• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anti-War George Soros Funded Iraq Study

P

Pabster

Lifer
Story here.

Call me shocked. :laugh:

George Soros is a disgusting man. I'm not one bit surprised that he was behind this kind of anti-war propaganda (which, conveniently, was spread all over by our great mainstream media) and I'm glad he's been exposed.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Call me shocked. :laugh:

George Soros is a disgusting man. I'm not one bit surprised that he was behind this kind of anti-war propaganda (which, conveniently, was spread all over by our great mainstream media) and I'm glad he's been exposed.
Click to expand...

You mean we shouldn't believe it because of who funds it? Funny, I feel the same way about MSM, namely Rupert Murdoch and his PNAC buddies.
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You mean we shouldn't believe it because of who funds it? Funny, I feel the same way about MSM, namely Rupert Murdoch and his PNAC buddies.
Click to expand...

Would you believe a global warming report funded by Dick Cheney? :laugh:

And no, you shouldn't believe it, because it was proven false. The real figure was around 151,000 deaths, not 650,000.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You mean we shouldn't believe it because of who funds it? Funny, I feel the same way about MSM, namely Rupert Murdoch and his PNAC buddies.
Click to expand...

Would you believe a global warming report funded by Dick Cheney? :laugh:

And no, you shouldn't believe it, because it was proven false. The real figure was around 151,000 deaths, not 650,000.
Click to expand...

So how many deaths are acceptable?
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So how many deaths are acceptable?
Click to expand...

That's up to each person. I didn't make any claims about a figure being "acceptable" or not, simply pointing out that Soros' propaganda was factually wrong.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster

Would you believe a global warming report funded by Dick Cheney? :laugh:

And no, you shouldn't believe it, because it was proven false. The real figure was around 151,000 deaths, not 650,000.
Click to expand...

It has NOT been proven false. The two studies aren't even measuring the same things.

The study in the new england journal of medicine was studying "mortality from violence". You know, it's not like its in the TITLE OF THE PAPER or anything. The Lansing study was measuring 'excess mortality' which is FAR FAR different and encompasses way more things. (ie. if someone dies from lack of medical care because the hospital was out of commission that would count towards excess mortality but not mortality from violence)

Jesus people.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So how many deaths are acceptable?
Click to expand...

That's up to each person. I didn't make any claims about a figure being "acceptable" or not, simply pointing out that Soros' propaganda was factually wrong.
Click to expand...


New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

So it was 151,000. All for nothing. No wmd. No Al-Qaeda. No increased oil output.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So how many deaths are acceptable?
Click to expand...

That's up to each person. I didn't make any claims about a figure being "acceptable" or not, simply pointing out that Soros' propaganda was factually wrong.
Click to expand...

I am asking YOU. How many deaths are acceptable?
 
The point is that no one really knows how many Iraqi deaths there have been. Certainly the official 151,000 figure is a gross underestimation because it only counts officially confirmed deaths in a country where reporting the death of a relative can be extremely hazardous to health. And from what I have read, anyone in the field that is remotely unbiased clearly states the 151,000 figure is an absolute minimum and is most probably a gross underestimation of the unknown true number.

Maybe The Soros financed study which relies on other methodologies could be a gross over estimation or maybe its about right. And its also a dated study that put the most probable range between 650,000 to 850,000.

The only one who is definitely distorting the truth on this thread is Pabster who reports the Soros financed study is definitely wrong. When in fact no one is or can be really sure. But there is zero evidence that Sorus paid for a study with cooked books. The methodologies used are available to anyone who wants to research the issue.

And SOMEHOW---when push comes to shove---I would trust the evaluation of a professional statistician over the conclusions of Pabster. If Pabster wants to challenge either the methodologies or data collection of the Soros financed study, that is legitimate. But if the former two stand unchallenged, Pabster can't challenge the conclusion on any factual basis.
 
Attention everyone: "mortality from violence" does not equal "excess mortality".

Everything I can see says that these studies are measuring two different things.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You mean we shouldn't believe it because of who funds it? Funny, I feel the same way about MSM, namely Rupert Murdoch and his PNAC buddies.
Click to expand...

Would you believe a global warming report funded by Dick Cheney? :laugh:

And no, you shouldn't believe it, because it was proven false. The real figure was around 151,000 deaths, not 650,000.
Click to expand...

Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.
 
The 151,000 figure is an estimation of the people violently killed as a result of the US invasion.

Then there are all the rest that have died from illnesses etc. the figure of which likely is far higher than 150,000. That figure could well be far above 600,000 as the Iraqi study claims.

Since conditions in Iraq now are worse by far than pre invasion sanction Iraq it stands to reason that the Iraqi non violent death rate is higher even than during the sanction era. And we know the US was happy to sacrifice half a million Iraqi children then.

The UN reports that an Iraqi child dies every 5 minutes as a result of the war, and many more are left with severe injuries. Keep in mind that each of those deaths are the responsibility of the US, as the US as occupying power has the responsibility to provide for the medical needs of the population [according to the Hague and Geneva conventions.]

 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.
Click to expand...

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.
 
Its my understanding that GrGr is totally wrong in stating---The 151,000 figure is an estimation of the people violently killed as a result of the US invasion.

Then there are all the rest that have died from illnesses etc. the figure of which likely is far higher than 150,000. That figure could well be far above 600,000 as the Iraqi study claims.

It is my understanding that both studies claim the measure the number of people in Iraq who have lost their lives due to the violence in Iraq. Regardless of who killed them. Some have been killed by US troops as collateral damage, some actual insurgent deaths may be counted, but mainly both try to count innocent civilians killed in ethnic cleansing.

Any Iraqi deaths due to natural causes would not be counted in either study.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its my understanding that GrGr is totally wrong in stating---The 151,000 figure is an estimation of the people violently killed as a result of the US invasion.

Then there are all the rest that have died from illnesses etc. the figure of which likely is far higher than 150,000. That figure could well be far above 600,000 as the Iraqi study claims.

It is my understanding that both studies claim the measure the number of people in Iraq who have lost their lives due to the violence in Iraq. Regardless of who killed them. Some have been killed by US troops as collateral damage, some actual insurgent deaths may be counted, but mainly both try to count innocent civilians killed in ethnic cleansing.

Any Iraqi deaths due to natural causes would not be counted in either study.
Click to expand...

No, that is not correct.

Excess mortality means all excess deaths period, violent or nonviolent. Iraqi deaths due to natural causes are included in the Lansing figure but not this new one. Lansing estimated this by comparing things like prewar infant mortality rate with postwar and deeming a certain percentage of the difference 'excess mortality'.

(Note: that's a really broad way of describing what they did, so nobody start complaining about methodology based on my description please)
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.
Click to expand...

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.
Click to expand...

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?
 
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.
Click to expand...

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.
Click to expand...

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?
Click to expand...

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
wow. This thread got derailed in a hurry.
Click to expand...

How so? Some of us pointed out that the 150,000 figure is just the tip of the iceberg. How is that derailing anything? Oh, I see this thread was about Soros bashing was it, not reality? Well then carry on.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.
Click to expand...

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.
Click to expand...

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?
Click to expand...

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.
 
I'd like to see Pabster specifically address what has been pointed out here that the two studies are looking at two different things, and that the George Soros funded study is in no way proven wrong by the other.

I get tired of seeing all these fricking threads where somebody declares something an outrage, gets proven to be wrong about the basis for this outrage, and refuses to say a word in response. You made the statement, have the balls to back it up.
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.
Click to expand...

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.
Click to expand...

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?
Click to expand...

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?
Click to expand...

ugh. I was simply pointing out he already answered the question you asked. I wasnt answering for him.

As far as what I think, its irrelevant. As is your opinion on this matter.
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.
Click to expand...
Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top