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: 23740
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 (1-132) not displayed.
.
.
.
#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.
Thre's got to be something just a tad off with somebody who goes to a website where almost nobody likes him/her, then spends all his/her time arguing about posts (s)he considers "kooky" or "ridiculous." "ROTFLOL!!!"
I concur. I've learned a lot about 9-11 and about what's going on in that meat grinder over there by watching folks beat the crap out of Loser. If he ever goes off the payroll, it would be a shame. We should consider getting together a little kitty for the poor boy. Pass the hat. Cheers. ;P
Money trumps . . . uh . . . . peace . . sometimes. - GW Bush
You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. You want to play word games, that's ok with me. Too bad that without having 4 bodies a day dying in 90 cities since the beginning of the invasion you don't even get close to the 600,000 figure. Not even close. But if you want to play word games, that's ok with me. Right. All you do with your word games is demonstrate that you don't understand survey statistics and the meaning of a representative sample. Oh that's right, you don't believe in cost/benefit analysis. You said "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." But truth be told, you aren't claiming they killed 100,000. You are claiming they have killed more than 655,000. You see, your word games will get you nowhere, AGAviator.
Prove it. And prove they issued anything close to 550,000 death certificates (the number missing).
Would readers like some examples of AGAviator's intellectual dishonesty ... besides defending as sound the methodology used by John Hopkins to estimate that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion began? Here were some of the views AGAviator espoused over at LibertyPost the past year or so to me (I'm sure he posted lots of other gems to others): - There would be no benefits from turning Iraq into a vibrant, wealthy, pro-western, anti-terrorist democracy. None whatsoever ... - GDP is not a measure of economic health (contrary to the opinion of economists worldwide). - He claims to supports the US military even though he claims they are covering up the deaths of more than 655,000 Iraqis (yeah, right...) - 250,000 tons of munitions have been looted in Iraq (although he can't seem to prove more a few tens of thousands of tons is actually missing). - His alternative to freeing Kuwait and invading Iraq/Afghanistan was to send me over there. - Ron Brown died of blunt force trauma in an accidental plane crash - This graph shows housing prices dropped 16% between 2005 and 2006. In fact, just visit LibertyPost. You will find AGAviator filling thread after thread with intellectual dishonesty, many of them regarding the John Hopkins' studies.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Teamwork...BLoviator and Ooser are at it agains creating strawmen and playing off each other.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
NOTHING is said in that article about doctors operating outside the morgues and hospitals issuing death certificates ... or then failing to notify any authority of the death. In this country, a doctor would lose his license for doing that. You need to prove that doctors have been religiously issuing death certificates when people die. You need to prove that doctors acting outside the hospitals, morgues and health ministry, have issued death certificates to roughly 92% of the families who have lost someone in Iraq. And then failed to notify any morgue, hospital or the health ministry of the death. Because if you can't do that, we have good reasons to doubt the John Hopkins study. It claimed that 92 percent of those with dead family members were able to provide a death certificate. Yet the LATimes could only come up with about 50,000 recorded by morgues, hospitals and the Health Ministry. Leaving some 550,000 missing.
b. Seems reasonable to prevent people from burying individuals they're guilty of killing themselves. a. Yes, that is what Dr. Roberts told me is a requirement in Iraq. b. Good observation.
The following is Dr. Roberts' email response to my asking him about the differing number of death certificates that the LA Times discovered by contacting morgues and hospitals etc. as opposed to what his team found in their cluster sampling. This is a fair question! a) only ~40,000 deaths were recorded by the system in 2002. Thus, we think it was only about 30% complete before the war and what would make us think it would become more complete during the war? b) As my Iraqi colleagues describe it, many doctors can issue death certificates.....thus it is not as if most bodies are going to morgues. Especially in the smaller cities, people just need a certificate to put a body in a grave yard and just want that form from any doctor. c) Two Iraqi doctors have heard me speak recently and came up after to point out that people have been getting food rations even in 2006. If a family reports a death officially, you lose that ration. d) I encourage you to find a few Iraqis and have them make a couple of phone calls and give you a list of the deaths in some friend's home street over the past few months. I promise you that most of them will not be identifiable on the Iraqbodycount dataset. I do not have access to the official Iraq Government data. The UN pointed out that in July of last year the system recorded exactly 0 violent deaths in Anbar Province. We lost a couple US soldiers there that month with a couple dozen seriously wounded. I hope this helps. Les
I don't know about that... I posed serious questions here, and his response (as usual) was ROTFLOL. In my opinion, NO ATTEMPT to answer the questions is the same as a "victory". HE CANNOT, AND WILL NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS - BECAUSE HE HAS NO ANSWERS.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
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'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. 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. Go ahead and play word games, that's ok with me. 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." Go ahead and play word games. That's ok with me. Play word games. That's ok with me. 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. 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. 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. 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?" Play word games all you want, that's ok with me.
Says christine, who admitted earlier that she'd bozo'd herself so she wouldn't have to read my posts. Now how can someone who only sees half the thread make the above statement? Indeed, what is it about so many FD4UM members that they have to bozo themselves from my posts ... when all I'm posting are sourced facts and sound logic? Do they fear sourced facts that dispute their world-view? Does sound logic make them uncomfortable? That would appear to be the case.
correct. only he himself thinks he "won." endurance he does have though. gotta give him that.
Dead links are not sourced facts. If your logic was sound you would sway more people and fewer would bozo you.
God is always good!
blah, blah, blah. all i have to do is read one of your posts and i've read them all. it's the same crap you've posted for years.
Prove it. Post the email you sent him and post the email he sent back.
Now let's see the email you actually posted him, scrapper, since you said you passed on MY question to him. "we THINK it was only about 30 percent complete"? Sorry, Les is trying to claim his 100,000 figure was right when that figure was also demonstrably bogus. Ask him to explain the discrepancy between his pre-war mortality estimate of 5 per 1000 per year and what the UN and WHO came up with in larger studies? Would these be the "colleagues" that Les Roberts said "HATE" (his words, not mine) the Americans? Why should we trust what they say? Why would Les Roberts trust them? Provide me with an INDEPENDENT source that verifies this claim about the doctors since the concern here is that Les Roberts and his "colleagues" have FABRICATED those death certificates they claimed they were provided in 92 percent of the 87% of the time they "remembered" to ask for proof of deaths CLAIMED by folks who probably didn't like Americans. Ask Les Roberts to tell us if these doctors were supposed to report the deaths to anyone else ... and if not, what is the purpose of a death certificate in Iraq? Show us proof of these graves. There should be some 550,000 of them (as of last year) if this is the latest explanation for the missing death certificates. Of course, that would be twice the number of bodies supposedly buried by Saddam in his mass graves so it should be relatively easy to show us proof that the landscape of Iraq is now covered with graves created since the invasion of Iraq. Where's the PROOF, scrapper? Surely you can come up with testimony from ONE of the many liberal-minded forensic types scouring Iraq for proof of Saddam's crimes. Surely ONE of them could be asked to document this genocide that America has committed that dwarfs the one Saddam reportedly committed. Surely ONE. (sarcasm). So 550,000 people haven't told the government their family member was killed so they could get their food ration. Now why didn't the doctors report the deaths? And how about these two doctors. Did Les Roberts ask them how many death certificates they issued but didn't report to the authorities? No? Again, Anbar cannot be used to explain the huge discrepancy. Because even Les Roberts isn't claiming half the population of that province is now dead. Or is he? ROTFLOL!
I cut and pasted Dr. Roberts' email response to me in message #142. The grave yard death certificate procedure is addressed in his point b. I cut and pasted what is for public consumption in my correspondence with Dr. Roberts. P.S. Let me make this very clear to you, oozer, and I'll do so in no uncertain terms - my personal and professional information is confidential, strictly off limits, especially to a self-revealed lunatic like yourself so don't try to "trick" me into revealing my email address or my name or whatever you are sniffing around for. I told you what I asked him and I gave you his response. Eat it. ROTFLOL!
Guess christine missed my post #145. That's what happens when you bozo yourself. And I'm equally certain she missed my side of the conversation in discussions with innieway. She sure has a lot of faith in innieway. ROTFLOL!
Which link on this thread is dead, Ricky? I'd be happy to fix it if you only point out specifically which link is dead. You can do that, can't you? So Ricky, do you think your logic is sound when you say the ten thousand plus structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world who have missed the fact that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives (and that would be virtually all of them) are "morons"? ROTFLOL!
Ah, so you didn't bozo yourself after all. ROTFLOL!
And for that I thank you. But I would like to see specifically how you worded the question you ask him, since you claimed to have passed on MY questions. Maybe you could just pass on this, and see what he has to say: ****************** 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? **************** He can number his responses to match the numbering above. But do we believe what is just another claim? Does he have any documentary proof of it? For example, did he verify that the doctors who supposedly signed the death certificates provided as proof did indeed sign them? I have no interest at all in your personal and professional information. I just ask you to post the text of the email you sent to "Les" so we can see exactly what he was responding to in his email to you. Now why would you have a problem doing that?
Lets not forget: ROTFLOL... We've all had this response from him without "discussing the issue" which was posed, or answering the legitimate question.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. EVERYONE GO TO MY POST #143, THEN TO THE 2 LINKS IN THAT POST. THEY CAN JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES IF YOU MADE ANY EFFORT WHATSOEVER TO DISCUSS ANYTHING I POSED.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
True.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
a. It's Dr. Roberts to you, oozer, not Les. Please refer to Dr. Roberts with the respect and courtesy that his academic credentials demand. b. I told you what I asked him and I cut and pasted his reply in message #142. What do you think he was responding to, but the question I asked him ie. about death certificates and why his team's numbers differed from that of the LA Times. Do Dr. Roberts' remarks seem like he was responding to a question about his hair color or shoe size? c. You know what oozer, I'm not your servant, that's my "problem" with doing anything further for you. So no, I'm not going back into my email folder to cut and paste the exact wording of my message to Dr. Roberts. And no, I am not going to make a pest of myself by contacting Dr. Roberts yet again with more of your idiotic questions. Buy a clue, BAC, you are not worth his time and attention, nor mine either, frankly. You have worn out my patience reserves. I can barely be civil to you now. I have responded to you thusfar only because I hated to see you throw dust on the credibility of the JH's study and also because a significant number of 4um posters, whose opinions I respect, have expended THEIR energies and time on rebutting you on this particular thread. Get it, BAC? It's for THEIR benefit, not yours, that I contacted Dr. Roberts the first time. d. BAC, you have buried yourself. In the course of this discussion thread you have revealed yourself to be a sad little specimen of troll. Didn't they teach you at Troll School to keep your questions simple and few in number and your posts short? e. However, while on the subject of other 4um posters' benefit, here's the link to an 8 minute audio clip of a Randi Rhodes' interview with Dr. Roberts. It is excellent and I recommend it to all for your listening pleaure. Randi Rhodes starts off the interview with a sound bite from the doofusinchief about his take on findings of the JH's study. Then the interview moves on to the internationally respected credentialed professional, Dr. Roberts. Once you hear this interview, I guarantee there will be no question in your minds as to the crediblity of Dr. Roberts in contrast to the vacuousness of the other side. Enjoy! http://www.info rmationclearinghouse.info/article15275.htm "Randi Rhodes Interviews Dr. Les Roberts; co-author of the Johns Hopkins Iraq Mortality Study" 10/11/06
That is worth repeating. Thanks for your efforts in posting the truth concerning this important matter.
That is worth repeating. Thanks for your efforts in posting the truth concerning this important matter. I second that.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush YES, it WILL matter in the long run!!! This is the first truly intelligent thing I've EVER known you to say!!! It will matter because: The cronies you LOVE to support made an illegal invasion of another country, based upon lies, with a "benefit" in mind all along. And your support of them makes you implicit in the crime. There have been MANY of "these little ones" offended (I would certainly called maimed, orphaned, or killed as being "offended"), and in the judgment, YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU DESERVE!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
i listened. the comment at the beginning by the Liar in Chief was impressive. not.
BAC:What I object to is your claim that those five were setup to videotape "the first impact". You have NO PROOF whatsoever of that, honway. In case anyone needed confirmation of the sad little specimen of a troll description: The Record New Jersey News Five men detained as suspected conspirators By PAULO LIMA Staff Writer However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said. Sources said the van was stopped as it headed east on Route 3, between the Hackensack River bridge and the Sheraton hotel. As a precaution, police shut down Route 3 traffic in both directions after the stop and evacuated a small roadside motel near the Sheraton. Sources close to the investigation said the men said they were Israeli tourists, but police had not been able to confirm their identities. Authorities would not release their names. East Rutherford officers stopped the van after the FBI's Newark Field Office broadcast an alert asking surrounding police departments to look for a white Chevrolet van, police said. "We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side," said Bergen County Police Chief John Schmidig. "Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down." The East Rutherford officers summoned the county police bomb squad, New Jersey state troopers, and FBI agents, who waited alongside the van as prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office tried to obtain a warrant to search the van late Tuesday, Schmidig said. By 10 p.m., members of the bomb squad were picking through the van and X- raying packages found inside, Schmidig said. Sources said the FBI alert, known as a BOLO or "Be On Lookout," was sent out at 3:31 p.m. It read: "Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. "Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.
Hey, FM. What's up? Long time no read...
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
well done, honway. see this is the kind of information which is being exposed because of the sad little specimen of a troll. ;)
Some more of those pesky facts BAC hopes we'll forget.
"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. sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." ---------------------------------------------------------- It does not get any clearer than that,imo.
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined (#426) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-26 13:51:15 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined (#414) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-25 17:34:13 From: BeAChooser To: Red Jones, critter, innieway, all WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined (#412) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-25 17:29:25 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, Kamala, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#190) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-23 18:58:50 From: BeAChooser To: Diana, RickyJ, innieway, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#171) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-23 12:53:53 From: BeAChooser To: innieway 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#132) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-22 19:46:37 From: BeAChooser To: RickyJ, innieway, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#130) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-22 19:43:08 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#129) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-22 19:38:35 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#126) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-22 19:16:29 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#71) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-22 14:32:06 From: BeAChooser To: intotheabyss, innieway, robin, ALL 9/11 Truth: Steven Jones on WTC 7 and Controlled Demolition (#69) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-22 14:22:21 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#199) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-15 13:50:10 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#191) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-15 10:46:45 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#172) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-14 13:39:26 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#164) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-14 12:38:16 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, Diana, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#105) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-13 15:03:49 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#64) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-12 21:45:55 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#63) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-12 21:44:24 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 (#39) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2007-02-11 17:52:32 From: BeAChooser To: innieway, ALL
There were other MSM reported and verified stories of other Israeli "movers" caught on country roads at night in TN and elesewhere who were stopped for speeding, threw strange liquid vials out the window and the locals were forced by the feds to release them. Dogs even alerted to explosives on the trucks. TheStateInc KNOWS and they're 100% complicit and is actively attempting to cover it up..i.e. help these Israeli spies and agent provateurs.
"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. Good choice. I'm can't understand why someone would spend so much time and energy at a site where no one is the least interested in his point of view. Furthermore it would be quite easy for him/her to email Les Roberts him/her self. However that would mean that Roberts would also have an email where the questions are coming from....
Comments (174 - 375) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFor 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.
#134. To: christine (#133)
#135. To: christine (#124)
he elicits educative posts from others. that's a valuable contribution to 4. :P
#136. To: AGAviator, ALL (#125)
"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."
No I did not, and you are lying.
The surveys did not cover identical time periods,
"FALSE. The second survey includes the period of the first survey"
That is not an identical time period. Look up "identical"
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."
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.
"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."
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.
"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."
Who said anything about wanting them to get of Iraq by publicity?
"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 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.
"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."
You really are getting downright stupid. Nobody said 1 death an hour for the entire time since the invasion.
"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."
I never said that, liar. It appears your entire arguments have collapsed for you to make such grandiose and unfounded claims.
"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."
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.
"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."
Sillier and sillier. 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."
You clearly can't read even basic English. I said that even if they killed 100,000
#137. To: AGAviator, ALL (#128)
Physicians in Iraq can also issue death certificates in addition to governmental agencies.
#138. To: AGAviator, ALL (#129)
However for everyone else, this thread is a prime example of BAC's intellectual dishonesty.
#139. To: All (#137)
You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
#140. To: AGAviator, ALL (#131)
Link: Iraq's Hospitals Are New Killing Fields
#141. To: AGAviator (#130)
a. Are you saying they can't get buried in grave yards without death certificates?
#142. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, angle, randge, christine, Minerva, innieway, SKYDRIFTER, Diana, Red Jones, Indie TX, BeALoser, Critter, Kamala, critter, Ricky J, Jethro Tull, robin, Honway, aristeides, bluedogtxn, leveller, Burkeman1, All (#122)
(Edited)
I'd love to see his exact response (as opposed to your interpretation of it). Dare you provide that?
#143. To: Red Jones (#102)
You can't beat him.
#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?
"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?
"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.
""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."
Let's remind our readers that Iraqi doctors can issue death certificates
"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.
#145. To: christine, ALL (#133)
yep. as i said earlier, he elicits good educational (and often witty) posts from everyone else. that's the only value he contributes.
#146. To: innieway, Red Jones (#143)
#147. To: BeAChooser (#145)
Indeed, what is it about so many FD4UM members that they have to bozo themselves from my posts ... when all I'm posting are sourced facts and sound logic?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#148. To: angle, ALL (#139)
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
#149. To: BeAChooser (#145)
#150. To: scrapper2, ALL (#141)
a. Yes, that is what Dr. Roberts told me is a requirement in Iraq.
#151. To: scrapper2, ALL (#142)
The following is Dr. Roberts' email response to my asking him about the differing number of death certificates that the LA Times discovered by contacting morgues and hospitals etc. as opposed to what his team found in their cluster sampling.
a) only ~40,000 deaths were recorded by the system in 2002. Thus, we think it was only about 30% complete before the war and what would make us think it would become more complete during the war?
b) As my Iraqi colleagues describe it, many doctors can issue death certificates
Especially in the smaller cities, people just need a certificate to put a body in a grave yard and just want that form from any doctor.
c) Two Iraqi doctors have heard me speak recently and came up after to point out that people have been getting food rations even in 2006. If a family reports a death officially, you lose that ration.
The UN pointed out that in July of last year the system recorded exactly 0 violent deaths in Anbar Province.
#152. To: BeAChooser, All (#150)
(Edited)
Prove it. Post the email you sent him and post the email he sent back.
#153. To: christine, innieway, ALL (#146)
correct. only he himself thinks he "won." endurance he does have though. gotta give him that.
#154. To: RickyJ, ALL (#147)
Dead links are not sourced facts.
If your logic was sound you would sway more people and fewer would bozo you.
#155. To: christine, ALL (#149)
blah, blah, blah. all i have to do is read one of your posts and i've read them all. it's the same crap you've posted for years.
#156. To: scrapper2, Les Roberts, ALL (#152)
I cut and pasted Dr. Roberts' email response to me in message #142.
The grave yard death certificate procedure is addressed in his point b.
.S. Let me make this very clear to you, oozer, and I'll do so in no uncertain terms - my personal and professional information is confidential,
#157. To: angle, ALL (#139)
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
#158. To: BeAChooser, ALL (#153)
Guess christine missed my post #145. That's what happens when you bozo yourself. And I'm equally certain she missed my side of the conversation in discussions with innieway.
#159. To: christine (#133)
he elicits good educational (and often witty) posts from everyone else. that's the only value he contributes
#160. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, angle, randge, christine, Minerva, innieway, SKYDRIFTER, Diana, Red Jones, Indie TX, BeALoser, Critter, Kamala, critter, Ricky J, Jethro Tull, robin, Honway, aristeides, bluedogtxn, leveller, Burkeman1, All (#156)
(Edited)
I have no interest at all in your personal and professional information. I just ask you to post the text of the email you sent to "Les" so we can see exactly what he was responding to in his email to you. Now why would you have a problem doing that?
#161. To: scrapper2 (#160)
. BAC, you have buried yourself. In the course of this discussion thread you have revealed yourself to be a sad little specimen of troll.
#162. To: honway, scrapper2 (#161)
. BAC, you have buried yourself. In the course of this discussion thread you have revealed yourself to be a sad little specimen of troll.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#163. To: BeAChooser (#104)
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.
Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come! 2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
#164. To: scrapper2 (#160)
I guarantee there will be no question in your minds as to the crediblity of Dr. Roberts in contrast to the vacuousness of the other side.
#165. To: robin, all (#162)
. In the course of this discussion thread you have revealed yourself to be a sad little specimen of troll.
#166. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#167. To: scrapper2 (#160)
Has BAC no dignity? With the ass kicking you've given him, I'd think he'd be in hiding.
#168. To: honway (#165)
#169. To: honway (#165)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#170. To: IndieTX (#169)
#171. To: innieway, ALL (#158)
FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. EVERYONE GO TO MY POST #143, THEN TO THE 2 LINKS IN THAT POST. THEY CAN JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES IF YOU MADE ANY EFFORT WHATSOEVER TO DISCUSS ANYTHING I POSED.
#172. To: honway (#170)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#173. To: scrapper2 (#152)
P.S. Let me make this very clear to you, oozer, and I'll do so in no uncertain terms - my personal and professional information is confidential, strictly off limits, especially to a self-revealed lunatic like yourself so don't try to "trick" me into revealing my email address or my name or whatever you are sniffing around for. I told you what I
.
.
.