100,000 Civilians Dead in Iraq 478
asldihf writes "New Scientist is reporting that 100,000 civilians in Iraq are now dead due to America's war in Iraq. Make sure you vote next week."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
100,000 Civilians Dead in Iraq
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody
Yes, and don't forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, and don't forget (Score:4, Informative)
The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes...
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
> And why are they still doing air strikes? It's not for fun, it's not just to kill people. If the intent was to kill civillians, they'd pretty much all be dead. They're trying to get at the terrorists.
And you can see how well bombing suspected terrorists in civilian neighborhoods has worked for Israel against the Intifada.
Moreover, the air strikes in Fallujah seem to be hitting primarily citizens. Either they're bombing the city on bad intelligence, or else just bombing it to cow the population.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:3, Insightful)
... or they're actually hitting insurgents, but because insurgents don't wear uniforms or dog tags, it's really hard to tell them apart from civilians.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
>
If Iraq's women and children are shooting at us, we've got a bigger problem than even the anti-war types realize.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:2)
> Yes, because the media is always right and always reports accurately especially when they have reliable Iraqi civilians feeding them information. And the media is unbiased of course. I understand what the Israeli's go through with the media reports having now heard how ours and the world's reports what happens here. It's a lot different from reality.
And you learned this fact from listening to...?
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Are these reports from the same folks who told us the Iraqis would throw flowers at our tanks?
Are these reports from the same folks who said Saddam had WMD ready to fire in 45 minutes?
Are these reports from the same folks who underestimated the extent of Saddam's WMD programs before gulf war 1?
Are these reports from the same folks who didn't see the Pakistani A-bomb coming?
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:2)
reliable Iraqi civilians feeding them information...
I would ask, who better to ask? If you're in Iraq, and you want unbiased information about who is dead, you have to ask the people who were there... Iraqis. A
You try it. (Score:2)
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
> How many of his own people Saddam killed.
At least three times that many, plus about 900,000,000 Iranian soldiers in the gratuitous war he started.
But the question is, how come we're invoking that as an retcon [wikipedia.org] justification after failing to discover WMD, when we didn't lift a finger to stop him while he was actually doing it.
> And how many of those deaths are due to terrorists trying to recapture his legacy.
I would guess that most of the terrorists are trying to set up another radical Islamic state rather than bring Saddam back.
Some of the resistance fighters may be Saddamists (Saddamites?) though.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:2)
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to meet these "experts." Do they count the bodies? What makes them so expert on this subject?
I'm starting to believe that these 100,000 civilians dead are a product of a frightened liberal media, mixed with lies from the arabs. Every time there was action in Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban would make anouncements like "they hit a hostpital," or "they hit a school." I'm doubtful that we'll ever get a true word out of the middle east / southern asia.
I'd like to see the accounting measures that these "experts" used. I'd like to see video of them counting dead civilian bodies. Until then, it is best to remain skeptical of anything coming out of American media regarding the middle east.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that we provided intelligence TO
Saddam during that war [gwu.edu]
Re:Typical Republican response (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a war people! The purpose of war is to KILL PEOPLE.
It's funny how attitudes have changed. 200 years ago, we would have cited "empire-building" as the reason for invading Iraq, and the world would have been fine with it, just as they were with the English, Dutch, Spanish, French, Danish, Portuguese, Italians, Russians, and Germans.
How many native americans died during Cortez's conquest of Latin/South America? How many Gauls died during J
Re:Typical Republican response (Score:5, Insightful)
We also frown upon tying people to crosses and lighting them on fire. Funny how times change.
different stats (Score:4, Informative)
Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.
Re:different stats (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:different stats (Score:3, Insightful)
Not *quite* entirely, but close. (Score:5, Informative)
So unless you're suggesting that their countrymen have an extensive air force that they'd been planning on using regardless of the US's invasion, no, it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
Re:different stats (Score:4, Informative)
Re:different stats (Score:3, Interesting)
This is from a relatively unbiased group that studies human rights atrocities throughout the world:
"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless
Re:different stats (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
Slavery and Saving Jews were all post-factum addendums to the Civil War and WW2. The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps and SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape.
If you were dead, you wouldn't be glad about your noble sacrifice, you'd be dead.
Re: different stats (Score:3, Insightful)
> Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
As in this case, where the "liberation" angle is emergency spin to cover the lack of WMD in Iraq.
Also re your general point, it's not possible for both sides in a war to be right, but it is possible for both sides to be wrong.
Re:different stats (Score:3, Interesting)
It was a tactical desicion. Do you know how many flights it took to take out *one* location in WWII? An average of ten missions with multiple aircraft. Also bombs were wildly inaccurate. There are multiple accounts of bombs missing targets by upto a mile.
The concentration camp were, one a *burden* of money and manpower to the germans, two, you couldn't target individual buildings (ie crematoriums) without risking hittin
WTF does "The Lancet" have to do with this? (Score:2)
In other news, The Economist is running a story on whether Koch's postulates apply to modern illnesses.
Re:WTF does "The Lancet" have to do with this? (Score:2)
Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:5, Insightful)
The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.
How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.
Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:2, Insightful)
You should have your mod rights stripped.
Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:2)
Was the war for the wrong reason? It appears so.. Was the war at the wrong time? Is there ever a more right time? Wrong President?... We'll see the wrong president for the next 4 years if you have your way.
I can't believe what slashdot has done with
Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:3, Insightful)
The war where you are attacked and declare war on your attackers to defend yourself. Iraq did not attack us. No Iraqis attacked us. A group of mostly Saudi civillians attacked us.
When is the right time?
After you are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are defending yourself against the right party, it may be the right time to strike back.
Someone on the playground got bullied. Joe has been known to be a bully. Should Joe be suspended from school?
Who is the right
600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:2, Insightful)
From The Age [66.102.7.104] (Google cache to skip registration): We have records of 600,000 executions and we estimate that 180,000 died in the uprising including the Marsh Arabs. The bombing of Halabja left 5000 dead," Mr al-Huoseyni said.
Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:5, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be in a position where we are comparing ourselves to Saddam Hussein.
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I personally believe that 1 dead civillian is 1 dead civillian to many, but if you want to get into moral relatavism, fine. he didn't kill 600,000 every couple years - it took him a while. (Also - does that statistic include deaths from the sanctions?) So to say it would be "the same or worse" is not correct. In a cold-hearted quantitative analysis, the US has murdered civillians at a higher rate than Sa
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:2)
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't call having armed forces at the voting booths conducive to a fair election though. Of course, elections haven't been fair in America for quite some time [pfaw.org].
I'm not saying removing Saddam from power is a bad thing, just that it might have been more efficient to support an armed uprising than to commit our troops to 5 years of combat.
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:3, Insightful)
But what do numbers mean? We didn't go to war with Iraq because Saddam was killing his own people...hell, we're kinda cool with that really. Look at Stalin, Cambodia, North Korea....the only thing really thrown at them was harsh language and "you guys cut it out"...but we didn't do anything with the millions...yes, the number with the 7 digits in it...of people murdered. Even up to 1979 in the killing fields of Cambodia u
Sources (Score:2)
What is the "Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq"? Is it this [iraqcenter.com]? It doesn't look very scientific.
Saddam was undoubtedly very keen on executions, but 600,000 seems like a huge over-estimate. Of course it depends on how you define an "execution" -- for example if you count the gassing of the Kurds with the chemical weapons the West sold
The purpose of my post (Score:2)
The purpose of my post was not to say the numbers are accurate or inaccurate, whether 100,000 dead was acceptable, or whether one action justifies another. That sort of thing cannot be discussed intelligently in a few sentences.
The purpose of my post was to place the story in context and give additional facts not mentioned. An informed discussion needs all of the facts.
Umm, wait a minute (Score:2)
What fascist tendencies? (Score:2)
Disaggregate the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a lot of Americans think it's impossible for an Iraqi to look on us as occupiers rather liberators, unless that Iraqi was somehow closely associated with the regime. Well, I think this number explains a lot. Remember, you can't use gross numbers -- it's always misleading. When you take apart the numbers, some interesting insights occur. Probably a disproporitionate nu
Re: 600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:2)
> Don't forget about the 500,000 CHILDREN that died because of the UN Sanction fiasco.
The thing about sanctions is that in the crippled economy the ruling class still skims their share off the top, with the undesirable effect that the pain "trickles down" to ordinary citizens and oppressed groups.
Only 50% higher death rate (Score:4, Informative)
That also includes the invasion itself. At this rate, eventually it may go down.
The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (Score:5, Interesting)
For this report, the sample numbers were EXTREMELY EXTREMELY low: 988 housholds. The potential for error here is astounding. So they had confirmation of 6%. That's silly. The death count is constantly overreported. Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly. It's the standard line and it gets old and less believable each time. I would really like to see statistics on who was killed and how the deaths occurred. Firefights with US troops? Bombings? Deaths during reconstruction? Who is called a "civilian?"
Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! I read a story yesterday about this report and they actually said that the vast majority of the deaths were women and children. That is what tipped me off to conclude that the story was a load of crap. Does anyone honestly think that we would deliberatly attack women and children ONLY? I
Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (Score:2)
> This number is _extremely_ difficult to calculate. Some estimates say tens of thousands. Some say hundreds of thousands.
Yes, take it with a grain of salt until more information becomes available, especially since it is so different from the other estimates.
> For this report, the sample numbers were EXTREMELY EXTREMELY low: 988 housholds. The potential for error here is astounding.
That's not a particularly small sample size for the kinds of polls and surveys that we see all the time. You don't
Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (Score:2)
Not knowing much about either source, I don't know their motivations (although "rushing" to release this days before the election is suspicious)... but I thought someone might want to read a coherent rebutal.
AP's story on this is troublesome (Score:5, Informative)
Household Survey Sees 100,000 Iraqi Deaths [go.com]
And there are some troblesome excerpts:
and? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no official figure for the number of
Iraqis killed since the conflict began
Well of course there's no fucking official figure. Who could possibly give an "official" figure? God?
some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
As time goes on, more people are killed, and it is possible to establish that more people have been killed.
concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"
As opposed to most studies which are of infinite precision?
quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study
Well yes.
report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.
And why not? Isn't this the most vital time that people hear this information?
possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq
However, this information could be biased in either direction. Some areas of Iraq were excluded because they were too dangerous for the investigators; weren't they likely to have suffered more deaths?
more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report
Well obviously. This is true for any study or poll ever published.
Trouble is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2)
We all know "official" figures are better, because officials making official statements have no agenda, and are only interested in facts.
I'm not sure why you're interested in the "since the conflict began" part. I mean, that's the stated point - to measure things since the conflict began.
some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
Sure, and some faith-based visionaries will talk about the "opportu
More info from the authors (Score:4, Informative)
Bull$hit (Score:4, Informative)
My favorite quote (Score:2)
Why would you publish a study that is by it's very nature inconclusive and impossible to verify? Why would you publish one in the week before a major election? I think you can answer these questions for yourselves.
I have no doubts that many civilians have died. Every other night I see a report about a car bomb going o
Stats (Score:2)
So the rest of the reported deaths were taken at face value?
Article also says the study is based on about 1000 households scattered across Iraq. That's out of 22.6 million in 2000.
I think I could have done this study with three chimps, a dart board and some peanut butter and still come up wit
The important question... (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews [reuters.com] I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
Re: The important question... (Score:2)
> My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
It's far from a sure thing that their next government won't be another dictator or a radical theocracy. With the added advantage of knowing that once the US withdraws, they won't likely come back again.
The history of Iraq's governments does not make me optimistic that they'll end up with a Utopia.
Re:The important question... (Score:2)
If your guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, what does that mean to the people that died in it for no reason? Let's say for a moment that the 100,000 civilian number is BS. Ok, I tend to agree with that based on how they conducted the research. Let's cut the number down to just 3 people. 3 Iraqi civilians. A man, a woman and a child.
They're
Re:The important question... (Score:2)
If you do think that war is sometimes justified, then you have to consider what the possible benefits of this war are, and compare that to the cost that has been paid. Will the benefits outweigh the costs?
I believe the benefits will outweigh the costs, and within 10-20 years we'
Re:The important question... (Score:2)
But that's the past. I try to think that we live it somewhat enlightened times, (a nativity that I'm sure future historians would laugh at) in which war and military action are the absolute last resort. But this war in Iraq was not a last resort. We have
Re:The important question... (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
The US needs another ally in the middle east since Saudi Arabia and Israel are opposite sides of a political fence.
Iraq is probably a pivot point in long-range geopolitical objectives in an unstable area of the world. Yes it also has oil.
The "war to end all wars" didn't and led us into an even worse one. Everything since then was based on MAD. "Put your head between your legs and kiss you
Re:The important question... (Score:4, Informative)
You keep using that word [reference.com]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
the obligatory orwell quote (Score:2)
"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Euras
Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
--trb
Re:Jesus (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
And what about when objectivity comes down on the side of "Bush is an evil fuck", hmm? Going by how the Republicans whine, objectivity is about making sure the GOP comes out smelling like roses, even when the facts are against them.
Screw that. George Bush is objectively evil. This war was a horrible idea, poorly executed, and has increas
Civilians (Score:5, Insightful)
So what % of those civilians are terrorists and insurgents?
Important part of the article.. (Score:2)
Yeah, ok. Congrats on your screwy math.
quick war or long sanctions (Score:2)
"--Seven years after the imposition of the blockade on the people of Iraq, more than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 children below the age of five, have died because of the scar
Nice Slant on Article Selection (Score:2, Informative)
Given that Slashdot is such a techie heavy site you would think that something combining tech and politics would be appropriate yet articles like these never seem to be a
Yes! Vote!! (Score:3, Interesting)
So that there can be a policy change and instead of trying to fix Iraq (the right way... by actually allowing the people to govern themselves) just pull out and leave them at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters.... who, once in power, will probably be Saddam V2.0 .... like it or not, your government fucked things up in Iraq (don't get me wrong; they were incredibly fucked up to begin with...) but you went in with the promise of helping to fix things. The Afghanis hate you because you went in with the same promise (albeit slightly different in that you were requesting their help vs the Russians...) but left before you could fulfill your end of the bargain... and left the country at the mercy of the "freedom" fighters... who fucked up the country more than the Russians likely would have.
I know I'll get modded into oblivion for this, but please, hear me out. We all know that Bush led everyone into that country under false pretenses, and now all those who backed out, including my country are basically saying "told you so." ... and for the record I am pissed that we did not go in with you; Don Cherry said it best: "If you go into a bar, and your buddy gets into a fight, it doesn't matter who started the fight, or who was right and who was wrong, you back your buddy up." none of this changes the fact, however, that Iraq is getting more and more fucked up as time goes on. Unless it gets fixed, it will come back to bite all of us in the ass.
I'm not saying that you should vote for or against Bush (though personally I don't like him, or his policies.) What I am saying is that regardless of which person gets voted into office they need to know that you support efforts in Iraq.... just not the current style of efforts that are being deployed. I wish I had the link to the blog of one of Americas sons who is/was over there and laid it on the line (it was on /. not too long ago) .... tell your government to sit up and take fucking notice. It's too late to cry over whether or not the war was right, but not too late to tell your government that they need to clean up the mess, and that the current efforts are B/S....
anyway... commence flaming/modding to oblivion...
Pre-war estimate (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuck em all (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do these people have the power to start war?
Joe American doesn't want a war.
He wants to screw his girlfriend, work his job, and drink a few beers.
We're all human; why the hell do we let these people make us kill each other?
What... the... hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Article points:
+100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US)
+1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam)
+5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Wait, isn't Bush pro-life? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly it started off as WMDs, which are now proved to be complete crap
Then it turned into Osama and Iraq were working together which has not only not been proved, but I believe it was made official this week that there was no link
Then it turned suddenly to regieme change, yeah that's a good one lets throw out one dictator.. and put in one that's several thousand miles away
The problem with the regieme change is there are loads of other countries that are far far worse than Iraq but we like to keep those quiet.
It basically all comes down to the fact that whichever of the many reasons you choose to believe, this was an immoral and illegal war in the opinion of most people, and the US and UK governments think we're all so stupid that we'll just swallow whatever they say. And the sad thing is, a lot of us will.
What's worrying is this: I've watched part of the debates, and I watched some of question time last night. People were heckling and jeering opinions that didn't match their own. No one in the USA (and this is the viewpoint of a fair few UK people) seems to ever listen. Everyone believes whatever they choose to beleive, usually on one-sided evidence and refuses to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, those people are then allowed to vote.
I just hope that whatever does happen, someone keeps their brain in gear, because only when all the world leaders come up from their bunkers and see there is no one and nothing left to rule over, will they realise that nobody wins a war. Nobody.
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's so obvious (Score:2)
Oh and Kerry is for the draft too... hmmmm...
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:2)
Second Ammendment at work!
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:2)
Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA
Um, what?? How many troops are you talking here? 2 million? Do you have any idea of the cost? You think that GWB didn't disarm the populace because of his feelings on gun control ??? It would be next to impossible to do, and wouldn't leave the iraqis with much of a warm feeling for their "liberators". Street fighting is where Americans
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:3, Interesting)
If McArthur could disarm Japan- GWB's generals could certainly have done an equal or better job disarming Iraq. But the politicians didn't even give them the chance- because they did not think of it.
It would be next to impossible to do, and wouldn't leave the iraqis with much of a warm feeling for their "liberators". Stree
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:2)
Let's start with something VERY simple- and move on from there. Have enough troops to search every building in the country- I've seen estimates around 740,000 troops needed for this- BEFORE you invade. As you go, if you find a weapon, TAKE IT, or DESTROY IT- don't leave it around for some insurgency a month or six months later to use!
disagree with a lot of things about this war, and I think it could have been planned better. But you are
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Within the first two weeks after 9-11, when everybody was comparing the attack on the WTC to Pearl Harbor, we had the opportunity to increase our Armed Forces and to mobilize our nation in EXACTLY the same way that FDR did during WWII- with all production retooled to war material, and all excess labor soaked up to either production of stuff necessary for the national defense or the army. Bush WASTED that opportunity- and did the second of many actions th
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:3, Informative)
NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.
Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."
Kerry: "Not necessarily."
Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."
Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."
Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."
Kerry: "That's what you h
In the last paragraph you quoted: (Score:2)
And if so, then the casualty count probably would've been the same.
BTW, anybody have any civilian casualty counts on Bosnia?
War sucks. I'm not defending Bush' actions in Iraq.
But putting up a post that basically says "100,000 civilians dead, remember to vote!" implying that this wouldn't have happened under the other candidate is hubris. Especially when the other candidate says he would've gone to war under another set
Doubtful survey (Score:2)
I suspect this is a hackneyed attempt at an "October Surprise".
Re:Doubtful survey (Score:2)
It means there are 10,000 relatives of those people that hate America because this President had a hard-on for Saddam and his partner had his sights on Oil.
This war is an atrocity and those responsible should be "brought to justice."
Re: do you mean that a war actually kills people? (Score:4, Interesting)
> I could swear the president's right hand man said that they would minimize civilian casualties?
Here's another good one:
The neocons are trying to sell imperialism by portraying it as cheap and painless. Reality hasn't conformed to the plan yet.
Re:Death (Score:2, Insightful)
- It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.
- The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy
of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.
It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens
but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.
The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.
Re:Death (Score:2)
Says you, but that's your opinion only. Many people say that they are children.
It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.
Yes, but "we" allowed that decision to be legal.
The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.
Let me get this straight: in your ideal world, the innocent should be killed and the guilty
Re:Death (Score:3, Interesting)
Opposition to abortion does not have to be founded on a religious belief. There are many people who oppose abortion who do so out of a completely secular worldview.
On the other hand, why do you think that an opinion that is based on a religious belief is not permissible? Here's an example. I believe that incest is wrong because the practice clearly is a sinfu
Re:Death (Score:2)
Great comment (I'm not religious). It's difficult to do, but it works in the long run and sometimes they is us.
Re:Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Death (Score:3, Funny)
Re: What the hell? (Score:2)
> Maybe /. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something.
How about an inverted flag, the traditional signal of distress.
(FWIW, I've been sticking the "flag" postage stamps on my mail upside down.)
> How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
It's not clear that they're free from tyranny yet, what with the security sweeps, mass arrests, prison abuse, media shutdowns, and the
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting...so we were there to help.
Ah, so if another country...say China for instance...were to send troops to America to "help" us we would just lay down our arms, and welcome them with open arms? I mean, they're just trying to help right?
And if by "free from tyranny" you mean "all out civil war" then yeah, that's really something!
Re:Huge Political TROLL (Score:2)
Re:Huge Political TROLL (Score:2)
This is insane. An article including "Make sure you vote next week" after quoting a figure that is 3-10 times greater than other estimates on deaths in Iraq. I won't go into the fact that it's from a medical journal or that it's being posted days before the election, suffice to say that the article's text is ridiculous on its own merit.
--trb
Re:Huge Political TROLL (Score:2)
Re:Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss (Score:2)