# One million dead



## Jos (Jan 31, 2012)

> OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> 
> That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> 
> ...


One million dead :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [gd]


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2012)

Really? 


The Americans killed one million iraqis?  



nice get a reaction piece of shit....


----------



## BluePhantom (Jan 31, 2012)

So what?  We killed two million in Vietnam.  It's a war.  People die.


----------



## jillian (Jan 31, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> The Americans killed one million iraqis?
> ...



why would you ever expect her to post something that isn't a lie or distortion?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 31, 2012)

Actually less then 100,000 died and almost all of them due to terrorist bombings or Insurgent attacks. But hey never let a good lie die right?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jan 31, 2012)

jillian said:


> why would you ever expect her to post something that isn't a lie or distortion?



Well there *has * been over a million Iraqi casualties...at least if you include wounded in the count.  Depending on the source you look at (which is only a google search away) some estimates are a million dead too.

My question is: "_so what?_"  Just using wiki (yes I know wiki sucks but for this point it will do) we waxed about 2.5 million in Vietnam and almost 4 million in Korea (military and civilian combined). In World War II it was about 72 million.  I'd say a 1 million body count is pretty low by comparison. And as I said...no one likes killing civilians, but civilians die in war.  There's never *been *a war where civilians didn't get wasted and frankly the civilian body count is _usually _higher than the military body count.

War is a brutal thing.  That's all there is to it.

Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jos (Jan 31, 2012)

Jewlian, still cant tell the difference between male and female


----------



## alexa (Jan 31, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > War is a brutal thing.  That's all there is to it.
> ...


----------



## DeeCee (Jan 31, 2012)

Don't we have to blame: Al Qaeda, Iran/Hezbollah and Saddam-ists?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jan 31, 2012)

Jos said:


> > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> >
> > That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> >
> ...



These results are much, much higher than other studies, which place the number of violent deaths anywhere from about 60,000 to about 150,000.  The World Health organization's study estimated 151,000 violent deaths and the Iraqi Health Minister believed this number was too high.  Leaked classified US military estimates put the number at 109,000.

On the Other hand,



> According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants  friends on friends, circles within circles  making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]



Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it is reasonable to assume that the US invasion of Iraq saved Iraqi lives overall.


----------



## alexa (Jan 31, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> ...



very strange idea there.  The last guy killed them so doesn't matter if we do too - just as long as we make sure the 'public' back home don't know.

Civilian Casualties: Hundreds of Thousands in Iraq, Tens of Thousands in Afghanistan But Who's Counting? | LA Progressive

Look at the difference between coalition and Iraq statistics on deaths.  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf





> Lieutenant General Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during his time as head of US Central Command, once announced, "We don't do body counts." This blunt response to a question about civilian casualties was an attempt to distance George Bush's wars from the disaster of Vietnam. One of the rituals of that earlier conflict was the daily announcement of how many Vietnamese fighters US forces had killed. It was supposed to convince a sceptical American public that victory was coming. But the "body count" concept sounded callous - and never more so than when it emerged that many of the alleged guerrilla dead were in fact women, children and other unarmed civilians.
> 
> -snip-
> 
> The results range from just under 100,000 dead to well over a million. Inevitably, the issue has become a political football, with the Bush administration, the British government and other supporters of the US-led occupation seizing on the lowest estimates and opponents on the highest.



What is the real death toll in Iraq? Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report | World news | The Guardian

The below article states that although 100,000 are quoted, likely the real number is nearer 600,000 and what about Private Contractors.  They have not exactly gone to die and yet 180,000 of them have, apparently not included under civilians

Iraq War Facts, Statistics at November 30, 2011 - Iraq War Casualties, Spending

Sadly for too many as we have seen in this thread, it just doesn't matter.  I mean they weren't us, were they.  I have just realised this evening that a lot of people I meet on boards were brought up with this killing and lack of care in their childhood and see it as the norm.................

Be nice to have a generation which respects life again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 31, 2012)

alexa said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Jos said:
> ...



And yet the Iraqi Government which has the DEATH certificates says less then 100,000. Which would suggest the US figure is close to accurate. You are aware that the million figure was a poll that interviewed people and then extrapolated as if it represented the whole country? And has been completely debunked


----------



## alexa (Jan 31, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> alexa said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Then produce the evidence.  I don't know how many died.  I understand pretty poor details were kept. The place which seems to give the count down with links is here 

Iraq War Facts, Statistics at November 30, 2011 - Iraq War Casualties, Spending

Provide your evidence and I will have a look at it. People may well have died without death certificates.


----------



## Trajan (Jan 31, 2012)

Jos said:


> > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> >
> > That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> >
> ...



Tool kat says.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 31, 2012)

alexa said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > alexa said:
> ...



you already have my source, the US Government and the Iraqi Government. Sorry if I don't do polls to determine dead. Perhaps YOU should ask where they got the numbers from since both my source4s have a means of actually counting the dead and not some paper fuck up asking people in one area and the trying to claim it applies across the whole Country.

By the way, you may want to check out the total population of Iraq before the war and then how long the war was and how many dead would be piling up if it really were a million. Kinda hard to hide that many bodies. You are claiming that between a figure of 109000 and 1 million no one noticed the other 900000 bodies? And somehow 900000 died but not one of them was in a hospital, a funeral parlor or other facility to count them? NOT very likely.


----------



## alexa (Feb 1, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> alexa said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Well if you look here fig 1 you will see that just for between Jan 2006 and May 2008 there is significant difference between the coalition statistics and the Iraqi ones

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf



RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry if I don't do polls to determine dead.


  Exactly who has presented a poll on the deaths.  On the desire for Scottish Independence or Devo-Max maybe, on Deaths 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Perhaps YOU should ask where they got the numbers from since both my source4s have a means of actually counting the dead and not some paper fuck up asking people in one area and the trying to claim it applies across the whole Country.



I am remembering from early on.  The US was not interested in the no of dead and the civilians were saying they were not being counted.  We know that the US was giving out false information certainly before and for the first stages of the Iraq war.  I remember one Russian saying the only difference between Western Media and Soviet was that they were aware they were being lied to. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> By the way, you may want to check out the total population of Iraq before the war and then how long the war was and how many dead would be piling up if it really were a million. Kinda hard to hide that many bodies. You are claiming that between a figure of 109000 and 1 million no one noticed the other 900000 bodies? And somehow 900000 died but not one of them was in a hospital, a funeral parlor or other facility to count them? NOT very likely.



People likely buried them.  I am not saying, which you still seem to have missed, that there were 1,000,000 dead.  However as I can clearly remember the US saying they kept no note in the early years and the people saying no one was keeping any note, I would say that the likelihood is most strong that there were significant more Iraqi deaths than have been acknowledged.  Numbers which have at times been estimated to be as large as a million.  Did we care about deaths in Iraq of Iraqi citizens?  Do we have an interest every day to hear of the on going terrorist attacks?  That is as important in what I said. If we don't care about an Iraqi life then what makes  you think we would have any interest in reporting the numbers correctly.  The US itself admitted in the early years it did not even bother to count them.

Doubtless in a couple of decades, if Iraq manages to find any peace, we will find the real number.


----------



## BluePhantom (Feb 1, 2012)

alexa said:


> Doubtless in a couple of decades, if Iraq manages to find any peace, we will find the real number.



  You dream.  We will never know the actual number of dead.  The US will minimize the estimate and the Iraqis and Muslim world will exaggerate the estimate. You also have to keep in mind that while the government will give out BS statistics so will the liberal organizations opposed to the war and both do it for political gain. 

Also keep in mind what the criteria is for "wounded" when you are considering a casualty count that includes "dead_* or wounded*_".  If one considers a "wound" to be something as small as a skinned knee or a minor cut, then sure...I would say there's almost certainly been more than a million dead or wounded.  But that's a trick that organizations with an ax to grind will play.  They will take that count and list it as simply "casualties" without specifically pointing out that it includes minor wounds as well.  Then people read it and assume it means killed only.  

So again I would point out that in historical context, after ten years of war the body count in Iraq is pretty damned low and I would reiterate Toomuchtime's point that Saddam killed a hell of a lot more than we did and the Gunnery Sgt's point that a lot of the civilian casualties came from insurgents and Muslim extremists themselves. 

Now, I can assure you that if I were POTUS the body count would be much higher as I would loosen the ridiculous rules of engagement our soldiers are dealing with right now, but that's another argument completely.


----------



## alexa (Feb 1, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> alexa said:
> 
> 
> > Doubtless in a couple of decades, if Iraq manages to find any peace, we will find the real number.
> ...



Here they argue the very opposite.  That with respect to the dead they only give the numbers for those who died immediately.  They did not give the number who later died.  Hence giving a considerably smaller number.

Unknown*News | Helen & Harry's cranky weblog of news and opinion | unknownnews@inbox.com



BluePhantom said:


> So again I would point out that in historical context, after ten years of war the body count in Iraq is pretty damned low and I would reiterate Toomuchtime's point that Saddam killed a hell of a lot more than we did and the Gunnery Sgt's point that a lot of the civilian casualties came from insurgents and Muslim extremists themselves.



Far, far too many civilians were killed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  In Iraq your argument about insurgents and extremists goes nowhere as it was* known* by both US and British intelligence* before* they went in that there were no Al Qaeda working there but that the one thing which would make them active there was an attack on Iraq.

With Afghanistan the choice was made to attack rather than provide evidence as to why Bin Laden was implicated which would have resulted in him being handed over.  The US chose to make Bin Laden into a war hero (war on terror/war on Muslims) rather than a criminal wanted for, according to the UN, crimes against humanity.  Furthermore the US was warned by Abdul Haq that the killing of civilians in Afghanistan would only give the Taliban who were extremely unpopular and weak, support.  He asked the US to hold off for a while as he had been receiving calls from all over Afghanistan saying just give us a nod and a wink and we will topple the Taliban.  The Taliban were hated.  Abdul Haq believed they could be overthrown largely through psychological means but that if the US started bombing, people would put family needs first and those willing to help would go to look after their family and/or move towards the Taliban.  He was of course completely correct.  The US ignored him and furthermore left him to be murdered when he was captured by the Taliban.  He was probably the one person left who could have united the Afghans of all clans because he was way above such stuff and was known for his integrity - he also was known to be nobody's puppet.  



BluePhantom said:


> Now, I can assure you that if I were POTUS the body count would be much higher as I would loosen the ridiculous rules of engagement our soldiers are dealing with right now, but that's another argument completely.



100,000 is ridiculous considering after 3 years reputable organisations were suggesting it was already 1,000,000.  

'Body Count' seems to be what everyone relies on



> As the cornerstone of its work, IBC counts only Iraq civilian deaths that are reported in newspapers or on television. In a nation ravaged daily by violence, it seems unlikely that reports of every man, woman, and child killed -- or even most Iraqi deaths -- would be mentioned in that nation's media.
> 
> Furthermore, as IBC states,
> 
> ...


----------



## BluePhantom (Feb 1, 2012)

alexa said:


> 100,000 is ridiculous considering after 3 years reputable organisations were suggesting it was already 1,000,000.
> 
> 'Body Count' seems to be what everyone relies on



Well I am not quite sure who Helen and Harry are or why anyone would take what they say on their blog as gospel, however, you miss the point.  Even if it is 1,000,000 dead that's a ridiculously low body count for 10 years of war compared to other major military operations.

On top of which (and I speak only for myself here)...personally I don't care if it was 1 million or 5 million.  I will *happily *sacrifice 100,000 foreign civilians to protect a single American soldier.  Perhaps that makes me a ruthless, heartless prick.  So be it.  But don't you think it's interesting how the Muslim world screams about civilians killed by the American military but they don't seem to say a whole lot about civilians killed by other Muslims who walked into a crowded market with a bomb strapped to their ass.

Regardless, war sucks and people get killed.  To win a war you take and hold more land, and kill the enemy and their supporters.  To quote General Patton "no one won a war by dying for their country.  They won it by making the other son of a bitch die for his."


----------



## Steiny (Feb 8, 2012)

That's like the enitre population of the state of Maine.


----------



## Steiny (Feb 8, 2012)

Too bad it wasn't the entire population of the state of Maine... jkjk. Nothing against those clamdiggers.


----------



## The Gadfly (Feb 8, 2012)

Jos said:


> > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> >
> > That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> >
> ...



Here's my answer-I DO NOT CARE. If I were in charge of the operations in these two third world shitholes. my orders would be that when we finished sweeping an area, there would not be so much as a rat left alive in it! You heard right, not so much as a rat. The object of war is  (and properly should be) nothing short of TOTAL VICTORY. That means, that I do not care, how many enemy bodies have to be piled up, in order to accomplish that objective. It is over, when the enemy either surrenders without precondition, or alternatively, when there are no more of him left to fight. Now, we already told every nation in the Islamic world, that they have a choice; they are either with us, in eliminating terrorism, or they are against us, in which case, we will do the eliminating for them, OUR WAY. For all I care, if that means turning one or more countries into a pool of molten glass, so be it. They have been warned; if they do not take those warnings seriously, TOUGH! I only care about OUR casualties. I do not care about "body counts"-they are unreliable as a gauge of military success,, as we learned the hard way in Vietnam. I do not care, if we kill a hundred enemy, ten thousand enemy, or a hundred million enemy; the ONLY thing that matters, is that they are rendered incapable of conducting further hostile operations against us, or our forces. For as many of them as care to go ahead and meet Allah, we can arrange the meeting. Time to take the gloves off, and get to it! I am sick and damned tired of seeing American troops die, in order to minimize enemy casualties; I am also sick of seeing them misused and abused as cops and nation builders for the ungrateful. I wish to see them used, as needed, for their proper function, which is to break things, kill people, and win the damn war!


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 8, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually less then 100,000 died and almost all of them due to terrorist bombings or Insurgent attacks. But hey never let a good lie die right?



Damn!  Our troops must not be able to shoot very good.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 12, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> ...



BRAVO!   Serious bravo.


----------



## Jos (Feb 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> BRAVO!   Serious bravo.









BRAVO!   Serious bravo.


----------



## JStone (Feb 14, 2012)

Islam the religion of self-destruction 

Iran Iraq War, 1 million dead
Lebanese Civil War, 250,000 dead
Algerian Civl War: 300,000 dead
Bangladesh Civil War: 500,000 dead
Black Sept., Jordan's King Hussein murders, expells 80,000 Palestinians
Syrian army kills 20,000 Syrians at Hama
Iraq gases hundreds of thousands of Kurds
1400 year conflict between Sunnis and Shiites
Fratricide between Hamas and Fatah
Syria/Hizballah assassinate Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri

Alexis de Toqueville...


> I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.


 
Winston Churchill...


> How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
> 
> The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
> 
> ...


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 18, 2012)

Jos said:


> > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> >
> > That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> >
> ...


That's 990,000 lies.

Americans utilized technologies that zeroed in only on military installations. When an Iraqi found or brutally murdered his kid, he took it around to 30 sites, photographing it in several different cities.

America is not responsible for all the killing that went on in Iraq. We didn't even kill Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi legal system that dates back thousands of years sentenced Saddam Hussein to die, and he died. 

Furthermore, Americans were joined by 40 countries in a coalition to take out that corrupt, murdering regime of Saddam Hussein.

How dare you lie about my country, Jos.


----------



## Jos (Feb 20, 2012)

Do you bring any links to back up your opinion?


----------



## Jos (Feb 20, 2012)

> Americans utilized technologies that zeroed in only on military installations. When an Iraqi found or brutally murdered his kid, he took it around to 30 sites, photographing it in several different cities.


Smart bombs that bring back to life innocents killed? any link to your quite weird claim that An Iraqi would have "brutally murdered his kid" and  travel around the country "photographing it in several different cities."
How dare you Lie about the death and destruction of Iraq done in YOUR name


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 21, 2012)

Jos said:


> > Americans utilized technologies that zeroed in only on military installations. When an Iraqi found or brutally murdered his kid, he took it around to 30 sites, photographing it in several different cities.
> 
> 
> Smart bombs that bring back to life innocents killed? any link to your quite weird claim that An Iraqi would have "brutally murdered his kid" and  travel around the country "photographing it in several different cities."
> How dare you Lie about the death and destruction of Iraq done in YOUR name


The smart bombs used in the Iraqi war hit KNOWN terrorists in their bunkers. I recommend that you use CENTCOM sources to find our your question, as this is an AMERICAN board. The lies being printed in Arabic were around a long time before we were. It's how they wrest something for nothing out of other societies. I'm not buying the lies of al-Sadr, Saddamites et al. If you wish to believe those lies, it is your headache. I know who our troops are and who their commanding officers are. They go to war to free a lot of people from brutal murderers like Saddam Hussein. 

It is not the fault of the US Military if usurpers in foreign countries use their own dead children to parade around to 30 cities bawling and squalling to cast blame on anybody except them selves. That's how crimes go unpunished in a whacko society of lies. I repeat. Lies-filled propaganda against America are not factual sources, and our troops went in to do one and only one job: to spare the Arabs who were being routinely assassinated in terms of genocide by Saddam Hussein's henchmen. They did it and should have been allowed to complete the job of getting Iraq into the world as a force for peace. Instead, our troops were jerked out by Obama to fulfill a campaign pledge he should have never made. His jerking troops out before peace was firmly established is the most evil thing that has happened to date.

He guaranteed that the investment America made in peace would be destroyed.

That's because he listened to an airhead liar for 20 years who said "God DAMN AMERICA" so many times Obama believes he should, so he did.


----------



## Liability (Feb 21, 2012)

Jos said:


> Jewlian, still cant tell the difference between male and female



Wow.  You are sooooooo very impressive.  You can note a person's religion.

I'd note that you are a fucking lowlife dickhead, but even dickheads don't want to be associated with shit like you.


----------



## Ancient lion (Feb 21, 2012)

Thanks to Bush. I don't know how such a man is free till now 
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, called by Time Magazine, the "Architect" of the Iraq War, was asked in a Vanity Fair interview, May 2003, why was the Iraq War based on Saddam's alleged possession of WMD's. This time, he actually told the truth. Wolfowitz stated:

"*For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on*."


----------



## CaughtInTheMid (Feb 21, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> So what?  We killed two million in Vietnam.  It's a war.  People die.



that, right there, is the mindset that eisenhower warned us about.

and as i've said before, eventually all countries will have nukes. it's just a matter of time.


----------



## Jos (Feb 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > Jewlian, still cant tell the difference between male and female
> ...



"... Insult me in here at your own risk. I hope that's clear."


----------



## Jos (Feb 22, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> > > Americans utilized technologies that zeroed in only on military installations. When an Iraqi found or brutally murdered his kid, he took it around to 30 sites, photographing it in several different cities.
> ...



Do you bring any links to back up your opinion?


----------



## Sallow (Feb 22, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> So what?  We killed two million in Vietnam.  It's a war.  People die.



A million here..a million there..

It's all good. They will get a Kentucky Fried Chicken as a door prize.


----------



## Douger (Feb 22, 2012)

CaughtInTheMid said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > So what?  We killed two million in Vietnam.  It's a war.  People die.
> ...


Not all. Latin America never will.

Once the right country gets what it needs It'll be payback time for murka. Then you can toss some numbers around and re-bleat "it's a war, people die". The clapping around the globe will likely be deafening.


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2012)

Douger said:


> CaughtInTheMid said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Booger said "murka" again.

So he must be the winner of the internetz!


----------



## Ropey (Feb 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > CaughtInTheMid said:
> ...




You booger picker.


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...




Eeeeeeww.  If I "pick on" Booger, you seem to think that makes me a booger picker?

Ye-fuckin'-gadz!


----------



## Ropey (Feb 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You're picking on a booger just like you pick the nits of some who think they're wits.

So, you could be referenced as a boogerpicker and nitpicker.


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...




Sometimes, ^ when you try so hard, your fail is all that much more massive.

True story.


----------



## Ropey (Feb 22, 2012)

Still, you could be referenced as such and with proof in linkage.  I've seen you pick a booger and I've seen you pick some nitwits too.

So...


----------



## Liability (Feb 22, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Still, you could be referenced as such and with proof in linkage.  I've seen you pick a booger and I've seen you pick some nitwits too.
> 
> So...



It wasn't a booger. Really!

It was just a long nose hair.

Made me sneeze.


----------



## georgephillip (Feb 29, 2012)

Jos said:


> > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> >
> > That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> >
> ...


*"Iraqi lives are worth less than a barrel of oil."*

Just ask Frank Wuterich who won't serve a single minute of his 90-day sentence for his role in war crimes that resulted in the assassination of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha. On the same day Frank's "punishment" was announced, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights claimed she was "shocked" by reports that 34 iraqis, including two women, were executed in Iraq on the same day in spite of the role torture played in establishing their "guilt."

The crimes of psychopathic tools like Wuterich and corrupt puppets like Maliki pale in comparison to the fact that no US official has yet been held accountable for the policies leading to US war crimes in Iraq or for the lies that started the war.

The Never-Ending and Never-Prosecuted Humanitarian Disaster in Iraq | Truthout


----------



## JStone (Mar 26, 2012)

No love for the millions slaughtered in Darfur by the religion of peace allahu akbar?


> The genocide in Darfur has claimed 400,000 lives and displaced over 2,500,000 people. More than one hundred people continue to die each day; five thousand die every month.
> 
> Since February 2003, the Sudanese government in Khartoum and the government-sponsored Janjaweed militia have used rape, displacement, organized starvation, threats against aid workers and mass murder. Violence, disease, and displacement continue to kill thousands of innocent Darfurians every month.
> Genocide in Darfur, Sudan | Darfur Scorecard


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 27, 2012)

Jos said:


> > OVER A million Iraqis are dead from America's war.
> >
> > That sentence is a cognitive litmus test. Some people's immediate reaction is, "That can't be right," because the United States couldn't do that. Or because crimes on that scale don't still happen. Or because they do happen, but only in horrible places that the United States hasn't rescued.
> >
> ...



Old repackaged lies.


----------



## Artevelde (Mar 27, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> The Americans killed one million iraqis?
> ...



Apart from the fact that this is a ludicrously inflated figure, let us not forget that most of the killing in Iraq was and is being done by various terrorist groups.


----------



## JStone (Mar 27, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...



I thought muslimes were a peaceful people.  Er, I guess not, after all...

Iran Iraq War, 1 million dead
Lebanese Civil War, 250,000 dead
Algerian Civl War: 300,000 dead
Bangladesh Civil War: 500,000 dead
Black Sept., Jordan's King Hussein murders, expells 80,000 Palestinians
Syrian army kills 20,000 Syrians at Hama
Iraq gases hundreds of thousands of Kurds
1400 year conflict between Sunnis and Shiites
Fratricide between Hamas and Fatah
Syria/Hizballah assassinate Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri

Alexis de Toqueville...


> I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.


----------

