It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Firebombs and fuel-air bombs are already banned under the geneva conventions.
Originally posted by Montana
Do you have a reference or link to a site with casualty predictions? I would like to see what they were. Thanks.
Originally posted by marg6043
Do me and you a favor go back to the begining of this thread and click on the links, I guess you just forgot to read and "click"
And then when you are finished with your homework do a nice search in the internet on Iaqis "casualties" then come back and post.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
Have you researched the growing animosity against muslims and the general de-humanisation of muslim peoples?
Originally posted by Chuck Stevenson
First arrange to split the terrirtory with the other participants then nuke the home territories of the Terrorists using airburst neutron weapons. Kill absolutely every human being in those countries. Move in three days later and clean up the bodies, there would be very little residual radiation and damage unless a weapon detonated close to the ground. No real fear of Fallout or thermal damage either.
Originally posted by Chieftian Chaos
It does sound like cold blooded murder...but I'm all for it. We have terrorists around the world talking badass to the United States...the most powerful country in the world...and we just stand back and say "whatever". Granted I have no real care for the Middle East...I could really care less if it was wiped out from the face of the Earth. But we have weapons for a reason...not just to show off. Nuking the Middle East will make countries fear us, and that fear in turn will make us safe. Even though it sounds like cold-blooded murder, we will be safer in the end.
Originally posted by American Mad ManI Make it stated US policy to nuke every Muslim city AND holy site if we are attacked.
Simply use some Minutemen II missles - we've got plenty of them...
Originally posted by SourGrapes
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress...
en.wikipedia.org...'s_law
You lost!
Originally posted by MokuhadzushiThis article should be for us an occasion to think about the relationships between the USA and the Nazis. After WW2, many Nazis were welcomed in the US and hailed as bringers of science and wisdom. Without the Nazis, no A-Bomb. Without the Nazis, no Spaceflight. Without the Nazis, no anti-bolchevist struggle. Without the Nazis, no USA.
Originally posted by Montana
Just a couple of quotes from the Johns Hopkins site. For those no longer keeping score, the folks who actually did the study were from Johns Hopkins.
However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers.
BTW, every link I saw on Google that reported the 100,000 figure referenced this ONE report. When has it ever been good common sense to base your belief on ONE anything?
Originally posted by marg6043
I agree with you, the present administration has done a very good job of making Americans believe that the middle east population is not as human as the Christian nations of the west because they don't follow the same God they are called terrorist and american haters.When you make your nation agree with a war selling the idea that one particular religious view is better than another one is wrong and misguiding.
Originally posted by marg6043I don�t think that the US are purposely doing this to the Iraqi people, but the poor planning of this war is, and people you have to understand that when you invade a country you are responsible for the well being of their citizens, they need food, they need shelter and health care.
Originally posted by marg6043Well the problem with the bombs that the US used in Afghanistan and in Iraq to do strikes not always are very "smart" after all.But then again the civilian "casualties" are not counted.
Originally posted by marg6043
Exactly the Iraqi war is not even two years yet and the casualties that we know are not even accurate because US is not even taking a count of the deaths, so that will tell any person that the deaths are higher than predicted.
Originally posted by dgtempeAny quick google search will tell you[url=http://christianity.about.com/cs/warandpeace/a/casualtycount2.htm]http://christianity.about.com/cs/warandpeace/a/casualtycount2.htm[/ur l]
And that is a conservative estimate. Not regurgitation.
Originally posted by Chris McGeeHave you researched the growing animosity against muslims and the general de-humanisation of muslim peoples?
Originally posted by BlissfullIgnorance
To compare the most horrible man in history to your own country that is fighting to protect your ass from more cowardly terrorist attacks is a travesty and u should be put down. You are horrible and have no right saying those things. Go smoke sum shrooms hippy
Originally posted by ItWasntMeOk this is going to be a long one, grab your cup of coffee and try to keep up.First things first let me address some of the misrepresentation of the facts first and foremost.
quote: Posted by ItWasntMe Well it's interesting you should point that out. Google defines genocide as "the systematic and planned killing of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Isn't that what the U.S is doing to the "insurgents" who are not an army, but are in fact Iraqi citizens fighting against an occupational force whose invasion of Iraq is classed as "an illegal invasion" by the United Nations? (Psychoses)
Originally posted by Chris McGee
Have you researched the growing animosity against muslims and the general de-humanisation of muslim peoples?
Originally posted by dgtempe
TC, you're entitled to your opinion, i wanted to make you aware that every website that comes up on Google states the same thing. Its not because of Jeffrense.com that i think this.
Perhaps Google is waaay over on the left and has its own agenda..eh?
Posted by paperclip
As for the comparison with Hitler... well, not a good one.
Posted by SourGrapes
Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
This article should be for us an occasion to think about the relationships between the USA and the Nazis. After WW2, many Nazis were welcomed in the US and hailed as bringers of science and wisdom. Without the Nazis, no A-Bomb. Without the Nazis, no Spaceflight. Without the Nazis, no anti-bolchevist struggle. Without the Nazis, no USA.
And, how high does YOUR grass grow? (Wow, I could beat that up all day, but I've got somewhere to be. See you in about 6 hours my friend! Be ready!)
Posted by Thomas Crowne
Psychosis, you picked the perfect name, friend.
Posted by Thomas Crowne
Your attempted point is nothing but a perverted stretch of any truth.
Posted by Thomas Crowne
CAn you imagine the stuctural damage had we been so careless as to kill 100,000 non-combatants
Posted by Thomas Crowne
Really, you piece of lying human excrement; civilian neighborhoods were the primary target of the U.S. Airforce? You'd better back that up with a source as that is a very serious charge
Posted by BStheGREAT
Do you even know what genocide is?
Posted by BStheGREAT
The US has done nothing except defend themselves against a dictator making nuclear weapons. Yes, thats right, they were and still are making nuclear weapons in my opinion.
Posted by Montana
Just a couple of quotes from the Johns Hopkins site. For those no longer keeping score, the folks who actually did the study were from Johns Hopkins.
"Our findings need to be independently verified with a larger sample group".
From linked article
The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children. However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers.
The survey is the first country-wide attempt to calculate the number of civilian deaths in Iraq since the war began. The United States military does not keep records on civilian deaths and record keeping by the Iraq Ministry of Health is limited. The study is published in the October 29, 2004, online edition of The Lancet.
�Our findings need to be independently verified with a larger sample group. However, I think our survey demonstrates the importance of collecting civilian casualty information during a war and that it can be done,�
source
Posted by Montana
Do you have a reference or link to a site with casualty predictions? I would like to see what they were. Thanks.
Posted by ItWasntMe
That marine who shot in the mosque was protecting himself and his squad, a moving body in iraq no matter how injured might be has proven to be very deadly
Posted by ItWasntMe
I challenge you to provide a credible source for your last remark, �invasion of Iraq is classed as "an illegal invasion" by the United Nations?�
The Prime Minister has found himself again defending his policy on Iraq, after the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said today that the US-led invasion was illegal and that the elections planned for Iraq in January would not be credible in the current security environment
source
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
source