View Single Post
Old 07-01-2008, 04:30 PM   #2
Undertoad
Radical Centrist
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post
What do you mean mass graves, or bodies. They were all over the battle field. They were in the homes that were bombed. They were not all accounted for, and were not limited to those who have gotten death certificates. Some of the bodies were incinerated or destroyed entirely, or were blown into so many parts an identification would be impossible.
The battlefield? Less than a hundred thousand allied forces were killed at the Battle of the Bulge. (Most of them were buried.) To equal the number of deaths you're talking about would require 11 Battles of the Bulge.

Your last study says 48% killed by being shot, or about 500,000; 9% bombed with munitions; 20% car-bombed, about 200,000; yet there's no reporting from embeds, private citizens, Iraqi bloggers or anything from the military that indicates anything remotely resembling the sort of activity that could produce that level of carnage.

Both Lancet surveys were published during the national elections. The first one was released days before the 2004 election. Both were broadly and reasonably criticized. This last one is a fucking fantasy.
Undertoad is offline   Reply With Quote