British Legion Poppies

[nomadologist]

From A Dossier of Civillian Casualties 2003-2005, Iraq Body Count, page 13

Additional reports here: 2006 -- 2007 -- Surge

From an interview with the head of IBC, John Slobada:

One fact that the dossier does show clearly, in favour of the US led coalition forces, is that the amount of civilians directly killed by coalition troops has declined sharply. "Undoubtedly," agrees Sloboda. "Since the begining of 2005, there have been tiny numbers killed directly by US forces, and these tend to be by checkpoints etc. The vast majority of deaths caused now, are being caused by crime, anti-coalition forces, and unknown forces."

The breakdown of killings outside of direct US led forces involvement also gives pause for thought. While the lines are often blurred, as pointed out by the LA Times ("In some cases, authorities say, the motives are so opaque that they cannot tell whether they are investigating a crime disguised as an act of war or a political assassination masquerading as a violent business dispute.”), according to the IBC insurgent anti-US forces have accounted for between 9 and 15% of all civilian killings, while crime related killings have been responsible for up to 36% of civilian deaths.​

Are you fucking kidding? First, that "report" you posted openly admits its information was culled solely from a survey of JOURNALISTIC PIECES. WTF????????????? You just proved Gavin's point for him about media spectacle and fact.

Second, ThreeMonkeysMedia is an obvious wingnut piece of shit infotainment site.

Third, even if deaths have declined, it's STILL WRONG.

 

[nomadologist]

Yes, of course I read it. And on the assumption that it's Iraqis who are responsible for the deaths from violent crime, which seems reasonable, then Iraqis are responsible for the majority of deaths in Iraq. You'll notice that this was my original claim, not that 'terrorists' per se were responsible for most deaths.

No doubt you're just going to dismiss this as pedantry though, which seems to be your default response when proven wrong.

What does any of this have to do with broader economic and political concerns that the U.S. readily admits were the reasons for going to war--even GW Bush admits this!!--to get the Saudi-harbored terrorists and them damned WMDs!!!

 

[Mr. Tea]

Just because there were Africans complicit in the slave trade, it does not JUSTIFY Western involvement in the slave trade.

Which is why nobody is trying to claim this, as it would clearly be fucking stupid. What the hell is wrong with everyone on here? Are you all really so stupid as to think that a claim that group X is partly responsible for something is necessarily an absolution of group Y? That anyone who criticizes Islamic terrorists must be a die-hard Bush supporter?

Furthermore, it seems any attempt at a balanced, nuanced viewpoint is to be despised as bland fence-sitting in favour of retardedly one-sided, black-and-white opinions based on instinctive knee-jerk prejudices. If You're Not With Us, You're With The Enemy. If You Disagree With Me, It Is Because You're A Brainwashed Sheep. It's like arguing with a bunch of 15-year-olds in here sometimes.

 

[nomadologist]

What about our own fucking domestic problems with violent crime? Why couldn't we "liberate" our own fucking people before we go "liberate" the biggest oil and poppy producers in the world? Maybe we could chip away at the crack problem? Maybe come up with a way for impoverished children to get universal health care?

 

[nomadologist]

Which is why nobody is trying to claim this, as it would clearly be fucking stupid. What the hell is wrong with everyone on here? Are you all really so stupid as to think that a claim that group X is partly responsible for something is necessarily an absolution of group Y? That anyone who criticizes Islamic terrorists must be a die-hard Bush supporter?

Furthermore, it seems any attempt at a balanced, nuanced viewpoint is to be despised as bland fence-sitting in favour of retardedly one-sided, black-and-white opinions based on instinctive knee-jerk prejudices. If You're Not With Us, You're With The Enemy. If You Disagree With Me, It Is Because You're A Brainwashed Sheep. It's like arguing with a bunch of 15-year-olds in here sometimes.

You have NEVER ONCE expressed an opinion that made me think you criticized American involvement in Iraq in any rational way. NOT ONCE. And Vimothy is CERTAINLY trying to justify the war, whether you like that or not.

Your "balanced" viewpoint is based on massive ignorance. What does a third world country's domestic strife have to do with the U.S.? Nothing unless there's some resource abudant in that country that makes it ultimately profitable to brutally colonize it.

 

[Mr. Tea]

What does any of this have to do with broader economic and political concerns that the U.S. readily admits were the reasons for going to war--even GW Bush admits this!!--to get the Saudi-harbored terrorists and them damned WMDs!!!

Precious little, I'm sure. But I think an understanding of what's going on in Iraq, and who's doing what to whom and for what reason - which of course involves the Americans as much as it involves anyone else - is going to be a pre-requisite to any attempt to get the country out of the horrific state it's in and back on its feet.

Edit: for the record I never thought the US went into Iraq because of a deep and abiding concern for the people's wellbeing, although at the time I thought this would be a beneficial side-effect of what was clearly a politically- and above all economically-motivated invasion. The 'reconstruction' has been an absolute shambles from the start and it's no surprise that this has caused enormous resentment that is providing abundant fuel for violence, both against the troops and of a sectarian nature (the latter, of course, having been stoked by decades of discriminatory oppression and violence by the old regime). So I'm one of those people who changed their minds about the war; not because a previously rose-tinted view about America's reasons for the invasion were shattered, but because an opportunity to do something good despite those reasons has been stupidly squandered and the situation, tragically, is worse even than it was under Saddam.

And Vimothy is CERTAINLY trying to justify the war, whether you like that or not.

Bully for Vimothy. I'm not him, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[nomadologist]

Are you all really so stupid as to think that a claim that group X is partly responsible for something is necessarily an absolution of group Y?.

No one claimed this. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand the BASIC tenets of symbolic logic and philosophical Ethics?

 

[nomadologist]

Precious little, I'm sure. But I think an understanding of what's going on in Iraq, and who's doing what to whom and for what reason - which of course involves the Americans as much as it involves anyone else - is going to be a pre-requisite to any attempt to get the country out of the horrific state it's in and back on its feet.

We are there to DESTABILIZE THE REGION, nitwit. WE WANT TO REBUILD THEIR ECONOMY SO OUR MEGACORPS CAN OWN THIS "DEMOCRACY".

 

[vimothy]

Are you fucking kidding? First, that "report" you posted openly admits its information was culled solely from a survey of JOURNALISTIC PIECES. WTF????????????? You just proved Gavin's point for him about media spectacle and fact.

Second, ThreeMonkeysMedia is an obvious wingnut piece of shit infotainment site.

Third, even if deaths have declined, it's STILL WRONG.

First, if you recall, Gavin quoted those figures too. The IBC data merely show that the majority of the violence in Iraq doesn't come from US forces.

Second, ThreeMonkeysMedia are not being interviewed, the head of IBC is.

Third, so what I don't care & I'm going to use CAPITAL LETTERS TO PROVE IT.

 

[nomadologist]

DID YOU READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED? The U.S. has killed FOUR TIMES as many civilians as the terrorists have!

My only point (here) was that COALITION INVASION = MASSIVE VIOLENCE. Of course there are more civilian casualties, they don't get body armor, hummers, air strikes, backup or a giant fortified compound in the center of Baghdad. Coalition soldiers are still overwhelmingly the source and target of the violence in Iraq.

What happened in Basra when the British left? Mass chaos, violence, looting? NO IT GOT LESS VIOLENT.

you're a retard, Vimothy. I think maybe literally.

 

[Mr. Tea]

No one claimed this.

Your own words:

Just because there were Africans complicit in the slave trade, it does not JUSTIFY Western involvement in the slave trade.

So you appear to think that Slothrop was implying, by mentioning that Africans were enslaved by African slavers and then sold to Europeans, in some way justifies the Europeans. If you don't think that, why did you say it?

 

[nomadologist]

Slothrop claimed that the "leftists" on here were trying to deny or trivialize African involvement in the slave trade in order to promote some idea of the Big Western Other (or whatever you want to call it) who is only a perpetrator and never a victim. I was simply stating that, while African involvement was a reality, it was not sufficient to justify or absolve Westerners.

Have you ever read Aristotle's Nicchomachean Ethics? Or any ethical text? Are you even for real?

 

[nomadologist]

When all logic fails in terms of justifying the "War on Terror", do turn back to the slave trade analogy.

 

[nomadologist]

Hahahhahhahahhahaha. hahhahahahahhahaha.

Check out Vimothy's Myspace: he lists Deleuze and Bataille as "influences."

 

[nomadologist]

Burroughs, too. But any mention of heroin addiction by me is strictly off limits!!

 

[nomadologist]

Earth to Vimothy: Bataille, Burroughs, and Deleuze were all radically anti-capitalist.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Slothrop claimed that the "leftists" on here were trying to deny or trivialize African involvement in the slave trade in order to promote some idea of the Big Western Other (or whatever you want to call it) who is only a perpetrator and never a victim.

Which is a perfectly valid point, I think. Taking an unrealistic view of third-world countries and how they opearte is just going to lead to situations where, for example, huge amounts of Western aid simply gets siphoned off by corrupt, violent leaders rather than reaching the people who need it because someone in America or Europe has decided that it would be 'neo-imperialistic' to tell these countries how to spend the aid.

I was simply stating that, while African involvement was a reality, it was not sufficient to justify or absolve Westerners.

And Slothrop was not trying to do so. Why is this so difficult? What part of which of his posts are you translating into "this absolves white european slave traders, slave owners and the whole web of people profiting from and driving the trade from being basically responsible for the atlantic slave trade"? Because he even specifically said:

this doesn't absolve white european slave traders, slave owners and the whole web of people profiting from and driving the trade from being basically responsible for the atlantic slave trade.

 

[nomadologist]

Sigh. It's a faulty analogy. It doesn't apply here. The West is not somehow justified by the violence that was already going on in Iraq, given the huge amounts of self-interest involved in our "liberation" efforts.

 

[nomadologist]

And Slothrop was not trying to do so. Why is this so difficult? What part of which of his posts are you translating into "this absolves white european slave traders, slave owners and the whole web of people profiting from and driving the trade from being basically responsible for the atlantic slave trade"? Because he even specifically said:

If you're going to bring up the slave trade to make an analogy with War on Terror justifications, then I'm going to have to assume that you ARE trying to justify the West, dumbass, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

 

[Slothrop]

If you're going to bring up the slave trade to make an analogy with War on Terror justifications,

I didn't. Gavin did.