[eDebate] ans Bach

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Wed Aug 8 11:43:31 CDT 2007


unfuckingbelieveable...  
 
your latest response was that it is "ambiguous" whether IraqBodyCount just counts those killed by US troops or whether it counts all violent deaths by insurgency attacks, terrorist attacks, and US attacks.  you quoted a paragraph that seemed confusing...
 
BUT YOU DELIBERATELY CUT THE PARAGRAPH OFF BEFORE THE LAST SENTENCE.  THAT LAST SENTENCE IS IN BOLD ON THE WEBSITE. IT ELIMINATES ANY CHANCE OF AMBIGUITY.  HERE, from IraqBodyCount:
 
"Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq."
 
BUT THIS IS HOW YOU QUOTE THAT PARAGRAPH:
 
"The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization).  We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account."
Explain to me again why I should treat this clown with anything except disdain?
 
Apart from the obvious out-of-context omission of the last sentence, which appears in BOLD in the ORIGINAL...
 
The omitted first 3 sentences CLEARLY explain that this section explains how they ATTRIBUTE BLAME WITHIN the overall count:  they try to break the total deaths down by WHO/WHAT did the killing and so do an attribution of blame.  The number of COALITION-CAUSED DEATHS that they report is a small fraction of the TOTAL 72,000 casualties.  It is clearly no accident that Bach omits those first 3 sentences either.
 
Finally, even a GLANCE at the list of particular casualties in the DATABASE would show that the vast majority of the reported casualties are suicide-bombers, car bombs, insurgency mortar attacks, etc.  while a small fraction are coalition attacks. ( http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ ).
 
There is no excuse for this.  No excuse for Bach's out-of-context mutilations of evidence that, if done in a debate round would end a career.  No excuse for the unthinking twisting of every fact to squeeze it to fit his pre-determined ideologically-driven conclusions.  No excuse.
 
Michael Korcok
 
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&ss=yp.bars~yp.pizza~yp.movie%20theater&cp=42.358996~-71.056691&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=950607&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070808/050b14a4/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list