Posted on 09/08/2007 10:38:25 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/08/2007 2:50:08 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
That's a lie. Ron Turd is a traitor.
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deathsDo some research before you post.BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.
Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.
Yes? And this is relevant how?
This is the same organization that reported that the US government and Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. No other agency is even reporting that number
If you believe that you probably believe that there was no Moon landing, which I'm sure Ron Turd and his Al-Queda supporters do.
The Lancet reported that the U.S. and Israel were behind 9/11? I take it you have a source for that.
Yes and their "reports" of Israel kllinging tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Link?
That's 770 deaths a day.
That's 770 deaths a day.
No, it isn't. In fact, that's not even close.
At any rate, you know know that, far from lying, or making the number up, Ron Paul got his statistic from a prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journal. You've been educated. You're welcome.
Do some research. The study was backed by anti-Israeli Joe Galloway. Ron turd, the traitor, got this study from a rabid anti-Israel, anti-American think thank. This despite every other group (including Amnesty International) disputing that claim.
The study was released in November of 2004. That means there was around 600 days since the Iraq War started. 655,000/600. That would mean that there would have to be over 1,000 deaths a day to reach that number.
I would write that you have been educated, but you obviously have no brain.
Do some research. The study was backed by anti-Israeli Joe Galloway. Ron turd, the traitor, got this study from a rabid anti-Israel, anti-American think thank.
The study was performed by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It was neither executed, nor published by "a rabid anti-Israel, anti-American think thank."
The study was released in November of 2004.
Close - October, 2006.
It was supported by Joe Galloway and his like-minded rabid leftists.
Close - October, 2006.
Second release. It was first released in October 2004 to influence the presidential elections.
Would you care to define what you mean by "supported"? And please source this claim. Your word is no good.
Second release. It was first released in October 2004 to influence the presidential elections.
Wrong again. This was not merely a second release of the same paper. It was an entirely new paper that used the same methods. The survey was conducted again in May and July of 2006. Don't pretend the research was dealing with the same time frame as the first study, which you had to do to get the daily average you tried to sell before. It wasn't.
Googling is good. The study was jumped on and branded as truth by Galloway and Ramsey Clark. Your reading ability is no good.
The survey was conducted again in May and July of 2006.
That's cute even though there were no sampling points. How can one conduct a survey when it wasn't a survey? The study was written at the time.
Again, over 1,000 dead every day. Only Ron turd and his deluded minions would believe such a number.
Indeed, it is. In fact, it was only after googling for some kind of official connection between Galloway and the research, and coming up empty, that I pressed you for a source.
The study was jumped on and branded as truth by Galloway and Ramsey Clark. Your reading ability is no good.
In other words. Galloway was not, in fact, affiliated with the study in any way.
That's cute even though there were no sampling points. How can one conduct a survey when it wasn't a survey? The study was written at the time.
From the summary of the study:
MethodsBTW, shall I take it, based on your silence, that you have no source for your claim that The Lancet "reported that the US government and Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks"?Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households.
I never indicated that it was, but rather it was supported by Galloway and Ramsey Clarke.
Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households.
That's to determine HH mortality average. That has nothing to do with deaths casued by hostile action from March 2003. Did you actually think that morgue reporting for three months would determine violent deaths from march 2003? That's one of the plethora of reasons this study was discounted.
I take it by your silence that you can't account for 1,00)+ deaths in Iraq per day?
An utterly meaningless claim. The fact that some people you don't like approved of the research after the fact is not an indictment of its methods or conclusions.
That's to determine HH mortality average. That has nothing to do with deaths casued by hostile action from March 2003. Did you actually think that morgue reporting for three months would determine violent deaths from march 2003?
It wasn't morgue reporting, and the research didn't look only at deaths that occurred during that 3 month period. You're still batting .000 in this thread on your factual claims.
I take it by your silence that you can't account for 1,00)+ deaths in Iraq per day?
I never said there were 1,000 deaths per day. That's a number you came up based on your dishonest claim that the 2006 study only went through November, 2004. As you now know, it covered a much longer period of time.
Fifth request now - do you have a source for your claim that the Lancet "reported that the US government and Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks"?
To the contrary, not a single other research study found a number even close to the Lancet Study. The only reason it was reported was that the claims were so outlandish that it was embraced by Galloway and Clark.
It wasn't morgue reporting, and the research didn't look only at deaths that occurred during that 3 month period.
Strawman, heal thyself. You cited three months of that study. Again, I reiterate that such a study could not have sampling points. That would be a survey, something very different.
That's a number you came up based on your dishonest claim that the 2006 study only went through November, 2004.
Congrats. You admit to two release dates of the same report. I suppose that is progress. I never said it, but that's what the statistics would have to meet or is simple arithmetic beyond the capacity of your three combined brain cells.
And I repeat for the 6th time, do you and Ron Turd believe there were 1,000+ violent deaths in Iraq per day?
And I suppose you know of other peer-reviewed research that used the same methods, yet came to vastly different conclusions?
The only reason it was reported was that the claims were so outlandish that it was embraced by Galloway and Clark.
Total nonsense. The research was reported because its methods were extremely strong - strong enough to pass peer review and be published in The Lancet - one of the world's most prestigious academic journals.
Strawman, heal thyself. You cited three months of that study. Again, I reiterate that such a study could not have sampling points. That would be a survey, something very different.
Holy crap! You obviously don't know even the most basic facts about this paper. Would you at least go read up on this research before you try to critique it?
Congrats. You admit to two release dates of the same report.
Wrong. Again. There were two different papers, using two different sets of data, and covering two different time periods. You just cannot be this stupid (you can, however, be this much of a liar).
And I repeat for the 6th time, do you and Ron Turd believe there were 1,000+ violent deaths in Iraq per day?
Of course not. To arrive at that number I would have to believe that the 655,000 deaths occurred during a much shorter period of time than they actually did. Only you have accepted that time frame, and you did so for dishonest reasons.
And, of course, I now have my answer. The Lancet never reported that the U.S. and Israel were behind 9/11. Like everything else in this thread, you made that up on the spot.
Vastly different? The reports show a much lower number than the 655,000 (1000+ killed per day). That's an absurd number and only morons would believe that.
The research was reported because its methods were extremely strong - strong enough to pass peer review and be published in The Lancet - one of the world's most prestigious academic journals.
Prestigious? Do you work for Lancet or have a family member there? No other study has even come close to that number and the Lancet study is a farce. Even Amnesty International (no friend to the US, West, Israel) disputes the number. It was based on faulty and perhaps slanted research.
Would you at least go read up on this research before you try to critique it?
I have and you can't have it both ways: was the study a survey or an analysis? Simply put, it was an analysis.
There were two different papers, using two different sets of data, and covering two different time periods.
Honey, you're just plain sad. This is the same report reported at two different times. There were no sets of data (no sampling strata). You are so blind that you can't see that there can't be time periods since this was not a survey.
To arrive at that number I would have to believe that the 655,000 deaths occurred during a much shorter period of time than they actually did. Only you have accepted that time frame, and you did so for dishonest reasons.
Excuse me, but you must have had the worst math teacher in the world. 655,000 in either time frame would range from 700-1000+ deaths per day. Do you have any shred of credibility left?
And for the 7th time, do you and Ron Turd believe there are 1,000+ violent deaths in Iraq per day?
All right. That’s enough. It’s become obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’ll do anything you can to cover up that fact. You don’t know what the research methods were, you don’t know when it was conducted, and you don’t know what time period was covered. No objective person could look at this exchange and conclude that you are anything but a liar, an idiot or both, so there’s no point in interacting with you any further.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.