.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:426749"]PatMeebles said:[QUOTE]And stop saying 100,000's or Iraqis dead. It's not true. The lancet study (the only that's said, 100,000) said that it was 95% certain that the death toll was between 8,000 and 196,000. they chose 100,000 just because the number was in the middle.[/QUOTE] As I've already mentioned, John McLaughlin quoted the number as almost 120,000 some months ago, which means that there are figures above 100,000 besides the Lancet Study. Aside from that, it is also a historical fact that death tolls in war are much more likely to be underestimated during the conflict than overestimated. You guys are right about the reporters in the line of fire stuff, though. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.009 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][