100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by russotto

OK, now I've looked at the study. That range is the double-ended 95% confidence interval (excluding Fallujah). That's not so great. Then you get into the problems with methodology, which UT has outlined quite well.

Furthermore, I see no claim in the study that these were civilian deaths. That appears to be someone else's addition.

The study is junk.

From the introduction on page one of the study:

One project has kept a running
estimate of press accounts of the number of Iraqi citizens
killed by coalition forces: at present, the estimated range
is 13000–15 000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net). Aside
from the likelihood that press accounts are incomplete,
this source does not record deaths that are the indirect
result of the armed conflict. Other sources place the
death toll much higher.14 In a recent BBC article decrying
the lack of a reliable civilian death count from the war in
Iraq, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch purports that it
will not be possible “to come up with anything better
than a good guess at the final civilian cost”.

In the present setting of insecurity and limited availability
of health information, we undertook a nationwide
survey to estimate mortality during the 14·6 months
before the invasion (Jan 1, 2002, to March 18, 2003) and
to compare it with the period from March 19, 2003, to
the date of the interview, between Sept 8 and 20, 2004.

One hopes that your comprehension of statistics is better than your reading comprehension, especially if your profession requires the use of statistical methods. Frankly, I have no problem with the 95% cl. Maybe you wouldn't either if you actually read the paper.

[russotto]

Nowhere in the study does it say that the mortality counts they measured was limited to civilians. In fact, they explicitly say it was not:

"Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could
have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed
to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%)
were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were
women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the
greater number of male deaths was attributable to
legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been
disproportionately male, or if this was because men are
more often in public and more likely to be exposed to
danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related
fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years"

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by russotto

Nowhere in the study does it say that the mortality counts they measured was limited to civilians. In fact, they explicitly say it was not:

"Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could
have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed
to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%)
were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were
women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the
greater number of male deaths was attributable to
legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been
disproportionately male, or if this was because men are
more often in public and more likely to be exposed to
danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related
fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years"

No, once again, trying reading the words you yourself have quoted. "Could have been" is not the phrasing one would use to state "explicitly" that these were combatant deaths. In fact, the studied only counted the deaths of those who had resided at home for two months or longer prior to their death. Look at what your quoted segment goes on to say: 46% were children younger than 15 years.

The researchers are actually making the point as politely as possible that the claim that these might be combatant deaths is a dubious one. Look at the very next paragraphs after that quote:

US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying
“we don’t do body counts”.14 The Geneva Conventions
have clear guidance about the responsibilities of
occupying armies to the civilian population they control.
The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly
caused by the occupying forces were women and
children is cause for concern. In particular, Convention
IV, Article 27 states that protected persons “. . . shall be
at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected
especially against acts of violence . . .”. It seems difficult
to understand how a military force could monitor the
extent to which civilians are protected against violence
without systematically doing body counts or at least
looking at the kinds of casualties they induce. This
survey shows that with modest funds, 4 weeks, and
seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a
useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained.
There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to
not be able to provide more precise tallies. In view of the
political importance of this conflict, these results should
be confirmed by an independent body such as the
ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO. In the interim, civility and
enlightened self-interest demand a re-evaluation of the
consequences of weaponry now used by coalition forces
in populated areas.

Just why is General Franks leaving the US open to international criticism in this regard? What is he attempting to hide? Could it be 100,000 dead bodies?

[Undertoad]

It wouldn't be possible to hide 100,000 dead bodies.

[xoxoxoBruce]

46% were children younger than 15 years. 46% were children younger than 15 years.
The researchers are actually making the point as politely as possible that the claim that these might be combatant deaths is a dubious one.

Is that so.

[Beestie]

I just don't think its a good idea to accept a conclusion about a single event based solely on statistical evidence. The lack of direct emperical evidence in a case like this is beyond conspicuous. And the margin of error is unacceptably high. And the number is just too damn even. And the timing was funny. And And And

I am not interested in the likelihood of 100,000 fatalities but rather the actualhood of a real body count. Somebody needs to either cough up 100,000 corpses or admit that they pulled the number out of their rectum to provide Kerry some more swing votes.

[wolf]

What's that line from The Manchurian Candidate? I have evidence of 57 documented communists in the state department ...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It wouldn't be possible to hide 100,000 dead bodies.

Same logic that said those aluminum tubes MUST be for weapons of mass destruction. How many people died in your hometown this week? Where are all the dead bodies? Clearly no one has died. The newspaper must have lied.

Do you still believe what the president's spin doctors tell you - or will you finally admit that looting did happen? How many people died even because the hospitals had no equipment and no antibiotics? It must be zero because even the looting did not happen.

UT when are you going to admit that peer reviewed papers provide responsible facts and that the administration constantly lies? We even have these myths about Social Security. The administration spin is 15,000 dead. Nonsense. Same people lied so egregiously as to get us into a war of no merit. The study says 98,000 dead. There is a responsible figure with so much credibility as to appear in The Lancet. Who should we believe - reality or the 'feelings' of UT? Where does the administration put up any facts to dispute this? They cannot and and don't try. That alone is damning evidence.

So where are the weapons of mass destruction? You still believe them to be honest? To say how many have really been killed? And I guess you also see a light at the end of the tunnel? Clearly the White House also must have an exit strategy - or did they invent that also?

The best numbers we have say 98,000 dead - and that the administration is only lying ... again.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

I am not interested in the likelihood of 100,000 fatalities but rather the actualhood of a real body count. Somebody needs to either cough up 100,000 corpses or admit that they pulled the number out of their rectum to provide Kerry some more swing votes.

And so we took body counts in Vietnam. But when the body counts were summed, one reporter noted that we had killed every N Vietnamese soldier ... three times. But you want body counts. Fine. Just remember, the statistical studies were more accurate. Some instead first learn from history.

Statistics that meet peer review are more accurate than any body count from a war zone. How many died in Rwanda? Clearly they lie because no one counted the half million dead. Rwanda is clearly another scam just like the manned moon landings. Just another way to deny reality. Demand body counts. Then the almighty George Jr must be right.

When the 'powers that be' don't like facts, then they demand the absurd. Its called spin. Your demand for bodies is a classic effort to undercount the dead. Why would you so dishonor such good human beings? Why do you so hate innocent Iraqis?

We have an honest assessment of the dead with a 95% confidence level. Furthermore the assessment met the requirements of The Lancet - that is not trying to cover its political ass. Instead you would believe something that the George Jr administration says? Where is the credibility - and weapons of mass destruction that they invented? 98,000 dead is the honest number. Those who believe Rush Limbaugh types just know that must be wrong. They just know and then make absurd demands. We killed every N Vietnamese soldier three times. The body counts prove it. No wonder you want a body count. Its called denial.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by tw

...Rwanda is clearly another scam just like the manned moon landings....

There went your credibility.

Originally Posted by tw

...But when the body counts were summed, one reporter noted that we had killed every N Vietnamese soldier ... three times.

So an actual civilian Iraqi body count would produce a figure of 300,000 fatalities. Well I suppose you would then suspend your problems with the accuracy of body counts since it would buttress your dislike for all things W.

Intellectual flatulence and tin-foil-coated logic is no substitute for common sense. Unless, of course, you don't have any.

[Undertoad]

"Not everyone wants democracy." - tw, two weeks ago

We bow to this remarkable visionary who truly understands how things are.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Just why is General Franks leaving the US open to international criticism in this regard? What is he attempting to hide? Could it be 100,000 dead bodies?

Actually, most of the senior military leadership were NCO's and Jr Officers in Viet Nam - the war of the body count. They saw firsthand what happens when body counts are a priority. body counts make the headlines, then they take on a life of their own. at some points in the war there were body count expectations, so patrols would go out, pop off their loads and because it was impossible to accurately count the dead in the jungle - they applied a simple formula - X number of rounds multiplied by XX% = # of dead enemies.

as young men they saw the foolishness of such methods and refused to allow it under their command, first in Desert Storm, then Afghanistan, then Iraq.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Not everyone wants democracy." - tw, two weeks ago

We bow to this remarkable visionary who truly understands how things are.

I know you're being sarcastic but that is a true statement. I'd bet a months pay that Saddam doesn't want it.

[Griff]

I am glad tw escaped his abductors.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Yeah, Bruce? And? (This is a 5 year old American child)