Air strikes by US-led coalition forces have killed 39 percent were children, while 46 percent were women. (Iraq, deaths)

[KRAMERCAT]

Your tax dollars at work...

Report: US Air Strikes in Iraq Kill Mostly Women, Children -- News from Antiwar.com

[MI-IRISH]

collateral damage

[pghquest]

Wait, I thought liberals proclaimed MILLIONS of Iraqis killed by US forces, now this story confirms the total is 64,000? Which is it liberals? Either there are millions killed and this story is hogwash or this story is valid and the millions an outright lie..

[delusianne]

Only 64,000? Excellent! *Breaking out party hats*

[oldyeller]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

Your tax dollars at work...

Report: US Air Strikes in Iraq Kill Mostly Women, Children -- News from Antiwar.com

You southpaws would have aborted em in the first place so what is the difference whining crybaby????

[oldyeller]

Oh and another thing Obama has three teenagers on his head and I don't see you Moderator cut: no personal attacks saying a word. Plus he is sending more into Afghan. Where are the war protesters? I guess they got scared by the tea protesters. Moderator cut: no personal attacks!

[vincvolle]

Or are all resurrections local, will the global dissolve, is this perishing a going through the detail ?. Our sixth sense for the lucidity, lubricance and inflammability of oil... Why did our deeds and doings did become so totally incomprehensible ?.

[Soccersupporter]

Originally Posted by delusianne

Only 64,000? Excellent! *Breaking out party hats*

And the number keep piling up under the banner of Hope and Change.

[mossomo]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

Your tax dollars at work...

Report: US Air Strikes in Iraq Kill Mostly Women, Children -- News from Antiwar.com

News from Antiwar about war??? Go back in your hole.

[Danno3314]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

Your tax dollars at work...

Report: US Air Strikes in Iraq Kill Mostly Women, Children -- News from Antiwar.com

This article you linked to has got to be one of the most blatant attempts to mislead readers that I can recall.

Is any one actually bothering to read anything other than the title of the article.....or better yet has any one actually followed all the links back to the original source for the data they referenced because, the articles themselves are completely biased. They've used selective bits of info from the chart that to fit their agenda and completely mislead readers. You have to follow the link to report by the New England Journal of Medicine.....once there, you need to use the link for the table they keep referring to (ther chart).

If you read the article at antiwar.com (or the link to independent.co.uk), one would think out of 60,481 civilian deaths from U.S led coalition air strikes, 39% were children and 46% were women......WRONG!

This is so misleading....when you look at the chart, 60,481 is the total number of civilian deaths FOR ALL REASONS that were used in the report, AIR ATTACK WITHOUT GROUND FIRE ACCOUNTS FOR THE SMALLEST AMOUNT OF THOSE DEATHS OUT OF ALL THE REASONS LISTED.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CIVILIAN DEATHS FROM THOSE ATTACKS IS 2,363.

Out of that total, the person's sex was known for only 564 of them and 46% of them were females both adults and female children (and not just adult women).....so the 46% amounts to 258 females (both adult females and female children).

Out the 2,363 civilians killed in air attacks, the age was only known with 703 of them....out of thatamount, 39% were children, both male and female....so the 39% amounts to 277 children (but female children are already included in the 46%....they're being counted twice!).

SO IN TOTAL THIS AMOUNTS TO 258 FEMALES AND 277 CHILDREN WITH FEMALE CHILDREN BEING INCLUDED IN BOTH OF THOSE TOTALS.

Did any one realize that was actual amount of deaths they were talking about when they read the antiwar article? When you have to mislead readers that much to prove you're point, you don't prove you're point....all it proves is that their desperate to prove something that's not true!

See what happens when you rely on antiwar.com for information and on top of that, you don't bother to question it by really reading it carefully to confirm what they're actually saying......because, they didn't lie.....like I've said before, they omitted....it nets the same results without having to resort to lying.