16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006

[Ioo]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070102/D8MCR2K80.html

I feel sick....

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - As enraged crowds protested the hanging of Saddam Hussein across Iraq's Sunni heartland Monday, government officials reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500.

The tabulation by the Iraqi ministries of Health, Defense and Interior, showed that 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers were killed in the violence that raged in the country last year.

The Associated Press accounting, gleaned from daily news reports from Baghdad, arrived at a total of 13,738 deaths. The United Nations has said as many as 100 Iraqis die violently each day, which translates into 36,500 deaths annually.

[sweetheart]

1. bush and the republicans piss on their graves

The american republican pisses on the people of iraq, white supremecists RULE
the earth using their advanced technology to kill lesser peoples.

All the dead were proud to die for white oil, proud as bush:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. "They made a desert and called it peace." Tacitus

[Initech]

3. This makes me sick...

[Monkeyman]

4. I think that might be just Bagdad

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The Lancet study indicates that the real death toll

is much higher than any of the official counts. Of course the Lancet study simply ignores official counts as completely unreliable and instead uses standard statistical techniques well established in the field of demographics, which makes the study 'highly controversial', i.e. we have to ignore it as it indicates we are war criminals of the worst sort. The Lancet numbers work out to something like 400 or so Iraqis dead EVERY DAY from this war of ours.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Sounds like low-balling it.

I'd bet it is double that - I understand that many, many deaths are not reported because simply reporting them make those who report them targets themselves. There are supposedly thousands who were simply taken home and buried by the family, without the gov't being informed or notified.

It's not like it's easy to keep track - with tens of thousands being displaced, ethnically cleansed, how do they know if that family moved to Syria is lying in a shallow grave in an olive orchard?

I think the UN figures are closer to correct.

[Robbien]

7. Includes only people killed in bombings and shootings but not deaths classed as "criminal".

So the kidnappings where people where tortured and then killed are not included. If these criminal cases where included the official numbers would more than double.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. It also only includes reported deaths actually recorded

by civilian authorities. There are two levels of errors there: unreported deaths and reported deaths not recorded. Given that there isn't an effective Iraqi government why on earth should we believe that the reported deaths numbers are reliable in any usefull way?

The standard demographic technique, followed by the lancet study and used in many other similar chaotic situations, is to use a baseline mortality rate (from pre chaos data) and then conduct random household surveys to determine current mortality rates. From that one can extrapolate relative accurate numbers for how many people have died as a consequence of the chaos. Similar studies using identical techniques have been accepted without controversy for other conflict areas, but the results from Iraq are so awful that the War Party routinely sends out its minions to do battle against the Lancet study with the usual Fear Uncertainty and Doubt techniques. They have of course mostly succeeded. Whenever the lancet study is brought up in the media it is qualified as 'flawed and controversial'. It isn't.

[uppityperson]

8. K& 2nd R. Need 3 more recommendations please.