W.W.G.W.B.D flow chart

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
so where is that body count site? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
 

simoon

OTF status
Oct 17, 2006
188
0
0
so where is that body count site? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
What body count site?
Oh, are you referring to the 650,000 Iraqis I quoted (then supplied a link) in another thread?

This just proves to me that most right wingers don't do any research if they don't hear it on Fox <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Here's just 3, but there are many more out there;

Here's one from The Washington post,

Washington Post

Here's the white paper from the Lancet, one of the most respected and conservative medical journals in the world,

The Lancet

And here's one from the Gaurdian,

The Gaurdian

It was real tough to find all the info, I had to use a very obscure website called Google.com and type some very arcane computer code in, "650,000 dead iraqis" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" />
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
now read the response to you"re proof 650.000 dead ..its at the bottom of the page..its long and covers all the wild accussations.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />i forgot that the last time.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />
 

simoon

OTF status
Oct 17, 2006
188
0
0
now read the response to you"re proof 650.000 dead ..its at the bottom of the page..its long and covers all the wild accussations.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />i forgot that the last time.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />
Sorry if I have to keep asking you to clarify your (or, as you'd say, you"re) posts, but I'm not sure I understand what page I should be looking at to see which "wild accussations" (accusations) are covered <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/00000054.gif" alt="" />

And by the way, just how many dead innocent Iraqi men, women and children would be OK for the US to be responsible for? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" /> I'd feel much better if the number was only 300,000 <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/banghead.gif" alt="" />

Another study back in 2004 stated that the number of innocent people killed was 100,000, the administration said the number was 10,000. Let's see, should I believe the same people that lied to us about WOMD or independent doctors? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
Press Release Some responses to the latest Lancet estimates click on it..do you know how eye balls work..it was in plan view..
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
Implication two:
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment.
It may be argued that deaths often fail to be reported to authorities or registered by them (although information supplied by the Lancet authors themselves casts doubt on this argument - see Implication four below). However, people suffering injuries usually make strenuous efforts to receive appropriate treatment, or if they are severely incapacitated, others see to it that they do so.

It is a long-established finding that around three times as many people are injured in modern wars as are killed in them. This is borne out in Iraq in statistics gathered by the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH). Their casualty monitoring centre was set up in Spring 2004 to allow the Ministry to allocate resources in response to conflict-related violence across Iraq (excluding the Kurdish-administered regions). The system is claimed to be manned 24 hours a day, with hospitals phoning the Ministry in Baghdad on a daily basis (when necessary) to report on dead and wounded from conflict-related violence,

The MoH has reported 2.9 wounded for each person killed in the period from mid-2004 to mid-2006. An almost identical ratio was confirmed in IBC's independent analysis of media-derived data for the first two years after the invasion.

If 600,000 people have died violent deaths, then the 3:1 ratio implies that 1,800,000 Iraqis have by now been wounded. This would correspond to 1 in every 15 Iraqis.

Of course, death/injury ratios vary according to the weapons being used. Bombs and air strikes leave more wounded than does gunfire, but even the latter may cause widespread injury when it is indiscriminate, as it often is in gun-battles or in "defensive" fire by US troops who come under attack. By far the lowest proportion of injured are produced in the execution of captives, whether by guns or other means.

We might therefore calculate a much more conservative estimate of wounded associated with the Lancet findings, based on the different proportions of weaponry reported in Table 4 of the Lancet paper. We assume 3 wounded for every explosive- or air strike-caused death, but only 1 wounded for every 2 gunfire deaths, and no wounded from the "unknown" and "accident" categories.

This yields a revised Lancet-based estimate of 800,000 wounded over the equivalent period for which the MoH has been collecting this information centrally. In that same two-year period the official total of wounded treated in Iraqi hospitals is recorded as 59,372.

Whether hospitals can provide a comprehensive tally of violent deaths or not, their knowledge of seriously injured should be much more complete.

Accepting the Lancet estimate would entail concluding that at least 740,000 wounded Iraqis (90% of the total) were not treated or, if treated, not recorded in any way, throughout a 2-year period beginning in mid-2004. It may be that many injured anti-occupation combatants have avoided hospitals to prevent identification or arrest, but they are hardly likely to account for more than a small fraction of this discrepancy. It would further imply that approaching 90% of Lancet's deaths are also of combatants.

In fact, even if one considers only the victims of car bombs as estimated in Lancet (who are a relatively small subset, and would have no reason to avoid - if they even had the capacity to do so - detection by authorities), then the 220,000 injured which would credibly accompany Lancet's estimates would far outstrip the 60,000 whom hospitals have recorded treating for injuries from all causes. This would be despite the existence of an ongoing, albeit imperfect, monitoring system specifically designed for such war-related casualty monitoring, one which emergency health service providers should have strong interest in maintaining in order to receive the necessary resources from the Health Ministry.


&lt;&lt; Implication 1 Implication 3 &gt;&gt;
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
In 87% of cases where deaths were reported, the survey team asked to see death certificates, leading to the Lancet authors' statement that "92% of households had death certificates for deaths they reported". Assuming, as the authors do, that this is representative of the population as a whole, would imply that officials in Iraq have issued approximately 550,000 death certificates for violent deaths (92% of 601,000). Yet in June 2006, the total figure of post-war violent deaths known to the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH), combined with the Baghdad morgue, was approximately 50,000.

If the Lancet estimate is correct then it follows that either (a) 500,000 documented violent deaths, for which certificates were issued, have somehow managed to completely disappear without a trace to Iraqi officials or the international media or (b) there is a vast, elaborate, and very successful, cover up of this massive number of bodies and their associated paper trail being carried out in Iraq.

A "suspicion" of option (b) is offered as one possible explanation in the supplementary notes to the Lancet report, but is not addressed in any detail. Option (a), however, is argued for explicitly. The authors write that:

"Even with the death certificate system, only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government's surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq. At a death rate of 5/1,000/year, in a population of 24 million, the government should have reported 120,000 deaths annually. In 2002, the government documented less than 40,000 from all sources. The ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today."
The above statement provides the sole evidentiary basis for the Lancet authors to dismiss as "expected" the factor-of-ten discrepancy between their estimates and statistics collected by the official monitoring system as it exists in Iraq. No one argues that Iraq's official figures are complete, including its officials. But could their coverage be so bad as to amount to no more than a small fraction of deaths, as suggested above?

Two points need to be made here. First, despite the confidence with which the Lancet authors make the assertion, the natural death rate of 5/1,000/year is not an established fact for Iraq in 2002. It is one estimate, a projection or extrapolation from some smaller set of known data. It may be correct, or it may not be, and there can be considerable room for debate on the matter.

Second, the figure of 40,000 claimed as the number of deaths recorded by the MoH in 2002 is false. No specific citation is offered by the Lancet authors for this figure other than a vague attribution to "informed sources in Iraq". But official Iraqi figures for 2002, forwarded to IBC courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, show that the Ministry registered 84,025 deaths from all causes in that year. This excluded deaths in the Kurdish-administered regions, which contain 12% or more of the population.

Thus, the actual MoH figure for 2002, even while excluding Kurdistan, stands at 70% of the estimate of 120,000 that, per the Lancet authors, "should have been recorded" nation-wide in 2002. It may (or may not, given its post-2004 casualty monitoring system) be true that the "ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today". But if their completeness is even remotely similar to 2002 (the Ministry's equivalent 2005 figures record 115,785 deaths, an average of 320 per day), then we are still left with a vast and completely unexplained chasm between the actual official figures, what may reasonably be assumed about their past completeness based on documentary evidence, and the violent death estimate offered in this new Lancet report.


&lt;&lt; Implication 3 Implication 5 &gt;&gt;
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
According to Lancet calculations, Coalition forces killed 32,000 Iraqis from late March 2003 to the end of April 2004. This is a period that included the large-scale invasion in which 20,000 air strikes rained 30,000 bombs on a largely urbanized country along with an untold quantity of artillery, as well as an additional 240,000 cluster bombs. This type of assault was then repeated on a smaller but still significant scale in Falluja. All available evidence points to a significant and progressive reduction in Coalition military operations overall since the first year of the invasion.

Yet, according to Lancet estimates, the number of Iraqis killed by the Coalition rose to 70,000 in year two (May 2004 – May 2005), and rose yet again in the third year (June 2005 – June 2006) to 86,000, nearly three times more than in year 1.

When looking at US air strikes, the picture becomes even more puzzling. This data is comprised of 40 deaths:

1 killed in January 2002-March 2003 (estimate: 2,000 killed);
6 killed in March 2003-April 2004 (estimate: 12,000 killed);
13 killed in May 2004-May 2005 (estimate: 26,000 killed);
20 killed in June 2005-June 2006 (estimate: 40,000 killed).
Those who keenly recall the reported carnage associated with the invasion in 2003 will scarcely credit the notion that similar events but of a much greater scale and extent have continued unremarked and unrecorded, including by locals, in a nation at the level of education and urbanisation of Iraq. Iraq is not an undeveloped society where tiny, self-sufficient communities live in isolation and ignorance of each other.

Six thousand civilians were reported killed by Coalition forces in the first three weeks of the invasion, i.e., 285 per day. The Lancet estimate of 86,000 Iraqis killed by Coalition forces in the 13 months from 2005-2006 averages 217 per day over a much longer, relentlessly sustained period. And as shocking as such a secret toll would be, it is claimed to constitute only 26% of the even greater carnage inflicted by anti-Coalition or unattributable bombs and bullets, which it is claimed killed 330,000 Iraqis in this period, also almost always without being noticed by anyone but the victims.


&lt;&lt; Implication 4 Concluding remarks &gt;&gt;
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
you and simon posted that bullshit as fact..which you really dont give a sh!t if it is correct or not..im just calling you on it..
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
Could five such shocking implications be true? If they were true, they would need to be the result of a combination of the following factors:

incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
We would hope that, before accepting such extreme notions, serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study are flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling methodology such that violent deaths were vastly over-represented in the sample. The precise potential nature of such bias is not clear at this point (it could, for example, involve problems in the application of a statistical method originally designed for studying the spread of disease in a population to direct and ongoing violence-related phenomena). But to dismiss the possibility of such bias out of hand is surely both irresponsible and unwise.

All that has been firmly documented as a result of the Lancet study is that some 300 post-invasion violent deaths occurred among the members of the households interviewed. This information, and the demographic and causative breakdowns presented in the study, are significant additions to the detailed knowledge that is painstakingly being accumulated about the individual victims of this conflict, and the tragedies that have befallen them. These 300 may be added to the roster of some 50,000 others for whom this level of detailed knowledge is available. In some - but still far too few - cases we know the name, ages, occupation, and exact circumstances of death. Information presented at this level of detail is the only way to arrive at once-for-all certainty, in a way that does justice to the victims, honours their memory, and provides the closure that only a full list, or census, can do satisfactorily.

Do the American people need to believe that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed before they can turn to their leaders and say "enough is enough"? The number of certain civilian deaths that has been documented to a basic standard of corroboration by "passive surveillance methods" surely already provides all the necessary evidence to deem this invasion and occupation an utter failure at all levels.

On 9/11 3,000 people were violently killed in attacks on the USA. Those events etched themselves into the soul of every American, and reverberated around the world. In December 2005 President George Bush acknowledged 30,000 known Iraqi violent deaths in a country one tenth the size of the USA. That is already a death toll 100 times greater in its impact on the Iraqi nation than 9/11 was on the USA. That there are more deaths that have not yet come to light is certain, but if a change in policy is needed, the catastrophic roll-call of the already known dead is more than ample justification for that change.



Note for press and media. The Lancet researchers documented 300 violent deaths. Iraq has reached such a sorry state that IBC records 300 deaths every few days. Although comment of the sort offered here is sometimes necessary, it diverts our energies away from the main work to which we are committed, and to which still far too few are contributing. In light of this we regret that, at the current time, we have extremely limited capacity to undertake interviews with individual members of the press or media, and may be unable to deal with urgent requests. Full permission is granted to cite from this release, with appropriate attribution.

DID YOU EVEN READ IT ALL?
&lt;&lt; Implication 5
 

simoon

OTF status
Oct 17, 2006
188
0
0
OK, so I'll play along.

Let's say the 600k estimate is too high. Let's say the real total of dead innocent Iraqi men, women and children is closer to 60k (probably not, but let's go with it).

I ask again, just what number of innocent people's deaths is OK with you? Especially since they don't want us there and we're there based on lies.

And I'm sure you don't need me to remind you of this, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
 

simoon

OTF status
Oct 17, 2006
188
0
0
OK, so I'll play along.

Let's say the 600k estimate is too high. Let's say the real total of dead innocent Iraqi men, women and children is closer to 60k (probably not, but let's go with it).

I ask again, just what number of innocent people's deaths is OK with you? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/censored.gif" alt="" /> Especially since they don't want us there and we're there based on lies.

And I'm sure you don't need me to remind you of this, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
 

kmill66

Legend (inyourownmind)
Jan 9, 2006
385
0
0
texas
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11..but 9/11 was the reason we went to iraq.. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/loser.gif" alt="" />