100,000 Iraqi's die at hands of USA & Britain



szbert

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
336
2
0
Bikerman2004 said:
This thread is misleading. Casualties doesn't mean killed. It includes injured and killed. It isn't the first time Limerickman has attempted to mislead.
Yes limmerpuke, the wee laddie from County Braindead, attempts to mislead us, but since we're sober and he is not, it doesn't work. Only a drunk could ramble on incessantly as his posts do.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Bikerman2004 said:
This thread is misleading. Casualties doesn't mean killed. It includes injured and killed. It isn't the first time Limerickman has attempted to mislead.
It would appear that bikerman might be correct here. 100,000 seems a little high.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Bikerman2004 said:
This thread is misleading. Casualties doesn't mean killed. It includes injured and killed. It isn't the first time Limerickman has attempted to mislead.

the US army killed 40-50 women and children in that particular attack.
my use of the word casualties is a mistake on my part.
still doesn't exonerate the cold blooded killing of civilians.
 

Bikerman2004

New Member
Jul 24, 2004
752
0
0
101
limerickman said:
the US army killed 40-50 women and children in that particular attack.
my use of the word casualties is a mistake on my part.
still doesn't exonerate the cold blooded killing of civilians.
My post was intended to expose the sensationalism that Limerickman engages in. 100,000 killed! When you read his supporting information you find the number of killed is much lower.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Bikerman2004 said:
This thread is misleading. Casualties doesn't mean killed. It includes injured and killed. It isn't the first time Limerickman has attempted to mislead.

The LANCET article is clear by the way - 100,000 dead Iraqi's.

To use your definition - this does not include casualties ie not dead but injured.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Bikerman2004 said:
My post was intended to expose the sensationalism that Limerickman engages in. 100,000 killed! When you read his supporting information you find the number of killed is much lower.

The Lancet monthly medical journal is clear - 100,000 dead Iraqi's.

The Lancet is a widely read - widely respected, medical journal.

The survey methodolgy is the same methodolgy used for war casualties in Bosnia and Kosovo.

I trust the basis of the Lancet estimate.
 

Bikerman2004

New Member
Jul 24, 2004
752
0
0
101
limerickman said:
The LANCET article is clear by the way - 100,000 dead Iraqi's.

To use your definition - this does not include casualties ie not dead but injured.

No they are not very clear. Since they say 100,000 MAY have been killed. Interesting that you assume that is fact. Then when you read a little further other non-govermental agencies state somewhere 10,000 to 30,000. One human rights group, Iraq Body Count, estimates that there have been up to 16,289 civilians killed by military intervention. The report conceded that the data the projections were based on was of "limited precision".


 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
3,000 innocents dead after 9/11

>100,000 innocents dead as retaliation.

how does an American life compare to a Muslim/Arab one?
 

szbert

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
336
2
0
MountainPro said:
3,000 innocents dead after 9/11

>100,000 innocents dead as retaliation.

how does an American life compare to a Muslim/Arab one?
Quite well, thank you.

AMF