Artful Dodger: And it is not impossible to know. The best estimates are made by those who research the issue, like ORB, as posted below.

Artful Dodger: Sure, there is plenty of good information you can find by googling.

Czuch: "Can you give me somewhere to find where the FBI says they have confiscated video that they do not want to release?"

Do you want me to provide you with a Bush-Cheney confession tape also?

These confiscations are based on testimony. Maybe all these people are lying. Again, you would prefer to conjure up any nonsensical loophole you can find, rather than actually do any legitimate research of the issues. With someone so intent as you are to remain uninformed, what is the point of debate? You "see no evil, hear no evil," no matter the evidence.

The Usurper: Rubbish. You're using google mined stats. I used the first one's I found. And one of the links gives numbers from 90,000-600,000 but concludes it's impossible to know. And your charge of murder is simply not true and a manipulation, sheer propaganda.

Artful Dodger: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Those are the numbers YOU choose to use. Why? Because you don't want to know the truth. That's ok. There are always those who will support war crimes with any justification and who will deny the evidence even when bodies are laying in front of them.

Czuch: "For your version of 9/11 to work, it must work in all facets and in all and every instance....."

Not so. It is not a chain argument, but a cable argument. In a chain argument, you break one link, the whole case falls. In a cable argument, certain strands may snap, yet the cable hold.

There are so many strands in this cable as to amount to overwhelming proof of U.S. government complicity. You simply haven't researched it.

On the other hand, the official conspiracy theory is defeated at every point by overwhelming evidence. Again, you haven't researched it.

However, MANY Americans have researched it, and many more are doing so. The numbers of those who know are climbing and the truth, in this age of information, cannot be withheld.

It makes me sad. I'm sorry it happened. It makes me angry, that a group of Neo-Cons would destroy America. Many people who voted for Bush now have seen the evidence & become painfully reconciled to the truth. Many people who did not vote for Bush have gone through the painful experience of recognizing their Democratic leaders are also guilty of crimes.

The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers the centralized authority, standing armies, power concentrated in a few hands. It's why the Revolutionary War was fought. Those who worship American power today (YOU) are not moved by the spirit of 1776.

The Usurper: So what. You google mined for those stats. As I correctly pointed out, no one knows for sure. You're using the WORST stats you could find. That's disingenuous. Also, you said the US murdered these Iraqis. That is a deliberate false statement. And as I have pointed out, most of the deaths were carried out the terrorists - the Muslim kind. ONLY where the US deliberately ignored civilians when they bombed an area or when they deliberately bombed civilians do you have a case that even comes close to murder. This is what I mean by propaganda. YOu use these terms so loosely that I just blow off everything else you say. You play so loosely with the facts that your credibility with me is in serious jeopardy. I'm beginning to think you will say anything, just to support your point. Facts be damned! Michael Moore IS a BIG FAT LIAR. Don't be like him.

Military Slaughters Iraqi Civilians:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/68980/


Targeting Civilians in War (A Book):
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18227/targeting_civilians_in_war.html


The Laws of War, US-Style:
--More than three hundred Iraqi civilians died on 13 February 1991 when two US F-117 stealth bombers targeted the al-Amiriya bunker in Baghdad. Photographs of the charred and twisted bodies of women and children shocked a world which, thanks to Norman Schwarzkopf and CNN, had seen little of the horrors of the Gulf War. Pentagon officials, who claimed to have intelligence indicating the bunker was a command and control centre, denied knowledge of the civilian presence. Had they known, the attack would probably have been classed as a war crime.--
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/byer01_.html


Belgian Law Suit Accusing the US of War Crimes in Iraq:
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle05172003.html


The list goes on. I could copy & paste for hours. Here is the pattern:

1. The U.S. bombs and kills civilians.
2. The military reports casualties of enemy combatants, but not civilians.
3. Third parties then report the civilian deaths.
4. U.S. Army denies it knew civilians were present.
5. Repeat ad infinitum.

--Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.--
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm


--BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.--
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/


--Finally, they point out that more recent data confirm their findings and even suggest a higher figure. The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

Czuch: Nope... it's a statement saying that only the parents have the ability to decide to have an abortion, and that it cannot be for silly reasons. Eg The mother's life is in danger in some way from the pregnancy, or like in some cases the mother develops cancer.. what then?

And you'll find that it is usually a joint decision in a relationship, but when it comes to a single person... ... I feel then things get complicated.

Artful Dodger: "biological fact"... yes biological, an animal is biological, plants are biological, all life .. well.. most.. is biological.

But we are more then just biological. Breath of life and what not, or have you forgotten soul and spirit?

"There is no energy rush. That is metaphysical mumbo jumbo."

I beg to differ and will do so till I discorporate.

Czuch: The idea of "potential" human life is just plain nonsense. It's not scientific. We know better these days what we are dealing with.

Sperm is alive. Basic biology. So is the egg. From these living cells comes another kind of life: human. At conception, we have life. There is no point in the human chain of existence where life of some kind wasn't present. So this notion of potential life flies in the face of the facts. And basic biology tells us what kind of life is present at conception.

Biology science is in agreement on this. Yes you can find scientists who will say otherwise, but the majority of scientists make the bold statement that there is NO QUESTION that human life begins at conception.

(V): Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually"

That sounds like abortion to me

You cannot have a life without a father, why do they not have any consent in an abortion?

(V): It's a biological fact that human life begins at conception. Science is settled on this question. Life is present at the moment of conception. And clearly, nothing significant differs from 5 mins before birth to 5 mins after. There is no energy rush. That is metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

Czuch: Beacuse it is the termination of a possible life to be without consent. The baby might die (as in the physical element) before birth. The life is...... ""potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually"

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm#Abortion

(V): How come when you murder a pregnant woman it is a double homicide then?

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

"In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body."

Which from experience seems to be true. Something happens at the moment of birth, it's like a rush of energy entering this world.

(V): we already have tear gas and others....

Czuch: Why not... It would be great for urban combat, great for hostage situations.

The lives saved alone in military op's involving urban combat in the form of our troops would be worth the investment alone.

(V): yes, a bomb that releases a chemical, thats what I meant...... like I said a great idea, but its no wonder the military isnt much interested in developing it

Czuch: Not a bomb, more like a spray or airborne chemical that causes paralysis.

I did.

Czuch: Seems to me that all the problems the US has to put up with regarding "detainees" it would be much easier to just shoot them all. Easier to shoot and bury them than it is to accommodate every whine of the left over their treatment

*note to critics: not saying we SHOULD do this. Just seems so odd that more of a stink is raised over the US and its actions and you hear almost NOTHING from the critics regarding the terrorists. Hamas fires rockets everyday into Israel. Israel does nothing for months. Finally Israel responds and WHAM, the critics are there defending poor Hamas and Gaza and condemning Israel But little to no mention of the constant rockets being fired into Israel. Were the tables turned, Israel would be condemned for the rocket fire and Hamas would be justified for a heavy handed response.

(V): I thought you were asking why we dont make a bomb that disables instead of kills?

check your mail will ya?

Czuch: Um you said that it'd be better to kill enemy troops rather then take them as POW's.

Sorry I wasn't quite precise, but technically it is supposed that you try if possible to take prisoners rather then kill everyone. One of the reason military bullets are jacketed.

(V): I said nothing about killing POWs???

I said if you had a bomb that only temporarily disabled people, you would end up with a problem of way too many POWs, as compared with if the bomb simply killed everyone

Czuch: Not what the guy said or meant. You know.. like the CIA.. everything is ok for them, including drug and gun running, etc, etc.

Czuch: Um The Geneva convention which the USA signed and practised during WWII and even were part of courts to which Axis military, etc were held to account for killing POW's.... was wrong?

(V): Not a government within the government... a government with 3 separate branches none beholden to the others

Czuch: Exactly. And we know that happens but clearly it's not a policy of the US military.

(V): I like the idea! Something that temporarily disables everyone long enough to restrain them....

but I can tell you that one reason it hasnt been developed yet is the extra headaches live people are compared to dead people.... talk about POWs

Czuch: A goverment within the government that the President has no control over, reports to no-one and by that is seemingly above the law is honesty?

Czuch: Some cases I think an army can go OTT to get the few. Eg... When the Russians used that gas to rescue hostages.

Surely after all this time instead of making things that kill, why hasn't a non-lethal (or as low as possible eg 99% safe) gas or chemical been developed for use in the field?

Artful Dodger: Well, a soldier can always murder someone, just like any other person, but that does not constitute the military or the government....

(V): Is that honest government?

That is the way our government is divided, it shouldnt be much of a surprise to anyone, really? It helps it be a more honest government, and is one reason why such a large scale conspiracy like 9/11 could not have taken place

Czuch: Or indicting themselves for some evil they've done.

(V): No, not always with a civilian killed in war, depends on the circumstances.


well, except if the civilian is the specific target....

Czuch: According to a retired Canadian defence minister, your government is not run in many parts by your President. And has been this way for some while!!

Is that honest government?

Artful Dodger: According to him, the only time the government is honest and above board is when they are talking about the catastrophic dangers of global warming

Czuch: No, not always with a civilian killed in war, depends on the circumstances.

And as for abortion.... it depends on your views. I can accept that there are some reasons for abortion, but not always. As for it being murder... That depends on your view on when the unborn child becomes 'alive' as in 'alive' in soul and spirit. It's a tricky field as there are so many opinions.

Artful Dodger: They can't do everything, and like any org (or Gov) they get it wrong probably from time to time. We had a case here where several people involved in the welfare of children messed up and a baby died because of it.. Several heads rolled.

They say they fight for...

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. .

**********

So sure they don't hold to some conservative values, but some values are based on tradition rather then being right. eg.. votes for women, segregation.

Czuch: Usurper used the word "murder" incorrectly. He's also inflated his numbers.

(V): Then that is state sanctioned execution.

Then so it is when a civilian is killed in a war too... and when an unborn child is aborted, right?

Czuch: Not murder, the government cannot legally murder someone. If you are talking that your country in some states has the death penalty.... Then that is state sanctioned execution.

To say the government of the USA can murder people is to say that the USA government is above the law... or the government within the government.

The Usurper: Explain to us ( the ignorant ones with our heads in the sand) how your theory about the government causing tragedies on purpose to gain control through fear and intimidation for some evil agenda against the good of the common people fits with the military targeting civilians for murder?

(V): "They protect many rights, including those of Christians and other religious groups."

Yes but they also do a lot of harm IMO. And many issues where they should be active, they are silent. They love liberal issues. Not so much conservative.

The Usurper:First of all, your 750,000 figure is extremely inflated.  According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the figure is under 100,000.

Secondly, a large percentage of these deaths are due to suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other terrorist acts. 

I'm not saying that it's ok to kill any civilian.  And I'm not saying collateral damage "happens."  Even though it does.  But if the US went in to liberate Iraq, then killing any of their citizens, even accidently, is a very unfortunate thing and should be prevented at all costs.  But where ever you get those figures, it's wrong. 

According the Boston Globe the total figure will never accurately be known.  Even if your figure were correct, a majority of deaths come from within. 

The following is an example and can be found on Michael Moore's website: "The deadliest single incident in February was a suicide bombing carried out by a woman on February 13 among a crowd of mostly women and children on the way to a religious festival. She killed at least 38 people and wounded at least 50."

That's murder and the person or persons responsible are the terrorists and NOT the US. 

The Usurper:First of all, your 750,000 figure is extremely inflated.  According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the figure is under 100,000.

Secondly, a large percentage of these deaths are due to suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other terrorist acts. 

I'm not saying that it's ok to kill any civilian.  And I'm not saying collateral damage "happens."  Even though it does.  But if the US went in to liberate Iraq, then killing any of their citizens, even accidently, is a very unfortunate thing and should be prevented at all costs.  But where ever you get those figures, it's wrong. 

According the Boston Globe the total figure will never accurately be known.  Even if your figure were correct, a majority of deaths come from within. 

The following is an example and can be found on Michael Moore's website: "The deadliest single incident in February was a suicide bombing carried out by a woman on February 13 among a crowd of mostly women and children on the way to a religious festival. She killed at least 38 people and wounded at least 50."

That's murder and the person or persons responsible are the terrorists and NOT the US. 

The Usurper: Okay, so get yourself elected and look into it for us?

Can you give me somewhere to find where the FBI says they have confiscated video that they do not want to release?

The Usurper: A coule of things that dont seem right just doesnt cut it, really.

For your version of 9/11 to work, it must work in all facets and in all and every instance..... The whole thing must be a government plan, and try all you like, but it just will never hold up to scrutiny... and I know that is all you ask for, more official scrutiny, and subpoenas etc.... but you can have all that until the cows come home, and it will never go where you want it to go

The Usurper: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government, in the form of a law, but you have zero proof that the US military ever specifically targeted civilians in Iraq!