Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:27 pm**

105 people were killed and 240 injured in a bomb attack in Iraq today...

ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE!

f*ck me... I wonder how many times I dismiss stories like this in favour of a blanket ' Iraqi casualties are horrific, I don't need the details' type attitude. Twice as many dead than the 7/7 bombings, yet they are ingrained on our consciousness... I don't think I've ever heard someone in the street saying 'Did you see the news about the Iraqis killed today?' It is really very very hard to imagine what kind of situation they've got over there... The military casualties are nothing compared to shit like this.

I guess my question for discussion, then, is are we entirely de-sensitised to civilian casualties? And what is the impact of this? Does it make military actions like Iraq less likely to be met with dissent if its not 'our boys' being blown to pieces?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6279864.stm

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:40 pm**

the simple answer is everyone always cares more about there own country........ always.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:42 pm**

alex_white101 wrote:the simple answer is everyone always cares more about there own country........ always.

Uhm, I have to disagree.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:45 pm**

no way! you would be much more worried concerned and saddened by an attack which say killed 50 people in your own country, compared to say an attack in a far off land that u dnt rlly know much about and have no connection with where an attack killed 200. u cant deny that surely.......

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:48 pm**

alex_white101 wrote:no way! you would be much more worried concerned and saddened by an attack which say killed 50 people in your own country, compared to say an attack in a far off land that u dnt rlly know much about and have no connection with where an attack killed 200. u cant deny that surely.......

People die all the time, from age, from disease, from man made things. If someone attacks Australia, then so be it, why should it worry me anymore than if it was in another country? You could call me unfeeling, but if more humans died, then it'll eventually be better for the earth.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:49 pm**

alex_white101 wrote:no way! you would be much more worried concerned and saddened by an attack which say killed 50 people in your own country, compared to say an attack in a far off land that u dnt rlly know much about and have no connection with where an attack killed 200. u cant deny that surely.......

It isn't an unconnected event, though. Its a direct result of the invasion, which was our doing...

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:54 pm**

its like a civil war

who cares

pull the troops out and let them kill each other

no-one outside of Iraq really needs Iraq or Iran

just wasted land and army money

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:56 pm**

cena-rules wrote:its like a civil war

who cares

pull the troops out and let them kill each other

no-one outside of Iraq really needs Iraq or Iran

just wasted land and army money

Ha, so little you know.
Oil, which the Middle East is abundant of. Oil, what all the major superpowers want.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:57 pm**

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:58 pm**

There is no draft, didn't they choose to join the armed forces?

Edit: About all the people that died ^^

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:58 pm**

Chad22342 wrote:Yes

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:59 pm**

Skittles! wrote:
cena-rules wrote:its like a civil war

who cares

pull the troops out and let them kill each other

no-one outside of Iraq really needs Iraq or Iran

just wasted land and army money

Ha, so little you know.
Oil, which the Middle East is abundant of. Oil, what all the major superpowers want.

oh yes for global warming

yes thats right

so they are wasting valuble men and money to destroy the earth

that makes sense

not

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:02 pm**

cena-rules wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
cena-rules wrote:its like a civil war

who cares

pull the troops out and let them kill each other

no-one outside of Iraq really needs Iraq or Iran

just wasted land and army money

Ha, so little you know.
Oil, which the Middle East is abundant of. Oil, what all the major superpowers want.

oh yes for global warming

yes thats right

so they are wasting valuble men and money to destroy the earth

that makes sense

not

Hey, oil runs most things, fossil fuels run, almost everything. It's the way things go now, unfortunatly. And when has men been valuable? The less; the better.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:04 pm**

Skittles! wrote:
cena-rules wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
cena-rules wrote:its like a civil war

who cares

pull the troops out and let them kill each other

no-one outside of Iraq really needs Iraq or Iran

just wasted land and army money

Ha, so little you know.
Oil, which the Middle East is abundant of. Oil, what all the major superpowers want.

oh yes for global warming

yes thats right

so they are wasting valuble men and money to destroy the earth

that makes sense

not

Hey, oil runs most things, fossil fuels run, almost everything. It's the way things go now, unfortunatly. And when has men been valuable? The less; the better.

1 WORD

HYBRID

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:24 pm**

Chad22342 wrote:Yes

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:31 pm**

the correct answer is of course no. What are we expected to do? cry over every tragedy that occurs? mourn for every person that dies? it is simply not practical nor will it lead to a decent life! these kinds of atrocities have happened for hundreds of years and nothing was thought of it as it happend miles away, today since we can communicate across the whole world in seconds we can find out about these things. however someone telling us over a news desk ''100 people were killed today'' really means nothing to us. for one theres nothing we can do, and another is that it just dosent seem real, u cannot understand the reality of the situation when u read it over the internet and the like.

i do not think we are de-sensitised. i think we are an appropriate amount sensatised. any more so and the world would struggle to continue with all the suicides from depression!, any less so and we would be completely inhumane.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:23 pm**

Guiscard wrote:I guess my question for discussion, then, is are we entirely de-sensitised to civilian casualties? And what is the impact of this? Does it make military actions like Iraq less likely to be met with dissent if its not 'our boys' being blown to pieces?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6279864.stm

I hold the entirely depressing view that Iraqi casualties, civilian or otherwise, were never going to be widely reported by the British/American media. Not particularly because it's Iraq, but because Iraqis aren't Westerners.

As to the bolded questions: I'll put myself on the line here, because I'm not an expert on military history, but I've always had the impression that since the Second World War, the Americans/British have become more reluctant to put soldiers' lives on the line, and as much as possible, to keep their own casualties low - mainly for political reasons. Even in Vietnam - I realise the Americans sustained a lot of people killed, about 58,000, and that partly led to the Americans leaving, but in the context of the whole war, that actually wasn't very high.

People would say that that is a good development, as it makes our leaders less likely to be militarily adventurous, but the same level of concern for casualties doesn't seem to have ever been extended to civilians in the places that America/Britain have fought. Massive bombing campaigns in both Vietnam and Iraq had been gone ahead with, and there's no doubt huge numbers of civilians have died in these, whatever our leaders and media may say.

I tend to think that the risk of Iraqis being killed never really figured as a significant factor in popular opposition to the war in the first place, so the lack of coverage since isn't that surprising.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:47 pm**

dustn64 wrote:There is no draft, didn't they choose to join the armed forces?

Edit: About all the people that died ^^

The people that died were civvies.

Goddamn Muj. It's sick. They're not killing American combatants, they're killing Iraqi civilians. It's one thing to attack a military target, and quite another to blast your own countrymen to bits in a heavily populated market place.

I really am starting to wonder if these bastards are human anymore. There's supposed to be some sort of aversion to killing ingrained in the human mind.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:52 pm**

this happens so often i dont care anymore- the first time i was like "wow" but it slowly lost effect and now i dont bat an eyelid- sad but true

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:53 pm**

This is my two-cents: The American government (Im not pointing any fingers) has made iraq such a war-torn place, I bet people in America, and Britain are tired of hearing rthe same old stories that keep popping up. Sure, our subconsious is sympathetic, but we have heard it so much, it isnt as big anymore. Another thing that has done thins is the media. They have portrayed iraq as a land filled with terrorists with bombs, etc. And whenever an American dies, it is a huge story, but when hundreds of Iraqis die, it maybe gets 10 seconds in the news.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:56 pm**

jnd backed up my theorym it seems the reasons are it happens too often, we are more worried if we have a conection to those people be it religeon, nation or whatever and lastly the news have many ways in which they help us to not care but not giving a sht themselves

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:57 pm**

Stopper wrote:As to the bolded questions: I'll put myself on the line here, because I'm not an expert on military history, but I've always had the impression that since the Second World War, the Americans/British have become more reluctant to put soldiers' lives on the line, and as much as possible, to keep their own casualties low - mainly for political reasons. Even in Vietnam - I realise the Americans sustained a lot of people killed, about 58,000, and that partly led to the Americans leaving, but in the context of the whole war, that actually wasn't very high.

People would say that that is a good development, as it makes our leaders less likely to be militarily adventurous, but the same level of concern for casualties doesn't seem to have ever been extended to civilians in the places that America/Britain have fought. Massive bombing campaigns in both Vietnam and Iraq had been gone ahead with, and there's no doubt huge numbers of civilians have died in these, whatever our leaders and media may say.

I tend to think that the risk of Iraqis being killed never really figured as a significant factor in popular opposition to the war in the first place, so the lack of coverage since isn't that surprising.

An interesting analysis, most of which I agree with. However, keep in mind that the type of military operations that we've been in since WWII have been very unconventional. Mostly insurgencies and poorly trained guerrillas. Police operations on steroids, if you will.

As to disregard for Iraqi casualties from the start, well I doubt that is the case. In fact, from the very beginning the idea has been to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. That has included everything from propaganda posters to handing out candy to Iraqi children. My point? It has been a fact well-known among American command that victory in this war will come from winning over the Iraqi populace. As such, damage to civilians is taken very much into account. Many Marines have died as a result of being denied air support because of the possibility of collateral damage.

Read some books with firsthand accounts of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. I recommend Blood Stripes. Anywho, in doing so you'll find that the lives of the Iraqi citizenry are something considered quite important.

Unfortunately, the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is a very fine one. The security forces there are so corrupt that many of them are on the US side one day and on the Muj side the next. People are desperate to make a buck in Iraq, and oftentimes that means they'll go with whoever pays them. In many instances, even women become combatants. This was the case in Fallujah, when the Muj sent women carrying suicide bombs at the Marine line. They were shot. It's the reality there.

However, this said, I believe there is one thing the US commanders DID overlook from the start: the Muj decision to attack IRAQI civilian targets. Who knew they''d attack their own countrymen? Who know they'd send women who would otherwise be considered noncombatants to blow themselves up or get shot trying? Who know anyone could be that sick?

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:00 pm**

sam_levi_11 wrote:jnd backed up my theorym it seems the reasons are it happens too often, we are more worried if we have a conection to those people be it religeon, nation or whatever and lastly the news have many ways in which they help us to not care but not giving a sht themselves

ya, like if 105 americans died, that would be the top story for a week. 105 Iraqis? Nada. Also, petty stories that dont really matter take up lots of American news time. Like when Anna Nicole Smith died? She was a fucking stripper, nothing more, but she got headlines because of her money, thats all.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:17 pm**

its a case of media exposure most of the time, i think however that what the media shows is dictated by what they think people are interested in, which is why i watch the world news on sbs (Australian) as opposed to the major fta channels which usually do five minute pieces on baby ducks at the zoo. We are desensitised to civilian casualties though, we're desensitised to all non western deaths unless they exceed 1 million in a time span of less than a month i reckon.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:31 pm**

Skittles! wrote:Hey, oil runs most things, fossil fuels run, almost everything. It's the way things go now

cena-rules wrote:1 WORD

HYBRID

You mean the kind that you drive on ASPHALT that run on GASOLINE and have 4-quarts of OIL in the engine? The ones with four tires made with PETROLEUM? The ones built by robots using hydraulic OIL, delivered to the dealership on a DIESEL tractor-trailer?

:roll:

Conquer Club

Are we entirely de-sensatised?

Are we entirely de-sensatised?

Re: Are we entirely de-sensatised?