Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003?

That's not the parameters of the study, though. It's not just deaths caused by coalition activity; it's all conflict-related deaths since the invasion. That includes the mounting death toll from Iraq's sectarian civil war, which is ongoing. We're firebombing large areas of Iraq daily. What makes you think there's any bodies to round up? According to the Lancet study, less than 20% of the Iraqi dead are actually recovered. The rest are likely buried in the rubble where they died, or burned to ashes.Anyway doesn't Islam mandate cremation before the sun sets? Perhaps most people are simply dealing with the remains of their loved ones long before any monitoring agency has a chance to observe a body.I think it's telling that immediately upon hearing of this massive death toll, Bush defenders leapt to the political defensive. Isn't there anything above politics for you people? Do you really have to cast everything in terms of hurting or helping Bush?

No, it's not.Look, if you want to participate in these debates you really need to stop making up your own facts. It's really just that simple. Read the study. Your naivete is so cute.People who are actually there know different. We're bombing areas with ignited white phosphorus. Do you know what that does to human flesh? I'm going to do you a favor and not describe it. More made-up facts. In fact, last year alone we were flying at least 2 air strikes per day. Seriously. You need to be relying on real facts, not made-up facts. What you imagine to be true about this war is not true. The methodology of the study has already been presented. I suggest you go back up and read it. What wasn't clear? NJ! There's a civil war going on! People are fleeing Iraq for their lives in the face of as many as 70 sectarian murders per day, or more.These aren't people who have the time to stop and file for death certificates on the way out. Do you just not get what's happening in Iraq, or what? This isn't a situation like "oh, did you hear, Ahmed's auntie was killed by an insurget last week." This is a situation more like "My name is Ahmed, and I'm the last survivor of a villiage of 200 people." Do you think Ahmed maybe has more pressing concerns than stopping to file for death certificates on the 199 people that lived in his villiage? I guess I don't know what you're talking about. Every major media outlet picked up the Lancet study, so it is being reported. It's probably just that it's being reported on all those news outlets you ignore because you think they're liberal. Hrm, in fact it's a difference of about... 80%. Interesting - that's exactly what you would get if the lesser study was only counting the confirmable cases of death, which would be the 20% of toal deaths referred to earlier. The Iraq Body Count numbers, based on a methodology that we know would be off by 80%, actually confirm the Lancet study.

Who, exactly, is doing that?

Why? If, say, US forces bomb a desalinization plant, and while a military installation is forced to surrender from the lack of water, several viliages lose their source of potable water, and hundreds of children and elderly die as a result?That's a non-violent death, but it's certainly the result of the war. Wars kill in many, many ways; it's not always bullets and bombs. Incredulity about the results doesn't impeach the methodology.

I don't see how that's a response to my comment. You didn't "point out an anomaly", you made a statement about the study that was 100% false. Here it is again:

quote:

---

No, the purpose of the inquiry is to established the number of "civilian casualties" at the hands of US troops.

---

Absolutely false. What purpose does it serve your argument to say false things about the study? Nice euphamism. They're not bombing people with an illegal chemical weapon; they're "illuminating" them. Fascinating, but irrelevant. Let me be more direct. I'm challenging your "dropping leaflets in Iraq" claim. The last time we did that was during the Clinton years, warning Iraqis not to fire on airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. We have not dropped any leaflets during this Iraq conflict. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/app.4.2.b.php

quote:

---

These reports have 25 air strikes per month to the end of August, giving 200 strikes; in September, 62; in October, 122; in November 120 (Military Confirms Surge in Airstrikes. Washington Post, December 24, 2005.); the December figure comes from the London Times which reports an "expected" 150 (US forces step up Iraq airstrikes. The Times (London), January 1, 2006. Total: 654

---

654 airstrikes in 2005 is roughly 2 a day. As you can see, though, it increases through the year from about 1 strike per 2 days to more than 4 strikes per day in October, November, and December. These are the military's own figures as reported by the above sources. Firstly, in 92% of cases, researchers were able to obtain death certificates for reported victims.Indeed, the numbers are extrapolated from a sample. That's a basic statistical technique with a proven track record. There's not a single field of science or medicine that doesn't do that, and you accept statistical sampling in every single instance - except for this one, where you have a partisan axe to grind. Now, all of a sudden, you're not sure if it's appropriate to draw conclusions from the whole from a sample of it. Uh-huh. Color me not impressed.You don't like the conclusion, but you don't have any reason to assail the methodology. Since when? We invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam was murdering thousands. How many of those bodies do you think we had ever recovered? We've only recovered maybe 1 in 20 since the invasion.Seems to me you were perfectly happy to accept conclusions of death sans corpus when it fit your political agenda. Now all of a sudden, you need the bodies right in front of you for proof? That's nonsense. Or, perhaps, buried all together quickly. You know, kind of a "mass grave." Gosh, where have I heard that term before?It really is a lot of dead people. I know it's hard for you to believe, since your talk radio stations keep telling you how much "progress" Iraq has made.But they're lying to you. Iraq is in the middle of a catastrophic civil war. 50,000 Iraqis flee the country each month. 50,000! Look, if you don't want to take my word for it, take the word of an actual Iraqi:

quote:

---

For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

​

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

​

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons - with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

​

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

---

Error: Blog Not Found | TypePadI guess I do hear that, like every day. What news are you listening to? I mean, you're not going to hear that on Laura Ingram or Sean Hannity, because they're trying to tell you how swimmingly things are going in Iraq. It's crucial to their propaganda that you believe Iraq is a success, that Bush actually succeeded there. If they were to actually tell you the truth, you would know that Bush's war plan failed in Iraq.I simply don't understand how you can say that this isn't being reported. Like I said, it's all over the "liberal media" that you ignore in favor of your conservative radio echo chambers. No wonder you don't see it. Evident in, say, 50,000 Iraqi refugees every month? Well, here's some: No webpage found at provided URL: http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/fastestsquirrel/MassGraves2.jpgand here's some more: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.untiredwithloving.org/iraq_mass_grave.jpgCan't forget these: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.pulseoftheworld.com/script/data/upimages/041013iraqgraves7.jpgDon't make me go on with this. You really can't imagine what could be done with 400 bodies a day? Even with an Iraqi herself telling you how absolutely nobody in Iraq doubts the Lancet study as being essentially accurate? The world media has been reporting this for 3 years. Where have you been? Why do you think people hate Americans, hate Bush so much?Don't you get it, yet? Everybody knows about this but you. It's been all over the news for years. The reason you don't know that is because you ignore the mainstream media - you think it's liberal so you don't pay attention to it. The reason you don't know about the mass graves - the ones after Saddam - or the 50,000 refugees per month is because people like Laura Ingram and Michael Medved are doing all they can to make sure you don't learn the truth. Part of that is that they never ever mention it themselves. Another part is the discrediting of the mainstream media as "liberal" so that you learn not to pay any attention to it.Can't you see how you've been used? Everything you say doesn't get reported has been reported for the past 3 years, mostly internationally. That's why nobody likes America anymore. Didn't you wonder about that, why we're so hated?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I still don't understand. That is what the reports are like: "70 killed in sectarian kidnapping/murders." "300 die in mosque bombing." "Carbomb kills hundreds in predominatly Shiite neighborhood." That's what's coming out of Iraq, right now. What exactly are you saying isn't being reported?

That doesn't make any sense. The "400 a day" is just an average, not a literal statement about how many people die in Iraq every day. The real number is 650,000 since 2003. They don't break it down by day.To assert otherwise would be so idiotic that it would be beneath responding to. Is that really the argument that NJ made? That the simple fact that there are days where less than 400 people are reported as dying means that 650,000 people can't possibly have died since 2003?That's so stupid I don't know what to say. If I made a mistake, and responded to a different argument than he wrote, then I apologize for assuming that Nj was making an argument that at least made a modicum of sense. I understood him to be saying that because there were no reports at all - and I'm sure there aren't on the "news" sources he's told us he listens to - he knows that the 650,000 figure is false.My point is that there are such reports, ranging from "hundreds die in mosque attack" to "US soldiers murder family of 6 in order to rape and kidnap their 16-year-old daughter." It's 10 on Monday and hundreds on Tuesday. And those are just what's reported. We can assume that the reporting reports only a very small fraction of the actual deaths. I mean that should be obvious.

But that's exactly what you've done. Here it is, for the third time: [quote]No, the purpose of the inquiry is to established the number of "civilian casualties" at the hands of US troops.[quote] The Lancet inquiry clearly states that it established the number of war-related deaths since 2003. Not the number of Iraqi civilians killed accidentally (or otherwise) by US troops. When you claimed that it did, as I've quoted you doing three times now, you were making up your own facts. Irrelevant article, since it's not what you were talking about. You said that the US military warned population centers with pre-bombing leaflets. I told you that they have not done so at any point in the invasion or occupation of Iraq.Your article says that this was done in the run-up to war; that's irrelevant. And they weren't pre-bombing warnings, they were psyops pamphlets targeting Saddam and his supporters.Where are the pre-bombing warning leaflets you claimed were being dropped? Why? Out of 1849 households, those 545 were the only ones with family members who had died. Why would a household with no deaths be expected to produce a death certificate for someone who hadn't died? The Lancet study is the evidence of that. That doesn't make any sense. Kidnappers would notify the family, or at least someone; otherwise what's the point of the kidnapping? And people don't generally flee countries without trying to take loved ones with them, or at least trying to contact them beforehand or afterwards. So disappearance by kidnapping or by flight can be ruled out. Those wouldn't make it into the Lancet data. That's what we're talking about here, though. 650,000 people presumed dead. But that's done all the time, because the law recognizes that people can die but the body might never be found. After a certain point, or under certain circumstances, the presumption of death is legally justified.What's wrong with doing that in this case? I mean, let's not be stupid here. The Lancet study doesn't presume to refer to specific people who are dead. The Lancet study is not a list of 650,000 names of dead people. The Lancet study is a mathematical extrapolation purporting to estimate the number of people killed in Iraq, as a result of the invasion, since 2003.It's not an obituary page, for pete's sake. Huh? I have no recollection of you doing this; and why would former Saddam supporters offer you a legitimate picture of what is going on in Iraq? Are you really having that much of a problem determining the credibility of a source? Why would it be? The truth, the actual facts, are sufficient to implode Republican spin. Why would the liberal pundits need to fabricate anything at all? The biggest myth in American politics is that the conservatives and the liberals are mirror images of each other, each dishonest and corrupt in the exact same way and to the exact same extent, but towards opposite goals. Why on Earth would that be the case when the actual truth is more than sufficient to justify most liberal policies and positions? The media can only report the deaths they know about. If that's less than 20% of the actual number of deaths, minus whatever portion they don't find newsworthy, the half-a-dozen one day, half-a-hundred the next sort of pattern we actually see would seem to be entirely consistent with 650,000 deaths since 2003.