Tweet
Re: What's so funny about Bill O'Reilly and FoxNews?
Rajiv -
<< If the US had not invaded Iraq, those deaths would not have occurred. Hence the US intervention is directly responsible for those deaths. >>
Attributability is certainly not clear cut. According to your professed view, Iraqi's are mere children and all actions are the result of US initiatives alone? Then all responsibility for what they do to each other devolves onto the putative 'parent' in this theory, which according your view is solely is the US? Tucked away in your thesis therefore is bit of an unintended patronizing towards the autonomous ability of Iraqi's to secure the safety of their own women and children, no?
Such rationalizations for plastering "650,000 deaths" in Iraq so damningly upon the US exclusively pertains to the esoterically philosophical 'single butterfly's flight changes history' school of thought.
Given my observations above about the starkly different methodologies (and ethics!) of uniformed military fighting almost exclusively against armed combatants, vs. those who blow up 100+ civilians at a time in the marketplace and repeat this strategy dozens of times again through the year premeditatedly, your reply seems to fall back more on philosophical examination rather than specifics. You barely acknowledge the mass bombers even exist in your reply, let alone the scope of their carnage or their obvious keenness to commit it.
I will read the links you provide. But the rest of your reply seems to consist of emotionally charged generalities and not answer the questions I put to you. You cannot employ broad philosophical inquiry on the nature of "causality" in history, merely to examine the simple sequence of death events of this war - at least you can't do so without digressing into many much lengthier discussions neither of us care to pursue.
The majority of these gruesome deaths are quite deliberately wrought upon civilians by Shia and Sunni death squads expressly in order to deny the Americans the ability to secure civilian peace? Seems an obvious strategy, no?
Why don't you acknowledge it, as I've called it to your attention? Surely all the tens of thousands put to death to facilitate this disruptive terror strategy merit our at least acknowledging the identity of those who's hands actually put them into a grave? Where does "650,000 deaths directly at the hands of America" fit that acknowledgement into it's message?
Rajiv -
<< If the US had not invaded Iraq, those deaths would not have occurred. Hence the US intervention is directly responsible for those deaths. >>
Attributability is certainly not clear cut. According to your professed view, Iraqi's are mere children and all actions are the result of US initiatives alone? Then all responsibility for what they do to each other devolves onto the putative 'parent' in this theory, which according your view is solely is the US? Tucked away in your thesis therefore is bit of an unintended patronizing towards the autonomous ability of Iraqi's to secure the safety of their own women and children, no?
Such rationalizations for plastering "650,000 deaths" in Iraq so damningly upon the US exclusively pertains to the esoterically philosophical 'single butterfly's flight changes history' school of thought.
Given my observations above about the starkly different methodologies (and ethics!) of uniformed military fighting almost exclusively against armed combatants, vs. those who blow up 100+ civilians at a time in the marketplace and repeat this strategy dozens of times again through the year premeditatedly, your reply seems to fall back more on philosophical examination rather than specifics. You barely acknowledge the mass bombers even exist in your reply, let alone the scope of their carnage or their obvious keenness to commit it.
I will read the links you provide. But the rest of your reply seems to consist of emotionally charged generalities and not answer the questions I put to you. You cannot employ broad philosophical inquiry on the nature of "causality" in history, merely to examine the simple sequence of death events of this war - at least you can't do so without digressing into many much lengthier discussions neither of us care to pursue.
The majority of these gruesome deaths are quite deliberately wrought upon civilians by Shia and Sunni death squads expressly in order to deny the Americans the ability to secure civilian peace? Seems an obvious strategy, no?
Why don't you acknowledge it, as I've called it to your attention? Surely all the tens of thousands put to death to facilitate this disruptive terror strategy merit our at least acknowledging the identity of those who's hands actually put them into a grave? Where does "650,000 deaths directly at the hands of America" fit that acknowledgement into it's message?
Comment