See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: BeAChooser Bozo Count at 40 Plus and Counting - A Possible Site Record
Source:
Minerva
URL Source: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45820&Disp=409#C409
Published: Feb 19, 2007
Author: Minerva
Post Date: 2007-02-19 21:59:28 by Minerva
Keywords: None
Views: 27360
Comments: 375
Last night I took a guess at Beachy's bozo count. Today he spilled the beans and indicated that the number I guessed, between 40 and 50, was substantially correct. What does this mean? Well .... it means he is a piss poor excuse for excuse for an advocate. Nobody takes him serious. This is probably why Goldi booted him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-92) not displayed.
.
.
.
#93. To: AGAviator (#91)
they had become like they are fluff...I'm not they! helter skelter.. :)
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
I hope I die before I get old? I don't trust anyone!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
That doesn't make the results from that question inaccurate. What gives an indication of inaccuracy is when a study claims that 92 percent of those claiming deaths during its interviews were able to a death certificates as proof ... yet the number of death certificates issued by those who issue such things appears to be a small fraction of the number of death certificates that should exist in the general population if that 92 percent figure is to be believed. By Patrick Cockburn, AGAIN? What a coincidence. And I don't see anything in that article disputing the difference pointed out between the two areas or the statement by Blair that deaths per month in the region are way down from the CLAIM of one per hour.
"And you fancy yourself a *debater*." You don't even understand what I said, AGAviator. Let me try again. You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion". But the source whose estimate you are trying to defend as credible, John Hopkins, only claims that 100,000 died in that first 18 months. That is a small fraction of the 550,000 that are missing. Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist if the John Hopkins claim that 92 percent of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates is to be believed. But not to the insurgency's media. And don't claim they aren't using the media. They could easily document the death of the half of Anbar's population that would be necessary to make the John Hopkins' study results believable. So go ahead and ignore what that 28,000 figure says about the theory you tried to pushed that Anbar and Basra can explain the John Hopkins estimate. Now your NEW theory is that EVERY city in Iraq has been seeing 120 killings every month since the beginning of the war ... regardless of the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. This just gets lamer and lamer. You must be really comfortable in the ME because your arguments shift just like the desert sands. ROTFLOL!
By the way ... this is another bit of misinformation. Shall we discuss that topic too?
Again. "Issuing" a death certificate, and "compiling" hundreds of miles away in Baghdad the number of death certificates that were issued, are two separate and distinct processes. And your source clearly and explicitly states many times its number is not in the least representative of the number of death certificates or the number of deaths. Furthermore, at the end of the day the bottom line is: How many people have died in this war, and how many of them are noncombatants. The Administration, and people like you, are doing everything they can to distract attention from this bottom line. However there are plenty of people in Iraq who have been killed who never got death certificates, and who don't have relatives who would say they have been murdered. These deaths are over and above any numbers within the confidence ranage of the survey. So your attempted obfuscation about the minutiae of the survey do not address the fact that there is a population that the survey did not count, over and above whatever number the survey did count. "Nobody is dying in Iraq because the media hates Bush" AGAIN? No I didn't. That is just one of several factors, which I have set out many times. The surveys did not cover identical time periods, and the first survey had a confidence interval where its authors opined that 100,000 seemed to be a reasonable minimum. Diversion and straw man. There are a number of reasons why the authorities in Baghdad could not ***COMPILE*** - read the article, then look up the word - the number of death certificates. The insurgency does not play by your rules. If you want them to, become a jihadist, go join them, and tell them to! ROTFLOL!!! Nobody said 28,000 except you. I'm saying 4 bodies per day x 89 municipalities plus Baghdad. I never had an *OLD* theory. My theory is that hundreds of thousands of excess deaths have occurred, both as direct results of the war, and as indirect results of the social chaos caused by the war. Now for your "lamer and lamer" claims. The war has cost more than $1 Trillion, it has gone on for more than 3 1/2 years, the Americans have had more than 4,000 killed and more than 30,000 wounded when "contractors" are added to the count. That's a total of 34,000 casualties on "our" side. There have been tens of thousands, possibly more than 100,000, missions, over 3 1/2 years. Assuming for the sake of And you would allege "we are winning?" ROTFLOL yourself!!! Furthermore, continuing the same And you would allege "we are winning?" ROTFLOL yourself!!! No, that would be your distortions of my statements. ROTFLOL! yourself. False. The supplemental appropriations for Iraq alone are well past half a trillion and that is cold hard cash spent in the current years. Then there are the costs from the regular budget, and last but not least the huge unpaid liabilities that are not counted because of the government's fly-by-night accounting which would send any business executive to Federal prison if he reported results the same way.
You've been harping on that "92%" number for months on end, and the report never said "92% of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates. Just one more in a near-endless list of your distortions. What John Hopkins did say is
The fucker's maniacal with that ROTFLOL! It's downright creepy.
Why feed the troll? Let's call it 10,000 & go for War Crime Charges. The 'accurate' total is almost unimportant. BAC is spamming everyone - successfully.
I admit that I have never been able to win an argument with BAC in that he never gives up. He is world-champion spammer. and I am under the impression that I was first to call him 'BAC' at LP when trying unsuccessfully to argue with him. I gave up. You can't beat him. At the same time, his style is such that he does not convince many. honway found him useful.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Just one more indication that you don't really understand what you read or its implications. First of all, the use of 90% is incorrect. I think the WP was simplifying the study results for the simple minds that read it. I quote from the page numbered 5 (excluding the title page) of the John Hopkins' report: "At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present." Now granted, it doesn't say that every household was asked ... just that interviewers were supposed to ask. But then, the report itself doesn't mention what percentage were actually asked. It leaves the impression that all were. But let's say you are right ... that only 87% of the households were asked. I did find an article on JH's own website that said "Interviewers had remembered to ask for death certificates in 87 percent of all cases of reported mortality". Remembered? You mean they forgot the rest of the time? And forgot to mention that little fact in their study report? But let's not get distracted by the precision with which the study was carried out. Tell us, AGAviator, why would you assume that those not asked would be any different in being able to supply death certificates than those asked had they been asked? And in any case, whether it's 92 percent or 80%, you still have the problem of hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates. No obfuscation you make will cause that serious problem to disappear. It remains a sure sign of great problems with the survey.
Where does the LA Times explicitly use the words "many times"? It doesn't. Of course, people have died in this war. But the truth won't be found on a foundation of lies. The John Hopkins' studies are lies. Which is why you are having so much difficulty with what I'm pointing out about those studies and its authors. You most certainly did suggest that was a primary factor. Don't try and deny that. FALSE. The second survey includes the period of the first survey and the second survey stated it's results validated the results of the first survey. FALSE FALSE FALSE. The minimum of the 95% confidence range was 8,000. No, it's an argument that strikes at the heart of your claim the John Hopkins survey is believable. Which is why you are clearly having so much trouble dealing with it. Which is why you keep putting forward one explanation after another only to discover each explanation does not explain. You can't explain the missing death certificates by claiming the first year was chaos. You can't explain them by claiming most of the deaths occurred in Anbar. Or Basra. Now you are finding it necessary to claim that every major city in Iraq has been more violent on a daily basis since the beginning of the war than the media has even noted for only a few short specific periods in only a couple of cities. Your excuses are getting sillier and sillier. See what I mean about getting sillier and sillier? You now want us to believe that insurgents wouldn't use what is clearly the most powerful leverage possible to get America out of Iraq. Do you honestly believe the world would stand for our remaining if the insurgents showed proof that we'd committed genocide in Anbar by killing HALF of its population? Of course not ... so it defies reason that had that occurred the insurgents wouldn't be making use of evidence of such a crime now. Actually, after finding your Anbar suggestion didn't hold water, you offered Basra as an explanation, claiming that 1 person per hour was dying (based solely on ONE comment by ONE person a year ago). I simply showed that even if we assumed 1 death an hour for the entire time since the invasion, it would only amount to 28,000 ... proving how ridiculous your Basra excuse was. No, after your Anbar and Basra arguments collapsed, you moved on to claiming (without any proof) that 4 bodies per day had been dying in 90 cities in Iraq every day, day in and day out, since the beginning of the invasion. If that were true, you could account for perhaps 400,000 deaths. But its ALL based on nothing but speculation. You still don't have the death certificates. You still don' t have ANY proof of that many bodies. And you still haven't explained how John Hopkins just happened to pick a group of people for their survey of whom 92 percent could supply death certificates on demand. Sure you did. We all watched your theory evolve on this very thread, AGAviator. It's no use claiming otherwise. All one has to do is reread this read to see that I'm right. No, it has not. This figure is just as bogus as John Hopkins' death estimate. For one, it totally over looks the positive financial benefits of invading and winning in Iraq. It is NET cost/benefit that will matter in the long run. Lamer and lamer. Now you make the FALSE claim that the American military directly killed those 100,000 Iraqis. The truth is that most of the deaths in Iraq are directly a result of terrorist, insurgent and secular violence. Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Even the John Hopkins' researchers have said as much. No, the supplemental appropriations for the WOT as a whole are past half a trillion dollars. Not for just Iraq. http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican/hearingarchive/testimonies/2007/2007-02-06Kosiak.pdf " The Global War on Terror (GWOT): Costs, Cost Growth and Estimating Funding Requirements Testimony, Before the United States Senate Committee on the Budget, Steven M. Kosiak, Vice President for Budget Studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, February 6, 2007 ... snip ... Since fiscal year (FY) 2001, Congress has appropriated about $502 billion for the GWOT. This includes some $463 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD) and $39 billion for other departments and agencies. Military operations, reconstruction and other assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan account for, respectively, some $345-375 billion and $100 billion of this total. The remaining roughly $25-55 billion has been used to fund a variety of other programs and activities, including classified programs, Army and Marine Corps restructuring and some homeland security activities (Operation Noble Eagle)." If you can't even get that right, how reliable can you be about anything else?
Really? You, BeAChooser would testify before Congress that the Johns Hopkins' studies "are lies?" No? And why is that BeAChooser? Perhaps because you are not invited? And why is that? I'll give you the reason - because your laymanBot opinions and the opinions of Mr. neocon Kaplan from Slate and the opinions of the LA Times, Washington Post, Fox News news reporters and all the bloggers you have quoted, ARE NOT CONSIDERED EXPERT BECAUSE NONE OF YOU ARE EXPERTS on anything except the science of bushbotulism - ie. how to deny, obstruct, and cover your a** . That's your specialty. Let me tell you who was invited to testify before Congress on Dec. 11, 2006 -it was the 2 co-authors of the Lancet study, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, MD, and Dr. Les Roberts. Do you think these 2 men would "lie" to Congress? These are medical professionals, they're not war mongering professionals like Bibi Netanyahu. Drs. Burnham and Roberts actually had to attend college and pass board exams. Read this testimony, BAC. You might learn something about "expert testimony." Monday, December 11, 2006 "Kucinich-Paul Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq" http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/kucinich-paul-congressional-hearing- on.html
You know, it could be made useful. Just make him a dustmop suit, and let him post in a room that needs the floors cleaned.....
power chord>
They aren't we!
Them ain't me!
#94. To: AGAviator (#91)
#95. To: AGAviator, ALL (#88)
Given the stated purpose of the survey, any questions about missing and dead persons were quite secondary to that stated purpose.
And here's one last comment concerning conditions in Basra in 2007, a year later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6373087.stm "Tony Blair has said the operation to allow Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in Basra had been "completed" and "successful". ... snip ... He said the situation was different in the two different areas, with no Sunni insurgency or al-Qaeda suicide attacks in the Basra area."
Debunked Here
#96. To: AGAviator, ALL (#90)
"The second study confirmed the results of the first study ... so the second study must have concluded that 98,000 (or so) died in the first 18 months after the war. So your theory that the reason they couldn't find the death certificates of 600,000 is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion" does not help your case. You can't use the first year of the war to explain why so many death certificates are missing."
I use "gross undercounts," serious lapses in recording deaths," "continued spotty reporting," and "unable to compile the data," to explain why the LA Times could not get a summary of the death certificates at a top level
Anbar is off-limits to the world media.
Consider ... 39 months times 30 days times 24 hours time 1/hour = 28,080.
Consider...4 bodies per day average, x 89 municipalities, plus Baghdad,
#97. To: AGAviator, ALL (#90)
there has been more than $1 Trillion spent on it
#98. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
Given the stated purpose of the survey, any questions about missing and dead persons were quite secondary to that stated purpose.
That doesn't make the results from that question inaccurate.
What gives an indication of inaccuracy is when a study claims that 92 percent of those claiming deaths during its interviews were able to a death certificates as proof ... yet the number of death certificates issued by those who issue such things appears to be a small fraction
Debunked Here
By Patrick Cockburn, AGAIN?
Let me try again. You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion".
But the source whose estimate you are trying to defend as credible, John Hopkins, only claims that 100,000 died in that first 18 months. That is a small fraction of the 550,000 that are missing.
Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist
But not to the insurgency's media. And don't claim they aren't using the media. They could easily document the death of the half of Anbar's population that would be necessary to make the John Hopkins' study results believable.
So go ahead and ignore what that 28,000 figure says about the theory you tried to pushed that Anbar and Basra can explain the John Hopkins estimate.
Now your NEW theory is that EVERY city in Iraq has been seeing 120 killings every month since the beginning of the war ... regardless of the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. This just gets lamer and lamer.
argument silliness your claim that the 50,000 death certificates may have been low by a factor of 2, that would mean 100,000 Iraqi excess deaths from all causes against known American casualties of 34,000. In other words, the greatest, most powerful, military machine in history can only kill fewer than 3 people for every one of their own who gets hurt or killed. And even fewer than 3 people when the excess deaths not caused by combat are filtered out. Then the number becomes more like 1 of theirs killed, to one of ours wounded or killed. argument silliness, the $1 Trillion cost equates to $10 million for each excess death, and even more than that when the excess deaths not caused by combat are filtered out. Then the number becomes more like $30 million for each of theirs killed. You must be really comfortable in the ME because your arguments shift just like the desert sands. ROTFLOL!
There has been more than $1 Trillion spent on it
By the way ... this is another bit of misinformation.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#96)
The missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist if the John Hopkins claim that 92 percent of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates is to be believed
The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates
. And 90% of 87% = 78%, not 92%.
#100. To: AGAviator (#98)
#101. To: AGAviator, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#99)
#102. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#101)
BAC is spamming everyone - successfully
#103. To: AGAviator, ALL (#99)
You've been harping on that "92%" number for months on end, and the report never said "92% of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates.
Just one more in a near-endless list of your distortions.
What John Hopkins did say is
"The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates."
And 90% of 87% = 78%, not 92%.
#104. To: AGAviator, ALL (#98)
And your source clearly and explicitly states many times its number is not in the least representative of the number of death certificates or the number of deaths.
Furthermore, at the end of the day the bottom line is: How many people have died in this war, and how many of them are noncombatants.
You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion".
No I didn't. That is just one of several factors,
"But the source whose estimate you are trying to defend as credible, John Hopkins, only claims that 100,000 died in that first 18 months. That is a small fraction of the 550,000 that are missing."
The surveys did not cover identical time periods,
and the first survey had a confidence interval where its authors opined that 100,000 seemed to be a reasonable minimum.
"Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist"
Diversion and straw man.
"But not to the insurgency's media. And don't claim they aren't using the media. They could easily document the death of the half of Anbar's population that would be necessary to make the John Hopkins' study results believable."
The insurgency does not play by your rules.
So go ahead and ignore what that 28,000 figure says about the theory you tried to pushed that Anbar and Basra can explain the John Hopkins estimate.
Nobody said 28,000 except you.
I'm saying 4 bodies per day x 89 municipalities plus Baghdad.
"Now your NEW theory is that EVERY city in Iraq has been seeing 120 killings every month since the beginning of the war ... regardless of the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. This just gets lamer and lamer."
I never had an *OLD* theory.
The war has cost more than $1 Trillion,
Assuming for the sake of argument silliness your claim that the 50,000 death certificates may have been low by a factor of 2, that would mean 100,000 Iraqi excess deaths from all causes against known American casualties of 34,000. In other words, the greatest, most powerful, military machine in history can only kill fewer than 3 people for every one of their own who gets hurt or killed.
The supplemental appropriations for Iraq alone are well past half a trillion
#105. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#104)
(Edited)
The John Hopkins' studies are lies.
#106. To: Nostalgia (#100)
The fucker's maniacal with that ROTFLOL! It's downright creepy.
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#107. To: BeAChooser (#103)
You would have absolutely nothing to talk about if you were not distracted by that precision. As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime. I never said that. The study was to count deaths, not count death certificates. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there are a number of people - tens of thousands minimum - whose bodies have never been found due to their being dumped in rivers or buried under rubble. And there are also large numbers of people who have not had relatives survive to note they were dead or missing. These numbers would need to be added to any totals derived from interviews of surviving relatives and neighbors. The only obfuscations are your attempts to claim the death certificates are missing, when you've been repeatedly told that issuing death certificates during chaotic times, and summarizing the number of death certificates that were issued several years and hundreds of miles after the fact, are two completely different processes. Come to think of it, there is one more obfuscation of yours. That is your complete inability to come up with any numbers of your own - just like the Administration which would greatly like the numbers to be forgotten and dismissed.
But let's not get distracted by the precision with which the study was carried out.
Why would you assume that those not asked would be any different in being able to supply death certificates than those asked had they been asked?
And in any case, whether it's 92 percent or 80%, you still have the problem of hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates. No obfuscation you make will cause that serious problem to disappear.
#108. To: BeAChooser (#104)
I said the LA Times said many times its number is too low. As in saying 5 or 6 times its number was too low, using phrases like "grossly undercounted." Not that the LA Times said the number was "grossly undercounted many times." "In any case...you still have the problem of "No obfuscation you make will cause that serious problem to disappear. It remains a sure sign of great problems with the ROTFLOL!
The supplemental appropriations for Iraq alone are well past half a trillion
And your source clearly and explicitly states many times its number is not in the least representative of the number of death certificates or the number of deaths.
Where does the LA Times explicitly use the words "many times"? It doesn't.
No, the supplemental appropriations for the WOT as a whole are past half a trillion dollars. Not for just Iraq.
hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates hundreds of billions of missing dollars. survey war."
#109. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#105)
Be happy to, scrapper. Yes. Too bad none of those on the Congressional staffs were smart enough (or honest enough, themselves) to prompt their Congressperson to ask Burnham and Roberts about that 92% claim. Now THAT would have been interesting. Kucinich? Ron Paul? ROTFLOL! Now there's two with no agenda to promote. (sarcasm) You want an example of those of Burnham and Roberts LYING to Congress, scrapper? Here, from own your source: Where are the missing death certificates?
You, BeAChooser would testify before Congress that the Johns Hopkins' studies "are lies?"
"Let me tell you who was invited to testify before Congress on Dec. 11, 2006 -it was the 2 co-authors of the Lancet study, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, MD, and Dr. Les Roberts."
Do you think these 2 men would "lie" to Congress?
"Kucinich-Paul Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq"
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/kucinich-paul-congressional-hearing-on.html
DR. BURNHAM - "And then at the end of that survey where there was a death in the household, we asked, "By the way, do you have a death certificate?" And in 91 percent of households where this was asked, the households had death certificates. So we're confident that people were not making up deaths that didn't occur."
#110. To: AGAviator, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#107)
Would one? I didn't say you said that. I said you assumed it. You assumed it in your calculation of 78%. It is implicit in the math. You assumed that the 13% who were not asked to provide proof (because the researchers *forgot*) were so special that they wouldn't have been able to provide even one death certificate. Wouldn't it be more likely since they were only *randomly* forgotten, that they'd be able to provide death certificates with the same regularity as those who were asked? An understanding of statistics would suggest that. But tens of thousands missing is not your problem. Your problem is hundreds and hundreds of thousands. ROTFLOL! Now you are moving on to yet another excuse. And you demonstrate again that you don't understand the methodology of the survey. They multiplied the mortality rate determined from those claiming dead by the TOTAL pre-war population of the country. Thus, they included at least some portion of dead for those who had no relatives. Furthermore, this possibility doesn't explain the discrepancy between the current John Hopkins' estimate and the missing death certificates. It could only makes the discrepancy even bigger because including this would only increase the estimated number of dead somewhat. It's not a claim, it is a fact. The LA Times article mentioned the first year as being particularly chaotic. But the first year doesn't account for half a million missing certificates. Because only 100,000 died during that time (actually the first 18 months) according to both John Hopkins first and second reports. Surely you aren't NOW claiming that the following 21 months were more chaotic than the first 18? Or are you? "Grossly undercounted" could just as easily mean 50% too low. Or a factor of two. If they meant the count was off by a factor of 5 or 6 (or 10 as John Hopkins would have us believe), they would surely have made an even stronger declaration than merely saying "grossly". Let's remind our readers how that term was actually used in the LA Times: "Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west." But as I pointed out, to explain even half of the claimed dead in the John Hopkins' study, HALF the pre-war population of Anbar would now have to be dead and surely the rest would have to be injured. Which is totally ridiculous given the fact that NO ONE has made such a claim or proven such a slaughter. NO ONE.
As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime.
"Why would you assume that those not asked would be any different in being able to supply death certificates than those asked had they been asked?"
I never said that.
Furthermore, as I have already stated, there are a number of people - tens of thousands minimum - whose bodies have never been found due to their being dumped in rivers or buried under rubble.
And there are also large numbers of people who have not had relatives survive to note they were dead or missing.
The only obfuscations are your attempts to claim the death certificates are missing
, when you've been repeatedly told that issuing death certificates during chaotic times,
I said the LA Times said many times its number is too low. As in saying 5 or 6 times its number was too low, using phrases like "grossly undercounted."
#111. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, robin, christine, aristeides, leveller, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, Brians S, SKYDRIFTER, All (#109) (Edited)
1. You are not asked to testify before Congress about Iraqi civilian deaths because you are not an expert in epidemiology. If Congress were investigating bushbotulism or trollism, then you might be called to testify as an expert. Your call letters litter up the internet highway. 2. As for your accusation that Paul and Kucinich had an agenda to promote by having these 2 men testify, you tell me, what might that "agenda" be? Drs. Roberts and Burnham had way more than enough publicity in the public domain. So you tell me - what would Congressmen Paul's and Kucinch's "agenda" be? 3. As for your example of Drs. Roberts' and Burnham's "LYING" - your uppercase machismo boldness is a scream - anyways, here's the thing oozer, these 2 professionals are both highly respected, regarded individuals in their fields of expertise. These men ARE the experts, they both are "the real thing" in epidemiology, they do not lie because they have too much riding on anything that goes out under their signatures to lie. For example these 2 men are so highly regarded that Colin Powell and Tony Blair refer to their previous studies in speeches. "...Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, “Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity.” In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid. Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference..." http://zmagsite.zmag.org /Feb2006/davies0206.html 4. As for your ranting about death certificates - what point are you trying to make? When Iraqis produced death certificates you question why these Iraqis have the certificates to produce. And then when Iraqis do not produce death certificates you question why they do not have the certificates. Flip flop flip flop - nothing satisfies you, because you don't want to be satisfied. It's what trolls do after all - throw dust on issues to hide truth. 5. Here's the thing oozer, I don't want to repeat this to you again, so pay attention: All the death certificates issued for dead Iraqis were not housed in one single central place like the Ministry of Health in Baghad, for example, nor were death certificates issued by one single central authority. The physicians in the small towns could and would issue death certificates to Iraqi families as the need arose because of the necessity of burying a loved one in agraveyard within 24 hours due to Islamic law. That's one of the reasons why LA Times could not find tallies of death certificates to correspond to what the Iraqis showed the JH team in the cluster samples. The LA Times crew would need to take their butts to Iraq and go to the villages and towns and cities that JH's team went to, which of course the LA Times nor your pal, Mr. neocon Kaplan would dare to do. Also, though the Iraqi families in towns and cities would need to get a death certificate from their local physicians in order to be able to have their loved ones buried in grave yards, it is not likely these families would have the death certificates recorded officially with the Ministry of Health because people have been getting food rations even in 2006. And if a family reports a death officially, you lose that ration. And btw, that information comes from Dr. Les Roberts - he wrote me back after I asked him your question. You should send him a list of all your questions, bac, Dr. Roberts is quite prompt to return emails. But then again, you probably do not want Dr. Roberts to answer your questions do you, BAC.
#112. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, AGAviator, ALL (#111)
Beachy (the laughing spam boy) might as well have everyone filtered. By his own admission here, he doesn't read what anyone else posts.
But it takes two to debate and so far I haven't even found one willing to do that. ROTFLOL! (Beachy)
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#113. To: Minerva (#112)
Well that would explain why he doesn't respond to a simple direct question asked 3 times.
Beachy (the laughing spam boy) might as well have everyone filtered. By his own admission here, he doesn't read what anyone else posts.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#114. To: Minerva (#0)
My bozo count is 387 so far.
#115. To: BeAChooser (#109)
With so many deaths, maybe the medical examiner is a little bit backlogged.
Where are the missing death certificates?
#116. To: BeALoser (#115) (Edited)
BeALoser: With so many deaths, maybe the medical examiner is a little bit backlogged. And also please see the information in my msg #111. Islam requires burial within 24 hours. If a physician cannot be reached easily within that time frame for a death certificate to be issued, the loved one is buried without a certificate in a place other than a grave yard.
BAC: Where are the missing death certificates?
#117. To: BeALoser (#114)
Welcome, Bealy.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#118. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#110)
BUT, you Mossadite piece of shit, you don't address the War Crimes which produceded ANY of the bodies, whatever the quantity may be! There's your 'flag.' (Blue and White, no doubt.) But as I pointed out, ....
#119. To: Minerva, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#112)
We're feeding the troll; he laughs at every occurence.
#120. To: SKYDRIFTER, All (#119)
Perhaps - rather, more than likely. But I thought other 4 um posters would like to hear some of the things that Dr. Roberts emailed to me. See my post #111 and #116.
We're feeding the troll; he laughs at every occurence.
#121. To: scrapper2, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#111)
Good response. BAC deserved that one, for sure.
#122. To: scrapper2, ALL (#111)
ROTFLOL! Blah blah blah. Then explain why their survey just happened to pick a group of people of whom 92% of those claiming a death could supply a death certificate, when only a fraction of that number of death certificates seemed to have been issued in Iraq? You folks still haven't come up with a viable explanation of this. You folks would have us believe that Iraq has seen twice the number of people killed as a percentage of population as Germany did in WW2, even though the allies carpet bombed almost every major city in Germany over a four year period. You folks would have us believe that Iraq has seen as many people killed as Japan did, even though almost every major city in Japan was firebombed in WW2. It is beyond ridiculous. The simple truth is that you are willing to blindly believe a group of researchers who admit they published their study when they did to negatively affect Bush's reelection, who used people in Iraq to conduct the study that they said "hated" the Americans, who published the study in a journal that itself admits rushing the article to print to negatively influence the war effort. And now you want to claim that Kucinich and Paul have no agenda? ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! You STILL don't understand? Did they produce death certificates? Based on whose word? The people that conducted the survey that the researchers themselves admitted "hate" the Americans? An indication that their claim of 92 percent is a lie is that only a TENTH that number of death certificates seems to have been issued during the time in question. Is that point so hard to understand, scrapper? The LA Times said they went to morgues, hospitals and the Health Ministry in various parts of Iraq in order to attempt a comprehensive investigation. Prove this. Provide us with ANYTHING that indicates that is the way it works in Iraq. What the LA Times seemed to indicate is that violent deaths get reported to morgues, hospitals and the Health Ministry. I don't think you can explain a disparity of 10 to 1 by claiming Iraqi doctors issued death certificates to people and didn't report that to anyone. I think you are grasping for straws, scrapper. Prove this. You are doing nothing but speculating. ROTFLOL! And he is speculating too. Since you don't seem to have understood my question (you admitted this at the beginning of your post), why don't you actually post the exact wording of what you claim you emailed Dr Roberts. I'd love to see it. And I'd love to see his exact response (as opposed to your interpretation of it). Dare you provide that?
2. As for your accusation that Paul and Kucinich had an agenda to promote by having these 2 men testify, you tell me, what might that "agenda" be?
3. As for your example of Drs. Roberts' and Burnham's "LYING" ... snip ... These men ARE the experts, they both are "the real thing" in epidemiology, they do not lie because they have too much riding on anything that goes out under their signatures to lie.
4. As for your ranting about death certificates - what point are you trying to make?
When Iraqis produced death certificates you question why these Iraqis have the certificates to produce.
All the death certificates issued for dead Iraqis were not housed in one single central place like the Ministry of Health in Baghad, for example, nor were death certificates issued by one single central authority.
The physicians in the small towns could and would issue death certificates to Iraqi families as the need arose because of the necessity of burying a loved one in agraveyard within 24 hours due to Islamic law.
Also, though the Iraqi families in towns and cities would need to get a death certificate from their local physicians in order to be able to have their loved ones buried in grave yards,
And btw, that information comes from Dr. Les Roberts
he wrote me back after I asked him your question.
#123. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#122)
You and your spam, BAC. Trolls are good about begging food - you prove that. What was it that Hitler devised? "I defeated my [political] enemies by giving them work to do." You and your Next-Generation Nazism, there, BAC!
#124. To: SKYDRIFTER, scrapper2, Kamala, Critter, Red Jones, RickyJ, Jethro Tul, Minerva, All (#119)
he elicits educative posts from others. that's a valuable contribution to 4. :P
#125. To: BeAChooser (#104)
You tell lies that even the authors of the war no longer are willing to state publicly. No I did not, and you are lying. That is not an identical time period. Look up "identical" Look up "[the survey's] authors opined" while you're at it. There are no "missing" death certificates. The people in the survey had them, and everything else is your usual speculation and arm-waving. I don't need to, because they're not "missing" and only you allege they are. The LA Times said they could not be "compiled," not that they didn't exist. Never made that claim. I said that 4 bodies a day on average in 89 municipalties plus the country can easily bring the total past 600,000. Your mis-representations of what I say are getting sillier and sillier. I don't need to make any excuses because you've never made any point to begin with. You are simply alleging something that only you believe in. Who said anything about wanting them to get of Iraq by publicity? Only sillier and sillier you. They want Americans to get out of Iraq by inflicting enough casualties on Americans that the toll will become unacceptable, to everybody except the likes of you who want other people to fight your battles. And I'm sure you'll be the first to admit how jihadists are soooo reasonable, you sillier and sillier, lamer and lamer numbskull. I did not do any such thing. I cited Basra, as did Cole, to give an example of the order of magnitude of deaths that never make it into the media. You really are getting downright stupid. Nobody said 1 death an hour for the entire time since the invasion. It appears the only thing you have to offer is to distort what someone else says. I never said that, liar. It appears your entire arguments have collapsed for you to make such grandiose and unfounded claims. I don't need any death certificates, because the death certificates are with the people contacted in the survey. All the other death certificates you go on about are figments of your warped imagination. Your biggest bullshit statement yet. Name one person who agrees with you. Sillier and sillier. Lamer and lamer. You clearly can't read even basic English. I said that even if they killed 100,000 that would mean a cost of $10 million for each death. If you want to say they killed less, then it goes to $20 or $30 million cost for each death.
You are having so much difficulty with what I'm pointing out about those studies and its authors.
You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion".
No I didn't. That is just one of several factors,
You most certainly did suggest that was a primary factor.
The surveys did not cover identical time periods,
FALSE. The second survey includes the period of the first survey
And the first survey had a confidence interval where its authors opined that 100,000 seemed to be a reasonable minimum.
FALSE FALSE FALSE. The minimum of the 95% confidence range was 8,000.
"Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist"
Diversion and straw man.
No, it's an argument that strikes at the heart of your claim the John Hopkins survey is believable. Which is why you are clearly having so much trouble dealing with it.
Which is why you keep putting forward one explanation after another only to discover each explanation does not explain. You can't explain the missing death certificates by claiming the first year was chaos.
Now you are finding it necessary to claim that every major city in Iraq has been more violent on a daily basis since the beginning of the war than the media has even noted for only a few short specific periods in only a couple of cities.
Your excuses are getting sillier and sillier.
The insurgency does not play by your rules.
See what I mean about getting sillier and sillier? You now want us to believe that insurgents wouldn't use what is clearly the most powerful leverage possible to get America out of Iraq.
Do you honestly believe the world would stand for our remaining if the insurgents showed proof that we'd committed genocide in Anbar by killing HALF of its population? Of course not ... so it defies reason blah blah blah.
Actually, after finding your Anbar suggestion didn't hold water, you offered Basra as an explanation, claiming that 1 person per hour was dying (based solely on ONE comment by ONE person a year ago).
I simply showed that even if we assumed 1 death an hour for the entire time since the invasion, it would only amount to 28,000 ... proving how ridiculous your Basra excuse was.
No, after your Anbar and Basra arguments collapsed, you moved on to claiming (without any proof) that 4 bodies per day had been dying in 90 cities in Iraq every day, day in and day out, since the beginning of the invasion.
If that were true, you could account for perhaps 400,000 deaths. But its ALL based on nothing but speculation. You still don't have the death certificates. You still don't have ANY proof of that many bodies. And you still haven't explained how John Hopkins just happened to pick a group of people for their survey of whom 92 percent could supply death certificates on demand.
Sure you did. We all watched your theory evolve on this very thread, AGAviator. It's no use claiming otherwise. All one has to do is reread this read to see that I'm right.
The war has cost more than $1 Trillion,
No, it has not....For one, it totally over looks the positive financial benefits of invading and winning in Iraq. It is NET cost/benefit that will matter in the long run.
Now you make the FALSE claim that the American military directly killed those 100,000 Iraqis. The truth is that most of the deaths in Iraq are directly a result of terrorist, insurgent and secular violence. Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Even the John Hopkins' researchers have said as much.
#126. To: BeALoser (#114)
I demand the Bozo certificates!
My bozo count is 387 so far.
#127. To: scrapper2, skydrifter (#111)
BAM! Excellent post! Slam dunk.
And btw, that information comes from Dr. Les Roberts - he wrote me back after I asked him your question. You should send him a list of all your questions, bac, Dr. Roberts is quite prompt to return emails. But then again, you probably do not want Dr. Roberts to answer your questions do you, BAC.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#128. To: scrapper2 (#111) (Edited)
5. Here's the thing oozer, I don't want to repeat this to you again, so pay attention: All the death certificates issued for dead Iraqis were not housed in one single central place like the Ministry of Health in Baghad, for example, nor were death certificates issued by one single central authority. The physicians in the small towns could and would issue death certificates to Iraqi families as the need arose Also, though the Iraqi families in towns and cities would need to get a death certificate from their local physicians in order to be able to have their loved ones buried in grave yards, it is not likely these families would have the death certificates recorded officially with the Ministry of Health because people have been getting food rations even in 2006. And if a family reports a death officially, you lose that ration. Excellent post. And corroborates just what I've been saying all along - that there is a difference between getting a death certificate [survey] and a government agency having totals of death certificates at the central government level in Baghdad [LA Times]. Physicians in Iraq can also issue death certificates in addition to governmental agencies. The death certificates the LA Times was trying to collate were solely from governmental agencies, not from physicians.
As for your ranting about death certificates - what point are you trying to make? When Iraqis produced death certificates you question why these Iraqis have the certificates to produce. And then when Iraqis do not produce death certificates you question why they do not have the certificates. Flip flop flip flop - nothing satisfies you, because you don't want to be satisfied. It's what trolls do after all - throw dust on issues to hide truth.
#129. To: Minerval, scrapper2, BeAChooser, Skydrifter, diana, Christine, Red Jones (#112)
Scrapper2 just blew Looser out of the water with his reference that Iraqi doctors also issue death certificates in addition to hospitals and morgues. Looser has been going on and on with his lies and distortions about "missing death certificates" for months on end. Probably posts in the hundreds about this non-issue. Combined with his/her trademarked spam, "ROTFLOL's," and grandiose proclamations of victory. Will (s)he be honest enough to admit it and stop pretending that it is an issue? Never. Expect more of the same. However for everyone else, this thread is a prime example of BAC's intellectual dishonesty. For his non-existent "readers," he claims to be posting to [because he will not convince anybody on this site], it will convincingly demonstrate once and for his/her lack of credibility.
Beachy (the laughing spam boy) might as well have everyone filtered. By his own admission here, he doesn't read what anyone else posts.
#130. To: scrapper2 (#116)
Are you saying they can't get buried in grave yards without death certificates? Seems reasonable to prevent people from burying individuals they're guilty of killing themselves.
If a physician cannot be reached easily within that time frame for a death certificate to be issued, the loved one is buried without a certificate in a place other than a grave yard.
#131. To: scrapper2 (#111) (Edited)
True to form, the dishonest troll now demands further proof after you've debunked his claims and his grandiose proclamations. As usual, it's not worth wasting links on him/her, because all (s)he will do is demand more links. That's how a troll operates. However for you, here's the following Link: Iraq's Hospitals Are New Killing Fields As a result, more and more Iraqis are avoiding hospitals, making it even harder to preserve life in a city where death is seemingly everywhere. Gunshot victims are now being treated by nurses in makeshift emergency rooms set up in homes.... The reluctance of Sunnis to enter hospitals is making it increasingly difficult to assess the number of casualties caused by sectarian violence. During a recent attack on Shiite pilgrims, a top Sunni political leader accused the Shiite-led government of ignoring large numbers of Sunnis who he said were also killed and wounded in the clash, though he was unable to offer even a rough estimate of the Sunni casualties...In Baghdad these days, not even the hospitals are safe. In growing numbers, sick and wounded Sunnis have been abducted from public hospitals operated by Iraq's Shiite-run Health Ministry and later killed, according to patients, families of victims, doctors and government officials.
#132. To: BeAChooser (#110) (Edited)
Are you claiming one? If not, why are you obfuscating? Don't put words into my mouth. No I didn't. As usual, your only communication is lies and distortions. Wouldn't it be more likely that all you do is try to make other people say things they didn't, instead of addressing what they actually did? No it is not. You still haven't come to grips with the magnitude of things like "gross undercount," and "did not count deaths outside Baghdad in the first year," and "Iraqi doctors issue death certificates." So they didn't count everybody. What did I just finish telling you, airhead? Plus, they did not count *some portion* of the dead whose bodies were not found. There are no missing death certificates. Cite someone to support you. They're not missing. That's not what the John Hopkins survey said. I don't claim anything to a troll. I simply point out where you are trying to muddy up the issue. No it doesn't, liar. "Gross" means "very large." "Two" is not "very large." Says who? You? As I've said before, if they knew exactly how much they were off, they would have the actual number. Let's remind our readers that Iraqi doctors can issue death certificates, and the "Iraqi officials" the LA Times was talking to are hundreds of miles away from the places where the deaths took place, in a war zone. No one except you says that "HALF the pre-war population of Anbar would now have to be dead." Juan Cole says, and I say, that an average of 4 excess deaths a day throughout Iraq will attain the 600,000 comfortably. You're right, NO ONE else has. Just you have. Which shows why you're totally ridiculous, and can only communicate by making totally ridiculous statements that other people never said.
As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime.
Would one?
I didn't say you said that. I said you assumed it. You assumed it in your calculation of 78%. It is implicit in the math.
You assumed that the 13% who were not asked to provide proof (because the researchers *forgot*) were so special that they wouldn't have been able to provide even one death certificate.
Wouldn't it be more likely since they were only *randomly* forgotten
But tens of thousands missing is not your problem. Your problem is hundreds and hundreds of thousands.
And there are also large numbers of people who have not had relatives survive to note they were dead or missing.
ROTFLOL! blah blah blah Thus, they included at least *some portion* of dead for those who had no relatives.
Furthermore, this possibility doesn't explain the discrepancy between the current John Hopkins' estimate and the missing death certificates.
It's not a claim, it is a fact.
The LA Times article mentioned the first year as being particularly chaotic.
But the first year doesn't account for half a million missing certificates.
Because only 100,000 died during that time (actually the first 18 months) according to both John Hopkins first and second reports.
Surely you aren't NOW claiming that the following 21 months were more chaotic than the first 18? Or are you?
I said the LA Times said many times its number is too low. As in saying 5 or 6 times its number was too low, using phrases like "grossly undercounted."
"Grossly undercounted" could just as easily mean 50% too low. Or a factor of two.
If they meant the count was off by a factor of 5 or 6 (or 10 as John Hopkins would have us believe), they would surely have made an even stronger declaration than merely saying "grossly".
Let's remind our readers
But as I pointed out, to explain even half of the claimed dead in the John Hopkins' study, HALF the pre-war population of Anbar would now have to be dead and surely the rest would have to be injured.
Which is totally ridiculous given the fact that NO ONE has made such a claim or proven such a slaughter. NO ONE.
#133. To: AGAviator (#129)
yep. as i said earlier, he elicits good educational (and often witty) posts from everyone else. that's the only value he contributes.
For his non-existent "readers," he claims to be posting to [because he will not convince anybody on this site], it will convincingly demonstrate once and for his/her lack of credibility.
.
.
.
Comments (134 - 375) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest