new study 655k dead

new study 655k dead (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 4:48:01 AM)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

Sanity -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 8:12:03 AM)
quote: "The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations". So, how long will we have to wait until a study that gives a far lower number of casualties makes headline news

pahunkboy -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 8:14:16 AM)
well- I hesitated to post this. But to not post it- would have been worse.

philosophy -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 8:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: "The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations". So, how long will we have to wait until a study that gives a far lower number of casualties makes headline news ...when such a survey is roundly lambasted for using poor experimental protocol probably.

farglebargle -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 9:27:17 AM)
Well, it's been A YEAR since the MIT/Johns Hopkins/Lancet study was released. And their range was 300k - 900k. So what number do you like for the number of dead Iraqis YOU are directly responsible for? A year later, are we at the 600k number yet? How many more dead do YOU want to be DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR? None? Then start agitating.

pahunkboy -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 9:31:18 AM)
directly resposable? 0.

Alumbrado -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 9:41:57 AM)
You are failing to follow FB's logic... because you personally have not put a bullet in the head of any cops who failed to arrest the President, everything is your fault. Because FB has failed to follow a single one of his demands on others he is a freaking genius, and morally superior.[:D]

pahunkboy -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 9:47:44 AM)
In the mean time who would one guesses will pay the tab? [aside from the Iraqis of course]

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 11:08:31 AM)
This study is actually a year old. But remember it when the war apologists try to cite the Iraq Body Count figures, which are an extremely low-ball count of only violence-related deaths that have been confirmed by multiple media sources (in a country in which there was severe censorship over just this kind of reporting - civilian deaths - by the Coalition Provisional Authority set up by those champions of free media themselves, the Bush Administration). Deaths due to the war count ALL deaths due to the war - even when they are indirectly caused by a crushed medical and public sanitation infrastructure due to our magnanimous self-confirmed decision to invade a country that hadn't attacked us.

farglebargle -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 11:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado You are failing to follow FB's logic... because you personally have not put a bullet in the head of any cops who failed to arrest the President, everything is your fault. Because FB has failed to follow a single one of his demands on others he is a freaking genius, and morally superior.[:D] Heckuva Leap there from: quote: How many more dead do YOU want to be DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR? None? Then start agitating. To what happened inside your head.

pahunkboy -> RE: new study 655k dead (10/10/2007 12:07:26 PM)
I changed my mind. I am completely responsable. I am responsible in direct proportion to the amount of influence and power I have, pardom me while I empty my Swiss and Cayman Island secret accounts.,

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

1.171875E-02