Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

[Bululu]

For thoes who were screaming and insulting to defend the theory that the survey was false, even some were so silly and dumb to say that the toll of death caused by the Americans was 300 or 400 civilians only .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

[thesightless]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

"due to war"

not

"as a result of coalition forces gunfire or bombing."

we havent killed that many people, please, go fight for al queda. ill buy your plane ticket to pakistan.

[Bululu]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

I didn't say that all 655 000 were killed by your invading army, I posted this to remeber you how you and your Boy Friend were jumping around saying how FALSE was the number I gave, also your Boy Friend was saying that the invaders were only responsible for 300 deaths out of the 655 000.
PS: If you really insist on buying me a ticket then I'll pay your mother a visit, she misses me, I'll wear my turban as usual .

[Shpira]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

^^^Kill, Kill The Hwhite Man! Kill Him Untill He Is Dead!

[apollo_1444]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

"due to war"

we havent killed that many people, please, go fight for al queda. ill buy your plane ticket to pakistan.

but they have and they didn't have to in the first place ... mate your comrades are freakin' dying as well i can't believe why people keeps supporting this crap.

(yeah that sounded fucking hippie but I don't give a shit...)

[Miroslav]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

I can only guess, but I'd guess it's possible. This is certainly not saying anything about who did what part of the killings. But this is an estimate. They take a sample and extrapolate it onto the population. If the sample selection is biased, then the final result is biased. They may have used the most appropriate statistical methods given the conditions, but again, it's a BEST GUESS with some underlying distribution of error. That distribution could be pretty wide.

The point is, nobody really knows how many have been killed. And furthermore, what would the knowledge of that exact number have to do with decisions of what should be done with Iraq going forward?

[malayday]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

watever the final number turns out to be (even though it is virtually impossible to count for sure)..its sure as hell would be much...much more than what saddam wouldv had done...with his "totalitarian brutality" and it sure as hell is an absoluttly ridiculous waste of life..and utter destruction of generations to come....

[malayday]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

shame on all of us for trivialising and questioning and defending either side of this fukshit...

[DIDI]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

shame on all of us for trivialising and questioning and defending either side of this fukshit...

[davetlv]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

For thoes who were screaming and insulting to defend the theory that the survey was false, even some were so silly and dumb to say that the toll of death caused by the Americans was 300 or 400 civilians only .

Supply link where anyone here claimed the total death toll by Americans in Iraq was only 300/400?

[Bululu]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

Well you spoke about 2006, and it said :

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
16,791
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists)
225*
Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists.

My mistake saying it was the TOTAL but lets say 225 last year, 2006 was the most violent year since the dirty invasion in 2003 , I am sur your numbers won't even reach a 1000since the begining of the LIBERLIZATION war .

[davetlv]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

Indeed the figures i quoted were for one year only. I have not quoted any other years. I certainly never claimed that only 300-400 Iraqis have died through incidents involving the Americans since the start of the war.

I accept your apology for taking my words out of context and trying to give them a completely new meaning. In future should you wish to accuse me of something here make sure the true facts don't come back and bite you in the ass.

[Bululu]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

I dont get bit in the ass , you do , but still I maintain that you gave completly stupid and ridicolous numbers that I don't know where you got them from to support your theory that the dirty invasion is not as deadly as everyone thinks.
PS: at least when I make a mistake I excuse myself.

[davetlv]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

I don't know where you got them from to support your theory that the dirty invasion is not as deadly as everyone thinks.

Yawn. Cant you read Bulululululululululululu

The figures quoted are from the Iraqi Body Count - I'm sure you can do a simple search and find out about the organisation.

[Morgan]

Re: Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust

225 killed in a year from American crossfire, that seems fair.