Unnatural Disaster : Iraq

I bolded "do not" for emphasis.

Well, the BBC has just back-tracked a bit:Which seems a little bit odd to me, but there you go.On the other hand, I guess this mean the insurgents are not defined as terrorists, eh?

Tal wrote: crashfrog wrote: Hey crashfrog, bolded for emphasis.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Uh, yeah. But you understand that it doesn't undercut Crash's post much, if at all.A report came out and you dissed the conclusion with no evidence to counter some of the evidence in the report.Crash pointed out that this is what you were doing.All that the new correction article does is alter the certainty of the initial stated evidence. The fact is more then 60% might still be killed by coalition forces rather than insurgents. It is just undefinable as such.It may stand to reason that with the extensive firepower we bring to bear on any military action, we will inherently be inflicting more collateral damage than them.Indeed I do know of at least one case where a man was shot by US troops when they started firing wildly trying to hit insurgents. He was eating in a restaurant, and it was lucky no one else was killed.If you know what Iraqis are saying about insurgents, almost assuredly you must know what they are saying about the wild firing of US troops and the resulting deaths?In any case, I stick to facts so the FACT is that right now the percentage is unknown. Unless your entire point was that it was unknown, versus untrue (which is what your position appeared to be), Crash was wholly accurate in his criticism.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-30-2005 05:28 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Sure it does.[q]A report came out and you dissed the conclusion with no evidence to counter some of the evidence in the report.[/qs]How did I "dis" the report? I simply pointed out that it was not definate. I even went so far as to say I didn't have anything to refute it. But now I do since the BBC corrected itself. No. When the US kills civilians, you hear about it in the news. When the insurgents kill civilians, you hear about it in the news. You see "a suicide bomber killed 40 Iraqis yesterday...." If the US had killed that many civilians, you bet you would hear about it.I still stick with the insurgents kill MANY more Iraqi civilians than coalition forces do.All of you just dissed yourselves by jumping on a story that turned out to be 100% false.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Yet, you posted.Why was that?

quote:

---

The BBC's Panorama programme reported coalition and Iraqi security forces were responsible for most civilian conflict deaths in the past six months.

​

But the health ministry says that its figures were misinterpreted.

---

quote:

---

It states that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis killed by terrorists, not only those killed by Coalition forces or Iraqi security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action included terrorists themselves, and Iraqi security forces.

---

So, the insurgents count as a military now? So when we take them into custody, they're POW's?With Geneva protections? Funny how that works.

No, it doesn't. The difference is his comment did not hinge on the accuracy of the article. Please tell me your understand that it wasn't refuted. Those making definite claims of high percentages were going beyond what they could. That would also go for people making claims of low precentages. Apparently you didn't understand the article. It divided direct attacks from terrorists (such as the bombing you just described), from killings within military actions.Whatever the coalition forces do is considered a military action so even if they bombed an entire building filled with innocent people it would not get counted as an terrorist attack, and fall in the "military action" grouping.People originally erred in assuming the military action deaths were all a result of coalition forces, but this is not so. It could be that insurgents caused collateral damage (this is what was being assessed). Do you believe they cause more collateral damage than us, when engaging our troops?Thus this is all skewed pretty heavily in favor of our side, and it still doesn't look good. What's great is if you look at some of the graphics you can see that civilian deaths were super high during the war and then began a rather steady state affair, and this is from before the insurgency began. Hmmmmmm, who was killing people then? Us. Without evidence and even a clear understanding of the article. Good for you. Who is "you". I didn't jump on any story did I? No, I just jumped on you for attempting to back out of an accurate criticism. Ironically you just made the same mistake in this latest post.What's great is that you still don't get that not only was I not fooled, I caught the error most people have with stats, but you are an idiot for believing that it was 100% wrong. See 100% means that it was completely wrong... but unless all military action deaths were the result of insurgents it can't possibly be 100% wrong.I think you mean it was exagerrated and went beyond the statistical evidence, which is exactly what you have done... again.Keep up the good work.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Hey, I'm not the one citing incorrect statistics.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

You will note that I did not respond to your statement that they could be wrong. I only responded when you inaccurately tried to defend yourself when someone else pointed out that you had absolutely no evidence behind your claim.It is true that the original article got the stats wrong. The person who reffed it could not know that it was inaccurate at the time, without further research anyway. Thus the person was not wrong for having posted the article and asking what this indicates... it was merely the article which was inaccurate and not patently wrong.Indeed it may still be right (it would just not be known), and would have been 100% right if it had said "military engagements in which troops have been involved have caused more casualties than insurgent activity targeting civilians", rather than "during military engagements our forces ended up killing more civilians etc etc".A bigger problem that the person quoting an article that ended up being inaccurate, is you coming in with no evidence at all to refute it. And the bigger problem still was you knocking crash when he pointed out the total lack of evidence at your disposal.Does this make sense now?If you feel I am being harder on you than I should be, let me repeat that at least the guy was quoting an article that was inaccurate and he could not have known better without more in depth research.The fact that we just went through two threads with you where you continually cited articles that were totally incorrect and proven incorrect makes your blasting that guy (who later admitted the article was revealed to have been inaccurate when evidence came to light) rather hypocritical.I am holding you to an equal standard. Start admitting when your articles have been shown false by more recent data, and understanding criticisms such as Crash's are accurate, and it won't seem so bad.(added in...)Oh yeah, by the way I am not the one quoting incorrect stats either. The post you were directly responding to was the one where I pointed out your charge that I was part of some group "jumping on" some incorrect article, was fallacious. Nice come back to say you weren't. Why not just admit you can make a mistake?This message has been edited by holmes, 02-01-2005 05:07 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)