 |
|
  PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." 您未权限在该板张贴消息。只有最低脑兵级别的会员才允许张贴在该板。 状态: 所有人能发表
9. 三月 2009, 03:06:59 题目: Iraqi Civilian Body Count --Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualities at over 600,000.-- http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm --BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.-- http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ --Finally, they point out that more recent data confirm their findings and even suggest a higher figure. The British polling firm Opinion Research Business (ORB) asked 1,720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16% had lost one, and 5% two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion. Accounting for a standard margin of error, ORB says, "We believe the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063."-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq 9. 三月 2009, 03:40:10 题目: Re: Iraqi Civilian Body Count  The Usurper: So what. You google mined for those stats. As I correctly pointed out, no one knows for sure. You're using the WORST stats you could find. That's disingenuous. Also, you said the US murdered these Iraqis. That is a deliberate false statement. And as I have pointed out, most of the deaths were carried out the terrorists - the Muslim kind. ONLY where the US deliberately ignored civilians when they bombed an area or when they deliberately bombed civilians do you have a case that even comes close to murder. This is what I mean by propaganda. YOu use these terms so loosely that I just blow off everything else you say. You play so loosely with the facts that your credibility with me is in serious jeopardy. I'm beginning to think you will say anything, just to support your point. Facts be damned! Michael Moore IS a BIG FAT LIAR. Don't be like him. 9. 三月 2009, 03:53:36 题目: Re: Iraqi Civilian Body Count Artful Dodger: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Those are the numbers YOU choose to use. Why? Because you don't want to know the truth. That's ok. There are always those who will support war crimes with any justification and who will deny the evidence even when bodies are laying in front of them. 9. 三月 2009, 03:56:53 题目: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. The Usurper: Rubbish. You're using google mined stats. I used the first one's I found. And one of the links gives numbers from 90,000-600,000 but concludes it's impossible to know. And your charge of murder is simply not true and a manipulation, sheer propaganda. 9. 三月 2009, 04:04:02 题目: Re: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Artful Dodger: Sure, there is plenty of good information you can find by googling. 9. 三月 2009, 04:05:43 题目: Re: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. The Usurper: Even distortions 9. 三月 2009, 04:07:14 题目: Re: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Artful Dodger: "Even distortions" Don't confuse independent researchers with U.S. distortioners of evidence. 9. 三月 2009, 04:11:27 题目: Re: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. The Usurper: Point you miss is that you do not have any numbers for how many of the killed civilians were killed at the hands of US murderers???? Unless it is your point to blame the fact that the us was there at all, for every killed civilian? 9. 三月 2009, 04:05:35 题目: Re: I'm using the best research available by disinterested parties, not the purposely deflated numbers of interested parties. Artful Dodger: And it is not impossible to know. The best estimates are made by those who research the issue, like ORB, as posted below. |
日期和时间
在线的朋友
最喜欢的讨论板
朋友群
每日提示
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, 版权所有 回顶端 |