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: 24095
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 # 359.
#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.
In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions, I realize it may be different where you live but there's an old saying here govt by the people for the people, the people are suppose to be the ones making the decisions, not the crooked gangsters/politicians we now have running things.
No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
Let me know when congress declares war and makes this war legal.
Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have. Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.
BAC: Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have. Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War. Here's your answer from leveller on another thread which you have conveniently forgotten to read - furthermore, I believe leveller is better acquainted with the law ( hint, hint) than you are, BAC. leveller states "No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war." So your ergo conclusion is worth squat, BAC. So what else is new? http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=8#C8 #8. To: BeAChooser (#3) BAC: the FORM the declaration must take. leveller: No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war. An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941: "The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States" leveller posted on 2007-04-04 11:11:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
BINGO. According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.
BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION. And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically - which I doubt is a result of professional legal training and education like leveller's is.
All I've done is ask you folks to point out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution or our laws where the FORM that a Declaration of War must take is spelled out. And clearly you can't do it. Because it isn't. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution wanted it that way? Instead, you just CLAIM that a state of war must be stated to exist by Congress for a Declaration of War. Based on YOUR opinion. But the only opinion that really matters is that of Congress and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not ruled this war illegal. They have not ruled that the Authorization To Use Force doesn't constitute a "declaration of war". And I posted the opinion of CONGRESS in the form of a law authorizing Bush to use military force to deal with the problem of Iraq. That law specifically states that "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." Section 5 (b) puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force. That requirement has been met. You may not like it (in your OPINION), but it has been met.
Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation. Now look at AUMF. One reason, apparently that its text does not declare that a state of war exists, is that such a sentence would require completion by specifying the particular nation with which the US is or was at war. AUMF, however, unconsitutionally delegates to the President the power to declare war, by allowing him to determine against whom military force shall be used: "Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Good for them. But the fact remains that neither the Constitution or laws define the form a declaration of war must take. And did you know that none other than President Thomas Jefferson sent his military forces to the Med with orders to look for *someone* to fight ... at a time when we weren't at war because one hadn't been declared by Congress? In fact, Jefferson sent the forces WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS AT ALL. Jefferson sent the navy with permission to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence - by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them." And post facto Congress did approve Jefferson's actions (although they did NOT declare war) which nevertheless led to a defacto war that lasted about four years. In Congress (largely made of framers of the Constitution), only Hamilton criticized Jefferson, but not for using force, but for not using enough force. Hamilton also expressed doubts about Jefferson's strict interpretation of the war powers of the President. He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war, there was no need for Congress to do so. And these were the framers of our Constitution, leveller. Jefferson embroiled the nation in a war BEFORE congressional assent was given ... in any form. The reality is that he sent his forces out to provoke a war, even if none existed because he understood what you folks don't ... that war was the answer. The reality is that the situation at that time is not too dissimilar to our situation now and the actions of Bush are not all that different from those of Jefferson and Madison.
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF. The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war. They did not initiate war. A band of criminals (according to the official story ) whose organization was once funded and trained and supplied by the US, perpetrated a few crimes on our soil. These crimes gave the US no casus belli against Afghanistan and Iraq. These criminals did not enjoy nationhood, and a declaration of war against them would have sounded ridiculous.
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war. Communications then aren't what they are today. A founding father obviously didn't agree with your views, leveller. That must be sobering. Second, the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition). As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
The state of war that existed between the US and Iraq during most of the nineties was the result of the illegal US and British no-fly zone bombing after the cease-fire. April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point. It hardly matters whether the first war was over when the second began, since the first one was illegal also. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. And you know it as we've discussed this before. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined. You can't.
It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. And you know it as we've discussed this before. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. Here you are telling a deliberate bald faced lie. You are doing so because you cannot reconcile Glaspie's comments below with your world view. The best you can do is play games with with a paraphrased version of an out of context quote from an ardent war shill. Note that you don't provide the actual quote, just a paraphrased version that suits your purpose. You do this in an attempt to fool the uninformed that the damming comments were not made. You are behaving like a piece of dishonest scum here. The transcpript is below: Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait) July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death. U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le? Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles) On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____ Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond) Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait. Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait. Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country! Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq? (Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
You don't know the meaning of lie. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting in question, stated in an interview with PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html) that "She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation." He went on to say "So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States." Aziz told the New York Times on 31 May 1991 that "She didn't give a green light, and she didn't mention a red light because the question of our presence in Kuwait was not raised. ... And we didn't take it as a green light ... that if we intervened militarily in Kuwait, the Americans would not react. That was not true. We were expecting an American attack on the morning of the second of August." USA Today reported that "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says neither he nor Saddam Hussein thought U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait in a notorious July 1990 meeting". It quoted Aziz saying "We didn't have any false illusion about the position of the United States. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction against that. So we didn't have any false expectations the United States would sit and watch" the invasion. It quoted him saying that "At that stage we knew that it would lead to a conflict. And later on, when they sent troops, we knew it would lead to a war."
What is 9/11 anthrax?
Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?
The anthrax attacks happened some weeks after 9/11. So your answer to my question "what is 9/11 anthrax?" is to ask me if there was an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11. Are you implying that there is a connection?
You don't think there is, given that the first case of anthrax just happened to show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying prior to 9/11? If you ask me, that's a mighty big coincidence to swallow, Diana. Especially when doctors at John Hopkins have gone on record saying the skin disorder that Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for before 9/11 is most likely anthrax.
Did those doctors at John Hopkins actually examine Mohammad Atta? So now we are suppose to think Mohammad Atta was responsible for the anthrax attacks as well?
That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.
LOL good catch!
Do you know the incubation time of anthrax?
What does that have to do with your claim?
By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you simply ignored the amazing coincidence that the first case of anthrax would show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying. Backing the incubation time off the first case, ask yourself whether a domestic source for the anthrax would have known where the hijackers were staying at the time he'd have had to mail the letter that supposedly infected the first case.
Why don't you just make up a quote proving that they were guilty as sin and then post a fake link to support the quote. That's what you did twice this evening already. Why waste time with all this silly banter when you can just lie?
You were famous for your cowardly whining on LP. Lets have a taste. You were doing it earlier.
There are no replies to Comment # 359. End Trace Mode for Comment # 359.
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.
#104. To: BeAChooser, Destro, All (#83)
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
#110. To: Diana, ALL (#104)
In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions
#115. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#110)
(Edited)
No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
#121. To: Destro, ALL (#115)
Let me know when congress declares war
#140. To: BeAChooser (#121)
Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.
#164. To: Destro, ALL (#140)
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
#170. To: BeAChooser, Destro, leveller, All (#164)
Destro: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#170)
"No specific form is required.
But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#182. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#179)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#189. To: scrapper2, leveller, ALL (#182)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.
And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically
#197. To: BeAChooser (#189)
#201. To: leveller, ALL whoever they are (#197)
Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation.
#207. To: BeAChooser (#201)
He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war,
#212. To: leveller, ALL (#207)
"He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war"
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF.
The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war.
#215. To: BeAChooser (#212)
As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
#221. To: leveller, ALL (#215)
April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
Congress has not declared war since WWII.
#261. To: BeAChooser (#221)
(Edited)
April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
#271. To: ..., ALL (#261)
Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly.
Here you are telling a deliberate bald faced lie.
#315. To: BeAChooser (#271)
You don't know the meaning of lie.
#322. To: Diana, ALL (#315)
You don't know the meaning of lie.
What is 9/11 anthrax?
#330. To: BeAChooser (#322)
Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?
#331. To: Diana, ALL (#330)
Are you implying that there is a connection?
#338. To: BeAChooser (#331)
Especially when doctors at John Hopkins have gone on record saying the skin disorder that Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for before 9/11 is most likely anthrax.
#340. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#338)
So now we are suppose to think Mohammad Atta was responsible for the anthrax attacks as well?
#342. To: Arator, BeAChooser, ... (#340)
That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.
#347. To: Diana, Arator, ALL (#342)
That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.
#348. To: BeAChooser (#347)
#354. To: Diana, ALL (#348)
#355. To: BeAChooser (#354)
By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you simply ignored the amazing coincidence that the first case of anthrax would show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying.
#359. To: BeAChooser (#355)
Replies to Comment # 359.