100,000 women/children killed in Iraq

u refuse to accept any article as factual, even from the LA Times, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc. "

No, just those that try to pass the lancet report off as fact rather than fiction.

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

You refuse to accept any article as factual, even from the LA Times, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc. Why don't you write your own version of the war in Iraq? You admit, NOW, that you went in for oil. Big difference from the original claim of WMD's. Yet, because America has no cojones, you accept whatever pablum the Bush Adm. dribbles out as fact.

Surely you cannot be addressing me.

0 Replies

Maybe I got lost on this. Am I to understand that English Major is trying to say that coaliton forces have killed 100,000 women and children?
Or, is he trying to say that since the End of the Iraq war that there have been 100,000 women and children killed?
Or, is he trying to say that its America's fault that 100,00 women and children have been killed?
Or, is he willing to admitt that it's insurgents that are killing civilians?
Or, is he going to say that if coalition forces weren't in Iraq than homicide bombers would not exist?
I'm not sure what you or your article are trying to imply.

0 Replies

Can someone say drama queen??? How about obsessive compulsive disorder???

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Can someone say drama queen??? How about obsessive compulsive disorder???

My, you really are hard on yourself. Shouldn't call yourself such names Laughing

Frustrated military man, are you? Get a 4F, did you? Gotta have a fake uniform for an avatar? Makes you feel like a REAL killing machine, eh?

Can anyone say stupid Americans in a state of perpetual denial? How about warmongers? Imperialists and money grubbing shallow, consumeristic idiots...... That rather rolls off of the tongue, doesn't it. Cool

'One has to ask, is our children learning'? (G.Bush). Nation of fools....run by a moron.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

u refuse to accept any article as factual, even from the LA Times, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc. "

No, just those that try to pass the lancet report off as fact rather than fiction.

No siree, you only accept what Georgie Porgie tells you, verbatim. Do you even know anything about the Lancet? What, perforce, might that be?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

u refuse to accept any article as factual, even from the LA Times, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc. "

No, just those that try to pass the lancet report off as fact rather than fiction.

You are showing your ignorance, American. What about the Lancet do you find not factual? It's been around for quite some time. Read below and see for yourself WHO they are, then condemn. And you guys think you know how to debate? With no knowledge of the subject? Pathetic. THE LANCET

London and New York

Editor/Publisher:
R. Horton
See editorial board for all editors information

Description

The Lancet is the world's leading independent general medical journal. The journal's coverage is international in focus and extends to all aspects of human health.
The Lancet is published weekly from editorial offices in London and New York. It aims to publish the best original primary research papers, and review articles of the highest standard.The Lancet is stringently edited and peer-reviewed to ensure the scientific merit and clinical relevance of its diverse content. Drawing on an international network of advisers and contributors, The Lancet meets the needs of physicians by adding to their clinical knowledge and alerting them to current issues affecting the practise of medicine world wide. The blend of challenging editorials, signed commentaries, original research, commissioned reviews, an international news section, and the views of readers in the letters pages make The Lancet an essential weekly read for physicians all over the world.
The Lancet is available by personal subscription to individual physicians. It is also available by subscription to institutions, libraries, and biomedical companies.

Visit The Lancet's World Wide Web site to find out more - http://www.thelancet.com

Bibliographic Information
ISSN: 0140-6736
Imprint: ELSEVIER
Commenced publication in 1823

Very Happy

Yeah, can't trust that dang Lancet. It's just tooo factual. Cool

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

Maybe I got lost on this. Am I to understand that English Major is trying to say that coaliton forces have killed 100,000 women and children?
Or, is he trying to say that since the End of the Iraq war that there have been 100,000 women and children killed?
Or, is he trying to say that its America's fault that 100,00 women and children have been killed?
Or, is he willing to admitt that it's insurgents that are killing civilians?
Or, is he going to say that if coalition forces weren't in Iraq than homicide bombers would not exist?
I'm not sure what you or your article are trying to imply.

The Johns Hopkins report found the deaths were attributed to violence resulting from military action by coalition forces, with women and children being the majority of those killed. The full, eight-page, report is published in the October 30, 2004, online edition of The Lancet.
Now that the Lancet has been established as a reputable scientific/medical journal, read the article on page 1 over again. Having been in the medical field for years, I know it is a very respected, independent journal. If it published the report from Johns Hopkins report (surely you don't doubt THEM, too?) maybe you should pay attention. America should be ashamed. Embarrassed

You've managed to kill more innocents than Saddam!

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
u refuse to accept any article as factual, even from the LA Times, NY Times, Wash. Post, etc. "

No, just those that try to pass the lancet report off as fact rather than fiction.

You are showing your ignorance, American. What about the Lancet do you find not factual? It's been around for quite some time. Read below and see for yourself WHO they are, then condemn. And you guys think you know how to debate? With no knowledge of the subject? Pathetic. THE LANCET

London and New York

Editor/Publisher:
R. Horton
See editorial board for all editors information

Description

The Lancet is the world's leading independent general medical journal. The journal's coverage is international in focus and extends to all aspects of human health.
The Lancet is published weekly from editorial offices in London and New York. It aims to publish the best original primary research papers, and review articles of the highest standard.The Lancet is stringently edited and peer-reviewed to ensure the scientific merit and clinical relevance of its diverse content. Drawing on an international network of advisers and contributors, The Lancet meets the needs of physicians by adding to their clinical knowledge and alerting them to current issues affecting the practise of medicine world wide. The blend of challenging editorials, signed commentaries, original research, commissioned reviews, an international news section, and the views of readers in the letters pages make The Lancet an essential weekly read for physicians all over the world.
The Lancet is available by personal subscription to individual physicians. It is also available by subscription to institutions, libraries, and biomedical companies.

Visit The Lancet's World Wide Web site to find out more - http://www.thelancet.com

Bibliographic Information
ISSN: 0140-6736
Imprint: ELSEVIER
Commenced publication in 1823

Yeah, can't trust that dang Lancet. It's just tooo factual.

You should stop making a fool of yourself and disgracing your fellow Canadi...er I mean American Ex-pats.

0 Replies

Like I said, drama queen with an obsessive compulsive disorder.

EM, I find it funny that you accuse ALL Americans of being duped by George Bush but you will believe anything from any crackpot website as long as it "exposes" America. I think you are right up there with GW in the hypocrisy department.

Have a nice day, eh?

0 Replies

Scorpia wrote:

When you initiate a war with a country beginning with an offensive called "Shock and Awe" and drop bombs on civillians, you are not doing it accidentally. You know full well that you are making a devastating attack on civillians. Even if you lie to your public calling it a "liberation."

First, Shock and Awe was not even implemented. It was propaganda designed to misdirect Saddam as to the course of the war.

Second, had it been implemented, it would not have made civilian deaths intentional. The very essence of the Shock and Awe plan was avoidance of civilian casualties.

Third, despite the fact that Shock and Awe wasn't implemented, we still tried to avoid civilian casualties. The civilian deaths were not intentional.

0 Replies

I try to be understanding to the people who are misinformed. But, It gets to a point where people are going to believe whatever mistruths are presented to them.
Shock and Awe was only used on military forces. It was designed to disrupt miliatry communications and RADAR first so that other aircraft could come in and destroy other tactical targets.
I disbelieve any distorted "Facts" that are propgated from an anti-American perspective.
Never, in the history of any armed conflict, have there been more civilian casualties than military casualties.

0 Replies

I don't get it. We're always complaining about how the world is becoming overpopulated. Bush is just doing his job. Why is everyone getting mad?

Quote:

You are showing your ignorance, American.

When will you dummy Americans get that?

:haha: you're contemptous racism makes me laugh almost as much as the anti-Canadian comments. But at least the canadian comments have a slightly light-humored bend.

Quote:

When you initiate a war with a country beginning with an offensive called "Shock and Awe" and drop bombs on civillians, you are not doing it accidentally. You know full well that you are making a devastating attack on civillians. Even if you lie to your public calling it a "liberation."

Lol we never used Shock and Awe but nice try.

And englishmajor I would read the articles you posted but I'm too lazy and I have to catch up on playing video games and watching MTV.

0 Replies

englishmajor wrote:

woiyo wrote:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

Seems to be a difference in opinion.

Well, duh, the US 'doesn't do body counts" but others do, who happen to care. So if the US doesn't do body counts you don't have a clue how many died do you? Nor do you care. Your stupid link above is nothing but Army propanganda. Absolute truth, of course, Mr. Braindead.

Amnesty international did an estimate that put the count at about 10,000 for the period of major combat.

Add a couple thousand for the insurgency period, and that'll give roughly the number of civilians we've accidentally killed.

The link given is totally unrelated to the US Army.

It is distorted by propaganda though, given that it incorporates any inflated figures that the Saddam government and the insurgency got into the press.

englishmajor wrote:

War IS Terrorism.

Terrorism is a form of warfare (an illegal form), but not all warfare is terrorism.

0 Replies

if war is terrorism that means every country that has been in a war is a terrotist country? You realize that statment includes canada.

I also read your precious little article. It seems you left out some very important details that dispute your 100,000 dead claim. The first is that Iraq itself reports a much lower number.
Other statisticians also question the validy of the claim because there is no information on where the interviewed the 1000 families.
If a person or a group wants to they can distort statistics to whatever view they want.
The only statistic I believe is when I found out the 75% of the people make up 3/4 of the world population.

0 Replies

100,000 women/children killed in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know