If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving the community | David Brooks | Instrument Flight Rules | 556 | November 30th 04 08:08 PM |
Female pilot killed in action | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 6th 04 11:39 PM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Why the Royal Australian Air Force went for Israeli Python-4 AAM's over US AIM-9L's | Urban Fredriksson | Military Aviation | 79 | July 19th 03 03:33 AM |
Four crewmembers killed in Sigonella copter crash | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 17th 03 09:57 PM |