Iraq Body Count at 25,000

Someone explain to me why blame can't be given to the terrorists. It is ridiculous to blame the US or anyone else for that matter for any act of a terrorist. Let me give you an example.

Someone slaps me... which is wrong. I go kill some innocent bystander as retaliation. Whose fault is it that the person got killed?

This example isn't even as clear as the terrorist situation. Let's look at their plight.

I do something that makes a terrorist mad. Not necessarily something wrong in the eyes of almost everyone in the world but pisses off the terrorist just the same. The terrorist then kills an innocent person and says it is because he is pissed at me. Whose fault is it that the person was killed?

Stick your head in the sand if you wish but the attack on London is more proof that these people have to be dealt with. Agree or disagree with why the war was originally started... doesn't really matter now... but can anyone argue that terrorists aren't in Iraq now and that we need to leave the country to them? I think not.

Very nice personal attack Ulrika... you haven't lost your touch for obserdity I see.

(They're not real threats, I'm just feeling really feisty right now and want to mix it up in the forums. )

The studies aren't in conflict with each other and thus they do not make my argument look completely unfounded. The reason the studies have different numbers is because they are measuring different things. The Iraqi Body Count website that sets the number at approximately 25,000 uses direct reports by media as it's only source and thus for obvious reasons will be a subset of the total deaths. The second number from a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore places the deaths at 100,000 uses statistical methods (similar to the ones used in the U.S. census) to estimate with a probability of certainty the total deaths in a country. Both are independent measures of different numbers and are thus not in conflict. Dig?

~Ulrika~

First rule of bad debating: Always attack your opponent personally when you have no position. So bite me. Wanna talk about families? That might not be a game you wanna start.
Actually, NM...I'd rather you throw up some of more your half-baked "Internet Intellectual" stupidity and let me shread it...with observations and facts (where applicable). I'd never need to go after you at all, your opinions are an easy enough target.

A cordial invitation from a happy poster...

Relax. The one time I am fully behind personal attacks is when individuals are rationalizing warfare (and thus by proxy devaluing human life) using weak arguments. People who argue that Skittles are delicious, well they get a pass. But people who rationalize an act that claimed hundreds of millions of lives last century alone with weak-ass arguments, they need a reality bitch slap.

Besides, there's nothing I said to him that wasn't true.

By the way, it's spelled "absurdity". Good to have you back Billy.

~Ulrika~

While I concede that licking emotional wounds while launching oneself fully into a mindless vendetta is satisfying, ultimately it will not help the quality of your posts.

~Ulrika~

What does "shread" mean?

~Ulrika~

Sorry, I have to put in a side note here:

BEST POST EVER!

I think the timing of this topic was a big fat mistake.

BUT

Since I have a very real stake in this this issue. I will shut my mouth before I get my ass banned.

Cat

Please, take the blinders off. Understanding that man will wage war, and that there will never...ever be universal peace is a far cry from condoning or liking war. I believe that hurricanes will come as well, from time to time. So please Ulrika, goddess of peace, quit dramatizing. Hows the writing? I went to Dictionary.com and everything! Now for your next post, might I suggest that you take a deep breath, find your center, then let it flow...see? Calm is good....

oh, and I almost forgot. I used "Shread" in a manner similar to the vernacular of...say...surfers, skaters..oops...I meant skateboarders...Motocross riders...
I know, a bit childish.. I'll try to stick with the Queen's English from now on. 'k?

You don't get to define who gets to grieve, or why. Additionally, your statement completely misrepresents what this thread was about in the first place, and the objections to it.

Really poor form to flex your supposed forum muscles at people on a very hot topic such as this by attacking people who disagree with you personally.

It's trolling for a personal arguement instead of argueing an issue. Tacky one might say.

I reported it, just an fyi.

ps if you ever start mistakingly thinking like you're some sort of forum giant, I'll be more than happy to come out of retirement and you can try your little games of personal attacks on me. My skin is thick, and my claws sharp.

pps I really can't stand snippy people who resort to petty snide little personal remarks hoping to set off their 'victim' into saying something they'd regret.

Meh. I'm bored to death with the forums and I thought I spice things up by picking on the skinny kid. I full expect a formal warning with some possible time off for that post but it is worth it.

Must we spend our lives living in a politically correct world, where we pretend that every individual's opinion matters and has merit? Must I engage every weak argument with a detailed analysis of where it's mistaken only to have it ignored and more of the same returned to me? Let's just cut to the chase and point out the real problem. The problem isn't with the post, it's with the poster.

However, the issue here seems to be about maintaining our Polyanna veneer on the forums, where it's more important to report someone who threatens the status quo instead of brutally addressing weak arguments that justify warfare. I guess my priorities are different.

~Ulrika~

*Takes off rings*

Bring it!

~Ulrika~

You're comparing apples and oranges. You can do one without personally attacking someone.

It's done with finesse.

Kill! kill kill! Ah I can taste the blood in my mouth already! Mmmmm.

PS - I am not a nice "guy" and I dont care about firsts, seconds, and thirds.

The problem is that folks like you and I dont agree on enough base assumptions to even have a good argument, so what's the point?

I dont expect much of this to be resolved before 2035 or maybe 2040 anyway (if I read my Harry Seldon correctly).

.

So what you're saying is, that I should use diplomacy instead of warfare?

So what I did to Xtopherxaos was like war, where I attacked him without provocation with the goal of quickly winning an argument to take control of the forums. Instead, I should have discussed it even though that discussion would have taken a lot longer and might not have been successful.

I think I've learned something about diplomacy and war. Have you Xtopherxaos?

~Ulrika~

Basic Forum Policies and Etiquette

* Private discussions – the forums are a public area for the Second Life community’s use. Individuals who have a dispute with each other have other channels of communication to discuss their differences or communicate – private messaging, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life. Also, threads that are addressed to a single individual or group are inappropriate on the forums, this includes slander or "naming names" in a posts title, starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc.
* Think before you post – sometimes in the heat of a passionate discussion you may be tempted to say something that on reflection you will regret. If your words do more harm to the community than they might give you pleasure in the short term, reconsider posting.
* Flaming, Spamming, Trolling – Flaming (posting a message that is intended to incite anger or directly attack a person or persons), Spamming (multiple posts of the same topic or discussion), and Trolling (a post with an intentionally contrary opinion written with the intent of inciting or getting argumentative opinions) are strongly discouraged. If you think your post might be over-reactive, or that it might fall into one of these definitions, please reconsider posting....

nuf said

Many of the recent posts in this thread have been rife with personal attacks. While I appreciate the passion for such a hotly debatable topic, I'd like to remind everyone to please keep the discussion on-topic and refrain from personally attacking those you don't agree with. If the attacks continue, the thread will be locked and those involved will be warned and/or suspended.

I had hoped there would be more action in this thread to help me make my point but since the end is near, let me provide closure.

1. I entered the forum as a self-perceived arrogant and all-powerful force (the United States).
   
2. I then initiated aggressive dialogue with several players with whom I didn't agree (the Axis of Evil).
   
3. I then launched an unjustified attack on Xtopherxaos (representing Iraq).
   
4. I received several complaints from other players about my arrogance and the illegality of my attack (international outrage).
   
5. Jeska stepped in to remind us that laws are being broken (the U.N.).

How's that for an antiwar statement? Someone who's willing to risk being banned to teach some folks a lesson by example. What do you think about war versus diplomacy now Xtopherxaos?

Finally, because this was a fabrication does it mean I should be let off the hook? No way. I deserve a few days off for that regardless of my goal (the end does not justify the means). What do you think the U.S.'s penalty should be for killing approximately 250,000 people in an unprovoked war should be?

~Ulrika~

Yes, because this is a forum where we're all supposed to get along and play nice without attacking one another.

These forums have seen massive changes as the Lindens impose ever heavier rules to keep this sort of thing in check, all to keep us from getting personally nasty.

It's just silly to try to work your way around it.

Play nice or they take the sandbox priviledges away.

ps to add .. by all means, attack the idea without attacking the person. We can all pretend we're grown ups and everything.

That was a rhetorical question. I agree with you completely.

My whole point for this exercise was to show why one shouldn't behave that way. Pardon me for a quick partial repost:

1. I entered the forum as a self-perceived arrogant and all-powerful force (the United States).
   
2. I then initiated aggressive dialogue with several players with whom I didn't agree (the Axis of Evil).
   
3. I then launched an unjustified attack on Xtopherxaos (representing Iraq).
   
4. I received several complaints from other players about my arrogance and the illegality of my attack (international outrage).
   
5. Jeska stepped in to remind us that laws are being broken (the U.N.).

How's that for an antiwar statement? Someone who's willing to risk being banned to teach some folks a lesson by example. What do you think about war versus diplomacy now Xtopherxaos?

Finally, because this was a fabrication does it mean I should be let off the hook? No way. I deserve a few days off for that regardless of my goal (the end does not justify the means). What do you think the U.S.'s penalty should be for killing approximately 250,000 people in an unprovoked war should be?

~Ulrika~

You dodge nicely. And I commend your use of misdirection.

Man, this is condescending to say the least... "teach some folks a lesson"? Are you really serious?