| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
100,000 Iraqi dead? |
|
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas 
|
I keep hearing '100,000 Iraqi dead' bantered about and was curious as to where that figure came from. Turns out it was a Lancet Medical Journal estimate based on Iraqi polls, which led to a modification of the death rate. I tried to find the original article at Lancet, but I don't think it exists there anymore, only on blogs and a few newsagencies. This one is dated October 29, 2004. So I looked some more and found a closer answer might be 33000 Iraqi dead. Or loosely 11000 per year for three years. Yeah, that is a high number, but no differentiation is made between civilian deaths versus insurgent/military deaths, nor even Iraqis killed by Iraqis/Arabs/extremist Muslims. Upon closer inspection of their database, they're lumping all civilian deaths all together irrespective of responsibility. An example is Incident K2664. I mean, if you're gonna yell and protest about 33000 Iraqi dead in 3 years, why isn't anyone yelling and protesting the 49000 US citizens murdered in the same timeframe here in the United States? Source And that's only the 'official' numbers. Guess it's harder to pin that murder rate on a single person, though I'm sure some will try to blame Bush for that too. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Alastair Adamson - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There's absolute reason to believe in any war, you won't have a number that's 100% accurate. There are a number of conflicting factors between the various estimates out there. Some counts, for instance, don't include the numbers in the Falluja operation (including the Lancet Medical Journal count which claims 194,000 not including Falluja have been killed since the invasion). And, as you've said, we'll never accurately detail each of the numbers between civilians, insurgents and infantry alike. That's why when I protest the war and argue here and such, I refer to the cost as "tens of thousands have died", that way it doesn't sound hyperbolic. I believe it can be agreed that at least 30,000 are dead since the invasion began, as Bush himself believes it to be around that number. We don't know exactly how many have died, but in any case, it's a lot, and an unnecessary lot. We don't know the specific numbers for civilians and insurgents alike, and the numbers are lumped together I imagine, but what is certain is that at least 30,000 have died in relation or result to the invasion/occupation. I'm aware of that domestic 49,000 murders annually statistic as well, and absolutely agree that's alarming. How do I respond and protest those alarming numbers? See to it I never commit that heinous crime. Educate your loved ones and others. What tempts some husbands out there to beat up their wives, what tempts one to rape another, what tempts some parents to lock their children in the house and pluck their toenails out with pliers, I'll never understand and am saddened just this happens ever so much. This inconceivable human behavior is arguably beyond our control, and I'm certainly not going to blame any sole individual for it. This war, however, is within our control. If only our administration could understand the nation is on the precipice of civil war and things are messier than ever down there, they could bring it to an end at any time. A majority of Americans believes we should leave either now or between the next 6-12 months. Even 72% of surveyed troops serving in Iraq in a Zogby poll believe we should leave either immediately or within 6-12 months. This war is this administration's responsibility, and I pray they understand the nature of the conflict. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Isn't arguing over the numbers just a diversion, Ali? If the deaths are justifiable and unavoidable, it doesn't matter whether the number is 33,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000. Even one death, however, that can't be justified or should have been avoided is usually enough to put a man in prison (or, in Texas, on death row). Disputing the numbers simply suggests that at some point Bush goes from being right to suddenly being wrong. From where I sit, he's either right or he's wrong, and the number of dead will determine neither. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The numbers do signify something, Ron, and that's the bias of the press. When our news agencies take a figure, multiply it by 300% and present it to the public as fact, they are not only incorrect, they are irresponsible. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
When our government agencies take sketchy intelligence, multiply it by 300% and present it to the public as fact, they are not only incorrect, they are irresponsible. The first casualty of war is truth. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Alicat's 300% increase is verified. Will you verify yours, reb? Pointing the finger somewhere else as a response does not excuse the original subject. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Wow MIKE! You finally get that!  but... no.. I can't back up my numbers specifically because 300% times zero is still zero. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Curiosity was my main motivation for this topic, since I was curious where on earth all those protestors were getting the figure of 100,000 Iraqi dead for their placards, signs, clothing, banners and other protest accoutrements. It is also curious why I couldn't find Lancet's early study at Lancet's site. I did find a google link for the archived page, but got the 404 error when I tried it. So I'm guessing they themselves found that extrapolating an increase in the death rate from 6.x to 7.x per 10k or 100k from interviewing Iraqis for a lump sum number led to a belief among the segment of global populace that such was indeed fact. Afterall, Lancet is an esteemed medical journal so why would their estimation not be true? Protestors claim Bush lied while they perpetrate another lie. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sketchy intelligence = zero. That one's gonna take a lot of ponderin'  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, if you're trying to show something with those two statements, you lost me. The original subject WAS the validity of the numbers. I see no conflict there. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr13.php quote: |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Right Brad, but the IBC does not state how many Iraqi deaths have been at the hands of other Iraqi, or people from other parts of the Middle East. They lump them all together for their totals, and it's only by looking at their database can one deduce which deaths were from Coalition forces, and which ones weren't. Why not include an Iraqi death count from Saddam's regime for comparison? Ah, here we go, a few paragraphs down from your quote. quote: Had they a different background image on their main page, I'd be more inclined to call them unbiased. But a US bomber unloading bombs? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why no comparison? Because that's not the point. The point is to count the number of dead. Look at how they go about actually counting the numbers -- a lot of criticism has been leveled at this site for being on the low side. And yet, I think I begin to grasp all the huff about the numbers now. Shouldn't discerning the difference between direct fatalities and indirect and unrelated ones be a job for the military there? That's what I get out of your last post anyway. Why isn't it? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sorry, Mike, I guess I confused the subject of the post. Is 150,000 a valid number? How about 3.1605? I turned 56 a few months back; is that a valid number? Gee, maybe it would be easier if you just gave me a list of what you consider to not be valid numbers? Alternatively, we might agree that the validity of any number depends on the context within which it is used? Has anyone read an article bragging that we've killed 100,000 Iraqi citizens? Gee, that kind of bang up job certainly must justify a war ostensibly started to capture a huge cache of WMD. If we can push that number up to 200,000 dead we can probably declare victory and bring all our boys home? Sorry, Mike, but the subject of the thread isn't the validity of the numbers. Those are meaningless outside the context of the war, especially if you happen to be an Iraqi mother. The subject of this thread, whether Ali intended it or not, is the validity of the war. Let's say the Iraqi death count is not 100,000 as claimed. Let's even say it's not 33,000. Let's say we're in a dead heat (no pun intended), and there has so far been about 2,300 killed, roughly the same number as American personnel. Does lowering the number really justify the war to you? Does the number play any part at all in justifying the war? If not, why would raising the number, whether reliably or unreliably, detract from a justification of the war? Arguing the numbers is a diversion. Attributing them to the press is a smokescreen. The issue is the war itself. Body count might be a good way to keep score in a video game. I'm sure I shouldn't have to point out to anyone that this isn't a video game? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
maybe it would be easier if you just gave me a list of what you consider to not be valid numbers? That's fine, Ron. I never complain about sarcasm tossed at me.  Having the forums closed for a time gave me pause to reflect on all the posts in the Alley and why they never go anywhere. The reasoning seems to be that, when faced with someting one can't or is not willing to answer, they simply take off on another tangent. I read Alicat's point here in the initiation of this thread as to the large descrepancy in numbers between what the press reports and what seems to be actual. LR takes a "sketchy intelligence multiplied by 300%" detour. You respond with the fact that no deaths can be justified, Bush being either right or wrong about the war, and about whether or not the war has validity. None of these points have anything to do with Alicat's question. Brad was actually the only person who responded to the question. You basically told Alicat that his curiousity in meaningless and accuse him of diversionary tactics. I don't think he deserves either. My speaking of the press is a smokescreen to you. If the numbers are meaningless, why do they keep getting thrown in the public's face? Why do they get inflated to a ridiculous degree for shock value if the press doesn't really consider them important? You may not consider them important as far as the war is concerned - and I happen to agree with you - but the press certainly does and considers them good weapons to influence and enflame public opinion. No, the numbers have nothing to do with the justification of the war and yet you seem to feel that Alicat, and I, are trying to make that point. I feel sure that was not Alicat's intent and I can say without doubt that was not mine. I will always speak out about deliberate media distortions, though. No, you shouldn't have to point out to anyone that war is not a video game - so why do it? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
We don't even know how many are dead in New Orleans Mike. But, what has changed in Iraq, and what Iraqis see is that now they die for being in a coffee shop, or for being Sunni, or for being Shiite. Before, they died if they politically opposed Saddam. Still not good.. but at least predictable. Does it matter if people have died as a result of American or British military activity, or factional fighting, or terrorism? Dead is dead. Zero WMD's. Zero threat. Zero Justification. Dead is dead. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, I understand that. You point is that Alicat's post and question is irrevelant. Any media distortion of the figures is irrevelant...ok. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
My point is that the media is not the story. The media is not responsible for the situation in Iraq. (unless you want to drag the New York Times pre-war distorting into this). |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I understand, reb. The media is not the story. The media is this thread, however. Alicat has said nothing about the dead not being the dead not the media not being responsible for the war in Iraq nor about our not knowing how many dead there are in New Orleans. Those are your detours, not his. His question was about the huge discrepancies in casualty figures, that's all, apparently a question not to be addressed. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Like New Orleans -- the dead don't talk. All we can do is go around and ask people who's missing. The Pentagon says there is no accurate way. I'm inclined to agree -- is there any wonder why there are discrepancies? Cat wants to compare these deaths to the ordinary 'peace-time' deaths that have occured in a country with more than 10 times the population of Iraq. The real point is another thinly veiled attempt to ameliorate the actions of the Bush administration in engaging us in a war of CHOICE. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, when you argue the validity of the numbers you give credence to the argument that 100,000 dead Iraqis is reason enough to abandon the war. You're agreeing that the numbers are important. My whole point is that the numbers are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you support or don't support a presence in Iraq, the body count -- on either side -- is a result and not a cause. If the means don't justify the ends, then the ends can't be used to question the means. It's a red herring and should be treated as such. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Who would trust an 'official' estimate anyway? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mike, when you argue the validity of the numbers you give credence to the argument that 100,000 dead Iraqis is reason enough to abandon the war. You're agreeing that the numbers are important. Ron, I am giving no such credence to any such argument. My issue is with the news media intentionally inflating statistics for political or sensational purposes. This topic happens to be about Iraq. I would say the same things if the topic were the news media reporting that 10,000 home burglaries occur in Miami each night, when in fact there are only 1,000...but the newspaper owner has a brother who sells home alarm systems. I am speaking against the media who paints news with the blackest strokes possible to fit their political agendas. In that regard I am agreeing that numbers are important - that, indeed, numbers are the topic. It has nothing to do with a certain amount of numbers being necessary to abandon the war or even Iraq, for that matter. Apparently no explanation I can give will allow you to understand what I'm trying to say so we will have to agree to disagree. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why do they throw around that 100,000 number? That report, as controversial as it is, was published a while ago and that number, I suspect, has simply moved into the 'unthinking' stage of reporting -- if it is being thrown around a lot and Ali's not just being hypersensitive. In the same way that a newspaper can't seem to write about black holes without the phrase, "nothing can escape it, not even light", it's simply a number thrown out to placate the obvious question, 'how many people have died'. There may be a bias against the war, there may not be, but I don't think that's the issue. It has become a cliche (Notice how it doesn't change.). Which brings me to one of my favorite lines from "Men in Black" "A person is smart, people are stupid." And using that line is the real reason for posting on this thread again. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: See, now, I could probably buy into that, Mike. I'd want some evidence, of course, but I'm not going to be unduly skeptical about one man's greed. When you lay similar claims across everyone born in Virginia, everyone who is the seventh son of a seventh son, or everyone in an entire industry, frankly, I start looking to see if maybe your hat is also lined with tin-foil. "The media" covers a pretty vast sea and, in my experience, greed just doesn't spread that uniformly. Conspiracy theories never seem to hold up real well under investigation, in large part I suspect because secrets held by tens of thousands of individuals don't stay secret very long. You may well have valid complaints, Mike. I just think you need to voice them more selectively. Go after the guy whose brother is selling home alarm systems, not every guy who has a brother. "The media" is too big a target to be credible, in my opinion. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What source are they supposed to use? They can be ACCURATE in reporting that 'some estimates are as much as 100,000'. Just as I can accurately say Mike will not confirm that he's wearing women's underwear. The unthinking that the media does now is to march out a whole lineup of characters from those who say the Earth is flat to Carl Sagan and give them all equal seats at the table with the goal of being 'objective'. If they don't say that there are some estimates that go as high as 100,000 are they being objective? But, I think we're talking about protestors signs and not 'the media'. Last time I looked protestors don't have fact checkers. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Hundreds of thousands of protestors globally, George Soros and his cabal, moveon.org et al and Sheehan and company can't all be wrong, can they? It's almost comical. Cite a figure from a single source based on a single study which cannot be found in a single archived story at said source against the war/military/Bush and it's fact. Almost truth. Protected and encouraged. Say it enough times or wait long enough and it will be almost prophetic. Howsoever, question the validity of the claims and you're a tin-hat wearing diversionary warmonger who's opinion never really mattered in the first place. Now where'd I put my roll of foil?  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't understand the correlation between wearing tinfoil and posting a rather glib, partisan paragraph; quote: Up until that point -- your first paragraph was questioning the study -- then you ended up, by choice, with a rather unfortunate political statement. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
For most of your selected quote, I was merely giving a comparison with a single crime tally: murder. Not negligent homicide, suicide, homicide, or any other crime which leads to death. Just the charge of murder, and the numbers of murders in the past 3 years in the US. I fail to see how that is partisan. Now, the last sentence is partisan. I figured since everything else seems to be President Bush's fault, tacking on one other thing wouldn't go amiss. Afterall, issues and problems from the prior administration were laid at his doorstep and made his responsibility; he was quickly blamed for things he inherited. But that's neither here nor there. I was a bit relieved at some left-leaning groups not jumping on the 100k bandwagon, like CodePink. At least Medea (I forget her last name), one of the founders, didn't banter that figure around during an interview on FoxNews the other day. Just wish more protest groups would adopt that position instead of perpetrating an inflationary, inflammatory and down-right bogus claim. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
