Originally posted by Sixpence
One last reply...
lol, are sure?
I was referring to the three there that I had in a row, so yes.
more than half a million in just two 2 years when it took a year an a half of tanks, planes and rockets to kill less than 20% of that number....
Again, you are not reading the study, it is not just civilians killed by planes, tanks, and rockets.
[/B]
I read the study, I realise they add the bad water,diesease, and all other forms that can be remotely related to the military action. Seems that bad water,diesease, and all other forms that can be remotely related to the military action happened during the first 18 months too, don't ya think?
It also says that of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes.
Why then did the death rate skyrocket after the first 18 months?
The Lancet study doesn't pass the sniff test.
Well, it's on par with the New England Journal of Medicine, and if that can't past the sniff test for ya, not much will (unless it's the IBC of course)
From the Washigton post article about the Lancet study,
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.
It's far higher than other studies, so it must be correct.
At least the IBC has a consistant metodology and tells you the shortcomings right up front.
Again here's the quote from the site
"What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths — which can only be a sample of true deaths [if] one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."
And that passes your sniff test?
Let's see. You cut and pasted it, but I guess that doesn't mean you read it.... So once again,
At least the IBC has a consistant metodology and tells you the shortcomings right up front.See, that means they say..." "What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths — which can only be a sample of true deaths [if] one assumes that every civilian death has been reported.
It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."
