BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:35 AM

Try to read the exact words, Shakey. "Most" in this case is important. It does not mean "exactly the same". I will also add this distinction... "between the two entities in question, 'the terrorists' and a sovereign state (the US), the behavior of the US most closely resembles that of the Germans and Japanese during WWII".

And it does.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:40 AM

Would you like a spade?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:45 AM

You certainly have a right to disagree with me, Shakey. But sarcasm doesn't really help you to communicate your disagreement with any kind of coherency.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:47 AM

It floats my boat

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:51 AM

It floats my boat

Is that what they're calling it these days?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:57 AM

Wow, so you don't know everything after all.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 12:51 PM

On the More Galloway thread I expressed the opinion that Blair's policy in Iraq was responsible for bringing the suicide bombers onto the streets of London and making the UK a target for terrorism.

Shakey responded with the remark that "We should be proud to be the No1 terget for the fundamentalist terrorists".
I wonder if the families of the dead in London feel the same pride as Shakey.

To me there is little difference between the sentiments expressed by
Shakey and those held by the suicide bombers.

Shakey stated that he saw Carol, Diana and "others" on this forum as "dangerous", in reality it is people like Shakey who are dangerous with their dogmatic fight to the death mentality.

The best post on this thread in my opinion came from McGrath, who said
"Trying to understand why something is happening, is not the same as condoning or accepting it"

Carol and Diana, whether you agree with them or not always attempt to rationalise their subject.

Shakey on the other hand appears an ignorant bully with little of value to say about terrorism and its causes, and what he does say seems destructive and dangerous.

In many ways he reminds me of the late un-lamented Teribus....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 01:11 PM

Wolfgang - I quoted Robert Pape to show you that even conservatives disagree with Blair's remark that the London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq. Just because I quoted him doesn't mean I like him or that I appove of everything he has to say.

Random thoughts referred to my first post. At that point, nothing was coherent.

Get off my case, Wolfgang, and make your point with clarity and cohesiveness. I will read it with a grain of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Truth
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 04:45 PM

"Carol and Diana, whether you agree with them or not always attempt to rationalise their subject."

That's complete bullshit.

Those two are the most irrational here. They pull any common sense here to a new low in the guise of an arguement moron to moron.

Girls. The "bombers" WERE Moslem terrorists. Not Catholic terrorsts, Hindu terrorists, or even terrorists from another planet. Just like on 9/11, they were MOSLEM terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 04:55 PM

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

"As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004...

...So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on...

...Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500...

...For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return...

One might ask how it is possible to claim that the deaths of some 4,500 civilians at the hands of paramilitaries demonstrates "utter contempt for innocent life" when the blood of some 14,000 innocents staining our own hands is considered noble and necessary. Tony Blair provided the following answer on 20th November, standing alongside George W Bush in London:

    'This terrorism is the 21st century threat. It is a war that strikes at the heart of all that we hold dear, and there is only one response that is possible or rational: to meet their will to inflict terror with a greater will to defeat it; to confront their philosophy of hate with our own of tolerance and freedom; and to challenge their desire to frighten us, divide us, unnerve us with an unshakeable unity of purpose; to stand side by side with the United States of America and with our other allies in the world, to rid our world of this evil once and for all.'

The claim that a strategy which produces 14,000 civilian deaths is the expression of a "philosophy of tolerance and freedom" is a claim which we find incomprehensible. Our incomprehension is shared, we believe, by the majority of the world's people."


GUEST,MGT, you are a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:08 PM

ok carol i will just accept your contention that the us is responsible for all the ill's of the world,walk away shaking my head in wonder.marveling over a possition governed by passion and not reason.
now we should all just turn and walk away,as they stab our backs,an lop off our heads[its ok for them the little book says so].
don't

swing to hard mohamed,it might hurt.
aiso i can't imagen you not haveing an oppinion on anything.
have a nice day any way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:13 PM

...For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return...



Above is what the fairminded Carol wrote. Note that I condemn the war in Iraq---as to the rest of her thoughts---see my earliest post in this thread (on LONDON --9/11)   and my comment about running out of cheeks to turn. That sums it up.

We are not innocent vis a vis oil and other matters, but if some people have certain beliefs and want to live in tents, the desert, or other inhospitable places I believe they should be allowed to do so---at the same time they should allow those of us who have a different standard to do the same. Again---no more cheeks left to turn.

Carol:

--your favorite radio persona,


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Pax Americana Kills More Iraqis
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 06:04 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- U.S.-led forces, insurgents and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 civilians, police and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by Iraq Body Count, a U.S.-British non-government group.

Nearly half the deaths occurred in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq's 25 million people live, according to media reports that Iraq Body Count has surveyed.

The second-highest death toll was in the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja, where one in every 137 of the town's population has died violently.

Of the total, nearly 37 percent were killed by U.S.-led forces, according to the group.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:22 PM

jpk, you are being melodramatic. What we need to do is correct our behavior. That's all.

beardedbruce, ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:34 PM

tell that to the ones that sadam helped to an early pit.
bye now this subject is going nowhere[to much passion,not enough reason].
see yall in a diff thread maybe.
have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:43 PM

CarolC,


I do not agree with your last statement.


ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the failure of Saddam to comply with his obligations under international law and the terms of the ceasefire.

AND because so many people out there failed to even suggest that perhaps Saddam should comply with the UN resolutions, while they told the world that the US should do nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Truth
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM

I am not a hypcrite CarolC for saying that the terrorists in London and 9/11 were Moslem terrorists. They were and they are.

Your political correctness and denial of the subject along with sidestepping that this is the real issue in identifying who the enemy is will obviously result in more terrorism by miltiant Moslems. These are not peace loving people. They have to be stopped, destroyed, killed. And if it takes flushing them out of the peaceful group who share this dark ages religion that confuses it's followers, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM

beardedbruce, you seem to be saying that all of those innocent civilians deserved to die because Saddam didn't jump when we told him to.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:58 PM

GUEST,MGT... you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:09 PM

Akenaton, who are you calling a bully you little pipsqueak.

Look you've tried it on once, failed, dug yourself a hole: why didn't you stay in it?

I said that we should be proud to be a main target, I didn't say we should be happy about it. This country has a history of standing up and being counted, we'd obviously be complete history if we counted on you standing up.

We shouldn't tolerate the intolerence of these pathetic people who wish to roll the clock back a thousand years and remove our freedoms, The freedoms that many people have given their lives to protect.

You may sit in your cozy little box beleiving that really they are just misunderstood scalliwags who will all of a sudden become friendly if Isreal gives up land, the US pulls out of Iraq, Salmon Rushdie repents, we ban all film making criticising eastern culture etc etc etc.

It's not the US they hate, nor the UK, it's western liberalism.

They are fascists, not so pure and not so simple, just where do you want to draw a line in the sand, because it has to be drawn, sooner or later

AS for D & C I think sometimes they cross the line in an "attempt to rationalise their subject", in my business we have a saying "the paralysis of analysis", i think it fits them quite well but your not in their league.

Take the verbal stick or leave, it's all the same to me, your lot have no more a monopoly of passion as you do of truth.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:12 PM

Events don't just have one cause, bruce. There is a whole combination of circumstances and a chain of events leading up to something like 7/7. Making out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a major part of the events leading up to the bombings is unconvincing sophistry. I doubt very much if more than a handful of people actually believe that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:14 PM

carol the bombers were moslems. This is a fact. Their families have no problem agreeing with that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:18 PM

It's not the US they hate, nor the UK, it's western liberalism

This may be true (and then again, it may not), however, the pool of available recruits, which grows ever larger with every act of aggression against Muslims by "liberal western" governments, are not thus motivated. They are becoming radicalized by the violence they see visited upon their loved ones, their countries, and their people by these very "liberal western" governments, and that is what is making them easy prey for the real extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:31 PM

MoH said:
Making out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a major part of the events leading up to the bombings is unconvincing sophistry

Well you may not be convinced but it certainly isn't sophistry.

I agree with you that it played a part, but, whether it played a major part is speculation ( a speciality of akenanon, but that's another story), secondly I would argue that it merely brought the attack forward in time.

There is plenty of evidence to show that these lunatics will attack anyone who doesn't agree with them anywhere, anytime.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:36 PM

Carol, "western liberalism" is not the same as "liberal western governments"

You need to get some quality google time in.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:04 PM

Shakey As far as I can see the only one digging a hole for themselves is you.
You have ignored the point made by numerous people on this thread...That Blairs policy increased the terrorist risk. and where were the terrorists in Iraq before the invasion?

We don't have to "stand up to terrorism" in other countries, there are thousands of people in the UK who could turn to terrorism to-morrow if they so wished.

Terrorism cant be defeated by military force, history tells us that, and for all your simplistic jingoism the current situation will be no different.
Of course Islamic terrorism is a scourge, but how can we stand up to it when the terrorists are our own children,and the children of our neighbours?

I still believe what I said before the war, we should pull back , stop trying to export our values to other countries.
The Islamic religion is stronger than the terrorists, and if given time and not hindered by Western interference, can absorb all the hate death and destruction.

This may not be the quick fix so beloved of the politicians and the military ,but in my opinion its our only hope...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:44 PM

CarolC
"you seem to be saying that all of those innocent civilians deserved to die because Saddam didn't jump when we told him to. "

No more so than you are saying they deserved to die because Bush wanted to invade-

IT IS NOT THAT THEY DESERVED TO DIE- but the responsibility is upon Saddam and those who encouraged him to defy UN resolutions for 13 years.


McGrath of Harlow -

"Events don't just have one cause, bruce. There is a whole combination of circumstances and a chain of events leading up to something like 7/7. Making out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a major part of the events leading up to the bombings is unconvincing sophistry. "

And something I have never claimed. But to blame the US invasion of Iraq for all the evils of the world is unconvincing idiocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:48 PM

Dear nanoo nanoo,

I'm standing here, leaning on my spade, having a fag, just wondering exactly what it is about you that makes me want to sit you on my knee and tell you a story while at the same time feel a burning desire to give your arse a kick.


I have stated a number of times that Blair's policy probably did increase the terrorist risk, at least in terms of when it would happen
I have stated a number of times that Blair's policy probably did increase the terrorist risk, at least in terms of when it would happen

No that wasn't a mistake, I'm just hoping that given enough chances to read something it might sink in.

Terrorism can't be defeated by military force. Alone.

Of course Islamic terrorism is a scourge, but how can we stand up to it when the terrorists are our own children,and the children of our neighbours

Oh, OK, let's do nothing then.

Well thankfully "our" values have spread far and wide, and, to be frank, we won't settle this completely until these same values are spread world-wide. You see, Islam is rule based,i.e. it's based on following rules, a small group of people make the rules and you follow them, not only in a religous context but in your daily life. Western liberalsim (are you listening carol) has grown out of that other scourge of mankind, christianity, but christianity was based upon individual conscience i.e. people made their own mind up about things, at least once they freed themselves from the bishop of rome, freedom to do what you want but having to answer for it later. We value our personal freedom to decide our own fate and it's been rather successful, unfortunately this deep seated idea of personal freedom has led to a situation (in the west) where we tolerate anything and evrything because we want to respect the personal freedom of others. Our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

If we really believe in the basic truths of equality for women and across all races etc why do we (the UN) tolerate what happens in other cultures: people have human rights, groups do not.

So finally we can agree. There will be no quick fix.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:08 PM

Sophist Captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler.

Or, as I'd put it, someone who doesn't really believe the arguments they are putting forward, but is going through the motions because it's their job. Which seems pretty evidently to be the situation of the representatives of the British Government on this issue.
.........................

"If we really believe in the basic truths of equality for women..." which has of course been advanced so effectively in Iraq by the invasion...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:22 PM

Just because something is unconvincing doesn't make it sophistry.


which has of course been advanced so effectively in Iraq by the invasion.

Did I say it had?

But as you brought it up, did they have the vote previously, did the women in Afganistan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:16 PM

Ok. I'll restate...

It's not the US they hate, nor the UK, it's western liberalism

This may be true (and then again, it may not), however, the pool of available recruits, which grows ever larger with every act of aggression against Muslims by the governments of countries that practice "western liberalism", are not thus motivated. They are becoming radicalized by the violence they see visited upon their loved ones, their countries, and their people by these very governments, and that is what is making them easy prey for the real extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:21 PM

IT IS NOT THAT THEY DESERVED TO DIE- but the responsibility is upon Saddam and those who encouraged him to defy UN resolutions for 13 years.

It was the responsibility of the US to exhaust all available means of resolving the problem without the use of force before resorting to the use of force. The US did not do that. Had the US been willing to do that, it would have allowed the inspectors to finish doing their job.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:30 PM

CarolC,

What part of the phrase "last chance" do you have such a problem in understanding?

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:39 PM

The part that says that the people who were bound by the resolution (this includes the US), were required to honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty, and to allow the inspectors to do their job.

What part of "honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty" and "allow the inspectors to do their job" do you not understand? That is, after all, what the resolution required of the US, according to the wording of the resolution.

Any attempts to rationalize the use of force using the resolution is bogus. The resolution did not authorize the US to use force, and it specifically ordered the US and the other member nations to honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty. And since the inspectors were doing the job well enough to ensure that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US (the reason given for the US invasion), the US is reponsible for the deaths of every civilian who was killed because of the US invasion and occupation, regardless of who they were killed by.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Frankham
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:42 PM

Joe you say,

"Both governments have too many honest employees who would expose that sort of conspiracy."

I'm really not sure about this. There are some who might be very afraid to expose this kind of information. The employees might be honest but they are up against the likes of Karl Rove.

It's kind of like taking on Al Capone in Chicago of the 20's. Who knows where the "hits" will fall.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:48 PM

CarolC,

We have argued this before. The UN declared Iraq in substantial default, AFTER which the US took the serious action required. You may not like it, but your comment "Any attempts to rationalize the use of force using the resolution is bogus." is obviously wrong, as the terms used in the text indicate that the UN was giving a LAST CHANCE, which Saddam failed to comply with.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:54 PM

The text of the UN document indicated that the UN was giving Iraq it's last chance. And that chance was to allow the inpectors to do their job. The US is in violation of that resolution specifically because it prevented the inspectors from doing their job (and because it did not honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty). You can twist the wording around to suit your preferances all you want, but that doesn't alter the FACT that the UN was the only body authorized under the terms of the resolution to take any kind of action against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:14 PM

Ahen...

Did anyone notice that the figure 25,000 Iraqi civilians, did not take into account the number of the newly formed Iraqi military who have died? Since these people are being targetted by the so
called, 'insurgency', don't you think that their deaths are a direct result of the U.S. invasion and their attempt to restructure the govt. in Iraq? I would think so. That puts the body count much higher. It is also noted that the recent rash of suicide bombings ups the figure considerably.

Anyway you shake it - the U.S. and its allies have killed alot of people in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:23 PM

it goes to show you[in the cases in brit land the one reposable were basicly guest of the people,even if citizen]the rabid dog will bite the hand that feeds them,best to put them down early.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:44 PM

Are you suggesting that all Muslims should be preemptively killed, jpk?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Soul
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:00 PM

Moslems are the terrorists of the world, and Carol C and dianavan are in denial of this.

Next bombing, please, Mohammad.

There are idiots who support you in North america and deny you are the enemy. Meet Carol C and dianavan, Mohammad.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:41 PM

"... did they have the vote previously, did the women in Afganistan?"

Yes. They'd had it in Iraq since 1980. In Afghanistan they had the vote from 1963, up until the fall of the Russian backed regime, and the installation of the fundamentalist warlords. But of course the people backing them didn't think this kind of thing was too important.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:58 PM

Right McGrath, The West was quite happy to support the terrorists against the Soviet Union.

What short memories some have..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:00 PM

Martin Gibson has a soul? I didn't think he existed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:32 PM

Might be a spelling mistake, dianavan...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:06 PM

LOL, McG.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 05:30 PM

only if rabbid,which a few of the imam's in britland seem to be.they intend to kill you,and don't care who or what you are,just to remain in power.
truth be told;the terrorist have already won.people letting terrorist acts dictate how they live and demanding govt. to futher restrict their freedom to control terrorist.
the only way to stop it is to prevent it from starting.
the ones promoting it,do so in the intrest of their own power over others thru fear,fear of the ones doing it and the fear of those it is being done to.
kind of like giveing up rights to protect the rights you are giving up,or taking from one to give to another.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:21 PM

Leaving out the capital letters on posts rather creates the same impression as green ink does in letters to papers; ie, that there's something up and you don't feel too curious about finding out what it is.

Of course Archy the cockroach (with the soul of a poet)had a good reason for avoiding the shift key, but what with modern keyboards that doesn't apply anymore...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:18 PM

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq (iraqbodycount quoted by Carol)

If I read just that one sentence quoted prominently by Carol I wonder how anyone can take them serious anymore (One might think that Carol only quotes that sentence to criticise but it looks as if she sees nothing wrong with it). They make in a blatant way one of the worst mistakes such a site can make: They mix data and interpretation in one sentence. Reading such a one-sided sentence makes me start to distrust even their data (they have explained their method but whether they have done it correctly in detail I cannot say and have to take their word for it).

The correct sentence of course would have been:
As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far since the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq

The causation is a completely different question and should not be treated cavalierly in a sentence stating the facts. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy involved here ("I only had that accident because aunt Martha wanted me to buy her some potatoes when coming back from work"). Many different causes can be argued to have led to the present situation in Iraq. The invasion is surely prominent among the possible causes. But in the wise warning words of McGrath:

Events don't just have one cause, bruce.

One can only wonder why he only addresses Bruce here and not for instance Carol who had posted this before Bruce who was only parodying her:
ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:36 PM

The correct sentence of course would have been: As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far since the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq

No, this wouldn't be correct either. They are reporting on deaths that have occurred because of an act of war. Not, for instance, someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep (perhaps in an area that didn't have any bombs falling on it on that particular day).

One can only wonder why he only addresses Bruce here and not for instance Carol who had posted this before Bruce who was only parodying her: ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

I saw the flaw in that sentence after I posted it. I expected that you would not pass up the opportunity to snipe at it, and clearly, I was correct. So here is my rephrasing of that sentance...

ALL of the deaths that occurred as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US, Britain, and the "coalition", are the responsibility of the US, Britain, and the "coalition" countries, regardless of who did the killing.