• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

1,000,000 dead in Iraq.

Modisrapid

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
4
Some estimates put the number of Iraqi dead since the US/UK invasion at 1,000,000. One million dead and still no end in sight. O.I.L : Operation Iraqi Liberation :roll:



Who cares ?. Sure as long as we can fill our Beemers and Toyotas with petrol isnt that all that matters!

 


st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,101
Brittania waives the rules.

What will we hear next?

"But we had to get Saddam, therefore they should be happy we sent the british army to Iraq"

"The country needs western intervention to create freedom"


This is just another atrocity to add to the british and americans long list.

Wait 50 years and theyll be proud of it.

 

badger

Member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
10
The figure of one million dead seems much higher then previous estimates, where did these numbers come from?
 

Jason

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
25
no way is it anywhere near 1 million! that would mean that 1/26 people in iraq would have been killed over the last few years....


i put my bet on these numbers...

min= 63610 max=69658

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


16,791
Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists


225*
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans last year
(and Islamic Terrorists)
 

dsmythy

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
134
Somebody get rid of that image please. Im glad i hadnt eaten just beforehand.
Who's really to blame for the violence. The Americans? Or the Iraqis intent on killing each other? Seemingly killing those who wont kill back. Even the terrorists are fighting each other over the targeting of civilians. Wasn't one leader killed recently over such a dispute?
 

Pax

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
265
Jason said:
no way is it anywhere near 1 million! that would mean that 1/26 people in iraq would have been killed over the last few years....


i put my bet on these numbers...

min= 63610 max=69658

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


16,791
Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists


225*
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans last year
(and Islamic Terrorists)
Why are you using iraqbodycount? :eek:

The internationally respected, Lancet study figure was 655,000 last year. The same methodology was used in everywhere from Kosovo to the Congo.

It is now known that it was considered too low and conservative at the time by the British ministry of Defence. Despite this the UK government used weasel words at the time to criticise its accuracy without saying they thought it was too low!

The situation on the ground has worsened since then. Take from that what you wil, but it's fair to say the figure is now closer to 1 million.
 

Pax

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
265
dsmythy said:
Somebody get rid of that image please. Im glad i hadnt eaten just beforehand.
Who's really to blame for the violence. The Americans? Or the Iraqis intent on killing each other? Seemingly killing those who wont kill back. Even the terrorists are fighting each other over the targeting of civilians. Wasn't one leader killed recently over such a dispute?
What an appalling post.

It's blame the colonised time....either that or piss on the bodies of dead Iraqis.

Marine says urinated on dead Iraqi at Haditha
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070509/ts_ ... haditha_dc

Angered that a beloved member of his squad had been killed in an explosion, a U.S. Marine urinated on one of the 24 dead Iraqi civilians killed by his unit in Haditha, the Marine testified on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, who has immunity from prosecution after murder charges against him were dismissed, also said he watched his squad leader shoot down five Iraqi civilians who were trying to surrender.

Some footage of US troops gunning down protesters in the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qif1txQtFYA&eurl=
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qif1txQtFYA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qif1txQtFYA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Slaughter of demonstrators by the US Armed Forces in Iraq


Meanwhile the rip-off of Iraq's oil continues.

Iraqi Union Set to Strike over Oil Law

Imagine! Polls show they want the Americans - to leave - You'd think they'd be more grateful for their new freedom...
 

HP

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
250
Jason said:
no way is it anywhere near 1 million! that would mean that 1/26 people in iraq would have been killed over the last few years....


i put my bet on these numbers...

min= 63610 max=69658

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


16,791
Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists


225*
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans last year
(and Islamic Terrorists)


I'm afraid you are going to have to remove those pink tinted specs.

"Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

he British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.

Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".


Mortality rates

The Iraq government asks the country's hospitals to report the number of victims of terrorism or military action.

Critics say the system was not started until well after the invasion and requires over-pressed hospital staff not only to report daily, but also to distinguish between victims of terrorism and of crime.

The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October.

It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.


Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies
Foreign Office official


The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people.

In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire.

Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate.

He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole.

President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report."

But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

'Cannot be rubbished'


One of the documents just released by the Foreign Office is an e-mail in which an official asks about the Lancet report: "Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies."

The reply from another official is: "We do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate. "

In the same e-mail the official later writes: "However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."

Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.

"However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.

"There is considerable debate amongst the scientific community over the accuracy of the figures."

'Mainstreet bias'

In fact some of the British government criticism of the Lancet report post-dated Sir Roy's comments.

Speaking six days after Sir Roy praised the study's methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said: "The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern...."



It would appear they were only able to sample a small sliver of the country
Dr Michael Spagat

Some scientists have subsequently challenged the validity of the Lancet study. Questions have been asked about the survey techniques and the possibility of "mainstreet bias".

Dr Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway London University says that most of those questioned lived on streets more likely than average to witness attacks: "It would appear they were only able to sample a small sliver of the country," he said.

Dr Spagat has previously conducted research with Iraq Body Count, an NGO that counts deaths on the basis of media reports and which has produced estimates far lower than those published in the Lancet.

If the Lancet survey is right, then 2.5% of the Iraqi population - an average of more than 500 people a day - have been killed since the start of the war.

The BBC World Service made a Freedom of Information Request on 28 November 2006. The information was released on 14 March 2007."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

Of course for some reason, this story didn't get a lot of air time... and we are continually fed the same old 69k or so figure.
 

Universal_001

Active member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
222
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
 

Pax

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
265
Universal_001 said:
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
Stupid prats? You really are a contrarian prick Gladstone.

The lancet study found that the biggest cause of violent death was from coalition forces, in particular from helicopter gunships. Not to mention the illegal use of white phosphorus, bombing hospitals and schools and shooting people up in their houses and cars etc etc

This is continuing today despite internecine violence.

US attack 'kills Iraqi children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 637307.stm

An attack by a US helicopter against suspected insurgents in Iraq has killed a number of children at a primary school, Iraqi security sources say.
 

Jason

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
25
IBC has been critised for being to high by many in the political right and includes terrorist, and iraq army personel in their numbers so the real number could be even lower.

Criticisms

An October 12, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article[28] reported:

"Six hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just, it's not credible," Bush said, and he dismissed the methodology as "pretty well discredited." In December [2005], Bush estimated that 30,000 Iraqis had died in the war. Asked at the news conference what he thinks the number is now, Bush said: "I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life." At a separate Pentagon briefing, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that the figure "seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give it that much credibility at all."

The UK government, too, rejected the researchers' conclusions. In doing so, it went against the advice of the Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, who had called the study "robust" and its methods "close to best practice" in an internal memo, dated 13 October, 2006.[29][30]

The Iraq Body Count project (IBC), who compiles a database of reported civilian deaths, has criticised the Lancet's estimate of 601,000 violent deaths[31] out of the Lancet estimate of 654,965 total excess deaths related to the war. The IBC argues that the Lancet estimate is suspect "because of a very different conclusion reached by another random household survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS), using a comparable method but a considerably better-distributed and much larger sample." IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".[32]

Jon Pedersen of the Fafo Institute[33] and research director for the ILCS survey, which estimated approximately 24,000 (95% CI 18,000-29,000) war-related deaths in Iraq up to April 2004, expressed reservations about the low pre-war mortality rate used in the Lancet study and about the ability of its authors to oversee the interviews properly as they were conducted throughout Iraq. Petersen has been quoted saying he thinks the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much."[34] Both Iraq Body Count and Lancet authors have noted that the ILCS estimate of 24,000 was roughly twice the Iraq Body Count figure for the same period.[35] The "100,000" figure Petersen gives in the quote above is roughly double IBC's October 2006 figures, which would make it consistent with his own ILCS estimate scaled-up according to the IBC timeline.

Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. "Why are they doing this?" she asks. "It's because of the elections."[36]. However, another interviewer a week later paints a more measured picture of her criticisms: "She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people — who might have opposed the occupation — as interviewers. She also points out that the result does not fit with any she has recorded in 15 years of studying conflict zones. Even in Darfur, where armed groups have wiped out whole villages, she says that researchers have not recorded the 500 predominately violent deaths per day that the Johns Hopkins team estimates are occurring in Iraq. But overall Guha-Sapir says the paper contains the best data yet on the mortality rate in Iraq."[37]

Fred Kaplan of Slate criticized the first Lancet study and has again raised concerns about the second.[38][39] Kaplan argues that the second study has made some improvements over the first, such as "a larger sample, more fastidious attention to data-gathering procedures, a narrower range of uncertainty", and writes that "this methodology is entirely proper if the sample was truly representative of the entire population—i.e., as long as those households were really randomly selected." He cites the low pre-war mortality estimate and the "main street bias" critique as two reasons for doubting that the sample in this study was truly random. And he concludes saying that the question of the war's human toll is "a question that the Lancet study doesn't really answer".

Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist and public health researcher at King's College London in the U.K., says she "simply cannot believe" the paper's claim that 40 consecutive houses were surveyed in a single day. "There is simply not enough time in the day," she says, "so I have to conclude that something else is going on for at least some of these interviews." Households may have been "prepared by someone, made ready for rapid reporting," she says, which "raises the issue of bias being introduced."[40]

Dr. Hicks published a thorough account and clarification of these concerns, which concluded that, "In view of the significant questions that remain unanswered about the feasibility of their study’s methods as practiced at the level of field interviews,it is necessary that Burnham and his co-authors provide detailed, data-based evidence that all reported interviews were indeed carried out, and how this was done in a valid manner. In addition, they need to explain and to demonstrate to what degree their published methodology was adhered to or departed from across interviews, and to demonstrate convincingly that interviews were done in accordance with the standards of ethical research."[41]

Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times, in an interview with PBS, questioned the study based on their earlier research in Iraq, saying, "Well, we think -- the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers killed. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts."[42][43]

The Lancet estimate also drew criticism from the Iraqi government. Government spokesman Ali Debbagh said, "This figure, which in reality has no basis, is exaggerated".[44] And Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave a similar view a month later, "Since three and a half years, since the change of the Saddam regime, some people say we have 600,000" killed, he said. "This is an exaggerated number."[45]

Steven E. Moore, who conducted survey research in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority and was an advisor to Paul Bremer for the International Republican Institute, also ridiculed the Lancet study in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. In a piece entitled, "655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties", Moore wrote, "I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points. Neither would anyone else..."[46]. While superficially appealing, Moore confuses bias and precision: population parameters estimated by cluster sampling are unbiased if the sample is random; adding clusters for a given number of respondents reduces the correlation between them, increasing the estimate's precision. Prior to sanitizing his website before publication of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, Moore used it to assert, without any references, that there had been 80,000 fewer Iraqi child deaths in the first year after the 2003 invasion.

Main Street Bias

Professors Sean Gourley and Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London, claimed the methodology of the study was fundamentally flawed by what they term "main street bias". They claimed the sampling methods used "will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq" because "by sampling only cross streets which are more accessible, you get an over-estimation of deaths."[47]

These professors have published a detailed paper discussing this bias and the Lancet study called "Conflict Mortality Studies".[48] A critical summary of their paper on the Deltoid ScienceBlog identifies the four variables on which their analysis depends.[49] An article in Science magazine by John Bohannon describes some of their criticisms, as well as some responses from Lancet's lead author Gilbert Burnham: 'The [Lancet] paper indicates that the survey team avoided small back alleys for safety reasons. But this could bias the data because deaths from car bombs, street-market explosions, and shootings from vehicles should be more likely on larger streets, says Johnson. According to Bohannon, Burnham counters that such streets were included and that the methods section of the published paper is oversimplified. Bohannon also alleged that Burnham told Science that he does not know exactly how the Iraqi team conducted its survey; the details about neighborhoods surveyed were destroyed "in case they fell into the wrong hands and could increase the risks to residents." These explanations have infuriated the study's critics. Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway, University of London, who specializes in civil conflicts, says the scientific community should call for an in-depth investigation into the researchers' procedures. "It is almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," adds Johnson.'[50]

In a 24 November letter to Science, the authors of the report claimed that Bohannon misquoted Burnham, stating that "in no place does our Lancet paper say that the survey team avoided small back alleys", and that "The methods section of the paper was modified with the suggestions of peer reviewers and the editorial staff. At no time did Burnham describe it to Bohannon as 'oversimplified.'". Bohannon defended his comments as accurate, citing Burnham saying, in response to questions about why details of selecting "residential streets that that did not cross the main avenues", that "in trying to shorten the paper from its original very large size, this bit got chopped, unfortunately." In addition, the details which were destroyed refer to the "scraps" of paper on which streets and addresses were written to "randomly" choose households".[51]
 

HP

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
250
dsmythy said:
Somebody get rid of that image please. Im glad i hadnt eaten just beforehand.
Who's really to blame for the violence. The Americans? Or the Iraqis intent on killing each other? Seemingly killing those who wont kill back. Even the terrorists are fighting each other over the targeting of civilians. Wasn't one leader killed recently over such a dispute?
How fortunate that your lunch was not disturbed, but really what did you expect when you clicked on this thread...?

Some feel good story along the lines of "Yes you can fill up your 4 x 4 guilt free as claims of huge numbers of deaths in Iraq are proven to be slightly exagerated..."

Still its good that you are starting to ask questions....

How about asking... "I wonder how imperial powers manage newly acquired territories where they've had the great good sense to build in a couple of deep seated sectarian fault lines in advance...?"
 

HP

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
250
Universal_001 said:
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
You've really done your homework, haven't you...

:roll:
 

Jason

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
25
Pax said:
Universal_001 said:
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
Stupid prats? You really are a contrarian prick Gladstone.

The lancet study found that the biggest cause of violent death was from coalition forces, in particular from helicopter gunships. Not to mention the illegal use of white phosphorus, bombing hospitals and schools and shooting people up in their houses and cars etc etc

This is continuing today despite internecine violence.

US attack 'kills Iraqi children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 637307.stm

An attack by a US helicopter against suspected insurgents in Iraq has killed a number of children at a primary school, Iraqi security sources say.
and i suppose you think the usa is behind all the secterian bombing as well. if the usa and the uk were killing the vast majority of the people in iraq why is this not beening reported in any of the news channels, oh i forgot its the zionists.... :roll:
 

Universal_001

Active member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
222
Pax said:
Universal_001 said:
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
Stupid prats? You really are a contrarian prick Gladstone.

The lancet study found that the biggest cause of violent death was from coalition forces, in particular from helicopter gunships. Not to mention the illegal use of white phosphorus, bombing hospitals and schools and shooting people up in their houses and cars etc etc

This is continuing today despite internecine violence.

US attack 'kills Iraqi children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 637307.stm

An attack by a US helicopter against suspected insurgents in Iraq has killed a number of children at a primary school, Iraqi security sources say.
Pax I was refering to the gobshites car bombing their own cities because someone has a diffrent interpritation of what mohhomad meant:roll:
 

Respvblica

Active member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
212
I dont know about the exact figures but does it really matter? As Stalin said:
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"

The situation is appalling enough and that it is worse now than before the intervention is clear to all.
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,101
Jason said:
Pax said:
Universal_001 said:
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
Stupid prats? You really are a contrarian prick Gladstone.

The lancet study found that the biggest cause of violent death was from coalition forces, in particular from helicopter gunships. Not to mention the illegal use of white phosphorus, bombing hospitals and schools and shooting people up in their houses and cars etc etc

This is continuing today despite internecine violence.

US attack 'kills Iraqi children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 637307.stm

An attack by a US helicopter against suspected insurgents in Iraq has killed a number of children at a primary school, Iraqi security sources say.
and i suppose you think the usa is behind all the secterian bombing as well. if the usa and the uk were killing the vast majority of the people in iraq why is this not beening reported in any of the news channels, oh i forgot its the zionists.... :roll:
Que the unionists, Denial! Denial! Denial!

Everyones wrong, the brits are great bla bla, heard it all before.
 

Pax

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
265
Jason said:
Pax said:
Universal_001 said:
Granted the invasion triggerd it....but it IS the Iraqis killing each other!
Stupid prats.
Stupid prats? You really are a contrarian prick Gladstone.

The lancet study found that the biggest cause of violent death was from coalition forces, in particular from helicopter gunships. Not to mention the illegal use of white phosphorus, bombing hospitals and schools and shooting people up in their houses and cars etc etc

This is continuing today despite internecine violence.

US attack 'kills Iraqi children'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 637307.stm

An attack by a US helicopter against suspected insurgents in Iraq has killed a number of children at a primary school, Iraqi security sources say.
and i suppose you think the usa is behind all the secterian bombing as well. if the usa and the uk were killing the vast majority of the people in iraq why is this not beening reported in any of the news channels, oh i forgot its the zionists.... :roll:
I see you've not responded to my point on the Lancet study.
Also. Are you 15 or something?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top