[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This??? Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review Russian children returned from Syria Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation) France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief SCOTUS asked to review if Illinois can keep counting mail-in ballots 2 weeks after election day The Real Reason Government Workers Are Panicking About ElonÂ’s New Tracking System THEY DON'T CARE ANYMORE! Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice "Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It? Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap 46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!! Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Pious Perverts
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: 27539
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.

Beachy Spills the Beans

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  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 132.

#7. To: Minerva, christine, zipporah (#0)

It is pretty fucking sad that this, of all forums, has come to this 'back and forth sniping tripe'.

Brian S  posted on  2007-02-19   22:24:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It is pretty fucking sad that this, of all forums, has come to this 'back and forth sniping tripe'.

Yea - Freeper like mentality by people who hate being exposed to anything not part of the echo chamber they want to live in.

Anyone who places anyone on bozo for non harassment reasons on a forum is an intellectual coward.

Destro  posted on  2007-02-20   0:26:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Anyone who places anyone on bozo for non harassment reasons on a forum is an intellectual coward.

There is no intellect present in an exceedingly dishonest poster with a very questionable agenda.

You should know better than that. And his behavior IS a form of harassment, he twists the words of other posters, will not debate honestly, constantly infers others are stupid, etc. He's a classic narcissist, therefore impossible to reason with or get along with.

Diana  posted on  2007-02-20   5:36:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

He's a classic narcissist, therefore impossible to reason with or get along with.

I don't think he can be reasoned with either. He hasn't posted for as long as he has to be swayed from his opinions of 9/11 just because someone finally posts something that should make him think, "hey, maybe these kooks are right after all about 9/11." I doubt that will ever happen. Nevertheless to leave his stuff posted without any rebuttal makes it look like he has won the argument to a lurker, which is not a good idea. Calling him names only helps his side of the argument for an impartial lurker.

RickyJ  posted on  2007-02-20   5:49:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This is a good example of how he operates.He said few Iraqis are dying because there is no hard evidence for all those killed (typical BAC spin/logic).

I wrote this post to him after he made the claim that there are few photographs, videos or death certificates of dead Iraqis:

******

"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."

******

And this is what he wrote in response to that post:

******

"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?"

******

You see what he is doing here? If you go through his post carefully, you can see how many inflammatory accusations he is making. A person has to decide whether they are willing to put up with that kind of dishonest and potentially harmful behavior.

Diana  posted on  2007-02-20   6:40:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Les Roberts Answers Your Questions

Juan Cole: 655,000 Dead in Iraq since Bush Invasion

"Not to mention that for substantial periods of time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the country just to move around, much less to move around with dead bodies.

There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible?

There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed.

If 470 were dying every day, what would that look like?

West Baghdad is roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. It is certainly generating 47 dead a day. Same for Sadr City, same proportions. So to argue against the study you have to assume that Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Kut, Amara, Samarra, etc., are not producing deaths at the same rate as the two halves of Baghad. But it is perfectly plausible that rough places like Kut and Amara, with their displaced Marsh Arab populations, are keeping up their end. Four dead a day in Kut or Amara at the hands of militiamen or politicized tribesmen? Is that really hard to believe? Have you been reading this column the last three years?

Or let's take the city of Basra, which is also roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. Proportionally speaking, you'd expect on the order of 40 persons to be dying of political violence there every day. We don't see 40 persons from Basra reported dead in the wire services on a daily basis.

But last May, the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now. Has security improved since May? No one seems even to be reporting on it, yes or no.

So if 24 Iraqis can be shot down every day in Basra for a month (or for many months?) and no one notices, the Lancet results are perfectly plausible.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-20   7:11:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Les Roberts Answers Your Questions

Juan Cole: 655,000 Dead in Iraq since Bush Invasion

Readers ... note that not one of the following verifiable facts and concerns about the Les Roberts study is addressed in Mr Coles article:

*********************

1. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate out there (and there are about half a dozen others). Those other estimates were more like 50,000 at the time the John Hopkins study was published. Are they all wrong and only John Hopkins right? Even various anti-war groups such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount have indicated the John Hopkins' figures are outlandish. So why are FD4UMers so voraciously defending JH's estimates?

2. The report and the peer reviewer of the report (the Lancet) ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimates derived by other organizations such as the UN and WHO. The UN and WHO, in largers studies, came up with rates between 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkins rate of 5-5.5 per 1000 per year. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had previously endorsed as accurate. 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, perhaps a tenth as much.

3. A recent UN Development Program study, http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf, states that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level) during the time covered by the Hopkins report. This is approximately ONE-FOURTH the number of excess deaths that Les Roberts' 2004 John Hopkins study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set than John Hopkins. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report (which claims its results verify the first JH report)? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet *peer* reviewers?

4. According to the latest John Hopkins 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 about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even if that investigation were off a factor of two, there is still a huge discrepancy. To take the Johns Hopkins results 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 happened to get 92 percent by pure chance.

5. A principle author of both John Hopkins studies, Les Roberts, has publically stated he disliked Bush (not unexpected given that he is an active democRAT) and the war. He has admitted that he released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP. And he has admitted that most of those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. None of that is a good basis for conducting a non-partisan study.

6. Nor is the behavior of the Lancet. They've not only failed to ask important questions during their *peer* reviews, they admit they greatly abbreviated that peer review process for the 2004 report so the results could be published in time to influence the 2004 election. They also reported on their own website in 2004, that the deaths estimated by John Hopkins were comprised solely of civilians. But the study made no such claim. In fact, it clearly states that the investigators did not ask those interviewed if the dead were civilians, Saddam military or insurgents. Which leads one to wonder if the Lancet actually read the report they claimed to review.

7. When media 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. This 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 the deaths. And Les Roberts did the exact same thing in another interview.

8. In the Garfield interview mentioned above, he stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Let me repeat that figure ... 200 A MONTH, in one of the most populated and most violent regions in the country during the time in question. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 (on average) were dying each month in the country since the war began. How could Garfield not have questions about this new estimate given his previous statement?

9. Richard Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts/John Hopkins 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. That is compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Roberts or Garfield address this disparity? And note that 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 Roberts' study?

10. There is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence.

11. Dahr Jamail is an example of the above. He is viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents and arabs. So look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day on average 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.

12. 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.

13. But the discrepancy is even worse than that. As noted by the author of this blog, http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066, "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?"

14. 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 (note who he uses to get his message out), 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, instead 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." Then why didn't they keep the Fallujah data point?

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 according to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report killed an estimated 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire rather than bombs, 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 (for example, Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and his 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?

****************

Number 4 is particularly damning.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-20   12:04:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible?

There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed.

If 470 were dying every day, what would that look like?

West Baghdad is roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. It is certainly generating 47 dead a day. Same for Sadr City, same proportions. So to argue against the study you have to assume that Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Kut, Amara, Samarra, etc., are not producing deaths at the same rate as the two halves of Baghad. But it is perfectly plausible that rough places like Kut and Amara, with their displaced Marsh Arab populations, are keeping up their end. Four dead a day in Kut or Amara at the hands of militiamen or politicized tribesmen? Is that really hard to believe? Have you been reading this column the last three years?

The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates.

In that same article, The Los Angeles times explicitly stated that 50,000 is a gross undercount and excluded entire sections of the country.

And since we've been over this many times already, you are intentionally trying to deceive and mislead.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-21   1:04:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq.

Are the people in these 90 major towns and cities different than the people John Hopkins surveyed as being typical of them? Why didn't they go to morgues, hospitals and the health ministry to get a death certificate issued like the ones in the study? Or did they go but then ask those organizations to wipe their records of the fact? Please, resolve this question for me AGAviator since you seem so knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq.

In that same article, The Los Angeles times explicitly stated that 50,000 is a gross undercount and excluded entire sections of the country.

True, the LATimes article says "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 somehow I doubt they meant their data was off by a factor of ten (or more). A factor of two or three, possibly ... but not a factor of ten. You would think that the LATimes would have mentioned something like that. Wouldn't you?

If you read the John Hopkins report (you've done that, right?), you will find that it claims Al Anbar was surveyed with 3 clusters (compared to Baghdad's 12) out of a total of 47. If the number of clusters is representative of population (it should be), we can conclude that Baghdad has about 25 percent of the population. Anbar would have then 2.5 percent of the population. So now you must be claiming that hundreds of deaths (300?) have been occurring in Anbar every day, on average, since the war began. Let's look at the reasonableness of that. What is the population of Anbar? If Iraq is about 27 million total, Anbar must have had a population of about 680,000 (call it 700,000). Now 300 deaths a day for 39 months (the time between the beginning of the war and July of last year) would total about 351,000. Wow ... are you suggesting that HALF the population of Anbar died during that time?!!! And that's gone unnoticed by the media? ROTFLOL!

Indeed, those are regions where officials probably don't like Americans or the Iraqi government. What better way to embarrass both than to report death of that magnitude? But they haven't done that, have they. Why not? Why are there no pictures or video of this slaughter coming out of those areas? We know the insurgents have photographic equipment and access to the media. Why aren't they using it? Showing this supposed slaughter would probably have more effect than any thousand successful bombings in getting the US out of the country. So why no pictures? Why no video?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-21   21:23:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Are the people in these 90 major towns and cities different than the people John Hopkins surveyed as being typical of them? Why didn't they go to morgues, hospitals and the health ministry to get a death certificate issued like the ones in the study? Or did they go but then ask those organizations to wipe their records of the fact? Please, resolve this question for me AGAviator since you seem so knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq.

There are some very good reasons for not going to morgues and hospitals: (1) You can get killed in the process of moving around the country, and (2) You can have your dead kin accused of being a terrorist which will result in some serious problems for you and your own surviving family.

Furthermore, to answer your ghoulish preoccupation with "Where are the bodies, where are the death cerfificates" the Cole article cites a common practice of throwing corpses into the Tigris river and other bodies of water. It happens day in and day out.

So do you expect the majority of bodies disposed of in the Tigris River to show up and get identified as bodies, and given a death certificate?

In that same article, The Los Angeles times explicitly stated that 50,000 is a gross undercount and excluded entire sections of the country.

True, the LATimes article says "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 somehow I doubt they meant their data was off by a factor of ten (or more). A factor of two or three, possibly ... but not a factor of ten. You would think that the LATimes would have mentioned something like that. Wouldn't you?

No I don't. That is arm-waving and speculation on your part.

Now here is the article

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, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since...

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. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks.

The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount. In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad...

However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000.

The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion.

The morgue records show a predominantly civilian toll; the hospital records gathered by the Health Ministry do not distinguish between civilians, combatants and security forces. ...

"Everything has increased," said one official in the Health Ministry who didn't want to be identified for security reasons. "Bombings have increased, shootings have increased." ...

So you intrepret "Many more," "serious lapses in reporting," "grossly undercounted," "exclude the three northern provinces," "does not include deaths outside Baghdad," "everything has increased," and "well beyond" as meaning "not more than double."

Nobody else will.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-22   0:14:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"Are the people in these 90 major towns and cities different than the people John Hopkins surveyed as being typical of them? Why didn't they go to morgues, hospitals and the health ministry to get a death certificate issued like the ones in the study? Or did they go but then ask those organizations to wipe their records of the fact? Please, resolve this question for me AGAviator since you seem so knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq."

There are some very good reasons for not going to morgues and hospitals: (1) You can get killed in the process of moving around the country, and (2) You can have your dead kin accused of being a terrorist which will result in some serious problems for you and your own surviving family.

Then why did all the folks in the John Hopkins study do that? Did John Hopkins *random* sample just happen to pick a group who did when most of the rest of the country didn't? Or are you suggesting that those who don' t go to morgues, etc can still get death certificates that John Hopkins would accept as legitimate proof? Who issues those death certificate? The LA Times didn't mention any other source for them other than morgues, hospitals and the health ministry. Perhaps the folks in the John Hopkins' study simply create their own? ROTFLOL!

"True, the LATimes article says "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 somehow I doubt they meant their data was off by a factor of ten (or more). A factor of two or three, possibly ... but not a factor of ten. You would think that the LATimes would have mentioned something like that. Wouldn't you?"

No I don't.

Really? You really think that the highly liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war LA Times wouldn't mention that the death toll is off by a factor of 10 if it were? Really? ROTFLOL!

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, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since...

That doesn't help your case either, since the second John Hopkins' study *confirmed* the results of the first which claimed that 98,000 died in the first 18 months after the war began. Thus the majority of the deaths in the 655,000 death study had to have occured after that "chaotic first year".

The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount. In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad...

But Kurdistan has been very peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq. Surely you aren't claiming that the death rate in Kurdistan is any higher than in Baghdad. If not, then again, the number undercounted can't be much more than the baseline count. You are still missing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bodies, death certificates and eyewitness reports.

By the way, the liberal, anti-war, mainstream media won't tell the public this, but Kurdistan is a real success story. They are doing quite well right now compared to under Saddam.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-22   19:11:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Did John Hopkins *random* sample just happen to pick a group who did when most of the rest of the country didn't? Or are you suggesting that those who don't go to morgues, etc can still get death certificates?

Another one of your trademarked diverisons. The survey asked if they had death certificates. They did not ask if they had death certificates from a morgue or a hospital that happened to be contacted by the LA Times.

Perhaps the folks in the John Hopkins' study simply create their own? ROTFLOL!

Seems like "ROTFLOL" is your code for "I'm starting to have difficulties really explaining my position."

The survey said most of their respondents had death certificates. The LA Times said it was difficult to summarize, collate and count the number of death certificates issued, at official reporting levels.

Really? You really think that the highly liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war LA Times wouldn't mention that the death toll is off by a factor of 10 if it were? Really? ROTFLOL!

A completely bullshit argument you're pulling out of thin air. The LA Times like any reputable publication does not claim to know what it has just said it does not know.

If they knew they were off by a factor of ten, they would have had the real number to begin with.

You really like to make this crap up as you go along, don't you?

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, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since...

That doesn't help your case either, since the second John Hopkins' study *confirmed* the results of the first which claimed that 98,000 died in the first 18 months after the war began.

False. They confirmed their number with a 2nd sample, which corroborated the first. They didn't try to prove their number with official statistics which they explicitly noted were difficult to come by.

But Kurdistan has been very peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq.

Not during the first year in Mosul and Kirkuk. There is also Anbar province and possibly Basra which are worse.

You are still missing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bodies, death certificates and eyewitness reports.

That has already been discussed. You keep spamming the same old stuff. Four bodies a day x 90 municipalities, plus deaths in the countryside not associated with those municipalities, easily brings the total past 600,000.

By the way, the liberal, anti-war, mainstream media won't tell the public this, but Kurdistan is a real success story. They are doing quite well right now compared to under Saddam.

Many Kurds are mercenaries in the employ of the US government, and their government is also letting Israeli money and military operatives have free rein in return for a future chunk of their oil reserves should they be able to pull off secession.

There's Big Oil money around there too, because Kurdistan sits on top of 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. Kurdistan is a welfare project for Big Oil and Israeli shysters all being financed by the American taxpayer.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-23   0:33:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"Did John Hopkins *random* sample just happen to pick a group who did when most of the rest of the country didn't? Or are you suggesting that those who don't go to morgues, etc can still get death certificates?"

Another one of your trademarked diverisons. The survey asked if they had death certificates. They did not ask if they had death certificates from a morgue or a hospital that happened to be contacted by the LA Times.

But the LA Times only mentioned morgues, hospitals and the health ministry as being sources of death certificates. So I ask you ... what other sources are there? Does the John Hopkins report mention any other sources? No. So what sources are you claiming exist. Oh that's right ... your *theory* is that the morgues, etc did issue the 655,000 certificates but just forgot to make a note of them. ROTFLOL!

The LA Times like any reputable publication does not claim to know what it has just said it does not know.

Reputable? ROTFLOL! Do you know why they call it the LASlime?

"That doesn't help your case either, since the second John Hopkins' study *confirmed* the results of the first which claimed that 98,000 died in the first 18 months after the war began."

False. They confirmed their number with a 2nd sample, which corroborated the first.

Not false. That's exactly what I said. 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.

But Kurdistan has been very peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq.

Not during the first year in Mosul and Kirkuk.

But those areas were supposedly counted in the first John Hopkins study during the first year. You are still missing half a million death certificates.

There is also Anbar province and possibly Basra which are worse.

No, I already addressed the problem with assuming that most of the deaths occurred in Anbar. You'd have to have killed half the population of the region to explain the John Hopkins estimate and SURELY that would have gotten the attention of the world media.

And the Basra statistics from John Hopkins' study have the same problem. Basra is also only 2.5 percent of the population. In fact, even at 1 per hour death rates you and Juan Cole are now claiming you can't make the John Hopkins' estimate make sense. Consider ...

39 months times 30 days times 24 hours time 1/hour = 28,080.

That's it ... 28,000. And you'd have to claim THIS is one of the most violent areas of the country every day since the beginning of the war. Just to get 28,000 deaths.

When are you going to understand that the John Hopkins study is fundamentally flawed?

Kurdistan is a welfare project for Big Oil and Israeli shysters all being financed by the American taxpayer.

Probably never...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-23   12:51:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

But the LA Times only mentioned morgues, hospitals and the health ministry as being sources of death certificates. So I ask you ... what other sources are there? Does the John Hopkins report mention any other sources? No. So what sources are you claiming exist. Oh that's right ... your *theory* is that the morgues, etc did issue the 655,000 certificates but just forgot to make a note of them. ROTFLOL!

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of

"Grossly undercounted," and

"Serious lapses in recording deaths," and

"Continued spotty reporting," and

"Unable to compile the data,"

The LA Times like any reputable publication does not claim to know what it has just said it does not know.

Reputable? ROTFLOL! Do you know why they call it the LASlime?

A pretty lame attempt to weasel out of my incisive answer with an ad hominem.

You said the LA Times would have stated if they were off by a factor of ten.

I said that if the LA Times knew how much they were off, then they'd have the real number to begin with.

Then you try to change the subject.

And you fancy yourself a *debater.*

Not false. That's exactly what I said. 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

And that does not equate to those death certificates being *missing.*

t those areas were supposedly counted in the first John Hopkins study during the first year. You are still missing half a million death certificates.

No I am not missing them.

I know this is your last, best hope to try to obfuscate the results of the survey, but handing out a death certificate, and keeping track of the total number of death certificates handed out, are two completely different actions. Especially in a chaotic war zone, which Iraq is.

You'd have to have killed half the population of the region to explain the John Hopkins estimate and SURELY that would have gotten the attention of the world media.

Anbar is off-limits to the world media. And this really is all you have to say once one strips away the bullshit.

You claim there couldn't have been 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq because the media is picking on poor little George Bush. That's really the only agrument you have to offer.

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, plus deaths in the country, in a country the size of California with a population of 36 million and a normal death rate of over 100,000 per year, most of which is off- limits and very dangerous to anyone including the media.

And yet you keep on harping on a non-existent "problem" of where the bodies are - as if they aren't scattered all over the country.

When are you going to understand that the John Hopkins study is fundamentally flawed?

When are you going to understand the war was based on lies, its supporters adamantly keep information about it from the world and from American citizens, there has been more than $1 Trillion spent on it, there have been tens of thousands of missions both in the air and on the ground, it has been going on for more nearly 4 years - yet you would have everyone believe that hardly any one ever has died as a result of it.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-24   0:25:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

"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

"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.

Anbar is off-limits to the world media.

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.

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,

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!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-24   21:14:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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

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

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-25   0:17:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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%.

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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-25   18:23:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

But let's not get distracted by the precision with which the study was carried out.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-26   3:40:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime.

Would one?

"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.

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.

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.

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! 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.

The only obfuscations are your attempts to claim the death certificates are missing

It's not a claim, it is a fact.

, when you've been repeatedly told that issuing death certificates during chaotic times,

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 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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-26   11:52:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime.

Would one?

Are you claiming one? If not, why are you obfuscating?

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.

Don't put words into my mouth.

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.

No I didn't. As usual, your only communication is lies and distortions.

Wouldn't it be more likely since they were only *randomly* forgotten

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?

But tens of thousands missing is not your problem. Your problem is hundreds and hundreds of thousands.

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."

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.

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.

Furthermore, this possibility doesn't explain the discrepancy between the current John Hopkins' estimate and the missing death certificates.

There are no missing death certificates.

It's not a claim, it is a fact.

Cite someone to support you.

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.

They're not missing.

Because only 100,000 died during that time (actually the first 18 months) according to both John Hopkins first and second reports.

That's not what the John Hopkins survey said.

Surely you aren't NOW claiming that the following 21 months were more chaotic than the first 18? Or are you?

I don't claim anything to a troll. I simply point out where you are trying to muddy up the issue.

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.

No it doesn't, liar.

"Gross" means "very large." "Two" is not "very large."

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".

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

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.

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.

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.

Which is totally ridiculous given the fact that NO ONE has made such a claim or proven such a slaughter. NO ONE.

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-02-27   9:16:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#144. To: AGAviator, ALL (#132)

As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime.

"Would one?"

Are you claiming one? If not, why are you obfuscating?

Not obfuscation. Clarification. I want to find out what you actually consider a war crime. You indicated 10,000 above. But would 9,000 qualify? 8,000? 5,000? 500? 5? 1? Where do you draw the line in your hyperbole, AGAviator?

"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."

Don't put words into my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm pointing out to folk what that math you did CLEARLY implies. That NONE of 13% who didn't answer the question would be able to supply a death certificate. You are the one who has claimed to be the math genius. Didn't you know that when you did that little math calculation? Or perhaps your understanding of that calculation is about the same as your understanding of that graph I posted above on the change in housing prices year to year.

"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."

No I didn't. As usual, your only communication is lies and distortions.

The math doesn't lie, AGAviator. You tried to tell us that only 78% of Iraqis claiming deaths would have to provide a death certificate for the John Hopkins report to be valid. That number inherently assumes that the 13% that were not asked to supply death certificates would not have been able to do so.

"Wouldn't it be more likely since they were only *randomly* forgotten"

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?

Go ahead and play word games, that's ok with me.

"Because only 100,000 died during that time (actually the first 18 months) according to both John Hopkins first and second reports."

That's not what the John Hopkins survey said.

Yes it is. This is from the second report:

"Since the 2006 survey included the period of time contained in the 2004 survey, we could compare these two results for the time frame from January 2002 through August 2004. In 2004, we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000."

"Surely you aren't NOW claiming that the following 21 months were more chaotic than the first 18? Or are you?"

I don't claim anything to a troll. I simply point out where you are trying to muddy up the issue.

Go ahead and play word games. That's ok with me.

""Grossly undercounted" could just as easily mean 50% too low. Or a factor of two."

No it doesn't, liar.

Play word games. That's ok with me.

"Gross" means "very large." "Two" is not "very large."

Let's google "grossly undercount". Here's the first few hits:

http://www.adrants.com/2004/02/study-finds-media-usage-grossly-undercoun.php "Unfortunately, those syndicated research tools are grossly undercounting actual media usage according to a new study from Ball State University's Center For Media Design. The study followed 101 people around for a day observing actual media usage and then compared it to usage determined by written diary and phone survey. Computer usage is undercounted by 205 percent, online by 169 percent, television by 164 percent, books by 100 percent, magazines by 75 percent, radio by 74 percent and newspapers by 13 percent."

http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=565759 "If the revision for the 12 -months ending in March 2006 does produce the now expected upward revision of 810,000, that will mean that job growth in the period was about 40 percent stronger than the government's previous estimates. "It looks as if the monthly numbers grossly undercounted the true number of jobs created," said Bernard Baumohl, managing director of the Economic Outlook Group, a Princeton, N.J. research firm."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02082007/news/regionalnews/population_surprise_for_jews_regionalnews_rita_delfiner.htm "America's Jewish population is far larger than previous estimates, a new survey shows. There are as many as 7.4 million Jews in the United States, researchers at Brandeis University said yesterday. They said the last authoritative survey was taken in 2000-01 and erroneously put the figure then at 5.2 million Jews. ... snip ... The Brandeis researchers said the earlier survey grossly undercounted non-Orthodox families, did not include "substantial numbers of young and middle-aged individuals" and was wrong to say the Jewish-American population had been in a state of decline since 1990."

Or how about this one, http://www.oasisclinic.org/10_PUBLICATIONS.html "the population of opioid-drug users may be grossly undercounted, because some surveys have found up to three times more illicit drug users in particular regions than commonly estimated"

So it seems that no matter what the subject, grossly undercounted can indeed mean a much smaller discrepancy than the one you would have us believe.

Let's remind our readers that Iraqi doctors can issue death certificates

Prove it. And prove that they then aren't under any obligation to pass on a copy of that death certificate to authorities, as they are here in the United States.

"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."

No one except you says that "HALF the pre-war population of Anbar would now have to be dead. Juan Cole says, "

Play word games all you want. YOU offered Anbar as an explanation for why there are so many death certificates missing. Not I. I simply showed that even if you used Anbar to explain only half the number of death certificates that are missing, then half the population of Anbar would have to be dead now. A ridiculous assertion ... hence Anbar cannot begin to account for the number of missing death certificates.

and I say, that an average of 4 excess deaths a day throughout Iraq will attain the 600,000 comfortably.

But earlier you denied claiming that 4 excess deaths a day have occurred in every remotely large city in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Yet that assumption is necessary to even account for 400,000 of the deaths. Make up your mind, AGAviator. Is all of Iraq more violent than even the anti-war folks were claiming Baghdad was at its peak violence, or not?

Our readers should keep in mind this:

As noted by the author of this, "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?"

"Which is totally ridiculous given the fact that NO ONE has made such a claim or proven such a slaughter. NO ONE."

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.

Play word games all you want, that's ok with me.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-02-27 12:35:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]