Funny, you link to a post you created about Gribbit.

Yes — a post which Sonnabend clearly did not read. That post easily debunks Sonnabend’s claim that all my posts “are about abusing other bloggers”.

This blog is about abusing the Wide Awakes and little else.

Since the lie didn’t work the first time, Sonnabend decides to repeat it. Perhaps it thinks that reality will somehow warp itself to accommodate its clumsy smear.

...explain to me why it took you TWELVE HOURS to de spam those comments…

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

The explanation is simple: I have better things to do with my time than stare at my WordPress control panel waiting for Sonnabend to post yet another of its mendacious screeches. If it doesn’t like my priorities, I cordially invite it to go fuck itself.

Well, Sonnabend has me convinced. This war has been totally worth it. Only 100,000 people have died (God knows how many injured) and we’re on the hook for at least $1 Trillion. There are definitely not any extra, uncounted bodies at the bottom of the Tigris river, in the desert or anywhere else in Iraq because they haven’t been reported in the media and the media, of course, has complete, unfettered, bullet-and-bomb-proof access to any corner of Iraq. Iraq’s strong central government also surely would have known about any extra bodies lying around since they exercise such extensive control of the country. 4 million Iraqi refugees? Success and not destabilizing at all!

I wonder how much longer the war is going to take? I wonder how much more it’ll cost? Maybe Sonnabend can tell us where the trees are that have money growing on them so that we’ll be able to continue to pay for the various no-bid contracts.

I can’t wait until we catch bin Laden in Iraq! It’s going to be awesome. bush will be vindicated and the war will turn out to not have been a catastrophic & rudderless boondoggle at all.

bin Laden has walked right into the $1 Trillion trap that bush has set for him! Well, he hasn’t exactly walked into it because otherwise we would have caught him already, but now is not a time to split hairs. We’re winning.

This blog is about abusing the Wide Awakes and little else. And as for the delay, explain to me why it took you TWELVE HOURS to de spam those comments when the ones before it did not wind up in the spam filter

Note the timestamps, folks.

All your blogs are about abusing other bloggers, kender, me, Cao, all of them. All we ever see are screeching abuse and insults and epithets.

And again, Sonnabend chooses to lie.

Whats the matter…cant handle it?

I am yet to see you you utilise one fact or other reality to prove your piont, instead you throw around emotive epithets like “holocaust denier”.

All your blogs are about abusing other bloggers, kender, me, Cao, all of them. All we ever see are screeching abuse and insults and epithets.

Are you so unmotivated and so inable to be creative that this is all you can do?

Is this all you are?

IBC admits that not every violent death in Iraq is reported by the media.

Were there sixteen thousands deaths in one month, it would have been reported. Satellites would have seen it…we have satellites that can take a photo of a license plate from a hundred miles up, and yet no one knows anything about a conflict that takes sixteen thousand lives in one month?

Do people die in war? Yes.
Do I deny that? No.
Were a great deal of these casualties caused by terrorists? Yes.
How many do I think have died? My guess would be 90,000 approx since 2003.
Do I think that the “one million” figure is a massive exaggeration? Yes.
Can that “one million” figure be verified? NO.
Is the IBC data more reliable? To me, yes.

Billy Joe, you asked for answers: I have tried to provide them. By the way, compare my answers and my tone to meaty’s, and ask yourself just which one makes the more sense.

Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.

COWARD.

You ask for answers then hurl abuse when the answers are not what you wanted them to be.

Sonnabend’s question “where are the bodies” was not an answer to any question I asked. It uses the same tactics employed by Holocaust deniers.

Sonnabend has demonstrated that it ignores facts that it does not like — for instance, the known fact that IBC admits that not every violent death in Iraq is reported by the media.

This is, of course, the same tactic used by Holocaust deniers. How fascinating that Sonnabend has chosen this course.

T

Thank you for proving my opinion of you to be correct. You ask for answers then hurl abuse when the answers are not what you wanted them to be.

Is Sonnabend truly claiming that only 26 people died of violent causes in all of Iraq on Sunday 16 March?

Yes.

Now prove otherwise.

I am not talking about a survey that asked two thousand households, you claim a figure of one million, yet cannot provide the proof in terms of morbidity and mortality, backed by morgue figures.

Is it Sonnabend’s belief that every single death that occurs in Iraq — a country with a barely functioning government — is recorded officially, and that the body is always processed through a morgue? If so, it will have to prove that this is so.

Where are the bodies.

This is, of course, the same tactic used by Holocaust deniers. How fascinating that Sonnabend has chosen this course.

Now its an “average”? An average of what?

Sonnabend did not bother to read what I wrote, obviously. It should go back and do so.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Says 89,000. That is more than likely accurate.

BECAUSE! SONNABEND! SAYS! SO!

That’s all it’s got, really. Blind assertion. And a willingness to ignore the caveats given by the Iraq Body Count project itself: “The IBC [states] that ‘our maximum refers to reported deaths – which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.’”

Sunday 16 March: 26 dead

Is Sonnabend truly claiming that only 26 people died of violent causes in all of Iraq on Sunday 16 March? Amzing. It seems to believe that all violent deaths in the entire country are accurately and immediately reported.

I wonder what else it fantasizes about.

As one plus one equals two, so must a specific total of one million be made up of a total number of casualties to reach that figure.

So either the figure of one million is correct, in which case you will have to prove to me just where and when these casualties occurred.I am not talking about a survey that asked two thousand households, you claim a figure of one million, yet cannot provide the proof in terms of morbidity and mortality, backed by morgue figures.

Sonnabend proves only its own innumeracy. The idea that a specific death toll requires that a certain number of deaths must occur per day with no daily variation is utter nonsense. Sonnabend simply does not comprehend the concept of the mathematical average.

Meathead does not understand the simplicity of mathematics.In order to reach one million you must first have 999,999 and before that 999,998 and so on.

Where are the bodies.

Either that or the figure of one million is a guesstimate only and not accurate.

Of course not. The graph of casualties by month and year makes it clear that there was wide variability in the number of deaths per month. The average is just that — an average, not the exact invariable number of deaths per month.

Now its an “average”? An average of what?

Show me in which province and which area were there casualties in the last month of 16 000 people.

If 16 000 did not die, then the figure of one million is wrong.

You SPECIFICALLY claim that ONE MILLION have died.

Where and when did they die, and I expect you to prove to me that your figure is correct and can be corroborated by actual morbidity and mortality data.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Says 89,000. That is more than likely accurate.

Sunday 16 March: 26 dead

Baghdad: car bomb kills 1, Mansour; 5 bodies.

Diyala
Hwedir: 5 policemen die in clashes.
Khanaqeen: roadside bomb kills Kurd.
Muqdadiya: 2 bodies.

Ninewa
Mosul: gunmen kill 2 policemen; roadside bomb kills 1; 3 bodies -one beloning to 11-year-old boy.

Basra
Basra: 4 bodies.

Wassit
Kut: 2 bodies.

See, meatbrain? These are what are known in the blogging world as facts.

Try it sometime.

Oh and I like Al Bester more.

Winter Soldier

March 20 – 2003 to March 20 2008 = 5 years = 365 days in a year = 365×5
so we take 365×5 = 1825 days so we take 1 million dead and we divide by 1825 days so we have 1 000 000 divided by 1825 days = 547.94 dead per day without letup, and with no variation in the death toll.

Any variation in the death toll will mean that the end figure of one million is incorrect, since if, in one week, the number of deaths was not 547.94 per day, then it stands to logic that mathematically, the end total of one million is not supported by the data provided.

Sonnabend proves only its own innumeracy. The idea that a specific death toll requires that a certain number of deaths must occur per day with no daily variation is utter nonsense. Sonnabend simply does not comprehend the concept of the mathematical average.

An illustration: According to icasualties.org, there were 901 US casualties in Iraq in the calendar year 2007. This is a rate of 901/12 = 75.08 US casualties per month. Does that mean that there must have been exactly 75.08 US soldiers killed per month, with no variation?

Of course not. The graph of casualties by month and year makes it clear that there was wide variability in the number of deaths per month. The average is just that — an average, not the exact invariable number of deaths per month.

So according to you , in the last month, nearly sixteen thousand people died, and no one has reported it, no one knows anything about it, no one has reported major combat operations in the last month that would account for this and no one has reported where, and when, this happened.

No one was wounded, no one has seen the bodies, no one has reported overflowing morgues or overflowing graveyards.

Sonnabend reveals here that it has not bothered to find out how the survey was conducted. The survey asked Iraqi households how many members of the household had died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. Obviously, the members of that household do know if a family member had died. No “major combat operations” are required for Iraqis to die — the actions of the various militias are quite enough. According to ORB, the 2005 census indicated that there are 4,050,597 households in Iraq. The monthly average death toll thus requires that only 547.94/4,050,597 = 0.00013 or .013% of Iraqi households lose a loved one to violence per day.

The willingness of the wingnuts to demonstrate their incomprehension of reality never ceases to amaze.

I should have expected as little from you. Your idea of backing up your assertions is to link to another right-wing blog that basically plagarized an EDITORIAL that purports to debunk the study. Plus the author adds a couple of colorful names for the subjects of the EDITORIAL, probably so as not to look like so much of a plagarist.

Surely there is a more authoritative debunking of the study than the one on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, isn’t there?

To Sonnabend’s credit, at least he tries to use logic, data and math to make his case.

And while I agree that 500+/day is a lot, I think the Lancet study was a study of not just victims of violence, but also babies who died in hospitals because the hospitals have no supplies, etc. In that case, given what we know about the current Iraqi medical system (and the fact that the country’s infrastructure has been destroyed), it does seem plausible that people are also dying from causes that wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t invaded their country and then followed up with a rudderless occupation.

don’t you think? Anyway, I look forward to your numbers. I just assume Cao will cut-and-run as usual.