by Specop_007 » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 00:45:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnemyCombatant', 'O')K, I'll help your feeble ass out.
I assume you are referring to the civilian casualty count. I don't know what in the hell you think was getting blown to bits during the shock and awe campaign and fallujah. I hate to piss on your cheerios, but it was civilians.
Or is the argument now that every man woman and child in iraq is a terrorist.
Is the conservative newpaper the washington post mainstream enough for you??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Oct28.html
"The analysis,
an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented "
Thats another way to say "We're guessing"
Try this for a more accurate number
Click
100,000 has always been the spin put on by liberal doing reporting. Why? because its a nice round number, and its a BIG round number.
In the beginning of the war you could find estimates ranging from around 10,000 to around 100,000.
The media immediately picked up on that big round number and ran with it. Now, to do
factual reporting you should at the minimum report a number in the middle, say 50,000. Even better would be to always report the range of 10,000-100,000. But instead the media (Which is NOT conservative) jumped on the opportunity to use 100,000.