EDL (English Defence League)

[Zingari]

Exactly.

but shouldn't the question have been directed at breadandcheese rather than empty ?

or am i missing something a little more subtle ?

[Houdini Logic]

but shouldn't the question have been directed at breadandcheese rather than empty ?

or am i missing something a little more subtle ?

He's the source of all things macabre

[Finnegan]

It was directed at bread, but I figured Empty would have a few ready sources.

[Zingari]

It was directed at bread, but I figured Empty would have a few ready sources.

ah , got you now ,

[BoneDog]

Mission for you, Empty. Using the most credible / unbiased sources you can, find figures for middle-eastern civilian deaths as a result of the 'war on terror' compared with western ones as a result of Islamic exremism (and, yes, include 9 11 as if the CIA didn't do it, there's a good lad.)

I'll have a look soon cos I have got a few sources somewhere! Not got time at the mo cos I'm in some double or nothing poker games on Party.

Oh, and I wouldn't say the CIA did it (I know I probably used to say that!) but a rogue element inside the CIA were definitely involved. Along with rogue elements in the ISI and certain 'others'

[Finnegan]

You watch too much Spooks.

[Zingari]

I'll have a look soon cos I have got a few sources somewhere! Not got time at the mo cos I'm in some double or nothing poker games on Party.

Oh, and I wouldn't say the CIA did it (I know I probably used to say that!) but a rogue element inside the CIA were definitely involved. Along with rogue elements in the ISI and certain 'others'

i'm so glad you've got your fookin priorities right

save the world from global tyranny or win a few bob at online poker

[Leicester_Loyal]

Yeah, I can understand it too. Y'know what would be the best way to show our distaste for this individual? Let's form a group (a league if you will), get some cringeworthy hoodies made, get hammered, smash up a few city centres and deck some brown people (they're all the same ent they?). Oh, and we should also sing some really REALLY shit songs as well. All in them name of defending our great nation.

There spokesperson is brown...

[Finnegan]

Tidy PR, that.

[breadandcheese]

It was directed at bread, but I figured Empty would have a few ready sources.

Surely the more pertinent question would be what are the figures for civilian deaths caused by coalition forces compared to civilian deaths caused by insurgent forces? Whilst the figures would be sadly very high for coalition forces as a result of airstrikes (leading to that horrible phrase collateral damage), it would then be interesting to dissect those figures and compare the number of civilians deliberately targetted by Western forces, as opposed to those deliberately targeted by Taliban/Al Qaeda/Iraqi insurgents.

Obviously, reliable figures are extremely difficult to find for this, as they are not freely available.

Closest I can get is figures from Afghamistan provided by UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan to show all civilian deaths.

2007

Civilian deaths by taliban/insurgents: approx 700

Civilian deaths by coalition forces: 629

2008

Civilian deaths by taliban/insurgents: 1,160

Civilian deaths by coalition forces: 828

2009

Civilian deaths by taliban/insurgents: 1,630

Civilian deaths by coalition forces: 596

2010 (up to June)

Civilian deaths by taliban/insurgents: 920

Civilian deaths by coalition forces: 223

The figures clearly show that over the last few years, more Afghani civilians have been killed by insurgents than western forces. These figures do not breakdown into accidental civilian deaths but I would hazard a guess that those intentionally killed by the Taliban/insurgents are far higher.

[Houdini Logic]

Tidy PR, that.

Even tidier if he calls himself 'brown'

[Finnegan]

Even tidier if he calls himself 'brown'

[FoxyPV]

Bread - i daresay the people who are killed by the imperial stormtroopers or their families don't see their deaths as anything less than murder.

If you said, "We didn't mean to drop that bomb on your house killing your entire extended family or strafe your house with bullets because we thought there was terrorist in there". I don't think it will mean an awful lot to them.

Collateral damage is such a dirty phrase.

[Webbo]

Bread - i daresay the people who are killed by the imperial stormtroopers or their families don't see their deaths as anything less than murder.

If you said, "We didn't mean to drop that bomb on your house killing your entire extended family or strafe your house with bullets because we thought there was terrorist in there". I don't think it will mean an awful lot to them.

Collateral damage is such a dirty phrase.

So by your argument someone who kills someone in an accident should be treated the same as someone who deliberately murders someone.

[Finnegan]

So by your argument someone who kills someone in an accident should be treated the same as someone who deliberately murders someone.

Don't be obtuse. His argument is clearly "it really wasn't that much of an accident."

When you make a decision to bomb X because you think Y might be hiding inside and you wipe out a bunch of civilians in the process, you really shouldn't get to call those deaths "accidental."

With all the modern, brilliant, multi-billion pound technology we have do we really buy into the belief that all these tens of thousands of civilian deaths are purely "mishaps." Or a blatant disrespect for the value of civilian life? Put another way, do we believe there'd be the same amount of civilian deaths if armed threats were entrenched surrounded by British civilians on British soil?

Nobody's saying that terrorism is excusable. But as a modern, highly equipped, highly advanced military force should we really be using what Al Qaeda would be willing to do to civilians as an excuse for being so gun-ho ourselves?

[Webbo]

Don't be obtuse. His argument is clearly "it really wasn't that much of an accident."

When you make a decision to bomb X because you think Y might be hiding inside and you wipe out a bunch of civilians in the process, you really shouldn't get to call those deaths "accidental."

With all the modern, brilliant, multi-billion pound technology we have do we really buy into the belief that all these tens of thousands of civilian deaths are purely "mishaps." Or a blatant disrespect for the value of civilian life? Put another way, do we believe there'd be the same amount of civilian deaths if armed threats were entrenched surrounded by British civilians on British soil?

Nobody's saying that terrorism is excusable. But as a modern, highly equipped, highly advanced military force should we really be using what Al Qaeda would be willing to do to civilians as an excuse for being so gun-ho ourselves?

So what you're saying is is that these so called accidental deaths are actually deliberate. What exactly do NATO forces have to gain from this?

[FoxyPV]

So by your argument someone who kills someone in an accident should be treated the same as someone who deliberately murders someone.

[Webbo]

Not much of an argument.

[Finnegan]

So what you're saying is is that these so called accidental deaths are actually deliberate. What exactly do NATO forces have to gain from this?

You believe all those countless, thousands of deaths were just "Oops, that missile completely malfunctioned", "Oo-er, sorry, my hand slipped on that helicopter mini-gun launch control."

[Webbo]

You believe all those countless, thousands of deaths were just "Oops, that missile completely malfunctioned", "Oo-er, sorry, my hand slipped on that helicopter mini-gun launch control."

That's not what I asked. What does NATO get out of killing civillians?Apart from bad publicity at home and abroad and encouraging more islamic militants and terrorist attacks in the west.

[Zingari]

So what you're saying is is that these so called accidental deaths are actually deliberate. What exactly do NATO forces have to gain from this?

In new world order / global tyranny theory, civilian deaths fan the flames of terror and keeps the whole thing going .

In this scenario you need to try to forget that wars are actually being fought with the intention of actually winning them , the actual aim is to keep wars going as that is where the big profiteers such as Halliburton and Carlisle group make the big killings.

The global war on terror ( which many conspiracy theorists argue is actually false flag ops ) replaces the old system of national wars

But of course , you need to buy into the whole "power of nightmares " conspiracy theory to accept this

( i really am not sure whether i do or not ,some of the arguments are very convincing but it's almost mind blowing if true )

[Finnegan]

That's not what I asked. What does NATO get out of killing civillians?Apart from bad publicity at home and abroad and encouraging more islamic militants and terrorist attacks in the west.

Or, steering clear of the global conspiracy theories, the simple and cynical belief that NATO Command entirely believe that the ends truly will justify the means and the civilian deaths are a pre-determined and acceptable cost of their campaign.

I'm not implying that attacks on civilians start out with the goal of being attacks on civilians. What I'm implying is that the evidence seems to be there that, largely speaking, NATO don't give much of a toss who gets gunned down or bombed if they're pushing on to their objectives.

[Webbo]

In new world order / global tyranny theory, civilian deaths fan the flames of terror and keeps the whole thing going .

In this scenario you need to try to forget that wars are actually being fought with the intention of actually winning them , the actual aim is to keep wars going as that is where the big profiteers such as Halliburton and Carlisle group make the big killings.

The global war on terror ( which many conspiracy theorists argue is actually false flag ops ) replaces the old system of national wars

But of course , you need to buy into the whole "power of nightmares " conspiracy theory to accept this

( i really am not sure whether i do or not ,some of the arguments are very convincing but it's almost mind blowing if true )

When I saw you were going to post in this thread I knew there was going to be a new world order angle . I understand the arguments and I'm not saying that they are all 100% wrong but I tend to believe more in cock ups rather than conspiracies.

EDIT; If I'd have been made a mod I'd have moved this out of the EDL thread and put it a new one. But what do I know? <_<

[Zingari]

When I saw you were going to post in this thread I knew there was going to be a new world order angle . I understand the arguments and I'm not saying that they are all 100% wrong but I tend to believe more in cock ups rather than conspiracies.

EDIT; If I'd have been made a mod I'd have moved this out of the EDL thread and put it a new one. But what do I know? <_<

it's probably safer for your sanity that way , and i might learn take heed , because realistically even if they are true , there's absolutely fook all i can do about it

[Webbo]

Or, steering clear of the global conspiracy theories, the simple and cynical belief that NATO Command entirely believe that the ends truly will justify the means and the civilian deaths are a pre-determined and acceptable cost of their campaign.

I'm not implying that attacks on civilians start out with the goal of being attacks on civilians. What I'm implying is that the evidence seems to be there that, largely speaking, NATO don't give much of a toss who gets gunned down or bombed if they're pushing on to their objectives.

War is not a nice business, people get killed, accidentally and deliberately. If Western forces were really totally indifferent to civilian deaths the war would be over by now.