angelo
Deleted
Real and fake xtians! How many are responsible for terrorist deaths?
-
Features
US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
Real and fake xtians! How many are responsible for terrorist deaths?
Zero real ones and about 237 fake ones.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,766
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Do Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh count?
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Of course not. Just because they may be tangentially related to a religion that promises your own mansion and streets made of gold if you martyr yourself, doesn't mean they all are terrorists.
Islam is different. You are promised 13 MRA dudes if you kill in the name of religion. Therefore anyone who follows Islam is a terrorist.
- - - Updated - - -
What do you want it to be?
Not anymore.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Do the estimated 1 1/2 million Iraqi civilians, many of them children, who died because of our sanctions count?
That's why I voted for Ralph Nader, twice.
Most of those "sanctions" deaths were because Saddam deliberately engineered it so his people would die. He did things like re-exporting the food he imported under the oil-for-food program (to sell for hard cash to buy weapons) and he never spent all the oil-for-food money in the first place.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
We had to kill all those civilians. Saddam forced us to do it! No. That is bullshit. Total bullshit. Callus and brutal.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Well, far more civilians died when we invaded Iraq. Our country would have been far better off if we had elected Gore rather than Bush.
We didn't kill them. Saddam killed them by not providing for their needs. His diverting resources away from the people is no reason for us to provide more.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
Bullshit! It was our sanctions that did the most damage. For years on end.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,766
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
If Hussein wasn't sanctioned, these people would have been war fodder like in the 80s.
Calling it bullshit doesn't make it so.
Saddam could import enough food for his people. He wanted the suffering, though, to get the sanctions eased.
fast
Contributor
Twisted causation is so hard to follow. If you need something monthly and I provide it for you monthly, then I'm helping you (monthly, I might add), but if I stop helping you, then I find it twisted to say that I'm then harming you, for to me, to harm someone requires an action, not an inaction; however, there are numerous examples people could provide to purportedly demonstrate harm through inaction, yet it's those (or, um, many of those) numerous examples that I find twisted, as the net-effect being the same does not make for the same cause. Blame me for not helping when not helping has the same effect as harming, but don't blame me for harming if you can only point to not helping. The reality of what's happening (or not happening) is lost in our characterization of our purported harmful deeds.
If I take away your allowance (as some might say), then I've made a decision and acted on that decision, but what's really going on is grounded in a twisted reversal of events. I've went from giving an allowance to no longer giving an allowance, so I've not went from doing something to doing something else; I've went from doing something to not doing something. Yes, I might very well be denying an allowance, a direct consequence of my decision, but the action of what I was doing is no more--not some action where I'm doing something. Will it potentially harm her social life? I say I'm no longer helping. Just because there might be some equivalent effect is (I would think) a different matter.
If I take away your allowance (as some might say), then I've made a decision and acted on that decision, but what's really going on is grounded in a twisted reversal of events. I've went from giving an allowance to no longer giving an allowance, so I've not went from doing something to doing something else; I've went from doing something to not doing something. Yes, I might very well be denying an allowance, a direct consequence of my decision, but the action of what I was doing is no more--not some action where I'm doing something. Will it potentially harm her social life? I say I'm no longer helping. Just because there might be some equivalent effect is (I would think) a different matter.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The US destryed Iraq's water and sewer systems, and then denied Iraq, under sanctions, materials and supplies needed to rebuild and purify water. Large numbers of Iraqis died as a result. To say that this was the fault of Saddam is simply untrue and monstrous.
Thomas nagy, a california college professor upon hearing about this filed a FOIA request and got documents demonstrating the US knew that its policies would result in these sorts of death and went ahead and did it anyway.
Nagy found that he could not get the MSM to touch these findings. It was finally publish in the Progressive Magazine, September 2001.
http://www.progressive.org/news/200...us-intentionally-destroyed-iraqs-water-supply
The US knew its policies would result in deaths of innocent civilians and went ahead and did it anyway. Plus other horrors and little games. Iraq was aloud to import medicines, but not syringes for example. Smirk, smirk.
http://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
To say that it's all Saddam's fault, and he forced us to kill 1 1/2 million Iraqis, is simply monstrous. It's about as sensible as Hitlers claiming the Jews forced him into starting WW2. At this late date to say it wasn't our fault and Saddam forced us to do this year after weary year is not an acceptable apologism.
Thomas nagy, a california college professor upon hearing about this filed a FOIA request and got documents demonstrating the US knew that its policies would result in these sorts of death and went ahead and did it anyway.
Nagy found that he could not get the MSM to touch these findings. It was finally publish in the Progressive Magazine, September 2001.
http://www.progressive.org/news/200...us-intentionally-destroyed-iraqs-water-supply
The US knew its policies would result in deaths of innocent civilians and went ahead and did it anyway. Plus other horrors and little games. Iraq was aloud to import medicines, but not syringes for example. Smirk, smirk.
http://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
—60 Minutes (5/12/96)
To say that it's all Saddam's fault, and he forced us to kill 1 1/2 million Iraqis, is simply monstrous. It's about as sensible as Hitlers claiming the Jews forced him into starting WW2. At this late date to say it wasn't our fault and Saddam forced us to do this year after weary year is not an acceptable apologism.
angelo
Deleted
Al Gore!! You have to be fucking joking!!
angelo
Deleted
A drop in the ocean as compared to islamic killings every day!
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
He may have stopped 9-11.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
There's a chance that he would have taken Clinton's advice and had focused on Jihadist intel in the US. It's very slightly possible that his administration would not have ignored the intel the way Bush did and may have detected the attack. But very unlikely that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Gore would have focused more on the environment. We'd have two more moderates on the supreme court. We wouldn't have had the large Bush tax cuts on the rich meaning we'd have a much smaller budget deficit today. I could go on. But I think that Gore was very underrated.