if Gallup is right on this (a matter of believing polls or not) - imagine how muslims feel....

and just for the record, i don't believe in assasinating Bush, even though he deserves it more than most people.... i'm against the deathpenalty - so wanting one for Bush would be hipocracy...
Was the present administration fueling the fire of islamic fundamentalists before sept 11th? is their fire fueled because we are fighting back instead of capitulating?

There is no war on al Qaeda, there is a war on terrorism, of which, al Qaeda (perpatrators), the Taliban (supporters) and Saddam (supporter) are all a part of. Additionally, Iran and others are probably a part of this war as well.

How do muslims feel? I do wonder about this. I also wonder why I have heard of so few muslims taking a stand against terrorist organizations and terrorism in general. Though I have heard of some, and this gives me hope.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2004, 22:17   #102
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Was the present administration fueling the fire of islamic fundamentalists before sept 11th? is their fire fueled because we are fighting back instead of capitulating?
Some of the major issues causing great anger among the muslims i talk to are, The Palistine/Isreal conflict, Turkish opression of the Kurdish minority,

1) Americans have vetoed if not every, then nearly every, resoltuion condemning Isreali violation of Human rights. Offcourse Israel have a right to protect it's citizens against the militant branch of Hamas, or the likes, But shouldn't Israel live up to just the most fundamental of universal human rights? well the United States doesn't think so.... and then it's trying to impose those very values on Iraq - doesn't make sense to me, and probably not to many muslims either....

2) Turkey are currently applying for membership of the European Union, and has indeed just been accepted as an applicant for membership. However The European Union has constantly demanded that torture must be abolished in turkish prisons, and that Turkey must grant rights to the Kurdish minority (f.x free speach for one). Meanwhile Mr Bush has openly been presuring the EU to speed up the process, putting these issues aside, because of his personal middle eastern strategy. Now what message does that send the Kurds?

want more examples?

Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
There is no war on al Qaeda, there is a war on terrorism, of which, al Qaeda (perpatrators), the Taliban (supporters) and Saddam (supporter) are all a part of. Additionally, Iran and others are probably a part of this war as well.
Al Qaeda - yes, Taliban - well yes sort off, Saddam? that's american brainwashing right there! First off, Saddam is highly secular - he only used Islam for politcal purposes, so he would definantly not be a part of any Jihad. As for terrorism in general - i have yet to see any terrorist act, or financial support thereof, connected to Saddam. If you could point me to one, please do....

Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
How do muslims feel? I do wonder about this. I also wonder why I have heard of so few muslims taking a stand against terrorist organizations and terrorism in general. Though I have heard of some, and this gives me hope.
Maybe because the course, not neccesarily the killings, have broad support among the general population.... and besides you should check which countries condemned the killings of 9/11.... you'd find plenty of muslims nations amongst those....

/edit: fixed bold tags...

Last edited by ertmann|CPH; 30th October 2004 at 01:17.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2004, 05:07   #103
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Some of the major issues causing great anger among the muslims i talk to are, The Palistine/Isreal conflict, Turkish opression of the Kurdish minority,

1) Americans have vetoed if not every, then nearly every, resoltuion condemning Isreali violation of Human rights. Offcourse Israel have a right to protect it's citizens against the militant branch of Hamas, or the likes, But shouldn't Israel live up to just the most fundamental of universal human rights? well the United States doesn't think so.... and then it's trying to impose those very values on Iraq - doesn't make sense to me, and probably not to many muslims either....

2) Turkey are currently applying for membership of the European Union, and has indeed just been accepted as an applicant for membership. However The European Union has constantly demanded that torture must be abolished in turkish prisons, and that Turkey must grant rights to the Kurdish minority (f.x free speach for one). Meanwhile Mr Bush has openly been presuring the EU to speed up the process, putting these issues aside, because of his personal middle eastern strategy. Now what message does that send the Kurds?

want more examples?
I agree that neither of these things is right. As far as the Israeli/palestinian conflict, I say let Isarel build its wall and they can both live on opposite sides of it.



Quote:
Al Qaeda - yes, Taliban - well yes sort off, Saddam? that's american brainwashing right there! First off, Saddam is highly secular - he only used Islam for politcal purposes, so he would definantly not be a part of any Jihad. As for terrorism in general - i have yet to see any terrorist act, or financial support thereof, connected to Saddam. If you could point me to one, please do....
Abu Nidal Considered one of the worst terrorists before bin Laden got on the scene
Quote:
In the 1970s and 1980s Abu Nidal and his organization planned and carried out attacks in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia while enjoying safe haven and support from several governments including Iraq, Libya and Syria. Operations attributed to the Abu Nidal Organization covered over twenty countries and 100 attacks
From the Guardian
Quote:
In life most suicide bombers are nobodies, but in death they rise and become shaheed, and their families rise with them. Each martyr's family receives an official certificate of martyrdom from the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and a prize of $10,000.
Quote:
Maybe because the course, not neccesarily the killings, have broad support among the general population.... and besides you should check which countries condemned the killings of 9/11.... you'd find plenty of muslims nations amongst those....
Of course muslim countries are going to condemn the attacks if they don't want to get attacked themselves. Saddam praised the attacks of september 11th, I don't think anyone else did, maybe the taliban.
Just because the leader of a country says something doesn't mean it reflects the opinions of the population of that country. Just look at the US.
To be fair there is the free muslim coalition against terrorism
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2004, 08:09   #104
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Wikipedia Saddam Biography

Secular Leader

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the model of Nasser. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia-law courts except for personal injury claims.
Quote:
Intelligence MI5 and MI6 dismiss Iraq terror 'evidence' [...]
British sources interpret the murder in Baghdad of the former Palestinian terrorist leader, Abu Nidal, in August as evidence of President Saddam's concern about accusations he is harbouring terrorists, especially one whose loyalty he could not rely on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...808843,00.html
Quote:
Excepts from Amnesty Internation world survey 2004

Killings and attacks by the Israeli army

Around 600 Palestinians, most of them unarmed and including more than 100 children, were killed by the Israeli army in random and reckless shooting, shelling and bombings or as a result of excessive use of force. Some 90 Palestinians were killed in extrajudicial executions, including more than 50 uninvolved bystanders, of whom nine were children. Others were killed in armed clashes with Israeli soldiers.

On 25 June, 19-year-old Nivin Abu Rujaila was killed when an Israeli army helicopter gunship fired a missile that struck the taxi she was travelling in. The taxi driver, Akram ‘Ali Farhan, was also killed. The target of the strike was travelling in another car.
On 12 June Islam Taha, who was pregnant, and her 18-month-old daughter were killed in Gaza city by rockets launched from an Israeli army helicopter gunship at their car to assassinate her husband, Yasser Taha, who was in the car and who was also killed. Four bystanders were killed and some 20 bystanders, including several children, were wounded. In three similar attacks by the Israeli army in the previous two days, 11 passers-by were killed and scores were injured, including more than 10 children.

Several international activists with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), journalists and medical workers were killed and injured by Israeli soldiers.

In March ISM activist Rachel Corrie, a US national, was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. In April ISM activists Tom Hurndall, a United Kingdom (UK) national, and Brian Avery, a US national, were both shot in the head by Israeli soldiers in Rafah and Jenin respectively. Both were gravely injured. In May UK journalist James Miller was shot in the neck and killed by Israeli soldiers in Rafah.

Israeli soldiers continued to use Palestinians as “human shields” during military operations, forcing them to carry out tasks that endangered their lives.

The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes and scores of commercial and public facilities, and destroyed or damaged water, electricity and communication infrastructure throughout the Occupied Territories. Often, the destruction was carried out by the Israeli army as a form of collective punishment on the local population in the wake of attacks carried out by Palestinian groups known or suspected of having operated from or near the targeted areas.

Frequently, neighbouring houses were also destroyed or damaged by the large explosive charges usually employed by the soldiers to blow up the houses, and in some cases the inhabitants were killed or injured. The army usually did not allow the inhabitants time to salvage their possessions before destroying their homes.

On 3 March, Noha Makadmeh, a mother of 10 children who was nine months pregnant, was killed in her bed when her home collapsed as Israeli soldiers blew up a neighbouring house in the middle of the night in Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Her husband and most of her children were injured, some of them seriously. Six other nearby houses were destroyed by the blast, leaving some 90 people homeless.

On 28 August, 29-year-old Rula Ashtiya from Salem village was denied passage by the Israeli soldiers at Beit Furik checkpoint separating the village from the city of Nablus. She gave birth on the dirt road by the checkpoint. Her baby girl died shortly after and only then did soldiers allow Rula Ashtiya through the checkpoint on foot to go to the hospital in Nablus
Please do read that in it's whole before responding... Wouldn't you be angry?
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2004, 10:12   #105
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
That study and those conclusions were bullshit. From Your reference, here's why...

They only studied 33 neighborhoods in Iraq that someone said were representative of the whole country. Bullshit. The study only found 61 deaths attributed to US fire. They extrapolated that number to be 100,000. That is statistical lunacy.
Do you know anything about statistics?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2004, 14:02   #106
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
gaekwad,

just rough calculations should call the figure into doubt. 100,000 deaths over roughly a year and a half equates to 183 deaths per day. Seen anything like that on the news? With that many people dying from air strikes every day we would expect to have at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands of people died. Heard of anything like that? In fact, heard of any air strikes at all where more than a couple of dozen people died total?

ertmann,

neither side of the israeli-palestine conflict has clean hands. Where is amnesty International's report on Palestinian human rights abuses? Palestinian terrorists are constantly targeting Israeli civilians, when there are many obvious legitimate military targets. Things are not so easy for the israeli army, the terrorists hide among the populace of palestine and by doing so put those they claim to be fighting for in even more danger.

Just because Saddam had Nidal killed doesn't mean he hadn't been harboring him in the past, it was just a way of getting rid of the evidence.

Saddam was secular, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't and didn't provide aid to those who carried out attacks on common enemies (israel, US).
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2004, 16:44   #107
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
neither side of the israeli-palestine conflict has clean hands. Where is amnesty International's report on Palestinian human rights abuses? Palestinian terrorists are constantly targeting Israeli civilians, when there are many obvious legitimate military targets. Things are not so easy for the israeli army, the terrorists hide among the populace of palestine and by doing so put those they claim to be fighting for in even more danger.
They're in the report aswel

you seem to miss my point, or maybe i should have made it more clear

i wasn't trying to justify terrorism, or portray jews as evil.
this was an attempt to show you why arabs/muslims feel such a stong hatred against the United States and Israel...this is the storys they get, this is innocent family members and friends being killed...
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2004, 21:17   #108
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Well they could have had their state, the Oslo accords were on their way to working when Arafat decided to pull out and begin the intafada.

He chose violence over peace for his country and his people, why?
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2004, 05:57   #109
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Do you know anything about statistics?
I know that they can be warped to mean whatever they are wanted to mean.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2004, 11:12   #110
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Wow! Such an outpouring of silence from the Kerry camp!
And the Bush one. I'm wondering if there's something up with the source, they should be jumping on this.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2004, 12:16   #111
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
gaekwad,

just rough calculations should call the figure into doubt. 100,000 deaths over roughly a year and a half equates to 183 deaths per day. Seen anything like that on the news? With that many people dying from air strikes every day we would expect to have at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands of people died. Heard of anything like that? In fact, heard of any air strikes at all where more than a couple of dozen people died total?
Does the term 'embedded lournalists' say anything to you?

You could have seen some of it on Al Jazeera, if you really wanted to see both sides of the story.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
I know that they [statistics] can be warped to mean whatever they are wanted to mean.
Which leads to the question "who is more likely not to distort reality, the US military or a group of public health experts whose report was published in a respected medical journal?"
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2004, 03:25   #112
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
yes, it was only reported on al jazeera because the american media is just working so hard to make Iraq look like it's going fucking fantastic. They're all bush allies you know
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump