My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« Bush's War Turning Troops into Bloodthirsty Killers | Main | 1 Down, 224,999,999 Christians to Go »

Comments

ooh!

"'close to best practice' is an interview "where they can't show anyone where the bodies are buried."

Less than a third of deaths take place in hospitals. Two-thirds or more occur away from hospitals and the bodies are buried immediately in accordance with Islamic law. Who said they couldn't show anyone where the bodies were buried?


"The interviewees themselves admitted they LIED about family members being dead simply because they didn't want the insurgents (NOT THE US) to come after them. So, they told the researches they were dead because it simplified things."

Why would the insurgents want to come after them? They said mothers and fathers and little kids and grannies had died, mostly from air strikes and bombings. Why would they need to say that so the insurgents wouldn't come after them?

Let's see now ... You're saying that someone went back and talked to all the people to whom the Lancet researchers spoke. And they all said they lied. Have I got that right? How did they find them all? Can you give me a source for all that please?

1) Joe, would you care to tell me anything that isn't a "leftist rag"?

2) How often have you watched the BBC?

(I think Joe ran away.)

aha

Shut up irish. yer a weasel. We watch weasels. And again, lack of evidence and hearsay does not a case make.

There were no bodies they could produce. And the KILLINGS OF THE JIHADISTS were included in the totals.
It mixes civilian deaths with combat deaths and conveniently places the blame on the US troops. Sanctions imposed by the UN and Saddam were also NOT taken into consideration.

Anti war Iraq Body Count blog disagrees with the Lancet study.

Justa Joe

Filth, you should stick to the soft sciences and stay away from numbers. You're embarrasing yourself.

1) Joe, would you care to tell me anything that isn't a "leftist rag"?

I'll leave that up to you to figure out. You're the person that scavenges the far-left websites for the cut & paste material.

2) How often have you watched the BBC?

Occasionaly when I'm overseas I'm subjected to that garbage, but I've seen enough to know it's biased crap. Surely I'm not the first person that has ever suggested to you that the BBC news service is soft left biased. Admittedly it is not as bad as the Independent or Alternet where you get most of your crap.

(I think Joe ran away.)- Filth
Why would I run away hammering your dumbass is fun.

"The UK government (and Iraqi and USA), too, rejected the researchers' conclusions. In doing so, it went against the advice of the Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, who had called the study "robust" and its methods "close to best practice" in an internal memo, dated 13 October, 2006."

Are you dense or illiterate? Roy Anderson was refering to the methodology. The British governmet does not accept the grossly inflated Lancet numbers. Saying something is "close to best practice" is hardly a ringing endorsement, and sure as hell isn't any type of tangible corroboration. Also not having seen the memo I'm not even sure of the context of those statements. Sounds like PC BS.

The Iraq body count (IBC), the Iraqi Ministry of Health, US Dept. of Defence, The LA Times, and even the UN come up with numbers ranging from 50K to 150K. I guess they're all wrong, and the lancet "Survey" is accurate. The 50K number is the only number which actually comes from an actual documented body count and even that count doesn't differentiate between Terrorist caused death's and combat deaths.

http://www.pkblogs.com/biased-bbc/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

Justa Joe

Uh oh... Filth,

It turns out that the zoologist, Sir Roy Anderson, is just a leftist political hack, who has been involved in other questionable political "epidemiological studies." He in no way speaks for the British Govt. He is an "adviser." His memo is in opposition to the WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENT RESPONDING TO A LANCET STUDY ON IRAQI CASUALTY FIGURES (17/11/04)

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1100183680513

"The design of the Lancet study and its statistical methodology passed the process of peer review before publication and is similar to that followed in cases where the data are difficult to obtain. But that should not mask the fact that any methodology critically depends on the accuracy of the data subject to its analysis."
In my opinion that's being very very politic.

"Sir" Roy Hanson is a hack show pony that the leftist trotted out to support their bogus study. He magically issued his memo 3 days after the release of the study. He proffers not a single fact to back up the study, just his assurance that the "methodology" is "robust." LOL This guy, Sir Roy, is pulling a similar media manufactured stunt as Joe Wilson.

Back in 1987 Anderson's mathematical talents again proved useful to a politician's election prospects. He was invited by Norway's prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland to help produce an "independent assessment" of how many minke whales Norwegians could sustainably kill each year... follow the link"---Private Eye, May 3, 2003

http://www.whale.to/m/f13.html

Joe, trying to discredit people by calling them "leftist" just won't work. Trying to discredit sources by calling them "leftist" just won't work either.

I asked you a question:

"According to you anything that comes from a 'leftist rag' is automatically fake. And anything that comes from the right is automatically true. Do I read you right?"

You deliberately don't answer.

I asked you another one:

"Would you care to tell me anything that isn't a "leftist rag"?"

You reply:

"I'll leave that up to you to figure out"

That's a coward's way out, Joe! You're just ducking the issue.

As for telling me that the UK and US governments don't agree with the Lancet study, that's not very impressive. *Of course* they wouldn't agree, when they're the ones who bombed the place to smithereens and then occupied it. You can't be that thick, surely.

"He magically issued his memo 3 days after the release of the study."

Why "magically" Joe? He could hardly have written the memo BEFORE they issued their report, could he?

Iraq Body Count say the following:

"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths -- which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

I have already written:

"Less than a third of deaths take place in hospitals. Two-thirds or more occur away from hospitals and the bodies are buried immediately in accordance with Islamic law."

Which is why the Iraq Ministry can't give an accurate count themselves.

"The design of the Lancet study and its statistical methodology passed the process of peer review before publication"

and it has NEVER been scientifically discredited by anyone -- just politicians in the UK and USA throwing cold water on it for obvious purposes.

Calling me, or anyone else, a "leftist" won't change the facts that I've posted above.

I'm not engaging in this further, Joe. I have already said on another thread that I won't be around. I'm only here to reply to you, and now I'm gone.

Speaking of coward's way out, you haven't answered any of our questions about your puppets, your support of jihad and now you are gone because you think politicians have discredited the Lancet study. The Lancet study is bogus because of the leftist methodology used (we call it spin) to prove something that isn't even supportable. There is simply no evidence for it. Not only that, the world's media would be all over a story like that were it actually true.

And you are gone. You come back and respond to this or Joe, you will have shown yourself to be the bloody liar you are. You have said you are leaving, so do as you have said, coward.

Justa Joe

#1 "According to you anything that comes from a 'leftist rag' is automatically fake. And anything that comes from the right is automatically true. Do I read you right?"...You deliberately don't answer. " - Filth

No, You don't read me right. There is your answer. Now maybe you'll consider answering other peoples questions for a change. You ignore every question that pins you down. As far as sources go. I'm not going to bother with that because you know damn well that you get your cut & paste opinion pieces from the wackiest of far-left sources, which I have demonstrated numerous times on this thread. Doctor, heal thyself.

#2 As for telling me that the UK and US governments don't agree with the Lancet study, that's not very impressive. *Of course* they wouldn't agree, when they're the ones who bombed the place to smithereens and then occupied it. You can't be that thick, surely

There is no entity except your far-left fellow travellers that put any creadence in the Lancet "survey." It's very illustrating though that you think everyone is wrong except the lancet "study." If you had bothered to read any of the links I posted you would see that even some level headed lefties have criticized the "survey" for its gross inaccuracy.

#3 Why "magically" Joe? He could hardly have written the memo BEFORE they issued their report, could he?

You may want to play the fool, but I won't. This lefty political hack puts out a vague memo in support of this farce before criticism has even begun? Within 3 days he's assessed the methodology of this thing from top to bottom? Subsequently other experts have ripped this POS "survey" assunder. Maybe "Sir" Roy can look into the other millions of polls and surveys that are wrong and tell us that they were "close to best practice." LOL

#4 "Less than a third of deaths take place in hospitals. Two-thirds or more occur away from hospitals and the bodies are buried immediately in accordance with Islamic law."

Dumbfuck, Your defeating your own argument if you knew anything about math. Even if they under-counted by a 2/3 (which is pure conjecture with no corroborating data. We're talking about mostly urban areas) you still can't get number that even begins to approach 655K.

#5 and it has NEVER been scientifically discredited by anyone -- just politicians in the UK and USA throwing cold water on it for obvious purposes.

You sound like Dan Rather. You shouldn't lie when anyone can read the previously provided links. There are scientist galore that discredit this sham. It doesn't even pass a common sense test. If other NGO, Govt's, UN, MSM, are presenting much much lower numbers by definition they are discrediting the Lancet report. Also the IBC is a left-wing anti-war grouphardly sympathetic to the Brit/USA Govt.
The history books are full of "peer reviewd" "robust" studies that turned out to be bunk, and the authors usually go to their graves never admitting error just like Dan Rather.

Justa Joe

It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." -IBC c/o Filth

Or just as likely that they are over-reported by the Media.

Justa Joe

"Less than a third of deaths take place in hospitals. Two-thirds or more occur away from hospitals and the bodies are buried immediately in accordance with Islamic law." - Filth

Ya gotta love liberal trash like Filth.
This is just like how Democrats count votes. Just pull any number out of your ass as long as it works in your favor.

Justa Joe

Don't you love the rank hypocrisy of the leftist scum like Filth.

The Coalition forces unearth literally hundreds of thousands of actual Bodies (+500K) from mass graves that were murdered by the deposed Baathist Regime.

Liberal Reaction: Denial, Dismissal, and Yawn

Lancet "Survey": "interviews" a relative handful of families and reportedly "finds" "~547" casualties then guessitimates another 655K with nary a shread of actual proof.

Now the liberals are wetting their pants, tearing their hair out, and going into convulsions of grief and guilt...

Not really they're just bashing the USA.

No, troll coward irish went to another thread. Liar.

Costa Rica Property

Costa Rica Real Estate.
To find a property in Paradise visit http://www.firstrealtycr.com a name you can trust in Costa Rica Real Estate

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From