Perspective On 9/11 And The U.S. Invasions

Submitted by: a1butcher 7 years ago in
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/government_employee/09/11/perspective-on-911-and-the-invasions-of-iraq-afghanistan/

Seeing things in a different perspective is always important.
There are 214 comments:
Male 12,138
vv OK Crakr. You win. The 70 shipments of biological and chemical weapons (including Anthrax) from the US to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war was so that he could [quote]develop vaccines and treatments.[/quote]
Like I said, you win. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Old thread is old, see ya round.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Davy: Anthrax is not 100% lethal as often claimed. Wool sorters inhale anthrax spores in small quantities continually. Anthrax normally attacks the lungs, because it must lodge in vulnerable tissue. It can invade through other routes such as cuts or undercooked meat, but it only does so under third world conditions.

Because of that, Laboratory anthrax has been distributed to many countries to develop vaccines and treatments to those affected by the natural sources of the spores.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Yeah yeah Crakr, I get the concept of Dual-Use. Fertilizer, fuel, bleach. Still fail to see the Dual-Use in supplying Iraq with Anthrax though... pretty sure it has only one use...
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Another example: Are the people that sold Timothy McVeigh the fertilizer and fuel oil responsible for what he decided to do with it in Oklahoma City ?

The answer is of course, No.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
davymid: The agents the US sold to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war had a "Dual-Use" according to the Riegle report, That means they had a legitimate use as well. The agents sold were not `weaponized`, Saddam`s chemists were responsible for that.

Also, Saddam used Mustard Gas on the Kurds. The US did not supply him with that.

An example of "Dual-use": You could sell Hydrogen Peroxide to a country for legitimate medical use, That countries chemists could then concentrate that H2O2 and use it to make explosives.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Mr Pedo Bear said: "However Saddam was an evil bastard, he had wmd`s just ask the kurds he gassed if u want proof, you`ll find them in mass graves in the north."

Saddam gassed Kurds? With WMDs? Biological and chemical weapons including anthrax? Where the hell did he get those from?

You`re right though, it`s one thing for the US to supply chemical and biological weapons to a brutal dictator. You don`t ever expect them to be actually USED! Jeez, that`s insane. That bastard Saddam.
0
Reply
Male 496
@splurbyburbl

Either you misunderstood what I was saying, you are eager to assume, or you are a troll. Take your pick.

To add to what I was saying: The exact number of innocent deaths seems irrelevant to me. The fact that there are so many innocent people dying makes me just as sick as 9/11 did. You can try to justify it by saying that we were playing the world`s superhero and getting rid of the bad guy but that`s bullpoo. No one cared about getting those bad guys until we were the victims. I`m done. I was gonna find some link to something I read but then lost interest. Believe whatever you want IDGF.

Also, T-marley, I don`t remember calling you a douchbag but it was uncalled for. Sorry.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Mr_Pedo_Bear: That will be a much harder job in Afghanistan. We are dealing with a culture soaked in 14th century `eye for an eye` morals, Low levels of education, And a heritage of nearly constant war that goes back before the crusades.

Trying to pull them up into the 21st century idea of modern culture will be a herculean task, If we could get them into the 20th century culturally, The effort would be considered a success by most standards.
0
Reply
Male 997
I dont thinkt he invasions should have happened financially crippling.

However Saddam was an evil bastard, he had wmd`s just ask the kurds he gassed if u want proof, you`ll find them in mass graves in the north.

Currently its poo but will get a lot better overtime and last. Want an example look at Sotuh Korea compared to North Korea, what country has done better out of that and they thank the US to this day for their help. Kicking out the communist insurgents. I`m not saying was right thing to invade or not, but sometimes the outcomes end up for the best in the long run. and if the forces left now everything that has happend would be for nothing. duty now to stay until the country can rule itself effectively. They dont want the taliban as much as they dont want the forces. But untill they are equipped to fend them off its our duty now to stay...
0
Reply
Female 322
ALTURA: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Saw Eddy izzard on a special once, didn`t catch his name,and have been looking for him ever since. ThankS!
0
Reply
Male 3,482
@Davy
[quote]Woah there Cowboy, that would put him up there in the "Hitler-Class".[/quote]
Just a thought, but watch the video I posted... It kinda of covers that in it`s own way too.

Izzard basically says that, as long as they`re killing people in their own region, the rest of the world doesn`t care.

Never thought that one video would come in so much handy...
0
Reply
Male 602
Thanks Splur!
0
Reply
Male 102
Lots of the civilians actually play both sides.

They work for us during the day, and make bombs, dig the holes for the bombs or supply money and housing to the insurgency.

That`s how it goes.
0
Reply
Male 102
@ Gerry

You can put things into an ICBM. theyre originally HOLLOW. You then place your weapon of choice be it explosive, chemical, biological or nuclear and shoot it.

To say the shells means the rounds without a payload.

I am sorry you don`t understand how to inference and have little to go with in your replies, but let the grown ups talk and you can go sit at the kiddie table.
0
Reply
Male 336
can we compare this to the statistics from Viet Nam?
0
Reply
Male 101
Are still think? Man, you can tell it`s 7am pre-caffeine in Australia :P hahaha
0
Reply
Male 2,796
T-Mar: I really enjoyed your posts. Just wanted to let you know.
0
Reply
Male 101
Glad to see some Americans are still think War is the answer... that was sarcasm, btw...
0
Reply
Male 84
If you consider terrorists to be civilians then maybe, otherwise this is anti war rhetoric BS
0
Reply
Male 2,049
Send in the A-Team.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
"Well, let this be a warning to anyone else who wants to murder Americans, They will be hunted down like the animals they are.

Cant blame us that we are better at what we do than they are."

You basically just called your entire nation murdering animals.
0
Reply
Male 602
Thanks Davy.

Tsty, the inaccuracies of that study bother me so much because people see something on CNN and take it as gospel. While it may just be politics to who first wrote it, it`s a great recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.

For the record, my fiance is Iraqi, and lived there from 1977 to 1991. She lived through the war between Tehran and Baghdad, and now when she gets calls from her family there it is always with the fear of "Who died now?"

I know I seem militant and callous, and probably because I am, but that is the only way to win a war. It`s not like we can really all have hindi dance battles.

At least we try to keep them low, does Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or Ahmedinejad?

"You can win a war without fighting, but it`s tough. And the enemy may not cooperate."



0
Reply
Male 2,586
*what difference would it have made to you lot/ the world?

...and have the troops died from a worthy cause...
0
Reply
Male 2,586
@ForAllThSin...

"I`m sure you can agree with me on this mastrmind. 90% of those "civilians" were firing on troops, then dropped their guns transforming them into "civilians" seconds before getting killed like they deserved."

...And who would they be firing on if your lot weren`t there?

No offense to all you pro-war lot but if you stick someone in front of a man with a gun, dont complain if he gets shot.

I still don`t know why there are even troops over there, I never have! To me it all sounds like propaganda and granted, 3000 people were killed on 9/11 but it was the fault of the hijackers, and they`re dead now.

I`m open to explanations though... if someone can answer these three questions, I`d be grateful!
1- Why are there troops in Iraq
2- Is it REALLY necessary
3- Are the loss of troops justifiable

Basicall what I`m saying is, if America/ UK had never gone into Iraq AT ALL, what differenc
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Samsquanch: The `sanction` in `91 was getting Saddam`s forces out of Kuwait and that was all, We did go a bit further and reduce most of his army to smoking holes in the desert, But HW Bush was not given any OK by the UN to kill or capture Saddam.

In hindsight it would`ve been for the best, But the UN would`ve likely been pissed off because that wasn`t the stated mission goal at that time.
0
Reply
Female 2,509
wait wait wait

so you`re suggesting that since "x" amount of ours were killed, only kill "y" amount of theirs?!
If war was that civil there wouldn`t be a need for it.
0
Reply
Male 6,693
I watched football on 9-11
0
Reply
Male 39,880
@mastermind ... "Yes, there WERE "WMD"s that were found, it was called ICBM.. hollow shells that hadn`t had any munitions placed in them."

ICBM shells ... really? were they shot out of an ICBM gun?

0
Reply
Male 273
@mastrmind

thank you!!! for once someone else who was over there who knows that WMD does not mean nuke. They had tons of ICBM`s. anyway, my problem with the article is the funny term "civilian" they kept throwing out. I`m sure you can agree with me on this mastrmind. 90% of those "civilians" were firing on troops, then dropped their guns transforming them into "civilians" seconds before getting killed like they deserved.
0
Reply
Male 102
Oh, and as far as killing civillians is concerned.

I was witness to an Iraqi V Iraqi kidnapping, we watched it happen. We called up, asking to shoot the guys kidnapping the guy.

We were told not to interfere as long as it didn`t concern us. I knew the Iraqi they kidnapped, he used to give me cigarettes while I worked the gate. I never saw him again.

So don`t put the actions of a few people on everyone that has ever been over there.

But now I`m out of the army, and quite happy. But that doesn`t mean I like you people that haven`t been talking trash against it.
0
Reply
Male 102
Take it you`ve never actually been over there havee ya Sam?

I have.

Yes, there WERE "WMD"s that were found, it was called ICBM.. hollow shells that hadn`t had any munitions placed in them.

Oh and chemical weapons that saddam wasn`t supposed to have, thus voiding the treaty signed in 91, allowing us to invade.

Gosh.. that cancels you out now doesn`t it.
0
Reply
Male 792
Uh...so, CrakrJak, why didn`t Daddy Bush take care of him when the UN gave them the sanction in 91? Let`s not forget that the reason for going into Iraq in the first place was because of the supposed WMDs...of which, they found none.

And...they don`t go around killing civilians "for the hell of it?" Oh really?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"If we even killed just one innocent person is it somehow acceptable?"

That is a very naive question. Innocence does not protect from harm. If any Government were to avoid 100% "innocent" deaths then the bad guys would know this and exploit it. Hell, they already do! Our hands are tied so badly in our warzones due to being PC all the time, that it is hard to accomplish missions. When the enemy constantly throws out human "innocent" shields while they think they can try to kill us... well, a few of those shields just might die. Whose fault is that? The enemy for putting them in our way? Or us for defending ourselves?

You think the U.S. are the only guilty ones here? Really man, what world do you live in??!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Saddam Hussien was responsible for 2 million people dead.[/quote]
Woah there Cowboy, that would put him up there in the "Hitler-Class".

Sources please that Saddam killed 2 million people? Or have you just been drinking heavily these days?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Saddam Hussien was responsible for 2 million people dead.

The IBC source states between 97,816 – 106,755 deaths, Most all of which were caused by insurgents, suicide bombings, and other Non-American sources.

It`s disingenuous to blame the `invasion` (and by association America) for all those deaths.

American troops don`t just go out shooting and bombing civilians for the hell of it, The rules of engagement were complicated and changed daily. From a soldier that was there.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
aseirinn, what`s your point caller? I fail to see it. Please expound.
0
Reply
Male 877
davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
7987 Posts `Please understand that some of the comments posted here, and the sentiment behind them, is why a large number of people around the world (myself NOT included) view America as a nation of warmongering nationalistic idiotic zealots`





the USA! USA! USA! USA! chanters, the beer tin chushers, the `f u c k i n A!` shouters give ye a bad name too...
0
Reply
Male 225
umm... lytle_lytle when did Iraq murder Americans?
0
Reply
Female 999
I don`t believe anything of what anyone has to say about the war because everyone`s lying anyways.

Who am I supposed to believe when all 3,345 sides are full of crap?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]btw I read your link, your post was probably not deleted for content but length. There is a reason that characters are limited, douchebag.[/quote]
Yeah, he knows that. Hence the link, rather than spam up the boards, respect to him for doing that (thanks Marley, makes my life easier).

Also, just to be clear: All comments on IAB are posted immediately, there is no screening, and there never will be. We don`t believe in that crap. If someone has something to say, let them say it, one way or the other (sorry, a bit butt-hurt at the constant accusations of how IAB has an agenda. We do, actually. It`s called relieving boredom. No undercurrent here).

Very, very few posts are deleted by us Moderators here, and those that are are usually stupid sh*t like FIRST!, spam, blatant racist hate-speech etc. This is a site where people should not be afraid to speak their mind.
0
Reply
Male 812
Yeah, I still don`t get what Iraq has to do with 9/11.. Well, I guess NOW it does, because after the invasion Iraq is full of terrorists and no one can stop them.
0
Reply
Male 496
@T-Marley

Your "math" is irrelevant. If we even killed just one innocent person is it somehow acceptable? If feds killed an American civilian while in pursuit of a terrorist it would cause outrage, with reason. Much less whole families. It makes me sick that the one thing that outrages you in this post is that the info is not totally accurate.

btw I read your link, your post was probably not deleted for content but length. There is a reason that characters are limited, douchebag.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I come to I-A-B for boredom relief. Reading some of the comments here from some Americans is, frankly, disgusting.

To my American friends who are NOT clinically retarded (and yes, we know you`re not all like some of the posters here). Please understand that some of the comments posted here, and the sentiment behind them, is why a large number of people around the world (myself NOT included) view America as a nation of warmongering nationalistic idiotic zealots.
0
Reply
Male 87
i hate this crap. you can get people to believe anything as long as you have a graph that proves it. especially if you make LOTS of graphs that all say the same thing. anyone who actually believes this should also do some research for themselves.
0
Reply
Male 533
Well that wasn`t biased at all...
0
Reply
Male 208
Well, let this be a warning to anyone else who wants to murder Americans, They will be hunted down like the animals they are.

Cant blame us that we are better at what we do than they are.
0
Reply
Male 60
lolololol. Dumb Iraqi civilians. Going and getting themselves shot.
0
Reply
Male 630
PS: To those that victimize them, and blame the US... just ask someone who has been there, and seen the Iraqis face to face.

Believe me, we did the right thing.
0
Reply
Male 630
*sigh*

So now we can extrapolate whatever stats we want to try and get gullible people to follow our beliefs?

Should you happen to read the whole thing, this lists insurgents as civilians, as well as counts a whopping 10 years. 10 years vs 10 hours. You do the math.
0
Reply
Male 301
Holy crap!!! You mean to tell me that more lives have been lost in years of fighting as opposed to a single terrorist strike?! Obviously misleading statistics are obviously misleading! Holy retards Batman!
0
Reply
Male 721
This world is fu cked in so many ways, the senseless murders of so many innocent people all around the world is astonishing. I wish there was something we could do about it, anything at all but there is really nothing we can do. The Americans did save a lot of people by taking down Saddam Hussein but staying in Iraq longer then they should have really caused more and more people to become radical insurgents. I`m not saying their presence is the sole cause because it did happen before the US arrival but they did anger a lot of people with being there.
0
Reply
Male 422
USA USA USA we`re #1 we`re #1 USA USA USA
0
Reply
Male 602
Because of the limit, I have a link here of something I wrote in 2006 debating the validity of the statistic, it goes in to more depth and shows my math.

Only the dead have seen the end of war. The survivors are the ones who truly suffer. 124,000 American casualties occured on June 6, 1944. Countless Germans and Japanese died in the firebombings of Tokyo and Berlin. Millions of Russians died in the fighting.

The political poison of civ. deaths not only has us limiting civ. casualties as much as we can, but it has also prolonged both of this conflicts beyond any reasonable time frame. This is why you battle your enemy until the entire populace gives up, instead of trying to fight and build a nation at the same time. Japan and Germany were defeated first, look at the example. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq all show what happens w
0
Reply
Male 602
It`s not a matter of "So what" or "better them than us". Iraq shouldn`t be tied to 9/11, Bush tried and failed, so now the left is going to try to lump them all together to fit THEIR view? Stupid.

Iraq was a horribly mismanaged conflict, starting with the decision to disband the Iraqi army, and ending with allowing them to write their own constitution. (which has resulted in the beautiful deadlock they now have in their government)

Any loss of life, civilian or otherwise is atrocious, but don`t inflate those numbers and disrespect those who actually have died.
0
Reply
Male 602
and I lost my brother, and then you call my cousin and he says he lost his cousin, that death is counted twice. Even if I didn`t lose someone, and someone called and asked that and I hated America I would say yes. It was a bullsh*t study then, and it still is now. 341 average up to 2010, and violence has dropped dramatically since 2007, which would push that number up to nearly a thousand a day (rough estimate) There is no way that would have gone on without us seeing it, and knowing it for truth.

Let`s also look at that and compare it to how many Iraqis died during the 1980-88 Iran Iraq war, or the number of civilians that Saddam and his posse killed (e.g. the kurds, and anyone they didn`t agree with).

Another question to ask is how many American lives have been saved by giving Al-Qaeda targets in the Middle East instead of free reign to try again.
0
Reply
Male 602
Umm...1,000,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003... That is 341 Iraqi civilians killed per day average. I am pretty sure if we had that kind of death rate for civilians over there it would be easy for the media to find and verify as that is exactly the kind of statistic that the media wants. The study that they quote 650,000 from was a study that was released just before the American elections and hasn`t been heard about since. Almost all statistics use the Iraq Body Count statistic, which I agree is still an atrocious number of civilians dead. That still doesn`t include all of the Iraqis who now live outside of Iraq (i.e. the middle and upper class who could afford it and didn`t plan on running in an election), which is a number close to 2.5 million.

The 650k study was conducted by asking people over the phone. Due to the size of families in the middle east, if you call me and ask if I lost a family member...(cont.)
0
Reply
Male 145
The numbers are pretty misconstrued. This doesn`t include violence, assassinations, and accidental deaths on either side. Looking at the numbers in such a broad sense is a great way to prove a biased opinion. Technically, every Iraqi combatant since the regime was dissolved would be considered a civilian, since they belong to no recognized army.
0
Reply
Male 1,116
Ugh, i come on IAB to be entertained, not to see political debates.
0
Reply
Male 1,451
Why is there no mention of Iraq or Afghan military? All are mentioned as "civilians"
0
Reply
Male 4,807
@ Brian 61316... Sickens me, makes me ashamed of the amount of ignorant americans you find in the internet that make the non retarded ones be judged over your idiocy"
We don`t lump all`yall together. We Love or Neighbors to the south.
It`s just, to easy for we Canadians and the rest of the world to stereotype Americians.
0
Reply
Male 601
"Any of that even close to acceptable?"

Dunno about the others but what you quoted from mine I hope isn`t misunderstood. I was stating the reality of it, not making any comment of whether it`s right or wrong, or even justifiable.

Look at any conflict in American history and you`ll find that we always overreact to our own casualties and try to justify the literal slaughter of another culture`s people. We did it to the Native Americans (justification: Manifest destiny), Vietnamese (justification: Communism), and now Iraqis and Afghans (justification: Terrorism). One might add the Japanese to the list of peoples we`ve strong-armed in the name of American freedom, but the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is one of the few cases in which I believe we truly were justified in our actions.

0
Reply
Male 286
"I can`t defend "So what" to 100`000 deaths. "

Even more than 1`000`000 deaths according to that graph.

But people are pretty stupid. "It only matters if it happens in your vicinity." basically.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
*Also, just adding on, around the 4:00 mark, he starts in on imperialism.

Part of the reason I don`t wanna hear sh*t out of most Europeans.

And more than half of the reason this is all going on in the first place.

"We took over most of the world with the cunning use of flags..."

Only, in the US`s case, it`s more like the effective use of high-end weaponry...

I`m not justifying it, oh hell no. I just call things as I see them.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote">I can`t defend "So what" to 100`000 deaths.
I can`t.[/quote">
It`s not really defending it, but...

Watch this video...

Fast forward in this video to about the 2:40 mark.

He makes a kind of interesting point...

Watch the rest of the video too, if you want. He`s pretty funny.
0
Reply
Male 8
Honestly, the same people who are civilians during the day over there, are enemies at night. Just because somebody dropped their rifle doesnt mean they`re a civilian. And of course they have more casualties, we are trained to aim. It`s like having Mike Tyson box a 3rd grader.
0
Reply
Male 5,163
@Baalthazaq

I understand what you mean and i`m with you,but don`t lose faith on all americans pls as i do. If you notice the most stupids,nazi,sciovinists comments are allways done from the few as.s..les here.Sometime you can find also someone that change mind when informed.
0
Reply
Male 443
Baalthazaq makes (a lot of) good points. Another sad fact is that Tiger Woods got more front page coverage (for days in a row in the New York Post) then the 9/11 Terrorist attacks did... Lets all make something of this when the anniversary of Tiger comes up
0
Reply
Male 741
I`m with Baalthazaq, the amount of ignorance in some or most of the comments is amazing and sickening. They are humans, just like american. We are all the same to some degree and no death should be put above another. We come form the same place and we will all end up he same how dare you depreciate the life of other humans? Sickens me, makes me ashamed of the amount of ignorant americans you find in the internet that make the non retarded ones be judged over your idiocy
0
Reply
Male 4,546
I can`t defend "So what" to 100`000 deaths.
I can`t.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Oooo... Graphs!
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Meh, you know what, I`m done.

Add your own disgusting statements as you go. When someone like Lazyme responds with "so what", add "So what" to the 3K 9/11 deaths on my list. Add the "They don`t really value their lives", and so on and so forth.

FFS. It irritates the drat out of me that I spend so much time defending Americans in the ME when people try to dehumanize them, and this past drating MONTH, it seems like you`ve done nothing but dehumanize yourselves.

Seriously, I`m here, trying to paint you as tolerant, an *I*, and you know how much I can drating talk, am running out of ways to defend you.

"Oh it`s just a minority"
"60% oppose Park 51"
"they think it`s on top of the 9/11 rubble, they don`t know any better"
"They`re burning Qurans"
"It`s just one idiot"
"I found this site called IAB, look at what people are saying"

I can`
0
Reply
Male 4,546
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

Just because you don`t understand the statistics, doesn`t make them lies.

Look, few people here seem to get it.

How would any of you feel if I responded to "3K people died on 911" with:
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics".
"You drat with us, you bet your dead ass we can bring the pain".
"That`s the way it has always been, you drat with us, we show no mercy"
"Error 1, some of those people probably deserved to die. Error 2, some of these `casualties` prolly just got horrifically burned so shouldn`t count. Error 3, Americans kill each other all the time."
"Numbers don`t matter. We feel more pain at death than you do. So our fewer count more."


Any of that even close to acceptable? Look at any middle Easterner reading the poo in this thread.

Think they`re scared now? Think you`re gaining their respect?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Bull$#|+!
0
Reply
Male 310
Ok ok...we admit we overreacted a tad.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] The Iraq civilian count is still over 10 times higher than 9/11. [/quote]

I agree! :D Imagine that! But then, so what? Those two events are largely unrelated. The way I see the "war" now is that it was started to remove a dictator from power, on the probably false assumption that they were stockpiling WMDs and later evolved into an attempt to maintain stability in the region.

... and seeing as how that whole area is a cesspool of religious intolerance wherein people give little value to their own lives, you`re bound to get quite a few civilian casualties.

But overall, I oppose the war, as most people do - it is tragic and unnecessary, but in this case, inevitable.
0
Reply
Male 2,424
"<there are> Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain
0
Reply
Male 1,073
Careful crakrjak! Although these charts probably meant to use the word DEATHS, the word casualty certainly doesn`t mean just that. Right back at you:

casualty/ Show Spelled[kazh-oo-uhl-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. Military .
a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.
b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.
2. one who is injured or killed in an accident: There were no casualties in the traffic accident.
3. any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event: Their house was a casualty of the fire.
4. a serious accident, esp. one involving bodily injury or death.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Basically: There is nothing you can do to make 9/11 come close to Iraqi deaths. Nothing.

That`s why you don`t see any actual counter figures. He`s just questioning the veracity of one of the *single lowest estimate on Iraqi civilian non combatant deaths*, but not putting forward an alternative.

He wants to be able to pretend that "oh, there`s an error here, I bet if it were done properly..."

Lets be clear. If it were done properly, if General Tommy Franks didn`t say "We don`t do body counts", the numbers go up, not down.

0
Reply
Male 4,546
"How many of these "civilians" blew themselves up?"

0. It only counts non combatants.

"How many were killed by suicide bombers"

~40%. However, two errors I`m sure Crakr was about to bring in, this isn`t counting any deaths in the initial invasion (which high end estimates would drop that number to 4%), and doesn`t take into consideration the stated goal of moving deaths onto Iraq rather than the USA.

It also doesn`t consider the opinion of some of the people in this forum who consider (according to their own logic) all those attacks on military checkpoints, police stations, or anywhere with a military presence where civilians happened to die "collateral damage".

Either way, assuming every single one of Crakr`s errors, and taking only the figures which help his cause the most.

The Iraq civilian count is still over 10 times higher than 9/11.
0
Reply
Male 591
I do agree with the statement though, it doesn`t say who causes the casualties. Im not saying anything like a part of them isn`t our fault, but with the civil war, different ideals etc etc over there, just saying casualties is pretty broad statement.
0
Reply
Male 4,546
Auburn:
Oh... so we`re not talking about the 2nd Gulf War then? There`s no time limit from the 1st gulf war?

I guess I`m packing my military gear and heading over to Italy, after all the Romans and Persians had a fight in 572AD so they better watch out?
0
Reply
Male 4,546
I agree with Crakr:

So tell me Crakr, how many of those 9/11 victims weren`t innocent enough to be counted?

Other than that, the count only includes non-combatants from IBC, and doesn`t take a full account of the war. "We don`t do body counts" is the US` current policy which means the numbers are already severely UNDER reported.

No mention of that error? No? Not important?

How about this then for error 4? You have no drating soul. There`s a pretty big dratin error right there.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
ca·su·al·ty - noun
plural ca·su·al·ties

Definition
1 archaic : chance, fortune <losses that befall them by mere casualty — Sir Walter Raleigh>

2 serious or fatal accident : disaster

Unless you think they just had `bad luck`, The normal definition means someone died.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Yeah, where was the bit where Iraq attacked the US? Musta missed that memo."

1st Gulf War = Iraq attacked Kuwait. Mess with a friend, mess with us.

2nd gulf war = Damn Brits and their faulty WMD info >:(
0
Reply
Male 1,184
You are an idiot, Crakr.

These graphs aren`t saying anyone died. It says CASUALTIES.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Note: They don`t distinguish between civilians and militants they are lumped in together as `civilians`, error #1 right there.

They don`t distinguish who killed these `civilians` or how they were killed, error #2.

They assume all the `civilians` were innocent victims (under that definition that would include Saddam Husein himself), error #3

Also, Please note that Sunnis, Shiites , and Kurds were in an undeclared `civil war` after Saddam fell, using Including suicide bombings, IEDs, Kidnappings, etc...
0
Reply
Male 683
Amazing how the guy pointing an AK47 at your armoured convoy suddenly turns into a civilian when he gets shot isnt it.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Pay Close Attention Bitches. We didn`t start this s#!t, but bet your dead ass that if you pick a fight with us, we`re bringing the pain. [/quote]
Yeah, where was the bit where Iraq attacked the US? Musta missed that memo.
0
Reply
Male 218
Magicant

Let`s agree to disagree. You don`t think you`re a douche. I don`t agree. Go back to your hockey.
0
Reply
Male 877
finnially!...
0
Reply
Male 7,830
lolboy, they consider an injury as physical harm that causes a need for hospitalization or serious medical attention.

lllBorislll, im with you entirely. i dont mope around on 9/11. i take a second for remembrance and then go about my business. i would probably do the same thing on other days of american tragedy if i had been alive to witness them. it just angers me when people belittle anybody elses hardship. I would never bring up the atomic attacks to the japanese, nor would i talk about imperialism with the native americans. i even think its BS to have a drink called the "irish carbomb".
0
Reply
Male 4,807

@ lllBorislll.. well said.

People shouldn`t forget any tragic of such great magnitude. It just seems a lot of people use this day as a way to point fingers and also bring there own political/Religious agenda into the spot light. ie: that nutjob in florida, whats his name. or the mosque debacle.
The bottom line is innocent and guilty people died and are dieing.. and for what?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@sbeelz:

I never said it was right, but yes. The US does support "freedom fighters" when it suits our interest. Why wouldn`t we?

Difference is, what we call "freedom fighters", fight to topple dictators in their respective countries (for example). Terrorists, or insurgents, fight to prop up totalitarian regimes, and we usually do not support that.

Reminds me of a joke I heard once, although I don`t agree with it. If Crime fighters fight crime, and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? Kinda witty lol.
0
Reply
Male 64
I`m pretty sure all of those civilian casualties were the result of suicide bombings, not U.S. military actions.
0
Reply
Male 2,441
Not very good anti war propaganda. The graph makes it looks like 5 people died on 9/11 and does not emanate any of the pain Americans felt on that day. While it is sad that many Iraqi civilians were killed the country had to do something. And I guess that was the War on Terror.
0
Reply
Male 443
@Cobrakiller.. Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a fantastic point, I`m glad you brought it up. yes they remember as well as we should for 9/11 (Yes, I`m Canadian but i do show my respects) I do think 9/11 shouldn`t be made such a huge deal every single year. Yes it was tragic, but times have moved on. We should bow our heads and remember the people who lost their lives and move on... God thats all we do for rememberance day and that was way more combined deaths for all countries... The fact that these charts showed how many Iraq & Afghanistan Civilians die to the 9/11 attacks is quite sicking... I also get mad when people on facebook were like "Am I the only one that realized that today was 9/11" are you drating stupid? Of course people remember, but that fact that we arnt still crying and dwelling over it shows that the nation is evolving and getting over it. It`s quite sicking that troops are dying over there when they should just clearly be pulled back to the respective count
0
Reply
Male 18
Love the huge majority of poster are closed minded, biased, and uneducated it`s really sad how people think these days.
0
Reply
Male 798
I`m always suspicious of those "9000 injured" stats. What exactly qualifies as an "injury"?

If fell down and got a cut or sprained your ankle running that is technically an injury, but not really a result of anything else.
0
Reply
Male 601
That`s the way it has always been: you drat with us, we show no mercy. It`s kind of a "Let that be a lesson to future antagonists of the United States".

But seriously, this same poo happens every war we`re involved in: some U.S troops/citizens are killed but we forget (or ignore) how many magnitudes more of the enemy is killed.
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Pay Close Attention Bitches.

We didn`t start this s#!t, but bet your dead ass that if you pick a fight with us, we`re bringing the pain.

While we`re bull s#!ttin about casualties, how many of them dumb asses killed themselves bombing their own people?!

Yeah take the punk ass whiny fag propaganda and stick it up your ass.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"Americans don`t want to be seeing this, they believe they`re always right and (Even here) now try to squeeze their way through the facts with stats, random facts, paragraphs of (Logical?) thinking and some other bullturd."

Europeans don`t want to be reading this. They believe they`re always right and (even here) now try to squeeze their way through the facts with sweeping generalizations, accusations and one sided opinions (illogical?) and some other bulltard.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
anybody here who has belittled 9/11 or are waiting for us to "get over" it, could you please list some other single terrorist attacks that took nearly 3000 lives and injured nearly 9000 others?

oh, and i know somebody will bring up hiroshima and nagasaki. yes we as a county took more lives there, and japan still have remembrance of those event. trust me, if they had the opportunity at the time they would have used those events as "an excuse" for military actions. but, because we stripped them of their military, they couldnt.
0
Reply
Male 997
How many civilians and people were killed by Saddam? How many other human rights abuses have been committed under the previous regimes.

How many of those casualties have been killed by Insurgents killing their own countrymen for disagreeing with them?

The majority of soldiers wont fire first even when they should fire. As they are fearful of the repercussions in place on them. It serviceman`s lives as they delay, in times when they should act. The soilders are not actively attacking the civilian`s which sadly seems to be the view of many.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"Anyone who thinks that there is a significant moral difference between a deliberate attack on civilians and civilian deaths as "collateral damage" is insane."

Not a great way to present an argument. But, I will take the bait.

You confuse outcome with intent. We certainly do not want civilian deaths, we avoid it at all reasonable costs. I say reasonable because often we will not sacrifice a chance to destroy an enemy just because one or two innocents ,ay get hurt or killed. It`s called acceptable losses. It may not be acceptable to you, but it is to the powers that be. (And just so you know, it is to me too... having seen it all first hand, I can say this for certain.)

We do everything within our power to avoid the civilians, but most of the time their people or insurgents/terrorists put them in danger. i.e. firing on troops while hiding behind women and children.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@auburnjunky
So? So the United States is, hands down, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. We just call them freedom fighters when it suits our purposes. Case in point- the US considers the PKK a terrorist organization based on it`s actions for Kurdish liberation in Turkey, while simultaneously supporting attacks launched by PJAK (which grew out of the PKK) in Iran, because it supports our interests.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@Maps
The point is that we get upset about a "cowardly attack" on civilians, and then hypocritically murder a bunch of people who had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the attack. It`s the very definition of hypocrisy. Anyone who thinks that there is a significant moral difference between a deliberate attack on civilians and civilian deaths as "collateral damage" is insane.
0
Reply
Male 3,058
@ patchouly: You are correct. There were PLENTY of Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan each time I`ve been there, sometimes fought side-by-side with them.

I have NOTHING but respect for Canada`s armed forces. I`ve seen them in action, and they`re damn good.
0
Reply
Male 447
Its funny seeing 13 year old europeans trying to imply the US shouldn`t be upset over 9/11. I guess Europeans are too busy being stuck up non-nice individuals to have empathy.
0
Reply
Male 1,404
@Vosunga: Well said.

@Solvent: The events on 9-11-2001 like 10-7-1941 are not event`s ever to "get over". They are to remembered and more importantly be revered as lessons learned never to drop our nations guard nor to become complacent when it comes to the security of our nation.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
quick question, i don`t think i saw which country had the most civilian casualties, can someone help me with that?
0
Reply
Female 2,289
I glad I didn`t see this until today.

If this would have been posted yesterday, it would have been in very poor taste no matter what the reason of its posting is.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I just took another look at the article and in the comments, the author concedes that insurgents are included under civilians. What the F*ck?[/quote]
He does? I only see a dialogue between "John C" and "Anonymous". How do you know one of them is the author?
0
Reply
Male 51
And how awful that this was posted for 9/11. As though this was the time to make a political statement.
0
Reply
Male 51
People are idiots. It wasn`t just the amount of people who died on Sept 11. It was what it stood for. It was the worst terrorist attack of all time and represented a threat to American civilians who had done nothing.

People, you can`t just point out that more Iraqi civilians have died than those who died on 9/11 and consider yourself intelligent. Because you are not. You have assumed that the importance of a tragedy is measured in bodies, leaving no room for gray areas.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
I like that they at least tried to explain their methodology, and provided links :)

BUT I`m in agreement with @Volsunga that they`re lumping ALL casualties together and blaming America for them all. Insurgent bomb kills 20 civilians, blame America! It`s bogus.

Insurgents hide behind human shields, US soldiers do not.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
I just took another look at the article and in the comments, the author concedes that insurgents are included under civilians. What the F*ck?
0
Reply
Male 4,807
@ deadbass72... "well I guess that`s pretty damn hard to do in Canada because you let us fight your wars for you."

Ummm.. I`m pretty sure it was always "your" war, my dear sir, and not "our" war.

You may now proceed to
" Get your head out of your ass and shut the hell up."
as YOU put it.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
Americans don`t want to be seeing this, they believe they`re always right and (Even here) now try to squeeze their way through the facts with stats, random facts, paragraphs of (Logical?) thinking and some other bullturd.

0
Reply
Male 1,149
According to this there have been no insurgents killed. Oh wait... there have. Skewed.
0
Reply
Male 306
"So how long until good ol america gets over 9/11?"

You multiply 9 with 11 and you get 99, then add 1 because nobody likes 99, and one hundred is a nicer word. So to answer your question, it will take America 100 years to get over 9/11 and to stop using that as an excuse for everything they do.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
So how long until good ol america gets over 9/11?
0
Reply
Male 166
@deepdarkshar Okay I`m sorry I mistook you for an intelligent person. that was my mistake, I did not understand that you are a nut-job conspiracy theorist. try talking to someone who has been to Iraq, well I guess that`s pretty damn hard to do in Canada because you let us fight your wars for you. Get your head out of your ass and shut the hell up.
0
Reply
Male 306
"Those of us who think that, please go to Mars, or off yourself. "

To f that planet aswell ?

Actually I did not say we can`t earn it back.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
The problem with the graph is that it insinuates that the Iraqi and Afghan civilians were killed by Americans, which is by no means the case. Almost all of those civilian deaths have been from sectarian violence. Sure, there have been some collateral damage from Americans, but probably 85% of those civilian casualties were killed by Iraqis or Taliban.
Not only that, but you can`t logically compare a single attack with 9 years of war in any case. That is like comparing the lives lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor to the entire Japanese casualties of WWII. It`s just not a rational comparison.
This isn`t even to mention the deaths that would have occurred even if the US hadn`t intervened. The Kurds were planning a war of secession and probably would have been subject to another attempt at genocide by Hussein.
0
Reply
Male 3,477
So, I see now, we killed not one bad guy. Well I beg to differ. Go to liveleak.com and look at iraqitranslator`s videos of Apache gun cams.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@kerry:

Because the militants ARE civilians.
0
Reply
Female 839
@auburnjunky - how do you know they are lumping militants and civilians together? It says `civilian casualties`
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Humans have lost the right to live on this planet."

Those of us who think that, please go to Mars, or off yourself.

Still here? Then quit saying things you don`t mean.
0
Reply
Male 306
@Banshee1020:

You are just stupid. You think you are better? Just for thinking that everybody else is better than you. That homeless pedophile guy, who doesn`t think he is better then others is even better.

Who make war, and those who support it are bad. No matter what the reason is!

The whole f-ing world is bad. Humans have lost the right to live on this planet.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Who make war are bad, no matter what the reason is."

Cannot entirely agree with this.

I think disputes should be resolved with RPS, unless it is over land.
0
Reply
Female 322
1. I don`t think we should have invaded Iraq. (I always had a 1/2 suspition (I swear I can`t spell) it was because Saddam (may he rest in hell) tried to kill Bush Jr`s daddy.)
2. I am frightfully glad Saddam is dead (may he rest in hell the cruel cruel cruel ass he was).
3. Now lets get the hell out of there, the whole way out, and watch as it falls to a civil war and sectarian violence.
0
Reply
Male 306
Oh I got it, in war there are no good guys.

Who make war are bad, no matter what the reason is.
0
Reply
Male 306
Wait, who are the bad guys again ?

I`m confused :(
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@fiizok:

Plus, the graphs are not factual. They are lumping Militants, and civilians in one number, and comparing them to US civilians lost on 9/11.

Like before. The graphs are saying Frak America. That`s all.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@dax:

Well said! lol
0
Reply
Male 10,338
WTF are they for fiizok? Explain.

They aren`t arbitrary. These graphs were made for a purpose.
0
Reply
Female 322
UMMMMMM doesn`t this mean we`re winning?
0
Reply
Male 591
auburnjunky, no, that is not what the graphs are for. But having read so many of your missives here, I`m not at all surprised that you aren`t capable of understanding the nature of factual information.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]But i`m a self-righteous arrogant prick. thanks for that.did you read any of the posts i was referring to?
fu*kin eco-warrior![/quote]
Yes, because quite obviously you didn`t actually read his post, just the quote at the bottom.

I hope you enjoy being an arrogant, self-righteous prick. I`m sure you do, since ignorant people do tend to enjoy their flaws...
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@banshee:

I see you trollin`. I hatin`.
0
Reply
Male 6
Ok, but what is 1 Iraqi life compared to 1 American or British life? I`d say 1:1000 at least.. None of them are going to contribute anything to society and the world the way Americans, Brits, Asians or Indians would
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@patch:

Yeah I speak in jest. I love our northern brothers and sisters.

Probably one of the best countries in the world to live.
0
Reply
Male 4,745
Canada has an army. A good one. Good men and women who were willing to go to a made up war and have the U.S.`s back.

It`s all fun to make jokes about Canada`s army (I do it all the time), but the truth is, they are every bit as prepared and dedicated as the U.S. and British armies.
0
Reply
Male 2,160
canada and the US had several ridiculous border skirmishes over the course of history, the 1812 war directly involving both.
they even had silly invasion plans for each other for a long time, taken from a neutral perspective based on the realities of it at the time, who wouldve won wouldve been determined by whoever attacked first.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@nido:

Did you SLEEP during history class?

The war of 1812 was at least a whole chapter wasn`t it? lol.

It was the US vs. Britain who had Canada and American Indians as allies. It was a stalemate. The only real losers were the Indians, who because of the betrayal, were killed and forced to live on reservations.

It was basically a trade dispute. We wanted to trade with France. the British didn`t want us to. So we said "frak you!" and declared war.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
""The clear aim of these statistics is to belittle the significance of the deaths that occurred on September 11th."

Good God...are you for real? That is absolutely NOT the point of the graphs and statistics! "

I think you are both right and wrong. Your argument between each other is based on your perspective and bias. Also perhaps your willingness to take something at face value or to require further information in order to make a judgment. In other words, your argument is basically moot between each other.
0
Reply
Male 417
this war is turning into justin bieber. everywhere you turn you see some kind of news about and it`s getting a tad annoying
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@sbeelz:

So?

@fiizok: Yes. That`s exactly what the graphs are for. They are saying "Look at you American non-nice individuals. You had this many die, but you killed this many" which is cloudy math at best.

@deepdark: Yeah. You`re pretty much the safest person on the planet lol.
0
Reply
Male 9,305
deep: I wasn`t aware that Canada and the USA ever fought at all. As little as I remember from history class, that was never mentioned. What did they not tell me?
0
Reply
Female 277
No NDLOgan I will not "drat off" and I`m not hating on anyone.
9/11 was absolutely horrible but it seems like worse things are happening these days, and US media is very biased.
0
Reply
Male 591
"The clear aim of these statistics is to belittle the significance of the deaths that occurred on September 11th."

Good God...are you for real? That is absolutely NOT the point of the graphs and statistics!
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"When your country is attacked and in need of a friend. We the people of the USA will be there to help. We always are and always will be. Not all of us are perfect. But the majority of us are good, fair and just.

Can you say the same?"

Oh bullsh*t. Our government routinely provides military support to fascist dictators that murder and suppress their own people when it suits the US`s "national interests." Look at our support for General Suharto in Indonesia. The people of Indonesia could have used our help when they were being slaughtered by Suharto`s death-squads- oh wait, those same death squads were trained by the US military.
0
Reply
Male 25
@auburnjunky, Well i`m an englishman living in Canada so my back`s pretty much covered, LOL.
0
Reply
Male 2,160
whats not mentioned is that its mostly the iraqis and afghans killing each other, the US forces of course arent blameless but the rival warlord mess thats going on in those regions is the greatest contributor to the statistic.
0
Reply
Female 3,001
hahaa younglink :)
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@deepdark:

Were we at war with Canada, or with Britain who had Canada as a ally?

Who has your backs now?
0
Reply
Male 59
the thing i want to know: how many of these casualties were caused by al queada and similar groups, and how many were caused by americans and similar. also if its been caused by american troops, were these civilians caught in cross fire, or were they "civilians" who fought against the troops like how in other wars there have been the civilians that fight against the other army
0
Reply
Male 4,867
i pretty much said all this in the bin Laden thread yesterday
0
Reply
Male 25
@auburnjunky,

Are you aware of the outcome the last time Canada and the U.S went to war? Hint: it didnt work out too good for your boys.
0
Reply
Male 218
Really Magicant?! Let`s see... it`s been 9 years, but let`s forget one of the worst days in US History. Okay, done! Let`s forget when something even remotely close to that happened in Candada... oh wait, it never did. In other words "drat off"!
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"Terrorism is not equal to war."

How so? Just because we don`t "mean to" kill all those civilians doesn`t make them any less dead, and it doesn`t give their families any consolation. Murder is murder.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
arent all afghan and iraqi casualties civilian though, because neither have a military. so many of those "civilian" casualties could be hostiles.
0
Reply
Male 25
@webz,

But most importantly, I agree with Krowley and AlfishKK. The clear aim of these statistics is to belittle the significance of the deaths that occurred on September 11th. That`s a little disrespectful, as is the pathetic bickering going on in this thread. Those were people`s fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, wifes, husbands, sisters and brothers, as were those who died in Iraq. We need to stop looking at things with national boundaries attached, and start seeing the bigger picture. We`re all human and we`re all in this together, I don`t give a poo if you`re american, canadian, british or iraqi.

Stalin said "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic". I say it`s only a statistic if you allow it to be.

But i`m a self-righteous arrogant prick. thanks for that.did you read any of the posts i was referring to?
fu*kin eco-warrior!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@magicant:

Someone is attacking Canada.

OH SNAP! We just saved your ass!

Don`t hate. We are your sword. You can`t fight a war with Maple Syrup and hockey sticks....

...and Michael J. Fox.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"USA has almost never been in a state of peace, you guys are always in a war.."

Well let`s see. We were not in a declared war between Vietnam and Desert Storm. That`s 14 years.

Shall I go down the list? You will probably find that we have not been engaged in a declared war for twice as many years as we have existed.
0
Reply
Male 541
But most importantly, I agree with Krowley and AlfishKK. The clear aim of these statistics is to belittle the significance of the deaths that occurred on September 11th. That`s a little disrespectful, as is the pathetic bickering going on in this thread. Those were people`s fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, wifes, husbands, sisters and brothers, as were those who died in Iraq. We need to stop looking at things with national boundaries attached, and start seeing the bigger picture. We`re all human and we`re all in this together, I don`t give a poo if you`re american, canadian, british or iraqi.

Stalin said "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic". I say it`s only a statistic if you allow it to be.
0
Reply
Female 248
Terrorism is not equal to war.
0
Reply
Female 277
I may sound like a horrible person but they`re really dragging out 9/11. Like how many years has it been since the attack? Worse things have happened, especially to iraq civilians. Bleh...
0
Reply
Male 541
1. @deepdarkshar - Twice I`ve seen you claim people in this thread need to pull their "heads out of their arses" while you continue to act like a self-righteous, arrogant prick. You`re the only person here I see with their head jammed up their intestines.

2. @deepdarkshar + MauserTM - Thubanstar does raise a valid question. Suicide bombings, car bombs, roadside bombings are all daily occurrences in Iraq and have been since the invasion started, none of them carried out by US troops. I`m not trying to defend the US`s right to be in Iraq (I think we should have pulled out a LONNNG time ago), but you seem to be blind to the fact that Islamic terrorists are killing A LOT of Iraqi civilians, maybe more than US troops have.
0
Reply
Female 134
I wonder how many civilians would have died if we hadn`t invaded. Someone should do a thing about that...
0
Reply
Male 101
RAH RAH RAH, WAR IS BAD, RAhsf ljs blah blah blah.....
0
Reply
Male 75
@Znaught: What was the real reason for going to war then?

Maybe it wasn`t the reason, but it sure was the reason the people in america were ok with the war.
0
Reply
Male 4,680
"When your country is attacked and in need of a friend. We the people of the USA will be there to help. We always are and always will be. Not all of us are perfect. But the majority of us are good, fair and just.

Can you say the same?"
Yes, thanks to Tony Blair.
0
Reply
Male 351
Yeah, we went to Iraq because of 9/11. *rolls eyes*

Great comparison. Might as well compare the civilian casualties caused on the eastern front during WWII to 9/11 as well.
0
Reply
Male 1,452
"Mess with the bull you get the horns."

yeah lets go all out and just commit complete genocide USA USA USA [/sarcasm]
0
Reply
Male 22
1)no iraqis were involved with the sept 11 attacks. 2) an insurgennt is just someone opposing an occupying force 3)most of the 9/11 bombers were from a US ally-Saudi Arabia.
0
Reply
Male 1,452
"This is created from the discredited figures for Iraqi civilian casualties. "If you repeat a lie enough..." "
failing to read the sources before you pass judgment on them is pure stupidity
0
Reply
Male 34
"It`s fashionable to blame the USA for the problems of the world. This started in the 60`s. Those of you that see it that way are easily swayed, influenced and controllable.

When your country is attacked and in need of a friend. We the people of the USA will be there to help. We always are and always will be. Not all of us are perfect. But the majority of us are good, fair and just.

Can you say the same?"

I really cant, first.. USA has almost never been in a state of peace, you guys are always in a war..
second, easy to blame america? who is actually blaming america? its more likely we are stating facts and we dont blame.. maybe say that you got alot of idiots like christians and stupid patriots..
third.. Its true that America will help people in need, but so does EU..
fourth.. who are you to say that majority are nice and good? do you know the majority of the amricans?
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Linkenberger
"They`re barbaric and backwards by our standards"

Why is it ok to call them that, yet what would happen if you called Africans or People from India that?

That would be like me saying all Americans are fat, gun toting war mongers.

oh wait a second...
0
Reply
Male 1,021
Most of the deaths came from muslims to muslims, like I estimate 99%
0
Reply
Male 97
they provoked us! this is not necessarily reflexive of how this war started and who is at fault.
0
Reply
Male 313
It`s fashionable to blame the USA for the problems of the world. This started in the 60`s. Those of you that see it that way are easily swayed, influenced and controllable.

When your country is attacked and in need of a friend. We the people of the USA will be there to help. We always are and always will be. Not all of us are perfect. But the majority of us are good, fair and just.

Can you say the same?
0
Reply
Female 1,963
Sigh.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
"Coming from a guy that lives in Canada. Congratulations, you rely completely on the United States for your national defense."

I have worked with Canadian forces and I know first hand they are capable of defending themselves. Also, they were instrumental in WW2 to win a few huge battles... just to give one example.
0
Reply
Male 25
Linkenberger, Helping out the middle east? hahahaha! Yeah right, We`ll help you out with distributing that oil by destroying your infrastructures and killing your people while looking for non-existent nuclear weapons. What a great help they have been.
0
Reply
Male 90
Mess with the bull you get the horns.
0
Reply
Male 2,796
Now show me the same perspectives from most other wars. If they are much different then I suppose this would be a valid argument. But, I doubt they are that different. One also need to keep in mind the differnce in protective technology between civilians and soldiers. WW1/2, Korea, etc. had little by way of effective body protection and/or technology so soldier deaths would be higher and more on par with civilian deaths. Now modern technology for us is such that we can protect from battlefield casualty much more effectively while the civilians cannot.

I am not advocating civilian deaths here... I am just thinking this is not as well rounded and possibly biased information or possibly propaganda by truth.
0
Reply
Male 105
agree with NoArms5534
0
Reply
Male 25
Stupid people led to believe they are intelligent, the american governments favourite type of citizens.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
You`re right, Linkenberger, they are like roaches. After the atomic holocaust there will be two thing remaining. Islamic Radicals and Cher.
0
Reply
Male 25
@ deadbass, Defence from what exactly? anybody that thinks 9/11 was done by muslim extremists really needs to pull their head out of their arse! American mind control, phoney patriotism, lies and propaganda. Stay sleeping and keep "believing" my friend.
0
Reply
Male 166
@deepdarkshar Coming from a guy that lives in Canada. Congratulations, you rely completely on the United States for your national defense. It is a good thing we keep the fighting over there because if it was a little bit north of New York, you would be the one with the disaster on your hands. you need to learn something about radical islam before you talk about it you twit
0
Reply
Male 1,164
I don`t get what we`re gaining by helping out the middle east. That`s radical Islamic theocracy territory; even Russia had a hell of a time fighting these guys, and they didn`t hold back because of civilians.

They`re barbaric and backwards by our standards, but they`re also like roaches; you just can`t kill them all.
0
Reply
Male 166
that majority is obviously people that needed to be dealt with if they wouldn`t fall under the civilian category
0
Reply
Male 196
This is created from the discredited figures for Iraqi civilian casualties. "If you repeat a lie enough..."
0
Reply
Male 25
It amazes me just how impressionable people are, especially when it comes to this phoney patriotism, you yanks are the worst people on earth tricked into thinking you are doing the right thing, there are some real moronic posts on here. Since when have the Iraqis been killing eachother more than the U.S military? pull your heads out of your arses!
0
Reply
Male 478
The enemy is civilians. Insurgents cannot be counted as a military so they are placed in the civilians portion. And don`t forget that the innocent civilians were mostly killed by insurgents. These charts try to make you think the US forces are attacking innocent civilians and not insurgents.
0
Reply
Male 220
so how many more are left to kill? hurry up! then we can invade europe and other non-important, hate-filled spaces.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
We should just supply all sides - radical and conservative - and let them kill each other/themselves

Peace through Profiteering
0
Reply
Male 5,194
BASTARDS! Let`s get those grey and red lines to shrink down to 0.01% or so.
0
Reply
Male 272
screw you america
0
Reply
Male 1,222
@thubanstar
What? their own people killing the equivalent of 911 in a week, every week, yeah, thats reasonable, thank god you sent your troops over there, otherwize those barbarians would have killed the whole world with weapons of mass destr... wait, no weapons of mass destruction? Lets stay over there and steal their oil just the same
0
Reply
Male 2,121
Looks like America is winning.
0
Reply
Male 696
jeez.
Statistics. Polling. Generalizations.
Propoganda with vague math.
Both sides use it, and both sides disgust me.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
The only thing I have to say about the civilian casualties is:

If you KNOW the poostorm is coming, get the hell out of the way and don`t add to it.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
Good question, Thubanstar.
0
Reply
Male 39,880
This means nothing.

There are always casualties in war. How many died when we carpet bombed Berlin? War is won by use of overpowering force until the people no longer wish to fight. Considering the trouble still going on in Iraq, I`d conclude there have not been enough casualties yet.

okay... go ahead and hate me, I`m ready for it.
0
Reply
Female 836
Yeah, but is that the U.S. killing them, or their own people killing each other? I`m thinking choice #2.
0
Reply
Female 781
Man, people`s tastelessness on 9/11 continues to amaze me.
0
Reply
Male 1,222
Im more intrested in the comments yanquees are gonna make
0
Reply
Female 728
The chart doesn`t show military casualties for Afghanistan and Iraq. If the case is that the military are being counted as civilians, this chart is misleading.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Apples to Oranges.
0
Reply
Male 4,807
Link: Perspective On 9/11 And The U.S. Invasions [Rate Link] - Seeing things in a different perspective is always important.
0
Reply