Iraqi death toll now estimated to be 100,000

P

piggy

Guest
According to new reports "Around 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in violence since the US-led invasion last year, according to a new report.

American public health experts said the high death rate was partly due to US air strikes on towns and cities....

..."The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children."

Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations sanctions blocking food and medical imports, but the researchers described what they found as "shocking".

Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,000.

The researchers blamed air strikes for many of the deaths."

www.sky.com/skynews/artic...12,00.html
 
The War on Terror has introduced a new currency.
The exchange rate is very poor when converting from Iraqi Civilians to Western Civilians (About 1:50)

Q. Why doesn't Kerry score some points by asking Bush why so many Civilinans have been killed?

A. if he did he would be accused of being "soft on terror"
and his ratings would plummet.

"And I think to myself what a wonderful world..."
 
Says who?

According to CH4 News tonight, the figure you quote is an ESTIMATE that was arrived at by interviewing 950 Iraqi families and extrapolating the number of dead relatives they reported to fit the population size.

They chose Fallujah as the town for the survey.

This would be like going to Omagh after ther bombing and carrying out a survey, then telling us that the estimated number of violent deaths in the whole of Ireland during that period was related to that event.

Total rubbish.

There was no actual body count. That figure is just way wrong.
 
Re: Says who?

I had not read how the figure was reached when I posted this morning.

According to the channel4 report the figure may well be in question.
[broken link removed]

That is not to say that it is wrong. At the very least the figure still runs to to the 10,000 mark and probably larger than that. Time will tell whether this report is nearer the mark or not.
 
numbers

You miss the point entirely piggy.

This is not about numbers...we know thousands of innocents have died in this war for nothing.
One is too many.

The POINT is that you are too credulous.
You believe whatever you read, from whatever the source, as long as it fits your prejudice.

You tell me on another thread that I don't understand the media and how slanted it can be, then you go and swallow a load of crap like this.

Wheres your credibility now?
On the floor I suggest.
 
Re: numbers

I see you just want to trade insults. I always thought this was supposed to be about topics but as per usual it's personal with you. I'll leave you to it so.
 
Insult?

Do you feel wounded because I pointed out your hypocrisy?
Am I meant to ignore the glaring contradictions in your position just so I don't hurt your feelings?

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
 
Re: Insult?

Do you feel wounded because I pointed out your hypocrisy?

No. I'm just very, very, very bored of your consistently childish posts. You're more concerned with one-up-manship and some sort of pissing contest than you are in discussing a topic in a rational manner. That's really all you're concerned with. If in five months time it turns out that the extrapolation was right will you come back and post an apology to me? I doubt it. Is the channel 4 report on how the data was gathered accurate? Maybe not. It probably is, but it may not be. Are the figures incorrect because they extrapolated them? Time will tell.

You believe whatever you read, from whatever the source, as long as it fits your prejudice.

Actually that's entirely untrue. I try to take all of my links from the BBC or news networks that would generally be considered to be pro-war - ie Sky News/ CNN etc...

I also try to ignore completely biased websites - with the exception perhaps of someone like John Pilger (who is considered biased) - who incidentally has won numerous awards and is regarded worldwide as one of the finest investigative journalists there is.

The reason I sometimes bring up a network like Al Jazeera is because they present a side to this war that we don't see - the bloody truth on the ground. I can quite easily recognise the fact that they are biased towards Middle Eastern sentimentalities in the same way that western media is biased towards Western sentimentalities. That's the whole point.
 
Re: Where are the refugees

Normally when a conflict is causing significant civilian casulaties we see a multitude of refugees. I'd say that a conflict of 100,000 innocent death proportions would generate about a million refugees. Why is Al Jazeera not reporting on this refugee crisis (between beheadings that is)?
 
Re: Where are the refugees

Yes. It is a good point Madonna. It is of course quite possible (given the alleged extrapolation) that the figure is wrong and there wasn't that many civilian casualties.

In relation to the death tolls [broken link removed] which some might like to read.

In relation to Al Jazeera's reporting - have you searched their website?
 
Re: The real me

BTW in Free AAM I am YD. I say this as I am still reeling from the shock of getting plaudits from both p's. :D

On the refugee thing I do think it points to a much lesser disaster than the 100K. Though it is possible that war by bombardment is less prone to refugees than war by rape & pillage, though I can't understand why that should be the case.

Piggy, I have looked at Al Jazeera (courtesy of links from your good self) and it is surprisingly civilized. I was using it in this context to emphasise that the apparent lack of a refugee crisis can't be put down to Western propaganda.
 
Re: The real me

On the refugee thing I do think it points to a much lesser disaster than the 100K.

It's quite possible alright. But then the point of my original posting (albeit using possibly flawed figures) is to outline the killing of thousands and thousands of innocent people in Iraq. It could well be significantly less than 100k. 50k is half that figure. Maybe that's more realistic. All of the recent studies have shown anything between somewhere in the low thousands and as high as 100k. Your guess is as good as mine I suppose.

I have looked at Al Jazeera (courtesy of links from your good self) and it is surprisingly civilized

Yes, that's true. Al Jazeera is a much maligned news network, largely due to propoganda. Although biased towards Middle Eastern sentimentalities, it is no more biased than a lot of Western media and they are not a bunch of terrorists as some would lead you to believe.
 
Here here Piggy

A book I highly recommend to everyone to read is the new John Simpson book (the BBC guy who got bombed by the Americans).
It is very good, and this 100k figure may not be that much out when you consider all the other things which are not normally taken into consideration.
Actually, as JS points out, the American president responsible for killing the most Iraqis is Clinton with the tight control of the sanctions where people were not only starving, but dying from disease because the Iraqis were not allowed to buy parts to maintain the water/electricty/sanitation of the city, in case those parts could be used to make WMDs.

As for what he says about Al Jazera, he agrees they are biased, but he reckons less biased than FOX news.

Anyone who hasn't watched The O Reilly factor, should. It is the most biased hate mongering show on TV. Only a couple of months ago, O Reilly was telling everyone to boycott France and still calling them freedom fries and put stickers on their cars broadcasting how bad France is. Can you imagine if Al Jazera start broadcasting for everyone to boycott America and encouraging people to hate Americans! They don't do that!
 
mad and pig

please desist from large red fonts as it fills up the damn screen, gives me a headache and annoys the hell out of me

thank you

ps. piggy, you are basically misguided :)

c
 
report from grp on Iraq in sunday paper

It looked like sactions were coming to an end
Iraq would have had WMD within 2 years
Iran and Israel were the targets NOT the west
(Also, he wanted to drop WMD on Riyadh & Jeddah in the first Gulf War to kill all the people in order to get the Saudi Royals)

Saddam gone is good but is it worth the loss of life, who can say. Historians will probably say yes but that no good to the people who suffer.

Some people on this site are allow emotions to colour their their opinions ( but that life) and other are just plain misguided.

c
 
Re: mad and pig

piggy, you are basically misguided

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be humorous or not. If so, it's funny. If not perhaps you could expand on that a little?

Iraq would have had WMD within 2 years

You make this sound definitive. As if it was a foregone conclusion. Almost as definitive as Blair and Bush made the argument that Iraq had WMD in the first place!
Please note this does not mean I'm trying to defend Saddam or his intentions.

Saddam gone is good but is it worth the loss of life, who can say

Some people on this site are allow emotions to colour their their opinions ( but that life) and other are just plain misguided.

Actually, most of the emotional arguments here have surrounded America's helping hand in our economy, the 3000+ deaths in 911 and the fact that Saddam was a dictator. The facts are usually largely ignored. In my opinion anyway.
The facts are that Bush used his War on Terror to justify this war. He claimed links between Osama and Saddam and Saddam and 911. The cold hard facts of this war is that many thousands more completely innocent people have been killed during this war. We've used [broken link removed] it hardly bears thinking about - yet we never look at these figures in the same light as our own deaths.
 
.

What a load of tosh you lot can produce.

Can I suggest that anyone with an interest in this topic go read the original article in The Lancet and then perhaps start this thread again ?

image.thelancet.com/extra...342web.pdf

( registration - free - may be required )


eDog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top