no collaborative relationship. Just keep remember that part.
Where's the proof Iraq harbored Al Qaeda members?
And, as for the training camp, nice that you forgot to mention that it was in Kurdish territory protected by the US no-fly zone.
What lies?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I'm merely demonstrating how ridiculous your jumps to conclusions are concerning the numbers of civilians dead in Iraq. I used obviously idiotic methodolgy to come up with my numbers just like you did. Glad to see you notice what an embarrassment using wonky methods to inflate numbers is, since you are guilty of it yourself. If you think your embarrassing yourself doesn't go without notice, pal, think again.
The difference between the two of us is that my numbers were obviously sarcastic in nature while you're actually serious. So who should be more embarrassed in this case? I'll give you a hint. It's not me. Use that new-liberal math to figure out what's left over, k?
The Slaughter of Iraqi Civilians by US Military
By DAVE LINDORFF
Counterpunch
A horrifying chart and map on the opinion page of Sunday's New York Times graphically displays the carnage caused by the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq. Over a 14-day period during the first two weeks of the new year, Brookings Institution senior research assistant Adriana Lins de Albuquerque shows that 202 people died "as a result of the insurgency."
But the chart is deceptive, leaving out at least as much as it puts in.
First of all, and most importantly, as Lins de Albuquerque notes in her brief explanation, the chart doesn't give any information about the number of Iraqi insurgents killed by U.S. forces over the same period, nor does it give figures for Iraqi civilians "accidentally killed by coalition forces."
As she explains, "because of the limits placed on reporters," such information is not available (she fails to mention that also left out are the numbers of people killed by Iraqi troops and police).
In fact, we know from reports by the U.S.-backed government in Iraq that the U.S. has been "accidentally" killing Iraqi civilians at a prodigious rate--a rate both higher than the rate they are being killed by insurgents and higher than the rate that the U.S. forces have been killing insurgents. If that report, released late last fall, is correct, then a chart displaying the victims of U.S.-led forces would be larger even than the one developed by Ms. Lins de Albuquerque.
If those ratios are correct, the U.S. is probably also killing more civilians on average than the 38 percent or total deaths (76 civilians in the first two weeks of January) caused by the insurgency. For all the media focus on the viciousness of the insurgents, it would appear that they are being much more effective and selective in their attacks--killing primarily Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, and U.S. and "coalition" troops--than is the U.S.
Of course, most of the civilians killed by U.S. and "coalition" forces are killed "accidentally" only by the most strained definition of the term. The truth is that American aircraft are dropping bombs, including anti-personnel weapons and, reportedly, napalm, as well as 500 and 1000 lb. explosives once known in the trade as "block busters," on urban targets all the time. Occasionally one of these weapons will be reported as having hit the wrong target, but even when they hit the right target, it"s safe to say that the so-called "collateral damage" is widespread and horrific.
In addition, there are the helicopter and fixed-wing gunships, which are designed to completely saturate wide areas with deadly fire, killing every living thing in those "dead zones" with projectiles that penetrate even concrete walls. When civilians die at the hands of these genuine weapons of mass destruction, their demise can hardly be termed "accidental."
Little wonder that the Iraqi government report found that a third of U.S.-caused casualties are children under the age of 14.
Finally, U.S. ground troops themselves are popping off civilians at a scandalous rate, thanks to a "spray and pray" policy of firing off everything they've got in a 360-degree radius whenever they come under enemy fire. Little wonder that reporters in Iraq are at least as afraid of being killed "accidentally" by American forces as they are of being attacked by insurgents or of hitting an errant roadside bomb.
Little wonder also that U.S. military authorities have a policy of not reporting civilian or insurgent death totals. The grisly details of their campaign of slaughter would not be popular either in the Middle East or here at home.
Or at the New York Times, where printing such a chart would have taken up not just the entire opinion page, but the whole editorial page, too.
By DAVE LINDORFF
Counterpunch
A horrifying chart and map on the opinion page of Sunday's New York Times graphically displays the carnage caused by the ongoing U.S. war in Iraq. Over a 14-day period during the first two weeks of the new year, Brookings Institution senior research assistant Adriana Lins de Albuquerque shows that 202 people died "as a result of the insurgency."
But the chart is deceptive, leaving out at least as much as it puts in.
First of all, and most importantly, as Lins de Albuquerque notes in her brief explanation, the chart doesn't give any information about the number of Iraqi insurgents killed by U.S. forces over the same period, nor does it give figures for Iraqi civilians "accidentally killed by coalition forces."
As she explains, "because of the limits placed on reporters," such information is not available (she fails to mention that also left out are the numbers of people killed by Iraqi troops and police).
In fact, we know from reports by the U.S.-backed government in Iraq that the U.S. has been "accidentally" killing Iraqi civilians at a prodigious rate--a rate both higher than the rate they are being killed by insurgents and higher than the rate that the U.S. forces have been killing insurgents. If that report, released late last fall, is correct, then a chart displaying the victims of U.S.-led forces would be larger even than the one developed by Ms. Lins de Albuquerque.
If those ratios are correct, the U.S. is probably also killing more civilians on average than the 38 percent or total deaths (76 civilians in the first two weeks of January) caused by the insurgency. For all the media focus on the viciousness of the insurgents, it would appear that they are being much more effective and selective in their attacks--killing primarily Iraqi troops, Iraqi police, and U.S. and "coalition" troops--than is the U.S.
Of course, most of the civilians killed by U.S. and "coalition" forces are killed "accidentally" only by the most strained definition of the term. The truth is that American aircraft are dropping bombs, including anti-personnel weapons and, reportedly, napalm, as well as 500 and 1000 lb. explosives once known in the trade as "block busters," on urban targets all the time. Occasionally one of these weapons will be reported as having hit the wrong target, but even when they hit the right target, it"s safe to say that the so-called "collateral damage" is widespread and horrific.
In addition, there are the helicopter and fixed-wing gunships, which are designed to completely saturate wide areas with deadly fire, killing every living thing in those "dead zones" with projectiles that penetrate even concrete walls. When civilians die at the hands of these genuine weapons of mass destruction, their demise can hardly be termed "accidental."
Little wonder that the Iraqi government report found that a third of U.S.-caused casualties are children under the age of 14.
Finally, U.S. ground troops themselves are popping off civilians at a scandalous rate, thanks to a "spray and pray" policy of firing off everything they've got in a 360-degree radius whenever they come under enemy fire. Little wonder that reporters in Iraq are at least as afraid of being killed "accidentally" by American forces as they are of being attacked by insurgents or of hitting an errant roadside bomb.
Little wonder also that U.S. military authorities have a policy of not reporting civilian or insurgent death totals. The grisly details of their campaign of slaughter would not be popular either in the Middle East or here at home.
Or at the New York Times, where printing such a chart would have taken up not just the entire opinion page, but the whole editorial page, too.
Yeah, it's like saying, "he works for microsoft, but had no involvment with the Xbox launch." That's a real brainteaser, isn't it?
Karl Rove is the brain. He is the master of inference and psychological manipulation. Dub is just a puppet for Rove's machinations.
---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
Gr-Gr,
Dave Lindorf is a hack at best, and has made some VERY bold statements and ASSumptions in the article you quote. Lindorf would be the Anti-Bush "tinfoil hat" crowd if there was such a category.
Does he mention where he gets his figures here.......NO
And this is flat out assumption, and gross miss-statement. .
Now we have fixed-wing Gunships other than A-10s an AC-130's? Our Air-Superiority and ground attack Aircraft are extremely precise, not like a car-bomb or IED in their effectiveness. Helicopters are for precision targets and are useless for area targets. Also, If civilians are targeted, I would like to see a written document from ANY news agency of repute that has reported this.
This next one is a real winner!!! I found not one credible shred of info to back this up.
Dave Lindorf is a hack at best, and has made some VERY bold statements and ASSumptions in the article you quote. Lindorf would be the Anti-Bush "tinfoil hat" crowd if there was such a category.
Does he mention where he gets his figures here.......NO
And this is flat out assumption, and gross miss-statement. .
Now we have fixed-wing Gunships other than A-10s an AC-130's? Our Air-Superiority and ground attack Aircraft are extremely precise, not like a car-bomb or IED in their effectiveness. Helicopters are for precision targets and are useless for area targets. Also, If civilians are targeted, I would like to see a written document from ANY news agency of repute that has reported this.
This next one is a real winner!!! I found not one credible shred of info to back this up.
In light of the thread topic, what fact is that? That the general public is too stupid to differentiate between an organization and a specific action of an organization? I really can't see much else.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
The fact that the Bush administration willfully and knowingly acted to deceive the public by insinuating a link between Iraq and 9/11 they knew did NOT exist. As I said earlier:
-
That's disingenuous and you know it. The Bush administration in general, Karl Rove in particular, are much too skilled as liars to to lie so blatantly if they can avoid it. They know full well that the most effective and least risky way to deceive the public is relentleesly hammer the same carefully-phrased deceptions over and over and over until most people have accepted them as truth. That is exactly what happened with the lie suggesting a connection between Iraq and 9/11, and the vast majority of Bush's supporters were "sloppy" and "STUPID" enough (your words) to fall for it. Which is exactly what Bush & Co. knew would happen, and intended to happen.
A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. The Bush administration clearly lied to the American public, suggesting a link between Iraq and 9/11 they knew did NOT exist.
Once again, it was overwhelmingly Bush supporters like you who were "too stupid" to realize Bush and his minions were lying through their teeth. The majority of people on the left saw through their BS. I think history will show the Bushies were duped about a lot of other things too.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
Yeah, they didn't really say Saddam+al Qaeda+Iraq+WMD=Mushroom clouds. It's all clear now. :roll:
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I sincerely doubt it. Based on the last week or two, you appear to be just another mindless Bush robo-fluffer, vainly trying to cover for your Worship in the White House ... no matter what. You have no interest in thinking for yourself; you just parrot the talking points.
By the way, I'm sure it's only a coincidence you left this line out when you quoted me:
- A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. The Bush administration clearly lied to the American public, suggesting a link between Iraq and 9/11 they knew did NOT exist.
I'll also note that TastesLikeChicken-out has yet to acknowledge his deception. Birds of a feather ...
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I refuted it, but obviously you can't quite figure it out. Let me do it once more for you, more slowly this time, then see if you can figure it out.
Your claim was that Bush somehow hornswoggled eveyone into believing that Saddam was involved in 9/11 by using Jedi mind tricks in his speeches. That's the crux of your argument. Without verification of that, anything else you claim falls apart. So here's my logic:
If Bush was the purveyor of this information and convinced everyone of Saddam's culpability, one must assume that the Bush lemmings lean on evey word he says. Your claim is that he convinced them Saddam was involved via trickery. Yet long after Bush specifically stated that there was no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11, the same amount of people still believe Saddam was involved. They believe this a year and a half later after Bush specifically said otherwise. How could that be?
If those lemmings hang on his every word, as you claim, and are brainwashed by Bush, how did they NOT know he said Saddam was not involved in 9/11?
Could it possibly mean they DIDN'T get their brainwashing from Bush? If so, does it matter how long Bush waited to make his announcement? Obviously it doesn't because even after he made the announcement, supposedly too late acording to you, they continue to believe incorrectly anyway.
So it didn't and doesn't matter WHEN Bush made te announcement because it DIDN"T CHANGE A DAMN THING.
Comprende yet?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Bush never tied Saddam to 9/11
He stated that there were ties to al'queda
He also stated the Iraq supported terrorism.
After 9/11 he stated that we were at war with terror.
Many people against Bush then tried to make 1+1=4.
He stated that there were ties to al'queda
He also stated the Iraq supported terrorism.
After 9/11 he stated that we were at war with terror.
Many people against Bush then tried to make 1+1=4.
Cheney links 9/11 to Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda to Saddam
http://www.boston.com/news/nat...f_iraq_911_challenged/
Cheney also liked to tell the story of the supposed Iraqi intelligence agent who met with one of the 9/11 hijackers in Prague, which also later turned out to be false.
http://www.boston.com/news/nat...f_iraq_911_challenged/
Cheney also liked to tell the story of the supposed Iraqi intelligence agent who met with one of the 9/11 hijackers in Prague, which also later turned out to be false.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The article comes off as a disingenius interpretation that makes a leap to a conclusion that Cheney never made.
Cheney merely said that they were looking at ties between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to 9/11. The author of the article then makes a leap to assume that examining ties between Iraq and al Qaeda means evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9/11. That's not what Cheney said though.
Nice try. But, once again, what the admin actually said provides the proof, not some interpretation and illogical leap of a Boston Globe reporter.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter