See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 30973
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: leveller (#0)
Sunday the Boston Globe had a list of the top ten worst dictators in the world. Sudan was number one- because of the 200,000 people killed over the last 5 years in the south. So Sudan's government is the worst because of excesses committed while putting down a rebellion in their country while the United States- kills a million Iraqis - a country 6000 miles away and over reasons that were all lies? Uh huh. The disconnect from reality among our elites is quite amazing. Darfur and its tiny 200,000 body count over 5 years is still a topic among our elite? They need to get a grip. Oh- Iran was the number three worst dictatorship- it seems a homosexual was executed in one of their provinces last year.
Bush coes not apear in this list, because he may be found in the list of Top Ten Worst Deciderers.
Let's bring a little rationality to a new topic here at FD4UM. This isn't the first report on Iraqi deaths by Les Roberts of John Hopkins to be published by the Lancet. The first one (in which Les was the lead author) claimed 100,000 excess deaths occurred in the first 18 months after the invasion began. This study was *peer reviewed* by the Lancet ... who editors apparently didn't read the report since they proceeded to advertise the first study as saying 100,000 CIVILIANS died during that time, when the study didn't say that at all. But their saying this led thousands of conspiracists and numerous leftist media reporters to claim 100,000 civilians had been murdered by Bush and the evil United States. In interviews that Les Roberts gave on that first report, he allowed the 100,000 civilian deaths perception to stand uncontested. For example,here (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/14/154251#transcript) is an interview he did with DemocracyNow, a far left media outlet (curious how he could never find time for an interview on a conservative outlet). In it, the interviewer (Gonzalez) says to Roberts "Last year, the prominent British medical journal, Lancet, published a study estimating that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died because of the war. The study determined that the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the U.S. invasion. We are joined in Washington by the lead researcher of that report, Dr. Les Roberts, who is an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.". Les Roberts response didn't correct the misinformation about the study in Gonzalez's statement. He let the assertion that the study concluded a 100,000 civilians died stand. I think he did that because Les Roberts is DISHONEST and has an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda. He has from day one, as you will see. His dishonesty in the above interview continued when discussing the methodology he used. For example, he said, regarding the interviews with Iraqis on which the study was based, "And at the end of the interview, if they had reported someone dead, on a sub-sample, we asked, can you show us the death certificate? And about 82% of the time, they could do that. And we found that the death rate after the invasion was far, far higher than before." He doesn't mention that only in 2 out of 30 homes claiming deaths did they even ask for a death certificate. Nor does he tell his listeners the reason stated in the report why they didn't ask (fear that they would be hurt by those they asked). And reading that transcript, you will notice that he doesn' t mention the fact that such organizations as WHO and the UN (hardly Bush advocate's) published pre-war mortality rates (a VERY important number in arriving at the estimated number of excess deaths) that were significantly different from what his study found. In fact, his report neither noted or attempted to explain why it's pre-war mortality estimate was so markedly different. The John Hopkin's researchers in the first report said 5 per 1000 per year. Well it turns out that the UN and WHO, in very large studies conducted before the invasion, said 7-8 per 1000 per year. By the way, the Lancet had previously blessed those WHO and UN estimates as correct ... perhaps because at the time doing THAT was hurt the US governments image. Now there are many more criticisms one can make about that first report. But let's move on to the second report ... the one claiming 655,000 excess deaths. That one has all the defects mentions above plus others. For example, the second report claims that 92% of those interviewed in their study who claimed deaths in their families (of any kind) since the beginning of the war were able to provide death certificates to prove it when asked. So if the John Hopkin's study methodology is statistically valid, one would expect death certificates from about 92% of 655,000 deaths should be available if someone goes looking for them. That is over 600,000 death certificates. Of the total number of deaths claimed, the John Hopkins report said "601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006." So according to John Hopkin's, most of the death certificates should relate to violent causes. Now as far as I know, death certificates in Iraq are only issued by the hospitals and morgues. This is what the LATimes (not a friend of Bush or the war) seemed to indicate in June of 2006 when they reported (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines) that they made a comprehensive search for death certificates throughout Iraq. And you know what they found? Less than 50,000. Here's what they reported. "The Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts." The article went on to say "the Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs. If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate. Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping. The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137." So here's the question. Where are the missing death certificates? About 500,000, if one subtracts out the non-violent deaths. For that matter, where are the missing bodies? Where is ANY hard proof (photographic, video, eyewitness reports by journalists, ANYTHING) to prove over 600,000 people have died from violent causes as claimed? I'll tell you. Such proof doesn't exist because the John Hopkin's studies are BOGUS. It's the result of a group of researchers (some of whom have admitted they disliked Bush and the War) who hired people in Iraq (who they described as HATING Americans) to gather the data. I think this reviewer of Robert's study (From http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006694.php) summed it up best: "In contrast to the amiable persona Roberts projected to his sympathetic Chronicle interviewer, Roberts comes across here as committed to exposing the American government's moral culpability in invading Iraq. More than that, Roberts' contention that Americans are passionately hated by the Iraqis he met and worked with ought to raise a red flag. It was those same Iraqis, acting as interviewers and team managers, who recorded and conveyed the surveyed families' impressions of the identities of those who killed their close relatives." The results are tainted because they were reviewed and published in a journal that not only lied about the first study (claiming it showed 100,000 CIVILIANS died in the first 18 months of the war) but whose editors admit they fast tracked the peer review process so that it could be published before an election and negatively affect the outcome against Bush and the GOP. The methodology was tainted by expecting the sunnis who bore the brunt of the invasion and who hate Americans (because we freed the rest of Iraq from their tyranny) to tell the truth about casualties. And the study is still being tainted by proponents who willfully hide all these facts every time they cite the numbers in order to promote their agenda. In summary, I'd be very cautious about citing Les Roberts or the Lancet results to prove anything. You might end up only embarrassing yourself. How the Lancet Cooked the Numbers Another bogus body count from those who brought us the last bogus body count!
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
Excellent response. I've always been troubled by similar number crunching bean counters who miss the forest for the trees in their attempt tp rationalize our attack on a defenseless nation. Thank you leveller for giving me the short and sweet message I can use in the future. In the past I have been sucked into the actuarial game of trying to defend the 650,000 figure - you are so right - it matters not whether the figure is 650,000 or 1 - our gov't started a war of aggression and invaded another sovereign nation and killed and wounded and displaced that country's nationals. Our gov't leaders are war criminals and should be charged as such.
Same technique was used for 650K as the UN uses in wars and famines all over the globe. Indeed- the number is a low ball. Its more like a million.
The figure of 50-60,000 is bullshit. Pure-D, grade-A, double-dipped bullshit. We know this because the bodies are stacked in the morgues and there's no place to put them. We know this because people are burying their dead in their back yards. The Lancet study was peer reviewed. Is it gospel? No. But it is based on the same techniques that have proven reliable time and time again in other circumstances. The bias of the researchers is of no moment, because the peer review process is designed to weed out and expose any errors based on bias or poor sampling, whatever. The bottom line is that this is business as usual. The administration's apologists come running to play "discredit the source" whenever they don't like the news. Iraq isn't seeking Yellowcake? That's Joe Wilson's bias. There are no WMDs? That Hans Blix just has it in for the administration. On and on and on. We've been led into another Vietnam by an incompetent and dishonest collection of vile frauds and profiteers. There's little reason to respond to their apologists.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians. Second, would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
I would pose the same question to you. Would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing? Or perhaps this is your answer. You would have left Saddam in place to murder tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis every single year, rather than toppling him at the cost of even 1. You would have left Iraq a safe haven for terrorists so they could plan and launch attacks like the one in Jordan where tens of thousands of dead were the goal, rather than invade even if the cost were only 1.
Funny how there are no pictures of these extra deaths. Or death certificates. Not very well and not by an impartial jury. Otherwise the glaring questions I pointed out would have been asked and addressed. But they weren't and the reason is apparent in the Lancet's own explanation for why they fast-tracked the article through the peer review process. True or not, you will not achieve anything better if the foundation of your better world is lies.
Number has nothing to do with it. It's obvious by now, to anyone who is not a Bushbot, that the Administration lied about Iraq being a "terrorist haven", lied about "weapons of mass destruction", lied about any connection between Iraq and 9-11 and lied about just about everything else surrounding our ill- concieved and piss-poorly planned invasion of Iraq. It was a war that we launched "preemptively", based on a bullshit fictional "threat". That's illegal. And in fact we (the US) are the ones who made it a crime when we actually stood on the side of the angels at Nuremburg! It was a "bad" thing from jump. As for making sure Iraq couldn't be used as a safe haven, what the fuck do you think it is now? It is not only a safe haven for terriers, it's a training ground and an ammo dump, conveniently equipped with targets. There hasn't been a single good thing accomplished here. Even the toppling of Saddam was, at best, a neutral acheivement. He was no threat to us, and had been a trusted and reliable ally of ours right up until the first Gulf War, when WE greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait. He would have remained an ally if we'd told him not to invade, because he wouldn't have done it. This is not to mention that he'd never have gotten past low-level apparatchik if our CIA hadn't backed him in his run for Iraqi leadership. Now that he's gone, what do we have in Iraq? We have an ineffectual puppet government that can do nothing, widespread death and misery, and we've given terriers all across the middle east another serious greivance to lay at our feet. Iraq is the terrier's recruiting poster. Young Saudis are catching rides to Iraq just so they can take a shot at a real-live US GI. So it's always been a bad thing, it never was a good thing; hell, it never even was a good IDEA. And any good that could have been done was fucked up by the presidiot and his dumbshit advisors.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
The irony of this sentiment coming from an Iraq War apologist is so thick I couldn't cut through it with a chainsaw. This whole war was founded on lies.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
so what? so does most of the world. an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda would actually be a pro-peace agenda, if expressed in positive terms. hardly a bad thing. the precise numbers are less important then the fact that there are numbers. and those numbers represent actual people whose lives were cut short for no good reason. the fact that we kill and don't even know who or how many is disgraceful.
The irony of this sentiment coming from an Iraq War apologist is so thick I couldn't cut through it with a chainsaw. You caught that too, huh? WOWSER man, that's off the deep end!
Why is this thing here? I thought this website reserved the right to keep the trash out? It won't be long before more of these lie spouting Bushbots start infecting the place. Debating with these amoral creeps is pointless. Christine, I'd respectfully represent that you'd be bettor off without this traitorous scum stinking the place up.
Caught it? Hell, it fell into my lap.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Naw, let it speak. It's not like we aren't equipped to handle it.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
The Crystal Entity only wishes to absorb you for your energy. (Star Trek - The Next Generation)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Got any sources that don't come from kook wingnut sites? All this stuff is at the level of your Ron Brown/WMD drivel. And please, don't post the ancient WND article about the rusty artillery shell again. Use objective sources from this century.
.
Sudan was numero uno? You mean... no Stalin? No Mao? No Pol Pot? No Genghis Khan? No Hitler?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Second, would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing? Thank you for correcting me. There actually is no proof that those 50,000 dead civilians were innocent! Without you, BAC, to light the way, I might fall into the same trap as others, and assume that the burden rests upon the aggressor to prove the guilt of his victims. With your guidance, I am ready to adopt the much more convenient position that the burden is upon the dead to prove their innocence! Otherwise, what sense would it make to say, "Shoot first and ask questions later"? Why have such a motto if we cannot use it? If we are to defend this empire --oops, this Extended Homeland -- we cannot afford to wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom soup. It's 1938 all over again, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Wilt Chamberlain. If you've forgotten where the number 50G came from, I will render you this much assistance. The first source that you cited in your post #3 above stated the following: "To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq." Silly me for assuming they were innocent.
They were talking about current dictators. Sudan's was number one (whatever his name is). North Korea was 2. And Iran was number three- they killed a gay last year it seems.
I draw the line at that precise number where the ends justify the means. When I find that number I'll let you know. Most reflective people will tell you that no such number exists.
And can you spare us the op eds in support of your opinion? Why the hell should we read some moron's unsupported opinion in support of your kookey unsupported opinion? 1. No partisan kook sites. 2. No opinion pieces. Those are not support for an argument. (But you know that don't you.)
.
Exactly, and besides, Saddam was grinding up atleast that many a day in his plastic shredder, so on balance Uncle Sam is doin' em a favor.
Christine, I'd respectfully represent that you'd be bettor off without this traitorous scum stinking the place up. The best aspect of this forum is that it is open. A free exchange of ideas, obnoxious or not, is the lifeblood of 4um. Exclusion of posters for content will only draw well-deserved comparisons to other censored forae, such as FR and Likud Post. Neither Loopy nor anyone else should be afraid of the advent of BAC or any other "amoral creeps." 4um would flourish with or without them, but not by excluding them.
LOL. Your choice of pronouns was exquisite.
I still think I got the winner up above with that whole foundation of lies thing, but this is close, I'll grant you.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
thank you, sir. I'm here all week...
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Exactly, and besides, Saddam was grinding up atleast that many a day in his plastic shredder, so on balance Uncle Sam is doin' em a favor. You know, since Saddam got the death penalty for a possibly fictitious gassing of a couple hundred Kurds, 50G deaths seems just as criminal as 650G.
2. No opinion pieces. Do you think he got the names confused and doesn't know he's not in Goldi's backyard today?
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
One's enough to get you strapped in Ole Sparky in Alabama.
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?).
Saddam was crazy. But not crazy enough to use them on US troops. But still crazy enough to give them to terrorists so they could use them against the US. Plus, if he used the WMD on America he would have been executed . . . oh- never mind.
Danang me. I fergot about that! Well, okay, so that one wasn't a lie. But the rest of 'em fer dang sure was!
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?). Saddam was crazy. But not crazy enough to use them on US troops. But still crazy enough to give them to terrorists so they could use them against the US. Plus, if he used the WMD on America he would have been executed . . . oh- never mind. lol.
Whatever the figure of dead and crippled; it's a huge figure, wrapped in the shame of the Bush Cabal War Crimes. There's the problem - ongoing; and liable to get worse, with Iran over the political horizon. The invasions and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are both War Crimes, from the beginning to this day. Judging by the 'advance party' of shills, Iran is reasonably assured to go down as another massive War Crime - intended to be "Perceived" as a defence of Whore Israel.
Sorry leveller, been there done that. I've seen this happen on two forums already. You accomplish nothing by dealing with BAC. Ask Burkeman1. He tried for years to reason with that thing. I'm not afraid of BAC in any sense. I'm just sick of toleration of these disgusting pigs who've turned my country into the shithole it now is. Samcgwire was right. And BTW, this forum her ewas set up with the express reservation that it WOULD censor these assholes.
And shame to the beasts who try to justify it.
But - BAC and his pack of political sluts are being so "nice," compared to other forums. Still it's a mistake to feed trools, such as his kind. AND - they can be fun, on occasion: Get BAC, get BAC Go home Get BAC, get BAC Sweet Goldi claimed to be a woman That’s BAC, it was BAC Now, go home She got BAC, got BAC Whoooo, Goldi! Get BAC, Goldi Get BAC, get BAC
i'm amused
beachy, we are still waiting for the ron brown kookery. are you going to put up or not?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Beachy is just the wrong kind of kook. I still think TLBSHOW would be better.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Sure it does. Or are you telling us that you wouldn't risk one innocent life to save the lives of a hundred others? It certainly was a terrorist haven. We know now that al-Qaeda was busy planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies from the safety of Iraq long before we invaded. The Jordan chemical bomb plot trial proved that. Those terrorists admitted to meeting with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the invasion to plot the attack ... an attack whose goal was to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman. Now I think a rational person calls Iraq a safe haven under those circumstances. Especially given that Iraq's government was aware those people were operating inside Iraq. And I think a rational person would consider that an attack involving a weapon of mass destruction. We did find weapons of mass destruction that Saddam denied having. That binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED proves it. And the ISG said they had a witness they deemed credible who said Saddam moved WMD related items to Syria in the months before the invasion. And other sources say that happened. It is a fact that at the time of the invasion Iraq was still working on banned long range delivery systems, which even the Iraqi who headed the program said he thought was for delivering WMD. It is a fact that the ISG said Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought by the ISG to be related to WMD. It is a fact that the reason this happened has never been explained. Given those fact, I don't think any rational person could claim the administration lied about Iraq being a threat in terms of violating an agreement not to pursue WMD and in terms of being a potential source of WMD to terrorists. The apparent connection between the anthrax attack, Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent named al-Ani has never been adequately explained. Anything but. It has been a killing ground for thousands of al-Qaeda and thousands of their associates. Why just today it was announced that the #1 al-Qaeda in Iraq was wounded and his deputy killed. The truth is that because we invaded, al-Zarqawi was put on the run (and eventually killed), which probably is what kept him from overseeing and making sure the Jordan bomb plot was a success. And it certainly kept him from planning and launching another such plot. I can think of one without even blinking. Saddam and his sons are dead. On top of that millions of Iraqis are now going to live a life where they can prosper instead of being under the thumb of the Sunnis and Saddam's regime. Oh sure. A man who ordered a chemical attack on Israel during the first gulf war at a time when Israel wasn't even a combatant in that war was not a threat. A man who defied an agreement to not even pursue WMD but who continued to do so for over a decade was not a threat. A man who started TWO wars of aggression in one of the most vital areas of the world was not a threat. A man who when losing one ordered the torching of whole oil fields was not a threat. A man who committed genocide against his own countrymen, using WMD no less, was not a threat. A man who harbored terrorists who had attacked the US (such as one of the 1993 WTC bombers) was not a threat. A man who funded terrorists around the world was not a threat. A man who continued friendly contacts with al-Qaeda after 9/11 was not a threat. A man who APPLAUDED the destruction of the WTC towers was not a threat. Why is it I don't believe your assessment of him? This is untrue. We did no such thing. Even Tariq Aziz, right hand of Saddam and a person who was present at the meeting where you folks claim Saddam was given a greenlight, said publically this notion is silly. He said Saddam was under no illusions. He knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US. If it weren't Iraq, it would be something else. And most of them are dying there. Better there, under conditions where we can apply the full weight of our military, then somewhere else where we can't.
The sort of peace we had before WWII? But if risking those lives saved far more, wouldn't that be a good reason? The fact that those saying this want to cut and run while knowing full well that the number of Iraqis killed will skyrocket after we leave is not disgraceful?
ROTFLOL! That was Neville not Wilt. Show us from those sources how they determined those who died were civilians? Because they weren't wearing a uniform? And in the case of those who were innocent civilians, let's not forget who it was who actually killed them.
It's 1938 all over again, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Wilt Chamberlain. ROTFLOL! That was Neville not Wilt. Are you certain? Please cite your source.
"To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq." Show us from those sources how they determined those who died were civilians? Because they weren't wearing a uniform? And in the case of those who were innocent civilians, let's not forget who it was who actually killed them. You doubt our own source? After pointing me to the url, are you now demanding that I prove the accuracy of the source that you cited? Must I carry on both sides of the argument? If so, I want a cut of your RNC paycheck.
You have to be joking. ROTFLOL!
No. The source I posted simply states that IRC "CLAIMS" 49,000 civilian deaths, BI "REPORTS" 62,000 and the LATIMES "REPORTED" 50,000 civilian deaths. That's doesn't mean the author of the article I posted believes those numbers either. Which is why I asked you to supply the basis for each saying those were all civilians who were killed. Is that hard to understand? But at least you aren't trying to defend the 655,000 number any longer. So perhaps we can conclude that I am right in questioning the accuracy of this thread's article, "Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit".
beachy, i can't understand why you won't go over your kooky ron brown and wmd stuff. did your mom throw out all your old newsmax articles or something? also, it's very cowardly of you to have so many people on bozo. the other kooks we've had here didn't bozo anyone.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
i read on LP that you can prove ron brown's plane was shot down by a ufo. this is the kind of nut ball stuff we enjoy hearing you rave and rant about.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
your bozo count is much higher than ponchy's was at this point. you need to start putting out or you will just be more trouble than you are worth.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I think the lesson here is that if the obsessed kook has earned the name of "loser", don't expect him to be intelligent or funny. Just obssessed. I think we should be a little more careful about the kooks we recommend. I confess that it was I who first raised the idea and I now admit that Beachy is a witless dumbshit. I made a mistake. I am sorry.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
maybe we should be the ones to boot him. it is sort of our fault. christine shouldn't have to do it.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Is it your position that no civilians have been killed in Iraq? Or is it your position that those killed have not been innocent? Or is is your position that "our leaders" have pegged the Iraqi death toll with accuracy?
Are you certain? Please cite your source. You have to be joking. ROTFLOL! Joking? You misunderestimate me, sir. I'm fairly certain it was Wilt. You're going to have to learn to trust me on matters like this, BAC.
It's not just about oil.
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
christine: i'm amused Leveller, you've "met" the one and only scrapper - at least, a scrapper of my creation. I chose the number "2" to mean "too" as I am a "scrapper, too." Darn, it doesn't sound so clever now that I've had to explain it, sigh.
Me 2.
;)
Of course not. Why would you make such a ridiculous assertion? Or course not. Why would you make such a ridiculous assertion? Of course not. However, the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions by you.
You need to learn the difference between assertions and questions. All of which you failed to answer sufficiently.
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
and you have an old newsmax article to prove it?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
He's not going to offer any alternatives. All he has is that it's less than Saddam was killing. You watch. It's absurd but that's where it's heading.
national enquirer? a freeper thread maybe?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
his own. but he will tell you that he is a lot smarter than the guys at johns hopkins while he is at it that and his yellow dog eared newsmax articles are proof positive.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Distinctions so fine have no place on this thread.
Don't scare him off. He's earning overtime.
He knows damn well what was implied in your asking those questions, but he gave the flippant "of course not" to waste your time to get you to ask another question.
That's why he's going to answer your question with a question.
when people laugh at the goofy sources you use to support your arguments. things such as the hysterical wingnut websites you cited above. why don't you tell the people that there is an evil conspiracy to keep support for your ideas out of the objective press? this wouldn't be any more kooky than your wmd or ron brown conspiracy theories.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
While we're waiting for that question, perhaps you could entertain a question about what your logo is all about.
The number isn't all that important - it's massive and a continuing U.S. War Crime! Iran's next; right BAC. That's why the "BAC Pack" arrived so suddenly. You're an "Advance Party" of disinformationists; right? C'mon BAC - you can be a LITTLE bit honest, can't you?
Cover art from an early 20th Century anarchist pamphlet. Maybe late 19th Century. I used to have the link to the original source, but lost it somewhere in the hard drive.
They don't make anarchists like that anymore.
You would have left Iraq a safe haven for terrorists so they could plan and launch attacks like the one in Jordan where tens of thousands of dead were the goal, rather than invade even if the cost were only 1. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists. Even the 9-11 Commission, try as they may to whitewash the ill-considered decisions of GWB and Congress, admitted that Saddam was not dealing with AQ or any other terrorists. Also Iraq was so weakened by sanctions since the first Gulf War it was no threat to the US or its neighbors. As for the Iraqis brutalized by Saddam - are we any less brutal than Saddam was to Iraqis - have you looked at news reels lately of Iraq's neighborhoods - just shells of buildings standing and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands dead and wounded and our gov't has only been "in charge" for 4 years - our annual kill rate has been a lot higher than Saddam's who was in charge for 24 years. Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem? Please don't get all holier than thou with me regarding Saddam's crimes. Let's face it, our gov't tolerates the same or worse violence against civilian peoples by other despots/regimes than what was perpetuated by Saddam - actually some of the most brutal regimes we even refer to as our dear allies and we prop up with financial aid. For example, Israel brutalizes the Palestinians 24/7 - do you suggest we attack Israel and forcibly remove its gov't to "free" the Palestinians for humanitarian reasons? Israel attacked its neighbor, Lebanon, twice already, most recently this summer, displacing 950,000 Lebanese civilians, killing 1000 Lebanese civilians, destroying homes and apartment blocks and valuable infra-structure like the airport, hospitals, schools, roads, leaving unexploded cluster bombs behind that will murder innocents for who knows how many years to come and will contaminate ground water sources as well. Israel had far more UN resolutions passed against it than Saddam ever had - again, I ask you if we follow your humanitarian reasoning for invading Iraq, why don't we invade Israel and do its neighbors and the people it terrorizes and poaches land from a giant humanitarian favor? Israel's ongoing violent aggression against the Palestinians and the Lebanese has been Bin Laden's best recruiting tool. As a result, one could say that it is Israel that poses the greatest danger to America's national security. The longer Israel is allowed to keep doing what it does against civilian Muslims, the more numbers of radicalized anti-American, AQ-sympathetic Muslims there will be because we turn a blind eye to the senseless cruelty, the war crimes Israel perpetuates on a regular basis.
what a well reasoned factual post, scrapper.
Scrapper2 for president.
How many 4um threads reach 80 posts? How many are punctuated with posts such as scrapper2's post 78? Diversity of opinion, however ridiculous, breeds adversarial debate and close analysis. 4um can tolerate that.
Estimates that are FAR below 655,000. Estimates that are consistent with the death certificates, images, bodies, news accounts and common sense.
The fact that the terrorists convicted in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war is proof you are wrong. Odd. Documents show that before the invasion one of al-Zarqawis lieutenants was arrested by Saddam's police and although the arresting officer wrote that he was convinced the man was guilty, the man was ordered released by Saddam himself. It only takes a small amount of WMD to create havoc. Absolutely. And if you doubt this, one has good reason to doubt your grasp of reality. Really? Prove it. Nonsense. WHO and the UN said thousands of innocent Iraqis were dying every single month when Saddam was in control. As many as 5000 a month. Experts say the mass graves in Iraq contain 300,000 or more bodies. A million died in wars that Saddam started with his neighbors. And there was no end in sight. Rather than cooperate with UN inspectors, Saddam did everything he could to nullify the agreement he signed. He continued to pursue WMD and banned long range delivery systems. He continued to deprive his populace of needed food, medicine, and infrastructure repairs. Instead he spent the money on more palaces, his thugs, his Republican guard, his hedonistic sons, secret bank accounts, Palestinian terrorism, and bribes of UN and non-coalition nation officials. ROTFLOL! I love how you folks on one hand whine about the death of Iraqis and on the other hand say what business is their plight anyway. ROTFLOL! Not half as badly as Arab states do. Well, that's one way to look at it. There is another. It had something to do with an organization that has called for the complete destruction of Israel (indeed, one that will not recognize the right of Israel to even exist) firing missiles into Israeli cities and sending in homicide bombers to blow up ... guess what ... innocent civilians. Israel never used WMD against it's own citizens or killed a million in a war. If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
lol
".....revenge!" Why BAC, you ARE the very Mosssadite piece of shit that I described! Diana was correct. Congratulations on your clarification of Diana's intuition and my assertions.
BAC, why don't you cite two wingnut partisan blogs and an Australian op ed piece to back up your bullshit? That's what you did on the last thread. And given this desperate search for sources, it looks like you are the only one who believes your crap. Taking yoru silly sources to heart is the reason you believe in flying saurcers, Iraqi WMD and your kooky Ron Brown conspiracy crap. Think about it. Garbage in garbage out.
.
Bac, let me clue you in. Just because a kook can spew a conspiracy theory on the internet doesn't mean you have to believe it. Think critically. Now tell us about how the UFO shot down Ron Brown.
.
Why don't you post some pictures of bodies, or news accounts, or death certificates to back up the ridiculous claim that 655,000 excess deaths occurred in Iraq between the start of the war and last July when that report came out. What's that? You say you can't? ROTFLOL!
No sources at all for your bullshit? Ok, I will take Johns Hopkins over a guy who thinks a flying saucer shot down Ron Brown. Namely you. The University is simply more credible than your utterly unsupported bullshit.
.
And please, no more National Enquirer, NewsMax or two man wingnut blogs. And remember, op eds are not factual documents. Even if you have to go all the way to Australia to find one that supports your kooky crap.
.
Did you know that Ron Brown was really Bin Laden? ROTFLOL!! Kook!!
.
It's not my job, and you know that. When you you go kooky and thrash around like this it just makes it obvious that you can't back up your crap. I pointed out your sources were pure bullshit ten hours ago. You didn't respond. Now that you have had you kooky nose rubbed in it, you are madly pounding google looking for something reasonable. When you come back and spam the thread with crap, and try to hide behind this, I am going to ask you to boil it down to 20 words and cite your source.
.
beachy, if you would stop acting like an irrational nut job, people would stop laughing at you. just a thought. and beachy, there are no such thing as flying saucers and ron brown didn't really come back to life.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Psst. Prozac Beachy, Prozac. It will change your life.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Beachy, out of curiosity, why did Clinton and Ron Brown conspire to hide a conspiracy that didn't exist? Seems awfully complicated to me.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
beachy, i don't think ... wanted to dis the national enquirer. i know you enjoy it and you are perfectly free to read it. i think he objects to your using it to back up the things the voices in your head tell you. maybe if you just post what the voices say it will be more clear.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
So did Goldi kick you off the site for being a kook or for just being obnoxious? It wasn't clear to me.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
It was a conspiracy of Clintonistas that set me up. I got an old NewsMax article that explains how it was done, and how the WMD got moved to Iran as part of the plot. ROTFLOL!!
Hi Loopy, how are you doing? Don't you also consider me one of those scum-bags too?
God is always good! Evasion.
That would be the "Jews" you are talking about, correct?
God is always good! I don't recall you.
Yes, now I do. As soon as I logged in, your message disappeared, so I obviously have you on bozo which means that you too are a scumbag. So fuck off. Don't bother to respond I haven't taken you off bozo, I just wanted you to know that you also are a scumbag.
What is the real death toll of our troops in Iraq? I hear that those that die while in transport out of Iraq are not listed as having been a casualty of the war there. If this is true then the official death toll could be significantly higher if all deaths that resulted from combat in Iraq were listed instead of only the ones who actually got killed there. I also heard that many so-called suicides committed by American troops in Iraq are not being included in the official numbers either. This administration is trying their best to not let people know that many American troops are being killed and many more injured for life by this war based on lies. No press coverage allowed for our returning war dead. I guess the war wouldn't be so popular if more Americans were made aware of the real price of war.
God is always good! Ah, now that's the Loopy I know. :) You seem to think many are scum-bags, why is that?
God is always good! And as for your "Jew" comment, I don't share that "Jew" obsession that some on this board do. I don't hold that there is a "Jew" conspiracy or that all "Jews" are evil. I differentiate that from the State of Israel which I do hold to be pretty damn evil. So it is also possible I bozoed you because you are one of those who posts alot of shit about the "Jews did this" or the "Jews do that". Neither the bots or the racists are worth a shit and both can all go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.
So you would have us disregard a white paper researched and endorsed by one of the top universities in the world and peer reviewed by one of the two premiere medical journals in the world on the basis of the opinions of mensnewsdaily, The Australian and something called strategypage? And you have the nerve to call other people kooks? ROTFLMAO!!! If these same "sources" wrote articles poo-pooing your Ron Brown conspiracy theory you'd be denouncing them as being the "liberal media." Speaking of Ron Brown, would you please explain the cognitive dissonance you appear to hold in relation to Ron Brown's death and your worship of George "it's only a damned piece of paper" Bush? Surly you realize that if such an event did indeed take place that as president, George "Mission accomplished" Bush would not only know about it but would be an active participant in covering up the crime? KOOK! ROTFLMAO
LOL! Oh shit, Lev. You killed me.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Nice Post Scrapper! Keep on scrapping.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Hey, why are you picking a fight?
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Not evasion. The truth. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the death toll back in July of 2006 was 50,000 or 100,000. My point is very clear. The 655,000 number is totally bogus and it demonstrates the lengths to which the anti-war crowd will go. It proves for all their whining about "Bush lied", they are just as willing to lie. And the behavior of everyone on this thread says something too. I'll leave it to the random lurker to figure out what that might be.
And made my morning, too.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
i agree, leveller.
You have referred to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam as part of the justification for the invasion. And now you are saying you have no number of dead civilians killed to make a comparison to. You are a duplicitous asshole to say the least.
hi. welcome to 4. is that Hayek as in Selma? ;)
Chooser wouldn't know a source if it bit him on the ass. Not only that, but he himself is suckered in by the crap he puts up. I think that's the basis for all the kooky conspiracy theories that drive him. Do a search on his name on LP and look at his convoluted nut bunny stories about Ron Brown and the Iraqi WMD. The Ron Brown stuff is pretty far back, maybe 2003 and before, but it's worth the dig if you like to watch panting, wild eyed kooks on a mission from God. Looking at LP, his MO is to first cite a few bullshit sources from goob fooler rags. as he did above. He then spams the page with a massive blast of stream of consciousness drivel. Also as he did above. And if this doesn't work, he resorts to the sort of childish, obnoxious name calling that he's just started over here. Most of this is on other threads right now.
.
Excuse me. I only answered your first paragraph in my post above. You seem be well up on chooser's Rob Brown kookery. Didn't mean to be tedious in my post above. I just hadn't read your other paragraphs.
.
I am curious. Did you fianlly stop your Ron Brown Kookery because, after all these many years, you finally realized that this obession only highligts what an irrational and shalllow conspiracy nut you really are? Or did all your old NewsMax articles just go yellow and crumble to dust? I noticed that you haven't ranted or screamed a word about the guy since you've been over here. I'd be curious to know why.
.
Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies. How ironic that now a few years into this "war", you are playing down the number of dead in Iraq, and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent. What a joke. No one is going to buy this one, no one.
I just went back and looked at your banning thread on LP. Why did Goldi ban you? Was it for being a kook or for just being an asshole? I can't tell from the thread.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
And from watching your posts for the last few years, I would say that neither do you.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I thought that was Uday who was doing that, and that it was a wood chipper. I figured whoever came up with that piece of propaganda got the idea from watching "Fargo".
No, I'm suggesting that it be ignored based on the specific facts that I laid out in my post ... facts that NONE of you has even attempted to dispute. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate (and there are half a dozen others). That should raise a red flag. The report and peer reviewers ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimate derived by other organizations (such as the UN and WHO) in much larger studies. And these were estimates that the Lancet had endorsed as accurate previously. And this number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. That should raise a red flag. According to the report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid there should be death certificates available for 92 percent of the 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by anti-Bush, anti-war media sources have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. What they found were numbers closer to those other, much lower estimates. That should raise a red flag. The author of the article and the studies has publically stated he disliked Bush and the war, released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP, and admitted that those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. That should raise a red flag. The Lancet, your premiere medical journal, not only failed in its *peer* review to question why specific numbers used in the study were so vastly different than numbers from previous, larger studies that they had previously blessed, they also reported the deaths as being comprised solely of civilians when the study made no such claim. It doesn't appear as if they even read the study. And they admitted that the peer review process was greatly abbreviated so that the results could be published in time to influence the election. That should raise a red flag. Then we have the behavior of the lead researchers and anti-war left in promoting the study. When interviewers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), Les Roberts and others on his team made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. That is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer. http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=440 "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of them. And Les Roberts did the same thing in an interview . That should raise a red flag. In the interview URLed above, Garfield stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Get that? 200 a month, in one of the biggest and most violent regions in the country. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 were dying each month in the country since the war began. That should raise a red flag. And by the way, Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts study interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't he address that disparity? That should raise a red flag. And the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Robert's study? That should raise a red flag. And there is more. There is NO physical evidence to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are not US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. That should raise a red flag. In fact, take Dahr Jamail as an example. He's viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents. Here is his website: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/ "Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself. His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, the Guardian and the Independent to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into French, Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish. On radio as well as television, Dahr reports for Democracy Now!, the BBC, and numerous other stations around the globe. Dahr is also special correspondent for Flashpoints. Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country." You go ahead and look on his website for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. That should raise a red flag. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. That should raise a red flag. Then there are problems with specific numbers in the studies. For example, the number of dead their methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering ... so ridiculous ... that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses. Some of the families probably fled, but many are probably dead. Of those families sticking around in Fallujah, a quarter lost a family member in the few months leading up to the interview." That should raise a red flag. Here are some more articles pointing out problems with the study that I know you won't bother to even read: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887 http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003153.html#more http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002549.html http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2005/03/the_fallujah_fa.html http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/858gwbza.asp
Look at it this way, people who spout nonsense will be called on it and exposed. And as long as a poster doesn't become vicious and downright creepy or threaten others they should have the right to express their opinions in the name of free speech. People can always ignore him if they want to.
Ping to #123. Bet you can't dispute a single fact I posted ...
That is such a lie! Saddam wanted a secular Iraq, he did not want any competition with radical Islamic groups, and would have regarded them as a huge threat, but I suspect you already know that! If they actually were in that country, and had he known about them being there he most likely would have had them executed.
I'm only on post #44 but already you are lying way too much on this thread to the point of absurdity!!!
You haven't posted any facts. Just your kooky and unsupported opinions. And here I am dealing with a guy who believes Ron Brown's plane was shot down by a flying saucer. Am I now supposed to care about what he thinks about other things?
.
Prove this, Diana. And by the way, are you familiar with the Black Book Of Saddam? Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't. Care to explain to us where that binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED came from? Is the ISG lying when they state they have a credible witness who said WMD related items were moved to Syria before the invasion? Can you explain to us why Saddam's regime went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD if there were no WMD or WMD programs? No, I'm disputing a SPECIFIC number. One that is so ridiculous that I'm surprised you'd be taken in by it. Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I neither said or implied that. Do you have to resort to mischaracterizing my statements to win this debate? Why don't you, instead, try to challenge the specific facts I listed in post #123. The joke will be on you folks if you don't even attempt to dispute the facts I listed in post #123.
By the way, you are ignoring my question on your Ron Brown kookery. Let me ask it again so the lurkers can see what a wild eyed nut cake you really are. Why arn't you panting and screaming about Ron Brown on this board? Did you finally realize what a nut you were?
.
If you would do some honest research, and get some genuine facts to back up your bullshit, you wouldn't have to use this "hide behind spam" tactic. Of course, there really arn't any reputable sources to back up your kookery. I suppose that's your problem.
.
Ron Brown?
.
Is that what this has been about all along? Revenge, or as is now proper to say, justice. My God. Just like Iran is soon going to be wiped out because Ahmadinejad made threatening comments about Israel and apparently Iranians have not had friendly relationships with Israel. Who will be left in the end after all this "justice" has been carried out.
ROTFLOL! your delusion is hilarious.
Ron Brown??
.
And for all we know at least some of the "mass graves" that were found were some of the mass graves that the US Army killed and buried with their tanks in the first Gulf War that the US Army bragged about, does anybody remember those atrocities?? Yep in GW 1 the Army bragged about how many Iraqis they killed by burying them with their tank support vehicles. Thousands, IIRC. Then ten years later the US Army goes and digs em up as proof of Saddam's evilness. BAC, do you realize what a boot licking SUCKER you are. Every power mad potentate wets their pants for sucker citizens like you. They have you exactly where they want you.
If you would do some honest research, you also wouldn't have to resort to your childish tactic of insulting and name calling. The one you are now resorting to on this board. ROTFLOL! KOOKS! Of course, if you did some honest research, and acutally confronted some well reserached facts, you would either have to change your opinions or stop posting. Your bullshit about conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies would simply melt away.
.
Do you mind if I put my question about your Ron Brown kookery on my tag line? That way I won't have to ask you the question each time that I post to you. But peopel will still be able to see you dodging it.
.
You don't know what you are talking about, Diana. *********** http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html "Jordan CW Plot Suspect Admits Meeting with Zarqawi A suspect in a foiled plot to detonate a chemical weapon in Jordan met beforehand in Iraq with fellow defendant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to discuss the planned attacks, according to a videotaped confession played in court yesterday (see GSN, June 23). The tape shows defendant Azmi al-Jayousi confessing that he planned to carry out attacks in Jordan, the Associated Press reported. “I met with Abu Musab in Baghdad, who told me that a man called al-Jubouri will be the contact man between me and Abu Musab,” said Jayousi, one of 13 suspects in an alleged plan to attack Jordanian intelligence agency headquarters in Amman. Jayousi also admitted to agreeing to kill Lt. Col., Mahmoud Obeidat, a military prosecutor. “Abu Musab sent me [$70,000] and weapons with the so-called Jubouri as well as detonators to kill the prosecutor with a telecommunications device if we don’t succeed in shooting him,” Jayousi said on the tape. A second tape played in court showed how the defendants made the chemicals and explosives they intended to use against the intelligence service and other sites in Amman (Associated Press, June 29). *************** http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/world/11961452.htm "In his televised confession, Al-Jayousi said his group had plotted the chemical attack under instruction from al-Zarqawi." **************** http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html "Four surviving alleged terrorists were shown in videotaped statements. Their self-professed leader was identified as Azmi al-Jayyusi. "In Herat (Afghanistan), I began training for Abu Musab," Jayyusi says in a translation published by the BBC. "The training included high-level explosives and poison courses. I then pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and agreed to work for him without any discussion. After the fall of Afghanistan, I met al-Zarqawi once again in Iraq. "In Iraq, Abu Musab told me to go to Jordan along with Muwaffaq Udwan to prepare for a military operation in Jordan," said Jayyusi. Once he was in Jordan, Zarqawi sent him money via couriers, said Jayyusi. "He also supplied me, through messengers, with forged passports, identity cards and car registrations and all that is necessary."" ************** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html Jordan Sentences Al-Zarqawi to Death in Absentia Wednesday, February 15, 2006 AMMAN, Jordan — A Jordanian military court on Wednesday sentenced to death nine men, including Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for a plot to carry out a chemical attack against the kingdom. Al-Zarqawi and three others received the death penalty in absentia. But the plot's alleged mastermind, Azmi al-Jayousi, and four co-defendants were in the courtroom when the judge handed down the sentence for the 2004 plot, which security officials foiled before it could be carried out. "Bin Laden's organization is rising and we will be back!" the defendants shouted after the sentencing, referring to the Al Qaeda terror network led by Usama bin Laden. The court sentenced two of the 13 defendants to prison terms of between one and three years, and acquitted another two defendants. After the sentencing, the convicted men turned on one of the acquitted, a Syrian, and accused him of being an informer. They threatened to kill him, but they did not attack him in the dock. The 13 men — Jordanian, Syrian and Palestinians — were charged with conspiring to attack various sites in Jordan by setting off a cloud of toxic chemicals that would have killed thousands of people, according to prosecution estimates. The prosecution told the court that al-Zarqawi sent more than $118,000 to buy two vehicles which the plotters were to use in the attack. Suicide bombers were to drive the vehicles, loaded with explosives and chemicals, into the grounds of the General Intelligence Department in Amman and detonate them, prosecutors said. The plot also planned to attack the U.S. Embassy, the prime minister's office, and various intelligence and military court officials, the indictment said. The indictment said that when investigators conducted an experiment with small amounts of the chemicals found with the defendants, it produced "a strong explosion and a poison cloud that spread over an area of 500 square meters (yards)." From the geographical data that mastermind al-Jayousi had collected, it appeared he aimed to kill thousands of people in the chemical attack, the indictment said. Eight of the defendants were accused of belonging to a previously unknown group, "Kata'eb al-Tawhid" or Battalions of Monotheism, which security officials say is headed by al-Zarqawi and linked to Al Qaeda. The eight were also charged with conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and possession and manufacture of explosives. Previously, Jordan's military courts have condemned al-Zarqawi to death in absentia for the 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman and for a failed suicide attack on the Jordanian-Iraqi border in 2004. **************** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/%20 Jordan militants confess to 'chemical' plot Alleged al-Qaida suspects wanted to kill 80,000 The Associated Press Updated: 7:08 p.m. ET April 26, 2004 AMMAN, Jordan - Al-Qaida plotted bombings and poison gas attacks against the U.S. Embassy and other targets in Jordan, two conspirators said in a confession aired Monday on Jordanian state television. Azmi al-Jayousi, identified as the head of the Jordanian cell of al-Qaida, appeared Monday in a 20-minute taped program and described meeting Jordanian militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi in neighboring Iraq to plan the foiled plot. A commentator said the plotters wanted to kill “80,000” Jordanians and had targeted the prime minister’s office, intelligence headquarters and the U.S. Embassy. Another Jordanian suspect, car mechanic Hussein Sharif Hussein, was shown saying al-Jayousi asked him to buy vehicles and modify them so that they could crash through gates and walls. U.S. officials have offered a $10 million reward for al-Zarqawi’s capture, saying he is a close associate of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden and is trying to build a network of foreign militants in neighboring Iraq to work on al-Qaida’s behalf. His whereabouts are unknown. ... snip ... “I have pledged loyalty to Abu-Musab to fully be obedient and listen to him without discussion,” al-Jayousi said in the Jordanian television segment. He said he first met al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, where al-Jayousi said he studied explosives, “before Afghanistan fell.” He said he later met al-Zarqawi in Iraq, but was not specific about when. The videotape also showed still photographs of al-Jayousi and nine other suspects. The commentator said four of those pictured had been killed in clashes with security forces. Al-Jayousi said he received about $170,000 from al-Zarqawi to finance the plot and used part of it to buy 20 tons of chemicals. He did not identify the chemicals, but said they “were enough for all the operations in the Jordanian arena.” Images of what the commentator said were vans filled with blue jugs of chemical explosives were included in the broadcast. Hussein, the car mechanic, said he met al-Jayousi in 1999 but did not clearly say when the terror plans were laid out. The bearded Hussein, looking anxious, said al-Jayousi told him the aim was “carrying out the first suicide attack to be launched by al-Qaida using chemicals” and “striking at Jordan, its Hashemite (royal family) and launching war on the Crusaders and nonbelievers. Officials said they had arrested the suspects in two raids in late March and early April. Last week, officials said four other terror suspects believed linked to the same conspiracy were killed in a shootout with police in Amman. Government officials have said the suspects plotted to detonate a powerful bomb targeting Jordan’s secret service and use poison gas against the prime minister’s office, the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic missions. Had the bomb exploded, it could have killed at least 20,000 people and wrecked buildings within a half-mile radius, the officials have said. No trial date has been set in the case. Airing suspects’ confessions before their trial is unusual in Jordan. In 1998, six men accused of affiliation with a militant group confessed on television to planting a bomb that exploded outside an Amman hotel. Five years later, a court found them innocent. The unusual move may be an attempt to answer critics who claim the government has exaggerated the terror danger to justify tightening security. Officials in Jordan, a moderate Arab nation with close ties to the United States and a peace treaty with Israel, say the kingdom has been repeatedly targeted by al-Qaida and other militant groups. ********* http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135670,00.html Sunday, October 17, 2004 AMMAN, Jordan — Jordan's military prosecutor indicted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the most wanted insurgents in Iraq, and 12 other alleged Muslim militants Sunday for an alleged Al Qaeda linked plot to attack the U.S. Embassy in Amman and Jordanian government targets with chemical and conventional weapons, government officials said. The foiled plot was first revealed by Jordan in April. Lt. Col. Mahmoud Obeidat summoned nine of the 13 terror suspects who are already in custody and read them the charges in the indictment, the officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Four suspects, including al-Zarqawi, are still at large and will be tried in absentia, the officials said. The trial was expected to begin in early to mid November. Al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid and Jihad group are blamed for a string of bombings and other attacks in Iraq and kidnappings and slayings of foreign hostages, including three Americans who were beheaded. Security officials have said the militants were plotting to attack the Jordanian prime minister's office, the secret service agency, the U.S. in Jordan and other sites. Security officials and some of the detainees, in televised confessions, have said the plot was linked to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Azmi al-Jayousi, the alleged mastermind of the cell who was captured in April, has confessed to military prosecutors the group was planning a chemical attack, the officials said. The military court is expected to grant a 10-day grace period this week for the four fugitives to surrender — a process which precedes the opening of the trial. In Jordan, charges become formal when read aloud at the opening of the trial. The charges on seven counts include conspiring to commit terror attacks in Jordan, possessing and manufacturing explosive material and affiliation with a banned group, the officials said. The group in question has been identified as Kata'eb al-Tawhid, Arabic for the Battalions of Monotheism, a previously unknown cell said to be linked to Al Qaeda. If convicted on all counts, the defendants could be sentenced to death. Jordan first announced in April it had foiled the terrorist plot blamed on al-Zarqawi. On April 20, four additional suspects were killed in a police shootout and most members of the Jordanian cell were arrested. Jordanian authorities said then the suspects had plotted to use chemicals and explosives to blow up vital institutions, including Jordan's intelligence department — an attack that could have killed thousands. Al-Jayousi, the alleged mastermind, and some other detained suspects had said in televised confessions the plot was hatched and financed by al-Zarqawi. In an audiotape posted on the Internet in May, a man who identified himself as al-Zarqawi acknowledged his group was behind the plot in Jordan but he denied it involved chemical weapons. U.S. officials have offered a $25 million reward for al-Zarqawi's capture. He is suspected in about a dozen high-profile attacks in Iraq, including last year's bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. Moroccan authorities believe he may have helped guide the Madrid train bombings. His group is believed to be behind the killings and beheadings of foreign hostages in Iraq including three Americans. U.S. and Jordanian authorities say he funded the Oct. 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan. Jordan, a key Arab ally of the United States and a peace partner to Israel, has been targeted by Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Twenty-two Islamic extremists were convicted of plotting to attack U.S. and Israeli tourists during the kingdom's millennium celebrations. ************ Zarqawi 'chemical bomb plot' trial postponed after lawyers fail to show AMMAN (AFP) Wednesday December 22, 2004 The trial of Iraq's most wanted man, the fugitive Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and 12 other people accused of plotting a chemical attack in Jordan was postponed for the second week in a row after defence lawyers failed to show up. The case was adjourned to December 29 because court-appointed lawyers for four of nine defendants, including alleged ringleader Azmi Jayussi, did not attend the hearing, judicial sources told AFP. The trial opened December 15 but was disrupted and adjourned when Jayussi and his co-defendants refused to address the court in protest at their detention conditions. Eight of the suspects are behind bars, one is out on bail while Zarqawi -- a Jordanian-born Islamist who has a 25-million-dollar US bounty on his head for a string of attacks in Iraq -- and two others are on the run. Prosecutor Mahmud Obeidat levelled seven charges against the group in October, including conspiracy to commit terror attacks in Jordan , making explosives and possession of weapons. The group is specifically accused of plotting, on Zarqawi's orders, an attack on the intelligence agency using trucks loaded with 20 tonnes of chemicals that could have killed 80,000 people and injured 160,000 others. The prosecution said the attack planned for west Amman was part of a larger conspiracy, including hits on the prime minister's office as well as the US embassy in Amman. The charge sheet released in October did not mention these two targets. The defendants are also accused of belonging to an illegal organisation named as Kataeh al-Tawhid (Unification Brigades) and of links to Zarqawi. The 13 men, including three Syrian nationals one of whom is on the run, face the death penalty if convicted. Zarqawi was sentenced to death by the state security court in April for the October 2002 murder of a US diplomat in Amman. He is also charged in another court case that opened earlier this month in which he and another Jordanian suspect are accused of plotting to attack the Jordanian embassy in Iraq and unspecified US targets there. *********** http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/2/24/26d8fb80%2Da4d1%2D4de8%2Db790%2Da631a4b7a4d3.html From Thursday, February 24, 2005 issue. Jordan Chemical Plot Defendants Request Execution Nine men being tried in Jordan for allegedly plotting a foiled chemical attack asked yesterday to be put to death rather than let the trial continue, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 15, 2004). “God, and no one else, is our master. We wish to be executed,” the defendants shouted in court, according to AFP. “The verdict is ready, so why put us on trial,” said the suspects, who could be sentenced to death if convicted of planning to attack the Jordanian intelligence agency with 20 tons of chemicals that could have killed up to 80,000 people. The men are suspected of belonging to the outlawed Kataeb al-Tawhid (“Unification Brigades”) group and of having connections to terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, AFP reported. All nine denied the charges after they were read aloud in court, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, Feb. 23). *********** http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726%2D58b2%2D447b%2Dae27%2D7669bf04a708.html From Thursday, April 21, 2005 issue. Suspects in Jordan Chemical Plot Had Instructions for Attack, Witnesses Say at Trial Suspects in a planned chemical weapons attack in Jordan possessed instructions on preparing germ and conventional weapons, witnesses said yesterday at the trial of the alleged plotters (see GSN, Feb. 24). Nine of the 13 suspects are in custody, while Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and three others are being tried in absentia, the Associated Press reported. Targets of the foiled attack have been reported to include the Jordanian intelligence agency and the U.S. Embassy in Amman. Police officers found “a dossier in Arabic containing detailed steps on manufacturing explosives and bacteriological poisons” at a safe house in Amman, said Sgt. Mohammed al-Omari. The house also contained handwritten instructions on military training and poisons. Information on weapons and military tactics were kept on compact discs and computers, AP reported. “There was a file headlined ‘the culture of sabotage,’ which outlined ways to destroy buildings, bridges, railways, and telephone and electricity networks, and how to dismantle security barriers, attack airports, carry out assassination and spread epidemics, like typhoid and malaria,” said Lt. Muthana al-Qatan, an intelligence agency computer technician. He acknowledged that the information might have come straight from the Internet (Jamal Halaby, Associated Press, April 20). *********** http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_5_5.html May 5, 2005 Al-Qaeda Planned Chemical Attack on U.S. Naval Base in Spain, Terror Cell Member Says Angry Outburst Halts Jordan Chemical Attack Trial The trial of 13 people suspected of plotting a chemical attack last year in Jordan was halted yesterday following an angry outburst by the defendants that included a death threat and thrown shoes, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 21). Nine suspects are in custody, while Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and three others are being tried in absentia for foiled strikes on sites believed to include the U.S. Embassy in Amman and the Jordanian intelligence agency. Lead suspect Azmi al-Jayousi became enraged yesterday during testimony from a forensic doctor on the wounds suffered by four additional plotters killed in a shootout with police in April 2004. Jayousi threw his slippers at lead judge Col. Fawaz Buqour, and then told the three-judge panel “Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi will chop off your heads and stuff it up your mouths, you God’s enemies.” A 10-minute recess did not calm the defendants, AP reported. “The blood of our brothers will not go wasted,” defendant Ahmad Samir yelled as the trial resumed. Samir also told military prosecutor Lt. Col. Mahmoud Obeidat to, “Await death … for you are God’s enemy.” Other defendants yelled or spoke from the Koran. All subsequently turned their back on the judges, kneeled and began to pray, AP reported. Al-Jayousi and two other defendants were removed from the courtroom. That failed to bring order, so Buqour adjourned the trial. It was not immediately known when the case would resume (Jamal Halaby, Associated Press, May 5). ********** http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/11/94618.shtml?s=ic With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff Sunday, June 11, 2006 9:42 a.m. EDT Zarqawi Planned to Top 9/11 Attacks The New York Times reports today that before his death, top al Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi trained about 300 foreign fighters in Iraq and sent them back to their home countries, where they awaited orders to carry out strikes. But the paper makes no mention of Zarqawi's most ambitious foreign attack plot, which nearly succeeded two years ago: a weapons of mass destruction strike that intelligence officials estimated would have killed 20,000. The death toll planned by Zarqawi would have far exceeded the destruction wrought by Osama bin Laden on Sept. 11. The April 2004 attack, which was all but ignored by the Western press, was foiled at the last minute when Jordanian officials intercepted a convoy of three vehicles near the Syrian border. It's cargo: 23,000 gallons of chemicals, poison gas and explosives. The target: The U.S. embassy in Amman along with the headquarters of Jordan's Intelligence service. The Mideast bureau of the Associated Press reported at the time that Jordanian officials said Zarqawi's crew was planning to use to "a chemical bomb that would have killed as many as 20,000 people and caused large-scale destruction within a half-mile radius." "The terror cell was also apparently planning to carry out simultaneous poison gas attacks against foreign diplomatic missions, including the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in Amman, vital Jordanian public establishments like the prime minister's office and unspecified civilian targets," the wire service said. Jordan's King Abdullah II confirmed the details of the attack, and publicly thanked his intelligence chief, Gen. Saad Kheir, saying that the arrests of Zarqawi's terrorists had "saved thousands of lives." Had the plot gone forward, Abdullah said, Jordan would have seen "a crime that would have been unprecedented in the country in terms of the size of explosives mounted on the vehicles and the methods of carrying out the attacks or the civilian locations chosen." In confessions later broadcast on ABC's "Nightline," one of the plotters revealed that he began training for the mission in 2001 in Afghanistan. "After the fall of Afghanistan, I met Zarqawi again in Iraq," the al Qaeda operative said. *************** Jaiousi admits meeting with Zarqawi in Baghdad, receiving instructions for attacks Jordan Times 2005 30 June 2005 By Rana Husseini Amman - The main defendant in the case of nine men standing trial for plotting the first chemical attack in the Kingdom, on Wednesday said he met with Abu Mussab Zarqawi in Baghdad to prepare for the alleged attacks. In a videotape confession screened during the trial at the State Security Court (SSC) yesterday, Azmi Jaiousi said he met with Zarqawi and two other men in Iraq. "Zarqawi told me there would be military operations in Jordan soon and we needed to prepare for them... he gave me around $50,000, weapons, explosive devices and instructions to launch attacks. Our first target was State Prosecutor Mahmoud Obeidat," Jaiousi was quoted as saying in the videotape. A second target was a General Intelligence Department (GID) officer who had blue eyes and a white Mercedes, he added. Jaiousi said he infiltrated into the Kingdom from Iraq in February 2002, hidden in a truck, and later met up with the rest of the defendants. Jaiousi also reenacted how he bought chemical substances, electric and electronic equipment and lab devices from shops in the downtown area. The videotape also showed him manufacturing explosives and transporting empty jerry cans into trucks with defendants Husni Sharif and Ahmad Samir. The prosecution is charging that the defendants intended to use these deadly chemical substances in an attack on the GID headquarters. An explosives expert testified recently that if the chemical substances had been mixed with explosives they would have caused burns, suffocation and neurological paralysis. During the screening of the video, the defendants claimed that the prosecution denied them the right of appointing lawyers to be present during the interrogations. Obeidat refuted their claims saying he had informed them of their right for an attorney, but they "turned down his offer." During the two-hour session, Obeidat rested his case opening the way for the defence team to present their evidence. The defence lawyers asked the court for more time to meet with their clients and prepare the defence statements. The tribunal agreed and adjourned the session until next week. The nine men, part of a group of 13 suspects including Zarqawi, are also charged with possessing and manufacturing explosives with illicit intent, and possessing an automatic weapon with the intention of using it illegally. Jaiousi appeared on Jordan Television shortly after his arrest and described how he and other group members had bought and manufactured chemical explosives under the guidance and support of Zarqawi." ********* http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp May 03, 2004, 8:39 a.m. The Syrian Connection Following the evil trails. The central rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not simply the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — it was the nexus between terrorists, their state sponsors, and WMDs. The anthrax attacks that took place in this country in the fall of 2001 could be an example; they were clearly conducted by terrorists, and involved biological weapons. The perpetrators have not been found. Letters accompanying the attacks stated, "Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is Great." Nevertheless, investigations have focused on domestic sources since the anthrax was in some cases highly sophisticated and weaponized. The fact that the Kay report mentioned Iraqi anthrax-production capabilities could point in another direction, if the "domestic perp" premise can be overcome. (It is comparable to the premise that the D.C. sniper had to be a disgruntled, white, right-wing Christian — a bad working assumption that ignored the obvious.) The planned al Qaeda attack in Amman that was disrupted by Jordanian security forces is another example of the nexus in action, and a cautionary tale on the complexity of the war on terrorism. This was not the first time al Qaeda has targeted Jordan — their embassy in Iraq was attacked last August and the terrorists have been vocal in their condemnations of the Jordanian government for its cooperation with the United States in the war effort. The plan was to mount suicide attacks on their intelligence headquarters, the prime minister's office, and the U.S. embassy with a truck carrying 20 tons of chemical explosives. The bombing would have raised a chemical cloud for a mile radius and killed an estimated 80,000 people, in a country of 5.4 million. (An attack of that proportion in this country would kill 4.3 million.) The planned al Qaeda attack in Amman that was disrupted by Jordanian security forces is another example of the nexus in action, and a cautionary tale on the complexity of the war on terrorism. This was not the first time al Qaeda has targeted Jordan — their embassy in Iraq was attacked last August and the terrorists have been vocal in their condemnations of the Jordanian government for its cooperation with the United States in the war effort. The plan was to mount suicide attacks on their intelligence headquarters, the prime minister's office, and the U.S. embassy with a truck carrying 20 tons of chemical explosives. The bombing would have raised a chemical cloud for a mile radius and killed an estimated 80,000 people, in a country of 5.4 million. (An attack of that proportion in this country would kill 4.3 million.) Jordanian TV carried an interview with captured members of the attack teams, including the leader of the group, a Jordanian named Azmi al-Jayyusi, a long-time member of al Qaeda. He trained in Osama bin Laden camps in Herat, Afghanistan prior to the fall of the Taliban, under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who currently is orchestrating al Qaeda attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq. He was given "high level courses in explosives and poisons." After Afghanistan was liberated, Zarqawi ordered al-Jayyusi to Iraq — apparently before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He later infiltrated Jordan with others to plan their attack. Safe houses were procured by a Syrian who worked with Zarqawi. The team began to procure chemicals, they said through companies that used them for other purposes. Al-Jayyusi weaponized the chemicals himself, at small labs in secure warehouses. Money, trucks, forged passports, I.D. cards, and car registrations all came by courier through Syria. So did four of the ten members of the attack teams, three of whom chose to fight to the death with Jordanian security forces. Zarqawi, who claimed credit for having ordered the attack, affirmed the intent to undertake the bombing, but denied that there were chemical weapons involved, saying that the confessions were the result of torture. Another report from Jordan claimed that the chemicals, like the other supplies, came from Syria. It brought to mind the stories that were circulating in the press over a year ago that Iraqi WMDs were being transported in large numbers to Syria. The Iraq-Syrian border is difficult enough to seal now; at the time it was wide open. It would be an interesting development if 20 of the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons that the Blix report found unaccounted for in Iraq turned up in Jordan. The day after the video confessions aired, explosions hit Damascus. A group of four gunmen blew up a parked car in front of the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force building, which had been unused for several years and was then occupied by two homeless families. The men then began shooting randomly and throwing hand grenades, until security forces arrived and killed several of them. Hundreds of demonstrators then materialized, hoisting oversize pictures of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and chanting something about solidarity. **************
Well by all means, try and prove it. Let's see some sources that dispute the facts I outlined in post 123. Let's see you prove the Jordan bomb plot trial didn't take place or that the defendents didn't say what they said. Calling me a liar is a pretty hostile thing to do Diana. I hope you can actually prove it otherwise you are liable to look a little foolish.
NewsMax isn't a source kook boy. It's a propaganda rag to manipulate gullible rubes such as yourself. Remember what I said last night. Try to think critically. Just because a kook posts someting on the internet doesn't mean it is true. By the way, what about Ron Brown?
.
With a falsehood like that, I can see why you are happy at FD4UM. ROTFLOL!
A very valid point which he never seems to address. However if Israel even feels threatened, to them that is a good reason to attack, nevermind they could blow anyone in the region away with their own nuclear and other weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, though many Israeli citizens are just as horrified at all of this as much as we are, and realize this truth. Won't their leaders ever realize that hyper-paranoia will only lead to grave results for all involved, and deceptions will be found out in the end?
lol. Do you really think I'm helping the credibility of your other FD4UM posters? Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123? No? Why is that, Christine?
You think NewsMax, two man blogs and op ed pieces are reliable sources. That's what you've quoted above. And that's why you are a kook - you are gullible and you buy into that sort of crap. When you post someting from a reliable source I will listen. But I'm not going to waste my time with your utterly unsupported bullshit opinions. And that's all you have posted up to this point -- and you know it. Sorry. By the way, what was the conspiracy Ron Bronw was killed to hide?
.
As I said before, all you posted there was your utterly unsupported bullshit opinion. Thank you for sharing. Are you insulting Christine because your covers are being yanked and you need to bail?
.
And how about the huge numbers of wounded veterans, who are saved by modern medicine from life-threatening injuries that would have killed soldiers in bygone days?
Yeah, probably after they were tortured within inches of their lives and threatened with having the same done to their families. People in Baghdad never heard of Zarqawi. He was a made up boogie man and killed off by the media when he no longer served a purpose, probably because too many people were catching on to that fact that he didn't exist or was highly misrepresented.
Care to point out where I've insulted or called anyone here a name since joining FD4UM? Seems to me all I've posted are sourced facts that don't jibe with the GROUP THINK that seems to be prevalent at FD4UM. And the reaction of you folks has been fascinating. Dozens have bozo'd themselves rather than read those facts. Others are trying to goad me with silliness rather than respond to the sourced facts. Others are calling me names and insults. It must be disorienting. And I've only begun ...
Does that make us even? Are the lies of the commander-in-chief, which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, excused by the lies of his opponents?
Sure, check out your whiney, childish, snotty tone in #144 above. Do a search on your posts to me last night. You didn't think your Ron Brown kookery was silliness over on LP. Why do you try to dis-own it here?
.
But do two wrongs make a right, Diana. Will abandoning Iraqis based on lies such as the claim that 655,000 have been killed help Iraqis? Or will it lead to even greater chaos and death as most people seem to think? Who would be to blame for that? You and your friends? Remember when John Kerry told the public that once we abandoned South Vietnam the killing would stop. At most a thousand or so would die. But that didn't happen, did it. Hundreds of thousands ... perhaps half a million South Vietnamese died ... AFTER we were gone. Do you think Kerry shares any blame for that, Diana?
You mean the war with Iran where the US totally backed Saddam and supplied him with large amounts of money and weapons?
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday. US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link. Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception. They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq. The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation. The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Requests rejected The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme. The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship. It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates". It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart. "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said. The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings. It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.
And now why don't you rant about Ron Brown for us kook boy.
.
I see you haven't actually read the John Hopkin's reports. I've not insulted Christine and I'm not planning to bail. Are you, ...?
I'll agree with you that the hatred between the 2 groups is one so deep and so strong that most of us can't fathom it, and it's causing a lot of problems for the whole world. I actually believe they should move all the Palestinians to the US (it's already a dumping ground for the poor from third world countries) if it would make a difference and make the Israelis less paranoid and not so eager to attack, if it would calm things down and prevent all these deaths.
You have sucessfully demolished whatever credibility you may have had. As for photos, the US media is one of the most censored around.
WOW ............ sounds like ..., better known as butt boy, got his feelings hurt, a whiney, childish, snotty tone, how dare you BAC.............. better back off, butt boy is gonna cry .............. butt boy is pretty much one way ...... although he may go both ways sometimes because he will not condemn sexual perversion from everyone, just those he disagrees with politically
Whoever wins a war gets to decide the official death tolls for both sides. The "Jews" did so in WW2 despite the fact the allies won the ground war, just goes to show you who really won WW2, and for that matter WW1. The official totals say aprox. 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war. The key word to remember there is "official" totals. Officially we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not destroy his WMD, but we found no WMD later on. Officially we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban would not turn over Bin-Laden, but when we had him cornered we let him go. Officially 6 million Jews were killed during WW2, but the European population of Jews was greater after the war was over than when it started. Officially the "Jews" don't control America, but anyone that can think can see that is bunk.
God is always good! Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't. Are you serious? Are you saying that was never said right before the war? Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
Well heck BAC, "Thrown shoes"??? Why didn't you say so before. Golly - these guys are serious!!!
I predicted this many months ago - Robin, we would be blamed for the utter fiasco that the spoiled frat boy got the US into.
The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Leveller wrote the above, then you responded like this: ++++++++++++++++++++++ First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
The "facts" you posted in message #123 have all been discredited one way or another in the course of the past 4 years and most recently by the following gov't investigative report released on 09/08/06. It's 151 pages long and you can do word searches relating to your so called "facts" re: Syria and sarvin and nukes to your heart's content - in fact, knock yourself out why don't you - currently you are embaressing yourself by posting screed/propaganda from sites like National Review - I feel sorry for you - well, almost. Please do all of us and mostly importantly yourself a favor by updating your files with relevant new information that has come up since you fell into your Bot coma in 2003. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and They Compare to Prewar Assessments together with Additional Views"
You mean the war with Iran where the US totally backed Saddam and supplied him with large amounts of money and weapons? Yep that's the one. Funnelled millions of $$$$ through the US Dept of Agriculture to BCCI, set up a munitions factory in Chile to fab anti personnal pop up mines that caused horrific casulties to the Iranians. They all knew exactly where these terrible weapons were comming from, and even today not one in a thousand Americans have any idea about why the Iranians consider the US Government to be the Great Satan.
Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I neither said or implied that. Do you have to resort to mischaracterizing my statements to win this debate? Why don't you, instead, try to challenge the specific facts I listed in post #123. The post I just made was in regards to the above. Okey I will look at your famous post #123.
Vikram Dodd, Nicholas Watt and Richard Norton Taylor Saturday August 16, 2003 The Guardian Tony Blair's headline-grabbing claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so was based on hearsay information, the Guardian has learned. The revelation that the controversial claim is even weaker than ministers and officials have been saying will embarrass No 10, already reeling after the first week of the Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons expert David Kelly. It came as the Hutton inquiry announced that Alastair Campbell, Downing Street's communications chief, will testify on Tuesday. Underlining the danger of the inquiry for the government, Lord Hutton has called virtually every member of the prime minister's inner circle. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The government has been under fire for including the allegation in a September 2002 dossier used to justify the war against Iraq. The revelation that the 45 minute claim is second hand is contained in an internal Foreign Office document released by the Hutton inquiry. It had been thought the basis for the claim came from an Iraqi officer high in Saddam Hussein's command structure. In fact it came through an informant, who passed it on to MI6. The document says the 45 minute claim "came from a reliable and established source, quoting a well-placed senior officer" - described by intelligence sources as a senior Iraqi officer still in Iraq. The government has never admitted the key information was based on hearsay. On June 4, Tony Blair told the House of Commons: "It was alleged that the source for the 45 minute claim was an Iraqi defector of dubious reliability. He was not an Iraqi defector and he was an established and reliable source." Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, said of the claim on May 29: "That was said on the basis of security service information - a single source, it wasn't corroborated." The irony is that the government launched a furious attack on the BBC for broadcasting allegations that the dossier was "sexed up" based on a single, anonymous, uncorroborated source. That source was Dr Kelly. Mr Campbell told the foreign affairs select committee: "I find it incredible ... that people can report based on one single anonymous uncorroborated source." In fact, the foundation for the government's claim was even shakier, according to the document: a single anonymous uncorroborated source quoting another single anonymous uncorroborated source. The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, said the revelation damaged the government's credibility. He added: "This is classic hearsay. It provides an even thinner justification to go to war. If this is true, neither the prime minister nor the government have been entirely forthcoming." A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The joint intelligence committee made a judgment on the basis of knowing everything about the nature of the source and the context." Here's one where our pet poodle said it...
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Still not a speck worthwhile content. Just poorly worded and mindless personal insults, gay obscenity and defense of GOP child molesters. What's your purpose here? I mean, other than to disrupt the functioning of the board?
.
I was going to say where is the real proof that he really existed, but then I see there is a whole lot posted there! I have to say your tenacity is truly remarkable! I don't think anyone can dispute that.
Do you have any purpose other than to create mindless disruption? Is your sole reason for being here to tear down this discussion forum?
.
I just did a search on your posts. I have been unable to find a single instance where you have done anything except try to destroy this forum. As far as I can see, you have not posted a single idea or a single serious comment since you have been here. Everything you have done has been the sort of mindless, childish disruption that I see above. Can you show me a single case where you have done anything but try to hurt this forum?
.
Oh my head is reeling!! How do you come up with so much material in so little time, are there 20 of you or something? I scrolled through all that, all the "evidence" of the bad deeds of Zarqawi and his many cohorts, but it's known that torture has been used to get false confessions, and false stories have been planted as well. When all this first started in the spring of 2003, Rumsfeld admitted that some information would have to be doctored for the media, so some of these "facts" can be nearly impossible to verify.
the function I see displayed most often is to attack those you disagree with politically ........... many of the threads here are often anti-FR rants and anti-LP rants or threads that have sunk to back and forth attacks like yesterday ....... when in Rome, do as the Romans ............
Freedumb4um?
So the answer is no, you have never made a serious or worthwhile post here. That is what I see as well, although I haven't gone through all of your posts yet. So I assume your purpose here is purely destructive. You are only here to disrupt and destroy this forum. Why don't you look again and see if you can find one single post where you have participated in this forum with honest intentions.
.
Here's a link to a video wherein our own Dear Leader repeats that 45 minute lie. Fast forward the video past the introductions of the various experts to where the sound bites of Cheney, Rice, and GWB begin - about 1 minute into the start of the video. GWB is standing at a podium giving a speech, with a label "Homeland Security and Iraq" splashed across the bottom of the screen - it's a C-Span video clip with the day Thursday at the top right of the screen. And it's in that speech when GWB is behind the podium that's where he repeats the 45 minute lie. It's pretty shocking to hear once again ( knowing what we know now) all the bald faced lies that the WH told us sheeple - my oh my - it is amazing that Nancy Pelosi thinks it would be a "waste of time" to try to impeach GWB and Cheney. There's more than enough evidence that they fed us lies, over and over again. http://www.infor mationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" By Robert Greenwald Description of the video's contents: An impressive roster of experts is assembled to provide a generally withering commentary on the quality of evidence and possible motivations of the Neo- conservatives who provided the momentum and muscle behind America's venture into preemptive war. Among them are veteran CIA analysts and operatives, military officers, diplomats, politicians, arms inspectors, and U.S. and British government officials. The fig leaf of the possibility of an honest mistake on the matter of WMDs is stripped away; what is left is the stark and disturbing anatomy of deliberate deceit.
There aren't photos or video of this supposed slaughter even in the foreign media. And Dahr Jamail is no friend of the US and not been censured. Nor has his access to insurgents been impeded. Plus, we know the insurgents are videotaping almost every IED attack they attempt. So why haven't they taken their cameras and recorded this supposed slaughter? I'm sure al-jazerra would be happy to broadcast them.
Well, I did a search on it's posts over at El Pee, and it's last post was around February 6th. Before that it was posting every day, all day. I think it got kicked off of El Pee (although judging from it's posts here, I'd say not for the patriotic reason some of us are in exile, voluntary or involuntary, that is our lack of support for wordwide Zionazism), and it has probably been feeling lonely. So it came over here to pick the same fights it picked over there.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Actually, the OFFICIAL totals do not say 50,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed. Also, many of the sources saying the number is much closer to 50,000 than 655,000 are not OFFICIAL. Surely you don't consider IBC to be part of the government.
Yes, I'm serious. Prove that US officials claimed Iraq could launch missiles to the US.
Diana, that statement doesn't preclude the possibility that 10,000 were innocent civilians. Yet you accused me of claiming I didn't think ANY of those killed were innocent civilians.
If you look upthread you will see where I posted Tony Blair's 45 minute claim and it's refutation in the Guardian Unlimited UK. You will also see a link posted by someone else to a video of "someone in the administration" who you might recognize making the same bullshit claim. Your bluff's been called. Take your lumps like a man, for Chrissakes.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
He could be banned. Goldi's purging the kooks and laughing stocks again. Notice who we got as a result.
.
What's really funny is that you only proved you didn't even read post 123, because post 123 says nothing about Syria, sarin or nukes.
Too bad it doesn't say anything about launching missiles to the US in 45 minutes ... because that is what was claimed.
All I've done is post indisputable sourced facts. How can that destroy your forum? Afterall, your forum is about exposing the truth. Right?
no such luck butt boy
I haven't said that since joining FD4UM. I've been nothing but respectful.
the truth as they see it............ there is little reason to argue with anyone who has their minds made up ........... I see very little posted here to make one think ......... this forum is as far the one way as FR is the other ........ just more attacks when they disagree and a moderator that does not ban as easily as other forums .....
And what exactly does he say in that video? A quote please.
Yeah, but it is fun to kick it around. Livens up the place having a real, genuine Bushbot to expose for the lying skunk it is.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
He didn't say anything about launching a missile to the US. That was Diana's claim.
That is true, you haven't said that here. When I look at that D though...
I said that it was said by someone right before the war, and then you said something like you bet I couldn't prove anyone in the US administration said it. Then bluedogtxn brought up it was Tony Blair who said it, you were being a trickster!
Are you kidding me? Are you too lazy to watch it or are you just being ornery? Watch it yourself. You have to fast forward through the introduction, where about twenty-five intelligence experts give their bonafides before tearing your dear leader a new asshole for the next hour and a half. Because it not only demonstrates that der Fuhrer made the bullshit claim about "an attack within 45 minutes (insert the usual dumbass kooky pause) of when the order was given," but it also shows all the other kooky bullshit crap that you've swallowed like mother's milk for the past 3 years. I really think you should watch it. It would be educational for you. It probably won't hurt your eyes, although the shattering of about a thousand illusions you hold dear may put you into a coma.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Oh, is that the first thing that comes to your mind? ;)
Oh, you clever little reichwingnutjob! You got me. In a speech where he's talking about Saddam's ballistic missiles and weapons program he only says Saddam could "order an attack on American soil" that would "occur" in "45 minutes from when the order was given"... Der Fuhrer doesn't actually say that the attack would be by a missile. That's just implied, hinted at, subliminally suggested and made obvious that's what he is saying; but you are correct. It was not explicitly said. You should have been with Bill Clinton defending him from the Monica Lewinski deal, the way you parse words. That bullshit may fly when you're talking about a blow job, but if you think that shit will fly here when we're talking about American boys being killed every day, you've landed in the wrong place.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
This is what you said: Sorry Diana, but you clearly implied that the administration said Iraq had the capability of launching missiles TO THE US in 45 minutes. So I was perfectly justified in asking you to prove that someone in the administration said that. Now if you wish to retract the claim. Fine. Then we can move on.
Can't you quote what the video actually says and save everyone a lot of time? Does it mention missiles or that these missiles will travel from Iraq to the US?
Ahhh ... I see you finally found the truth.
Anytime you want to pitch in, feel free. You wanna lurk until you find a sympathetic 'bot with a shoulder to cry on, and then post, that's your privilege. But nobody's keeping you from posting each and every day.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
It mentions ballistic missiles. It mentions "fisssssile matcherials". It mentions British Inchelligence. It mentions "an attack on Amurikin soil in 45 minutes of when the oerder was givin". Ya see, sometimes in this bisiniss ya gotta say things over and over agin. Kinda catapult the propaganda, heh. See, then you have Condaleeza talk about a "mushroom cloud". Heh heh. Watch the video, tool.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
No. I found the shallow hole where you are trying to hide a huge, tragic, and fatal lie. The "truth" does not reside in your clever loopholes. The truth resides in the obvious message intended, as well as the message delivered. Your leader is a liar, and you are still in his thrall. You think we have "group think" here? What we have is a consensus after having looked at article after article, speech after speech, intelligence experts, one after another, without the distracting bullshit of the Domers and the Badeyes and the BeAChoosers who are simply partisans. Even the partisans here are open to having their minds changed. You come in here, an obvious shill, after having apparently been banned by Goldi (who basically only bans people if they are NUTS or won't toe the line in regard to Greater Zion), and prove yourself a shill and a nut in post after post. What did you expect, that you'd be greeted as a "liberator" with flowers? Hell, maybe in your neocon soul you did.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Bush said it, too.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Diana, if you retract that claim, I'll find you and horsewhip you. There was nothing false about your claim. Bush said it, it's on tape, in front of the whole goddamn world. This thing is just too lazy to go and look for itself.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Hello. Thank you for the welcome. I was actually thinking about Friedrich Hayek, but now that you mention it, I am MOST definitly a Selma Hayek fan as well. You know, the ol' "I'd crawl though glass" thingee.
No problema
Not yet: "The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." George W. Bush, September 26, 2002, Remarks by the President on Iraq, in The Rose Garden http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
beachy, i haven't been on the web that long. have you always been a kook or did you get dropped on your head at some point ... or something like that?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
you seem to be on the web pretty much 24/7. are you one of those nuts on disability?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I think it ran away. Too bad. It was making things fun.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
If you have no respect for the truth; the rest is an incredibly insincere act. No surprise, coming from you, BAC. Not a lot of fun, without the security of Goldi's apron strings, is it?
Back to picking on the women, I see. BAC, you have no shame!
Is this what it should be looking for? "The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." George W. Bush, September 26, 2002, Remarks by the President on Iraq, in The Rose Garden http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
You are right in that I won't bother to read them. If the information is/was incorrect, then scholars would have taken the report to task piece by piece in other peer reviewed journals, if not the Lancet itself in its next publication. Why didn't JAMA protest the report? I mean if it was such an obvious anti-war hit piece, surly JAMA would have stepped in. If for no other reason than to make a rival publication look bad. Yet they didn't. Are they liberal anti-war American haters as well? Why hasn't any other peer reviewed publication taken the report to task? And they haven't. You know how I know? Because if they had, then you would have posted those publications and wouldn't be forced to post links to the rags you did. Why in heaven's name should I care what Slate, The Economist or the Weekly Standard say or believe about anything? They have no expertise in the matter. If true experts had problems with the report, they would have made their objections known in the proper circles and the proper professional publications. You can't masquerade a political hit piece as a research paper. There are to many other professionals with other political leanings who would not allow it. Then there are those with no political leanings at all but who take their jobs seriously and wouldn't allow their field to be abused in such a way. Every research paper has a section that lists the exact methodology used to obtain the information. If the methods they used were unsound, then it would have been pointed out by other scholars in that field. Someone (or many) people would have used the report's notoriety to create their own research papers to rebut the original report in order to correct the record and/or make names for themselves within their field(s). This is how it is done. It is preposterous, in my opinion, to think that a group of professionals would risk their credibilty (i.e. livelihood) in order to make up an anti-war hit piece. They would never be taken seriously again in their fields of expertise. And who the heck are the chicagoboyz and why would I give a hoot about what they have to say about anything? The same goes for Frank Warner or Pappillonartsplace. I mean come on BAC, get real. At least Slate, The Economist and Weekly Standard are known publications. These other people could be hair stylists, political hacks or child molesters as far as I know. But unlike others, I have no desire to go back and forth with you over the matter. If you want to believe that the report is a big conspiracy to make Bush look bad, then by all means, you go right ahead. I'm not required to agree with you nor you with me.
do you use this for your long stream of consiousness posts?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Yep. That lil' gem is preceded by a bunch of talk about ballistic missiles and followed by a bit of Kindasleeza's pimping the "mushroom cloud" theory of pre- emptive war. But I think BAC has taken the few marbles it has left and gone home.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
beachy, read the articles before you post them as sources. you didn't do this. do you want to know how i know? because they are not valid links. you posted a link to an advertisement asking me to subscribe to the economist. always read your sources before you try to bullshit people with them.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Funny link.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
lol
nevermind.
He will return. He never gives up. Your tax dollars may be paying his way.
did you notice that he did a google search and then cut and pasted the articles as sources without opening them and reading them? it is on my last post.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
BAC is quite skilled in the world of "Psyops" and "Coercive Persuasion." Make no mistake about it. His arguments typically fall in the shadow of, "It's not a dog; it's an animal!" Sure, Tony made the claim; but when one gets behind such - to the tune of committing War Crimes - what's the difference? BAC lies down with fleas & comes up with a dog. He does take a lot of getting used to. If he says it, depend on deceit being behind it. Without an ulterior motive, he wouldn't take out the trash. Just as he picks on Diana; he knows no nobility - NONE!
There may be a probationary posting limit for newbys. I'm not sure on that one.
Honest, Lev. I liked having it around. Not like El Pee where there was half a dozen nuts under every tree, but one good nut that we can all kick around? Shit, that was fun. Look how many posts it generated.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Great work, kid. Don't get cocky.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I noticed it after you pointed it out. There's no way I was going to backtrack its links to a bunch of wingnut bullshit, and it knew it.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Diana kicked its ass. Its picking on her was like Israel picking on Hezbollah.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Why BAC - that's not true; he quoted Tony! To use your tactics; that makes you a LIAR! (See how that works?) Isn't it fun to eat your own shit, BAC?
Sorry Diana, but you clearly implied that the administration said Iraq had the capability of launching missiles TO THE US in 45 minutes. So I was perfectly justified in asking you to prove that someone in the administration said that. Now if you wish to retract the claim. Fine. Then we can move on. not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies." ****** that was added on, and I did not say specifically who said this as I didn't know. I just know it was said on FOX and other media outlets to scare the American public into thinking we were under an immidiate threat of being hit by Saddam's super missles which he didn't have. However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
If BAC ran into a posting limit, you ought to lift the limit. It's been a while since we had a real neocon around here.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
'Ray, for Diana! Alaskans rock! She routinely teaches me new tricks.
Don't neglect Condaleeza's comment that she didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. If that isn't jangling the nuclear fire bell, nothing is.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Ahhh ... I see you finally found the truth. So it sounds like Bush had a very clever writer like BeAChooser telling him what to say, and what words to use so as to be as vague as possible. That is some kind of talent, not sure what to call it though. They use such people to sway public opinion by saying things that mean other things or can be interpreted in vague ways, it has something to do with being a trickster of some kind and spinning words so as to shape people's opinions without getting in too much trouble later.
he's on full status. i'm thoroughly enjoying your posts to him. :P
See, then you have Condaleeza talk about a "mushroom cloud". I was sure missles was said, that Saddam was going to shoot us with those missles that travel from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
In all my experience with BAC - you can depend on his defeat being in the content of his own words - or lack thereof. When BAC didn't respond to my early speculations on Flight 93 - I knew something major was there - that turned out to be another missing airliner, of course. It's a hassle to pick BAC apart, but it can be done. He only does deceit, with extremely rare exception.
I think the technically correct term is "obfuscation", although in my neck of the woods we call it "bullshitting".
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
He was trying to play word tricks with me again, he was making my post mean something different, something he is expert at. He wears a person out, I don't know how he can keep going, and going, but honestly I knew someone had said it, I just wasn't sure who the person was but I'm glad you found that video.
I don't know if it was ever explicitly stated (although I suspect it was, and I suspect some smart researcher could find it), but it was implied as all hell. That anyone can try to deny now that the administration was pimping the possibility of Saddam nuking us with missiles is such a palpable re-writing of history as to be absurd.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
George W. Bush, September 26, 2002, Remarks by the President on Iraq, in The Rose Garden http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html HAAAAAAA!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! So now BeAChooser what do you say about having said no one in the US administration said this?? Oh wait, the word "missile" was not used, so are you going to say that this doesn't count?
You did good! BAC requires a bit of a refresher course. I was surprised to see his misogynism show up, so quickly. That's not worth his time, anywhere!
BAC uses a disinformation tactic cited by Hitler, "I defeated my [political] enemies by giving them work to do." It's that simple. You're onto BAC; that's good.
That was our very own Scrapper2, tearing it up.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That's exactly what it (BAC) said above. As if there were some other form of attack that Saddam could launch that would hit us in 45 minutes.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That is some kind of talent, not sure what to call it though. I think the technically correct term is "obfuscation", although in my neck of the woods we call it "bullshitting". LMBO
I went to eat and do errends, so I was behind and didn't realize he'd left, I wonder how he will explain all the evidence he denied.
always...she's a very sharp gal.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! hahahahahahahaaha!!!
so if Goldi booted you and TLBSHOW off LP for being a kooks, how come she hasn't booted badeye too? isn't he as big a kook as you guys?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Really fast homing pigeons?
BAC is being 'out-sourced' from ElPee as a disinformationist. That's a good sign, indicating that his slime is in short supply.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! So now BeAChooser what do you say about having said no one in the US administration said this?? Oh wait, the word "missile" was not used, so are you going to say that this doesn't count? This goes beyond spin. I would call it a deliberate, knowing lie on choosers part.
.
Carrying "Bird Flu!" Oh my God, it was true!
if they're male GOPers, you can probably count on it. :P
$$$???
It won't explain itself. It may take on an injured air for a while, then it may return to spin some other web of bullshit on some other topic. Or it may be begging Goldi for another chance, having gotten a rather cold reception here...
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That was our very own Scrapper2, tearing it up. always...she's a very sharp gal. She really is!
BAC is doing better than my last experiences with him on ElPee. He could be working with a team again. Not that it matters; deceit is his only life- function. You look up the accurate data or shrug off his mass-postings. I'm impressed with the percentage of people on this forum who are of the caliber to successfully take him on. When I was at him on ElPee, it was getting rather lonely, at the end. The rest of his "BAC Pack" are awfully quiet. Omigod - were they 'outed?'
a. Here's my response to your post #123. And if you don't like what you read from this 10/11/06 updated report from Johns Hopkins U, then take up your complaints with the authors directly. I am sure they would love to hear from you, BAC, along with your high browed "support" from Weekly Standard etc. This is the last time I'm fiddling with your ghastly attempts to down grade Iraq's civilian losses due to our invasion and occupation a nation which posed absolutely zero threat to our national security. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2 006.html "Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates: Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods" October 11, 2006 Some cut and paste of key findings: - The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. - The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey. - According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. - This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war. b. And here's a response by one of the John Hopkins researchers to the WSJ opinion piece that questioned the findings. It appears that Les Roberts had comments falsely attributed to him. Hmmm.... http://www.j hsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/wsj_response.html Response to the Wall Street Journal's "655,000 War Dead?" October 20, 2006 Dear Friends: I submitted a letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal on October 18 regarding an opinion article by Steven E. Moore (“655,000 War Dead?,” October 18, 2006). Les Roberts submitted his own letter to address some of the statements inaccurately attributed to him by Mr. Moore in his article. We hope the paper will publish both responses shortly. Mr. Moore did not question our methodology, but rather the number of clusters we used to develop a representative sample. Our study used 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. In his critique, Mr. Moore did not note that our survey sample included 12,801 people living in 47 clusters, which is the equivalent to a survey of 3,700 randomly selected individuals. As a comparison, a 3,700-person survey is nearly 3 times larger than the average U.S. political survey that reports a margin of error of +/-3%. Our study also produced a range of plausible values that reflect the margin of error in our estimate. These values are included in our study, which was published Oct. 11, 2006, in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal, The Lancet. Using our 47 clusters, we estimated that 655,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003 within a range of plausible values from 393,000 to 943,000 deaths. Even our lowest estimate indicates that a significant amount of death has occurred in Iraq, which is not being measured by other surveillance methods, such as news accounts or counting bodies in morgues. It is clear that using more clusters would have given our estimate a greater degree of precision, assuming we also increased our sample size. For example, had we used 470 clusters, our range of plausible values would have been about 3 times narrower. However, there is a trade off between obtaining meaningful data and ensuring the safety of our surveyors. Surveying more clusters would have also meant more risk to the survey team. In addition, Mr. Moore claimed that the Hopkins study did not include any demographic data. The survey did collect demographic data, such as age and sex, related to violence, although they are not the same details Mr. Moore’s company would have collected for public opinion polls. The characteristics of households in our study are similar to other accounts of households in Iraq and the region, though the household size for the 2006 study is smaller (6.9) than found in the 2004 survey (7.9). Mr. Moore apparently agrees with us that a cluster survey is the preferred approach to quantifying post-invasion violent deaths in contrast to counts of deaths from newspaper articles and morgues or not counting at all. We hope he will join us in our recommendations that an independent body with adequate resources monitor deaths among civilians in conflict—using scientific methods, as was done in our survey. Sincerely, Gilbert Burnham c. Also I'm putting you on notice that I will not address ever again your idiotic comments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that did not exist except in the fictious essays written by Doug Feith and his like minded IsraelFirster war mongering goons. For the latter, pls. refer to the 09/08/06 report submitted to the Select Committee on Intelligence. I referred you to this 151 page report earlier on this thread. If you have lost this link, here it is again - also maybe some lurkers will learn something new today: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf "Postwar findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" 09/08/06
Well, there's a couple of problems with the caliber of people on this forum. As a general thing (and not tooting my own horn) the people here are a lot smarter and, as a consequence, more cynical than at other sites. Hence they are less likely to be blind partisans, so we don't have the fun of knocking an idiot like BAC around very often. There isn't much tolerance for fools. Not saying that a fool can't say what he wants (as I often do), but he can expect a pretty rigorous cross-examination. Hell, Burkeman1, aristeides and leveller alone can humble even the most rabid partisan. The other problem is that we've reached a consensus on a lot of issues, like the war. Nobody in their right mind would come to Freedom4um and try to convince rational people that this war was a good idea, is going well, or that the surge has good prospects, for example. Such things are glaringly false, so there isn't much debate about them. Anyone contending otherwise is an idiot whose idiocy would rather quickly be exposed. Additionally, political correctness has no place here, and a person making a weak argument cannot hide behind the accusation that his opponent is a racist or an anti semite or a sexist or whatever, unless it is so glaringly obvious that nobody can dispute it. I can, for example, call Zionism by the name "Zionazism" and nobody's going to ban me here, because rational people beyond the web of PC thinking recognize that Zionism, in its claim of racial exceptionalism, bears a tragic resemblance to Nazism. As a result of these factors, stupid people tend to avoid this site, or leave rather quickly. The downside is that it is something of an echo chamber. I rather miss the days of matching wits with Badeye, for example. He was a smart, deceitful, rabid partisan. Folks like that don't last here. OTOH, I very much value the research that is done here, the variety of postings, and the free and open exchanges. This is my very favorite site, and I've been on quite a few. And this site has it all over El Pee.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Praise God; it's true! This is a cool-aid zero tolerance environment.
I love you.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I love you. me too, well done scrapper
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
Great reply to the likes of BAC! He loves to use a data snow-storm. He's so obvious that he's to be commended, in that regard. I don't think the numbers are all that vital, against the obvious War Crimes of the Bush Cabal. My heart goes out to the Iraqis, but I'm selfish enough to spend more time worrying about the sensless devastation to our troops and the magnitude of War Crime reparations, which we will ultimately have to pay. It will come out of the VA budget, no doubt. "Praise be to Boy George!"
hey, blue, pretty accurate 4 description...maybe i'll put this post up on the home page. :P
Sure. Just send me a royalty check.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Correct. I am not here to re-invent the wheel with BOTS who don't live in reality- who think Iraq is going fine but the "librul media" is to blame for not showing Sovietesque like propaganda images all day long. And I refuse to debate with pettifogging nitpickers who sieze upon irrelevant hyperbole, pretend that is the main issue, and who generally are sophists of the highest order. I won't do it. I won't entertain those who do it. And the fact of the matter is that most lurkers are not stupid and they don't fall for it. And if they do- then they are too stupid to talk to as well. My time is limited. I am not going to "debate" people who think black is white and up is down. Waste of my time. There are posters who have been wrong about Iraq every step of the way- about literally everything- but yet instead of admit that they were wrong have instead constructed elaborate fantasy worlds - alternate realites in which the WMD are in Syria, AQ and Saddam were best buddies, Iraq is a paradise but the evil libruals who hate America and apple pie won't show us. They are Kuckcoo. Nuts. It is pointless to engage these people. They hold onto a reality that even Bush and Co. are not shameless enough to advance or lie about. Its pathetic. Its chasing your own tail to engage these nuts. And I won't.
And the first team weighs in. You should look up this thread. We had a lot of fun today.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I don't have to look at the thread. I am quite familiar with the sophism of this poster and his overall schtick. I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
Well, I found it both amusing and entertaining, as well as sad and pathetic. It also reaffirmed my belief in this site and what we talk about here, as well as cluing me in to a really great movie I watched over the lunch hour from Information Clearinghouse/Move On. Scrapper2 found it up above somewhere. Have a good weekend, Burkee.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I wasn't aware this wasn't an official tally. OK, if there is an official death tally of civilians in Iraq, what is it?
God is always good! There is no question that Iraq was still working on ballistic missiles. There's also no question that those missiles couldn't reach the US. So I bet if you quoted where Bush actually mentioned ballistic missiles he was referring to the former and not the latter.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html "President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, Remarks by the President on Iraq ... snip ... The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000205.html "Thus, the Prime Minister and the Government clearly believed that Saddam had had WMD and that he had been able to deploy them in a tactical and strategic way. We had never claimed in the Dossier that the 45-minutes had referred to ballistic missiles of this sort. The vast majority of media reporting after the publication of the Dossier had not made that link. This matter had not really featured until it had been made an issue in May. The Government believed that Saddam had had WMD and that he could deploy it. Irrespective of whether it was battlefield or strategic, it was a false distinction to say that if WMD was deployed in one way, it would not have the same effect if it was deployed in another. We were still talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Moreover, under UN Resolutions, Saddam should not have been able to possess any of this material in the first place." http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625031302.html " Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, told the Hutton inquiry via an audio link that the intelligence used in last September's dossier had been accurate and reliable. But the claim that Saddam could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes had been open to "misinterpretation" and, in hindsight, overemphasised. "The original report referred to chemical and biological munitions and that was taken to mean battlefield weapons," Sir Richard, known in MI6 as "C", said. "I think what subsequently happened to the reporting (was) it was taken that 45 minutes applied to weapons of a larger range than just battlefield." Use your browser. URL after URL says that Bush said Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. But I can't find a single one that claims he said missiles, much less missiles that could reach the US. Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
Strange. That doesn't mention missiles or using them to hit the US from Iraq.
He didn't actually say it, he implied it. He did say however that they could launch drone remote controlled planes over here to deliver a chemical/biological attack though.
God is always good! well aren't you the clever little slickyboy, knowing all these links by heart...
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
ROTFLOL! You're an open book. And you are under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to sway you. I'm not because I know that is hopeless. I'm just trying to keep the next poor soul who stumbles onto FD4UM and a thread like this from making the mistake of thinking truth is the goal of folks like you and the others at FD4UM. And I think they will all note that I've proven some very serious flaws in the study, bias in it's authors and blindness in its proponents. You don't like the commentary I've supplied so far? You don't want to read it? Suit yourself. Don't delude yourself into thinking folks haven't noticed the failure of ANYONE on this thread to address the points I made in post #123. Each one of them is valid and provable. Take, for instance, the study's estimate of pre-war mortality being dramatically different than previous studies ... bigger studies, in fact ... that the Lancet also blessed. And yet Les Roberts and the peer reviewers never addressed that. Take, for instance, the missing death certificates. The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths. Even the LATimes, who was undoubtedly trying to prove that huge numbers of Iraqis had been killed because they too are against the war, could not come up with more than 50,000. Even if the LATimes missed 2 or 3 times that number, there still are an awful lot of death certificates missing for the Hopkin's estimate to be remotely believable. Now you can stick your head in the ground. That's your privilege. But don't think readers (at least the readers I'm interested in reaching) won't notice. And by the way, I'm going to post even more URLS to sources that are critical of the John Hopkins/Lancet study. There are plenty that I still haven't linked. I'll do it as I respond to others on this thread. This time I think I'll actually quote the articles themselves. Perhaps if you won't go Mohammed, Mohammed can come to you. And maybe you'll notice there's a few statisticians amongst the authors of these criticisms. ROTFLOL!
Too cheap to subscribe? You want to know what the economist article said? Here: ********* http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814 ... snip ... The bedrock on which the study is founded is the same as that on which opinion polls are built: random sampling. ... snip ... The best sort of random sampling is one that picks individuals out directly. This is not possible in Iraq because no reliable census data exist. For this reason, Dr Roberts used a technique called clustering, which has been employed extensively in other situations where census data are lacking, such as studying infectious disease in poor countries. Clustering works by picking out a number of neighbourhoods at random—33 in this case—and then surveying all the individuals in that neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods were picked by choosing towns in Iraq at random (the chance that a town would be picked was proportional to its population) and then, in a given town, using GPS—the global positioning system—to select a neighbourhood at random within the town. Starting from the GPS-selected grid reference, the researchers then visited the nearest 30 households. ... snip ... They interviewed a total of 7,868 people in 988 households. But the relevant sample size for many purposes—for instance, measuring the uncertainty of the analysis—is 33, the number of clusters. That is because the data from individuals within a given cluster are highly correlated. Statistically, 33 is a relatively small sample (though it is the best that could be obtained by a small number of investigators in a country at war). That is the reason for the large range around the central value of 98,000, and is one reason why that figure might be wrong. ... snip ... **********
post #280, and what in the world is your point? that nobody's died in Iraq, except of natural causes? or people aren't really dead until a government (in this case, what government?) issues an official death certificate? I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what you're arguing for or against. Iraq is not a great place to be right now - can we all agree on that?
You could be insane, just based on the above statement alone. And I am one who is receptive to you arguments.
This is a REALLY good reference, Christine. Take note: http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009511.html "Frankly, I've been skeptical of the prior Lancet study for a long time given that a separate study, by the UN Development program, with a much larger, more reliable data set, found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4. The UN found after the first year that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level), which is approximately Check out that link, Christine. Might be an eyeopener.
So sending in more American troops is a good because...?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
No, the explanation is much more mundane, Fay. This debate has been going on for years with folks just like you and the Economist, like lots of journals, eventually moves material into archives that you have to pay to see. As the quotes I supplied prove, I did read the article. The early bird gets the worm.
So who pays you to post here?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
************** http://www.fumento.com/military/lancetscripps.html " Cluster sampling can be valid if it uses reliable data, rather than inherently unreliable self-reporting. But biased researchers, knowingly or unconsciously, can easily pre-determine outcomes by cherry-picking survey sites – like determining denture use in the general population by surveying only nursing homes. But medical researchers and their editors are above all that, especially at so prestigious a publication as The Lancet. Right? Never mind that Roberts admitted to the Associated Press that "I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea." Forget that Lancet editor Richard Horton told the BBC "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer," in Iraq, and that he proclaimed coalition efforts "a failure." Ignore that he said "the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts." Want more evidence the researchers knew their paper wasn't worthy of wrapping fish? The 100,000 figure is allegedly the excess over pre-war Iraqi mortality, which they claimed was 5.0 per 1,000 people annually. Not only is that far below the U.S. rate of 8.5 per 1,000, it's even below Saddam's own 2001 propagandist figure of 5.66! Consider, too, that 100,000 deaths during the survey period averages out to over 180 a day. Have you heard anyone even claim we killed anywhere near that number on one day, much less every day? The bad guys wouldn't even try to pull that off. They left it to The Lancet. Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. "These numbers seem to be inflated," due "to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post. The website http://www.iraqbodycount.com estimates about 14,000-16,000 deaths since the war began. The Evil One himself, bin Laden, in his pre-election video, made reference to the Iraq war and stated "over 15,000 of our people have been killed." How pathetic that a formerly great medical journal, in its desperate effort to out-propagandize both Saddam and bin Laden, is now just Al-Jazeera on the Thames. ****************
This statement by you: "Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies." clearly points the finger at the Bush administration. And my challenge to you is quote ANYONE in the Bush administration actually claiming that "Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes". More than likely it was said by someone on the left trying to create an issue ... just as it was the left who created the issue of Iraq being an "imminent" threat. The Bush administration never said that and Bush specifically said in his pre-war SOU speech that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat. No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL!
Maybe you'll like this one to bluedog. To bluedogtxn - *********** Here's a source with a good observation (just what I've been saying): According to the phony survey, they recorded 629 deaths since the start of the war (p4 of the PDF). In 545 cases, they bothered to ask for death certificates, and for those 545 requests, 501 times they were shown the death certificates. So Mr. Pittelli notes, at least 80% of all the deaths in the sample (501/629), and possibly as many as 92% (501/545) were recorded by the government. Let's repeat that: According to the anti-war propagandists who are responsible for this blatant dishonesty, 80 to 92% of all deaths in their sample were recorded in the Iraqi government's own official figures. What this means, as Pittelli points out, is that the official death figures should record at least 80% of the deaths since the Iraq war. Taking the bogus figures at face value, simply for the sake of To take the Johns Hopkins/Lancet figures seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of at least 80%, but then suppressed 85-94% of those recorded deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle on them. You also have to believe that 85-94% of the dead bodies were unnoticed by the MSM, the funeral homes, and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi govt. only issues death certificates for 6-15% of all deaths, but this random sample got 80% certificate hits by pure chance. Can you say bogus? **************
ROTFLOL! Did I deny that? I don't think so. And now that that is settled, that anyone can try to deny that Les Robert's studies are bogus is absurd. Here: ************** http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 The more I think about the Lancet article, the more obviously bogus the results are. The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths? Where are the news accounts of hundreds of days with 1000 deaths or more? This article claims that there are perhaps 100 Iraqis a day now being killed in sectarian violence--and this is described as escalating violence. This horrifying article talks about 65 bodies found around Baghdad--with the claim that the day was "notable in its number." Either the news media have been ignoring hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths--or tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths--or the Lancet article is utterly wrong. *********************
Actually, I think I've been providing a bit a clarity. Here's some more on the threads' topic: ************** http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 Well, the Lancet, the top British medical journal, has just published a paper claiming that we have caused the deaths of 2.5% of the population of Iraq: Short of setting up concentration camps, or intentionally spreading disease, or carpet bombing cities, I'm not sure that we could do that even if we were trying. There comes a point in every statistical study when you need to do a sanity check. ... snip ... Do you want to know how ridiculous this claim is? During World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries with a callous disregard for civilian losses. The euphemism was "strategic bombing," but it was terror bombing--by day and by night. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of this indiscriminate and indefensible use of bombing against civilian targets: So the Lancet wants us to believe that we have caused almost twice as many deaths without carpet bombing of cities, without creating firestorms like Dresden, without leaving vast rubble heaps where cities used to stand--and where our own compunctions, as well as world opinion, have prevented us from treating Iraqis as callously as British, American, and Russian air forces treated Germany? Give me a break. Japan suffered about two million deaths (about 2.7% of its total population), both military and civilian, over a period of six years. This includes 192,000 deaths from atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 100,000 killed in a single firebombing raid on Tokyo in 1945. And these liars want us to believe that we have caused a roughly comparable percentage of deaths of Iraqis over the last three years largely with firearms? *********************
Bogus. Your link doesn't lead to the article you idiot. Just like the bogus links you posted earlier today in "support" of your bullshit.
.
Well let's see if you can as readily dismiss this source (assuming you take the blinders off long enough to read it): ************* http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/lancet-strikes-again-i-admit-this.html Commentary on medical news by a practicing physician. ... snip ... Lancet Strikes Again: I admit, this headline caught my eye. 655,000 dead in Iraq is an impressive number. Then I read the first sentence and saw that the number was gathered by public health researchers and it lost some credibility. The American public health community has a decidedly left leaning cast to it. It is more politically homogenous than any other medical specialty. How homogenous are they? Well, you won't find statements like this on the website of any other medical speciality. One is obliged to assume that the researchers started with a bias. Then I read that it was published in The Lancet and I lost all interest. This is the journal that gave us the infamous MMR-causes-autism study and that published a similarly discredited tally of Iraqi casualities before the last American election. In the ranks of medical journals, I place them on a par with The Guardian. This time, however, the media is on to them: Kudos to the two New York Times reporters for taking the time to run the study by a couple of statisticians. Color the Washington Post skeptical, too: The full survey is here. The researchers spent two months canvassing households in various regions of Iraq asking about deaths in the family. Sometimes they were able to confirm the reports with death certificates, sometimes they weren't. They didn't ask if the dead were combatants or non-combatants. They were afraid to ask that question. Afraid for themselves and for those they were asking. They interviewed 40 households in each of their selected regions, then extrapolated the 600,000 figure from the number of deaths they had recorded in their interviews. The margin of error of +/-200,000 speaks for itself. It's not reliable. And sorry, but the defense that it's as soundly designed as can be expected for these kinds of public health surveys is a weak one. Retrospective, interview-based studies like this are poor designs. It may be the standard way of gathering data in the public health field, but that doesn't make it the best methodology, and it certainly doesn't make its statistics sound. For too long the field of public health has relied on these types of shoddy numbers to influence public policy, whether it's the number of people who die from second hand smoke or the number who die from eating the wrong kinds of cooking oils. But what do the Iraqi's think? Here's one who is particularly livid: UPDATE: From Dani in the comments section, the editor of The Lancet, expressing his opinion, to which he is certainly entitled. However, his obvious passion (is it necessary to shout when using a microphone?) casts more than a shadow of doubt on his ability to be unbiased in selecting articles for publication that cover the same topic. UPDATE II: The Lancet podcast defending the survey. UPDATE III: Much more via Tim Blair, including Lancet editor Richard Horton's assessment of peer review, the annals of The Lancet's various controversies, a statistician's analysis of the study, criticism from anti-war epidemiologists. UPDATE IV: More here. *******************
Beachy, let me ask you one simple question: What the hell is the point of posting a link if you know damn good and well that people are not going to be able to read the article at the link? Are you liar or just an idiot?
.
Why are you posting those kook blogs nobody has ever heard of? Do you think anyone is going to be impresseed? Who wrote that crap anyway? You or Fun Balls?
.
Bullshit. You posted dead links to decorate your spam. That is patently obvious. If the articles really suupported your argument, you would be waving the text in our faces and screaming for us to read them. Instead, you post a link offering to sell us a subscription to the magazine. LMFAO! You deliberately posted dead links to make it look like your kook bullshit had some sort of support.
.
Not a subscriber? Too bad. Didn't see it when it was free? Too bad. Lucky for you, you can go to the LATimes article which did the original investigation that the WSJ was reporting on. But they too have archived their article. You can read it from them (free) but you'll have to find it. Fortunately, that article is available elsewhere. Better hurry before it too gets archived. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20726 ROTFLOL!
Not a subscriber? Too bad. We must now decide if we take the utterly unsupported word of BAC, the infamous Ron Brown/UFO kook and the guy who just got kicked off LP for being a nut, or if we take the well documented ideas of Johns Hopkins University. Since BAC has already been dishonest with us regarding the dead links he posts in "support" of his articles, he already has one strike against him. I think I will go with Johns Hopkins University. I will however listen to BAC if and when he wants to tell us how Rob Brown was brought back to life. (But only if nothing serious is going on.)
.
BAC, Your spam-slam Psyops/disinformation tactic isn't going to be anymore effective than your lies and other forms of deceit. Deal with it!
He's busted dead on for his bogus link trick. It's hilarious watching him squirm. The guy really does have no shame.
.
I think that sociopathic angle is why the guy is such a failure. And such a laughing stock. He really doesn't see what other people think of him. He can't. That's what's missing in his personality. Because of that, he can't calibrate his actions to fit the situation. Hence, he flails around like he is right now and digs his hole deeper and deeper.
.
From the article, no more than 3 paragraphs down. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous."
Let me get this straight. What you are saying here is the article doesn't exist and you know it. And from this we can infer that you knowingly posted a bogus link in an attempt to fool us into believing your bullshit. On top of that, you say we should take your word at face value - for some odd reason. BAC, you really are a dishonest kook. Do you know that? Goldi showed surprisingly good judgment in giving you the bums rush. And BAC, stop focusing on that one link. There are a whole shitload of linkx up there where you did the exactly same thing. Deal with all of them or shut up about it. You're not going to wiggle out of this by jerking off with the one single instance that you might be able to deal with.
.
BAC's persistence is almost strange. He has to be here "...on paid assignment," as no one insane would suffer the treatment which he begs & receives. Historically, whatever he posts is unworthy of serious treatment, save for discounting, in terms of realizing what's impossible - versus his attempt at data-storming (spamming) and phase-shifting of nearly useless detail. BAC is obviously attempting to distract major intellectual/emotional energy. Giving him any lengthy attention or response is a self-inflicted wound.
Just curious. Do you want us out of Iraq NOW? An immediate pullout? I bet you do. If so, you should be ashamed of yourself given that most authorities seem to think that would lead to far greater chaos and death than is now occurring. This should be fun. So John Hopkins defends itself against criticism of its methods by repeating it used well-established and scientifically proven methods? I notice that they don't explain why their pre-war mortality estimate is so different from the mortality estimates from much larger UN and WHO studies ... that the Lancet also blessed as wonderful ... and which also used well-established and scientifically proven methods. And I don't see this source explaining why their results don't agree with this 2004 study by the UN Development program, with a larger and more reliable data set, that found after the first year there were one-fourth the number of excess deaths the Lancet found with their survey. They too used well-established and scientifically proven methods. Why did the John's Hopkins response ignore this? ROTFLOL! That's funny. Essentually they are saying the latest study is right because the results matched the first study. Never mind that they used the same researchers, the same American Hating Iraqi team, and the same methods. They still haven't explained why that 5.5 deaths per 1000 is so different than the numbers found in larger UN and WHO studies. And just where are all the bodies and death certificates corresponding to these 13.3 deaths per thousand? You are still ignoring that question. Yeah. Imagine that. We've killed a larger percentage of Iraq's population using precision guided munitions and infantry/armor than the Allies killed Germans ... back when they were carpet bombing cities with high explosives and incendiaries day and night till most German cities were nothing but ruins. (sarcasm) And as also pointed out ... that's almost as large a percent of the population as we killed in Japan (2.7 percent) in WW2. When again we fire-bombed and nuked cities till they were nothing but ruins. (sarcasm) This should be good too. ROTFLOL! Except Les Roberts methodology was more like one run by democRATS where they bias the sample by putting more democRATS in the mix than statistically exist in the population. My response to this defense by Roberts is to ask him why 92 percent of his sample claiming deaths was able to supply him a death certificate when the Iraqi population as a whole seems to have far fewer death certificates. Did he just randomly get a group that had 10 times as many folks with death certificates as the norm? ROTFLOL! Plausible? Then where is ANY hard evidence that so many have been killed? Why are there no death certificates, no bodies, no mass graves, no imagery of the slaughter, no media reports of the slaughter (not even by the insurgents who have demonstrated they know how to use video cameras)? Why is there NO evidence but the word of liberal researchers who admitted their bias against Bush and the war and their desire to influence an election, who employed Iraqis to do the interviews who they admit hate Americans, and who published their results in a Journal that has a track record of being critical of the US government and who also admitted wanting to influence the election against Bush? Did they ask which religious group they belonged to? Did they ask whether they supported Saddam's government? Did they ask whether they had members in the insurgency? Did they ask whether the person killed was an Saddam regime soldier or an insurgent? I think those are the sort of demographics Moore had in mind. Perhaps I'll have a bit more to say about him later in this thread. ROTFLOL! Still can't explain that binary sarin warhead, can you. You still can't tell us the contents of those truck convoys that went to Syria before the war ... under Iraqi military escort. You still can't tell us why Saddam's regime selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG said were related to WMD. You still can't tell us why Saddam didn't just come clean if he had no WMD or WMD programs.
It's just mental illness, and his obsessive behavior is probably one of the most common mental illnesses around. If you work with people in the courts - and probably in 12 Step Program too - you see people like him every single day. One of the reasons I retired was because I got tired of dealing with them.
.
BAC, you just posted a link to the main page of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. It has absolutely nothing to do with your argument -- you dumb fucking idiot.
.
BAC - That single Sarin warhead was declared to be a freak left-over, by the Pentagon! Your deceit attempts fail again (still).
*********** Iraqi Death Survey Part I I'm a statistics teacher, with only limited experience conducting surveys, and by no means a statistician, but, in perusing the new Iraqi Death Survey, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey" by by Bunham, et al, in the recent Lancet, I've come across several things that disturb me in the reports of data collected, the method of data collection and the method of extrapolation that I'd like to lay out in several posts, here. Then, perhaps, I can entice some people who know more than I do, or just think more clearly than I do, to look at these questions that I have, and address them, either supporting my concerns, or allaying them -- I don't much care which. I don't really have a horse in this race, after all. So, to the first, and probably most tenuous concerns, the matter of the believability of several items regarding the data collection. 1. "In 16 (0.9%) dwellings, residents were absent." When or where can you conduct a survey and find over 99% of the potential respondents at home? Especially in Iraq, where there are, according to NPR, two hundred thousand registered internally displaced persons (link), and an unknown, but presumably much higher, number of unregistered. So did the surveyors simply skip houses that looked "obviously vacant?" Assuming they did (and this would be a gross breach of statistical process, allowing one's own biases to influence which houses get sampled, but this happened anyway, see the next post; whether or not they did is hard to tell from the reported procedure -- "Empty houses or those that refused to participate were passed over until 40 households had been interviewed in all locations" -- are the "empty houses" the same as the ones reported above where "residents were absent," or does "residents were absent" refer to apparently occupied houses where they just didn't find anyone at home), it still seems amazing to find over 99% of potential respondents at home (and all the more so, since they apparently had to canvass throughout the day - see below.) (Further puzzling is the statement: "Households where all members were dead or had gone away were reported in only one cluster in Ninewa and these deaths are not included in this report." Does this mean that in only one cluster were any vacant houses encountered? I can find more than that in upscale suburbs of Minneapolis.) 2. Only "15 (0.8%) households refused to participate." Now this could be a sign that Iraqis are concerned to get the truth of their plight out, and that's great. But putting this together with (1) above, we find that in a remarkable 98%+ of the potential households, the head of household or spouse was available and willing to answer the questions (according to the methodology, those were the only ones surveyed.) And this result was achieved, according to the article, on the first pass, without ever re-contacting a household, which the survey teams deemed "too dangerous." 3. In reading the methodology, the impression is given that the surveyors did an incredibly thorough, careful, and considerate job in their work. Yet we read that the teams each consisted of four individuals, who "could typically complete a cluster of 40 households in 1 day." Now, it's not clear whether the teams stuck together, or split up into 1s or 2s, but, given time for travel, and assuming 8 hours of surveying time available in a day, if they worked in pairs (which would make the most sense, one male and one female), we find that they spent less than half an hour (24 minutes), on average, per household, yet we're assured that the following protocols were strictly observed: "The survey purpose was explained to the head of household or spouse, and oral consent was obtained. Participants were assured that no unique identifiers would be gathered. No incentives were provided. The survey listed current household members by sex, and asked who had lived in this household on January 1, 2002. The interviewers then asked about births, deaths, and in-migration and out-migration, and confirmed that the reported inflow and exit of residents explained the differences in composition between the start and end of the recall period. .... Deaths were recorded only if the decedent had lived in the household continuously for 3 months before the event. Additional probing was done to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths to the extent feasible, taking into account family sensitivities. At the conclusion of household interviews where deaths were reported, surveyors requested to see a copy of any death certificate and its presence was recorded. Where differences between the household account and the cause mentioned on the certificate existed, further discussions were sometimes needed to establish the primary cause of death." And further on, we read that official death certificates were produced for 80% of the deaths recorded, all in an average of less than half an hour per interview. I'll have a few more questions about these death certificates in another post. ************
Does Fun Balls write that notropis blog you posted above or do you? And why should we care what the fuck they think?
.
********* Iraqi Death Survey Part II In my first post, I simply mentioned 3 items that, from my own experience conducting surveys, seemed surprising, at best, or downright unbelievable, at worst, regarding the apparent success and efficiency of the survey teams. These questions did not address the methodology of the survey, they simply cast aspersions on the integrity of the survey teams. Quite simply, I find it particularily hard to believe that you can achieve a 98%+ response rate under conditions as difficult as those in Iraq (I've never gotten that kind of result in Minnesota), and that you can conduct the careful, thorough, sensitive surveys that the article implies it conducted, in what must average well under 1/2 hour per survey (at 40 per day, it would probably actually add up to less than 15 minutes per household of actual survey time.) But those are just skepticisms. In this post, I will bring up three problems that I find with the sampling methodology. In future posts I will look at some difficulties I find in the methods of extrapolation in the conclusions. 1. The second stage of the sampling is troubling: "At the second stage of sampling, the Governorate's constituent administrative units were listed by population or estimated population, and location(s) were selected randomly proportionate to population size." Why should this be troubling? Well, if a few hundred selections were made per Governorate it wouldn't be, but given the fact that in all but two governorates, 3 or fewer clusters were selected -in many cases only 1, the chances that any smaller towns (or administrative units) anywhere in Iraq might be selected are diminishingly small. It would be interesting to compare the number of small town or rural household clusters selected with the overall population of rural Iraqis to find out whether this underrepresentation were substantial, as I guess that it is. I don't have access to the raw data, so I can' t tell. 2. The sampling method used carries incredible inherent bias: "The third stage consisted of random selection of a main street within the administrative unit from a list of all main streets. A residential street was then randomly selected from a list of residential streets crossing the main street. On the residential street, houses were numbered and a start household was randomly selected. From this start household, the team proceeded to the adjacent residence until 40 households were surveyed." This may seem fine, and it would be, in suburban U.S. However, in Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, and the chaos of many others living in temporary housing and the squalor of newly-constructed unofficial slums, none of these persons had any possibility of being surveyed. Neither did any who live on any unnamed or unrecognized streets. And again, it is quite possible that many smaller towns don't even have any officially named main street, so wouldn't show up on the list at all. What effect would this bias have? There's no way to know, but it is clearly a built-in bias, systematically selecting against some rather large demographic groups. 3. In addition, it is clear that at the whim of the interview team, these pre-selected sites could be changed: "Decisions on sampling sites were made by the field manager. The interview team were given the responsibility and authority to change to an alternate location if they perceived the level of insecurity or risk to be unacceptable." This is a clear admission of selection bias in the sampling. Given the sectarian tensions in Iraq, even granting the alleged professionalism of the canvassing teams, it is impossible to tell the impact of these biases, but their existence is unquestionable. The implication in the report is clearly that more deadly areas were underrepresented, but were more distant (possibly safe) areas also selected against because of the level of risk required to reach them? To summarize, then, the sampling methods reported systematically select against three groups (that I can think of): A) rural Iraqis (both in the method of selecting administrative units, and in the method of selecting particular streets) B) internally displaced refugees (since many live in camps, and not on named streets) and C) urban slum dwellers, who may often also not live in organized households on named streets. The fact that the previous survey, done via GPS location, mirrors the present one in the 2003-04 results merely indicates that, to the extent that the present method may be less representative than the previous one, the biases did not effect the death toll results from 2004; it says nothing about whether these biases are still unimportant. After all, the nature of the situation has changed significantly in Iraq; that's one of the main conclusions of the report. If the recent upsurge in violence has been predominantly urban rather than rural, these sampling methods might tend to overestimate the results. If it has been predominantly in the urban slums or refugee camps, the methods might underestimate them. There is simply no way to tell beyond educated guesses, which take us completely out of the realm of statistical science. In any event, these obvious biases are, in my view, important enough to raise serious doubts about the validity of the conclusions. More troubling, and carrying us way beyond anything that can be "fixed" by more statistical analysis, is the third point; namely, that in spite of the authors' best intentions to randomize the clusters, what they ended up with was, in point of fact, a sample with a high risk of personal selection bias. As understandable as concerns for safety are, statistics has no compassion. If you modify your selection based on personal considerations, you lose your claim to statistical validity. *************
You are right. Take note Diana. No he didn't. But not drones launched from Iraq. Perhaps from across the border or a ship at sea. And the fact is that Saddam's regime was still working on long range UAVs in violation of their agreement not to do so. And one of Iraq's top scientists said the only reason he could see for the modifications being made was to use it to deliver WMD. Something you folks claim Saddam didn't have. Go figure...
BAC, let me ask you again: Do you really think quoting these silly little bullshit blogs will make people believe the shit you spew? I can find one man blogs that assert that alien spaceships are hiding at the north pole. I'm not kidding. What you are quoting here is getting pretty close to that kind of crap. What the hell is a "notropis" anyway?
.
ou still can't tell us the contents of those truck convoys that went to Syria before the war ... under Iraqi military escort. You still can't tell us why Saddam's regime selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities the ISG said were related to WMD. You still can't tell us why Saddam didn't just come clean if he had no WMD or WMD programs The White House is not "telling us" any of your claims - and they are the ones who decided on the war. Why do you expect posters on an Internet site to defend outrageous claims that even the people who started the war, and who are constantly trying to justify it, aren't making?
Sure I can. It's a kook conspircay theory that only exists in your head. And you don't have a shred of credible proof to the contrary. Just partisan hacks in the kook fodder press.
.
************ Iraqi Death Survey, Part III Summary of the first two posts: I find some major reasons to be skeptical of the data collected, and the method of collection. The first three are questions that lead me to doubt the credibility of the survey teams, in spite of the authors' assurances: 1) 99% of residences had people at home? The next three lead me to question the inherent bias allowed in the data collection: 4) Samples of size 1 - 3 (the number of clusters chosen from all but two of the governorates) chosen "proportionally to population size" can't possibly reflect the actual urban-rural makeup of an individual governorate, and given the small number of governorates, won't reflect the makeup, even taken in aggregate. You can "bootstrap" all you want, but you can't bootstrap with a sample size of 1 (and yes, one cluster is, in many respects just "1.") Moreover, no amount of bootstraping will make a demographic that's completely absent (like "rural Iraqis in X province") suddenly appear. 5) Persons living on non-officially-recognized and named streets were systematically ignored, biasing considerably against those living in urban slums, internally-displaced refugees, and rural Iraqis, and this influence was completely overlooked. 6) The field manager could select sampling sites at whim, and these could be changed at the "responsibility and authority" of the interview team. I'm sorry, but, even with the amazingly advanced statistical analysis done on the numbers, these fundamental questions about the worth of the data collected undercut any validity of the survey. "Garbage in = garbage out" remains as true as ever, as does "data of questionable validity in = conclusions of questionable validity out" (although that's not nearly so catchy.) ***********
I think the meth has affected your judgment or you wouldn't be buying into this crap.
.
One would think that is clear by now. That the Les Roberts/John Hopkins/Lancet studies were BOGUS. And if we can't agree on that, how can we ever hope to find agreement in any matter. Because this one is plain as day. *********** Iraqi Death Survey Part IV What about the death certificates? According to the article, 80% of the deaths identified in the survey were confirmed by the presence of a death certificate. That's a good thing. That helps A) to make sure that some deaths aren't counted multiple times as being misremembered members of multiple households, B) to establish time of death, and C) to help determine cause of death, among other things. But here's my question: If there's a death certificate, doesn't that make it an officially recorded death? That is (I'm assuming and asking), if the head of household has a copy of the death certificate, wasn't another one filed at the appropriate administrative office, by whoever made out the certificate? If this is the case, why doesn't it end up on the official Iraqi government death toll tally? OK, I can think of several reasons why that might not happen. But the record should still be available locally. So wouldn't it have been/be a good check on the survey to contact the local administrative office, look at the death certificates there, and see whether the actual numbers at the administrative office come within the expected 20% of the projected numbers from the survey of 40 households? I'll grant that that might not be possible on a larger scale, or in every situation, but there's something troubling about a survey that claims to have discovered hundreds of thousands of unreported deaths, by looking past official channels, yet that also claims that 80% of those deaths that it discovered have official death certificates (so clearly were not unreported.) Again, I understand that in some individual circumstances, administrative corruption or confusion might not make this possible, but you'd think it would make sense to double-check this where possible. A positive confirmation would go miles to validate the methodology of this survey. *************
BAC, I can judge you sanity here with a single question: Do you really think anyone is going to read all that silly spam you just blackend the board with? Yes or no. And I will be able to tell you if you are in reality or not.
.
Actually, it just shows I understand statistics and you apparently don't. Let me repeat this post just for you ... ************* Here's a good observation (just what I've been saying). According to the phony survey, they recorded 629 deaths since the start of the war (p4 of the PDF). In 545 cases, they bothered to ask for death certificates, and for those 545 requests, 501 times they were shown the death certificates. So Mr. Pittelli notes, at least 80% of all the deaths in the sample (501/629), and possibly as many as 92% (501/545) were recorded by the government. Let's repeat that: According to the anti-war propagandists who are responsible for this blatant dishonesty, 80 to 92% of all deaths in their sample were recorded in the Iraqi government's own official figures. What this means, as Pittelli points out, is that the official death figures should record at least 80% of the deaths since the Iraq war. Taking the bogus figures at face value, simply for the sake of To take the Johns Hopkins/Lancet figures seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of at least 80%, but then suppressed 85-94% of those recorded deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle on them. You also have to believe that 85-94% of the dead bodies were unnoticed by the MSM, the funeral homes, and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi govt. only issues death certificates for 6-15% of all deaths, but this random sample got 80% certificate hits by pure chance. Can you say bogus? **************
So is this the sort of idiotic kookery that Goldi canned your ass for?
.
************* Iraqi Death Survey Part V An opinion from an actual expert confirms my problems with this survey. The Chairman of the Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Donald Berry, has this to say: "Selecting clusters and households that are representative and random is enormously difficult. Moreover, any bias on the part of the interviewers in the selection process would occur in every cluster and would therefore be magnified. The authors point out the possibility of bias, but they do not account for it in their report." and "Incorporating the possibility of such biases would lead to a substantially wider range, the potential for bias being huge. Although there is no formal way to address bias short of having an ‘independent body assess the excess mortality,' which the authors recommend, the lower end of this range could easily drop to the 100,000 level." Sort of what I mentioned in my second post, items 4 - 6. But Dr. Berry notices a further problem with the teams' selection bias, and that is that, given that there were only two teams of surveyors, any selection bias will be consistent throughout the survey, skewing all results in the same direction and further widening the true confidence interval. Also, I don't know if he's an expert or not (I know nothing about him), but Tim Blair had the same thought about the death certificates. ************
Do you realize you just posted link to another meaningless kook blog as support for your "argument"? Why should anyone care what "Rants and Rayguns" thinks about anything?
.
Whoops, you got "notropis - fodder for kooks" up there again while I was posting about "Rants and Rayguns". Your other impressive source. Do you think that making the same mistake over and eventually cures the error? Just curious.
.
BAC, if you are going to quote obscure, meaningless blogs in support of your argumets, why don't you just write the things yourself? Pay $14.99 per month, get a blog and tailor it to exactly what you need. No one will buy the shit you quote from it, but no one buys the shit you quote from these pathetic sources either. But what you do quote will be more on point.
.
Maybe you could delete some of Chooser's spam above. Nobody is going to read it and it makes the thread hard to follow.
.
"This war has been privatized, to a great extent, more than any other war in history." This isn't about WMDs in Iraq or any real threat by that country, as all wars have been (WAR IS A RACKET). It's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Watch this---> IRAQ FOR SALE
Hey Beachy, if all you have to do is post a link from a kook one man blog to make something a reality, how about if I wrote a blog saying I had a million bucks in my checking account and then posted it here? Would that work?
.
I've pondered this before, are the paid shills paid by the post or by the hour?
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush BAC posts by the "opportunity." If he thinks he can get a response - he calls in his team of superiors.
The entire Bush Cabal, including Rove's minions, are all opportunists. Just like Hitler, and every other tyrant in history.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush So BAC, is there a 12 Step Program or something like that where OC Sociopaths such as yourself can hang out and get feedback? If so, you should bring this thread up in a meeting and let them tell you how you blew it. You won't see it yourself as your very obvious mental defect prevents this. That, by the way, is the crux of the problem you face.
.
Unfortunately, the elements behind the Bush Cabal learned their lessons from Hitler. BUT - as with Hitler, no one is listening to the generals. The "generals" may be take a few notes on Hitler's failures, also. We'll see.
that's true
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL! You really do see all the posters on this forum as so beneath you, don't you. You see all of us as cookie-cutters of one another, all being exceptionally stupid and dull, objectifying all of us. That attitude and the shallow thinking that goes along with it is what's going to bring down the neocons in the end (and probably the rest of us because of them, gee thanks), they tend to underestimate the abilities of those they decide to make their enemies. It's like a blind spot they have, one which for instance does not keep them from repeating mistakes they should have learned from history, like invading Afganistan, as no one will be able to take down those people. But to people like you, all Others are stupid and insignificant so in your minds' they should be easy to conquer, and as usual it just doesn't turn out that way. I won't knit pick with you, it's impossible because my nature is not dishonest enough for me to be able to stoop to your level playing word games. You know something was said to the American people to scare them into thinking that Saddam had the capability to attack within 45 minutes and cause great calamity to our country. That message was loud and clear and indeed has been proven by those posters "helping" me.
You've posted links to blogs. Why is it that you have no links to professional, peer reviewed research? Because it's not out there. Man this left wing conspriracy is vast! It emcompasses academia throughout the whole world! I would no more accept blog information as a "source" than you would accept it as a source in the WTC debate. You can post as many links critical of the Lancet study as you like. If I cared to take the time, I'm sure I could find just as many blogs that supported the study. However, Blogs are not credible sources, period, so it doesn't matter. They are the opinions of people who may or may not know what they are speaking of. However, if they did know what they were talking about, then why haven't they presented their information for peer review? The Bush administration would jump all over it in order to prove the inaccuracy of the Lancet study. The questions asked and information presented in your blogs may be legitimate. However, they may also be based on flawed premises, logic, or information. Then again, they could just be strawman arguments made to confuse and muddy the waters by the Bush admin internet propaganda team. There may be legitimate and perfectly rational reasons for the methodology the researchers used in their study.I am not an epidemiologist and to my knowldege, neither are you. IMO it is unreasonable to believe that a study so flawed (as you contend) would be allowed to stand on such an important topic by those within that particular field. Yet it has been allowed to stand. There is a reason for this, and while you may believe that reason is due to liberalism and/or anti-war sentiment, I do not. You're not proving anything to anyone because you are not posting anything serious. You are posting opinion pieces that prove nothing. However, you misunderstand me and my attitude on the study. I do not take it as gospel. As the saying goes, statistics lie and liars use statistics. I'm only pointing out that there are not any reputable studies backing up your assertions that the study was inaccurate and/or politically driven. Also, for those interested, in October 2006, Johns Hopkins reaffirmed the original study: "Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates. Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html I've gotta run. It's Saturday and I have family stuff to do.
FOX news is not the left. And you know that Bush did indeed make Iraq out to be a threat therefore needed to be invaded. You are really stretching it now.
Oh yeah, before I go. The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world. I find it hard to believe that they would risk this reputation in order to score political points and/or press an anti-war agenda.
It's a disinformation tactic to phase-shift issues by saturating the environment with details. The number was horrible - and an American War Crime - there's the boottom line. BAC tries to spam-slam the issue. With rare exception, debating him is the epitome of wasted time. Go to the 'benchmark' and leave it there. "The lowest number is deplorable; and a War Crime."
More projection, the NeoCommie/ZioNazis are very good at projection. They don't know what to do with people who have not been bought/tortured/bribed/threatened/blackmailed. Real Patriots scare them.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Strange. That doesn't mention missiles or using them to hit the US from Iraq. How foolish of me to assume that Bush meant a missile attack. Once again, BAC, your perspicacity has unearthed a subtlety that had heretofore escaped me. You and George W Bush really are masters of nuance. Here are some of the possible alternatives to missile attack that he could have intended to imply: "And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack [by canoe][by FedEx][by hot air balloon] [by carrier pigeon] in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
BAC is quite expert at splitting the hairs of language. If he has his way, there's no reading between the proverbial lines. On ElPee, that was normally accompanied with a "liar" label.
************ Iraqi Death Survey Part VI The effects of migration on the extrapolated numbers The data used to determine the number of clusters per Governorate, as well as the probability of a particular Administrative Region's selection within the Governorate, and to extrapolate to the final 600,000+ figure come from 2004 estimates of Iraqi population. There are several things to think about here. First of all, how accurate are 2004 population estimates likely to be, to begin with? Census data from the Saddam era has every reason to be suspect, and in so far as the 2004 estimates base calculations on pre-2003 census data, they are likely to be flawed. Moreover, independent estimates made in 2004 are likely to suffer from many of the same uncertainties present in this study, namely logistical difficulties in conducting surveys, imprecise administrative records and the like. There's simply no way to know how good these 2004 estimates are, and every reason to believe that they are rough estimates, at best. Be that as it may, and assuming for the moment that they are accurate, what effects do massive displacement since that time have on the extrapolated numbers? According to official reports , over 180,000 internally displaced refugees were reported just between the months of February and June of 2006. Undoubtedly those not registering pushes the number much higher. As I pointed out below, the survey methodology means that these displaced refugees had very little chance of being surveyed. But in addition to that, their migration is sure to skew the analysis of the data. The authors acknowledge as much in their paper: "The population data used for cluster selection were at least 2 years old, and if populations subsequently migrated from areas of high mortality to those with low mortality, the sample might have over-represented the high-mortality areas." Well, not just over-represented in sampling, but also over-estimated in projections. In addition, of course, emigration from Iraq entirely would cause the estimates to be overstated by a corresponding amount (if the population were only 22.5 million, rather than 25 million, for example, then the true extrapolated estimate would have to be revised downward by 10%) The authors, however, also make this very misleading statement about internal migration: "internal population movement would be less likely to affect results appreciably [than emigration from Iraq.]" Perhaps less likely, but the effect could be considerable: Consider the following simplified (and exaggerated) example: Suppose there are 2 regions, each with population = 1 million in 2004, and suppose that, from 2004 to 2006 one of the regions is subjected to extreme violence, while the other is not. Suppose that this causes 50% of the population (500,000) to move from the region of extreme violence to the region without. Now, suppose a survey is done in the two regions, where we find that the violent death toll in the war-torn region is 10 per 1000, while in the more peaceful region it is 2 per 1000 (in the latest 1 year period.) Assuming that the surveys are accurate, we would see that: Actual deaths in war-torn region: 10 per 1000 x 500,000 = 5,000 Extrapolated deaths in war-torn region: 10 per 1000 x 1,000,000 = 10,000 Actual deaths in more peaceful region: 2 per 1000 x 1,500,000 = 3,000 Extrapolated deaths in more peaceful region: 2 per 1000 x 1,000,000 = 2,000 Total actual deaths: 8,000 Total extrapolated deaths: 12,000 Difference: 4000 deaths or an over-estimate of 50%. Now, the true changes from 2004 to 2006 are liable to be far less than the 50% in the example. However, there is also the multiplier effect of overestimation in sampling combined with overestimation in extrapolation: Suppose that a city had a population of 50,000 in 2004, but due to a flare-up of violence, half the people left the city by 2006 (this is NOT at all unlikely, there are reports of entire cities becoming ghost towns overnight, due to the actions of the various militias and insurgent groups, see, for example, Fallujah.) Even though its actual 2006 population was 25,000, it would have twice the likelihood that it should have of being selected, based on its current population. And, given that it had suffered this tremendous out-migration, it would be far likelier to be in a very violent area, contributing higher than representative numbers, which in turn get multiplied by a higher than correct factor. On the other hand, if it were in a very violent area, it's quite possible that the survey teams would simply have decided that it was too risky to get there, and selected, at their whim, another, safer place (which, again, takes this survey completely out of the realm of statistical analysis, without doing a psychoanalysis of the survey teams, and attempting to massage the data in some way to compensate for their selection biases.) Again, the purpose of these analyses is not to show that the actual numbers are higher or lower than the survey's estimates, but rather to analyze the many flaws in both the methodology and interpretation of the survey which may lead it to be not especially meaningful. Update: BBC has more on Iraqi displacement estimates here. ************
********** Iraqi Death Survey, Final I had several more posts prepared, but why bother, when the Iraq Body Count website has done a much better, more thorough job than I could: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php Thanks to all who looked over my material. Notropis ************************
So lemme see.. it's your contention that the number of civilian deaths are being inflated ? What is your position regarding the deaths of soldiers and mercenaries..why are the casuality numbers for them not being reported?
Yawn. BAC, you ridiculous, dishonest, sociopathic moron, call me when you have a legitimate source for the pile of -- UTTERLY UNSUPPORTED SHIT -- you have been spewing for the past two days. Your unsupported word on the subject is nullity. If fact it's worse than nullity because you got busted for posting fake links last night - look on the thread above. Given that, it's probably more correct to say that your unsupported word is the word of a failed and transparent would be bullshit artist. Don't waste my time with your kook blogs and five year old NewsMax articles. And don't waste my time if your mental defect prevents you from being honest - which I truely suspect is the case. Take me off your ping list. I haven't got time for the mentally ill who can't even see the objection to their silly shit, much less respond to it. In closing, the lone kook blog you cite in support in your nutty spew above isn't a source. It's either a joke or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
.
"John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world" - excellent point that bears being repeated - and its methodology for ascertaining mortality and disease figures in populations has been used in previous wars. From the updated John Hopkins report: "The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions." For some people, the John Hopkins methodology is acceptable most of the time except when the aggressor in the war, in which mortality figures are being calculated, is our government.
Excuse me, it wasn't a single ridiculous and partisan kook blog you were relying upon to support your bullshit, it was two ridiculous and partisan kook blogs. Sorry. My mistake. But you everything I said above still holds. Don't bother me with your silly unsupported crap.
.
just wanted you guys to see the photo of BAC that has now surfaced on the internet and is being circulated. BAC is on the left. thanks BAC for making it available.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Only if by "expert" you mean "clumsy."
BAC, maybe I wasn't clear in my posts above. The technical term for what you have been doing for the past three days is called "pulling facts and figures out of your ass". What you want to do is start a contest to see who can pull the most facts and figures out of their ass the fastest. This allows you to obfuscate important issues and advance your agenda in a dishonest manner - but you know this. Were I to pull enough facts and figures out of my ass, I could prove that I was Ron Brown and that I was still dead. And everyone knows this. Hence, nobody here is impressed with your tactic. Is that more clear?
.
What boggles my mind is that in the WTC debate, BAC refuses to accept any information from a person with a doctorate in physics because he isn't a metallurgist. He refuses to accept eye witness testimony from firemen and cops because they are only firemen and cops and not trained explosive experts. Yet at the same time, in this debate, BAC accepts as gospel information from a blogger who appears to have no training whatsoever in epidemiology, and who's expertise appears to be that he collects old mathematics textbooks. Truly insane.
don't underestimate BAC. he is a very formidable opponent in any argument. (I should know - I'm the one who first started calling him BAC). BAC has NEVER lost an argument. He will not admit that he's wrong. He will always spam you with information even extremely detailed information. He will not quit arguing under any circumstances. Unless the other guy quits first. therefore, he always wins. no matter what. By the way BAC - that is a great photo of you above. wish I had badeye's picture.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Yes, I am very aware of BAC's MO. However, when he's forced to post opinions from a blog whose owner's expertise is that he collects old math books, he's lost the argument. It matters not that he will not or cannot accept that fact. It will be more than plain to anyone lurking on this thread that he's grasping at straws.
lol
It shouldn't be lost - for a single minute - that a key function of disinformationists such as BAC is to muddy the waters and damage the reputations of serious posters, for the benefit of any casual surfers or serious researchers who might look to these forums for ideas and/or material.
Any moment now, BAC will suggest another equally absurd alternative, and then obstinately argue that Bush really could have meant to suggest that means of delivery: tugboat, or cruiseship, or email, for instance. However, he has brought 350 post threads to 4um.
So who is paying BAC?
Good question. I doubt that we'll ever know.
I say nobody. BAC is only dangerous when he's on your side. Goldi figured that out. Kicked him off LP for being a kook. Sort of like kicking one of the monkeys out of the cage for chittering and flinging monkey dung. There was just something about him that drew her attention. Then he comes over here and alienates everyone in a couple of hours. Demonstrating how much he sucks as an advocate. So who's going to pay a boob like BAC when they can get a nice grad student who would actually convert people to the cause?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
The issue BAC wants to avoid is that these were all killed at the hands of American War Crimes. The numbers matter little, whatever they are. He's sucking posters into the abyss of "details." (Disinformation tactic)
True enough, but maybe his employers don't bother to check his work.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush BAC, what are you going to do about that imposter who is impersonating you and posting as BeAChooser?
Go on Diana ... quote EXACTLY what Bush (or any administration official) said that makes you think they said missiles could be launched from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes. That is what you very clearly claimed. If you can't, then I think you either misunderstood what was said or it is you were the one playing word games.
The problem with you and your friend, Halek, is you apparently can't be troubled to actually read what I posted. For example, didn't you see this? http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf It's a study by the UN Development program which found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4. The UN found after the first year that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level), which is approximately 1/4th the number of excess deaths the Les Roberts and his John Hopkins team claim they found with their survey. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set. Didn't you see the citations to the UN and WHO studies done before the invasion that were blessed by the same journal that peer reviewed Les Robert's study? Didn't you see that they found much larger pre-war mortality rates than Les Robert's study came up with (7-8 per 1000 per year versus 5 per 1000 per year). Surely you aren't trying to dispute that fact because if you are then it shows you not only haven't read my posts you are very unfamiliar with the literature on this topic. That number is a key parameter in determining the excess deaths. If this number is actually closer to 7 or 8 then 5 or 5.5, then the number of excess deaths drops dramatically. You aren't fooling anyone with this tactic, Halek. You haven't addressed a single FACT I listed in post #123. Don't think that readers of this thread won't notice that. You don't like the blog I've been posting from most recently? Don't want to read it? Fine with me. I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you or the others posting on this thread. I know that's hopeless. But some of the forums lurkers may read what I post. Here's a nice summary the blog author did of what he found. I haven't found anything wrong with it: ************************ Update: Here's more from a real-life statistical researcher, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108 Iraqi Death Survey Wrap-Up After re-reading the articles by Steven E. Moore, in the Wall Street Journal and Iraq Body Count, as well as perusing the comments on many other blogs, I've decided that one last post might be in order on this topic. I'll break my observations down into three broad topics: 1. The construction of the survey (I also add, here, that Iraq Body Count's criticism of the results of the study, based on what I would describe as face validity, seem to me to be very compelling. I won't address those issues, as I'm in no way competent to offer an analysis that could compete with that of Iraq Body Count.) 1. The construction of the survey: A) Steven Moore makes much of the fact that 47 clusters were used, and this is far too small, given the extremely non-uniform distribution of violent deaths in Iraq. He may well be right; he's certainly more experienced in surveying techniques than am I. Several opposing voices have pointed out that Mr. Moore himself has used only 75 clusters in similar situations, and others have used 150, or whatever. This sort of analysis quickly gets out of the realm of statistics and into polemics and name-calling. My problem with the number of clusters has to do with the assumed stratification of the population. This survey was, at the top level, a stratified survey. Iraq was divided into its Governorates, and the number of clusters chosen per Governorate was decided by population. Evidently, the authors had reason to believe that there might be significant differences in death rates between Governorates (which was confirmed by their own results.) Unfortunately, in all but two Governorates, three or fewer clusters were selected from that Governorate. In several cases, only a single cluster was selected. How can one possibly control for the possibility of getting a very unrepresentative cluster, when a sample of a single cluster is used? The authors say that they did comparisons between clusters and within clusters. Within clusters, I'll grant you. But between clusters? Evidently between clusters from different strata. This makes no sense. If you stratify a population, it is because you are assuming, a priori, that there may be significant differences between strata (Governorates.) You can't then turn around and compare between strata to attempt to identify, or compensate for, a single cluster as being representative or unrepresentative of that particular stratum. In the famous words of Kwame Nkrumah upon his removal by coup as the first President of Ghana, "You can't compare one thing." When a stratified sampling is used, it is common practice to use a large enough sample to get several draws (even if each draw consists of a cluster of individual samples) from each stratum. B) The method of selecting named main streets, followed by named cross streets is certainly not random, and quite possibly not representative. I don't know much about what proportion or which streets are named in Iraq. But I have had several experiences which lead me to question whether the distribution of officially named and recorded main streets and cross streets is uniform enough to use as a basis for a random selection procedure. How many streets are named? In rural America, where I now live, the answer is "almost all." But even ten years ago, the answer was "most in some places, none in others." The change came about due to the 911 emergency calling system. Here in my town of 300, the locals laugh that a UPS guy can find your house from the address, but none of the citizens could. My official address is XYZ 3rd St. (has been officially so named for about 8 years), but if I want to tell anyone where I live, I have to say "the old Hoffman house." I would suspect that much of Iraq still doesn't have streets (main or cross) that would be listed in an official directory. Back when I lived in Liberia, we conducted health and demographic surveys in conjunction with the national vaccination campaigns. I was just a foot soldier, working the villages of Grand Cape Mount County, and have no idea how the cluster selection process was done, but I can guarantee that it wasn't done by street name. Outside of Robertsport, there wasn't a named street in all of the county. At that time, I would guess that fewer than 50 communities in the entire nation had named streets, and that, even in the most advanced places, like Monrovia, fewer than 50% of the population lived on a named street, and those who did, were distinctly non-representative on many levels. On the urban side, the most densely populated part of Monrovia was an area called West Point. I lived there for about two months. I estimated the population at the time at about 30,000 -and there wasn't a single street, named or otherwise, in the entire slum. I'm thinking Sadr City, Baghdad looks a lot like West Point, Monrovia in that respect. My guess is that the systematic selection of only named cross streets to named main streets as listed in an official directory will systematically exclude broad segments of the Iraqi population, namely the rural, the urban poor, and the internally-displaced refugees. Whether this systematic bias skews the survey results up or down or is neutral, I don't know, nor does anyone else (if they did, then why the hell would anyone be doing the survey?) The fact is, that it's bad statistical methodology to use a systematic selection method that consistently biases against particular large demographics. Several posters to Tim Blair's blog (see link below) brought up a further problem with the selection process. Although it's a bit unclear from the description in the articles, it appears that all of the clusters were chosen from a named cross street, at a distance fairly close to a main street. The report says that "a house was chosen at random," but does not specify how that random starting place was selected, or what the maximum distance from the main street the starting point would be. They (the blog posters) suggest that violence might be concentrated nearer the main streets and that therefore the incidence of violent deaths would be higher close to a main street. Again, there's no way to know that, but, again, systematic bias is bad practice, and can lead to results far outside of the "margin of error" (which, of course, is constructed assuming an absolute absence of non-sampling, or "methodological," error.) 2. The conduct of the survey: Here's where my analysis gets a bit dicey, but I've got to point out what I see, and here's where my experience of many years as a statistics teacher, supervising and grading student projects, leads me to grave doubts about what the survey teams actually did and didn't do. A) The response rates reported by the teams, in terms of their success at finding a head of household or spouse at home and willing to participate are just amazingly, extremely, insanely, unbelievably high, especially given the fact that the teams never once paid a second visit to a household, due to the dangers they were facing, working in a war zone, and apparently worked throughout the day, rather than confining their visits to times when respondents would be likely to be home (see the time constraint concern, below.) The authors report that in 99%+ of the households, someone was at home. They also claim that in only one cluster were any empty households found among the 40 adjacent households surveyed. They phrase it so as to insinuate that they are minimizing the death estimates: "Households where all members were dead or had gone away were reported in only one cluster in Ninewa and these deaths are not included in this report." This quote has become a favorite among some blogs as showing that, in fact, the real numbers must be much higher than those in the survey, since any annihilated households have been discounted. It's definitely true that the phrase "were dead or had gone away" followed by the "these deaths" clearly implies that the researchers have reason to believe that the former occupants of the households in question were all dead (without explicitly stating so.) But what bothers me is the implication that vacant houses were supposedly encountered in only one cluster in all of Iraq, and, by insinuation, none vacated by emigration. With estimates of over a million recent emigrants from Iraq entirely, and up to that many again internally displaced persons (together pushing 7% of the total population of Iraq), one would have expected to see more, and more widely distributed, vacant houses -even if no entire households had been annihilated. The next question becomes, what's the difference between a "household where all members were dead or had gone away' and the"16 (0.9%) dwellings [where] residents were absent.' The latter evidently includes households where the surveyors believed that someone was still living, but no one was home when they knocked (or so I'm guessing.) In any event, the fact that 7% or more of Iraqis have vacated their homes (for other parts of Iraq, or other parts of the world, or Heaven,) and yet that less than 1% of the households surveyed found no one at home, is very suspicious to me. If nothing else, it calls into question the representativeness of the sampling. The <1% "not at home," even absent the contributing concerns, raises all kinds of red flags for me. B) Among those that were at home, only "15 (0.8%) households refused to participate." Given the purported methodology of the survey, this must also include any households where some members were home, but not the head of household or spouse, since we're guaranteed that the head of household or spouse were the only ones questioned. So we're left (combining A and B) with the astounding result that in more than 98% of the attempted contacts, the head of household or spouse was at home and willing to participate in the survey, and this, without a single call-back, since attempting a second contact with a household was deemed too dangerous for the survey teams. What makes these results doubly surprising is that the surveys must have been conducted throughout the day, in order to accomplish 40 surveys per day (see below.) So, somehow, a total of 15 or fewer "Dad's at work (or the Mosque or wherever), Mom's at the market" responses in over 1700 attempts. It's quite possible that 15+ years of teaching Introductory Statistics and similar courses has left me a bit jaded, but I know that I'd be calling these survey teams into my office, with some serious questions about what they actually did or did not do, before accepting any of their results. C) The time spent per survey belies the notion that great care was taken to insure the interviewees' comprehension of the questions and the interviewers' assurances of accuracy in the answers. According to the article, the survey teams "could typically complete a cluster of 40 households in 1 day." The survey teams reportedly consisted of 4 members each, two male and two female. It is not stated how or whether the teams split up in conducting the interviews. From what I've heard about Islamic culture, it would seem likely that they would not have gone out individually, given that some women might be reluctant to speak to a single man, and vice versa. So, if we assume that they split up into two pairs of one male, one female doctor each, then each pair was interviewing 20 households in a day. Even assuming 8 hours per day for fieldwork, this leaves less than 24 minutes per interview (less than because it takes some time to walk from house to house.) Based on my own experiences with face-to-face interviewing, this would be maybe 15 minutes for the actual survey questioning (there's always a cushion for formalities, pleasantries, getting settled and whatnot.) Somewhere in there, also, the interview teams had the time to reassure the interviewees of their honesty and good intentions, and double-check any questionalbe results. Read what the article claims went on at each interview: "The survey purpose was explained to the head of household or spouse, and oral consent was obtained. Participants were assured that no unique identifiers would be gathered. No incentives were provided. The survey listed current household members by sex, and asked who had lived in this household on January 1, 2002. The interviewers then asked about births, deaths, and in-migration and out-migration, and confirmed that the reported inflow and exit of residents explained the differences in composition between the start and end of the recall period. .... Deaths were recorded only if the decedent had lived in the household continuously for 3 months before the event. Additional probing was done to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths to the extent feasible, taking into account family sensitivities. At the conclusion of household interviews where deaths were reported, surveyors requested to see a copy of any death certificate and its presence was recorded. Where differences between the household account and the cause mentioned on the certificate existed, further discussions were sometimes needed to establish the primary cause of death." Now, it's tough to compare different cultures, but when I worked on the health surveys in Liberia, we'd figure on maybe 3 or 4 good interviews per day, by the time we were satisfied that the interviewees were understanding the questions correctly and we were understanding the answers correctly (and we always had at least one interviewer who was a native speaker of the dialect.) Canned political surveys in America tend to take over 5 minutes each, even though the interviewees pretty well know what to expect in terms of the questions, and the surveyors have no need to verify things like death certificates. So, 15 minutes or so per survey? I guess it's possible, since some might be very easy ("All six of us have lived here for many years, and no one has died"), but I'm suspicious whether the implied care was actually taken in the interview process. D) Due to safety concerns, the survey teams were apparently allowed great latitude in changing the pre-determined cluster to a more convenient one. In terms of statistical validity, this point is crucial. The article states: "Decisions on sampling sites were made by the field manager. The interview team were given the responsibility and authority to change to an alternate location if they perceived the level of insecurity or risk to be unacceptable." The authors give us no information about how often these changes were forced to be made, and absent that information, this survey is, simply, worthless. No amount of advanced statistical massaging can fix a sampling of convenience. So, did the violence in Iraq force one change, two changes, forty changes? We don't know. But what we do know is that there is a clear admission of selection bias in the sampling. Given the sectarian tensions in Iraq, even granting the alleged professionalism of the canvassing teams, it is impossible to tell the impact of these biases. The implication in the report is clearly that more deadly areas were underrepresented, but were more distant (possibly safe) areas also selected against because of the level of risk required to reach them? Were teams of Shia (resp. Sunii) doctors afraid to enter areas where they thought themselves unwelcome? Did coalition roadblocks or bombing campaigns lead to certain areas of the country being off-limits? I find it very troubling that while the authors of the article go out of their way to mention anecdotes like the fact that households where everyone was killed were not counted, and that some interviewees may have been afraid to admit that they have had family members killed, this essential bit of information ("how often were the survey teams forced to deviate from the pre-determined cluster, and what procedures did they implement to attempt to insure that an equally representative cluster was selected") was left out of both the article, and the appendices (at the versions I've found. I'd appreciate it greatly if someone could point me to this information, if it's published.) Once again, it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that any deviations would lead the estimates to be low (this is clearly the authors' implication in their wording: "if they perceived the level of insecurity or risk to be unacceptable"), but any deviations of this sort remove the survey from the realm of statistical science, into the realm of conjecture, anecdote or advocacy. E) Given the freedom apparently allowed the survey teams to deviate from pre-selected cluster sites, and to determine the starting point for the cluster (on the street), as well as the above-mentioned concerns about veracity, the fact that there were only two survey teams involved in the entire survey, and that these teams had only two days of training, leads to the fact that any selection bias introduced by the survey teams will skew the results greatly, all in the same direction. If there were many teams, we might expect that some might be making selections that (consciously or unconsciously) minimize the reported number of deaths, while others might be making selections that maximize them, and others might be making selections that were essentially neutral. Given that there were only two teams, these biases have much less chance of canceling each other out, and much greater risk of increasing the actual margin for error. Dr. Donald Berry, the chairman of the Applied Statistics and Bioscience Department at the University of Texas-Austin, put it this way: "Selecting clusters and households that are representative and random is enormously difficult. Moreover, any bias on the part of the interviewers in the selection process would occur in every cluster and would therefore be magnified. The authors point out the possibility of bias, but they do not account for it in their report." (see link below) 3. The analysis of the results: Here's where the article is apparently on its most solid ground, but since none of the methodology involved in the analysis has been published, it's hard to say. I'm guessing that this would be what any peer review would concentrate on, and given the quality of statistical software, it's hard to make mistakes in statistical analysis. I'd be surprised if there were any grave flaws in analysis that I could uncover made by a PhD in statistics, which I definitely am not. As Mark Chu-Carrol notes at GoodMath/BadMath, it's surprisingly in this area where most of the attacks have concentrated, and, consequently why most of the attacks can be dismissed as failures on the critics' part to understand statistics. Be that as it may, the authors do provide enough detail for me to find one criticism in their analysis, which they themselves allude to, but attempt to minimize: "The population data used for cluster selection were at least 2 years old, and if populations subsequently migrated from areas of high mortality to those with low mortality, the sample might have over-represented the high-mortality areas." "[I]nternal population movement would be less likely to affect results appreciably [than emigration from Iraq.]" As I pointed out in an earlier post (Part VI), the effects of faulty population estimates (due to massive internal migration) can have considerable impact on the extrapolations, because they have essentially double impact -first in making some more violent areas more likely to be sampled than their current populations would warrant, and then again, in calculating the estimates, since the same inflated numbers would be used to multiply out the projected values. Supporters of this study have latched onto this criticism, accepting it (for the sake of the argument) and then pointing out that even still, it would only lower estimates by a few percent (even lowering it by 25% would still leave the estimates many times higher than others, after all), and so I was a bit hesitant to bring it up, as providing an opportunity to ignore the other concerns that, if valid, go to the heart of any legitimacy whatsoever for this study. But, since I noticed it, and it seems a true potential for error, I'm pointing it out, again. My purpose, throughout this critique, is not to claim that particular errors in the study would lead the reported results to be too high, or too low, or balance out. As I always tell my students, if you really knew the effect of a bias, there'd be no need to do the study to begin with. You could just use your amazing reasoning powers and puzzle out how many deaths there really have been in Iraq, due to the Coalition's actions, and then yell at everybody about how smart you are, and then they'd all believe you. My purpose is to point out the places where this study failed to use good statistical methodology, and to show up evidence that leads me to conclude that the survey teams' reports, themselves, are suspect. These suspicions (about the survey teams) are not necessarily grounds to deduce intentional bias. From personal experience, I know that many amateur data collectors under-report the difficulties they have in obtaining responses, believing that a higher non-response rate reflects negatively on their own skills, and over-report things like how many deaths they were able to validate by certificate for the same reason. Further, the less thorough the interview process, and I' ve pointed out how quickly they must have been conducted, the more the interviewers' biases influence the reported responses, even when the survey teams believe they are recording the results fairly. Finally, given the extremely high sectarian tensions in Iraq, it would seem unlikely that a mere two teams of 4 physicians each, given a high degree of selection autonomy, would produce unquestionably unbiased results under the hectic conditions they were experiencing in Iraq. Two final notes about those death certificates: 1. The authors, it seems to me, do a good job of explaining why we would expect to see a high discrepancy between the number of death certificates that family can produce, and the number of officially recorded deaths at the national level. What they do not address, is why no attempt was made to double-check the totals locally, at least in areas of less chaos. This would have provided a good check on the representativeness of their sample. Steven Moore makes a similar point, regarding basic demographic information (which a bunch of his critics in the blogs have misunderstood entirely.) Had the surveyors conducted a basic survey of demographic data per household (men, women, old, young, whatever), this could have been used to compare with the other population estimates to get a check on whether their particular clusters were, at least in these respects, representative. Instead, they were left, far too often, with no legitimate means of checking for representativeness of a particular cluster. 2. The question must be addressed as to whether there would be any incentive for Iraqis to falsify death certificates. I don't know the answer to this. But it is an important question. Given the corruption, chaos and confusion that is a fact of life in Iraq today, it would be very easy to forge death certificates, and if there is any market for such forged documents, we must assume that they exist in great numbers. Are coalition forces making cash payments for collateral deaths? Are families hiding members for their own safety by falsifying death records? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it would be foolish to accept the validity of the certificates without an analysis of the incentive to falsify them. Again, I speak from experience with West African nations, where the levels of corruption and confusion are probably not as high as currently in Iraq, but where, if there's a need for an official document, it can always be created, for the right price. ******************
I reckon this is just from someone's blog site==it seems they only copied this to their files for posterity lest PTB get it removed or something.....sorry that it isn't from the white house site--I don't have a url for them! :( For the record, I've retained the url for the site I found this at. Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17424- 2003Jul19.html White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes Gist Was Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes President Bush said twice in September that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes. (Larry Downing -- Reuters) By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page A01 The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say. The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given." The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable. The White House embraced the claim, from a British dossier on Iraq, at the same time it began to promote the dossier's disputed claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa. Bush administration officials last week said the CIA was not consulted about the claim. A senior White House official did not dispute that account, saying presidential remarks such as radio addresses are typically "circulated at the staff level" within the White House only. Virtually all of the focus on whether Bush exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's weapons ambitions has been on the credibility of a claim he made in the Jan. 28 State of the Union address about efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But an examination of other presidential remarks, which received little if any scrutiny by intelligence agencies, indicates Bush made more broad accusations on other intelligence matters related to Iraq. For example, the same Rose Garden speech and Sept. 28 radio address that mentioned the 45-minute accusation also included blunt assertions by Bush that "there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." This claim was highly disputed among intelligence experts; a group called Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish- controlled northern Iraq and Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who could have been in Iraq, were both believed to have al Qaeda contacts but were not themselves part of al Qaeda. Bush was more qualified in his major Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati, mentioning al Qaeda members who got training and medical treatment from Iraq. The State of the Union address was also more hedged about whether al Qaeda members were in Iraq, saying "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." Bush did not mention Iraq in his radio address yesterday. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), delivering the Democratic radio address, suggested that the dispute over the uranium claim in the State of the Union "is about whether administration officials made a conscious and very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of the threat that Iraq posed to America." Levin said there is evidence the uranium claim "was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations by the intelligence community and administration officials in the buildup to the war." The 45-minute accusation is particularly noteworthy because of the furor it has caused in Britain, where the charge originated. A parliamentary inquiry determined earlier this month that the claim "did not warrant the prominence given to it in the dossier, because it was based on intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The inquiry also concluded that "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established." As it turns out, the 45-minute charge was not true; though forbidden weapons may yet be found in Iraq, an adviser to the Bush administration on arms issues said last week that such weapons were not ready to be used on short notice. The 45-minute allegation did not appear in the major speeches Bush made about Iraq in Cincinnati in October or in his State of the Union address, both of which were made after consultation with the CIA. But the White House considered the 45-minute claim significant and drew attention to it the day the British dossier was released. Asked if there was a "smoking gun" in the British report, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Sept. 24 highlighted that charge and the charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa. "I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information." The White House use of the 45-minute charge is another indication of its determination to build a case against Hussein even without the participation of U.S. intelligence services. The controversy over the administration's use of intelligence has largely focused on claims made about the Iraqi nuclear program, particularly attempts to buy uranium in Africa. But the accusation that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack on a moment's notice was significant because it added urgency to the administration's argument that Hussein had to be dealt with quickly. Using the single-source British accusation appears to have violated the administration's own standard. In a briefing for reporters on Friday, a senior administration official, discussing the decision to remove from the Cincinnati speech an allegation that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, said CIA Director George J. Tenet told the White House that "for a presidential speech, the standard ought to be higher than just relying upon one source. Oftentimes, a lot of these things that are embodied in this document are based on multiple sources. And in this case, that was a single source being cited, and he felt that that was not appropriate." The British parliamentary inquiry reported this month that the claim came from one source, and "it appears that no evidence was found which corroborated the information supplied by the source, although it was consistent with a pattern of evidence of Iraq's military capability over time. Neither are we aware that there was any corroborating evidence from allies through the intelligence- sharing machinery. It is also significant that the US did not refer to the claim publicly." The report said the investigators "have not seen a satisfactory answer" to why the government gave the claim such visibility. Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.
****************** http://medpundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/iraqi-death-toll.html That Lancet Article: A survey researcher says that the Lancet's Iraqi death toll research is bogus, and explains just where the researchers deviated from the standards. Most shocking is his interaction with the lead researcher: Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are. Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million. When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored. It's the student's fault! Isn't it always? With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census. Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census. And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions. Either Dr. Roberts and his colleagues didn't know how to set up a research survey correctly or they set it up deliberately to be inaccurate, knowing that few in the media or general public would know enough to challenge them. Or maybe they let the student design and carry out the whole study without supervision. Either way, it reflects badly on them. (By the way, my original post has been updated a few times with more links to questions about the survey.) UPDATE: More interesting background on the lead researcher, Dr. Les Roberts, via Tim Blair - he's a very active Democrat. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Democrat. It's just that it raises suspicion about the motives of both his methods and his timing in its publication. Wouldn't it be a different story altogether if the headline were not "Public Health Researcher Estimates Iraqi Death Toll at 650,000" but "Democratic Office Seeker Estimates Iraqi Death Toll..."? UPDATE II: Beware of politicians (and public health types) preaching morals. UPDATE III: There's also this interview with another author of the study, Gilbert Burnham: Burnham: This was a"cohort' study, which means we compared household deaths after the invasion with deaths before the invasion in the same households. The death rates for these comparison households was 5.5/1000/yr. What we did find for the households as a pre-invasion death rate was essential the same number as we found in 2004, the same number as the CIA gives and the estimate for Iraq by the US Census Bureau. Death rates are a function of many things - not just health of the population. One of the most important factors in the death rate is the number of elderly in the population. Iraq has few, and a death rate of 5.5/1000/yr in our calculation (5.3 for the CIA), the USA is 8 and Sweden is 11. This is an indication of how important the population structures are in determining death rates. (You might Google"population pyramid' and look at the census bureau site - fascinating stuff.) PajamasMedia: During the same period, Iraq is at war with Iran and itself. Public-health infrastructure was poor, although perhaps not as poor as today. Does it seem plausible to you that the baseline (or pre-war) mortality rate is accurate? Burnham: Yes as above. Yes as being the right number, and Yes as what we need it for - comparisons in the same households before the war. Not to mention when entire families are wiped out by a totalitarian government, no one is left to tell the tale. PajamasMedia: The Lancet Study comes up with a post-war mortality rate almost double that Saddam's Iraq. In fact, it is roughly equivalent to the mortality rate in Hungary is 13/1000. Does that rate seem plausible, given Hungary's superior infrastructure and almost 50 continous years of peace? Is it possible that both the pre- and post-war mortality rates are too low? Why not? Burnham: There are many old people in Hungary , 40% are over age 55 vs. 9.3% in Iraq over 55. That's the difference. Doesn't 9.3% sound like an awfully small percentage? What happened to all of those Iraqis who would be in late middle age and old age now? Did they emigrate? Or did something more nefarious happen to them? PajamasMedia: Historical comparisons might be helpful here. 650,000 violent deaths is about 150,000 more than the number of soldiers who died (violently and by disease) during the American Civil War, a conflict which involved a population larger than Iraq's, and lasted a year than the current conflict has been going on. There is nothing in Iraq that looks like Shiloh, Antietam, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, etc. What makes you believe that Iraq is deadlier than the American Civil War? Burnham: What we are reporting is cumulative deaths over a 40 month period throughout an area of 26.1 million, not a 1-2 day battle field event. Maybe he was tired or rushed when he read that question, but he certainly didn't answer it. *************
I'm surprised that Original_Intent has scolded you for appealing to authority. Why are you having trouble actually addressing the specific criticisms made in post #123? Because there isn't a way to spin those problems? Here, let me repeat those red flags, in case you missed them ... The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate (and there are half a dozen others). That should raise a red flag. The report and peer reviewers ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimate derived by other organizations (such as the UN and WHO) in much larger studies. And these were estimates that the Lancet had endorsed as accurate previously. And this number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. That should raise a red flag. According to the report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid there should be death certificates available for 92 percent of the 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by anti-Bush, anti-war media sources have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. What they found were numbers closer to those other, much lower estimates. That should raise a red flag. The author of the article and the studies has publically stated he disliked Bush and the war, released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP, and admitted that those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. That should raise a red flag. The Lancet, your premiere medical journal, not only failed in its *peer* review to question why specific numbers used in the study were so vastly different than numbers from previous, larger studies that they had previously blessed, they also reported the deaths as being comprised solely of civilians when the study made no such claim. It doesn't appear as if they even read the study. And they admitted that the peer review process was greatly abbreviated so that the results could be published in time to influence the election. That should raise a red flag. Then we have the behavior of the lead researchers and anti-war left in promoting the study. When interviewers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), Les Roberts and others on his team made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. That is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer. http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=440 "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of them. And Les Roberts did the same thing in an interview . That should raise a red flag. In the interview URLed above, Garfield stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Get that? 200 a month, in one of the biggest and most violent regions in the country. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 were dying each month in the country since the war began. That should raise a red flag. And by the way, Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts study interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't he address that disparity? That should raise a red flag. And the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Robert's study? That should raise a red flag. And there is more. There is NO physical evidence to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are not US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. That should raise a red flag. In fact, take Dahr Jamail as an example. He's viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents. Here is his website: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/ "Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself. His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, the Guardian and the Independent to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into French, Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish. On radio as well as television, Dahr reports for Democracy Now!, the BBC, and numerous other stations around the globe. Dahr is also special correspondent for Flashpoints. Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country." You go ahead and look on his website for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. That should raise a red flag. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. That should raise a red flag. Then there are problems with specific numbers in the studies. For example, the number of dead their methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering ... so ridiculous ... that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses. Some of the families probably fled, but many are probably dead. Of those families sticking around in Fallujah, a quarter lost a family member in the few months leading up to the interview." That should raise a red flag. And if you were paying attention, you would know that were I to take the time I could easily double the number of red flags based on the content of my last ten posts. Maybe I'll do that in the future. ROTFLOL!
Dawggone it.............this ain't from the white house files either, but maybe it will work......its from some organization.....I've also kept the url for this--just in case. As it relates to the comments at the bottom of this article, I thought about whacking them off--but then I thought, 'oh what the hell--at least these are known entities--its not like they write some blog on the world wide web! Media Matters for America Details False Claims Made by Bush Administration Regarding Iraq's WMDs Third Anniversary of Iraq War Serves as Grim Reminder of Falsehoods that Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq March 17, 2006 (Washington, DC) -- March 19th will mark the third anniversary of the Iraq War. The occasion is sure to spark coverage of the false Bush administration statements about the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath of the invasion. In response to assertions by media figures, including Bill O'Reilly, that President Bush's pre-war claims had been vindicated, Media Matters for America compiled several examples of claims made by Bush regarding Iraq's weapons capability. In each of these cases, his unequivocal assertions were not only found to have been false, but determined to not have been justified by the intelligence available at the time. Iraq's aluminum tubes were intended to enrich uranium In an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush told his audience, "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." The "evidence" he went on to cite included the claim that Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." More than three months later, in his 2003 State of the Union address, the president repeated this claim: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." But in contrast to Bush's firm statements, the various U.S. intelligence agencies disagreed over the purpose of the aluminum tubes -- a dispute that the president was well aware of. While the CIA concluded that the tubes were suitable to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs, both Department of Energy (DOE) experts and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had dissented from this view. These agencies' position that the tubes were "poorly suited" for uranium enrichment was included in the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress in October 2002. Prior to his October 7 speech, the CIA delivered to the president a one-page summary of the NIE's findings, which noted that DOE and INR believed the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," rather than a nuclear bomb. Despite this disagreement, he and other administration officials went on to repeatedly cite the tubes as solid evidence that Iraq's nuclear program had been revived. Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But months earlier, the CIA had voiced serious doubts about the basis for the uranium assertion and implored administration officials not to include it in Bush's speeches. Specifically, the agency sent two memos to the White House expressing such doubts. Further, then-CIA director George J. Tenet directly asked then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley not to use the claim. INR similarly responded in the October NIE that claims of Iraq seeking to purchase nuclear material from Africa were "highly dubious." These warnings led the administration to remove a uranium reference from the October 2002 Cincinnati speech. Nonetheless, they included the claim in the 2003 State of the Union. On July 22, 2003, Hadley took responsibility for the administration's use of the claim in Bush's State of the Union address. He acknowledged, "I should have asked that the 16 words be taken out." Iraq possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons In an October 5, 2002, radio address, Bush asserted that "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." In his speech in Cincinnati two days later, he unequivocally declared that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." Months later, on March 6, 2003, the president further claimed that "Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents." But the intelligence did not justify the president's unequivocal claims. For example, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report published the in September 2002 had found "no reliable information" to substantiate the claim that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. Moreover, while the intelligence community believed Iraq possessed biological agents that could be quickly produced and weaponized, the October NIE made clear that the agencies lacked hard evidence to back up this assumption: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." Iraq's unmanned drones could attack enemies near and far In the year preceding the war, the president and other senior administration officials repeatedly emphasized the threat of Iraq mounting an attack on U.S. soil as a major rationale for war. In the October 7 speech, for example, Bush claimed that Iraq had a fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president declared. But the ability of these drones to carry out such attacks was a matter of dispute among intelligence agencies. While the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had endorsed the view that the Iraqi UAVs could be used by Iraq to attack its neighbors and possibly the United States, analysts at the U.S. Air Force -- which controls the U.S. fleet of UAVs -- dissented from this view in the October 2002 NIE. They contended that the planes were unarmed reconnaissance drones -- a conclusion endorsed by analysts at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. But months later, Bush continued to cite the UAVs as a threat to the United States. On February 6, 2003, he said, "Iraq has developed spray devices that could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach hundreds of miles inland." Iraq would mount unprovoked attack on U.S. Moreover, the president's broader claims suggesting Iraq's ability to attack the U.S. without provocation overlooked the intelligence community's unanimous conclusion that the likelihood of such an attack was minimal. The NIE stated that an Iraqi attack on the U.S. would likely only occur if "Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable." Moreover, the NIE classified the confidence level for this judgment as "low." INR went a step further, concluding that Hussein was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent." As with the intelligence community's conflicted assessments concerning the purpose of the aluminum tubes, the president was directly informed in January 2003 of the widely-held view that Iraq was unlikely to consider attacking the U.S. unless attacked first. Despite having read the intelligence agencies' assessment of the threat, Bush said on February 25, 2003, "The risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction, far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take." In his 2003 State of the Union address, he continued to emphasize the risk of an unprovoked Iraqi attack. "The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country," he said in the speech. "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it." Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes On September 26, 2002, President Bush repeated a claim put forth by British intelligence that "the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." On September 28, he again made the claim in his weekly radio address. But the administration chose not to consult the CIA before making this assertion. If they had, however, they would have learned that two weeks earlier, the agency had objected to the claim that Iraq could mount an attack so quickly. In discussions with the British government, the CIA had noted that the claim was based on a single, unreliable source and had advised British intelligence to remove it from a dossier they had compiled on Iraq's weapons capability. Who is the liar? The above examples support the argument that in 2002 and 2003 the Bush administration often disregarded the misgivings among the intelligence community about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq. Whether senior Iraqi generals believed that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs does not change the fact that the many in the U.S. intelligence community doubted he did and that the Bush administration chose to ignore them. This is the argument that many have made: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): In a November 1, 2005, floor statement, Reid referred to how the Bush administration "consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts" in making the case for war. "Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate," Reid said. "But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false." Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-IL): In the "Additional Views" section of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 report on prewar intelligence, Sen. Durbin, along with Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-NY) and Carl Levin (D-MI), described Bush's claims that Iraq could launch an attack in as little as 45 minutes as an example of how the administration "repeatedly overstated what the Intelligence Community assessed at the time." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA): In a March 5, 2004, speech, Kennedy cited Bush's claims concerning the aluminum tubes. He responded: "In fact, as we now know, the intelligence community was far from unified on Iraq's nuclear threat. The administration attempted to conceal that fact by classifying the information and the dissents within the intelligence community until after the war, even while making dramatic and excessive public statements about the immediacy of the danger. ... The evidence so far leads to only one conclusion. What happened was not merely a failure of intelligence, but the result of manipulation and distortion of the intelligence and selective use of unreliable intelligence to justify a decision to go to war. The administration had made up its mind, and would not let stubborn facts stand in the way." Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "The facts speak for themselves," Kerry said in a November 14, 2005, floor statement. "The White House has admitted that the president told Congress and the American public in the State of the Union address that Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the CIA specifically told the Administration three times, in writing and verbally, not to use this intelligence. [...] This is not relying on faulty intelligence, as Democrats did; it is knowingly, and admittedly, misleading the American public on a key justification for going to war." Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): In an October 24, 2005, floor statement, Leahy said, "We know that the key public justifications for the war -- to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and supporting al Qaeda -- were based on faulty intelligence and outright distortions and have been thoroughly discredited." Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean: In a July 12, 2003, CNN interview, Dean cited Bush's uranium claim as evidence that he misled the country into war with Iraq. "The big deal is not so much that we went to war over a deal between Iraq and Niger which didn't exist and that the administration knew ahead of time it didn't exist," he said. "The big deal is the credibility of the United States of America and the credibility of the president in telling the American people the truth and the rest of the world the truth." Former President Jimmy Carter: In his book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Simon & Schuster, November 2005), Carter wrote that the Bush administration was determined to attack Iraq using "false and distorted claims after 9/11." More information can be found at http://www.mediamatters.org.
Your spam is showing, BAC! Whatever the number of civilians killed - they were all American War Crime casualties - add the wounded, crippled and orphaned. That's no small number; whatever it may be. Your parade of distracting details is on the brink of "un-interesting."
On September 26, 2002, President Bush repeated a claim put forth by British intelligence that "the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." On September 28, he again made the claim in his weekly radio address. nice find
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush thanks BAC for posting. You're the only real celebrity who posts here. and thanks for letting Minerva have your picture (BAC's picture is in #350)
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
You-who, BeAChooser, your input is requested on another discussion thread.
It doesn't say that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Yawn. I could prove I was the king of Mars were I to pull facts out of my butt the way you are doing above. You are still posting the same stuff from the same kook blogs. You and hiding your misinterpretation of some other very questionable sources behind spam. If you you had a reputable and specific quote that supported your crap, you would post it with a reference and let it speak for itself. I know that. Everyone else on the site knows that, the lurkers know that and some drunk passed out in an alley in Outer Mongolia probably knows that too. Instead of doing this, you give us the same crap as before with ten pages of blater to window dress it. BAC, I can tell just how worthless your argument is by how long your post is. The longer the post, the more you have to hide and the more you are skating on bullshit. It always works that way with you. It NEVER varies. The BAC bullshit index moves in direct proportion to the length of the post. Goldi was right when she booted your ass for being a an irrational nut. You really are a kook.
.
OK, here is what you've given us so far: 1. Links that were not what you claimed them to be which you tried to dishonesly fob off on us as "proof" of your kookery. 2. Either cherry picked quotes from studies that were not on point or allegations that studies not on point somehow supported your kookery - without the benefit of a supporting quote. 3. Lots and lots of links to one or two kook blogs which you have been told time and time again no rational person accepts as being of equal diginity with Johns Hopkins or even being legit. 4. Reams of long, black rambling, ranting, kooky paragraphs explaining how the SHIT above somehow proves up your kookery. Using what you have provided I can pull the following inferences: 1. You have nothing matching the dignity of the Johns Hopkins study with which to refute the Johns Hopkins study. 2. You don't like people considering the ramifications of the Johns Hopkins study. It bugs you. Thank you for sharing this. I will give it all the consideration I would give to the rant of any other dishonest kook.
.
One more thing. I've asked you to stop pinging me when you post the same shit and the same kook references time and time again. I told you I wasn't impressed the first time you tried this bamboozle. I told you the second time as well. I then told you the third time. Coming back with the same spam a 4th time won't have a different effect - and only kooks like you think that doing the same thing over and over will get you a different result. Don't bother to ping me if you are just going to whitewash the same shit for a 4th pass.
.
I notice that you are a nut case and that you have the time to be on the web pretty much 24/7. Are you one of those kooks on disability? That would explain a lot.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Yes it does raise a red flag.. that being that our media is controlled by none other than those who rule us.. Hmm well lemme see ...just a thought since we havent seen or the media permitted to take photos of caskets returning from Iraq other than one that was leaked.. are you then saying that the 3,000 plus number we are told died in Iraq shouldnt be believed? Then I guess there were only a few who actually died.. using this logic of yours..
The Pentagon's Secret Air War Over Iraq In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles." ... One weapon conspicuously left out of this total is rockets -- such as the 2.75-inch Hydra-70 rocket which can be outfitted with various warheads and is fired from fixed-wing aircraft and most helicopters. The number of rockets fired is withheld from the press so as, according to a CENTAF spokesman, not to "skew the tally and present an inaccurate picture of the air campaign." The number of rockets fired may be quite significant as, according to a 2005 press release issued by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who helped secure a $900 million Hydra contract from the Army for General Dynamics, "the widely used Hydra-70 rocket… has seen extensive use in Afghanistan and Iraq… [and] has become the world's most widely used helicopter-launched weapon system." ... The number of cannon rounds fired -- some models of the AC-130 gunship, for instance, have a Gatling gun that can fire up to 1,800 rounds in a single minute-- is also a closely guarded secret. The official reason given is that "special forces often use aircraft such as the AC-130" and since "their missions and operations are classified, so therefore these figures are not released." Repeated inquiries concerning another reporter's statistics on cannon rounds fired by CENTAF aircraft prompted the same official to emphatically state in an email: "WE DO NOT REPORT CANNON ROUNDS."... According to Roberts, who was last in Iraq in 2004 (where, he says, he personally witnessed "the shredding of entire blocks" in Baghdad's Sadr City by aerial cannon fire), "rocket and cannon fire could account for most coalition-attributed civilian deaths." He adds, "I find it disturbing that they will not release this [figure], but even more disturbing that they have not released such information to Congressmen who have requested it." ... Macdougall reported that the B-1B Lancer, the long- range bomber that carries the largest payload of weapons in the Air Force was, for the first time in over a year, again being employed in combat in Iraq. "These B-1 bombers were central to the raid. We're told they flew a ten-hour mission, and by the looks of their empty bomb bays, these planes dropped thousands of pounds of munitions. They bombed 25 targets deep inside Iraq," he said... I had a question for Lt. Col. Kennedy: Could he explain how CENTAF decided what was an acceptable level of civilian caualties it was willing to sacrifice for military aims? His answer: "Not in a sufficient manner that you would be happy with." ... During the Vietnam War, the United States conducted a clandestine air war in Cambodia, lied about it to the press, and hid it from the American public. In Iraq, the military has, these last years, engaged in a different kind of secretive air campaign, but their methods of keeping it a mystery appear to have certain similarities....
How is the bozo count doing Mr. Advocate? Getting close to the 50+ ban region yet?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Thanks for that information, Aviator. Lord, 650,000 Iraqi deaths maybe a lowball figure in light of what the military has used in that nation,roughly the physical size of California. This is shameful, absolutely shameful. May the neocon cabal - the IsraelFirster war pigs who propelled us into this war of lies, rot in hell for what their machinations have wrought on a people who posed absolutely zero threat to America.
Well, first of all, Roberts' survey does not say all the "excess deaths" have been directly caused by the US or its Iraqi surrogates. Roberts is saying that combat deaths of insurgents, combat deaths of noncombatant civilians, deaths from breakdown of medical system, deaths from criminal activity, deaths from Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, etc. exceed a "baseline" mortality rate by this 655,000 amount. But when we look at the money expended on the war, and the number of missions both on the ground and in the air, 100,000 dead from the war seems a ridiculously low number. At $1 trillion cost for the war, which is $ 1 million x $1 million, a total of 100,000 deaths means it costs $10 million to kill each and every person. Is there anybody out there so stupid as to allege the US military which is supposed to be the most lethal military force in human history takes $10 million for each and every dead body it produces? The answer to where is this violent activity happening is in the secret air war. They're expending huge amounts of rockets and cannon rounds which they intentionally don't report. They are also stepping up the use of B-1 bombers. There have probably been over 100,000 missions flown. Balad air base is as busy as O'Hare Airport in Chicago. As with the total cost of the war, are all these air missions being flown and nobody ever gets hurt? Give me a break.
Oh I realize that. But all of these Iraqi deaths came as a result of the US invasion. It's unlikely sectarian violence related deaths or insurgent deaths or high crime related deaths would have happened to such a monumental degree if we had not done "regime change" in March 2003. All these deaths were a direct or indirect result of our illegal and immoral invasion. There's no wiggle room for blame - we are to blame for invading a sovereign stable nation which caused all hell to break loose thereafter.
Can't resist picking on the ladies, can you BAC. Christine is good enough to let you post here & you don't have the brains to be grateful. (No surprise.)
True. As the occupying power under international law, the US is solely responsible for providing a functioning government. However it's a distortion to accuse Roberts of whipping up anti-military hysteria because of his survey and to allege the military itself killed all those 655,000.
BAC, BAC, BAC - These were all killed at the hands of American War Crimes. The numbers matter little, whatever they are. There's the bottom line, Slurpy. All your spamming can't change that.
BAC has only been here a week and I heard a rumor that more than 40 people have him on bozo. I see why Goldi booted his butt. He make a shitty front man for her party.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Who dat be who's accusing Roberts thusly? Pas moi.
Do you mind if I call you "Bozo Bait"?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Every time a clown's nose honks another bozoing takes wing. ;-)
Are you trying to say that the death rate in Iraq since this war started is no higher than in other countries who are not at war? I suppose all the American and British troops are there repairing the waste-water treatment plants and passing out flowers and cookies to the Iraqi people.
Uh.... Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates. In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice.
Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes On September 26, 2002, President Bush repeated a claim put forth by British intelligence that "the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." On September 28, he again made the claim in his weekly radio address. Very informative post which sums up a lot of the alarming false claims made to scare Americans into thinking they were in danger of being wiped out by Iraq. I remember at the time the tv was on in the other room on FOX news, and they kept repeating the word "terrorist" like they would try to use it mutliple times in each sentence. I would be on the computer but keep over-hearing, "the terrorists this, the terrorists that..." over and over and over until I was about ready to pull my hair out. This was right before the invasion when they were trying to drum up fear and a sense of urgency. Before THAT they were only referring to Islamic fundamentalists and those responsible for 911 as terrorists, but in the spring of 2003 suddenly FOX news deemed Iraqis terrorists as well. They sure do believe in lots of repetition of words and phrases to drum thoughts and ideas into peoples' heads. It doesn't work on me though, I just find it very annoying.
There are retired people and wealthy people who have more time on their hands to be fair.
The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year. Iraq has already used weapons of mass death against another country and against its own citizens. The Iraqi regime practices the rape of women as a method of intimidation, and the torture of dissenters and their children. And for more than a decade, that regime has answered Security Council resolutions with defiance and bad faith and deception. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html Radio Address by the President to the Nation Among the evil committed by the Bush regime against the Iraqi people, are the very deeds he claims Saddam's regime was committing. As Rumsfeld put it, after watching the Abu Ghraib: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14864 What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added. A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Great Bozo pic!
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush There is much more to my reason for not believing Steven Jones than his not being a metallurgist. Why try to misstate my views, Hayek? Ex-Professor Jones claims some expertise in the subjects of structures, demolition, steel, fire, concrete, impact, seismology and macro-world physics. Yet, ex-professor Jones spent his entire 30 year career studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Not once in that career did he publish a paper that had anything remotely to do with any of the topics needed to speak authoratively on the WTC. Furthermore, Professor Jones has been dishonest about a number of subjects. To give you just one example, in speaking about the molten material seen flowing out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed, he said "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." This is untrue. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11, you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from the window. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds in the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds. You'll also see it from 57 seconds to a 67 seconds. And from 74 to 75 seconds, material can be seen pouring from the corner of the tower and that material is very clearly silver, not orange. So Steven Jones is demonstrably lying. Why would you trust such a liar, Hayek? For the same reason you trust Les Roberts? No, Hayek, you know full well that I've posted over a dozen different sources on this thread alone that say Les Robert's studies are not what you and he claim. Why don't you try arguing what the blog actually says? Why don't you TRY to address the points I raised in post 123? Is the basis of your belief so thin you can't do that? Don't hide. Do you wish to claim the following points are untrue? Yes or no? By the way I've added a few based on what I discovered during the course of this thread. 1) The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate (and there are half a dozen others). Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figures are outlandish. 2. The report and peer reviewers ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimate derived by other organizations (such as the UN and WHO) in much larger studies. The UN and WHO came up with rates of 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkin's rate of 5-5.5 per 1000. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had endorsed as accurate previously. And this pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less. 3. According to the report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid there should be death certificates available for 92 percent of the 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by anti-Bush, anti-war media sources have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. What they found were numbers closer to those other, much lower estimates. To take the Johns Hopkins study seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle . And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample got 92 percent by pure chance. 4. The author of the article and the studies has publically stated he disliked Bush and the war, released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP, and admitted that those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. 5. The Lancet not only failed in its *peer* review to question why the pre-war mortality rates used in the study were so vastly different than numbers from previous, larger studies that they had previously blessed, they also reported on their own website that the deaths were comprised solely of civilians when the study made no such claim. And they admitted that the peer review process was greatly abbreviated so that the results could be published in time to influence the election. 6. When interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. That is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of them. And Les Roberts did the same thing in another interview . 7. In the interview URLed above, Garfield stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." 200 a month, in one of the biggest and most violent regions in the country. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 were dying each month in the country since the war began. 8. Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts study interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Robert's or Garfield address that disparity? And the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Robert's study? 9. There is NO physical evidence to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. 10. Dahr Jamail is an example of the above. He is viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents. Look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq, which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. 11. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. 12. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses. Some of the families probably fled, but many are probably dead. Of those families sticking around in Fallujah, a quarter lost a family member in the few months leading up to the interview." 13. The UN Development program found that the 2004 John Hopkin's study was off by about a factor of 4. Here's the UN report: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf. It says that the UN found after the first year that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level), which is approximately 1/4th the number of excess deaths the Les Robert's study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet *peer* reviewers? 14. "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" (http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066) 15. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and killed only 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years, as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities which completely flattened entire cities? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths? Who do you think you are fooling, Hayek?
Yes it does. Look on page 54 of the report. You'll find a section with the headline "War-related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000". It states that "the ILCS data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000." Now 24,000 is about 1/4th the 98,000 estimated by Roberts during the same period.
Ping to #401. ROTFLOL!
I don't see it. And how would an out of context quote from a report on another subject be relevant? This report wasn't done at the same time as the Lancet study, it wasn't done for the same purpose and wasn't done in the same manner. In addition, I am almost certain it deosn't even address the Lancet study. As I said above, you are trying to twist a non-applicable source to your purpose. It's as clever as the fake link scheme that you tried before this. But what does it prove? I mean about the argument in general - not about you. If you have any doubts here, read the table of contents of this tomb you have posted without any further reference. The focus is on something entirely different from the Lancet study. Now, unlike you I don't get disablity for being a kook. Hence, I have to focus on my work.
.
You honestly think that NO OUTLET in our media would show photos and video if they had proof the war had killed MORE THAN TEN TIMES the number that the Bush administration had said? You honestly believe that? You sure you live in the US? ROTFLOL! And by the way, how do you explain the foreign media completely failing to publish such proof if it exists? You think the French wouldn't if they had the proof? You think al-Jazerra wouldn't? And they have sources inside Iraq. Dahr Jamail is a good example. Are you saying he is controlled? ROTFLOL!
But the John Hopkins report specifically said that most Iraq deaths are NOT due to air power. My goodness. Those numbers are STAGGERING. One can see why Les Roberts thinks we've killed as many people in the last 2 years as we did during the CARPET BOMBING of Germany's cities in WW2. ROTFLOL! What you forgot to mention is that the John Hopkins reports only attributes a portion of the overall excess deaths to coalition military actions.
Did the John Hopkins report mention your side is getting its ass kicked?
Yes it does. Look on page 54 of the report. I don't see it. It doesn't say what you claim it does. But I suppose you already know that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Isn't it interesting, the number of FD4UM members who choose to bozo themselves rather than read verifiable facts? Now as far as I know, there is no such "ban region" nor do I intend to leave just because some members of FD4UM are afraid to face facts. I shall continue to post sourced facts on various threads to show that what some here are presenting as reliable truth is far from it. This thread is a good example. I posted well over a dozen sources pointing out major flaws in a study that would have you believe the Iraq war has killed twice as many people as carpet bombing of German cities killed in WW2. NOT ONE of the posters on this thread has even dared take on the facts I listed in post #123. Instead, they are bozoing themselves right and left. And to think that at one time they dared me to come over here and debate them. But it takes two to debate and so far I haven't even found one willing to do that. ROTFLOL!
Wow! I guessed your bozo number right on. I guess I flushed you out. But I haven't seen you post any facts yet. Mostly you've just blathered out some pretty strange opinions and then posted links that were not what you said they were to support them. That or some really wacky blogs that it looks like you wrote yourself. You did post one article from the UN however, but you didn't give us the specific quote or tell us why it was at all on point.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
People told you that your unsupported kooky opinion was BS. What can they do past that point?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Here you go: dead American corporate cannon fodder. "Bring 'em on" TD>
Do you how big Germany in WW2 was compared to California? Roughly 180,000 square miles. Compared to California's 164,000. So the strategic bombing of Germany took place in a country about the same size as California or Iraq. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of strategic bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II The allies dropped close to 3 million TONS of explosives on German targets during the war. With little or no concern for German civilian casualties. British bomber planes attacked Hamburg, Germany, creating a firestorm over nine square miles, reaching 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, killing 40,000. This is what Hamburg looked like after the 1943 bombing: This is what Dresden looked like during and after it's bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II "The bombing created a firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500°C (2700°F). ... snip ... A Dresden police report written shortly after the attacks stated that the old town and the inner eastern suburbs had been engulfed in a single fire which had destroyed almost 12,000 dwellings including residential barracks. The report also said that the raid had destroyed "24 banks; 26 insurance buildings; 31 stores and retail houses; 6470 shops; 640 warehouses; 256 market halls; 31 large hotels; 26 public houses; 63 administrative buildings; 3 theatres; 18 cinemas; 11 churches; 60 chapels; 50 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics; 39 schools; 5 consulates; 1 zoological garden; 1 waterworks, 1 railway facility; 19 postal facilities; 4 tram facilities; 19 ships and barges. The report also mentioned that the Wehrmacht's main command post in the Tauschenberg Palace, 19 military hospitals and a number of less significant military facilities were destroyed. Almost 200 factories were damaged, 136 seriously (including several of the Zeiss Ikon precision optical engineering works), 28 with medium to serious damage, and 35 with light damage. "British assessments ... concluded that 23 percent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,700 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged." Over 1000 British bombers attacked Cologne, Germany, devastating 600 acres, including hundreds of factories, and leaving 45,000 homeless. You starting to get the picture? You guys are claiming that the above killed far fewer people than what we've done in Iraq, mostly with gunfire. SO WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS? WHERE IS THE VIDEO? WHERE ARE THE BODIES?
And we dropped more on Vietnam and environs than total used during WWII by allies and axis combined. Does that make it right?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes. ROTFLOL!
You are one sick son of a bitch if you have that audacity to hang something like that on a stranger.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
No one said they were. But the number caused by air strikes, cited at the time of the survey, and likely has increased since then, is still a substantial number. Furthermore air power destroys infrastructure which then causes other deaths. It's clear they are using the Hydra rockets extensively. They don't give numbers for those. And that's why a single contract for them was $900 million. Also they refuse to quantify the number of cannon rounds and smaller caliber ammunition used. That's also substantial. Furthermore Balad Air Base is said to be as busy as O'Hare Airport in Chicago. Are we to believe that all those planes stacked up 10 levels high never kill anything? ROTFLOL yourself. Last but not least, when asked how the Air Force would take sufficient measures to protect civilians, their spokesman said "Not in a manner that you would be happy with." So there is clearly a reckless disregard for life, which creates an environment in which these numbers can occur. Now are Russia and Colombia more violent than Iraq? Because that's what the people denying the survey are stating.
If you don't see it on page 54, look on page 55 or page 53. Don't be lazy. It's there. Right at the top of the page on the left column. "War-Related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000. In Orange type. What I quoted was not out of context. And what the report concluded is entirely relevant. It was published shortly after the first John Hopkins' (the one claiming 100,000 deaths) study. The second John Hopkins' study (the one claiming 655,000 deaths) claims the results of the first study were found to be valid. Regardless of purpose, the study estimated war related deaths and it was in fact done in much the same manner ... through interviews, clustering, etc. The report states "The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey." And the study was based on much larger sample than the John's Hopkins' study. You are wrong. The study mentions the Lancet study on the same page. Right below the Table 39 it states "Another source (Roberts et al. 2004) estimates the number to be 98,000, with a confidence interval of 8000 to 194,000." You just can't face the possibility that the Les Roberts' study was bogus, can you. Why that would shatter your whole world-view. ROTFLOL!
You are doing the accuseing BAC, and accusseing Diana of something YOU said not her. She never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying. No honest person reading her comment could assume that. "have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?" So now you are calling it a genocide??? BAC???? Which is it, just an acceptable number of collateral damage or a genocide??? BAC?? Or does it depend on how you are trying to emote the matter at hand??
How nice of you to admit that the truth doesn't matter. Just victory for your agenda. I suppose that would make your side no different than Bush.
You make me laugh, nazi clown.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Ping to #418.
Actually, it does. Depending on how you read the page numbers, it is either on Page 53, 54 or 55. And you could have easily used the search feature of whatever application you used to open the pdf to find the quote. That's what I did. But I guess that's perhaps a skill you don't have. You are too use to being spoon fed.
Oh boy it's time for the BeAChooser Show!
Yes, that would be the American agenda, not this neocon, Zionist-driven swill you assclowns have swallowed whole. Got it, putz?
You have any idea of the payload of the B-17 compared to the payload of an F-18 or a Spectre AC-130? Of course you don't.
The source where I think you got that list of US casualties, http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx also lists Iraqi civilian deaths reported from April 28, 2005 to now as being less than 25,000. But during same period, Les Roberts and his John Hopkins team are saying that over 370,000 excess deaths occurred. You don't see a problem in that?
Go back and read my whole post and you will see how foolish you are being by putting words in my mouth.
Not the issue. The issue is whether the John Hopkins study is bogus or not. And by the way, most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities. And unlike the modern precision guided bombs, the ones dropped on Germany were dumb. That's why they carpet bombed. Cities. Yet you folks want us to believe that more Iraqis have died with the Coalition going out of its way to spare civilians than died in Germany. I think most visitors to this forum might see a flaw in that logic. And most will probably be amazed to see you folks still defending that flaw in the face of what I've posted on this thread.
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice. To which you reply: It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
illed in the war. That was the second time I’d read of the military censoring a casualty-related site. http://Memoryhole.org, the site that first showed photos of flag-draped coffins being shipped back from Iraq, said in June that one of its readers had a similar experience. GIs trying to visit that site were greeted with: Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Extreme;Politics/Religion" The Armed Forces takes great care to ensure whenever there is a casualty the family receives the information first. Non-DoD sites reporting casualty figures can lead to inaccurate information being distributed. [Note: I've put Capt. Karns’ full response is the previous post.] P.S. To its credit, the military has started to do the job it once left to http://icasualties.org: It now posts daily casualty tallies. In case it's not already clear, there are other sites blocked besides casualty count sites. Karns goes into more detail in another email: "Certain sites are blocked if access is not required to perform the individuals official duties. Components may be more strict if they deem it appropriate." When I asked what qualifies as an appropriate site, he said, "If it’s tied in to be able to have a greater understanding of world events and it’s a legitimate news source than chances are service-members will have a chance of seeing it." Of course, as I mentioned, http://icasualties.org and CNN rely on the Pentagon's own announcements. In fact, http://icasualties.org does such a thorough job that active duty officers have written in praising it. TrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pentagon Acknowledges Blocking Casualty Sites: » Free Press in Iraq from Political Animal FREE PRESS IN IRAQ....Should soldiers in Iraq have access to websites that list the number of casualties suffered in the war so far? The Pentagon doesn't think so and blocks access to all such sites. Eric Umansky has the details.... [Read More] » Pentagon learns from the CCP from The Peking Duck » Fighting for Freedom from Snow World » September 18: Today's Reason to Not Elect George W. Bush from Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog » Military censors http://icasualties.org, CNN casualty page from Infothought Tracked on September 20, 2004 at 01:55 AM » Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites from vowe dot net Eric Umansky reports:Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that compiles casualty figures for Americans Iraq, as well as CNN33;s page on servicemembers killed in t... [Read More] » Ask About That from Ask About That » Time>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">Time is not on my side from Uranus sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
HAH!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
So you admit 600,000 bodies are missing. What did they do with these bodies then, you must know since you know exactly how many are missing!
Hippies make them drop bombs on jungle, I suppose...? Holy frijoles you are one stupid clod.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
He obviously knows all about it and what happened to those 600,000 bodies, he's busted!
your argument in 412 is brilliant BAC. You've won this one. The US & UK bombed germany during WW2 and therefore - the Johns Hopkins study showing that 650,000 Iraqis died since the invasion who otherwise would not have died without the invasion is false. Why didn't I think of that? My awe for your reasoning powers is fully restored after you stumbled on the 911 thread a few days ago.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
And what might that be, bedwetter?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Yes, I see the problem. The ratio of dead INVADERS to innocent Iraqi civilians should be reversed.
Actually I simply asked her questions. She tried to explain away the fact that there is NO physical evidence to support the allegation that 655,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq through July of last year by stating "In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later." Now maybe you don't see that as assertion that our soldiers must be involved in covering up the bulk of that death but I think most people will. And I think most will understand my logic in suggesting it would take quite a few soldiers to hide all that evidence and keep reporters away. And soldiers being soldiers, I think most will agree that by now all soldiers in Iraq would know this is going on. In which case, they must be keeping it quiet. Which can only make them accessories to the crime. Right? She certainly implied someone connected to our government is doing the burying. If not our soldiers, WHO? And how could anyone hide what they were doing from our soldiers? Sorry, but I think it is highly illogical to believe that this scale of attrocity (which, by the way, it greater than the one Saddam was accused of) is going on without our soldiers being aware of it and therefore complicit.
Actually it doesn't. But it does serve your purpose to say that it does. Wouldn't you be better off on a forum where people didn't click your links and chek them out? You could then just go back to posting bullshit links like you were doing at the top of this thread. Wouldn't that be easier?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Maybe if you posted another link selling magazine subscriptions people would fall for your BS. You might as well try it. You are not getting anywhere with what you are doing now.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice. To which you reply: It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position? Diana posted on 2007-02-19 20:48:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply He sat in that one.
BAC I an happy to have an honest questioner of the events as presented. I am sure we can both find common ground in finding the mass media wanting in accuracy and depth.
She certainly implied someone connected to our government is doing the burying. Proof. Even remote proof may be allowed. I am not against your POV, I , as I have to assume you are thirsty for the truth.
so when are you going to give us your ron brown kookery? it's been a more than a full week now.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
nice pictures, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in china? you posted some more bogus links and you are trying to distract people?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I take it we are to believe that the bio and chem weaponry would be launched on the back of sand fleas which would/could magically fly or float on wind streams from over there to over here? The disinfo from the admin is only surpassed by your feeble attempts to baffle with bullshit.
BAC's argument in #412 is brilliant. Who would've figured that out (except BAC) that because the allies bombed Dresden during WW2 the John Hopkins study is false. Who would've ever figured that out? And I'm afraid that now with the Dresden argumnent in BAC's arsenal he can defeat us all in any argument about any subject. All he has to do is bring up the FACT that the allies bombed germany during WW2 and this can disprove any assertion that anyone makes about anything. I think we're going to have to put up with BAC winning all arguments from now on.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It's hopeless to argue with a person who can't distinguish lies from the truth, and won't recognize other people's points, just distorts their words to fit his agenda. He's simply rude and dishonest to the core. There is no reasoning with him. I have to wonder if he relates to everyone this way, or if he is some type of supremecist, for whom he has a different set of standards when he is among them. Somehow I suspect this guy is this way with everyone though, he's devoid of conscience, a hopeless sociopath. BAC since you think lurkers are so impressed with you and what you have to say (not), why don't you go post at DU? That is a much larger forum, I'm sure there would so many more people over there to impress with your brilliant dishonesty. This is a small forum and not many people read here. You would have such a greater audience over at DU, imagine the number of people you would manage to sway to your way of thinking. I would consider making the switch so you could reach more people.
Oh! Got a problem with the 4um posters, eh BAC? Ever consider the term "Hospitality?" There's a reciprocal relationship implied - something about common sense manners. {Christine, is it time for BAC to go? Should there be a vote?}
You're such a sweet person, Diana. Thanking for being such an outstanding example of FD4UM members.
Gee, SKYDRIFTER, I thought you welcomed the opportunity to debate me here at FD4UM. I distinctly remember whole threads devoted to the topic of my not daring to come over here and do that. And as any reader of this forum can see, I've been very courteous. No labels, no name calling. Just sourced facts and logic that don't seem to jibe with some of the articles and *facts* FD4UMers have been posting. Now FD4UMers could debate those facts and logic with credible sourced articles and logic of your own. But you haven't done that. Instead, the general response has been to use the bozo filter in large numbers and call for my banning. Along with throwing out mountains of adhominems. That's rather suggestive of a group that does not want to be challenged about what it claims. Don't you think?
You may have a point but: Hell, he can't hurt us with black pixels on a screen and we know what he is and where he stands (intellectual prostitute). I say let him stay, I find his comments entertaining, comical and borderline lunacy. Even if, because of his agenda we can't "wake him up", it's still better than "preaching to the choir".
No one is attempting to misstate you views. Contrary to what you may believe, I did not make it a habit of reading every single post you made at LP. I did however, read some of them. The one I remember reading had to do with him not being a metallurgist. If there was more, so be it. One thing is for sure though and that is that Professor Jones has at least as much credibility as the worthless blogs you've been spamming this thread with. No, Hayek, you know full well that I've posted over a dozen different sources on this thread alone that say Les Robert's studies are not what you and he claim. Why don't you try arguing what the blog actually says? Why don't you TRY to address the points I raised in post 123? Is the basis of your belief so thin you can't do that? Don't hide. Do you wish to claim the following points are untrue? Yes or no? By the way I've added a few based on what I discovered during the course of this thread. I cannot argue what the blogs say because I don't know the faintest thing about epidemiology and my one business statistics class was more than twenty years ago. I am not qualified to make an argument one way or another. The basis of my belief is that the Johns Hopkins School of Public Heath is the number one ranked school of public health in the world. Unlike yourself, I do not believe that they would risk that prestige in order to score political points against the Bush administration. Administrations come and go. The school has a reputation to uphold. If you want to take the word of unknown bloggers BAC, then hey, knock yourself out. If you want to take the word of the UN as gospel, then once again, BAC, knowck yourself out. I don't care. I choose not to and you've not convinced me that the Lancet study was some political gotcha against Bush. As I've stated before, if the questions you ask were valid, then that information would not have to be disseminated in unknown blogs but instead would be made public as studies in peer reviewed journals. Now I'm done with this conversation. You've said what you had to say and I've said what I've had to say.
Anybody that followed this administration into war based on lies is bereft of facts and logic.
No labels, no name calling. ..... fear is good! BAC, if anyone wanted to call you a lying piece of shit, they would have to stand in line. But, you don't seem to learn. In any case, thank you for being so obvious.
#2. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
top ten worst dictators
#3. To: leveller, ALL (#0)
And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.
#4. To: BeAChooser, ALL (#3)
Where are the missing death certificates? About 500,000, if one subtracts out the non-violent deaths. For that matter, where are the missing bodies? Where is ANY hard proof (photographic, video, eyewitness reports by journalists, ANYTHING) to prove over 600,000 people have died from violent causes as claimed?
#5. To: leveller, robin, Burkeman1, Brian S, bluedogtxn (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
#6. To: scrapper2 (#5)
#7. To: leveller (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths.
#8. To: leveller, all (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
#9. To: scrapper2, ALL (#5)
Excellent response. I've always been troubled by similar number crunching bean counters who miss the forest for the trees in their attempt tp rationalize our attack on a defenseless nation.
it matters not whether the figure is 650,000 or 1
#10. To: bluedogtxn, all (#7)
The figure of 50-60,000 is bullshit. Pure-D, grade-A, double-dipped bullshit. We know this because the bodies are stacked in the morgues and there's no place to put them. We know this because people are burying their dead in their back yards.
The Lancet study was peer reviewed.
We've been led into another Vietnam by an incompetent and dishonest collection of vile frauds and profiteers.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#8)
At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
#12. To: BeAChooser (#10)
True or not, you will not achieve anything better if the foundation of your better world is lies.
#13. To: BeAChooser (#3)
has an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda
#14. To: bluedogtxn (#12)
True or not, you will not achieve anything better if the foundation of your better world is lies.
#15. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#3)
#16. To: SmokinOPs (#14)
You caught that too, huh?
#17. To: Loopy (#15)
Christine, I'd respectfully represent that you'd be bettor off without this traitorous scum stinking the place up.
#18. To: kiki (#13)
the fact that we kill and don't even know who or how many is disgraceful.
#19. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
#20. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
#21. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, scrapper2 who is scrapper1? (#8)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#22. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#20)
#23. To: BeAChooser (#8)
At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
#24. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
#25. To: leveller (#21)
There actually is no proof that those 50,000 dead civilians were innocent!
#26. To: Loopy, Christine (#15)
Why is this thing here? I thought this website reserved the right to keep the trash out? It won't be long before more of these lie spouting Bushbots start infecting the place. Debating with these amoral creeps is pointless.
#27. To: bluedogtxn (#17)
let it speak
#28. To: leveller (#21)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#29. To: leveller (#27)
LOL
#30. To: SmokinOPs (#25)
There actually is no proof that those 50,000 dead civilians were innocent!
#31. To: ... (#24)
1. No partisan kook sites.
#32. To: leveller (#30)
You know, since Saddam got the death penalty for a possibly fictitious gassing of a couple hundred Kurds, 50G deaths seems just as criminal as 650G.
#33. To: bluedogtxn (#7)
There are no WMDs
#34. To: leveller (#33)
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?).
#35. To: leveller (#33)
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?).
#36. To: Burkeman1 (#34)
#37. To: leveller, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, All (#0)
#38. To: leveller (#26)
#39. To: SKYDRIFTER (#37)
Whatever the figure of dead and crippled; it's a huge figure, wrapped in the shame of the Bush Cabal War Crimes.
#40. To: Loopy, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#38)
BeOcho was no man
He claimed to be a loner
But it just couldn't last
BeOcho left his brain inside of a trash can
To become another raving ass
Get BAC to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, get BAC
Get BAC to where his trash belongs
Get back BeOcho
Back to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, get BAC
Back to where his trash belongs
Ooh, get back, BeOcho
But looked like an ugly man
All who knew her said she had it comin'
But she had her one true fan
But she got BAC to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, she got BAC
Slammed BAC to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, Goldi
Got BAC to where his trash belongs
Yeah she got BAC, she got BAC
Got BAC to where his trash belongs
You’re his mummy; he's waiting just for you
Wearing spiked heel shoes
And that low neck sweater
Get BAC to his home Goldi
Get BAC to where his trash belongs
Yeah get BAC, get BAC!
#41. To: leveller, scrapper2 (#21)
scrapper2 who is scrapper1?
#42. To: BeAChooser (#10)
#43. To: Morgana le Fay (#42)
beachy, we are still waiting for the ron brown kookery. are you going to put up or not?
#44. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#11)
"At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?"
Number has nothing to do with it.
It's obvious by now, to anyone who is not a Bushbot, that the Administration lied about Iraq being a "terrorist haven"
lied about "weapons of mass destruction"
lied about any connection between Iraq and 9-11
As for making sure Iraq couldn't be used as a safe haven, what the fuck do you think it is now?
There hasn't been a single good thing accomplished here.
He was no threat to us
when WE greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait.
Iraq is the terrier's recruiting poster.
Young Saudis are catching rides to Iraq just so they can take a shot at a real-live US GI.
#45. To: kiki (#13)
an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda would actually be a pro-peace agenda
those numbers represent actual people whose lives were cut short for no good reason.
the fact that we kill and don't even know who or how many is disgraceful.
#46. To: leveller, ALL (#21)
It's 1938 all over again, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Wilt Chamberlain.
"To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq."
#47. To: BeAChooser (#46)
#48. To: BeAChooser (#46)
The first source that you cited in your post #3 above stated the following:
#49. To: leveller, ALL (#47)
That was Neville not Wilt.
Are you certain? Please cite your source.
#50. To: leveller, ALL (#48)
You doubt our own source?
#51. To: BeAChooser (#50)
(Edited)
#52. To: BeAChooser (#50)
#53. To: BeAChooser (#50)
#54. To: Morgana le Fay (#53)
(Edited)
#55. To: Minerva (#54)
#56. To: BeAChooser (#50)
So perhaps we can conclude that I am right in questioning the accuracy of this thread's article, "Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit".
#57. To: BeAChooser (#49)
That was Neville not Wilt.
#58. To: SKYDRIFTER (#37)
(Edited)
#59. To: christine, leveller (#41)
leveller: scrapper2 who is scrapper1?
#60. To: scrapper2 (#59)
sigh.
#61. To: scrapper2 (#59)
#62. To: leveller, ALL (#56)
Is it your position that no civilians have been killed in Iraq?
Or is it your position that those killed have not been innocent?
Or is is your position that "our leaders" have pegged the Iraqi death toll with accuracy?
#63. To: BeAChooser (#62)
(Edited)
Of course not. Why would you make such a ridiculous assertion?
#64. To: BeAChooser (#62)
the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions
#65. To: BeAChooser (#62)
the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions by you.
#66. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#64)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
#67. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#68. To: leveller (#64)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
#69. To: SmokinOPs (#63)
learn the difference between assertions and questions.
#70. To: SmokinOPs (#66)
He's not going to offer any alternatives. All he has is that it's less than Saddam was killing. You watch. It's absurd but that's where it's heading.
#71. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#69)
Distinctions so fine have no place on this thread.
#72. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#70)
Don't scare him off. He's earning overtime.
#73. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#74. To: SmokinOPs (#72)
he's going to answer your question with a question.
#75. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#62)
Of course not. However, the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions by you.
#76. To: leveller (#74)
(Edited)
While we're waiting for that question, perhaps you could entertain a question about what your logo is all about.
#77. To: SmokinOPs (#76)
an early 20th Century anarchist pamphlet. Maybe late 19th Century.
#78. To: BeAChooser, robin, leveller, Burkeman1, bluedogtxn, Brian S (#9)
You would have left Saddam in place to murder tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis every single year, rather than toppling him at the cost of even 1.
#79. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#80. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#81. To: christine (#79)
#82. To: leveller, ALL (#64)
the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
#83. To: scrapper2, ALL (#78)
Iraq was not a haven for terrorists.
admitted that Saddam was not dealing with AQ or any other terrorists.
Also Iraq was so weakened by sanctions since the first Gulf War it was no threat to the US or its neighbors.
As for the Iraqis brutalized by Saddam - are we any less brutal than Saddam was to Iraqis
hundreds upon hundreds of thousands dead and wounded
our annual kill rate has been a lot higher than Saddam's who was in charge for 24 years.
Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem?
For example, Israel brutalizes the Palestinians 24/7
Israel attacked its neighbor, Lebanon, twice already, most recently this summer,
Israel had far more UN resolutions passed against it than Saddam ever had
Israel's ongoing violent aggression against the Palestinians and the Lebanese has been Bin Laden's best recruiting tool.
#84. To: christine (#79)
what a well reasoned factual post, scrapper.
#85. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)
If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
#86. To: BeAChooser (#83)
#87. To: BeAChooser (#84)
#88. To: ..., ALL (#86)
BAC, why don't you cite two wingnut partisan blogs and an Australian op ed piece to back up your bullshit?
#89. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#90. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#91. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#92. To: BeAChooser (#88)
What's that? You say you can't? ROTFLOL!
#93. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#94. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#95. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#96. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#97. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#98. To: Minerva (#97)
#99. To: Loopy (#15)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#100. To: BeAChooser (#82)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable? Estimates that are FAR below 655,000.
#101. To: Loopy (#38)
I'm just sick of toleration of these disgusting pigs who've turned my country into the shithole it now is.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#102. To: RickyJ (#99)
#103. To: RickyJ (#102)
#104. To: leveller (#0)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#105. To: Loopy (#103)
(Edited)
Yes, now I do. As soon as I logged in, your message disappeared, so I obviously have you on bozo which means that you too are a scumbag. So fuck off. Don't bother to respond I haven't taken you off bozo, I just wanted you to know that you also are a scumbag.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#106. To: RickyJ (#103)
#107. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#108. To: leveller (#47)
Are you certain? Please cite your source.
#109. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#110. To: RickyJ (#99)
#111. To: leveller, ALL (#100)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
Estimates that are FAR below 655,000.
Evasion.
#112. To: leveller (#81)
How many 4um threads reach 80 posts
#113. To: leveller (#81)
#114. To: BeAChooser (#111)
Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the death toll back in July of 2006 was 50,000 or 100,000. My point is very clear.
#115. To: Hayek Fan (#107)
#116. To: Hayek Fan (#107)
(Edited)
So you would have us disregard a white paper researched and endorsed by one of the top universities in the world and peer reviewed by one of the two premiere medical journals in the world on the basis of the opinions of mensnewsdaily, The Australian and something called strategypage? And you have the nerve to call other people kooks? ROTFLMAO!!!
#117. To: Hayek Fan (#107)
If these same "sources" wrote articles poo-pooing your Ron Brown conspiracy theory you'd be denouncing them as being the "liberal media."
#118. To: BeAChooser (#111)
(Edited)
#119. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#8)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#120. To: BeAChooser (#111)
#121. To: BeAChooser (#83)
If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
#122. To: SmokinOPs, leveller (#25)
Saddam was grinding up atleast that many a day in his plastic shredder
#123. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#107)
So you would have us disregard a white paper researched and endorsed by one of the top universities in the world and peer reviewed by one of the two premiere medical journals in the world on the basis of the opinions
#124. To: Loopy, leveller (#38)
You accomplish nothing by dealing with BAC. Ask Burkeman1. He tried for years to reason with that thing.
#125. To: ..., ALL (#116)
Chooser wouldn't know a source if it bit him on the ass.
#126. To: BeAChooser (#44)
We know now that al-Qaeda was busy planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies from the safety of Iraq long before we invaded.
#127. To: BeAChooser (#125)
#128. To: BeAChooser (#125)
Ping to #123. Bet you can't dispute a single fact I posted ...
#129. To: Diana, ALL (#119)
Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam.
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
the non-existent WMD
How ironic that now a few years into this "war", you are playing down the number of dead in Iraq,
and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent.
What a joke. No one is going to buy this one, no one.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#125)
(Edited)
#131. To: BeAChooser (#129)
(Edited)
#132. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#133. To: BeAChooser, All (#44)
A man who ordered a chemical attack on Israel during the first gulf war at a time when Israel wasn't even a combatant in that war
#134. To: BeAChooser (#129)
The joke will be on you folks if you don't even attempt to dispute the facts I listed in post #123.
#135. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#136. To: Diana, BeAChooser, leveller (#119)
(Edited)
died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. The
#137. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#138. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#139. To: Diana, ALL (#126)
"We know now that al-Qaeda was busy planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies from the safety of Iraq long before we invaded."
That is such a lie!
#140. To: Diana, ALL (#127)
I'm only on post #44 but already you are lying way too much on this thread to the point of absurdity!!!
#141. To: BeAChooser (#139)
#142. To: ..., ALL (#128)
Ping to #123. Bet you can't dispute a single fact I posted ...
You haven't posted any facts.
#143. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#78)
Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem? Please don't get all holier than thou with me regarding Saddam's crimes. Let's face it, our gov't tolerates the same or worse violence against civilian peoples by other despots/regimes than what was perpetuated by Saddam - actually some of the most brutal regimes we even refer to as our dear allies and we prop up with financial aid.
#144. To: christine, ALL (#134)
ROTFLOL! your delusion is hilarious.
#145. To: BeAChooser (#142)
With a falsehood like that, I can see why you are happy at FD4UM. ROTFLOL!
#146. To: BeAChooser (#144)
(Edited)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
#147. To: RickyJ (#104)
What is the real death toll of our troops in Iraq? . . . . . the war wouldn't be so popular if more Americans were made aware of the real price of war.
#148. To: BeAChooser (#83)
The fact that the terrorists convicted in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war is proof you are wrong.
#149. To: ..., ALL (#137)
If you would do some honest research, you also wouldn't have to resort to your childish tactic of insulting and name calling.
#150. To: BeAChooser (#111)
It proves for all their whining about "Bush lied", they are just as willing to lie.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#149)
(Edited)
Care to point out where I've insulted or called anyone here a name since joining FD4UM?
#152. To: Diana, ALL (#143)
Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem? Please don't get all holier than thou with me regarding Saddam's crimes. Let's face it, our gov't tolerates the same or worse violence against civilian peoples by other despots/regimes than what was perpetuated by Saddam - actually some of the most brutal regimes we even refer to as our dear allies and we prop up with financial aid.
A very valid point which he never seems to address.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#83)
A million died in wars that Saddam started with his neighbors.
#154. To: Diana (#126)
Saddam wanted a secular Iraq, he did not want any competition with radical Islamic groups, and would have regarded them as a huge threat, but I suspect you already know that!
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,
Senate report Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader
#155. To: BeAChooser (#149)
#156. To: ..., Christine, ALL (#146)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
As I said before, all you posted there was your utterly unsupported bullshit opinion.
Are you insulting Christine because your covers are being yanked and you need to bail?
#157. To: BeAChooser (#83)
If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
#158. To: BeAChooser (#123)
There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies
#159. To: ..., BeAChooser (#151)
whiney, childish, snotty tone
#160. To: BeAChooser (#123)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#161. To: BeAChooser (#129)
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
#162. To: BeAChooser, diana (#139)
angry outburst by the defendants that included a death threat and thrown shoes, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 21).
#163. To: BeAChooser, diana, robin (#152)
Who would be to blame for that? You and your friends?
#164. To: BeAChooser (#8)
#165. To: BeAChooser, christine, robin, leveller, Burkeman1, Brian S, Diana, ..., bluedogtxn (#144)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
#166. To: Diana (#153)
A million died in wars that Saddam started with his neighbors.
#167. To: BeAChooser (#129)
and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent.
#168. To: Diana (#161)
45-minute claim on Iraq was hearsay
#169. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#159)
(Edited)
AOTR Shill.
#170. To: BeAChooser (#139)
(Edited)
A suspect in a foiled plot to detonate a chemical weapon in Jordan met beforehand in Iraq with fellow defendant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to discuss the planned attacks, according to a videotaped confession played in court yesterday (see GSN, June 23).
#171. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#159)
#172. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#159)
(Edited)
#173. To: BeAChooser (#139)
#174. To: ... (#169)
other than to disrupt the functioning of the board?
#175. To: BeAChooser (#149)
Care to point out where I've insulted or called anyone here a name since joining FD4UM?
#176. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#174)
#177. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, BeAChooser, christine, robin, leveller, Burkeman1, Brian S (#168)
#178. To: tom007, ALL (#158)
As for photos, the US media is one of the most censored around.
#179. To: ... (#171)
#180. To: RickyJ, ALL (#160)
The official totals say aprox. 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war.
#181. To: Diana, ALL (#161)
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't.
Are you serious?
#182. To: Diana, ALL (#164)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#183. To: BeAChooser (#181)
#184. To: bluedogtxn (#179)
#185. To: scrapper2, ALL (#165)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
The "facts" you posted in message #123 have all been discredited one way or another in the course of the past 4 years and most recently by the following gov't investigative report released on 09/08/06. It's 151 pages long and you can do word searches relating to your so called "facts" re: Syria and sarvin and nukes to your heart's content - in fact, knock yourself out why don't you -
#186. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#168)
Here's one where our pet poodle said it...
#187. To: ..., ALL (#172)
I just did a search on your posts. I have been unable to find a single instance where you have done anything except try to destroy this forum.
#188. To: ... (#184)
#189. To: Diana, ALL (#175)
Freedumb4um?
#190. To: BeAChooser (#187)
Afterall, your forum is about exposing the truth. Right?
#191. To: scrapper2, ALL (#177)
Here's a link to a video wherein our own Dear Leader repeats that 45 minute lie.
#192. To: ... (#184)
He could be banned. Goldi's purging the kooks and laughing stocks again. Notice who we got as a result
#193. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#183)
If you look upthread you will see where I posted Tony Blair's 45 minute claim
#194. To: BeAChooser (#189)
I haven't said that since joining FD4UM. I've been nothing but respectful.
#195. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn (#193)
He didn't say anything about launching a missile to the US. That was Diana's claim.
#196. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#191)
And what exactly does he say in that video? A quote please.
#197. To: Diana, ALL (#194)
When I look at that D though...
#198. To: BeAChooser (#193)
He didn't say anything about launching a missile ...
#199. To: Diana, ALL (#195)
I said that it was said by someone right before the war,
"Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies."
#200. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#198)
And what exactly does he say in that video? A quote please.
Are you kidding me? Are you too lazy to watch it or are you just being ornery?
Because it not only demonstrates that der Fuhrer made the bullshit claim about "an attack within 45 minutes (insert the usual dumbass kooky pause) of when the order was given,"
#201. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#198)
Oh, you clever little reichwingnutjob! You got me. In a speech where he's talking about Saddam's ballistic missiles and weapons program he only says Saddam could "order an attack on American soil" that would "occur" in "45 minutes from when the order was given"
#202. To: It Is A Republic (#190)
there is little reason to argue with anyone who has their minds made up
#203. To: BeAChooser (#200)
Does it mention missiles or that these missiles will travel from Iraq to the US?
#204. To: BeAChooser, Diana, leveller, aristeides, scrapper2, all (#201)
Ahhh ... I see you finally found the truth.
#205. To: Diana (#195)
Then bluedogtxn brought up it was Tony Blair who said it, you were being a trickster!
#206. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#199)
Now if you wish to retract the claim. Fine. Then we can move on.
#207. To: christine (#115)
hi. welcome to 4. is that Hayek as in Selma? ;)
#208. To: ... (#117)
Excuse me. I only answered your first paragraph in my post above. You seem be well up on chooser's Rob Brown kookery.
#209. To: Diana (#161)
Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
#210. To: BeAChooser (#200)
#211. To: BeAChooser (#201)
#212. To: Morgana le Fay (#211)
#213. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#189)
I've been nothing but respectful.
#214. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#197)
#215. To: bluedogtxn, BeAChooser (#206)
This thing is just too lazy to go and look for itself.
#216. To: BeAChooser (#123)
(Edited)
Here are some more articles pointing out problems with the study that I know you won't bother to even read:
#217. To: BeAChooser (#201)
#218. To: leveller (#215)
(Edited)
Is this what it should be looking for?
#219. To: BeAChooser (#123)
(Edited)
Here are some more articles pointing out problems with the study that I know you won't bother to even read:
#220. To: Morgana le Fay (#217)
do you use this for your long stream of consiousness posts?
#221. To: Morgana le Fay (#217)
BeAChooser Reference Database
#222. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn (#193)
(Edited)
#223. To: bluedogtxn (#218)
BAC has taken the few marbles it has left and gone home.
#224. To: bluedogtxn (#220)
#225. To: bluedogtxn, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#218)
#226. To: leveller (#223)
BAC has taken the few marbles it has left and gone home.
#227. To: leveller (#223)
(It) will return. (It) never gives up. Your tax dollars may be paying (its) way.
#228. To: Diana (#222)
nevermind.
#229. To: Morgana le Fay (#224)
did you notice that he did a google search and then cut and pasted the articles as sources without opening them and reading them? it is on my last post.
#230. To: SKYDRIFTER (#225)
(Edited)
Just as he picks on Diana; he knows no nobility - NONE!
#231. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#193)
He didn't say anything about launching a missile to the US.
#232. To: BeAChooser (#199)
"Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies."
#233. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#226)
There may be a probationary posting limit for newbys. I'm not sure on that one.
#234. To: bluedogtxn, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#230)
Diana kicked its ass. Its picking on her was like Israel picking on Hezbollah.
#235. To: Diana (#232)
#236. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, All (#201)
Oh, you clever little reichwingnutjob! You got me. In a speech where he's talking about Saddam's ballistic missiles and weapons program he only says Saddam could "order an attack on American soil" that would "occur" in "45 minutes from when the order was given"
#237. To: bluedogtxn (#233)
#238. To: bluedogtxn (#203)
It mentions ballistic missiles. It mentions "fisssssile matcherials". It mentions British Inchelligence. It mentions "an attack on Amurikin soil in 45 minutes of when the oerder was givin". Ya see, sometimes in this bisiniss ya gotta say things over and over agin. Kinda catapult the propaganda, heh.
#239. To: Diana, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Kamala, All (#236)
#240. To: Diana (#236)
That is some kind of talent, not sure what to call it though.
#241. To: bluedogtxn (#206)
Diana, if you retract that claim, I'll find you and horsewhip you. There was nothing false about your claim. Bush said it, it's on tape, in front of the whole goddamn world.
#242. To: Diana, aristeides, leveller, Burkeman1, all (#238)
I was sure missles was said, that Saddam was going to shoot us with those missles that travel from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
#243. To: BeAChooser, leveller, bluedogtxn (#209)
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
#244. To: Diana (#238)
I was sure missles was said, that Saddam was going to shoot us with those missles that travel from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
#245. To: Diana, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Kamala, All (#241)
He wears a person out, I don't know how he can keep going, and going, ....
#246. To: Diana, Scrapper2 (#241)
I just wasn't sure who the person was but I'm glad you found that video.
#247. To: Diana (#243)
Oh wait, the word "missile" was not used, so are you going to say that this doesn't count?
#248. To: bluedogtxn (#240)
#249. To: bluedogtxn, SKYDRIFTER, leveller, BeAChooser (#242)
#250. To: bluedogtxn, scrapper2 (#246)
That was our very own Scrapper2, tearing it up.
#251. To: Diana (#243)
HAAAAAAA!!
#252. To: BeAChooser (#193)
#253. To: bluedogtxn (#247)
As if there were some other form of attack that Saddam could launch that would hit us in 45 minutes.
#254. To: Morgana le Fay, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#252)
#255. To: Diana (#243)
HAAAAAAA!!
#256. To: Diana, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Kamala, All (#253)
Really fast homing pigeons?
#257. To: Hayek Fan (#216)
These other people could be hair stylists, political hacks or child molesters as far as I know.
#258. To: Morgana le Fay (#252)
#259. To: Diana (#249)
I wonder how he will explain all the evidence he denied.
#260. To: christine (#250)
To: bluedogtxn, scrapper2
#261. To: bluedogtxn, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#259)
#262. To: BeAChooser, Diana, bluedogtxn, leveller, robin, christine, Brian S., Burkeman1, SKYDRIFTER (#185)
#263. To: SKYDRIFTER, leveller, Burkeman1, aristeides, Diana, Minerva, all (#261)
I'm impressed with the percentage of people on this forum who are of the caliber to successfully take him on.
#264. To: bluedogtxn, (#263)
And this site has it all over El Pee.
#265. To: scrapper2 (#262)
This is the last time I'm fiddling with your ghastly attempts to down grade Iraq's civilian losses due to our invasion and occupation a nation which posed absolutely zero threat to our national security. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation.
#266. To: bluedogtxn, scrapper2 (#265)
This is the last time I'm fiddling with your ghastly attempts to down grade Iraq's civilian losses due to our invasion and occupation a nation which posed absolutely zero threat to our national security. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation.
#267. To: scrapper2 (#262)
#268. To: bluedogtxn, Zipporah (#263)
(Edited)
#269. To: christine (#268)
hey, blue, pretty accurate 4 description...maybe i'll put this post up on the home page. :P
#270. To: bluedogtxn (#263)
Such things are glaringly false, so there isn't much debate about them.
#271. To: Burkeman1 (#270)
Correct. I am not here to re-invent the wheel with BOTS who don't live in reality- who think Iraq is going fine but the "librul media" is to blame for not showing Sovietesque like propaganda images all day l
#272. To: bluedogtxn (#271)
#273. To: Burkeman1 (#272)
I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
#274. To: BeAChooser (#180)
Actually, the OFFICIAL totals do not say 50,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#275. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#203)
It mentions ballistic missiles.
#276. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#206)
Diana, if you retract that claim, I'll find you and horsewhip you. There was nothing false about your claim. Bush said it, it's on tape, in front of the whole goddamn world.
#277. To: leveller, Diana, ALL (#209)
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
#278. To: BeAChooser (#276)
Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#279. To: BeAChooser (#276)
#280. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#216)
You are right in that I won't bother to read them.
#281. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#219)
you posted a link to an advertisement asking me to subscribe to the economist.
#282. To: BeAChooser (#280)
#283. To: BeAChooser (#280)
Take, for instance, the missing death certificates. The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths.
#284. To: christine, Morgana le Fay, Hayek Fan, ALL (#221)
BeAChooser Reference Database
lol
4x (BAC - he meant 1/4th) the number of excess deaths the Lancet found with their survey. Of course, the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set. (link) To me, the hallmark of a good study is if the results are able to be duplicated. The UN basically tried with respect to the first Lancet study and found the Lancet off by a factor of 4. I'd say that's probably how much this Lancet study is off by too..."
#285. To: BeAChooser (#284)
#286. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#224)
did you notice that he did a google search and then cut and pasted the articles as sources without opening them and reading them? it is on my last post.
#287. To: BeAChooser (#286)
#288. To: bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#227)
I liked having it around.
#289. To: Diana, ALL (#232)
I did not say specifically who said this as I didn't know.
I just know it was said on FOX and other media outlets to scare the American public into thinking we were under an immidiate threat of being hit by Saddam's super missles which he didn't have.
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#290. To: christine, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#237)
To bluedogtxn - he's on full status.
And I thank you for that status. To bluedogtxn - i'm thoroughly enjoying your posts to him.
argument entertainment, I calculate the estimates based on official figures should be between 314,000 and 867,000. They aren't. The "official figures estimate" is about 49,000.
#291. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, Hayek Fan, ALL (#242)
Diana - He was trying to play word tricks with me again, he was making my post mean something different, something he is expert at.
I was sure missles was said, that Saddam was going to shoot us with those missles that travel from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
I don't know if it was ever explicitly stated
That anyone can try to deny now that the administration was pimping the possibility of Saddam nuking us with missiles is such a palpable re-writing of history as to be absurd.
#292. To: christine, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#248)
bluedogtxn - That is some kind of talent, not sure what to call it though. I think the technically correct term is "obfuscation", although in my neck of the woods we call it "bullshitting".
Christine - LMBO
"We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire."
Official German statistics place total casualties from air attack -- including German civilians, foreigners, and members of the armed forces in cities that were being attacked -- at 250,253 killed for the period from January 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945, and 305,455 wounded badly enough to require hospitalization, during the period from October 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945. A careful examination of these data, together with checks against the records of individual cities that were attacked, indicates that they are too low. A revised estimate prepared by the Survey (which is also a minimum) places total casualties for the entire period of the war at 305,000 killed and 780,000 wounded.
#293. To: BeAChooser (#290)
(Edited)
Can you say bogus?
#294. To: christine, Hayek Fan, ALL (#257)
Hayek Fan - These other people could be hair stylists, political hacks or child molesters as far as I know.
christine - if they're male GOPers, you can probably count on it.
Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”
But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.
Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”
And neither does Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, which also tracks Iraqi deaths.
"I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off," he said.
Other research methods on the ground, like body counts, forensic analysis and taking eyewitness reports, have produced numbers only about one-tenth as high, he said. "I have a hard time seeing how all the direct evidence could be that far off ... therefore I think the survey data is probably what's wrong."
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes.
#295. To: BeAChooser (#290)
#296. To: BeAChooser (#294)
#297. To: BeAChooser (#286)
(Edited)
As the quotes I supplied prove, I did read the article.
#298. To: ..., ALL (#293)
Your link doesn't lead to the article you idiot.
#299. To: BeAChooser (#298)
(Edited)
Your link doesn't lead to the article you idiot.
#300. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#294)
#301. To: SKYDRIFTER (#300)
(Edited)
#302. To: SKYDRIFTER (#300)
(Edited)
#303. To: ..., BeAChooser (#295)
"There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate.
BAC, are Russia and Colombia more violent than Iraq?
#304. To: BeAChooser (#298)
(Edited)
But they too have archived their article.
#305. To: ..., Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#302)
#306. To: scrapper2, ALL (#262)
You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2 006.html
- The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations.
- The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey.
- According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003.
- This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war.
b. And here's a response by one of the John Hopkins researchers to the WSJ opinion piece that questioned the findings. It appears that Les Roberts had comments falsely attributed to him. Hmmm....
As a comparison, a 3,700-person survey is nearly 3 times larger than the average U.S. political survey that reports a margin of error of +/-3%.
Our study also produced a range of plausible values that reflect the margin of error in our estimate.
In addition, Mr. Moore claimed that the Hopkins study did not include any demographic data. The survey did collect demographic data, such as age and sex, related to violence, although they are not the same details Mr. Moore’s company would have collected for public opinion polls.
Gilbert Burnham
c. Also I'm putting you on notice that I will not address ever again your idiotic comments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that did not exist except in the fictious essays written by Doug Feith and his like minded IsraelFirster war mongering goons.
#307. To: SKYDRIFTER (#305)
BAC's persistence is almost strange. He has to be here "...on paid assignment," as no one insane would suffer the treatment which he begs & receives.
#308. To: BeAChooser (#306)
#309. To: ..., beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#306)
#310. To: Burkeman1, bluedogtxn, scrapper2, Hayek Fan, ALL (#272)
I don't have to look at the thread. I am quite familiar with the sophism of this poster and his overall schtick. I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
#311. To: BeAChooser (#310)
#312. To: bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, scrapper2, ALL (#273)
Well, I found it both amusing and entertaining, as well as sad and pathetic.
#313. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#278)
Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
He didn't actually say it,
he implied it.
He did say however that they could launch drone remote controlled planes over here to deliver a chemical/biological attack though.
#314. To: BeAChooser (#312)
(Edited)
#315. To: BeAChooser (#306)
Still can't explain that binary sarin warhead, can you. Y
#316. To: BeAChooser (#306)
You still can't tell us the contents of those truck convoys that went to Syria before the war ... under Iraqi military escort.
#317. To: Dakmar, bluedogtxn, scrapper, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, ALL (#279)
well aren't you the clever little slickyboy, knowing all these links by heart...
2) 98% of residences had heads of household (or spouses) at home and willing and able to provide the requested information?
3) Thorough explanations and double-checking and proofs of information were possible in well under half hour per interview?
#318. To: BeAChooser (#317)
#319. To: kiki, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, scrapper2, Burkeman1, ALL (#282)
what in the world is your point?
#320. To: BeAChooser (#317)
#321. To: tom007, ALL (#283)
The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths.
You could be insane, just based on the above statement alone.
argument entertainment, I calculate the estimates based on official figures should be between 314,000 and 867,000. They aren't. The "official figures estimate" is about 49,000.
#322. To: BeAChooser (#321)
(Edited)
#323. To: Dakmar, bluedogtxn, scrapper, kiki, Burkeman1, Hayek Fan, ALL (#287)
So who pays you to post here?
#324. To: BeAChooser (#321)
#325. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#326. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#327. To: Christine (#323)
#328. To: BeAChooser (#321)
#329. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#330. To: SKYDRIFTER (#305)
BAC's persistence is almost strange. He has to be here "...on paid assignment," as no one insane would suffer the treatment which he begs & receives.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#331. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#330)
#332. To: SKYDRIFTER (#331)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#333. To: BeAChooser (#323)
#334. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#332)
The entire Bush Cabal, including Rove's minions, are all opportunists. Just like Hitler, and every other tyrant in history.
#335. To: SKYDRIFTER (#334)
BUT - as with Hitler, no one is listening to the generals.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#336. To: BeAChooser, All (#289)
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#337. To: BeAChooser (#280)
And by the way, I'm going to post even more URLS to sources that are critical of the John Hopkins/Lancet study.
#338. To: BeAChooser (#289)
More than likely it was said by someone on the left trying to create an issue ... just as it was the left who created the issue of Iraq being an "imminent" threat. The Bush administration never said that and Bush specifically said in his pre-war SOU speech that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat.
#339. To: BeAChooser (#280)
#340. To: Hayek Fan, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#339)
#341. To: Diana (#336)
You see all of us as cookie-cutters of one another, all being exceptionally stupid and dull, objectifying all of us.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#342. To: BeAChooser (#277)
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." George W. Bush
#343. To: leveller, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, All (#342)
#344. To: ..., bluedogtnx, scrapper2, Burkeman1, Halek Fan, ALL (#297)
If the articles really suupported your argument, you would be waving the text in our faces and screaming for us to read them.
#345. To: ..., bluedogtxn, scrapper2, kiki, Halek Fan, Burkeman1, ALL (#299)
I think I will go with Johns Hopkins University
#346. To: BeAChooser (#344)
#347. To: BeAChooser (#345)
(Edited)
#348. To: Hayek Fan (#339)
(Edited)
Oh yeah, before I go. The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world. I find it hard to believe that they would risk this reputation in order to score political points and/or press an anti-war agenda.
#349. To: BeAChooser (#345)
#350. To: ..., Scrapper2, Diana (#349)
#351. To: SKYDRIFTER (#343)
BAC is quite expert
#352. To: BeAChooser (#345)
#353. To: scrapper2, Beachooser, all (#348)
#354. To: Hayek Fan, BeAChooser (#353)
What boggles my mind
#355. To: Red Jones (#354)
#356. To: leveller (#342)
"And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack [by canoe][by FedEx][by hot air balloon] [by carrier pigeon] in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
#357. To: Red Jones, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, Kamala, All (#354)
#358. To: christine (#356)
"And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack [by canoe][by FedEx][by hot air balloon] [by carrier pigeon] in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
#359. To: SKYDRIFTER (#357)
key function of disinformationists such as BAC is to muddy the waters and damage the reputations of serious posters, for the benefit of any casual surfers or serious researchers who might look to these forums for ideas and/or material.
#360. To: leveller, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, All (#359)
So who is paying BAC?
#361. To: SKYDRIFTER (#360)
So who is paying BAC?
#362. To: Zipporah, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#346)
#363. To: Minerva (#361)
I say nobody. BAC is only dangerous when he's on your side.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#364. To: BAC, BeAChooser, All (#98)
#365. To: Diana, ALL (#336)
I won't knit pick with you, it's impossible because my nature is not dishonest enough for me to be able to stoop to your level playing word games.
#366. To: Hayek Fan, scrapper2, kiwi, Burkeman1, bluedogtxn, ..., Diana, ALL (#337)
You've posted links to blogs. Why is it that you have no links to professional, peer reviewed research? Because it's not out there.
2. The conduct of the survey
3. The analysis of the results
#367. To: Diana, ALL (#365)
#368. To: Hayek Fan, bluedogtxn, scrapper2, kiwi, Burkeman1, Diana, ..., ALL (#337)
Also, for those interested, in October 2006, Johns Hopkins reaffirmed the original study: "Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates. Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods
#369. To: Hayek Fan, Original_Intent, ALL (#339)
The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the number 1 ranked school of Public Health in the world. I find it hard to believe that they would risk this reputation in order to score political points and/or press an anti-war agenda.
#370. To: Diana, All (#367)
#371. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#369)
#372. To: rowdee (#370)
Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#373. To: BeAChooser, Minerva (#369)
#374. To: BeAChooser (#369)
#375. To: scrapper2 (#374)
One more for ya BAC, this was today. Yeh I know, it's only one, but I thought you'd like to see the handiwork of the Great Decider
#376. To: BeAChooser (#366)
It's a study by the UN Development program which found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4.
#377. To: BeAChooser (#369)
(Edited)
#378. To: BeAChooser (#368)
#379. To: BeAChooser (#369)
#380. To: BeAChooser (#369)
#381. To: BeAChooser (#369)
There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are not US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. That should raise a red flag.
#382. To: ... (#378)
Among the largest of America's "permanent" megabases in Iraq is Balad Air Base with the sorts of daily air-traffic pile-ups that you would normally see over Chicago's O'Hare Airport. And yet, as Tomdispatch.com has written numerous times over these last years, reporters in Iraq almost determinedly refuse to look up or report on the regular, if intermittent, application of American air power especially to heavily populated neighborhoods in Iraq's cities...
#383. To: BeAChooser (#369)
#384. To: AGAviator, BeAChooser (#382)
In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles."...The number of rockets fired is withheld from the press so as, according to a CENTAF spokesman, not to "skew the tally and present an inaccurate picture of the air campaign." The number of rockets fired may be quite significant as, according to a 2005 press release issued by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who helped secure a $900 million Hydra contract from the Army for General Dynamics, "the widely used Hydra-70 rocket… has seen extensive use in Afghanistan and Iraq… [and] has become the world's most widely used helicopter-launched weapon system." ...
#385. To: scrapper2 (#384)
(Edited)
Lord, 650,000 Iraqi deaths maybe a lowball figure in light of what the military has used in that nation, roughly the physical size of California.
#386. To: AGAviator (#385)
Well, first of all, Roberts' survey does not say all the "excess deaths" have been directly caused by the US or its Iraqi surrogates. Roberts is saying that combat deaths of insurgents, combat deaths of noncombatant civilians, deaths from breakdown of medical system, deaths from criminal activity, deaths from Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, etc. exceed a "baseline" mortality rate by this 655,000 amount.
#387. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#365)
#388. To: scrapper2 (#386)
All these deaths were a direct or indirect result of our illegal and immoral invasion
#389. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#366)
#390. To: LP Bozo King Thread (#383)
(Edited)
#391. To: AGAviator (#388)
However it's a distortion to accuse Roberts of whipping up anti-military hysteria because of his survey and to allege the military itself killed all those 655,000.
#392. To: BeAChooser (#369)
#393. To: Minerva (#392)
(Edited)
Captain Paul Watson
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
#394. To: BeAChooser (#368)
#395. To: BeAChooser (#369)
There is NO physical evidence to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are not US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. That should raise a red flag.
#396. To: rowdee, BeAChooser (#370)
(Edited)
"The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country," he said in the speech. "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it."
#397. To: Minerva (#380)
#398. To: BeAChooser, Diana, SKYDRIFTER (#365)
[George W. Bush]
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#399. To: Ferret Mike (#393)
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#400. To: Hayek Fan, scrapper2, ..., kiwi, bluedogtxn, ALL (#353)
What boggles my mind is that in the WTC debate, BAC refuses to accept any information from a person with a doctorate in physics because he isn't a metallurgist.
BAC accepts as gospel information from a blogger who appears to have no training whatsoever in epidemiology, and who's expertise appears to be that he collects old mathematics textbooks.
#401. To: Minerva, ALL (#376)
"It's a study by the UN Development program which found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4."
It doesn't say that.
#402. To: ... (#401)
#403. To: BeAChooser (#401)
(Edited)
#404. To: Zipporah, ALL (#381)
Yes it does raise a red flag.. that being that our media is controlled by none other than those who rule us.
#405. To: AGAviator, ALL (#382)
The Pentagon's Secret Air War Over Iraq
In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles."
"rocket and cannon fire could account for most coalition-attributed civilian deaths."
#406. To: BeAChooser (#405)
#407. To: BeAChooser (#401)
It doesn't say that.
#408. To: Minerva, christine, ALL (#383)
How is the bozo count doing Mr. Advocate?
Getting close to the 50+ ban region yet?
#409. To: BeAChooser (#408)
Isn't it interesting, the number of FD4UM members who choose to bozo themselves rather than read verifiable facts?
#410. To: BeAChooser (#408)
But it takes two to debate and so far I haven't even found one willing to do that.
#411. To: BeAChooser (#408)
Verifiable facts? You want some verifiable facts?
Period Date US UK Other* Total 5 02/19/07 5 0 0 5 5 02/18/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/17/07 4 0 0 4 5 02/16/07 1 0 0 1 5 02/14/07 5 0 0 5 5 02/13/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/12/07 0 0 0 0 5 02/11/07 3 0 0 3 5 02/10/07 1 0 0 1 5 02/09/07 4 1 0 5 5 02/08/07 3 0 0 3 5 02/07/07 11 0 1 12 5 02/06/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/05/07 1 1 0 2 5 02/04/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/03/07 1 0 0 1 5 02/02/07 6 0 0 6 5 02/01/07 7 0 0 7 5 01/31/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/30/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/29/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/28/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/27/07 5 0 0 5 5 01/26/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/25/07 4 0 0 4 5 01/24/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/23/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/22/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/21/07 3 1 0 4 5 01/20/07 25 0 0 25 5 01/19/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/18/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/17/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/16/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/15/07 5 0 0 5 5 01/14/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/13/07 1 1 0 2 5 01/09/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/07/07 5 1 0 6 5 01/06/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/05/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/04/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/01/07 1 0 0 1 5 12/31/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/28/06 6 1 0 7 5 12/27/06 6 0 2 8 5 12/26/06 3 0 0 3 5 12/25/06 7 0 0 7 5 12/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/23/06 7 0 0 7 5 12/22/06 1 0 0 1 5 12/21/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/20/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/19/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 12/16/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/15/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/14/06 3 0 0 3 5 12/12/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/11/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/10/06 5 0 0 5 5 12/09/06 1 0 0 1 5 12/07/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/06/06 12 0 0 12 5 12/05/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/04/06 8 0 0 8 5 12/03/06 7 0 0 7 5 12/02/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/01/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/29/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/28/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/27/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/26/06 4 0 0 4 5 11/25/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/24/06 2 1 0 3 5 11/23/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/22/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/21/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/19/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/15/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/14/06 7 0 0 7 5 11/13/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/12/06 2 4 0 6 5 11/11/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/10/06 0 0 2 2 5 11/09/06 5 0 0 5 5 11/07/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/06/06 3 1 0 4 5 11/05/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/04/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/02/06 8 0 0 8 5 11/01/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/31/06 2 0 0 2 5 10/30/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/29/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/27/06 1 1 0 2 5 10/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/25/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/23/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/22/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/21/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/20/06 1 0 1 2 5 10/19/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/18/06 4 0 0 4 5 10/17/06 11 0 0 11 5 10/15/06 7 0 0 7 5 10/14/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/13/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/12/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/11/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/09/06 4 0 0 4 5 10/08/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/07/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/06/06 3 0 1 4 5 10/04/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/03/06 2 0 0 2 5 10/02/06 8 1 0 9 5 10/01/06 6 0 0 6 5 09/30/06 4 0 0 4 5 09/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/28/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/27/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/26/06 4 0 0 4 5 09/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/23/06 4 0 1 5 5 09/21/06 1 0 1 2 5 09/20/06 5 0 0 5 5 09/19/06 4 0 0 4 5 09/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/17/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/15/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/14/06 7 0 0 7 5 09/13/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/12/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/11/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/09/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/08/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/07/06 3 1 0 4 5 09/06/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/04/06 6 2 0 8 5 09/03/06 9 0 0 9 5 09/02/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/01/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/31/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/28/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/27/06 12 0 0 12 5 08/26/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/24/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/23/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/22/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/20/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/19/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/16/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/12/06 3 0 0 3 5 08/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/09/06 5 0 0 5 5 08/06/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/05/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/04/06 3 0 0 3 5 08/03/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/02/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/01/06 1 1 0 2 5 07/31/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/29/06 4 0 0 4 5 07/27/06 4 0 1 5 5 07/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/24/06 3 0 0 3 5 07/22/06 3 0 0 3 5 07/21/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/20/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/19/06 0 0 1 1 5 07/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/17/06 4 0 0 4 5 07/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/15/06 2 1 0 3 5 07/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/13/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/12/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/09/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/08/06 3 0 0 3 5 07/03/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/02/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/01/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/29/06 5 0 0 5 5 06/28/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/27/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/26/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/24/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/23/06 5 0 0 5 5 06/22/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/21/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/20/06 4 0 0 4 5 06/17/06 2 0 0 2 5 06/16/06 4 0 0 4 5 06/15/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/09/06 5 0 0 5 5 06/08/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/07/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/06/06 6 0 1 7 5 06/05/06 3 0 1 4 5 06/03/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/31/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/28/06 0 2 0 2 5 05/27/06 3 0 0 3 5 05/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/25/06 3 0 0 3 5 05/23/06 3 0 0 3 5 05/22/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/18/06 5 0 0 5 5 05/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/15/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/14/06 7 0 0 7 5 05/13/06 2 2 0 4 5 05/12/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/11/06 7 0 0 7 5 05/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/09/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/08/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/07/06 1 0 1 2 5 05/06/06 5 5 0 10 5 05/05/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/04/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/03/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/01/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/29/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/28/06 5 0 0 5 5 04/27/06 3 0 4 7 5 04/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/25/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/23/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/22/06 6 0 0 6 5 04/21/06 0 0 1 1 5 04/20/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/19/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/15/06 5 1 0 6 5 04/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/13/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/12/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/11/06 4 0 0 4 5 04/10/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/09/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/08/06 4 0 0 4 5 04/07/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/06/06 4 0 0 4 5 04/04/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/02/06 13 0 0 13 5 04/01/06 4 0 0 4 5 03/31/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 03/28/06 3 0 0 3 5 03/25/06 1 0 1 2 5 03/23/06 2 0 1 3 5 03/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 03/16/06 3 0 0 3 5 03/15/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/13/06 3 0 0 3 5 03/12/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/11/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/08/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/07/06 2 0 0 2 5 03/06/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/05/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/03/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/01/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/28/06 0 2 0 2 5 02/27/06 1 0 0 1 5 02/26/06 4 0 0 4 5 02/25/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/22/06 7 0 0 7 5 02/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 02/20/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/17/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/14/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/12/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/09/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/07/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/06/06 5 0 0 5 5 02/05/06 4 0 0 4 5 02/04/06 1 0 0 1 5 02/03/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/02/06 3 1 0 4 5 02/01/06 5 0 0 5 5 01/31/06 0 1 0 1 5 01/30/06 0 1 0 1 5 01/28/06 3 0 0 3 5 01/27/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/25/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/24/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/23/06 5 0 0 5 5 01/22/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/20/06 6 0 0 6 5 01/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/16/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/15/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/13/06 4 0 0 4 5 01/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/07/06 18 0 0 18 5 01/05/06 11 0 0 11 5 01/01/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/31/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/30/05 3 0 0 3 5 12/29/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/28/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/27/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/26/05 4 0 0 4 5 12/25/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/24/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/23/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/22/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/20/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/19/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/18/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/16/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/15/05 2 0 0 2 Total 992 34 21 1047
#412. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#384)
Lord, 650,000 Iraqi deaths maybe a lowball figure in light of what the military has used in that nation,roughly the physical size of California.
"Official German statistics place total casualties from air attack -- including German civilians, foreigners, and members of the armed forces in cities that were being attacked -- at 250,253 killed for the period from January 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945, and 305,455 wounded badly enough to require hospitalization, during the period from October 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945. A careful examination of these data, together with checks against the records of individual cities that were attacked, indicates that they are too low. A revised estimate prepared by the Survey (which is also a minimum) places total casualties for the entire period of the war at 305,000 killed and 780,000 wounded."
#413. To: BeAChooser (#412)
The allies dropped close to 3 million TONS of explosives on German targets during the war. With little or no concern for German civilian casualties.
#414. To: Diana, ALL (#395)
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later.
#415. To: Diana, ALL (#396)
It doesn't work on me though
#416. To: BeAChooser (#415)
But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
#417. To: BeAChooser (#405)
(Edited)
But the John Hopkins report specifically said that most Iraq deaths are NOT due to air power.
In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006
My goodness. Those numbers are STAGGERING.
#418. To: ..., ALL (#403)
I don't see it.
And how would an out of context quote from a report on another subject
This report wasn't done at the same time as the Lancet study,
it wasn't done for the same purpose and wasn't done in the same manner.
In addition, I am almost certain it deosn't even address the Lancet study.
#419. To: BeAChooser (#414)
(Edited)
So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
#420. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#406)
Did the John Hopkins report mention your side is getting it's ass kicked?
#421. To: BeAChooser (#420)
your side
#422. To: Minerva, ALL (#407)
I don't see it. It doesn't say what you claim it does.
#423. To: Minerva, ALL (#409)
You did post one article from the UN however, but you didn't give us the specific quote or tell us why it was at all on point.
#424. To: BeAChooser (#408)
#425. To: BeAChooser (#420)
Just victory for your agenda.
#426. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#412)
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of strategic bombing:
#427. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#411)
Here you go: dead American corporate cannon fodder.
#428. To: BeAChooser (#414)
Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
#429. To: Dakmar, ALL (#413)
And we dropped more on Vietnam and environs than total used during WWII by allies and axis combined.
Does that make it right?
#430. To: BeAChooser (#414)
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
#431. To: BeAChooser (#427)
Access Denied (content_filter_denied)
I assumed this wasn’t policy, but rather an overzealous sys-admin with too much time on his hands. I was wrong. An Army spokesman has now explained to me that it is indeed the Army’s intention to block service-members from viewing non-Pentagon casualty sites. (Other services apparently have similar policies and do use filtering software.) Captain Chris Karns, a spokesman with Centcom, explained: If a web site is not an official DoD web site or if it is not required to perform official government functions it can be blocked. In this case, it is important to ensure consistency and accuracy when dealing with causalities.
Karns’ concerns are understandable—and irrelevant: http://Icasualties.org and CNN compile their figures from the Pentagon’s own press releases. Nor are names attached to them—unless it’s a link to a previously published article. And even if the problem did exist, isn’t the purported solution just a wee heavy-handed?
UPDATE
Since most people seem to be accessing this post directly, here's some further detail from other posts: TrackBack
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1137856
Interesting. It seems the Pentagon blocks US soldiers in Iraq from accessing Web sites that list US casualties in our glorious war. Why? What are they worried about? Bush says freedom and democracy are spreading like wildfire. What's a few... [Read More]
Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites Our soldiers fight for freedom, but the Defense Department doesn't trust them with it. Nice example to set for the Iraqis. Next thing you know, they'll put Baghdad Bob back on the air, telling everyone [Read More]
Today's shrill critic of George W. Bush is Eric Umansky: Eric Umansky: Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites: Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that... [Read More]
In war, truth is the first casuality [Read More]
Ask About That [Read More]
Talk is going on about... [Read>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">[Read More] Comments
#432. To: BeAChooser (#429)
Not the issue.
#433. To: BeAChooser (#430)
It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing.
#434. To: BeAChooser (#429)
most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities
#435. To: Dakmar, Diana, ALL (#416)
"But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes."
You are one sick son of a bitch if you have that audacity to hang something like that on a stranger.
Diana - Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies.
BeAChooser - Prove that claim (BAC - Iraq having the capability of launching missiles to the US in 45 minutes) was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't.
Diana - Are you serious?
Diana - Are you saying that was never said right before the war? Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
#436. To: tom007, BeAChooser (#419)
So now you are calling it a genocide??? BAC????
#437. To: BeAChooser (#412)
#438. To: BeAChooser (#435)
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
#439. To: BeAChooser (#427)
You don't see a problem in that?
#440. To: tom007, Diana, ALL (#419)
"So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?"
You are doing the accusing BAC, and accussing Diana of something YOU said not her.
She never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying.
#441. To: BeAChooser (#423)
Actually, it does.
#442. To: BeAChooser (#423)
#443. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#430)
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
#444. To: Diana (#436)
(Edited)
#445. To: BeAChooser, diana (#440)
he never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying.
#446. To: BeAChooser (#440)
#447. To: BeAChooser (#412)
#448. To: BeAChooser (#435)
..."civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies."...
#449. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#447)
#450. To: Red Jones, tom007, Dakmar, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, All (#449)
I think we're going to have to put up with BAC winning all arguments from now on.
#451. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#435)
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
#452. To: Diana, ALL (#450)
Somehow I suspect this guy is this way with everyone though, he's devoid of conscience, a hopeless sociopath.
#453. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#451)
Christine, is it time for BAC to go? Should there be a vote?
#454. To: SKYDRIFTER (#451)
{Christine, is it time for BAC to go? Should there be a vote?}
#455. To: BeAChooser (#400)
There is much more to my reason for not believing Steven Jones than his not being a metallurgist. Why try to misstate my views, Hayek?
#456. To: (#453)
Just sourced facts and logic
#457. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#453)
And as any reader of this forum can see, I've been very courteous.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
DoD's daily casualty tallies are nothing new. They have had them available for months now. For example, http://GlobalSecurity.org keeps an archive of them going back to November 2003.
Posted by: anonymous | September 18, 2004 at 07:22 PM
Hi; Perhaps of interest:
I compile this weekly datasheet on military fatalities. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/DeRooij_Iraq-Coalition-Toll.htm
About two weeks ago my access to DefenseLink was blocked, and now I must use another account to view that website...
Kind rgds
Paul
Posted by: Paul de Rooij | September 20, 2004 at 11:50 AM
Please note that there are 43 casualties from South Carolina listed on our website, which is more than the 29 listed on http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx website. We are searching info. to learn if there are more SC citizens that have died from wounds in hospitals.