Another excellent posting on the ignored news in World War III from GP blogally Jules Crittenden.
For those who like to measure progress by numbers, Terrorist Death Watch has an update, with helpful graphics.
Chuck Simmins of TDW had been toiling away diligently, recording the deaths of terrorists as reported by MNF-I flaks. Turns out, they weren’t reporting them all. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno had a press conference recently, largely ignored by the press, in which he reported 3,184 terrorists killed since January 2007, and another 1,018 wounded. Simmins took that number, subtracted the ones he had already logged to avoid duplication, and then averaged them out over the last six months. Turns out our soldiers are killing terrorists at a rate of up to 10 to 1.
AP likes death numbers. Why doesn’t AP like these death numbers? I read AP’s Iraq copy every working night. I have not seen these numbers in the AP copy that comes across my screen.
Short, sweet and to the point.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Very misleading numbers. The actual US military fatality total for May 2007 was 126 almost five times the number shown here. I suppose you’re not including deaths by IED but that is also part of the war being waged that you can’t ignore: troops killed by IED are just as dead as those killed in “combat.”
Taking the rationale in the statistics behind the graph further, why don’t you, in addition to excluding US troops killed by IED’s, also exclude those killed by enemy fire no matter the source. Perhaps then you can come up with an infinite kill ratio.
Okay, Wonder Woman, care to back up your assertions? Please provide proof.
Regards,
Peter H.
Massive Constitutional Scholar in #2:
If it was anyone else asking, yes, I would. But you? Not so much.
“If it was anyone else asking, yes, I would. But you? Not so much.”
Looks like a “NO” from Wonder Woman. Typical drive-by posting.
Regards,
Peter H.
#2 & #4
What do you need proof of?
An easily solved problem. I’m “anyone else”. I hereby “ask”.
#5 – Proof of Ian’s assertions in #1, keogh. (Come now… surely your reading skills are capable of following that.)
Are you seriously asking for proof of US fatalities in Iraq?!?!?
Is that how you maintain your support of this war? Through ignorance of their sacrifice?
or
You are asking for him to prove that a US soldier killed by an IED is a combat death.
Which is like asking for proof that 2+2=4
Which is it?
i think commenter’s 2 & 3 ought to get married an literally til death do they part.
#8: I know it’s hard to believe that folks commenting here would have NO idea of the casualties we’re taking in Iraq but now you have not only GP but Massive Constitutional Scholar and ILoveCorporatism all apparently unaware of the fatality number that was all over the media barely a week ago. Apparently, they never visit this site. Paraphrasing Laura Bush: why would they waste their beautiful minds thinking about that? Indeed.
Are you seriously asking for proof of US fatalities in Iraq?!?!?
Sweet featheryJesus are you THAT freaking stupid? Look who I’m asking.
Is that how you maintain your support of this war?
Well, we know that’s how team killing fcuktards like you maintain your opposition. Everytime there’s an announcement of U.S. soldiers dying, you start finger-banging yourself madly. Just admit that you have no idea of what the discussion is about and go back to bed, Keogh.
Apparently, they never visit this site.
Sooooooo…..in other words, you can’t back up your assertions.
I can’t say the high kill rate of the animals makes the loss of Americans any easier but it would be interesting to see the national media use these graphs every so often. Context is everything in this war and that would certainly provide some.
#10 – And here spins Wonder Woman again, using a biased source to try and justify her claims in her comment. And as far as her comment of it being “all over the media” last week, I certainly didn’t see it.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
#12:
No, it would be fraudulent. In the type of asymmetrical warfare employed in Iraq, you cannot ignore the deadliness of the IEDs used by the enemy. BTW, kill-ratios were widely promoted in the late 1960’s to show we were winning the war in Viet Nam. The typical ratio was 14:1 and you see how that worked out for us. In Iraq, a kill ratio incorporating IED deaths is only about 5:1. We’d have to be killing enemy forces in Iraq at nearly two and a half times what we’re presently doing to approach the kill ratios in Viet Nam.
#13: Shorter Massive Constitutional Scholar:
Of course, the perspective of death comes into focus when, as one of the commentors at the other site pointed out, one considers that approximately one thousand Americans LESS have died in the four years we’ve been in Iraq than die on just California highways per year.’
Meanwhile, for every one of our soldiers that dies, multiple terrorists are taken down with them — before those terrorists can create a ratio, like on 9/11, where they killed over 150 Americans for each one of them.
Is that how you maintain your support of this war? Through ignorance of their sacrifice?
Of course not.
It is you and your fellow Democrats, keogh, who are calling their deaths “wasted effort”.
We are more than aware that our troops are sacrificing their lives to kill terrorists so that each of those terrorists does not go kill another 157 Americans.
But you and your ally Ian call our troops going after terrorists to be committing “war crimes”.
13 – “I certainly didn’t see it.”
Translation: I keep my head in the sand so I can blindly support bad policy and thus keep my conscience clear.
The secret of how republicans sleep at night has been revealed!
#17 – Wrong again, cut-and-paste-401K. I most certainly follow the news and can tell the difference between facts and opinions, unlike libtards such as yourself.
Regards,
Peter H.
And speaking of fact vs. fiction, is it any wonder that the NYT questions the timing of the JFK terror plot bust?
Talk about REALLY keeping your head in the sand. I guess if you ignore terrorism, it will go away, right libtrolls?
Regards,
Peter H.
Ian spewed, regarding Vietnam, the following:
The typical ratio was 14:1 and you see how that worked out for us.
Of course a liberal media painting our victories as colossal failures, as they’re doing now, helped even less.
Liberal military tactic: Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?
#20 – Good point, TGC. Maybe the libtards are forgetting that the only similarities between Iraq and Vietnam is that withdrawal before the job is done only serves to diminish American credibility abroad.
I can’t believe the NYT actually got it right on their editorial page for once. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Regards,
Peter H.
And one has to point this out…..what exactly IS Ian’s ideal kill ratio?
What makes this really amusing is that, if one adds up the World War II military deaths from the main Allied countries (the Soviet Union, the UK, the US, Australia, and Canada) versus the three main Axis countries (Germany, Italy, and Japan), the Allied kill ratio was 0.68 to 1 — meaning that for every Allied soldier that died, two-thirds of an Axis soldier did.
NDT, WW2 improves if you look at the American kill ratio. The Germans really stuck it to the Russians bad – collecting POWs thousands at a time and then just shooting them.
Of course, lots of American were lost, storming all those fortified beaches. Man, do we owe a lot to our soldiers.
Maybe instead of killing the enemy, we should do what was proposed to the Pentagon in 1994 and develop a “gay bomb” to make enemy combatants have sex with each other.
Let’s see, who was in the White House then? Oh, yes, I remember now – Mr. and Mrs. “DADT” themselves.
A gay bomb to create instant military homosexuals? Please. It sounds like the next Falcon video production to me. Puts a whole new spin on the phrase “going commando.”
Okay, I’ll stop for now.
Regards,
Peter H.
#22:
Yeah, I forgot, death and destruction are sooooo funny to you and your ilk.
The uncomfortable fact remains that this post used highly misleading data to suggest things were going better in Iraq than they are. And the amazing thing is that so many of you actually believe we lost less than 30 of our troops last month.
Yeah, I forgot, death and destruction are sooooo funny to you and your ilk.
Actually what’s funny is…well, you in your satin tights. You’re a Wonder, Wonder Woman!!
#26 – Except that this time, we’re so glad you’re NOT on our side, Wonder Woman!
(Apologies to Artie Kane on that one.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Just for the record Ian, this is not the only graph available on the Terrorist Death Watch site. This page, yes, the very page Bruce kindly linked to, offers 3 graphs. The first was a breakdown of all U.S soldier deaths by cause, the second was what Bruce posted and the third was what you have asked for, a comparison of terrorist deaths to all U.S. combat and IED deaths.
Next time, check out the links before you accuse people of ignoring our dead soldiers.
And, by the way, the reason to look at U.S. combat deaths, rather than all violent deaths, is a simple one. It compares apples to apples. See, American troops don’t leave dangerous explosives where anyone, including civilians, could be injured or killed by them. If we did, surely the terrorist death rate would be still higher.
#28:
The IED’s for the most part are aimed at American troops – it’s part of the asymmetrical warfare in which we’re engaged. Pretending otherwise is simply stupid and dangerous.
The original post highlighted misleading statistics and there were at least two ignorant dolts from your side who didn’t know and/or refused to believe the 126 troop death toll for May. To be so ignorant of what’s going on proves to me they care little for our troops.
#29 – “To be so ignorant of what’s going on proves to me they care little for our troops.”
And in that one sentence, Wonder Woman, you have encapsulated everything I believe about you and your fellow libtards. Well done.
Regards,
Peter H.