It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

page: 16
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


They have been provided - you can review them by looking through the thread. I have no intention of repeating posts ad nauseum because you can't be bothered to look




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


There have been posts with observable evidence showing 400-800 Iraqi civilians KIA every single day since the US entered Iraq?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


There have been posts showing numbers of civilian casualties.
Go back and read them.

Averaging them out daily doesn't work - it's a nonsense, and is designed to deflect from the fact that you have been consistently proved wrong on every issue.

I say again - go back through the thread - all the reports, links and numbers are there.

Or are you AGAIN saying that you know more than John Hopkins inst. and The Lancet, to name but two?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


What I am saying is that if a claim is made(i.e. John's Hopkins, Lancet), there should be corresponding evidence that would support that claim. Their figures are based on statistics, not on how much violence has actually been witnessed. I am saying if the claim and the evidence can't be reconciled, then perhaps they should take another look at their numbers. Most every other guess(i.e. UN, World Health Organization, etc...) has been considerably lower- 80,000-150,000.

www.cbc.ca...

"Since taking over the administration of their own country in late June 2004, the Iraqis have stepped up their efforts to keep track. In January 2007, Iraqi authorities reported that 16,273 Iraqis, including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers, died violent deaths in 2006."

" Keeping track: counting or calculating?
One organization has been keeping track of what it calls Iraqi "civilians" killed since the beginning of the war: a group of academics in both the United States and Britain calling themselves Iraq Body Count.

By tracking — and rigorously checking — media reports of deaths, the group has kept a running total of Iraqis reported killed during the major combat phase of the war"

"the numbers that appear on iraqbodycount.net are estimates based on actual reports of real people killed.

That's in contrast to the numbers contained in a study released in fall 2004 by the British medical journal The Lancet. That study surveyed Iraqi households and compared death rates before the invasion to those after, and concluded about 100,000 civilians are likely dead because of the coalition military action.

That number is an estimate extrapolated from a survey. While it might reflect the reality in Iraq, it might not."





[edit on 28-1-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If we don't average out the numbers as I did, then there would have to be days where thousands or tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed. That level of violence simply hasn't been witnessed. That level of violence hasn't occured since WWII.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
You talk about witnessed events in the same breath as you dismiss the lancet report?
This only shows you haven't read it.

The figures you suggest are from one source, not "many"

I repeat - This information has been previously posted - try reading it.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Let's not beat around the bush- you're not gonna accept any info if it doesn't coincide with your views. I've tried to use logic(i.e. how many things exploded today, how many dead people did we find nearby that explosion, etc..= roughly how many people died today). If the claim isn't sufficiently negative enough, it simply must be inaccurate using your acumen.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 






I've posted more than one source, unlike yourself, and so have others.

You seem to think that your military can do no wrong - history and reports from the current illegal war indicate otherwise.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Even when I post the methodology(counting reported deaths vs. conducting surveys), you still can't concede that the statistics you believe may be wrong. Using my question with regards to the observed fatalities, attacks, etc... you won't answer how the numbers could get up into the range you're wanting to believe. You accuse me of arrogance because I disagree with reports that just don't make sense, and who am I to disagree with Lancet/John's Hopkins- they must be right. If I make strong case, then you just say well- it's an illegal war so nothing else matters anyhow. I'd love to hear you defend your point of view, rather than just post a link, or say it's already been discussed.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I have defended my case with many posts and sources - rather than ONE which you take as right simply because it falls at the low end of the scale and agrees with your views about the shambles that your government led you into.

You have provided NOTHING except one source.

You have tried to say that the UN view doesn't matter - except when you want it to (little lesson learned from bush there, eh?)

You have brought nothing to the table except for a belief that the military can do no wrong.

You try to twist and turn and wriggle when each of your (rather sad) points has been utterly destroyed, in the hope of spinning an acceptable face on the killing of innocents.

Sorry, but it won't work.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You have defended your case by citing Lancet and John's Hopkins, while dismissing any other possibility. You haven't yet explained how the reality on the ground can be reconciled with the numbers you're quoting as foregone truth. You quote the UN too, when it suits your needs(pot- this is skillet- come in, over....)



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I have been consistent with the UN line all through the debate.

I would rather take the word of two highly respected institutes (as well as other sources cited) than the quite laughable "iraqbodycount"

I have yet to see any sources from "on the ground"
Unless you mean your "I'm a soldier so I know everything" which is really very weak - unless of course you're a general or a member of the general staff - which I doubt, given what you have shown.
For that matter, we have only your word that you can even point to iraq on a map, let alone been there.

Example
"Hey I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago, and I saw a plane trying ever so hard to miss all the civilians, in the civilian area it was bombing"

Doesn't really work that one, does it.

Once again - just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You say Iraq Body Count is laughable, but at least every number they use has been checked against a known fatality. There may be more than what they are saying, but when you're not dealing with known info- it's merely how much speculation you're willing to accept. Are the UN, and WHO numbers laughable to you as well?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I have posted my thoughts and opinions on this matter many times.

If you can't remember, please review the thread.

If you want to bicker, find someone else.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


So it's your opinion that the numbers that Lancet/John's Hopkins have asserted are more accurate? It's my opinion that they're less accurate. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Whatever.

If you had brought anything worthwhile to the table, I may have reconsidered, but iraqbodycount has been shown to be extremely flawed - more so than other sources.

I submitted that the scale was somewhere in the middle - this still means hundreds of thousands of death, but you chose to ignore that to try and spin the figures.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


What I have done is look at the reports of violence, the casualty figures in these events, and used that as a baseline figure to go from. To give figures that are multiples of these observed events is a bit shaky. I've never said figures may not be higher than Iraq Body Count. It's when you start using figures that are 5-10x higher or more, that I have to question the accuracy. When there are mass casualty events, they tend to get noticed. All I'm saying is that you're not gonna have large numbers of these events go unnoticed. They would've happened in high population density areas, so there'd be large numbers of witnesses- Iraqi, media, military, etc.. It'd also be readily apparent if the casualties were caused by miltary action, or from an IED, etc.. All of this info could be used to formulate an accurate picture of what had happened. Conducting a survey is simply not going to answer the how, where, when, why, what, who, questions.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I'm sure that john hopkins/lancet is aware of how to compile stats.

The lancet report has been shown to have an accuracy of +/- 2.5% in other conflicts and has therefore been shown to be a reliable indicator.

Or are you telling me that your flawed methodology is better?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


The questions you have to ask are not whether or not my methodology is sound. It's whether or not other organizations that have numbers significantly different than Lancet/John's Hopkins are unsound. Whether anybody verified the Lancet/John's Hopkins stats from other conflicts to see if they were accurate? Do the statistics jive with observable events?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


The statistics from the studies in places like Kosovo were found to be accurate to within the stated margin of error +/- 2.5% using exactly the same methodology, when crosschecked with the bureau of census.

Interestingly, the poll was not conducted in three regions

For security reasons Karbala and Al Anbar were not included. Irbil was excluded as the authorities refused our field team a permit.

source

This would skew the figures - if the two most dangerous regions were not used, then the estimates would be even higher.
There is no record of why investigators were refused a permit to enter Irbil.

IBC takes its source from only TWO western media sources, both highly suspect regarding impartiality, and accuracy.



[edit on 28/1/2008 by budski]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join