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

shamuie

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Shamoo, why is it you thinkk the numbers killed during WWII are just propaganda, but repeatedly quote "millions of civilians" killed in Iraq?
 
hypocritexposer said:
Shamoo, why is it you thinkk the numbers killed during WWII are just propaganda, but repeatedly quote "millions of civilians" killed in Iraq?

according to whistle blowers, over 1 million Iraqi citizens have been killed since 2003.

this is modern day stuff and you could care less and we are the hitler this time...
 
shaumei said:
can any of you answer why they wanted to say 6 million jews died after ww1?

Will you ever provide a link to his claim or will you just keep repeating it and hoping I'll go away
 
shaumei said:
hypocritexposer said:
Shamoo, why is it you thinkk the numbers killed during WWII are just propaganda, but repeatedly quote "millions of civilians" killed in Iraq?

according to whistle blowers, over 1 million Iraqi citizens have been killed since 2003.

this is modern day stuff and you could care less and we are the hitler this time...

Whistle blowers? Again, provide the proof or I can only assume you're lying again.
 
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRd3Bi6CXI94ke9t9CgxqcZ1wPNw

More than one million Iraqis dead since 2003 invasion: study
(AFP) – Jan 30, 2008
LONDON (AFP) — More than one million Iraqis have died because of the war in Iraq since the US-led invasion of the country in 2003, according to a study published Wednesday.
A fifth of Iraqi households lost at least one family member between March 2003 and August 2007 due to the conflict, said data compiled by London-based Opinion Research Business (ORB) and its research partner in Iraq, the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies (IIACSS).
The study based its findings on survey work involving the face-to-face questioning of 2,414 Iraqi adults aged 18 or above, and the last complete census in Iraq in 1997, which indicated a total of 4.05 million households.
Respondents were asked how many members of their household, if any, had died as a result of the violence in the country since 2003, and not because of natural causes.
"We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been in the order of 1,033,000," ORB said in a statement.
The margin of error for the survey was 1.7 percent, making the estimated range between 946,000 and 1.12 million fatalities.
The highest rate of deaths throughout the country occurred in Baghdad, where more than 40 percent of households had lost a family member.
According to a July 2007 estimate by the United States, Iraq's population is around 27 million.
The country has been wracked by conflict since the March 2003 invasion which deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, with United Nations estimates putting the number of displaced people from the conflict at more than four million, nearly half of which have fled to neighbouring countries.
A small number of those refugees have begun returning to Iraq -- around 20,000 arrived from Syria in December -- the Iraqi Red Crescent said earlier this month, suggesting an improved security situation.
 
Yet once again proof from the mainstream media, that is unreliable according to sham.

You are a good tool for your nut mothership
 
London-based Opinion Research Business (ORB) and its research partner in Iraq, the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies (IIACSS).

Is this how you define whistleblowers, Shamu?
 
The ORB poll estimate has come under strong criticism in a peer reviewed paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods. This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war".[8][9]

Epidemiologist Francisco Checci recently echoed these conclusions in a BBC interview, stating that he thinks the ORB estimate was "too high" and "implausible". Checci, like the paper above, says that a "major weakness" of the poll was a failure to adequately distinguish between households and extended family.[10]

The Iraq Body Count project also rejected what they called the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" of ORB, citing the Survey Research Methods paper. IBC concluded that, "The pressing need is for more truth rooted in real experience, not the manipulation of numbers disconnected from reality."[11]


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

Of course, since the report confirms what Shamu wants to believe, he will not ever look any further.
 
Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate" By Michael Spagat and Josh Dougherty

Well worth the read to anyone really interested. Shamu, this is what's called peer review.

Peer review is something that doesn't occur on those whacky sites you visit because most intelligent people would rather have a root canal as opposed to wasting their time debunking that stupid tripe you call evidence.
 
Without a doubt the war in Iraq has inflicted immense
human costs on the Iraqi people. Yet the conflict mortality
estimate of 1 million deaths published by ORB does not
withstand scrutiny.


Most importantly, our analysis of figures across the three
ORB polls finds fundamental flaws in the data underpinning
ORB's estimate. The ORB2 data are not suitable for deriving
any credible estimate but, given proper scrutiny, it is clear
that ORB has overestimated by a wide margin.
 
In September of 2007 ORB, a British opinion polling firm, released an estimate that 1.2 million Iraqis had been killed in the conflict, subsequently lowering its estimate to 1 million. We compare three ORB polls and find important irregularities in ORB's mortality data in four central governorates of Iraq that account for more than 80% of the estimated deaths.

These internal validity checks indicate that the ORB mortality data are not credible and would suggest a much lower estimate than ORB has published. We also analyze a number of specific error sources in the poll. Systematic errors, which include non-coverage and measurement errors, mostly point toward overestimation. Variable errors are also substantial but they are dicult to quantify in part due to incomplete disclosure of methodological details by ORB.

External validity checks, including comparisons with two much larger and higher quality surveys, reinforce the conclusion that ORB has overestimated the number killed in Iraq by a wide margin. Thus, our paperanswers a challenge facing the field of survey methodology, to explain how dierent surveys have produced such divergent mortality estimates for Iraq.
 
shaumei said:
can any of you answer why they wanted to say 6 million jews died after ww1?

yes. I can and even found the source for the original claim of a number...

but it might surprise you how stupid you are going to look when you read it..

after dredging through a few dozen sites like StormFront, Jew watch and others.. they usually start out with a wild claim (similar to yours, almost word for word),.. :?

and then present the article along with a few others.. if you took the time to read the article, it was about hunger,.. and all of Europe, (including Russia)

about the original source..
The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!

The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop! is an article by Glynn that appeared in the October 31, 1919, issue of The American Hebrew lamenting the poor conditions for European Jews after World War I. Glynn referred to these conditions as a potential "holocaust" and asserted that "six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas".

his actual assertion was that six million were starving, and many in the US would not help, and used Jews as an excuse not to help.. his article was written as an appeal.

but then again critical reading reasoning and though often elude you..

http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/The-Crucifixion-of-Jews-Must-Stop_printer.shtml

have a wonderful Sunday..
 
Steve, I've been waiting patiently in more than one thread for Shamu to give me a link to the claim that 6 million Jews died in WWI but he's never come up with it. What a shock, right. I keep holding out hope that he's actually going to surprise me one day with a nugget of truth, but, so far, nada.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure if he simply is incapable of critical thought and lacks fourth grade reading comprehension skills, or is simply repeating crap that he knows to be total BS.

Either way, it paints a sad picture of our self-proclaimed forum "researcher".
 
Whitewing said:
Steve, I've been waiting patiently in more than one thread for Shamu to give me a link to the claim that 6 million Jews died in WWI but he's never come up with it. What a shock, right. I keep holding out hope that he's actually going to surprise me one day with a nugget of truth, but, so far, nada.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure if he simply is incapable of critical thought and lacks fourth grade reading comprehension skills, or is simply repeating crap that he knows to be total BS.

Either way, it paints a sad picture of our self-proclaimed forum "researcher".

those that claim 6 million died between WW1 and the start of WW2 tend to be somewhat extreme white militia type blogs, they usually have a nice lead or introduction that is distorting the claim, (and I doubt most read past the introduction).. and then post the article mixed in with a few of the others listed on the link I posted.

it is a huge leap from an hunger appeal for European relief to killing millions. and an even greater leap to connect the hardship after WW1 to the atrocities of WW2,
 
Steve said:
Whitewing said:
Steve, I've been waiting patiently in more than one thread for Shamu to give me a link to the claim that 6 million Jews died in WWI but he's never come up with it. What a shock, right. I keep holding out hope that he's actually going to surprise me one day with a nugget of truth, but, so far, nada.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure if he simply is incapable of critical thought and lacks fourth grade reading comprehension skills, or is simply repeating crap that he knows to be total BS.

Either way, it paints a sad picture of our self-proclaimed forum "researcher".

those that claim 6 million died between WW1 and the start of WW2 tend to be somewhat extreme white militia type blogs, they usually have a nice lead or introduction that is distorting the claim, (and I doubt most read past the introduction).. and then post the article mixed in with a few of the others listed on the link I posted.

it is a huge leap from an hunger appeal for European relief to killing millions. and an even greater leap to connect the hardship after WW1 to the atrocities of WW2,

Huge leaps are not out of the realm for Shamu. WTC7 was brought down by Mossad agents and a missle struck the Pentagon. :lol:
 
My wifes grandparents was caught in Poland (Warsaw) in WW2 by the Germany and put in a POW camp. They seen many of people killed by the Germany soldier's and thought any day it was thier day. The stories they told me over the years would make sick to hear. So you can believe what you want, but you must be the most uneducate person I have ever heard by the things I have read that you have posted. One day you need to send some time catching up on World History. :roll:
 
Even though a major side effect of long term pot use is paranoia, and apparently they grow some potent stuff in Texas, you have convinced me Shamy. Because we have no proof that ANYTHING stated as history actually ever existed. People planted the arrow heads in dirt around our farm, just to mess with us and make us believe there were Native Americans. History?? Where are the photographs man?? The israelies confiscated every photograph taken until 1839 so that they could publish their own brainwashing accounts of history to fit themselves. They then told everyone that the- get this, the first permanent photograph was invented then. We know that photography was noted in writings from 4th and 5th century B.C- and we can believe those writings because it supports my, I mean because it is truth. They also altered the Bible when it was translated into English so that they could make a claim to the land of Jeruselum, mainly just to tick off the muslums who are a peace loving community that just wants to hold hands even if you don't agree with them. And the Jewish people knew some day they would be making false claims about the number of Jews dying, so they didn't want pictures around so that people could actually "count" the Jews. Without photos, we have proof of nothing. I don't even think there was a history. All of you are probably aliens messing with me. It is all just some big prank. I'm on to all of you now. Nanoo, Nanoo... 8)
 
They also altered the Bible when it was translated into English so that they could make a claim to the land of Jeruselum, mainly just to tick off the muslums who are a peace loving

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

According to the traditionalist view, the Qur'an began with revelations on Muhammad's divine revelations in AD 610

I think your onto something, the guy who made up the muslim book made it up in AD 610,

notice how it was over a hundred years before... the Jews actually were able to suppress the muslim religion for a 110 years,

but a rogue jew wrote the book to expose the Jews and a bunch of arabs found it on the internet, and thier wives all wanted to where burkas cause the Jews said they were ugly, and the muslim men didn't want everyone to know they had not only one ugly wife but several..

it is true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5xfxbfU4Yg
 
shamuei, have you ever looked at any old LIFE magazines that show
photos of the holocaust?

President Eishenhower advised many pictures to be taken because
sometime someone would deny the holocaust existed.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/death-camps.htm

General Eisenhower understood that many people would be unable to comprehend the full scope of this horror. He also understood that any human deeds that were so utterly evil might eventually be challenged or even denied as being literally unbelievable. For these reasons he ordered that all the civilian news media and military combat camera units be required to visit the camps and record their observations in print, pictures and film. As he explained to General Marshall, "I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda.'"

His prediction proved correct. When some groups, even today, attempt to deny that the Holocaust ever happened they must confront the massive official record, including both written evidence and thousands of pictures, that Eisenhower ordered to be assembled when he saw what the Nazis had done.
 

Latest posts

Top