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: 23462
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 (1-77) not displayed.
.
.
.
#78. To: BeAChooser, Minerva (#69)
It certainly does. The people who did the John Hopkins survey actually went out into Iraq, went to a diverse collection of sites, and risked their lives in the process. The other people are like you, where if they even go to Iraq they stay behind the Green Zone and compile news reports from other people who also stay behind the Green Zone. Now to compare apples to apples, tell me how the John Hopkins' study compares to another study that also had people going house to house in Iraq and taking a survey. When you get to that, tell me why you keep harping on "Where are the bodies," when a 655,000 death count + or - the confidence range would mean an average of 4 bodies per day in 89 regions throughout Iraq.
There are some very good reasons for not going to morgues and hospitals: (1) You can get killed in the process of moving around the country, and (2) You can have your dead kin accused of being a terrorist which will result in some serious problems for you and your own surviving family. Furthermore, to answer your ghoulish preoccupation with "Where are the bodies, where are the death cerfificates" the Cole article cites a common practice of throwing corpses into the Tigris river and other bodies of water. It happens day in and day out. So do you expect the majority of bodies disposed of in the Tigris River to show up and get identified as bodies, and given a death certificate? No I don't. That is arm-waving and speculation on your part. Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks. The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount. In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad... However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion. The morgue records show a predominantly civilian toll; the hospital records gathered by the Health Ministry do not distinguish between civilians, combatants and security forces. ... "Everything has increased," said one official in the Health Ministry who didn't want to be identified for security reasons. "Bombings have increased, shootings have increased." ... So you intrepret "Many more," "serious lapses in reporting," "grossly undercounted," "exclude the three northern provinces," "does not include deaths outside Baghdad," "everything has increased," and "well beyond" as meaning "not more than double." Nobody else will.
So did this group http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf from the UN Development Program. In a much larger study than John Hopkins', they only found 24,000 war-related deaths at a time when John Hopkins was claiming 98,000. The UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. So perhaps the difference is that they didn't hire folks to conduct the study who (according to Les Roberts) HATED Americans and the researchers weren't trying to influence a US election against Bush. You know nothing about me. Asked and answered. Now it's your turn. Tell us how a study that claims its random sample is representative of the country at large could have 92 percent of those claiming deaths provide a death certificate as proof when various mosques, hospitals and bureaucracies that issue death certificates can't (according to the LA Times) locate even 10 percent of the deaths the John Hopkins' study claimed? This should have been another sign to Cole (and you) that something is terribly amiss. By the way ... did you ever find the source of Cole's claim about the deaths in Basra? No? Did you ever confirm that those deaths weren't reported to authorities or that death certificates weren't issued in those cases? No? Did you ever confirm those deaths weren't counted in the estimates put out by such organizations as IraqBodyCount? No? Did you ever find out why the British said the death toll was closer to 100 a month than 1 an hour? No?
Then why did all the folks in the John Hopkins study do that? Did John Hopkins *random* sample just happen to pick a group who did when most of the rest of the country didn't? Or are you suggesting that those who don' t go to morgues, etc can still get death certificates that John Hopkins would accept as legitimate proof? Who issues those death certificate? The LA Times didn't mention any other source for them other than morgues, hospitals and the health ministry. Perhaps the folks in the John Hopkins' study simply create their own? ROTFLOL! Really? You really think that the highly liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war LA Times wouldn't mention that the death toll is off by a factor of 10 if it were? Really? ROTFLOL! That doesn't help your case either, since the second John Hopkins' study *confirmed* the results of the first which claimed that 98,000 died in the first 18 months after the war began. Thus the majority of the deaths in the 655,000 death study had to have occured after that "chaotic first year". But Kurdistan has been very peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq. Surely you aren't claiming that the death rate in Kurdistan is any higher than in Baghdad. If not, then again, the number undercounted can't be much more than the baseline count. You are still missing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bodies, death certificates and eyewitness reports. By the way, the liberal, anti-war, mainstream media won't tell the public this, but Kurdistan is a real success story. They are doing quite well right now compared to under Saddam.
Your "group's" report consists of the following sections Chapter two describes and analyses the characteristics of the Iraqi population. Chapter three discusses the findings on nutritional status and child health. Chapter four describes the ILCS findings on coverage of reproductive health services and birth history. Chapter five focuses on the general health situation of the Iraqi population and their access to health services. Chapter six considers the supply, demand, and quality of education in Iraq. Chapter seven presents an analysis of the present living condition of Iraqi women You believe I know nothing about you. That does not mean I don't know anything about you, Emperor. Spamming a 178 page report is not answering. Irrelevant. Bureaucracies tracking or not tracking death certificates they issue, does not equate to people receiving or not receiving said death certificates. The LA Times said the agencies could not provide summaries of these certificates, not that they did not issue any more than 50,000. Cole was there and knows people there. You weren't, and don't.
Another one of your trademarked diverisons. The survey asked if they had death certificates. They did not ask if they had death certificates from a morgue or a hospital that happened to be contacted by the LA Times. Seems like "ROTFLOL" is your code for "I'm starting to have difficulties really explaining my position." The survey said most of their respondents had death certificates. The LA Times said it was difficult to summarize, collate and count the number of death certificates issued, at official reporting levels. A completely bullshit argument you're pulling out of thin air. The LA Times like any reputable publication does not claim to know what it has just said it does not know. If they knew they were off by a factor of ten, they would have had the real number to begin with. You really like to make this crap up as you go along, don't you? False. They confirmed their number with a 2nd sample, which corroborated the first. They didn't try to prove their number with official statistics which they explicitly noted were difficult to come by. Not during the first year in Mosul and Kirkuk. There is also Anbar province and possibly Basra which are worse. That has already been discussed. You keep spamming the same old stuff. Four bodies a day x 90 municipalities, plus deaths in the countryside not associated with those municipalities, easily brings the total past 600,000. Many Kurds are mercenaries in the employ of the US government, and their government is also letting Israeli money and military operatives have free rein in return for a future chunk of their oil reserves should they be able to pull off secession. There's Big Oil money around there too, because Kurdistan sits on top of 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. Kurdistan is a welfare project for Big Oil and Israeli shysters all being financed by the American taxpayer.
Did you look for the chapter titled "War-Related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000." In Orange type. It's on page 54 (or 53 or 55 depending on how you interpret the numbering). That chapter says "The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey." And the study was based on much larger sample than the John's Hopkins' study. So that's going to be your *excuse*? That Iraq's morgues, hospitals, etc actually issued 655,000 death certificates but failed to write down the fact that they had or record any other information about the dead? ROTFLOL! Do you know how absolutely lame that sounds? ROTFLOL! But at least I was able to URL a source which discussed this rather than just claimed it. And how often have Iraqi defense ministers said something which later turned out to be untrue? (sarcasm) And noted that British authorities disputed that claim. And it didn't say anything about the claim being that one per hour had been killed for the last year as Cole claimed. I tell you what ... let's look at some more sources. From May 2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article485489.ece "Majid al-Sari, an adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, describing the situation in Basra to the daily al-Zaman, said that on average one person was being assassinated every hour." Well at least now we know the real source of the claim. And according to the article "Tribes who once lived in the marshlands outside Basra are engaged in constant feuds with other tribes." So the violence is Shia on Shia. Gee ... I thought you folks have been saying the Shia are a monolith aligned with Iran. But do we find any other articles about this? No. All the sources I found repeat the same Patrick Cockburn article. I couldn't find the original al-Zaman article. If you can, I'd love to see it. But let's assume that Cockburn was only quoting that article. Can we trust al-Zaman, http://(www.azzaman.com? None other than Juan Cole provides us with this (http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/al-zaman-good-riddance-to-rumsfeld.html ) from the editorial staff at al-Zaman. It's in regards to the resignation of Rumsfeld. "Everyone should read the signs of joy in Iraq after the announcement of the departure of a politician whose name is linked to the most heinous crimes, which began with the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison and ended with his unleashing of death squads and criminals to disrupt the security of Iraq. His crimes also included dissolving one of the oldest armies in the region, for the most part made up of brave patriots, as a preparation for the partition and tearing apart of Iraq. That's not exactly a fair representation of the facts in my opinion. A bit of an exaggeration ... wouldn't you say? And I found this from October 2006, http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/e0f5ff85-f2a0-4fa5-9a31-0035ae7d5198.html "While violence continues to take a toll on Iraqi journalists, actions by the Iraqi government are seen as trying to stifle press freedoms. Parliament urged Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on October 16 to shut down the Al- Sharqiyah news channel and "Al-Zaman" newspaper after what it described as their negative coverage of a recent draft law the parliament passed on turning Iraq into a federal state. The outlets warned that the law could lead to the disintegration of Iraq on ethnic and sectarian grounds, "Al-Zaman reported on October 17." I suppose they meant the Shia on Shia murders that it's claimed are occurring in Basra at the rate of one an hour? (By the way, I'm certainly against al-Zaman being shut down and I'm willing to assume they did a fair reporting of the story in question). So what do we know about the Majid al-Sari? He's quoted in the Chicago Tribune saying "[Iran] wants to promote its own brand of theocracy, especially among Iraq's Shia population, and yet make sure that Iraq remains weak," said Majid al-Sari, a senior adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Defense. "They don't want too much instability in Iraq. Just a little." The article goes on to say that "Iranian cash is being funneled to an array of armed Shiite groups in the city, partly to tie down coalition military forces, and partly to keep any one militia from consolidating power, said a military analyst familiar with the tense situation in Basra." So perhaps this violence is actually just part of the wider, ongoing, undeclared war with the terrorist sponsoring state of Iran? Perhaps the solution is not to withdraw precipitously from Iraq but take the war to Iran. And here's one last comment concerning conditions in Basra in 2007, a year later. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6373087.stm "Tony Blair has said the operation to allow Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in Basra had been "completed" and "successful". ... snip ... He said the situation was different in the two different areas, with no Sunni insurgency or al-Qaeda suicide attacks in the Basra area. He also said sectarian violence in Basra had fallen "enormously", and the number of murders had fallen to 30 in December. ... snip ... "Of course I am devastated by the numbers of people who have died in Iraq, but it's not British and American troops that are killing them. They are being killed by people who are deliberately using terrorism to try to stop the country getting on its feet."
Good Lord, BAC, your buddy Boy George went in with a War Crime invasion and occupation - and the locals aren't supposed to fight back, with every possible resource they can muster? Is that your definition of 'righteous?' C'mon, BAC - you can tell us.
But the LA Times only mentioned morgues, hospitals and the health ministry as being sources of death certificates. So I ask you ... what other sources are there? Does the John Hopkins report mention any other sources? No. So what sources are you claiming exist. Oh that's right ... your *theory* is that the morgues, etc did issue the 655,000 certificates but just forgot to make a note of them. ROTFLOL! Reputable? ROTFLOL! Do you know why they call it the LASlime? Not false. That's exactly what I said. The second study confirmed the results of the first study ... so the second study must have concluded that 98,000 (or so) died in the first 18 months after the war. So your theory that the reason they couldn't find the death certificates of 600,000 is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion" does not help your case. You can't use the first year of the war to explain why so many death certificates are missing. But those areas were supposedly counted in the first John Hopkins study during the first year. You are still missing half a million death certificates. No, I already addressed the problem with assuming that most of the deaths occurred in Anbar. You'd have to have killed half the population of the region to explain the John Hopkins estimate and SURELY that would have gotten the attention of the world media. And the Basra statistics from John Hopkins' study have the same problem. Basra is also only 2.5 percent of the population. In fact, even at 1 per hour death rates you and Juan Cole are now claiming you can't make the John Hopkins' estimate make sense. Consider ... 39 months times 30 days times 24 hours time 1/hour = 28,080. That's it ... 28,000. And you'd have to claim THIS is one of the most violent areas of the country every day since the beginning of the war. Just to get 28,000 deaths. When are you going to understand that the John Hopkins study is fundamentally flawed? Probably never...
For the sake of argument, BAC - does the smaller of the number of civilian deaths take away the American War Crimes which produced them. C'mon, BAC; you can tell us.
Given the stated purpose of the survey, any questions about missing and dead persons were quite secondary to that stated purpose. Since the survey's purpose was not to track the excess deaths, but instead try to measure the overall quality of living conditions, it should not be relied upon to give an estimate of the excess deaths. Clearly you don't understand the meaning of "Serious lapses in recording deaths," and "Continued spotty reporting," and "Unable to compile the data," And your URL isn't someone "claiming" it who just happened to take the trouble to put it onto the Internet? More irrelevant remarks. As the occupying power, the United States is responsible for the security of the country, period. This means protecting the people from criminals and violence of all forms. Many people within the US and even within the military warned against exactly this type of chaos. The Administration ignored them. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, and if you do, it is yet more proof of your moral depravity. Not in the least.
Bidding starts at 1 euro for an 8-track with a cult following.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of "Serious lapses in recording deaths," and "Continued spotty reporting," and "Unable to compile the data," A pretty lame attempt to weasel out of my incisive answer with an ad hominem. You said the LA Times would have stated if they were off by a factor of ten. I said that if the LA Times knew how much they were off, then they'd have the real number to begin with. Then you try to change the subject. And you fancy yourself a *debater.* I use "gross undercounts," serious lapses in recording deaths," "continued spotty reporting," and "unable to compile the data," to explain why the LA Times could not get a summary of the death certificates at a top level And that does not equate to those death certificates being *missing.* No I am not missing them. I know this is your last, best hope to try to obfuscate the results of the survey, but handing out a death certificate, and keeping track of the total number of death certificates handed out, are two completely different actions. Especially in a chaotic war zone, which Iraq is. Anbar is off-limits to the world media. And this really is all you have to say once one strips away the bullshit. You claim there couldn't have been 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq because the media is picking on poor little George Bush. That's really the only agrument you have to offer. Consider...4 bodies per day average, x 89 municipalities, plus Baghdad, plus deaths in the country, in a country the size of California with a population of 36 million and a normal death rate of over 100,000 per year, most of which is off- limits and very dangerous to anyone including the media. And yet you keep on harping on a non-existent "problem" of where the bodies are - as if they aren't scattered all over the country. When are you going to understand the war was based on lies, its supporters adamantly keep information about it from the world and from American citizens, there has been more than $1 Trillion spent on it, there have been tens of thousands of missions both in the air and on the ground, it has been going on for more nearly 4 years - yet you would have everyone believe that hardly any one ever has died as a result of it.
Blue Oyster Cult - "Don't Fear the Reaper?"
well done. i like your ending paragraph summation.
they had become like they are fluff...I'm not they! helter skelter.. :)
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
I hope I die before I get old? I don't trust anyone!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
That doesn't make the results from that question inaccurate. What gives an indication of inaccuracy is when a study claims that 92 percent of those claiming deaths during its interviews were able to a death certificates as proof ... yet the number of death certificates issued by those who issue such things appears to be a small fraction of the number of death certificates that should exist in the general population if that 92 percent figure is to be believed. By Patrick Cockburn, AGAIN? What a coincidence. And I don't see anything in that article disputing the difference pointed out between the two areas or the statement by Blair that deaths per month in the region are way down from the CLAIM of one per hour.
"And you fancy yourself a *debater*." You don't even understand what I said, AGAviator. Let me try again. You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion". But the source whose estimate you are trying to defend as credible, John Hopkins, only claims that 100,000 died in that first 18 months. That is a small fraction of the 550,000 that are missing. Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist if the John Hopkins claim that 92 percent of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates is to be believed. But not to the insurgency's media. And don't claim they aren't using the media. They could easily document the death of the half of Anbar's population that would be necessary to make the John Hopkins' study results believable. So go ahead and ignore what that 28,000 figure says about the theory you tried to pushed that Anbar and Basra can explain the John Hopkins estimate. Now your NEW theory is that EVERY city in Iraq has been seeing 120 killings every month since the beginning of the war ... regardless of the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. This just gets lamer and lamer. You must be really comfortable in the ME because your arguments shift just like the desert sands. ROTFLOL!
By the way ... this is another bit of misinformation. Shall we discuss that topic too?
Again. "Issuing" a death certificate, and "compiling" hundreds of miles away in Baghdad the number of death certificates that were issued, are two separate and distinct processes. And your source clearly and explicitly states many times its number is not in the least representative of the number of death certificates or the number of deaths. Furthermore, at the end of the day the bottom line is: How many people have died in this war, and how many of them are noncombatants. The Administration, and people like you, are doing everything they can to distract attention from this bottom line. However there are plenty of people in Iraq who have been killed who never got death certificates, and who don't have relatives who would say they have been murdered. These deaths are over and above any numbers within the confidence ranage of the survey. So your attempted obfuscation about the minutiae of the survey do not address the fact that there is a population that the survey did not count, over and above whatever number the survey did count. "Nobody is dying in Iraq because the media hates Bush" AGAIN? No I didn't. That is just one of several factors, which I have set out many times. The surveys did not cover identical time periods, and the first survey had a confidence interval where its authors opined that 100,000 seemed to be a reasonable minimum. Diversion and straw man. There are a number of reasons why the authorities in Baghdad could not ***COMPILE*** - read the article, then look up the word - the number of death certificates. The insurgency does not play by your rules. If you want them to, become a jihadist, go join them, and tell them to! ROTFLOL!!! Nobody said 28,000 except you. I'm saying 4 bodies per day x 89 municipalities plus Baghdad. I never had an *OLD* theory. My theory is that hundreds of thousands of excess deaths have occurred, both as direct results of the war, and as indirect results of the social chaos caused by the war. Now for your "lamer and lamer" claims. The war has cost more than $1 Trillion, it has gone on for more than 3 1/2 years, the Americans have had more than 4,000 killed and more than 30,000 wounded when "contractors" are added to the count. That's a total of 34,000 casualties on "our" side. There have been tens of thousands, possibly more than 100,000, missions, over 3 1/2 years. Assuming for the sake of And you would allege "we are winning?" ROTFLOL yourself!!! Furthermore, continuing the same And you would allege "we are winning?" ROTFLOL yourself!!! No, that would be your distortions of my statements. ROTFLOL! yourself. False. The supplemental appropriations for Iraq alone are well past half a trillion and that is cold hard cash spent in the current years. Then there are the costs from the regular budget, and last but not least the huge unpaid liabilities that are not counted because of the government's fly-by-night accounting which would send any business executive to Federal prison if he reported results the same way.
You've been harping on that "92%" number for months on end, and the report never said "92% of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates. Just one more in a near-endless list of your distortions. What John Hopkins did say is
The fucker's maniacal with that ROTFLOL! It's downright creepy.
Why feed the troll? Let's call it 10,000 & go for War Crime Charges. The 'accurate' total is almost unimportant. BAC is spamming everyone - successfully.
I admit that I have never been able to win an argument with BAC in that he never gives up. He is world-champion spammer. and I am under the impression that I was first to call him 'BAC' at LP when trying unsuccessfully to argue with him. I gave up. You can't beat him. At the same time, his style is such that he does not convince many. honway found him useful.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Just one more indication that you don't really understand what you read or its implications. First of all, the use of 90% is incorrect. I think the WP was simplifying the study results for the simple minds that read it. I quote from the page numbered 5 (excluding the title page) of the John Hopkins' report: "At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present." Now granted, it doesn't say that every household was asked ... just that interviewers were supposed to ask. But then, the report itself doesn't mention what percentage were actually asked. It leaves the impression that all were. But let's say you are right ... that only 87% of the households were asked. I did find an article on JH's own website that said "Interviewers had remembered to ask for death certificates in 87 percent of all cases of reported mortality". Remembered? You mean they forgot the rest of the time? And forgot to mention that little fact in their study report? But let's not get distracted by the precision with which the study was carried out. Tell us, AGAviator, why would you assume that those not asked would be any different in being able to supply death certificates than those asked had they been asked? And in any case, whether it's 92 percent or 80%, you still have the problem of hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates. No obfuscation you make will cause that serious problem to disappear. It remains a sure sign of great problems with the survey.
Where does the LA Times explicitly use the words "many times"? It doesn't. Of course, people have died in this war. But the truth won't be found on a foundation of lies. The John Hopkins' studies are lies. Which is why you are having so much difficulty with what I'm pointing out about those studies and its authors. You most certainly did suggest that was a primary factor. Don't try and deny that. FALSE. The second survey includes the period of the first survey and the second survey stated it's results validated the results of the first survey. FALSE FALSE FALSE. The minimum of the 95% confidence range was 8,000. No, it's an argument that strikes at the heart of your claim the John Hopkins survey is believable. Which is why you are clearly having so much trouble dealing with it. Which is why you keep putting forward one explanation after another only to discover each explanation does not explain. You can't explain the missing death certificates by claiming the first year was chaos. You can't explain them by claiming most of the deaths occurred in Anbar. Or Basra. Now you are finding it necessary to claim that every major city in Iraq has been more violent on a daily basis since the beginning of the war than the media has even noted for only a few short specific periods in only a couple of cities. Your excuses are getting sillier and sillier. See what I mean about getting sillier and sillier? You now want us to believe that insurgents wouldn't use what is clearly the most powerful leverage possible to get America out of Iraq. Do you honestly believe the world would stand for our remaining if the insurgents showed proof that we'd committed genocide in Anbar by killing HALF of its population? Of course not ... so it defies reason that had that occurred the insurgents wouldn't be making use of evidence of such a crime now. Actually, after finding your Anbar suggestion didn't hold water, you offered Basra as an explanation, claiming that 1 person per hour was dying (based solely on ONE comment by ONE person a year ago). I simply showed that even if we assumed 1 death an hour for the entire time since the invasion, it would only amount to 28,000 ... proving how ridiculous your Basra excuse was. No, after your Anbar and Basra arguments collapsed, you moved on to claiming (without any proof) that 4 bodies per day had been dying in 90 cities in Iraq every day, day in and day out, since the beginning of the invasion. If that were true, you could account for perhaps 400,000 deaths. But its ALL based on nothing but speculation. You still don't have the death certificates. You still don' t have ANY proof of that many bodies. And you still haven't explained how John Hopkins just happened to pick a group of people for their survey of whom 92 percent could supply death certificates on demand. Sure you did. We all watched your theory evolve on this very thread, AGAviator. It's no use claiming otherwise. All one has to do is reread this read to see that I'm right. No, it has not. This figure is just as bogus as John Hopkins' death estimate. For one, it totally over looks the positive financial benefits of invading and winning in Iraq. It is NET cost/benefit that will matter in the long run. Lamer and lamer. Now you make the FALSE claim that the American military directly killed those 100,000 Iraqis. The truth is that most of the deaths in Iraq are directly a result of terrorist, insurgent and secular violence. Iraqi on Iraqi violence. Even the John Hopkins' researchers have said as much. No, the supplemental appropriations for the WOT as a whole are past half a trillion dollars. Not for just Iraq. http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican/hearingarchive/testimonies/2007/2007-02-06Kosiak.pdf " The Global War on Terror (GWOT): Costs, Cost Growth and Estimating Funding Requirements Testimony, Before the United States Senate Committee on the Budget, Steven M. Kosiak, Vice President for Budget Studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, February 6, 2007 ... snip ... Since fiscal year (FY) 2001, Congress has appropriated about $502 billion for the GWOT. This includes some $463 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD) and $39 billion for other departments and agencies. Military operations, reconstruction and other assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan account for, respectively, some $345-375 billion and $100 billion of this total. The remaining roughly $25-55 billion has been used to fund a variety of other programs and activities, including classified programs, Army and Marine Corps restructuring and some homeland security activities (Operation Noble Eagle)." If you can't even get that right, how reliable can you be about anything else?
Really? You, BeAChooser would testify before Congress that the Johns Hopkins' studies "are lies?" No? And why is that BeAChooser? Perhaps because you are not invited? And why is that? I'll give you the reason - because your laymanBot opinions and the opinions of Mr. neocon Kaplan from Slate and the opinions of the LA Times, Washington Post, Fox News news reporters and all the bloggers you have quoted, ARE NOT CONSIDERED EXPERT BECAUSE NONE OF YOU ARE EXPERTS on anything except the science of bushbotulism - ie. how to deny, obstruct, and cover your a** . That's your specialty. Let me tell you who was invited to testify before Congress on Dec. 11, 2006 -it was the 2 co-authors of the Lancet study, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, MD, and Dr. Les Roberts. Do you think these 2 men would "lie" to Congress? These are medical professionals, they're not war mongering professionals like Bibi Netanyahu. Drs. Burnham and Roberts actually had to attend college and pass board exams. Read this testimony, BAC. You might learn something about "expert testimony." Monday, December 11, 2006 "Kucinich-Paul Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq" http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/kucinich-paul-congressional-hearing- on.html
You know, it could be made useful. Just make him a dustmop suit, and let him post in a room that needs the floors cleaned.....
Now the fact that John Hopkins estimate that Cole chooses to champion happens to be an order of magnitude different than half a dozen other estimates probably should have been a clue to Cole (and you) that something is amiss.
#79. To: BeAChooser, Minerva, Skydrifter, Red Jones (#70)
(Edited)
Are the people in these 90 major towns and cities different than the people John Hopkins surveyed as being typical of them? Why didn't they go to morgues, hospitals and the health ministry to get a death certificate issued like the ones in the study? Or did they go but then ask those organizations to wipe their records of the fact? Please, resolve this question for me AGAviator since you seem so knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq.
In that same article, The Los Angeles times explicitly stated that 50,000 is a gross undercount and excluded entire sections of the country.
True, the LATimes article says "Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west." But somehow I doubt they meant their data was off by a factor of ten (or more). A factor of two or three, possibly ... but not a factor of ten. You would think that the LATimes would have mentioned something like that. Wouldn't you?
Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since...
#80. To: AGAviator, ALL (#78)
The people who did the John Hopkins survey actually went out into Iraq, went to a diverse collection of sites, and risked their lives in the process.
The other people are like you, where if they even go to Iraq they stay behind the Green Zone and compile news reports from other people who also stay behind the Green Zone.
Now to compare apples to apples, tell me how the John Hopkins' study compares to another study that also had people going house to house in Iraq and taking a survey.
#81. To: AGAviator, ALL (#79)
"Are the people in these 90 major towns and cities different than the people John Hopkins surveyed as being typical of them? Why didn't they go to morgues, hospitals and the health ministry to get a death certificate issued like the ones in the study? Or did they go but then ask those organizations to wipe their records of the fact? Please, resolve this question for me AGAviator since you seem so knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq."
There are some very good reasons for not going to morgues and hospitals: (1) You can get killed in the process of moving around the country, and (2) You can have your dead kin accused of being a terrorist which will result in some serious problems for you and your own surviving family.
"True, the LATimes article says "Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west." But somehow I doubt they meant their data was off by a factor of ten (or more). A factor of two or three, possibly ... but not a factor of ten. You would think that the LATimes would have mentioned something like that. Wouldn't you?"
No I don't.
Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since...
The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount. In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad...
#82. To: BeAChooser (#80)
So did this group http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-% 20English.pdf from the UN Development Program. In a much larger study than John Hopkins', they only found 24,000 war-related deaths
Chapter one examines housing conditions, the availability of infrastructure and services, and environmental issues.
Nothing about taking a survey to find out the extent of the war's casualties. You know nothing about me.
Asked and answered.
Now it's your turn. Tell us how a study that claims its random sample is representative of the country at large could have 92 percent of those claiming deaths provide a death certificate as proof when various mosques, hospitals and bureaucracies that issue death certificates can't
By the way ... did you ever find the source of Cole's claim about the deaths in Basra?
#83. To: BeAChooser (#81)
(Edited)
Did John Hopkins *random* sample just happen to pick a group who did when most of the rest of the country didn't? Or are you suggesting that those who don't go to morgues, etc can still get death certificates?
Perhaps the folks in the John Hopkins' study simply create their own? ROTFLOL!
Really? You really think that the highly liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war LA Times wouldn't mention that the death toll is off by a factor of 10 if it were? Really? ROTFLOL!
Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since...
That doesn't help your case either, since the second John Hopkins' study *confirmed* the results of the first which claimed that 98,000 died in the first 18 months after the war began.
But Kurdistan has been very peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq.
You are still missing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bodies, death certificates and eyewitness reports.
By the way, the liberal, anti-war, mainstream media won't tell the public this, but Kurdistan is a real success story. They are doing quite well right now compared to under Saddam.
#84. To: AGAviator, ALL (#82)
Your "group's" report consists of the following sections ... snip ... Nothing about taking a survey to find out the extent of the war's casualties.
"Now it's your turn. Tell us how a study that claims its random sample is representative of the country at large could have 92 percent of those claiming deaths provide a death certificate as proof when various mosques, hospitals and bureaucracies that issue death certificates can't"
Irrelevant. Bureaucracies tracking or not tracking death certificates they issue, does not equate to people receiving or not receiving said death certificates.
"By the way ... did you ever find the source of Cole's claim about the deaths in Basra?"
Cole was there and knows people there. You weren't, and don't.
#85. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#84)
#86. To: AGAviator, ALL (#83)
"Did John Hopkins *random* sample just happen to pick a group who did when most of the rest of the country didn't? Or are you suggesting that those who don't go to morgues, etc can still get death certificates?"
Another one of your trademarked diverisons. The survey asked if they had death certificates. They did not ask if they had death certificates from a morgue or a hospital that happened to be contacted by the LA Times.
The LA Times like any reputable publication does not claim to know what it has just said it does not know.
"That doesn't help your case either, since the second John Hopkins' study *confirmed* the results of the first which claimed that 98,000 died in the first 18 months after the war began."
False. They confirmed their number with a 2nd sample, which corroborated the first.
But Kurdistan has been very peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq.
Not during the first year in Mosul and Kirkuk.
There is also Anbar province and possibly Basra which are worse.
Kurdistan is a welfare project for Big Oil and Israeli shysters all being financed by the American taxpayer.
#87. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#86)
#88. To: BeAChooser (#84)
Did you look for the chapter titled "War-Related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000." In Orange type. It's on page 54 (or 53 or 55 depending on how you interpret the numbering). That chapter says "The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey." And the study was based on much larger sample than the John's Hopkins' study.
Irrelevant. Bureaucracies tracking or not tracking death certificates they issue, does not equate to people receiving or not receiving said death certificates.
So that's going to be your *excuse*? That Iraq's morgues, hospitals, etc actually issued 655,000 death certificates but failed to write down the fact that they had or record any other information about the dead? ROTFLOL! Do you know how absolutely lame that sounds? ROTFLOL!
"Grossly undercounted," and
. So what do you do instead? Try to bluster past your ignorance with your usual flurry of "ROTFLOL's" But at least I was able to URL a source which discussed this rather than just claimed it.
Well at least now we know the real source of the claim. And according to the article "Tribes who once lived in the marshlands outside Basra are engaged in constant feuds with other tribes." So the violence is Shia on Shia. Gee ... I thought you folks have been saying the Shia are a monolith aligned with Iran.
Can we trust al-Zaman, http:// (www.azzaman.com? None other than Juan Cole provides us with this (http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/al-zaman-good-riddance- to-rumsfeld.html ) from the editorial staff at al-Zaman. It's in regards to the resignation of Rumsfeld.
"Everyone should read the signs of joy in Iraq after the announcement of the departure of a politician whose name is linked to the most heinous crimes, which began with the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison and ended with his unleashing of death squads and criminals to disrupt the security of Iraq. His crimes also included dissolving one of the oldest armies in the region, for the most part made up of brave patriots, as a preparation for the partition and tearing apart of Iraq.
That's not exactly a fair representation of the facts in my opinion. A bit of an exaggeration ... wouldn't you say?
And here's one last comment concerning conditions in Basra in 2007, a year later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6373087.stm "Tony Blair has said the operation to allow Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in Basra had been "completed" and "successful". ... snip ... He said the situation was different in the two different areas, with no Sunni insurgency or al-Qaeda suicide attacks in the Basra area.
#89. To: AGAviator, BeAChooser (#88)
#90. To: BeAChooser (#86)
But the LA Times only mentioned morgues, hospitals and the health ministry as being sources of death certificates. So I ask you ... what other sources are there? Does the John Hopkins report mention any other sources? No. So what sources are you claiming exist. Oh that's right ... your *theory* is that the morgues, etc did issue the 655,000 certificates but just forgot to make a note of them. ROTFLOL!
"Grossly undercounted," and
. So what do you do instead? Try to bluster past your ignorance with your usual flurry of "ROTFLOL's" The LA Times like any reputable publication does not claim to know what it has just said it does not know.
Reputable? ROTFLOL! Do you know why they call it the LASlime?
Not false. That's exactly what I said. The second study confirmed the results of the first study ... so the second study must have concluded that 98,000 (or so) died in the first 18 months after the war. So your theory that the reason they couldn't find the death certificates of 600,000 is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion" does not help your case. You can't use the first year of the war to explain why so many death certificates are missing.
t those areas were supposedly counted in the first John Hopkins study during the first year. You are still missing half a million death certificates.
You'd have to have killed half the population of the region to explain the John Hopkins estimate and SURELY that would have gotten the attention of the world media.
Consider ... 39 months times 30 days times 24 hours time 1/hour = 28,080.
When are you going to understand that the John Hopkins study is fundamentally flawed?
#91. To: Dakmar (#89)
An 8-track with a cult following.
#92. To: AGAviator (#90)
#93. To: AGAviator (#91)
power chord>
They aren't we!
Them ain't me!
#94. To: AGAviator (#91)
#95. To: AGAviator, ALL (#88)
Given the stated purpose of the survey, any questions about missing and dead persons were quite secondary to that stated purpose.
And here's one last comment concerning conditions in Basra in 2007, a year later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6373087.stm "Tony Blair has said the operation to allow Iraqis to take the lead in frontline security in Basra had been "completed" and "successful". ... snip ... He said the situation was different in the two different areas, with no Sunni insurgency or al-Qaeda suicide attacks in the Basra area."
Debunked Here
#96. To: AGAviator, ALL (#90)
"The second study confirmed the results of the first study ... so the second study must have concluded that 98,000 (or so) died in the first 18 months after the war. So your theory that the reason they couldn't find the death certificates of 600,000 is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion" does not help your case. You can't use the first year of the war to explain why so many death certificates are missing."
I use "gross undercounts," serious lapses in recording deaths," "continued spotty reporting," and "unable to compile the data," to explain why the LA Times could not get a summary of the death certificates at a top level
Anbar is off-limits to the world media.
Consider ... 39 months times 30 days times 24 hours time 1/hour = 28,080.
Consider...4 bodies per day average, x 89 municipalities, plus Baghdad,
#97. To: AGAviator, ALL (#90)
there has been more than $1 Trillion spent on it
#98. To: BeAChooser (#97)
(Edited)
Given the stated purpose of the survey, any questions about missing and dead persons were quite secondary to that stated purpose.
That doesn't make the results from that question inaccurate.
What gives an indication of inaccuracy is when a study claims that 92 percent of those claiming deaths during its interviews were able to a death certificates as proof ... yet the number of death certificates issued by those who issue such things appears to be a small fraction
Debunked Here
By Patrick Cockburn, AGAIN?
Let me try again. You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion".
But the source whose estimate you are trying to defend as credible, John Hopkins, only claims that 100,000 died in that first 18 months. That is a small fraction of the 550,000 that are missing.
Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist
But not to the insurgency's media. And don't claim they aren't using the media. They could easily document the death of the half of Anbar's population that would be necessary to make the John Hopkins' study results believable.
So go ahead and ignore what that 28,000 figure says about the theory you tried to pushed that Anbar and Basra can explain the John Hopkins estimate.
Now your NEW theory is that EVERY city in Iraq has been seeing 120 killings every month since the beginning of the war ... regardless of the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. This just gets lamer and lamer.
argument silliness your claim that the 50,000 death certificates may have been low by a factor of 2, that would mean 100,000 Iraqi excess deaths from all causes against known American casualties of 34,000. In other words, the greatest, most powerful, military machine in history can only kill fewer than 3 people for every one of their own who gets hurt or killed. And even fewer than 3 people when the excess deaths not caused by combat are filtered out. Then the number becomes more like 1 of theirs killed, to one of ours wounded or killed. argument silliness, the $1 Trillion cost equates to $10 million for each excess death, and even more than that when the excess deaths not caused by combat are filtered out. Then the number becomes more like $30 million for each of theirs killed. You must be really comfortable in the ME because your arguments shift just like the desert sands. ROTFLOL!
There has been more than $1 Trillion spent on it
By the way ... this is another bit of misinformation.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#96)
The missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist if the John Hopkins claim that 92 percent of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates is to be believed
The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates
. And 90% of 87% = 78%, not 92%.
#100. To: AGAviator (#98)
#101. To: AGAviator, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#99)
#102. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#101)
BAC is spamming everyone - successfully
#103. To: AGAviator, ALL (#99)
You've been harping on that "92%" number for months on end, and the report never said "92% of those claiming deaths were able to provide death certificates.
Just one more in a near-endless list of your distortions.
What John Hopkins did say is
"The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates."
And 90% of 87% = 78%, not 92%.
#104. To: AGAviator, ALL (#98)
And your source clearly and explicitly states many times its number is not in the least representative of the number of death certificates or the number of deaths.
Furthermore, at the end of the day the bottom line is: How many people have died in this war, and how many of them are noncombatants.
You claimed that the reason the LATimes couldn't find the death certificates of some 550,000 Iraqis is that "many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion".
No I didn't. That is just one of several factors,
"But the source whose estimate you are trying to defend as credible, John Hopkins, only claims that 100,000 died in that first 18 months. That is a small fraction of the 550,000 that are missing."
The surveys did not cover identical time periods,
and the first survey had a confidence interval where its authors opined that 100,000 seemed to be a reasonable minimum.
"Simply put, chaos in the first year cannot explain the missing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of death certificates that MUST exist"
Diversion and straw man.
"But not to the insurgency's media. And don't claim they aren't using the media. They could easily document the death of the half of Anbar's population that would be necessary to make the John Hopkins' study results believable."
The insurgency does not play by your rules.
So go ahead and ignore what that 28,000 figure says about the theory you tried to pushed that Anbar and Basra can explain the John Hopkins estimate.
Nobody said 28,000 except you.
I'm saying 4 bodies per day x 89 municipalities plus Baghdad.
"Now your NEW theory is that EVERY city in Iraq has been seeing 120 killings every month since the beginning of the war ... regardless of the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. This just gets lamer and lamer."
I never had an *OLD* theory.
The war has cost more than $1 Trillion,
Assuming for the sake of argument silliness your claim that the 50,000 death certificates may have been low by a factor of 2, that would mean 100,000 Iraqi excess deaths from all causes against known American casualties of 34,000. In other words, the greatest, most powerful, military machine in history can only kill fewer than 3 people for every one of their own who gets hurt or killed.
The supplemental appropriations for Iraq alone are well past half a trillion
#105. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#104)
(Edited)
The John Hopkins' studies are lies.
#106. To: Nostalgia (#100)
The fucker's maniacal with that ROTFLOL! It's downright creepy.
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#107. To: BeAChooser (#103)
You would have absolutely nothing to talk about if you were not distracted by that precision. As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime. I never said that. The study was to count deaths, not count death certificates. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there are a number of people - tens of thousands minimum - whose bodies have never been found due to their being dumped in rivers or buried under rubble. And there are also large numbers of people who have not had relatives survive to note they were dead or missing. These numbers would need to be added to any totals derived from interviews of surviving relatives and neighbors. The only obfuscations are your attempts to claim the death certificates are missing, when you've been repeatedly told that issuing death certificates during chaotic times, and summarizing the number of death certificates that were issued several years and hundreds of miles after the fact, are two completely different processes. Come to think of it, there is one more obfuscation of yours. That is your complete inability to come up with any numbers of your own - just like the Administration which would greatly like the numbers to be forgotten and dismissed.
But let's not get distracted by the precision with which the study was carried out.
Why would you assume that those not asked would be any different in being able to supply death certificates than those asked had they been asked?
And in any case, whether it's 92 percent or 80%, you still have the problem of hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates. No obfuscation you make will cause that serious problem to disappear.
#108. To: BeAChooser (#104)
I said the LA Times said many times its number is too low. As in saying 5 or 6 times its number was too low, using phrases like "grossly undercounted." Not that the LA Times said the number was "grossly undercounted many times." "In any case...you still have the problem of "No obfuscation you make will cause that serious problem to disappear. It remains a sure sign of great problems with the ROTFLOL!
The supplemental appropriations for Iraq alone are well past half a trillion
And your source clearly and explicitly states many times its number is not in the least representative of the number of death certificates or the number of deaths.
Where does the LA Times explicitly use the words "many times"? It doesn't.
No, the supplemental appropriations for the WOT as a whole are past half a trillion dollars. Not for just Iraq.
hundreds of thousands of missing death certificates hundreds of billions of missing dollars. survey war."
#109. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#105)
Be happy to, scrapper. Yes. Too bad none of those on the Congressional staffs were smart enough (or honest enough, themselves) to prompt their Congressperson to ask Burnham and Roberts about that 92% claim. Now THAT would have been interesting. Kucinich? Ron Paul? ROTFLOL! Now there's two with no agenda to promote. (sarcasm) You want an example of those of Burnham and Roberts LYING to Congress, scrapper? Here, from own your source: Where are the missing death certificates?
You, BeAChooser would testify before Congress that the Johns Hopkins' studies "are lies?"
"Let me tell you who was invited to testify before Congress on Dec. 11, 2006 -it was the 2 co-authors of the Lancet study, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, MD, and Dr. Les Roberts."
Do you think these 2 men would "lie" to Congress?
"Kucinich-Paul Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq"
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/kucinich-paul-congressional-hearing-on.html
DR. BURNHAM - "And then at the end of that survey where there was a death in the household, we asked, "By the way, do you have a death certificate?" And in 91 percent of households where this was asked, the households had death certificates. So we're confident that people were not making up deaths that didn't occur."
#110. To: AGAviator, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#107)
Would one? I didn't say you said that. I said you assumed it. You assumed it in your calculation of 78%. It is implicit in the math. You assumed that the 13% who were not asked to provide proof (because the researchers *forgot*) were so special that they wouldn't have been able to provide even one death certificate. Wouldn't it be more likely since they were only *randomly* forgotten, that they'd be able to provide death certificates with the same regularity as those who were asked? An understanding of statistics would suggest that. But tens of thousands missing is not your problem. Your problem is hundreds and hundreds of thousands. ROTFLOL! Now you are moving on to yet another excuse. And you demonstrate again that you don't understand the methodology of the survey. They multiplied the mortality rate determined from those claiming dead by the TOTAL pre-war population of the country. Thus, they included at least some portion of dead for those who had no relatives. Furthermore, this possibility doesn't explain the discrepancy between the current John Hopkins' estimate and the missing death certificates. It could only makes the discrepancy even bigger because including this would only increase the estimated number of dead somewhat. It's not a claim, it is a fact. The LA Times article mentioned the first year as being particularly chaotic. But the first year doesn't account for half a million missing certificates. Because only 100,000 died during that time (actually the first 18 months) according to both John Hopkins first and second reports. Surely you aren't NOW claiming that the following 21 months were more chaotic than the first 18? Or are you? "Grossly undercounted" could just as easily mean 50% too low. Or a factor of two. If they meant the count was off by a factor of 5 or 6 (or 10 as John Hopkins would have us believe), they would surely have made an even stronger declaration than merely saying "grossly". Let's remind our readers how that term was actually used in the LA Times: "Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west." But as I pointed out, to explain even half of the claimed dead in the John Hopkins' study, HALF the pre-war population of Anbar would now have to be dead and surely the rest would have to be injured. Which is totally ridiculous given the fact that NO ONE has made such a claim or proven such a slaughter. NO ONE.
As Skydrifter states, even 10,000 civilians would be a war crime.
"Why would you assume that those not asked would be any different in being able to supply death certificates than those asked had they been asked?"
I never said that.
Furthermore, as I have already stated, there are a number of people - tens of thousands minimum - whose bodies have never been found due to their being dumped in rivers or buried under rubble.
And there are also large numbers of people who have not had relatives survive to note they were dead or missing.
The only obfuscations are your attempts to claim the death certificates are missing
, when you've been repeatedly told that issuing death certificates during chaotic times,
I said the LA Times said many times its number is too low. As in saying 5 or 6 times its number was too low, using phrases like "grossly undercounted."
#111. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, robin, christine, aristeides, leveller, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, Brians S, SKYDRIFTER, All (#109) (Edited)
1. You are not asked to testify before Congress about Iraqi civilian deaths because you are not an expert in epidemiology. If Congress were investigating bushbotulism or trollism, then you might be called to testify as an expert. Your call letters litter up the internet highway. 2. As for your accusation that Paul and Kucinich had an agenda to promote by having these 2 men testify, you tell me, what might that "agenda" be? Drs. Roberts and Burnham had way more than enough publicity in the public domain. So you tell me - what would Congressmen Paul's and Kucinch's "agenda" be? 3. As for your example of Drs. Roberts' and Burnham's "LYING" - your uppercase machismo boldness is a scream - anyways, here's the thing oozer, these 2 professionals are both highly respected, regarded individuals in their fields of expertise. These men ARE the experts, they both are "the real thing" in epidemiology, they do not lie because they have too much riding on anything that goes out under their signatures to lie. For example these 2 men are so highly regarded that Colin Powell and Tony Blair refer to their previous studies in speeches. "...Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, “Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity.” In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid. Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference..." http://zmagsite.zmag.org /Feb2006/davies0206.html 4. As for your ranting about death certificates - what point are you trying to make? When Iraqis produced death certificates you question why these Iraqis have the certificates to produce. And then when Iraqis do not produce death certificates you question why they do not have the certificates. Flip flop flip flop - nothing satisfies you, because you don't want to be satisfied. It's what trolls do after all - throw dust on issues to hide truth. 5. Here's the thing oozer, I don't want to repeat this to you again, so pay attention: All the death certificates issued for dead Iraqis were not housed in one single central place like the Ministry of Health in Baghad, for example, nor were death certificates issued by one single central authority. The physicians in the small towns could and would issue death certificates to Iraqi families as the need arose because of the necessity of burying a loved one in agraveyard within 24 hours due to Islamic law. That's one of the reasons why LA Times could not find tallies of death certificates to correspond to what the Iraqis showed the JH team in the cluster samples. The LA Times crew would need to take their butts to Iraq and go to the villages and towns and cities that JH's team went to, which of course the LA Times nor your pal, Mr. neocon Kaplan would dare to do. Also, though the Iraqi families in towns and cities would need to get a death certificate from their local physicians in order to be able to have their loved ones buried in grave yards, it is not likely these families would have the death certificates recorded officially with the Ministry of Health because people have been getting food rations even in 2006. And if a family reports a death officially, you lose that ration. And btw, that information comes from Dr. Les Roberts - he wrote me back after I asked him your question. You should send him a list of all your questions, bac, Dr. Roberts is quite prompt to return emails. But then again, you probably do not want Dr. Roberts to answer your questions do you, BAC.
#112. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, AGAviator, ALL (#111)
Beachy (the laughing spam boy) might as well have everyone filtered. By his own admission here, he doesn't read what anyone else posts.
But it takes two to debate and so far I haven't even found one willing to do that. ROTFLOL! (Beachy)
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#113. To: Minerva (#112)
Well that would explain why he doesn't respond to a simple direct question asked 3 times.
Beachy (the laughing spam boy) might as well have everyone filtered. By his own admission here, he doesn't read what anyone else posts.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#114. To: Minerva (#0)
My bozo count is 387 so far.
#115. To: BeAChooser (#109)
With so many deaths, maybe the medical examiner is a little bit backlogged.
Where are the missing death certificates?
#116. To: BeALoser (#115) (Edited)
BeALoser: With so many deaths, maybe the medical examiner is a little bit backlogged. And also please see the information in my msg #111. Islam requires burial within 24 hours. If a physician cannot be reached easily within that time frame for a death certificate to be issued, the loved one is buried without a certificate in a place other than a grave yard.
BAC: Where are the missing death certificates?
#117. To: BeALoser (#114)
Welcome, Bealy.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#118. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#110)
BUT, you Mossadite piece of shit, you don't address the War Crimes which produceded ANY of the bodies, whatever the quantity may be! There's your 'flag.' (Blue and White, no doubt.) But as I pointed out, ....
.
.
.
Comments (119 - 375) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest