100,000 Iraqi Civilian Deaths in 28 Months

[Roland99]

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=14894

By Cihan News Agency
The US invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime has cost 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives.

An international research organization in Switzerland said US troops killed 39,000 civilians since the beginning of the war.

The organization indicated there were far more civilian casualties than the number announced as the "Iraqi Body Count." US troops' direct fire or clashes have claimed 39,000 Iraqi civilians' lives.

With suicide attacks and other accidents, the death toll amounts to 100,000 civilian dead in 28 months. The number of the losses of US and other coalition forces for the same period is 1,937.

Source: Zaman, 12.07.2005

http://icasualties.org is reporting:


07/12/05 UPI: Iraqi civilian casualties
An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

But their link:
http://about.upi.com/products/perspectives/UPI-20050712-090927-2280R

isn't working.



UPDATE:
Gunmen kill four from Iraqi humanitarian organization
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1621580


:scared:

[merwin]

1. So GW has proved that he can kill civilans faster than Saddam can.

Don't forget the hundreds of thousands that are injured or dead because they have no food/water/family left. I really doubt a 5 year old kid would survive very long without their parents.

[WCGreen]

12. I agree wholeheartedly

I wonder if enough innocent people have had "Our Boot up their Ass" for Toby Kieth tto go away

[xultar]

2. Mission Accomplished!!!

:grr:

[VegasWolf]

47. Presidentin is hard work. Hard work. nt

[FlemingsGhost]

3. God Ble$$ America. (n/t)

Flem.

[patrice]

4. Does anyone really believe that Terrorists aren't under pressure,

because of things like this body count, to take the fight to America? Especially since our leaders have said on more than one occasion things like, "Aren't we fortunate that this war isn't being fought here in America." As though we were to congratulate them for their foresight and efficiency in having other people die for our agenda.

Proxy Wars are Immoral.

[confludemocrat]

14. Revenge: looking over shoulders for the rest of our lives, thanks GWB

And thanks to all you worthless Republican party functionaries and hacks and rank and file and you stupid, stupid hawklibs or libhawks or whatever they call you fucking turds and the Democrats who voted for the blank check or said nothing.

All this is of no particular note to the brain-dead majorities in the red states who control our destiny, but I hate these people and their enablers who caused this.

Dumbass apathy and indifferernce to suffering even in the face of our actively being the cause of it. Certainly to any mass suffering on the planet. All those politicos who don't stand up to this are dead to me. No jibes against Bush, no anti-right wing rhetoric, no progressive policy savvy, no clever positioning or triangulating to increase their appeal to "moderates" is enough to compensate.

This is a dispicable episode that any of these classes of "leaders" will not escape from and a stain they cannot wipe away.

[Gregorian]

5. Democracy comes with a price.

Freedomizin' ain't easy.

And how many injured? And can you imagine what it's like to be alive in Iraq? :(

[patrice]

6. "Freedomizin'" Is that some kind of Gra$e in the Fristarian $ervant$ of

Mammon?

Free-Market Theology? WOW! I thought they read their BIBLES!!!! Funny, they don't notice how WRONG that is.

Freedomizing! I'm going to use that.

[Double T]

7. America Can Be Proud

We have joined the ranks of the other tyrannical bloodthirsty regimes throughout history.

[infinitehangover]

39. I think the Monroe Doctraine already covered that,

[NNN0LHI]

8. Do any of them have pissed off relatives?

:scared:

[patrice]

9. No.

:sarcasm:

[leftchick]

15. Many

pissed off relatives. :(

[0007]

29. Iraqis have big big families with long long memories.

[infinitehangover]

40. Everyone does.

Look at southerns sportin' ConFlags. The IRA. Russians living in ex-soviet sats. People don't just remember history. They are history.

[daleo]

10. It is interesting that the numbers here are not that far apart.

I think Iraq Body Count was in the high 20K range, and this is in the high 30K range (for deaths directly attributable to bombs and bullets). Given the near impossibility of getting reliable information from Iraq, the fact that two figures which aim to identify direct casualties from bombs and bullets are fairly close together seems to lend validity to each one.

[Roland99]

11. I just hope we get to see some detail behind this...and soon.

[daleo]

13. I think it is based on the Lancet data

The Lancet survey data showed an excess mortality of about 100K people before and after the invasion (there were fairly wide confidence intervals because of the cluster sampling methodology necessitated by conditions in Iraq). I think this 39K is the proportion of the excess mortality directly attributable to bombs and bullets, so to speak. The remaining 60K deaths were due to the various types of infrastructure destruction and the consequent deaths (polluted water due to destruction of sanitation, destruction of hospital/medical facilities, lack of electricity, etc).

It would be nice to be able to refer to a peer reviewed journal article though. Presumably that is coming.

[Roland99]

16. I thought the Lancet study was based more on indirect deaths?

Deaths from illness or starvation or injuries left untreated.


This points to 40% coming from direct US fire and several thousand more from suicide bombings.

[daleo]

18. Lancet include all types of deaths

According to an article I read yesterday that explained this study, and said it was a subset of the Lancet study. They categorized deaths in the Lancet study, and pulled out the direct warfare deaths for this one.

You might want to search yesterday's posts for verification. There was a link, but I can't recall it.

[hack89]

46. Look very closely at the Lancet report and..

you will read:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. 100,000 is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.

The Lancet report supports 100,000 Iraqi deaths - it also supports 8,000 Iraqi deaths too.

[progressivebydesign]

17. Wierd. Why doesn't the world stand with the dead Iraqis?

I mean.. why does it always seem that when deaths reach an astronomical number like that, there is a disconnect from the rest of the world? Like it's easier to grieve and become angry if the number is more manageable.

[barb162]

19. I hope this data is incorrect;; it does seem awfully high

[frictionlessO]

23. Sadly Barb it is probably low...

War sucks and so do neocon theocrats and terrorists.

[barb162]

36. Yeah, but doesn't the "war" part od it seem incredibly high?

Like we bombed at night in Baghdad, those government buildings, remember? Then we got to Baghdad and nothing really happened. I wonder what they consider the "war" part.

[Stopkillingchildren]

20. I'd like to know how may are children!!!

We know that the U.S. military targets children when possible. It makes the occupation of the future easier.

First post...thanks!

[Arkansas Granny]

38. Here's another thought.

How many were pregnant women? How does this sit with the anti abortion crowd that supports the war?

[NNN0LHI]

21. Related article: Army running out of ammo, seeks bullets from foreigners

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/21194.php

The U.S. Army said it will seek bullets from commercial and foreign producers because its biggest ammunition supplier, Alliant Techsystems Inc., can't keep up with demand. snip

The Army wants to buy about 1.4 billion bullets this year and have the capacity for 2 billion rounds a year, Butler said. That is more than Alliant can make, and there are few other companies that can make military ammunition on such a large scale. The Army plans to seek a company able to coordinate production of as much as 500 million rounds by a number of smaller producers, Butler said. snip

The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is struggling to control rising violence that in April alone killed more U.S. soldiers than during last year's war, which lasted about six weeks. With U.S. troops engaged abroad, live-fire training exercises to boost preparedness have also increased demand, Butler said.

"It's a surprise they are using so much ordnance over there," said Philip Finnegan, an analyst for the Teal Group consultancy in Fairfax, Virginia. "No one would have expected this a few months ago."

[wiggs]

22. This does not count Iraqi soldiers killed in invasion. nt

[Roland99]

26. From which side?

I guess you mean the "enemy" soldiers from the initial invasion and subsequent fighting?

[wiggs]

28. Correct. That's my impression in reading reports.

First gulf war, which was resisted by Iraqi military more obviously and intensely, resulted in, what, over 100,000 Iraqi soldier casualties?

Now matter how you calculate the casualties (and we really don't know the true number), the point is that our invasion has caused massive suffering and death...something that our leaders and MSmedia seem content to gloss over as though it's not a factor in evaluating the consequences of the war.

The anger among muslims and those in the middle east will last for generations.

[Roland99]

24. [Guardian] Report: Conflict Deaths Underestimated

Here's a bit more detail from The Guardian:

Report: Conflict Deaths Underestimated
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5134485,00.html

The report said that between 60 and 90 percent of all deaths during conflict are caused by small arms and light weapons - everything from pistols to rocket-propelled grenades to assault rifles.

That number highlights just how grave a concern small arms are to conflict. And when small arms are not used directly, they can still play a crucial role - as during the Rwanda genocide, when Hutu extremists rounded up Tutsis at gunpoint and then often massacred them with machetes.

In prepared remarks to the conference, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said more than 60 nations had drawn up bodies to coordinate national policy on fighting the illicit trade of small arms.

``But we must not relax our efforts to combat the scourge of illicit small arms and light weapons, which continue to kill, mail and displace scores of thousands of innocent people every year,'' Annan's statement said.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

27. Why do they hate us? n/t

[CGrantt57]

30. It's okay, people...

After all, we're only killing non-white, non-christian folks, right?

Please feel free to go back to watching American Idol, now.

Relax.

Another valium, perhaps?

mikey

[UrbScotty]

31. All because of our "pro-life" president. (nt)

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. At the beginning of the Iraq War

I tried to keep track of all the different reports in the media of casualties. The International Committee of the Red Cross was an invaluable source at that point because they were going out to the hospitals and the posting their finding on their website every day. Of course, after the invasion Bu$hCo managed to muzzle them, but up until then the numbers they were reporting were disturbing to say the least.

Here's a few samples of their reports that I managed to save. Unfortunately, the ICRC no longer reports this type of information. Based on the information that I've personally collected from other sources since the invasion regarding casualties, the 100,000+ dead does not surprise me at all. No wonder Bu$hCo made the ICRC stop.



March 23, 2003

According to hospital sources, 32 newly injured patients and 1 dead person arrived in Yarmouk Hospital and two newly injured people were checked in to Ibn Al-Nafis Hospital. No new arrivals of injured patients were reported in Al-Kindi Hospital.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/1186B6BB149D698EC1256CF200540828


March 24, 2003

Baghdad - The ICRC doctor has checked on the situation in several hospitals, which report 60 wounded, including seven seriously injured children, and eight deaths following last night's attacks.

Baghdad (From yesterday, 24 March) - The ICRC doctor visited Al-Yarmouk general teaching hospital and Al-Kindi general hospital. According to authorities at the former, 50 wounded people were admitted during the night from 23 to 24 March and in the morning of 24 March. They also speak of six persons having being killed.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5KYKVR?OpenDocument&style=custo_final


March 27, 2003

The ICRC doctor and his assistant visited four hospitals treating war-wounded patients (Baghdad has 33 hospitals in total but the ICRC focuses primarily on facilities receiving war wounded patients). Three of these hospitals reported 60 wounded and 15 deaths following the bombardments of the night from 25 to 26 March and the morning of 26 March. These figures cannot be independently confirmed.


hhttp://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList534/552B14255CB304D1C1256CF6004C701D

[digno dave]

33. Without visual evidence you think anyone in US gives a shit?

Unless americans are presented pics/video of mutilated corpses no one will care.

[Dean2012]

34. This is based upon the worthless Lancet study

I would not give it any real credibility since it is based upon the Lancet study that went to less than 1000 homes around Baghdad and then tried to arrive at a figure for the whole country. Thats like going to South Central LA and using the results of a survey there and then trying to apply it to the whole country.

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=3828

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

[frictionlessO]

41. Holy cow! You mean its WRONG?! My gods and to think I thought

so many extra people had died.

Glad you came in here and decided to post your whole two links worth of knowledge.

Great 1st post btw! :puke:

[Judi Lynn]

42. This might be helpful. It was linked in your Slate article...

I note that the estimation of 100,000 was made in OCTOBER of 2004:

Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune

Published: October 29, 2004


PARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
(snip)

In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
(snip)

"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.

In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.
(snip)

There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.
(snip)

Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.

Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.
(snip)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29casualties.html?ex=1121400000&en=9bee3d4a1d8b237d&ei=5070

[Boo Boo]

48. Are you guessing?

Why do you believe it is based on the Lancet study? The Lancet study, so named because it was published in an English journal by that name, was described by the WP as follows:

The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine.

The group that performed this (apparently) new estimate is based Switzerland. The article linked above doesn't mention the Lancet study. Also, the figure for deaths caused directly by U.S. action is reasonably close to estimates I've seen attributed to U.S. government sources; simply taking into account that this Swiss study is more recent could account for any difference.

I agree that the Lancet study was based on a weak methodology, and I never really gave it much weight. But, it gets a little harder to ignore that nasty 100,000 figure now that it has been reported by a second group, and taking into account the additional time that has passed and the further deterioration of the security situation in Iraq. All those car bombings and mortar attacks do kill people, after all.

[sintax]

35. Nominated- If the carnage were to stop today

The toll would end up in the several hundred thousand range when all war related deaths due if all war related disease, hunger, depression, economic severities, etc. were taken into account.

Do we sufficiently feel the loss?

[shelley806]

37. Unpalatable; but let's keep this kicked...I had this very question today,

and you saved me a search. So much news coverage for the Londoners, and how much does this tragedy receive? That in itself is the greater tragedy. Most people, even Repubs, hate needless bloodshed, or blood for oil.

[ananda]

43. Umm, it was 100K..

.. a year ago.

Shouldn't it be more by now?

Sue

[Roland99]

44. That Lancet report last year was flawed. This appears to be a new one

with different methods.

[Judi Lynn]

45. You bet it should! The 100,000 estimation was also made in 2004

by the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, which I just posted a short time ago, post #42:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1622126#1625248

It's not the Lancet report, and it seems legitimate, of course.

You remember, no doubt, the Iraqi "government," almost immediately after the invasion, announced from out of nowhere that it would no longer be keeping a count of its dead citizens. That really seemed strange, didn't it? Only the slowest or nastiest among us would NOT grasp the obvious conclusion, that _Bush's administration had put pressure on them to keep their victem count to themselves, and not give it out to the dwindling number of reporters still able to write stories about it!