Neocolonialism, terrorism, and human rights, oh my!

[PunkMaister]

SDN talking about morals is the same as Iran and North Korea together speaking about human rights but then again it is that kind of crowd anyway...

I don't recall Iran invading any country recently. Contrary to some superpower... so just try to avoid saying such things.

Mr. Oragahn with all due respect I know you are a leftie at heart but we are talking about human rights here not military interventions. And let's be honest here ok because if we look at how many people died in the Iraq war we clearly see that most died as a result of Jihadist homicide bombings, decapitations and such rather than thru direct military action. Those are facts undeniable facts.As is also fact that we are talking about a state that hangs, stones people to death such as women for being raped as that makes tem fornicators or adulterers and gays off course.

[Who is like God arbour]

Mr. Oragahn with all due respect I know you are a leftie at heart but we are talking about human rights here not military interventions. And let's be honest here ok because if we look at how many people died in the Iraq war we clearly see that most died as a result of Jihadist homicide bombings, decapitations and such rather than thru direct military action. Those are facts undeniable facts.As is also fact that we are talking about a state that hangs, stones people to death such as women for being raped as that makes tem fornicators or adulterers and gays off course.

Excuse me if I have another opinion. The USA are responsible for all those hundred thousands deaths:

• Updated Iraq Study Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
  
  Study finds as many as 654,965 Iraqis may have died as result of invasion
  
  By Tim Parsons
  School of Public Health
  
  As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.
  
  The deaths from all causes — violent and nonviolent — are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.
  
  The estimates were derived from a nationwide survey of 1,849 households throughout Iraq conducted between May and July 2006. The results are consistent with the findings of an October 2004 study of Iraq mortality conducted by the Johns Hopkins researchers. Also, the findings closely reflect the increased mortality trends reported by other organizations that utilized passive methods of counting mortality, such as counting bodies in morgues or deaths reported by the news media. The study is published in the Oct. 12 online edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal The Lancet.
  
  "As we found with our previous survey, the majority of deaths in Iraq are due to violence, although we also saw a small increase in deaths from nonviolent causes such as heart disease, cancer and chronic illness. Gunshots were the primary cause of violent deaths. To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," said Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study and co-director of the Bloomberg School's Center for Refugee and Disaster Response.
  
  "Our total estimate is much higher than other mortality estimates because we used a population-based, active method for collecting mortality information rather than passive methods that depend on counting bodies or tabulated media reports of violent deaths," he said. "Though the numbers differ, the trend in increasing numbers of deaths closely follows that measured by the U.S. Defense Department and the Iraq Body Count group."
  
  Key points of the study include the following:

  • An estimated 654,965 additional people died in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006.
  • A majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) were caused by violence.
  • Males aged 15 to 44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths.
  • About half the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member.
  • The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent.
  • Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition.
  • Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirms 2004 estimates by Johns Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations.
  • Researchers recommend establishment of an international body to calculate mortality and monitor health of people living in all regions affected by conflict.

  The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions.
  
  For the Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. At each household selected, trained Iraqi surveyors collected data on the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household between Jan. 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006. To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.
  
  While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism or criminal activity or was caught in the middle of the conflict. The study outlines other limitations of the survey method, including the hazards of collecting data during a conflict.
  
  The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group's October 2004 mortality survey. The earlier study, also published in The Lancet, estimated that more than 100,000 additional deaths from all causes had occurred in Iraq from March 2003 to August 2004. When data from the new study were examined, 112,000 deaths were estimated for the same time period of the 2004 study.
  
  The new survey also found that the number of deaths attributed to coalition forces had declined in 2006, though overall households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition. Responsibility could not be attributed in 45 percent of the violent deaths.
  
  According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year, compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraq's population having died as a consequence of the war. To put the 654,695 deaths in context with other conflicts, the authors note that during the Vietnam War an estimated 3 million civilians died overall, the Congo conflict was responsible for 3.8 million deaths, and recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur over the past 31 months.
  
  The study was written by Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy and Les Roberts. Funding was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response.
  

  • GO TO OCTOBER 16, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
  • GO TO THE GAZETTEFRONT PAGE.

[PunkMaister]

Excuse me if I have another opinion. The USA are responsible for all those hundred thousands deaths:
*Snip*

How typical! You realize that the article you so diligently copy/pasted mentions nothing about the US armed forces being directly responsible for all those deaths as you claim it just mentions that most of the deaths came as a result of violence and guess where that violence came from?

You being an irredeemable leftist you will probably blame the US military without even taking a glance at the horrendous violence perpetrated by Jihadists not only in Iraq but all over the world just as your Ilk have always done. This is by the way the current number of casualties worlwide brought on by your beloved jihadists.

[Who is like God arbour]

Excuse me if I have another opinion. The USA are responsible for all those hundred thousands deaths:
*Snip*

How typical! You realize that the article you so diligently copy/pasted mentions nothing about the US armed forces being directly responsible for all those deaths as you claim it just mentions that most of the deaths came as a result of violence and guess where that violence came from?

You being an irredeemable leftist you will probably blame the US military without even taking a glance at the horrendous violence perpetrated by Jihadists not only in Iraq but all over the world just as your Ilk have always done. This is by the way the current number of casualties worlwide brought on by your beloved jihadists.

"As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions"

That means, that if the USA wouldn't have started an illegal war of aggression and wouldn't have invaded Iraq, these 654'965 Iraqis would still be alive.

It's irrelevant, that many of them were killed by so called terrorists who think it is their right to fight the imperialist invaders.

It was not only predictable but also predicted, that, if the USA attacks and invades Iraq, many thousand people will die. Or did you expect, that the Iraqis won't defend themself and that the rest of the world will accept it? Remember: Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.

Bur if you want to continue that debate, I propose that you use the already existing thread »War crimes by US troops«. In either case, you should read it, before you answer.

[PunkMaister]

Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.Bur if you want to continue that debate, I propose that you use the already existing thread »War crimes by US troops«. In either case, you should read it, before you answer.

Spoken like a true leftist where are you from anyway not the US obviously since you obviously loathe it with every fiber of your being.

[Mr. Oragahn]

I don't recall Iran invading any country recently. Contrary to some superpower... so just try to avoid saying such things.

Mr. Oragahn with all due respect I know you are a leftie at heart but we are talking about human rights here not military interventions.

Human rights?
Good god, the myth goes on and on.
Human rights like the USA are active in Africa to help people, not to hinder China's access to oil (Sudan, 7% of China's needs last I heard)?

And let's be honest here ok because if we look at how many people died in the Iraq war we clearly see that most died as a result of Jihadist homicide bombings, decapitations and such rather than thru direct military action.
Those are facts undeniable facts.

Oh yeah?
Not only I'd like to see numbers for that, and I hope for you they would explain the +1.5 million dead, I have great troubles believing a whole population was on the brink of self genocide.
Let's not even think once that chaos might be instigated so a population destroys itself.
Let's not even remember the two SAS agents, caught in Basra by the Iraqi police, who were disguised as pseudo insurgents, driving a vehicle full of weapons and explosives and causing mayhem.
A method which was applied for quite some time in Ireland, and imputed to IRA (Unsung Hero). Let's ignore the bizarre death of Cpt. Masters, who was to investigate the arrest of these two SAS agents.
Verify the testimony of Ben Griffin, 2 years in SAS and with theater experience in other countries, disgusted by the illegal acts of the US troops and the rampant racism, or check out what Lt. M. Kendall-Smith had to say about the war as well.
No, let's just think Iraq was a shit hole from start, only waiting to explode with its people ready to leap at each other with knives and clubs, and that there's just one big Evil over there, and the super clean Freedom Fighters on the other end.
Yeepee!

Now you switch off your goddamn TV and THINK.

As is also fact that we are talking about a state that hangs, stones people to death such as women for being raped as that makes tem fornicators or adulterers and gays off course.

Yes, let's invade their country and level their homes because according to unilateral occidental media coverage, some idiots throw stones at their wives, among other things.

Maybe US and NATO should invade Europe, there's been a spread of news about priests raping kids, and other people, from fathers to entire families, keeping kids and girls in basement for years and raping them on and on.
Sick people these Europeans.
Human Rights for all!!

[ILikeDeathNote]

As for the mounting, frankly nonsensical argument about war crimes that has been occurring in this thread, I would like to point out that we already have an active thread on this topic:

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... &start=105

[PunkMaister]

Human rights?
Good god, the myth goes on and on.
Human rights like the USA are active in Africa to help people, not to hinder China's access to oil (Sudan, 7% of China's needs last I heard)?

If you mean not allowing the Chinese to just steamroll Africa and make it theor own private backyard yes it would be insane not too.

Oh yeah?
Not only I'd like to see numbers for that, and I hope for you they would explain the +1.5 million dead, I have great troubles believing a whole population was on the brink of self genocide.
Let's not even think once that chaos might be instigated so a population destroys itself.

What benefit would that reap in the end? The US and it's allies were trying to stabilize the county not send it into absolute chaos were no one foreigner or not is safe and no development commercial or otherwise can go thru. That makes no sense whatsoever I'm sorry.

[Jedi Master Spock]

If you mean not allowing the Chinese to just steamroll Africa and make it theor own private backyard yes it would be insane not too.

It was not that long ago that China and Africa were both the private backyards of European powers.

Regarding the conflict in Darfur, I think it's quite important to remember that criticism of al-Bashir has not only come from the US, and that very little has been done by European and Western powers in spite of their continuing chorus of condemnation. Almost nobody expects the ICC's arrest warrant to be fulfilled, for example - or believes that al-Bashir's government is doing the right thing in Darfur.

[PunkMaister]

It was not that long ago that China and Africa were both the private backyards of European powers.

And? How does that justify allowing the Chinesse or anyone for that matter to turn them back into their private backyards.Is the good O'l Tu quoque argument that A says that what B is doing or trying to do is wrong and then B says that A did it in the past so it somehow justifies what B is doing the present.

Regarding the conflict in Darfur, I think it's quite important to remember that criticism of al-Bashir has not only come from the US, and that very little has been done by European and Western powers in spite of their continuing chorus of condemnation. Almost nobody expects the ICC's arrest warrant to be fulfilled, for example - or believes that al-Bashir's government is doing the right thing in Darfur.

Sadly with Darfur there no high visibility international terrorists to hunt nor oil etc so the West and most of the civilized world turn a blind eye to it's plight.


But the root cause of it is ironically the same that produced 9/11 and most of the terrorism worldwide...

And who was it that financed Jihadists in Afghanistan during the 70s to fight the evil communists? Who was it that crushed Saddam's ruthless but secular rule and opened the space for Jihadists? Oh that's right good ole USA.

History lesson comming right up:

Back in the '70s the then former Soviet Union under the command of Leonidaz Breznev without provocation invaded Afganistan and literally steamrolled the country and I mean steamrolled it. If you have ever played Command and conquer Red Alert well like that with the whole 9 yards minus Yuri off course...

After this brutish invasion that if compared to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan make them both look benign tumors I kid you not. The Muslim world was angered and moved toward warfare like no other time and it is a call that remains to this day, you see Islam like it or not was mostly spread by the sword first and foremost and the Soviet invasion gave the Muslim word a reason to rise up again. But even though they had the will they did not had the resources to stamp off the invasion no matter how much money the Saudis and the other rich muslim states poured into the effort all they got in return was martyrs that went very happily and merrily to their graves but accomplished nothing in terms of the war effort. Drum roll please... Enter US Senator Mr Charlie Wilson who after being introduced to the plight and suffering of the Afghan people on the hands of the soviets by a Washington DC socialite he was moved to action and finally during the Reagan Adm. he got all the support he needed to crush the Soviet occupation by any means and basically for lack of a better word avenge Vietnam which in case you did not know it was the Soviets that backed the commies and with the Soviet support broke the US back back then again for lack of a better phrase. And it was succesful beyond words but then when he asked for aid to rebuild Afghanistan in order to prevent the religious zealots to occupy the vacumm the US abandoned it all. As he well put it "We did our business and then we dropped the ball" and alas yes here we are but as you see the reasons are never as simple as you figure them out to be. Lesson concluded...

[Mr. Oragahn]

If you mean not allowing the Chinese to just steamroll Africa and make it theor own private backyard yes it would be insane not too.

I never pretended China was so nice. It's super power vs. super power.
Europe is just a pet at the end of the US leash, with the UK being a nation-scale personal disorder entity, as multi-billionaire private interests control the US, but the political organ of the same country is a tool of the US.

What benefit would that reap in the end? The US and it's allies were trying to stabilize the county not send it into absolute chaos were no one foreigner or not is safe and no development commercial or otherwise can go thru. That makes no sense whatsoever I'm sorry.

What benefit? Plenty.
Directly, one is control of the country, both for oil and above all for geostrategy, at lesser costs, and especially while giving the illusion of trying to maintain peace, while a more direct and brutal approach would have required a very very good reason to level the whole country with a massive display of firepower, and that, no one would have swallowed it (although this is clearly possible for whatever is left of the rebellous half of that small country that Asghanistan is).
Indirectly, maintaining a false-war to keep pouring millions of dollars into the effort so that a few people could reap the $. Same as Vietnam.

Development, commerce and else are minor factors which will be dealt with later on.
Meanwhile, have you read the open letter the insurgents wrote to Obama? It's very interesting and actually contains no religious bigotry.

[Kane Starkiller]

History lesson comming right up:

Back in the '70s the then former Soviet Union under the command of Leonidaz Breznev without provocation invaded Afganistan and literally steamrolled the country and I mean steamrolled it. If you have ever played Command and conquer Red Alert well like that with the whole 9 yards minus Yuri off course...

Wrong. Soviet forces invaded at the request of the communist government to help them fight islamist insurgents. Many tribes in Afghanistan had family and ethnic links with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan which were then part of USSR so obviously USSR had a vested interest in not allowing an islamist revolution in Afghanistan which could easily spread over southern USSR. US, on the other hand, was interested in blocking Soviet influence at every turn and thus would support anyone willing to fight Soviets even if they were Jihadists.

After this brutish invasion that if compared to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan make them both look benign tumors I kid you not. The Muslim world was angered and moved toward warfare like no other time and it is a call that remains to this day, you see Islam like it or not was mostly spread by the sword first and foremost and the Soviet invasion gave the Muslim word a reason to rise up again. But even though they had the will they did not had the resources to stamp off the invasion no matter how much money the Saudis and the other rich muslim states poured into the effort all they got in return was martyrs that went very happily and merrily to their graves but accomplished nothing in terms of the war effort. Drum roll please... Enter US Senator Mr Charlie Wilson who after being introduced to the plight and suffering of the Afghan people on the hands of the soviets by a Washington DC socialite he was moved to action and finally during the Reagan Adm. he got all the support he needed to crush the Soviet occupation by any means and basically for lack of a better word avenge Vietnam which in case you did not know it was the Soviets that backed the commies and with the Soviet support broke the US back back then again for lack of a better phrase. And it was succesful beyond words but then when he asked for aid to rebuild Afghanistan in order to prevent the religious zealots to occupy the vacumm the US abandoned it all. As he well put it "We did our business and then we dropped the ball" and alas yes here we are but as you see the reasons are never as simple as you figure them out to be. Lesson concluded...

Muslim world was angered long before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or do you forget the colonial exploitations of British Empire and the French.
Again Soviets were there at the behest of Afghan communist government fighting the islamist insurgents. You helped the islamists, that you actually claim you helped Afghanistan in their "plight" by having them ruled by Taliban instead of communists only reveals your ignorance.
Say what you will about commies but I don't see them driving planes into buildings.

EDIT: You need not look any further than Rambo 3 and the way it glorified the heroic mujahedeen warriors and their fight against the evil Russians. Who would've thought a silly action flick would turn out to be a revealing insight into US mistakes.

[PunkMaister]

OK I think we really need to put a stop to this because it is fairly obvious that no matter how many links and historic quotes we may post no one is going to give an inch truth or not. As for example while is true that the then Communist government asked for help from the Soviet Union I'm sure they did not want their nation steamrolled as it was by the Soviets. And like it or not it is fact that they steamrolled the country as they marched. Leveling town after town after town and village after village. Heck the Soviets did not even spared Kabul. But none of that matters because as I said true or not we are all so set in our ideals that there is no way to budge. Mr Oraghan, Arbour etc. simply think the US and it's people are this super evil entity populated by would be orcs. while we see the muslim world in just about the same fashion and there is no way around it. I can provide links about Islam and it's vile history and links about how the war in Afghanistan progressed and how brutal it was and how and why it moved people in the West in the USA to action, I could post that and more until hell freezes over and it would make no difference and likewise you could post neoliberal leftist crap 'till the end of time and so on. My point is none of us are going to convince the other that is wrong.

[Kane Starkiller]

I would like some evidence that Soviets deliberately caused as much damage as possible on Afghanistan as opposed to the damage being the inevitable result of the widespread fighting against the islamist insurgents which received training and funding from US through Pakistan. Are you saying US had the best interests of Afghan people in mind when it funded these religious extremists?

I don't think anyone here claimed US is full of evil people. We were discussing US actions in particular the invasion of Iraq or support of Jihadists against the USSR which are morally questionable or at least poorly thought out.

Islam indeed does have a violent history being a spin off the Judeo-Christian religion. One only needs to look at the burning of witches, crusades, violent christening of the natives in Americas to see where Islam draws it's inspiration from.

[Mr. Oragahn]

How many attacks the state-sponsored Israeli terrorism has committed since 2001, directly and indirectly?

We could speak of Lebanon (2006) or South Ossetia (at least 1500 civilians killed, just for the kicks, with military help from Israel and blessings of the US).