Newsweek Lied, People Died

You may continue to show up and repeat what I say.

Once a group of four or five begin to do this, I will retire.

0 Replies

You know, I'm real disappointed my "Tail Dragger" post got vaporized...

0 Replies

Regarding an earlier question from McG...

Tonight on the PBS discussion following Bush's speech (panel comprised of two retired military officers, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe and Rich Lowry of the National Review) one of the retired officers, Colonel Douglas MacGregor stated that the numbers of Iraqis (men, women and children) killed is now approximately 113,000. The number for maimed and wounded was not given but it isn't difficult to imagine what that might be.

In addition, he gave the number of Iraqis who have been incarcerated (temporarily and permanently) at 70,000. That figure may refer only to Iraq, it was uncertain.

0 Replies

Did he say who killed them, and did he have the numbers of those killed by Saddam annually before the war?

0 Replies

Thank you. I knew it was significant. Subtract the number of Iraqis murdered by insurgents and you are closer to our culpability.

Factor in the fact that NO ONE would be getting killed now--by Saddam as they were so faithfully previous to the war, or by us accidentally, or purposefully--if the insurgents weren't murdering them on purpose...

It has been a good trade off for them, in the long run.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Thank you. I knew it was significant. Subtract the number of Iraqis murdered by insurgents and you are closer to our culpability.

Factor in the fact that NO ONE would be getting killed now--by Saddam as they were so faithfully previous to the war, or by us accidentally, or purposefully--if the insurgents weren't murdering them on purpose...

It has been a good trade off for them, in the long run.

How positive that trade off is for them is not for you to say, it is for them to say.

Both of those ex military officers also said that the number of extremist jihadist types has increased because of the US attack on Iraq AND the US behavior while there. That part of the problem has been made worse, a consequence predicted by many before the war began.

They also said that the insurgency is growing. We knew that, didn't we Lash? But they also said that as much as 80% of the insurgent element now are Iraqi citizens themselves.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Lash wrote:
Thank you. I knew it was significant. Subtract the number of Iraqis murdered by insurgents and you are closer to our culpability.

Factor in the fact that NO ONE would be getting killed now--by Saddam as they were so faithfully previous to the war, or by us accidentally, or purposefully--if the insurgents weren't murdering them on purpose...

It has been a good trade off for them, in the long run.

How positive that trade off is for them is not for you to say, it is for them to say.

Quote:
Sorry. I realize you think you're the only one who should comment of Iraq. Gonna have to tell you to stow it high, though.

Both of those ex military officers also said that the number of extremist jihadist types has increased because of the US attack on Iraq AND the US behavior while there. That part of the problem has been made worse, a consequence predicted by many before the war began.

Quote:
If the insurgents weren't murdering Iraqis, no one would be dying there.
They also said that the insurgency is growing. We knew that, didn't we Lash? But they also said that as much as 80% of the insurgent element now are Iraqi citizens themselves.
I don't immediately buy that. However, if it is true, why do they kill their own countrymen? Do you support them?

0 Replies

Quote:

Sorry. I realize you think you're the only one who should comment of Iraq. Gonna have to tell you to stow it high, though.

Comment away. But if you presume to suggest you have a better notion of what is good for the Iraqis than they have, when it is their women and children being blown to ****, and their husbands being tortured, I thought that deserved noting.

blatham

Quote:

If the insurgents weren't murdering Iraqis, no one would be dying there.
They also said that the insurgency is growing. We knew that, didn't we Lash? But they also said that as much as 80% of the insurgent element now are Iraqi citizens themselves.

Lash

Quote:

I don't immediately buy that. However, if it is true, why do they kill their own countrymen? Do you support them?

Why did northern troops shoot southern troops? Or french resistance fighters kill other frenchmen? Why did Terry Nichols kill other Americans? There is very little killing I support anytime. But is is time you began to take some small responsibility for what this administration has created. They did not have to intitiate this war. They did not have to lie in order to manufacture consent. They did not have to go in so poorly prepared and so foolishly arrogant. This mess was caused by them.

I really don't have hope you'll change your mind or be able to move past your loyalties, regardless of what these people get up to or are exposed in. That's fine, I'm not actually talking to influence you.

0 Replies

Speaking of tonights speech...

I posted this on another thread, but will post it here too just to make sure it gets seen.

Now, THIS is interesting.

Quote:
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

Look at the supposed words of Osama. When this speech was spoken, it all flowed together. But look at it in the transcript from the White House. The quote marks stop and start again after Bush inserts "in Iraq." If that was a direct quote, it all would have had quotes around it, but it doesn't. One wouldn't know that unless they saw the script and happened to notice.

How frickin' misleading is that???

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Regarding an earlier question from McG...

Tonight on the PBS discussion following Bush's speech (panel comprised of two retired military officers, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe and Rich Lowry of the National Review) one of the retired officers, Colonel Douglas MacGregor stated that the numbers of Iraqis (men, women and children) killed is now approximately 113,000. The number for maimed and wounded was not given but it isn't difficult to imagine what that might be.

In addition, he gave the number of Iraqis who have been incarcerated (temporarily and permanently) at 70,000. That figure may refer only to Iraq, it was uncertain.

The only numbers I will accept come from Iraqbodycount.com. All other accounts are estimates, and cherry picking numbers that represent the most extreme of those estimates do a dis-service to your argument.

0 Replies

McG

I hardly cherry-picked that number. I tuned into the panel discussion following the speech and those figures were communicated there. Ought I to assume that retired Colonel is likely lying through his teeth and probably has no means of establish/verifying what has taken place in Iraq?

Definitely do not read his bio... http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/macgregorbiblio.pdf

0 Replies

ps

No one of the other three in that panel, including another US military man nor Rich Lowry disputed those numbers.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The only numbers I will accept come from Iraqbodycount.com. All other accounts are estimates, and cherry picking numbers that represent the most extreme of those estimates do a dis-service to your argument.

McG, who is that dork in your avatar? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? The outlandish things that you have shown yourself more than willing to swallow belies your silly protestations here and elsewhere.

Your country is short of soldiers, McG. Maybe they'll let you keep your costume after you sign up to go to Iraq.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
The only numbers I will accept come from Iraqbodycount.com. All other accounts are estimates, and cherry picking numbers that represent the most extreme of those estimates do a dis-service to your argument.

McG, who is that dork in your avatar? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? The outlandish things that you have shown yourself more than willing to swallow belies your silly protestations here and elsewhere.

Your country is short of soldiers, McG. Maybe they'll let you keep your costume after you sign up to go to Iraq.

If you have nothing to add, you would do well to keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

blatham wrote:
Regarding an earlier question from McG...

Tonight on the PBS discussion following Bush's speech (panel comprised of two retired military officers, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe and Rich Lowry of the National Review) one of the retired officers, Colonel Douglas MacGregor stated that the numbers of Iraqis (men, women and children) killed is now approximately 113,000. The number for maimed and wounded was not given but it isn't difficult to imagine what that might be.

The only numbers I will accept come from Iraqbodycount.com. All other accounts are estimates

Iraqbodycount only counts civilian deaths, not military or combatant deaths. So if the question is, how many Iraqis died in the war so far, then all Iraqbodycount is gonna give you is an estimate too, b/c you'd have to add an undefined number of non-civilian deaths to it.

Thanks for the numbers by the way, Blatham. I don't see any credible argument yet on how his numbers must be "cherry-picked"; the bio and biblio sure don't suggest any partisan bias.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McG

I hardly cherry-picked that number. I tuned into the panel discussion following the speech and those figures were communicated there. Ought I to assume that retired Colonel is likely lying through his teeth and probably has no means of establish/verifying what has taken place in Iraq?

Definitely do not read his bio... http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/macgregorbiblio.pdf

I did not say you cherry picked the number. You merely referenced a comment by someone that did. Should I find statements by equally qualified commentators using numbers that bely your argument?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

JTT wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
The only numbers I will accept come from Iraqbodycount.com. All other accounts are estimates, and cherry picking numbers that represent the most extreme of those estimates do a dis-service to your argument.

McG, who is that dork in your avatar? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? The outlandish things that you have shown yourself more than willing to swallow belies your silly protestations here and elsewhere.

Your country is short of soldiers, McG. Maybe they'll let you keep your costume after you sign up to go to Iraq.

If you have nothing to add, you would do well to keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

Can I then take it that you won't be volunteering anytime soon, Captain America?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
Regarding an earlier question from McG...

Tonight on the PBS discussion following Bush's speech (panel comprised of two retired military officers, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe and Rich Lowry of the National Review) one of the retired officers, Colonel Douglas MacGregor stated that the numbers of Iraqis (men, women and children) killed is now approximately 113,000. The number for maimed and wounded was not given but it isn't difficult to imagine what that might be.

The only numbers I will accept come from Iraqbodycount.com. All other accounts are estimates

Iraqbodycount only counts civilian deaths, not military or combatant deaths. So if the question is, how many Iraqis died in the war so far, then all Iraqbodycount is gonna give you is an estimate too, b/c you'd have to add an undefined number of non-civilian deaths to it.

Thanks for the numbers by the way, Blatham. I don't see any credible argument yet on how his numbers must be "cherry-picked"; the bio and biblio sure don't suggest any partisan bias.

0 Replies

McG

That's a good piece. Thanks. I don't have the means to establish whether Kaplan's conclusion (a lower figure) is correct or not. I'll note that this dates from nearly a year ago (the survey preceding publishing by some amount of time) and its been a bad year.

But also, I can't rule out Colonel MacGregor's number nor assume it is over-estimated. It might be, but it might be low as well.

I certainly will give greater credence to objective or non-partisan sources (the Pentagon is NOT believable on these issues, nor is the administration).

0 Replies

Newsweek Lied, People Died

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know