100 000 civilian deaths in Iraq

[CptStern]

Yes I can.

you cant dispute the fact that if the US hadnt invaded those civilans would still be alive today

 

[Immortal]

Yes I can.

You can only dispute that their was more deaths not less.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you cant dispute the fact that if the US hadnt invaded those civilans would still be alive today

The US? You mean the coalition. Lets hit it here:

If the Coalition had'nt invaded, (which includes Canadians, and also, Britons) those civilians might STILL be alive today.

Thats a fact you cant dispute.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You can only dispute that their was more deaths not less.

On the first page, I began asking questions. On the second page, I think I'll have them answered.

Im disputing the death toll perpetrated by this media outlet.

Here's what does suprise me: Those figures came right out of thin air.

How can one do that without thinking of the consequences? But its not a revolutionary principle either for the media to make controversy based on reader/writer opinion.

What does'nt surpise me, is that the fundemental evidence for these 100,000 deaths, does not exist and specifically to this said scenario cannot be found.

 

[Immortal]

Would you have prefered the death toll to be higher?

Of course not. I think the point is that if Bush had waited a bit longer and got more intelligence from Iraq he would see that their was no threat to the U.S. and so many thousands of people would of been saved. My view is that Bush was finnishing what his father had started(MY OPINION).

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Of course not. I think the point is that if Bush had waited a bit longer and got more intelligence from Iraq he would see that their was no threat to the U.S. and so many thousands of people would of been saved. My view is that Bush was finnishing what his father had started(MY OPINION).

Good. So, now I've debunked this media source with enough questions to it. Good, again.

To your point, about the Iraq operation and planning as a whole, yes I can agree. But thats not the discussion here. My yes, if you'd notice, came up right about the time we did'nt find WMD's.

 

[Foxtrot]

Wasting time and money counting the dead? That is outrageous, they aren't just "the dead" they were people! They were innocent people (civillians) who were living their daily lives with familys, jobs, hobbies, goals and aspirations when we came in and dropped ****ing munitions on their houses and blew them to pieces. For what? You know whats a real waste of time and money? Allowing poeple like you to eat/breathe/reproduce.

Why do we need to count the dead though? So newspapers can write articles about how many people died?

 

[SubKamran]

Isn't it funny how on 9/11 we demanded sympathy and respect (which we got), and more than 10 times that many people die in Iraq and we're like, "meh."

We're so ****ing arrogant. ;(

 

[CptStern]

The US? You mean the coalition. Lets hit it here:

If the Coalition had'nt invaded, (which includes Canadians, and also, Britons) those civilians might STILL be alive today.

Thats a fact you cant dispute.

canada is not part of the coalition (thank god)

 

[hasan]

Isn't it funny how on 9/11 we demanded sympathy and respect (which we got), and more than 10 times that many people die in Iraq and we're like, "meh."

We're so ****ing arrogant. ;(

exactly.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

canada is not part of the coalition (thank god)

http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/MONITOR/mond03b.html

Surely, these are'nt Canadians...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/images/afghanistan0001.gif

...those, are'nt Canadians there are they? Oh wait...they appear to be.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/education/spotlight/issue_12/

Oh noes!!1

http://www.canada.com/national/feat....html?id=2450B6E6-BFED-46D5-93C4-0424E1C96067

Poor guy. He was Canadian.

CNN just had a story, where it was being debated if Canada would send troops to Iraq. Im not going to assume, you might be right if they stay out of Iraq completely.

But, when the Coalition was formed in 2001, Canada was apart of it, in a sense innocent of the Iraq War, where it would participate in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

During 2001-2002, Canada fielded 1,200 soldiers around Kandahar and Kabul, and had some tasty looking Leopard I A4 Tanks roaming around with them.

Mostly, Canada's part in the Coaltion, is for reserve (if needed) and for preserve (when peace is shattered). For its position in Afgahnistan, is not indeed for reserve, but moves actively with British Units and American Forces scouraging out remnant Splinter cells of building or moving resistance.

Since the fighting has been minor in Afgahnistan, Canada might pull out more troops, but still maintain a number of around 500-200. However, while Canada is split between going into the Coalition occupying Iraq, it is not split for a supporting role for the Peace/War/Whatever it is now, in Afgahnistan.

It is inherently apart of the Coalition.

 

[NeLi]

The Squids!

They're Everywhere!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I like squids.

Especially, from Red Lobster, when their steam fried and breaded.

 

[CptStern]

http://www.ploughshares.ca/content/MONITOR/mond03b.html

Surely, these are'nt Canadians...

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/images/afghanistan0001.gif

...those, are'nt Canadians there are they? Oh wait...they appear to be.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/education/spotlight/issue_12/

Oh noes!!1

http://www.canada.com/national/feat....html?id=2450B6E6-BFED-46D5-93C4-0424E1C96067

Poor guy. He was Canadian.

CNN just had a story, where it was being debated if Canada would send troops to Iraq. Im not going to assume, you might be right if they stay out of Iraq completely.

But, when the Coalition was formed in 2001, Canada was apart of it, in a sense innocent of the Iraq War, where it would participate in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

During 2001-2002, Canada fielded 1,200 soldiers around Kandahar and Kabul, and had some tasty looking Leopard I A4 Tanks roaming around with them.

Mostly, Canada's part in the Coaltion, is for reserve (if needed) and for preserve (when peace is shattered). For its position in Afgahnistan, is not indeed for reserve, but moves actively with British Units and American Forces scouraging out remnant Splinter cells of building or moving resistance.

Since the fighting has been minor in Afgahnistan, Canada might pull out more troops, but still maintain a number of around 500-200. However, while Canada is split between going into the Coalition occupying Iraq, it is not split for a supporting role for the Peace/War/Whatever it is now, in Afgahnistan.

It is inherently apart of the Coalition.

ummmmmmm you're splitting hairs

the common interpretation of the word "coalition" is that of the group of countries that are actively involved in the invasion and occupation of iraq, canada is not one of them. We were talking about iraq not afghanistan where canada is on a peacekeeping mission

we refused to be a part of the invading force on moral grounds: canada sees the war as illegal as do many other countries.

canada may have involved during the initial hunt for osama in afghanistan but we.ve been on a peacekeeping mission ever since

if you'd like to split hairs further, technically you could point out that canada is indeed involved in iraq because 31 canadian soldiers are currently attached to a division in iraq. They are part of an exchange program between the US and canadian militaries ...but our Prime minister doesnt officially acknowledge their existance due to the fact that most canadians would be outraged to know their military is involved in the illegal occupation of iraq


splitting hairs a little further you could point out to the fact that there are a number of american soldiers that defected to canada during the initial invasion of Iraq ... using the rules of "6 degrees of seperation" you could link these american soldiers with canada invading iraq ....just thought I'd help you along with your line of thinking :E

 

[K e r b e r o s]

if you'd like to split hairs further, technically you could point out that canada is indeed involved in iraq because 31 canadian soldiers are currently attached to a division in iraq. They are part of an exchange program between the US and canadian militaries ...but our Prime minister doesnt officially acknowledge their existance due to the fact that most canadians would be outraged to know their military is involved in the illegal occupation of iraq

Good splitting hairs. Technically now, it is apart of the Coalition. Further.

 

[Silent_night]

if it was 100,000 civilian deaths in america then u would be hearing about it everyday

 

[Lil' Timmy]

and one of those soldiers.. kevin bacon.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

splitting hairs a little further you could point out to the fact that there are a number of american soldiers that defected to canada during the initial invasion of Iraq ... using the rules of "6 degrees of seperation" you could link these american soldiers with canada invading iraq ....just thought I'd help you along with your line of thinking

Oh, and thanks. :thumbs:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

if it was 100,000 civilian deaths in america then u would be hearing about it everyday

If's not a problem. If, has yet to happen, or cannot, because "if" passed up its oppertunity to possibly happen.

What is, however, happens to be the now.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

edit button?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yea, I noticed that. You dont have one.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

yes i do, it's right there.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Blah. Puppy=teh win. You cant compete with that. Its like cute, but in a sense that tries to lure you into something. Like, getting close enough to petting it. Thats when it does it. Thats when it attacks.

...its milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

 

[CptStern]

Good splitting hairs. Technically now, it is apart of the Coalition. Further.

well we havent killed or tortured any iraqis if that's what you're trying to get at

 

[The Monkey]

yes i do, it's right there.

It disapperes one hour after the post was made. (or something like that)

 

[Lil' Timmy]

It disapperes one hour after the post was made. (or something like that)

i wish. (it's 15 mins)

 

[The Monkey]

i wish. (it's 15 mins)

I see. That's crap.

 

[CptStern]

well we havent killed or tortured any iraqis if that's what you're trying to get at

"Kerberos: wait that's not entirely true canada helped the FBI kidnap canadian citizen Maher Arar to be tortured in syria at the request of american authorities"

 

[Lil' Timmy]

"Kerberos: wait that's not entirely true canada helped the FBI kidnap canadian citizen Maher Arar to be tortured in syria at the request of american authorities"

why would kerberos quote his own name? he even posts in the third person? what an egomaniacal freak.

 

[CptStern]

why would kerberos quote his own name? he even posts in the third person? what an egomaniacal freak.

ya I say we invade his sorry ass take him out before he gets us ...cant let someone who posts in the third person live, they're far too dangerous

"CptStern: ya I agree with what he said!"

 

[K e r b e r o s]

well we havent killed or tortured any iraqis if that's what you're trying to get at

You help when you support...is what im getting at.

Responsibility, relies in those who support for the action of or taking, of, responsibility. That responsibility, can deduce to, "helping", "supporting","or taking varied action". Responsibility, means one caries out an action with being careful, or being responsible. Its basically, accepting accountability for a possible outcome.

Definatively, it is unknown how many people are involved with war time attrocities, but much like Italy and its support to Germany, it also, became apart of the process simply due on support.

If people support, or even give troops or aid to the Coalition for its better wealth, than it is, or does become with or sharing the responsibility of, the coalition.

why would kerberos quote his own name? he even posts in the third person? what an egomaniacal freak.

I did'nt say that.

Oh btw, that was in first person.

ya I say we invade his sorry ass take him out before he gets us ...cant let someone who posts in the third person live, they're far too dangerous

Yea. www.ilovebees.com

 

[Steve]

It's true that there should be an eventual end to the conflict but, at the same time, we have Israel and Palestine.

I was sad back when I thought it was 15000. 100000 is just stupidly wrong.

yeah... 100,000 seems really, REALLY lofty....

 

[CptStern]

You help when you support...is what im getting at.

Responsibility, relies in those who support for the action of or taking, of, responsibility. That responsibility, can deduce to, "helping", "supporting","or taking varied action". Responsibility, means one caries out an action with being careful, or being responsible. Its basically, accepting accountability for a possible outcome.

Definatively, it is unknown how many people are involved with war time attrocities, but much like Italy and its support to Germany, it also, became apart of the process simply due on support.

If people support, or even give troops or aid to the Coalition for its better wealth, than it is, or does become with or sharing the responsibility of, the coalition.

ummm no if you're trying to link us with abu gharib you're mistaken ..sure we sent a canadian to be tortured by syrians at the request of america but that's as far as it goes

we dont support the coalition in any way (iraq coalition lets not split hairs again) .. we dont give money to reconstruct iraq and we dont supply troops, munitions, moral support ...we openly critize the decision to invade iraq. Our politicians slam the iraq issue on a regular basis: an aid of the prime minister at a Nato conference before the war called bush a "moron" .

 

[K e r b e r o s]

ummm no if you're trying to link us with abu gharib you're mistaken ..sure we sent a canadian to be tortured by syrians at the request of america but that's as far as it goes

Source...I want the, "At the request of America" part too.

we dont support the coalition in any way (iraq coalition lets not split hairs again) .. we dont give money to reconstruct iraq and we dont supply troops, munitions, moral support ...we openly critize the decision to invade iraq. Our politicians slam the iraq issue on a regular basis: an aid of the prime minister at a Nato conference before the war called bush a "moron" .

Source on the Moron part. Seems a bit like personal opinion, and what you should have liked to have seen.

 

[Sprafa]

100 000 is an exageration.

 

[CptStern]

Source...I want the, "At the request of America" part too.

"Maher Arar, 33, who was released last month, said at a news conference in Ottawa that he pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he has lived for 15 years and has a family. But instead, he was flown under U.S. guard to Jordan and handed over to Syria, where he was born. Arar denied any connection to terrorism and said he would fight to clear his name.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that Arar was deported because he had been put on a terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence agencies" linked him to terrorist groups.

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners."


source

Source on the Moron part. Seems a bit like personal opinion, and what you should have liked to have seen.

source

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I did'nt say that.

Oh btw, that was in first person.

you're not the brightest tack in the box are you?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners."

Was he? Was he proven he was not?

Some of which. But they dont identify.

Except...two? Jordan, and Syria.

Here, I'll quote the rest of the paragraph:

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.

Arar's case has brought repeated apologies from the Canadian government, which says it is investigating what information the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave to U.S. authorities. Canada's foreign minister, Bill Graham, also said he would question the Syrian ambassador about Arar's statements about torture. In an interview on CBC Radio, Imad Moustafa, the Syrian chargé d'affaires in Washington, denied that Arar had been tortured.

Arar said U.S. officials apparently based the terrorism accusation on his connection to Abdullah Almalki, another Syrian-born Canadian. Almalki is being detained by Syrian authorities, although no charges against him have been reported. Arar said he knew Almalki only casually before his detention but encountered him at the Syrian prison where both were tortured.

Arar, whose case has become a cause celebre in Canada, demanded a public inquiry. "I am not a terrorist," he said. "I am not a member of al Qaeda. I have never been to Afghanistan."

He said he was flying home to Montreal via New York on Sept. 26, 2002, from a family visit to Tunisia.

"This is when my nightmare began," he said. "I was pulled aside by immigration and taken [away]. The police came and searched my bags. I asked to make a phone call and they would not let me." He said an FBI agent and a New York City police officer questioned him. "I was so scared," he said. "They told me I had no right to a lawyer because I was not an American citizen."

Arar said he was shackled, placed on a small jet and flown to Washington, where "a new team of people got on the plane" and took him to Amman, the capital of Jordan. Arar said U.S. officials handed him over to Jordanian authorities, who "blindfolded and chained me and put me in a van. . . . They made me bend my head down in the back seat. Then these men started beating me. Every time I tried to talk, they beat me."

Hours later, he said, he was taken to Syria and there he was forced to write that he had been to a training camp in Afghanistan. "They kept beating me, and I had to falsely confess," he said. "I was willing to confess to anything to stop the torture."

Arar said his prison cell "was like a grave, exactly like a grave. It had no light, it was three feet wide, it was six feet deep, it was seven feet high. . . . It had a metal door. There was a small opening in the ceiling. There were cats and rats up there, and from time to time, the cats peed through the opening into the cell."

Steven Watt, a human rights fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights in Washington, said Arar's case raised questions about U.S. counterterrorism measures. "Here we have the United States involved in the removal of somebody to a country where it knows persons in custody of security agents are tortured," Watt said. "The U.S. was possibly benefiting from the fruits of that torture. I ask the question: Why wasn't he removed to Canada?"

A senior U.S. intelligence official discussed the case in terms of the secret rendition policy. There have been "a lot of rendition activities" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the official said. "We are doing a number of them, and they have been very productive."

Renditions are a legitimate option for dealing with suspected terrorists, intelligence officials argue. The U.S. government officially rejects the assertion that it knowingly sends suspects abroad to be tortured, but officials admit they sometimes do that. "The temptation is to have these folks in other hands because they have different standards," one official said. "Someone might be able to get information we can't from detainees," said another.

Syria, where use of torture during imprisonment has been documented by the State Department, maintains a secret but growing intelligence relationship with the CIA, according to intelligence experts.

"The Syrian government has provided some very useful assistance on al Qaeda in the past," said Cofer Black, former director of counterterrorism at the CIA who is now the counterterrorism coordinator at the State Department.

One senior intelligence official said Tuesday that Arar is still believed to have connections to al Qaeda. The Justice Department did not have enough evidence to detain him when he landed in the United States, the official said, and "the CIA doesn't keep people in this country."

With those limitations, and with a secret presidential "finding" authorizing the CIA to place suspects in foreign hands without due process, Arar may have been one of the people whisked overseas by the CIA.

In the early 1990s, renditions were exclusively law enforcement operations in which suspects were snatched by covert CIA or FBI teams and brought to the United States for trial or questioning. But CIA teams, working with foreign intelligence services, now capture suspected terrorists in one country and render them to another, often after U.S. interrogators have tried to gain information from them.

Renditions are considered a covert action. Congress, which oversees the CIA, knows of only the broad authority to carry out renditions but is not informed about individual cases, according to intelligence officials.Priest reported from Washington. Staff writers John Mintz and Glenn Kessler in Washington contributed to this report.

For that other source, I'll post more quotes from that, here:

Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, sought immediately to repair damage with Washington, saying on television: “He is not a moron. He is my friend.” Mr Chrétien said that he had declined an offer by Ms Ducros to resign.

but Mr Chrétien’s delegation saw his remarks as a veiled reference to Canada.

Then the burn.

Ari Fleischer, President Bush’s spokesman, said at the summit in Prague that the comment came from “somebody who obviously doesn’t speak for the Canadian Government”.

Ms Ducros does speak for the Canadian Government, however, although her briefings to reporters are usually off the record. Her remark reflects the view of Canadians who do not regard Mr Bush as the equal of Bill Clinton or Tony Blair.

Canadians like to laugh at Americans and poke fun at their President. A television show, Talking to Americans, is very popular. People chosen at random on the streets of American cities are asked questions about Canada and are shown to know next to nothing about the country.

I knew that was a series in Canada. I happen to watch it occasionaly, but smirk, as its basically a retort to "street smarts".

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you're not the brightest tack in the box are you?

Why should I be bright? If I'am, someone might feel trusty with my appearance, then, stick me to a wall...never to be removed again.

I'm fearful of that.

 

[Korgoth]

Or worse! You could end up bracing a david hasselhoff poster to some sad 20 somethings wall in his "studio" apartment.

(damn, wish I coudl find a tack hehe)