Peace-loving and religiously tolerant Muslims in Egypt

#126
#126
You think the trend from 2003-2006 has remained? last I checked, 2008-2010 has been pretty tame compared to 2003-2006. What you are saying is more people died due to the invasion SINCE 2006, than from 2003-2006. That doesn't fit reality.
 
#128
#128
IPorange said:
You think the trend from 2003-2006 has remained? last I checked, 2008-2010 has been pretty tame compared to 2003-2006. What you are saying is more people died due to the invasion SINCE 2006, than from 2003-2006. That doesn't fit reality.
Click to expand...

This ran through my mind right after I read the date on the fact sheet.
 
#129
#129
IPorange said:
You think the trend from 2003-2006 has remained? last I checked, 2008-2010 has been pretty tame compared to 2003-2006. What you are saying is more people died due to the invasion SINCE 2006, than from 2003-2006. That doesn't fit reality.
Click to expand...

The 1.4 mil is based on the 2006 finding of, on average, 500 per day.

Take the number of days, total, and multiply by 500 to obtain the 1.4 mil or so.

And no, 2006 to 2009 by far more tame, but no where near the 50% misrepresentation you are claiming that I am claiming, even with the high end of the confidence interval in 2006.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#131
#131
You cited a source for your total, and that source did not back you up. You had added to the total based on the average reported in the source, and ignored the fact that conditions have drastically changed since 2006.

You then tried to tell me I didn't know about trends. You're essentially drawing a gsvol-style trend, fixing the data points and slope to your case and ignoring context.
 
#132
#132
IPorange said:
You cited a source for your total, and that source did not back you up. You had added to the total based on the average reported in the source, and ignored the fact that conditions have drastically changed since 2006.

You then tried to tell me I didn't know about trends. You're essentially drawing a gsvol-style trend, fixing the data points and slope to your case and ignoring context.
Click to expand...


That source backs that up with the 500/day average, in order to estimate the total.

Where does the source alter its 500/day estimate post 2006?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#133
#133
#134
#134
fl0at said:
That source backs that up with the 500/day average, in order to estimate the total.

Where does the source alter its 500/day estimate post 2006?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Where does the source make any claims whatsoever post-2006? You might as well tell me the whole nation will be depopulated in 20 years, since according to you 5 % of the population has been killed, despite the nation growing by 17 % in that same frame of time.
 
#135
#135
IPorange said:
The only study to actually report over 1 million casualties in Iraq was found to have severe shortcomings: Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate | Spagat | Survey Research Methods


Adding on the trend from 2003-2006 for another 4 years like you and others have done is shoddy work. It is exactly why you won't find it published anywhere.
Click to expand...

A new study wouldn't use that trend, either. It would be a new study, but until a new study modifies the original, the standard is 500/day.

If new testing is done, it will be modified and reduced, but until then, it is still the accepted statistic.

I haven't seen the study you posted, I'll take a look at it in a moment.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#136
#136
How can one use continuing trends in warfare statistics? I know very little about stats, so feel free to ignore my question.
 
#137
#137
IPorange said:
Where does the source make any claims whatsoever post-2006? You might as well tell me the whole nation will be depopulated in 20 years, since according to you 5 % of the population has been killed, despite the nation growing by 17 % in that same frame of time.
Click to expand...

The source doesn't make any claims post 2006, which is my point. Science is not the study of what might modify, it is the study of what is testable, and the last test is 500/day.

If a new study is done, then the estimate can be modified, but until then, the accepted statistic is near 500/day.

If we blindly alter that 500 average, without testing, simply because "things changed," but never tested the variables, it isn't science.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#138
#138
VOLatile said:
How can one use continuing trends in warfare statistics? I know very little about stats, so feel free to ignore my question.
Click to expand...

Depends on which side of the war you are on. :)

Useful to say, hey you killed a lot of innocents, or, no, we didn't.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#139
#139
Or you could say, "Here's where the statistics were in 2006. Yada yada yada. Unfortunately, there is nothing available after that."
 
#140
#140
VOLatile said:
Or you could say, "Here's where the statistics were in 2006. Yada yada yada. Unfortunately, there is nothing available after that."
Click to expand...

Or, I could say, a MPH study at Hopkins found the excessive death rate in Iraq between 2003-2006 to be 500/day. If trends continue, the excessive death rate is expected to reach 1.4 million by 2011.

Which is what I did, but less concisely.
 
#141
#141
fl0at said:
Or, I could say, a MPH study at Hopkins found the excessive death rate in Iraq between 2003-2006 to be 500/day. If trends continue, the excessive death rate is expected to reach 1.4 million by 2011.

Which is what I did, but less concisely.
Click to expand...

Correct. It's less confusing stated this way, too.
 
#142
#142
VOLatile said:
Correct. It's less confusing stated this way, too.
Click to expand...

Not as effective as a smart ass comment that way, though. Falls more along the lines of the ineffectual tiptoeing of the sniveling lifelong academic.

Sometimes a little inference is a good thing. Night.
 
#143
#143
fl0at said:
Or, I could say, a MPH study at Hopkins found the excessive death rate in Iraq between 2003-2006 to be 500/day. If trends continue, the excessive death rate is expected to reach 1.4 million by 2011.

Which is what I did, but less concisely.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just a sniveling academic, because I have no problem with the above statement.

I just value clarity and exactness. It's important in today's emotional political climate where pseudo-facts run amok.
 
#144
#144
IPorange said:
I guess I'm just a sniveling academic, because I have no problem with the above statement.

I just value clarity and exactness. It's important in today's emotional political climate where pseudo-facts run amok.
Click to expand...

I too am just a sniveling academic, but like I said, that statement has less smart ass effectiveness.

I will concede that the 1.4 million is bad extrapolation, though I said it was high pretty much right out of the gate.

In order for clarity and exactness, do you have a total in mind for a consensus?

IBC's methods have shown to only catch about 20%. I highly doubt anyone would be confident in a method that only yields 20%.

The study in Lancet (~600k excess) uses the best methods, but earlier you stated you could see low hundreds of thousands.

So, ballpark, what would you call it? No argument, no disagreement, no anything: call the value, and I'll concede to that value.
 
#145
#145
IPorange said:
You cited a source for your total, and that source did not back you up. You had added to the total based on the average reported in the source, and ignored the fact that conditions have drastically changed since 2006.

You then tried to tell me I didn't know about trends. You're essentially drawing a gsvol-style trend, fixing the data points and slope to your case and ignoring context.
Click to expand...

You never tire of the oblique jabs at me do you??



fl0at said:
Man, where the hell is that link I had about a handful of Christians killing 1.4 million Muslims... I don't think it was on a train, though. Memory is fuzzy.
Click to expand...

Fuzzy is the focus of this whole discussion between you three.





fl0at said:
Just commenting on the hypocrisy of above poster(s) who get their panties in a bunch when a handful of Christians are killed, but don't bat an eye lid when 1.4 million Muslims are killed (~ estimation of Iraqi civilian casualties) by, mostly, Christians.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The fictional 1.4 million has to do with civilians, who knows what their religion was?





VOLatile said:
So what are the numbers of Christians killed by Muslims since 2001? Couldn't possibly be that high, right?
Click to expand...

Since 1901 it has been in excess of 10 million and those were Christians targeted for extermination, not incidental casualties between military and insurgent combats.







IPorange said:
Taking a page from gsvol and leading off with insults- nice.

You're not talking about the Hopkins study that estimated 655,000 deaths, are you?

Link?
Click to expand...

What a load of crap, you are the one who is easy to pass out personal insults and have been way over the line.
 
#146
#146
gsvol said:
The fictional 1.4 million has to do with civilians, who knows what their religion was?
Click to expand...

Predominantly Muslim, if you believe the CIA world fact book, which states Iraq is 97% Muslim.


gsvol said:
Since 1901 it has been in excess of 10 million and those were Christians targeted for extermination, not incidental casualties between military and insurgent combats.
Click to expand...

To those Muslims who "exterminate" Christians, they believe it is a war as well. Would be impossible to convince them that the entire conflict wasn't an attempt to destroy a Muslim country. They also believe we are attempting to exterminate them, or assimilate them, which in their mind, is the same thing.

Here is a look into that mindset, though it is an opinion/blog, so don't take it too seriously:
2.1 million Iraqi infant dead under Sanctions & Occupation – yet Iraqi Holocaust Denial by US & Puppets. By: Dr Gideon Polya Kanan48
 
#147
#147
fl0at said:
Man, where the hell is that link I had about a handful of Christians killing 1.4 million Muslims... I don't think it was on a train, though. Memory is fuzzy.
Click to expand...

fl0at said:
So those that votes to go to war were not Christian? How about the majority of those that deployed? Christian or other?

I didn't say Christians caused it, I said Christians mostly did the killing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
#148
#148
fl0at said:
So those that votes to go to war were not Christian? How about the majority of those that deployed? Christian or other?

I didn't say Christians caused it, I said Christians mostly did the killing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing though. None of our troops went in yelling Praise Jesus Christ! or Hail Mary full of lead!

The Muslims are killing people due to a religious war. Iraq was all about the money.
 
#150
#150
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
It's not the same thing though. None of our troops went in yelling Praise Jesus Christ! or Hail Mary full of lead!

The Muslims are killing people due to a religious war. Iraq was all about the money.
Click to expand...

I support his premise that Christians have blood on their hands as well.

I do think it's a stretch to say that the Iraq War had little to do with Christians acting in the name of Christianity (to juxtapose with Islamic extremists).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top