• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

We must leave Iraq

Billo_Really said:
And have contributed to the destruction of that country with possible over 600,000 people losing their lives.

Are you aware that the number 600,000 is almost 1 in 10 Iraqis?

Are you saying 1 of every 10 Iraqis has died because of the war?

People might actually believe the crap you say if they didn't know that Iraq has about the same population as Texas.

Retarded baseless statement. Next:

The longer we stay, the more terrorism will flourish, the more we will lose our humanity, the more danger (in terms of the United States security) the world will be, and the less we will be as a nation that we thought we once were.

Turn your computer off.

We have to bring home all US troops from all country's in the world and stop this madness of US aggression.

Destabilize three continents. Excellent idea billo. Have you talked to the South Koreans about this?


This is causing terrorism.

YEAH! Terrorists were so mad about Iraq and Afghanistan they blew up the World Trade Center!!!! Oh wait....... nevermind.

We have a leader of this country that in some respects is just like Hitler, just like Saddam Hussein, just like Stalin, with the only difference being a better military than the other three.

Here is a quiz billo:

Which of these three leaders would let you talk on a public forum disagreeing with them:

A. Hitler
B. Saddam
C. Stalin
D. None of the above. Billo is an idiot.

Next:


But what is much worse than Bush, are the citizens that put him in office. The stupid, ignorant, wanna-be American citizens that threw their vote into the garbage because they believe in the dumbs.hit wisdom of O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Limbaugh.

One in two Americans is stupid and ignorant. Good statement. Your national pride is showing billo.



Why? Many reasons. With the biggest probably being their just mentally lazy and it was convenient to adopt someone else's point of view without doing the analytical work ourselves.

You are one to talk about "doing the work yourself" when most of your quoted sources in other posts are just liberal talking points by political pundits.

At no time, in the history of this planet, has a conventional army won a guerilla war. And it's not going to happen now.

You lose billo.

Examples of unsuccessful guerrilla campaigns

* Irish Civil War 1922-23
* Border Campaign (IRA) 1956-62
* Spanish republican guerrillas after the Spanish Civil War
* Second Boer War
* Greek Civil War
* Malayan Emergency
* Bolivia
* Congo
* Philippine American War 1899-1902
* Poland 1939-1944, unsuccessful up till USSR liberation from German occupation
* Uruguay 1965-1973, the Tupamaros were suppressed by the army forces that later took power
* Dominican Republic US forces suppressed Dominican guerrillas
* Lithuania 1944-1956, Forest Brothers
 
FreeThinker said:
You lose billo.

Examples of unsuccessful guerrilla campaigns

* Irish Civil War 1922-23
* Border Campaign (IRA) 1956-62
* Spanish republican guerrillas after the Spanish Civil War
* Second Boer War
* Greek Civil War
* Malayan Emergency
* Bolivia
* Congo
* Philippine American War 1899-1902
* Poland 1939-1944, unsuccessful up till USSR liberation from German occupation
* Uruguay 1965-1973, the Tupamaros were suppressed by the army forces that later took power
* Dominican Republic US forces suppressed Dominican guerrillas
* Lithuania 1944-1956, Forest Brothers

You forgot Peru and Columbia. So many useful idiots make that claim Billo made when the fact of the matter that it is far harder to find a successful insurgency than it is an unsuccessful one.
 
:alert

Moderator's Warning:
Save the gutter talk for the basement. Civility belongs upstairs and profanity and name calling belongs down stairs.
 
FreeThinker said:
Are you aware that the number 600,000 is almost 1 in 10 Iraqis?

Are you saying 1 of every 10 Iraqis has died because of the war?

People might actually believe the crap you say if they didn't know that Iraq has about the same population as Texas.

Retarded baseless statement. Next:

Sorry but you there abit off in the numbers:

Texas population: 20,851,820 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

Iraq population: 26,783,383 https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

But yes one in 45 is still a very high number. But it's still a estimate that have done with scientificly proven methods. Of course you have to remember it a estimate and it is very hard to do scientific research in the turmoil that is Iraq. This a generally problem that it's very hard to find out that is really going on. Also the official numbers have been extremly critized. What you can use is the iraqbodycount to get a minimum number. But as the state not all deaths get reported in the news, and ecpeically not two times as they demand.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
But yes one in 45 is still a very high number. But it's still a estimate that have done with scientificly proven methods. Of course you have to remember it a estimate and it is very hard to do scientific research in the turmoil that is Iraq. This a generally problem that it's very hard to find out that is really going on. Also the official numbers have been extremly critized. What you can use is the iraqbodycount to get a minimum number. But as the state not all deaths get reported in the news, and ecpeically not two times as they demand.

The numbers are very frustrating..

1) The President's Iraqi civilian death count is 50,000....ish.

2) The military places the Iraqi civilian death count at ....a little higher.

3) Over a year ago, an independent "study" placed the count at 150,000....ish.

4) One year later, another independent "study" placed the number at 650,000...ish.

5) The Iraqi Government count a couple weekends ago places this number at 150,000...ish.

The reasons an accurate (or seemingly even close) body count can not be detemined is for a multiple of reasons. One reason is that the anti-war voice in any era is always willing to latch on to anything that paints the worst picture. They will go as far as to even lie, which strips any credibility they may have to begin with. The truth should always be bad enough for a true anti-war voice (The accounts in Fallujah were bad enough without the embellishments and exxagerations). Another reason is that the military cannot keep a body count, because it is logistically too difficult. It also deters them from doing their jobs, which is killing. But the concrete difficulty in this countings game is that our enemies look like civilians. A tactic used by our enemies is to "lift" the weapon upon retreat. This is for two reasons - continued inventory and media exploitation. Once an AK-47 gets dropped, the news cameras capture what looks like a civilian. Therefore, the honest body counters are stuck staring at corpses that can be either civilian or combatants - both in the same attire.
 
Last edited:
Gysgt,

We don't count the bodies of dead Iraqi civilians because there are simply too many. Whatever the number is, it's in the 10s of thousands if not 100,000s.
 
Originally posted by TOT:
And who killed the majority of them?
Doesn't matter. We are responsible for the deaths.
If we hadn't invaded, they'd still be alive.
 
Here's a couple things that seem a little out of place:

Bush comments before the war:
“In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

“Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.”

Bush also said in that speech:

“The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal.”

And:

“The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.”


And now back to current day, look how things have turned out. It is a little different from the hyperbole above:
October 11, 2006

655,000 Excess Dead in Iraq War and Occupation


Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts, of Johns Hopkins and Mustansiriyah University, have just published the results of a new Iraqi excess mortality study in the Lancet.

It concludes that in the 40 months from March 2003 through the end of June 2006 (originally, I had a typo -- June 2003 instead of June 2006; it was caught thanks to the alert vigilance of an Air Force public affairs person), excess mortality in Iraq is 655,000, with 601,000 of that due to violence. Of the violent deaths, 31%, or 186,000, were due to coalition forces.

After several moments of absolute shock, my initial reaction on reading the study is that the estimate is very plausible and the methodology for evaluating it is sound. Formidable sampling problems mean that the margin of error is high, but it has been considerably reduced from the margin of error for the first study, published in October 2004.

Although, as everyone has felt, the proportion of deaths caused by the occupying forces has declined, it remains much higher than most people think and much higher than one could possibly gather from news reports (security conditions now mean that reporters can only report on U.S. military operations from embedded positions -- except perhaps with regard to the Baghdad security sweeps -- and once embedded it's very hard to gather useful information on Iraqis killed). In the most recent period they covered, June 2005 to June 2006, 26% of total deaths were caused by occupying forces, roughly half due to air-strikes.

Perhaps stung by criticism of their coverage of the first Iraq mortality survey, the major papers have jumped to cover this story -- and to bury it at the same time. The Los Angeles Times and Washington Post each put it on page A12 and the New York Times, never to be outdone in snootiness, put it on A16. While the sometimes silly standards of journalism probably require that the North Korea situation remain the number one situation, I can't imagine how this is anything but the number two story, at least for a day.

A more detailed analysis and methodological note is forthcoming, but these are the highlights.
I guess this is what he considers liberation. Even for those who don't put stock in the 665,000 number of Iraqi dead. At the very least, everyone can agree it is no less than 50,000. That's still pretty bad.

I don't understand the logic after we lose 3000 of our citizens, we have to go kill off 3000 more American's just so we can kill 50,000 people that had nothing to do with our tragedy. And all these appeals about staying in Iraq, staying in harms way, killing more innocent people, directly or as a result of our presence, I have to wonder, "For what?" What is our payoff for a sacrifice this great? What do we get? A date with Kelly Bundy? What is worth all those lives? What is worth losing our heritage?
 
Sorry for the delay but it wasn't my fault, I wasn't able to login and saw the following inscription: "in order to login administrator maust include your domain to the whitelist" which happaens usually after 2-3 days of my posting to this forum.
("evil hackers" jokes it must be;) )


TrajanOctavian said:
WTF are you talking about? AQ is not and has never been a CIA asset. Where do you come up with this stuff, stay off the conspiracy websites man.

Again you suggest me to trust your honest word or you think that if you’ll repeat a statement many times it will become truth regardless any verifiable matters?
OK, here are the consideration that Al-Qaeda is a CIA asset. What is the meaning of “Al-Qaeda”, do you know?
It means data-base in Arabic. Data-base of Mudjaheddin who were hired by CIA agent Osama bin-Laden to fight against USSR in Afghanistan. It is known overall, Bush administration sources also don’t deny this.
After 9-11-2001 someone who pretends he is Osama bin-Laden or perhaps this very Osama himself (why not?) takes responsibility for it. Taking into consideration that 9-11-2001 was inside job (no denial here, controlled demolitions don’t occur from office fires) and regarding astonishing cover-up that Bush administration provided for susceptible persons like first of all Larry Silverstein, we can conclude that Bush administration was (at least) the part of 9-11 cabal. Therefore, a person who takes responsibility for it and whose responsibility is accepted by the counterpart must be rather trusted and reliable one to this administration. “Former” CIA agent (there is a saying that there are no “former” special servicemen) fits good, doesn’t he?
Therefore, I cannot trust the tales of Al-Qaeda as something different from the CIA controlled group.

…we conquered Iraq in less than a week, it took like 3 days to capture Baghdad…
So what, it is the great difference between occupying of a land and full control over it. Only the last month you’ve lost a hundred killed (officially!) with all of this sects being busy killing each other and paying relatively less attention to the Americans. Imagine, what it would be if they were united against occupation!? Now you are struggling predominantly against Sunni and only Mukhtada as-Sadr Shia group (which is relatively passive), imagine what it would be if all of the Shia population including their Badr brigades would be against occupation forces. Roughly, it would have been at least four Rottweillers added to the Sunni Bull terrier!
Uncle Sam wouldn’t just dare invade in this case! So you counted on sectarian tensions from the very beginning (I’ve read several American articles in which this case was discussed in the terms of who will inside Iraq oppose aggression and who will not), and you managed to turn them into the sectarian violence at a critical moment in hope to save your forces.

Now look, I’ve lost some time to proof my last statement, using only the sources those are reliable for you:
There is certain Andrew Krepinevich US Army colonel (definitely non-Islamist) who proposed his famous report “Thin green line” late 2005.
Here for example about it:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/24/national/w133017S88.DTL
“Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon”. This, for example, paper is dated January 24, 2006.
The papers like that I’ve cited (there were numerous of such world wide)indicate understanding of a problem, discussion of the topic and search for solution.
Then what we read about sectarian violence in Iraq:
"The sharp rise in sectarian attacks, abductions and killings that followed the bombing of the holy Shi'a shrine in Samarra's Golden Mosque in February 2006 has presented Iraq with an explosive problem: sectarian-induced displacement".
http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/idp/200610_DisplacementinIraq.htm
Solution was found and its implementation began after 2-3 month of discussion and planning. Which is just the proper time.
“Purely accidentally” you’ll say?!
 
GySgt said:
The reasons an accurate (or seemingly even close) body count can not be detemined is for a multiple of reasons. One reason is that the anti-war voice in any era is always willing to latch on to anything that paints the worst picture. They will go as far as to even lie, which strips any credibility they may have to begin with. The truth should always be bad enough for a true anti-war voice (The accounts in Fallujah were bad enough without the embellishments and exxagerations). Another reason is that the military cannot keep a body count, because it is logistically too difficult. It also deters them from doing their jobs, which is killing. But the concrete difficulty in this countings game is that our enemies look like civilians. A tactic used by our enemies is to "lift" the weapon upon retreat. This is for two reasons - continued inventory and media exploitation. Once an AK-47 gets dropped, the news cameras capture what looks like a civilian. Therefore, the honest body counters are stuck staring at corpses that can be either civilian or combatants - both in the same attire.

I can just speak for sweden, there many are against the war but here but I don't know many that hold on to the number 600000 or even 150000 as the truth. That people realise that they don't know the exact number, but they belive it to be to high and Iraq is seen as a failure. But yes in war it's very hard to get to the truth therefor is easier to belive in things that correlate to your belife and that goes for all sides. That if a personal sceptical of the war and the officials leading the war heard a official number and a unofficial number it's maybee more easy to belive the unofficial. That at the same time a person beliving in the war and the president like the official number more. Also you have to remember that the Iraq goverment and American officials has a interest to keep the numbers low.

That at the same time I agree it should be the american military job to do bodycount anymore after three year. That a part of the rebulding process should have been to create a trustworthy and independent organization to keep track of the conseqvuense of the war. One thing intrest is that you said it counting body deters them from doing there job. Well it depend that you see as there job. If it was fighting in WW3 then yes then the goal is to "blast" as many enemy as possible. But in Iraq you have a much more delicate situation.
 
arussian said:
Again you suggest me to trust your honest word or you think that if you’ll repeat a statement many times it will become truth regardless any verifiable matters?

Umm even if the three state solution was in the cards it is not intended to create sectarian violence it is intended to end it. Furthermore; you made the original claim you back it up, the burden of proof is on you.

OK, here are the consideration that Al-Qaeda is a CIA asset. What is the meaning of “Al-Qaeda”, do you know?
It means data-base in Arabic. Data-base of Mudjaheddin who were hired by CIA agent Osama bin-Laden to fight against USSR in Afghanistan. It is known overall, Bush administration sources also don’t deny this.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about we backed the portiion of the Mujahadeen that became the Northern Alliance, "the base" was never backed by the U.S., and OBL was never a CIA asset and you have absolutely no proof that he was.


After 9-11-2001 someone who pretends he is Osama bin-Laden or perhaps this very Osama himself (why not?) takes responsibility for it.[

Again where is your evidence that OBL was a CIA asset?

Taking into consideration that 9-11-2001 was inside job (no denial here, controlled demolitions don’t occur from office fires) and regarding astonishing cover-up that Bush administration provided for susceptible persons like first of all Larry Silverstein, we can conclude that Bush administration was (at least) the part of 9-11 cabal.

Oh I get it you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut. I've learned long ago that talk with your kind is rather pointless, just be sure to tighten the aluminum hat.

Therefore, a person who takes responsibility for it and whose responsibility is accepted by the counterpart must be rather trusted and reliable one to this administration. “Former” CIA agent (there is a saying that there are no “former” special servicemen) fits good, doesn’t he?
Therefore, I cannot trust the tales of Al-Qaeda as something different from the CIA controlled group.

Umm ya, your nice little dillusion is entertaining albeit in the way a car reck is entertaining, but you lack one important ingredient and that would be evidence.

So what, it is the great difference between occupying of a land and full control over it. Only the last month you’ve lost a hundred killed (officially!) with all of this sects being busy killing each other and paying relatively less attention to the Americans. Imagine, what it would be if they were united against occupation!?

We don't occupy we liberate, occupation would be what you Reds do.

Now you are struggling predominantly against Sunni and only Mukhtada as-Sadr Shia group (which is relatively passive), imagine what it would be if all of the Shia population including their Badr brigades would be against occupation forces. Roughly, it would have been at least four Rottweillers added to the Sunni Bull terrier!

It was the foreign inurgents who sparked the sectarian violence and unlike you I have evidence, from the Zarqawi letter to Zawahiri:

4. The Shi`a

These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis (Shi`a), who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the enfeebled Sufi shaykhs and [Muslim] Brothers, people would have told a different tale.

This matter, with the anticipated awaking of the slumberer and rousing of the sleeper, also includes neutralizing these [Shi`a] people and pulling out their teeth before the inevitable battle, along with the anticipated incitement of the wrath of the people against the Americans, who brought destruction and were the reason for this miasma. The people must beware of licking the honeycomb and enjoying some of the pleasures from which they were previously deprived, lest they surrender to meekness, stay on the[ir] land, prefer safety,, and turn away from the rattle of swords and the neighing of horses.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/040212-al-zarqawi.htm

Uncle Sam wouldn’t just dare invade in this case! So you counted on sectarian tensions from the very beginning (I’ve read several American articles in which this case was discussed in the terms of who will inside Iraq oppose aggression and who will not), and you managed to turn them into the sectarian violence at a critical moment in hope to save your forces.

Now look, I’ve lost some time to proof my last statement, using only the sources those are reliable for you:
There is certain Andrew Krepinevich US Army colonel (definitely non-Islamist) who proposed his famous report “Thin green line” late 2005.
Here for example about it:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/24/national/w133017S88.DTL
“Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon”. This, for example, paper is dated January 24, 2006.
The papers like that I’ve cited (there were numerous of such world wide)indicate understanding of a problem, discussion of the topic and search for solution.
Then what we read about sectarian violence in Iraq:
"The sharp rise in sectarian attacks, abductions and killings that followed the bombing of the holy Shi'a shrine in Samarra's Golden Mosque in February 2006 has presented Iraq with an explosive problem: sectarian-induced displacement".
http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/idp/200610_DisplacementinIraq.htm
Solution was found and its implementation began after 2-3 month of discussion and planning. Which is just the proper time.
“Purely accidentally” you’ll say?!


Umm, so 2-3 months is a proper time for the U.S. implementation of sectarian violence to occur after planning and discussion why exactly? Oh ya, because you say so. Your assertions make no god damn sense sectarian violence is our greatest impedement to success in Iraq, so WTF would we sponsor it? Answer: we wouldn't.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And who killed the majority of them?

Were those people doing it before the invasion?

Tell that to the victims of the Al-Anfal campaign.

When was that? 15 years ago? There are plenty of places where worse **** is going on yet we do not/have not intervened.

I'm sorry but the humanitarian arguement is bankrupt Trajan, we all know that had little if anything to do with the reason we're in Iraq.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Furthermore; you made the original claim you back it up, the burden of proof is on you..
And what I'm doing, providing considerations in response to your repetitions of one and the same without any backing of your thesis.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about we backed the portiion of the Mujahadeen that became the Northern Alliance, "the base" was never backed by the U.S., and OBL was never a CIA asset and you have absolutely no proof that he was.

Well, I've googled "Osama bin Laden CIA Afghanistan" Anyone can compare amount of sources saying he was connected to CIA or he wasn't.
Again where is your evidence that OBL was a CIA asset?

Can it be evidence? I doubt it but you see there are very few evidences in the juridical sense of the word. Just somebodies claims, some documents that well might be fakes.

Oh I get it you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut. I've learned long ago that talk with your kind is rather pointless, just be sure to tighten the aluminum hat.
Umm ya, your nice little dillusion is entertaining albeit in the way a car reck is entertaining, but you lack one important ingredient and that would be evidence.

Oh no! This case is unique, and therfore it is so important. There is evidence and it cannot be denied. The evidence is that contorlled demolitions don't occur because of the office fires. Especially if there were no fires at all as in the WTC7.
Denial of it makes you looking stupid, excuse me. I don't have intention to hurt you or the other Bushists but laws of physics cannot be denied, you see.

It was the foreign inurgents who sparked the sectarian violence and unlike you I have evidence, from the Zarqawi letter to Zawahiri:

I've read that this letter never had Arabian origianal.:mrgreen:

Umm, so 2-3 months is a proper time for the U.S. implementation of sectarian violence to occur after planning and discussion why exactly? Oh ya, because you say so. Your assertions make no god damn sense sectarian violence is our greatest impedement to success in Iraq, so WTF would we sponsor it? Answer: we wouldn't.

Sectarian violence skyrocketed after blow of Shrine in Samarra February 22, 2006, will you deny this? The very term "sectarian violence" appeared after these events.

American troops were exhausted and needed "relief", Krepinevich says in the special report for Pentagon. I think he knows what he says. Or you will deny it as well because you know better?

Withdrawl was not the option. So how can the troops gain some relief without withdrawl?
Obviously through the exacerbation of fight between Sunni and Shi'a! As the realtions between them were already tensed, some operation was required to push them into desired direction.
Or rerhaps, Sunni are clandestine collaborators to Americans if the have presented them such a gift?

These are the grounds for suspect, they are not evidences in juridical sense of the word. But I hope you understand that a trial is required to get proofs and evidences, something like new Watergate or new Nuremberg.
 
LeftyHenry said:
Were those people doing it before the invasion?



When was that? 15 years ago? There are plenty of places where worse **** is going on yet we do not/have not intervened.

I'm sorry but the humanitarian arguement is bankrupt Trajan, we all know that had little if anything to do with the reason we're in Iraq.

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
  • Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [[SIZE=-2]http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm[/SIZE]]
  • 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
    • New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
    • US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
      • 180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
      • 60,000 Shiites in 1991
      • 50,000 misc. others executed
    • "Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
    • Iraqi politicians: over a million
  • [These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

Saddam was a genocidal tyrant responsible for grave humanitarian violations right up until the time he was deposed.
 
arussian said:
And what I'm doing, providing considerations in response to your repetitions of one and the same without any backing of your thesis.

Backing of my thesis? No sir you made the assertion the burden of proof is on you.


Can it be evidence?

Yes there can it's called the Freedom of Information act.

I doubt it but you see there are very few evidences in the juridical sense of the word. Just somebodies claims, some documents that well might be fakes.

So in other words you have absolutely 0 evidence.

Oh no! This case is unique, and therfore it is so important. There is evidence and it cannot be denied. The evidence is that contorlled demolitions don't occur because of the office fires. Especially if there were no fires at all as in the WTC7.
Denial of it makes you looking stupid, excuse me. I don't have intention to hurt you or the other Bushists but laws of physics cannot be denied, you see.

Sir you are the stupid one because you'll believe anything off of the internet, the fact of the matter is that building 7 had a huge portion of it ripped away by the debris of collapsing towers 1 and 2 and there was a huge fire in the building caused by the falling debris, now if you look at the buildings at other angles (which conspicously never appear on the conspiracy sites because he flushes their bullshit conclusions right down the crapper) it is clear why the building collapsed.

Proof of that a huge fire raging in building 7 before the collapse:

wtc7_2.jpg


And the huge portion of the building that was missing:


wtc7_1.jpg


I've read that this letter never had Arabian origianal.:mrgreen:

Was it on the same site that says 9-11 was an inside job?

Sectarian violence skyrocketed after blow of Shrine in Samarra February 22, 2006, will you deny this? The very term "sectarian violence" appeared after these events.

Zarqawi organized the attack at the Samarra Mosque.

American troops were exhausted and needed "relief", Krepinevich says in the special report for Pentagon. I think he knows what he says. Or you will deny it as well because you know better?

Withdrawl was not the option. So how can the troops gain some relief without withdrawl?
Obviously through the exacerbation of fight between Sunni and Shi'a! As the realtions between them were already tensed, some operation was required to push them into desired direction.
Or rerhaps, Sunni are clandestine collaborators to Americans if the have presented them such a gift?

These are the grounds for suspect, they are not evidences in juridical sense of the word. But I hope you understand that a trial is required to get proofs and evidences, something like new Watergate or new Nuremberg.

Your conspiracy theory is to put it bluntly ****ing insane, it is the sectarian violence which is causing all of the chaos and getting our soldiers killed, it is the insurgency that wants the sectarian violence and a civil war that's their whole damned game plan.
 
650,000 civilians have died in Iraq so far. What's your point. And please, no ad-hominum attacks like "the study was partisan blah blah blah". The Lancet is very respected.
 
Sir you are the stupid one because you'll believe anything off of the internet, the fact of the matter is that building 7 had a huge portion of it ripped away by the debris of collapsing towers 1 and 2 and there was a huge fire in the building caused by the falling debris, now if you look at the buildings at other angles (which conspicously never appear on the conspiracy sites because he flushes their bullshit conclusions right down the crapper) it is clear why the building collapsed.

Proof of that a huge fire raging in building 7 before the collapse:

You don't do a very good job at arguing your case. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but c'mon, 2 foggy photos with smoke mean nothing. I could argue that the smoke and etcc was a controlled explosion.
 
LeftyHenry said:
650,000 civilians have died in Iraq so far. What's your point. And please, no ad-hominum attacks like "the study was partisan blah blah blah". The Lancet is very respected.

The lancet study is a joke and it's not an ad-hominem attack their methodology was fatally flawed and it has been proven time and time again, come into reality the water's fine.
 
LeftyHenry said:
You don't do a very good job at arguing your case. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but c'mon, 2 foggy photos with smoke mean nothing. I could argue that the smoke and etcc was a controlled explosion.

Umm explosions don't create large billowing towers of smoke fire does, and the second picture shows that a 20 floor high portion of building 7 had been ripped away by falling debris from the collapsing towers 1 and 2.
 
Last edited:
Backing of my thesis? No sir you made the assertion the burden of proof is on you..

You also make many assertions and prove neither of them.



Sir you are the stupid one because you'll believe anything off of the internet, the fact of the matter is that building 7 had a huge portion of it ripped away by the debris of collapsing towers 1 and 2 and there was a huge fire in the building caused by the falling debris, now if you look at the buildings at other angles (which conspicously never appear on the conspiracy sites because he flushes their bullshit conclusions right down the crapper) it is clear why the building collapsed.

Proof of that a huge fire raging in building 7 before the collapse:


And the huge portion of the building that was missing:

My dear friend! Uniformal collapse of a building (with a speed of free fall) can never occur due to the unilateral damage of it!
One side will fall while the rest will stay. Or at least one side will fall earlier.
It is self eveident and requires minimum of common sense for understanding.


Zarqawi organized the attack at the Samarra Mosque.

Al-CIAeda man Zarqawi, you've said it yourself.
I agree, yes CIA organized it!

Your conspiracy theory is to put it bluntly ****ing insane, it is the sectarian violence which is causing all of the chaos and getting our soldiers killed, it is the insurgency that wants the sectarian violence and a civil war that's their whole damned game plan.[/QUOTE]

Your statement is obviously self-contradicting in this: "sectarian violence which is... causing all of the chaos and getting our soldiers killed"

Your soldiers are not perceived by the insurgency as Shi'a or Sunni:mrgreen:
Sectarian violence distracts insurgency from the occupation forces and therefore it is very useful for the latter.
 
You don't do a very good job at arguing your case. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job but c'mon, 2 foggy photos with smoke mean nothing. I could argue that the smoke and etcc was a controlled explosion.

Left Hehry, you may trust me or not but I also didn't believe it was inside job untill I've visited this thread of this very forum, more than a year ago. http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/12931-september-11th-conspiracy-theories.html

Great! Since that time I feel kind of obligation to this forum.
 
You also make many assertions and prove neither of them.

The burden of proof is on the accuser not on the defendent, you made the accusation you back it up.

My dear friend! Uniformal collapse of a building (with a speed of free fall) can never occur due to the unilateral damage of it!
One side will fall while the rest will stay. Or at least one side will fall earlier.
It is self eveident and requires minimum of common sense for understanding.

Sir a 20 floor high portion of a building being ripped away from a building and a raging inferno will cause that buildings collapse due to the loss of structural integrity.


Al-CIAeda man Zarqawi, you've said it yourself.
I agree, yes CIA organized it!

WTF are you talking about, Zarqawi was not an asset of the CIA and you have no evidence what so ever that he was.

Your statement is obviously self-contradicting in this: "sectarian violence which is... causing all of the chaos and getting our soldiers killed"

Your soldiers are not perceived by the insurgency as Shi'a or Sunni:mrgreen:
Sectarian violence distracts insurgency from the occupation forces and therefore it is very useful for the latter.

No the sectarian violence creates anarchy, confusion, and adds to the fog of war allowing the foreign insurgency to move more freely and carry out operations against our soldiers more easily.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom