Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis

Yes, like when you got angry and insulted me, then had your post removed then said you had me on ignore yet come back for more. Very entertaining how you will go against your word to prove the legal invasion of Iraq was more costly than it actually was.

Really. So please debunk the fact that Soros funded this and show how this had nothing to do with the fact that the raw data was not released in a timely manner as it should have been for a study of this sort.

Please debunk the fact that the results of the Lancelet are way out of wack with all other surveys the Iraqi Family Health Survey included and while you are at it, explain what numbers they were using as a base model for deaths in prewar Iraq as they seems to be missing the hundred of so a day that were being killed by Saddam and in fact, the Lancelet has deaths from non violence at below pre war iraq levels so explain that one too please.

.

It has to do with ethics. That you miss this point comes as no surprise considering the obfuscation you have employed with the base issue which is that it is underhanded and has something to hide otherwise, the raw data would have been released rather than outright refused to be released by Burnham when requested by an organization of which he is not a member of but, has the power to oversee surveys of this sort and lend their approval to it in order to ensure all surveys are maintaind at certain standards of accuracy and impartiality. Burnham refused, why is that, the Soros connection or faulty methodology?

One tenth the clusters, I don't think so.

None? Roberts and Burnham agree with you of course as they kept this a secret, why did they?

And neither take into account the deaths of pre war Iraq as we now know them to be.

Of course it's not. If I did a study and determined that the Lancelt is wrong as a non member of the AAPOR I don't have to run it by them so my study has just as much validity as theirs. However, if I wish it to have any credibility at all, I would allow the raw data to be reviewed by them to ensure that all knew it was not tainted by outside influences such as what you say don't exist despite being funded by those influences.

And so was the Iraqi Family one, with both missing the prewar death numbers by literally hundreds of thousands.

We haven't even started. Please provide the proof they took the half million deaths that were not public knowledge into account when basing their figures, explain why only fifty thousand non violent deaths occurred during five years in a nation the size of Iraq, explain why you don't feel that outright refusing to release raw data is being on the up and up and does not indicate there is something to hide. Please show how even if both surveys were correct how the Lancelet can be so far off the mark from the Iraq Family one when they both used the same methodology yet came up with totally different results as there is s huge difference between 601,000 violent deaths compared to 135,000 or, as you keep whining on about, 650,000 deaths to 400,000. As the Authors of the IFHS say;

They wrote that to have reached the "2005-2006 death rate of more than 900 per day, estimated by Burnham et al., the IFHS would have had to miss nearly 90% of the violence-related deaths," an oversight that they said was unlikely because they had a broader sample base. ``

 

I've had it with your deceptions, strawmen, red-herrings and lies, frankly.

 

I find your ignorance of facts amusing to say the least and it shall provide hours and hours of entertainment in the New Year. Merry Xmas to you, till next time.

 

They are at war with an enemy that declared it on them rather than accept their own country. When one is at war with an enemy you don't allow them to build tunnels to circumvent a clockade nor do you allow them to become rich and powerful rather, you allow for the minimum supplies to get through to sustain life and a social environment so a government and peoples can survive but not flourish.

Both have the destruction of Israel as their official policy.

 

There was nothing 'alleged' about it. The Kahan Commission found him guilty and his resignation followed.

 

Laugh away:

Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne, said:

"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study." (Toole, The Age (Melbourne), letters to the editor, October 14, 2006)

Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told the Christian Science Monitor:

"I loved when President Bush said 'their methodology has been pretty well discredited'. That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it." (Dan Murphy, 'Iraq casualty figures open up new battleground,' Christian Science Monitor, October 13, 2006)

John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said:

"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." (Anna Badkhen, 'Critics say 600,000 Iraqi dead doesn't tally,' San Francisco Chronicle, October 12, 2006)

Frank Harrell Jr., chair of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, called the study design solid and said it included "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data". (Ritter, op., cit)

Steve Heeringa, director of the statistical design group at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, said:

"Given the conditions (in Iraq), it's actually quite a remarkable effort. I can't imagine them doing much more in a much more rigorous fashion." (Ibid)

BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, who described the study as "statistically reliable". (Newsnight, October 11, 2006)

Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said:

"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results." (Channel 4 News, October 11, 2006).

 

I fear that you're pissing against the wind with this one...

 

Yep, it was the same thing with regards to the debate surrounding the illegal attack on Iraq. As was the case with those exchanges, the elephant in the room is ignored. Rather, as you have no doubt realized, the preferred method is to shift the goalposts following each demolition. It's the same tactics conspiracy theorists adopt.

 

Uh huh, "so you can't prove God doesn't exist? That makes me the winner!"

 

Indeed..The thing is, experts in the field attest to the study's credibility, but he knows better. That's an example of the elephant in the room I'm referring to that he conveniently sidesteps. These kinds of deflecting tactics amount to trolling. It's impossible to continue under those circumstances.

 

For FAILING TO STOP the massacre. Not guilty of committing the massacre by Christian militias. AND NOT the UN but instead the Kahan Commission. The correct response to my original question would be that the UN have not condemned Israel for Genocide. You made that part up. Thats what you do here.

 

"Sampling is solid" "The methodology is as good as it gets" "Given the conditions (in Iraq), it's actually quite a remarkable effort. I can't imagine them doing much more in a much more rigorous fashion."

Problem is, that was prior to the Iraqi Family Study which was far more comprehensive and, had didn't hide the fact they had a Soros funding it, didn't play games by refusing to release data for examination and they came up with completely different results.

A sham Trout.

I know better because there is a better study out there that is not corruption suspect and has completely different results using more complete methodology.

The Elephant in that room was the fact that every resolution dealt with 'Peace and Security in the region' because you can't have peace after a war without a ceasefire and a peace treaty hence, all the listed resolutions from 660 to 1441 were connected and in play till the end as they were relevant and connected to each other and even referred to in the preambles so morons wouldn't get some crazy idea that they are each a beginning and end in themselves. The elephant in this room is that the results from the Lanclet are completely different than all other studies and, it is not the most complete study out there as the most complete study uses the same methodology and came up with vastly different results that are in keeping with just about every other study and poll. As well, both studies never took into account the pre war mortality rates that Saddam is now known to have inflicted on the Iraqi people which would amount to what is estimated by human rights groups as almost half a million people.

 

The study was one of only two that were peer-reviewed, the methodology of which was used in various conflicts prior to Iraq and widely praised without any of the subsequent contrived controversy. Get over it.

 

Actually three were peer reviewed and was widely praised as at the time it was the most complete study done but that has changed and, their findings are incorrect as detailed by the IFHS and PLOS, both of which had findings in line with the bulk of other studies with the Lanclet being out in left field (no pun intended.)

The methodology is sound as it is the same as the two studies mentioned above and all were peer reviewed I agree (edit: that they did well in other conflicts) so why are the results (here) out to lunch? Why would the authors hide the fact that Soros was funding it and why would they refuse outright to release raw data for examination to a neutral oversight organization?

In any case, later surveys trashed the results of this suspect survey.

 

Thanks for the correction. The point is, the results were not 'out to lunch'. The Lancet's methodology was among the most robust of all three. I repeat, this same methodology used by the Lancet researchers was widely accepted and praised by fellow research institutions and media commentators alike in research undertakings into rates of mortality in various conflict zones prior to Iraq. I'm sorry, but your posts increasingly read as if written by a denialist conspiracy theorist and 'truther'. As such this amounts to trolling and therefore its impossible for me to continue without banging my head against the proverbial wall. So I'll end this topic by wishing you a happy new year.

 

They were 400% higher in violent death estimates and 33% higher in overall deaths compared to the IFHS and 300% higher than the POLS for overall deaths so I stand by the out to lunch comment unless you feel a poll or survey can be considered valid with a plus or minus error margin of between thirty three to three hundred percent.

Please explain the differences between the methodologies used in the Lancelet and the IFHS and PLOS and why it is considered by you to be more robust as one used ten times the clusters and the other twenty times.

 

Exactly like the 3 Million Jews killed in Poland when the Poles rounded up the Jews for the Nazi killing machine.
Noooooo the Polish People did not commit the act of slaughter it was the Nazis they say.
My take is that the Polish People round up of Jews is as criminal/culpable or even more so than the Nazis'.

 

Three million Jews were rounded up by Poles? You, sir, are a liar. Of course you have the option of substantiating your laughable assertion with supporting data.

 

Aye right enough.... The conditions that exist because of the degenerates within the military complex of America.
Forget the pogroms, forget the torture chambers, ignore the death squads, squash factual information by murdering the doctors...... But like the pier lead lancet report, factual information will raise its ugly head, and the reprobate must do anything in there power to counter truth, with more lies.
The mercenaries and death squads the Iraqis still have inside its borders paid for with CIA laundered drug money.

Hypocrisy deceit lies...... The Talmud, zionists agenda.

Have a nice day..... According to your god.... Not many left according to custom and Torah practice.
Highlander

 

I remember reading that the Polish Resistance gave the death sentence to anyone who told the whereabouts of Jews. Here is a report on the work of Jan Karski a Catholic to help them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karski

 

It doesn't matter what we say or what facts are presented, the poster in question is riddled with an obsessive hatred for Poles and, like an all-consuming cancer, there's no cure.

 

I don't know the pink floyd man on whom this thread is based but I do know that on another forum which is seriously pro Israeli it was argued that he is not antisemetic at all. Someone was at the concert which was being deemed to be antisemetic and said it was nothing of the sort and that symbolism he was using, he has been using for years.

It is looking more likely that this is an attack on him because of the increasing strength of BDS

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/18/permanent-address-for-palestinian-solidarity/

 

I am not a LIAR... Semantics... you sir are a person of Polish extract who religiously covers for Polish criminal acts.
They might not have rounded up <all three million of them>, but they did give the Nazis directives of their locations, abodes, homes, place of work, shops, businesses, etc.,

During the Nazi era you mentioned the Poles also lost three millions... Calculation, from 30,000 million three millions is 10%
Jews were 3 Millions in Poland... Calculation, from 3 Millions, three Million is 100%.

Call me a LIAR again and be the laughing stock of this Forum.

 

Ha ha ha ha....... Your so funny!

Mr bender please start your replies "once upon a time" you'll get more credence.

Regards
Highlander

 

If you truly want to be fair, you should refrain from assuming, and ask for clarification if you don't understand what's being said.

I was not talking about my feelings; I was talking about what I actually saw. Since I was describing what I saw in 1986-87, there was no Berlin-style "wall" back then, so it's not me who's being sloppy here. If you have anything to say about my writing style, I welcome you to quote me and be specific about what you call "sloppy".

Let's cut to the chase: what I saw was the truth, and I reported it as it was. Those who resort to intellectual dishonesty, be it name-calling ("daft", "sloppy"), false comparisons (concentration vs. death camps) or any of the dozens of other techniques collectively known as "lying" have no evidence of their own to present. They have no evidence because their narrative is dishonest. Their agenda is to promote a lie, while mine is to tell the truth.