From: T Wake on

"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message
news:45920$45b0e072$49ecf6f$19658(a)DIALUPUSA.NET...

> <snip>
> [Lancet]
> "The risk of death was estimated to be 2�5-fold (95% CI
> 1�6�4�2) higher after the invasion when compared with
> the preinvasion period."
>
> Note the ESTIMATED.
> <snip>

All statistical studies produce estimated results. The confidence level is
the important bit.



From: T Wake on
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eoo7cj$8qk_001(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

<snip>

>
> Now take a look at the rules of engagement that our enemies use.
> They are depending on us to abide by _our_ rules; they will make
> great advances in gaining power because we have tied ourselves
> up in "we better than they are" attitudes; this is arrogance.

<snip>

You are either trolling or insane.

Re-read this post and see if it is what you meant to say.


From: T Wake on

<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eoqmqj$8qk_003(a)s790.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> In article <45AFA70E.49B8825A(a)hotmail.com>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> nor were US troops
>>stationed in the Middle East.
>
> Then these problems cannot be the fault of the US.

Eh? Do you have a list of logical fallacies you need to use in each post?

Your line of reasoning here is nonsensical.

1 - *you* assert the problems are based on the situation 100 years ago -
with nothing to support this claim.
2 - Eeyore says that there were no US troops in the Middle East then
3 - You use this to conclude the problems have nothing to do with the US.

Blimey.

Talk about building from a false premise.


From: unsettled on
T Wake wrote:

> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message
> news:45920$45b0e072$49ecf6f$19658(a)DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>
>><snip>
>>[Lancet]
>>"The risk of death was estimated to be 2�5-fold (95% CI
>>1�6�4�2) higher after the invasion when compared with
>>the preinvasion period."
>>
>>Note the ESTIMATED.
>><snip>
>
>
> All statistical studies produce estimated results. The confidence level is
> the important bit.

GIGO


From: T Wake on

<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eoo7mf$8qk_002(a)s1231.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> In article <45AE2C52.5FC660CF(a)hotmail.com>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:
>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>T Wake wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They
>>> >>>>are
> not
>>> >>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers
>>> >>>should
> be
>>> >>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s).
>>> >>
>>> >> This isn't a Geneva convention styled war.
>>> >
>>> >His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface.
>>>
>>> There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US
>>> plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will.
>>
>>Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that.
>
> You might try to read Carter's book. You might listen to
> Hillary Clinton. You might notice the places both she
> and Kerry have been visiting in the last few weeks.

What does Mrs Clinton have to say about it? Why do you insist on bringing US
politics into this thread? Is Hillary Clinton posting to this thread?