Iraqi's 100,000 Dead

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Gixer
WTG Bush.


"The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 civilians have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

More than half of those who died were women and children killed in air strikes, researchers say.

Previous estimates have put the Iraqi death toll at around 10,000 - ten times the 1,000 members of the British, American and multi-national forces who have died so far.

But the study, published in The Lancet, suggested that Iraqi casualties could be as much as 100 times the coalition losses. It was also savagely critical of the failure by coalition forces to count Iraqi casualties."

I think 100,000 is a way high of a total, but givin the fact the we were lied to about the real reason to go to war with Iraq, even 1 dead civilian is a war crime.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I think 100,000 is a way high of a total, but givin the fact the we were lied to about the real reason to go to war with Iraq, even 1 dead civilian is a war crime.

what was the lie exactly?

when you act off global intel you assume to be true, you are not lying mr moore

[Habu]

Saddam's 'Killing Field'
Sunday, October 17, 2004
By Greg Palkot

A trench with piles of clothed bodies packed tightly together. Men, women, little children. Even unborn children. Some blindfolded. Some with their hands bound. All slaughtered in cold blood by the henchmen of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

All of this horror was discovered in another mass grave in the desert wasteland of northwestern Iraq, near the town of Hatra. It was discovered a year ago, and only now is it being carefully and scientifically excavated by the Regime Crimes Liaison Office. This agency, part of the U.S. Justice Department, is working with the Iraqi interim government to map out the horrors of the Hussein past.

The head of the unit, Greg Kehoe, who has seen more than his share of horrors in places such as the Balkans, couldn’t believe what he saw.

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."

 
  .

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Mini D
I see you finally found a website that published the death totals you were hoping to see.

Did you say "oh... goodie" when you saw it?

Know where he got it...?

Aljazeera, of course!

Originally posted by Eagler
what was the lie exactly?

Dont even bother... some people actually think "where are the WMDs?" is an answer to that question.

No one can answer it because no one can prove that he lied.

[Dinger]

You guys know, the Lancet is a peer-reviewed journal. Those of you crying "bull*****" would serve us better going, reading the article, checking its methods and telling us why it's dough, rather than just stating so because it doesn't jibe with your political opinion.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by AKIron
'fess up, you're really Michael Moore right?

There is no Michael Moore, there is only ZUUUULLLL!!

[john9001]

Originally posted by Neubob
There is no Michael Moore, there is only ZUUUULLLL!!

i am the keymaster, where is the gate keeper?

[Naso]

Originally posted by Habu
Actually I calculated that 100 million have died so far.

But I am only counting back to 3700 BC.

I guess your scientific method it's failing... or you are from Florida.

Only in 20th century there were:

52 mil during 2nd WW.

19 mil during 1st WW.

Unknown number in:

Japan's invasion of China.

Vietnam war.

Chinese revolution

Russian revolution.

Afrika tribal wars.

And all the little conflicts all around the world.

And I am talking about the 20th century.

If you are counting from 3700BC, check your count machines.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Gixer
WTG Bush.


"The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 civilians have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

 

Thats funny, the UN claims about 13,000

[Gunslinger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm

Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.

Notice how they put that little bold quote last in the sentance even though there's probably a helava lot more (civilian) deaths due to crime/terrorism than air strikes.

So the first words are "poor planning".....My ass

how they estimate half are woman and children is beyond me but stupid all the same.  

DID YOU GUYS EVEN READ THESE ARTICLES.....THESE ARE ESTIMATIONS BASED ON POLLS AND PERCENTAGES OF DANGER!


and of course after the entire article about Coalition not caring and airstrikes blah blah blah you finally hear the major reason for deaths

"Former regime elements and insurgents have made it a practice of using civilians as human shields, operating and conducting attacks against coalition forces from within areas inhabited by civilians."

So the US isn't stomping on baby's heads and dropping cluster bombs like we are made to beleive it's insurgants that are doing most of the killing.....ahhh....I get it now.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by WMLute
are guys in plain clothes shooting AK's at our troops considered "civilians"???

Good/funny question.  
According to his source, probably.

eskimo

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Eagler
what was the lie exactly?

when you act off global intel you assume to be true, you are not lying mr moore

If you buy stolen property, even without knowing it's stolen, you are still guilty of possessing stolen items...





























********

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
If you buy stolen property, even without knowing it's stolen, you are still guilty of possessing stolen items...


********

So Kerry Lied to America as well huh?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
If you buy stolen property, even without knowing it's stolen, you are still guilty of possessing stolen items...

********

but you are not guilty of stealing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Gixer

"But the study, published in The Lancet, suggested that Iraqi casualties could be as much as 100 times the coalition losses. It was also savagely critical of the failure by coalition forces to count Iraqi casualties."

Ah, the Lancet... Now there's a publication without a political agenda...  


A liberal New Zealand rag writes:

The Lancet said it had received the study at the beginning of October and it had been "extensively peer-reviewed, revised and edited". It had been fast-tracked to publication "because of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq".

Here's a sample:

Summary

Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6 months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.

Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.

Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes."

Another quote:

With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error. The invastion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator and the the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has lead to more deaths, not fewer.

I have looked at their study... I wouldn't submit this low quality, selectively manipulated garbage for a grade if I were in middle school trying for a C+.

I see several DNC talking points in this drivel and one can't help but wag one's head at the overt anti-democracy tenor of the entire study. Naturally, the timing of the article, admittedly rushed to release, smacks of the typical liberal Brit attempt to influence the American election. Basically more Guardian-like garbage.

The people who generated this study didn't count bodies. They interviewed people and compiled their death statistics based on what they were told. I've seen this type of statistical manipulation many times. You interview person A and ask if they suffered any deaths in the family due to the war. "Yes", they answer. You go to person B, C, D up through person G. All lost a family member to the war. What they don't mention is that all seven people are blood relations.....  Naturally, they report seven deaths due to the war.

The fact remains that this is a "survey" and unsupported by a shred of physical evidence... In other words, it's politically movitated garbage.

My regards,

Widewing