Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (77785)	6/30/2006 2:05:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I think it would be far more enlightening to know exactly what period of time they chose, why they think this dip is statistically important when the "spike" following Zarqawi's death wasn't, and most importantly, what are the trends for Iraqi civilian deaths? That might give us all a better idea of how the war is really going. These are all important pieces of information, obviously. They chose this narrow window after Zarqawi's death to try to figure out a narrow result - how badly Al Qaeda in Iraq has been hurt, figuring that after Zarqawi's killing and the follow-on raids, we would see a spike as all the attacks that were nearly ready were rushed into action, then a drop as the remainder of Al Qaeda concentrates on regrouping. It's certainly complicated as the the various insurgent groups don't leave a signature on their attacks, except for the spectaculars which are an Al Qaeda special. My point remains - giving running totals with maps of attacks is well within the capacities of the MSM. They don't do it. It's easier to show the latest bombing, and the pictures are sexier. Same reason the local news sends a reporter out to interview people who have just been burned out of their home, and never makes the connection between the number of fires in poor neighborhoods and the dangers of propane heaters used indoors.