In reply to:
I don't think the percentage or the exact number is important to the point he was making.
I agree that the exact numbers are irrelevant, even one can be considered one too many.
But
that sword cuts both ways.
However, if anyone makes claims that America has a right to be annoyed with someone because X of "our people" got killed, and the X you quote is wrong for all sorts of reasons - is the original claim still valid?
I think you have a right to be corrected if you make outrageous claims which are clearly and provably false.
For instance:
I could say 100% of everything Tony Blair (UK PM/Leader) says is utter rubbish.
But saying it does not make it so.
And if I am proved wrong and only 83% of everything that Tony Blair says is definately rubbish, then my claim that 100%... is clearly wrong.
If I originally said "at least 80% of everything Tony Blair says is rubbish" then whether it it was 81% or 99.99% *would* be irrelevant.
All I am doing is correcting the abuse of statistics.