I provided respected sources.
LOL. Respected by you doesn't mean respected as a rule. (Perhaps, in your mind, it does.)
Better yet, here's another chance for you to redeem yourself: on what basis do you make the unqualified claim that these - or any - sources are "respected"?
What credentials do "Cursor.org" and "People-Link.org" - let alone a single professor culling figures from newspapers - bring?
You provided no sources, respected or not.
Right. But I didn't make an assertion, I asked you to provide evidence for yours. I didn't say "5,000 people weren't killed," I asked for you to verify your statement that 5,000 Afghanis have been killed thusfar.
And I'm still waiting.
You also never answered (perhaps never read) another question I posed. Perhaps you figured it rhetorical: what do you think taking "conservative estimates" of "conservative estimates" does to a figure?
And you do know the difference between individuals who "may have been killed" versus those who "have been killed"...don't you?
Your personal opinion doesn't carry a whole lot of weight.
Neither mine, nor yours. No opinions do; at least, few should.
But inventing/representing things either (a) without documentation (such as your claim as to what Bush and Blair "said") or (b) on the basis of specious evidence (as your citing articles from "Cursor.org" and "People-Link.org") does nothing to buttress an argument.
It rather, quite decisively, undermines one, as these have yours.
LPS5 |
