Will Howard on November 23, 2006 - 2:13pm:
"I am neither ignorant nor deceitful"
Oh, really?
From 'Smoked herring is more like it' by Will Howard on November 23, 2006 - 11:35am:
What is the "illegitimate sprog" in support of which you claim I write? And what do you mean by "sprog" anyway? The definitions I've seen are "new military recruit" and "child" or "offspring."
-=*=-
Well, let's have a look here:
Kindly note the dates.
-=*=-
Sooo, now we know a bit more... eh, matey?
An Aussie, you say? Who either doesn't know the lingo (ignorant) or plays dumb on what he does know (deceitful); so what else doesn't he know or acknowledge?
-=*=-
Let's go back a bit:
From 'Respect vs. Contempt' by Will Howard on November 19, 2006 - 9:11am:
"[a] characterisation of US action as 'murder-for-oil' is a questionable if not completely false premise..."
Well, pardon me Will Howard, but you can't just negate [such a] premise without proof - that'd be a bit 'unscientific,' eh? Easy enough to say any old rubbish, but can't back it up: all fluff and no stuff?
That's the order of business as I see it. Will Howard made the above radical assertion over 5 days ago now, but so far has made absolutely no attempt at justifying it. Why not? When?
New addition: 'Murder-for-Oil-denier' may not have quite the same cachet as 'Holocaust-denier,' but with 50mio people's lives (Afghanistan + Iraq) having been turned to a living (when not actually being non-legally slaughtered) Hell, with 1/2mio kids copping it to Albright's OK, 655,000 'excess deaths' in Iraq since the illegal invasion - could be upwards of 2mio on the US' account since '91; 'Murder-for-Oil' is certainly getting there. Ditto for the Israel murder-for-spoil (land, wardah®). And this is now, i.e. 60 or so years on - we are supposed to know better? People like WH obviously do not.
Oh, and a real Aussie would well understand "What are ya?"
7 comments:
Abusive and/or content-free comments may be deleted.
You seem to have accepted the 655,000 death toll figure for Iraq.
Can you justify why you have taken this figure and not one of the conflicting figures (which range from about 50,000 through 150,000 and everything in between)? What made the 655,000 superior in your view?
While I am not suggesting that the 655,000 is necessarily wrong but it is significantly more than the United Nations figure (about four times higher) and the IraqBodyCount figure (around ten times higher) and this would suggest to me that there is no real consensus among institutions, individuals or statisticians.
So, again with my question, why have you chosen to endorse the 655,000 figure and not one of the lower figures from another agency?
G'day Dylan,
and thank you for your interest.
1. I have not 'chosen to endorse' anything. If I write that the speed of light (c) is 2.998 10**10 cm/sec, I am not 'endorsing' that value, merely quoting what *qualified* people agree on. It's called 'the scientific method,' for which I use a less formal and more colloquial abbreviation: WYSIWYG.
2. You pick on a single detail, and miss the larger story; IMHO that's a typical 'spoiler' tactic, namely that of (propagandistic!) distraction. Just in case you really *are* interested in the whys and wherefores of the truly dreadful death toll of the US (UK, Aus) illegal invasion, then you can have my opinion on that for 'no extra charge,' tout de suite (and then you may leave): *ONE* dead Iraqi would be too high a price to pay for the impending US' theft of Iraqi oil.
3. The real point of my item (given away by the keyword 'sprog') is the credibility of a certain propagandist, now indubitably shown (by his own words) to be abso-bloody-lutely zero.
Since you seem to feel OK about asking me a question, I'll ask you one: what's your real interest in coming here?
(Haw, haw, haw! Imagine getting a straight answer!)
PS Want more?
The fact that this 'sprog' item has been declined 'over there' would tend to put the lie to 'that place' being a den of 'lefty' inequity, don'cha think? Oh, and apart from that, they appear to be in violation of their own (or (worse?) M***o's) self-professed ethics. People who evade the truth, or actively suppress a truth, are (filthy!) liars too.
Now, moralizing: there is (perhaps better said, *was*) enough on this planet for everyone to have a reasonably comfortable existence; it is(was) only a matter of something like 'to each according to need, from each according to ability.' But no, that doesn't mean confiscatory Marxism, totalitarian Trotskyism or any other dilettante dialectic -ist/ism stuff, just: "A fair go, ya mug!"
Q: What did the US, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's resource-consumption do to deserve that?
A: Lie, cheat, steal and murder, that's what. So they never 'deserved' it; they stole it, and not just at the point of a gun, not just by hideous nukular-bomb threats, but by actual mass-bloody-murder for spoil. All of which the US' cripple-illegitimate sprog copy-cats.
-=*=-
One final point (I actually have limited time for 'in here'); although I don't know exactly where you're coming from (detested Ameri-speak; spit, spit!) - I do know at least one place where you've been. So I can fairly confidently speak of 'people of your ilk' when I say this appears to be your ilk's crie de coeur:
Yeah, but what's in it for me?
Submitted by C Parsons on June 22, 2006 - 10:31am.
Says it all; graspers, all.
Hi Phil:
No problem answering your question straight.
I found your blog via a comment on Damien Lataan's blog and clicked over.
I didn't pick up on your whole post because I have had that particular argument a hundred times before.
I did ask about your death toll figure because it is something I have been interested in. Check out my own blog: I have posted twice on that topic and that figure in the last couple of weeks. It's not a spoiler tactic - if you had clicked through my name you would see that it is a topic that is of interest to me at the moment.
As for you endorsing a value, I am not convinced that you are *not* endorsing the figure you cited. As I pointed out, there are other figures that *qualified* people have agreed on but you chose the outlying 655,000. If not an endorsement, this implies that you consider it superior to the other tolls out there. If not, you probably would have cited a range ("...between 50,000 and 655,000...") or noted that there is no agreement at all on this figure but you prefer it. But whatever - if you think that citing the highest figure floating around is an example of "the scientific method" then good luck to you. I was just interested, is all.
Finally, how does hanging out on Harry's blog lump me in with people of an ilk? Why would you assume that I hold the same opinions as all the others who frequented there? Read my comments on the blog and you will see that there are differences between just about every position taken by 'the regulars' there. I mean, even the person who inspired you to blog (Lataan) was a regular there - and I doubt that either he or I could be included in any single 'ilk'.
Thanks for your answer.
G'day Dylan, or should I say bonjour?
You see, I did research you a bit (and that was before your moan).
And as far as an 'ilk' goes, you've probably heard of 'known by the company one keeps?'
And as for the nasty names they hurl at Damian - horrors!
But did you check on *exactly* where my link pointed?
"Sure, a place like Cuba has a different way of running their financial/economic system and that's fine - if you want everyone to live in poverty. But take a look at any list of national GDP for the past 20 years and there is the US right at the top."
I have a bit of a problem with US sycophants, and I have 'virtual allergy attacks' when I read stuff like that of yours. I happen to belive that not only is the US the worst murdering armed criminal in the world (Israel a close 2nd), the US invading nations at will to rip-off their resources (murder for oil), they are also ripping-off sovereign resource-owners around the world by neglecting to pay fair royalties and in fact in lots'a places paying no royalties at all. All this means that the US economy is *not* admirable. So I 'ilked' you in with your k-str mates. If it was not an exact 'ilking,' sorry.
Now, to the 'extra' deaths. Actually the 655,000 sits in a 'confidence interval' set by the statistical significance-level of the sample - or some-such terminology. Yes, it's high, but the upper limit of the 'confidence interval' is higher still, as you probably already know.
(We do know that there are deficiencies in other measures. 1) The Iraqi body count only counts media reports, and then only if a report is 'doubled' from diff sources. 2) There's another count that counts morgue arrivals, that's gunna miss the 'buried in the back yard' bodies. 3) Then, there's all the dead, pink-misted human meat under exploded buildings. 4) The people who *should* know 'Don't do body counts?')
Perhaps in my new blog somewhere (torrid building, amongst other minor irritations, like being 'blocked' by WD) is the number 2mio, which is my rough estimate of total 'extra' deaths (due, I allege, to the mainly US actions) since 91. We know (no link) that Albright admitted to Stahl that 500,000 dead children 'was worth it.' (Since kids were only the half...) That was '96, a lot more would'a died before "Shock and Awe" even started, hmmm?
Sooo, long story short: I'm concerned about Iraqi deaths, yes, but not as concerned as I imagine the 25mio or so left-alive Iraqis are.
My 'speciality' is railing and raging about US mass-murder for spoil, as you might'a noticed.
Facit: sorry I can't be much more help than the above, in your "True 'extra' deaths count" search.
Hi Phil:
I did indeed visit the link you posted to something I wrote on Harry's blog. The extract you quote in your comment seems to me to be factually correct. It might not be something you are happy about - it seems you are not - but it is factually correct.
You seem to have a problem with *why* it is correct. You say:
"I happen to belive that not only is the US the worst murdering armed criminal in the world (Israel a close 2nd), the US invading nations at will to rip-off their resources (murder for oil)..."
OK. It's your opinion. I don't happen to share it but, hey, each to his own, right?
It's strange, though, that you rank the US and Israel up at the top of the "murdering armed criminals" list. Since you use "is" I guess I should confine any response to reletively recent events. But the conflict in Darfur is estimated to have had a death toll around the highest figures cited for Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if it doesn't quite get to the 655,000 level you seem to like (some sources have it up around 450,000), surely you wouldn't be claiming the Israelis have killed more since 2003 when Darfur and Iraq got going, are you?
As well, you seem to equate 'death at the hands of another' with 'murder'. They do *not* mean the same thing, yet you seem to suggest that they do. Deaths - even those brought about by military actions - are not necessarily murders.
As to the US invading states to "rip off" their resources, can you provide a few examples? Let's take Iraq as a given - not that I think it really is but I am assuming that you think it is a glaring example - but what about some others.
Yugoslavia? Kosovo? Somalia? Korea? Vietnam?
And as for invading at will, perhaps you could point to a time when someone was *forced* to invade another country. Aren't all invasions 'at will' in that the invading country chooses to cross the borders of another state?
Perhaps you feel I am being semantic but when you make such large claims I would hope your committment to the "scientific method" would enable you to support your claims with evidence.
Looking forward to new posts on your blog coming soon.
Post a Comment