Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Par]

No. I was talking about the part of the IraqBodyCount site, where there is written that the 80000 ( about ) deaths are only a minor part of the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq. The evidence that Oliver has shown you.

Initially, Oliver cited the Iraq Body Count figure; he also highlighted their warning that their figures are likely much too low. Neither of those factors, however, constitutes a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, it’s still rather difficult to see which evidence I was supposed to have been ignoring.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Last time I checked 5 million was more than "2 millions".

So, we agree on that.
Good

 

[Matteo Martini]

Initially, Oliver cited the Iraq Body Count figure; he also highlighted their warning that their figures are likely much too low. Neither of those factors, however, constitutes a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, it’s still rather difficult to see which evidence I was supposed to have been ignoring.

No.
Once again.
You wrote " So, in order to support the figure of “500 thousands to 1.2 million” you cite the “most factual” reports [ i.e. the IraqBodyCount site ], which state “78,280 – 85,289”. " ignoring the evidence ( shown by Oliver ) that in that site ( IraqBodyCount ) there is written " It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. "

 

[Par]

...the evidence ( shown by Oliver ) that in that site ( IraqBodyCount ) there is written " It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."

The problem, however, is still that said information does not constitute a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for your claim that I was ignoring it.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The problem, however, is still that said information does not constitute a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for your claim that I was ignoring it.

As the evidence you were ignoring is not about the claim of the number of deaths ( " 500 000 to 1 200 000 ), but about the fact that the site IraqBodyCount does not state that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is 78,280 – 85,289, as you were saying ( post n. 156 )

 

[Par]

As the evidence you were ignoring is not about the claim of the number of deaths ( " 500 000 to 1 200 000 )...

So, you were referring to something totally different from what was being discussed at the time.

You are keeping ignoring evidence that it has been shown to you.

You were so clear and precise, too.

 

[Par]

So, in order to support the figure of “500 thousands to 1.2 million” you cite the “most factual” reports, which state “78,280 – 85,289”.

...the evidence... is... about the fact that the site IraqBodyCount does not state that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is 78,280 – 85,289, as you were saying...

It might be worth bearing in mind that the words “most factual” were Oliver’s, and not mine.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So, you were referring to something totally different from what was being discussed at the time.

We were discussing, among other things, about if the IraqBodyCount site was claiming that the civilian lives lost in Iraq were 80000 or not.

You were so clear and precise, too.

Look.
I have no intention to declare that anyone is the winner/loser.
We have understood the point.
Good, let` s move on.

 

[gumboot]

So, we agree on that.
Good

Huh? This conversation is with Oliver, about "millions of Chinese killed by America". I'm still waiting for him to explain himself.

-Gumboot

 

[Matteo Martini]

Huh? This conversation is with Oliver, about "millions of Chinese killed by America". I'm still waiting for him to explain himself.

-Gumboot

No.
The conversation was also between you and me.
Posts n. 151, 152, 153, 159 and so on..

 

[gumboot]

No.
The conversation was also between you and me.
Posts n. 151, 152, 153, 159 and so on..

Yes I entertained your derail. You seem to have a habit of interjecting irrelevant comments into a discussion.

-Gumboot

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes I entertained your derail. You seem to have a habit of interjecting irrelevant comments into a discussion.

-Gumboot

Mm..
Maybe not " irrelevant comments ", but comments on facts you do not want to hear..

 

[gumboot]

Mm..
Maybe not " irrelevant comments ", but comments on facts you do not want to hear..

All your derail concluded with is an agreement that "5 million" is "more than 2 millions". I achieved that level of cognitive excellence when I was about six years old.

Do you have any insight to offer into why Oliver thinks the United States has killed "millions of Chinese" or should I just ignore you?

-Gumboot

 

[Matteo Martini]

All your derail concluded with is an agreement that "5 million" is "more than 2 millions". I achieved that level of cognitive excellence when I was about six years old.

Quiet down.
Do not always be so angry..
Your health will not be that good, this way

Do you have any insight to offer into why Oliver thinks the United States has killed "millions of Chinese" or should I just ignore you?

-Gumboot

1) While I endorse some of Oliver` s position, I am resposible of what I write;
2) This is what I wrote to you:
" So, you agree the American troops killed millions in Vietnam, but not killed anyone in China?
BTW, I am not even sure the American army killed millions in Vietnam, even if the Vietnam war directly resulted in about 2 millions of ( mostly ) civilian deaths "
3) You can ignore me any time

 

[gumboot]

Quiet down.
Do not always be so angry..
Your health will not be that good, this way

I'm not angry.

2) This is what I wrote to you:
" So, you agree the American troops killed millions in Vietnam, but not killed anyone in China?
BTW, I am not even sure the American army killed millions in Vietnam, even if the Vietnam war directly resulted in about 2 millions of ( mostly ) civilian deaths "
3) You can ignore me any time

Yes, I'm aware of what you wrote. And I'm sure you're aware of what I wrote in response, since you also responded to that. I'm just trying to understand what your point is?

-Gumboot

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm not angry.

Yes, I'm aware of what you wrote. And I'm sure you're aware of what I wrote in response, since you also responded to that. I'm just trying to understand what your point is?

-Gumboot

I forgot.
That was long time ago.

 

[gumboot]

I forgot.
That was long time ago.

Hah hah. Okay.

-Gumboot

 

[Ion]

To:

The most candid moral pervert yet.




Perhaps you can answer: When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Why is the person who made the choice to and actually physically carried out a brutal and disgusting act of torture or murder simply blameless?

and to:

That’s your reason as to why Osama bin Laden was justified in carrying out the 9/11 attacks?

you and Bush are hiding behind bin Laden.

bin Laden is a small time thug.

A mass murderer is Bush.

Below are Bush's consequences:

.) The San Diego Union Tribune of Tuesday November 13 2007 has the article Iraq wars' impacts on the U.S. economy said to be $1.5 trillion;

.) The San Diego Union Tribune of Tursday November 15 2007 has the article Last year, 35.5 million in U.S. suffered hunger, survey finds;

.) The San Diego Union Tribune of Sunday November 26 2006 has the article Big oil firms are crimpling U.S. economy, data show
Shell's attempt to close refinery raised questions documenting price rigging and record profits by oil companies operating in U.S..

Bush's U.S. = United States of Imbecility

 

[Ion]

How? UNSC Res.1441 required nothing of the UNSC members other than to "remain seized of the matter". Are you saying that by invading Iraq, the USA failed to "remain seized of the matter"?

-Gumboot

1441 signatories promised not to take action on Iraq but let the U.N. Security Council decide.

Bush signed 1441, and took action on Iraq, in breach of his signature.

 

[Ion]

Not only this:

1441 signatories promised not to take action on Iraq but let the U.N. Security Council decide.

Bush signed 1441, and took action on Iraq, in breach of his signature.

but Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward documents how French President Chirac and Minister de Villepin ensured this through tough negotiations with Bush.

Bush tried to get another U.N. Resolution to top 1441, and failed.