|
07 Jun 06 - 01:07 PM (#1755072) Subject: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: CarolC pdq posted this in a thread on a different subject (referencing, I think a much shorter post from someone who posted as GUEST,an old friend)... Subject: RE: BS: Islamic terrorists arrested in Ontario From: pdq - PM Date: 06 Jun 06 - 06:13 PM "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." "Carol, the Lancet survey has been totally discredited, months ago, google it." |
|
07 Jun 06 - 01:08 PM (#1755073) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: CarolC Quite aside from the rather desperate tone of the post quoted above, here is my response to its content... Yes, I have Googled it. Several times since the Lancet study was published, in fact. Until a few days ago, I was not willing to use the Lancet study as a reference for anything, because I wasn't sure that the people who claim to have "discredited" the study were wrong, and I didn't feel that I could effectively argue one way or another about the study's validity. What has changed for me was stumbling upon this article a few days ago. This article effectively discredits those who say they have discredited the Lancet study. Had pdq and GUEST,an old friend been paying attention, they would have seen it... http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_643.shtml |
|
07 Jun 06 - 03:22 PM (#1755136) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: pdq CarolC, "if you cannot afford a sense of humor one will be provided at government expense" |
|
07 Jun 06 - 03:34 PM (#1755143) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: CarolC Oh, I have a sense of humor, pdq. Were you trying to be funny? If you were, it seems to me that a thread like that one doesn't seem the place for such a, shall we say, large attempt at clowning. Probably why I didn't take it as such. |
|
07 Jun 06 - 04:43 PM (#1755190) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: GUEST,ifor Of course the Lancet study by researchers from the John Hopkins University has not been discredited....it has been bitterly attacked but by whom? The study claims that almost one hundred thousand Iraqis [including many women and children ] have died as a result of the invasion.The study was published last year. Its attackers are the wargang..those who planned and led the invasion of Iraq.....the "muscular liberal" armchair bombers who cheered on "Shock and Awe"....the supine media which acted, in the main and with a few honourable exceptions, as its ideological justification and the Big Business corporations who saw the vast sums of money to be made out of the privatisation of Iraq and the oil beneath its sands. They should all be in the dock for their crimes!And leading that number should be Bush and Blair! ifor |
|
07 Jun 06 - 04:52 PM (#1755200) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: number 6 At this stage in the Iraq war we don't need to argue if the statistics of the Lancet Study or any other anlaysis on the 'numbers' ... this war has proven to be (regardless of statistics) that it is a tavesty against humanity. sIx |
|
07 Jun 06 - 05:26 PM (#1755231) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: robomatic Number Six: Would it still be a travesty of humanity if the United States was obviously winning? If it is felt that events in Rwanda which led to the deaths of almost a million civilians and in Darfur, Sudan which has led to the deaths of almost half a million civilians, constitute travesties, then is it a travesty to attempt to remove an acknowledged brutal dictator who may be a threat to countries outside his own? Or are you making the point that the attempt may not be a travesty, but poor execution, slipshod administration, and bad actors on the world stage have changed what could have been an act against travesty into travesty itself? If so, what constitutes for you the tipping point? |
|
07 Jun 06 - 05:34 PM (#1755236) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: bobad "attempt to remove an acknowledged brutal dictator who may be a threat to countries outside his own?" Saddam Hussein was removed in May of 2003, it is now June 2006. |
|
07 Jun 06 - 06:08 PM (#1755256) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: Wolfgang Carol, your link seems to go to somewhere else than you wanted to link to. In that link the author does not address most of the specific criticisms. He only (implicitely) addresses one minor point. So could you please provide the link to the article that has impressed you? (An example for an article actually trying to address most of the specific points is here. But it has its weaknesses as a close look shows.) Wolfgang |
|
07 Jun 06 - 06:47 PM (#1755280) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: CarolC It wasn't necessary for the author of the article I gave a link to to specifically address all of the points that the people who claim to have discredited the Lancet study make in order to discredit their arguments. All he needed to do, and he succeeded in doing it to my satisfaction, is to provide enough material to show why the various studies that have been done are not in substantial disagreement with one another. Another thing I got from it is that the US government (including GW Bush) embrace the 30,000 figure, and the authors of the study that number came from say that their numbers are not intended to reflect the total number of civilians killed, and that thousands of civilian deaths are not included in their study. Also that the Lancet study, as published, did not include the area around Fallujah, which, had it been included, would have more than doubled the number of civilian deaths. Also the fact that the Lancet report didn't include the many people who have simply gone missing, but for whom the families do not have any official word of their death. It's not what he wrote about the Lancet study alone that has changed my way of seeing it. It's how he was able to put the Lancet study into the larger context of, A. all of the studies that have been done so far, and B. what the authors of the various studies have to say about what their studies are intended to accomplish, and what they believe the results of their studies show. It should be noted, also, that the authors of the Lancet study consider 100,000 to be a conservative estimate of the number of civilian deaths in Iraq during the first 18 months of the US led invasion and occupation there. |
|
07 Jun 06 - 06:47 PM (#1755281) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: JohnInKansas here Is this it, Wolfgang. (Closing tag on link above misspelt) John |
|
07 Jun 06 - 06:59 PM (#1755286) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: CarolC number 6, unfortunately, it does appear that the numbers are important. People have used various justifications for the pre-emptive war that my country has waged against a sovereign country. When the other arguments such as WMD and links to 9/11 are effectively debunked, many people revert to the argument that we did it to help the Iraqi people. I think that, if we have done more damage to the Iraqi people than even Saddam did when he was in power, we really cannot say that our efforts have been a success. I think that is an important point, and apparently so do many other people. I think that's why they are working so hard to try to discredit the Lancet report. |
|
07 Jun 06 - 08:58 PM (#1755348) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: dianavan "I think that, if we have done more damage to the Iraqi people than even Saddam did when he was in power." - Carol C. I totally agree. I would add that it has also cost the rest of the world trillions of dollars to kill that many Iraqis. It has also resulted in a dramatic loss of liberty for U.S. citizens. For what? There's not even enough oil to fight over. I can only surmise that the real intent of this war is to dominate the world. I also believe that the U.S. is more dangerous than even the Nazis. The U.S. learned from Hitler's mistakes and implemented the strategies that did work. Its as if the U.S. has perfected the plan for One World Order. ...and now the new U.S. embassy that is being built in Iraq will infuriate the Iraqi's even more. It will dominate Baghdad and the Americans will have everything that the Iraqi's do not have. How would you feel if this happened in your hometown? Is it any wonder that the actions of the U.S. have bred an insurgency and terrorism abroad? What would you do if you lived in Baghdad? |
|
07 Jun 06 - 09:25 PM (#1755369) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: number 6 "Would it still be a travesty of humanity if the United States was obviously winning?" ... define obviously winning .... a nation totally brutalized into submission? Actually ... winning has no meaning in my disgust and revulsion of the slaughter of innocent human beings of any race, any nation, any religion. Carol ... I can see your point in 'numbers' having an impact ... I guess I'm one who can see through the 'numbers' .... I just see the faces of human beings. sIx |
|
07 Jun 06 - 10:18 PM (#1755407) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: GUEST How many human beings with faces did Saddam slaughter to stay in power? |
|
07 Jun 06 - 10:25 PM (#1755413) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: number 6 "How many human beings with faces did Saddam slaughter to stay in power?" ... too many. What is even more tragic ... the slaughter continues. There is no moral right in slaughter of human beings ... no matter who is in power or who is the subservient.. sIx |
|
07 Jun 06 - 10:48 PM (#1755448) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: The Fooles Troupe "is it a travesty to attempt to remove an acknowledged brutal dictator who may be a threat to countries outside his own?" Don't worry, George's term will be up soon... |
|
07 Jun 06 - 10:49 PM (#1755453) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: number 6 Good one. Not soon enough Foolestroupe ... not soon enough. sIx |
|
07 Jun 06 - 11:04 PM (#1755466) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: The Fooles Troupe Was watching a recent TV doco on the Kurds trying to gather evidence on the butchery of many Kurds by Saddam in the 80s - evidence to be used in his 'trial'. They had to travel thru areas 'controlled' by dangerous 'insurgents'. They (including Govt Ministers - yes those in favour with George!) were moving along the highway at 160Km/hr. Suddenly, there was great panic - they had sighted a US 'patrol'. They now had to drop back to 40 km an hour, and knew from experience that if they accidentally got within 100 metres (and they DARE NOT even TRY to pass the 'patrol'), they would be hosed away by US gunfire. These are the very people George and his w*nkers are 'helping', and George has carefully designed the 'occupation' to scare the shit out of those he is 'protecting'... like in Vietnam... Interesting that there are many 'conspiracy' claims that the CIA and Mossad are butchering many left right and centre... starting with the intellectuals... Hmmmm, didn't that game get played in Russia (by both Hitler & Stalin), and China, and Vietnam, etc.... The whole reason that the Russians left Afghanistan was because they finally woke up that their tactics similar to what the US is using in Iraq were only generating dead bodies on all sides. I really doubt that the US 'leaders' are THAT smart... |
|
07 Jun 06 - 11:19 PM (#1755479) Subject: RE: BS: The Lancet Study / Iraqi Civilian Deaths From: number 6 "I really doubt that the US 'leaders' are THAT smart..." ... as long as they beleive it's in name of freedom, bringing democracy to the oppressed. sIx |