Armistice day

Terry

and on CNN we are informed on the business news ticker that the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 civilians have been killed.
So apparently war is now a business as far as america is concerned.

the death of 150.000 innocent Iraqi people is now considered business news, yet the death of one american soldier (sent by his government to invade another country) makes international headlines.
fuck you, Ted Turner. may you and your ilk rot in hell.

Will the western world mourn the death of these innocent people on the day they mourn the death of millions of soldiers who have died over the years, or are Iraqi civilians expendible now?

Steyr

Nobody cares anymore why cant you see that.

Steyr

julep wrote:

and on CNN we are informed on the business news ticker that the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 civilians have been killed.
So apparently war is now a business as far as america is concerned.

the death of 150.000 innocent Iraqi people is now considered business news,

Has it occured to you that it may just be news and that that is all they are giving god forbid CNN give anything but news no matter what kind it is. Obviously never watched the News long enough to see a programme get an interruption like that have you.? Its JUST NEWS, chill out like.

Terry

Steyr wrote:

Nobody cares anymore why cant you see that.

I will have no problem banning you for pointless comments like that.
I'm hungover, so don't push me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by julep
and on CNN we are informed on the business news ticker that the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 civilians have been killed.
So apparently war is now a business as far as america is concerned.

the death of 150.000 innocent Iraqi people is now considered business news,


Has it occured to you that it may just be news and that that is all they are giving god forbid CNN give anything but news no matter what kind it is. Obviously never watched the News long enough to see a programme get an interruption like that have you.? Its JUST NEWS, chill out like.

yes, it is news. the problem i have with it is that it was referred to as part of the business news. have i been away for so long that the death of innocent people is now a business? it was there alongside the dow jones index.

faceman

surprised it was in the business ticker, mite have been an oversight.

The fact that the iraqi news station is reporting it tho means it rubbish. Its propaganda. I would wait to see it verified by an independent source before casting opinion on it.

Mourning the death of allied soldiers is different. We are mourning "heroes" who fought for the freedom of democracy and you and me. Long may we mourn them.

But you're probably right, even if the stat is true, the western world wont mourn the same way. But then again we dont mourn victims of famine etc.

Speaking of which, do we hold an annual mourn for the victims of Omagh?

Steyr

Ban me just because your having a bad day ha ha ha ha dont make me sick, thank god your not in power. FYI you cant do that and well this boards has free speech so NO you cant ban anybody just because nobody agrees with you and what goes on in your head.

Steyr

julep wrote:

I will have no problem banning you for pointless comments like that.

Not pointless to ME as i dont care or do the people I know about Iraq so yes it is a valid point.

Terry

faceman wrote:

surprised it was in the business ticker, mite have been an oversight.

The fact that the iraqi news station is reporting it tho means it rubbish. Its propaganda. I would wait to see it verified by an independent source before casting opinion on it.

Mourning the death of allied soldiers is different. We are mourning "heroes" who fought for the freedom of democracy and you and me. Long may we mourn them.

But you're probably right, even if the stat is true, the western world wont mourn the same way. But then again we dont mourn victims of famine etc.

Speaking of which, do we hold an annual mourn for the victims of Omagh?

it wasn't an Iraqi news station reporting it.
this was CNN, an american station. the source was the Iraqi government.

Steyr wrote:

Ban me just because your having a bad day ha ha ha ha dont make me sick, thank god your not in power.

I am here.

FYI you cant do that and well this boards has free speech so NO you cant ban anybody just because nobody agrees with you and what goes on in your head.

for future reference, please note that boards.ie does not have a policy of free speech.

faceman

julep wrote:

it wasn't an Iraqi news station reporting it.
this was CNN, an american station. the source was the Iraqi government.

sorry yes, i meant to say iraqi government as the source.

Why not pop an email to cnn and ask them about it to see what they say?

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

faceman

The Scientist wrote:

Are you taking the piss there or what?
I'm not mourning the death of any 'allied' soldiers. They did'nt fight from freedom and democracy, They fought for power and oil.

And fighting for "you and me"??????

My Balls, is all i can say for that ridiculous comment.

T.Sc.

Gobshoite. you obviously dont know what Armistice Day is about. It has nothing to do with Iraq.

county

The Scientist wrote:

Are you taking the piss there or what?
I'm not mourning the death of any 'allied' soldiers. They did'nt fight from freedom and democracy, They fought for power and oil.


so they fought for power and oil in both WW1 and WW2,history not your strong point?

ARGINITE

faceman wrote:

Mourning the death of allied soldiers is different. We are mourning "heroes" who fought for the freedom of democracy and you and me. Long may we mourn them.

I agree the two thing are totally seperate.
But the fact is that American doesnt give a rats-ass how many Iraqi get killed, but god forbid it be an American soilder.

Steffano2002

150.000 Iraqi civilians died since the start of the "War on Terror"? Is that correct? As far as I'm concerned they were murdered by Bush (one of the worse things that happened to humanity since Hitler IMHO) and his administration...

On the subject of CNN: I am not surprised to see "War in Iraq"-related news on the Business ticker... I mean, why did the war happen in the first place? To combat the Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Afghanistan responsible for 9/11?
George W. Bush scares me more than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il put together!

Invading a country, for no reason other than financial gain, when the UN tells you not to is just crazy! The US scares me... Europe better start matching their weapons arsenal because we sincerely need to become the new "World Policeman". Our current one has obviously gone crazy...

faceman

Steffano2002 wrote:

George W. Bush scares me more than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il put together!

i hope you're joking right?

Rb

Steyr wrote:

well this boards has free speech

No, no it doesn't. It's a privately owned website and there is no freedom of speech here. There is to an extent, but not utter freedom.
That said, Julep's hangover doesn't mean he's entitled to warrant posts pointless and ban people for it either. He may be moderator but that can be quickly changed if hes going to be a nazi.

ANYWAY, I see where you're coming from Julep, or at least the thought process behind the original post.
I don't know whether the fact that they posted the death tolls on the business news ticker means that they view the war/slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis as a business, could just be a slow day in the business news. Or you could be right, maybe the business/political heads do view it as a business.

Either way, I think everyone knows by now that the "war" in Iraq was wrong from the start. We all know it certainly did have its business side to it i.e America gaining control of the oil for its own benefit. Whether CNNs publishing of the death tolls is showing us that they view it as business, I'm undecided.

julep wrote:

Will the western world mourn the death of these innocent people on the day they mourn the death of millions of soldiers who have died over the years, or are Iraqi civilians expendible now?

I can't imagine anyone but the Iraqis will ever mourn the death of their civilians, as tragic as it is.

Steffano2002

Let's not confuse Armistice Day (Anniversary of the end of World War I) and the murdering prowess of the american soldiers in Iraq...

Steffano2002

faceman wrote:

i hope you're joking right?

Not one bit actually. That's how "terrorised" I am of the US.

Bodhidharma

World War 1 and 2, along with almost every war ever staged was done so because of the financial rewadrds obtained through gaining natural resources and expanding empires.
In that way there are certain similarities with the Iraq situation, but i suppose the armies were more evenly matched.

People call soldiers killed during wars "Heroes", some may be, but the majority were just victims. There is no heroism in being conscripted into an army, sent off to a foreign land and being shot dead.

i guess the whole heroes thing has a lot to do with the old adage, It is the victors who write history.

People also talk about the numbers killed in Iraq, yes it is astronomical and tragic, but the vast majority have been killed by fellow Iraqis.

Rb

Bodhidharma wrote:

but the vast majority have been killed by fellow Iraqis.

Do you have evidence to back up that statement?Or a link perhaps?

Steffano2002

rb_ie wrote:

Do you have evidence to back up that statement?Or a link perhaps?

I'd say he doesn't... Probably watched CNN or Sky News too much!

Bodhidharma

Steffano2002 wrote:

I'd say he doesn't... Probably watched CNN or Sky News too much!

Are you trying to tell me that the estimated 100 people killed a day in Iraq, were murdered by American soldiers? Dont be ridiculous, maybe Bush killed them all himself eh?

Its pretty clear that this whole Armistice day thread has been overtaken by stupid anti - american lefties who are going to try to justify why they dont like the country.

As for watching too much CNN and Sky News? Yeah and i read newspapers too, does not make me a puppet of the multi media evil empire that is America?

Sounds to me like your jumping on the trendy attack America bandwagon.

Rb

Thats a poor response at best. Again, do you have any links to prove the claim that the majority of the death toll in Iraq was due to Iraqis killing fellow Iraqis?

Steffano2002

Bodhidharma wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that the estimated 100 people killed a day in Iraq, were murdered by American soldiers? Dont be ridiculous, maybe Bush killed them all himself eh?

Answer me this then: Would there be 100 people killed a day in Iraq today if Bush hadn't decided to attack them for their oil?

Bodhidharma wrote:

Its pretty clear that this whole Armistice day thread has been overtaken by stupid anti - american lefties who are going to try to justify why they dont like the country.

I'm actually right wing thank you very much. Probably more than you are. This doesn't stop me disliking Bush and his administration. He's dangerous and if you can't see this, you're a fool.

Bodhidharma wrote:

As for watching too much CNN and Sky News? Yeah and i read newspapers too, does not make me a puppet of the multi media evil empire that is America?

Yes

Bodhidharma wrote:

Sounds to me like your jumping on the trendy attack America bandwagon.

I don't jump on bandwagons. I can actually think for myself, don't need the trashy american/english media to tell me how...

Binomate

Steyr has a point. Nobody cares any more, which is ultimately the problem. If you ever saw the film hotel Rwanda there's an excellent quote that sums it up. "I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.".

It think the fact that the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths don't make front page news is a reflection of this.

Bodhidharma

No there wouldn't be 100 killed everyday if they hadn't invaded. So what? That doesn't alter the fact that its not the Americans pulling the trigger. I'm talking facts not opinions.

As far as linking evidence to support what i say, why would i want to do that. Surely thats a waste of time if people aren't even willing to accept facts, just because i dont want to go to the bother in proving something that is fairly obvious.

I'm not saying it was a good thing, and i'm not saying they are not at fault. My point is that although they were the original cause of the conflict, it is the civil war which will claim more lives.

I didn't say Bush wasn't dangerous, and i am not a fool, I'm a puppet because i have an opinion that doesn't match yours. As for being right wing, your correct, you would be very much more right wing than i am. Your still wrong though.

Rb

Bodhidharma wrote:

No there wouldn't be 100 killed everyday if they hadn't invaded. So what? That doesn't alter the fact that its not the Americans pulling the trigger. I'm talking facts not opinions.

Present them.

Bodhidharma wrote:

As far as linking evidence to support what i say, why would i want to do that. Surely thats a waste of time if people aren't even willing to accept facts,

Ridiculous argument. Either show us facts to prove that the Iraqis themselves have caused a greater percentage of the total death toll since the beginning of the war in Iraq, or stop making things up.

Bodhidharma wrote:

just because i dont want to go to the bother in proving something that is fairly obvious.

I fail to see how it is at all obvious. We all saw the footage of the Americans almost carpet bombing throughout Iraq, how is it obvious at all that the Iraqis are mainly responsible to the death toll of their own people?

Bodhidharma wrote:

My point is that although they were the original cause of the conflict

Huh?Iraq started the war?Thats news to me.

Bodhidharma wrote:

Your still wrong though.

Listen, we can all make up "facts" and then make excuses to not bother backing them up. Its easy! That doesn't make us right though.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Bodhidharma

First off, they, as in America, started the war.

Secondly how long did it last? Are they still carpet bombing, no.

Since the thing has gone on and on it has developed into a civil war on the basis of religious division.

I cant believe people are still not admitting this. It is obvious that America are there now as a police force and not an invading army, and by that i mean the invasion is complete and they are trying, half assed, to try to control the different sects.

Why do i need to prove that the daily car bombings and beheadings in Baghdad are not done by Americans, its fairly obvious.

It is ridiculous to ask me to get facts to prove everything i say. why dont you prove to me that George Bush is evil, more so than Kim Jong Il et al. Quantify that and get back to me.

Rb

Bodhidharma wrote:

It is ridiculous to ask me to get facts to prove everything i say.

I'm not saying you have to back up everything you say with links to facts/sources, just that if you're going to make statements such as the one in this thread you should be able to back it up with some sort of proof. Saying that the Iraqis are responsible for the better part of the total death toll is a statement that requires some sort of proof/facts/figures.

Bodhidharma wrote:

why dont you prove to me that George Bush is evil, more so than Kim Jong Il et al. Quantify that and get back to me.

Where in this thread did I say he was?

Bodhidharma

Steffano2002 wrote:

George W. Bush scares me more than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il put together!

I seem to be arrguing against two people.

The brief "war" has descended into a civil war of attrition, resulting in heavy losses on both sides. This has gone on for over two years and has killed more than the amoount that the US killed, soldiers and civilians. You drag up the numbers if you want to prove me wrong

Rb

Bodhidharma wrote:

You drag up the numbers if you want to prove me wrong

You're the one making statements, the burden of proof rests on you. Also, an out and out civil war had not yet broken out in Iraq.

Bodhidharma

rb_ie wrote:

You're the one making statements, the burden of proof rests on you. Also, an out and out civil war had not yet broken out in Iraq.

OK, since i am not going to try to track down the numbers i will qualify my sentance with, "It is my belief that....."

Civil war doesn't need to be named as such to be one. Come on, at least you can see that.

Lust4Life

Bodhidharma, you are my Hero!
I wish I had the fortitude and political vocabulary to debate as you do. The points you make are spot on.

mickd

Regardless for what side one is on there is no justification for the nearly 4000 deaths of American service men and women. The fact is that the American invasion has acheived nothing, depose Saddam and you have civil war, the rest of the world has being saying this for long time, only now is it beginning to dawn in America. If they weren't so hell bent on this adventure thereby forgetting the traits of honour and integrity they wouldn't be in the mess they are in now.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes, yes, he is cream of the fortitude and political vocabulary crop...


Cause and effect, look it up.

Stephen

I appear to have taken a wrong turn and ended up on the f**king politics board.

deman

Stephen wrote:

I appear to have taken a wrong turn and ended up on the f**king politics board.

Exactly what I was thinking.

mickd

Yet you went to the 'trouble' of reading this thread

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

how else could he have graced us with his sarcasm

or was it irony

either way, big up stephen

big up

Mossy Monk

shame on you for watching CNN in the first place

faceman

Steffano2002 wrote:

Not one bit actually. That's how "terrorised" I am of the US.

Obviously you dont like Bush as many dont but the analogy you used is shameful and a nod to terrorists

There's alot of anti iraw war michael moore heads on this thread. I dont know if Bodhidharma's claim is correct. Can anyone dis-prove it?

For those anti-war heads here, what is/could have been the best solution in iraq?

PS. The scientist, no probs dude.

Terry

ok. let's get back to the original point of this thread, which was to point out that CNN seems to view the death of Iraqi civilians as business news.
i was really disgusted by this, especially on the weekend that the british (and many others) mourned those killed in wars over the years and that the death of one american soldier made the main headlines on that partiucular day.
judging by the reaction of CNN, Iraqi people are just numbers and this war is a business matter unless an american is killed. this, it seems, is an atrocity.

let's get some facts straight here.
1. America and britain were the main invasion forces (the 3rd largest, Spain, wisely pulled out after the Madrid bombings).
2. any country under invasion will have people fighting against the invaders. it's human nature. these people are not insurgents. they are just average people trying to defend what is theirs.
3. as for bush being more evil than those he refers to as "the axis of evil", they are all as bad as each other. the only difference being that bush actually followed through with his threats.
4. boards is slow today. i'm off to feedback to bitch and moan about it.

il gatto

And I thought this would be about Irelands belated, begrudging recognition of the many thousands of Irishmen who fought and died in the wars. Ah well.
It must be remembered, there were more resons than just oil. Bush's father had failed to complete the rout of Saddam, so there was a grudge element. It also gave Bush the chance to become a war president (the only ones most people remember). The "War on Terror" was a way of placating a scared and angry America, because it was big, obvious and in your face (how American), and suble, behind the scenes C.I.A. methods wouldn't have cut the mustard publicity wise. And lastly, American manufacturing was on the skids. Now, companies like Lockheed, General Dynamics Land Systems (make the Abrams tank) and their ilk, are flat out, now just supplying, but fixing and reconditioning (ah! clever you say). They're employing more people, leaving the U.S. government able to claim a healthy economy, and redistribute wealth, whilst having lower unemployment rates, and not having to implement a pesky social welfare system (as a european would recognise it).

Marksie

faceman wrote:

For those anti-war heads here, what is/could have been the best solution in iraq?

Possibly faceman just after desert storm when the iraqi army was in full retreat and the kurds rose up as they had been encouraged to do.
Stopping then and allowing them (the kurds) to be hung out to dry was the pits to be honest. and something we should in the west be ashamed of. After that who was going to truts the western powers to back them in an uprising.

Trying to get ontopic a little: i heard a reporter once saying that the degree of interest in the news is inversely proportional to its distance from the listener... and i recall the quote from hotel rwanda..sharp incisive and correct.
So deaths in iraq, or tsunamis for that matter may have little or no bearing for many people other than figures untilit happens on their back door.

Armistice day: Or remeberance day/ poppy day in the uk. It is for the dead in ALL conflicts. and the poppies are sold to give to charity to help the upkeep of the servicemen and their families.... strange i was listening to some people ranting about the wearing of poppies on rte radio yesterday.

My personal opinion is not of glory or heroes, but of those men and women, many of who were very young who were wasted in the first world war (PALS battalions being a great example), and who laid down everything in the second..so people like me and you could have some semblence of free speech on boards. You find that many of the survivors never talk about it anyways..it took years for my mother to winkle out of my father that he had been in the battle of the bulge and was responsible for minesweeping (in fact he was leading a company of 7 men when one triggered a huge german anti tank mine and 5 were killed outright). But i recall talking to one of his friends and as a very young child of 7 why his wife had numbers tattoed on her arm (he liberated her from bergen belsen and then married her).

Anyways i digress, but essentially it is a day for rememberance of the dead..and not jingoistic. Personally it keeps me cognisant that i dont want to see it happen again

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

For those anti-war heads here, what is/could have been the best solution in iraq?

leaving saddam in power would probably have been best in the short term, maybe even in the long term too.. that place could descend even further into **** over the coming years and there's no guarantee it will be able to climb out and clean itself off.

aidan_walsh

let's get back to the original point of this thread, which was to point out that CNN seems to view the death of Iraqi civilians as business news.

Unless you can show me either on the website or a video from the day in question that CNN were setting a deliberate policy of taking Armistance Day as business news (which is too ridiculous to even contemplate as credible), I'll just assume that this thread was written in an amazing acrobatic feat of kneejerking the likes of which may never be witnessed again.

Most likely an oversight on the part of whoever was organising the ticker. Thank God people don't react the same way whenever RTE News has a technical error, or A&E would be in a worse state than ever.