Iraqi Death Toll at 100,000-200,000 (1 Viewer)

[Bone577]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

New research. Excess deaths as a result of the war have "soared" to 100,000. This is civilian deaths, supposedly women and children make up the majority of the deaths. Also the majority of deaths are apparently due to air-strikes.

 

[Nick]

thats 100,000 - 200,000 people that were liberated from saddam hussein

 

[Bone577]

thats 100,000 - 200,000 people that were liberated from saddam hussein

What makes this statement even funnier is the fact that it is technicaly correct.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

did you people even read the whole article?

 

[Bone577]

did you people even read the whole article?

Yes of course I did, in fact I have read two articles on the same report. What is your point?

 

[Nick]

did you people even read the whole article?

why, did i miss the bit where it said "just kidding" or something

 

[Bone577]

why, did i miss the bit where it said "just kidding" or something

Hahaha, that's gold.

I've noticed the political forum is quite funny lately.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ok... first off..

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death"

I guess the old iraqi administration didn't feel like including the 100,000's of people who died due to violence under them, since violence there accounts for 2% of deaths...

Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000

Lets choose to believe the >100,000 one EH?

 

[Nick]

ok... first off..




I guess the old iraqi administration didn't feel like including the 100,000's of people who died due to violence under them, since violence there accounts for 2% of deaths...



Lets choose to believe the >100,000 one EH?

well considering this one is a thorough study, and logic says it is more likely that there would be more deaths than less deaths than are reported, it is possible that civilian deaths is between 30-100 thousand.

can you please provide a source that says hundreds of thousands died each year due to saddam hussein? i ask this because i often hear and accept this but i've never seen it any articles regarding it. and i mean consistent deaths over the years before 2002, not just when he invaded kuwait, gassed kurds etc.

 

[Bone577]

ok... first off..
Quote:
The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

Yes it is respected, but it collects all its information from the mass media. Which is obviously not going to report every death. This is why the number is soo low.

Quote:
That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

If you read the article you would realise, not including Falluja the toll is at 100,000 by conservative estimates. Over 200,000 with Falluja. So why did you bring this quote up?

Quote:
Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death"
I guess the old iraqi administration didn't feel like including the 100,000's of people who died due to violence under them, since violence there accounts for 2% of deaths...

Saddams administration was not particularily violent at all in the 90's. The figures are what they are, the percentage of deaths caused by violence WAS 2% before the invasion and was 51% afterwards.
Of course before the invasion sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands, more than Saddam ever killed himself.

Quote:
Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000
Lancet: >100,000

Lets choose to believe the >100,000 one EH?

UK foreign secretary is not worth attention at all, the IBC is great and all but it concentrates on major media outlets. The other two I don't know of what nature they are.

The Lancet is the latest and most comprehensive, i see little reason to doubt it. Remember they are being conservative aswell.

 

[Bone577]

can you please provide a source that says hundreds of thousands died each year due to saddam hussein? i ask this because i often hear and accept this but i've never seen it any articles regarding it. and i mean consistent deaths over the years before 2002, not just when he invaded kuwait, gassed kurds etc.

Well he is responsible for the death of over a million people in the Iraq-Iran war. An event that isn't mentioned very often in the press, probably due to the fact that the US was providing aid and logistics (along with diplomatic support) for Saddam in his unbridled agression against the Iranians. Also the Kurds were gassed with US help (as they have been gassed by Turkey in more recent times, again with US help). So neither one is worth mentioning because it also implicates people like George Bush Senior, Reagan and Margeret Thatcher, all prominant criminals.

After the first gulf war he killed few, as we should all know he wasn't exactly a huge military force. The sanctions regime imposed uni-lateraly by the US and UK on the otherhand killed 500,000 children under 5 during its duration.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well considering this one is a thorough study

Oh really?

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes

 

[Bone577]

Oh really?

Stop selective quoting, the real quote is:
"The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing"."

They are willing to admit there own flaws, very scientific, totally ads to credibility.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ok.. i didn't see the rest as important, what so a study based on 1000 homes is a good indication of the demographic of iraq from a group that is obviously anti-war (considering even other anti-war groups put it at around 38,000). I would be highly speculative of one group that has studied 1000 homes and come up with that as the answer, as i would a group that said 'oh only around 2000 civilians have died because of the war'.

edit: sorry i might have been taking a technique from Moore's playbook, i thought u guys prefered that kinda thing...

 

[Nick]

I would be highly speculative of one group that has studied 1000 homes and come up with that as the answer, as i would a group that said 'oh only around 2000 civilians have died because of the war'.

edit: sorry i might have been taking a technique from Moore's playbook, i thought u guys prefered that kinda thing...

you would be highly speculative of that group? that doesn't make sense.

and i prefer the scare the shit out of everyone then lie to them bush style public relations technique


how many people died in september 11? 3000 or so? if you accept one of the lower estimates of 30,000 civilian deaths, that is 10 times the number killed in september 11 which started this whole thing. who's "evil" now?

 

[Bone577]

ok.. i didn't see the rest as important, what so a study based on 1000 homes is a good indication of the demographic of iraq from a group that is obviously anti-war (considering even other anti-war groups put it at around 38,000).

This is not an anti-war group. There estimate is conservative.

As for the 38000 figure, "The People's Kifah... said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003.

'"We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi. '

So a report that is over a year old said that there is definitely more than 37,000 civilian deaths. I think that considering this a conservative estimate of 100,000 is not at all outlandish, and considering the rise in conflicts across the country it seems correct.

I would be highly speculative of one group that has studied 1000 homes and come up with that as the answer, as i would a group that said 'oh only around 2000 civilians have died because of the war'.

edit: sorry i might have been taking a technique from Moore's playbook, i thought u guys prefered that kinda thing...

Yes but your example would be purposely misleading, I don't see how this report is misleading at all, it seems very credible.

Im not a Moore fan, refer to my sig.



Edit: Don't forget things like this "As of now, there are no reliable estimates of total Iraqi civilian fatalities. The interim Iraqi government has not made available any statistics, while US occupation authorities in Iraq reportedly issued orders to the forensic medicine department not to talk to the media about the number of bodies it receives.

Liqa Makki, a political analyst, said it is widely known in Baghdad that Iraqi officials are prohibited from releasing any information about body count."

 

[Not-That-Bright]

how do you know their estimate is conservative tho, did they just say so?

 

[Bone577]

how do you know their estimate is conservative tho, did they just say so?

"Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq."


Edit: The fact they didn't include Faluha in the estimates also adds to this, look under the heading that reads "Conservative Assumptions" in big bold letters.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

I dunno it kinda sounds to me like the figure of 100,000 drops significantly? btw, no where did he claim that the figure could be '200,000'.

 

[Bone577]

I dunno it kinda sounds to me like the figure of 100,000 drops significantly? btw, no where did he claim that the figure could be '200,000'.

Yeah the wording is all muddled up, but read between the lines. Why would the death toll DROP if they excluded the biggest conflict zone? Faluja counts for about 70% of civilian deaths by my calculations, and Faluja has been excluded. Do the math yourself, it is actually a fair bit more than 200,000.

"That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war." - newscientist.com