| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
10 Sep 2006 05:05:02 PM |
| Object: |
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror"
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
The Independent UK
Sunday 10 September 2006
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a
minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the
US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation
on earth.
If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths - of insurgents, the
Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded
individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds - are
included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000.
The extraordinary scale of the conflict's impact, claiming lives
from New York to Bali and London to Lahore, and the extent of the
death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan, has emerged from an Independent
on Sunday survey to mark the fifth anniversary of 11 September. It
used new, unpublished data supplied by academics and organisations
such as Iraq Body Count and Professor Marc Herold of the University
of New Hampshire, plus estimates given by other official studies.
The result is the first attempt to gauge the full cost in blood
and money of the worldwide atrocities and military conflicts that
began in September 2001. As of yesterday, the numbers of lives
confirmed lost are: 4,541 to 5,308 civilians and 385 military in
Afghanistan; 50,100 civilians and 2,899 military in Iraq; and 4,081
in acts of terrorism in the rest of the world.
The new figure on civilian deaths from Iraq Body Count, a group
of British and US academics, is especially telling. Just two and a
half years ago, its estimate of the number of civilian dead in Iraq
passed 10,000. Today, it says, that figure has gone beyond the 50,000
mark - a huge leap largely attributable to terrorist acts and the
breakdown of civil authority.
Iraq Body Count's careful methodology - of recording a death only
when it appears in two independent media reports - almost certainly
produces a substantial underestimate. Even the Iraqi Health Ministry
reports a slightly higher figure, and President Bush's much-quoted
figure of 30,000 civilian dead dates from December 2005, when it
tallied with the then IBC figure. Insurgent deaths are not included
in the IBC figures, and neither are those of Iraqi police when
engaged in combat-style operations.
Estimates of the former are, together with the number of Iraqi
military killed in the battle phase of the Iraq occupation, the
biggest unknown of the conflict. One US news report guessed the
insurgent dead in Iraq at 36,000 since 2003, while the number of
Iraqi military killed during the invasion phase remains unknown and
unknowable.
Neither category is included in our figure of 62,006 confirmed
directly killed. Nor does it include any figures for people later
dying from wounds received, or the increased mortality owing to lack
of health care. Estimates for one or the other ranging up to 130,000
have been produced, but are based on little more than educated (and
uneducated) guesswork or, as with the controversial Lancet estimate
of 98,000 deaths due to extra mortality, by amplifying a survey of
988 households into a nation-wide conclusion.
What is certain is the wretched state of health care in Iraq. In
March 2006 the campaign group Medact reported that 18,000 physicians
have left since 2003; an estimated 250 of those that remained have
been kidnapped and, in 2005 alone, 65 killed. Medact also said that
"easily treatable conditions such as diarrhoea and respiratory
illness caused 70 per cent of all child deaths", and that "of the 180
health clinics the US hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four
have been completed and none has been opened". In May, a survey by
the Iraq government and Unicef reported that a quarter of all Iraqi
children suffer from malnutrition.
In Afghanistan, the most reliable recorder of civilian deaths is
Professor Marc Herold, whose latest figures range from 4,541 to
5,308. He does not include those who die subsequently from their
injuries or in refugee camps.These "indirect" deaths have been put at
anything from 8,000 to 20,000. More accurate are estimates of refugee
numbers. In July, the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants said
there were 2.2 million Afghans who had fled abroad and at least
153,200 displaced internally. For Iraq, there were 888,700 external
refugees, and 1.3 million people displaced inside the country. An
estimated 40 per cent of the Iraqi middle class have left Iraq.
Beyond the blood price, there is a dollar and sterling cost. In
July it was reported that the US Congress had approved $437bn
(£254bn) for costs related to the "war on terror". This, a sum
greater than those spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars, compares to
the $375bn that Make Poverty History says is needed to clear the
debts of the world's poorest nations. The British Government has
spent £4.5bn on Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091006A.shtml
.
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
11 Sep 2006 04:32:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:05:02 -0400, "james g. keegan jr."
<jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror"
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
The Independent UK
Sunday 10 September 2006
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a
minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the
US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation
on earth.
Well, I figure we should pay back the 9-11 attack at
a 100:1 ratio ... so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
12 Sep 2006 11:04:45 AM |
|
|
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr."
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror"
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
The Independent UK
Sunday 10 September 2006
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a
minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the
US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation
on earth.
Well, I figure we should pay back the 9-11 attack at
a 100:1 ratio ...
Andf they kill 100 times as many Americans in revenge, and then soon
enough nobody is left alove.
so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
12 Sep 2006 04:22:00 PM |
|
|
On 12 Sep 2006 16:04:45 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr."
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror"
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
The Independent UK
Sunday 10 September 2006
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a
minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the
US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation
on earth.
Well, I figure we should pay back the 9-11 attack at
a 100:1 ratio ...
Andf they kill 100 times as many Americans in revenge, and then soon
enough nobody is left alove.
so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
"Innocent" ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
12 Sep 2006 09:52:38 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr."
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror"
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
The Independent UK
Sunday 10 September 2006
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a
minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the
US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation
on earth.
Well, I figure we should pay back the 9-11 attack at
a 100:1 ratio ...
Andf they kill 100 times as many Americans in revenge, and then soon
enough nobody is left alove.
so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
"Innocent" ?
Yes. Innocent. Children, even.
You're no better than the terrorists you hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
13 Sep 2006 08:03:25 AM |
|
|
On 13 Sep 2006 02:52:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr."
62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror"
By David Randall and Emily Gosden
The Independent UK
Sunday 10 September 2006
The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a
minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the
US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation
on earth.
Well, I figure we should pay back the 9-11 attack at
a 100:1 ratio ...
Andf they kill 100 times as many Americans in revenge, and then soon
enough nobody is left alove.
so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
"Innocent" ?
Yes. Innocent. Children, even.
The ones the rads use as human shields, or the ones
the rads convince to wire themselves up with TNT ?
You're no better than the terrorists you hate.
I'm willing to forgoe hate IF these bastards will
quit trying to kill us. THEY, unfortunately, don't
seem willing to relinquish hatred under ANY
conditions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "_invertebrate_" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
13 Sep 2006 09:43:25 PM |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:45080132.8733453@news.west.earthlink.net...
On 13 Sep 2006 02:52:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
"Innocent" ?
Yes. Innocent. Children, even.
The ones the rads use as human shields, or the ones
the rads convince to wire themselves up with TNT ?
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
You're no better than the terrorists you hate.
I'm willing to forgoe hate IF these bastards will
quit trying to kill us. THEY, unfortunately, don't
seem willing to relinquish hatred under ANY
conditions.
I think you missed his point. Ray Fischer wasn't condemning hate. He was
condemning the contempt for human life that allows us blithely to blunder
into a country on the off-chance that an invasion might somehow hurt the
terrorist movement that is so contemptuous of human life. Try to understand
that not everyone we kill is an enemy.
_invertebrate_
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
14 Sep 2006 10:57:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:43:25 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:45080132.8733453@news.west.earthlink.net...
On 13 Sep 2006 02:52:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
so call me when we get up to about
320000 dead terrorists.
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
"Innocent" ?
Yes. Innocent. Children, even.
The ones the rads use as human shields, or the ones
the rads convince to wire themselves up with TNT ?
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
I just can't go for that analysis whole hawg ... those
cheering a burning Humvee are THE ENEMY too and it doesn't
matter if they have a rifle in their hand at that exact
second. They lend aid and comfort. The little kids probably
don't know what's going on or why, but that just makes it
their parents job to keep them secured somewhere out of the
line of fire.
We'll shoot around the kids WHEN POSSIBLE. That's about all
you can ask of our soldiers. Kinder and gentler than the bad
old days, but still practical enough to survive a war.
You're no better than the terrorists you hate.
I'm willing to forgoe hate IF these bastards will
quit trying to kill us. THEY, unfortunately, don't
seem willing to relinquish hatred under ANY
conditions.
I think you missed his point. Ray Fischer wasn't condemning hate. He was
condemning the contempt for human life that allows us blithely to blunder
into a country on the off-chance that an invasion might somehow hurt the
terrorist movement that is so contemptuous of human life. Try to understand
that not everyone we kill is an enemy.
Neither was everybody in Nagasaki ... but we bombed it anyway.
The greater mission - shortening the war - was more than enough
to justify the heavy-handed tactic.
As for what we THOUGHT we were accomplishing in Iraq -vs- what
we HAVE been accomplishing (or not) ... it's always a roll of
the dice. Circumstances change, situations evolve, problems
develop ... what else would you expect in such a large endeavour ?
Todays war is TODAYS war - in todays reality, for todays goals.
Ain't the same as yesterdays war or the one we originally set
out on. Tomorrow, different yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "_invertebrate_" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 07:59:51 PM |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4509792a.16492015@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:43:25 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:45080132.8733453@news.west.earthlink.net...
On 13 Sep 2006 02:52:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
What about the tens of thousands of innocent people you have
murdered?
"Innocent" ?
Yes. Innocent. Children, even.
The ones the rads use as human shields, or the ones
the rads convince to wire themselves up with TNT ?
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
I just can't go for that analysis whole hawg ... those
cheering a burning Humvee are THE ENEMY too and it doesn't
matter if they have a rifle in their hand at that exact
second. They lend aid and comfort. The little kids probably
don't know what's going on or why, but that just makes it
their parents job to keep them secured somewhere out of the
line of fire.
We'll shoot around the kids WHEN POSSIBLE. That's about all
you can ask of our soldiers. Kinder and gentler than the bad
old days, but still practical enough to survive a war.
There is logic to that. But then we come back to whether the Iraq invasion
was just. If not, we could call all those deaths murder.
You're no better than the terrorists you hate.
I'm willing to forgoe hate IF these bastards will
quit trying to kill us. THEY, unfortunately, don't
seem willing to relinquish hatred under ANY
conditions.
I think you missed his point. Ray Fischer wasn't condemning hate. He was
condemning the contempt for human life that allows us blithely to blunder
into a country on the off-chance that an invasion might somehow hurt the
terrorist movement that is so contemptuous of human life. Try to
understand
that not everyone we kill is an enemy.
Neither was everybody in Nagasaki ... but we bombed it anyway.
The greater mission - shortening the war - was more than enough
to justify the heavy-handed tactic.
As for what we THOUGHT we were accomplishing in Iraq -vs- what
we HAVE been accomplishing (or not) ... it's always a roll of
the dice.
Oh, at some times MUCH more than at others. And some people shouldn't be
allowed to have dice, but they lie so you will give dice to them.
Circumstances change, situations evolve, problems
develop ... what else would you expect in such a large endeavour ?
Todays war is TODAYS war - in todays reality, for todays goals.
Ain't the same as yesterdays war or the one we originally set
out on. Tomorrow, different yet.
Then at some point the war can cease to be worth fighting. Unless you shape
goals to the fight, then the war can be self-justifying.
_invertebrate_
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
14 Sep 2006 11:52:12 AM |
|
|
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
14 Sep 2006 11:58:09 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450988bc$0$34553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the
whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
What is your answer then, *****?
Should we just pull out of all of those countries and have our troops come
home?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
14 Sep 2006 10:58:05 PM |
|
|
In article <Ftidna26YM6OF5TYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450988bc$0$34553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the
whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
What is your answer then, *****?
Should we just pull out of all of those countries and have our troops come
home?
Why would you oppose that so?
(This is my "treat Osprey reasonably" week. Lets see what it gets me.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
14 Sep 2006 11:35:02 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450988bc$0$34553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the
whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
What is your answer then, *****?
Go away, *****. You're a waste of time.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
14 Sep 2006 11:39:19 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450988bc$0$34553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the
whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
What is your answer then, *****?
Go away, *****. You're a waste of time.
Was the question that hard for you Fischer? Come on, you ***** and
complain about the war, but when someone ask you what should we
do...you clam up and run.
So what's your answer?
Are you going to run again?
You gotta love these liberal's folks. They sure don't mind complaining,
but when it comes to asking for solutions they have nothing to say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 01:23:08 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450988bc$0$34553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the
whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
What is your answer then, *****?
Go away, *****. You're a waste of time.
Was the question that hard for you Fischer? Come on, you ***** and
Pay attention, *****: Because you're a liar and a coward who's only
interested in playing games I don't consider a debate with you to be
worth any effort.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 01:27:37 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:450988bc$0$34553$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
B1ackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
"_invertebrate_"
Surely you would admit there has been colateral damage (including
children)
beyond those two categories. I'm not sure I would want to call all of
those
deaths "murder," but the sloppiness of this fight causes unnecessary
death.
If you add to that the idea that we shouldn't even have invaded, the
whole
war becomes "murderous." Then you could safely include all of the
colateral
damage and all of our own losses.
The very concept of "innocents" in war is relatively new
and, so it seems, not particularly viable. Not long ago
the enemy was the enemy - and that included EVERYONE in
their population because in some way or another they were
contributing to the war against you.
The current conceit is that there are only a FEW bad people
driving the war and only THEY need to be shot. The rest are
supposedly uninvolved somehow, irrelevant, 'innocent'.
You're supposed to shoot around them ... somehow.
Here's a clue: They are the innocent. YOU are the enemy. YOU are a
citizen of the country that invaded theirs on a pretext and caused the
deaths of 100,000 people.
YOU are the murderous terrorist. YOU are driving the war.
What is your answer then, *****?
Go away, *****. You're a waste of time.
Was the question that hard for you Fischer? Come on, you ***** and
Pay attention, *****: Because you're a liar and a coward who's only
interested in playing games I don't consider a debate with you to be
worth any effort.
So you are scared to try to think of any solutions and you need to make
up excuses.
Typical liberal...*****, complain, holler, scream, name call...but
never have any solutions to the problems.
I am just glad everyone else gets a chance to see you dodge a very
simple question to your bitching and moaning about the war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 07:45:50 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1158301657.317044.117920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Typical liberal...*****, complain, holler, scream, name call...but
never have any solutions to the problems.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 08:47:23 AM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1158301657.317044.117920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Typical liberal...*****, complain, holler, scream, name call...but
never have any solutions to the problems.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 09:11:06 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 09:13:33 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal, you have no solution...doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure it out.
And you STILL have no solution to the issues you are bitching about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 09:21:43 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 09:23:06 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
about. How much longer do you plan on going Fischer??? It's obvious,
you can ***** but you can't come up with any solutions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 09:27:05 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 09:31:24 AM |
|
|
In article <450ab839$0$34523$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
i believe coward bobby lies all the time, not only when he is without
facts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 02:57:52 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
15 Sep 2006 07:32:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1158350272.926117.318340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
Osprey doesn't understand that this is not required.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
16 Sep 2006 02:59:39 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158350272.926117.318340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on "liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
Osprey doesn't understand that this is not required.
Barnes doesn't understand that liberals ***** and complain about
Republicans all the time; however, when asked for solutions liberals
can't come up with anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
16 Sep 2006 10:00:18 AM |
|
|
In article <1158393579.165659.121770@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158350272.926117.318340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on
"liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
Osprey doesn't understand that this is not required.
Barnes doesn't understand that liberals ***** and complain about
Republicans all the time; however, when asked for solutions liberals
can't come up with anything.
You are an irresponsible boob. You think that people shouldn't expect
those they elect to do their job unless they can do the job better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
16 Sep 2006 02:41:37 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158393579.165659.121770@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158350272.926117.318340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on
"liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
Osprey doesn't understand that this is not required.
Barnes doesn't understand that liberals ***** and complain about
Republicans all the time; however, when asked for solutions liberals
can't come up with anything.
You are an irresponsible boob. You think that people shouldn't expect
those they elect to do their job unless they can do the job better.
All liberals know how to do is attack, name call, whine, and complain.
Liberals have no solutions. Liberals are probably the most hate-filled
people in this country.
And once again, you support my statement. You have no solutions to
Ray's issue on the war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
16 Sep 2006 03:37:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1158435697.074630.253800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158393579.165659.121770@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158350272.926117.318340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on
"liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get
additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and
crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
Osprey doesn't understand that this is not required.
Barnes doesn't understand that liberals ***** and complain about
Republicans all the time; however, when asked for solutions liberals
can't come up with anything.
You are an irresponsible boob. You think that people shouldn't expect
those they elect to do their job unless they can do the job better.
All liberals know how to do is attack, name call, whine, and complain.
Liberals have no solutions.
Except that the country runs far better under liberals.
Liberals are probably the most hate-filled
people in this country.
Idiot.
And once again, you support my statement. You have no solutions to
Ray's issue on the war.
I do. GET OUT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: 62,006 - The Number Killed in the "War on Terror" |
16 Sep 2006 04:32:54 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158435697.074630.253800@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158393579.165659.121770@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1158350272.926117.318340@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time
out from bragging about conservatives controlling
the entire government to ask what liberals are
doing to fix the mess Republicans have made.
So you being the typical liberal, have no solution either.
So you're being a typical fascist, blaming everything on
"liberals".
You are a liberal,
Just because you say so, *****?
Meanwhile we note that you "work" at a government job, get
additional
government benefits, and you favor big government.
YOU are the "liberal" you whine about.
And you STILL have no solution to the issue you were whining and
crying
Always you start lying about people when you run out of facts.
Fact: You have YET to tell us what your solution would be to solve the
issue in which you are complaining about.
Osprey doesn't understand that this is not required.
Barnes doesn't understand that liberals ***** and complain about
Republicans all the time; however, when asked for solutions liberals
can't come up with anything.
You are an irresponsible boob. You think that people shouldn't expect
those they elect to do their job unless they can do the job better.
All liberals know how to do is attack, name call, whine, and complain.
Liberals have no solutions.
Except that the country runs far better under liberals.
No, that's just a delusion. The country is run by republicans and
democrats. Liberals are probably about as small in percentage wise as
are atheist. Very small. Liberals are hateful, deceitful, liars, and
full of immaturity.
Liberals are probably the most hate-filled
people in this country.
Idiot.
You just proven my point.
And once again, you support my statement. You have no solutions to
Ray's issue on the war.
I do. GET OUT.
Oh, so get out now..right away..right? So what do you do when the
terrorist hit us again?
Nothing?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
