Tunisia 8 hostages murdered.

[boatman61]

The 1st domino in the chain fell over 50yrs ago.. and.. as with real domino's there is a gradual speeding up to the cascade..
No good trying to play catch up.. just let the chain complete then treat/deal with who's left standing.. to your own particular political expediencey..
Thats what normally happens.. the young men die.. then the old men come back out of the burrows and start the crap all over again..

[Polux]

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...

No, unfortunately it is not wrong but right. You could have made some research about it. Yes, that is in fact absurd such a huge percentage of civilian causalities caused by a helping hand but the number, according to a classified US document (Wiki leaks) is 80% of civilian casualties.

Iraq War documents leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some partial information regarding only two years (2003/2005):

"Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths...
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets)."

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analys...s-releases/12/

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Polux

You could have made some research about it. Yes, that is in fact absurd such a huge percentage of civilian causalities caused by a helping hand but the number, according to a classified US document (Wiki leaks) is 80%

Iraq War documents leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some partial information regarding only two years (2003/2005):

"Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths...
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets)."

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analys...s-releases/12/

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You dont belive that Wiki leaks crap do you ? That is just the spin being put on the spin!! A country that can put a man on the moon cant keep its Diplomatic communications secure? Wiki leaks should correctly be named "Intentional leaks" ... The way you presented the statment made me think you were saying that the presentage killed was done by the USA when in fact I see words like "unexploded ordnance" and then "Scientific surveys" whose science? whose survey? Who killed who? America starts a war and 80% of the casualties are civilian!!?? Thats stupid and sounds a lot like something Putin would say!!

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, unfortunately it is not wrong but right. You could have made some research about it. Yes, that is in fact absurd such a huge percentage of civilian causalities caused by a helping hand but the number, according to a classified US document (Wiki leaks) is 80% of civilian casualties.

Iraq War documents leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some partial information regarding only two years (2003/2005):

"Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths...
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets)."

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analys...s-releases/12/

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets)."

Does the source of the "explosive devices" matter to you? It's probably safe to say roadside bombs and booby traps account for a sizeable proportion of deaths, including children who were "...disproportionately affected by all explosive devices...unexploded ordinance (including cluster bomlets). 64% caused by airstrikes? My interest would be in knowing about the methodology used to draw these conclusions.

Regarding the use of cluster bombs:

From the New York Times, May 27, 1993

Teledyne and Chilean Indicted in Iraq Bomb Sales
By LARRY ROHTER,
Published: May 27, 1993

"Cluster bombs have been widely used by Iraq in recent years in conflicts with Iran, against its own Kurdish population and against Kuwaiti and Allied forces in the Persian Gulf War. They contain hundreds of tiny bomblets in a single casing, reducing the need for precision in bombing runs."

"Wikis" certainly have a lot of information, but the sources and accuracy of information is not always known. People sympathetic to ISIL or any other group, Klu Klux Klan - you name it - can post information on WIKIs. And there it remains until someone catches the errors, intentional bias or bald faced lies. It is then either deleted or edited.

You may want to do a little more digging.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

You dont belive that Wiki leaks crap do you ? That is just the spin being put on the spin!! A country that can put a man on the moon cant keep its Diplomatic communications secure? Wiki leaks should correctly be named "Intentional leaks" ... The way you presented the statment made me think you were saying that the presentage killed was done by the USA when in fact I see words like "unexploded ordnance" and then "Scientific surveys" whose science? whose survey? Who killed who? America starts a war and 80% of the casualties are civilian!!?? Thats stupid and sounds a lot like something Putin would say!!

There is not only one source but many sources that point to a number of that magnitude (75%) regarding civilian causalities.

If you disagree you should post a credible source that justifiably points to another significant different percentage. Without doing that what you say has no meaning.

[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.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wrong

..
You may want to do a little more digging.

It seems that is you that has to do the digging. If you don't agree with the 75% civil casualties that are the number commonly accepted by most sources it is you that should post credible information that contradicts that percentage.

[Polux]

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.

I am still waiting for a credible source that justifiably points to another percentage.

You mean Wikipedia is a propaganda source? Do you know how it works wikipedia regarding information? I you have credible information that contradicts what is posted on Wikepedia they will gladly modify the content...and will thank you.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

or maybe if " we" stopped interfering in the politics of other regions, that might help also

The murderous rampage of Islamic terrorists has nothing to do with US so called meddling. It is motivated from their own desire to meddle in the world and create their own world hegemony. And their tool of choice is terrorism which includes the beheading and enslavement of innocent civilians.

Just so you know. I will not do business with an American hater. Seems like there are too many anti American vendors and service providers on here.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am still waiting for a credible source that justifiably points to another percentage.

From the Huffington Post, March 23, 2015.
Source: "The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown."

"About 70 percent of Iraq deaths from 2003-2011 were violent in nature, with most caused by gunshots, followed by car bombs and other explosions, said the study.

Coalition forces were blamed for 35 percent of violent deaths; militias were blamed for 32 percent. The rest were either unknown (21 percent), criminals (11 percent) or Iraqi forces (one percent)."

What this illustrates is that if what you're looking for is damning evidence with which to indict America for the sacrifices it has made in Iraq, you'll probably find what you want. Unless that is, you get the whole truth about who and what's responsible for deaths in Iraq.

The article is here: Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

You mean Wikipedia is a propaganda source?

I said exactly what I meant.

Do you know how it works wikipedia regarding information? I you have credible information that contradicts what is posted on Wikepedia they will gladly modify the content...and will thank you.

Yes. If and when my knowlege, background and experience alerts me to the fact something on a WIKI site is innaccurate or untrue, I'll alert Wikepedia.

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

[SV THIRD DAY]

If you don't understand what a Caliphate is and it's historical and prophetic role in Islam, then your understanding of the middle east is comparable to trying to do long division without first being able to first add and subtract. In this analysis and understanding, it is also irrelevant what we (you and me) think or believe. Meaning, it doesn't matter if we are atheists or religious believers, because what WE think is irrelevant. What matters is what THEY think, believe and are taking action to make happen, while we are sitting here afraid to address the issue in front of our eyes.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

The murderous rampage of Islamic terrorists has nothing to do with US so called meddling. It is motivated from their own desire to meddle in the world and create their own world hegemony. And their tool of choice is terrorism which includes the beheading and enslavement of innocent civilians.

Just so you know. I will not do business with an American hater. Seems like there are too many anti American vendors and service providers on here.

Re-read TropicalEscape's post. He is in agreement with you.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wrong

From the Huffington Post, March 23, 2015.
Source: "The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown."

"About 70 percent of Iraq deaths from 2003-2011 were violent in nature, with most caused by gunshots, followed by car bombs and other explosions, said the study.

Coalition forces were blamed for 35 percent of violent deaths; militias were blamed for 32 percent. The rest were either unknown (21 percent), criminals (11 percent) or Iraqi forces (one percent)."

What this illustrates is that if what you're looking for is damning evidence with which to indict America for the sacrifices it has made in Iraq, you'll probably find what you want. Unless that is, you get the whole truth about who and what's responsible for deaths in Iraq.

The article is here: Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says



I said exactly what I meant.



Yes. If and when my knowlege, background and experience alerts me to the fact something on a WIKI site is innaccurate or untrue, I'll alert Wikepedia.

You are missing the point. Nothing on that contradicts the percentage of civilian causalities that was posted. In fact it strongly supports a much bigger percentage of civilian causalities. They say :"That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts." and talk about half a million deaths in consequence of the war.

The number of enemies soldiers and terrorists killed by the coalition, according with US sources are: 23,984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Make your own percentage.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Pieterv06

Hi all,
Though this is not an official warning - yet-, two senior naval officers from US and Uk expressed 2 days ago the idea that cruising in the Med would shortly become a risky game, including for those sailing around Corsican and Italian waters. Still fairly difficult for me to believe, but as far as Sardinia is concerned, looking at the map you will realize that the southern tip of Sardinia is just short of 100NM from Tunisian coastline. For a speedboat with armed ******** on board, this is just a few hours away. Rather concerning in my view….

Thanks for your post Pieterv06. The Naval Officers are absolutely correct. The Med is now unstable and as Tunisia either becomes a staging ground for ISIS or Iranian backed terrorists it will become a source of menace for the Sardinia and even Italy.

This is not hypothetical. Remember the Somalia pirates. They travelled up to 1,000 NM off their coastline. Fast boat, machine gun and RGP brandishing terrorists will do far more damage than any Somalia pirates have done to shipping.

We are looking at a serious turn of events that every sailor who sails or dreams of sailing that part of the Med should be very concerned and aware about.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by Polux

A central problem is certainly the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

You don't have to wait long for the anti-semitic Jew haters to come out of the woodwork. The central problem Polux is a bunch of religious fanatics who want to take over the world. It has nothing to do with the lying Palestinians who want to eradicate the Jewish State and all Jews.

If this forum didn't have its keep it nice rules I would say lot more. Thank you for exposing your Jew hatred that comes along with your Anti-Americanism.