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?