Satan For President
Posted 16 April 2005 - 07:57 PM
Ok so why did I ask this? Simple, statistics are easily and often misquoted and you shouldn't believe everything you hear. If something can be 300% percent incorrect and not many will question it then something is seriously wrong. I have said before and I'm saying again now I don't trust the news and in general statistics of any kind until I can verify them. The number I used was from the head of Coroner affairs in Iraq. I would say that's a reliable source. I'm curious to see how many people actually believe the 100,000 number and where they got it from. Not all numbers are that skewed, however, because I've heard 50,000 and even the correct 30,000. I'm not making a big deal about this, but I am thinking of doing a small project on this topic so I guess I couldn't resist asking the question.
Posted 18 April 2005 - 01:13 PM
I think 30,000 is a pretty low PR style number and is probably about a half of what the reality is.
Posted 18 April 2005 - 05:28 PM
HiMH; I would hate to speculate on the # of Iraqi casualties, but I will say that more are killed by IED's from the insurgency over there. I will also say that military planning and technology has kept the number down. The other issue is that most of the insurgents that are dying for virgins are from other contries and have moved to Iraq to wage the jihad agains the westerers (mainly us)...
Do we need to start this as a seperate topic?
Posted 18 April 2005 - 06:00 PM
But my point was just that we were launching missles into a major metropolitan area (population over 5 million) and to me, even though we have much better targeting systems (and etc), I can't believe that even after all this time the total isn't higher than 30,000.
Posted 18 April 2005 - 07:30 PM
Posted 18 April 2005 - 07:37 PM
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:26 AM
My thoughts exactly. I'm sorry but 100,000 is just ridiculous. JSOTF does 30,000 sound too small to you? I know you're staying out of this but I guess your input is appreciated.
Posted 19 April 2005 - 09:04 AM
I think both 100,000 and 30,000 sound out of proportions. But I look at the larger cities I've been in, and I could find very few area where you could pin point drop a bomb and not kill anyone or at least a very few. Bhagdad is a major city, and when missles area launched into it I have to imagine it killing a large number of people.
And then there has been a running small scale war running for so long now, with accedntal and intentional deaths, I just can't believe the number is so low as 30,000. But yeah, 100,000 seems like too much.
Apparently, the 30,000 comes from a US source and the 100,000 comes from an Iraqi source. Either side has a vestiage interest in making the numbers suit their goals, and so I have to believe the actual number falls in the middle.
Posted 19 April 2005 - 10:52 AM
Posted 19 April 2005 - 05:36 PM
Thanks for the input!
Posted 21 April 2005 - 04:13 PM
Posted 21 April 2005 - 07:30 PM
Member since March 25, 2005.