See other World News Articles
Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source:
Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24836
Comments: 394
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday. The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence. The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636. The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 152.
#4. To: Ada, ALL (#0)
But only one name is given. Who are the others? Did he address any of these concerns? No? Well then, ping me when he does. In fact, ping me if the full text of his "memo" is ever available. ****************** 1. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate out there (and there are about half a dozen others). Those other estimates were more like 50,000 at the time the John Hopkins study was published. Are they all wrong and only John Hopkins right? Even various anti-war groups such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount have indicated the John Hopkins' figures are outlandish. So why are FD4UMers so voraciously defending JH's estimates? 2. The report and the peer reviewer of the report (the Lancet) ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimates derived by other organizations such as the UN and WHO. The UN and WHO, in largers studies, came up with rates between 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkins rate of 5-5.5 per 1000 per year. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had previously endorsed as accurate. This pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less, perhaps a tenth as much. 3. A recent UN Development Program study, http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf, states that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level) during the time covered by the Hopkins report. This is approximately ONE-FOURTH the number of excess deaths that Les Roberts' 2004 John Hopkins study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set than John Hopkins. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report (which claims its results verify the first JH report)? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet *peer* reviewers? 4. According to the latest John Hopkins report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even if that investigation were off a factor of two, there is still a huge discrepancy. To take the Johns Hopkins results seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle. And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample happened to get 92 percent by pure chance. 5. A principle author of both John Hopkins studies, Les Roberts, has publically stated he disliked Bush (not unexpected given that he is an active democRAT) and the war. He has admitted that he released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP. And he has admitted that most of those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. None of that is a good basis for conducting a non-partisan study. 6. Nor is the behavior of the Lancet. They've not only failed to ask important questions during their *peer* reviews, they admit they greatly abbreviated that peer review process for the 2004 report so the results could be published in time to influence the 2004 election. They also reported on their own website in 2004, that the deaths estimated by John Hopkins were comprised solely of civilians. But the study made no such claim. In fact, it clearly states that the investigators did not ask those interviewed if the dead were civilians, Saddam military or insurgents. Which leads one to wonder if the Lancet actually read the report they claimed to review. 7. When media interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. This is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of the deaths. And Les Roberts did the exact same thing in another interview. 8. In the Garfield interview mentioned above, he stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Let me repeat that figure ... 200 A MONTH, in one of the most populated and most violent regions in the country during the time in question. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 (on average) were dying each month in the country since the war began. How could Garfield not have questions about this new estimate given his previous statement? 9. Richard Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts/John Hopkins interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent. That is compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Roberts or Garfield address this disparity? And note that the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Roberts' study? 10. There is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. 11. Dahr Jamail is an example of the above. He is viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents and arabs. So look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day on average back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq, which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. 12. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. 13. But the discrepancy is even worse than that. As noted by the author of this blog, http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" 14. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (note who he uses to get his message out), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, instead he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses." Then why didn't they keep the Fallujah data point? 15. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and according to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report killed an estimated 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire rather than bombs, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years, as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities which completely flattened entire cities? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (for example, Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and his crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq ... where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths? ****************
Still repeating your bull-chit after being whacked on the other thread, BeASpammer? (1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92% (2) The LA Times number of 50,000 only counted totals from one morgue - the Baghdad morgue - and Health Ministry numbers which omitted an entire year and didn't count entire provinces and several of the more violent cities. (3) Doctors in Iraq can write death certificates, not only hospitals and morgues.
And explanation for those who don't know: The researchers asked 87% of those claiming deaths to supply death certificates. The researchers claimed that 92% of them were able to do so. The researchers said that in the other 13% of the cases they simply FORGOT to ask. That they simply FORGOT to ask implies that the folks they asked were a RANDOM sample from amongst all those claiming deaths. That being the case, the percentage of folks who supposedly would have been able to supply death certificates in the group of 13% who they FORGOT to ask should be about the same as in the group of 87% they did ask. In which case, the John Hopkins claim does indeed suggest that 92% of those who claimed deaths had death certificates. Don't you understand statistical methodology, critter? By the way, the vast majority of those death certificates are missing. That is not true. The LATimes article stated ""The Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs. If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate. Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping. The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137." Irrelevant since the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year and the second JH study concluded that the first study was basically correct. No matter how you spin it, critter, the vast majority of the death certificates from those 600,000 claiming deaths and supposedly able to supply death certificates are missing. Baghdad, by all accounts, is one of the most violent cities in the country and contains by far the largest population. The few other violent cities and provinces could not possibly account for the missing dead unless you wish to claim they've been greatly depopulated. Remember the calculation? That Anbar would have to have lost HALF of its total pre-war population just to account for 300,000 of the missing 550,000 death certificates. And contrary to what you've claimed in the past, the majority of the country is relatively peaceful. Kurdistan in particular. There simply is no way to account for the claimed number of dead. As one blogger noted, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" Then name ONE doctor from Iraq who has come forward to say he wrote hundreds of death certificates and didn't report them to the Ministry of Health. Go ahead...
You don't *explain* how 87% x 92% is not 80%, dip-shit. It is, and it's basic math. They asked 87% for certificates, and of that 87%, 92% said they had them. That's an 80% total. Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying. (1) The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while (2) The Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. (3) Together, the toll reaches 49,137" Adding up 30,024 from a single morgue - the Baghdad morgue - to the 2-year total of 18,933 violent deaths reported by the Health Ministry - which freely admitted it did not include many violent cities and several provinces - and you're already at 50,000. 20 average excess violent deaths per day x 30 provinces x 3 years = 657,000 excess violent deaths. Alternatively, 657,000 deaths in a population of 36,000,000 = 1.8% of the total.
And the fact that the other 13%, who were RANDOMLY not asked, should have been able to provide death certificates 92% of the time ... if the study is valid ... is BASIC STATISTICS. Then where are they? Because if the John Hopkins study is valid than 92 percent of those who might claim deaths should have had a death certificate issued. And there is no record of that. You are wrong. Haven't you read the second study? It states "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimated that the number of excess deaths during that time was about 112,000" Now that was over an 18 month period. So I think its safe to say John Hopkins concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in the first TWELVE months. But all those deaths were not evenly distributed throughout the country. They occurred mostly in a few regions. Where surely losses in the hundreds of thousands would have been noticed by a journalist or two. Surely ... Although an incorrect way to look at the problem, this number in itself is remarkable. Because it is only slightly different than the percentage of the German population (or the Japanese population) that died in WW2 ... and that was after strategic bombing of virtually every major city in those countries. Those cities were literally flattened or burned to the ground in many cases. Yet you want us to believe that Iraq, whose cities are mostly still standing, has had comparable losses. It's not a lie. In fact, I've even posted articles to the forum showing that Kurdistan is mostly peaceful and doing quite well now that Saddam is gone. As usual, you simply ignored those articles and regurgitate the same unsupported assertions. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/60minutes/main2486679.shtml http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc0110WT100.html http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/02/kurds_ed3_.php But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed. Not at all. STATISTICALLY there is no way that the number of deaths has been a constant 546 per day since the war began. Some days would be higher and some lower. And as what I posted shows, even if you assumed that most days would only see deaths of 381 per day (which is far more than has ever been reported), you'd have to have a significant number of days (20) with 10,000 deaths. And surely that would have been noticed and reported by someone. I haven't changed my story at all. Les Roberts is a liar and you're unable to name even ONE doctor who says he/she wrote death certificates in Iraq and didn't report them. But you don't just need one doctor, you need thousands of doctors doing that to even begin to account for all the death certificates that John Hopkins claims exist but for which there is no record whatsoever. But you don't even have one.
That's not how basic statistics works, numbskull. Furthermore, no one ever said that the other 13% couldn't have provided them had they been asked. With the people who they were issued to, you fucking idiot. So who's "missing" them, anyway? Are you alleging the people who receive them are "missing" them - because that is the only way in which a claim of them being "missing" would make any sense. The fact there is "no record of that" with a central government that by its own admission "grossly undercounted" the number of actual deaths does not equate to them being "missing." This is just more of your repetitive spamming demaguguery. You can't even read, then you try to bluster your way out of it by lying. Saying that "somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred" does not equate to saying "the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year" In fact, it says precisely the opposite. Do you know the difference between "in excess" and "less than," dummy? Having been shown the absurdity of your claim that 650,000 excess deaths would "grossly depopulate" the country, you now retreat to your fall-back position of "The media hates Bush." It is a correct way to look at it because it puts your exaggerated claims in their proper perspective. During times of war and social chaos no one is going to greatly notice less than a 1% change. The JH definition of "excess deaths" is not limited to people who are killed by military action, brainless troll. I've already cited the cities where there has been violence that regularly makes the headlines. By whom? The "embedded media?" People "noticing" and "reporting" are two different things. More "The media hates Bush so it couldn't have happened." Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS? Nobody says there is "no record of them whatsoever" except you, so you are the liar. The LA Times said that the Health Ministry attempts to track death certificates issued by hospitals. There is absolutely nothing said about the Health Ministry tracking death certificates issued by any other source. So fuck you, lying troll.
Yes it is, AGAviator. The 87% are a RANDOM sample from a group of about 600 claiming deaths. Actually, a very big sample from that group. STATISTICALLY, what holds true for them should hold true for the 13% which were not sampled. If 92 percent of the 87% could supposedly provide death certificates, then BASIC STATISTICS tells us that about 92% of the 13% should also have been able to provide death certificates. To claim otherwise is to display ignorance. Sure thing, AGAviator. You go on believing that. Just like you INSISTED that this graph shows housing prices dropped 16% between 2005 and 2006. So how many do you think the second John Hopkins study claim died in the first year after the invasion began, AGAviator? 112,000? 2/3rds of 112,000? Just what is your number, AGAviator? So are you now claiming the media decided not to report the deaths of hundreds of thousands in places like Anbar because they love Bush? ROTFLOL! Why 1%? Why not 2%? Why not 3%? Do you think no one greatly noticed the loss of 2% of Germany's population? Or 2% of Japans? And look at the destruction that was necessary to kill 2% of those populations. Virtually every city in those countries was FLATTENED. That is not the case in Iraq. The JH definition says that almost all of those 655,000 were killed by VIOLENCE. Now you want us to believe that thugs with guns, not bombs, have killed 2% of the population. And no journalist noticed? No one documented this slaughter? ROTFLOL! Yes, you mentioned Mosul and Kirkuk. Let's examine that claim As one can see from the map below, both Mosul and Kirkuk (Karkuk) are on the very edge of Kurdistan. Let's look at the population of Kurdistan (in Iraq). Kurdistan nominally consists of 6 Governates. Three are almost entirely Kurdish and 3 have mixed populations (these are in dispute). Here is a list of the population in each starting with the three that are almost entirely Kurdish. Sulaymaniyah Governate - 1.8 million Arbil Governate - 1.4 million Dahuk Governate - 0.5 million Diyala Governate - 1.3 million At-Ta'mim Governate (containing Kirkuk) - 1.0 million Ninawa Governorate (containing Mosul) - 2.6 million Now 70% of At Ta'mim is Kurdish. But only 19 percent of Ninawa is Kurdish. The population of Mosul is about 1.7 million of which Kurds are only a small fraction. Although there have been demands by Kurds to include Mosul in the Kurdish regional government, to say Mosul is Kurdish is a bit of a stretch. In any case, one can see that Mosul and Kirkuk combined comprise only about 16% of the overall Kurdish population (in Iraq) and only a small fraction of the total land area (in Iraq). So a claim that violence in these two cities negates the peace that is in place most everywhere else in Kurdistan is simply ridiculous. By someone. Yet this claimed slaughter went unnoticed ... even by arab journalists. In fact, it is still going unnoticed, since to the media a 100 deaths occurring in a day is still remarkable (when JH has been claiming there was an average of nearly 600 a day every day since the war began). Oh so now you are saying the media noticed the deaths but decided not to report them? And it's because they "love Bush"? ROTFLOL! Hard to tell since NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he wrote death certificates and didn't report them to the central government. Tell you what, AGAviator, why don't you get Les Roberts to get the names of the doctors on those death certificates he claims his researchers were shown and go get them to make statements. Surely they noted the names on the certificates. Surely .... Thank you for arguing like so many other 4umers. Here's some more food for thought. ************ http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2006/03/iraqi-provinces-map.html Coalition casualties have not been distributed equally by province. This source attributes as many casualties as it can manage from the U.S. led coalition as follows (which is only a small part of total casulties, but is a fairly good indicator of where hot conflict is in Iraq), and is followed by a regional description (SE Iraq=Sumer, N Iraq mostly Kurdistan, remainder central Iraq): *Anbar 808 (Central) Home to cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Abu Ghraib. ********** Now note where the bulk of the casualties were. In Anbar and Baghdad. Places like At Tamim and Niveveh have been relatively quite. Most of Kurdistan VERY quite. So the bulk of the Iraqi deaths would likely have occurred in Anbar and Baghdad. If logic prevails. And since Bagdad's death certificates have been counted, that leaves only Anbar to account for the bulk of the missing 550,000 death certificates. Since Anbar accounts for 60% of the casualties in the rest of Iraq outside Baghdad, it follows that Anbar should account for about 60% of the missing 550,000 certificates. That's 330,000. Now the population of Anbar is 1.3 million. So you are asking us to believe that 25% of Anbars population was killed between the beginning of the invasion and July of last year. And no one noticed. Sure, AGAviator. ROTFLOL!
Hey dumbfuck. Here's how stupid you are. You've been spamming for hundreds of posts about "missing death certificates" based on the completely false premise that you expect the Iraqi Health Ministry to have records of all deaths in Iraq. The LA Times article makes it quite clear that the Iraqi Health Ministry only tracks death certificates issued by hospitals, and by its own admission it couldn't even do that and completely ignored most of the country for more than a year. What's more, the Health Ministry didn't even count the 30,000 death certificates issued by the Baghdad Morgue right across town. Otherwise, the Times could have gotten its 50,000 total just by asking the Health Ministry for the total instead of going to 2 places. So all your hundreds of posts about "missing death certificates" are pure crap from beginning to end. There's not a word of truth in any of them. I've already told you, fucking troll, that when you insult people's intelligence with your mindless spam, you can expect to be insulted right back.
Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous and pick fights - not by posting what you disagree with.
Would you say that making up hundreds of posts on 2 websites about "missing death certificates" - when in fact there never were any missing death certificates - is being disingenuous? Just to recap (2) The Health Ministry collects death certificates from hospitals, not from other sources, even morgues across town, (3) Individual doctors can and do write death certificates independently of either the hospitals or the Health Ministry, and (4) Other than hospitals, no one in Iraq appears to be under any obligation to report deaths to the Health Ministry. So, there is no reason to expect the Health Ministry to have an accruate or complete count of all or even most deaths.
You mean like those that post how the govt placed explosives in every floor of the WTC with bull shit as evidence? They are trolls? I like discourse - they rest of you seem to want to only hear preaching to the choir. You don't like what BAChooser has to say counter it with your facts and he comes off the loser.
As you well know I don't subscribe to the USG did 911 theories, though I'm convinced certain elements within the government had a pretty good idea something was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, and instead welcomed it. However BAC has been countered with facts time and time again and at this point it's irrefutable the Iraqi Health Ministry never attempted to track all the deaths in Iraq, and therefore no one can allege its records are anything to base a count on. You can't really disprove that someone placed explosives in the WTC, though you can argue about how plausible that was or how much sense that makes. However you certainly can disprove the Iraqi Health Ministry counting all the deaths in Iraq, because BAC's own source explicitly states it only counted deaths from hospitals. So BAC has been completely debunked, but I guess you're really saying is you like BAC around to counter the USG did 911 people. As far as I'm concerned, (s) he's a poor advocate for anything and isn't worth the trouble keeping around.
No, that is not what I am saying - the notion that someone you disagree with is a troll is insane to me. I find that even more a dangerous mind trip than someone who has a stupid position. And I don't know what you mean by "You can't really disprove that someone placed explosives in the WTC" - of course you can. Absence of evidence is not evidence. You don't like his position so you are reverting to your Freerepublic origins by labeling a dissenter as a troll to shut him up - what next, comrade? Bannings? Purgings? Exile to the gulag? PS: As you well know I don't subscribe to the USG did 911 theories, though I'm convinced certain elements within the government had a pretty good idea something was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, and instead welcomed it. Sort of my position, though some here swear - as you saw yourself - that I was maybe part of the 9/11 govt team somehow? Why would they hold such an opinion? Because I must be a govt agent to dare question their group mind think. That is dangerous fucking thinking that needs to be beaten the hell out of people. I never knew Americans (both left and right) were such zombie-sheep, that any dissent drives them loopier than Maoists during the Cultural Revolution.
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance. Free speech does not encompass people getting in your face as you're walking down the street, or banging on your car window as you're stopped in traffic. The nuisance cost vs. the freedom benefit must be considered. Now of course that should apply across the board, and not just to one individual. But two wrongs don't make a right. You may say there's a bozo filter for that. But why do I need to limit myself instead of the troll being limited? That's like turning the streets over to the riff-raff, then telling the property owners to stay inside their houses and they'll be safe.
That differs how from people on here that claim the WTC were blown up from the inside?
That differs how from people on here that claim the WTC were blown up from the inside? The govt's explanation of 9/11 has been proven to be laughable, and not just on this forum. Exploring ideas about what really happened is useful, because learning the truth is always a good idea. A poster who spams threads with the exact same nonsense is not useful, especially when the same "arguments" have already been refuted many times on this forum. His latest attempt was downright amusing. He spammed a 9/11 thread with BS about how many seconds it took the towers to fall. Then when the facts were presented that the 10 seconds originated in the govt's 9/11 Commission report, and that the 9/11 truth movement states it took about 14 seconds (explaining that the 10 seconds came from the govt report and seismic data), he said well the govt didn't understand and wasn't told or shown the right info. Then he uses a 9/11 truth website's photo, ignoring their detailed explanation (which included how 9.2 seconds would be freefall in a vacuum and about air resistance, etc.), and instead spins and distorts the photo to fit the govt's explanation. He of course ignores all the basic math & physics used by that same site. He closes by saying we're not experts so we can't possibly understand, that we believe fairy tales and just look foolish. Who looks foolish? Who believes fairy tales? And why would anyone want to read anymore of his posts? All he does is distract from any meaningful discussion. He's a time waster, a troll.
So that differs from the truth as someone else like Bachooser sees it how? You claim the govts version of 9/11 is bogus he claims the medical report on the number of deaths in Iraq is bogus. You both have controversial views - both should be heard not banned or accused of trolling.
Where logic is replaced by volumes of the exact same copy/paste (refuted by many on many threads), then curtailing such a poster is reasonable. He just disrupts any worthwhile discussion, which is part of his schtick. You agree with the govt's story about 9/11, so I'm not surprised that you are defending him. Do you agree or disagree with the medical reports on the number of Iraqis who have died since we invaded Iraq? Are you also in agreement with BAC on this subject?
You 9/11 truther types do the exact same thing you accuse bachooser of doing. A shitload of people have died in Iraq and a shit load of people have fled Iraq for other countries as refugess - some say up to 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq. I find that a more telling figure than how many have died. In America the Iraq war's destructive toll is kept hidden by focusing only on death tolls when looking at the wounded figures really tells you the death rate is on par with Vietnam (the wounded in Iraq survive wounds thanks to medical technologies that would have resulted in deaths in the Vietnam era). I can't speak to the London report on the number of deaths because I have not studied it in part because I know the death toll has been huge so I have not bothered to check one way or the other. I assume it is accurate. That I assume it is accurate does not make it so but I will accept the figure until I find evidence refuting it - if I bother to look that is. Just to set you straight - The only part of the 9/11 story I accept from the govt is the 'mechanical' ones not the rest - not on the relationship of the 9/11 cell to US intellugence and not what the status of the information the govt had on them before that day. Are you also in agreement with BAC on this subject? - It shocks me you guys don't see what I am accusing you of. You assume because I defend a person's right to speak his mind that I agree with him. If you were being accused of trolling by spreading your version of 9/11 I would be defending your right to do so as well. As long as I get to debate you that is all I care about - THE RIGHT TO DISCOURSE! America is doomed - it has become populated by people too Balkanized in the head to be able to carry out spirited discourse. I thought this thinking was limited to neocon-Bushbot websites but I see it is a mindset that the other sides also have. Pity. Is there a website both left and right and anything in between can go and discuss anything and everything in a spirited manner without fear they will be banished or blocked or made uncomfortable?
That's probably true from what I've read. As long as folks stick to facts, rather than deliberate lies, I have no problem. That's an assumption you'd be better off not making. Because the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) is filled with all sorts of problems. I listed SOME of them in posts 4 and 5 of this thread. Problems that for the most part have been simply ignored by the defenders of the study. And I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other on the latter. I have said there are good questions that deserve answers. But that one won't ever get them answered if one start out insisting on nonsense that is easily debunked. It shocks me that the folks here don't see that I'm actually trying to help them be more credible ... so those other questions about 9/11 can get answered.
BeAChooser, you want to discredit the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) so as to justify the Iraq mission rather then be accurate about the Iraqi death toll. Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial. Just because few Americans were killed in Kosovo (another illegal and immoral war by America) does not justify that war either.
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
Boy, did I hit a nerve or what? I am good at that.
BeAChooser, admit that you seek to discredit the report to justify the Iraq mission and the honesty will be accepted. I say this from someone who has defended you on here from those calling for your banning (and will continue to do so even if I disagree with your position).
The report is an obvious lie. One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies. All those who insist it is accurate are discrediting themselves along with any other views they hold.
so did ron brown move the wmd to syria or have you concocted a new story?
Ron Brown was killed in Bosnia when his plane was directed to crash into the side of a mountain during a storm. Why Clinton was sending a business delegation to Muslim Bosnia during the war no one knows and it made no sense especially since Ron Brown was under investigation at the time. The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face. He felt guilty it seems. Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS - it is what I learned a story called a Honey Pot Trap - adding a nonsensical theory to a plot in hopes people will stick to the red flag story and then be discredited as kooks and conspiracy nuts.
A correction. The person who did this was the chief maintenance officer (in charge of the portable beacon which went missing and which Aviation Week said could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain like it did) and he shot himself not in the face (which wouldn't be so unusual in a suicide) but in the chest. And he did it before he could be interviewed about the Ron Brown crash. Not according to the forensic pathologists who actually saw the wound and x-rays and who have made public statements about the matter. These were some of the finest forensic pathologists in the country at the time. It all started when Captain Kathleen Janoski, head of the AFIP photo documentation unit, took photos at the examination of Brown's body. She exclaimed in a loud voice that there appeared to be a bullet wound on the top of Brown's head. The wound, which is documented in the pictures she took and that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling", which she says led her to that conclusion. According to Janoski, Colonel Gormley, who was in charge of examining Brown's body, told her to "be quiet" and "not to remark about the wound." Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was examining another body 2 feet away, heard Janoski's remark and came over to look. Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." Gormley called Lt. Colonel Cogswell, an AFIP forensic pathologist and an expert in gunshot, at the crash site. He asked him to search for something that could cause Brown's head wound. According to Cogswell, nothing was found. Cogswell says that when Gormley called, he told Gormley that it sounded more like a gunshot wound and that "this man needs an autopsy." Yet, Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, Gormley has himself acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Despite all the above reasons to question the cause of the wound, Gromley ordered no autopsy. He ruled it death due to blunt force trama. He later indicated in various forums that he ruled out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible and the x-rays showed nothing unusual. But as you'll see, this was a lie. The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage. However, neither Cogswell, who had been involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations, nor Hause, who had been with AFIP for five years, could remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim’s head. Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull." This hole, however, was not jagged or irregular. Now here's where it gets even more interesting, Destro. Janoski has a sworn affidavit saying that six months after Brown's death, she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses. He reportedly told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both are contrary to what Gormley was then claiming. On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash. On December 9, 1997, Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause has stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell are a classic case of "shooting the messenger." Before joining AFIP, Hause spent two years as division surgeon for the Army’s 1st Cavalry Division, including duty as a surgeon during the Gulf War. He also served as the Army’s regional medical examiner in Germany. After he talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include all AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch. But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, has acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate. On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute. A few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse. On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of ALL its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie. On January 13, in violation of the gag order, Kathleen Janoski went public. She did this, according to her, for self protection and out of concern for the careers of Cogswell, Hause, and Parsons. Since then she has been interviewed repeatedly and has provided a sworn affidavit regarding what happened (as noted above). The AFIP now claims that the x-ray film used in the first set of x-rays (i.e., those captured in Janowski's slides) was defective. They say this explains why a second set of x-rays was taken (now the story is that the first set wasn't lost ... just discarded) and why the first x-rays might "appear" to show a lead snowstorm. Janoski responds that the photos she took of other Brown X-rays on the light box do not show any film "defect". Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, have confirmed that Brown's x-rays are missing from his case file, as well as the photographs of the x-rays that were stored in a safe and the negatives for those photographs. According to Hause, all that remains of the x-rays are the color slides in Dr. Cogswell's slide presentation and the copy of Brown's head x-ray in the possession of the Tribune-Review. Gormley and the AFIP did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley now refers calls to Chris Kelly, who simply says that Gormley will not grant additional interviews. In a press statement, the AFIP reportedly said that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. Janoski said she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue. Janet Reno told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. The review was conducted by the same AFIP personnel responsible for the decision not to autopsy. Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a search warrant and were given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. The Accident Investigation Report (produced during the second phase of the normal Air Force crash investigation ... the first phase is the Safety Board, which was suspiciously skipped in the Brown crash) presumes that the cause was "accidental". It does not contain anything regarding the opinions of the pathologists about a bullet wound or the evidence (x-rays, photos) cooberating those opinions. Strange, given that the document is to aid lawyers in any legal matters following a crash. In fact, neither the Brown family or other families were ever told about the possibility of a bullet wound. They had to learn about it years later. Then, the acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." However, since all of the pathologists who did examine Brown's body, including Gormley, and all of the pathologists at AFIP with experience in bullet wounds who looked at the photos and x-ray, have now agreed that an autopsy should have been done, this is disinformation ... at best. He wrote "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies. He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." Of course, as has already been pointed out, this is also a lie. Medical examiners did not confirm this finding. The photographer who took the pictures says it is untrue and could not be true given that only that one photo of Brown's heads shows the so-called "defect". He wrote "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus ... which Gormley himself admitted on live TV. Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced and that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. Janoski has testified, however, that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-ray slides and wound photos to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory. Fackler said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired before the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Given all the above, Destro, do you still want to claim the allegations of a gunshot are just BS and nonsense?
The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down. Even if he pulled a DB Cooper and jumped out he would be landing in an area that would probably kill or cripple him regardless. Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.
Aren't you getting the cart before the horse? All of a sudden, it seems you don't want to know what the pathologists said? They said it looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. If an exhumation and autopsy revealed that it was, then what? Would you still just say Brown couldn't be shot because the plane was packed and the shooter couldn't get away? Now as to that claim ... since you want to speculate ... let's note a few other facts that might be pertinent. They don't really know who was on the plane since the passenger manifest just happened to get lost. Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain. When it was still 8 miles from the crash site both an AWACS and the airports in the area simultaneously lost both voice and transponder contact with the plane. And about that time, there was an odd jog in the flight path of the plane ... which to this day has also not been explained. Just ignored. Do you know that the rear door of the aircraft was found open when rescuers first arrived at the crash site? Given that, could someone have jumped out of the plane before it crashed? Perhaps after setting off a small bomb to take out the communications on the plane? Also, the hand gun of Brown's bodyguard was never located at the crash site. It just disappeared. And why do you assume Brown was killed while in flight? I've never insisted on that. If this was a plot to spoof the plane into hitting a mountain, the perpetrators would know where the plane was going to hit. It wouldn't be that hard to have someone on the ground at that location make sure that everyone was dead. With that in mind, note the following. Although the crash occurred within two miles of the airport, it "officially" took at least 7 hours for the U.S. Air Force to arrive. This was reportedly hours after the Croatians had reached the crash site. But curiously, an Associated Press report stated that the first Croatian rescuers were met by three Americans who were already on the ground. Hmmmmmm... After the crash, businesses that had employees on the plane were told there were no survivors. Later, they were told there was one (Sergeant Kelly). However, a Commerce Department document uncovered by Judicial Watch indicated that two (2) people survived the impact. The document, a chronology of events, was prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The log included the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." The government has never mentioned in any forum the second survivor. Why is that? The log also indicates that 45 minutes after notification of two survivors, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott asked that a TV crew "not film at the crash site." The request was granted without any explanation from the State Department as to why it was made. In fact, a State Department spokesperson was quoted as saying it would be "a waste of taxpayers' money" to respond to questions raised by the log. Do you know that Ira Sockowitz was supposed to be on the Brown flight but missed it for some "unspecified" reason? Amazing how he was still able to get to the crash site in time to be the point man for sending information back regarding the two survivors. And, by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known Chinese spy) and is himself implicated in illegally obtaining Secret materials while at Commerce (another matter never pursued by the RENO DOJ). The Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. Several foreign news stations reported it. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force said the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. The problem with this scenario is that flight recorders are designed to be unique in appearance and the people in Croatia who reported finding them were certainly qualified to know what one looks like. Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that, had carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. Curiously, noone was ever punished for this "violation" of regulations. You see, Destro, this incident is full of facts with which to speculate. The only indisputable facts are that TRAINED, EXPERIENCED forensic pathologists ... some of the best in the country at the time ... concluded that what they saw was indicative of a gunshot wound. Yet there was no autopsy. And now you seem desperate to ignore that fact. Curious ...
It was that Hazel O'Leary who did it! I knew there was something bad about that woman!! /k
There are no replies to Comment # 152. End Trace Mode for Comment # 152.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest British government officials have backed the methods
But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice".
#12. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, christine (#4)
According to the latest John Hopkins report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even
#14. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, christine, all (#12)
(1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92%
(2) The LA Times number of 50,000 only counted totals from one morgue - the Baghdad morgue
and Health Ministry numbers which omitted an entire year
and didn't count entire provinces and several of the more violent cities.
(3) Doctors in Iraq can write death certificates, not only hospitals and morgues.
#17. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#14)
(1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92%
And explanation for those who don't know:
By the way, the vast majority of those death certificates are missing.
(2) The LA Times number of 50,000 only counted totals from one morgue - the Baghdad morgue
That is not true. The LATimes article stated ""The Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate.
If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate.
and Health Ministry numbers which omitted an entire year
Irrelevant since the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year
No it did not conclude that. Another lie. Baghdad, by all accounts, is one of the most violent cities in the country and contains by far the largest population. The few other violent cities and provinces could not possibly account for the missing dead unless you wish to claim they've been greatly depopulated.
What an idiot you are, claiming that a total death toll over 3 years of 650,000 - an average of under 220,000 per year - in a country of 36 million will "greatly depopulate" that country. Remember the calculation?
I sure do, numbskull. And contrary to what you've claimed in the past, the majority of the country is relatively peaceful. Kurdistan in particular.
What a lying SOS you are. Kurdistan has the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and also has peshmarga thugs who simply eliminate anybody who is opposed to their alliance with the US government. There simply is no way to account for the claimed number of dead. As one blogger noted, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day.
And how many people die of normal causes every day in a country of 36 million the size of California, shit for brains? So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?"
Strawman. (3) Doctors in Iraq can write death certificates, not only hospitals and morgues.
Then name ONE doctor from Iraq who has come forward to say he wrote hundreds of death certificates and didn't report them to the Ministry of Health.
You've changed your story. You used to claim that Les Roberts was lying when he said that Iraqi doctors write death certificates. Now you concede they do, but they had to have reported them to the government who had to have kept accurate records of them. That's typical of your trolling. Change your argument as often as you need to.
#19. To: AGAviator, ALL (#17)
You don't *explain* how 87% x 92% is not 80%, dip-shit. It is, and it's basic math.
Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying.
"the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
No it did not conclude that. Another lie.
What an idiot you are, claiming that a total death toll over 3 years of 650,000 - an average of under 220,000 per year - in a country of 36 million will "greatly depopulate" that country.
Alternatively, 657,000 deaths in a population of 36,000,000 = 1.8% of the total.
"And contrary to what you've claimed in the past, the majority of the country is relatively peaceful. Kurdistan in particular."
What a lying SOS you are.
And how many people die of normal causes every day in a country of 36 million the size of California, shit for brains?
"So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?"
Strawman.
"Then name ONE doctor from Iraq who has come forward to say he wrote hundreds of death certificates and didn't report them to the Ministry of Health."
You've changed your story. You used to claim that Les Roberts was lying when he said that Iraqi doctors write death certificates.
#21. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#19)
(Edited)
And the fact that the other 13%, who were RANDOMLY not asked, should have been able to provide death certificates 92% of the time ... if the study is valid ... is BASIC STATISTICS.
Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying.
Then where are they?
Because if the John Hopkins study is valid than 92 percent of those who might claim deaths should have had a death certificate issued. And there is no record of that.
"The first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
No it did not conclude that. Another lie.
You are wrong. Haven't you read the second study? It states "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004.
Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimated that the number of excess deaths during that time was about 112,000" blah blah blah
But all those deaths were not evenly distributed throughout the country. They occurred mostly in a few regions. Where surely losses in the hundreds of thousands would have been noticed by a journalist or two. Surely ...
Alternatively, 657,000 deaths in a population of 36,000,000 = 1.8% of the total.
Although an incorrect way to look at the problem, this number in itself is remarkable.
Because it is only slightly different than the percentage of the German population (or the Japanese population) that died in WW2 ... and that was after strategic bombing of virtually every major city in those countries. Those cities were literally flattened or burned to the ground in many cases. Yet you want us to believe that Iraq, whose cities are mostly still standing, has had comparable losses.
I've even posted articles to the forum showing that Kurdistan is mostly peaceful and doing quite well now that Saddam is gone.
And how many people die of normal causes every day in a country of 36 million the size of California, shit for brains?
But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed.
Not at all. STATISTICALLY there is no way that the number of deaths has been a constant 546 per day since the war began. Some days would be higher and some lower. And as what I posted shows, even if you assumed that most days would only see deaths of 381 per day (which is far more than has ever been reported), you'd have to have a significant number of days (20) with 10,000 deaths. And surely that would have been noticed and reported by someone.
You've changed your story. You used to claim that Les Roberts was lying when he said that Iraqi doctors write death certificates.
I haven't changed my story at all. Les Roberts is a liar and you're unable to name even ONE doctor who says he/she wrote death certificates in Iraq and didn't report them.
But you don't just need one doctor, you need thousands of doctors doing that to even begin to account for all the death certificates that John Hopkins claims exist but for which there is no record whatsoever.
#23. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, Destro, ALL (#21)
"And the fact that the other 13%, who were RANDOMLY not asked, should have been able to provide death certificates 92% of the time ... if the study is valid ... is BASIC STATISTICS."
That's not how basic statistics works, numbskull.
"The first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
No it did not conclude that. Another lie.
"You are wrong. Haven't you read the second study? It states "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004."
You can't even read, then you try to bluster your way out of it by lying.
Saying that "somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred" does not equate to saying "the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
In fact, it says precisely the opposite.
"Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimated that the number of excess deaths during that time was about 112,000" blah blah blah
Do you know the difference between "in excess" and "less than," dummy?
you now retreat to your fall-back position of "The media hates Bush."
During times of war and social chaos no one is going to greatly notice less than a 1% change.
The JH definition of "excess deaths" is not limited to people who are killed by military action, brainless troll.
I've already cited the cities where there has been violence that regularly makes the headlines.
"But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed."
By whom? The "embedded media?"
People "noticing" and "reporting" are two different things. More "The media hates Bush so it couldn't have happened."
Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS?
So fuck you, lying troll.
*Baghdad 575 (Central) Capitol City-Province.
*Salaheddin 256 (Central) Home to cities of Tikrit and Samarra.
*Nineveh 171 (Central-Kurdistan) Home to city of Mosul.
*Babel 118 (Sumer-Central) Home to city of Hillah and ruins of Babylon.
*Diyala 82 (Central)
*Dhi Qar 67 (Sumer) Home to ruins ancient city of Ur.
*Basra 58 (Sumer) Home to cities of Basra, Umm Qasr and Eden.
*At Tamim 37 (Kurdistan-Central) Home to the city of Kirkuk.
*Wasit 33 (Sumer) Home to city of Al Kut.
*Najaf 29 (Sumer) Home to cities of Najaf and Kufah.
*Karbala 28 (Sumer)Home to Shi'ite holy shrine to Imam Hussein.
*Maysan 19 (Sumer) Home of "Marsh Arabs"; 1991 Shi'ite uprising.
*Qadisiyyah 17 (Sumer)
*Muthanna 6 (Sumer)
*Arbil 1 (Kurdistan) Home to ethnic Turks and Assyrians.
*Sulaimaniya 0 (Kurdistan)
*Dahuk 0 (Kurdistan)
#35. To: BeAChooser, ..., Destro (#23)
Fuck you lying troll.
Arguing like so many other 4umers.
#36. To: AGAviator (#35)
I've already told you, fucking troll
#39. To: Destro, Christine (#36)
(Edited)
Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous and pick fights
(1) The Health Ministry never issued any death certificates to begin with, so they can't be "missing" what they never had,
#43. To: AGAviator, Christine (#39)
Would you say that making up hundreds of posts on 2 websites about "missing death certificates" - when in fact there never were any missing death certificates - is being disingenuous?
#44. To: Destro (#43)
(Edited)
You don't like what BAChooser has to say counter it with your facts and he comes off the loser.
#45. To: AGAviator (#44)
(Edited)
So BAC has been completely debunked, but I guess you're really saying is you like BAC around to counter the USG did 911 people. As far as I'm concerned, (s) he's a poor advocate for anything and isn't worth the trouble keeping around.
#46. To: Destro (#45)
You don't like his position so you are reverting to your Freerepublic origins by labeling a dissenter as a troll to shut him up - what next, comrade? Bannings? Purgings? Exile to the gulag?
#48. To: AGAviator, robin (#46)
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.
#50. To: Destro (#48)
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.
#51. To: robin (#50)
The govt's explanation of 9/11 has been proven to be laughable, and not just on this forum. Exploring ideas about what really happened is useful, because learning the truth is always a good idea.
#52. To: Destro (#51)
#53. To: robin (#52)
(Edited)
Where logic is replaced by volumes of the exact same copy/paste (refuted by many on many threads), then curtailing such a poster is reasonable. He just disrupts any worthwhile discussion, which is part of his schtick.
#76. To: Destro, robin, christine, ALL (#53)
A shitload of people have died in Iraq and a shit load of people have fled Iraq for other countries as refugess - some say up to 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq.
I can't speak to the London report on the number of deaths because I have not studied it in part because I know the death toll has been huge so I have not bothered to check one way or the other. I assume it is accurate.
The only part of the 9/11 story I accept from the govt is the 'mechanical' ones not the rest - not on the relationship of the 9/11 cell to US intellugence and not what the status of the information the govt had on them before that day.
It shocks me you guys don't see what I am accusing you of.
#81. To: BeAChooser, robin, christine, AGAviator, (#76)
That's an assumption you'd be better off not making. Because the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) is filled with all sorts of problems. I listed SOME of them in posts 4 and 5 of this thread. Problems that for the most part have been simply ignored by the defenders of the study.
#83. To: Destro, ALL (#81)
Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial.
#85. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala (#83)
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
#86. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala (#85)
#94. To: Destro, ALL (#86)
BeAChooser, admit that you seek to discredit the report to justify the Iraq mission and the honesty will be accepted.
#96. To: BeAChooser (#94)
One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies.
#99. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#96)
so did ron brown move the wmd to syria or have you concocted a new story?
#108. To: Destro, ALL (#99)
The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face.
Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS
#114. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#108)
The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage.
#120. To: Destro, Diana, ALL (#114)
The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down.
Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.
#152. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#120)
Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain.
Replies to Comment # 152.