Hamas leader killed.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.

What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health problems
(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).

Thanks, that is what I thought :-))

Al Minyard

I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes along,
just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would like
to believe.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:35 -0500, "Josh Dougherty" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.

What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health problems
(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).

Thanks, that is what I thought :-))

Al Minyard

I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes along,
just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would like
to believe.

You come here with your fantastic, fictional claims and then berate me for
accepting facts. That is utterly stupid.
Get a life.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:35 -0500, "Josh Dougherty"
wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT
more
than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.

What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot
of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health
problems
(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).

Thanks, that is what I thought :-))

Al Minyard

I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes
along,
just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would
like
to believe.

You come here with your fantastic, fictional claims and then berate me for
accepting facts. That is utterly stupid.
Get a life.

Which "fantastic, fictional claims" are you referring to? Please point them
out to me.

And yes I berate you for blindly accepting "facts" (iow fantastic fictional
claims such as "lots of double-counting") simply because they support your
pre-existing prejudice.

In article ,
"Josh Dougherty" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT more
than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good rant.

What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

The loonies over at the Associated Press released a study of only the first
month, which only checked half of Iraq's hospitals, and they told us that
more than a couple thousand people were killed during the war.

But, as anyone whow read any of the Iraq coverage would know, most of
the hard fighting in cities came from Iraqi military and foreign
mercenaries dressed in civilian clothes.

Specifically, they said over 3,200 *civilians* died in that first month, not
just "people", which would also include the unknown thousands of soldiers
that were killed (but I can't *name* them all, so they don't exist). AP
also issued a disclaimer in this report saying specifically that their tally
was incomplete and an undercount.

One of the big assumptions was that "thousands of soldiers" died, but a
lot of the military just plain ran, leaving their equipment to be blown
up in place. There was very little actual fighting against large Iraqi
formations.

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Could you point to a few of these instances of double-counting, so I can
check them?

Look at all of the "X number of deaths reported at Y Hospital" during
some time periods, and then note the number of overlapping deaths in the
same cities over that same time lapse, recorded individually.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Josh Dougherty" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT
more
than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.

What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

The loonies over at the Associated Press released a study of only the
first
month, which only checked half of Iraq's hospitals, and they told us
that
more than a couple thousand people were killed during the war.

But, as anyone whow read any of the Iraq coverage would know, most of
the hard fighting in cities came from Iraqi military and foreign
mercenaries dressed in civilian clothes.

Specifically, they said over 3,200 *civilians* died in that first month,
not
just "people", which would also include the unknown thousands of
soldiers
that were killed (but I can't *name* them all, so they don't exist). AP
also issued a disclaimer in this report saying specifically that their
tally
was incomplete and an undercount.

One of the big assumptions was that "thousands of soldiers" died, but a
lot of the military just plain ran, leaving their equipment to be blown
up in place. There was very little actual fighting against large Iraqi
formations.

The assumption that thousands of soldiers died came from no less than the
lips of US military personnel. And from the lips of hospital and journalist
sources on the scene, and from every study (though few) that's been done on
it.

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot
of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Could you point to a few of these instances of double-counting, so I can
check them?

Look at all of the "X number of deaths reported at Y Hospital" during
some time periods, and then note the number of overlapping deaths in the
same cities over that same time lapse, recorded individually.

I guess I have to ask again. Could you point to an instance where there is
double-counting? There's supposedly "lots", so I don't think pointing out
one or two instances of it should be very hard.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:59:21 -0500, "Josh Dougherty" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:53:35 -0500, "Josh Dougherty"
wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:53:15 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:50:19 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:

Let it be absolutely clear that this most recent war killed LOT
more
than
5000 people. But hey, lets not get the facts on the way of a good
rant.

What is your source for casualty numbers?

Any time anyone tells us that more than a couple of thousand people
were
killed during the war, it means "iraqbodycount.net."

Of course, they can only *name* a few hundred out of that number, and
their entire methodology stinks (lots of double-counting), but a lot
of
the loonier folks swear by it.

Not to mention that they include all deaths, including postwar attacks
by terrorists who are going after Iraqis and theoretical health
problems
(they included that in their methodology, but the dire warnings of
infrastructure and health system collapse never happened).

Thanks, that is what I thought :-))

Al Minyard

I know it's easy to accept whatever comes along that confirms an existing
prejudice, but you should use a little more discretion before immediately
accepting the claims of someone that is making up 'facts' as he goes
along,
just because those 'facts' support what you already thought, or would
like
to believe.

You come here with your fantastic, fictional claims and then berate me for
accepting facts. That is utterly stupid.
Get a life.

Which "fantastic, fictional claims" are you referring to? Please point them
out to me.

And yes I berate you for blindly accepting "facts" (iow fantastic fictional
claims such as "lots of double-counting") simply because they support your
pre-existing prejudice.


OFCS

PLONK

Al Minyard