Bulldrek v3.0

Alright, but I still have yet to see the Washington Post article that claims only 100 civilians have been killed, oh here is one article I found on the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar21.html It explains the events surrounding one incident, where 8 civilians were killed by American bombs. One incident... how many bombs did America drop so far?

Do you honestly believe that the civilian death toll is limited to 100?

Sure, most of the articles I found in the last ten minutes of looking online are linked back to one report, but I looked for ten minutes, and I found several newspapers or agencies that have not discounted this man's figure of approximately 4,000 people being killed. Show me one that says only 100 have been killed, hopefully it won't be something like "Stars and Stripes" either.

Marius, your link doesn't work.

You know what pisses me off about people bitching about civilian casualties? The fact that we're the only people bothering to try to minimize them in this conflict.

I remember, several years ago, reading about a US attack on Iraq where a mortar landed /near/ a school, and the international press went insane complaining about the possible civilian deaths. /Possible./ No one was /actually/ hurt.

I've got one word for people who complain about civilian deaths: Fucking Dresden. Where was the international condemnation then?

Look, we try. We try very, very hard not to kill civilians. And we largely succeed. But there is no onus on us to do so; we've taken it on ourselves to minimize civilian casualties in a conflict with people who park their tanks in mosques and hide in civilian populaces so we can't hurt them.

International law prohbits direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects as well as attacks on military targets expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life "which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." We've done that. Leave us alone.

Incidentally, the death toll you're citing is from Mark Herold, who seems to be the only person who believes it's that high; everyone I've read citing those figures is quoting him. And he's getting his figures from...wait for it...al-Jezeera. Among others, like the Guardian and several activist websites. I don't think he can be considered impartial. Particularly since his [s]scholarly work[/s] includes such impartial, scholarly statements as, "Actions speak, and words [can] obscure: the hollowness of pious pronouncements by Rumsfeld, Rice and the compliant corporate media about the great care taken to minimize collateral damage is clear for all to see."

Is it me or does 6,000 dead civilians sound like an acceptable number of civilian casulties.

If it is 100 that is great, but considering a nation like Afganistan has less than 6,000 causlities that is fantastic. We are talking about a country filled with land mines, a country under warfare for most of the last 30 years.

Incidentally, the death toll you're citing is from Mark Herold, who seems to be the only person who believes it's that high; everyone I've read citing those figures is quoting him.

Apparently his figures are believed by others if they are going to be quoting him, right?

Al-Jezeera

So just because this news agency is based in the Middle-east Western governments/news agencies/people shouldn't believe what they have to say? Don't forget, they had a working understanding with CNN, supposedly a respected news agencies around the world, if CNN can use Al-Jezeera as a source for some of their reports why is it now that when the topic of civilians deaths comes up it's integrity is going to be questioned?

Is it me or does 6,000 dead civilians sound like an acceptable number of civilian casulties.

That has to be the stupidest fucking bullshit I have heard on Bulldrek, why... fuck it, have it your way, I'll leave this thread now.

Lektrogirl wrote: It explains the events surrounding one incident, where 8 civilians were killed by American bombs. One incident... how many bombs did America drop so far?

And every single one of them hit a civilian.

Do you honestly believe that the civilian death toll is limited to 100?

No, not at all. But I believe it's on that scale, and far, far less than the 4-5 thousand you keep spouting about.

Marius, your link doesn't work.

No shit. I told you that before I posted it.

Apparently his figures are believed by others if they are going to be quoting him, right?

Or maybe he's the only one who made an effort to do so. And maybe his numbers are so wonderfully high that it makes for a good story. Besides, something does not have to be believed to be reported. In fact, the BBC article was very good about not representing them as fact, but rather as a number that someone came up with.

Don't forget, they had a working understanding with CNN, supposedly a respected news agencies around the world, if CNN can use Al-Jezeera as a source for some of their reports why is it now that when the topic of civilians deaths comes up it's integrity is going to be questioned?

CNN isn't exactly the best place to go for impartiality.

Lektrogirl wrote:

Incidentally, the death toll you're citing is from Mark Herold, who seems to be the only person who believes it's that high; everyone I've read citing those figures is quoting him.

Apparently his figures are believed by others if they are going to be quoting him, right?

1. Not necessarily. Reporting is reporting; good reporting doesn't take sides, it simply states what has happened or been said. Of course, we see little of that nowadays, if we ever saw any at all.

2. So what? Just because a handful of activists and some mainstream media outlets believe this guy is right doesn't mean it's true.

Lektrogirl wrote:

Al-Jezeera

So just because this news agency is based in the Middle-east Western governments/news agencies/people shouldn't believe what they have to say? Don't forget, they had a working understanding with CNN, supposedly a respected news agencies around the world, if CNN can use Al-Jezeera as a source for some of their reports why is it now that when the topic of civilians deaths comes up it's integrity is going to be questioned?

I question the integrity of every news organization. Including CNN. There is some concern that al-Jezeera may not be interely impartial on this matter. However, I concede that they are a valid source. On the other hand, I assert that the Guardian - used far more often in his report - is not. At all.

Lektrogirl wrote:

voz wrote:Is it me or does 6,000 dead civilians sound like an acceptable number of civilian casulties.

That has to be the stupidest fucking bullshit I have heard on Bulldrek, why... fuck it, have it your way, I'll leave this thread now.

Well, I'm talking to myself if you're really gone, but I don't mind that.

Lektro, I know you abhor violence as a thing. But there are times when it is necessary, particularly to avoid more violence. And there are times, as horrible as it may seem, that in order to commit violence against the people who need to have violence committed against them, we have to commit violence against people who don't. It sucks, and it's horrible, but that's the way of things.

Voz I am 27, and I served four glorious years in the Marine Corps, how about you? Oh and yes I have been shot at, yes I have seen people who have been shot. I have seen people killed by hand grenades and other training accidents. Just like any one else in this thread I have seen violence. I said it was justifiable and reasonable, not glorious, fun or neat.

So the next question I have is so what? What does this have to do with the thread? Are you saying any one who isn't a veteran, or hasn't killed someone has no relevant input? That pretty much eliminates most of the people on this board, and in the United States. Are you saying that US citizens who don't join their Military shouldn't have a say in the way their country runs things? Gee, want to disenfranchise anyone else?

I concur with both Marius and 3278, that the United States is the only side intrested in whether we do collatoral damage or whether we cause any civilian causalities. No one called the damn towers and siad, "Hey we're crashing a plane into the towers, want to evacuate the civilians first, and load it with military personel?"

Gee what a crock. As a US citizen I should be so worried what the fellas who crashed a civilian jet liner into the World trade center don't lose their families in this totally unjustified war. Right.

Oh and Bishop I love ya, but brother this isn't the a case of an adult beating a child. This is a ragged lean wiry savage fucker who just stabbed us. I should feel sorry for the guy who stabbed me? Because he has spent his life in and out of war, jail and caused his relatives grief? I should be sorry for that? I should be sorry because his extremist beliefs said crash a jet liner into a building, or blow a bomb up in a night club? Get real.

3278 wrote: Bish, have you seen Isaac and Ishmael?* If not, you should come over some time and see it. There's a /lot/ of it that speaks to what you're talking about.

I'm still looking for a transcript of it so Flame can read it. There's no CC on my recording of it, so watching it won't do him any good. If I find a transcript, I'll link to it, and everyone can read it. It's incredibly good, and has a lot of very relavant points. Plus, I think it'd likely start several fights over some of the points it makes which some people might not agree with, which is the whole point of the show in the first damned place.

*For those who don't know, Isaac and Ishmael was the season opener to this year's season of the West Wing. It was written and filmed after September 11, and aired in place of the actual season premiere.

32, not too sure about that. I think it doesn't matter if it's CC if the show itself is already CC through special codes. Since it's West Wing, it's probably already CCed. Ever tried turning it on? It should work.

FlameBlade wrote: 32, not too sure about that. I think it doesn't matter if it's CC if the show itself is already CC through special codes. Since it's West Wing, it's probably already CCed. Ever tried turning it on? It should work.

Sorry, I should have been more clear; I have a rip of the show on my computer, which is only going to be video-and-audio only.

I was thinking about getting a transcript to you yesterday and tried running the show through my speech-to-text program, but that made a huge mess of everything. The program has to be tuned to each speaker.

I'm contacting NBC tonight, which I've been meaning to do for a while. I assume transcripts are available, for teachers and the like, and I'm going to try to get one.

Standing by one's principles is difficult sometimes, but if America is to remain a land of freedom as Americans proclaim it to be then you cannot go around violating the basic principles of a civilized society, which includes among other things "not torturing people". Don't forget, if you condone torture on these prisoners what is to stop your government from one day accusing you of something and torturing you?

These aren't prisoners of war. Prisoners of war implies that we've captured soldiers. These people aren't soldiers, but are cowards trained to only attack civilians. Therefore the rules of the Geneva Convention don't apply.(BTW, is it me, or does it seem like America was the only country to ever apply to the rules of it?) Also, the Geneva convention was written 50 some odd years ago....I have no idea of the exact date, or even close to the exact date. But back then, war was differant. Now the only way we can find Bin Laden is to interrogate, and torture these little bastards until they give us some useful information. It also might be possible to gain information about future terrorists attacks from them. So a few evil people suffering, to me, is MUCH better than hundreds or thousands dying, don't you think?

In no way have I said that I feel sorry for them. I don't care if it is a 12 year old, or a 40 year old, or anybody..if somebody attacks me, they're going down. Hard. And they might not get back up. That's the way American Military is treating this. We've beat them. We've got our vengenance, our payback, except for that cocksucker Bin Laden. We've beat them down. And fucking hard, too. I guess I kinda lost my train of thought.

Now that we've beaten the issue of Afghanistan to death, who's for bringing the war to other places, like Iraq, and Iran, and N. Korea?

Fuck that, invade Canada.

Canadien beer sucks.

However, their drinking ages are not that bad.

These aren't prisoners of war. Prisoners of war implies that we've captured soldiers. These people aren't soldiers, but are cowards trained to only attack civilians. Therefore the rules of the Geneva Convention don't apply.

I would suggest you read the Convention more closely (if you've read it at all) According to my reading of the Geneva Convention, they (any of the people captured 'on the field of battle', as it were) certainly are afforded protections. We've had this discussion at length already.

3278 wrote: Bish, have you seen Isaac and Ishmael?*

*For those who don't know, Isaac and Ishmael was the season opener to this year's season of the West Wing. It was written and filmed after September 11, and aired in place of the actual season premiere.

Yes. I've only seen 2 episodes of the West Wing, Isaac and Ishmael being one of them. Frankly, I thought that episode was great in dealing with what happened and explaining it from a few different points of view.

No, not really. I remember that many were foreign; however, I do remember Lektro, Flame, Cash, Marius (back and forth), Scamp (I think), and Thorn (I think) joining in on the Be Nice to the Poor Little Afghanis bandwagon.

Where did I say this? Of course, if you want to pin me to a place... Yes, we should Be Nice to the Poor Little Afghani civilians. Now the Taliban/Al Queda (sp, I know) on the other hand...yes, they should be punished.

Because they were impeding the right of blacks to vote, not because they were killing people. Nathan Bedford Forest actually officially dissolved the klan in, uh, 1869,

...and the Mafia officially doesn't exist.

Now that we've beaten the issue of Afghanistan to death, who's for bringing the war to other places, like Iraq, and Iran, and N. Korea?

Does anyone else think this sounds like one of the most idiotic ideas ever?

Cash wrote: ...and the Mafia officially doesn't exist.

Spoke to the desire of the leaders of the klan to avoid violence, not to say that it doesn't exist, as I thought was fairly obvious.

And the desire of the Sicilian mob is to solely help the poor, downtrodden Sicilians? Ok, we're getting off course here. I'll stop.

The leaders of the Sicilian mob didn't dissolve it to attempt to prevent violence. You're intentionally missing the point.

The leaders of the Sicilian mob didn't dissolve it to attempt to prevent violence.

And neither did the leader of the Klan. He wanted to keep the violence controlled and specifically targeted, but certainly didn't want it to stop completely.

Thank you Scamp. Exactly.

Bishop wrote: Canadien beer sucks.

Only because you're a lightweight.

..

When a natural diaster like below hits. It really does put into perspective how many lives are/are not lost by war.

Two powerful earthquakes killed at least 1,800 people and injured 3,000 in northern Afghanistan Monday night and today, leveling entire towns and villages in the mountainous region, government and relief officials said.