What is the difference between these two events?

Question

EVENT#1.Saddam Husain had been nearly killed by a so-called terrorists Shiite groups when he was passing a small Shiite village in Iraq in June 1982.
Saddam ordered to find and kill all the Shiite "terrorists" hiding in the village. The operation resulted in deaths of 147 Shiite Kurds.

EVENT#2. After 9/11 terrorist atacks Bush said that all terrorists were hiding in Iraq and ordred to find and kill all the terrorists in the country that posed a threat to the national security. The operation resulted in deaths of nearly 300.000 Iraqis civilians.

Note: Saddam Husein was convicted in killing 147 Shiites in Bagda in 1982 and hanged.

Please do not tell me Saddam killed thousands He did not. Read the trial verdict!!!! He killed 147 Shiites. Give me any proof of what you are saying and I will believe you!!!!!!

Rich if those Kurds would not attacked Saddam all of them would be alive. I am not trying to defend Saddam. I am trying to show you there cannot be two thruths. The ultimate truth is YOU shall not kill. The war in Iraq is a stain on the USA. They lie to American ppl as to what are the real reasons behind the war in Iraq. You cannot build a democracy on lie

I do not believe those dirty polititians, they kill and they start wars and we ordinary ppl die. Stay away from politics!

Answer 1

The difference is that in event #2, the dead Iraqi civilians are unintentional "collateral damage", and thus the coalition forces cannot be held responsible for them.

I'm not justifying it morally, but there's a difference between collateral damage and intentional genocide, even though both result in many undeserved deaths.

Answer 2

Saddam was unable to locate all the member of the group that attempted his assassination, so he ordered his troops to murder the families of the missing men. This included women, children and the elderly.

I don't see any stretch of imagination that can tie these two examples together in any logical manner. Saddam was guilty of many, many more murders than he was convicted for. He was directly responsible for these deaths whereas President Bush had not a thing to do with the Iraqi deaths you mention. These people have been killed by their own people. Death is a natural result of war. American military is the most advanced in the world at avoiding collateral deaths. This whole comparison you are trying to make just does not wash for me, sorry.

Answer 3

Besides that Kurds are hardly ever shiites? Or that the monkey
never said it was because the attack? Remember? It was about
WMD and then about liberation. Not much.

So what's the bottom line of it? Hussein was a moron.
He should have searched for WMD or liberated them.
He could have killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds
and no one but those Euro spoilsports would have complaint.
Well the Kurds would. But that doesn't really count.

@Terri: Not from a news site? You mean news sites
like CNN? Hell. Even Fox? Or the U.N.?
What exactly would be a valid source for you?
George Bush? Actually those 300.000 (infact I think
it was 200.000) came from Bush. Because the *news
site* version says 600.000.

Answer 4

Your analogy is not correct as to why Bush went into Iraq, but, the perception around the Middle East I'm sure will be closer to how you have described it in your question. The kindest words to describe Bush are that he is a bull in the world's china shop, and when he leaves office, Americans will have to pay for all the damage. On the darker side, he has said to all the world that the
US believes it is OK to invade countries you don't like but have not attacked you, and then put their President up on trial and have him hanged. We have lost much of the moral authority this country had rightly earned through the years, and the very argument Bush Sr. used so well to get us into the first Gulf War Bush Jr. has just invalidated.

Answer 5

Wrong - Saddam Hussein killed WAY more than 147 Shiites! In his 30-year reign, he beat, tortured, brutalized and slaughtered thousands upon thousands of his own people - NOT just Shiites! If his team lost a soccer game, he'd kill them all! If any Iraqi citizen spoke out against him, he'd have them killed. It wasn't just Shiites he murdered - it was any Iraqi that was against him that he had killed!

Answer 6

Give it a rest... go spew your hate on an Islamic site where it will be better received....
And if you want actual answers you will have to use honest facts when asking a question... not figments of your imaganation.
The premis is incorrect therefore the question is unanswerable

The answer that you want is: Sadam was defending him self and the US is the Great Satin.... Yea Right

Answer 7

Give us proof that over 300,000 iraqi civilians died for #2. And not from any news sites.

Answer 8

the respond is incredibly common. no person ought to tell the style till Mr. God popped out from the heavens and confirmed us all his omniscient omnipotence in individual. Exegesis is so rampant among all those 'of religion' and everybody's interpretations are diverse. a guy could dedicate adultery or have greater beneficial than one goat and determine, hello, what he did isn't soooo undesirable; he will nonetheless pass to heaven if he prostrates himself before the Lord and grants to never, ever do it lower back. a minimum of no longer till next week, whilst he will return to church to genuflect some greater. yet another guy ought to be a homophobic ding-dong who steals paying for carts from value-ceremony and is having an affair together with his first cousin. He too believes he would be forgiven - inspite of each and every thing, in basic terms them homersexuals are extremely goin' ter Hell. In different words, non secular human beings bend and twist their e book and their god as they please. i choose for to assert that this isn't the case for some yet certainty tells us it incredibly is an analogous for all. there are a number of Christians i like right here and that they base their Biblical interpretations upon the goodness of God and as such are charitable, candy, and empathic. nonetheless - an interpretation of God's goodness or his glory continues to be an interpretation. The Bible is there for all to envision. I even have examine it. you have examine it. The God of the Bible isn't advantageous & variety. he's greater usually bigoted and violent in direction of his creations. For those whose values are based upon Jesus' compassion there are a hundred who have self assurance God is a punishing tyrant. (Punishing all yet themselves, I think of). the two way, on condition that God has in no way looked nor left any evidence of his life (and no, finding on the gorgeous sky all around me isn't evidence of any style of God-determine), all is subjective. it incredibly is Pascal's guess yet lower back. If he exists, they are all rewarded. If he does not, properly, they in all possibility won't be attentive to it besides whilst they are underground. The Christian God is likely one in each and every of the main prevalent gods around, and there have been like a bazillion gods till now whilst. yet this one is the main concepts-blowing one. of path. The Bible says so. And God says so in the Bible. there is ultimately no way in any comprehend to be attentive to the style in life. a minimum of no longer till the Rapture, whilst God comes, takes his a hundred and forty four,000 and leaves all the rest persons to type it out in Hell. (((AZ)))

Answer 9

"As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions"
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Answer 10

I'll be convinced if you can show me a few cities of Women and Childen that the U.S. gassed in cold blood.

I believe our troops act more like policemen than killer soldiers. Don't shoot at them and they won't shoot at you. Saddam and friends weren't that generous.