RATM speaks the truth in Election 2008

fuck

MLC2006 wrote:

now, as I previously stated, the estimated number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is LESS THAN 3,000....WAY far off from the "hundreds of thousands" that you claim. you've been served.

1. I only specifically mention Afghanis in two of those quotes, and it's probably just me getting mixed up by my main points.
2. you are straying away from the actual issue just to try to score some points for yourself.

again, people find ways to ignore issues and justify deaths. as long as it's not on american soil though, no one gives a shit.

slightofjeff

_outlaw wrote:

honestly, debating this with people so close-minded is pointless to me.

Anybody else's irony meter just explode into bits?

slightofjeff

_outlaw wrote:

1. I only specifically mention Afghanis in two of those quotes, and it's probably just me getting mixed up by my main points.

No, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

Jesus Christ, you sound like Dr. Evil: "One ... hundred ... billion ... TRILLION ... Afghans."

fuck

slightofjeff wrote:

No, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

stick with that argument, it's done well so far... :rolleyes:

catefrances

MLC2006 wrote:

now, as I previously stated, the estimated number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is LESS THAN 3,000....WAY far off from the "hundreds of thousands" that you claim. you've been served.

please note the dates on these articles and contrast that with your above statement.


http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/20/afghanistan.comment

cubbieblue82

_outlaw wrote:

I'm not just talking about Afghanistan. Throughout this entire thread, I've mentioned Iraq and Palestine as well. if you can't read my posts properly, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

honestly, debating this with people so close-minded is pointless to me.

Nope, sorry!

You have been quoting that stat as a reason we should pull out of Afghanistan in many other threads. The fact is that number MAY be close to or LESS than what has happened in Iraq, but Afghanistan is nowhere near that figure.

I am very liberally minded, but the Taleban and the Pakistani ISI are clearly behind al-Qaida on many of their operations including 911.

cubbieblue82

catefrances wrote:

please note the dates on these articles and contrast that with your above statement.


http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/20/afghanistan.comment

God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.

Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!

cincybearcat

slightofjeff wrote:

Anybody else's irony meter just explode into bits?

Yep...I was going to post a song break from Alanis but then I saw you already took care if this for me.

godpt3

slightofjeff wrote:

Anybody else's irony meter just explode into bits?

Cap'n, she's gonna blow.... she canna take much more a'this!!!!!

fuck

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Nope, sorry!

You have been quoting that stat as a reason we should pull out of Afghanistan in many other threads. The fact is that number MAY be close to or LESS than what has happened in Iraq, but Afghanistan is nowhere near that figure.

Iraq has a death count of 1 million, Afghanistan- no one really knows, but it's definitely well into the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

I am very liberally minded, but the Taleban and the Pakistani ISI are clearly behind al-Qaida on many of their operations including 911.

any proof?

fuck

cubbieblue82 wrote:

God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.

Many countries also supported invading Iraq, including the UK who provided troops as well. what's your point? Most of the Arab world was NOT in favor of the invasion, and those were who we needed to engage in talks with the most.

Not to mention the fact that France, Germany, and the UK are also countries aligned with the US in pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran.

Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!

This is what is ironic to me:
You guys say if we "focus" on Afghanistan more, there will be less civilian casualties, right?

You also say that we have been too busy "focusing" on Iraq, right?

well, there are currently 1 million casualties thanks to us "focusing" on Iraq... what the fuck would happen if we were "focusing" this entire war on Afghanistan?!

not surprisingly, you guys have missed my entire point all along. "it's just collateral damage ... but yeah, we can do better to avoid civilian casualties."

what the fuck does that even mean? if we KNOW civilians are living in an area, and we KNOW if we drop a bomb there, it will kill them, how does that make it justified? we KNOWINGLY killed civilians. that's the bottom line, and you guys can't justify it. so far, I'm more than certain that more civilians have died in Afghanistan than died in 9/11, so how does this make us better than the terrorists? In fact, we are also continually oppressing many people all over the world, in addition to Afghanis.

To quote Howard Zinn: "The so-called 'war on terror'... is itself an act of terrorism..."

fuck

hardboiled wrote:

Not every German was executing Jews or lobbing bombs at Britain, but that doesn't mean we should have never dropped bombs on them because some might have killed civilians.

oh, careful. comparing any war to World War II is a terrible thing to do...

...oh wait, that's just if you compare Israel's actions to World War II... but if you justify anything the Israelis/US do by using WWII, then it's fine...

catefrances

cubbieblue82 wrote:

God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.

Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!

the ENTIRE international community? surely you dont mean every nation on earth.

i am very well aware of the howard governments brown nosing the bush administration. it was like a big almighty cons suckfest here. and the invasion of afghanistan was not supported by the entirety of the australian population. and you should know that despite massive worldwide demonstrations, these democratic governments who supposedly represent their people, ignored the will of those people with an almighty fuck you were going in anyway. as an australian i am fully aware of the relationship between my government and that of the united states. and that supporting anything the united states does is based on far more than, in this case, an agreeance that afghanistan was in the wrong in its support of al quaeda and therefore should be punished with the full force of arms.

picking up the slack? are you kidding me? perhaps other nations have realised what an abortion afghanistan has become and have made decisions for the best interests of their armed forces and countries. if the job isnt done in afghanstamn its because the US government fucked up by NOT staying the course, to paraphrase your illustrious leader. pretending that iraq has something to do with al qaeda was a monumental error in intelligence and judgement and it should be rectified by those who made it, not other nations.

MLC2006

_outlaw wrote:

Iraq has a death count of 1 million, Afghanistan- no one really knows, but it's definitely well into the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

any proof?

I want to see your sources. you've gone from "hundreds of thousands" of dead Afghanis, to now "tens of thousands". you are making shit up off the top of your head, and it's quite funny.

MLC2006

catefrances wrote:

please note the dates on these articles and contrast that with your above statement.


http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/20/afghanistan.comment

the first link is blocked at my work due to "political activist site". that tells me about all I need to know on that one.


the second link has "A Coward's War" in the headline dated 3 months after more than 3000 innocent US citizens were murdered. that tells me that any number they could come up with is going to be bullshit.

can you come up with a LEGITIMATE source?

fuck

MLC2006 wrote:

I want to see your sources. you've gone from "hundreds of thousands" of dead Afghanis, to now "tens of thousands".

you take everything out of context. first of all, I said "well into thousands, if not tens of thousands" which is a big difference.

second of all:
"According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion."

In 2006 alone, more than 1000 civilians were killed. In 2007, about 2000 civilians were killed by bombs. So far in 2008, almost 1000 civilians have been killed.

your death toll of 3000 civilians was only the first few months of the war. you are way off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Total_casualties_.282001-2002.29

fuck

MLC2006 wrote:

the first link is blocked at my work due to "political activist site". that tells me about all I need to know on that one.

the second link has "A Coward's War" in the headline dated 3 months after more than 3000 innocent US citizens were murdered. that tells me that any number they could come up with is going to be bullshit.

political activist site?

ok, your dismissing of all this tells me all I need to know about you. thanks for playing.

can you come up with a LEGITIMATE source?

you mean one that supports your bullshit? sorry, not happening.

edit: it's really hilarious how you are trying to prove a (wrong) claim and straying off from the actual issue.

MLC2006

_outlaw wrote:

political activist site?

ok, your dismissing of all this tells me all I need to know about you. thanks for playing.

you mean one that supports your bullshit? sorry, not happening.

edit: it's really hilarious how you are trying to prove a (wrong) claim and straying off from the actual issue.

what's hilarious is that I put your own words up, which you claimed that you didn't say. and now, I'm taking your words "out of context" when it's clear that your opinion on this doesn't even matter because you can't get the number of INNOCENT dead right from between a few thousand to "hundreds of thousands". you're just making shit up and it's really made you look quite dumb throughout this whole thread. and no, I don't put faith in "political activist" sites or a site that was calling the war in Afghanistan a "coward's war" three months after 9/11.

slightofjeff

_outlaw wrote:

stick with that argument, it's done well so far... :rolleyes:

80 bazillion dead Afghans -- or whatever number you're going with today -- agree.

fuck

MLC2006 wrote:

what's hilarious is that I put your own words up, which you claimed that you didn't say. and now, I'm taking your words "out of context" when it's clear that your opinion on this doesn't even matter because you can't get the number of INNOCENT dead right from between a few thousand to "hundreds of thousands". you're just making shit up and it's really made you look quite dumb throughout this whole thread. and no, I don't put faith in "political activist" sites or a site that was calling the war in Afghanistan a "coward's war" three months after 9/11.

lol, so you ignore the previous post. I already explained before about the innocents dying because I was including Iraq as well, but you think you can somehow justify the war if only 3000 innocents died (which is bullshit).

and the only thing that looks dumb is you dismissing websites which don't agree with you.

go ahead though. you guys can bitch and moan about 9/11 but when it comes to civilians dying in other countries, it's just "collateral damage." hypocrites.