Iraqi shoe thrower

1246

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    jlew24asu wrote:
    [

    I have done extensive research. why do you want me to do it for you?

    common sense alone debunks a million dead. I'll ask again...why has there been 1 million dead for 3+ years? seems odd that it holds steady at such a powerful number.
    if you could take a minute from your know-it-all-god complex, maybe you can post some of this research that you have uncovered so maybe those of us that are of inferior intellect might learn something? oh wait, if you had it i am sure you would have already done so :D
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    jlew24asu wrote:
    [

    I have done extensive research. why do you want me to do it for you?

    common sense alone debunks a million dead. I'll ask again...why has there been 1 million dead for 3+ years? seems odd that it holds steady at such a powerful number.
    if you could take a minute from your know-it-all-god complex, maybe you can post some of this research that you have uncovered so maybe those of us that are of inferior intellect might learn something? oh wait, if you had it i am sure you would have already done so :D

    it takes more then a simple google search and cut and paste party. if you are smart you'll research it. but I doubt it
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:

    well, i didn't expect you to agree ... the number wasn't made up - it has been published ... if you disagree with the source - that's your prerogative but it's not true to say someone on this board just made up the number ...

    its a number with zero proof behind it. makes no difference that it was published.

    it was published by the lancet, that's significant, its no tabloid. and the study was carried out by john hopkins, also significant.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:

    it was published by the lancet, that's significant, its no tabloid. and the study was carried out by john hopkins, also significant.

    maybe you'll read a wiki link. seems to be the only trusted source on this board.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties

    Some criticisms have focused on the relatively broad 95% confidence intervals (CI95), resulting from the difficulty and scarcity of reliable sources. [10]

    Lila Guterman, after writing a long article[11] in January 2005 in The Chronicle of Higher Education, wrote a short article in the Columbia Journalism Review that stated: "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study’s methods or its conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates. With a quick call to a statistician, reporters would have found that the probability forms a bell curve — the likelihood is very small that the number of deaths fell at either extreme of the range. It was very likely to fall near the middle."[12]

    A Ministerial Statement written 17 November 2004, by the UK government stated "the Government does not accept its [the study's] central conclusion", because they were apparently inconsistent with figures published by the Iraq Ministry of Health, based on figures collected by hospitals, which said that "between 5 April 2004 and 5 October 2004, 3,853 civilians were killed and 15,517 were injured".[13]

    Some critics have said that The Lancet study authors were unable to visit certain randomly selected sample areas. In an interview on the radio program "This American Life" however, the authors of the study say that they never substituted different, more accessible, areas, and that every place that was randomly selected at the beginning of the study was surveyed in full, despite the risk of death to the surveyors.

    Critics of the Lancet study have pointed out other difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics in a war zone. The authors of the study readily acknowledge this point and note the problems in the paper; for example they state that "there can be a dramatic clustering of deaths in wars where many die from bombings". They also said that the data their projections were based on were of "limited precision" because the quality of the information depended on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study.[14][15]
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jlew has just proven that he hasn't even read any of the reports that have been posted here. The 2nd Lancet report was published in 2006 and it didn't give a figure of 1 million dead. It gave a figure of 654,965 dead.

    The ORB report was published in January 2008 and gave an updated figure of 1,033,000 dead.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report

    Burying The Lancet Report

    By Nicolas J. S. Davies - Z Magazine
    February 2006 Issue


    '...Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, "Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity." In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the US State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.

    Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference. In December 2004 Blair dismissed the epidemiological team's work in Iraq, claiming, "Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is."

    Official and media criticism of Roberts's work has focused on the size of his sample, 988 homes in 33 clusters distributed throughout the country, but other epidemiologists reject the notion that this is controversial.

    Michael O'Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: "That's a classical sample size. I just don't see any evidence of significant exaggeration.... If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died."

    Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: "In 1993, when the US Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces."

    The figures most often cited for civilian casualties in Iraq are those collected by Iraqbodycount, but its figures are not intended as an estimate of total casualties. Its methodology is to count only those deaths that are reported by at least two "reputable" international media outlets in order to generate a minimum number that is more or less indisputable. Its authors know that thousands of deaths go unreported in their count and say they cannot prevent the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths.

    Beyond the phony controversy regarding the methodology of the Lancet report, there is one issue that does cast doubt on its findings. This is the decision to exclude the cluster in Fallujah from its computations due to the much higher number of deaths that were reported there (even though the survey was completed before the widely reported assault on the city in November 2004). Roberts wrote, in a letter to the Independent, "Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000."...

    A second feature of the epidemiologists' findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O'Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies...'
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    Funny how Jlew's Wilki link actually supports the findings of the Lancet report. Just goes to show that he didn't even read it before posting it on here. He just saw the words 'Some criticisms....' and started frothing at the mouth.

    The only part of his post that is critical of the report is the part that says the U.K government rejects it because it doesn't correspond with the findings of the The Iraq Ministry of Health.
    The Iraq Ministry of Health figures were based solely on numbers collected by hospitals. Hardly an accurate number considering that most dead bodies don't get taken to hospital to be treated and cared for.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Jlew has just proven that he hasn't even read any of the reports that have been posted here. The 2nd Lancet report was published in 2006 and it didn't give a figure of 1 million dead. It gave a figure of 654,965 dead.

    The ORB report was published in January 2008 and gave an updated figure of 1,033,000 dead.

    other hypothetical reports have thrown around the million # for many years. you've been eating up for probably longer then that.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Funny how Jlew's Wilki link actually supports the findings of the Lancet report. Just goes to show that he didn't even read it before posting it on here. He just saw the words 'Some criticisms....' and started frothing at the mouth.

    it doesn't support the findings. its merely shows both sides of the argument. something you are incapable of understanding.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Funny how only the HIGHEST figure is regarded as fact when Iraq Body Count Project has far more sources and actually evidence of the true total.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    you have to be an ignorant asshole to believe one million people are dead based on this...


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey ... casualties

    The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq,


    yup, solid proof one million are dead. it would be funny if it wasn't so asinine.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3321

    '...The media in any country only report a fraction of all violent deaths. Demographer Patrick Ball has shown through work in Guatemala (State Violence in Guatemala, AAAS, 1999) that this is particularly true when there is an unusually high level of violence. In Iraq, the media are limited to small zones of safe passage. The organization Iraq Body Count, which compiles the tally of media-reported deaths most often cited by the press, themselves acknowledge on their website: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."


    The same "agenda" concerns did not come up when ORB released a more positive poll (3/07) from Iraq earlier this year. While the poll showed that Iraqi satisfaction with the occupation had deteriorated badly and that most expected violence to decrease after a U.S. withdrawal, it also found that 49 percent of Iraqis said their life was better post-Saddam and only 26 percent said it was worse. This poll was reported in the U.S. by CNN (3/19/07), Fox News (3/19/07), the Washington Post (3/20/07), L.A. Times (3/20/07), USA Today (3/20/07), Chicago Tribune (3/20/07) and Sun-Times (3/19/07), Seattle Times (3/20/07), Fort Lau-derdale Sun-Sentinel (3/20/07) and Newsday (3/20/07).
    The media clearly hold bearers of negative news about the occupation to a much different standard than those of news that can be positively spun...'


    http://www.countercurrents.org/martin150907.htm
    ORB report

    'For security reasons, no interviews were conducted in Al Anbar or Karbala provinces, or in the province of Irbil, where Kurdish authorities refused to allow field interviews. Since Anbar and Karbala are among the bloodiest battlefields of the war, and Irbil among the quietest, the exclusion of the three provinces would more likely to lead to an underestimation of the death toll than an exaggeration.'
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    http://www.truthout.org/article/burying-lancet-report

    "It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces."
    Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Funny how only the HIGHEST figure is regarded as fact when Iraq Body Count Project has far more sources and actually evidence of the true total.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
    IBC only counts violent deaths reported in the media....its the lowest possible figure you can get for the death toll.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Funny how only the HIGHEST figure is regarded as fact when Iraq Body Count Project has far more sources and actually evidence of the true total.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
    IBC only counts violent deaths reported in the media....its the lowest possible figure you can get for the death toll.

    no its not. its by far the most comprehensive and accurate. here are a few of their sources..

    * Mortuaries
    * Medics
    * Iraqi officials
    * Eyewitnesses
    * Police
    * Relatives
    * US-Coalition
    * Journalists
    * NGOs
    * Friends/Associates

    they have actual proof of the # of people dying. lets assume its the "lowest" number, which currently is 90,000. you believe they are somehow off over 900,000 bodies?? its a fucking joke.

    the one million number comes from a fucking SURVEY of 1500 people. unreal. if that survery concluded that 50 million were dead you would take it as fact that 50 million people have died. wake the fuck up
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Iraq Body Count's numbers are totally flawed. Read on...

    http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4533

    IBC is clear that there are inherent problems with its methodology. In response to the Lancet study, IBC pointed out:

    "We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording." (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.phpPR10 November 7, 2004)

    So what are the sources behind the database informing this "early historical analysis"? IBC reveals that these are "predominantly Western", with the "most prevalent" being "the major newswires and US and UK newspapers". (http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_doss ... 3-2005.pdf).

    In its report 'A dossier of civilian casualties 2003-2005', IBC noted that just three press agencies - Associated Press, Agence France Presse, and Reuters - provided one-third of all stories.

    The report added:

    "We have not made use of Arabic or other non English language sources, except where these have been published in English. The reasons are pragmatic. We consider fluency in the language of the published report to be a key requirement for accurate analysis, and English is the only language in which all team members are fluent. It is possible that our count has excluded some victims as a result." (Ibid)

    This is a remarkable explanation for such a serious omission, particularly in light of the immense media attention afforded to the IBC figures...

    Not only is IBC's surveillance-based total for Iraqi civilian deaths one of the most widely cited by journalists, it is also the lowest. Les Roberts, lead author of the Lancet report, told us last year:

    "There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000. The studies measure different things. Some are surveys, some are based on surveillance which is always incomplete in times of war. The three lowest estimates are surveillance based." (Roberts, email to Media Lens, August 22, 2005)...

    IBC pointed out, "it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media... our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording". (Iraq Body Count, Quick FAQ and Press Release, 7th November 2004, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.php)

    Earlier this month Media Lens searched the IBC database looking for incidents involving the mass killing of Iraqi civilians by 'coalition' forces between January-June 2005. We began by searching for incidents citing a minimum of 10 deaths and above. This seemed reasonable. After all, the New York Times reported in July 2003:

    "Air war commanders were required to obtain the approval of Defense Secretary Donald L. Rumsfeld if any planned airstrike was thought likely to result in deaths of more than 30 civilians. More than 50 such strikes were proposed, and all of them were approved." (Michael R. Gordon, 'After the War: Preliminaries; U.S. Air Raids in '02 Prepared for War in Iraq,' New York Times, July 20, 2003)

    We found 58 incidents of 10+ deaths. Of these just one was attributed to a US airstrike:

    "k785 08 Jan 2005 2:30 AM Aaytha, near Mosul suspected insurgent hideout, wrong house hit laser-guided bomb dropped by F-16 jet 14 [people killed]" (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/b ... 1137413717)

    Of the other 57 incidents listed, 25 were attributed to suicide bombers and a further 29 were attributed to insurgent actions targeting Iraqi government troops, government officials, religious groups, and so on. The few remaining cases described corpses shot at close range, bodies blindfolded and shot, and executed bodies that had been dumped.

    In short, out of 58 incidents involving a minimum of 10 or more Iraqi civilian deaths just one was attributed to the 'coalition'. We then searched for incidents citing less than a minimum of 10 deaths involving 'coalition' airstrikes, helicopter gunfire and tank fire, we found three references in the six-month period we examined totalling 15 civilians killed:

    "k815 16 Jan 2005 - Samarra civilian vehicle at checkpoint tank fire 4 [killed]" (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/b ... 1137415170)

    "k997 13 Mar 2005 - Mosul 'insurgents' firing on helicopter, civilians killed in return fire helicopter fire 3 [killed]" (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/b ... 1137415112)

    "k1357 19 May 2005 12:00 PM Mosul attack by gunmen on house of National Assembly member Fawwaz al-Jarba, US troops also involved gunfire, helicopter gunfire 8 [killed]" (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/b ... 1137487725)

    This struck us as frankly remarkable. In the December 2005 edition of the New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported a US Air Force press release indicating that, since the beginning of the conflict, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone had dropped more than 500,000 tons of ordnance on Iraq.

    In December 2005, Associated Press reported that the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps had "flown thousands of missions in support of US ground troops in Iraq this fall with little attention back home, including attacks by unmanned Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles, military records show". ('Air Power Strikes Iraq Targets Daily,' Associated Press, December 20, 2005)

    The aircraft included frontline attack planes. The number of airstrikes increased in the weeks leading up to the December 2005 election, from a monthly average of 25 in the first half of the year to more than 60 in September and 120 or more in October and November. The monthly number of air missions grew from 1,111 in September to 1,492 in November.

    And yet, when we checked, the first 18 pages of the IBC database, covering the period between July 2005 and January 2006, contained just six references to helicopter attacks and airstrikes killing civilians.


    What do these figures tell us about the sincerity and honesty of the IBC editors? Absolutely nothing - it is not at all our intention to challenge their integrity. But there are some important points that need to be made.

    First, the dramatic absence of examples of mass killing by US-UK forces suggests that the low IBC toll of civilian deaths in comparison with other studies is partly explained by the fact that examples of US-UK killing are simply not being reported by the media or recorded by IBC. Visitors to the site - directed there by countless references in the same media that have acted as sources - are being given a very one-sided picture of who is doing the killing.

    Given that the Lancet reported extremely high civilian casualties from airstrikes and artillery attacks, where are the civilians killed by the vast numbers of US airstrikes in 2005, a year when the insurgency intensified dramatically from 27,000 attacks (mostly targeting US and Iraqi troops) in 2004 to 34,100 insurgent attacks in 2005? The IBC's own dossier of civilian casualties 2003-2005, reported: "Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths". (Op., cit).

    Where are the civilians killed by helicopter fire? By unmanned drones? By tank fire?


    We asked independent journalist Dahr Jamail - who has witnessed the violence in Iraq first hand, for example in Falluajh - to check the IBC database and give us his opinion. Jamail replied:

    "I just finished having a look at what you suggested... I agree with your findings... there is certainly a heavy bias towards counting deaths caused by suicide bombers/etc. as opposed to deaths caused by occupation aircraft, helicopters and tanks/artillery.

    I appreciate and respect IBC in that they have (from the beginning) been making a sincere effort to track the number of Iraqi civilian casualties where almost noone else is... but whether it be from lack of translators or over-reliance on western outlets, they are most certainly under-reporting Iraqi civilian deaths caused by coalition aircraft...

    Due to their sources and lack of adequate Arab media in them (who do a much better job of reporting Iraqi civilian casualty counts), it is heavily biased towards western outlets which have from the beginning done a dismal (at best) job of reporting on the air war and consequent civ. casualties...


    Where are the notices advising that the Pentagon has paid millions of dollars to US public relations firms to plant untraceable stories in the Iraqi press? Where are the references to journalists who claim that newspapers and journalists in Iraq are punished, and even attacked, for publishing stories that reflect badly on the US-UK occupation? Veteran BBC broadcaster Nick Gowing said recently:

    "The trouble is that a lot of the military - particularly the American military - do not want us there. And they make it very uncomfortable for us to work. And I think that this is leading to security forces in some instances feeling it is legitimate to target us with deadly force and with impunity." (Cited, Jeremy Scahill, 'Shooting the messenger,' February 17, 2005, http://www.thenation.com)...


    We accept that the IBC editors are sincere and well-intentioned. We accept, also, that they have often made clear that their figures are likely to be an underestimate. But we believe they could have done much more to challenge the cynical exploitation of their figures by journalists and politicians. And they could have done much more to warn visitors to their site of the number and type of gaps in their database.

    It is ironic indeed, but unsurprising, that IBC is so highly regarded by the mainstream media, while the Lancet report is subject to intense criticism and even rejected out of hand.

    It is not rocket science to perceive obvious flaws in the IBC methodology - a glance at the database suggests that Iraqi civilians are somehow immune to the firepower of US jets, tanks, helicopters and artillery. Other studies, and simple common sense, suggest otherwise.'
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    still holding tight that a SURVEY of 1500 people PROVES one million died? and that IBC has underestimated by 900,000+ bodies?

    and your cutting and pasting nonsense is not more effective when you use pretty colors. are you aware of that? this is getting way too easy.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Iraq Body Count's numbers are totally flawed. Read on...

    of course its flawed you fucking genius. all reports are. its impossible to have a completely accurate death toll in a war zone. it can't be done. what can be done however is best guesses based on hard evidence. IBC provides that. is it underestimated? sure probably by some. few thousand, maybe 10,000, hell maybe 25,000. but 900,000!!!! :roll:

    you are basing as FACT that 1,000,000 people have been killed based SOLELY on one tiny little survey of 1500 people. I can continue running circles around you all day.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    The Lancet report and the ORB report both used the same tried and tested methods that are used in other war zones and in medical research all over the world. Their methods and research findings have been used and praised for their accuracy by the same Western governments that dismiss their findings in Iraq.

    IBC is totally flawed. They rely on a handful of Western media outlets who have a flagrant bias in reporting the deaths of coalition soldiers and who fail to report on Iraqi civilian deaths.

    Anyone who bothers to actually read the material I've posted, instead of just spouting gibberish, can see the difference.

    I wonder if Jlew will post anymore Wiki sources that support my comments?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    The Lancet report and the ORB report both used the same tried and tested methods that are used in other war zones and in medical research all over the world. Their methods and research findings have been used and praised for their accuracy by the same Western governments that dismiss their findings in Iraq.

    thats nice. but you are still holding tight that 1,000,000 people have been killed based on a survey of 1500 people?
    Byrnzie wrote:
    IBC is totally flawed.

    NO SHIT. ALL reports are flawed. even the blessed Lancet and ORB. they are hypothetical surveys. NOT 100% fact like you seem to think. I feel like I'm talking to a fucking 7 year old.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    They rely on a handful of Western media outlets who have a flagrant bias in reporting the deaths of coalition soldiers and who fail to report on Iraqi civilian deaths.

    what ignorance. read genius..better yet, I'll cut and paste and make it red for you.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/r ... e/sources/

    AAP Australian Associated Press
    ABC ABC News (US)
    ABC[AU] Australian Broadcasting Corporation
    ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
    ADT (Australian) Daily Telegraph
    AFP Agence France-Presse
    AFR Australian Financial Review
    AFX AFX News
    AI Amnesty International
    AKI ADN Kronos International
    Al-Adalah Al-Adalah
    Al-Alam TV Al-Alam TV
    Al-Arab Al Arabiya TV
    Al-Bawaba Al-Bawaba
    Al-Bayan Al-Bayan
    Al-Bayy Al-Bayyinah
    Al-Furat Al-Furat
    Al-Iraq Al-Iraq
    Al-Istiq Al-Istiqamah
    Al-Ittihad Al-Ittihad
    Al-Jaz Al Jazeera (Web)
    Al-Jaz TV Al Jazeera TV
    Al-Mada Al-Mada
    Al-Manarah Al-Manarah
    Al-Mashriq Al-Mashriq
    Al-Muwatin Al-Muwatin
    Al-Shar Al Sharqiyah TV
    Al-Sum Alsumaria
    ALT Alternet
    Al-Taakhi Al-Taakhi
    Al-Zaman Al-Zaman
    AN Arab News
    ANSA ANSA News Agency
    AP Associated Press
    Arab N Arab News
    Arabic N Arabic News
    ASB As-Sabah
    Asharq Al A Asharq Al Awsat
    AT Arab Times
    Atl JC Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    AUS The Australian
    Azzaman Azzaman
    BaltSun The Baltimore Sun
    BBC BBC
    B-berg Bloomberg
    BG Boston Globe
    Bill Gaz Billings Gazette
    BNA Bahrain News Agency
    BT Bahrain Times
    CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
    CBS CBS
    CCT Contra Costa Times
    CD China Daily
    CentCom Central Command
    CNA Channel News Asia
    CNN Cable News Network
    CO Commondreams.org
    COX Cox News Service
    CP Counterpunch.org
    CPC Charleston Post and Courier
    CSM Christian Science Monitor
    CT Chicago Tribune
    CTV CTV.ca
    Dar al-Salam Dar al-Salam
    DM Daily Mirror (UK)
    DPA Deutsche Presse-Agentur
    DT(AU) Daily Telegraph (Australia)
    eTN eTaiwan News
    EXP Expatica (NL)
    FNA FOCUS News Agency
    Forbes Forbes
    Fox Fox News
    FT Financial Times
    G and M Globe and Mail
    GCN Gay City News
    GDN Gulf Daily News
    GN Gulf News
    GSO GlobalSecurity.org
    GUA The Guardian
    Hi Pak Hi Pakistan
    HRW Human Rights Watch
    HT Hindustan Times
    IE Indian Express
    IER Irish Examiner
    IFJ International Federation of Journalists
    IHT International Herald Tribune
    IMN Iraq MediaNet
    IND The Independent
    INNA Iraqi National News Agency
    IOL Independent Online
    IOL[SA] Independent Online (South Africa)
    IRE Ireland Online
    IRIN UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
    ISN International Relations and Security Network
    ITN Independent Television News (UK)
    J Today Japan Today
    Jang The Jang News
    JaT Japan Times
    JT Jordan Times
    KCS Kansas City Star
    KHT Khaleej Times
    KM Kurdish Media
    KR Knight-Ridder Newspapers
    KTVL KTVL
    KUNA Kuwaiti News Agency
    LAT Los Angeles Times
    Le Monde Le Monde
    MAG Mines Action Group
    McCla McClatchy Newspapers
    MENA Middle East News Agency
    MEO Middle East Online
    MH Miami Herald
    MHS Melbourne Herald Sun
    MJ Mother Jones
    MLine The Media Line
    MN Mercury News
    MNF Multi-national Force - Iraq
    MO Mosul Observer
    MSNBC MSNBC
    N24[SA] News 24 (South Africa)
    NAT Nando Times
    News24 News 24
    NewsAU News.com.au (Australia)
    Newsday Newsday
    Newsweek Newsweek
    NINA National Iraqi News Agency
    NNN Non-Aligned Movement News Network
    NPR National Public Radio
    NYT New York Times
    NZH New Zealand Herald
    NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung
    OBS The Observer
    PA Press Association
    Pak T Pakistan Times
    Pak Trib Pakistan Tribune
    PAP Polish Press Agency
    PBS Public Broadcasting Service (USA)
    PDN Pakistan Daily News
    PDT Pakistan Daily Times
    Pen Peninsular, Qatar
    PI Philadelphia Inquirer
    Prav Pravda
    QNA Qatar News Agency
    REU Reuters
    RFE Radio Free Europe
    RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
    RLW ReliefWeb
    RSF Reporters Without Borders
    RTE Radio Telefís Éireann
    RWB Reporters Without Borders
    S & S Stars and Stripes
    Scot The Scotsman
    SDU-T San Diego Union-Tribune
    Sea T Seattle Times
    SFC San Francisco Chronicle
    Sky News Sky News
    S-L The Star-Ledger
    SMan Statesman
    SMH Sydney Morning Herald
    SNA Sophia News Agency
    SPA Saudi Press Agency
    ST Sunday Times (London)
    St Pet St. Petersburg Times
    ST[AU] Sunday Times (Australia)
    T. al-Sha'ab Tariq al-Sha'ab (newspaper)
    TA The Age
    TASS TASS News Agency
    TDN Turkish Daily News
    TEL The Telegraph
    TIME TIME Magazine
    Times The Times (London)
    TNI The News International (Pakistan)
    TOI Times of India
    Trib I Tribune India
    TS Toronto Star
    TTI The Telegraph (India)
    UN United Nations
    UO Utusan Online
    UPI United Press International
    US Fed N US Federal News Service
    USA-T USA Today
    VOA Voice of America
    VOI Voices of Iraq
    WP Washington Post
    WT Washington Times
    WV Warsaw Voice
    XIN Xinhua News Agency
    ZAM Zaman Online
    Zmag Zmag.org
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    This really is one hell of a train wreck in action. :P

    Half of those sources are online magazine pages. And 80% of the others are news companies who have nobody stationed in Iraq and who all rely on a handful of Western media for their info.

    Shit, though he nearly had me with the 'Gay City News' and 'Al-Bawaba Al-Bawaba'. :lol:
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    This really is one hell of a train wreck in action. :P

    Half of those sources are online magazine pages. The other 80% are news companies who have nobody stationed in Iraq and who all rely on a handful of Western media for their info.

    Shit, though he nearly had me with the 'Gay City News' and 'Al-Bawaba Al-Bawaba'. :lol:

    so 50% are online magazines. and the other 80% are news companies.


    yea, you sure are a smart one. not to mention you completely made up whatever you just said. you have NO clue who has people stationed in Iraq. not shocking that there is a HUGE list of sources and you immediately dismiss all 130% of it :roll:
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I suppose I should expect to read such nonsense when typo's are the only thing that certain people can get giddy about.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    edited September 2009
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I suppose I should expect to read such nonsense when typo's are the only thing that certain people can get giddy about.

    it wasn't a typo. you were just making shit up as you typed. wow, this is a joke.
    Post edited by jlew24asu on
  • i wonder how many have been and will be affected by the spent DU rounds? cancer and birth defect rates have gone off the chart in previous countries we dropped them and never cleaned up
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    jlew24asu wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    [

    I have done extensive research. why do you want me to do it for you?

    common sense alone debunks a million dead. I'll ask again...why has there been 1 million dead for 3+ years? seems odd that it holds steady at such a powerful number.
    if you could take a minute from your know-it-all-god complex, maybe you can post some of this research that you have uncovered so maybe those of us that are of inferior intellect might learn something? oh wait, if you had it i am sure you would have already done so :D

    it takes more then a simple google search and cut and paste party. if you are smart you'll research it. but I doubt it
    like i said, share your research with us, all knowing one. i have read up on this issue and i want to see you undeniably refute the one million dead claim. i have been waiting since yesterday afternoon. i have seen you try, but you are not going to disute the lancet report. prove to me that a million people have not died as a result of the invasion, the resulting starvation, disease, and terrorist attacks that would not have happened or been possible had we not invaded, the deaths from depleted uranium, etc...bottom line is you can't. its much easier for you to kick and scream and deny deny deny than present an airtight case to tell us that one million HAVE NOT died as a result of the invasion. i am waiting....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    like i said, share your research with us, all knowing one. i have read up on this issue and i want to see you undeniably refute the one million dead claim. i have been waiting since yesterday afternoon. i have seen you try, but you are not going to disute the lancet report.

    the lancet and ORB reports are hypothetical surveys based on 1500 people. thats all. it does not PROVE 1,000,000 people have died. sources such as IBC, while flawed and most likely underestimated, provide hard proof of the actual number of dead. I'll take those #'s over a survey anyday.

    you suck up the million number because of its significance, not because of its accuracy. its a very powerful number. but its a gross exaggeration.

    you claim you have done research? highly unlikely. I'd bet my life you didn't even know the lancet report was based on such a SMALL number of people.
    prove to me that a million people have not died as a result of the invasion,

    proving the actual number of dead is impossible. but with multiple reported sources, a close estimate can be achieved. comprehensive studies such as IBC do that. Lacent and ORB do not.
    the resulting starvation, disease, and terrorist attacks that would not have happened or been possible had we not invaded, the deaths from depleted uranium, etc...bottom line is you can't. its much easier for you to kick and scream and deny deny deny than present an airtight case to tell us that one million HAVE NOT died as a result of the invasion. i am waiting....

    are you done pounding your chest yet? I've provided several sources of information. I'm done holding your hand. the proof is on the ground. one million people are not dead. that is just a hypothetical number based on on tiny tiny little survey. IT PROVES NOTHING.

    "The IBC argues that the Lancet estimate is suspect "because of a very different conclusion reached by another random household survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS), using a comparable method but a considerably better-distributed and much larger sample." IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    so jlew......say its 100,000 dead, which even IBC admits is low...and its been shown that IBC is THE LOWEST figure out there.....lets just say it was 100,000 (laughable) instead of 900,000 (according to MIT/John Hopkins/published in the most respected medical journal in the world, etc).

    so its 100,000-does it really matter? the US invaded and killed -at least 100,000 people,. and that's not counting non-violent deaths attributed to the war (which some say IS in the 100,000's range)-is it ok then to have invaded? does it excuse the mass murder if its 'only' 100,000?

    i don't think so.




    and your trying to discredit maybe the most respected methodology regarding war casualties there is. there is no better way, according to everyone. its how the vietnam numbers were reached/congo/timor/etc.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    so jlew......say its 100,000 dead, which even IBC admits is low...and its been shown that IBC is THE LOWEST figure out there.....lets just say it was 100,000 (laughable) instead of 900,000 (according to MIT/John Hopkins/published in the most respected medical journal in the world, etc).

    100,000 isn't laughable, its accurate and backed up by actual evidence. Lacent is based on a survey of 1500 people. yes, IBC is most likely under the actual number, but its not off by 900,000.
    Commy wrote:
    so its 100,000-does it really matter?

    yes it does.. why don't we start saying 5 million? no no, how about 10 million? it matters because facts matter. maybe not to you, but they do to me.
    Commy wrote:
    the US invaded and killed -at least 100,000 people,.

    disgraceful how you lie like that. most of the deaths reported are from sunni/shiite violence. not by American forces.
    Commy wrote:
    and that's not counting non-violent deaths attributed to the war (which some say IS in the 100,000's range)-is it ok then to have invaded? does it excuse the mass murder if its 'only' 100,000?

    i don't think so.

    like I said, facts matter. but no, no matter what the number, its not ok that we invaded Iraq. should have never happened.
    Commy wrote:
    and your trying to discredit maybe the most respected methodology regarding war casualties there is. there is no better way, according to everyone. its how the vietnam numbers were reached/congo/timor/etc.

    a SURVEY of 1500 people does NOT prove anything. do some fucking research and you'll see why. all you do is hear a nice round number like a million and you're sold. no questions asked.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    there's been more than 100,000 deaths, jlew. yes, perhaps you can say there are 100,000 that have been documented, but you have to leave room for error because sometimes due to the war, civilians are unable to acquire enough food for example, or take on some illness or something. As a result of the war, those civilians died. Now, how many people died like that could be 200,000 or maybe even 500,000. Yes, it is easy for a number to be that high. do you know how many people were created as refugees as a result of this war? near 5,000,000 (UNHCR reported this, it's not really disputable). I bet you wouldn't expect that many, so considering there has been 5,000,000 who have been uprooted, I would say it is safe to assume that there are hundreds of thousands of deaths that were not acknowledged because they did not seem to be a direct result of the war (even if they were), such as starvation, illness, etc. You can also take for example the sanctions that were placed on Iraq in the early 90s which caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

    IBC also does not have anyone who speaks Arabic in their staff, so they are unable to make use of Arabic media sources and are heavily reliant on western sources as a result. To say that you do not agree with the 1,000,000 estimate is one thing, but you cannot then try to argue that IBC is accurate because it has too many flaws as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.