Uprising in Estonia

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

One last reply...

lol, are sure?

more than half a million in just two 2 years when it took a year an a half of tanks, planes and rockets to kill less than 20% of that number....

Again, you are not reading the study, it is not just civilians killed by planes, tanks, and rockets.

The Lancet study doesn't pass the sniff test.

Well, it's on par with the New England Journal of Medicine, and if that can't past the sniff test for ya, not much will(unless it's the IBC of course)

At least the IBC has a consistant metodology and tells you the shortcomings right up front.

  Again here's the quote from the site

"What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths — which can only be a sample of true deaths [if] one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

And that passes your sniff test?

[mora]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Russians do not honor anything, not even the diplomatic immunity of other countries it seems.

The Russians only care about diplomatic immunity when their "diplomats" are running brothels, driving under influence, or doing something else that is against the law of the country they are stationed in.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sixpence
One last reply...

lol, are sure?

I was referring to the three there that I had in a row, so yes.

more than half a million in just two 2 years when it took a year an a half of tanks, planes and rockets to kill less than 20% of that number....

Again, you are not reading the study, it is not just civilians killed by planes, tanks, and rockets.
[/B]

I read the study, I realise they add the bad water,diesease, and all other forms that can be remotely related to the military action.  Seems that bad water,diesease, and all other forms that can be remotely related to the military action happened during the first 18 months too, don't ya think?

It also says that of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes.

Why then did the death rate skyrocket after the first 18 months?

The Lancet study doesn't pass the sniff test.

Well, it's on par with the New England Journal of Medicine, and if that can't past the sniff test for ya, not much will (unless it's the IBC of course)

From the Washigton post article about the Lancet study,

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.  

 

It's far higher than other studies, so it must be correct.

At least the IBC has a consistant metodology and tells you the shortcomings right up front.

  Again here's the quote from the site

"What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths — which can only be a sample of true deaths [if] one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

And that passes your sniff test?

Let's see.  You cut and pasted it, but I guess that doesn't mean you read it....  So once again,
At least the IBC has a consistant metodology and tells you the shortcomings right up front.

See, that means they say..." "What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths — which can only be a sample of true deaths [if] one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

[Boroda]

Originally posted by mora
The Russians only care about diplomatic immunity when their "diplomats" are running brothels, driving under influence, or doing something else that is against the law of the country they are stationed in.

My dear distant friend, I lived in Leningrad in the 70s and early-80s so I know first-hand that Finns visiting neighbouring countries usually only care about getting deadly drunk and laying on the pavements so militia picks them up and gets them back to hotels, so they'll not get frozen to death.

I still wonder what could bring that "bodies" to my district in the very South of the city, Dachnoe and then Prospekt Veteranov metro station. Maybe you'll tell me?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by Boroda
My dear distant friend, I lived in Leningrad in the 70s and early-80s so I know first-hand that Finns visiting neighbouring countries usually only care about getting deadly drunk and laying on the pavements so militia picks them up and gets them back to hotels, so they'll not get frozen to death.

I still wonder what could bring that "bodies" to my district in the very South of the city, Dachnoe and then Prospekt Veteranov metro station. Maybe you'll tell me?

We also know first hand how your consulate was used as a brothel and the honorable pimps were protected by a diplomatic immunity.

And no folks, this is not a joke either.

And we apologize the soviet time 'vodka tourists' who went across border to eat, get laid and drunk just by trading a $.20 pair of stockings. I know you russians are horrified with a thought of a drunken person.

I mean it's not like you can see every person with Baltika9 bottle in the hand on the streets, stone out wasted at 1 pm in the center of St.Petersburg. Or can you??

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Boroda
My dear distant friend, I lived in Leningrad in the 70s and early-80s so I know first-hand that Finns visiting neighbouring countries usually only care about getting deadly drunk and laying on the pavements so militia picks them up and gets them back to hotels, so they'll not get frozen to death.

I thought you told us that russians and some other nationality are better drinkers (= can drink more) than finns. Does not compute.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

It's far higher than other studies, so it must be correct.

Well, the IBC is alot lower, so it must be correct

At least the IBC has a consistant metodology and tells you the shortcomings right up front.(I took the giant letters out if you don't mind)

Reading the newspaper is not consistant methodology at all, it is very inconsistant

You asked for a better source, I think the Lancet is a better source than mom & pop reading newspapers in Montana

But I guess that is where we do not agree

Well, for your health's sake, I hope you read the New England Journal of Medicine and not some people reading newspapers in Idaho

[HKBlue]

Forgive me my ignorance Boroda, but what is your gameID?