Bush Has Killed More Human Beings

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by MS36, Jan 4, 2004.

  1. MS36
    Offline

    MS36 I am the board idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    43
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    BUSH HAS KILLED MORE HUMAN BEINGS THAN ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE WORLD>>>COMBINED!!!!

    Bush and his American military have killed over 30,000 innocent,babies, children, women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan,WHICH IS WAY MORE HUMANS KILLED THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE WORLD COMBINED.

    There have been about 20,000 American troop casualties in Iraq and almost 500 American troops have been killed.

    http://www.opednews.com/hackworth1203_saddam_in_slammer.htm

    The American corporate media is told by the government not to report the casualty figures>>>WHY and is this freedom of the press???.

    The Iraqi war has cost the American taxpayer about 165 billion$$$$$$$$$.so far and counting

    IS THE PRICE THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS HAVE PAID IN BLOOD WORTH THE OUTCOME???

    IS AMERICA ANY SAFER BECAUSE OF ALL THIS AND THE SUPPOSED CAPTURE OF SADDAM??? AMERICA IS ON AN ORANGE TERRORIST ALERT NOW!

    Cheney's Haliburton, Bush's Carlyle, Rumsfelds Bechtel corporations and other Bush connected corporations seem to be the only ones benefitting and making billions of $$$$$$ from this unnecessary bloodbath.

    WHEN ARE THE TROOPS COMING HOME???

    AND WHEN WILL THE AMERICAN HUMANS SCREAM OUT "STOP THIS UNNECESSARY KILLING"???

    When will Republicans and Democrats alike see the Bush government insanity and stop this insane killing and bloodbath??? Or are Americans so blind from their PROPAGANDA BRAINWASHING by their government and the war industrial complex???

    STOP THE KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS BY ANYONE!!!!

    CAPTURE BUSH AND HIS GANG OF KILLERS AND THIEVES AND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE IN A WORLD COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANIY.
     
  2. r3volut!on
    Online

    r3volut!on Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    eh...

    I'm with you, but, seriously, you lose a lot of credibility when you rant like a crazy person.

    :rolleyes:
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Is that true? Links please!

    I think it's more like the military has stated that THEY aren't going to be keeping track of Iraqi casualties.

    Money well spent! Glad to hear even you guys who so vehemently oppose the war are supporting it anyway! LOL

    YES

    YES

    How about you post figures to support your claims. I know a NYT article was posted here the other day showing that Halliburton has made 'peanuts' off of their work in Iraq. Care to show us the billions that the others are making?

    When the job has been completed. Until then there will be rotating duties.

    Some wackos have been screaming this from day one. Luckily, those voices have been ignored.

    Your entire post is nothing more than propoganda!

    Oh brother! ET phone home! :rolleyes:
     
  4. gertha
    Online

    gertha Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My first post!

    You're post, ms36, was... contradictory and mundane, but entertaining in a childlike manner.

    Did you get that from the current newsletter from James Carville's "Democrats for Dummies"? You might want to try and educate yourself on the facts (meaning: do your own research) before standing on your paper soapbox to claim an original thought.

    The Iraq war was valid just on the idea of SH's removal, but the benefits towards world peace and terrorism are overwhelming. Libya, a known terrorist country, saw the smack down that GW put on Iraq and decided to change their ways. All of this without firing a shot. How many lives, civilian and military, do you think were saved by the result of the removal of SH and Lybia discontinuing their NUKE PROGRAM? Maybe America is the big dog in the world, but there has to be one to preserve peace, in our current world. It's an ugly job, but it has to be done. Obviously SH wasn't listening to the U.N. I scold my dog most of the time, but sometimes he needs a smack on the ass when he shits in the house right after I walk him. Do you understand that everyone now knows that the U.S. will back up it's threats? Do you realize now that when the U.S. tells countries at war to settle their differences they will?

    I will search this forum, but I'm sure that I will not find, for threads where you screamed about all the senseless killings of the Kurds in the north, or the Shiites in the south. Hmm... where were you then? Oh I am sorry, it did not politically benefit you at the time. Why don't you post a thread about how Clinton knew this, and allowed it to continue. I'm sorry, you were probably writing something about the many Clinton bombing raids right?

    Now, sit down and read before you speak.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Welcome to the board, gertha! :)
     
  6. gertha
    Online

    gertha Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Merci!
     
  7. bamthin
    Online

    bamthin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    ...Supporters argue that Iraq’s leadership must be eliminated because the Ba’ath regime has continued the development of weapons of mass destruction, and might again use those weapons against an opponent , or supply the weapons to terrorist networks. The invasion plan seeks to preempt any danger by eliminating the leaders who might authorize such attacks or assist others to do so. This strategy is based on a conception of preemptive self-defense. Preemptive self defense,
    however, is clearly unlawful under international law. Armed action in self-defense is permitted only against armed attack. Some scholars have argued over the years that preemptive self-defense should be considered lawful, but the United States as a government has consistently supported the prohibition on such preemptive use of force. The United States has taken this position for compelling reasons of national security and in light of its national values. It is joined in this position by the vast majority of the international community. Thus, the reality is that the United States has no right to use force to prevent possible, as distinct
    from actual, armed attacks. The further reality is that the United States does not advance its security or its moral standing in the world by doing so.


    ASIL pdf

    Imagine now, any country can just invade another on the pretext that it "perceived the country to be a threat". Does the US get a different set of international rules? Should the rule be changed to state

    "Any country who can clearly defeat another country that has been crippled by sanctions for 10+ years may invade that country if they percieve them to be a threat. If the invading country is scared of a different country, like say North Korea, then diplomacy should be employed as the best option"



    Read the Libya thread in this forum.




    Actually, the Kurd gassing episode happened on Ronny Reagan's watch. He even sent Rummy over to pat Saddam on the back and tell him to keep up the good work. The Shia slaughters...hmmm...I think Papa Bush is the one that hung them out to dry after Desert Storm. Deserted them in the final hour and then let Saddam swoop in with his helicopters in violation of the no-fly zone that was set up to protect the Shias. I think you will find both of these fine American moments if you search the threads.




    I suggest you take your own advice.....


    -Bam
     
  8. critictrue1
    Online

    critictrue1 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    gertha quoted Muslims+Jews+Christianity= God It's all the same.
    should be +Christians nes pas?

    Maybe it has to do with what is written in their religious texts?

    From the Talmud (a book all Jews must study like Christians study the Bible):

    Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    Sanhedrin 59a: "A Goy (Gentile) who pries into the law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything with a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.

    " Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is of three years of age.

    " Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass.

    " Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung.

    " Schabouth Hag. 6b: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.

    " Zohar 1,160a: "Jews must always try to deceive Christians." Hilkkoth Akum Z1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death.

    " Choschen Ham 388, 15: "If it be proven that someone has given the money of israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of this earth."

    Choschen Ham 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
     
  9. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I'm sorry but this post makes no sense. I could just dismiss your post as the rantics of a lunatic, but I'll try to offer some logic:

    When this article speaks of "casualties" they aren't speaking of deaths only. So, to say that Bush has "killed more human beings than all the terrorist attacks in the world" and use 500 military deaths to back it up is ridiculous.

    Even if I accepted the numbers in this article, which I DON'T, 20,000 "casualties" which includes merely injuries- how many "casualties" occur within the military during non-combat times? I am quite sure it's not zero.

    Additionally, most estimates of how many Iraqis killed up to the day Bagdad fell are commonly around 2,500. So, if the totals of those two numbers equals the numbers in one terrorist attack (the WTC attacks) how can you possibly state that we've killed more than all attacks worldwide?

    As for the argument that money is at stake, I for one would rather spend the money getting rid of my enemies than just about anything else the government spends on. If the number spent is actually $165 billion than it's a mere 7.5% of the overall budget. That's practically insiginificant. How much money is spent on welfare? foreign aid? subsidies of the arts? social services? and other stupid wastes of money?

    I could understand if you are against war, there is some validity to how people feel about killing. However, your argument that Bush is worse than all the terrorist attacks worldwide and that it's a waste of money aren't persuasive, they're laughable.

    I suggest that next time you wish to make a point, you actual make a point. Not just rant and rave using fabricated statistics and stating things that are patently false and completely impossible.
     
  10. bushin04
    Online

    bushin04 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Only 13 percent of that money actually goes to the re-construction of Iraq
     

Share This Page