Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Par]

Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder.

Oliver, when a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime?

I don't.

So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?

 

[Oliver]

So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?

It's pretty unrealistic to name a suicide bomber a national threat
for a whole country while I agree that they're a threat and I see
no advantage of these acts.

But what is your argument here? We were talking about "a threat
to hundred thousands of lives" and I argued that there is no threat
coming from any non-western country until someone provokes it.

A suicide bomber surely is a problem - but certainly not a threat
to hundred thousands of people. And the most recent bombings
I remember in the US came from citizens, not foreigners.


What's the point - what are you opposed to? Do you really care
about a suicide bomber in Israel or Syria?

 

[Par]

I think you must misunderstand.

You claimed that those killed in Iraq were murdered by those fighting on behalf of “flawed intelligence or imaginary threats” or, in other words, by the Americans or coalition forces in general. Why are you laying the blame for the vast swathes of intentional slaughter by jihadis and their cohorts at the feet of America and its allies?

 

[Oliver]

I think you must misunderstand.

You claimed that those killed in Iraq were murdered by those fighting on behalf of “flawed intelligence or imaginary threats” or, in other words, by the Americans or coalition forces in general. Why are you laying the blame for the vast swathes of intentional slaughter by jihadis and their cohorts at the feet of America and its allies?

Because it's the result of the instabillity caused by the invasion
of Iraq. Your pal Cheney knew that almost a DECADE before the
invasion of Iraq:


Do you even understand that they lied to you - reviewing this
hard evidence?

 

[Par]

Certain groups in Iraq are freely choosing to blow to bits and to torture to death as many innocent people as they can. You, however, wish to claim that these victims have been killed by the Americans. Innocents are being killed by one group, and you claim that they have been killed by another. Why?

(Incidentally, you have no clue whatsoever as to what I think about Cheney, the Republicans, Iraq or American foreign policy in general.)

 

[Oliver]

Certain groups in Iraq are freely choosing to blow to bits and to torture to death as many innocent people as they can. You, however, wish to claim that these victims have been killed by the Americans. Innocents are being killed by one group, and you claim that they have been killed by another. Why?

(Incidentally, you have no clue whatsoever as to what I think about Cheney, the Republicans, Iraq or American foreign policy in general.)

Your arguments sound like a German Konzentrationslager-Nazi saying
that it wasn't the Nazis that killed all the Jews - it was the leadership
of the concentration camps who did it...

It was a result of destabilizing Iraq - no matter what other third
parties had to do with it. The main point still is: "Destabilization".

What part of that don't you understand? Iraq wasn't a sponsor
of terrorism, so what's your opinion about the wise Cheney in
contrast to the dumb Cheney ten years later?:


Care to explain it to me?

 

[Par]

If the American government has somehow surreptitiously ordered the religious extremists in Iraq to go about their rampage of torture and murder, then I will concede immediately that you are correct. Do you have any evidence of such an affiliation taking place? Or did you merely wish to present a false analogy?

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

 

[danielk]

Your arguments sound like a German Konzentrationslager-Nazi saying that it wasn't the Nazis that killed all the Jews - it was the leadership of the concentration camps who did it...

Oliver, for the love of the FSM, please tell me you aren't serious.

 

[Oliver]

If the American government has somehow surreptitiously ordered the religious extremists in Iraq to go about their rampage of torture and murder, then I will concede immediately that you are correct. Do you have any evidence of such an affiliation taking place? Or did you merely wish to present a false analogy?

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

Quite frankly: I don't see any Islamic threat for the US. You might
argue that 9/11 happened but my point is that this was a retaliation
for US-Foreign policies. And if you would study Osama Bin Ladens
own words, you would know this.

And yes, I acknowledge that there is a lot of hate towards America,
and the reasons for that are the Israel-Support and being egocentric
about the world and themselves.

The most dangerous threat to the world to me are American foreign
policies. And I fully understand that you're an American citizen, not
the American Government.

I strongly distinguish between America and American Government.
You might argue that Islam is more "terroristic" than Christianity,
but from what I see -taking history into account- it's religion itself
that is the problem here. Do you disagree - and why?

 

[Stout]

Out of curiosity...Where did that figure of 500 000 come from ?

I'm aware of the Lancet study that quotes 655 000 also I'm looking at another British site called Iraq Body Count, and they give a range of up to 85 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, for the love of the FSM, please tell me you aren't serious.

Bezüglich wessen Argument?

[Concerning which argument]

 

[Oliver]

Out of curiosity...Where did that figure of 500 000 come from ?

I'm aware of the Lancet study that quotes 655 000 also I'm looking at another British site called Iraq Body Count, and they give a range of up to 85 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Iraqbodycount states that most deaths aren't reported in official
data. But despite that - I don't care about 100,000 or 999,999
innocent deaths - the keypoint is "innocent deaths". And surprise,
surprise - Iraq nor Iran had nothing to do with the 3,000 deaths
on 9/11. So the American Government lied to the rest of the world,
just like they did about Iran.

Most 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi citizens, but guess what: "The
Saudis are our friends, let's not make accusations about friends".

 

[Par]

Quite frankly: I don't see any Islamic threat for the US. You might
argue that 9/11 happened but my point is that this was a retaliation
for US-Foreign policies. And if you would study Osama Bin Ladens
own words, you would know this.

And yes, I acknowledge that there is a lot of hate towards America,
and the reasons for that are the Israel-Support and being egocentric
about the world and themselves.

The most dangerous threat to the world to me are American foreign
policies. And I fully understand that you're an American citizen, not
the American Government.

I strongly distinguish between America and American Government.
You might argue that Islam is more "terroristic" than Christianity,
but from what I see -taking history into account- it's religion itself
that is the problem here. Do you disagree - and why?

None of this has any bearing on the point at issue.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

(Incidentally, I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.)

 

[Par]

Iraqbodycount states that most deaths aren't reported in official data. But despite that - I don't care about 100,000 or 999,999 innocent deaths - the keypoint is "innocent deaths".

I agree. While I’m highly sceptical about the figure you gave, it is essentially irrelevant to this particular issue.

 

[Stout]

Ok, so you're not fussed about the accuracy of the numbers then. But what does 911 have to do with Iraq ? Invading Afghanistan was all about "revenge" for 911. Iraq was all about the hunt for WMDs and is all about oil.

 

[D'rok]

None of this has any bearing on the point at issue.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

I completely agree with the point you are trying to make to Oliver. Except...

Are you implying the inverse? - i.e, that the murderous Islamists currently operating there have completely removed moral agency from America?

In other words, is the destabilization (invasion, occupation, etc) a completely morally discrete event from the results of the the destabilization (civil chaos, terrorism, etc)?

I don't think that position is any more tenable than Oliver's.

 

[Oliver]

None of this has any bearing on the point at issue.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

(Incidentally, I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.)

What "murderous Islamists" are you referring to? The conflict
between Shia's and Sunni's is a very old one and Mr. VPotus
acknowledged this decades ago.

It was the invasion that sparkled the conflict we see today,
and again: Mr. VPotus acknowledged this decades ago.

You're happy being lied to?

 

[Par]

I don't think that position is any more tenable than Oliver's.

Me either! Yes, of course those responsible for the initial destabilisation must bear a kind of overall, second-order moral responsibility for the carnage that has followed.

 

[Oliver]

Ok, so you're not fussed about the accuracy of the numbers then. But what does 911 have to do with Iraq ? Invading Afghanistan was all about "revenge" for 911. Iraq was all about the hunt for WMDs and is all about oil.

We still don't know the truth about the reasons to go into
Iraq. It could be because Oil, maybe because Saddam selling
oil in Euros, maybe because Israel, maybe because the US-
empire in the Middle-East - we don't know for sure.

Now even if this kind of secrecy isn't in any way democratic
to me, we probably can agree that the WMD-**** was just
that: Crap.

The Government hasted to get into Iraq without being
skeptical concerning the lousy evidence. And troublesome
enough - the Americans and the rest of the world blindy
followed them of an imaginary Islamistic Thread.

From what I can tell over here - we don't see this
threat anymore.

 

[Par]

What "murderous Islamists" are you referring to? The conflict
between Shia's and Sunni's is a very old one and Mr. VPotus
acknowledged this decades ago.

It was the invasion that sparkled the conflict we see today,
and again: Mr. VPotus acknowledged this decades ago.

You're happy being lied to?

As I have already explained, I am referring to the Ba’thists, al-Qaeda jihadis, members of sectarian death squads et al. who freely choose to annihilate marketplaces full of innocent men, women children or to sink power drills into the knee-caps of Iraqi interpreters, etc.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?