ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

Seeing as they found a mass grave in Syria in nivembet yes those numbers are wrong. I know exactly what they will be 100% confirmed numbers.

What your missing is the all the unconfirmed ones which most of them, can then be assigned to certain people. If you read your own site, the numbers are ones supplied by the main conflict parties, hardly a good number to use.
 
LateX'Dog said:
And what your missing is our CONFIRMED (Ignoring unconfirmed) kills is still higher in IRAQ alone. My god, are you this stupid?
Click to expand...

No they aren't.
Anyway at least parliament is more aware than you and decided correctly.

Try reading figures and from decent places then coming up with your own thoughts.

See the figures I posted earlier for one month in Iraq, much better break down, and guess what look how low coalition is, look how hi Isis is and many of the 10k unknown can be placed at Isis feet it's just unconfirmed but likely.
 
Glaucus said:
No they aren't.
Anyway at least parliament is more aware than you and decided correctly.

Try reading figures and from decent places then coming up with your own thoughts.

See the figures I posted earlier for one month in Iraq, much better break down, and guess what look how low coalition is, look how hi Isis is and many of the 10k unknown can be placed at Isis feet it's just unconfirmed but likely.
Click to expand...

Ok so, we have killed more confirmed people monthly in Iraq alone, then ISIS has in Syria and Iraq from estimates. And your sitting here tell me my figures are fudged?

http://i.imgur.com/DuZBP5O.gifv

And this entire debate circled around you claiming "small numbers of collateral damage".
 
No your site has all deaths, not from collateral it includes everything that they think we caused. Nothing like direct kills from collateral in air strikes.

Again going to blame NK deaths on us due to sanctions?
 
Glaucus said:
No, I was quoting from the web page you linked to with your supposed 2million deaths caused by us.
Click to expand...

The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors' group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-UK led interventions

I'm done with this idiot.
 
Wow red writing, now again go read what they've included. I've even posted just one of the figures.

Also you realise Obama got nobel peace prize what was it a few months after becoming president as he wasn't bush.
 
Last edited:
MrMoonX said:
but we are bombing Syria, Isis isn't a place. We will bomb civilians and there will be collateral damage, the intel will be rubbish and our forces will **** up and blow up some civies
Click to expand...

Does it really need breaking down for you? We are bombing military targets. Yes it's in Syria. But people get all HERP DERP WE IZ BOMBING SYRIA.

Air campaign against ISIS by allied forces in Iraq have produced 0 civilian deaths.

Like I said earlier. If we bomb a military target, in ISIS controlled territory, do you really think the people there will be civilians?

By your logic we would never be able to fight ISIS. WE BOMBING COUNTRIES, WE INVADING COUNTRIES. ISIS needs to be tackled, whatever country it is in.

Not that it matters, but tbf there isn't much left of Syria anyways.
 
Last edited:
balky12 said:
Does it really need breaking down for you? We are bombing military targets. Yes it's in Syria. But people get all HERP DERP WE IZ BOMBING SYRIA.

Air campaign against ISIS by allied forces in Iraq have produced 0 civilian deaths.

Like I said earlier. If we bomb a military target, in ISIS controlled territory, do you really think the people there will be civilians?

By your logic we would never be able to fight ISIS. WE BOMBING COUNTRIES, WE INVADING COUNTRIES. ISIS needs to be tackled, whatever country it is in.

Not that it matters, but tbf there isn't much left of Syria anyways.
Click to expand...

Estimates suggest up to 200,000 civilians in Al Raqqa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom