Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if we did it by the tens, that's a huge problem.
So you are another one who thinks that terrorists using civilians as shields and launching attacks from their homes is our fault if they get killed? Get a grip. Most of those deaths were at the hands of their own people.
So you are another one who thinks that terrorists using civilians as shields and launching attacks from their homes is our fault if they get killed? Get a grip. Most of those deaths were at the hands of their own people.
Terrorists, Schmerrorists. I'm bored by the word. Doesn't quite raise the hair on the back like it may have once did (not in my case...but probably in yours).
We shouldn't be killing ANY Afghan citizens. Thus, no need to worry about human shields.
Fact is, many who attempt to join the military are rejected offhand because they do not qualify, and most of the rest have an ulterior motive, such as wanting to have their education paid for. The military is not so much a sacrifice, as an employment and educational opportunity.
We are not talking about the same thing. Even if what you say is true, which from my experience it is not, they still put their lives on the line for our country, just like fire fighters, police officers and border patrol agents do for starters.
My father left a promising engineering job during WW2. He was 35 years old, almost wasted accepted bocause of his age. Eventually he served in the reserves and retired from the Navy as a Commander. He obviously had no uterior motives. My brother in law served 22 years as an enlisted man. I don't know what his motives might have been but I and assure you raising a family of 4 kids on an enlisted salary was HELL. My son volunteered just before the first Desert Storm. Did a free education play into his reasoning? Maybe but I can't imagine how anyone can claim young people enlist because they want a free education. I could go on and on about those I know who have served. My best friends daughter just retired from the airforce. She joined the reserves after college, had no ulterior motive as you claim and now her husband, after 25 years is retiring. He too joined after college.
Pure propaganda and you fell for it. Of course if you ask the Iraqis who was responsible they are going to say the US and allies. If they didn't they'd be killed by other Iraqis or AQ.
The report didn't ask WHO killed their family members, just whether or not they had family members who were killed. Your ignorance is obvious.
Terrorists, Schmerrorists. I'm bored by the word. Doesn't quite raise the hair on the back like it may have once did (not in my case...but probably in yours).
We shouldn't be killing ANY Afghan citizens. Thus, no need to worry about human shields.
War is hell. There is no way around avoiding all casualties.
The report didn't ask WHO killed their family members, just whether or not they had family members who were killed. Your ignorance is obvious.
I read the article, they were asked if they were killed by AQ or US and allies, they said US and allies. Did you even read your own article?
Wait a minute. Did you change your OP and link? Wasn't the original post a SURVEY that was conducted? Or was that your other post about the US killing a million civilians in Iraq? I may have confused your 2 threads, if I did, the post you are responding to was meant for the other thread where the Iraqis were ASKED who killed all those people. Sorry for the confusion.
I read the article, they were asked if they were killed by AQ or US and allies, they said US and allies. Did you even read your own article?
Wait a minute. Did you change your OP and link? Wasn't the original post a SURVEY that was conducted? Or was that your other post about the US killing a million civilians in Iraq? I may have confused your 2 threads, if I did, the post you are responding to was meant for the other thread where the Iraqis were ASKED who killed all those people. Sorry for the confusion.
The main focus was to find out whether or not someone in the family was killed as a result of the US invasion. That was the objective. If they were all 'trained liars' to use your terms, then the laying of fault directly at the hands of the US and their allies would have been closed to 100% instead of 56%.
" In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.
Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died.
Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated."
The main focus was to find out whether or not someone in the family was killed as a result of the US invasion. That was the objective. If they were all 'trained liars' to use your terms, then the laying of fault directly at the hands of the US and their allies would have been closed to 100% instead of 56%.
" In face-to-face interviews with 2,414 adults, the poll found that more than one in five respondents had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, as opposed to natural cause.
Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died.
Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated."
That's what I was talking about, they are lying in fear of reprisal from their own people and AQ. If they were to come out and say that their own people were doing the killing, they would be killed. It is very easy to understand this. Another thing to look at is the semantics of what they are saying. They are saying that the deaths were a direct result of a US attack. That may be true that the US or allies destoyed the building, but they failed to mention that attacks were being launched from that said building. So in reality, the deaths were a direct result of extremists launching attacks on the US and allies. That is closer to the truth.
That's what I was talking about, they are lying in fear of reprisal from their own people and AQ. If they were to come out and say that their own people were doing the killing, they would be killed. It is very easy to understand this. Another thing to look at is the semantics of what they are saying. They are saying that the deaths were a direct result of a US attack. That may be true that the US or allies destoyed the building, but they failed to mention that attacks were being launched from that said building. So in reality, the deaths were a direct result of extremists launching attacks on the US and allies. That is closer to the truth.
Whether or not their family deaths were directly attributable to the US/allied forces, ie, thru a bombing, the fact is, that the entire Muslim civil strife was unleashed when the US killed their former ally, Sadaam, who had kept the more fundamentalist Iranian-allied Shia under wraps for decades.
Whether or not their family deaths were directly attributable to the US/allied forces, ie, thru a bombing, the fact is, that the entire Muslim civil strife was unleashed when the US killed their former ally, Sadaam, who had kept the more fundamentalist Iranian-allied Shia under wraps for decades.
That's moot and nonsense at the same time. So you would be ok with Sadaam and his sons torturing, raping and murdering the polpulation whenever and wherever they want just to keep Iran in check? I think a nuclear warhead would be less devastating than that, that's a joke of course....
The civilians over there need to go through a civil war to rid themselves of the infectious parasites that they have living among them. This is their chance to do it, they never did or would have this chance if Sadaam was still there. It is totally up to the people over there what direction they want to go in. If they choose extremism, then they shouldn't be surprised when a bomb or 2 falls on their towns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
