The iraqie holocaust and its denile

As this subject seams to be a hot potatoe here at ATS im gonna try this at a diffrent angle,

fistly if you look up the word holocaust you ll notice that it clearly states loss of life

even more accuratly grate loss of life and suffering during war or fire.

so how do you define grate loss of life ?

is it 10 killed or is it 1000 killed , does it have to excede 10000 inorder to be qualifyed as a holocaust ?

id asume it is a grater number then 10 mabye more in the terms of 100´s

so then you have to ask your self has the iraqie war deathtoll qualifyed as a holocaust ,

yes

wether you speculate if its 100000 or 1000000 whos kicked the bucket is completely of topic , you still have a holocaust at hand,

now reports suggest that the civilian death toll in iraqie is over 100000 its more in the lines of 480.000-600.000 mabye even the 1000000 suggested by reuters.

here are some links for material regarding the death toll number and other atrocites in iraq.

www.globalpolicy.org...
www.thelancet.com...
books.google.com...
www.thelancet.com...
www.wsws.org...
www.wsws.org...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.cnn.com...
online.wsj.com...
blog.wired.com...

wether you belive this or not is up to you,
all i can say is if you dont you are in denile.

Personally I think the toll is more along the lines of 3 million if not considerably more.

Taking into account the depleted uranium constantly being used, bombing runs every day, new weapons testing, and hundreds of thousands foreign soldiers that could give a rats ass about Iraq and its people; this is just the beginning.

That's the sad part, even if all the tanks did roll out, all of Iraq infrastructure and land has been all but decimated. Radiation will kill millions more even after the fact.

Germany went for the Jews. United States and the 'coalition' are going for the Arabs. There is no difference. (just different weapons and methods)

By definition, it's a holocaust in Iraq, and plenty of other places too. Almost appears as nazi's killing of jews has copyright on 'holocaust' in public talk. In fact, to my ear WW2 jew holocaust was more like attempt of an genocide.

But if we are strict on definition, the original word in Greek meant complete destruction by fire. Sounds like WTC to me

[edit on 1-2-2008 by v01i0]

reply to post by zerbot565

---

there is a huge diffrence between the intentinoal killing of people and the "cost" of war. we arnt lining arabs up and mowing them down with machine guns. or choping heads off by the dozens. when we do that i will be more than happy to listen to you preach. but for now it is my view that this topic and all like it are just a complete waste of time and space..

well the cost of war can be very intentional in this case, be it directly carried out by the troops or not .
white lies lead this war on 2 soil, denying the bodycount is just absurd in my opinion

you can add to that body count about 4million people that are on the run as refuges

im just perplexed as to how this should justyfie 9/11

I'm not sure how huge a difference there is...dead is still dead. And when it comes to the loss of innocent life, packaging it as collateral damage makes the difference even narrower.



Maybe not as policy, but there is ample evidence of the rouge brutality exercised by some in the military and contractor ranks.

Moreover, it's not really necessary to line them up when you can do that indiscriminately from the air.



This is something I never really understand about posts like yours. Regardless of whether you feel these casualties are unavoidable, and therefore somewhat justified, why is there not some expression of regret or sympathy for the toll?

The absence of that expression makes us appear as barbaric as the enemy we are fighting.

Just my $0.02.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by loam]

reply to post by DaleGribble

---

Thank you, opinion noted. While I appreciate your opinion, would you then refrain from expanding this 'waste of space', this will also rationalize your use of time.

I don't know if we can call Abu Ghraib atrocities 'lining up arabs'. And that shooting civilians with machine guns isn't 'mowing them down with machine guns'
?


[edit on 1-2-2008 by v01i0]

reply to post by loam

---

i wouldnt say no remorse. the lose of innocent life is always a shame and a waist. i just get sick of hearing over and over thread after thread of america bashers.

im sure americans over there have killed civies on purpose. same as they have done to us.

is it right? no
would i do it? id have to be in that situation
is it genocide? no
is it another hohlcaust? not even close

Thought you wouldn't. If you are so sick of hearing this anti-american propaganda, then why you are still here provoking?



Please point when civilians have killed US troops? Or did you perhaps mean 9/11? Dude, be serious!

First you said that US troops don't kill civilians, then you had to take it back. Yet you are still denying holocaust. What kind of person are you? In europe denying holocaust gets you imprisoned! - just joking

[edit on 1-2-2008 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0

---

i never said us troops never killed civies. if you look at my first post it said they were a cost of war. that would also mean they have killed innocent people.

im not denying the holocaust at all. but america is not causing one would be the words i used.

so let me ask. what kind of person are you? twisting the words of others to fit your agenda..

as for them killing us. what of all the tapes of beheadings?

[edit on 15pmu122007 by DaleGribble]

reply to post by DaleGribble

---

Yep, you said indeed they were war casualties. But I also posted that they are something other than just war casualties. I guess we can both have our opinions there



Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by v01i0]