• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

17 Dead because of liberal media bias

Here's an interesting read.

True, it dates to the fall of Baghdad, when the US forces went from an offensive to an occupational mode. But that's what makes it co compelling.

Since the fall of Baghdad, the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties have resulted, not from US action, but the activities of the terrorist/homicide bombers who are intentionally targeting Iraqis.

The goal of the "opposition" seems to be to incite the peaceful Iraqis to rise up against the newly elected government. The means they have chosen to accomplish this is to terrorize the populace by indiscriminately killing or maiming as many as they can.

Their tactics resemble those of the IRA which, with an estimated force of between 200 and 400 active agents, was, for many years, able to tie up tens of thousands of British troops in Ireland

http://peaceuk.co.uk.mdl-net.co.uk/archive/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=517
 
cnredd said:
Via The Command Post comes this study published in Lancet (free reg) which purports that 100,000 Iraqi have died from violence, most of it caused by Coalition air strikes, since the invasion of Iraq. Needless to say, this study will become an article of faith in certain circles but the study is obviously bogus on its face.

First, even without reading the study, alarm bells should go off. The study purports to show civilian casualties 5 to 6 times higher than any other reputable source. Most other sources put total combined civilian and military deaths from all causes at between 15,000 to 20,000. The Lancet study is a degree of magnitude higher. Why the difference?

Moreover, just rough calculations should call the figure into doubt. 100,000 deaths over roughly a year and a half equates to 183 deaths per day. Seen anything like that on the news? With that many people dying from air strikes every day we would expect to have at least one or two incidents where several hundred or even thousands of people died. Heard of anything like that? In fact, heard of any air strikes at all where more than a couple of dozen people died total?

Where did this suspicious number come from? Bad methodology.

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the Lancet study. Which is why I said the Last creditable numbers I saw were in the low 20k's. Because I didn't find the Lancet study credible.
 
Pacridge said:
I'm aware of the Lancet study. Which is why I said the Last creditable numbers I saw were in the low 20k's. Because I didn't find the Lancet study credible.
Click to expand...

Hey!...Don't kill the messenger....

Earlier you asked...

Ok where ya getting this 100K figure and what is it in refence to?

I answered it... That's all...

If you were aware of the Lancet study, than why did you ask the question?...You should have just said..."You got that number from Lancet....and it's not credible"....And I would've never had to go find the source...
 
cnredd said:
Hey!...Don't kill the messenger....

Earlier you asked...

Ok where ya getting this 100K figure and what is it in reference to?

I answered it... That's all...

If you were aware of the Lancet study, than why did you ask the question?...You should have just said..."You got that number from Lancet....and it's not credible"....And I would've never had to go find the source...
Click to expand...

Not killing any messenger. I'm agreeing with you. That's all.
 
Pacridge said:
Not killing any messenger. I'm agreeing with you. That's all.
Click to expand...

OK...But I'm watchin' you.....:twisted:
 
Pacridge said:
Some body should be, I've got the key to the liquor cabinet.
Click to expand...

Nice....I'm always up for the quick wit....
 
Originally posted by cnredd:
Nice....I'm always up for the quick wit....
Click to expand...
Your such a Kiss-ass!
 
This explains the uncertainty about the number of dead Iraqis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm

And in response to the 17 people dead because of "liberal bias", let's get real here. If people are going to kill and riot because someone desecrates a Quran then they are idiots for acting in such a way. I am no Christian, but I know that if someone in a Muslim country were to "flush" a Bible down the toilet (a little to big to fit down the pipes) you would not see such a reaction here. I think this has to do with Islam being 600 years younger than Christianity, so if we compared it to 1400s Christianity then yes, the same would probably have happened.
 
Originally posted by galenrox:
let me guess, you're one of those liberals who views a liberal and conservative compramising and being civil as sellouts and spinelss, right?
Click to expand...
I was just making a joke. No more no less. Doing unto others as he has done unto me. But I don't really believe that he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom