Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Oliver]

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?

I don't get your point here. Suicide Bombers did exist before 9/11 and
therefore before America went into "Islamists mode". Of course there
are people hating America and Israel - and I can understand their
arguments, even if I disagree with their solutions.

But in any case - Islamists aren't a problem to America - they literally
live some thousand miles away and the Visa-Problem is solved already.
The solution to reduce the Jihadist's problem is diplomacy - not
bombing them.

So let me ask - what would you think if the Iranians would behave
like this (ETA: installing Dictators in your country and sponsor terrorism
against your government):


What would you think?

 

[Stout]

We may never know the truth about Iraq. Alan Greenspan came out saying it's all about oil and I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the WMD issue was legit at one point in time but Saddam either used them all up or sold them to his neighbours before the invasion.

The WMD excuse was a good line though, I bought it and my inner cynic says that maybe, just maybe Bush believed in Iraqi WMDs because he was holding the receipts for the raw materials to make them in his hand when he stated that reason.

But back on topic. Saddam seemed to be doing a pretty good job of keeping a lid on the sectarian violence, and as per the video upthread, I really find it hard to believe that these "experts" didn't expect Iraq to try and slice itself up based on religious and ethnic lines after Saddam had been deposed.

So, yes, i see the US as being responsible for the increase in "civilian" violence.

Why is the accuracy of the numbers unimportant ?

 

[Par]

I don't get your point here. Suicide Bombers did exist before 9/11 and
therefore before America went into "Islamists mode". Of course there
are people hating America and Israel - and I can understand their
arguments, even if I disagree with their solutions.

But in any case - Islamists aren't a problem to America - they literally
live some thousand miles away and the Visa-Problem is solved already.
The solution to reduce the Jihadist's problem is diplomacy - not
bombing them.

So let me ask - what would you think if the Iranians would behave
like this (ETA: installing Dictators in your country and sponsor terrorism
against your government):


What would you think?

Could you please just answer the question?

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? 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?

 

[Oliver]

We may never know the truth about Iraq. Alan Greenspan came out saying it's all about oil and I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the WMD issue was legit at one point in time but Saddam either used them all up or sold them to his neighbours before the invasion.

The WMD excuse was a good line though, I bought it and my inner cynic says that maybe, just maybe Bush believed in Iraqi WMDs because he was holding the receipts for the raw materials to make them in his hand when he stated that reason.

But back on topic. Saddam seemed to be doing a pretty good job of keeping a lid on the sectarian violence, and as per the video upthread, I really find it hard to believe that these "experts" didn't expect Iraq to try and slice itself up based on religious and ethnic lines after Saddam had been deposed.

So, yes, i see the US as being responsible for the increase in "civilian" violence.

Why is the accuracy of the numbers unimportant ?

Quite frankly - if you don't get the reasons for invading a country,
you certainly don't live in a democracy. In a democracy you would
learn about the facts and vote for the right thing. Concerning Iraq,
you had to trust your Government, no matter if they lied or told the
truth. That's called patriotism based on made-up stuff...

 

[D'rok]

I don't get your point here.

Does this help?

Hypothetical: A member of Al Qaeda in Iraq straps a bomb to himself, goes to a market in Baghdad, detonates it, and kills dozens of men, women and children. Who is morally responsible:

a) The suicide bomber
b) The Islamist group he belongs to
c) America

Please explain your answer.

 

[Oliver]

Could you please just answer the question?

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? 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 already answered this. There were no Suicide bombers when
Saddam was in power. So why is it that this changed since the
Americans removed Saddam? ...

 

[Par]

I already answered this. There were no Suicide bombers when
Saddam was in power. So why is it that this changed since the
Americans removed Saddam? ...

I refer you to D'rok the Lacone's elucidatoin (one for which I am very grateful, but I would like, for now at least, to change “Who is morally responsible?” to simply “Who killed the victims?”)

 

[Oliver]

Does this help?

Hypothetical: A member of Al Qaeda in Iraq straps a bomb to himself, goes to a market in Baghdad, detonates it, and kills dozens of men, women and children. Who is morally responsible:

a) The suicide bomber
b) The Islamist group he belongs to
c) America

Please explain your answer.

The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.

That's not the point I made.

If there were no suicide bombers in Iraq - and they
spread all around the country after Saddam was
toppled - what exactly was the reason for suicide
bombers to get an issue? Saddam - or toppling Saddam?

And if you answered this question: "Who exactly toppled Saddam?"
...exactly.

 

[Oliver]

I refer you to D'rok the Lacone's elucidatoin (one for which I am very grateful, but I would like to change “Who is morally responsible?” to simply “Who killed the victims?”)

Since I gave you my opinion. What do you think about
your own VPotus change of mind? And what does this
tell you about your Potus and the rest of the NeoCons?

 

[Par]

The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.

Right. So, when you claimed that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America, that was inaccurate. Fine. I’m very glad we’ve got there.

 

[Par]

If there were no suicide bombers in Iraq - and they
spread all around the country after Saddam was
toppled - what exactly was the reason for suicide
bombers to get an issue? Saddam - or toppling Saddam?

Well, both would bear some responsibility for that.

 

[D'rok]

Since I gave you my opinion. What do you think about
your own VPotus change of mind? And what does this
tell you about your Potus and the rest of the NeoCons?

Geography lesson: Ottawa is the capital of Canada. I don't have a VPotus, Cheney or otherwise.

I think Cheney is a lying son of a bitch who, along with that smirking chimp of a president, should be impeached forthwith. But, like yours, my opinion doesn't count.

Nonetheless, Cheney didn't murder anybody in Iraq. You are conflating a whole bunch of different issues.

ETA: Oops. I replied to a reply to Par. My bad.

 

[Par]

Since I gave you my opinion. What do you think about
your own VPotus change of mind? And what does this
tell you about your Potus and the rest of the NeoCons?

Perhaps some of the reason that it took so long for you to finally address the point at issue is that you evidently do not actually read my posts. I have already told you: I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.

 

[Oliver]

Well, both would bear some responsibility for that.

That's not correct. If Cheney knew that it was destabilize
a country to invade them - it shows that todays Government
was aware of the complications.

...therefore: If I know that invading a country will probably
cause suicide terrorists - I cannot complain about that afterwards.

Therefore the people who went into Iraq are responsible knowing
that this would happen.

And yes, Cheney is a major part of American foreign policies,
no matter if you agree or disagree with him.

 

[Oliver]

Perhaps some of the reason that it took so long for you to finally address the point at issue is that you evidently do not actually read my posts. I have already told you: I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.

I didn't read your Member-Details - so I apologize for assuming
you're an American Citizen...

 

[Par]

That's not correct. If Cheney knew that it was destabilize
a country to invade them - it shows that todays Government
was aware of the complications.

...therefore: If I know that invading a country will probably
cause suicide terrorists - I cannot complain about that afterwards.

Therefore the people who went into Iraq are responsible knowing
that this would happen.

And yes, Cheney is a major part of American foreign policies,
no matter if you agree or disagree with him.

So, I point out that I agree that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq. You then tell me I’m not correct and go on to present an argument which shows that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq.

 

[Stout]

It's an interesting point about American involvement in Iraq creating the environment for suicide bombers to function in. I wonder why they didn't happen under Saddam? Maybe his ruling with an iron fist would have had them rounded up and tortured in prison. Maybe he would go after the families of suicide bombers who worked in Iraq and suggested that if martyrdom is their thing, Israel is a better target.

That's why I'm on about the numbers. What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?

 

[Oliver]

So, I point out that I agree that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq. You then tell me I’m not correct and go on to present an argument which shows that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq.

Basically Cheney wasn't my point - he just proves the point I
raised. The point is that neither Iraq nor Iran is a threat to
America itself - while I agree that Israel making complaints
about those countries makes sense.

So what are you opposed to? Jihadists attacking America?
That's a nice fairytale to me - but the facts doesn't support
this nice tale...

 

[Par]

Basically Cheney wasn't my point - he just proves the point I
raised. The point is that neither Iraq nor Iran is a threat to
America itself - while I agree that Israel making complaints
about those countries makes sense.

I haven’t said anything about this. Nor was it the point of this thread.

 

[Par]

So what are you opposed to? Jihadists attacking America? That's a nice fairytale to me - but the facts doesn't support
this nice tale...

In that case, I must have imagined that these two tall buildings used to stand in downtown Manhattan. Further, I suppose it could be considered somewhat telling that you consider the supposedly fantastical notion of jihadi attacks on America “nice”. In any event, that wasn’t the purpose of this thread either.