[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: 27081
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  

BAC did his swan song in #221.

Ping to #230, scrapper.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-01   22:13:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Not wanting to stop anyone from participating or mindlessly bantering, I just don't want to waste my time, or disc-space from viewing it.

No one is making you read this thread, lodwick. Have you no will power?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-01   22:15:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Looser, are you still trying to argue after being so totally destroyed on this thread by Scrapper2's post from Les Roberts totally rebutting all your phony arguments you've posted and reposted dozens of times and wasted hundreds of hours on?

Ping to Post # 212.

You've been doing a song and dance for months now, on 2 websites, on dozens if not hundreds of posts, about how an LA Times article explicitly saying that morgue and hosptital death totals were "grossly undercounted" somehow impugns a statistical study which says there've been 655,000 excess deaths.

As part of that song and dance you've been supplying arm-waving numbers you make up yourself, about how the difference between the LA Times "gross undercount" of death certificates, and the estimated 655,000 excess deaths of the survey, couldn't possibly be so "gross" as to exclude a 600,000 difference t hat you claim exists.

No, instead you argue that "gross," can't be more than "double," or at most, three times. Even though your only proof for your definition of "gross" [on this issue only] is that "The media hates Bush."

But in your "gross" [haha] ignorance, you never bothered to consider that in addition to "gross undercounts," there are also more sources of death certificates than hospitals and morgues - namely individual doctors.

That fact alone blows all your phony numbers completely out of the water. And even more so when you consider there are far more individual doctors than there are hospitals and morgues. And that these individual doctors are far more likely to immediately come to scenes where people have been killed or injured, than the people are to try to cart dead bodies across entire cities to the nearest morgue or health care facility.

I've never seen somebody's claims been so completely annihilated by one simple, and overlooked, fact.

Now before we go any further, put some of your extensive speculative abilities to work and tell me how many individual doctors there are in Iraq writing death certificates, compared to how many hospitals and morgues there are in Iraq writing death certificates.

And how that number of death certificates written by individual doctors affects your thoroughly-debunked claims there are "hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates" that the LA Times survey never attempted to count to begin with.

And *try* come up with something good, because you're hardly worth even bothering to reply to any more, you've stepped in it so bad.

You haven't proven this. And you certainly haven't proven that they issued half a million death certificates that the *system* is completely unaware of, AGAviator. Any direct quotes from some of those doctors in Iraq? Hmmmmm? Or just more CLAIMS by Les Roberts?

Yes, the troll's mantra.

"You haven't proven it!" "Liar!" "I haven't lost, I can still post!"

ROTFLAMO!

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-02   2:30:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No, instead you argue that "gross," can't be more than "double," or at most, three times.

No, I didn't say that. I said " "Grossly undercounted" could just as easily mean 50% too low. Or a factor of two." Contrast that with you declaring ""Gross" means "very large." "Two" is not "very large."" Unfortunate for you that I easily showed multiple uses of gross where gross is 50% or a factor of two. Shall I repeat that proof?

***********

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"

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

you never bothered to consider that in addition to "gross undercounts," there are also more sources of death certificates than hospitals and morgues - namely individual doctors.

Again, nothing is stopping you from proving lots of doctors were issuing death certificates and then not notifying anyone so they could be recorded. But you haven't done that, have you. In fact, you haven't posted the names and quotes from ANY Iraqi doctors saying that. Why is that AGAviator?

That fact alone

It's not a fact until you actually prove that's the way Iraq worked/works. Name some doctors who say this and provide linked quotes. Provide us some form of documentation other than Les Roberts *word* that this practice was going on so much that only a TENTH of the death certificates in Iraq were recorded. I'll be waiting...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-02   16:28:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I said " "Grossly undercounted" could just as easily mean 50% too low. Or a factor of two." Contrast that with you declaring ""Gross" means "very large." "Two" is not "very large."" Unfortunate for you that I easily showed multiple uses of gross where gross is 50% or a factor of two.

Unfortunately for you, I easily showed where the LA Times specified the places where the Ministry of Health did not count even its own numbers - much less the numbers of all the doctors in Iraq not directly working for that Ministry.

And that makes the context of "gross undercount" a lot more meaningful than your haphazard Googlings of completely unrelated subjects

Shall I repeat that proof?

(1) Violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west.

(2) 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...

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

(4) Last but not least, any and all death certificates issued by individual doctors who did not ever provide their statistics to the Ministry of Health in the first place.

Put another way, the Ministry of Health, in addition to having serious trouble "compiling" its own numbers its agencies actually did issue - which is far more than 50,000, has in its 50,000 total only Baghdad for an entire year, excludes a particularly violent province where there is still fighting going on to this day, excludes 3 entire provinces, and excludes all numbers issued by individual doctors.

And your response to this overwhelming lack of coverage is to say "Look! I can Google up somebody saying "very large" means "double!"

Furthermore, let your imaginary "readers" not forget that you have repeatedly premised your phony calculations of "missing death certificates" on only hospitals and morgues issuing death certificates, and not individual doctors.

Since there are far more doctors than there are hospitals and morgues, and as first responders doctors would see more casualties and deaths than those latter facilities, you've just cut your own "undercount" down by at least a factor of two - in additon to the two-something you claim that a "gross undercount" represents.

So reduce your "gross undercount" by the factor of 2 you concede, then reduce it by another bare minimum factor of 2 for those doctors you totally ignored, and then reduce it further because 87% x 92% = 80% - not 92% - told the survey they had death certificates. And then you will be in the hundreds of thousands, and the truth will slowly and inexorably start creeping [how appropriate a choice of words] up on you.

It's not a fact until you actually prove that's the way Iraq worked/works. Name some doctors who say this

I don't provide proof to trolls. Les Roberts knows some doctors and has been to Iraq. You haven't.

Go email Roberts for some names if you have the nerve.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-03   2:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Vermont Guardian
http:// www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

By William Rice
March 1, 2007

Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.

I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”

The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.

Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.

The prevailing theory

The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30- floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.

The politically unthinkable theory

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.

The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.

The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.

Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-03   13:39:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't provide proof to trolls. Les Roberts knows some doctors and has been to Iraq. You haven't.

Indeed physicians were key participants in the Johns Hopkins' research study.

The co-author of the Johns Hopkins' study, Dr. Burnham, is an MD.

And the Iraqi team who were responsible for collecting the data were all Iraqi medical doctors - 8 of them in total, as I understand it - 4 male MD's and 4 female MD's.

"The two survey teams each consisted of two female and two male interviewers, with the field manager (RL) serving as supervisor. All were medical doctors with previous survey and community medicine experience and were fluent in English and Arabic."

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919 .pdf

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-03   13:56:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

(1) Violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west.

Yet I proved quite easily that unreported deaths in Anbar can't come even close to explaining 500,000 missing death certificates unless you want to claim half the population of Anbar has been killed (and the rest wounded) ... and no one in the media has noticed.

(2) 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...

This only proves your DESPERATION. Kurdistan is the clear success story in Iraq. It is not by any stretch of the imagination as violent as you (and Les Roberts) would have to have people believe to even begin to explain the missing death certificates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/60minutes/main2486679.shtml "Bob Simon On How The Kurds Are Reshaping Northeastern Iraq, Feb 18, 2007, Try to imagine a peaceful and stable Iraq where business is booming and Americans are beloved. Now open your eyes because 60 Minutes is going to take you to a part of Iraq which fits that description: it's called Kurdistan. ... snip ... 60 Minutes wanted to test the security situation, so one Saturday morning Simon and the team dropped by the main market in Erbil, the self-styled capital of Kurdistan, just 40 miles from the rest of Iraq. The only disagreements here were about price. Just how safe is it? Simon, an American, strolled through the market in his shirtsleeves, without wearing the flack jackets reporters often have to wear in other parts of Iraq."

In fact, a sociologist writing on the web brings up a very good criticism of the John Hopkins study regarding Kurdistan: "I am a sociologist who has been looking closely at the Lancet study and wanted to say that I find many of the comments useful here, as I craft a critique of the Lancet study. ... snip ... From what I know about this sampling, the gravest error was that they should have seperated Iraq into three regions and then sampled the same way within these regions: Kurdistan, Central Iraq, an Southern Iraq. They would have found virtually no excess death in Kurdistan (in fact, maybe even an overall improvement), in Central Iraq, probably something of the order of magnitude they actually did discover, and in Southern Iraq, much less than in Central Iraq. To have 25% of the sample be from Baghdad and extrapolate to, say, Kurdistan, is like taking the crime rate from Washington DC and extrapolating to Montana. This is very bad methodology ... "

And he's not the only one who sees that. Even the more rational anti-war sources can see what you simply refuse to see, AGAviator. Here is one:

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

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/11/135644/20

"Here are some possible weaknesses in the John Hopkins study, based on the PDF Lancet article The Human Cost of the War in Iraq. ... snip ...

First, the most violent governorates are relatively oversampled. The provinces experiencing full-scale war - Anbar, Ninevah, Salahaddin, Diyala - (>10 violent deaths per 1,000 per year) were sampled at a rate of one cluster per 459,000 people. Baghdad was sampled at 1:540,000. In predominantly Shia' governorates that have experienced some inter-shia' political violence and some bombing incidents (Babel, Qadisiyya, Basra, the rate is one cluster per 809,000. In Kirkuk (Tamim), where violence is highly variable but with large areas that are peaceful, the rate is 1:881,000. In areas without significant violence, one cluster per 530,000 was sampled - but they did not survey the two most secure governorates in the north and south - Dohuk and Muthanna, respectively. Dohuk is the only Kurdish governorate that has experienced no fighting and no bombings of any sort. Likewise, Muthanna is the calmist governorate in the Shia' area. It's so calm, the US sent the Japanese there. Admittedly, these are small governorates, but they do have an aggregate population of 1.5 million people who are essentially unaffected by the war, other than soldiers recruited there who agree to fight elsewhere.

Put another way, the Sunni governorates were sampled 1:450,000; the mixed ethnicity governorates sampled 1:532,000; the Kurdish governorates 1:626,000 and the Shia' governorates 1:660,000. Violence is far higher in the Sunni and mixed-ethnicity governorates, because the fight between the US and the insurgency is in primarily Sunni areas, and the civil war is primarily in mixed ethnicity areas. Violence is lower in Shia' areas and very low in Kurdish areas. Finally, the populations in the Sunni and mixed ethnicity governorates may be slightly overestimated for two reasons: First, the UNDP data is based at least partially on Iraqi census figures before 2003, which tended to undercount Shia' and Kurds, and second, there has been massive migration out of Baghdad, Ninevah and Diyala governorates to safer, ethnically homogenous areas since the war - there are 250,000 registered IDPs in Iraq, but there could be twice that many or more who have quietly moved in with relatives outside of the most violent governorates.

My biggest concern however, is that violence is highly unequally distributed within governorates, both geographically and according to ethnic community. If there appears to be an unintentional sampling bias toward the most violent governorates, there could also be a trend to sample the more violent locations within each governorate. I know the report states that clusters were selected randomly, but the locations of those clusters are really important for assessing accuracy. For example, the study only sampled one cluster in Kirkuk (Tammim). If you survey a mixed-ethnicity neighborhood near the center of the city, the mortality rate would be sky high, among the highest in Iraq. If you measured an ethnically homogenous neighborhood in the city, the rate would be moderate to high. If you measured an ethnically homogenous village west or south of Kirkuk, the rate would be very variable from relatively high to low. If you measure a town or village in the east of the province, the rate would be negligible. It seems to me very hard to get an accurate reading on Kirkuk from one cluster.

Likewise, they used three cluster sites to determine the mortality rate for Ninevah governorate, Iraq's second largest governorate. The northeastern third and about 35% of the population are under Kurdish control and experience virtually no violence, rural areas and areas along the Syrian border experience localized violence depending to a great extent on the ethnic composition of the community, and Mosul city is insanely violent. The location of those three clusters is really important, even within Mosul city itself. The west side of town is twice as violent as the east. Without information on the location of the clusters, it is hard to be 100% convinced of accuracy. Diyala is similar - with extraordinarily violent areas (Khalis, Baquba) and relatively safe ones (Khanaqin, Kifri). I can travel safely to Khanaqin and have lunch in a restaurant, but I would be immediately killed or kidapped if I tried that in Baquba.

Unfortunately, the ethnic affiliation of the surveyor is also important (i.e. Arab communities would not accept a Kurd and vice versa). I know that they achieved gender balance, but it is hard to imagine how one could get accurate figures in mixed ethnicity governorates like Diyala or Kirkuk without first, a number of clusters and second, withou careful attention to assure an ethnic mix of researchers to assure trust on the part of participants and accurate interviews. They may well have done the latter, but it is not stated in the report.

... snip ...

My own guess is that the death rate in the war is twice as much or more than Iraq Body Count, but probably half as much as reported in this study."

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

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

But deaths the first year will NOT explain the missing 500,000 death certificates because John Hopkins' study only claims that about 100,000 (of the 655,000) died in the first 18 months after the invasion. Now this has been pointed out to you time and again. So why do you keep mentioning it? Because it is all you have...

(4) Last but not least, any and all death certificates issued by individual doctors who did not ever provide their statistics to the Ministry of Health in the first place.

Again, provide the names of some Iraqi doctors who say they issued dozens or even hundreds of death certificates and then never notified authorities. Provide us with *some* documentation other than Les Roberts' post facto claim this explains the discrepancy. Why isn't this significant fact mentioned in any of their actual research? Why doesn't Roberts or Burnham go find the doctors named on the death certificates they were provided by the interviewees? That would seem the obvious thing to do. Or didn't they make copies of the death certificates they were shown? Do they even remember which families they asked (note that there are indications that they don't have that information)?

Furthermore, let your imaginary "readers" not forget that you have repeatedly premised your phony calculations of "missing death certificates" on only hospitals and morgues issuing death certificates, and not individual doctors.

And you are premising your belief on a still unsupported claim that doctors outside of hospitals and morgues have issued 9 out of 10 death certificates and then not reported doing so to anyone. If you did that in this country you would surely lose your license. Prove to us in Iraq that is permitted.

And just for the record, let me repeat what one of the authors of the LATimes story, Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times, in an interview with PBS, questioned the John Hopkins' study saying, "the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers kill. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts."

You see, they even went to cemeteries, AGAviator. So apparently they didn't find evidence that another half a million Iraqis have been buried. So where are they?

Since there are far more doctors than there are hospitals and morgues,

How many of them don't work in hospitals or morgues or for the Health Ministry? Do you have a number?

There are currently about 17,000 doctors in Iraq. According to WHO in May of 2003 there were about 1500 medical facilities throughout Iraq, including 160 hospitals and 1300 health centers. In September of 2003, USAID said there were 280 hospitals and about 1500 primary health centers. The numbers are at least that now. So let's call it 200 hospitals and 1400 health centers.

Now let's suppose those hospitals each have an average of 20 doctors and the health centers have 3 each. A total of about 8000 doctors. That doesn't seem too unreasonable considering that the health ministry as a whole employs some 120,000 Iraqis. That would leave about 9000 doctors. And how many of doctors work for the ministry in morgues and for the ministry itself? Shall we guess another 1000? So that leaves 8000 doctors. And how many of these doctors work in areas of Iraq (like Kurdistan) that have been relatively peaceful? Let's say a quarter (although it is probably higher). That leaves 6000. And how many of those doctors follow the rules and report deaths like they are supposed to? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the answer is only 1000. So that leaves 5000 doctors who on average have to issue 100 death certificates each and not report them (to explain 500,000 missing death certificates). That your claim?

Well why don't you find ONE of them to come forward and support your assertion. That shouldn't seem to difficult a request. There are 5000 of them to draw from.

Les Roberts knows some doctors and has been to Iraq.

Yes. They told him they HATE Americans so he hired them to do his study.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-03   18:29:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767).

First of all John Skilling was NOT the head structural engineer for the WTC towers. Leslie Robertson is the head structural engineer of record. He was the one who moved to New York to do the design. Mr Skilling remained in Seattle. Second, did Mr Rice fail to note to the difference in the speed of the planes assumed in the design and the ones that hit the towers? That difference corresponds to a factor of 7 (or more) difference in the impact energy of the planes.

He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”

There was NO consideration of fire after the plane impact in the design. Leslie Robertson stated that fire resulting from a plane impact was NOT considered in the design. If Mr Rice thinks otherwise, he is wrong.

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse.

Melting of steel is not the theory of NIST.

This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough.

Wrong again. First, the fires were NOT of short duration (didn't he read the NIST report like he claimed?) and second how hot does he think the temperatures have to get to weaken steel? The fires in the Windsor Tower in Madrid reached 1400 F and that was without jet fuel to start it. There are plenty of examples of temperatures in fires in ordinary office building reaching those temperatures or even higher. Or does Mr Rice actually think steel strength is unaffected at these temperatures? If so, then I question his credentials. Also, does he think the numerous engineers who did analysis with codes that are generally agreed to be the state of the art in fire engineering are incompetent or wrong when they concluded temperatures in the towers reached nearly 2000 F?

If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength.

Apparently Mr Rice overlooked the likelihood that fireproofing in the towers was extensively damaged by the impacts? And how fast does Mr Rice think unprotected steel strength responds to temperatures of ... say ... 1400 F or higher?

However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

This is the silliest statement yet. If that were the case, then why are there fire codes on steel structures? Why is there so much effort (and cost) to protect steel members from fire? The fact is that steel framed building HAVE collapsed due to fire. Mr Rice is simply WRONG.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor,

Again, we find Mr Rice claiming a theory that NIST does not promote. What Mr Rice is doing is putting forth a STRAWMAN ... something false to knock down. In fact, if Mr Rice had done as much research of the matter as he claims, he'd know that the theory is that sagging floors broke sections of the outer wall columns and THAT is what led to the collapse. Obviously, he didn't.

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed.

ROTFLOL! Where has this guy been the last 5 years? How can he claim the towers collapsed in ten seconds if he read the NIST reports as he claimed? If he looked at ANY non-conspiracy website he'd see the towers took 15 seconds or so to collapse. Videos and photos prove this. Even some conspiracy leaning websites admit this. And he should know this IF he's done ANY research besides visiting the more extreme conspiracy websites. This alone is good reason to doubt this individuals competence or opinion.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7

The collapse of WTC 7 was not sudden. Firemen have said they knew it was going to collapse hours before it did because they could see it deforming.

The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts.

This is more conspiracy nonsense. NO ONE who was an eyewitness has said they found POOLS of molten metal at the base of the elevator shafts.

only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud

If this is so, why hasn't ONE demolition expert in the entire world come forward to say it? Afterall, it should be so obvious when someone like Mr Rice even knows it. Does Mr Rice think they are all part of the conspiracy? ROTFLOL!

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.

Any proof any of this is true? Can you perhaps point me to a resume or a university where he got his degree? And who did he work for while working on those structures? Pardon me if I'm now a little skeptical. Let's see what the Vermont Technical College website says. His name isn't listed as faculty or staff: http://catalog.vtc.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=225 . Why is that? In fact, a search of their website doesn't turn up the name William Rice anywhere. Why is that?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-03   19:58:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Aviator: Les Roberts knows some doctors and has been to Iraq.

BeAChooser: Yes. They told him they HATE Americans so he hired them to do his study.

1. What research studies have your chorus of net critics published in the Lancet regarding Iraqi deaths since the US invasion? I'd like to read those studies - please provide links. Thank you.

2. As for your LA journalist,Borzou Daragahi, what medical specialty does he have and what epidemiology research studies has he published or co-authored? Please provide the research study links as well as his academic credentials and training in population research. Thank you.

3. It would appear that Dr.( is it Dr?)Borzou Daragahi - gets around. The Washington Times refers to Borzou Daragahi as "Our Man in Baghdad" - interesting, isn't that comment? - NPR, Washington Times, LA Times - he's built lotsa bridges to people in high places, it would appear.

4. Regarding your comment about the medical doctors whom Drs. Roberts and Burnham hired to do the data collection - you are a liar, obviously.

And furthermore, BAC, America liberated Iraq so why would any of them hate us?

No doubt, it's all Al Quaeda's doing - those 650,000 dead Iraqis.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-03   22:34:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I know that you're staying up nights to make a Bozo Thread Killer feature for our 4um - aren't you?

Some threads are too sick to die - they need to be killed.

Thank you.

Dr.Ron Paul for President

Lod  posted on  2007-03-03   22:41:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And the Iraqi team who were responsible for collecting the data were all Iraqi medical doctors - 8 of them in total, as I understand it - 4 male MD's and 4 female MD's.

Did any of them mention HATING Americans? That's what Les Roberts said they felt about us.

Do we know the names of any of them and did they tell him that they'd written death certificates for a 100 people and not reported any of those deaths?

You don't happen to know the names of the physicians on the death certificates they CLAIMED they were shown, do you?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-03   22:51:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

4. Regarding your comment about the medical doctors whom Drs. Roberts and Burnham hired to do the data collection - you are a liar, obviously.

This is a quote by Les Roberts in UK's Socialist Worker newspaper:

"Most of them [workers from non-governmental organizations, my colleagues and my driver] hate the Americans, most want the coalition troops gone."

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-03   22:57:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Some threads are too sick to die - they need to be killed.

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-03   22:58:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Did any of them mention HATING Americans? That's what Les Roberts said they felt about us.

Do we know the names of any of them and did they tell him that they'd written death certificates for a 100 people and not reported any of those deaths?

You don't happen to know the names of the physicians on the death certificates they CLAIMED they were shown, do you?

a. Put that in context BAC. Quote from the study where the Iraqi medical doctors said that exact phrase.

b. Who is we - you and me? No. Why should we? Do you or I know the names of the physicians in the Congo or Darfur who participated in those population studies?

c. Why would I know the names of the physicians who signed the death certificates? Do you know the names of the names of the physicians who signed the certificates that the Iraq Minestry of Health claims it has or what the LA claims it has seen?

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-03   23:06:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This is a quote by Les Roberts in UK's Socialist Worker newspaper:

"Most of them [workers from non-governmental organizations, my colleagues and my driver] hate the Americans, most want the coalition troops gone."

How do we know quotation in the "Socialist Worker" paper is accurate?

I don't see anything that specifically names the 8 medical doctors who particpated in the data collection.

Because you are not a medical professional - you don't have a clue about the higher values and truths that all MD's pledge themselves to uphold and abide by ie. a commitment to integrity, mercy, justice, sensitivity and trust.

Because you are a troll, you don't get it. That's why you'd put Iraqi medical doctors on the same level as an Iraqi vendor or cab driver or police officer.

Btw, was that inherent animosity of Iraqis to Americans documented in the research study? If it wasn't then it did not influence the study's methodology - scientific studies document known biases or negatives that might have an influence on outcomes.

Btw, you must explain to me why any hatred for Americans should exist in Iraq, considering that we liberated Iraqis - we've given them a future as a democracy with freedom everywhere - and if as you say the numbers of deaths are insignificent, why would Iraqis hate us? I don't get it - explain it to me.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-03   23:25:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

(1) Violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west.

Yet I proved quite easily that unreported deaths in Anbar can't come even close to explaining 500,000 missing death certificates unless

There are not 500,000 missing death certificates, and the stake has been driven through that lie once and for all on this thread.

And no one said anything about Anbar needing to explain all the excess deaths.

The LA Times itself said that for a year after the invasion, the only deaths the Health Ministry counted were inside Baghdad.

Iraq has a population of 36 million. Baghdad has a population of 6 million. This means for the year immediately following the invasion, the Ministry of Health was only counting death certificates from one sixth of Iraq's population. And they still came up with 50,000 violent deaths while counting one sixth of Iraq's population for a whole year.

This only proves your DESPERATION. Kurdistan is the clear success story in Iraq. It is not by any stretch of the imagination as violent as you (and Les Roberts) would have to have people believe to even begin to explain the missing death certificates.

In your dreams.

Kurdistan includes the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. There was combat in those cities, there are suicide bombings by Sunni groups killing dozens at a time, and there are kidnappings, murders, and "disappearances" by American-backed peshmarga militias.

All these deaths are from non-natural causes, and get included under the aegis of "excess deaths." Got it?

First, the most violent governorates are relatively oversampled.

The LA Times specifically said the Health Ministry's count did not include the most violent governates.

My own guess is that the death rate in the war is twice as much or more than Iraq Body Count, but probably half as much as reported in this study."

So your source "guesses" that ~only~ 300,000 have died unnecessarily, and you consider this a victory...

But deaths the first year will NOT explain the missing 500,000 death certificates

There are no missing death certificates, so there is no need to explain them.

The LA Times took a report from the Central Government. The Central Government said its numbers were substantally lower than the real numbers. All your bullshit to date has been based on your presumption that only hospitals and morgues give out death certificates. The fact is, Iraqi doctors also can give out death certificates. Your bullshit to date has also been based on 92% of the survey claiming they had death certificates, instead of 80% of the survey claiming they had death certificates.

Because John Hopkins' study only claims that about 100,000 (of the 655,000) died in the first 18 months after the invasion.

That's a lie.

The first John Hopkins study concluded that at least 100,000 had died.

That does not rule out that number being higher.

Now this has been pointed out to you time and again. So why do you keep mentioning it? Because it is all you have...

You pompous twit. You don't even understand basic English, as in "at least 100,000" and you now pretend you have a leg to stand on.

Again, provide the names of some Iraqi doctors who say they issued dozens or even hundreds of death certificates and then never notified authorities.

Provide some names of people familiar with the Iraq health care system who say that Iraqi doctors don't issue death certificates, blowhard.

We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers kill.

And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, most deaths don't make it into the news media, and a number of deaths have bodies disposed of by dumping them into the river, others are buried in places other than cemetaries, or not buried at all.

You see, they even went to cemeteries, AGAviator. So apparently they didn't find evidence that another half a million Iraqis have been buried.

This is more of your jumping to conclusions and arm-waving which is what you do when you don't have any facts.

They did not count graves. They based their article on paperwork.

And here's what happens in Iraq when people try to count graves

Dahr Jamail's Mideast Dispatches

Another group, the People's Kifah, organized hundreds of Iraqi academics and volunteers who conducted a survey in coordination "with grave-diggers across Iraq," and who also "obtained information from hospitals and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. fire." The project was abandoned when one of their researchers was captured by Kurdish militiamen, handed over to US forces and never seen again. Nevertheless, after less than two months' work, the group documented a minimum of 37,000 violent civilian deaths prior to October 2003.

So that leaves 5000 doctors who on average have to issue 100 death certificates each and not report them (to explain 500,000 missing death certificates). That your claim?

The LA Times counted "sampled!!" death certificates from hospitals and morgues.

Who says Iraqi doctors have to report deaths to hospitals and morgues?

Well why don't you find ONE of them to come forward and support your assertion. That shouldn't seem to difficult a request. There are 5000 of them to draw from.

Because I don't prove things to trolls, since a troll never has enough proof when the facts are against him - like with your Iraqi doctors issuing death certificates - and when you find someone who agrees with you, even when it's an Internet blogger or a Google hit, you take it as Gospel.

Les Roberts knows some doctors and has been to Iraq.

Yes. They told him they HATE Americans so he hired them to do his study.

Another lie. He didn't hire them because they "hated Americans."

But it's possible they hated Americans because of what they found out Americans were doing before, during, and after that study.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-04   0:15:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Btw, you must explain to me why any hatred for Americans should exist in Iraq, considering that we liberated Iraqis - we've given them a future as a democracy with freedom everywhere - and if as you say the numbers of deaths are insignificent, why would Iraqis hate us? I don't get it - exlain it to me.

LOL.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-04   0:20:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's what happens in Iraq when people try to count graves

Dahr Jamail's Mideast Dispatches

Another group, the People's Kifah, organized hundreds of Iraqi academics and volunteers who conducted a survey in coordination "with grave-diggers across Iraq," and who also "obtained information from hospitals and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. fire." The project was abandoned when one of their researchers was captured by Kurdish militiamen, handed over to US forces and never seen again. Nevertheless, after less than two months' work, the group documented a minimum of 37,000 violent civilian deaths prior to October 2003.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-04   0:31:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BAC has to be laughing his head off, at being able to so easily side-track this thread.

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-04   0:43:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I think there has been a pretty good job done rebutting the troll's false statements.

Les Roberts, who is a real person, may even use some of the information discussed herein should he get interviewed by the media in the future.

The Bozo has been a useful foil in that respect....

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-04   0:51:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Another reason you can't expect anything accurate out of the Baghdad central government, such as tracking all death certificates and other records, was the American decision to "de Baathize" all parts of the Iraqi government at all levels.

This produced an Iraqi government that was barely functioning, because all the people who were running things were suddenly removed.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-04   12:00:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here's what happens in Iraq when people try to count graves

Dahr Jamail's Mideast Dispatches

Another group, the People's Kifah, organized hundreds of Iraqi academics and volunteers who conducted a survey in coordination "with grave-diggers across Iraq," and who also "obtained information from hospitals and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. fire." The project was abandoned when one of their researchers was captured by Kurdish militiamen, handed over to US forces and never seen again. Nevertheless, after less than two months' work, the group documented a minimum of 37,000 violent civilian deaths prior to October 2003.

That's a very powerful ( and terribly tragic) picture in many ways. Aviator, I think you've rung the bell on BAC's smoke, smudge, and dust efforts.

I think I'm going to leave BAC to play in his sandbox with his war toys by himself. With your quote above, Aviator, you put a resounding end stop to this thread.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-04   13:35:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Put that in context BAC. Quote from the study where the Iraqi medical doctors said that exact phrase.

From an interview with a socialist organization, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271, "Talking to workers from non-governmental organisations, my colleagues and my driver, I would ask if things were better. They said some things were better but they were really worried about security. Most of them hate the Americans, most want the coalition troops gone."

Why would I know the names of the physicians who signed the death certificates?

But Roberts and his colleagues should know that. Shouldn't they? Why don't you ask them if they do.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   0:37:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This is a quote by Les Roberts in UK's Socialist Worker newspaper:

"Most of them [workers from non-governmental organizations, my colleagues and my driver] hate the Americans, most want the coalition troops gone."

How do we know quotation in the "Socialist Worker" paper is accurate?

Has Roberts said or written anything, anywhere to contradict anything he is quoted saying in that rather long interview? No???

I don't see anything that specifically names the 8 medical doctors who particpated in the data collection.

Who do you think Roberts meant by "colleagues"? Surely you aren't suggesting that it is Roberts "colleagues" at John Hopkins who "hate" Americans?

Because you are not a medical professional - you don't have a clue about the higher values and truths that all MD's pledge themselves to uphold and abide by ie. a commitment to integrity, mercy, justice, sensitivity and trust.

ROTFLOL! You don't think doctors can be liberals with a cause? ROTFLOL!

That's why you'd put Iraqi medical doctors on the same level as an Iraqi vendor or cab driver or police officer.

I imagine a police officer would have obeyed the rules and reported half a million deaths if they'd occurred. Why I imagine even a lowly Iraqi vender or cab driver would have had enough sense to do that.

Btw, was that inherent animosity of Iraqis to Americans documented in the research study? If it wasn't then it did not influence the study's methodology

You really believe this? My, you are gullible. I suppose you also don't think Helen Thomas' liberalism (or that of the majority of those in the media) affects their work? ROTFLOL!

scientific studies document known biases or negatives that might have an influence on outcomes.

Then you just proved that these John Hopkins' studies weren't "scientific".

and if as you say the numbers of deaths are insignificent

I've said no such thing. Nor have I implied it. What I've said is that John Hopkins' claims are clearly bogus and that you won't find the truth or build a better world on a foundation of misinformation (or lies).

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   0:38:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are not 500,000 missing death certificates

Yes, there are. Since the ONLY effort to find death certificates only came up with about 50,000 and the John Hopkins' results require that some 600,000 have been issued if those results are to be viewed as representative of the population.

And no one said anything about Anbar needing to explain all the excess deaths.

You can't even explain a fraction of them with Anbar ... yet Anbar is clearly the most violent area of the country and the one that LATimes said was particularly undercounted. I'm confident that any rational person reading this thread will see that Anbar, contrary to what your side would like everyone to believe, has not lost half of its population. Otherwise someone would have noticed by now.

The LA Times itself said that for a year after the invasion, the only deaths the Health Ministry counted were inside Baghdad.

And I'll point out once more that in that first year less than 100,000 of the claimed 655,000 died (and that's according to John Hopkins). So you can't use this to explain the absence of death certificates. No matter what excuse you come up with, you are still short hundreds and hundreds of thousands.

This only proves your DESPERATION. Kurdistan is the clear success story in Iraq. It is not by any stretch of the imagination as violent as you (and Les Roberts) would have to have people believe to even begin to explain the missing death certificates.

In your dreams.

Too bad that even CBS (whom I'm sure we all know is just dying to show how bloody Kurdistan is) doesn't agree with you.

Kurdistan includes the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul.

Sorry, but deaths in two cities in (and actually, just specific neighborhoods of two cities) is not going to make up your shortfall of death certificates. And as was pointed out, the John Hopkins researchers appear to have made a methodological error by having too few clusters in Kurdistan to properly represent the actual death rate of that and many other regions of the country. As was pointed out, John Hopkins approach would tend to seriously OVERestimate the death rates in many regions of Iraq.

First, the most violent governorates are relatively oversampled.

The LA Times specifically said the Health Ministry's count did not include the most violent governates.

ROTFLOL! You didn't even understand what was being talked about. They were talking about the John Hopkins' study oversampling ... not the LATimes or Health Ministry. Now do you "get it"?

So your source "guesses" that ~only~ 300,000 have died unnecessarily, and you consider this a victory...

You will never find the truth or build a better world if you insist on promoting a lie or misinformation.

But deaths the first year will NOT explain the missing 500,000 death certificates

There are no missing death certificates, so there is no need to explain them.

You can repeat that mantra till you are blue in the face. I'm betting that lurkers and visitors to this thread will now see through it.

The fact is, Iraqi doctors also can give out death certificates.

Prove it. You haven't offered ANYTHING to prove this other than a claim by Les Roberts.

Because John Hopkins' study only claims that about 100,000 (of the 655,000) died in the first 18 months after the invasion.

That's a lie.

Want to bet? The second John Hopkins report states quite clearly that it estimates that 120,000 died in the timeframe in which the first report said 98,000 died ... the first 18 months after the invasion. Didn't you read the report or do we have ANOTHER example of you claiming you did but clearly not having done so?

And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, most deaths don't make it into the news media,

That's not what IraqBodyCount says and they've studied the reporting of deaths in the news media ratherly extensively.

Dahr Jamail's Mideast Dispatches

Dahr Jamail. Now there's a reliable source. ROTFLOL!

So that leaves 5000 doctors who on average have to issue 100 death certificates each and not report them (to explain 500,000 missing death certificates). That your claim?

Is that or is that not your claim?

"Well why don't you find ONE of them to come forward and support your assertion. That shouldn't seem to difficult a request. There are 5000 of them to draw from."

Because I don't prove things to trolls

For some reason I don't that's the reason, AGAviator.

He didn't hire them because they "hated Americans."

But they do hate Americans, right? It was those Iraqi doctors Les was talking about when he mentioned "colleagues" "hating" Americans. Right? Tell us, do ALL doctors in Iraq hate Americans? Do even most?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   0:43:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Another group, the People's Kifah, organized hundreds of Iraqi academics and volunteers who conducted a survey in coordination "with grave-diggers across Iraq," and who also "obtained information from hospitals and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. fire." The project was abandoned when one of their researchers was captured by Kurdish militiamen, handed over to US forces and never seen again. Nevertheless, after less than two months' work, the group documented a minimum of 37,000 violent civilian deaths prior to October 2003.

I see that claim comes from this nice unbiased source:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=5525

But let's dig a little deeper ... something you obviously didn't do.

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

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.4.php

"3.4.3. "Iraqi Kaffi/People's Kifah": no such study as described

The mis-spelled "Iraqi Kaffi" study in the HPN table refers to a report of 37,000 Iraqi civilian deaths from the "People's Kifah", a political group in Iraq, and is correctly cited as such in MIT 05. The table describes the study as covering the period from March to October 2003. This is indeed how it was reported on July 31, 2004 by the English language edition of Aljazeera:

An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003.

The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003.

The report then lists in detail the deaths recorded in various towns, eg., 6103 in Baghdad, 2009 in Mosul, and so on.

However, on August 21, 2003 the very same detailed town-by-town figures, as well as a total of 37,000 civilians killed, originating from the same political party and spokesperson, were published on the website of Jude Wanniski, a retired Wall Street Journal reporter. Wanniski reproduced in full an emailed communiqué from the party spokesperson which stated:

The above figures were the actual civilian deaths killed violently since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in March this year and until the middle of June (including those killed after the fall of Saddam's regime and who in a way of another caught between gunfire of the US troops and the Iraqi resistance).

If we give preference to the unedited words of the spokesperson, then this survey covered the period from 20 March to mid-June 2003, not to October 2003. In any case, it is impossible for data published in August 2003 to have been collected in September and October 2003.

It is clear that neither Roberts nor the champions of his analysis are aware of the provenance of this report, which — if correctly cited — provides a rate of 422 (civilians-only) killed per day, not 152 as given in the HPN table. It is surprising that this survey should have been given such cursory treatment before being added to the table, particularly considering that it provides the table's highest entry.

Even if this date discrepancy is overlooked, full details of the survey's methodology (including reliability of data-gathering methods, checks for double and triple-counting etc.) have never been described. It is therefore not possible to give this survey the same weight as studies whose methodologies are clear and auditable.

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

You folks have been fooled AGAIN. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   0:48:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BeASpammer is trying to be the last one standing on the thread...

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-06   1:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"it is impossible for data published in August 2003 to have been collected in September and October 2003."

ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   1:23:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Link

To: Mr. Jude Wanniski From: Dr. Mohammed Al-Obaidi General coordinator of the Iraqi Freedom Party

The World, and particularly the peace-loving World is far from knowing the truth of the real number of civilian casualties during the American led aggression on Iraq.

Although we know that there were groups of organizations (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net) who tried their utmost best to come up with an accurate figure of the total civilian death, but reaching the sites where these deaths occurred was one major obstacle in their effort. Besides, the language barrier and hesitation of the people in Iraq to talk to foreigners were also part of the lack of accurate information regarding this issue.

As the general coordinator of the Iraqi Freedom Party, I made a request to our Party Headquarters in Iraq to fully investigate this matter and to come up with accurate and up to date information of the total civilians killed during the invasion of Iraq.

After more than five weeks of intensive and thorough investigations carried out by hundreds of our party’s cadre, which included all villages, towns, cities and some of the desert areas etc. affected by the aggression (with exception of the Kurdish area), and also by interviewing hundreds of undertakers, hospitals officials and ordinary people in these places, the figure of civilians killed since the beginning of the invasion came to 37,137. This figure does not include militia, para-military or Saddam’s Fiday’een.

The breakdown of the total number of civilians killed during the invasion of Iraq is as follows (Please note that the names underneath represent that of 14 Governorates, excluding Iraqi Kurdistan):

Baghdad 6103
Mosul 2009
Basrah 6734
Nasiriyah 3581
Diwaniyah 1567
Kut 2494
Hillah 3552
Karbala (including Najaf) 2263
Samawah 659
Amarah 2741
Ramadi 2172
Kerkuk 861
Diyalah 604
Tikrit 1797

The above figures were the actual civilian deaths killed violently since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq in March this year and until the middle of June (including those killed after the fall of Saddam’s regime and who in a way of another caught between gunfire of the US troops and the Iraqi resistance).

Due to the absence in Iraq (with the exception of the Kurdish area) of functional communication systems with the outside World, our party headquarter in Baghdad tried to send me a fully comprehensive and detailed report by fax from Al-Sulaymaniyah (a Kurdish area). However, by crossing to the Kurdish area, the Kurdish “Peshmarga” searched the person carrying that report which was found with him and confiscated. According, he was handed over to the American troops where he was arrested and no one knows yet of his whereabouts.

This incident clearly indicates that the US Army does not want the truth of the civilian casualties made public.

They're some "success story" all right.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-06   1:26:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Spammer, you have had your a$$ handed to you on this thread repeatedly.

I know you're a troll, and like a troll you think that as long as you can still post on the thread, you haven't had your a$$ kicked.

But the fact is, all you have are your bogus numbers which ignore the fact that thousands of Iraqi doctors can issue death certificates, ignore the fact that for a year the only numbers the ministry of health reported were from one sixth of Iraq's population, and ignore the fact that 80% of the survey and not 92% of the survey stated they had death certificates.

Once your obfuscation on that issue is dismissed, all you're left with is "Nobody is being killed in Iraq because the media hates Bush. Nobody is being killed in Iraq because the media hates America."

But you've never have answered the question of why the Iraqis would hate America in the first place, if America liberated them and is giving them democracy.

There are only 2 reasons you continue to blather on this thread.

(1) You have no conscience, and
(2) You have no shame.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-06   1:34:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is impossible for something to begin in March, take 5 weeks, and end in August, or September, or October.

ROTFLOL!

And flock you, troll.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-06   1:37:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Note how BeASpammer's Kurdish darlings both refuse to give casualty figures to independent media, and also arrest and turn over people trying to get these numbers to the US Army, who "disappears" them. They're some "success story" all right.

The Kurds sold themselves out to the neozios.

With their lies about Saddam having a working relationship with AQ, the Kurds have blood on their hands - they are war criminals like the neozios - the Kurds were a significant piece of Dubya's faux rationale for the Iraq invasion.

The Kurds will eventually be betrayed by the neozios - like Uncle Saddam himself was - there can only be one Precious to which DC is loyal above all else.

The Kurds should have stayed with their loyalty to Iran - Israelis look down on the Kurds because they are not Jews - the Kurds are most ethnically similar to the Iranians. That was a more natural match for alliances.

It's too late now - the Kurds are screwed and rightfully so. They have Iraqis' blood on their hands. When the Hewey evac helicopters are poised on the roof tops of the Green Zone, there will be no seats available for the Kurds. The neozios would never want to burn bridges with the Turks when all is said and done.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-06   1:40:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Kurds will eventually be betrayed by the neozios - like Uncle Saddam himself was - there can only be one Precious to which DC is loyal above all else.

And then we'll have some of the more fortunate ones trying to eke out a living in this country as refugees.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-06   1:48:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

To: Mr. Jude Wanniski From: Dr. Mohammed Al-Obaidi General coordinator of the Iraqi Freedom Party

ROTFLOL! Did you notice the date on what you just posted, AGAviator? August 21, 2003, just as IraqBodyCount indicated in the URL I posted and linked in post #260.

Now do you see the problem with that date? It's BEFORE the date your first source and al-Jazerra claimed the study was conducted. Shall I repeat what you first posted?

The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003.

Now tell us, how can one report the results of a study in August that you don't carry out till September and October? Look at a calendar. ROTFLOL!

By the way, the number of dead in each place you listed is IDENTICAL in the Al Jazeera source from which all this came. And it says "Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003". Again, how can those numbers relate to a period October 2003 when they were already published in August 2003?

You just don't know when to quit, do you.

By the way, I don't really have a big problem with that number anyway? It's only about 50-75 percent higher than IraqBodyCounts estimate over the same period. The bottom line is that it has to have been included in John Hopkins 100,000 estimate so it doesn't begin to explain the missing 500,000 death certificates.

Oh, by the way, be sure to tell folks a little about Jude Wanniski.

For one, he denies Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds. What irony ...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2063934/

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   21:23:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How many Iraqi civilians would you "authorize" to be killed, BAC - got a number, asshole? They stand as American War Crimes, whether you like reality, or not; whatever the number.

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-06   21:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the fact that thousands of Iraqi doctors can issue death certificates,

Ignore the fact that you've offered no proof of that. A quote by ONE Iraqi doctor to that effect. ONE Iraqi doctor saying he did what you claim they all did. And if you don't claim that 5000 did it, then the number that each did that has to increase proportionally. But we're still waiting to hear the FIRST Iraqi doctors' name. And you clearly don't have one or a quote by him/her.

ignore the fact that for a year the only numbers the ministry of health reported were from one sixth of Iraq's population,

Ignore the fact that even if that is true, it doesn't explain the missing 500,000 death certificates. The missing bodies. The missing graves. The missing news reports. The missing eyewitnesses. The lack of depopulation in the areas where this violence had to have mostly occurred. Ignore all that ...

and ignore the fact that 80% of the survey and not 92% of the survey stated they had death certificates.

Ignore the fact you don't understand statistics. They reportedly asked 87 percent of the households where a death was claimed to provide a death certificate and 92 percent of that 87 percent was supposedly able to do so. But there shouldn't be anything special about the other 13 percent, if the surveyers simply forgot (as they claimed) to ask them for the proof. Statistically, one would expect such a random group to also have been able to supply a death certificate about 92 percent of the time. Hence, it is accurate to say that the John Hopkins study suggests that 92 percent of those claiming dead should have a death certificate ... if their study is valid. Which means that about 500,000 death certificates are missing.

all you're left with is "Nobody is being killed in Iraq because the media hates Bush. Nobody is being killed in Iraq because the media hates America."

Of course I've never said or implied any such thing which makes your use of quotes all the more inappropriate and suggestive of desperation on your part.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   21:38:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How many Iraqi civilians would you "authorize" to be killed, BAC - got a number, asshole? They stand as American War Crimes, whether you like reality, or not; whatever the number.

Hey, BAC, answer the question, Fuck-Head!

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-06   21:40:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

When the Hewey evac helicopters are poised on the roof tops of the Green Zone, there will be no seats available for the Kurds.

You appear to be suggesting that if we abandon Iraq (as you hope), there will be a bloodbath. How many do you expect will die in that bloodbath? Say just among the Kurds. Just curious whether your estimates are as good as say ... John Kerry's estimates were about what would happen in Vietnam after we left.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-06   21:43:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

How many Iraqi civilians would you "authorize" to be killed, BAC - got a number, asshole? They stand as American War Crimes, whether you like reality, or not; whatever the number.

Hey, BAC, answer the question, Fuck-Head!

SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-06   21:57:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (274 - 375) not displayed.

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

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