• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

When will the "war on terror" be recognized for what it really is?

E

envy me

Golden Member

When the 6 million jews were exterminated, it was considered genocide.

When 1 and a half million armenians were massacred it was considered genocide.

When 3 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge it was considered genocide.


So far over 3 million innocent Iraqi civilians (not terrorists) have been killed compliments of America during their illegal invasion dubbed war on terror.

Why should this not be considered a genocide aswell?

Is that the typical attitude most Americans have is that, what they do is never wrong therefore this cannot be genocide?

Do they somehow try to justify it?

I would like to know what your opinions are on this and what your reasoning behind them is.
 
The number is not 3M. Where did you come up with that whopper?

That being said, the number should be zero Iraqi deaths because we shouldn't be there, but it has nothing to do with genocide. The difference between misguided war and genocide is one of intent. We're not in Iraq because we want to kill Iraqis. We're there for political reasons and because the military industrial complex wants a base of operations in the mideast, just like we have bases everywhere else in the world.
 
My mistake the figure is actually around 1.1 million link

So the only thing that makes 1.1 million deaths acceptable is intent?

 
So now we?re the owners of genocide when Muslims kill fellow Muslims? Fancy that. I understand the concept of ?if you break it you buy it?, but we?re not the ones killing them.

The fact that you treat us like we are is unforgiveable.
 
Originally posted by: envy me
My mistake the figure is actually around 1.1 million link

So the only thing that makes 1.1 million deaths acceptable is intent?
Click to expand...

"Actually" is such a strong word when using estimates for figures, and the site you link points to another site thats database says the number is at 80,000-88,000. Which is it?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
 
Originally posted by: envy me
My mistake the figure is actually around 1.1 million link

So the only thing that makes 1.1 million deaths acceptable is intent?
Click to expand...

Who said that was acceptable? Learn to read fool. I said the number should be zero because we shouldn't even be in Iraq.

The intent is why it's not considered genocide. Genocide is the systematic killing of a specific group of people. We're not doing that.
 
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic group.

Prove thats why we went into Iraq and I will support you 100%!
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: envy me
My mistake the figure is actually around 1.1 million link

So the only thing that makes 1.1 million deaths acceptable is intent?
Click to expand...

Who said that was acceptable? Learn to read fool. I said the number should be zero because we shouldn't even be in Iraq.

The intent is why it's not considered genocide. Genocide is the systematic killing of a specific group of people. We're not doing that.
Click to expand...

I plead guilty to us setting the stage for them to kill amongst themselves. We were stupid for that.
 
1.) It's not genocide, we're not killing Iraqi's because they're Iraqi's and we want them gone.

2.) Your numbers are way overblown.

3.) It's not even us killing Iraqi's, it's Iraqi on Iraqi violence that's driving the death toll, we're just caught in the middle or are forced to engage when there's insurgents/terrorists.
3.a.) Killing insurgents/terrorists that are Iraqi doesn't really count in the death toll (or shouldn't) unless in the process we kill an innocent. Once an innocent Iraqi becomes an insurgent/terrorist, then they're fair game and don't deserve to be counted in the death toll for civ.'s. Obviously, if they were a former insurgent/terrorist, and have given that up and now are just a civ., then they should be counted if they're unfortunately killed.

4.) While I know it's hard to lend credibility to any part of the mainstream media, lending any credibility to sites that have one agenda is not really a good way to go about things. You can play the Don't attack the messenger attack the message BS all day long, but, at the end of the day, if you're biased, no one gives a F what you have to say, becuase....you're biased. It'd be like the CEO of ExxonMobil telling us why we need to pay more for gas right now: Yeah, it could be a totally valid reason, but, no way can the source be trusted...

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: envy me

Why should this not be considered a genocide aswell?
Click to expand...

No. The Bushwhackos have committed many serious crimes in pursuing their war in Iraq, but genocide doesn't match most common understandings of the word. Here is one definition:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Click to expand...

I've posted precise definitions of more appropriate charges that would be easier to prove in a court of law, including murder of every American who has died in their war of lies, treason for shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution and torture, which is a crime under American and international law, and the underlying crime of lying to Congress, which establishes the conditions for murder under two distinct theories of the crime.

If I post the entire text from my previous posts, the Bushwhacko neocon sycophants will cry that I'm posting "macros." I'll save that until they actually challenge me on it.

Is that the typical attitude most Americans have is that, what they do is never wrong therefore this cannot be genocide?

Do they somehow try to justify it?
Click to expand...

Not this American or (finally) the majority of Americans, today. I'd like to see the entire adminstration given free lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride. It isn't torture. They said so, themselves, so we can believe them... right? :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: envy me

Why should this not be considered a genocide aswell?
Click to expand...

No. The Bushwhackos have committed many serious crimes in pursuing their war in Iraq, but genocide doesn't match most common understandings of the word. Here is one definition:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Click to expand...

I've posted precise definitions of more appropriate charges that would be easier to prove in a court of law, including murder, treason and torture, and the underlying crime of lying to Congress, which establishes the conditions for murder under two distinct theories of the crime.

If I post the entire text from my previous posts, the Bushwhacko neocon sycophants will cry that I'm posting "macros." I'll save that until they actually challenge me on it.

Is that the typical attitude most Americans have is that, what they do is never wrong therefore this cannot be genocide?

Do they somehow try to justify it?
Click to expand...

Not this American or (finally) the majority of Americans, today.
Click to expand...


Great.. This was what I was looking for.

So the thing that prevents this from being considered a genocide are the words "deliberate" and "systematic".

It's just hard to guage what is actually taking place.

We've seen torture at the Iraqi prisons, but the only reason we've seen that is because there were pictures.

I'm willing to bet there have been more violent acts committed against civilians that weren't photographed or documented.

 
Originally posted by: envy me
Great.. This was what I was looking for.

So the thing that prevents this from being considered a genocide are the words "deliberate" and "systematic".

No, it isn't just words, it actual intent

It's just hard to guage what is actually taking place.

We've seen torture at the Iraqi prisons, but the only reason we've seen that is because there were pictures.

I'm willing to bet there have been more violent acts committed against civilians that weren't photographed or documented.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of bad things happening to iraqis in Iraq, I personally witnessed quite a few disturbing things, almost all of them perpetrated by iraqis, and none of tehm turned my stomach as much as watching the videos of Baathist throwing handcuffed prisoners from rooftops.
 
Originally posted by: envy me

So the thing that prevents this from being considered a genocide are the words "deliberate" and "systematic".
Click to expand...

No. The Bushwhackos have committed numerous serious crimes, but they don't fit the definition of genocide, including:
  • acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group.
  • deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
I want to see them tried for the crimes they've committed, but charging them with genocide would deminish and diffuse the meaning of that charge as it should be properly applied to those who actually committed it.

The slaughter in Darfur, Milosovic's tyranny in the former Yugoslavia and Hitler's tyranny against European Jews are genocide. The Turks' slaughter of Armenians was probaly genocide, too, but I haven't read enough about that to make the statement for myself.
 
How in all fvck did you come up with 3M? and then a few minutes later 1.1? How can you know so little about it to think that it was 3M and yet have such a strong opinion about it, especially given that you do not understand what genocide is? 1.1 is the highest quote there is. THe figure is probably somewhere between 100k and 200k and for the record, in the same vein as bobberfett, I think this whole thing is a cluster fvck of obscene proportions. The US clearly should never have gone there, has ungodly amounts of blood on its hands, and what makes it worse than the obliteration of stability (albeit crappy stability) for Iraq and the deaths of so many people is that so many people in the US don't seem to give a sh*t and still think it was the right thing to do.

But, let's get the overarching facts of it straight, such as at least a ballpark consensus on numbers (and 1.1 is not in it) and that it's not a genocide, it's just a fvckicide, which is the killing of people due to a brainless foreign policy perpetuated by a brainless administration.
 
Originally posted by: envy me

When the 6 million jews were exterminated, it was considered genocide.

When 1 and a half million armenians were massacred it was considered genocide.

When 3 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge it was considered genocide.


So far over 3 million innocent Iraqi civilians (not terrorists) have been killed compliments of America during their illegal invasion dubbed war on terror.

Why should this not be considered a genocide aswell?

Is that the typical attitude most Americans have is that, what they do is never wrong therefore this cannot be genocide?

Do they somehow try to justify it?

I would like to know what your opinions are on this and what your reasoning behind them is.
Click to expand...



:thumbsdown: Nice try; we are not committing genocide or systematically killing Iraqis in cold blood. And your # of 3M is far from accurate.
 
If we WERE committing genocide there would be a LOT more than 3 million dead.

Why risk American lives at all when we could just carpet bomb any place in Iraq that gives us problems?

We create strict rules of engagement to prevent civilian deaths? You get shot at blast away at anything that moves.

You really have to be an idiot to think that what is going on in Iraq is genocide, or at least that we are the ones the committing it. You could make the argument that the Sunnis and Shiites are trying to commit genocide to an extent.
 
The USA isn't committing genocide... Bullshit war? Oh hell yeah, but it's no mass murder. The soldiers would never follow the leader to do such a thing, they're good guys mostly. They would however follow the leader into a pointless, dangerous faux"war".

I think you underestimate our soldiers conscience.
 
Originally posted by: envy me

1 When the 6 million jews were exterminated, it was considered genocide.

2 When 1 and a half million armenians were massacred it was considered genocide.

3 When 3 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge it was considered genocide.


So far over 3 million innocent Iraqi civilians (not terrorists) have been killed compliments of America during their illegal invasion dubbed war on terror.

Why should this not be considered a genocide aswell?

Is that the typical attitude most Americans have is that, what they do is never wrong therefore this cannot be genocide?

Do they somehow try to justify it?

I would like to know what your opinions are on this and what your reasoning behind them is.
Click to expand...

I would like to know how it compares to

1) Setting up gas chambers, starving people to death and grotesque medical experiments

2) the forced marching of peope for hundreds of miles depriving them of food, shelter and water while raping them, not to mention concentration camps

3) The closing of schools, hospitals, confiscation of all personal property outlawing all religions, forced relocation from cities to do forced labor in collective camps

Your comparisons make no sense and I challenge you to draw legitimate connections between your examples and the current situation to justify your statements


 
Originally posted by: envy me
So far over 3 million innocent Iraqi civilians (not terrorists) have been killed compliments of America during their illegal invasion dubbed war on terror.
Click to expand...
LOL!!! wtf? 😕

The latest study indicates that the number is roughly 150,000 total since the invasion in 2003.

that said, it's not the Americans who are doing most of the killing -- the Iraqis are killing eachother!

Sad? YES! "genocide"? NO.

Where the hell do you get your information from, Al Jazeera and Osama Bin Laden?!

seriously... wake up fool.
 
Originally posted by: envy me

When the 6 million jews were exterminated, it was considered genocide.

When 1 and a half million armenians were massacred it was considered genocide.

When 3 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge it was considered genocide.


So far over 3 million innocent Iraqi civilians (not terrorists) have been killed compliments of America during their illegal invasion dubbed war on terror.

Why should this not be considered a genocide aswell?

Is that the typical attitude most Americans have is that, what they do is never wrong therefore this cannot be genocide?

Do they somehow try to justify it?

I would like to know what your opinions are on this and what your reasoning behind them is.
Click to expand...


So, two questions:

(A) What are your sources for this?

(B) What percentage of those Iraqis were actually killed by the American Military? What percentage were killed by other Iraqis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top