On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:17:50 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:04:09 -0500, Beaner eater
wrote:

Cliff piddled around and finally wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:22:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The families of the 100,000+ dead civilians should be thanking the US for
liberating their country and getting rid of that evil dictator Sadam instead
of wanting an harm to come to their liberators.

Which 100,000 dead civilians might that be? Ok...Ill play. Cites?
No leftwing blogs are allowed btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

ONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around
100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq
in March last year.

In a survey published on the Web site of the Lancet medical journal on
Friday, experts from the United States and Iraq also said the risk of
death for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the invasion.

There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed
since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government
estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

Odd..how they extrapolate 100,000 from 10-30,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html

Article using the same extrapolated survey as above

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Same survey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3964311.stm

Same survey
The UK Government will "examine with very great care" claims 100,000
Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion, Jack
Straw has said.

A study in the Lancet said the majority of the victims were women and
children.

The UK foreign secretary told BBC's Today that another independent
estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The Lancet admitted the research was based on a small sample - under
1,000 Iraqi households - but said the findings were "convincing".
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/10/300266.html

Same survey.

I wonder if that survey was taken in Mosel or Tangrit. Strongholds of
Baathist activity, and targets of both ground and air action. Lots of
house to house fighting in those areas.

It would appear to me, that they did the same thing as taking the
crime rate from downtown East LA on a Saturday night, and extrapolated
that to the entire US.

Seems the Lancet has once again..screwed the pooch. It appears that
when civilian health organizations get involved in such things..they
tend to blow it. The US Center for Disease Control has been a strong
antigun propaganda organ for years. Until recently when their feet
were held to the fire..and they released an admittion that there was
no gun problem and their figures were bad. You will be hearing about
causes of death rates in the next day or two. Seems they have been
claiming that being overweight was the #2 Cause of Death...today they
revised their figures to 58 times LESS..making obesity #7.

The Lancet also has a history of such...interesting claims and then a
correction.

Now when Clitt can provide a more accurate and better set of
numbers..he will continue to be an ignorant twit.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a
probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most
of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the
entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could
be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask
relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the
civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet
website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after
Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the
dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count
only includes reports where there are feasible methods of
distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty
that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported
Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a
civilian count.

One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count
deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and
appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which
the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital
and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time
periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into
overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as
collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see
KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated
from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being
added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered
without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the
press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too
could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database.
Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute
the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's
database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely
conducted and without official interference - have the potential to
far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press
reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to
maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their
findings.

Hummm the Lancet author admits that many of the casualites may have
been combatants......

That seems a bit disengenious of Cliff AND the Lancet now doesnt it?

Snicker

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

Did gummer make a huge tactical error?
--
Cliff