We're overdue a Mid East thread

[earllogjam]

What a discrepancy. You would think that the death toll of Iraqis would be a key indicator of the "success" of our invasion but it seems that it isn't even a concern to the powers that be here or to the media. I don't know if it is not reported because of the lack of credible sources or the fact that they just don't feel it is important.

If the death toll per the Washington Post is upwards of 650,000 then most people in Iraq have known someone who has been killed in the invasion and occupation and carry all the bitterness that instills. Why would any Iraqi want to have the same people who killed a family member and steal your oil, occupy your country under the guise of liberating you from tyrany? How ironically sad. The reason why this figure is "unknown" and never divulged is because it would be a national disgrace here, an indicator of what we have done there. What is 3200 Americans killed compared to 650,000 dead all based on a lie? How can we really know what is going on over there without this figure?

 

[B_spiker067]

Facts on the ground tell me this.

It is time to stop backing Israel.

This mindless following of a self-fulfilling apocalyptic prophesy is insane. When we leave Iraq we should pick up all the Jewish people ready, willing and able and bring them here to SoFla and NY. And leave the Middle East to its despotic theocracies while putting up a containment strategy. Much like we did with the Soviets.

Israel screwed up their chances with the Palestinians like we did with the Iraqis. We still have escape clauses, but it doesn't seem like the Israeli's or the U.S. could ever pull it off. We both are incompetent.

 

[stretcher74]

Funny, I was never told that. But then I've always been one for finding things out for myself. Basically, people do shitty things to each other in the name of whatever is convenient at the time.



It's a high figure but what you seem to have overlooked is this was over at least a 400 year period and covered South, Central and North America.

A couple of examples.

According to Las Casas, 3 million died on Hispaniola alone between 1502 and 1540, and a further 12-15 million on the 'mainland' over the same period.

Within ten years of Cortez arriving in Mexico (c. 1519) the population fell from about 25 million to 7-8 million, in ten years...!!



What would be nonsensical is seriously suggesting that the entire population of the American continent at any time in recorded history has ever been as low as 2-4 million...??

In the early 1500's the approximate population of North America was about 12 million, by the early 20th century the native Indian pupulation was down to less than half a million. I somehow doubt they all died celebate of old age and I haven't had time to look at birth rates and normal mortality rates even if they're available to estimate the 'extra' deaths. That's just North America.

Heading south, it's estimated by Father Bartolomé de las Casas (see above) that from a pre-Columbian population of about 100 million, the population 40 - 50 years later was 10-12 million. I make that about 90 million down, in 50 years.

Naturally it's difficult to be at all precise at this distance but I have no idea what process leads you to 'a logistically difficult' 2-4 million across the entire continent.

The biggest killer throughout this was smallpox. Introduced by nice friendly Europeans. Just to put the pox in perspective for you; estimated deaths from Smallpox in the 20th century are 300-500 million. Place that into a historical context with poor, abused societies over a period of 400 years and see what number you come to.

That number will of course, be in addition to the folk that were actively sought out and killed for whatever reason over the same period.

Clearly you have either some super douper rose tinted spectacles and/or there was some major window dressing going on in your history books.:smile:



Yes, hopefully I will soon get to revisit.

My population guesstimate is wrong because it doesn't jive with your politics ? You've admitted that many of your own numbers are as much as pulled out of thin air. I simply pointed out that the estimates have gone up geometrically as it has become politically correct for the soft experts in these fields to say so. They've now reached the point of utter incredulity. I think the burden on anyone claiming more than say 3 million people at once in the Americas, pre-arrival remains on those making the claim. Argue the point with facts if you please. It took the city of london 1800 years to reach it's first million people as the largest city in western world. This was made possible by agriculture, trade, overseas empire, roads and infrastructure and many more factors. With rails and serious industrialization the next million took only 40 years.

In your population model manhattan seems to have been more crowded when the manhattan tribe was occassionally visiting to fish and hunt.

 

[B_spiker067]

Who is doing that?
...

The only comment I would make on this is that nothing in the New Testament, to me at least, validates any of the "Christian" atrocities. As a matter of fact these sick and bizarre expressions of devotion seem totally anti-thetical to the Christian philosphy. I don't think anything in the New Testament allows for the killing of non-believers.

Does anyone know what the take of the Qu'ran is on the "Moslem" atrocities? Are there clauses in it that allow for killing for failure to convert? If there are, I would posit that this is a significant difference in the two religions.

 

[stretcher74]

Does anyone know what the take of the Qu'ran is on the "Moslem" atrocities? Are there clauses in it that allow for killing for failure to convert? If there are, I would posit that this is a significant difference in the two religions.

The attitude on killing murder and conquest and subjugation of non-belivers ranges from "do it while taking brief timeouts to steal from them" to "go team jihad , kill kill, kill"
On the subject of belivers converting from islam warants an immediate death sentence. Non-belivers are to be subjugated untill they "feel subdued". Historically actual conversion to islam is encoraged or discouraged according to fiscal presures and the need for slaves/taxes from the conquered underclass of non-muslims.

There will be a few on here who tell you the koran says something else. They haven't read it or they are just lying. Note that koranic scripture also permits belivers to lie to non-belivers where it is situationally advantageous.

 

[dong20]

My population guesstimate is wrong because it doesn't jive with your politics ? You've admitted that many of your own numbers are as much as pulled out of thin air.

Who mentioned politics? Oh that would be you.

I didn't say they were plucked out of thin air I said, if you care to go back and actually read.....was that 500 years after the events it's hard to be completely precise. It's hard to be completely precise about the numbers killed in Iraq since 2003 too. In either case that's hardly the same thing as saying figures are pulled out of thin air.

I simply pointed out that the estimates have gone up geometrically as it has become politically correct for the soft experts in these fields to say so.

Really, and what are you, a hard expert?

They've now reached the point of utter incredulity. I think the burden on anyone claiming more than say 3 million people at once in the Americas, pre-arrival remains on those making the claim.

Actually I mentioned pre-columbian times, not you, as usual you were entirely unspecific. It's hard to tell if you meant last century or last millennium.

What's incredulous is a serious assertion that at any time in the last 500 years the combined population of the Americas has been as low as 3 million. That is patently absurd. BTW, How is it that you feel under no obligation to provide evidence for such a comical figure, yet I should?

It is hard to be completely or even reasonably accurate but simple common sense should tell anyone that 3 million is bonkers. In 1500 the population of England was about 2-3 million, and England is about 50,000 square miles, or about 40-60 persons per square mile.

Compare that with the approximate surface area of the Americas of 8.75 million square miles - based on your figure that's just over 0.3 persons per square mile or 1/12-20th that of England which had just begun to recover from the plague and was itself at it's lowest population for 1000 years.

Given I'm talking pre-columbian, hence pre smallpox such a low population density is not exactly plausible. Todays population density of say, Alaska is three times that, and let's face it Alaska is mostly uninhabited, even Siberia is 23 per sq Mile.

I have better things to do with my time than teach you any more remedial history so do yourself a favour, just Google up pre-columbian populations in the Americas. Here's a link to make it easy for you. Of course, like myself you probably have your own additional sources but it's a start.

pre columbian population in the americas - Google Search=

The estimates will range from 10 (back in about 1930) to 120 millions (after about 1960), but mostly between 60 and 100 millions. The lower figures are rather incredible given it's long been well accepted that around 1500 some 4 millions were living on the island of Hispaniola alone.

Yes, I have tended to use the higher values because populations tend to be higher than the mere 'counts' might suggest. Modern cenus data proves that. But even 10 million estimate of 1930 is 2 to 4 times your own guesstimate.

IArgue the point with facts if you please.

Pots and kettles here. I have cited specific events, date and people, all you have done is supplied a number, without reference, cited as correct because it's "logistically difficult" for it to be higher...for you or for them?

IIt took the city of london 1800 years to reach it's first million people as the largest city in western world. This was made possible by agriculture, trade, overseas empire, roads and infrastructure and many more factors. With rails and serious industrialization the next million took only 40 years.

Well yes, populations rise and fall based on a range of factors.....your point being?

In your population model manhattan seems to have been more crowded when the manhattan tribe was occassionally visiting to fish and hunt.

What population model????

Cripes, so everyone on the entire continent really lived in Manhattan, who knew? I guess all those temples are a figment of my population model too.

 

[dong20]

What a discrepancy. You would think that the death toll of Iraqis would be a key indicator of the "success" of our invasion but it seems that it isn't even a concern to the powers that be here or to the media. I don't know if it is not reported because of the lack of credible sources or the fact that they just don't feel it is important.

I know, I don't know if you remember a poster called solong, he maintained for some time that US action in Iraq had made it safer than the US mainland. He had figures and everything. Mind you he also sought to ameliorate slavery, suggesting that, actually many slaves actually loved their masters so much they stayed with them.

He went away one day and never came back. Maybe he tripped one of those claymores outside Macey's and blew himself up. You how dangerous Manhattan is.

If the death toll per the Washington Post is upwards of 650,000 then most people in Iraq have known someone who has been killed in the invasion and occupation and carry all the bitterness that instills. Why would any Iraqi want to have the same people who killed a family member and steal your oil, occupy your country under the guise of liberating you from tyrany? How ironically sad. The reason why this figure is "unknown" and never divulged is because it would be a national disgrace here, an indicator of what we have done there. What is 3200 Americans killed compared to 650,000 dead all based on a lie? How can we really know what is going on over there without this figure?

The whole thing is tragic. It's hard to know where to begin, never mind wonder when it will end.

Numbers only tell you part of the story, the human aspect is what's generally lost among the numbers, that was something else solong couldn't grasp. I kinda miss him.

 

[Shelby]

Since Lebanon as a topic seems to have gone flaccid, :smile: maybe we should widen the scope? Anyway I found an interesting flash animation, depicting a history of the middle east in 90 seconds. It's worth spending 90 seconds to watch.

Imperial History [of the middle east]

That was fascinating. Provides some perspective.

Thanks!

 

[SteveHd]

Shelby, thanks. I just now saw your post because I got out of the thread while they were barking about So. America and Iraq body counts.

 

[faceking]

The attitude on killing murder and conquest and subjugation of non-belivers ranges from "do it while taking brief timeouts to steal from them" to "go team jihad , kill kill, kill"
On the subject of belivers converting from islam warants an immediate death sentence. Non-belivers are to be subjugated untill they "feel subdued". Historically actual conversion to islam is encoraged or discouraged according to fiscal presures and the need for slaves/taxes from the conquered underclass of non-muslims.

There will be a few on here who tell you the koran says something else. They haven't read it or they are just lying. Note that koranic scripture also permits belivers to lie to non-belivers where it is situationally advantageous.

Aw shucks.... they are too busy in protecting a doctrine they've never read and know little of, whilst shitting on christianity and the church thereof....