Say Anything Blog

Well, we could call them “terrorists” because that’s what we call folks who target innocent civilians....

The downside, of course, is that our own troops could then be deemed “terrorists.”

After all, when you drop a JDAM with a 2000 or 1000 lb. warhead on a neighborhood, you are certainly taking a bunch of civilians with the bad guys you target.

So you’re saying that our soldiers target civilians?

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Listen (or read) carefully, Rob.

When you drop a 2000 lb warhead into a city, you’re going to kill civilian non-combatants.  The blast radius of such a munition is such that our forces have to keep a minimum of 500 meters or more distance for safety.  If you’re 400 meters away, there’s a 50% chance you’ll die.  40 meters or less--your chances of survival do not exist.

So, tell us, Rob, when you drop a bomb like this into a city, do you dispute you’ll kill civilians?

We target terrorists. The fact that they often hid behind their women and children so that they can point to the bodies afterwards and claim that the Americans targeted them is beyond our control.

So, if we know a certain neighborhood in Fargo has a lot of crime activity, we’d be justified in dropping a big bomb on it, right?

Rob,

The definition of insurgency doesn’t require that civilians be spared as I recall.  An insurgency merely pertains the armed overthrow of a government, regime, etc.  Indeed, its about as neutral a word as one can come across.

Jadegold...I think you’ve been listening to the terrorist sympathizers a bit too much.

We target terrorists.  The fact that they often hid behind their women and children so that they can point to the bodies afterwards and claim that the Americans targeted them is beyond our control.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I never claimed that they were or weren’t of course.  So why should I have to provide evidence for an argument I haven’t made?

I’ve merely stated that neither you nor your opponent appear to be able to demonstrate your claim except by your respective default positions.

So you’re admitting that you have absolutely no evidence that our soldiers have been targeting civilians in the current oonflict.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

The U.S. military in the past has targeted civilians (its hard to see the firebombing of Japan as not having such a component), so it remains to be seen whether we are still doing it - either as de jure policy or by the de facto measures of individual members of the military.  Indeed, on this matter what one gets involved in is a pointless debate of default positions.  I don’t believe that you can say with certainty that it doesn’t happen, nor can your opponent say the converse.

Rob,

In the future I suggest that you actually read my comments.  Thanks.

So, if we know a certain neighborhood in Fargo has a lot of crime activity, we’d be justified in dropping a big bomb on it, right?

I realize that you’re just trying to cloud the issue because you want to hide the fact that you think our troops are murdering civilians, but I’ll answer.

If Fargo were infested with an army of terrorists who were actively murdering American forces in the area then yes some precision bombing might be just the ticket.

Of course, its an absurd example and really dependent upon far more circumstances that what you’ve described.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Indeed, if the history of WWII in the Pacific Theatre combat is any measure,* its going to take the fifty years or more to get behind the curtain that the man is hiding behind. 

*I have some friends who are historians of the era and they along with a lot of Young Turks have often been amazed at the cover-up of incompetance that left thousands and thousands of Marines, etc. dead in the Pacific.

Thanks canuck.

Gary,

I never said that you did.  Maybe you should read my comments.

I got the feeling that you were attempting to tacitly support Jadegold’s assertion by pointing to some of America’s past indiscresions.  Really, those are not at all relevant to the current discussion.

And you say that my position is a “default” position.  I’d say you’re correct in that I’m simply asking for proof.  Jadegold says that our troops are targeting civilians.  I’m asking for any evidence for the current conflict that supports such a claim.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I did read your post.  You were perfectly clear in your meaning and I interpreted that meaning correctly.

I got the feeling that you were attempting to tacitly support Jadegold’s assertion by pointing to some of America’s past indiscresions. Really, those are not at all relevant to the current discussion.

They are quite relevant actually.  Past actions give you some impression of future possibilities.  You - after all - seem to appear to conclude that the U.S. acting this way is out of the realm of possibility. 

I’d say you’re correct in that I’m simply asking for proof.

Neither of you have evidence of your position; so the real default position should be one which neither discounts or claims.  This is why I sit in between you and Jadegold on this issue.

Rob, love your pic. Damn good movie.

that’s all.

Neither of you have evidence of your position

Its almost impossible to prove that something doesn’t occur or exists.  So really Rob’s statement would be true, unless there is evidence to disprove it.

Correct, but the burden of proof lays on JG for saying something occurs/exists.

For example, you could say that the Dodo bird is extinct and I could say that it is still alive.  It would be impossible for you to prove that it doesn’t exist.  To prove you wrong I would have to show that it is still alive.

How would you suggest that Rob could possibly produce evidence that these events don’t occur?

Andrew,

I think the burden lies with both of them actually. 

As far as the Dodo bird example is concerned, there is a process by which animals are declared extinct.  It is somewhat arduous, but it does demonstrate within a level of probability (and since most knowledge like this is probabilistic) that X animal no longer exists.  Its that sort of process Rob would have to go through to adequately demonstrate his claim. 

Just because one cannot prove a negative doesn’t abrogate the proponent of the responsibility to demonstrate that the negative is not likely true.

Andrew,

The mere absence of contrary evidence doesn’t prove a claim.

Jadegold says that our troops are targeting civilians. I’m asking for any evidence for the current conflict that supports such a claim.

I’m merely pointing out the fact--repeat, fact--we drop some pretty heavy munitions in very populated areas.  It is naive and a bit obscene to pretend that dropping a 500, 1000, or 2000 lb bomb in a heavily populated urban area magically only kills insurgents.

We have good reason to believe somewhere in the neighborhood of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians (Lancet study.  Note the Lancet study measures excess deaths: “"We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000 - 194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. ... Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.... Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100 000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.”) have been killed.

It is incorrect to say we are targetting civilians as Rob pretends I stated.  OTOH, it is undeniable that our prosecution of this occupation has led to significant loss of civilian life.

The Lancet, in January, did a bit of backpedaling on that particular study. They admitted they had no actual evidence on the numbers. The current estimation is between 55 to 65 thousand non-combatant deaths since begining combat operations in 2003. And yes, terrorists use children and women as sheilds, please provide examples of US military using children and women as sheilds. Or hostages.

That Lancet study is crap and you know it Jadegold.  Only a person desperately looking for any reason to criticize this war would latch onto something as wildly inaccurate as that study.

I don’t do have to do a thing to demonstrate my claim.  Our troops are not targeting civilians.  If you want to say otherwise please point to credible proof.

Which, since neither of you can do any such thing, kindly shut up.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The Lancet study is not “crap” and the Lancet has not backed away from it. The Chronicle of Higher Education examined the study and found :

Public-health professionals have uniformly praised the paper for its correct methods and notable results.

“Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,” says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact—and have acted on those results.

Huh.  Praise from unnamed public health professionals and accolades for past studies.

Not very convincing.

This study was based on speculation and poor methodology.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Gary,

Why don’t you go and read that link again.

I’m beginning to worry about your reading comprehension skills.

The study was crap.  You know it, you just won’t acknowledge it because it goes against your pre-conceived notions about the war in Iraq.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I also believe this is another example of your raging TBism coming to life.  Here I attack your simple-minded criticism of a study and you automatically assume it must be because I agree with the study.  You are making assumptions about my thoughts based on faulty thinking. 

Might I suggest you read Roger Fisher’s Getting To Yes?  It might help you get past such rudimentary thinking.

Rob,

I am starting to worry about your veracity. 

But here’s a challenge: show me where my comments err.

I notice that when Rob tries to substantiate a claim he almost never links to a source outside of his blog, and that when he makes claims about said links invariably they are inflated or simply are not substantiated.  That was the case with his WMD article a little while ago, and wqhen I pointed out this behavior he simply din’t respond.  Apparently he thinks posters are too damn lazy to actually look past his bravado. 

Now, if you look at the link he provides here you’ll see that he tries to attack the study based on issues like sample size (though a sample size of over 7,000 people and nearly 1,000 housholds is more than adequate - take a stastics course)* and whether the deaths in question were not typically substantiated (given Iraq’s minimal ability to register dead bodies thats not surprising).  Certainly these issues place limits on the study, but here Rob is making the perfect the enemy of the good (at times the good is just fine for him - just depends on whether the issue at hand fits his bias). 

Rob didn’t point out any criticism of the study which truly undermined its validity, especially if the study controlled for these factors (which it apparently did). 

*Note that Rob has likely linked to polls about the feelings of Iraqis in the past that had a smaller sample size than this if they supported his claims.  Of he also claims that 2,000 people marching in the streests represents the Iraqi people.  What he considers an adequate sample size thus shifts depending how his view of whether it hurts or helps his pet cause.  And of course, a sample size of 900 households is alright for American polls prior to elections, so why it is suddenly inadequate here is hard to say.  Honestly Rob, I’m getting tired of your raging TBism.

Rob,

And do it by comparing my statements with your language from the link in question.  You’ll find that my comments are spot on.

Rob,

Also note, that despite your phony blustering otherwise, I am not making any claims about the nature of the study itself (this again makes me question your veracity and your reading comprehension).  I’ve not once looked at it (and I doubt you have either).  I’m merely discussing your statements re: the study.  Those statements aren’t by themselves any reason to reject the study itself, despite your bellowing otherwise.

Rob can’t even calculate a percentage correctly.  Apparantly he believes that 63/78 is 63%.

Tim Lambert,

Poor at math.  Doesn’t have a good grasp of statistical methodology.  His primary error was of course to attack the story by reviewing what a secondary source said about the study.  That’s one of the dumbest damn things you can do.  Hell, I thought in the post-memogate world we bloggers independently checked the claims of the MSM?  Oh wait, that’s only when it suits their ideological interests.

Rob: As I’ve previously suggested, you really need to take a basic statistics survey course.  Please note I’m not suggesting this as a way to insult you or to in anyway denigrate you.  I urge it because I really believe your posts involving polling and statistical surveys expose you unnecessarily to ridicule.

BTW, I would commend Tim Lambert’s blog as a good place to see the various phony criticisms of the Lancet study debunked.

The Chicagoboyz (Shannon Love) criticism has been debunked here:

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002858.html

The problem once more, Rob, is that you have elected to call the Lancet study “crap” not because you understand why it might be erroneous--but because you have decided you want it to be.

Uhhh...no.

You’ve decided that the Lancet Study is acceptable, not because it is, but because you want it to be.

Like I said, you don’t have to agree with me.  If you want to call that Crooked Timber post a “debunking” go ahead.  I see it as desperate spin by another person who really, really wants the study to be accurate.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Since you guys certainly aren’t willing to take any of my opinions seriously on this matter, here’s a more comprehensive run-down on the methodology used in that study:

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html

Also:

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002549.html

Not that anything short of god himself (if he exists) descending from heaven on high to refute the results of this study would do anything to change your minds, but there you go.

That is what I’m basing my reasoning on.  If you don’t agree, I couldn’t care less.

The study was crap.  Its just that it works out so much better for your view point for it to be true.  There are plenty of things to criticize about this war.  Lets try to stick to the real stuff instead of the made up stuff.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Tim Lambert says, “Rob can’t even calculate a percentage correctly. Apparantly he believes that 63/78 is 63%.”

Where is that “apparent”?

You’ve decided that the Lancet Study is acceptable, not because it is, but because you want it to be.

No, Rob, it’s because I have a pretty good understanding of probability and statistics, having taken under graduate and graduate-level courses in the subject.  Moreover, there are people and organizations who are a great deal better-versed in the subject than I who believe the Lancet subject to be credible in its methodolgy.

OTOH, you cite a blogger whose prime gripe with the study is that it uses cluster sampling to measure rare events (such as violent death).  And it is true cluster sampling is not recommended for measuring rare events; however, it is not recommended because such a methodolgy bears a significant risk of underestimating rare events.  IOW, the Chicagoboyz criticism is saying the Lancet study underestimates the number of civilian deaths in Iraq.

Uh oh, Rob.

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2005/03#lancet22

Rob:  Let’s suppose you never made the ‘typo.’ Or that you had managed to calculate the percentage correctly.

Your “methodology” of demanding death certificates when there hasn’t been a death is rather silly.

As one commenter put it:

While we’re at it, let’s also mention that Rob has publicly admitted that he does not understand the difference between accuracy and precision, that he has no grasp of how characteristics of a sample can reflect those of a population, either did not read or did not absorb why and when the death certificates were requested, and did not bother to read the Lancet study’s excruciatingly detailed description of how the sampled households were selected.

And yet he has the colossal arrogance to call a study by some of the best epidemiologists in the world “crap.”

Let’s suppose you never made the ‘typo.’ Or that you had managed to calculate the percentage correctly.

I didn’t try to calculate a percentage.  I typed percentage into a sentence where it wasn’t needed.

Your “methodology� of demanding death certificates when there hasn’t been a death is rather silly.

No, I’m demanding proof of such deaths from households that claim there has been a death, not from all households.  Again, you confuse the issue.  Probably on purpose.

As for your blockquoted comment, its a bit of insulting drivel.  I’ve never admitted any such things.

Put simply: I don’t accept this Lancet Study.  Nor do a lot of other people.  Its methodology was suspect, which is something even the people responsible for the study itself admitted.  Trying to base any sort of rational and specifically accurate conclusions off of the findings from that study is just plain silly.

But the hysterical “100,000” number fits your politica objectives quite well, so I suppose you’ll continue to use them.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:  I think the criticism extends a bit past your making a typo.

No, its pretty much just focused on the typo.

But don’t take my word for it.  The link is in your previous comment.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Again, Rob, the typo is the least of the problem.  I believe that’s just the cherry atop a much larger and ornately decorated cake.

Yes, I noticed that.

I responded in kind.  They found a typo in my post.  I corrected it by removing the word “percentage” from the statement.  Clearly I was not talking about percentages.

I don’t see where it deserves an “uh oh.”

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And before anybody jumps all over me for changing a post, here’s a Google cache of it:

Google Cache

I removed one word from the post in question.  I had accidentally typed the word percent when I was not talking about a percentage.

For some reason that warranted an entire post from that joker.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Huh?

The post has like...five sentences which aren’t quotes from my site.  All of which are devoted to the typo.

Maybe you’re hoping people won’t click through on the link and actually read it...because it is anything but a “multi-layered” cake.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Where is the physical evidence of the claim you, and The Lancet, are making. The Lancet has admitted they have only anecdotal data to support the claim they made on that number. Also, we are still awaiting your undeniable,irrefutable evidence that the US military uses, or has used, children and women as shields or hostages. Well?

Where is the physical evidence of the claim you, and The Lancet, are making. The Lancet has admitted they have only anecdotal data to support the claim they made on that number.

Please provide proof of this statement. First of all, the Lancet was the publication that published the paper. It didn’t claim anything as such. Secondly, the authors of the paper have not, to my knowledge, ever said any such thing, nor have any peers accused them of having done so.

You’ve decided that the Lancet Study is unacceptable, not because it is, but because you don’t want it to be.

Rob,

You’ve decided that the Lancet Study is unacceptable, not because it is, but because don’t you want it to be.

No, I’m using my common sense to make a judgment call about a study with suspect, in my humble opinion, methodology.  Maybe I’m wrong.  I’ve never claimed to be infallible...but until something better comes along I’m not buying this.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: Gary’s right; you concluded the study was bogus because you wanted it to be.  You attacked the study on several points, all of which have been proven not merely wrong but ridiculously wrong.

You’ve also a significant history of demonstrating almost no knowledge of statistical inference.

Yet, you continue to assert the study is “crap” despite it coming from a peer-reviewed professional journal by epidemiologists who are world-renowned.

Rob,

You always fall back on phrases like “common sense” and the like whenever you cannot justify a claim.

Was it common sense to state that a study of almost 900 households was suspect due to sample size when that would be than adequate to measure the pulse of the U.S. in an election campaign for President?  The fact that you used that as a basic criticism told me right off that you basically are ignorant re: statisical polling methods.  I could judge your entire analysis from that.  Doesn’t mean I agree with the Lancet study, it does mean that I think analysis is bunk.

Rob:  Passing this along from Tim Lambert’s site:

“ Put simply: I don’t accept this Lancet Study. Nor do a lot of other people. Its methodology was suspect, which is something even the people responsible for the study itself admitted. Trying to base any sort of rational and specifically accurate conclusions off of the findings from that study is just plain silly.”

I am curious. Would you share how you came to the conclusion that the methodology was suspect. Please avoid circular reasoning and the use of other people’s words. I want to know how you came to the decision that the methodology was suspect.

Sounds like a legitimate and reasonable request.

Jadegold, I’ve provided all the reasoning in my other post.  Accept it or not, I really don’t care.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Make up your own mind on the subject

"I really don’t care"…
then why did you post it in the first place?

My view:

Estimates relating to the “lancet” report or indeed “iraqbodycount” Data are somewhat irrelevant unless one is placing predefined limits on the acceptable death-toll.

I am from the UK, I feel both pride at the behaviour of British troops and immense regret at the situation in Iraq. One can search online for endless ‘service personnel’ home videos of unarmed troops crawling from under twisted wreckage being vaporised by the Apache’s gun system. One can hear an F16 pilot say ‘oh dude’ after destroying 48 people in a street in Fallujah (some of which were militants, some in nearby buildings were children).

The UK troops have had to deal with a smaller and (don’t accuse me of not mentioning this) less volatile region of iraq, and having said this. I feel that in showing respect for local customs, communities, and the gesture of manning checkpoints and patrols wearing no helmets, has enabled them to use intelligence rather than 500lb bombs to route out local resistance. This in my opinion (and it is my opinion only) is also suggested in the fact that there have been such a disproportionally small number of civilian deaths resulting from UK forces given the geographic region covered and frequency of engagements.

Civilian casualties have to be accepted in war, it is therefore the responsibility of the armed services to ensure that troops do not get so carried away with immeasurably superior firepower and often relatively safe vantage points from which to drop ordnance, and in so doing, distance themselves psychologically from the reality of broken bodies and dead kids.
The shock and dismay that I feel that life is taken so carelessly fills me with a greater sense of immorality than any statistic. Civilian blood will be spilt, but the act of spilling it due to crass carelessness and technological detachment is to commit as great an injustice upon the civilian population as can be imagined. The value of Iraqi life is little, and if we rightfully enter a nation in order to rid it of tyranny, we have a solemn duty to regard those people with just as much care as we would show for our own civilian populace.

[...] Then, in this thread, Rob tries to defend his criticism. Only read if you enjoy seeing someone repeatedly punch themselves in the face. [...]

i just wanted to say a couple of things.

Firstly, "insurgents" is, as someone rightly pointed out, a neutral term. It does not give any more legitimacy to anyone. An insurgent is someone who uses violence in order to overthrow a regime or government.

Second, "terrorism" is a tactic. you do not become a terrorist until you commit an act of terrorism. Hence the term: ‘the war on terrorism’ is an absurd concept which has no logical conclusion.

Thirdly, it doesn’t matter whether American forces target civilians or not. The truth is American forces must necessarily know that they are going to kill civilians when they fire their missiles. you make your own conclusions.