Slashdot Mirror

Better a "douche bag" than an apathetic coward

BodyCount is one source, at around 100 000. The Lancet survey, a fairly well-respected medical journal, puts the number of Iraqis killed at 600 000+ as of 2006. The Opinion Business Research journal puts the number of people killed at over 1 000 000 (update here).

You are keeping in mind that Saddam was supported (including obtaining chemical weapons) by the US throughout the 80s? Also, he and his military were allowed to kill many Kurds at the end of the Gulf War in the 90s (didn't you wonder why General Schwartzkoff gave him permission to fly his bombers?). You're right about one thing, let's not delude ourselves even if we don't like what we find out, particularly if it's about ourselves.

BodyCount is one source, at around 100 000. The Lancet survey, a fairly well-respected medical journal, puts the number of Iraqis killed at 600 000+ as of 2006. The Opinion Business Research journal puts the number of people killed at over 1 000 000 (update here).

You are keeping in mind that Saddam was supported (including obtaining chemical weapons) by the US throughout the 80s? Also, he and his military were allowed to kill many Kurds at the end of the Gulf War in the 90s (didn't you wonder why General Schwartzkoff gave him permission to fly his bombers?). You're right about one thing, let's not delude ourselves even if we don't like what we find out, particularly if it's about ourselves.

It's NOT a joke. It's VERY serious. They are extraordinarily ignorant, yes. But they believe in doing damage as a way to solve what they perceive as problems. (1,000,000 Iraqis and those of their families who are still living can verify that.)

[...]

Would they kill YOU? Would they kill members of your family? Yes, they would. Your safety comes only from the fact that they are not likely to focus on you.

News flash, moron, you are also part of Anonymous. The very fact that you are arguing against these tactics shows that not all of Anonymous feels the same way about everything, so quit trying to lump us all together.

Or did I just get wooshed?

It's NOT a joke. It's VERY serious. They are extraordinarily ignorant, yes. But they believe in doing damage as a way to solve what they perceive as problems. (1,000,000 Iraqis and those of their families who are still living can verify that.)

This is nonsense: "Slashdot gets a mention on page 45 - not as a terrorist organization itself, but as one of the places that member of Anonymous may hang out". In the minds of extremely ignorant angry people, providing a place for terrorists is the same as being a terrorist.

However, let's not get too extreme. If Slashdot editors are sent to prison, it will probably be for bad editing, not for helping terrorists and therefore being terrorists themselves. For example, "that member of Anonymous may hang out" is bad English. It could be "that members of an Anonymous group may hang out".

When the violent dictatorial regime gains complete control, Cowboy Neal will post (heavily censored) stories like this from his prison cell: "DRM is a wonderful way to assure order in the world." "Let's praise the brilliant insights of those who wrote the DMCA." Essentially the same old stuff, just moved several thousand miles to the west.

Would they kill YOU? Would they kill members of your family? Yes, they would. Your safety comes only from the fact that they are not likely to focus on you.

The Iraq Body Count is not just the number of "documented" deaths; it is the number of civilian deaths documented by at least two mainstream media reports. So, yes, the real number is certainly far higher than this. When you extrapolate the trends reported by the IBC combined with the numbers reported by the Lancet study, you get over a million Iraqi civilians killed, which is consistent with the numbers reported by a British study released in September 2007.

And for the record, your figures are complete bunk. 91,060 - 99,433 is the complete total for civilian deaths in Iraq.

No, it's not. Those are perfectly-documented, reported-in-the-media deaths.

Statistical study in the Lancet (British medical journal) in 2006 came up with a more likely number of over 600,000 violent Iraqi deaths since the invasion. ORB (British polling agency) in 2007 came up with a number more than 1,000,000.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

More than 1,000,000 people have been killed in Iraq at a final cost of at least $3,000,000,000,000.

Really? Cause last I heard, they pretty much just made that shit up.

One kind of corruption is killing people and destroying their property for profit.

More than 1,000,000 people have been killed in Iraq at a final cost of at least $3,000,000,000,000.

That means the U.S. taxpayer is paying $3 million to kill each Iraqi. Iraqis are mostly poor and defenseless. Obviously, the money is going into the pockets of weapons and oil investors.

The U.S. government has done far more damage to Iraq and killed far more people than Saddam Hussein. What is worse is that the U.S. government did it for money; Saddam Hussein wanted political control.

The work you witnessed is anecdotal. Terms like "surgical" and "minimizing collateral damage" show your mindset for analyzing this topic. With very little research, albeit from non-mainstream sources, you will find that most deaths and maimings (casualties, to use your lingo) are innocent people (civilians, or collateral damage). If the 432nd bombings are so precise, do you not wonder why this technique goes unused on US soil? Do you cringe at using bombs to go after anyone, for any reason, in your own country? Of course you do, as would any person with morals and empathy.

More than one million people have been killed by bombs and bullets from an invading army. If an army invaded the US, and US citizens (including people leaving a crowded church) fought back with any and all means at their disposal, which side would be in the wrong, would be the terrorists?

...how will you justify killing more than half a million people (according to the Johns Hopkins university)

That's over a million by now. There have been two Johns Hopkins studies published in The Lancet, of which you seem to be referring to the first. There is also a substantial time lag (years) between events and the publication of such studies. The 2004 study referred to deaths up to 2003, and the 2006 one brought the figures up to 2005. That's three years ago now.

The following links are useful for rapidly getting an overview of the issues. The third link points to a more recent report that brings the total (as of 2007) above 1 million excess deaths - that is, deaths that would not have happened without the invasion.

http://www.counterpunch.com/andrew01092006.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/26/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iraq-Death-Toll.php
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88