[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Wow! You are so clueless that I am going to have to explain this to you, yet you think you are smart enough to question the wisdom of my judgment. Incredible.
[/quote]
The only thing incredible is you trying to justify invading a country that did nothing to you.
You’re wisdom is regurgitated Faux news propaganda from 8 years ago. Wisdom, my ass.
And to hell with your guided munitions BS. This was from 4 years ago and the report indicates 151,000 civilians killed.
[/quote]
You make snide remarks about Fox and then proceed to quote the Guardian. It would be hilarious if you weren’t so ignorant. The Guardian is just about the most biased left wing paper in Britain. I should have known you were a punk ass Guardianista it explains a lot.
That study is not an accurate count produced by actually counting bodies. The number was generated through guess work and it even says so in the article. Plus the article began with this little gem.
“The article said the survey estimated that 151,000 civilians had been killed since the invasion. That figure included combatants.”
The last sentence means that combatants who died fighting against the marines, army, air force are being counted as civilian deaths. What that means is that if a guided munition hit a building full of “combatants” killing all of them without hurting one person in the surrounding area all the dead are counted civilian deaths.
Here it says the study used the same inaccurate statistical survey technique used by the now discredited Lancet report.
“The figures come from a household survey carried out by the World Health Organisation and the Iraqi health ministry. They are substantially lower than the 601,027 death toll reported by US researchers in 2006 in the Lancet using similar study methods, but higher than the Iraq Body Count’s (IBC) register - based on press reports - of 47,668.”
Then the article gives this vast range of deaths that shows the number of deaths may not have been 151,000. They took the highest number and lowest number split the difference and reported the result as if it is fact while admitting the number could be affected by misreporting and they were trying to make allowances for that.
“The authors of the WHO/Iraqi study, published last night in the New England Journal of Medicine, say that the new number, which could be anywhere between 104,000 and 223,000 allowing for misreporting,”
Here they say that they didn’t actually visit Anbar or Baghdad to conduct their survey because of all the fighting so they just made calculations, or in other words they took a wild guess at the number of dead in the two areas with the most intense fighting.
“The survey from the Iraqi Family Health Survey Group was carried out by trained employees of the health ministry who visited 10,860 households - 10 from each of more than 1,000 clusters across the 18 provinces of Iraq. Because of the insecurity, 115 (11%) of the clusters could not be visited - mostly in Anbar and Baghdad - so calculations were made to account for the probable number of deaths in those places.”