100,000 Iraqis ??

[warsager]

This number has been quoted endlessly for months and months now. It never gets bigger either, even though there are huge #'s killed everyday. Does anyone have a link to some solid evidence of the actual number of deaths? I know the US does not count the people they kill.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ has the #'s as Min: 22,507 Max: 25,499

Is there a US equivalent to this site below?

http://www.countthecasualties.org.uk/

[Goldmund]

1. Here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html

[warsager]

5. Thanks but

Okay it says here:

"Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey.

"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said."

I understand how they came to these numbers but it seems to be based on mathmatical calculations, not actual deaths that they counted. And why hasn't this number gone up significantly? This was reported Friday, October 29, 2004, thats 8 months ago!!

Something about this just doesn;t seem right. If the number was actually that why is iraqbodycount still saying a MAX of 25499?? Why hasn't the number gone up alot since there have been many more deaths these past eight months? Anyone?

[Frederik]

7. Iraqbodycounts

Only report deaths that have been reported in the media. They admit that the real number must be much higher.

[Goldmund]

9. Because that's the only competent thing to do.

You can't quote "actual deaths" when actual deaths are not counted. You have to apply some statistical analysis. If you wanted to know how many grains of sand there are in a square mile of the beach, what would you do? Count every grain? Or count grains in a representative sample and use that to come up with your estimate?

[PaulaFarrell]

12. It's not gone up because it's not an ongoing count

It was a one-off study that was done. The 100,000 number came from the calculated 'excess deaths', i.e. people who died who wouldn't have died if the attack hadn't happened. So, it included deaths from, say, not being able to get hospital treatment, contaminated water, etc. I think Iraq Body Count just counts direct deaths caused by fighting.

[Karenina]

19. 8 MONTHS AGO.

Dead sand niggers don't count. :sarcasm:

[warsager]

20. don't you just love

the hatred we have for everyone?

Why do you hate humanity George W. Bullshit?

[Karenina]

21. I grew up black and female

in white America. I KNOW it well.

[Bouncy Ball]

23. yeah what he said.

Iraqbodycounts ONLY use ACTUAL reported deaths. There are, sadly, probably tons of unreported deaths.

So look at Iraqbodycounts as a MINIMUM number.

:-(

[Maraya1969]

2. "The Lancet" British medical journal said it first I think

I don't have the link handy though.

[Kraklen]

3. The number was from a scientific study published...

oh, probably eight nine monthes ago. So the number's probably closer to a year. The number they reported was 100,000 to 200,000. So I'll bet it's at least double now.

The "iraqbodycount" site just totals the numbers reported by the media. So they're obviously not accurate.

[anarch]

4. my understanding

is that the iraqbodycount site only includes officially reported, combat related civilian deaths. I very much doubt most of the casualties from aerial bombardment get reported, and I'm pretty sure nobody's quite counting deaths from malnutrition, disease, lack of clean water, lack of hospital services, etc...all of which you can blame on the invasion and occupation, in one way or another. an occupying force is, by international law, responsible for the civilian population...

except that the administration has declared that the U.S. is immune from all international law, and that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, etc. etc. etc.

100,000 is just a ballpark figure. Probably too low.

[warsager]

6. it's outrageous

but there should be an accurate count. Just blindly quoting "100,000 iraqis killed" is too *sound-bitish* to me. I think there needs to be acutual numbers here.

This is immeasurably important.

Again I ask, does anyone know of a US based site such as this:
http://www.countthecasualties.org.uk

[Goldmund]

10. There should be

Talk to our buddies in the Pentagon.

[DemInDistress]

14. you might try

icasualties.org...the mods recommended that site its thier top selection .....

[warsager]

8. Is this important

to people?

[understandinglife]

11. The true number is likely so large that ...

.... it is probably at least as classified as the codes for launching a nuclear strike, imho.



Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - One question, my fellow Americans, "Why is Bush not already in jail?"

[warsager]

13. Goldmund

Your sand analysis makes sense and makes me shiver to think about that many people being killed that this is the only way to count them.

Also in the article reporting this there is a paragraph:

'The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."

So what is right?

[Goldmund]

15. Well, as you noted,

the 100K estimate dates from 2004, and there have been many casualties since then.

But there's no way to know because the Pentagon is supressing civilian casualty info. One thing that is definitely certain is there are many, many more casualties than the ones listed on IraqBodyCount, which are only the reported casualties.

In the end, in terms of numbers, it's a far bigger tragedy than 9/11. That may seem like some kind of a sacrilegious statement, but it's an indisputable fact.

[warsager]

16. more garbage

Goldmund said: "In the end, in terms of numbers, it's a far bigger tragedy than 9/11. That may seem like some kind of a sacrilegious statement, but it's an indisputable fact."

Sadly it's far from sacrilegious to speak the truth, well actually in today's US I guess it is. But I am learning that these atrocities have been going on for decades. The more I read about our US history, the more I am realizing this is just a continuation of policy that has been in place if not forever, than at least since before my lifetime.

We have been criminal partners with Saddam since 1959. I must say as much as I know about today, I never knew anything about yesterday. I only in the last 4 years started even caring to know politics, but the more I learn about history the more I wonder how can this ever change? These people don't care about life, they are evil murderers.

Does the rest of the world even care about the people we are killing? I'm just learning that America really is a truly corupt and murderous nation.

[Karenina]

17. Your FRIENDS

relatives, business partners, fellow mountain climbers and allies around the world are EXTREMELY ALARMED that you don't even CARE (present company excluded) about the ATROCITIES your gub'mint is committing DAILY, preferring to engage in lengthy discussions about the meaning of the word "fixed," runaway brides or the latest pundit pabulum.

This "fixed" figure of 100,000 is ALL ABOUT the lessons the NAZIS in your gub'mint learned from the Third Reich.

[KlatooBNikto]

18. In Bush's America, as someone has said, lies have become sacred and the

Truth profane.

[MisterP]

22. Lancet also said that that was "civilian" casualties, did not include

Fallujah (they said that would be another 100K) and was "conservative." Half a million? Easy-peasy!