It really WAS about the OIL!!
Roc @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:30 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
It comes from a reliable source. If you don't like the number produce another from another reliable source. Of course your military refuses to count any dead but their own. 
A reliable source? Like Brokaw? Jennings? Ah, Rather maybe?
The CBC!?
Rev_Blair @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:56 pm
The Lancet actually...a respected medical journal.
Roc @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:04 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
The Lancet actually...a respected medical journal.
Journalists from a medical mag actually witnessed 100,000 Iraqis being snuffed?
Rev_Blair @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:12 pm
They did a scientific study based on medical and death certificates issued to Iraqis. They asked that others do independent peer reviews (according to the scientific method) of their study to ensure its veracity. As far as I know there have been no other results returned that were carried out according to the scientific method.
Roc @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:21 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
They did a scientific study based on medical and death certificates issued to Iraqis. They asked that others do independent peer reviews (according to the scientific method) of their study to ensure its veracity. As far as I know there have been no other results returned that were carried out according to the scientific method.
All the fancy research, scientific no less, THEN Brokaw reports it? Right?
RUEZ @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:22 pm
Unless it was from Fox News, he probably wouldn't believe it anyway. 
Roc @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:25 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Unless it was from Fox News, he probably wouldn't believe it anyway.
I take them all with a grain of salt.
Rev_Blair @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:38 pm
Every major news organisation on the planet reported it because it was a significant piece of research, Roc.
Roc @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:06 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Every major news organisation on the planet reported it because it was a significant piece of research, Roc.
Wow!
I did a search of every major news outlet, no mention of 100,000 Iraqis being killed. What gives?
Rev_Blair @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:16 pm
Okay, now you're just being silly. Type "100,000 Iraqis" into Google and you get 255,000 results. The first page has Znet, Guardian, CBC, Johns Hopkins, CNN, MSNBC, Rense, al Jazeera, MSN, and Direland...in that order.
Did you want me to list page two for you as well?
RUEZ @ Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:19 pm
Roc Roc:
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Every major news organisation on the planet reported it because it was a significant piece of research, Roc.
Wow!
I did a search of every major news outlet, no mention of 100,000 Iraqis being killed. What gives?
Seriously man it took me two seconds to find an article about that, now your just not trying.
Iraq Civilian Deaths
Roc @ Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:23 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Roc Roc:
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Every major news organisation on the planet reported it because it was a significant piece of research, Roc.
Wow!
I did a search of every major news outlet, no mention of 100,000 Iraqis being killed. What gives?
Seriously man it took me two seconds to find an article about that, now your just not trying.
Iraq Civilian Deaths
You really believe that tripe?
Robair @ Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:42 pm
Roc Roc:
You really believe that tripe?guardian
cbc
cnn
msnbc
economist
aljazeera
abc
usatoday
All good sources and all stories explain how the number was attained and any possible problems with the data.
But I'm assuming all you'll believe is this 'tripe':
foxnews
foxnews foxnews:
Or how about the constantly cited figure of 100,000 Iraqis killed by Americans since the war began, a statistic thrown about with total and irresponsible abandon by war opponents. That number, which should be disputed at every turn by those who care about the truth of what is going on in Iraq, came from a controversial study by the British journal of medicine The Lancet (search).
It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize.
As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts. Iraq’s Health Ministry estimates by comparison that all told, 3,853 Iraqis have been killed and 15,517 wounded.
It is five to six times higher than the highest estimates from other sources of all Iraqi deaths, either military or civilian. The Lancet study relied on reporting of deaths self-reported by 998 families from clusters of 33 households throughout Iraq, a very limited sample from which to generalize.
As a recent article in the Financial Times reported on Nov. 19, even the Lancet study’s authors are now having second thoughts. Iraq’s Health Ministry estimates by comparison that all told, 3,853 Iraqis have been killed and 15,517 wounded.
Sooo... the lowest estimate is 3,853 dead Iraqis. The Iraqis you are liberating. That number is estimated by Iraq's Health Ministry...
Iraq's Health Ministry ordered to stop counting civilian dead from war
IRAQ: Health ministry fights corruption
Time to do some critical thinking, Roc. Use your head. A bombing campaign so large, it dwarfs anything seen during desert storm and there will be minimal civilian casualties?
Roc @ Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:05 pm
Robair Robair:
Time to do some critical thinking, Roc. Use your head. A bombing campaign so large, it dwarfs anything seen during desert storm and there will be minimal civilian casualties?
Is this the same bombing campaign that is producing 24 terrorist for every 10 we kill? Just curious.
Gangrenous @ Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:07 am
Huh. Curiously, out of all your worrying about why George Dubya did his thing and its impact on the US, you've forgotten a major point.
Your country. Where do you think Canuckistan fits into all of this??????
PS...... Hey Rev