Time for a regime change

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: Grey
Right sorry, editiorials.

ed·i·to·ri·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-tôr-l, -tr-)
n.
An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.
A commentary on television or radio expressing the opinion of the station or network.

Your point?

Did you read the thread? I would hope I don't have to draw conclusions for you. The links are all opinions against war, I can find an equal number of pro-war ones if you want.

What were you expecting when you saw their titles? Landscape paintings?
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Biased crap based on the idea that if a lot of people are against something, it must be stupid. What makes the European leaders any better judges of the situation than Bush? Oh, right, they support your opinion. So they must be wiser.

You guys and your "bias". What cracks me up is what you see as "objective".

And you are objective?

We've been down this road. No, I'm not. Neither are you.

I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.
....

I find my self quite objective, but I admit i would prefer to see Saddam out of power for a multitude of reasons.

Been down that road before too. No reruns here.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Other than providing your own "biased" articles, you have no proof of your allegations. There is no proof that Iraq hasn't disarmed. There is support from the inspectors that Iraq is cooperating (but not to the degree they'd like...so they say).

The Europeans are more "neigbours" with Iraq than the US is, yet they don't feel "threatened". Proof that al Queda has worked with Saddam has been discredited with the CIA even saying it a not true.

Gettting rid of Saddam does nothing to guarantee a "free country", far from it. Saddam HAS killed thousands, largely with US support. The world would be a better place without a lot of politicans currently on the world stage.

 

Damage

Senior member
Dec 3, 2001
491
0
0
Originally posted by: markuskiddIronic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?


Proof please...

Hagbad, thanks for the links I understand they are opinion.. I don't happen to agree, but it's nice to have other viewpoints.

Saddam has not proven the whereabouts or destruction of his chemical / boilogical weapons, as he agreed to. Under the terms of his surrender he was mandated to do this. Before anyone starts with the "war-monger" U.S. chant they should realize that. Sadam could step down for the good of Iraq, but as a dictator refuses to do so, or live up to his agreements. Bush would not refuse a non-violent change of power in Iraq.
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
how many threads can one person start a day?

How many have I started today? Let me see....one.

whats your per day average over the last... say... 2 months?

Probably three a week. What's your point? Oh, forget it, I know your point. Either post things you argree with or shut up.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Other than providing your own "biased" articles, you have no proof of your allegations. There is no proof that Iraq hasn't disarmed. There is support from the inspectors that Iraq is cooperating (but not to the degree they'd like...so they say).

The Europeans are more "neigbours" with Iraq than the US is, yet they don't feel "threatened". Proof that al Queda has worked with Saddam has been discredited with the CIA even saying it a not true.

Gettting rid of Saddam does nothing to guarantee a "free country", far from it. Saddam HAS killed thousands, largely with US support. The world would be a better place without a lot of politicans currently on the world stage.

Did you listen/read what blix had to say today?
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.

I don't buy it.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
how many threads can one person start a day?

How many have I started today? Let me see....one.

whats your per day average over the last... say... 2 months?

Probably three a week. What's your point? Oh, forget it, I know your point. Either post things you argree with or shut up.
really i'd rather have it all in one thread but that would be confusing. so i guess the multiple thread format is the way to go.
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: Damage
Originally posted by: markuskiddIronic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?


Proof please...

Hagbad, thanks for the links I understand they are opinion.. I don't happen to agree, but it's nice to have other viewpoints.

Saddam has not proven the whereabouts or destruction of his chemical / boilogical weapons, as he agreed to. Under the terms of his surrender he was mandated to do this. Before anyone starts with the "war-monger" U.S. chant they should realize that. Sadam could step down for the good of Iraq, but as a dictator refuses to do so, or live up to his agreements. Bush would not refuse a non-violent change of power in Iraq.


It won't happen. Even a blood thirty dictator has his pride.

 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
how many threads can one person start a day?

How many have I started today? Let me see....one.

whats your per day average over the last... say... 2 months?

Probably three a week. What's your point? Oh, forget it, I know your point. Either post things you argree with or shut up.

really i'd rather have it all in one thread but that would be confusing. so i guess the multiple thread format is the way to go.

Three threads a week has you all steamed up? I see.

 

Grey

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 1999
2,737
2
81
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.

I don't buy it.

Are you freaking kidding me? Man I remember why I skip over your threads again. It must be nice to be so ignorant of the world. What happens if we ignore Saddam take away all the sanctions? He will develop the weapons he wants and threaten his neighbors again.

The civilian casualty thing, do you honestly believe four THOUSAND civilians were killed by the U.S. in Afghanistan? Wow, forget area 51 secrecy this would rival that! In todays anti-USA enviroment that would have been snapped up by every government in the world and trumped up in the War crimes Tribunal court.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.

I don't buy it.

Which part do you not bye?

That the numbers were less than 4000

or

That the US goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties?
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.

I don't buy it.

Which part do you not bye?

That the numbers were less than 4000

or

That the US goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties?

I don't *buy* any of it.

Clearly, providing [you and your fellow chickhawks with any "proof" will be dismissed outright as "biased".



 

Grey

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 1999
2,737
2
81
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Civilian Death Toll
Kosovo Bombings vs. Afghanistan Bombins (in terms of civilans killed)
Unwillingness of American Media to Cover Civilian Death Toll

Refute this, and/or explain how Saddam's actions during the past year or two are morally more repugnant.

Two of them use the same source for stats which the cursor.org Professor Herold clearly states came from Taliban officials. He even continues to document how the Taliban number was usually twice what other sources would state! The comw.org site states the number is more likely around 1,000 dead. Which not a small number by any stretch is a 1/4 of what you are throwing around.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
You must be registered with the NY Times to read the story.
NY TIMES - How Many People Has Hussein Killed?

excerpts from the article.

Like other dictators who wrote bloody chapters in 20th-century history, Mr. Hussein was primed for violence by early childhood. Born into the murderous clan culture of a village that lived off piracy on the Tigris River, he was harshly beaten by a brutal stepfather. In 1959, at age 22, he made his start in politics as one of the gunmen who botched an attempt to assassinate Iraq's first military ruler, Abdel Karim Kassem.

Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

Where the comparison seems closest is in the regime's mercilessly sadistic character. Iraq has its gulag of prisons, dungeons and torture chambers ? some of them acknowledged, like Abu Ghraib, and as many more disguised as hotels, sports centers and other innocent-sounding places. It has its overlapping secret-police agencies, and its culture of betrayal, with family members denouncing each other, and offices and factories becoming hives of perfidy.

"Enemies of the state" are eliminated, and their spouses, adult children and even cousins are often tortured and killed along with them.
Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.
The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell ? of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 ? surely a gross exaggeration ? but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.

In 1999, a complaint about prison overcrowding led to an instruction from the Iraqi leader for a "prison cleansing" drive. This resulted, according to human rights groups, in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of executions.

Using a satanic arithmetic, prison governors worked out how many prisoners would have to be hanged to bring the numbers down to stipulated levels, even taking into account the time remaining in the inmates' sentences. As 20 and 30 prisoners at a time were executed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, warders trailed through cities like Baghdad, "selling" exemption from execution to shocked families, according to people in Iraq who said they had spoken to relatives of those involved. Bribes of money, furniture, cars and even property titles brought only temporary stays.



How Many People Has Hussein Killed?
(Page 2 of 2)



Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.

Advertisement




The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell ? of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 ? surely a gross exaggeration ? but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.

Just as in Stalin's Russia, the machinery of death is mostly invisible, except for the effects it works on those brushed by it ? in the loss of relatives and friends, and in the universal terror that others have of falling into the abyss. If anybody wants to know what terror looks like, its face is visible every day on every street of Iraq.

"Minders," the men who watch visiting reporters day and night, are supposedly drawn from among the regime's harder men. But even they break down, hands shaking, eyes brimming, voices desperate, when reporters ask ordinary Iraqis edgy questions about Mr. Hussein.

"You have killed me, and killed my family," one minder said after a photographer for The New York Times made unauthorized photographs of an exhibition of statues of the Iraqi dictator during a November visit to Baghdad's College of Fine Arts. In recent years, the inexorable nature of Iraq's horrors have been demonstrated by new campaigns bearing the special hallmark of Mr. Hussein. In 1999, a complaint about prison overcrowding led to an instruction from the Iraqi leader for a "prison cleansing" drive. This resulted, according to human rights groups, in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of executions.

Using a satanic arithmetic, prison governors worked out how many prisoners would have to be hanged to bring the numbers down to stipulated levels, even taking into account the time remaining in the inmates' sentences. As 20 and 30 prisoners at a time were executed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, warders trailed through cities like Baghdad, "selling" exemption from execution to shocked families, according to people in Iraq who said they had spoken to relatives of those involved. Bribes of money, furniture, cars and even property titles brought only temporary stays.

MORE recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries, scores of women have been executed under a new twist in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Mr. Hussein. Aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time in the last two years, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes.

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein.
___________


markuskidd
I think Saddam wins, well the Iraqi people lose. You know what I mean.





 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Which part do you not bye?

That the numbers were less than 4000

or

That the US goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties?

I don't *buy* any of it. Clearly, providing you with any "proof" will be dismissed outright as "biased".

I have provided some evidence of both the high number of casualties and the seeming non-committment to "going out of its way to avoid civilian casualities." I am looking forward to his response, though I wonder if everyone I linked is too biased :D
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix

really i'd rather have it all in one thread but that would be confusing. so i guess the multiple thread format is the way to go.

Three threads a week has you all steamed up? I see.

who said anything about steamed up?
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Civilian Death Toll
Kosovo Bombings vs. Afghanistan Bombins (in terms of civilans killed)
Unwillingness of American Media to Cover Civilian Death Toll

Refute this, and/or explain how Saddam's actions during the past year or two are morally more repugnant.

Two of them use the same source for stats which the cursor.org Professor Herold clearly states came from Taliban officials. He even continues to document how the Taliban number was usually twice what other sources would state! The comw.org site states the number is more likely around 1,000 dead. Which not a small number by any stretch is a 1/4 of what you are throwing around.

"Fact" remains, no one seems to know the true number. There is very little real information (unfiltered) getting out to determine anything that is going on there.

 

Grey

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 1999
2,737
2
81
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Civilian Death Toll
Kosovo Bombings vs. Afghanistan Bombins (in terms of civilans killed)
Unwillingness of American Media to Cover Civilian Death Toll

Refute this, and/or explain how Saddam's actions during the past year or two are morally more repugnant.

Two of them use the same source for stats which the cursor.org Professor Herold clearly states came from Taliban officials. He even continues to document how the Taliban number was usually twice what other sources would state! The comw.org site states the number is more likely around 1,000 dead. Which not a small number by any stretch is a 1/4 of what you are throwing around.

"Fact" remains, no one seems to know the true number. There is very little real information getting out to determine anything that is going on there.

Oh, well from what I read it sounded like it was closer to one thousand dead, but I guess you can lean towards the four thousand mark. I mean after all it doesn't really help your argument that much does it.



 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Civilian Death Toll
Kosovo Bombings vs. Afghanistan Bombins (in terms of civilans killed)
Unwillingness of American Media to Cover Civilian Death Toll

Refute this, and/or explain how Saddam's actions during the past year or two are morally more repugnant.

Two of them use the same source for stats which the cursor.org Professor Herold clearly states came from Taliban officials. He even continues to document how the Taliban number was usually twice what other sources would state! The comw.org site states the number is more likely around 1,000 dead. Which not a small number by any stretch is a 1/4 of what you are throwing around.

"Fact" remains, no one seems to know the true number. There is very little real information getting out to determine anything that is going on there.

Oh, well from what I read it sounded like it was closer to one thousand dead, but I guess you can lean towards the four thousand mark. I mean after all it doesn't really help your argument that much does it.

I believe the "one thousand" number is a huge underestimate.

 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Grey
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Civilian Death Toll
Kosovo Bombings vs. Afghanistan Bombins (in terms of civilans killed)
Unwillingness of American Media to Cover Civilian Death Toll

Refute this, and/or explain how Saddam's actions during the past year or two are morally more repugnant.

Two of them use the same source for stats which the cursor.org Professor Herold clearly states came from Taliban officials. He even continues to document how the Taliban number was usually twice what other sources would state! The comw.org site states the number is more likely around 1,000 dead. Which not a small number by any stretch is a 1/4 of what you are throwing around.

"Fact" remains, no one seems to know the true number. There is very little real information getting out to determine anything that is going on there.

Oh, well from what I read it sounded like it was closer to one thousand dead, but I guess you can lean towards the four thousand mark. I mean after all it doesn't really help your argument that much does it.

Even if it is the low-ball 1,000 killed, I find that to be a very sobering reminder of just how far our 'moral superiority' will get us.