6200 civilians Casualities this month in Afghanistan?

[jbg]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=172631016&videoChannel=1&refresh=true

6200 casualties.. 20% increase 6200 civilian casualties

Does that include internecine sport killings, tribal disputes or just murder for the fun of it?

[bloodyminded]

The population of Afghanistan is about 30 million. In any given year, about 300,000 Afghans die of natural causes.

I am not excusing these reported 6200 civilian deaths but some perspective is required.

Like 3 000 on 9/11. Far less statistically significant.

-----

[bloodyminded]

So creating a fake GWOT and faking the amount of troops needed isn't a conspiracy? Because in order for that to work you would need the influence of a lot of high ups in multiple governments.

ETA and what you describe, a bunch of powerful people working for their own interests, is the basis for pretty much every conspiracy theory ever.

You're not understanding Dre's remarks, which are a pretty straightforward institutional analysis.

By your reasoning, shareholder meetings are "conspiracy theories."

You know what sounds like a crazier conspiracy theory to me?

That the Western nations, because of an inbuilt love of "freedom" and an innate sense of altruism, like to flit about a world trying to do good...but is somehow always misunderstood by an ungrateful and lunatic global majority.

(And this is the literal and unvarnished opinion of many people, interestingly.)

Edited December 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Moonlight Graham]

Do you have any idea how much profit is generated by these little adventures? Last thing you want to do is have it end quickly or decisively. If thats what they were after they would have listened to military planners that told civilian leaders they needed two or three times as many troops to get the job done.

The GWOT is designed to be a permanent management strategy. They want to make terrorism the new communism... A big frightening formidable threat that lasts generations. Squashing the taliban in 6 weeks like the US easily could have would be a bad move in that regard. People would think "terrorists" are wimpy and easy to beat, and not an opponent worthy of spending trillions of dollars on.

The military industrial complex is alive and well, i agree. War is very profitable to many. However, what you're saying is definitely a conspiracy theory, and i stress the word "theory", unless you have some definitive evidence to back up your claim?

[William Ashley]

Ok I had to weigh in on the whole "NAZI germany thing"

US involvement in Germany DID not end in 1945.. understand the US still has bases in Germany - much like

there are bases in Japan still. The role did however shape overtime. Also the US only had 1 of 3 occupation zones in Germany.

See "Allied Control Council"

" January 1947 the British and American zones merged to form the Bizone. Over the course of 1947 and early 1948, they began to prepare the currency reform that would introduce the Deutsche Mark, and ultimately the creation of an independent West German state"

"The Western powers instituted the Allied High Commission by September 1949 which remained in operation until 1955."

See "Allied High Commission "

"Germany remained under nominal military occupation until 15 March 1991, when the final ratification of the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany (signed on 12 September 1990) was lodged with the German Government. This, as the final peace treaty, was signed by the four powers and the two German governments restored German sovereignty. It also meant the official end of the Allied Control Council, insofar as it still existed at all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_With_Respect_to_Germany

The difference here, the US Is breaching occupational laws set out in the Geneva Convention on War = and denounces the fact it is occupying Afghanistan - although it (as far as I am aware is and has been)

The UN and NATO are not sovereign so only those nations that project supravires administraiton are de jure occupying

The main identifier of this being an occupation is:

1. The US does not obey Afghanistan law

2. The US does not subject itself to Afghani law while in Afghanistan

3. The US does not follow the directives of the government of Afghanistan

4. It is exterting command and control areas of which they have "command"

5. They are conducting operations without Afghanistan government control

6. They are killing afghani's and are not on payroll of the executive of afghanistan

There are other reasons also. But this should sufficiently demosntrate that without treaty as to the above, they are indeed conducting an illegal occupation.

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

Like 3 000 on 9/11. Far less statistically significant.

-----

Hmm, why would Trudeau declare Martial Law because of just one dead guy? Ridiculous. As much as mere 13 dead in Montreal Polytechnic School.

In Afghanistan the blame rests firmly on Islamic Taliban and Al-Quida..

[William Ashley]

Hmm, why would Trudeau declare Martial Law because of just one dead guy? Ridiculous. As much as mere 13 dead in Montreal Polytechnic School.

In Afghanistan the blame rests firmly on Islamic Taliban and Al-Quida..

In the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - the islamic people must be to blame for the conflict.. that is it.

It is the Afghani's that are causing problems in their country, not the array of foreign nations ignoring their laws and undertaking combat missions against Afghani's.

Yes the airstirkes by NATO forces are all the Afghan's fault.

Damn those afghan's for having their own opinions and being a majority in their own country trying to have their laws obeyed. They are trouble makers them Afghans.

Edited January 1, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

In the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - the islamic people must be to blame for the conflict..

YES! And for more than just that. For killing and expulsion of Jews and Buddhists as well. Right down to the descruction of even historical statues that were not Islamic.

And for death penalty for mere conversion to non-Islamic religion.

Yes the airstirkes by NATO forces are all the Afghan's fault.

You're getting it now. Just like air strikes against Germany were ONLY Germans fault.

Damn those afghan's for having their own opinions and being a majority in their own country trying to have their laws obeyed.

EXACTLY. Just like those damn Germans who abided by Nazi laws.

[William Ashley]

YES! And for more than just that. For killing and expulsion of Jews and Buddhists as well. Right down to the descruction of even historical statues that were not Islamic.

And for death penalty for mere conversion to non-Islamic religion.

You're getting it now. Just like air strikes against Germany were ONLY Germans fault.

EXACTLY. Just like those damn Germans who abided by Nazi laws.

The problem with NAZI Germany wasn't their ideals - most of the world shared them. The US didn't even enter the war until 1941.

The issue with the NAZI's was that they - well it was to a lesser extent Poland, and to a greater extent France.

NAZI Germany probably would have floated for a while if it hadn't of gone into Poland. Even more so, the question that will forever remain in history - did the Poles really launch artillery into germany before the German invasion.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident (911 potential on the conspiracy line.. a Gleiwitz 911) that is the official NAZI line, that the Poles attacked first. There are clear signs there were moves towards enhancing the border - but we must remember the USSR also attacked Poland, it kept Poland under its wing even after WWII.

Places like Britain wouldn't even take the Jews in when they were fleeing before the war. World leaders spoke well of Hitler - even AFTER the ultamatums started flying for the reunion of the "Greater German Peoples" Austria Hungary was for a long time closely united with Germany through the Holy Roman Empire, the Axis of Italy and Germany was age old with the Holy Roman Empire, nothing new.

The US actively conducted business with NAZI Germany - there were political groups in North America, in Canada and the US, and they had followings. NAZI ideology wasn't completely "wrong" it was an import to North America.

Not all Germans were NAZI's, some German's opposed the war effort and helped the resistance. Yet some of those same people were firebombed to death, or otherwise.

Yet you are saying they brought it on themselves?

Germany was treated very poorly. The terms of the armistace at the end of WWI were excessive, and enslaved the Germans. While the results of the great depression were unfortunate, you can't blame the German people for wanting to actually get a reward for their work instead of hand over their savings and paychecks to their masters.

It was massively wrong. And while some methods used were inhumane - the Allies did many of the same things. Say the imprisonment of Japanese, confiscating their property (and not giving it back) amongst other things. They apparently even had a plan to kill them in the event of an invasion of Canada. The same was true in the US.

Name 3 things the NAZI's did that the Canadian or US government don't do today?

132 billion gold marks

Inter-Allied Reparations Commission and was set at 269 billion gold marks (the equivalent of around 100,000 tonnes of pure gold

3 200 000 000 ounces -- today selling at $1400 us is

reparations of 4.48 Trillion. --- this while taking away all their industry and pasturalizing them.

last installment of these reparations has been paid on 3 October 2010

After WWII Germany was to pay the Allies US$20 billion mainly in machinery and manufacturing plants.

The US harvest of all technological and scientific know-how as well as all patents and many leading scientists in Germany (known as Operation Paperclip

German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labor. By 1947, approximately 4,000,000 German POW's and civilians were used as forced labor (under various headings, such as "reparations labor" or "enforced labor") in the Soviet Union, France, the UK, Belgium and in Germany in U.S run "Military Labor Service Units".

Germany paid Israel 450 million DM in Holocaust reparations, and paid 3 billion DM to the World Jewish Congress to compensate survivors in other countries

--- yet no compensation has gne to the Gypsies (Romanies)

in accordance with the agreed-upon policy of de-industrialisation and pastoralization of Germany, large numbers of civilian factories were dismantled for transport to France and the UK, or simply destroyed. Dismantling in the west stopped in 1950.

Edited January 1, 2011 by William Ashley

[Saipan]

The problem with NAZI Germany wasn't their ideals - most of the world shared them.

Really? Most of the world wanted to exterminate Jews?

Places like Britain wouldn't even take the Jews in when they were fleeing before the war.

Britain was lead by an IDIOT then.

World leaders spoke well of Hitler

Idiots like Neville Chamberlain

Not all Germans were NAZI's, some German's opposed the war effort and helped the resistance. Yet some of those same people were firebombed to death, or otherwise.

Yet you are saying they brought it on themselves?

No doubt the Jews did

[William Ashley]

Really? Most of the world wanted to exterminate Jews?

What countries didn't? How is expelling and refusal of entry different from domestic extermination?

There was a massive contravesy in taking just one boat load, and others were turned away.

Britain was lead by an IDIOT then.

Idiots like Neville Chamberlain

I geuss Mackenzie King was an idiot too by your books, he wrote good things about his trip to see Hitler.

King informed British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that Canada would only go to war if Britain were directly attacked, and that if Britain were to become involved in a continental war then Chamberlain was not to expect Canadian support.[43] Also during 1937, King visited Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, becoming the only North American head of government to meet with Hitler.

Possessing a religious yearning for direct insight into the hidden mysteries of life and the universe, and strongly influenced by the operas of Richard Wagner, Mackenzie King decided Hitler was a akin to mythical Wagnerian heroes within whom good and evil were struggling. He thought that good would eventually triumph and Hitler would redeem his people and lead them to a harmonious, uplifting future. These spiritual attitudes not only guided Canada's relations with Hitler but gave the prime minister the comforting sense of a higher mission, that of helping to lead Hitler to peace. King commented in his journal that "he is really one who truly loves his fellow-men, and his country, and would make any sacrifice for their good". He forecast that "the world will yet come to see a very great man – mystic in Hitler... ...will rank some day with Joan of Arc among the deliverers of his people."

(whether or not hidden intent was intended in this statement)

Under King's administration, the Canadian government, responding to strong public opinion, especially in Quebec, refused to expand immigration opportunities for Jewish refugees from Europe.[48] In June 1939 Canada, along with Cuba and the United States, refused to allow the 900 Jewish refugees aboard the passenger ship M.S. St. Louis refuge

This indirectly led to the death of 254 Jews.

Edited January 1, 2011 by William Ashley

[bloodyminded]

Hmm, why would Trudeau declare Martial Law because of just one dead guy? Ridiculous.

Where did you get the impression that I'm defending Trudeau?

Those who adore powerful men always assume everyone else does too, I guess.

In Afghanistan the blame rests firmly on Islamic Taliban and Al-Quida..

But we are responsible for our own actions, you see.

Didn't the great lefty, the Dalai Lama, teach you that much?

[Saipan]

Where did you get the impression that I'm defending Trudeau?

It's not about you. It's about Trudeau and his Martial Law.

But we are responsible for our own actions, you see.

Didn't the great lefty, the Dalai Lama, teach you that much?

Yes we are responsible.

But His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not an Atheist. Sorry to snow on your parade.

[bloodyminded]

It's not about you. It's about Trudeau and his Martial Law.

Yes, and I consider that outrageous. You were responding to me, perhaps mistaking me for a Liberal Party supporter.

But His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not an Atheist. Sorry to snow on your parade.

I didn't say he was an atheist.

[Saipan]

I didn't say he was an atheist.

Leftists are.

[bloodyminded]

Leftists are.

But not all leftists are atheists, not by a long shot. And not all atheists are leftists; many are conservatives.

The Dalai Lama is a religious leftist.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

The Dalai Lama is a religious leftist.

Your opinion only.

Why would he be ignored by Liberals during previous visit (in fear not to ruffle Marxist feathers in Beijing) and invited by Harper government in full honour.

[bloodyminded]

Your opinion only.

Why would he be ignored by Liberals during previous visit (in fear not to ruffle Marxist feathers in Beijing) and invited by Harper government in full honour.

First of all, the Liberal Party clearly does not speak for "leftists."

More to the point, discussing what political leaders and policymakers do is rarely a simple matter of left/right/other ideology.

You don't determine the Dalai Lama's political stance based on what the Canadian leadership does or doesn't do! That's crazy.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

First of all, the Liberal Party clearly does not speak for "leftists."

It's the leftist that defend Liberal/CBC.... Chretien...Trudeau....

Not the Right.

You don't determine the Dalai Lama's political stance based on what the Canadian leadership does or doesn't do! That's crazy.

So you sucked it out of thin air? Crazier.

[bloodyminded]

It's the leftist that defend Liberal/CBC.... Chretien...Trudeau....

Not the Right.

Leftists don't. Mainstream Liberal supporters, made up of both liberals and conservatives, defend and support them.

So you sucked it out of thin air? Crazier.

From the Dalai Lama:

So, basically, each individuals survival or future depends on society. We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs.

'I am humanitarian Marxist, I am Buddhist Marxist, I am not nationalistic Marxist, I am also a socialist.

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.

Asked about the development of Alberta's oilsands, he said in a choice between "destruction of environment or losing money, then we have to choose losing money."

I wrote this letter [to President Bush] and expressed, besides my condolences and sadness, a countermeasure to this tragedy: a nonviolent response because that would have been more effective. So this is my stance. And then just before the Iraq crisis started, millions of people from countries like Australia and America expressed their opposition to violence. I really admired and appreciated this.

The achievements of Western countriesin terms of the economy, education, health, and social achievementsas a result of exploitation of poorer countries, including Arab countries. Western nations get rich by using resources such as Arab oil. Meanwhile, the countries supplying them raw materials remain poor. Due to such injustices, jealousies are created.

Therefore, at the general public level we must cultivate the notion of not just one religion, one truth, but pluralism and many truths. We can change the atmosphere, and we can modify certain ways of thinking.

Then, second, there should be a spirit of dialogue. Whenever we see any disagreements, we must think how to solve them on the basis of recognition of oneness of the entire humanity. This is the modern reality. When a certain community is destroyed, in reality it destroys a part of all of us. So there should be a clear recognition that the entire humanity is just one family. Any conflict within humanity should be considered as a family conflict. We must find a solution within this atmosphere.

So the real method is personal contact, person to person, face to face. Talk. At that time I also expressed Bin Laden also have lot of reasons to complain. Listen to his view. Whats his complaint. Terrorism is a sort of mutual suffering. Theyve also suffered. Therefore, lead, listen, talk, and try to find way to solve that which is causing their complaint. Thats the humane way.

It is unfair to blame everything on Saddam Hussein. If you truly analyze how this dictatorship developed, from many causes, many conditions, including western nations own contribution. So thats my view.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Leftists don't. Mainstream Liberal supporters, made up of both liberals and conservatives, defend and support them.

Name conservative supporting Chretien or Trudeau.

From the Dalai Lama:

Non of those quotes denotes leftism.

Taking what he said out of context I could also prove he was gun toting Hillbilly.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you,

it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

- - - - The Dalai Lama(May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Same with George Orwell, Gandhi, John F. Kennedy.... and so many others.

[bloodyminded]

Name conservative supporting Chretien or Trudeau.

????

My mother, for one.

There are lots of conservatives who vote Liberal, Saipan. Hell, there are conservatives who vote NDP.

The world is not broken down into neatly partisan lines, particularly outside of Alberta and Quebec.

Non of those quotes denotes leftism. Taking what he said out of context I could also prove he was gun toting Hillbilly.

Ok, Saipan.

How are the following "taken out of context"; and what exactly is their proper "context"?

Share it with us.

I am humanitarian Marxist, I am Buddhist Marxist, I am not nationalistic Marxist, I am also a socialist.

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

????

My mother, for one.

She's leftist just like you. You didn't know?

There are lots of conservatives who vote Liberal, Saipan. Hell, there are conservatives who vote NDP.

Yeah, why would conservative vote conservative if he can vote NDP

(I think you just broke your own record, but it's a free country )

[bloodyminded]

She's leftist just like you. You didn't know?

I wouldn't think that it would astonish you to understand that I know my own mother, and that you don't.

Yeah, why would conservative vote conservative if he can vote NDP

Some people vote based on practical considerations of the moment, rather than habitually pencilling in whomever belongs to the "correct" party.

I've voted Conservative myself, more than once.

I leave the Party loyalty to the Commissars.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

It just seems fishy to me... the way the whole thing played out. Im SUSPICIOUS... call me crazy (oh wait you already did).

No I called you a conspiracy theorist, while usually crazy conspiracy theorists are occasionally right. And what you're saying still sounds like a conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy per se and I think dre's characterization of what's happening - an alignment of interests - is a far more accurate way to put it, it looks fishy as hell but then I suspect a school of grinning piranha nodding and winking amongst themselves as they swarm around a feast must look a bit like a conspiracy too.