NO WMD

Re: Iraq

These insurgents would not have been killed if they were not insurgents.
Click to expand...

That's patently untrue. Many innocent civilians HAVE been killed. Certainly Hundreds, probably thousands. They weren't insurgents, and they were killed.

Let's all face up to the real truth of the situation. The world stopped and was shocked and awed by the death of 3000 American Civilians on 9/11. And rightly so.

The world shrugged and accepted the deaths of perhaps 3 times that many civilians in Iraq. Why?

Certainly some of us knew people involved in 9/11. But relatively few of us. I didn't know anyone directly involved. I don't know anyone who knew anyone directly involved.

So is it simply a case that the West sees the lives of westerneres as "worth more" than the lives of people in the middle east.

Certainly there is some economic validity to that, for a variety of reasons. But please don't tell me our view of human life is now so reduced to economic measures that we can disregard the deaths of thousands of people, wherever it happens on this planet.

I'm not just talking about how we the people react. The media was convulsed with stories of 9/11 from every possible angle, for months. Stories about survivors, stories about relatives, stories about the emergency services, stories about the funerals, stories about commemorative services, stories about books of condolence, stories about the death count, stories about who was to blame, stories about who wasn't to blame, stories about how we can never let it happen again.

3 times as many civilians can be killed in Iraq and nobody seems to care. A million in Rwana, 10's of thousands in Sudan. And it keeps happening, and sometimes we cause it, when we don't cause it we sustain it by not intervening. Instead we rush off to intervene somewhere else, as if there weren't enough war zones in the world.

Is it any wonder we live in a divided world?

-Rd
 
Relative value of Human Life

Very trite point daltonr.

There has been more written and talked about the killing of President Kennedy than all the millions killed in war since.

Do we even remember those killed at the Pentagon on 9/11.

Ken Bigley got far more coverage than the many British soldiers killed in Iraq.

In fact the 1,000 dead US soldiers certainly haven't got 33% of the air-time given to the WTC victims.

The fact is that each year about 100 million human beings die, perhaps 2 million of them violently one way or another.

But the assination of an American President, the drawn out killing of a hostage, the unbelievably spectacular affront to our senses of 9/11 demand our attention beyond the actual numerical body count.

It is ridiculous to suggest that these should all get a level of attention in proportion to the loss of human life.
 
Re: Relative value of Human Life

Pure pants YD.

Ken Bigley got far more coverage than the many British soldiers killed in Iraq.

Yes. He got more coverage. But soldiers deaths get a hell of a lot of coverage in the media. Some posters here (including yourself) were unaware of the amount of innocent Iraqis killed in this war. You referred to them as insurgents. Remember?

The fact is that each year about 100 million human beings die, perhaps 2 million of them violently one way or another.

No, the fact is that many of those who support this war site 911 as a reason - due to all those killed and also that this is a humane war where only the bad men are killed. This is completely untrue.
 
Re: Relative value of Human Life

It is ridiculous to suggest that these should all get a level of attention in proportion to the loss of human life.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest that each human life lost should receive the same level of coverage that would be ridiculous, and of course the death of a president will get more coverage than the death of a drunk driver or shooting victim.

But the disproportionate concern we shown for one group of civilians over another poses a very serious question about ourselves that I'm not hearing being asked in the media or by the politicians.

We have not asked why the killing of Western Civilians is terrorism, while the killing of Iraqi civilians is liberation.

SHOCK AND AWE. They've even found a PR way of spinning terrorism to sound good.

-Rd
 
Civilian deaths

It might sound a terrible thing to say, but 1,000 US soldiers and maybe twice that many Iraqi police dead compared to say 10,000 insurgents and their collateral sympathisers is not a "bad" ratio in the impossible situation of trying to suppress urban terrorists who have no compunction in using their civilian sympathisers as shields.

We are where we are. Any better ways of dealing with insurgents? or should we just partition Iraq into extremist Sunni Fallujah, extremist Shia Nasiriyah and the Rest which would form the great majority of Iraq who want this to work and whose interim government have chosen to face insurgency head on with US assistance.
 
Re: Civilian deaths

10,000 insurgents

Bongo...no offence, but I don't think you've read what's been said. There were no 10,000 insurgents. There were 10,000 (which is a conservative estimate btw) innocent Iraqi's killed by the coalition during the war. That would obviously include women and small children too - blown to pieces by our bombs.
 
Re: Civilian deaths

There were no 10,000 insurgents. There were 10,000 (which is a conservative estimate btw) innocent Iraqi's killed by the coalition during the war.
Click to expand...

There seems to be suggesting that being Iraqi in itself makes you an insurgent and you deserve no more than to be killed.

Now, OK. I'll accept we have a slightly Western biased frame of mind and media, and political outlook. So I'll accept that for many people civilian casualties are not a big deal, unless they happen on the streets of Europe or the USA.

But have we really reached a point where we are starting to believe that an entire nation *deserves* to be killed. That every citizen of a country is by definition an insurgent. That everyone killed by a war deserved what they got.

If we really are starting to think that way then we have no business going into any country in the world and talking about freedom and democracy.

If that's the philosophy that we took into Iraq then the Iraqi people might well have been better off with Saddam. At least he didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction.
We (The Crusading West) Do. And we're not afraid to use them.

-Rd
 
Crusading West

So you see this as a Crusade in Iraq? Can I join in then?
 
Insurgents and sympathisers

My main point was that the ratio of security force deaths, including many US soldiers, to civilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths is about 3 to 10. For an urban guerilla situation this suggests that the coalition are trying their very best to approach this in a conventional military way. They clearly have the firepower for the ratio to be a half dozen to 100,000 if they were as indiscriminate and dismissive of Iraqi life as is being suggested.
 
bongo's comments

"civilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths"

Maybe you're unclear on that point Bongo. If I drop a bomb on your house and you and your five children are blown to smithereens, does that make you a sympathiser?


I really have to laugh at the blindfolded views that don't even question that America was right. I was born in the States in 72 and moved to Ireland in 81. My opinion is that it was wrong. The squirming going on is disgusting. People now saying that all those completely innocent iraq nationals who were slaughtered was okay to do.
Big business and oil generated this war.
 
ElCid's comment

I've read your views here before. Youre nothing but a small minded racist bigot. Ireland could do without your filth.
 
Iraq

Many of those Iraqis killed were not civilians, they were insurgents / terrorists. What do you expect when the insurgents / terrorists do not wear military or distinctive uniform? The coalition forces deserve our support, not constant sniping like you would expect from islamic radicals. The US and UK are there to establish democracy in Iraq and to establish free elections, like in Afghanistan. It is not in their interest to be sniped at or to retaliate.
 
****

You sound a 12 year old john. A racist one at that, thinking that being Islamic is somehow wrong. All you do is reitterate what you said at the start of this post. You ignore every post that points out your rubbish postings. It's like talking to a wall. A very thick one. There;s not much point you posting anything. You won't engage in any meaningful debate.

Ignoring the killings of tens of thousands of iraqis in the name of oil is frankly quite disgisting and shows us all how little you know and care about the world. Those people's blood was spilt by our bombs. Y'know, the smart ones that don't work. OUR WMD.
 
crayons

blown to pieces by our bombs.

our bombs? Is Ireland Neutral? Is that clown Bertie dragging us into this? I'm forced to pay taxes to the Irish government, so I regard their spending as something against my will.

It's disgusting the way McShannon Warport has been used for this evil.
 
3/10

I disagree with the war , know we have been lied to, know we are making matters worse for ourselves in the long run etc but Bongo has a point and it's a valid one.
 
Re: Insurgents and sympathisers

My main point was that the ratio of security force deaths, including many US soldiers, to civilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths is about 3 to 10. For an urban guerilla situation this suggests that the coalition are trying their very best to approach this in a conventional military way. They clearly have the firepower for the ratio to be a half dozen to 100,000 if they were as indiscriminate and dismissive of Iraqi life as is being suggested.

Sorry, purple I don't see the valid point Bongo is making above. "civiilian/insurgent/sympathiser deaths" - so if we blew apart 10,000 completely innocent Iraqis in our bombing campaigns that's okay? 10,000 is the conservative estimate btw. It could be as high as 37,000. The mind boggles.
Your argument can easily be switched on its head. Maybe the deaths of 3000 American "sympathisers" was okay for Osama Bin Laden to achieve his goals? Sounds perfectly reasonable eh?
Oh no - it sounds terrible. They were westerners!!!

Whether they tried to limit casualities (or collatoral damage as they like to say) is frankly irrelevant. This was largely due to the fact that they knew the world was looking on. I don't see the American or British governments taking death tolls of those innocents they slaughtered or holding rememberance days for them. Do you?
 
The Iraqi dead

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...72,00.html

"Thursday September 16, 2004

The most complete attempt yet to identify some of the estimated 15,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the US-led invasion in March last year was unveiled in Chicago today....

Every one of some 15,000 Iraqi civilians killed was a loved human being, whose loss creates heartbreak and bitterness among the bereaved families and communities," said local IBC member Scott Lipscomb....


A 150-strong Iraqi team funded by the US-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Combat named two thirds of the identified fatalities. The team visited various parts of the country in summer 2003, knocking on doors and asking families if they had suffered any losses.

Neither the US nor the UK, the former occupying powers, attempted to count or identify the civilian dead and the IBC list represents the most comprehensive project of its kind....

If, however, a group of insurgents were mounting an attack on an American position and the Americans returned fire and killed them then they would not be included in our figures because they were the initiators of violence."
 
Irish hostages

Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that the latest poor unfortunate to be kidnapped by these maniacs actually is Irish. It's almost as if we are being told "so you want hostages, we'll give you hostages". Hard to escape the conclusion that the "Ken is a Paddy" stunt has backfired.
 
cum-back

"I've read your views here before. Youre nothing but a small minded racist bigot. Ireland could do without your filth."

heehee, touched a nerve there.
Actually (as I keep pointing out to the ignorant) racism has nothing to do with it. Muslims are found in all races...ergo, not racism.

Bigotry...now thats a good word, but since it all started for me when 4 aircraft were hijacked in the name of Islam and flown into buildings, killing thousands of people in the name of Islam, I wonder...who are the REAL bigots?

Incidentally, I've never sawed off anyones head with a penknife in the name of Christianity, and I've never actually heard of anyone in modern history doing so.

I consider my position one of self defense, and the preparedness to use/support force in defence of my filthy life.

Ta Ta.
 
Iraq

Well said EiCid. Fhilimena accuses me of hating muslims - I do not, I just do not agree with hacking peoples heads off with knives, or their concept of jihad.
I hve met many friendly and peaceful muslims, some in the middle east, but some are not so good. Many are brainwashed with anti-Israeli propoganda - have you even listened or seen their media? No wonder they have little problem sending their kids out as suicide bombers.

In the 21st century the real problem will be the rise of militant islam. They will not stop hacking off peoples heads because of people like piggy - in fact people like her actually encourage these insurgents / terrorists. They will not rest until the west is ruled by islam. Judging by the millions of muslims coming to europe each year it may not take that long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top