| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2005 08:37:54 PM |
| Object: |
Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
--
"A post edit is not a forgery. The entire post is
under my name. I can post whatever I want. I even
documented my correction to your post."
-Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> explaining why he forged
text and falsely attributed it to me.
<yOCdnRiVUdGQwUXcRVn-iQ@rcn.net>
news:yOCdnRiVUdGQwUXcRVn-iQ@rcn.net
.
|
|
| User: "Liberals,HATE America! ." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 10:09:47 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies posted by another crazed neocom.
"Lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity,"
What a crock of left-wing *****!
--
"Look at the murdering thugs in US military uniforms
storming through Iraq, murdering as they go."
- Jefferson Brady, Proud America-Hating, left-wing Liberal Democrat
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 11:39:38 AM |
|
|
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.ht
ml? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies
there are a few low-end, crazed neocons who say that when they are
confronted withn the horrors of bush's illegal invasion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 11:45:30 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns95E780CA7DC70keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.ht
ml? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies
there are a few low-end, crazed neocons who say that when they are
confronted withn the horrors of bush's illegal invasion.
More than a few, I'm afraid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 10:20:26 AM |
|
|
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in message
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2...
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies posted by another crazed neocom.
"Lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity,"
What a crock of left-wing *****!
What else do you expect? Although it is rare, there are some liberals that
do actually care and are very intelligent, conscious. However; from
witnessing some of the left wingers in here, I realize that most of them are
so full of hate and bitterness. It must be sad to be so full of hate and
bitterness, they can't even enjoy life. Instead they sit in here and feed
off of each other with ad hominem remarks, muckraking, mudslinging,
name-calling, personal attacks, slanderous attacks, smear campaigns, and so
forth.
You will see a long list of them standing in line to make their remarks
about me after this post. Some of them at this time are spending hours
trying to research my life, it is absolutely amazing as to how little of a
life these people actually have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 10:55:36 AM |
|
|
In article <XJmdncpbXNbMU27cRVn-2w@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in message
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2...
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies posted by another crazed neocom.
"Lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity,"
What a crock of left-wing *****!
What else do you expect? Although it is rare, there are some liberals that
do actually care and are very intelligent, conscious.
Moron. Try to use real sentences when you spit out your hate.
However; from
witnessing some of the left wingers in here, I realize that most of them are
so full of hate and bitterness.
Right. That is why the Republican party is known as the party of hate.
It must be sad to be so full of hate and
bitterness, they can't even enjoy life. Instead they sit in here and feed
off of each other with ad hominem remarks, muckraking, mudslinging,
name-calling, personal attacks, slanderous attacks, smear campaigns, and so
forth.
You denying the truth doesn't make something untrue.
You will see a long list of them standing in line to make their remarks
about me after this post. Some of them at this time are spending hours
trying to research my life, it is absolutely amazing as to how little of a
life these people actually have.
From a loser guard who spends his life insulting people and abusing his
wife and children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:05:10 PM |
|
|
On 2005-01-23 08:55:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <XJmdncpbXNbMU27cRVn-2w@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in message
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2...
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies posted by another crazed neocom.
"Lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity,"
What a crock of left-wing *****!
What else do you expect? Although it is rare, there are some liberals
that do actually care and are very intelligent, conscious.
Moron. Try to use real sentences when you spit out your hate.
Hate is all he has.
However; from witnessing some of the left wingers in here, I realize
that most of them are so full of hate and bitterness.
Right. That is why the Republican party is known as the party of hate.
But as long as they win, they must be right.
It must be sad to be so full of hate and bitterness, they can't even
enjoy life. Instead they sit in here and feed off of each other with
ad hominem remarks, muckraking, mudslinging, name-calling, personal
attacks, slanderous attacks, smear campaigns, and so forth.
You denying the truth doesn't make something untrue.
Opsrey is pure lies. Does anyone buy his crap?
You will see a long list of them standing in line to make their remarks
about me after this post. Some of them at this time are spending hours
trying to research my life, it is absolutely amazing as to how little
of a life these people actually have.
From a loser guard who spends his life insulting people and abusing his
wife and children.
LOL! We expect nothing less.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:14:33 PM |
|
|
Elmo <anto@sales.com> wrote in news:2005012310051075249%anto@salescom:
Opsrey is pure lies. Does anyone buy his crap?
no one sane.
coward bobby is the abortion newsgroups most prolific liar.
"Liar. Having NO credibility.
.....
IMMATURE liar."
-xanadu222@mchsi.com (Craig Chilton) to ospery
Message-ID: <3e003cb4.45015725@netnews.mchsi.com>
"All you do is demonstrate that you are
a coward that can't support his position.
You toss this ***** around and
when people call you on it you claim
you won't discuss it. Cowardly.
....
And, again, don't expect to be treated with
any respect on this newsgroup if you continue
to avoid the difficult issues and only want
to talk about the easy ones. It is cowardly."
-David Barnes <dbarnes@barnsco.com> to ospery
Message-ID: <110320031640052091%dbarnes@barnsco.com>
"You're a chickenshit coward who hides behind
bars on the prison system. They know that
you have the entire state legal system to
protect your chickenshit little *****.
....
You don't respect anybody, chickenhawk.
That's why you keep running away every time
you're proven to be a dishonest coward."
(Ray Fischer) to ospery
Message-ID: <b4gb16$j03$1@bolt.sonic.net>
"Apparently, you feel that if someone doesn't believe your lies,
that you should continue to screech them over and over in an
attempt to convince someone that what you're saying has any
value. This isn't kindergarten Asspry, and no matter how many
times you screech your lies, they will continue to BE lies."
(pr0r3p) writing to coward osprey (bobby
heishman) in <1686c3b8.0401271759.27fa1e9e@posting.google.com>
"You're like the child who has cake all over his face, yet denies
having eaten the cake." (pr0r3p) writing to
coward osprey (bobby heishman)
in <1686c3b8.0401290731.17ace3b1@posting.google.com>
"You start with your scummy lies every time somebody
dares to tell the truth about you. You have so little understanding
of morals that you have used every despicable lie and then tried
to justify it by whining "they did it first""
(Ray Fischer) writing to coward bobby
heishman in <c71c0u$2ml$1@bolt.sonic.net>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:12:57 PM |
|
|
In article <2005012310051075249%anto@salescom>, Elmo <anto@sales.com>
wrote:
On 2005-01-23 08:55:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <XJmdncpbXNbMU27cRVn-2w@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in message
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2...
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies posted by another crazed neocom.
"Lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity,"
What a crock of left-wing *****!
What else do you expect? Although it is rare, there are some liberals
that do actually care and are very intelligent, conscious.
Moron. Try to use real sentences when you spit out your hate.
Hate is all he has.
And he has now gone off the deep end.
However; from witnessing some of the left wingers in here, I realize
that most of them are so full of hate and bitterness.
Right. That is why the Republican party is known as the party of hate.
But as long as they win, they must be right.
I guess. Down with Democracy!
It must be sad to be so full of hate and bitterness, they can't even
enjoy life. Instead they sit in here and feed off of each other with
ad hominem remarks, muckraking, mudslinging, name-calling, personal
attacks, slanderous attacks, smear campaigns, and so forth.
You denying the truth doesn't make something untrue.
Opsrey is pure lies. Does anyone buy his crap?
Of course not. Even he doesn't buy it.
You will see a long list of them standing in line to make their remarks
about me after this post. Some of them at this time are spending hours
trying to research my life, it is absolutely amazing as to how little
of a life these people actually have.
From a loser guard who spends his life insulting people and abusing his
wife and children.
LOL! We expect nothing less.
But it is sad for his family.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:14:11 PM |
|
|
On 2005-01-23 10:12:57 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <2005012310051075249%anto@salescom>, Elmo <anto@sales.com>
wrote:
On 2005-01-23 08:55:36 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <XJmdncpbXNbMU27cRVn-2w@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Liberals,HATE America! ." <ffrrrtt61@no776tgoyo.ed8> wrote in message
news:1106496663.8e7d47e34f6ab15b0f5ac22b26f667d5@meganetnews2...
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5DC11450CBkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
Another pack of lies posted by another crazed neocom.
"Lobbyists and lawmakers' aides, speaking on condition of anonymity,"
What a crock of left-wing *****!
What else do you expect? Although it is rare, there are some liberals
that do actually care and are very intelligent, conscious.
Moron. Try to use real sentences when you spit out your hate.
Hate is all he has.
And he has now gone off the deep end.
However; from witnessing some of the left wingers in here, I realize
that most of them are so full of hate and bitterness.
Right. That is why the Republican party is known as the party of hate.
But as long as they win, they must be right.
I guess. Down with Democracy!
It must be sad to be so full of hate and bitterness, they can't even
enjoy life. Instead they sit in here and feed off of each other with
ad hominem remarks, muckraking, mudslinging, name-calling, personal
attacks, slanderous attacks, smear campaigns, and so forth.
You denying the truth doesn't make something untrue.
Opsrey is pure lies. Does anyone buy his crap?
Of course not. Even he doesn't buy it.
You will see a long list of them standing in line to make their remarks
about me after this post. Some of them at this time are spending hours
trying to research my life, it is absolutely amazing as to how little
of a life these people actually have.
From a loser guard who spends his life insulting people and abusing his
wife and children.
LOL! We expect nothing less.
But it is sad for his family.
They should leave him
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
22 Jan 2005 11:39:58 AM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote on this subject
Without a definition of "civilian" that separates military
out of uniform from other fighters, and then from the
NON-combatants such numbers are meaningless.
It is pretty obvious that such "estimates" (read "guesses")
are NOT using the word non-combatants in order to
inflate the numbers.
Nor is any attempt made to show that the insurgents or
Bathist forces were responsible, directly or indirectly,
for almost all of those.
--
Herb Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 10:26:36 AM |
|
|
Herb Martin wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote on this subject
Without a definition of "civilian" that separates military
out of uniform from other fighters, and then from the
NON-combatants such numbers are meaningless.
It is pretty obvious that such "estimates" (read "guesses")
are NOT using the word non-combatants in order to
inflate the numbers.
Nor is any attempt made to show that the insurgents or
Bathist forces were responsible, directly or indirectly,
for almost all of those.
It is well known that some of the tactics that the enemy is using is to
dress like the civilians and blend in. Making the task of finding and
seperating the enemy very difficult. Not to mention the fact that we
know they are also using civilians to hide them, hide weapons, and even
using them as human shields.
Remember in the beginning of the war, they were using hospitals to hide
military targets?
You would think they would know this, as much as it has been splattered
on the news. The truth of the matter is, they are not interested in
telling the whole story..just the parts they want so they can get their
spin off. As I said before, and it is so overwelmingly obvious, they
never cared about the soldiers, they don't care about the civilians,
they don't care about the truth. The only thing many of these left
wingers care about is putting out propaganda, using people to do it,
and lying if they have too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:03:48 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:10:23 PM |
|
|
In article <vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the
rock!" (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against
a rock!" (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:14:42 PM |
|
|
On 2005-01-23 10:10:23 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." *****
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the
rock!" (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against
a rock!" (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
You have to love the Bible!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:13:20 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.htm
l? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
why would you post something so ignorant?
not a single unborn has been murdered, ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 03:30:48 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95E7868121ECkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html
? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
why would you post something so ignorant?
not a single unborn has been murdered, ever.
So your only defense is that abortion is currently legal.
Over 40,000,000 unborn have been slaughtered thanks to "tolerant" liberals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 04:18:04 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95E7868121ECkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html
? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
why would you post something so ignorant?
not a single unborn has been murdered, ever.
So your only defense is that abortion is currently legal.
And your only defense is that you're a liar?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 03:45:13 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in news:cIUId.1195$PB.821@okepread01:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95E7868121ECkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.h
tml ? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
why would you post something so ignorant?
not a single unborn has been murdered, ever.
So your only defense is that abortion is currently legal.
there is no need to defend against "duke's" lie. like all anti-choicers, he
has no choice but to misrepresent. you should be very familiar with that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:18:46 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns95E7868121ECkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.htm
l? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
why would you post something so ignorant?
not a single unborn has been murdered, ever.
They never let facts get in the way of their propaganda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
23 Jan 2005 12:42:28 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051018469492%spam@aol.com:
In article <Xns95E7868121ECkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>, james g.
keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:vmp7v0tehsslqtgbg5en1ttp198t80k7cc@4ax.com:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, "james g. keegan jr."
<keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.
htm l? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
And 46,106,000 innocent unborn murdered since Roe v Wade.
why would you post something so ignorant?
not a single unborn has been murdered, ever.
They never let facts get in the way of their propaganda.
the amusing thing is that no one sane believes them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey C. Dege" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
21 Jan 2005 11:48:23 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, james g. keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
There was a time, perhaps, when the NYT cared about the truth. But that
was long ago.
That "study" was a political hatchet job from the start:
Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is
certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than
previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.
Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an
article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to
wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the
research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the
election.
The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the
conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the
tens of thousands.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT
The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from
Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians
have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual
study, published online today by the British medical journal the
Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis
died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys
on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on
those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That
difference - the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion
period - signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the
passage that cites the calculation more fully:
We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000 - 194 000)
during the post-war period.
Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what
the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9
percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English - which,
disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95
percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number
between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain
language - 98,000 - is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast
range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win
somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this
Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that
something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is
true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went
terribly wrong with the sampling.
The problem is, ultimately, not with the scholars who conducted the
study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The
problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random
surveys - and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those
surveys - in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.
However, these scholars are responsible for the hype surrounding the
study. Gilbert Burnham, one of the co-authors, told the International
Herald Tribune (for a story reprinted in today's New York Times),
"We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative
estimate." Yet the text of the study reveals this is simply untrue.
Burnham should have said, "We're not quite sure what our estimate
means. Assuming our model is accurate, the actual death toll might be
100,000, or it might be somewhere between 92,000 lower and 94,000
higher than that number."
Not a meaty headline, but truer to the findings of his own study.
Here's how the Johns Hopkins team - which, for the record, was led by
Dr. Les Roberts of the university's Bloomberg School of Public
Health - went about its work. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods
across Iraq - equal-sized population "clusters" - and, this past
September, set out to interview 30 households in each. They asked how
many people in each household died, of what causes, during the 14
months before the U.S. invasion - and how many died, of what, in the 17
months since the war began. They then took the results of their random
sample and extrapolated them to the entire country, assuming that
their 33 clusters were perfectly representative of all Iraq.
This is a time-honored technique for many epidemiological studies, but
those conducting them have to take great care that the way they select
the neighborhoods is truly random (which, as most poll-watchers of any
sort know, is difficult under the easiest of circumstances). There's a
further complication when studying the results of war, especially a
war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage
is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few
areas.
The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33
clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most
heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to
extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More
awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that
the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the
dilemma by issuing two sets of figures - one with Fallujah, the other
without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the
set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the
set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was
nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from
it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some
peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some
peculiarity in the survey's methodology?
There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some
of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some
cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more
accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's
unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour
destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted.
In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to
interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again,
at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are
suspect.
Beth Osborne Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's
Institution for Social and Policy Studies, put the point
diplomatically after reading the Lancet article this morning and
discussing it with me in a phone conversation: "It attests to the
difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. ... No one
can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the
sorts of methods used here."
The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do
with the limits imposed by wartime - and this flaw suggests that, within
the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number
tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the
risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to
measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their
survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the
war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5
deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war
started - not including Fallujah - was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per
year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent
higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war.
But there are two problems with this calculation. First, Daponte (who
has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the
finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to
quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's
mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years
leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000.
After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever
they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000.
In other words, the wartime mortality rate - if it is 7.9 per
1,000 - probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the
Johns Hopkins team assumes.
The second problem with the calculation goes back to the problem cited
at the top of this article - the margin of error. Here is the relevant
passage from the study: "The risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1 - 2.3)
higher after the invasion." Those mysterious numbers in the
parentheses mean the authors are 95 percent confident that the risk of
death now is between 1.1 and 2.3 times higher than it was before the
invasion - in other words, as little as 10 percent higher or as much as
130 percent higher. Again, the math is too vague to be useful.
There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way
that's tangible, specific, and very useful - a team of mainly British
researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body
Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived
entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their
database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great
pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance,
last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800
Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them
were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children).
The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have
died as a result of the war - about half of them since the battlefield
phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these
figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have
taken place outside the media's purview.
So, let's call it 15,000 or - allowing for deaths that the press didn't
report - 20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a
pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their
behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the
Hopkins figure - and, given that fact, no less shocking.
--
I swear eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
22 Jan 2005 11:53:07 AM |
|
|
(Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in
news:slrncv3q94.t6o.:
On 22 Jan 2005 02:37:54 GMT, james g. keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com>
wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.htm
l? ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
There was a time, perhaps, when the NYT cared about the truth. But
that was long ago.
yet another unsupported allegation from a crazed neocon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James A. Chamblee" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
22 Jan 2005 06:52:59 AM |
|
|
From: (Jeffrey C. Dege)
The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the
conflict,
Because they are in denial. They make sure to report civilian casualties
when other nations are doing the killing.
and independent groups have put the number at most in the
tens of thousands.
Nonsense.
The NGO groups that do it best, like the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Human
Rights Wach, all put the number a about 100,000.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000 |
22 Jan 2005 12:16:57 AM |
|
|
Jeffrey C. Dege <jdege@visi.com.nospam> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
"Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?
ex=1106456400&en=4936d12c5cd41d59&ei=5070&oref=login
There was a time, perhaps, when the NYT cared about the truth. But that
was long ago.
For example, they buried the story about the weapons inspectors
leaving Iraq without finding anything.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
