• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Iraq: we have now murdered over 1.3 million Iraqis

Whitewing

Well-known member
From your link:

A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count.

Let's hope they've improved their methods since their first study released:

"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)


This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."



http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
From your link:

A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count.

Let's hope they've improved their methods since their first study released:

"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)


This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."



http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

I guess you think we have not killed anyone over there?

no children have been murdered by your heros?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.

What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.

What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.

i know you believe only mass media...they have got you good...but, my numbers are supported by many people...us troops have murdered over and over since we invaded their country...we are now doing it for sport...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.

What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.

i know you believe only mass media...they have got you good...but, my numbers are supported by many people...us troops have murdered over and over since we invaded their country...we are now doing it for sport...

Would that be the same mass media that you believe when they report there were no WMD's found in Iraq?

Your numbers probably are supported by many people, but does that make the numbers accurate, especially when many of those same people have an axe to grind with our invasion of Iraq.

You really should research things before making of your mind Shamu, as opposed to making up your mind and then looking for youtube evidence to back you up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.

What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.

i know you believe only mass media...they have got you good...but, my numbers are supported by many people...us troops have murdered over and over since we invaded their country...we are now doing it for sport...

Would that be the same mass media that you believe when they report there were no WMD's found in Iraq?

Your numbers probably are supported by many people, but does that make the numbers accurate, especially when many of those same people have an axe to grind with our invasion of Iraq.

You really should research things before making of your mind Shamu, as opposed to making up your mind and then looking for youtube evidence to back you up.

i voted twice for bush...i wanted to live the dream...but that is all it was...reality is more real...i make a lot of money..i am successful in my businesses...i believe we are going to lose this country if people do not wake up to what is happening.....9/11 was an inside job...there is no way muslims with box cutters pulled if off and then handled the coverup...to penetrate the pentagon defense shield should be your first clue...building 7 should be your next one...it screams inside job and then the way media gets so defensive about discussing it means they have a lot of baggage hidden....walking out on iran president in the un showed guilt....on and on...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Shamwow, you are wasting a lot of your energy here and so far,
I don't think you convinced anyone of your theories. You can only
beat a dead horse so long...and it is getting tiring. Personally,
I believe what others have tried to show and you that you
will not acknowledge what they have pointed out. You have been at this
for months and if you have converted one person, they certainly
haven't acknowledged it.

Don't you think it's time you moved on for everyone's sake?
Perhaps you can find a forum where the people are more gullible
or at least not as informed as the folks here who have shown
you over and over that there are big holes in your theories.

You can be applauded for trying, but sometimes you just have to
give it up. I'm sure you mean well, but you just aren't accomplishing
anything here, IMO. And posting the same thing over and
over and calling people names is really getting old.

Sometimes I even wonder if you aren't a traitor.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
What if he IS right? Even dare to think that?

He has a 50% chance of being right...just as much as being wrong............
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
No jingo2, He doesn;t have a 50% chance of being right. He has much less then1% chance of being right. Besides the terrorists have admitted that they were responsible. It is time for you to come to your senses too.
I don't like, and didn't like the wars we got into either, but the American people demanded that we do something to retaliate after we were attacked. Remember too, Sadam did have a program to develope chemical and biological weapons. He used them on his own people. Who knows who he might have given them to.

I don't really think we are accomplishing anything in what we are doing now, and can't see where we are likely to. I think we need to take a better look at what we are doing. I won't say we should change policies, because there are to many things I do not know.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Clarencen said:
No jingo2, He doesn;t have a 50% chance of being right. He has much less then1% chance of being right. Besides the terrorists have admitted that they were responsible. It is time for you to come to your senses too.
I don't like, and didn't like the wars we got into either, but the American people demanded that we do something to retaliate after we were attacked. Remember too, Sadam did have a program to develope chemical and biological weapons. He used them on his own people. Who knows who he might have given them to.

I don't really think we are accomplishing anything in what we are doing now, and can't see where we are likely to. I think we need to take a better look at what we are doing. I won't say we should change policies, because there are to many things I do not know.

you can only say i have one percent chance of being right as you believe the media and govt...once you catch them in one lie, it get easier to accept the truth..you are not ready to accept the truth as you siimply could not handle it yet..
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Clarencen said:
No jingo2, He doesn;t have a 50% chance of being right. He has much less then1% chance of being right. Besides the terrorists have admitted that they were responsible. It is time for you to come to your senses too.
I don't like, and didn't like the wars we got into either, but the American people demanded that we do something to retaliate after we were attacked. Remember too, Sadam did have a program to develope chemical and biological weapons. He used them on his own people. Who knows who he might have given them to.

I don't really think we are accomplishing anything in what we are doing now, and can't see where we are likely to. I think we need to take a better look at what we are doing. I won't say we should change policies, because there are to many things I do not know.


...and you are foolish to BELIEVE whatever comes out of the mouth of the very people who want to destroy us???? COME TO YOUR SENSES!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
What if he IS right?

if he is right, then all the facts are wrong... and facts can't be wrong... just doesn't work that way.


jingo2 said:
Even dare to think that?

not really,.. I read what they said,.. looked at the facts,.. used my education, experience and training to see the facts and made an educated decision that he is a clown.

jingo2 said:
He has a 50% chance of being right...

not really, he has taken an extreme theory based argument against a fact based position... the chances dwindle when your view is extreme verses moderate, and dwindles further when you test theory against facts..

in the end I doubt he has less then a 2% chance of being right on any of his accusations,.. but then I only had a 3.8 grade in statistics.. (it really dropped my GPA)..



jingo2 said:
just as much as being wrong............

I can't be wrong as I have made no assumptions .. he has stuck his neck out and made assumptions. I haven't..

does that mean I believe everything that was said or done that day and in the investigations afterwords.. no,. .I still have a few questions.. some doubts will always linger.. but I don't believe he is right on any of his wild accusations...



you seem to take his side, .. yet don't debate the facts? why?

if you feel he has a chance at being right... then at least have the guts to defend his theories.. if not let the dead rest...

.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
jingo2 said:
What if he IS right?

if he is right, then all the facts are wrong... and facts can't be wrong... just doesn't work that way.


jingo2 said:
Even dare to think that?

not really,.. I read what they said,.. looked at the facts,.. used my education, experience and training to see the facts and made an educated decision that he is a clown.

jingo2 said:
He has a 50% chance of being right...

not really, he has taken an extreme theory based argument against a fact based position... the chances dwindle when your view is extreme verses moderate, and dwindles further when you test theory against facts..

in the end I doubt he has less then a 2% chance of being right on any of his accusations,.. but then I only had a 3.8 grade in statistics.. (it really dropped my GPA)..



jingo2 said:
just as much as being wrong............

I can't be wrong as I have made no assumptions .. he has stuck his neck out and made assumptions. I haven't..

does that mean I believe everything that was said or done that day and in the investigations afterwords.. no,. .I still have a few questions.. some doubts will always linger.. but I don't believe he is right on any of his wild accusations...



you seem to take his side, .. yet don't debate the facts? why?

if you feel he has a chance at being right... then at least have the guts to defend his theories.. if not let the dead rest...

.

Steve,

what facts do you have? the ones you got 30 minutes after the second plane hit on mass media? the first three steel buildings ever in history to collapse due to office fires at freefall speed and you say there is no evidence? you have people shorting airline stocks the day before the event and you have no evidence? you have freefall speed collapse on a building not hit by a plane and you have no evidence? you have the pentagon hit by a plane and they cannot produce one video showing it happening? you have phone calls from cell phones from 30000 feet that were later admitted to have not happened...on and on...it is all lies and no evidence to support it...we have over 1300 architects and engineers that now want a new investigation and have put their names and reputations on the line...you have world leaders admitting it was an inside job..
 

hopalong

Well-known member
shame oooooo give it a rest, no one here believes a word you say.
No one wants to hear your garbage,
do yourself a favor , get professional help,

You would not know the truth if it hit you between the eyes, so slither on out of here and back under that tinfoil covered rock
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Look at the bright side. He has wasted a lot of his time trying to convince the rational people he is smarter than the average libtard. He has convinced no one on here of his wild claims. So let him waste his time while he is tag teamed in debate on here. Besides it keeps him from playing in the street and bending up some poor souls car.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Steve said:
jingo2 said:
What if he IS right?

if he is right, then all the facts are wrong... and facts can't be wrong... just doesn't work that way.


jingo2 said:
Even dare to think that?

not really,.. I read what they said,.. looked at the facts,.. used my education, experience and training to see the facts and made an educated decision that he is a clown.

jingo2 said:
He has a 50% chance of being right...

not really, he has taken an extreme theory based argument against a fact based position... the chances dwindle when your view is extreme verses moderate, and dwindles further when you test theory against facts..

in the end I doubt he has less then a 2% chance of being right on any of his accusations,.. but then I only had a 3.8 grade in statistics.. (it really dropped my GPA)..



jingo2 said:
just as much as being wrong............

I can't be wrong as I have made no assumptions .. he has stuck his neck out and made assumptions. I haven't..

does that mean I believe everything that was said or done that day and in the investigations afterwords.. no,. .I still have a few questions.. some doubts will always linger.. but I don't believe he is right on any of his wild accusations...



you seem to take his side, .. yet don't debate the facts? why?

if you feel he has a chance at being right... then at least have the guts to defend his theories.. if not let the dead rest...

.

"Facts" are relative.


I'm no gonna defend anyone. I just want to point out that just because someone's ideas/theory DOES NOT agree with the Ranchers cult....THEY are wrong and YOU are right.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I'm no gonna defend anyone. I just want to point out that just because someone's ideas/theory DOES NOT agree with the Ranchers cult....THEY are wrong and YOU are right.

Theres hope for you after all.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Larrry said:
I'm no gonna defend anyone. I just want to point out that just because someone's ideas/theory DOES NOT agree with the Ranchers cult....THEY are wrong and YOU are right.

Theres hope for you after all.

There you have it. Jingo2 believes the US government killed over 3000 of its own citizens, in a staged terrorist attack.

OR

Jingo2 agrees with the "ranchers cult"


Which one is it Jingo2?
 
Top