NEWS: 800 Iraqi Civilians, Police Killed By Insurgents Monthly

POLITICS: 800 Iraqi Civilians, Police Killed By Insurgents Monthly

Iraqi civilians and police have been dying at an average rate of 800 per month since last August.

The figures come from a study performed by the Interior Ministry, which reported that 8,175 Iraqis were killed by insurgents in the 10-month span from August 2004 to May 2005. This figure does not include deaths that resulted from American operations.

The total number of Iraqis killed since the American invasion began is unknown, but it is estimated to be between 12,000 and 100,000.

This site reports civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

If twenty-seven people were getting murdered in my city every day, I would assume the world had gone nuts.

That's such a crazy range. I'd have thought that 100,000 people not being alive anymore would feel substantially different from 12,000 people not being alive anymore. Enough for you not to consider both to be possibilities, at least.

That's a lot of people. Who's responsible for sercurity over there anyways?

It's Bush's fault.

perhaps if he american military actually bothered to count the number of people they kill, we'd have a better idea of how many people are dying.

The figure of '12000 - 150000 iraqi deaths' is based on a statistical analysis with the most probable number of deaths a lot closer to 100000 than 12000

Bulshit! Iraqi Body Count is an anti war site and seems very accurate. They put the numbers between 22800 and 26000. Using bulshit to try and make a point just make people who would otherwise listen shut down.

and bones with the kneejerk reaction. not that i expected anything different.

did you notice the "statistical analysis?" cuz i don't think you did.

saying between 12,000 and 150,000 is giving a ballpark. you know, a broad spectrum that the real number will fall between. no-one can give the "real" number, because, as akrasia said, we just don't bother to count the dead.

oh, and yelling and crying about it is just about as likely to make people shut down. i know i almost did.

22000 would still be too many.

glad we can agree for once.

When you use a number that you know is not true, 150,00, to try and make a point it is plain dishonest.

That may be. I could at least respect that argument more than someone using bullshit numbers to try and prove a point.

actually, the number is higher than most sites count at. They don't include any deaths that are from air attacks. That is why the body count has to be a ballpark figure of 12k-150k. The true estimate is 100k+ due to attacks that desimate the bodies. If you want to go put the parts back together and count the bodies be my guest bones

Have you gone to check the methodology at Iraqi Body Count? This is an anti-war site and they make no bones about it. I respect5 that they do everything they can to make sure the number are accurate. The only study that show numbers close to 150,000 is the Lancet published study which has been more than called into question. If you don't like or believe thouse links there are hundred more. That study just doesn't pass the sniff test.

I never siad it was 150k....I said that was the ballpark. It also starts at a super low number 12k? Hell, there have been a heck of alot more deaths than that...so it balances out.

OK thats nuts. I could say there are between 1 and 1 million dead but weith such a wide range it means nothing.

But it's still too many.

I agree. That is why I said you can go put the bodies back together. Fact is 100k is the true approximate number dead from the beginning of the war to now. I will give you a bone though...Saddam killed over 600k in his twenty years. BTW...that number is an approximation too!(no way to get an accurate number when there are mass graves still being found all the time)

Using what as the basis for those numbers? Hell even that crap Lancet study couldn't say that but you know better? If you say that the 30,000 dead are too many and use that for your arguments at least you're being honest. When you say 150,000 or 100,000 I think you're lying to make your point or you are not real bright.

[Edited on Jul 17, 2005 by bones_708]

it'd only be dishonest if someone were to say "there are exactly 149, 645 casualties in iraq."

what about ballpark don't you understand? or giving a range of statistics? we DON'T KNOW what the actual casualty list is. the admin doesn't give a fuck, so they didn't count.

now THAT is being dishonest. taking an argument and creating a strawman out of it.

so underguessing is ok, but overguessing isn't? that's just as "dishonest". even more so, as you're denying one whole end of the guess, rather than just speculating as to the numbers of people that are confirmed (and extrapolating, because there will ALWAYS be casualties that are unconfirmed)

one is a deliberate lie, the other is making an educated guess as to the real number.

Bones, do you even read the other threads that we "discuss" in? Because I gave you the links to those numbers two weeks ago. GO back and look for the threads that you and I have discussed in. I am not wasting my life again to give you the correct numbers. You SPEND the time, not me. I already spent the time the first time.

If you notice, I also gave you the stats for number that Saddam killed from the same thread. I remembered the numbers. I also remember Rumsfield saying it would take up to 12 years more to get out of Iraq(also in the same thread) I pointed out that at the avg death rate going on right now the number would exceed what Saddam killed. I also condemned Saddam's past actions in that same thread. Go spend the time and find the thread. Man, sometimes I wonder if you have the memory of sieve.

At any rate, you hear so many stories of daeth and destruction over there you wonder there are any people left at all.