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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War

Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile

Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation)

France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies

Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief

SCOTUS asked to review if Illinois can keep counting mail-in ballots 2 weeks after election day

The Real Reason Government Workers Are Panicking About ElonÂ’s New Tracking System

THEY DON'T CARE ANYMORE!

Young Americans Are Turning Off The TV

Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

"Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities

Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It?

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA


World News
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: 30346
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 95.

#4. To: Ada, ALL (#0)

British government officials have backed the methods

But only one name is given. Who are the others?

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".

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?

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

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-27   20:16:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-29   2:57:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, christine, all (#12)

(1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92%

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.

(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. 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."

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 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.

and didn't count entire provinces and several of the more violent cities.

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?"

(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. Go ahead...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-29   11:25:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#14)

(1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92%

And explanation for those who don't know:

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.

By the way, the vast majority of those death certificates are missing.

Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying.

(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.

The LA Times said

If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate.

(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.

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.

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 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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-30   2:01:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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" 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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.theotheriraq.com/

http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc0110WT100.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/02/kurds_ed3_.php

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.

"So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?"

Strawman.

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.

"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.

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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-30   16:02:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

"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?

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 ...

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."

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.

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.

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.

The JH definition of "excess deaths" is not limited to people who are killed by military action, brainless troll.

I've even posted articles to the forum showing that Kurdistan is mostly peaceful and doing quite well now that Saddam is gone.

I've already cited the cities where there has been violence that regularly makes the headlines.

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.

By whom? The "embedded media?"

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.

People "noticing" and "reporting" are two different things. More "The media hates Bush so it couldn't have happened."

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.

Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS?

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.

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-31   1:51:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

"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.

Sure thing, AGAviator. You go on believing that. Just like you INSISTED that this graph

shows housing prices dropped 16% between 2005 and 2006.

"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?

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?

you now retreat to your fall-back position of "The media hates Bush."

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!

During times of war and social chaos no one is going to greatly notice less than a 1% change.

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 of "excess deaths" is not limited to people who are killed by military action, brainless troll.

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!

I've already cited the cities where there has been violence that regularly makes the headlines.

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.

"But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed."

By whom? The "embedded media?"

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).

People "noticing" and "reporting" are two different things. More "The media hates Bush so it couldn't have happened."

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!

Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS?

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 ....

So fuck you, lying troll.

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.
*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)

**********

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!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-31   14:48:28 ET  (2 images) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: BeAChooser, ..., Destro (#23)

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.

Fuck you lying troll.

Arguing like so many other 4umers.

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-03-31   21:35:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: AGAviator (#35)

I've already told you, fucking troll

Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous and pick fights - not by posting what you disagree with.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-01   0:22:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Destro, Christine (#36) (Edited)

Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous and pick fights

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

(1) The Health Ministry never issued any death certificates to begin with, so they can't be "missing" what they never had,

(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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-04-01   1:41:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-01   12:38:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-04-01   13:51:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-01   14:14:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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.

AGAviator  posted on  2007-04-01   15:37:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: AGAviator, robin (#46)

No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.

That differs how from people on here that claim the WTC were blown up from the inside?

Destro  posted on  2007-04-01   22:03:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Destro (#48)

No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.

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.

robin  posted on  2007-04-01   22:32:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-01   22:54:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Destro (#51)

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?

robin  posted on  2007-04-01   23:05:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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?

Destro  posted on  2007-04-01   23:22:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

That's probably true from what I've read.

As long as folks stick to facts, rather than deliberate lies, I have no problem.

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'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.

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.

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 you guys don't see what I am accusing you of.

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  posted on  2007-04-02   23:12:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-02   23:50:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Destro, ALL (#81)

Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial.

That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   0:02:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)

That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.

He's got a lot oh high-powered company, BAC, whether you approve or not.

OR, conversely, your "consideration" of the official lies as being facts, is immaterial.

Fuck you BAC, you treasonous queer!


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-04-03   0:07:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#84)

Fuck you BAC, you treasonous queer!

Is this true BAC? Are you a treasonous queer. Because I'm going to stop reading everything you write if this is true. Please defend yourself and prove these charges wrong. I cannot in good faith follow the writings of a treasonous queer.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03   9:42:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Destro, Red Jones, ALL (#90)

Red Jones - Is this true BAC? Are you a treasonous queer.

And, Destro, when one bases one's views on lies, this is all that's left to defend oneself.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-03   15:29:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 95.

#98. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, ALL (#95)

And, Destro, when one bases one's views on lies, this is all that's left to defend oneself.

I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.

Destro  posted on  2007-04-03 16:15:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

BAC!!! you have not yet defended yourself from the 'treasonous queer' charge. This apparently means that you accept the charges. You are a TREASONOUS QUEER. You pay Jeff Gannon for a date just like George Bush does. and you are a traitor too.

It is very hard on your fans that you do not defend yourself from these charges.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-03 23:45:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)

I find your non-answer to be unsatisfying.

I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer.

and this taints everything you've ever written. My whole world-view is in crisis now. if you're not even going to defend yourself on this point.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04 09:44:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 95.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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