Five U.S. troops killed in Iraq

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What is your definition of the word 'nigger'? I thought it was a slang word used to describe anyone who was black back when it was generally accepted by society that they were inferior to white people. Why do you mention crack and gangs?

Because that word in its current form is a racist phrase that is intended to conjure up negative stereotypes ... Other than the historical context, I don't see how its that different from redneck. Ever see Chris Rocks' stand-up? He talks about using that word to specifically describe antisocial blacks (crack and gangs).

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

I think we can all admit that Rednecks are of a certain type. It's not too difficult to understand. England has it's own brand of redneck. We call them Chavs. http://www.chavscum.co.uk/culture.php
Simply put, anyone who eats 'Freedom fries', has a goatee beard, and lives in a trailer, can be safely assured that they are a redneck chicken kicker!
And I didn't even need to rely on Wikipedia for that! :cool:

This business about non-white rednecks is news to me, though. The word is not usually used that way.

As for the Chavs ... Interesting.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

Because that word in its current form is a racist phrase that is intended to conjure up negative stereotypes ... Other than the historical context, I don't see how its that different from redneck. Ever see Chris Rocks' stand-up? He talks about using that word to specifically describe antisocial blacks (crack and gangs).

So because Chris Rock says it then it's ok? Or is it still not ok? What are you saying, exactly? Is Chris Rock a racist? Maybe the world 'thug' is a better way to describe a crack addict, gang banger? And on the subject of comedians, the Blue Collar Comedy guys seem to be proud of their redneck status...maybe they don't need you playing the pc police for them.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So because Chris Rock says it then it's ok? Or is it still not ok? What are you saying, exactly? Is Chris Rock a racist? Maybe the world 'thug' is a better way to describe a crack addict, gang banger? And on the subject of comedians, the Blue Collar Comedy guys seem to be proud of their redneck status...maybe they don't need you playing the pc police for them.

Stop trying to bait me, please. My whole point is that people play the PC police selectively. Why is it OK to use redneck but not other slurs?

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

Stop trying to bait me, please. My whole point is that people play the PC police selectively. Why is it OK to use redneck but not other slurs?

Black people associate the word 'nigger' with the definition I described and take it as meaning all inclusive. That explains why they don't like white people calling them that. When other black people say the word, it is obvious they aren't meaning the whole race in most cases.

Redneck describes a certain aspect of ignorant type, uneducated people. They happen to be white most of the time but don't have to be to still fit the definition. So it's not a racial slur.

rebornFixer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Black people associate the word 'nigger' with the definition I described and take it as meaning all inclusive. That explains why they don't like white people calling them that. When other black people say the word, it is obvious they aren't meaning the whole race in most cases.

Redneck describes a certain aspect of ignorant type, uneducated people. They happen to be white most of the time but don't have to be to still fit the definition. So it's not a racial slur.

Ignorant, uneducated people happen to be white most of the time? I am going to assume you meant rednecks are a specific type of ignorant, uneducated person, who usually happens to be white. I can kind of see your point, but I still think the term basically does have a racial connatation. I read that wikipedia piece, and it mentions how the word is basically the same as "cracker", which is a racial slur usually used by black people to refer to whites.
And yes, I know some people embrace the redneck label. Some people embrace the term nigger, too.

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

Ignorant, uneducated people happen to be white most of the time? I am going to assume you meant rednecks are a specific type of ignorant, uneducated person, who usually happens to be white. I can kind of see your point, but I still think the term basically does have a racial connatation. I read that wikipedia piece, and it mentions how the word is basically the same as "cracker", which is a racial slur usually used by black people to refer to whites.
And yes, I know some people embrace the redneck label. Some people embrace the term nigger, too.

Yes, that is what I meant.

I don't think of 'cracker' and 'redneck' as meaning the same thing, personally. I do see 'cracker' as a racial slur refering to white people.

Hope&Anger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, that is what I meant.

I don't think of 'cracker' and 'redneck' as meaning the same thing, personally. I do see 'cracker' as a racial slur refering to white people.

For what it's worth, my impression has always been that redneck wasn't really racist -- it was more "class-ist." It's the thing that my educated Southern in-laws call poor, less educated whites.

I've always thought that Cracker was the word African-Americans used for whites.

Abookamongstthemany

Hope&Anger wrote:

For what it's worth, my impression has always been that redneck wasn't really racist -- it was more "class-ist." It's the thing that my educated Southern in-laws call poor, less educated whites.

I've always thought that Cracker was the word African-Americans used for whites.

Well, I'm poor, white and southern but I'm not a redneck....so I think it goes back to the 'dumb' thing as I stated before.

old and in the way

The first time I heard the term redneck was when Charlie Daniels used it in a song in the early seventies. It was always used as a reference to describe the southern white farmers who hated the longhaired hippies. You had a red sundurnt neck because your hair was short.

Hope&Anger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well, I'm poor, white and southern but I'm not a redneck....so I think it goes back to the 'dumb' thing as I stated before.

Now that you mention it, I'm sure you're right . . .

But then, I don't put a lot of stock in my in-laws' interpretation of smart and dumb.

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

are we blind to the fact that we are at war? were the germans human beings in WWII? yes they were. are iraqis? yes they are.

Are you blind to the realities of war...

jlew24asu wrote:

we are talking about dead people. not a projected count on the poplulation.

...that you would believe politicians before highly reputable scientists using reliable survey techniques.

jlew24asu

SundaySilence wrote:

Are you blind to the realities of war....

no im not. reality of war, is people die, even civillians.

SundaySilence wrote:

...that you would believe politicians before highly reputable scientists using reliable survey techniques.

im not going to sit back and agree the 650,000 people are dead based on a survey of 1849 households

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

im not going to sit back and agree the 650,000 people are dead based on a survey of 1849 households

So you're an expert on surveys are you? You possess a more advanced understanding of surveys than the John Hopkins school of Public Health, whose findings are relied upon and trusted for a number of studies, medical, or otherwise? The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. Your comment is meaningless.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Images/0206dav1.gif

Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, “Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity.” In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.

Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference. In December 2004 Blair dismissed the epidemiological team’s work in Iraq, claiming, “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.”

Michael O’Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: “That’s a classical sample size. I just don’t see any evidence of significant exaggeration…. If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died.”

Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: “In 1993, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces.”

The campaign to discredit Roberts, the Johns Hopkins team, and the Lancet used the same methods that the U.S. and British governments have employed consistently to protect their monopoly on “responsible” storytelling about the war. By dismissing the study’s findings out of hand, U.S. and British officials created the illusion that the authors were suspect or politically motivated and discouraged the media from taking them seriously. This worked disturbingly well. Even opponents of the war continue to cite much lower figures for civilian casualties and innocently attribute the bulk of them to Iraqi resistance forces or “terrorists.”

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

So you're an expert on surveys are you? You possess a more advanced understanding of surveys than the John Hopkins school of Public Health, whose findings are relied upon and trusted for a number of studies, medical, or otherwise? The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. Your comment is meaningless.

several experts believe the number to be exsessive. it might surprise you, but im not the only one who believes that. do you have any idea how many bodies 655,000 actually is? where are the bodies? its an estimate based on 1849 homes. how can you say its a FACT that 655,000 people have died? i'll quote someone who posts here alot that applies directly to you. "The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. your comment is meaningless."

there is a research group in Iraq doing an actual count of bodies. their figures, backed up actual documentation, is under 50,000.

if you want to tell me, as a result of Bush's actions in Iraq close to 50,000 iraqis have died, I would agree and say its equally as terrible.

1,634,564 people didnt die on 9/11. its was 2,973.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

there is a research group in Iraq doing an actual count of bodies. their figures, backed up actual documentation, is under 50,000.

1,634,564 people didnt die on 9/11. its was 2,973.

An actual count of bodies? And they have access to all bodies do they? What about those thousands of bodies that have been incinerated? Who exactly is this 'research group'? How are they managing to survive traveling the length and breadth of the country counting bodies? When heavy munitions are dropped on a house, or a group of people, there are no bodies to be counted, just a pile of rubble and ashes. Sounds like bollocks to me. Sounds like the same useless survey being carried out by 'Iraq body count' who rely solely on the deaths reported by the media for their results.

As for the last sentence about 9/11, it is utterly meaningless. In case you don't know, 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

Truthmonger

Here's an excerpt from a recent Matt Good article:



"Beyond arguing over outrageous death tolls, no matter which way you look at it, what are we to say about the 300,000 Iraqis that have fled Baghdad, or the almost 1 million Iraqi refugees that are currently in Jordan? How about the fact in September alone the Iraqi Health Ministry estimates that 2,660 civilians were killed? What are we to say about the fact that torture in Iraq is more rampant now than during the Saddam era, or that the Iraqi infrastructure is still in complete disarray three years after the country was invaded? What are we to say about the fact that the Iraqi government and US military leadership have to be barricaded inside a safe zone in the capital, or that the head of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces has claimed that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems”.

The regime of Saddam Hussein, once allied with Washington, had no ties to al-Qaeda or the attacks of September 11th, nor did it possess WMD’s, not to mention a nuclear program since the very early 90’s according to accounts by American-Iraqis approached by the CIA prior to the invasion to travel back to Iraq because they had family still residing in the country that had been involved in the program when it did exist (information that was, for some bizarre reason, withheld from pre-war intelligence portfolios). And in the midst of all of the deceit and death, people are actually arguing over accurate body counts as if it made all the difference in the world.

In short, does it matter whether 30,000 or 600,000 innocent people are dead because of a lie?

Only to liars."

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

right back atcha slick....where are the 400,000 bodies from the mass graves? you believe THAT number, don't you?

thanks slick. I dont believe that number. how ever many bodies they have found is the number I believe. which is in the 10s of thousands.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

An actual count of bodies? And they have access to all bodies do they? What about those thousands of bodies that have been incinerated? Who exactly is this 'research group'? How are they managing to survive traveling the length and breadth of the country counting bodies? When heavy munitions are dropped on a house, or a group of people, there are no bodies to be counted, just a pile of rubble and ashes. Sounds like bollocks to me. Sounds like the same useless survey being carried out by 'Iraq body count' who rely solely on the deaths reported by the media for their results.

As for the last sentence about 9/11, it is utterly meaningless. In case you don't know, 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

read, you might find it interesting.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

I'm not going to say 655,000 people have died based on a survey of 1849 homes. you can choose to believe whatever you want. its not based on fact, so dont try and tell me i'm wrong.


the 9/11 reference was used as an example. not to link iraq and 9/11 together. sorry you couldnt figure that out.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

I dont believe that number. how ever many bodies they have found is the number I believe. which is in the 10s of thousands.

Whatever gets you through the day. But I will repeat myself: In war there are as often as not no bodies available to count, especially with todays modern weapons being used.