Announcement

**BlackCat** · February 19, 2006, 17:48

Originally posted by techumseh

An out and out fabrication.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

About that report published in the lancet, I remember it, and it was questioned seriously because it mainly was based upon rumors, not facts.

**KrazyHorse** · February 19, 2006, 17:49

Don't bother. Tecumseh's immune to reason.

**Geronimo** · February 19, 2006, 17:59

Originally posted by techumseh
As of Oct/04, the estimated civilian deaths as a result of the occupation were ~ 100,000.

Here's a good article about the report, originally printed in the British medical journal, the Lancet: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html

The Lancet study suggests that 79% of civilian casualties up to that time were inflicted by coalition forces and that nearly half had been children. The referenced article deals with the campaign to discredit and marginalize the report by the British and American governments:

I'm having a lot of trouble finding a freely viewable copy of the original article but here at least can be found the abstract of the original lancet article. Hopefully I can find a copy from the biomedical library and post it here later.

here is a link to the wiki article on the lancet paper.

The wiki paper does an exxcellent job of explaining the confidence interval.

**techumseh** · February 19, 2006, 18:03

@Dr. S: They were undercover, the British military requested their faces be hidden in media coverage, and the British Army attacked the "legitimate" local government to get them back. So, I dunno. Maybe they just left a gay bar or something. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4263648.stm

@BC: if you read their FAQ, they only count confirmed/reported deaths. They don't extrapolate to get approximate (but much more accurate) totals.

@KH: Good thing. It makes your posts much easier to understand.

And in breaking news, a second Shiite Regional Council has broken relations with the British occupation forces over the video of the British Army beating young protesters. They are demanding all powers be tranferred to local governments. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4729032.stm

**techumseh** · February 19, 2006, 18:10

@Black Cat. I understand where you got the 30 thousand figure from, though I don't think it's accurate. It's the Saddam allegation that you just pulled out of the air.

**techumseh** · February 19, 2006, 18:13

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is nothing like the exterminations that'll take place when civil war breaks out.

I remember the same scary predictions before the North Vietnamese defeated the south and before the ANC defeated aparthied in South Africa. Still, it can't be discounted entirely.

**chequita guevara** · February 19, 2006, 18:20

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is nothing like the exterminations that'll take place when civil war breaks out.

If that's your concern, maybe Canada and France should send 100,00 troops each to help out.

**BlackCat** · February 19, 2006, 18:20

Originally posted by techumseh

@BC: if you read their FAQ, they only count confirmed/reported deaths. They don't extrapolate to get approximate (but much more accurate) totals.

Guesses based upon rumors are more accurate than confirmed numbers ????? Extrapolations based upon rumors accurate ?????

I'm beginning vaguely to rember this "report". It was based on interviews of a couple of hundred iraquis that wasn't especially fond of the result of the war; natural deaths was included and so was deaths by criminal activities (if I remember right they actually didn't discriminate between death causes); they did the interviews in areas most resistant to the liberation and then extrapolated it to for example kurdish areas.

Yeah, some might call it serious research, others .... well, it is a family site.

**Spiffor** · February 19, 2006, 18:25

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If that's your concern, maybe Canada and France should send 100,00 troops each to help out.

Invading Iraq was a terrible idea, and it was the USUK's. Your country has to suck it up, and bear responsibility for its ****ups. At least the UK seems inclined to bear its responsibility.

That's because the Brits aren't arrogant cowards

**Geronimo** · February 19, 2006, 18:35

Originally posted by BlackCat

Guesses based upon rumors are more accurate than confirmed numbers ????? Extrapolations based upon rumors accurate ?????

I'm beginning vaguely to rember this "report". It was based on interviews of a couple of hundred iraquis that wasn't especially fond of the result of the war; natural deaths was included and so was deaths by criminal activities (if I remember right they actually didn't discriminate between death causes); they did the interviews in areas most resistant to the liberation and then extrapolated it to for example kurdish areas.

Yeah, some might call it serious research, others .... well, it is a family site.

The lancet report didn't look at rumors. Housholds were asked about deaths within their own immediate houshold and documentation was later required from each household for the deaths reported. The investigators distinguished between causes of death but lumped all "violent" causes of death together.

**techumseh** · February 19, 2006, 18:36

@Black Cat. No. In a situation like Iraq, only a fraction of the actual civilian casualties are actually reported. To get a more accurate picture you have to estimate how many unreported casualties there are for each reported one.

"We don't do body counts" - Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, US Central Command

In the case of the study in the Lancet, they did an actual survey in a number of places in Iraq and then predicted the number of deaths for the entire country based on that.

It's standard epidemialogical research methodology, and is not attacked by the British and American governments when it is used to predict rates of cancer, AIDs, bird flu and so on.

**BlackCat** · February 19, 2006, 18:47

Originally posted by techumseh
@Black Cat. No. In a situation like Iraq, only a fraction of the actual civilian casualties are actually reported. To get a more accurate picture you have to estimate how many unreported casualties there are for each reported one.

This is where you make the mistake. Iraq isn't like vietnam, cambodia or congo where you can't tell what is happening in the jungle. There is no widespread fighting between armies/guerillas and news coverage is extremely high. There are even a functional (certainly not optimal) civil service.

They used a methodology on an environment where it didn't fit.

**techumseh** · February 19, 2006, 18:50

You're just talking through your hat.

You have no idea of the conditions in that country.

If you go back to your own source, you will find that they make no claim to have an accurate number of civilian deaths in Iraq. In fact, they are appealing to people to forward reports including media reports of civilian deaths so they can add them to their totals.

As for the report which you seem to think was based on rumors, well, I hate to quote myself, but really:

In the case of the study in the Lancet, they did an actual survey in a number of places in Iraq and then predicted the number of deaths for the entire country based on that.

It's standard epidemialogical research methodology, and is not attacked by the British and American governments when it is used to predict rates of cancer, AIDs, bird flu and so on.

**BlackCat** · February 19, 2006, 18:58

Originally posted by techumseh
You're just talking through your hat.

You have no idea of the conditions in that country.

I hate to quote myself, but really:

Somehow I think that you will find yourself at home on these pages :

http://www.cheniere.org/

The JLN Labs home page

http://jnaudin.free.fr/

**chequita guevara** · February 19, 2006, 18:58

Originally posted by Spiffor
Invading Iraq was a terrible idea, and it was the USUK's. Your country has to suck it up, and bear responsibility for its ****ups.

Being there at all is a **** up. Our very presence incites the insurgency. As long as we remain, it will continue to grow. It is bigger now than it was last year, and it shows no signs of being brought under control.

We've already lost. The West just doesn't know it yet. Given that we've already lost, every one of our people who gets hurt or killed, and every Iraqi we hurt and kill from now until the eventual pull-out, is just one more injustice.

If your concern is for the Iraqi people, then you shouldn't be saying it's solely our responsibility to fight. You should argue that every one needs to be involved to help teh poor Iraqis.

If you're genuinely concerned for the Iraqis, then you'd demand we pull out.

Announcement

Iraqi insurgent groups confident of victory - Report.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment