What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Study: US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

Wakko

Well-known member
Sorry to dismiss your conspiracies.
What conspiracy is it now? About how normal people argue?

And, oh, what was my first post of the thread? Refutal of the source. Oops.
Your first post ended with:
Try harder, troll. Frakking n00b.
And your second was:
Try harder, troll. Frakking n00b.
Ad hominem, both of them. Bad, bad Rufus ;)

Lol, you don't like that the guy demonstrated clearly that he came from SB and was a troll. ^^
I don't get what you mean - he's a troll because he came from SB? Most of the people here came from SB, many of them have active accounts on SB. So they're all trolls?

Now, now, I understand that you do agree with this source, but don't try to protect the obvious troll just because he is supporting your bias. :)
Actually I haven't read GlobalResearch for a couple of years at least. I don't either agree or disagree with it, I think it depends on the actual article and its author. If by bias you mean "the US abused its dominant position in the global order and caused a lot of grief all over the world" then I really do belive that.

But let's not get ourselves distracted from your horrible, abusive behavior towards Josef. When will you finally apologise?
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
What conspiracy is it now? About how normal people argue?
Sorry to point out the fallacies in the source. I apologize for ruining your bias-fuelled righteous moment.
Your first post ended with:
And your second was:
Ad hominem, both of them. Bad, bad Rufus ;)
Niiiiice, ignoring the bulk of the post to nitpick what displeases you and attack it. It's sad to see you stuck defending a flame just because you agree with their conspirationist bias.
But let's not get ourselves distracted from your horrible, abusive behavior towards Josef. When will you finally apologise?
LOL. Good joke. Post shitty sources deliberately, get owned for it.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
Sorry to point out the fallacies in the source. I apologize for ruining your bias-fuelled righteous moment.
What righteous moment? My argument is "you have attacked another user with an ad hominem and that is wrong." Am I righteous for pointing it out? Is it something wrong to do?

Niiiiice, ignoring the bulk of the post to nitpick what displeases you and attack it. It's sad to see you stuck defending a flame just because you agree with their conspirationist bias.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out the part where you went off the rails. I don't have a problem with the rest of your first post (obviously, otherwise I would mention it).

LOL. Good joke. Post shitty sources deliberately, get owned for it.
No matter what you think of the source, it doesn't give you the right to attack the poster with an ad hominem. You know that.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
What righteous moment? My argument is "you have attacked another user with an ad hominem and that is wrong." Am I righteous for pointing it out? Is it something wrong to do?
Le Yawn. You're not trying desperately to shift the discussion to a minor element while the main point was the deliberate use of conspiracy sources by the OP in a pretty obvious troll/flame attempt. Can you try not being so transparent.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out the part where you went off the rails. I don't have a problem with the rest of your first post (obviously, otherwise I would mention it).

No matter what you think of the source, it doesn't give you the right to attack the poster with an ad hominem. You know that.
Puh-lease, you know perfectly well that was a flame/troll attempt with a bad source, the kind of which is mostly used for such purposes. It'd be the same with Breitbart and their ilk. At this point, it seriously feel you are just trying to have the last word after agreeing - as your likes indicate - with the OP's source and statement. It's a classical fallacy move, to try and shift the focus of the argumentation just to "have a victory" no matter what. After all, one never sees you being that righteous in other threads. You ain't really a defender of the widows and orphans here, AFAIK.

Just in the one thread where the OP happens to post the stuff that suits your bias. ;-)
 

Wakko

Well-known member
Le Yawn. You're not trying desperately to shift the discussion to a minor element while the main point was the deliberate use of conspiracy sources by the OP in a pretty obvious troll/flame attempt. Can you try not being so transparent.
No, the main point of this discussion was a claim about the number of victims of US actions since WWII. You have attacked the OP with a horrible ad hominem, and I have pointed it out. And that is the argument we're having here.

Puh-lease, you know perfectly well that was a flame/troll attempt with a bad source
No I don't know that. I don't think it was a flame or a troll attempt. I think that Josef belives what he wrote, or at least wanted to have a serious discussion. You're the one who turned it into a flame by immediately calling him a troll.

At this point, it seriously feel you are just trying to have the last word after agreeing - as your likes indicate - with the OP's source and statement.
I give likes where I want, how I want, for the reasons I want, and it can be for the actual argument, or for being funny, or for the sheer courage of posting something. I often give likes to you ;)

It's a classical fallacy move, to try and shift the focus of the argumentation just to "have a victory" no matter what.
I'm not shifting anything, my argument is from the very start the same "you've attacked Josef with an ad hominem and you should have attacked the argument instead."

After all, one never sees you being that righteous in other threads. You ain't really a defender of the widows and orphans here, AFAIK.
I disagree, but I don't feel the need to defend this aspect of my personality as I know for a fact that I am capable and willing to raise my voice or act in order to defend the wronged, weak and defenseless, if necessary against authority having power over me. Both IRL and on the internet. It's a deflection attempt on your part anyway, trying to attack my behavior when it's you who went all troll on Josef with an ad hominem.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
No, the main point of this discussion was a claim about the number of victims of US actions since WWII. You have attacked the OP with a horrible ad hominem, and I have pointed it out. And that is the argument we're having here.
You're just trying to shift the discussion, yes.
No I don't know that. I don't think it was a flame or a troll attempt. I think that Josef belives what he wrote, or at least wanted to have a serious discussion. You're the one who turned it into a flame by immediately calling him a troll.
Sorry to point out that obvious conspiracy and biaised websites are a hallmark of trolling these days.
I'm not shifting anything, my argument is from the very start the same "you've attacked Josef with an ad hominem and you should have attacked the argument instead."
When most of my post was... oh, wait! Attacking the argument and wrecking it properly.
I disagree, but I don't feel the need to defend this aspect of my personality as I know for a fact that I am capable and willing to raise my voice or act in order to defend the wronged, weak and defenseless, if necessary against authority having power over me. Both IRL and on the internet. It's a deflection attempt on your part anyway, trying to attack my behavior when it's you who went all troll on Josef with an ad hominem.
:rolleyes:

My apologies for pointing out how you've been constantly, including in your latest post, portraying my answers as nothing but "horrible ad hominem" while you "try to get back to proper argumentation standards", deliberately ignoring the facts of my first set of answers - before you shifted the discussion - that were a proper demolition of the source. Now you portray yourself as a noble white knight too. XD
 

Wakko

Well-known member
You're just trying to shift the discussion, yes.
When most of my post was... oh, wait! Attacking the argument and wrecking it properly.
I don't know how much you wrecked the argument, I think that it was a bit lazy. But you did call Josef a troll, and I take issue with that. And that is what I wrote, and that is what we argue about since then.

Sorry to point out that obvious conspiracy and biaised websites are a hallmark of trolling these days.
Trolling is something different. Josef's OP wasn't deliberately offensive or provocative. Yours one was - calling him a troll and a "frakking n00b" was definitely provocative and offensive. I took offense and it provoked me to rebuke you for it.

My apologies for pointing out how you've been constantly, including in your latest post, portraying my answers as nothing but "horrible ad hominem" while you "try to get back to proper argumentation standards"
But that is what I do - trying to maintain the argumentation standard. I like FiC and I don't want anybody here to bully other users.

Now you portray yourself as a noble white knight too. XD
My sense of self-worth is absolutely independent on your opinion ;)
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
I don't know how much you wrecked the argument, I think that it was a bit lazy. But you did call Josef a troll, and I take issue with that. And that is what I wrote, and that is what we argue about since then.
OK, so now your entire argumentation is based on your self-portrayal as a white knight defending the innocents against evil. I think that closes any chance of this thread having any usefulness. The OP got his small flame, his source got debunked effectively and you get to paint yourself as a brave paladin who just happens to defend the one guy who posts anti-US conspiracy sources that fit your usual editorial line when it comes to the US, so I believe we're done.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
OK, so now your entire argumentation is based on your self-portrayal as a white knight defending the innocents against evil. I think that closes any chance of this thread having any usefulness. The OP got his small flame, his source got debunked effectively and you get to paint yourself as a brave paladin who just happens to defend the one guy who posts anti-US conspiracy sources that fit your usual editorial line when it comes to the US, so I believe we're done.
My own argumentation is based on me taking issue with you bullying other users here. I don't need to portray myself in any way, the people whose opinion matters to me know me well enough. It's you who tried to attack me by claiming that me defending Josef's right not to be insulted by you was out of character for me, so to this I replied to you that I'm confident in my character and don't feel the need to defend it in front of you. I really don't care what you think of me, man. And no matter what you do think of me, I wish you well.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
They are! Dude do you know how controversial both those people are? I know there are people on this very board who consider Bush a war criminal.
That people call them war criminals does not mean it's a common view. Like I personally think the entire political and administrative leadership of the US going back at minimum half a century (yes, this for those conservative liberals in the audience who call themselves "Republicans" this means Obama and Hillary and Bill too) should be gone through like a fine toothed comb by the ICC, but that's not a common view because the war crimes committed in the name of capitalism are different from the war crimes of Communists, people generally lack the ability to self-criticize and this is an example of such.
 

Mithril-Blade

New member

It's quite amazing that the US seems fine with calling out leftists for casualties invoked by policies and yet can't clear it's own room before doing so. If Lenin is "bad", why isn't Kissinger or Bush?

I await the inevitable citations taken straight from Courtois book by non leftists to try and defend this.
Now, I grew up in Colombia and I can say with all certainty that your document is, well, shit.

Yes, the US-funded in big part Colombia's fight against the guerrillas. And yes, given how corrupt the government is, the military, among many of its institutions, commits abuses.

Here is the kicker though: The article doesn't even say that the "3,500 people [that] die[d] each year" in Colombia were from abuses of power by the military. It merely implies it but at no point does it EVEN justify as claim that the fighting is happening due to the US economically helping the Colombian government fight it.

So.....how many people did the US kill in Colombia again? Because taking the whole death tolly generated by the fighting between the guerrillas and the Colombian government and laying it the US feet is stupendously disingenuous.

Point in fact, the whole article FAILS at clearly linking these deaths to the US.

So, um, yes, the casualties generated by communist ARE worth calling out while the deaths here...are not.
 

IndyFront

Hypershitlord
Author
I think the main reason for such a misunderstanding - justified or otherwise - is due in large part to the Drug War and the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan.

EDIT: And it most certainly is not 20 million. It probably isn't even a quarter of that.

Edit #2: America has NO IDEA how many innocent people it's killing in the Middle East | The Independent

Two reports conducted by the Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, used extrapolation based on epidemiology, and were published in The Lancet. The first, published in 2004, estimated that at least 100,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the war.

The second, published in 2006, suggested the figure had risen to near 650,000. The British and US governments criticised the findings but those involved defended the methodology. In 2015, a report by Physicians for Social Responsibility suggested the total may have passed one million.

The truth of the matter is that nobody knows. The figure could be one million, it could be two million.
The point is, anyone claiming a definitive figure is full of shit. The most people to die in one conflict post-WW2 were in the Congo Wars, which were for the most part contained to Africa. In those conflicts around 5 million people died. Most certainly nowhere near 20 fuck million, that's more than the Holocaust. Even if the US were directly involved.
 
Last edited:

Realmfighter

Well-known member
The point is, anyone claiming a definitive figure is full of shit. The most people to die in one conflict post-WW2 were in the Congo Wars, which were for the most part contained to Africa. In those conflicts around 5 million people died. Most certainly nowhere near 20 fuck million, that's more than the Holocaust. Even if the US were directly involved.
Usually these kinds of things are rhetorical devices intended to harken back to "100 million killed by communism", which in the context of where those numbers come from "anyone claiming a definitive figure is full of shit" is a pretty apt description.
 

Baron Steakpuncher

Proletarian Puncher of Steaks
Author
20 million is unlikely in my opinion.

Combine Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Korea, then add the various victims of US backed regimes like Guatemala and the South American Juntas? 6-12 million seems within range.
 

Chessia

Tranarcha-Feminist Antifa Supersoldier Catgirl
20 million is unlikely in my opinion.

Combine Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Korea, then add the various victims of US backed regimes like Guatemala and the South American Juntas? 6-12 million seems within range.
Would we consider the US defense of the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia despite the Asian Communists seeking to levy international support to stop the Killing Fields as them being partly responsible for their continuation?
 

Baron Steakpuncher

Proletarian Puncher of Steaks
Author
Would we consider the US defense of the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia despite the Asian Communists seeking to levy international support to stop the Killing Fields as them being partly responsible for their continuation?
I didn't think of that particular episode.

Up it to 8-14 million.
 

Mithril-Blade

New member
20 million is unlikely in my opinion.

Combine Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Korea, then add the various victims of US backed regimes like Guatemala and the South American Juntas? 6-12 million seems within range.
Why are we doing that? Why are people killed (Because you'd need to justify their status as "victims" otherwise) be these governments on the US's head? For all the communism gets criticised I have never heard anyone lay North Korea's death toll before the 90's on Soviet Russia's feet, which is what you'd need to do to count Guatemala's and etc's regime deaths on the US.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
Why are we doing that? Why are people killed (Because you'd need to justify their status as "victims" otherwise) be these governments on the US's head? For all the communism gets criticised I have never heard anyone lay North Korea's death toll before the 90's on Soviet Russia's feet, which is what you'd need to do to count Guatemala's and etc's regime deaths on the US.
What??? It wasn't the USSR who has bombed North Korea back to the Stone Age, killing 1/5th of them! USAF, under LeMay's command, has destroyed everything there. Every single bridge, dam, railroad, town and village. They've actually run out of targets.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top