Discussion in 'Religion' started by craig a, Jul 21, 2007.

  1. Midas

    Midas New Member

    I am sure there were appeasers who were upset when the allies were bombing Germany during World War II.

    I am sure there were appeasers who stated that not all German people are Nazis's and we shouldn't let the behavior of those men dressed in those nice brown shirts represent all of Germany too!

    Let's see...50 million dead. Russia leading the way with 20 million killed. Hundreds of death camps in and around Germany.

    Guess what? Civilians get killed in wars.

    As Sherman said, "War is hell".

    Now go cry me a river...
  2. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Your humanity is underwhelming...:mad:
  3. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    It's amazing how Moen is able to use a hypocritical display of emotions.I believe they call it "Crocodile tears", or false or insincere weeping.
  4. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    Again MOEN,

    You STILL won't answer my original question and now you run away crying foul. All I asked was for you to link me an article detailing the number of Iraqi deaths from U.S. troops. Not a link about the total number of Iraqi's killed by war and natural death. I asked you to send me a link referring to your 100,000 Iraqi deaths by U.S. forces, which you still haven't answered. And then your question to me afterwards was for me to send you links stating otherwise. Well, OldDan did it for me since I knew for a fact that your idiotic 100,000 death toll is bogus.

    So, getting back to MY original unanswered question to you.....


  5. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    Here you go Moen, a little more research:

    At the Time to Go Demo of September 23, 2006, Horton accused American president George Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair of "lies" and "killing children" in Iraq. On October 11, The Lancet published new estimates of the death toll of Iraqi citizens after the US led invasion in 2003, putting it at a total of 655,000. Some supporters of the invasion of Iraq dismissed it for what they claimed was flawed methodology. Some opponents of the invasion questioned its reliability due to its extreme divergernce from other data on the conflict. Some news paper journalist were supportive. Other experts in the field were not convinced, saying the estimates were "high, and probably way too high.", and that the authors had published a "misinterpretation of their own figures". Others were incredulous that the survey could have been performed as reported under such dangerous conditions.

    Iraq's health minister estimated during a press conference in November 2006 that between 100,000 and 150,000 people had died since the invasion in 2003, based on an estimate of around 100 deaths per day brought to morgues and hospitals during 2006, while saying that the Lancet estimates were an "exaggerated number" and that most of the civilians killed were not by the military forces.
  6. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    What is everybody's opinion about Wikipedia? An open source website where anybody can say anything they like. My guess is that on some topics it's probably a fine source of information but when it comes to topics like politics, religion, and values issues all you are really getting is people's biased opinions. Is there anyone here that feels that Wikipedia is a valid source of information or is it just the lazy man's one-stop shopping source for misinformation? You decide. :cool:
  7. Stu Joe

    Stu Joe New Member

    It is probably less biased, in a lot of ways, that 95% plus of the information found on the web. That includes a lot of news and pseudo news sites these days that are filled with blogs, opinion articles, editorializing, sensationalism, hidden (and not so hidden) agendas, bias by omission, etc.

    I believe there is no such thing as bias-free information when it comes to most topics that have any controversy to them whatsoever. Certainly not on the web. Anyone who thinks so is naive, in my opinion. I think Wikipedia is good for an overview of many topics including some you mentioned. The best articles are heavily sourced which is something you rarely, if ever, find on most information sites. It is extremely clique-ish, however.
  8. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    Oh I see! When you use Wikipedia for a source of information, it's acceptable, but when someone else uses it, it becomes less than honest and above board.
    Guess, it all depends on who you trust...Moen or Wikipedia! Like you said, make your own decision.
  9. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    As do I Stu! Well said and to the point!
  10. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    We are all still waiting for your reliable link MOEN!
  11. WhispTech

    WhispTech I'm Special :P

    Thers such thinsg as an unbias link onthe interweb lol

  12. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Sure there are, all the ones that agree with everything I say...:rolleyes:
  13. OldDan

    OldDan New Member

    Your right Mr. Moen, and I have found the same 'one' that you are talking about!
  14. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Funny how that works...
  15. jwevansv

    jwevansv All-knowing

    The difference with that comparison is that the libs links are full of LIES and the Conservative links are FACTS! So it isn't really that funny how it works. It is a failure and a travesty.
  16. Danr

    Danr New Member

    Yea, on opposite day
  17. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!


    ...It's so funny because he really believes it...
  18. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger Another Wandering Celt

    Some (myself included) would chuckle, thinking the same thing of the Dims...
  19. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    But I would never say something as naïve as that either. Now who is dim?
  20. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger Another Wandering Celt


Share This Page