Log in

View Full Version : 6.6 million excess deaths in Afghanistan



Sky
26th February 2008, 03:54
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080208.htm
The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 with the ostensible excuse of the Afghan Government’s “protection” of the asserted Al Qaeda culprits of the 9/11 atrocity that killed 3,000 people. In the light of as many as 6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan as of February 2008 (see below), it is important to consider the major problems with this Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite version of events as summarized below:
1. The US has a long history of “questionable” excuses for war e.g. the explosion of the Maine (the Spanish-American War), the sinking of the US arms-carrying Lusitania (entry into World War 1), the Pearl Harbor attack with now recognized US foreknowledge (entry into World War 2), North Koreans provoked into invading their own country (the Korean War), the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin incident (the Vietnam War; recently similarly but unsuccessfully attempted in the Persian Gulf as an “excuse” to attack Iran) and the extraordinary 1,000 post-9/11 lies told by Bush Administration figures, most notoriously about non-existent Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Iraq War; post-invasion excess deaths now about 1.5-2 million).
2. The US supported and funded Al Qaeda and the Taliban from the late 1970s to the early 1990s associated with its anti-Soviet policies (see William Blum’s “Rogue State”).
3. Oil- and hegemony-related plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were all ready to go before 9/11.
4. No Afghans were involved in the 9/11 attack according to the “official 9/11 story” of the egregiously dishonest Bush Administration.
5. Even the right-wing, neo-Bush-ite Democrat Al Gore in his recent book “The Assault on Reason” (Chapter 6, National Insecurity, pp178-179) condemns the Bush Administration for effective passive complicity in the 9/11 atrocity i.e. they let it happen, just as a fore-warned US Administration permitted the Pearl Harbor attack to happen in 1941: “Their behaviour, in my opinion, was reckless, but the explanation for it lies in hubris, not in some bizarre conspiracy theory …These affirmative and repeated refusals to listen to clear warnings [prior to 9/11] constitute behaviour that goes beyond simple negligence. At a minimum, it represents a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people.”
6. However, further to point #5, the extremely eminent former 7-year President of Italy, law professor, senator for life and long-term Western intelligence intimate Francesco Cossiga recently (November 2007) told one of Italy's top newspapers that (a) the US CIA and Israeli Mossad committed the 9/11 outrage in order to further US and Zionist aims and that (b) major Western intelligence agencies are well aware of this (for details and documentation see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/18569/26/ ).
As of February 2008, analysis of UNICEF data (see UNICEF statistics on Occupied Afghanistan: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_statistics.html ) allows the following estimate of 3.3-6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that should not have happened) in Occupied Afghanistan:
1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million.
4. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths 3.2 million (2.3 million /0.7 = 3.3 million; for impoverished, worst case Third world countries the under-5 infant deaths are about 0.7 of total non-violent excess deaths (see A Layperson’s Guide to counting Iraq deaths: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5872/26/ ).
5. post-invasion violent deaths about 3.3 million (assuming roughly 1 violent death for every non-violent avoidable death i.e. roughly as in US-occupied Occupied Iraq where the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent excess deaths is 0.8-1.2 million to 0.7-0.8 million; see Continued Australian and US Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq: http://ruddaustraliareportcard.blogspot.com/2008/01/rudd-australia-report-card-1-continued.html ).
6. upper estimate of non-violent plus violent post-invasion excess deaths 3.3 million + 3.3 million = 6.6 million excess deaths.
For detailed documentation of the above see “Australian complicity in continuing Afghan genocide”: http://ruddaustraliareportcard.blogspot.com/ . A major cause of the carnage is revealed by WHO (see: http://www.who.int/en/ ) – the “total annual per capita medical expenditure” permitted by the Occupiers in Occupied Afghanistan is a mere $19 – as compared to as compared to $2,560 (the UK), $3,123 (Australia) and $6,096 (the US). This is in gross contravention of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm ) which unequivocally demands that the Occupier must provide life-sustaining food and medical requisites to its Conquered Subjects “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”. Compounding this is the appalling reality of 4 million Afghan refugees.
What is happening in Afghanistan is an Afghan Holocaust. One sees that post-invasion under-5 infant deaths in Occupied Afghanistan (2.3 million) vastly exceeds the number of Jewish children murdered by the Nazis in World War 2 (1.5 million). The upper estimate of post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan (6.6 million out of an average 2001-2008 Afghan population of about 25 million) exceeds the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis in World War 2 ( 5.6 million out of 8.2 million Jews in German-occupied Europe in the period 1941-1945) (see: Gilbert, M. (1969), Jewish History Atlas (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London) and Gilbert, M. (1982), Atlas of the Holocaust (Michael Joseph, London)).
Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (see: http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html ) states “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
From the data summarized above, it is apparent that the Afghan Holocaust is also an Afghan Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention.
Outstanding US Law academic Professor Ali Khan of the Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas has also described what is going on in Afghanistan as genocide i.e. an Afghan Genocide (see “NATO Genocide in Afghanistan”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/19831/42/ ).
The key legal verdict of Professor Khan is as follows: “The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entered into force, 1951) is binding on all states including the 26 member states of NATO. The Genocide Convention is jus cogens, the law from which no derogation is allowed. It provides no exceptions for any nation or any organization of nations, such as the United Nations or NATO, to commit genocide. Nor does the Convention allow any exceptions to genocide "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war." Even traditional self-defense - let alone preemptive self-defense, a deceptive name for aggression – cannot be invoked to justify or excuse the crime of genocide.”
Professor Khan proceeds to analyse the campaign of extermination of the Indigenous Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan in relation to International law. He states that in relation to Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention “In murdering the Taliban, NATO armed forces systematically practice on a continual basis the crime of genocide that consists of three constituent elements - act, intent to destroy, and religious group.” His detailed analysis can be succinctly summarized as follows:
1. “The Genocidal Act” is prohibited as defined in the Genocide Convention as “a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” – but is is clearly occurring on a huge scale as indicated by the above data.
2. “The Genocidal Intent” is expressed in the Genocide Convention as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”- but is clearly present in the statements of the NATO leaders. The “Intent” is also apparent from the sustained, resolute conduct of this horrendously bloody war for over 6 years.
3. “The Genocidal targeting of a Religious Group” is clearly prohibited by the Genocide Convention by “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” – but is clearly being carried out with the accompaniment of immense Islamophobic propaganda in the West.
Professor Khan concludes: “It may, therefore, be safely concluded that NATO combat troops and NATO commanders are engaged in murdering the Taliban, a protected group under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to physically and mentally destroy the group in whole or in part. This is the crime of genocide.”
As an agnostic humanist I certainly don’t care for the Taliban beliefs – but what agnostic humanists (such as myself) or people of other philosophic persuasions think about the religious beliefs and interpretations of the Taliban is beside the point from the perspective of the UN Genocide Convention.
And while I strongly object to human rights violations by the Taliban (especially in relation to women and application of their extreme interpretations of Sharia Law) one has to objectively give credit to the Taliban for (a) bringing Peace through victory in the middle 1990s and (b) for destroying 95% of the Afghan opium production in 2001 (as well of course banning the vastly more deadly use of alcohol and for prohibiting Afghan Government employees from the even more deadly practice of smoking tobacco in 1997). Smoking, alcohol and illicit drugs kill about 7 million people annually, the breakdown being 5 million (tobacco), 1.8 million (alcohol) and 0.2 million (from illicit drugs, about half opiate drug-related).
It can be estimated that 0.6 million people have died world-wide due to opiates in the last 6 years, about 0.5 million of these deaths being due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from 5% of world market share (2001) to 93% (2007) (see UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC, World Drug Report 2007: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/world_drug_report.html ).
The 0.5 million global US-NATO-linked opiate drug-related deaths plus 6.6 million post-invasion Afghan excess deaths bring an upper estimate of the carnage due to the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan to 7.1 million deaths. If we include excess deaths associated with UK-US actions against Iraq in the period 1990-2008 (about 4 million) then the gruesome carnage of the Bush I plus Bush II Asian Wars now totals about 11 million excess deaths (and this ignores the impact of the Bush Wars through oil price rises and other factors on Third World avoidable deaths).
Occupied Afghanistan is the New Auschwitz of the US and its complicit allies (including former Axis countries Germany and Japan who have on US instigation joined the US-NATO Afghan Genocide) (see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/7616/26/ ).
Those Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite politicians, military and Mainstream media executives complicit in the Afghan Genocide should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court (see: http://ruddaustraliareportcard.blogspot.com/ ).
In his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (see: http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm ), UK playwright Harold Pinter urged the arraignment of Bush and Blair before the International Criminal Court for war crimes and stated “How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought.”
Eleven million? More than enough, I would have thought.
Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has just published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ and http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ).

pusher robot
26th February 2008, 04:20
Cut, copy, and paste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows), GNOME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME) and KDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDE) keys for cut and pasting: Control + x (cut), Control + c (copy), Control + v (paste)


In human-computer interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction), cut and paste and copy and paste offer user-interface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface) paradigms for transferring text, data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_%28computing%29), files (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_file) or objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29) from a source to a destination. Most ubiquitously, users require the ability to cut and paste sections of plain text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_text). This paradigm has close associations with graphical user interfaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface) that use pointing devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_device) such as a computer mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_mouse) (by drag and drop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_and_drop), for example).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=1)] History

The term "cut and paste" derives from the traditional practice in manuscript-editing whereby people would literally cut paragraphs from a page with scissors and physically paste them onto another page. This practice remained standard as late as the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960). Stationery stores formerly sold "editing scissors" with blades long enough to cut an 8-1/2"-wide page. The advent of photocopiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocopier) made the practice easier and more flexible.
Lawrence G. Tesler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_G._Tesler) (Larry Tesler) first transferred "cut and paste" into the context of computer-based text-editing while working at Xerox Corporation Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC) in 1974-1975.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste#_note-0)
Apple Computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer) widely popularized the computer-based cut-and-paste paradigm through the Lisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa) (1981) and Macintosh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh) (1984) operating systems and applications. Apple mapped the functionalities to key-combinations consisting of a special modifier key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifier_key) held down while typing the letters X (for cut), C (for copy), and V (for paste), choosing a handful of keyboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_keyboard) sequences to control basic editing operations. The keys involved all cluster together at the left end of the bottom row of the standard QWERTY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY) keyboard, and each key is combined with a control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_key) or special modifier key to perform the desired operation:

Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control-Z) to undo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undo)
X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control-X) to cut
C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control-C) to copy
V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control-V) to pasteMicrosoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft) later adopted similar key-combinations with the introduction of Windows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows). Common User Access (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_User_Access) (in Windows and OS/2) also uses combinations of the Insert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert_key), Del (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del_key), Shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_key) and Control keys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_key).
Similar patterns of key combinations, later borrowed by others, remain widely available today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2007) in most GUI text editors, word processors, and file system browsers.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=2)] Cut and paste

Computer-based editing can involve very frequent use of cut-and-paste operations. Most software-suppliers provide several methods for performing such tasks, and this can involve (for example) key-combinations, pulldown menus, pop-up menus, and/or toolbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toolbar) buttons.

The user selects the text or file for moving by some method, typically by dragging over the text or file name with the pointing-device or holding down the Shift key (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_key) while using the arrow keys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_keys) to move the text cursor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursor_%28computers%29)
The user performs a "cut" operation via key combination, menu, or other means
Visibly, "cut" text immediately disappears from its location.
Conceptually, the text has now moved to a location often called the clipboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipboard_%28software%29). The clipboard typically remains invisible. On most systems only one clipboard location exists, hence another cut or copy operation overwrites the previously stored information. Many UNIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix) text-editors provide multiple clipboard entries, as do some Windows clipboard-manager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipboard_manager) programs such as Microsoft Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office).
The user selects a location for insertion by some method, typically by clicking at the desired insertion point
A paste operation takes place which visibly inserts the clipboard text at the insertion point. (The paste operation does not typically destroy the clipboard text: it remains available in the clipboard and the user can insert additional copies at other points)Whereas cut-and-paste often takes place with a mouse-equivalent in Windows-like GUI environments, it may also occur entirely from the keyboard, especially in UNIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix) text editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_editor), such as Pico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_%28text_editor%29) or vi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi). The most common kind of cutting and pasting without a mouse involves the entire current line, but it may also involve text after the cursor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursor_%28computers%29) until the end of the line and other more sophisticated operations.
When a software environment provides cut and paste functionality, a nondestructive operation called copy usually accompanies them; copy places a copy of the selected text in the clipboard without removing it from its original location.
The clipboard usually stays invisible, because the operations of cutting and pasting, while actually independent, usually take place in quick succession, and the user (usually) needs no assistance in understanding the operation or maintaining mental context.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=3)] Copy and paste

Copy-and-paste refers to the popular, simple method of reproducing text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_%28computing%29) or other data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) from a source to a destination. It differs from cut and paste in that the original source text or data does not get deleted or removed. The popularity of this method stems from its simplicity and the ease with which users can move data between various applications visually — without resorting to permanent storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_storage).
Copying often takes place in graphical user interface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface) systems through use of the key-combinations Ctrl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_key)+C (used for killing the running process in UNIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX) terminals); or by using some other method, such as a context menu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_menu) or a toolbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toolbar) button. Once one has copied data into the area of memory referred to as the clipboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipboard), one may paste the contents of the clipboard into a destination using the key combinations Ctrl+V, or other methods dependent on the system. Macintosh computers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_computers) use the key combinations ⌘ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_key)C and ⌘V.
The X Window System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System) maintains an additional clipboard containing the most recently selected text; middle-clicking pastes the content of this "selection" clipboard into whatever the mouse pointer is on at that time.
Most terminal emulators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_emulator) and some other applications support the key combinations Ctrl-Insert to copy and Shift-Insert to paste. This is in accordance with the IBM Common User Access (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access) (CUA) standard.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=4)] Common implementations

CutCopyPasteGeneric/Windows/GNOME/KDEcontrol-Xcontrol-Ccontrol-VApplecommand-Xcommand-Ccommand-VBeOSalt-Xalt-Calt-VCommon User Accessshift+Deletecontrol+Insertshift+InsertEmacsc ontrol-W (to mark)
control-K (to end of line)meta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_key)-W (to mark)control-YvidypX Window Systemclick-and-drag to highlightmiddle mouse button
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=5)] Additional differences between moving and copying

In a spreadsheet, moving (cut and paste) need not equate to copying (copy and paste) and then deleting the original: when moving, references to the moved cells may move accordingly.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=6)] Comparison to verb-object paradigm

As of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2007), the cut-and-paste paradigm has become so universal that most computer users take it for granted. A competing paradigm that was popular in some early, highly successful applications, and considered easy to use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_use) by the standards of their day, is illustrated by the following sequence of steps:

Initially, the user has not selected any text
The user initiates the operation by selecting a move command in some manner
The system displays a prompt such as "Move what?"
The system enters a modal state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_%28computer_interface%29) in which the user can either select text or cancel the move-operation
The user selects the text in some manner
The system displays a prompt "To where?"
The system enters a modal state in which the user can either indicate an insertion-point or cancel the move-operation
The user indicates the insertion-point and confirms the move-operation
The system displays the effects of the move[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=7)] Multiple clipboards

Several GUI editors allow copying text into or pasting text from specific clipboards, typically using a special keystroke-sequence to specify a particular clipboard-number.
Clipboard managers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipboard_manager) can be very convenient productivity-enhancers by providing many more features than system-native clipboards. Thousands of clips from the clip history are available for future pasting, and can be searched, edited, or deleted. Favorite clips that a user frequently pastes (for example, the current date, or the various fields of a user's contact info) can be kept standing ready to be pasted with a few clicks or keystrokes.
Similarly, a kill ring provides a LIFO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIFO) stack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_%28data_structure%29) used for cut-and-paste operations as a type of clipboard capable of storing multiple pieces of data.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste#_note-1) For example, the Emacs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs) text-editor developed by Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman) provides a kill ring.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste#_note-2) Each time a user performs a cut or copy operation, the system adds the affected text to the ring. The user can then access the contents of a specific (relatively numbered) buffer in the ring when performing a subsequent paste-operation. One can also give kill-buffers individual names, thus providing another form of multiple-clipboard functionality.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste&action=edit&section=9)] References

<LI id=_note-0>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste#_ref-0) Resume of Larry Tesler (http://www.nomodes.com/tesler-resume.htm) <LI id=_note-1>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste#_ref-1) GKB (Generic Knowledge Base) Editor user's manual (http://www.ai.sri.com/~gkb/general.html#kill-ring)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste#_ref-2) GNU Emacs manual (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/Kill-Ring.html#Kill-Ring)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut%2C_copy%2C_and_paste)"

Os Cangaceiros
26th February 2008, 04:47
I love how you point out what you think is wrong with someone's post by posting the appropriate Wiki article.

Not exactly original, but it never fails to make me smirk, at least. :D

RNK
27th February 2008, 12:18
"It can't be right, because it's a copy and paste!"

pusher robot
27th February 2008, 15:13
"It can't be right, because it's a copy and paste!"

That's a logical fallacy.

ÑóẊîöʼn
27th February 2008, 19:38
I wasn't even aware that were even 6.6 million people in Afghanistan to be killed - I reckoned the population of Afghanistan to be somewhere in the region of 3-4 million people in total.

I smell a rat.

RNK
27th February 2008, 20:04
Afghanistan - Population: 31,889,923 (July 2007 est.)

Ele'ill
27th February 2008, 20:58
Those numbers seem a bit off.

Tungsten
28th February 2008, 15:59
Actually, I agree. 6.6 million is ridiculous figure. There haven't even been 1/6th that many killed in Iraq- which has a much higher population density, and a greater opporunity for collateral damage.


1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoida
ble).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million.
This is all very dodgy. Define "avoidable".

Afghanistan is a very impoverished country and has high infant mortality rate. The 2.3 million figure would only be achieved if every coalition soldier shot dead about 20 infants a year. I don't think that happening, somehow.

4. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths 3.2 million (2.3 million /0.7 = 3.3 million; for impoverished, worst case Third world countries the under-5 infant deaths are about 0.7 of total non-violent excess deaths (see A Layperson’s Guide to counting Iraq deaths: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5872/26/ ).
There was no poverty in Afghanistan before the troops arrived?

5. post-invasion violent deaths about 3.3 million (assuming roughly 1 violent death for every non-violent avoidable death i.e. roughly as in US-occupied Occupied Iraq where the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent excess deaths is 0.8-1.2 million to 0.7-0.8 million; see Continued Australian and US Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq:
Assuming the violent deaths were linked in some way to the coalition presence. Presumably no one ever murdered anyone in Afghanistan before the troops arrived and cast their evil spell.

1. “The Genocidal Act” is prohibited as defined in the Genocide Convention as “a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” – but is is clearly occurring on a huge scale as indicated by the above data.
2. “The Genocidal Intent” is expressed in the Genocide Convention as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”- but is clearly present in the statements of the NATO leaders. The “Intent” is also apparent from the sustained, resolute conduct of this horrendously bloody war for over 6 years.
I think "genocide" has to be the most misused word in history. Just look at the sloppy, open-ended definition; with a little shoe-horning, just about any act could be interpreted as a form of genocide.

On the face of it, the accusation of genocide is absurd. 6.6 million people in 6 years. It took Hitler twice as long to reach that number. Do you honestly think there's a planned extermination of Afghans going on? Let me assure you of one thing- if there was, there wouldn't be any left by now.

3. “The Genocidal targeting of a Religious Group” is clearly prohibited by the Genocide Convention by “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” – but is clearly being carried out with the accompaniment of immense Islamophobic propaganda in the West.
I don't buy this. I've seen no islamophobic propaganda (unless criticism and general piss-taking of islam counts as propaganda. It wouldn't surprise me). However, I've seen plenty of pandering to islam and it's followers. i.e. Bush ironically calling it the "religion of peace" after 9/11, when the situation could have been milked to the extreme. If genocide was the intention, why wasn't it?
Anyway, I would have though the general behaviour of islamic extremists would have rendered such propaganda rendundant anyway. Then you'd have to ignore the anti-everything-not-islamic propaganda and genocide being perpetrated by islamic extremists, too.

So what was posting this article supposed to achieve?

pusher robot
28th February 2008, 16:40
So what was posting this article supposed to achieve?

It's an act of assymetrical debate - it was supposed to make you waste your time both reading and responding to it, very costly to you but requiring almost no effort on the part of the OP. Looks like it worked. It's a tactic designed to wear you down in a game of attrition.

As Joshua wisely noted, the only winning move is not to play.

Tungsten
28th February 2008, 18:25
Shooting fish in a tea cup is hard to resist sometimes.