Palestinians, Eygptians, Jordanians and Lebanese responsible for all deaths in the conflict with Israel accoding to the methodology of PSR

This is what the PSR report claims is responsible for the Iraq conflict and all those who died according to their methodology:

The Question of Who Are the Perpetrators:
Aside from the number of the victims of a conflict, it is of course also important to know who is responsible for them and to what extent. A priori, of course, those who started the war also carry the main responsibility for all victims. Since the assault on Iraq unequivocally constituted an aggression in violation of interna- tional law, the U.S. and its allies are also responsible for all its consequences.

Now of course they offer very little reason to back up this claim, which to me is what their whole report hinges on, but it leaves the extreme lefties in a right pickle this. As this methodology has to then be applied to all conflicts who start them. This then places Palestinians, Eygptians, Jordanians and Lebanese as responsible for all the deaths up to this present day in the conflicts with Israel. As they started a conflict and the consequences of this conflict are still being played out today. What a dilema for the lefties.

Now of course as seen this methodology is very poor as it fails to factor in many aspects.

1) Saddam had killed over 2 million people during his reign. Even though I do not buy these latest figures that they estimate is the amount that died in Iraq of 1 million (just look at the population growth from Iraqi officals over this time which is constant and increasing, which really questions their estimates) they are left with the problem of how many more would have died if Iraq had not been invaded with Saddam still in control?
Edit:
Sorry just to make clear, 2 million is the estimate for those who died directly or indirectly under Saddam's rule. The 1 million figure then I speak of, is estimate claim by PSR, based on their claim of the war on terror being responsible.

2) The Arab springs would have come to Iraq as they did to other nations, which would have then brought about a civil conflict like we have seen in Syria, as again we would have seen Saudi and Iran funding both Shia's and Sunni's just as they did after Iraq was conventionally beaten. This is a major flaw in the report which fails to factor in the centuries of violence between the two sects. The war on terror is not responsible for the hatred between the two sects and the two nations of Iran and Saudi and is taking away responsibility of where both played the main responsible part in the insurgency. Again many suicide attacks were led against civillians.

3) Now the total numbers of direct deaths due to the Syrian civil war have been estimated at around 200,000 in just four years. Again hundreds of thousand have become refugees and no doubt based on mortality rates in children, others from destitution etc, the total number of indirect deaths would no doubt dramactically increase this number. The number of direct deaths is dwarfing that of the Iraq conflict only after 4 years. Now given the nature of Saddam Hussein and a civil war erupted in Iraq due to the Arab springs as it would most certainly have happened, how many Iraq's would have been killed with indiscrminate killings by him? Now we know of an uprising that had already happened in Iraq in 1991 where it is estimated that between 80,000 and 230,000 people were killed directly, the vast majority civillians, which again does not factor in all the indrirect deaths from the fall out of this insurgency crushed by Saddam and his Ba'ath parrty. Here again it was a Shia led uprising. Now of course some will try to blame this on the Coalition for the First Iraq war, but that falls again, due to Saddam because he invaded Kuwait. You then have the cause for the uprising, which had never really finished to the continuation we see today in Iraq. Then going by the PSR methodology, the cause of the deaths would fall solely on Saddam for invading Kuwait and his surpression of the Iraq people. Here is the main cause which led to everything else. This is why the methodology found in the report is fundementally flawed and leaves the lefties in a pickle as I said if they were to use this methodology with the Israeli conflict. It was Saddams supression of his people and the use of weapons of mass destruction as they did on the Kurds with chemical warfare, that led to sanctions and inspections, which in the end Saddam refused, leading to the 2nd Iraq War. Now people can argue off the most idiotic view on oil, where no contract was ever won by the US in Iraq, but there is little on no evidence to back such an assertion this was the cause of the 2nd Iraq war. The main reason to me , is because Bush clearly thought Saddam was building and operating terrorist training camps in Iraq. He could not go to war off this alone after Afghanistan was invaded, so he had to play on the claims of weapons of Mass destruction. Either way, all roads point back to Saddam and his persecution and murder of countless Iraqi/Iranian/Kurdish people. Saddam would have struggled to contain a second insurgency, even more so with the state of Syria we see today.

Now this clearly points to an earlier cause for the conflict between the Shia's and Sunni's in Iraq which the report has failed to factor in and shows that insurgency was not was not the responsibility of the war on terror but a continuation from this earlier uprising. There is no doubt with the Arab spring which would have fueld the same demonstrations we saw else where in Iraq also. Which Saddam would have no doubt tried to surpress with Iran funding the Shia insurgents and with Syria in the present state we see it in now, Iraq would have been very much the same, if not worse. As seen the evidence from the previous conflict points to this. This is why a mainly bunch of anti-war protesting doctors being as biased that there most certainly are failed to use other experts.

Well said didge 100% correct.

nicko wrote:Well said didge 100% correct.

Thanks Nicko, as i say, many of these reports fail to comprehensively factor in many crucial points, because there main aim is anti-war Rhetoric to use against nations like the US and its allies. They also fail to see that their report and others are also a major contributing factor for Islamic extremism recruitment which then leads to more extremists and more attacks and deaths.
I am just bored and tired of the poor reasoning given by some of the left failing to understand the real causes behind conflicts.

WTF ia a "PSR" when it's at home ?

AND what the frigging hell does it have to do with us "lefties" of the wider world outside of the UK anyway ~ when most of us have never even heard of the "PSR" ?

WHY is it that I am always left in doubt, after witnessing yet another of these rabidly incoherent and fallacy-ridden diatribes, that many of the RW whiners on here wouldn't even recognise genuine 'left wingers' if they were to ever trip over one..    

Lone Wolf wrote:

WTF ia a "PSR" when it's at home ?

AND what the frigging hell does it have to do with us "lefties" of the wider world outside of the UK anyway ~ when most of us have never even heard of the "PSR" ?

WHY is it that I am always left in doubt, after witnessing yet another of these rabidly incoherent and fallacy-ridden diatribes, that many of the RW whiners on here wouldn't even recognise genuine 'left wingers' if they were to ever trip over one..    

Hi Bee


This is posted in regards to certain lefty posters, not directing this at Ben, you or Quill for example but those posters I am directing this at, know I am directing this at them.

As to what is PSR

http://www.psr.org/

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf


The second link, is the link to their hypothesis on the number of people who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, which they claims the "War on Terror" is responsible for.
As seen I clearly disagree and on page 28 of this hypothesis, they place their argument for who is responsible to them, for all the deaths and as seen make an exaggerated claim on the number of dead.
As seen I am disputing this claim to who is responsible to the deaths, of which the War on terror is responsible for some of them. Of that I do not deny, but to claim they are responsible for all of them, as seen by my evidence, shows their report is flawed. It fails to see what really caused this and those responsible for the deaths. The first uprising in Iraq is where they should have looked for the cause of the violence and insurgency. They should have factored this and how it would have happened anyway with an Arab Spring and they should have factored most of all Saddam himself, who had putdown ruthlessly the 1991 insurrection, one of countless conflicts that has gone on between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Here is the Iraq figures for population growth from 1990 show why there is no blips in the growth, being as they claim over 1 million died between 2003 and 2011.

http://www.escwa.un.org/popin/members/iraq.pdf

The main point though is if the lefty posters go by this report or even if Muslims do, then they back the methodology being used to place responsibility on America for the invasion and the consequences that followed. Now if they back this methodology, then they have to apply the same methods to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. Which would make Palestine etc responsible for all the deaths and the consequences would be the continuing conflict that has arisen out of these Arab nations attacking Israel. Now I doubt they are going to like me pointing out this to them and will no doubt attempt to counter this and fail. I have not even challenged the view as to who starts a conflict and its consequences anywhere in my post, which I could of as well. I used their reason but proved they failed to factor in earlier conflicts and why they have wrongly cast the "War on Terror" as completely responsible. I never changed what is defined as those who start a conflict, but proved it had started at an earlier conflict and all the consequences that led from this. So by this same methodology, every death in the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, would be down to the Coalition of Arabs, with the most blame going to the leaders of the Palestinians for failing to accept the partition and being the aggressors in a war on Israel. All consequences of that war have led to where we are today



Anyway, have fun Bee, have things to do, but may be back later.

Brasides wrote:A priori, of course, those who started the war also carry the main responsibility for all victims. Since the assault on Iraq unequivocally constituted an aggression in violation of international law, the U.S. and its allies are also responsible for all its consequences.

The US Republican Party is totally responsible for creating this iteration of the conflict.  Remarkably, the people responsible are not in prison at this writing.  While GWB has chosen to remain quiet about his war crimes, former VP Cheney is out and about campaigning and bragging.

I cannot help but pause and reflect that all conservatives tend toward war as the solution for human differences.  No doubt they haven't developed the art of talking, nor do they gravitate toward empathy...or assuming the others viewpoint, if only for understanding.  Hence, limited options, other than warfare.

And look, Mr. Netanyahu is running us headlong into another war...this time with Iran.  Will it ever end?

Brasides wrote:Now this clearly points to an earlier cause for the conflict between the Shia's and Sunni's in Iraq which the report has failed to factor in and shows that insurgency was not was not the responsibility of the war on terror but a continuation from this earlier uprising.

What have I been saying all along???  A little understanding of the past goes a long way toward understanding the present.  In 2003, when the Bush/Cheney war initiative started, the Shi'ites were of the opinion that the US was going to war for them.  Their plight had figured into the propaganda efforts to persuade Americans over the Bush/Cheney war.  They didn't understand that it was an ego maniacal enterprise for conservatives.  That misperception is understandable.  It takes an internal understanding of western politics.

But in that era I remember talking to Shi'ites who openly likened their revolution to the US revolution, and talked as if we were a part of that same cause.  In other words, they defined us in terms of their civil war.  Slowly the west became aware that their perception was far from our own perception--and no doubt that was aided by the fact that the Republican's had no purpose other than the typical conservative love of revenge and war.

Now we come full circle.  Finally, a more sophisticated and intelligent administration is coming to an understanding of what this thing is all about.  All the coalition did was remove the Sunni Saddam Hussein, and instate a Shi'ite controlled government in the form of Nouri al-Maliki in May 2006.  Since then, the Sunnis have become al Qaeda, and finally ISIL, fighting back to regain possession of Iraq, together with Syria.  Of course, Iran is all Shi'ite, and they are supporting the Iriqi Shi'ite government in opposing ISIL.

And still we don't understand who the fook we are, and who we are supporting...least of all, what we are fighting for!  Now we are opposing a Shi'ite unit in Yemen and a Sunni element (ISIL) in Syria and Northern Iraq.

All I can say is, thank god the Republicans in Congress have their own racial war going on with the President...so that nothing can get done.  Keeps us out of trouble...who wouldda thought that American racism would thwart American imperialism?

Lone Wolf wrote:

WTF ia a "PSR" when it's at home ?

A PSR is a "presentence investigation report", commonly known around the courthouse as a presentence report, is written for the court by a Probation Officer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentence_investigation_report

Interesting points Quill and the Republicans have certainly played their part in all of this saga, of that I agree, but as seen the report fallas badly short in its assessment, being based from a biased anti-war movement. It was always going to being looking for reasons to blame the "War on Terrror" and when you set out to blame something, you know that Hypothesis is going to be plagued with bias and problems.. There view as to those responsible was too simplified and failed as seen to factor in many aspects like Saddam, Saudi, Iran, Shia, Sunni, Wahabbism, etc. What I want to know is though is will those who back this report then back the view that it is the Arabs then responsible for all the deaths in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? They are left with little choice and like I say leaves them rightly in a pickle.

Brasidas wrote:What I want to know is though is will those who back this report then back the view that it is the Arabs then responsible for all the deaths in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? They are left with little choice and like I say leaves them rightly in a pickle.

Personally, I don't think the PSR is well written.  Rather than following a linear logic, it tends to cherry-pick points rather opportunistically.  That's always a problem when you don't develop a central idea or thesis.

When you cerry-pick issues, you also cherry-pick advocates, and there is seldom any linear logic to it.  So no, I don't expect to see any consistency in the views of those who subscribe to the PSR.

Brasidas wrote:Interesting points Quill and the Republicans have certainly played their part in all of this saga, of that I agree, but as seen the report fallas badly short in its assessment, being based from a biased anti-war movement.

Is there such a thing as an anti-war movement?  War is a huge topic; I think it best to ask, what wars?  We in the US think our Revolutionary war was good, but was the Vietnam war good?  Doubtful.

Liberals, I know, tend to be against pointless wars—of which conservatives have involved us far too often.  I think it best to have questions in mind when entertaining the subject: What is your purpose?  Do the ends justify the costs, in terms of economics, and in terms of life?  What is your endgame?

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend more to see war as a constant part of life.  Not only do they eschew diplomacy and reason, but they have taken it to lengths where they glorify war.  Hence, it is no surprise that conservatives speak of an anti-war movement.  Because they see war as a constant thing, they view opposition to war as the anomaly...as that which distinguishes itself.

Brasidas wrote:It was always going to being looking for reasons to blame the "War on Terrror" and when you set out to blame something, you know that Hypothesis is going to be plagued with bias and problems.. There view as to those responsible was too simplified and failed as seen to factor in many aspects...

There is no such thing as a 'War on Terror'.  Terror is a tactic; wars are fought against other people...people with ideas and religions, etc.  The War is against those ideas and the people who hold them.  The idea that a military tactic is the target is what is "too simplified"...or, simply put, misplaced.

Thus refocused, the simple question is: What is our purpose for any war?  Is it worth the costs?  What is the endgame?  If you don't have clear answers for these questions, you are stupid.

And yes, this dovetails very nicely with the words of John Stuart Mill: "I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative." Because of this, it is far too easy to whip conservatives into a frenzy, ready for the next war.

We already had a thread running similar to this and it was quite clear in the report that numbers were by no means exact so there was a bit of 'filling in the holes' so to speak. And anyway, all I was asking was for someone to come up with their projections and the methodology used to arrive at them but so far nothing.
I've even seen figures of 30 million being quoted as the number of deaths with the French and to some extent the British as bearing the responsibility for them.

Irn Bru wrote:We already had a thread running similar to this and it was quite clear in the report that numbers were by no means exact so there was a bit of 'filling in the holes' so to speak. And anyway, all I was asking was for someone to come up with their projections and the methodology used to arrive at them but so far nothing.
I've even seen figures of 30 million being quoted as the number of deaths with the French and to some extent the British as bearing the responsibility for them.

No this is you making a poor response to the points made on the reasoning they use as to who to blame and it is using this same methodology to show you would then have to blame the Arab states for all the deaths in the conflict with Israel.
So I suggest you digest the whole thread and either take on the points and stop avoiding them.
I only made passing mention to me not buying their estimates, which is hardly the bases for the discussion on this thread.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:We already had a thread running similar to this and it was quite clear in the report that numbers were by no means exact so there was a bit of 'filling in the holes' so to speak. And anyway, all I was asking was for someone to come up with their projections and the methodology used to arrive at them but so far nothing.
I've even seen figures of 30 million being quoted as the number of deaths with the French and to some extent the British as bearing the responsibility for them.

No this is you making a poor response to the points made on the reasoning they use as to who to blame and it is using this same methodology to show you would then have to blame the Arab states for all the deaths in the conflict with Israel.
So I suggest you digest the whole thread and either take on the points and stop avoiding them.
I only made passing mention to me not buying their estimates, which is hardly the bases for the discussion on this thread.

My response is perfectly valid and if the numbers are being contested then it's only fair to ask for what you believe the numbers are and what methodology you used to arrive at them. Like I said I have even seen 30 million being quoted as the numbers and down to France and Britain. And I did say that I have an open mind on the numbers and I haven't seen anything to convince me what the numbers really are.
And why would the Arab states have to be to blame for all the deaths in the conflict with Israel?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


No this is you making a poor response to the points made on the reasoning they use as to who to blame and it is using this same methodology to show you would then have to blame the Arab states for all the deaths in the conflict with Israel.
So I suggest you digest the whole thread and either take on the points and stop avoiding them.
I only made passing mention to me not buying their estimates, which is hardly the bases for the discussion on this thread.

My response is perfectly valid and if the numbers are being contested then it's only fair to ask for what you believe the numbers are and what methodology you used to arrive at them. Like I said I have even seen 30 million being quoted as the numbers and down to France and Britain. And I did say that I have an open mind on the numbers and I haven't seen anything to convince me what the numbers really are.
And why would the Arab states have to be to blame for all the deaths in the conflict with Israel?

Valid?
It did not address a single point being made.
Again do you back the methodology of the report as to who is responsible?
If yes then you must also then blame the Arab nations and the consequences of their aggression against Israel that has caused and created all deaths to this date.
I do not even question the methodology only that they do not go back far enough to see where the root cause is. Again as seen all paths lead to Saddam, Iran, Suadi, Shia, Sunni as the main problems for all the deaths, none of which you have addressed.


The report states this:

The Question of Who Are the Perpetrators:
Aside from the number of the victims of a conflict, it is of course also important to know who is responsible for them and to what extent. A priori, of course, those who started the war also carry the main responsibility for all victims. Since the assault on Iraq unequivocally constituted an aggression in violation of interna- tional law, the U.S. and its allies are also responsible for all its consequences.

That places sole blame on the Arabs for all the conflict since they started this in 1948 and all the consequences that followed.

Didge, I'm just looking for alternative research on the numbers and the methodology used to arrive at them and if you dispute this report then I think it's only fair that you come up with them.

And why are you picking 1948 and putting it down to the Arabs as those that started it all. Why not pick events leading up to WWII for example?

Irn Bru wrote:Didge, I'm just looking for alternative research on the numbers and the methodology used to arrive at them and if you dispute this report then I think it's only fair that you come up with them.

And why are you picking 1948 and putting it down to the Arabs as those that started it all. Why not pick events leading up to WWII for example?

Avoided every point again and you can do as you please on the numbers, which is not the main points on the debate Irn.
You have not even challenged the view on who is responsible for the deaths in Iraq, which I then must take you do not refute this, which is fine.

Again do you dispute the methodology of the PSR?
If you want to go into WW2 that places the Palestinians further into guilt with the Grand Mufti. The Jews had bought land legally way before WW2 and in areas where Jews had lived for centruies and were still living, so to use this event has no bearing on an unprovoked war by the Arabs. This first war led to all others from the consequences and all deaths could have been avoided by the Palestinian authorities accepting the partition.
Hundreds of thousands of both Arabs and Jews would not have been displaced or killed.

Still waiting Irn?