Tunisia 8 hostages murdered.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Polux

Even if he had fought on it he could have simple being fighting for democracy, as many that fought in that war, like Ernest Hemingway, Malraux or George Orwell. 2800 North Americans fought for Democracy in Spain and against Fascism.

That was what was at stake then. The leftist democratic government was not only formed by communists but by a Popular front that won the 1936 elections forming a Republican government.

Lots of Anarchist also helped form that rag tag bunch of Commi/leftest/socialist hard fighting men and women..

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Hmmmm... guess your still 'harvesting' out back of Sailcraft..

Does everybody know?

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Whitebread117

I have to wonder, has anyone asked the Cherokee (the original inhabitants of the area) about their views on this threat? I mean after all, they have some experience with outside invaders taking over, forcing a new religion, and ruining their way of life

I'm glad you brought that up.

I often point to what happened to the Native Americans as an example of what happens when you underestimate the depravity and tenacity of your enemy.

While I feel sorry for them and wish current society had the same respect for their environment, I'm kinda addicted to wifi internet access and HD satellite TV, and I don't think we'd be enjoying this kind of technology if the Native Americans had prevailed.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

I'm glad you brought that up.

I often point to what happened to the Native Americans as an example of what happens when you underestimate the depravity and tenacity of your enemy.

While I feel sorry for them and wish current society had the same respect for their environment, I'm kinda addicted to wifi internet access and HD satellite TV, and I don't think we'd be enjoying this kind of technology if the Native Americans had prevailed.

It aint over until the Fat squaw sings!!(and you dont want to hear that!)

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, I just like facts. You started this argument when you said that a guy that said : "~75% of casualties in the Iraq war were civilians" was wrong and making absurd statements.

Quote the post you are referring to, because it wasn't me.

I never said that the Coalition forces killed all the civilians (neither did the one that made the original statement)

But absent the whole story, the inference is coalition forces are responsible for all deaths. Excluding information is only one tactic used by propagandists.

...but when there is a war the one that starts it is responsible...

Saddam Hussein set the stage for future conflict when he invaded Kuwait. And a persuasive argument can be made the attack on Kuwait was the catalyst for what came later.

I never believed there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, and the inspectors should have been allowed to complete their work. One huge contributing factor was the belligerant attitude of Saddam Hussein and repeated violations by his aircraft of the no fly zone. He certainly did nothing to prevent war, thumbing his nose at the U.S. coalition. This a man who gassed his own people. Laying blame in regard to who 'started' the war is not so cut and dried."

...for the consequences and the consequences were 500000 dead of which 23,984 were enemy soldiers, 3,771 Coalition soldiers and 15,196 from the "Host Nation"15,196 deaths, that I assume Iraq soldiers favorable to the coalition.

Nobody revels in the loss of life in war. But, to the extent Sunni militias drew the war out, concentrating their numbers in populated towns, it can be said many non-combatants died as human shields. Who is to bear the brunt of the blame for this?

So you have 42,951 soldier death for 457,049 civilian causalities. Yes Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator but his regime was a stable one and the number of all victims due to his atrocities were only a small percentage of all civilian causalities the war was responsible for.

So, you absolve Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people on account of his ability to achieve stability through brutality and fear? Because he was responsible for relatively few deaths? Depending on whether you were Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish, your perspective would vary. And the suffering you endured was more or less. I dare say the Kurds and Shiites would vehemently disagree with your assessment.

It is the same sectarianism present under Saddam that affects the whole of the Middle East; is the root cause of violence and inability of Middle Easterners to put aside their hatred for one another.

Blame? The killing is likely to continue in perpetuity as long as nothing changes. Make sure you keep count...

And, it's interesting you will not answer my questions.

What is your motivation in this particular thread in posting links such as those you've provided? The point you're hoping to make?"

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Quote the post you are referring to, because it wasn't me.



But absent the whole story, the inference is coalition forces are responsible for all deaths. Excluding information is only one tactic used by propagandists.

Saddam Hussein set the stage for future conflict when he invaded Kuwait. And a persuasive argument can be made the attack on Kuwait was the catalyst for what came later.

I never believed there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, and the inspectors should have been allowed to complete their work. One huge contributing factor was the belligerant attitude of Saddam Hussein and repeated violations by his aircraft of the no fly zone. He certainly did nothing to prevent war, thumbing his nose at the U.S. coalition. This a man who gassed his own people. Laying blame in regard to who 'started' the war is not so cut and dried."

Nobody revels in the loss of life in war. But, to the extent Sunni militias drew the war out, concentrating their numbers in populated towns, it can be said many non-combatants died as human shields. Who is to bear the brunt of the blame for this?

So, you absolve Saddam Hussein, who gassed his own people on account of his ability to achieve stability through brutality and fear? Because he was responsible for relatively few deaths? Depending on whether you were Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish, your perspective would vary. And the suffering you endured was more or less. I dare say the Kurds and Shiites would vehemently disagree with your assessment.

It is the same sectarianism present under Saddam that affects the whole of the Middle East; is the root cause of violence and inability of Middle Easterners to put aside their hatred for one another.

Blame? The killing is likely to continue in perpetuity as long as nothing changes. Make sure you keep count...

And, it's interesting you will not answer my questions.

What is your motivation in this particular thread in posting links such as those you've provided? The point you're hoping to make?"

"What is your motivation" ? Propaganda ! !

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Polux,

First, a recommendation. If you have never read much about propaganda, it's a fascinating subject and an understanding of the different types of propaganda can help to spot them when encountered. One feature of the most common type of propaganda incorporates facts, whole or in part. This gives one the impression what they're reading is factual, but in truth the balance of information is incredible. Sometimes even a bald faced lie.

Second. You have been posting links in this thread to information related to conflict in the Middle East. Is this information you've discovered in an exhaustive effort of yours to learn about the subject matter, drawing on as many sources as possible - on and off the internet - or have you gathered your information from one particular site?

It will be interesting to know who sponsors the sites you've frequented.

RT the propaganda bull horn that is the Russian State(sic) ( Secretary of State John Kerry)

[four winds]

I don't do political discussion online. This is a single post exception. I would like offer the link below for those interested.

Apparently some smart folks at MIT looked into the issue of deaths during the Iraq war and have a web site devoted to their findings.

I realize for some there are no credible sources regardless. But at least it's not wiki-p.

For what it's worth I certainly recall hearing news accounts of thousands of civilian deaths at the time. Much like any war occurring during my lifetime. Starting when I was a preteen watching the Vietnam war on the nightly news each day.

Again, I realize for some there are no credible sources for info one doesn't agree with.

Regardless:
The Human Cost of the War in Iraq

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by four winds

I don't do political discussion online. This is a single post exception. I would like offer the link below for those interested.

Apparently some smart folks at MIT looked into the issue of deaths during the Iraq war and have a web site devoted to their findings.

I realize for some there are no credible sources regardless. But at least it's not wiki-p.

For what it's worth I certainly recall hearing news accounts of thousands of civilian deaths at the time. Much like any war occurring during my lifetime. Starting when I was a preteen watching the Vietnam war on the nightly news each day.

Again, I realize for some there are no credible sources for info one doesn't agree with.

Regardless:
The Human Cost of the War in Iraq

Whatever the numbers, total fatalities in Iraq are not solely attributable to U.S coalition actions. An important distinction missing in his posts. There is no disagreement the death toll - as in any armed conflict - is great.

The whole discussion about Iraq was introduced by Polux who has emphasized the death toll in Iraq and lays blame at the American coalitions feet because they 'started the war'.

In a thread about the murders of tourists in Tunesia?

The implication is he believes what happened in Tunesia is somehow justified given U.S. engagements in the Middle East, and information he's posted here strongly suggests this is the case.

He has not replied to at least three requests to answer these questions: "What is your motivation in this particular thread in posting links such as those you've provided? The point you're hoping to make?"

Why?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wrong

Quote the post you are referring to, because it wasn't me.

Sorry about that, it was Tropicalecape. He just finished with your name in capital letters and that mislead me

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Not wanting trouble but where in hell did you "look this up"? Thats just plumb crazy..75 % of the casualties were civilians!! Thats absurd and WRONG...

.

Originally Posted by Wrong

...
What is your motivation in this particular thread in posting links such as those you've provided? The point you're hoping to make?"

You mean Wikipedia and the Huffington post that you quoted in first place?
As I said already no reason other then accuracy. As I said it was not me that started the subject.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by four winds

I don't do political discussion online. This is a single post exception. I would like offer the link below for those interested.

Apparently some smart folks at MIT looked into the issue of deaths during the Iraq war and have a web site devoted to their findings.

I realize for some there are no credible sources regardless. But at least it's not wiki-p.

For what it's worth I certainly recall hearing news accounts of thousands of civilian deaths at the time. Much like any war occurring during my lifetime. Starting when I was a preteen watching the Vietnam war on the nightly news each day.

Again, I realize for some there are no credible sources for info one doesn't agree with.

Regardless:
The Human Cost of the War in Iraq

The numbers are not different from the ones on Wikipedia:

"The second household survey, conducted by the Hopkins scientists again, was completed in June 2006 and published four months later in The Lancet. Its findings: 650,000 people (civilians and fighters) died as a result of the war in Iraq."

and the wikipedia article quote several surveys about civil causalities including several refereed on the link you have posted.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Polux

Sorry about that, it was Tropicalecape. He just finished with your name in capital letters and that mislead me




.

You mean Wikipedia and the Huffington post that you quoted in first place?
As I said already no reason other then accuracy. As I said it was not me that started the subject.

There you go blame it on me!! I tell you Polux your propaganda will not work on these brilliant folks here on CF so dont try it, they will never buy into your half truths and strategic elimination of facts ..They know who and what I stand for so dont waste your time shifting the blame on me I will be vindicated!!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wrong

The whole discussion about Iraq was introduced by Polux who has emphasized the death toll in Iraq and lays blame at the American coalitions feet because they 'started the war'.

As I said it was not me but someone else that said: "75% of casualties in the Iraq war were civilians" and most of all the disagreement of tropicalescape with that number.

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Not wanting trouble but where in hell did you "look this up"? Thats just plumb crazy..75 % of the casualties were civilians!! Thats absurd and WRONG...

All I have done was to show that number if not correct is because the actual percentage of civilian causalities due to the war regarding the death of soldiers is actually way bigger.

it seems to me evident that if someone starts a war to stop a lesser evil and ends up with a much more calamitous situation then the one that wanted to prevent, is responsible for the outcome. The evil that represented the possible use of the (non) existence of weapons of massif destruction cannot compare with the more than half million causalities that the war created.

I don't want to continue this subject that was concluded for me immediately after the information regarding the number of civilian causalities face to the number of military casualties. it was you that continued the subject, not me.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

There you go blame it on me!! I tell you Polux your propaganda will not work on these brilliant folks here on CF so dont try it, they will never buy into your half truths and strategic elimination of facts ...

You call propaganda to facts that you don't like, no matter the source.

No about those two senior naval officers (US and UK) that made a warning regarding cruising on the MED, can anyone tell me what is that about? I cannot find anything about it.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Polux

You call propaganda to facts that you don't like, no matter the source.

No about those two senior naval officers (US and UK) that made a warning regarding cruising on the MED, can anyone tell me what is that about? I cannot find anything about it.

I should have put some smiley faces or LOL or something ,I was just Joshing with ya..