39,000 Killed in Iraqi Continuing Violence

[TomClash]

NEARLY 40,000 Iraqis had been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since the US-led invasion, a figure considerably higher than previous estimates, a Swiss institute reported today.

The public database Iraqi Body Count, by comparison, estimates that between 22,787 and 25,814 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 invasion, based on reports from at least two media sources.
No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued, although military deaths from the US-led coalition forces are closely tracked and now total 1937.

The new estimate of 39,000 was compiled by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies and published in its latest annual small arms survey, released at a UN news conference.

It builds on a study published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, last October, which concluded there had been 100,000 "excess deaths" in Iraq from all causes since March 2003.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15901883-38201,00.html

[liberal N proud]

1. Are there any comparisons to the numbers killed by Saddam?

When the repukes keep telling us that Saddam was a bad man and killed his people, I would like to put it back in their face with some numbers to compare.
Not that facts get in the way of a good republican lie anyway.

[TomClash]

4. No one really knows

Saddam's numbers are probably higher but he also had a lot longer to kill - his regime was in power for 24 years.

[KnaveRupe]

7. Bill O'Reilly said yesterday...

...that "Saddam Hussein killed more people in a month" than have died since we've invaded.

Since Falafel-boy said it, it's gospel. You can take it to the bank.

Or, if you don't believe his "statistics", I'm sure Franken won't be able to resist a whopper like that - he'll have some figures for you. Listen to "Wait, Wait, Don't Lie to Me" on Friday. I'm betting this will make an appearance.

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. "excess deaths" - what the US casually refer to as "Collateral Damage"

.
.
.

Sorta gives one an idea how the PNACers value human life

(sigh)

[WePurrsevere]

8. Collateral Damage, Pfft! Great God/dess but I abhore that term!

I remember hearing that term used over and over on 911 and angrily asking my husband "When the hell did humans lives become such a NON-human term?" To dehumanize the very real HUMANITY of something that takes very REAL humans lives by using this term IMO depreciates EVERY person's life (living and dead) and is sadly representative of so much that's gone and going wrong.

Every single one of the thousands of Americans and Internationals alike that were/are referred to as "collateral damage" were living human beings who had other living human beings that cared about them. They were REAL. They were babies, children, mothers, fathers, senior citizens and everywhere in between. They lived, had dreams, loved, laughed, cried and bled when cut.

We need to stop the use of the term "Collateral damage" when referring to HUMAN LIFE... human lives are NOT collateral damage.. THINGS, yes... Human lives... hell NO.

Goodness how I truly abhore that term! :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[Mari333]

3. and the Kool Aid drinkers keep holding on

Lets see if the MSM will EVER put this on the news in the USA..nope..or show the children's bodies, or put as much time and energy into coverage of the people we killed as they do a shark attack..nope..or point out the fact there never were WMDs..nope..
the other day I heard a reich wing news anchor on the radio insisting that WMDs were moved to Syria..thats their excuse? Reality, when and if it does hit the kool aid drinkers, will be a harsh truth and taskmaster.

[TomClash]

5. Never

This is about oil and defense and, to a lesser extent, Israel. That's a lot of neo-con power.

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Peom

Rove Rove Rove the boat..
Over Niagara Fall
Merry, Merry, Merry, Merry
Chimpy working hard indeed.

[plasticsundance]

9. I took note of this from the article ...

The Swiss institute said it arrived at its estimate of Iraqi deaths resulting solely from either combat or armed violence by re-examining the raw data gathered for the Lancet study and classifying the cause of death when it could.

So if the study couldn't determine the cause of death, then is it fair to say that the civilian death toll is under reported in the study? the Lancet is a very distinguished British Medical Journal, and I assume its methodology would be rather rigorous.