Iraq conflict has killed a MILLION people: Study, page 10
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 09:22 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by ProTo Fire Fox


Did you read the previous 9 pages before posting? That 1 million dead figure is not Gospel truth.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by BlueRaja]


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 09:33 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by _Phoenix_


I don't even want to nuke the middle east, and I'm frequently accused of being a warmonger.


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 09:40 AM by _Phoenix_
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by _Phoenix_


I don't even want to nuke the middle east, and I'm frequently accused of being a warmonger.

I know you dont lol.
The question was towards someone who does!

A lot of these comments are not personally towards you, a lot of us know that many soliders are there because they think they are doing the right thing, a lot of these people are just against the idea of GWB and his plans, not you personally, well maybe some are lol.


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 09:41 AM by tetragrammation
if people doubt this statistic look here:

www.opinion.co.uk...

this came out in september. it's worth reading, as it covers the study in detail.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by tetragrammation]


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 09:43 AM by _Phoenix_
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by _Phoenix_


I don't even want to nuke the middle east, and I'm frequently accused of being a warmonger.

I know you dont lol.
The question was towards someone who does!

A lot of these comments are not personally towards you, a lot of us know that many soliders are there because they think they are doing the right thing, a lot of these people are just against the idea of GWB and his plans, not you personally, well maybe some are lol.


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 09:52 AM by jerico65
reply to post by tetragrammation



"In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,499 adults aged 18+ answered the following question......

Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063"


1,499? That's how many people the interviewed, then they worked that out to 1.5 million? That's a huge leap of faith. I don't buy that.


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 10:01 AM by tetragrammation
reply to post by jerico65


yes but that's why they've considered a margin of error.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by tetragrammation]


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 10:06 AM by willywagga
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Conspiriology




As for the value of the life of someone that indescriminately kills their fellow countrymen, Americans, and anyone else that doesn't kowtow to their thuggery- I'm sorry but I have no pity for their demise. They've consciously chosen to be in the liability column of life. I don't view them equally with someone going about their business, causing no harm to others.


Your talking about american soldiers there, right bud, I mean thats what they're doing right, indiscriminately killing their fellow countrymen and anyone else who doesn't kowtow to their thuggery. Yup sounds like US troop actions to me. Lets face it they're Scum.




[edit on 31-1-2008 by willywagga]


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 10:09 AM by BlueRaja
reply to post by tetragrammation


They've used an incorrect model, so while their statistical margin of error may be what they claim, it doesn't mean that it reflects the ground truth.
Earlier in this thread I gave an example, which I'll repost-

If your polling group in the early 80s about HIV/AIDS was comprised of Gay men, and Intravenous drug users, what statistic do you think would have been reached with regards to the numbers of people with HIV/AIDS.
Do you think it might be much higher than what the incidence of HIV/AIDS was in the general population? Now if you poll people in areas where there's been a lot of violence, or where their family members were insurgents, do you think the death rate might be higher, than say in areas where there hasn't been a lot of violence or in families that didn't have insurgent members? That's why you can't rely on statistics that don't have any other corroborating evidence to support them(numbers of attacks, numbers of dead/wounded in attacks, numbers of reported deaths by families, numbers of reported deaths by hospitals/doctors, numbers of bodies seen/buried).


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 10:10 AM by Harlequin
reply to post by BlueRaja


Fullajah 2004 , US forces used white phosphorus in widespread attacks against civilian targets in direct contravension of the geneva conventions -there is eye witness and video evidence.

ergo the US has bombed an iraqi city to the ground.


reply posted on 31-1-2008 @ 10:14 AM by BlueRaja
Originally posted by willywagga
Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Conspiriology




As for the value of the life of someone that indescriminately kills their fellow countrymen, Americans, and anyone else that doesn't kowtow to their thuggery- I'm sorry but I have no pity for their demise. They've consciously chosen to be in the liability column of life. I don't view them equally with someone going about their business, causing no harm to others.


Your talking about american soldiers there, right bud, I mean thats what they're doing right, indiscriminately killing their fellow countrymen and anyone else who doesn't kowtow to their thuggery. Yup sounds like US troop actions to me. Lets face it they're Scum.




[edit on 31-1-2008 by willywagga]



Care to back that claim up? I'd love to see examples of the frequency that US troops detonate car bombs, or themselves in crowded public areas, or murder people that want to join the police force/military, etc...or belong to different towns/religious groups.
Pages: <<  7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^