News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Real Iraq Body Count

Started by drunkenshoe, February 18, 2014, 11:58:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Plu

Well, I guess if anything we can conclude that it is way easier for me to piss you off than the other way around  :-k

Plu

It was not at all meant to be entertaining. (Nor me doing my best to try and insult you.)

I'm not smiling or anything. It's more like watching a trainwreck happen in front of you, if anything.

Which I admit, is fascinating in a very morbid kind of way. But not fun.

Insult to Rocks

Shoe and the others who have asked for clarification:
My original post was a condemnation of those naïve people who believe that war is easy and can be fought without casualties, the "we'll be home by Christmas" type people. It was something I figured we would agree on, which is why I posted it. I didn't want to get into a discussion of war in general nor the Iraq war in specifics, and I still do not. I was merely making a comment on the ridiculousness of a glorified war, something which everyone here seems to be in agreement on. Which is why I do not understand why my post was such a big deal.
And Shoe? If you continue to dismiss what I say based on my age, or continue to act in such a condescending and hurtful manner towards me, I'll simply continue to ignore you. If you wish to disagree with me, that's fine. But if you continue to act this way, I'll simply avoid any conversations with you.
"We must respect the other fellow\'s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

jumper

#33
...

Shol'va

#34
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Eh enough. You are not discussing anything with anyone. Plu is not even aware what's Rocks saying. None of you have a clue what is going on here and you turned it into something completely different with your politically correct bullshit. Get your heads out of your asses.
Insult to Rocks raised a valid point which I understood from the very beginning exactly as it was intended. He was condemning the skewed view on war which you yourself brought up when you started this topic. So in other words Insult to Rocks was siding with you. If you want to set politeness and political correctness aside, that is fine, I can certainly go with that. In that case, bottom line is you fucked up and you passed judgment on him, most likely due to your self-admitted hypersensitivity. That's a you problem and you need to work on it.

Shol'va

Quote from: "jumper"Neither of you have ever fought in a war (right?)... So that means that war is a specific subject that's beyond both of your life experiences....

 :-k
I've survived violent combat although I was not an active combatant. Does that count? :)

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"And I am not the one who thinks a war without atrocity is possible.
Where did he say that?

jumper

#36
...

Shol'va

You had completely misunderstood what he wrote, and that's on you.
QuoteI understand that a war without torture, without any atrocity fought for good reasons on a morally high ground is NOT possible.
I will ask again, quote where he specifically said this. Stop obfuscating the issue.

AllPurposeAtheist

What is it with you butt hurtees? Shoe's comments were plain and easy to understand and yet you want to hold her feet to the fire because,  what? Someone gets butt hurt?
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

hrdlr110

Insults, some lobbed in the general direction of its intended target, some hurled to a more specific location (privates, ouch!) A thread about the atrocities of war has turned into a microcosm of war itself. If only all wars were so comparatively painless, inexpensive, and child-friendly!
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

jumper

#40
...

AllPurposeAtheist

Well they aren't,  but you would think reading some of the drivel some imaginary political figure could just wave a magic wand and *poof* war becomes just another lame video game. :roll:
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Shol'va

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"What is it with you butt hurtees? Shoe's comments were plain and easy to understand and yet you want to hold her feet to the fire because, what? Someone gets butt hurt?
They were responses to strawmen, and I'm not the only one that picked up not only on that fact, but also how it's been said. Why do I take notice of that, you ask? Because it completely defeats the purpose of communication, does not facilitate any sort of discussion whatsoever, and betrays that the original intent was little more than an opportunity to blow steam in people's faces. Which is cool, but let's not pretend.

Either way, the death toll is a red herring to the overall legitimacy or lack thereof of the invasion and typically those that post the death toll, do so with the intent to protest, not excuse. Therefore the perceived "downplay" is not malicious, it is incompetence.
Can anyone point me to a news source that is posting a death toll with the specific intent of downplaying it?

AllPurposeAtheist

There's no strawman about it.  You and others find disagreement and want to be the 'top dog' in debate so turn Shoe's comments into something it's not as if there is some nefarious agenda and you have to be right at any cost even if it means you're full of shit. No strawman there, but when you're put in a spot you can always tout out the handy strawman nonsense.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Shol'va

Then it should be trivial to point out specifically where Insult said war without atrocity is possible. That's all I'm asking for.