2379 people killed in Pakistan, 704 were Al-Qaeda related

1. 64

   maxoxam41posted 9 years ago

   What does it mean? That the war on terrorism is directed towards civilians?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Presumably 1675 were killed by al Qaeda, which would mean 100% were terrorism connected.  Other than that, I do NOT believe that collateral damage was 3X the effective kill rate, not with our smart weapons, which means the data is incorrect of insufficient.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "presumably", is your source the servile jingoist's or the conspiracy theorist's? Because it makes the whole difference.
         And, again, the appreciation of the data comes from a specialist.
         A million people were killed in Iraq thanks to our mercenaries and their sophisticated weaponry does it fit your frame of contingency or not ?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Why did I know that eventually it would come down to "America either killed them or paid someone to kill them"?  It always does, doesn't it?
            
            Side note - did you know that our soldiers from Iraq are now coming down with diseases and damage from chemical weapons?  The weapons that didn't exist there?  Or did we herd them into a closed room and gas it ourselves?

            replyreport
            1. 64

               maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I will answer your question by another question. Who is in Afghanistan? Who is Iraq? Who is training ISIS? Who trained the Nicaraguayan National Guard, the death squads in El Salvador...?
               
               Another side note, did you know that Blackwater was paid $750 million for a 3 years contract? The only chemical weapons that were there were ours.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I see.  We took the gas over there, buried it in the ground to rot for years and then instructed our soldiers to dig it back up.  Got it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 64

                     maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Honestly I don't even know what you are talking about? A commission was sent there and nothing was found.
                     I was referring to the use of radioactive weaponry and probably gas too in our attacks over Iraq. It wasn't the first time that we consciously harmed soldiers. Our history speaks for itself.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        "Probably gas"?  From where do you get this opinion?  Because America is intrinsically evil? 
                        
                        We gave soldiers X-rays as necessary, too - does that exposure to radiation make the country evil, too?  We irradiate them with radiation from radar and radio waves, too.  The point is that the radioactivity from uranium bullets is not that high, and not of much concern.  They are dense and hard - a valid tradeoff as they kill more enemies trying to kill our soldiers.
                        
                        A big article in my local paper indicates that our soldiers DID find WMD's in Iraq, and are coming down with injuries/illness from them now.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 … .html?_r=0

                        replyreport
                        1. 64

                           maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           It is factual that since our invasions of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq radioactivity is omnipresent there. It is factual also that the radioactivity concentration had affected the rate of birth defects. If soldiers are sick, it is because of our weapons not theirs.
                           Who would not defend their country? What will you do if suddenly the French army invaded the US, would you watch passively or would you act accordingly?

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Sorry - our soldiers are sick from close proximity to chemical weapons; those WMD's that were never found.  Not from a minute increase in background radiation.
                              
                              And if you want people to believe we caused birth defects you're going to have to produce statistics from before and after, with radiation counts before and after, AND tie that radiation to uranium bullets in a meaningful, statistical manner.  Then show that there is no other cause, by checking as many as can be thought up.  Not simply assume that radioactivity is horrible and then claim we caused birth defects.

                              replyreport
                              1. 64

                                 maxoxam41posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Like Fukushima, if we want to believe that it is polluting the vast ocean I have to bring data. No I don't have to bring data because people interested in the matter will find the appropriate data.
                                 Your interventions are for the sake of intervening, you bring nothing to the plate but total denial of the wrongdoings of our foreign policies.
                                 If I had to follow your logic, I would nail you. If Iraq had those weapons who would more likely be the arm dealer? It is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was at a certain time of our history our friend.

                                 replyreport