NOBBY wrote:
Nope. The Lancet numbers don't exclude casualties caused by the other side.

Sorry, you're wrong.

In addition, the Lancet study used a sample of 988 households.

???

It looks to me like you're either talking about something else entirely,
or else just making **** up.

Which probably your best tactic.

The study I'm referring to used independent reports of casualties due to
US force, minus irregular combatants (ie insurgents). Each casualty,
to be counted, had to be reported in at least two independent agencies.

The Lancet cites numbers around 100,000 casualties, which is not what I
was claiming. You can't have it both ways, if you want to debunk the
Lancet's study then go ahead but don't mix up the numbers.

Of course, considering that you have nothing else on your side except
blatant lies and obfuscation, you're not doing too badly.

DSK