His whole premise of discounting casualties if they don't match the demographics is completely crap. If you were to flip a coin 100 times and get 80 heads and 20 tails, would you state that you flipped it 40 times and the other 60 were just anomalies?
Adult men are more likely to be killed because the random bombs/bullets he's assuming exist, don't. Men who are of 'fighting age' are far less likely to survive a confrontation with the coalition forces than say a 10 year old girl. Men are more likely in a Muslim society, even a liberal one like Iraq, to drive any vehicle or hold a job. As the driver, they are more likely to be targeted when one of the roving road blocks fires on a vehicle. Going out of your house to go to your job greatly increases the likelihood that you will be killed or injured.
Remember that family that was shot upon at one of these road blocks last year. The father was trying to get home before the curfew. Random bullets should have killed equal numbers on children and adults, but the kids lived. Because the bullets weren't so random. They were aimed at the driver and he was killed.
Also, remember when we were trying to 'cut off the head of the snake' and based on 'credible and verifiable' evidence we bombed a house in Baghdad? We killed several innocent people. I think only one of them was a child. Based on this guy's 'logic', at least some of the others must have been combatants.
Based on this guy's 'logic', Bush couldn't have carried Ohio in the last election because the exit polls said that Kerry won. The exit pollsters didn't discriminate in who they asked, so just like his indiscriminate bombs, they should have asked people in proportion to the way they voted. Unfortunately for him and Kerry, statistics don't work that way. They can be used as a PREDICTOR, but the results do not need to follow the prediction.
Facebook
Twitter