An Interesting set of numbers

you tell me what this means...

from JoeUser Forums


Hmmm wonder is this a trend or nothing? I think it depends on how you want to look at it. Does this show a true decline in the attacks, and things are getting better? You will never hear this reported int he news, I bet ya an Iraqi Terrorsit that you won't.

Site Meter
1,676 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dont tell the clueless old liberals!  They will call you a liar!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
First of all, that data only looks at three months. You can't determine a trend from three months of data.

While the data you presented is pretty meaningless, it is true that the number of attacks is down, but those numbers are really just for republican talking heads. The important numbers are the number of casualties, not the number of attacks. The insurgents have gotten more sophisticated and are becoming more efficient in their attacks, and while the number off attacks is down, the number of casualties has remained about the same.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course its meaningless to you. Your glass is half empty, mine is half full.

A 72% reductionin the number of attacks is nothing to sneeze at, unless of course you don't want it t mean anything. Then you blow it off and say the terrorist (not insurgents, those are who we are fighting) are getting better at what they are doing, not that the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi people, and the U.S. Army are making any headway, that would be simply impossible.

As we eliminate the heads of the terror network, (as many as the top 80% have been captured or killed), the suicide bombers keep blowing themselves up, menaig less and less of them. And so on and so on. Its all meaningless. Its just numbers after all. Just to show you how mis-represented numbers can be, did you know that from March 2003 to Dec 3rd, 2005 we have had 1660 soliders killed in action (while every single one is precious), yet the media will tell you over 2000 right? Why? Because they want you to see the numbers in the worst possible way. 462 have died in other ways, other than enemy action. So you want to say the republicans are using numbers, lets talk numbers the left uses to make the war look the way they want the American people to see it. Did you know we had over 2500 soldiers killed in 1 year of peace time (1985 I think) than all of the war on terror?? That could mean to some we are doing a fantastic job keeping our soldiers alive and trained and equiped, others say we have lost way to many.
You have to admit things are getting better and better in Iraq. More and more Iraqi trops trained and taking the lead. More and more Iraqi's turning in the terrorist to the Iraqi Army. More and more terrorist being killed (far more than soldiers we are losing). If you can't see these things happening you are either not looking, not wanting to see it, or listening to onlyt the MSM.
Which way is your glass? Half full or half empty?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
A 72% reductionin the number of attacks is nothing to sneeze at, unless of course you don't want it t mean anything. Then you blow it off and say the terrorist (not insurgents, those are who we are fighting) are getting better at what they are doing, not that the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi people, and the U.S. Army are making any headway, that would be simply impossible.


For me, I see someone who can arrive at a different conclusion using the same data, you know, that whole right to a different opinion thing that humans get so riled up about. That alone emphasizes the need to take all data with a grain of salt.

Thanks BenUser for providing a different outlook, as most good articles should try to examine seriously all sides of a topic.

Which way is your glass? Half full or half empty?


My glass has half of the glass with liquid and half of the glass without.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: BenUser

Dont tell the clueless old liberals! They will call you a liar!

WOW!  Faster than I thought!  Notice also that he shows no data to back up saying that your numbers are bogus?  That is because he cannot.  He can only respout the talking points that his handlers gave him, and they never back up their propaganda with facts as it is based in none.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

For me, I see someone who can arrive at a different conclusion using the same data, you know, that whole right to a different opinion thing that humans get so riled up about. That alone emphasizes the need to take all data with a grain of salt.

Thanks BenUser for providing a different outlook, as most good articles should try to examine seriously all sides of a topic.

It would be if they provided any supporting documentation, other than empty rhetoric.  That is a big stretch for you.  Kind of like someone telling you the moon is made of green cheese and you thanking them for a different outlook.  While that is your perogative, it does not speak well for your powers of analysis and logic.