I was here for both, but running around in the same circles is quite boring.sergeriver wrote:
I'm for both things, to debate and for fun.usmarine2005 wrote:
God help you if you are not here for that.sergeriver wrote:
That explains a lot.
You are lying to yourself, you are here to debate and for fun.usmarine2005 wrote:
I was here for both, but running around in the same circles is quite boring.sergeriver wrote:
I'm for both things, to debate and for fun.usmarine2005 wrote:
God help you if you are not here for that.
Not serious debate. I am not going to write or read paragraphs of text.sergeriver wrote:
You are lying to yourself, you are here to debate and for fun.
Maybe therein lies your problem.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not serious debate. I am not going to write or read paragraphs of text.sergeriver wrote:
You are lying to yourself, you are here to debate and for fun.
How do you figure?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Maybe therein lies your problem.
reading and writing is known to facilitate learning.usmarine2005 wrote:
How do you figure?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Maybe therein lies your problem.
me fail english? that's unpossible.Marinejuana wrote:
reading and writing is known to facilitate learning.usmarine2005 wrote:
How do you figure?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Maybe therein lies your problem.
and IGNORANCE...depends on what you read. You are definitely proof of that.Marinejuana wrote:
reading and writing is known to facilitate learning.usmarine2005 wrote:
How do you figure?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Maybe therein lies your problem.
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2007-07-20 17:47:13)
lolusmarine2005 wrote:
me fail english? that's unpossible.Marinejuana wrote:
reading and writing is known to facilitate learning.usmarine2005 wrote:
How do you figure?
didnt want to lose you with the word literacy?usmarine2005 wrote:
me fail english? that's unpossible.Marinejuana wrote:
reading and writing is known to facilitate learning.usmarine2005 wrote:
How do you figure?
anyway, all of this is just your way of directing attention away from the fact that u completely failed to make your point in this thread.
so i guess its gonna be fun and games with usmarine from here on out. let the bodies pile up. none of this is serious.
get real, this isnt even between you and I, its a matter of life and death for people other than ourselves and i want every american to realize that.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-07-20 17:55:09)
I had no point to make except lancet fails, and that is proven. I supplied links for that BTW.Marinejuana wrote:
didnt want to lose you with the word literacy?usmarine2005 wrote:
me fail english? that's unpossible.Marinejuana wrote:
reading and writing is known to facilitate learning.
anyway, all of this is just your way of directing attention away from the fact that u completely failed to make your point in this thread.
so i guess its gonna be fun and games with usmarine from here on out. let the bodies pile up. none of this is serious.
get real bro, this isnt between me and you, its a matter of life and death for people other than ourselves and i want every american to realize that.
Don't waste your breathe Marine...he also believes that our government took down the towers. So if he believes in that, he has no hope. Anybody that believes that has no credibility in my book.usmarine2005 wrote:
I had no point to make except lancet fails, and that is proven. I supplied links for that BTW.Marinejuana wrote:
didnt want to lose you with the word literacy?usmarine2005 wrote:
me fail english? that's unpossible.
anyway, all of this is just your way of directing attention away from the fact that u completely failed to make your point in this thread.
so i guess its gonna be fun and games with usmarine from here on out. let the bodies pile up. none of this is serious.
get real bro, this isnt between me and you, its a matter of life and death for people other than ourselves and i want every american to realize that.
Ya I know. I failed.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
Don't waste your breathe Marine...he also believes that our government took down the towers. So if he believes in that, he has no hope. Anybody that believes that has no credibility in my book.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-20 17:58:12)
huh?Marinejuana wrote:
relatively few terrorist attacks.
u posted 4 links and didnt discuss them in any way. they all point to the fact that the study is INACCURATE not INVALID. meaning that while the study could be off by a crazy amount like 300,000 deaths, there is still NO DEBATING that over 67,000 people have been killed. And we know that a reporter isnt standing next to every single person that gets killed so the number logically must be greater than 67,000. This is a death count high enough to clearly demonstrate the insignificance of Muslim terror attacks in the face of our military occupation. This still doubles the Iraqi death rate under Saddam Hussein. So like I have said 20 times here, there is no way to argue with the evidence submitted that Muslims should be speaking out against relatively few terrorists when so many more people have been killed since the arrival of our military.usmarine2005 wrote:
I had no point to make except lancet fails, and that is proven. I supplied links for that BTW.Marinejuana wrote:
didnt want to lose you with the word literacy?usmarine2005 wrote:
me fail english? that's unpossible.
anyway, all of this is just your way of directing attention away from the fact that u completely failed to make your point in this thread.
so i guess its gonna be fun and games with usmarine from here on out. let the bodies pile up. none of this is serious.
get real bro, this isnt between me and you, its a matter of life and death for people other than ourselves and i want every american to realize that.
i realize it advances your political agenda to pretend like the lancet and numerous other death counts are valueless, but even if you assume the greatest degree of error, there is still evidence for a massive death toll.
usmarine2005 wrote:
huh?Marinejuana wrote:
relatively few terrorist attacks.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htmusmarine2005 wrote:
huh?Marinejuana wrote:
relatively few terrorist attacks.
compare this list to the death toll attributed to our war.
or are you back to making the assinine argument that despite all the bombs we are dropping, the Muslims in Iraq are actually only killing themselves!!! (rainbow)
how could the iraqis possibly have time to openly condemn the terrorists when they are busy collecting twice as many of their own bodies because their nation has been invaded and occupied over 4 years?
Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-07-20 18:13:42)
I would say the majority of people killed in Iraq have been the result of sectarian violence, of which the Muslims are of either side, and they are killing each other. Also I don't think we drop bombs that often any more.Marinejuana wrote:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htmusmarine2005 wrote:
huh?Marinejuana wrote:
relatively few terrorist attacks.
compare this list to the death toll attributed to our war.
or are you back to making the assinine argument that despite all the bombs we are dropping, the Muslims in Iraq are actually only killing themselves!!! (rainbow)
What about before the Iraq war? Or does history for you start in 2003?Marinejuana wrote:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htmusmarine2005 wrote:
huh?Marinejuana wrote:
relatively few terrorist attacks.
compare this list to the death toll attributed to our war.
or are you back to making the assinine argument that despite all the bombs we are dropping, the Muslims in Iraq are actually only killing themselves!!! (rainbow)
how could the iraqis possibly have time to openly condemn the terrorists when they are busy collecting twice as many of their own bodies because their nation has been invaded and occupied over 4 years?
I love how this thread I created has basically turned into a thread about the big bad evil Americans and that we are the true terrorists. Marinejuana has purposely tried to derail this thread over and over for his political conspiracy trip he is on. There is no way to debate people like this because he will never have a mind where he could ever admit being wrong or be able to see all sides. His word is the "right" word and that is narrow minded.
I made this thread and my question was simple. First, I chose the title "Who is a true Muslim???" because I wanted to grab the attention of people who might want to read it. This, however, was my question.
Why the double standard in how the Muslim street reacts to a cartoon and doesn't react to the acts like beheading of innocent people and even children? Why do we not see massive marches in the Middle East protesting these kinds of acts but as soon as you even speak in a way they don't approve about their religion...then it deserves marches and demonstrations. Even death threats against cartoonists for using an image of Allah. Now, I know that it was insensitive and careless to do but why the double standard?
Also, everybody with a brain will know that extremists in Islam are damaging the Islamic religion. Everyone knows that the radicals hi-jack perfectly legitimate causes such as the palestinian push for statehood and everyone knows that Islamic radicals pervert and twist the true laws of Islam. But the Muslim streets are doing virtually nothing to stop it. It is a shame that it is that out of control.
So these were my questions. They had NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq. Nothing to do with body counts....Nothing to do with if I am right or if you are wrong. Nothing to do with government conspiracies of the west. Nothing to do with 9/11. The only thing I would hope for is that the moderate Muslim world stands up for itself and take their religion back. Somehow, some way, they will need to do that or people will never take them seriously and always group Muslims into one group.....terrorists. I bet if you ask most people what is the first thing you think of when you hear the word "Muslim", they will say they think of something negative. They will not think of "peace", "honor", "love"....none of those words would be a common response and that is a big problem for the moderate Muslim.
I made this thread and my question was simple. First, I chose the title "Who is a true Muslim???" because I wanted to grab the attention of people who might want to read it. This, however, was my question.
Why the double standard in how the Muslim street reacts to a cartoon and doesn't react to the acts like beheading of innocent people and even children? Why do we not see massive marches in the Middle East protesting these kinds of acts but as soon as you even speak in a way they don't approve about their religion...then it deserves marches and demonstrations. Even death threats against cartoonists for using an image of Allah. Now, I know that it was insensitive and careless to do but why the double standard?
Also, everybody with a brain will know that extremists in Islam are damaging the Islamic religion. Everyone knows that the radicals hi-jack perfectly legitimate causes such as the palestinian push for statehood and everyone knows that Islamic radicals pervert and twist the true laws of Islam. But the Muslim streets are doing virtually nothing to stop it. It is a shame that it is that out of control.
So these were my questions. They had NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq. Nothing to do with body counts....Nothing to do with if I am right or if you are wrong. Nothing to do with government conspiracies of the west. Nothing to do with 9/11. The only thing I would hope for is that the moderate Muslim world stands up for itself and take their religion back. Somehow, some way, they will need to do that or people will never take them seriously and always group Muslims into one group.....terrorists. I bet if you ask most people what is the first thing you think of when you hear the word "Muslim", they will say they think of something negative. They will not think of "peace", "honor", "love"....none of those words would be a common response and that is a big problem for the moderate Muslim.
now i know u dont believe any of the death count surveys but these are the numbers:
pre2003 - UN projected death rate 10 per 1,000 (the iraq war began with their resolution BTW)
pre2003 - cia projected death rate 5.5 per 1,000
pre2003 - US Census Bureau projected death rate 5.3 per 1,000
pre2003 - lancet survey death rate 5.5 per 1,000
post2003 - lancet present extrapolated death rate 13.3 per 1,000
post2003 - us media present death total +2.5 per 1,000
All of these stats are taken from links in this thread, the conclusion is that the death rate increased in iraq by somewhere between 2.5 per 1,000 and 7.5 per 1,000 after 2003.
pre2003 - UN projected death rate 10 per 1,000 (the iraq war began with their resolution BTW)
pre2003 - cia projected death rate 5.5 per 1,000
pre2003 - US Census Bureau projected death rate 5.3 per 1,000
pre2003 - lancet survey death rate 5.5 per 1,000
post2003 - lancet present extrapolated death rate 13.3 per 1,000
post2003 - us media present death total +2.5 per 1,000
All of these stats are taken from links in this thread, the conclusion is that the death rate increased in iraq by somewhere between 2.5 per 1,000 and 7.5 per 1,000 after 2003.
He said it ain't got anything to do with Iraq.
Marinejuana, Im gonna tell you with 100% honesty. Lancet is full of shit. seriously. you could use whatever you want to back up your arguments against the invasion and I just might agree with you. But if youre gonna be a lancet zombie, then I cant seriously have a reasonable debate with you. Lancet is full of shit. I would believe that the white house was responsible for 9/11 before Ill give the Lancet survey any weight. It is wrong. period.Marinejuana wrote:
now i know u dont believe any of the death count surveys but these are the numbers:
pre2003 - UN projected death rate 10 per 1,000 (the iraq war began with their resolution BTW)
pre2003 - cia projected death rate 5.5 per 1,000
pre2003 - US Census Bureau projected death rate 5.3 per 1,000
pre2003 - lancet survey death rate 5.5 per 1,000
post2003 - lancet present extrapolated death rate 13.3 per 1,000
post2003 - us media present death total +2.5 per 1,000
All of these stats are taken from links in this thread, the conclusion is that the death rate increased in iraq by somewhere between 2.5 per 1,000 and 7.5 per 1,000 after 2003.
Look in the mirror. I am almost the only person here that has explicitly based their argument on facts. You just ramble paragraph after paragraph listing your opinions but how many of you will actually debate the issue of who is holding a double standard?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
There is no way to debate people like this because he will never have a mind where he could ever admit being wrong or be able to see all sides. His word is the "right" word and that is narrow minded.
The Iraqi Muslims are fucking screwed, they are occupied by a military, their drinking water is contaminated, they have daily curfews, they get blackouts constantly, and the only wealth in their country, the oil, was just usurped by the government of the occupying military force. And then some psychopath like this radio host in the OP has the gall to publicly scold them for not speaking out against the less than one percent of their population strapping bombs.
I have asked all of you again and again: How can you expect the Muslim people to speak out publicly against some secretive terrorist organizations when 10 times as many "terrorists" (to their eyes) stand armed in their streets or roll through in enormous armored vehicles? Do you think they don't know about the oil business?
I can't believe you people will even sit here debating in favor of this war for oil while further denigrating the impoverished Iraqi people. Do you also believe we came there like heroes to save the Iraqi people? What a funny coincidence how the one "evil dictator" in the world worth completely invading also was the dictator sitting on the 3rd largest national oil reserve in the world. I want to laugh at your gullibility but its also really disturbing. I mean if you buy this stuff, then there is probably no limit to what the government could pull with your permission.
I don't know why you think you can convince an intelligent person of a controversial matter like this by simply saying "its full of shit," "im being 100% honest." what are u, god? u secretly know the answers and are promising me that my logical analysis of the matter is incorrect? before you call me a zombie, you should let your brain live a little bit and actually explain to me in your own words why lancet and iraqbodycount.org dont make it quite clear that the death count is beyond 67,000.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Marinejuana, Im gonna tell you with 100% honesty. Lancet is full of shit. seriously. you could use whatever you want to back up your arguments against the invasion and I just might agree with you. But if youre gonna be a lancet zombie, then I cant seriously have a reasonable debate with you. Lancet is full of shit. I would believe that the white house was responsible for 9/11 before Ill give the Lancet survey any weight. It is wrong. period.Marinejuana wrote:
now i know u dont believe any of the death count surveys but these are the numbers:
pre2003 - UN projected death rate 10 per 1,000 (the iraq war began with their resolution BTW)
pre2003 - cia projected death rate 5.5 per 1,000
pre2003 - US Census Bureau projected death rate 5.3 per 1,000
pre2003 - lancet survey death rate 5.5 per 1,000
post2003 - lancet present extrapolated death rate 13.3 per 1,000
post2003 - us media present death total +2.5 per 1,000
All of these stats are taken from links in this thread, the conclusion is that the death rate increased in iraq by somewhere between 2.5 per 1,000 and 7.5 per 1,000 after 2003.
"the study is INACCURATE not INVALID. meaning that while the study could be off by a crazy amount like 300,000 deaths, there is still NO DEBATING that over 67,000 people have been killed. And we know that a reporter isnt standing next to every single person that gets killed so the number logically must be greater than 67,000."
are u trying to tell me that no survey of the death count exists to asses the impact of the war?
if you believe this is true, doesnt that fact alone set off some alarm for you? I mean if there is no accurate measure of the deaths, how will we ever know if the conflict has escalated to an unacceptable extent? And you are all debating your politics here. Its irrelevent to the major issues, but the fact remains that if the iraq war is an enormous failure where far too many people are killed, the military and government stand to lose a LOT of power. You know they have every reason in the world to convince you the death toll is low, they wont even count bodies, and the media has mangaed to convince all of you that its impossible to count the deaths.
If any of you submitted a higher quality death count survey that suggested a particularly low death count, then i could see where your argument of military goodwill holding water.
But the mere fact that most of you dont seem to want to look at any death count makes me think that you also simply do not want to come to the conclusion that the war is bad. By hiding from any possible evidence, you really close the door to a critical part of the debate.
Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-07-20 19:04:27)