Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Mar 27, 2015.
Compared to the 60 million deaths attributed to World War 2 this war on terror is a mere squabble.
I didn't read past the ES, poncho, in part because nobody should have to read 1/5 of a paper before you actually get to the paper and secondly because of the count.
The summary said the number of deaths could be one million or it could be two million. It's been a few decades since I took statistics in college but I think I remember something about sampling errors. The sampling error should not be 100%.
Regardless, I have my own summary. A heck of a lot of people have died and we are no closer to ending terrorism than we were when we started. By started I don't mean when George W. stood on a pile of rubble in NYC. There has been violence in the world since Cain struck down Abel. We are horrible to one another. The proclamation of God resounds, "The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground." and as we continue the cry multiplies by the millions.
Did you catch the article about the 4500 Americans killed yesterday?
The one thing muslims are really good at is killing each other.
Body Count takes a clear and objective look at the various and often contradictory--reports of mortality in conflicts directed by the U.S. and allied forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The result is a fuller picture of the devastation and lethality to civilian non-combatants throughout these regions. Unfortunately, these deaths have been effectively hidden from our collective consciousness and consciences by political leaders seeking to pursue military solutions to complex global issues with little, if any, accountability.
At a time when our nation is once again contemplating new and expanded military operations in Iraq and Syria, Body Count underscores the scope of human destruction that helps fuel the widespread anger at the Coalition Forces. It similarly provides the context to understand the rise of brutal forces such as ISIS thriving in the wake of our leaders’ failures. After an estimated cost of at least three trillion dollars over a decade of warfare, we need to fully account for our responsibility and learn the appropriate lessons to avoid a tragic exacerbation of the explosive situation we face today.
The death of 1 is a tragedy the death of 10,000 is a statistic that the US doesn't bother counting.
Some quick math, 3 trillion dollars divided by 1 million people equals 3 million dollars per person. 3 trillion dollars divided by 2 million people equals 5 hundred thousand dollars per person. The more we kill the more we save! Do we get a volume discount on top of that?
America hasn't cornered the market on mass casualties but we've certainly made our contribution. The older I get the more incline I am to think of the one over the tens of thousands. We get jaded by the sheer volume of deaths world-wide.
I was a kid during Vietnam but I remember Chet Huntley and David Brinkley reporting on the day's death from there- ten this day, 25 the next. I got older and started to become aware of the folks around me that went over to the Land of Bad Things and returned a shattered visage of the person who left. I became aware of Moms and Dads who became Gold Star parents. Like that old Statler song, "He's more than a name on a wall....."
Which of the million (or two) lives count? The older I get the more I'm inclined to say each and every one of them.
The truth is no one knows how many have died in the cited conflicts and nobody knows who killed the ones that did.
They're guessing and, by their own admission, could be off by 100% or more.
I'm guessing that Washington would rather keep everyone guessing than knowing. If we knew maybe we wouldn't be so quick to let Washington involve us in more "interventions", humanitarian, imperial or any other type of intervention.
To the contrary, it would probably be a good thing for Washington if we knew how many and who killed them.
I am confident that the vast majority of muslims were killed by other muslims. ur role is relatriovely minor.
Can't prove it, but who needs proof? You source doesn't have any.
The same can be said for the corporate "news" networks you rely so heavily on. There's a lot of "government officials claim, he said, she said and un-named sources said" but no real proof.