Iraqi Death Toll at 100,000-200,000 (1 Viewer)

[Rorix]

Wow, I've looked into the source of your 37K report.

In August, an Iraqi group calling itself the People's Kifah said it had documented more than 37,000 civilian deaths from March to October 2003.

But there has been no independent scrutiny of these figures, and the group could not be contacted.

Glad to see they're putting their methods to the test.

"I am taking this opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the whereabouts of the worker, who was arrested and then went missing. We are afraid he is being tortured the way Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured," al-Ubaidi said.

Good to see he's being nice and objective about it.

In fact, they don't seemed to have talked to anyone but Aljazeera.net about it. Hrm, good to see they want to subject their estimation methods, with surveys conducted by Iraqi 'activisits' to foreign inspection. But if he says it's 100% correct......how can it be false?

 

[joujou_84]

Dark humour/a cynical remark, chief.

well yeh i did want someone to correct me if i was wrong, but it came out strange for some reason. anyway my apologies its off

 

[Bone577]

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.

The survey is conservative in the sense that the numbers resulting from it are a best-case scenario. That is why they bothered to disclude the vast majority of deaths, all of the deaths in Falluja that is, so it would be very conservative.

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

So you accept that the other surveys are wrong. Most notably the IBC, and that in fact it can't function correctly because not all deaths are reported, in fact a miniscule number are reported. So there estimate of 16k is drasticaly under the real number.

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

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

Obviously no findings yet, it was recent.


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



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

No my argument is that the report originaly pointed to vast amounts more death, but in a move to be as conservative as possible, they removed 70% of these deaths from the end result. So what you have, 100,000 deaths, is what you get after they saw the deficiencies in their testing and decided to assume the end result overestimated the deaths drastically, then they counteracted this and still got a result of 100,000.

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

Your right, just because approx 40,000 people died in the first 8 months doesnt mean that 100,000 for the next year and a bit afterwards would equal 100,000 despite how well the maths matches... it would be more logical to say the death rate has increased considering the notable increase in conflict.



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

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.

Im attacking the IBC (it isn't a survey) because Not-Too-Bright was bringing it up and asking why it isn't credible. If you read the thread properly you would have noticed this.


"The overall death toll among Iraqi civilians 12 years ago is hotly disputed. Estimates for civilian deaths as a direct result of the war range from 100,000 to 200,000.

In a sustained war this time around, the expectation among aid organisations and UN agencies is that the casualty and refugee figures will be higher because the aim of the war will be regime change. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2691475.stm

"Depending on what kind of conflict it turns out to be and how long it lasts, Medact estimates civilian deaths as a direct result of fighting and bombing could range from 48,000 to over 260,000."

 

[Bone577]

Good to see he's being nice and objective about it.

One of the researchers in the team was abducted by the US. I don't see what this has to do with objectivity.

In fact, they don't seemed to have talked to anyone but Aljazeera.net about it. Hrm, good to see they want to subject their estimation methods, with surveys conducted by Iraqi 'activisits' to foreign inspection. But if he says it's 100% correct......how can it be false?

I would like you to provide a report that contradicts me.





Back to the 100,000 report, from the horses mouth:
"they [the report] were into the Lancet by the October 1. The lancet critiqued this quite, quite -- heavily. They sent it out for multiple critiques from several different reviewers because they didn't want to publish something that was going to be unfair to one side or another that’s with going to be bad science, and so it just took this long. I certainly wish that this had come out two weeks ago. I wish it had come out two weeks ago, because then both candidates would be forced to address the issue of casualties in Iraq, and would have been forced to pledge their eagerness to protect civilians in the future."

 

[digmahstigma]

rather than squabbling pettily over statistics maybe it would be more relevant to discuss why there had to be any loss of life at all.

whether 30 000 or 200 000 these figures are enormous, and incomprehensible for most of us anyway.

 

[digmahstigma]

p.s. its just a thought, and no offence meant to anyone. dont lynch me.

 

[Bone577]

p.s. its just a thought, and no offence meant to anyone. dont lynch me.

No you are pretty much right. That is the risk with bringing up a statistic. That is why in my first post i simply posted the site up and wrote briefly about it, leaving it at that, hoping people take it as it is and don't bother me any further as it would go off into a spiral of speculation as people try attacking the stats. Things like "they aren't objective enough" or "the sample is too small" and my favourite "Just because its in the most respected Medical Journal in the world, who has checked the report yet still published it, doesn't mean it is credible at all".

 

[hiphophorray123]

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

They are willing to admit there own flaws, very scientific, totally ads to credibility.

methodologies that are based on small samples aren't that accurate

but your right it is convincing because of the circumstances, so i'm willing to beleive that article

 

[Not-That-Bright]

you're willing to believe that article because that's what you want to believe.

 

[Bone577]

you're willing to believe that article because that's what you want to believe.

I believe its more because it is from a credible source and the survey has been carried out in a very scientific manner, ontop of that it is concervative, AND it has been cross checked by the Lancet, a respected medical journal.

 

[Rorix]

The survey is conservative in the sense that the numbers resulting from it are a best-case scenario. That is why they bothered to disclude the vast majority of deaths, all of the deaths in Falluja that is, so it would be very conservative.

Oh, you mean 'conservative in the sense that the head researcher who wanted to push Bush from office tried to make the number huge but believable'. That's what you meant by 'underestimated the death count'. Gotcha.

So you accept that the other surveys are wrong. Most notably the IBC, and that in fact it can't function correctly because not all deaths are reported, in fact a miniscule number are reported. So there estimate of 16k is drasticaly under the real number.

I do remember saying "even if".

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

Obviously no findings yet, it was recent.

Why bring it up then? It doesn't add to the credibility of the survey if those groups haven't weighed in yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2691475.stm

"Tuesday, 28 January, 2003"

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think i read somewhere that the UN actually has much lower numbers than that..... anyone know where we could find these?

 

[Rorix]

One of the researchers in the team was abducted by the US. I don't see what this has to do with objectivity.

The fact obviously isn't biased. His response to it obviously is.

I would like you to provide a report that contradicts me.

The burden of proof is on you. You're proposing a number.

I can't just state a number and say PROVE ME WRONG.

Back to the 100,000 report, from the horses mouth:
"they [the report] were into the Lancet by the October 1. The lancet critiqued this quite, quite -- heavily. They sent it out for multiple critiques from several different reviewers because they didn't want to publish something that was going to be unfair to one side or another that’s with going to be bad science, and so it just took this long. I certainly wish that this had come out two weeks ago. I wish it had come out two weeks ago, because then both candidates would be forced to address the issue of casualties in Iraq, and would have been forced to pledge their eagerness to protect civilians in the future."

You didn't provide a link.....funny, why? Because I'd realise that the site it came from, Democracynow.com, isn't exactly bipartisan?

Reading the interview, WHAT THE FUCK? You can't look at 32 neighbourhoods and assume they represent the whole of Iraq, obviously casualities won't just follow a random distribution which makes small sample polls e.g. election polls accurate.

Anyway, EVEN IF we allow that this interview took place as reported, his assertions are contradictory to that of the 'HEAD RESEARCHER'. Obviously there's no reason for the head researcher to lie to make himself seem biased, so we can only deduce that this guy either doesn't share the same biases or is lying to try and seem bipartisan.

 

[Bone577]

Oh, you mean 'conservative in the sense that the head researcher who wanted to push Bush from office tried to make the number huge but believable'. That's what you meant by 'underestimated the death count'. Gotcha.

Thats IF you wan't to assume his dislike for Bush makes him bias in some way. Of course it is so convenient to say "this man dislikes Bush, hence i will cast off this damning and substantial report."

"Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s, AP reported."

I do remember saying "even if".

Well I don't see how the IBC can be anywhere near the correct number, if it only works off media reports it isn't going to have the correct numbers. Anyone can see that.

Why bring it up then? It doesn't add to the credibility of the survey if those groups haven't weighed in yet.

In a sense it does, we can all see from this that they have no problem with submitting it for validification. Although isn't solid evidence of its credibility, i think we all know what the results of this confirmation will be. Just for you we can remove this fact from the argument. I swear i wont mention it again.

"Tuesday, 28 January, 2003"

The date is besides the point, it was meant to illustrate the fact that 100,000's of civilians died in the first and it has been an expectation that more should die in this one. Speculation yes, but it has weight to it.

The fact obviously isn't biased. His response to it obviously is.

I don't see how. It is a fact that prisoners have been tortured in Abu Gharib, it wouldn't be unlikely that his friend was headed towards Abu Gharib or a similar prison. I think it is a perfectly logical response.

The burden of proof is on you. You're proposing a number.

I can't just state a number and say PROVE ME WRONG.

The issue at hand is the number of Iraqi deaths if you want to dispute the 100,000 figure, provide some evidence to the contrary, you aren't going to convince anyone unless you can provide a credible number that states otherwise. The way it stands we all know the very minimum number of civilian deaths is the IBC, it is simply a matter of how much more. So, how much?

You didn't provide a link.....funny, why? Because I'd realise that the site it came from, Democracynow.com, isn't exactly bipartisan?

They aren't bi-partisan at all, they pride themselves on that fact. They are non-partisan and non-corporate.

Reading the interview, WHAT THE FUCK? You can't look at 32 neighbourhoods and assume they represent the whole of Iraq, obviously casualities won't just follow a random distribution which makes small sample polls e.g. election polls accurate.

Are you some expert on polling accuracy, a pollologist or something of the sort? If you are i welcome your professional opinion of the survey, if not then stop engaging in mindless drivel. Let me re-iterate from someone who probably knows a load more than you about the report:
"Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s, AP reported."

Anyway, EVEN IF we allow that this interview took place as reported, his assertions are contradictory to that of the 'HEAD RESEARCHER'. Obviously there's no reason for the head researcher to lie to make himself seem biased, so we can only deduce that this guy either doesn't share the same biases or is lying to try and seem bipartisan.

The notion that somehow this is not a real transcript is ludicrous.

Also, your argument of partisan bias is wearing thin, ontop of that he is non-partisan in my opinion, and is portraying himself in such a manner. If you look at the policies of Kerry AND Bush in Iraq the main difference is Kerry wants less Americans there and more allies. I don't think he particularily supports either one, but as he said himself he wants them to " pledge their eagerness to protect civilians in the future."

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok let me explain this to u guys....

People on the right, are dicks, reckless arrogant dicks... People on the left are pussies, but terrorists they're assholes.

Now pussies hate dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes.
Assholes who just want to shit on everything, Pussies might wanna think they can deal with assholes in their own way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, With some balls.

The problem with dicks is sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate... and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only one and a half inches away from assholes.

If the pussies don't let the dicks fuck the assholes, we'll end up with the dicks and the pussies all covered in shit.

 

[Bone577]

Ok let me explain this to u guys....

People on the right, are dicks, reckless arrogant dicks... People on the left are pussies, but terrorists they're assholes.

Now pussies hate dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes.
Assholes who just want to shit on everything, Pussies might wanna think they can deal with assholes in their own way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, With some balls.

The problem with dicks is sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate... and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only one and a half inches away from assholes.

If the pussies don't let the dicks fuck the assholes, we'll end up with the dicks and the pussies all covered in shit.

Utterly poetic analogy... beautiful.

 

[hiphophorray123]

Ok let me explain this to u guys....

People on the right, are dicks, reckless arrogant dicks... People on the left are pussies, but terrorists they're assholes.

Now pussies hate dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes.
Assholes who just want to shit on everything, Pussies might wanna think they can deal with assholes in their own way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, With some balls.

The problem with dicks is sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate... and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only one and a half inches away from assholes.

If the pussies don't let the dicks fuck the assholes, we'll end up with the dicks and the pussies all covered in shit.

^^ gotta give it up for you even though i disagree with you most of the time that shit was entertaining lol

*claps* p.s: were not all pussies

 

[Rorix]

Thats IF you wan't to assume his dislike for Bush makes him bias in some way. Of course it is so convenient to say "this man dislikes Bush, hence i will cast off this damning and substantial report."

That, and the figure is out of line with other estimates. Except for your 37K figure which is questionable.

Well I don't see how the IBC can be anywhere near the correct number, if it only works off media reports it isn't going to have the correct numbers. Anyone can see that.

Anyone can also see that just asking 32 neighbourhoods and assuming that casualities obey random distribution and assuming they will answer honestly also might not lead to the correct numbers.

I don't see how. It is a fact that prisoners have been tortured in Abu Gharib, it wouldn't be unlikely that his friend was headed towards Abu Gharib or a similar prison. I think it is a perfectly logical response.

It shows the person as a deep resentment and mistrust of the Coalition. This certainly won't increase the accuracy of his study.

The issue at hand is the number of Iraqi deaths if you want to dispute the 100,000 figure, provide some evidence to the contrary, you aren't going to convince anyone unless you can provide a credible number that states otherwise.

You're only saying this because you know very well that I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 100K people isn't the correct number. Wait for the official census in the beginning of 2005, then we'll get an accurate figure. It's not like this speculation on casualties is going to affect the war, anyway.

They aren't bi-partisan at all, they pride themselves on that fact. They are non-partisan and non-corporate.

Oh, you honestly think they are free of bias?

Are you some expert on polling accuracy, a pollologist or something of the sort? If you are i welcome your professional opinion of the survey, if not then stop engaging in mindless drivel. Let me re-iterate from someone who probably knows a load more than you about the report:
"Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s, AP reported."

I want you, or anyone you can link to, to explain why we can assume that deaths were randomly distributed amongst neighbourhoods. This is a key issue. If you can explain that, I'll drop that objection to the methodology of the study. Until then, I'm not just going to accept some vague assertion.

The notion that somehow this is not a real transcript is ludicrous.

Why?

Also, your argument of partisan bias is wearing thin, ontop of that he is non-partisan in my opinion, and is portraying himself in such a manner.

Your argument that the head researcher is non-partisan in the face of 'I wanted it out just before the election' never even had substance to wear thin on.

If you look at the policies of Kerry AND Bush in Iraq the main difference is Kerry wants less Americans there and more allies. I don't think he particularily supports either one, but as he said himself he wants them to " pledge their eagerness to protect civilians in the future."

Kerry actually wanted 40K more American troops (unless he flip-floped on that too), but anyway this isn't relevant.

 

[Bone577]

It shows the person as a deep resentment and mistrust of the Coalition. This certainly won't increase the accuracy of his study.

Yes, and i don't see how it would reduce it considering the study stopped at this point. Besides, even if the study was continued, you would be speculating by saying that the events somehow made the study biased.

You're only saying this because you know very well that I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 100K people isn't the correct number. Wait for the official census in the beginning of 2005, then we'll get an accurate figure. It's not like this speculation on casualties is going to affect the war, anyway.

Im not here to change the world, Im here to argue the casualties caused by the war. Of course you can't prove me wrong beyond a reasonable doubt, I assumed this was more about "balance of probabilities" this report vs others.

Oh, you honestly think they are free of bias?

Yes, but that would pose the question "what is biased?". Im sure my idea of fair is different to yours.

But what I was saying is they support neither Kerry nor Bush, let me take this moment to show my disgust at both major parties in the US.

I want you, or anyone you can link to, to explain why we can assume that deaths were randomly distributed amongst neighbourhoods. This is a key issue. If you can explain that, I'll drop that objection to the methodology of the study. Until then, I'm not just going to accept some vague assertion.

The deaths were not "randomly distributed" of course not, there are areas of heightened conflict. The major one, far exceeding all others is of course Falluja. This was stricken from the report because of this concentrated conflict.
But besides that, each area showed roughly the same figures.
This is expected as conflict is occuring all around the country, be it a Shi'ite area or Sunni, and exception to this would be the Kurdish areas which coincidently have been also excluded from the report.

The reason we can make such an assumption is that such methodology has been used before with success (eg Kosovo), and while no such study is 100% accurate considering the lengths the team went to give a concervative estimate the report is very telling.

Why?

It is horrible journalism, transcripts aren't fabricated, even by the worst of journalists. I wouldn't even expect FOX to do this (often).

Your argument that the head researcher is non-partisan in the face of 'I wanted it out just before the election' never even had substance to wear thin on.

There is nothing partisan about wanting people to make informed decisions.

That the site is anti-war is no secret, the site is concerned with morals. That they prefer any party is a lie.

Kerry actually wanted 40K more American troops (unless he flip-floped on that too), but anyway this isn't relevant.

It is when you claim they are partisan.

 

[breaking]

Ok let me explain this to u guys....

People on the right, are dicks, reckless arrogant dicks... People on the left are pussies, but terrorists they're assholes.

Now pussies hate dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes.
Assholes who just want to shit on everything, Pussies might wanna think they can deal with assholes in their own way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, With some balls.

The problem with dicks is sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate... and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only one and a half inches away from assholes.

If the pussies don't let the dicks fuck the assholes, we'll end up with the dicks and the pussies all covered in shit.

*bump*
this is fucking genius