The Iraqibodycount website only counts deaths that were directly reported in the media. The lancet study concluded that most of the iraqi casualties occured in the opening weeks of the bombing campaign snd in the sieges of cities like fallujah. In these places, at those times, the media were not reporting on the individual casualty incidences. There is absolutely no other figure for the number of deaths in these periods other than those proposed in the lancet study
Akrasia said:
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.
When you use a number that you know is not true, 150,00, to try and make a point it is plain dishonest.
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.
And what about saying it's too big a ballpark don't you understand. Since there are better and more complete studies that shows numbers much lower and more accurate, why would you use a fatally flawed study? You say it's not dishonest. In my opinnion it intellectualy dishonest at the very least. That or someone hasn't check their shit out very well.
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.
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]
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.
Who is underguessing? Did you check the site? That is confirmend casualties not "estimates" You do realize that is an anti-war site? Show me why you think the Lancet study is more accurate.
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.
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]
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.
I'm sorry that you are not as important in my life as you would like to be. I don't bookmark your threads. If you want to bring out the number expect someone to ask. The only basis I've ever seen for numbers like that is from the Lancet study. Is that where you are getting them? If so I am more than willing to post the study and why its crap. Hell just the range of numbers shows you that it's little better than a guess.
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.
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]
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.
Who is underguessing? Did you check the site? That is confirmend casualties not "estimates" You do realize that is an anti-war site? Show me why you think the Lancet study is more accurate.
It does not show the estimated deaths from air attacks now does it?
Akrasia said:
The Iraqibodycount website only counts deaths that were directly reported in the media. The lancet study concluded that most of the iraqi casualties occured in the opening weeks of the bombing campaign snd in the sieges of cities like fallujah. In these places, at those times, the media were not reporting on the individual casualty incidences. There is absolutely no other figure for the number of deaths in these periods other than those proposed in the lancet study
So lets go over the Lancet study. Here's just one Debunk. This is just one of many but I think it covers enough.
The first being that the Lancet a notable opponent of the war in Iraq released its numbers five days before the Presidential election, a calculated political move rather than presenting some scientific results. The real problems are however with the statistical methods used by the Lancet. The study used a sample of 7,500 Iraqis divided over 33 clusters, before and after the invasion. Such a sample is hardly sufficient to measure war casualties as violence in war is not randomly distributed over a population.
Looking at violent deaths it turns out that 14 months prior the invasion in the total sample only one violent death was recorded. The Lancet concludes that as a result in Iraq - for the same period - there could not have been more than some 3,000 violent deaths (out of 25 million Iraqis). An odd number bearing in mind that according to Human Rights Watch a total of 300,000 Iraqis perished under Saddams rule, averaging about 12,000 per year and this excludes the approximate 1 million that died as a direct result of the wars Iraq fought. The Lancet may have a point here in that domestic repression and killings were probaly higher at the outset of the Saddam regime then at the very end, but 3,000 appears to be a tenuous number.
Then theres child mortality. The Lancet finds that the number of children dying during the first 12 months after birth has doubled from 29 per 1,000 births before the invasion to 57 after. This is interesting, Unicef in 2002 put that number at 102 per 1,000 on the basis of a far larger sample then the Lancet now uses. So the Lancet would have you believe that from 2002 to 2003 child mortality dropped by 70% while at the same time arguing that it doubled after the invasion.
There are other inconsistencies as well. One of them is that mortality for the entire population prior to the invasion was lower than that recorded by Unicef, that since the invasion the number of children dying from heart attacks increased from 0 to 6,500, for men the number went up by 15,000 and for women it went up by 6,500.
In summary, my reader argues the Lancet's statistical approach is flawed as it pictures too rosy a picture shortly before the invasion. The sample used leads to many conclusions about the period before the invasion in a way that contradicts pre-war results from more authoritative sources. Conclusions for the period after the invasion based on the same methodology are therefore questionable at best.
Wendy
SUICIDEGIRL
Israel
JUL 17, 2005 04:52 PM