Iraqi Death Toll at 100,000-200,000 (2 Viewers)

[Rorix]

all the posters in this thread are on my ignore list (sorry not-that-bright, but you kept being the only one in the conversation not on the list so it was a hassle to scroll past posts that made no sense), but I'd like to point out that this survey has like, no credibiliy.

Something about 'I wanted it to be released a few days before the election' makes me suspicious.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

why do you trust a poll then that's saying around 200,000 which is a fair bit off the mark, after looking at 1000 homes? Why would they include natural deaths but not fallujah? if you wanted to make a 'conservative' statement about the ammount of deaths i'd probably not include natural deaths...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Why is this website so wrong? I mean i'm sure some deaths don't get reported but 180,000 more?

 

[Bone577]

why do you trust a poll then that's saying around 200,000 which is a fair bit off the mark, after looking at 1000 homes? Why would they include natural deaths but not fallujah? if you wanted to make a 'conservative' statement about the ammount of deaths i'd probably not include natural deaths...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Why is this website so wrong? I mean i'm sure some deaths don't get reported but 180,000 more?

They didn't report natural deaths, read it again. They only counted "excess deaths" that is rate of death before invasion compared to after the invasion.


Why do I believe it? Because it is credible, this is buttressed by the fact that the 37,000 figure which even you don't doubt is a measure of a few months (i believe from invasion to october of the same year).

IBC, as i have said many times works off reports of mainstream media. Naturally we aren't going to hear of every last death in Iraq from the media, so by nature IBC is flawed, though accurate in what it does

Something about 'I wanted it to be released a few days before the election' makes me suspicious.

I can't find this quote in the article, which was co-incidentaly released on October 29th.

Also didn't you already ignore me? I really don't mind as it means you not replying to my posts with your crap.


Edit: Did some research on the Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/ it seems they are a medical journal.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

well what he's saying is.. .it was posted up on the 29th of october....

Soooo once they didn't include the data from Falluja we're left with what... 900 homes surveyed? in a country of 40 Million people?

 

[Bone577]

well what he's saying is.. .it was posted up on the 29th of october....

So he is saying that this Medical Journal is trying to garner support for Kerry. Well that he is suspicous of it. Fantastic.

 

[Bone577]

Soooo once they didn't include the data from Falluja we're left with what... 900 homes surveyed? in a country of 40 Million people?

Again this coincides with the 37,000 figure, and yes the report is credible, these are after all concervative estimates. The 37,000 figure is much older, and covers a very small time period, and it was as i showed you very in depth and accurate.

They only lend eachother strength in credibility, and before you bring it up again, the IBC uses only media reports hence only a minority of deaths are tallied, hence iby nature it under-represents.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

media reports would be including al jazeera etc... i cannot imagine that they can only account for that many casualties...

 

[Rorix]

Because you make shit threads like this one.


WOW GUYS, SUDDENLY over 100K in an UNCREDIBLE SURVEY (anyone who even reads your article can tell this survey has limited credibility) has gone to 100K-200K

Luckily I don't use you as my main news source, since you seem to be purposely oblivious to the flaws of the survey

For example, http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2004/national/20041028233831.shtml

100,000 dead among Iraqis due to war, survey says






Stories about war with Iraq


Post or read comments in our online forums





The Associated Press
October 29th, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LONDON -- A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months since the U.S.-led invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war.

There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. As of Wednesday, 1,081 U.S. servicemen had been killed, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study.

Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study was published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet medical journal.

The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and airstrikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.

The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.

Richard Peto, an expert on study methods who was not involved with the research, said the approach the scientists took is a reasonable one to investigate the Iraq death toll. However, it’s possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq, said Peto, a professor of medical statistics at Oxford University in England.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

you should of quoted from some news articles that don't even exist, like moore did in 9/11.

 

[Rorix]

Bone's been replying to this thread for a while. He's probably trying to find some inherant bias to the Assosciated Press.

 

[Bone577]

Because you make shit threads like this one.


WOW GUYS, SUDDENLY over 100K in an UNCREDIBLE SURVEY (anyone who even reads your article can tell this survey has limited credibility) has gone to 100K-200K

I have always claimed 100,000 - 200,000, the title of this thread is 100,000 - 200,000 Way to go make yourself look like a fool.

Whether you think that "anyone who even reads your article can tell this survey has limited credibility" or not is irrelevant though, since it is obvious it does, again i draw your attention to the uncontested 37,000 figure for a short span during 2003.

There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. As of Wednesday, 1,081 U.S. servicemen had been killed, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

This one gave 100,000 not in Falluja. Also, we are aware some sources say 10,000-30,000 including the IBC which i already covered several times. Another is the 37,000+ figure that i have already discussed.

The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study.

"The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing"."

Besides, this limited precision is the reason for "Conservative Assumptions" that they enacted, such as excluding Falluja despite the fact that it accounts for over 70% of violent deaths.

And again it coincides with the 37,000 figure.

The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.

As i said before, fantastic. If only people took heed at the findings.

However, it’s possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq, said Peto, a professor of medical statistics at Oxford University in England.

Yes it is POSSIBLE that they MAY have zoned in on hotspots... meanwhile they excluded THE hotspot, Falluja which accounts for 70% of violent deaths.

media reports would be including al jazeera etc... i cannot imagine that they can only account for that many casualties...

Al Jazeera, despite what you think is very alike to the BBC in content. That is it is a fantastic source of information. But that aside, neither is going to report every casualty in Iraq. Do you think a single lone death is going to be reported in a country with this level of violence and strife? Or even 5 deaths (not including Western military personel)? I think we both know the answer.

 

[Bone577]

Bone's been replying to this thread for a while. He's probably trying to find some inherant bias to the Assosciated Press.

Sorry if i research and put thought into my posts.


Edit: BTW, didn't you supposedly put me on your ignore list?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

how many 'lone' deaths do bombs cause? which is apparently a large majority of these deaths...

 

[Rorix]

I have always claimed 100,000 - 200,000, the title of this thread is 100,000 - 200,000 Way to go make yourself look like a fool.

Wow, way to miss the point.

I'm asking you where this 200K figure came from? I skimmed through the article, and I didn't see the number '200,000' anywhere. Is this just something you've grabbed out of your head, a rough estimate? Must I add some figures in the report or something?

WHY 200K MAN WHY

Whether you think that "anyone who even reads your article can tell this survey has limited credibility" or not is irrelevant though, since it is obvious it does, again i draw your attention to the uncontested 37,000 figure for a short span during 2003.

My point: It's obvious this survey has no credibibility, since it's just a survey of a limited number of households.

Your point: The credibility of the report is not in question, it's obviously credible! I draw your attention to a point which seems to have no significance to your point!

This one gave 100,000 not in Falluja. Also, we are aware some sources say 10,000-30,000 including the IBC which i already covered several times. Another is the 37,000+ figure that i have already discussed.

And this addresses my objections to the survey how?
I'm sorry, but 10K-30K isn't 100K-200K. There's a lot of difference, it's not a rounding error.

"The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing"."

Who precisely said it was convincing. Is The Lancet an entity? Does it pass an individual judgement? I'd like to investigate the source of this "convincing" quote. Generally, I'd like to point out that when the scientests point out flaws in their own data, it's generally pretty questionable. Especially when the head researcher wants a big stat to be released to try and tip the election. It also goes without saying that 1000 households isn't exactly a definitive measurement.

Besides, this limited precision is the reason for "Conservative Assumptions" that they enacted, such as excluding Falluja despite the fact that it accounts for over 70% of violent deaths.

Again, relevance? Just because they said they applied 'conservative assumptions' doesn't address any of my objections.

And again it coincides with the 37,000 figure.

HOW MAN HOW. I'm not seeing the corellation between 37K and 100K (and 100K-200K, as you claim). Maybe it's just that it's 2.30AM, but I'd like you to clear this one up.

Yes it is POSSIBLE that they MAY have zoned in on hotspots... meanwhile they excluded THE hotspot, Falluja which accounts for 70% of violent deaths.

OK, you agree there are further flaws in the collection method. This certainly serves to IMPROVE the credibility of the study, does it not?

Al Jazeera, despite what you think is very alike to the BBC in content. That is it is a fantastic source of information. But that aside, neither is going to report every casualty in Iraq. Do you think a single lone death is going to be reported in a country with this level of violence and strife? Or even 5 deaths (not including Western military personel)? I think we both know the answer.

Your argument.
1. The media doesn't report every death
2. IBC works on media reports.
3. Therefore, the 100K survey is right.

Please explain how that logic works?

 

[Bone577]

how many 'lone' deaths do bombs cause? which is apparently a large majority of these deaths...

The question is how many unreported deaths do bombs cause. How many unreported deaths are cause altogether? Do you actually believe that the media is going to cover the majority of deaths?

""We estimate that there were 98,000 extra deaths during the postwar period in the 97 percent of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Fallujah," the researchers said in the paper."

"The researchers have requested further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization."

No, but im sure a Medical Journal like the Lancet is purposely bending facts around and over-estimating. Ehem, the 37,000 figure backs this and so does the fact that they excluded Falluja.

 

[Rorix]

Sorry if i research and put thought into my posts.

Maybe you should apply the principle of 'comparative advantage' instead.

Edit: BTW, didn't you supposedly put me on your ignore list?

yes, but if I directly address you obviously I'm going to read the response



BTW: You seem to be celebrating the fact that the head researchers political views make the report inherantly biased.

 

[Bone577]

Wow, way to miss the point.

I'm asking you where this 200K figure came from? I skimmed through the article, and I didn't see the number '200,000' anywhere. Is this just something you've grabbed out of your head, a rough estimate? Must I add some figures in the report or something?

WHY 200K MAN WHY

Because New Scientist said so, if you read my posts you would have picked this up.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

My point: It's obvious this survey has no credibibility, since it's just a survey of a limited number of households.

Your point: The credibility of the report is not in question, it's obviously credible! I draw your attention to a point which seems to have no significance to your point!

Would you like them to survey everyone in the country? Or analyse records that the interim government has banned access to? Surveys, generaly, take a sample group. Regardless of the "small" sample group, the survey is CONSERVATIVE, they even bothered to discount Falluja which would cause the number to increase to more than double.

And this addresses my objections to the survey how?
I'm sorry, but 10K-30K isn't 100K-200K. There's a lot of difference, it's not a rounding error.

I told you i already discussed this. They used media sources, hence un-reported = no body count.

Who precisely said it was convincing. Is The Lancet an entity? Does it pass an individual judgement? I'd like to investigate the source of this "convincing" quote. Generally, I'd like to point out that when the scientests point out flaws in their own data, it's generally pretty questionable. Especially when the head researcher wants a big stat to be released to try and tip the election. It also goes without saying that 1000 households isn't exactly a definitive measurement.

"Convincing" was taken from the BBC article, go check it if you will, knock yourself out. I would also like to remind you that the report has been handed to Human Rights organisations and NGO's for validation.

Scientists do point out deficiencies in there experiments, i assume you did year 10 science, you should know this. They account for the problem, hence the CONSERVATIVE estimate, and the exclusion of Falluja.

As for the sample size, refer to above.

Again, relevance? Just because they said they applied 'conservative assumptions' doesn't address any of my objections.

They used these assumptions because of the inherant difficulties of the task, so as to give a under-estimated number so as to give a best case scenario.

HOW MAN HOW. I'm not seeing the corellation between 37K and 100K (and 100K-200K, as you claim). Maybe it's just that it's 2.30AM, but I'd like you to clear this one up.

For perhaps the 5th time, the 37,000 figure was reported the People's Kifah after thorough reasearch for the time period March 2003 to October 2003.

"We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi.

This is the civilian death toll over a relatively short time period, and the result was NO LESS than 37,000. This makes the claim of 100,000 to this date seem correct considering that the first survey is a year old and covers 8 months time at the most.
In this sense they both express similar civilian casualty rates, except in the second report, the casualties in Falluja were discounted, this area is the focal point of violence right now.

OK, you agree there are further flaws in the collection method. This certainly serves to IMPROVE the credibility of the study, does it not?

You fail to see the point.
"Yes it is POSSIBLE that they MAY have zoned in on hotspots... meanwhile they excluded THE hotspot, Falluja which accounts for 70% of violent deaths."

The article was engaging in speculation. Point being the 100,000 figure was after the reduced the deaths by 70%, this was to purposely under-estimate the death toll. This is CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS.

Your argument.
1. The media doesn't report every death
2. IBC works on media reports.
3. Therefore, the 100K survey is right.

Please explain how that logic works?

My argument is:
1) The media doesn't report every death (in fact the minority of deaths).
2) IBC works on media reports.
3) IBC should not be braught up as an argument against the 100,000 figure.

 

[Bone577]

BTW: You seem to be celebrating the fact that the head researchers political views make the report inherantly biased.

No im outlining the fact that the head researchers views do not necessarily mean the report is biased. A biased person can perform an unbias study.

 

[Rorix]

Would you like them to survey everyone in the country? Or analyse records that the interim government has banned access to? Surveys, generaly, take a sample group. Regardless of the "small" sample group, the survey is CONSERVATIVE, they even bothered to discount Falluja which would cause the number to increase to more than double.

BTW, more than double is a lie. The current figure is 100K+ and according to your site, it'd go to 200K. Surveys take a small sample yes, but there's a "margin of error", and we have no idea how these households were randomly selected (and even if those surveyed were telling the truth). The survey is not conservative if the head researcher wants it released just before the election GEE I WONDER WHAT HIS POLITICAL VIEWS ARE, just because they say they used conservative assumptions doesn't make the survey conservative.

random shit on other surveys

Even if other surveys are wrong, it doesn't make your survey right. You seem to think it does.

"Convincing" was taken from the BBC article, go check it if you will, knock yourself out. I would also like to remind you that the report has been handed to Human Rights organisations and NGO's for validation.

Which human rights organisations? Which NGOs? What were their findings?

Scientists do point out deficiencies in there experiments, i assume you did year 10 science, you should know this.

LOLLERSKATING all the way to the polling booth. Why, aren't you naive?

They used these assumptions because of the inherant difficulties of the task, so as to give a under-estimated number so as to give a best case scenario.

your argument for it being underestimated is that the number could have been bigger.

This in no way responds to the fundamental flaws of the survey I'm questioning.

This is the civilian death toll over a relatively short time period, and the result was NO LESS than 37,000. This makes the claim of 100,000 to this date seem correct considering that the first survey is a year old and covers 8 months time at the most.

Even if this 37K survey IS correct, you can't just extrapolate and assume the trend will continue.

You fail to see the point.
"Yes it is POSSIBLE that they MAY have zoned in on hotspots... meanwhile they excluded THE hotspot, Falluja which accounts for 70% of violent deaths."

The article was engaging in speculation. Point being the 100,000 figure was after the reduced the deaths by 70%, this was to purposely under-estimate the death toll. This is CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS.

HERE'S THE POINT---------------------->
OH YOU MISSED IT AGAIN

My argument is:
1) The media doesn't report every death (in fact the minority of deaths).
2) IBC works on media reports.
3) IBC should not be braught up as an argument against the 100,000 figure.

No it's not. You're attacking other surveys in some baseless belief that if every other survey is flawed, this one must be right.

 

[Rorix]

No im outlining the fact that the head researchers views do not necessarily mean the report is biased. A biased person can perform an unbias study.

It's possible.


However, if they were deliberately being non-partisan, they wouldn't want to release it just days before the election.