Author Topic: 600,000 iraquis dead in operation iraqi freedom...bet they feel real free now! (Read 3228 times)

ToxicAvenger · « **on:** October 11, 2006, 07:50:26 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

btw....the study is done by credible sources..

240 is Back · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2006, 07:53:59 PM »

Interesting. Today Bush was asked about it and said "That's not a credible source".

The source was MIT.

BayGBM · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2006, 07:56:55 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 11, 2006, 07:53:59 PM

Interesting. Today Bush was asked about it and said "That's not a credible source".

The source was MIT.

Bush calling a source not credible. What a riot.

I heard the source was the Bloomberg School of Public Health at John Hopkins Univ.

ToxicAvenger · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2006, 07:58:19 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 11, 2006, 07:53:59 PM

Interesting. Today Bush was asked about it and said "That's not a credible source".

The source was MIT.

i know MIT...one of the worlds most crdedible sources..PLUS they have done such studies in africa and the US for elections and come up with close to pin point results...its not a credible source...man he is just plain insulting me now $:-\$

Eyeball Chambers · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2006, 07:58:33 PM »

Glen Beck said it was a British study? lol

Dos Equis · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2006, 01:11:24 AM »

President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."

"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added. (Watch Bush dismiss the report -- 1:33 )

Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

240 is Back · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2006, 01:22:30 AM »

No offence BB, but the two men whose words you posted have the MOST to lose should people find out there are high death numbers. A US General (answering to Rummy) and an Iraqi govt spokesman. The lower the number is, the better the groups represented by these men look.

I am sure jag, hedge, or others overseas can tell us more... but from the 911 forums, from the soldier blogs, it is becoming clear that enemy death tolls are downplayed, and sometimes plain ignored. Ask the soldiers, they usually admit it. Official numbers involve official kills, not the fields of bodyparts we leave from airstrikes.

Plus, when you toss in the lawlessness resulting in 100 people a day killed from personal/religious beef alone...

I dunno. I've never been anti-war before. But this isn't our war. We should leave.

Al-Gebra · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2006, 01:24:40 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on October 12, 2006, 01:11:24 AM

President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."

"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added. (Watch Bush dismiss the report -- 1:33 )

Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

they probably counted people dying of natural causes.

24KT · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2006, 02:27:08 AM »

Quote from: Al-Gebra on October 12, 2006, 01:24:40 AM

they probably counted people dying of natural causes.

The death toll by natural causes would be way less.

There's nothing natural about a depleted uranium armament up your butt.

CQ · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2006, 04:26:43 AM »

Even if they are off by a wide margin, that is still alot of dead people $:-\$

Victor VonDoom · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2006, 04:43:53 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 12, 2006, 01:22:30 AM

No offence BB, but the two men whose words you posted have the MOST to lose should people find out there are high death numbers. A US General (answering to Rummy) and an Iraqi govt spokesman. The lower the number is, the better the groups represented by these men look.

I am sure jag, hedge, or others overseas can tell us more... but from the 911 forums, from the soldier blogs, it is becoming clear that enemy death tolls are downplayed, and sometimes plain ignored. Ask the soldiers, they usually admit it. Official numbers involve official kills, not the fields of bodyparts we leave from airstrikes.

Plus, when you toss in the lawlessness resulting in 100 people a day killed from personal/religious beef alone...

I dunno. I've never been anti-war before. But this isn't our war. We should leave.

Fool! You voted for the authors of this war. Twice! If you dare, look in the mirror and gaze at your folly! What you will see is indeed uglier than the face of Doom!

headhuntersix · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2006, 04:47:58 AM »

Quote from: jaguarenterprises on October 12, 2006, 02:27:08 AM

The death toll by natural causes would be way less.

There's nothing natural about a depleted uranium armament up your butt.

Hey whats a little DU between friends......not near as much as in the Gulf War. They didn't send out alot of armor against us..we used mostly heat rounds. With the SABOT rounds containing DU ...sometimes u can't tell if u hit the tank from long ranges. Course u end up cooking the crew..its great. A HEAT round makes the turrent spin 15 feet in the air....plus u get all kinds of special effects. They're alot cheaper as well.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2006, 04:49:10 AM »

But yeah time to go....I'm headed over next year and I'm not even back from this one.

GigantorX · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:13:25 AM »

Okay, before we all get nuts, take into account how this number was reached. The poll taker asked 1800 Iraqi families in an area, or several areas (I forget) the number of dead they have. The pollsters then extrapolated that number over the entire country and boom, we have 655,000 dead. This number is not like someone counted exactly 655,000 dead Iraqi's in a hanger somewhere, at best this is guess work because there is no real way to accurately get the total number of the dead. Even if it is half that, it is still a large number, but we have to take into account how the number was aquired.

Also, where were the 1800 Iraqi families located? Were they taken from every province? from a few? The media loves to throw these numbers around for maximum shock effect without telling anyone how these numbers were aquired in the first place.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:30:36 AM »

Quote from: GigantorX on October 13, 2006, 10:13:25 AM

Okay, before we all get nuts, take into account how this number was reached. The poll taker asked 1800 Iraqi families in an area, or several areas (I forget) the number of dead they have. The pollsters then extrapolated that number over the entire country and boom, we have 655,000 dead. This number is not like someone counted exactly 655,000 dead Iraqi's in a hanger somewhere, at best this is guess work because there is no real way to accurately get the total number of the dead. Even if it is half that, it is still a large number, but we have to take into account how the number was aquired.

Also, where were the 1800 Iraqi families located? Were they taken from every province? from a few? The media loves to throw these numbers around for maximum shock effect without telling anyone how these numbers were aquired in the first place.

Sounds like junk science to me.

Colossus_500 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 13, 2006, 11:44:13 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on October 13, 2006, 10:30:36 AM

Sounds like junk science to me.

yep.

240 is Back · « **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2006, 11:49:02 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on October 13, 2006, 10:30:36 AM

Sounds like junk science to me.

Here is the group that did the study:
http://www.jhsph.edu/dept/

has anyone heard of this "Johns hopkins" guy? Sounds like some kinda crazy liberal CTer.

Cavalier22 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2006, 12:29:26 PM »

the vast majority of respected pollsters and datagatherors from various nations have called it "junk science"

Cavalier22 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2006, 12:31:24 PM »

http://decision08.net/2006/10/12/prominent-statistician-and-bush-opponent-calls-lancet-study-unreliable/

Cavalier22 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2006, 12:32:46 PM »

"As one blogger points out, the study claims that more Iraqi civilians have been killed over the last three years than were German civilians killed during five years of intense Allied bombing during World War II."

"Even the study acknowledges that two-thirds of these supposed 600,000-plus civilian deaths were caused by insurgents and sectarian violence, not by the Allied forces"

240 is Back · « **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2006, 12:40:32 PM »

I think we all agree that Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence kills far more people than anything we do. Both numbers are being downplayed, however.

If the White house believes the 655,000 number is incorrect, I am sure he'll be commissioning several independent groups to do a more complete analysis to find better numbes, right?

ToxicAvenger · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2006, 12:55:19 PM »

Quote from: Colossus_500 on October 13, 2006, 11:44:13 AM

yep.

MIT = junk science..these folks have been paid millions to do similar studies for AMERICAN elections and some in africa with precision results...

and now its junk science...the smartest college on this planet is junk....

please for the love of God..de mouth bush cock...i swear even condi would be in awe..

BayGBM · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2006, 02:21:43 PM »

Quote from: ToxicAvenger! on October 13, 2006, 12:55:19 PM

and now its junk science...the smartest college on this planet is junk....

Um, MIT is not the smartest college... Cal Tech is.

http://www.caltech.edu/

danielson · « **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2006, 02:48:09 PM »

Quote from: BayGBM on October 13, 2006, 02:21:43 PM

Um, MIT is not the smartest college... Cal Tech is.

http://www.caltech.edu/

Then why wasn't Will Hunting a janitor at Cal Tech?

240 is Back · « **Reply #24 on:** October 13, 2006, 03:25:10 PM »

Quote from: danielson on October 13, 2006, 02:48:09 PM

Then why wasn't Will Hunting a janitor at Cal Tech?

The movie was bad enough with his annoying Boston accent. imagine it with a fake surfer accent.