MortalWombat

You know, you asked for the same proof in this thread yesterday, and theyeti supplied it to you (in this link), and yet you still ask for it again.

So what is it:
1)You didn't bother reading replies to your original question in the other thread
or
2)You read them and chose to ignore them?

wdog

the 4000-5000 afghan civilian death toll is a leftist exagerration propagated by one marc herold who simply adds up the death tolls from ALL sources, including the Islamic press (we know they would never lie, right?)

http://www.strauss.za.com/ds_ms_020119.html

from

http://www.globalexchange.org/septem...obe011902.html


the more realistic figure is probably near 2000

fatherphil

given the scope of the undertaking, 5000 is really a low number.

Zar

Given the scope of American murder over the decades, 3000 killed on 9/11, compared to, say, three million in Vietnam, a half million in E. Timor, half a million in Iraq is really quite low.

George Orwell was not kidding. Doublespeak is the only way people in America are capable of communicating anymore. And I am deadly serious about that. This is exactly what Orwell defined as doublespeak. Simultaneously believing that something both true and not true at the same time is paramount. Ignorance is Strength.

fatherphil

orwell was a big fan of stalin, wasn't he. how ironic that you would invoke his name in a forum which is dedicated to chronicling the elimination of a stalin's disciples.

the fact is there were real efforts made to limit the level of harm to the civilian population by the coalition forces. that is contrasted to the terrorist's efforts which actually target civilian populations. but you know that already.

Zar

No, I really don't think Orwell was a big fan of Stalin. Where did you get that idea? I thought the whole point of his work was to caution against Stalinist absolutism, though his warnings apply to the world at large also.

I agree that attempts were made to limit civilian casualties. I am not going to praise the U.S. for this, because the whole exercise is wrong, and thousands of people dead, with more coming, is a line we should not have crossed because the cause was unjust. Our being there is unjust.

And no, I don't "know" that thing you're saying about terrorism. The biggest fallacy is thinking that mere linguistics will save you from blame. Calling one thing terror and another thing "military action" doesn't make it legitimate in the eyes of those being bombed. If some country decided that the U.S. should be preemptively attacked (and for crying out loud, the U.S. is saber-rattling so loud, who wouldn't think they are imminently threatened?), would you applaud the attacker then? In their eyes, it would be perfectly justified to bomb the Unites States. After all, it IS threatening to sail the ocean toward their country and attack it in plain, clear terms.

I'm certain you will evade any uncomfortable and negative possibilities here, and invent another linguistic escape, so I'm just going to have to let you have your say and end this conversation, which will probably serve no purpose after this post.

Gurdur

this is an extremely weird sentence. Rereading it thrice reveals no hint of irony.

Orwell was no fan at all of Stalin, and in fact polemicised strongly against Stalin from just after the Spanish Civil War and onwards to his death just after WW 2.
You have your facts very wrong indeed.
Weirder and weirder; neither the forum nor even the thread are dedicated to "chronicling the elimination of a stalin's disciples"; this forum is dedicated to the Iraqi war, a rather different thing.
And how much would you like to bet the USA will be using some of those former disciples in a new puppet admin in Iraq ?
hmmm ?

fatherphil

if you see no distinction in what happened on 9/11 and what we are doing in iraq, very well. the first shot was taken and we just took it to our attackers and their allies. war is ugly, yet some still choose it as a resolution to their problems.

the war in iraq would not have occured if not for the percieved (real, imagined or fabricated) threat of saddam, an admirer of stalin. this particular forum would not be here but for this war. so end the conversation if you want, but i am not against it continuing.

the irony is that orwell was against stalin, yet he is being used to attack the people who bled to remove a leader like stalin.

Gurdur

You talking to me ?
You seem to have your wires badly crossed again.
uh huh, you wish to claim Hussein was either responsible for 9/11, or was an ally of whoever was ?
Nonsense,
Imagined, fantasised, agitprop.

Didn't answer either of my two points, did you ?
I am unsurprised.
Wrong again.
Orwell was against all forms of authoritarianism, and he made people aware of the doublespeak that authoritarians use as agitprop.
It is quite valid to use Orwell's writings to illustrate the amoral hypocrisy of agitprop emanating from the White House .... or Hussein.

A plague on both your houses, the Iraqi and USA admin liars.
Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.

Zar

Gurdur,

I think this conversation between me, you and fatherphil has become a bit mixed together, but your repsonses are as good as if they were my own, so I will endorse them.

I cannot fathom from what alternate universe fathephil gets his information.