2.5 percent of Iraqi population dead as a result of US lead invasion

26 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
#1
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:11
2.5 percent of Iraqi population dead as a result of US lead invasion
BBC News wrote:
An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

...

Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000 - meaning the deaths of some 2.5% of Iraq's 25 million citizens in the last three-and-a-half years.

...

The survey suggests that most of the extra deaths - 601,000 - would have been the result of violence, mostly gunfire, and suggests that 31% could be attributable to action by US-led coalition forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm

eek

Apparently: "It is vigorously disputed by supporters of the war in Iraq, including US President George W Bush." No shit!

#2
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:17

Also there is this wonderful boxed out quote on the page I linked to:

President George W Bush wrote:
I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life... and that troubles me, and it grieves me

roll eyes

#3
Top
BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Oct 12 2006 10:19
Nemo wrote:
Also there is this wonderful boxed out quote on the page I linked to:
President George W Bush wrote:
I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life... and that troubles me, and it grieves me

roll eyes

I spotted that on the bbc news report last night.

#4
Top
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 12 2006 10:19

Yeah Bush said, he doesn't agree, for no reason, but he does accept "a lot of innocent folks have died" which just "prooves how much the Iraqi people want their freedom" :?

medialens did a good alert/correspondance on the original lancet study that said 98,000 casualties, and really tied journos in knots trying to explain why the WHO's standard epidimiological methodology is reliable when africans are killing each other (DRC), but 'controversial' when our lovely leaders are causing the killing.

interestingly, small arms are now the leading cause of death, it was airstrikes/artillery in the last study. if the US hadn't have sent john 'death squad' negroponte over to iraq immediately post-war they could almost plead a degree of innocence

#5
Top
JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 12 2006 10:19

article about the same on guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

does anyone have access to the original Lancet article?

#6
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:21
JDMF wrote:
does anyone have access to the original Lancet article?

You can register free on the Lancet website, and I think that article is free to download.

#7
Top
BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Oct 12 2006 10:23
Joseph K. wrote:
john 'death squad' negroponte

Who?

#8
Top
pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Oct 12 2006 10:25

Here it is comrade- http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltext?isEOP=true

Free registration required.

#9
Top
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 12 2006 10:25
BB wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
john 'death squad' negroponte

Who?

career diplomat and major player in the Contra death squad campaign in Nicuragua in the 80s

he was made ambassador to Iraq and was stationed at the US baghdad embassy, it's largest CIA field-station, sorry diplomatic deployment, in the world

#10
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:26

Former ambassador to Honduras during the Contra years in Nicaragua. He was their boss, effectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte

#11
Top
BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Oct 12 2006 10:27

TY to you both.

#12
Top
revol68's picture
revol68
Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Oct 12 2006 10:28

Had to laugh at how people are shocked that this report is so out of synch with the body count one from the media reports. Might have something to do with journalists never moving out of a barricaded hotel lobby in Baghdad. Fuck only knows what the coalition troops are up to in the hundreds of small towns throughout the country.

#13
Top
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 12 2006 10:29

what, you're saying stuff happens that isn't reported?!

next you'll be telling me the biggest UK bomb factory found in the war on terror was run by white supremacists!

#14
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:33

Now's about the time we'll start getting all the "Isn't it terrible all the people who've been killed in Darfur!" stories. Then some naive twat in the letters pages will suggest that the US should go into Darfur to sort things out there. roll eyes The media's version of "Look out! Behind you!"

#15
Top
BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Oct 12 2006 10:36
Nemo wrote:
Former ambassador to Honduras during the Contra years in Nicaragua. He was their boss, effectively.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte

That's nice they went to school together, ahhhh.

"He was a member of the Psi Upsilon fraternity, alongside William H.T. Bush, the uncle of President George W. Bush"

#16
Top
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 12 2006 10:37

i suppose the way to look at it is, just like 59 million brits didn't march against the war in Iraq, 97.5% of Iraqis aren't dead. and when you think of it like that, it sounds quite good. [/brass eye mode]

it's like saying "90% fat free" when you mean 10% lard wink

#17
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:46
Jack wrote:
Fuck iraq body count piss me off tho, I've heard a few cunts from them trying to discredit this figure because it shows them up a bit. So they're effectively having to argue that the US/UK didn't really kill that many.

Medialens had a huge spat with the IBC, which made it onto Newsnight. And a bunch of IBCers were trolling the Medialens message board. It's also the figure Bush uses (though he uses an of date number).

#18
Top
BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Oct 12 2006 10:46
revol68 wrote:
Had to laugh at how people are shocked that this report is so out of synch with the body count one from the media reports. Might have something to do with journalists never moving out of a barricaded hotel lobby in Baghdad.

Or on the rare occasion accompanying troops...

#19
Top
JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 12 2006 10:47

hey hey hey, lets not start playing the numbers game here ok?

[/bush publicist mode]

#20
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 10:49
BB wrote:
Or on the rare occasion accompanying troops...

I seem to recall that the US dropped bombs on the group of Kurds John Simpson was travelling with. Though they mostly missed. roll eyes

#21
Top
Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Oct 12 2006 10:53
JDMF wrote:
hey hey hey, lets not start playing the numbers game here ok?

[/bush publicist mode]

I thought it was the Blame Game they were afraid of.

#22
Top
JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 12 2006 10:59
Joseph K. wrote:
medialens did a good alert/correspondance on the original lancet study that said 98,000 casualties, and really tied journos in knots trying to explain why the WHO's standard epidimiological methodology is reliable when africans are killing each other (DRC), but 'controversial' when our lovely leaders are causing the killing.

Bush is saying:

"US president George W. Bush rejected the study, saying its methodology had been "pretty well discredited"."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4e7813ca-598e-11db-9eb1-0000779e2340.html

#23
Top
Nemo's picture
Nemo
Offline
Joined: 12-07-06
Oct 12 2006 11:03

Deleted because I'm not sure it was true, and I don't really want to encourage IBC supporters to spam the forums. wink

#24
Top
Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 12 2006 11:10
JDMF wrote:
"US president George W. Bush rejected the study, saying its methodology had been "pretty well discredited"."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4e7813ca-598e-11db-9eb1-0000779e2340.html

someone should tell the WHO. last time i checked, it was 'discredited' by the fact they didn't physically count hundreds of thousands of (dismembered, incinerated, buried) corpses, but used a statistically significant sample size and applied standard epidemiological methodology (medialens were very good on this).

Yeah IBC have become a bunch of twats, when their figures were the only ones the government consistently dismissed them as 'just based on media reports which might be wrong' and as soon as the lancet study came out jack straw et al were bigging-up IBC. I mean, they admit their figures are structurally incapable of reflecting the true death toll, so why not tell the truth and say that there is no contradiction between the two studies?