Iraqi shoe thrower

123578

Comments

  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i was going to answer jlew's question to me but byrnzie and i <3 scott niblett already posted what i was going to post.
    jlew don't tell me to research stuff, i remember what i read. where are your facts to dispute these reputable sources? aside from talking to vets you have presented nothing thus far to dispute these numbers or suggest otherwise.

    do your own research
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    jlew24asu wrote:
    doesnt anyone else find it odd that the million dead number has been thrown around for a few years now? its a powerful number and once its uttered, its sticks. as far as people like byrzine are concerned...a million people were killed on the day of the invasion. facts are not important, emotion and bias is what drives such stupidity.

    yet no one has an answer for this? why has the number of dead been at one million for several years?
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,078
    Commy wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i was going to answer jlew's question to me but byrnzie and i <3 scott niblett already posted what i was going to post.
    jlew don't tell me to research stuff, i remember what i read. where are your facts to dispute these reputable sources? aside from talking to vets you have presented nothing thus far to dispute these numbers or suggest otherwise.
    so we can believe the reputable sources that byrnzie and others posted....people that study this kind of thing, or we can believe what someone told jlew one time.
    i think i am going to just go ahead and agree with jlew, since he has done such extensive research and presented it in this thread to debunk the million dead reports. :roll:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,078
    jlew24asu wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i was going to answer jlew's question to me but byrnzie and i <3 scott niblett already posted what i was going to post.
    jlew don't tell me to research stuff, i remember what i read. where are your facts to dispute these reputable sources? aside from talking to vets you have presented nothing thus far to dispute these numbers or suggest otherwise.

    do your own research
    i am still waiting for your evidence to dispute the lancet, et al. you've got nothing, so YOU do your own research please.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i was going to answer jlew's question to me but byrnzie and i <3 scott niblett already posted what i was going to post.
    jlew don't tell me to research stuff, i remember what i read. where are your facts to dispute these reputable sources? aside from talking to vets you have presented nothing thus far to dispute these numbers or suggest otherwise.
    so we can believe the reputable sources that byrnzie and others posted....people that study this kind of thing, or we can believe what someone told jlew one time.
    i think i am going to just go ahead and agree with jlew, since he has done such extensive research and presented it in this thread to debunk the million dead reports. :roll:

    I have done extensive research. why do you want me to do it for you?

    common sense alone debunks a million dead. I'll ask again...why has there been 1 million dead for 3+ years? seems odd that it holds steady at such a powerful number.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    edited September 2009
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:


    i am still waiting for your evidence to dispute the lancet, et al. you've got nothing, so YOU do your own research please.


    the lancet report is a study based on 1800 households in Iraq. its not solid proof that hundreds of thousands or millions have died. its people like you suck it up as fact. hopefully you decide to read up on facts. but there is a reason why the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is popular.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    jlew24asu wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    doesnt anyone else find it odd that the million dead number has been thrown around for a few years now? its a powerful number and once its uttered, its sticks. as far as people like byrzine are concerned...a million people were killed on the day of the invasion. facts are not important, emotion and bias is what drives such stupidity.

    yet no one has an answer for this? why has the number of dead been at one million for several years?

    the issue with the number of casualties is that no one is keeping official records - or at least no one willing to report ... we must rely on fragments of information from aid groups ...

    at the time i heard of one million dead and much more displaced - it was the best estimate out there produced from multiple sources ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:

    yet no one has an answer for this? why has the number of dead been at one million for several years?

    the issue with the number of casualties is that no one is keeping official records - or at least no one willing to report ... we must rely on fragments of information from aid groups ...[/quote]

    thats true. there are no hard facts of # of dead. yet people throw around the million number because of its impact. has a nice ring to it right? 80,500 dead, lets just round up to a million.
    polaris_x wrote:
    at the time i heard of one million dead and much more displaced - it was the best estimate out there produced from multiple sources ...

    no its not.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    jlew24asu wrote:
    no its not.

    :lol:

    well, i didn't expect you to agree ... the number wasn't made up - it has been published ... if you disagree with the source - that's your prerogative but it's not true to say someone on this board just made up the number ...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:

    well, i didn't expect you to agree ... the number wasn't made up - it has been published ... if you disagree with the source - that's your prerogative but it's not true to say someone on this board just made up the number ...

    its a number with zero proof behind it. makes no difference that it was published.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,078
    jlew24asu wrote:
    [

    I have done extensive research. why do you want me to do it for you?

    common sense alone debunks a million dead. I'll ask again...why has there been 1 million dead for 3+ years? seems odd that it holds steady at such a powerful number.
    if you could take a minute from your know-it-all-god complex, maybe you can post some of this research that you have uncovered so maybe those of us that are of inferior intellect might learn something? oh wait, if you had it i am sure you would have already done so :D
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    [

    I have done extensive research. why do you want me to do it for you?

    common sense alone debunks a million dead. I'll ask again...why has there been 1 million dead for 3+ years? seems odd that it holds steady at such a powerful number.
    if you could take a minute from your know-it-all-god complex, maybe you can post some of this research that you have uncovered so maybe those of us that are of inferior intellect might learn something? oh wait, if you had it i am sure you would have already done so :D

    it takes more then a simple google search and cut and paste party. if you are smart you'll research it. but I doubt it
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:

    well, i didn't expect you to agree ... the number wasn't made up - it has been published ... if you disagree with the source - that's your prerogative but it's not true to say someone on this board just made up the number ...

    its a number with zero proof behind it. makes no difference that it was published.

    it was published by the lancet, that's significant, its no tabloid. and the study was carried out by john hopkins, also significant.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:

    it was published by the lancet, that's significant, its no tabloid. and the study was carried out by john hopkins, also significant.

    maybe you'll read a wiki link. seems to be the only trusted source on this board.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties

    Some criticisms have focused on the relatively broad 95% confidence intervals (CI95), resulting from the difficulty and scarcity of reliable sources. [10]

    Lila Guterman, after writing a long article[11] in January 2005 in The Chronicle of Higher Education, wrote a short article in the Columbia Journalism Review that stated: "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study’s methods or its conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates. With a quick call to a statistician, reporters would have found that the probability forms a bell curve — the likelihood is very small that the number of deaths fell at either extreme of the range. It was very likely to fall near the middle."[12]

    A Ministerial Statement written 17 November 2004, by the UK government stated "the Government does not accept its [the study's] central conclusion", because they were apparently inconsistent with figures published by the Iraq Ministry of Health, based on figures collected by hospitals, which said that "between 5 April 2004 and 5 October 2004, 3,853 civilians were killed and 15,517 were injured".[13]

    Some critics have said that The Lancet study authors were unable to visit certain randomly selected sample areas. In an interview on the radio program "This American Life" however, the authors of the study say that they never substituted different, more accessible, areas, and that every place that was randomly selected at the beginning of the study was surveyed in full, despite the risk of death to the surveyors.

    Critics of the Lancet study have pointed out other difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics in a war zone. The authors of the study readily acknowledge this point and note the problems in the paper; for example they state that "there can be a dramatic clustering of deaths in wars where many die from bombings". They also said that the data their projections were based on were of "limited precision" because the quality of the information depended on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study.[14][15]
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jlew has just proven that he hasn't even read any of the reports that have been posted here. The 2nd Lancet report was published in 2006 and it didn't give a figure of 1 million dead. It gave a figure of 654,965 dead.

    The ORB report was published in January 2008 and gave an updated figure of 1,033,000 dead.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report

    Burying The Lancet Report

    By Nicolas J. S. Davies - Z Magazine
    February 2006 Issue

    '...Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, "Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity." In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the US State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.

    Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference. In December 2004 Blair dismissed the epidemiological team's work in Iraq, claiming, "Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is."

    Official and media criticism of Roberts's work has focused on the size of his sample, 988 homes in 33 clusters distributed throughout the country, but other epidemiologists reject the notion that this is controversial.

    Michael O'Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: "That's a classical sample size. I just don't see any evidence of significant exaggeration.... If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died."

    Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: "In 1993, when the US Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces."

    The figures most often cited for civilian casualties in Iraq are those collected by Iraqbodycount, but its figures are not intended as an estimate of total casualties. Its methodology is to count only those deaths that are reported by at least two "reputable" international media outlets in order to generate a minimum number that is more or less indisputable. Its authors know that thousands of deaths go unreported in their count and say they cannot prevent the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths.

    Beyond the phony controversy regarding the methodology of the Lancet report, there is one issue that does cast doubt on its findings. This is the decision to exclude the cluster in Fallujah from its computations due to the much higher number of deaths that were reported there (even though the survey was completed before the widely reported assault on the city in November 2004). Roberts wrote, in a letter to the Independent, "Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000."...

    A second feature of the epidemiologists' findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O'Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies...'
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    Funny how Jlew's Wilki link actually supports the findings of the Lancet report. Just goes to show that he didn't even read it before posting it on here. He just saw the words 'Some criticisms....' and started frothing at the mouth.

    The only part of his post that is critical of the report is the part that says the U.K government rejects it because it doesn't correspond with the findings of the The Iraq Ministry of Health.
    The Iraq Ministry of Health figures were based solely on numbers collected by hospitals. Hardly an accurate number considering that most dead bodies don't get taken to hospital to be treated and cared for.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Jlew has just proven that he hasn't even read any of the reports that have been posted here. The 2nd Lancet report was published in 2006 and it didn't give a figure of 1 million dead. It gave a figure of 654,965 dead.

    The ORB report was published in January 2008 and gave an updated figure of 1,033,000 dead.

    other hypothetical reports have thrown around the million # for many years. you've been eating up for probably longer then that.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Funny how Jlew's Wilki link actually supports the findings of the Lancet report. Just goes to show that he didn't even read it before posting it on here. He just saw the words 'Some criticisms....' and started frothing at the mouth.

    it doesn't support the findings. its merely shows both sides of the argument. something you are incapable of understanding.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Funny how only the HIGHEST figure is regarded as fact when Iraq Body Count Project has far more sources and actually evidence of the true total.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Categories