Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you too are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful
life.
.
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 10:24:24 PM |
|
|
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled little
more than 3000 people.
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
24 Aug 2007 05:28:39 AM |
|
|
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4e-dnbsI9ZP80lPbnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
25 Aug 2007 06:08:50 PM |
|
|
MioMyo wrote:
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
It was a rightard's lie:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040408/ai_n12541953
U.S. bombs rebels in mosque
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 8, 2004 by BASSEM MROUE
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- U.S. Marines battled insurgents for control of this Sunni
Muslim stronghold Wednesday, calling in air strikes against a mosque compound
where witnesses said dozens were killed in six hours of fighting. An anti-U.S.
uprising led by a radical Shiite cleric raged for the fourth day in southern
cities.
...
Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman
Gen. Richard Myers, discounted the strength of the al-Sadr force, which
appears to have been bolstered by disgruntled, unemployed young men.
U.S. officials estimate the al-Sadr force at about 3,000 fighters.
"The number of people involved in those battles is relatively small," Rumsfeld
said.
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
25 Aug 2007 08:17:42 PM |
|
|
What a maroon you are. Your cite says the "Al Sadr force" not ALL insurgents
you freaking idiot!
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46D0B682.A8951066@hotmMOVEail.com...
MioMyo wrote:
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
It was a rightard's lie:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040408/ai_n12541953
U.S. bombs rebels in mosque
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 8, 2004 by BASSEM MROUE
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- U.S. Marines battled insurgents for control of this
Sunni
Muslim stronghold Wednesday, calling in air strikes against a mosque
compound
where witnesses said dozens were killed in six hours of fighting. An
anti-U.S.
uprising led by a radical Shiite cleric raged for the fourth day in
southern
cities.
...
Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman
Gen. Richard Myers, discounted the strength of the al-Sadr force, which
appears to have been bolstered by disgruntled, unemployed young men.
U.S. officials estimate the al-Sadr force at about 3,000 fighters.
"The number of people involved in those battles is relatively small,"
Rumsfeld
said.
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat
party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they
consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you
too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and
radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or
captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists
every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight.
Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into
the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do
us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and
hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
26 Aug 2007 12:20:58 AM |
|
|
MioMyo wrote:
What a maroon you are. Your cite says the "Al Sadr force" not ALL insurgents
you freaking idiot!
What a maroon you are. That's the number the administration was using!
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46D0B682.A8951066@hotmMOVEail.com...
MioMyo wrote:
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
It was a rightard's lie:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040408/ai_n12541953
U.S. bombs rebels in mosque
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 8, 2004 by BASSEM MROUE
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- U.S. Marines battled insurgents for control of this
Sunni
Muslim stronghold Wednesday, calling in air strikes against a mosque
compound
where witnesses said dozens were killed in six hours of fighting. An
anti-U.S.
uprising led by a radical Shiite cleric raged for the fourth day in
southern
cities.
...
Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman
Gen. Richard Myers, discounted the strength of the al-Sadr force, which
appears to have been bolstered by disgruntled, unemployed young men.
U.S. officials estimate the al-Sadr force at about 3,000 fighters.
"The number of people involved in those battles is relatively small,"
Rumsfeld
said.
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat
party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they
consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you
too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and
radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or
captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists
every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight.
Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into
the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do
us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and
hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
26 Aug 2007 08:08:47 AM |
|
|
In other words you liberals are PURPOSEFULLY MISQUOTING in order to
construct a strawman fallacy and then criticizing republicans on the basis
of your phony argument.
Ho Hum different day but same liberal bull ***** propaganda!
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46D10DBA.9086732D@hotmMOVEail.com...
MioMyo wrote:
What a maroon you are. Your cite says the "Al Sadr force" not ALL
insurgents
you freaking idiot!
What a maroon you are. That's the number the administration was using!
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46D0B682.A8951066@hotmMOVEail.com...
MioMyo wrote:
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
It was a rightard's lie:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040408/ai_n12541953
U.S. bombs rebels in mosque
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 8, 2004 by BASSEM MROUE
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- U.S. Marines battled insurgents for control of this
Sunni
Muslim stronghold Wednesday, calling in air strikes against a mosque
compound
where witnesses said dozens were killed in six hours of fighting. An
anti-U.S.
uprising led by a radical Shiite cleric raged for the fourth day in
southern
cities.
...
Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman
Gen. Richard Myers, discounted the strength of the al-Sadr force, which
appears to have been bolstered by disgruntled, unemployed young men.
U.S. officials estimate the al-Sadr force at about 3,000 fighters.
"The number of people involved in those battles is relatively small,"
Rumsfeld
said.
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat
party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they
consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths,
you
too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and
radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or
captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists
every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight.
Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into
the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would
do
us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population
centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and
hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
29 Aug 2007 09:48:10 PM |
|
|
MioMyo wrote:
In other words you liberals are PURPOSEFULLY MISQUOTING in order to
Misquoting? HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH Is that your dodge?
construct a strawman fallacy and then criticizing republicans on the basis
of your phony argument.
Ho Hum different day but same liberal bull ***** propaganda!
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
MioMyo wrote:
What a maroon you are. Your cite says the "Al Sadr force" not ALL
insurgents
you freaking idiot!
What a maroon you are. That's the number the administration was using!
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
MioMyo wrote:
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
It was a rightard's lie:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040408/ai_n12541953
U.S. bombs rebels in mosque
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 8, 2004 by BASSEM MROUE
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- U.S. Marines battled insurgents for control of this
Sunni
Muslim stronghold Wednesday, calling in air strikes against a mosque
compound
where witnesses said dozens were killed in six hours of fighting. An
anti-U.S.
uprising led by a radical Shiite cleric raged for the fourth day in
southern
cities.
...
Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference with Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman
Gen. Richard Myers, discounted the strength of the al-Sadr force, which
appears to have been bolstered by disgruntled, unemployed young men.
U.S. officials estimate the al-Sadr force at about 3,000 fighters.
"The number of people involved in those battles is relatively small,"
Rumsfeld
said.
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat
party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they
consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths,
you
too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and
radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or
captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists
every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight.
Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into
the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would
do
us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population
centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and
hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robw" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
24 Aug 2007 10:22:50 AM |
|
|
Rush Limpballs.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:rpyzi.30246$RX.25348@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4e-dnbsI9ZP80lPbnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com...
Funny, but conservatives were saying the insurgent community totaled
little
more than 3000 people.
You have a credible cite for this? NOT!
Just another of your liberal lies as I suspected...
So they're all dead or captured???
"War" over!
You hated Bush so much that the war never existed in your mind.
"MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:7%ezi.50450$YL5.36023@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat
party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they
consider
the
infidel.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you
too
are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals
and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or
captured
an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists
every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today
our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do
us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers,
they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and
hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 09:09:57 AM |
|
|
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war.
Must be part of his new Iraq is Vietnam strategy.
Don't you remember the daily body counts coming out of Vietnam to show
that we were winning. Say, how did that war turn out? And just what
where those body counts? It's widely known now that those counts were
figments and they padded them with whatever they could.
But you think thoses numbers mean something. What do you have beyond
the word of the White House? You know the last throes of the insurgency
White House.
You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider the
infidel.
What a load of horse manure. What about binLaden, where the hell is he?
He's the one that actually planned and initiated attacks here in this
country. And what did Bush do?, he moved the special forces and UAVs
that were tracking binLaden out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. At that
time the only possible alQaeda presence was in territory that was out of
the control of Saddam (it was in fact in our allies the Kurd's region)
You think this is a war against terrorists?
This is a civil conflict that has spiraled out of control, and yes,
if you wanted to kill Americans, this is the place to go. Easy, peasy,
no borders to cross. And you believe this horse manure that we are
fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. The only thing
we are doing is making them there. Neither Iraqi Sunni nor Iraqi Shia
has any desire to come to the US and attack us here and there has never
been an iota of any real evidence that they would.
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you too are
infidel:
And what is the Bush plan? The Bush plan has been to arm both sides. To
arm known insurgents who have in the past killed Americans, so they can
kill other insurgents. We are just taking their word that they won't
kill us. Not to mention the 190,000 weapons that just vanished.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful
life.
<URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ex=1345176000&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
/>
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political
debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by
definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for
the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with
an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win
over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is
far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers
with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical
of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly
manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and
social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views
and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
....
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an
American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers
to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a
resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the
local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take
this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly
insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce
normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we
continue to arm each warring side.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 08:08:39 AM |
|
|
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider the
infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
Miles "Fair & Balanced" Long
BTW libs, if you think you can make nice with these psychopaths, you too are
infidel:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and
murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an
average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every
month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our
troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni
insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the
fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us
harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're
giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful
life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 12:34:00 PM |
|
|
"Miles Long" <Miles@Home.net> wrote in message
news:ZsadndTba_JIG1DbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider
the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
Its been totally debunked.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/david_kane_on_lancet_confidenc.php
That means you've been debunked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
26 Aug 2007 12:20:00 AM |
|
|
Patriot Games wrote:
"Miles Long" <Miles@Home.net> wrote in message
news:ZsadndTba_JIG1DbnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those radical
jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the democrat party
who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all who they consider
the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
Its been totally debunked.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/david_kane_on_lancet_confidenc.php
That means you've been debunked.
Sorry bunkie, not debunked:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/26/iraq.shtml
Following a Freedom of Information request, BBC World Service Newshour
has learnt that a senior British Government official advised ministers
to show "caution" about publicly criticising a report published last
October in the Lancet, which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died as
a result of the war in Iraq.
...
The Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Ministry of Defence described
the methods used by the Lancet survey as "close to best practice" adding
that the "study design is robust."
A statistician at the Department of International Development said the
method used in the survey was "tried and tested" and, if anything, could
lead to an underestimate of the number of deaths.
...
That means you've been debunked.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 08:36:26 AM |
|
|
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all
who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of the
deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are killing
hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers, and
the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never recorded
as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 09:16:44 AM |
|
|
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of all
who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of the
deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are killing
hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers, and
the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never recorded
as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
Miles "Tote Board" Long
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 09:25:23 AM |
|
|
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers, and
the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 09:39:19 AM |
|
|
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers, and
the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Offering the assertion that studies in the past were flawed as
a refutation of this study is hardly conclusive, or worth the
bandwidth.
Miles "Cold Fusion" Long
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 11:36:28 AM |
|
|
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Offering the assertion that studies in the past were flawed as
a refutation of this study is hardly conclusive, or worth the
bandwidth.
The whole country is such a mess I don't think it's possible to sort
it out. The body count people have this around 80,000. My guess from
what I see is probably around 150,000.
But all this ignores the couple million that are displaced out of the
country or in internal "refugee" camps.
And none of this deals with Tommy Franks statement that "We don't do
body counts". It's really hard to believe that out of all the
justifications for the war we are down to Vietnam. But then that's not a
justification at all, but an attempt to maintain the most hardcore of
Bush's supporters, those who are still ***** by the Vietnam anti
war movement. It is all so crass. Needless senseless war that is being
perpetuated just so Bush can dump the blame on someone else.
Jeff
Miles "Cold Fusion" Long
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
23 Aug 2007 11:26:49 AM |
|
|
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1100183680513
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061009/full/061009-9.html (requires
subscription)
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Offering the assertion that studies in the past were flawed as
a refutation of this study is hardly conclusive, or worth the
bandwidth.
It demonstrates either a willingness to lie or the unwillingness to
fact-check what they publish.
It speaks directly to the credibility of the publication.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
24 Aug 2007 02:42:35 PM |
|
|
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Geez, are you really that stupid????? Are you so stupid, so ignorant
that the term "peer reviewed" is meaningless? If I bring up Winnie
the Pooh can you pick up on that?
This is one of the most ridiculous posts ever. Peer review means that
that the paper is given to a group of your peers by the journal and
they review it for accuracy and scientific validity. Then the
corrections and notes are re-submitted to you, if you want to you can
make the corrections and resubmit. The reviewers can reject the paper
out of hand, some quite famous papers were rejected on first
submission.
This is why a reviewed paper is at a much higher level than the
meanderings of a Limbaugh, at the end of the process the odds are your
right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
25 Aug 2007 05:59:49 PM |
|
|
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Geez, are you really that stupid?????
Are you? Believe it or not, Skippy, there are a lot of different
opinions as to what constitutes a legitimate peer review.
To some people, "peer review" means simply publishing it. (Steven Jones)
To others, it means submitting it to scientific journals for scrutiny
and/or correction by a group of the author's peers. (me)
Thus I asked for "Miles Long's" definition of peer review.
Catchin' on yet, Nancy?
Are you so stupid, so ignorant
that the term "peer reviewed" is meaningless?
Since that isn't anywhere near what I said, I think it's safe to assume
that you are that stupid.
If I bring up Winnie the Pooh can you pick up on that?
This is one of the most ridiculous posts ever.
Yours. Yes.
Whine fucking whine whine whine.
Peer review means that
that the paper is given to a group of your peers by the journal and
they review it for accuracy and scientific validity. Then the
corrections and notes are re-submitted to you, if you want to you can
make the corrections and resubmit. The reviewers can reject the paper
out of hand, some quite famous papers were rejected on first
submission.
This is why a reviewed paper is at a much higher level than the
meanderings of a Limbaugh, at the end of the process the odds are your
right.
So the link I provided to the journal "Nature", which you so
conveniently snipped, would qualify as peer reviewed.
Next time, try a little though before hitting the send button.
Thank you for your participation, Dorothy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
25 Aug 2007 08:04:53 PM |
|
|
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fv2Ai.14680$B25.9128@news01.roc.ny...
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that
scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet
results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Geez, are you really that stupid?????
Are you? Believe it or not, Skippy, there are a lot of different opinions
as to what constitutes a legitimate peer review.
To some people, "peer review" means simply publishing it. (Steven Jones)
To others, it means submitting it to scientific journals for scrutiny
and/or correction by a group of the author's peers. (me)
Thus I asked for "Miles Long's" definition of peer review.
What Miles thinks peer review means is irrelevant., and what you think it is
is worth even less.
What is important is what the Lancet thinks perr refvied means. To them it
means three independent experts in the field of the report are given access
to data, process, procedures, and calculatiobs. These 3 then try to poke
holes in the paper, looking for everything from calcilation errors todata
abnormalities to problems with procedures or theory
If the three cannot punch holes inb the paper it is published.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/misc/authorinfo
Got it, poopsie?
Larry
Catchin' on yet, Nancy?
Are you so stupid, so ignorant
that the term "peer reviewed" is meaningless?
Since that isn't anywhere near what I said, I think it's safe to assume
that you are that stupid.
If I bring up Winnie the Pooh can you pick up on that?
This is one of the most ridiculous posts ever.
Yours. Yes.
Whine fucking whine whine whine.
Peer review means that
that the paper is given to a group of your peers by the journal and
they review it for accuracy and scientific validity. Then the
corrections and notes are re-submitted to you, if you want to you can
make the corrections and resubmit. The reviewers can reject the paper
out of hand, some quite famous papers were rejected on first
submission.
This is why a reviewed paper is at a much higher level than the
meanderings of a Limbaugh, at the end of the process the odds are your
right.
So the link I provided to the journal "Nature", which you so conveniently
snipped, would qualify as peer reviewed.
Next time, try a little though before hitting the send button.
Thank you for your participation, Dorothy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
26 Aug 2007 06:42:09 AM |
|
|
On Aug 25, 9:04 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fv2Ai.14680$B25.9128@news01.roc.ny...
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that
scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet
results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Geez, are you really that stupid?????
Are you? Believe it or not, Skippy, there are a lot of different opinions
as to what constitutes a legitimate peer review.
To some people, "peer review" means simply publishing it. (Steven Jones)
To others, it means submitting it to scientific journals for scrutiny
and/or correction by a group of the author's peers. (me)
Thus I asked for "Miles Long's" definition of peer review.
What Miles thinks peer review means is irrelevant., and what you think it is
is worth even less.
What is important is what the Lancet thinks perr refvied means. To them it
means three independent experts in the field of the report are given access
to data, process, procedures, and calculatiobs. These 3 then try to poke
holes in the paper, looking for everything from calcilation errors todata
abnormalities to problems with procedures or theory
If the three cannot punch holes inb the paper it is published.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/misc/authorinfo
Got it, poopsie?
Larry
Here's what it means to the Editor of the Lancet journal:
"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of
scientific data is surely discredited. The mistake, of course, is to
have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of
discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process
that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we
know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
26 Aug 2007 10:22:19 AM |
|
|
<jbd4020@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188128529.658130.274960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 9:04 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fv2Ai.14680$B25.9128@news01.roc.ny...
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of
those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of
the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads
of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that
scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most
of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet
results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be
accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably
know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Geez, are you really that stupid?????
Are you? Believe it or not, Skippy, there are a lot of different
opinions
as to what constitutes a legitimate peer review.
To some people, "peer review" means simply publishing it. (Steven
Jones)
To others, it means submitting it to scientific journals for scrutiny
and/or correction by a group of the author's peers. (me)
Thus I asked for "Miles Long's" definition of peer review.
What Miles thinks peer review means is irrelevant., and what you think it
is
is worth even less.
What is important is what the Lancet thinks perr refvied means. To them
it
means three independent experts in the field of the report are given
access
to data, process, procedures, and calculatiobs. These 3 then try to poke
holes in the paper, looking for everything from calcilation errors todata
abnormalities to problems with procedures or theory
If the three cannot punch holes inb the paper it is published.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/misc/authorinfo
Got it, poopsie?
Larry
Here's what it means to the Editor of the Lancet journal:
"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of
scientific data is surely discredited. The mistake, of course, is to
have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of
discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process
that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we
know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
Apparently he has backed off of this single editorial piece.
Horton supports the report and accuses Bush and Blair of manipulating the
numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
26 Aug 2007 04:35:20 PM |
|
|
On Aug 26, 11:22 am, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
<jbd4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188128529.658130.274960@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 9:04 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
"Vandar" <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fv2Ai.14680$B25.9128@news01.roc.ny...
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of
those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of
the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads
of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that
scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most
of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet
results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be
accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably
know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Geez, are you really that stupid?????
Are you? Believe it or not, Skippy, there are a lot of different
opinions
as to what constitutes a legitimate peer review.
To some people, "peer review" means simply publishing it. (Steven
Jones)
To others, it means submitting it to scientific journals for scrutiny
and/or correction by a group of the author's peers. (me)
Thus I asked for "Miles Long's" definition of peer review.
What Miles thinks peer review means is irrelevant., and what you think it
is
is worth even less.
What is important is what the Lancet thinks perr refvied means. To them
it
means three independent experts in the field of the report are given
access
to data, process, procedures, and calculatiobs. These 3 then try to poke
holes in the paper, looking for everything from calcilation errors todata
abnormalities to problems with procedures or theory
If the three cannot punch holes inb the paper it is published.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/misc/authorinfo
Got it, poopsie?
Larry
Here's what it means to the Editor of the Lancet journal:
"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of
scientific data is surely discredited. The mistake, of course, is to
have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of
discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process
that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we
know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
Apparently he has backed off of this single editorial piece.
Horton supports the report and accuses Bush and Blair of manipulating the
numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton
Some people are hypocrites who change their tune whenever it suits
their political agendas or egos Larry.
Bush and Blair had their fantasy WMD stockpiles designed to lie us
into a war, The Lancet has its fantasy 650,000 designed to lie us out
of it.
Like peas in a pod.
Whoever said "truth is the first casualty of war" looks more prophetic
all the time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
24 Aug 2007 10:30:19 PM |
|
|
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Not so much a definition, but here's an assessment of 'peer-review'
from the Editor of the Lancet journal was:
"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of
scientific data is surely discredited. The mistake, of course, is to
have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of
discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process
that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we
know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066...
Offering the assertion that studies in the past were flawed as
a refutation of this study is hardly conclusive, or worth the
bandwidth.
It demonstrates either a willingness to lie or the unwillingness to
fact-check what they publish.
It speaks directly to the credibility of the publication.
That seems to be one of the problems with some peer-reviews. They
simply assume the basic facts alleged in the research are correct, and
then do a lot of work checking all the fancy calculations that are
built on top of those un-checked facts. This is apparently exactly
what was done with the other study that was faked, but which passed
right through Lancet's peer review process.
With the Lancet Iraq study for example, all the raw data is simply
claims made by seven or eight "Iraqi data collectors who have asked
not to be identified". None of those basic claims, on which the whole
thing ultimately rests, are checked or verified in the 'peer review',
or anywhere else. They are simply assumed to be all true and accurate,
and then a bunch of calculations are built on top. What is checked in
the peer review is all the calculations built on top.
I would think that the first thing science demands is that the basic
facts on which the research rests are what needs to be checked and
verified *most*, because if those basic facts are wrong, everything
else you build on top of them, no matter how sophisticated or how well
reviewed, is wrong.
I'm not sure when 'science' became such a faith-based exercise, where
the basic facts require no checking, but apparently it has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Body Count |
25 Aug 2007 05:59:33 AM |
|
|
<jbd4020@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188012619.369582.28910@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 23, 12:26 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
Vandar wrote:
Miles Long wrote:
MioMyo wrote:
Finally President Bush releases enemy body count numbers of those
radical jihadists killed in the war. You know those friends of the
democrat party who want nothing more than to cut off the heads of
all who they consider the infidel.
Let us not forget the peer-reviewed Lancett Study that
scientifically
concluded that over 600,000 civilians have been killed in the war
through US action as well...
The questionable survey they conducted had a range of 392,979 to
942,636, an average of over 500 deaths per day, attributing most of
the deaths to coalition forces rather than the car bombs that are
killing hundreds of people at a clip.
IraqBodyCount, The United Nations, epidemiologists, demographers,
and the Iraqi Ministry of Health all disagree with The Lancet
results.
IBC pointed out that in order for The Lancet survey to be accurate,
500,000 death certificates were sent to families but were never
recorded as having been issued by the government.
The Lancet has been known to fabricate data in the past.
I just can't imagine anyone from the Right arguing against the
study, it really ups our body count! After all, that is the ONLY
positive yield in our efforts in Iraq, and the Coward-in-Chief's
new Viet Nam-esq benchmark of success... <snicker>
If partisanship is the best you can do, then you should probably know
that I'm not a member of the right.
In that case, please offer a peer-reviewed refutation of the
study so that I may broaden my knowledge... <grin>
Define peer-reviewed.
Not so much a definition, but here's an assessment of 'peer-review'
from the Editor of the Lancet journal was:
"Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of
scientific data is surely discredited. The mistake, of course, is to
have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of
discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding.
Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process
that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we
know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable,
incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s01406736066...
Offering the assertion that studies in the past were flawed as
a refutation of this study is hardly conclusive, or worth the
bandwidth.
It demonstrates either a willingness to lie or the unwillingness to
fact-check what they publish.
It speaks directly to the credibility of the publication.
That seems to be one of the problems with some peer-reviews. They
simply assume the basic facts alleged in the research are correct, and
then do a lot of work checking all the fancy calculations that are
built on top of those un-checked facts. This is apparently exactly
what was done with the other study that was faked, but which passed
right through Lancet's peer review process.
With the Lancet Iraq study for example, all the raw data is simply
claims made by seven or eight "Iraqi data collectors who have asked
not to be identified". None of those basic claims, on which the whole
thing ultimately rests, are checked or verified in the 'peer review',
or anywhere else. They are simply assumed to be all true and accurate,
and then a bunch of calculations are built on top. What is checked in
the peer review is all the calculations built on top.
I would think that the first thing science demands is that the basic
facts on which the research rests are what needs to be checked and
verified *most*, because if those basic facts are wrong, everything
else you build on top of them, no matter how | | | | | | | | |
