| |
Main
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:12:36
From: multi
Subject: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
The Iraqi health minister estimated the number of deaths of civilians
and police to be 150,000 since the US invasion of Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
He rejected the recent Lancet/Johns Hopkins figure of 600K, but the
latter figure includes deaths not handled by hospitals or morgues.
Many Iraqis were buried in mass graves --- after our attack on
Fallujah, for example. The Lancet figure also included Iraqis that
the US considered insurgents, i.e. non-civilians.
Fun Fact: one of the very few reasons Bush has given for the invasion
that turned out to be true was that Saddam tried to assassinate his
dad. If the health minister is correct, Bush's reprisal for that
attempted assassination has cost 150,000 lives. Saddam was recently
sentenced to hang for his reprisal for an assassination attempt
against him. The reprisal was alleged to have cost 140 lives.
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:52:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
John B. wrote:
> >
> Speaking of Fallujah, that city is now back in enemy hands.
>
That's ok. We'll just dump some more white phosphorus on them.
"Don't these people ever give up?"
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 07:35:30
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
annika1980 wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>> Speaking of Fallujah, that city is now back in enemy hands.
>>
>
> That's ok. We'll just dump some more white phosphorus on them.
>
> "Don't these people ever give up?"
>
They are committed to their fight, 1300 years and they are still fighting.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:44:09
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
In article <fbg7l2dmlahfu16f0vfds4527bnvja05bl@4ax.com >,
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> The Iraqi health minister estimated the number of deaths of civilians
> and police to be 150,000 since the US invasion of Iraq.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
>
> He rejected the recent Lancet/Johns Hopkins figure of 600K, but the
> latter figure includes deaths not handled by hospitals or morgues.
> Many Iraqis were buried in mass graves --- after our attack on
> Fallujah, for example. The Lancet figure also included Iraqis that
> the US considered insurgents, i.e. non-civilians.
The radio show This American Life last week discussed this very
topic in some depth. It's the one called "What's in a Number" at
http://www.thislife.org/
The whole show is there and it's free. It's well worth listening
to.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 14:49:06
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
"The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message
news:waderameyxiii-02FC60.20440909112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <fbg7l2dmlahfu16f0vfds4527bnvja05bl@4ax.com>,
> multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>> The Iraqi health minister estimated the number of deaths of civilians
>> and police to be 150,000 since the US invasion of Iraq.
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
>>
>> He rejected the recent Lancet/Johns Hopkins figure of 600K, but the
>> latter figure includes deaths not handled by hospitals or morgues.
>> Many Iraqis were buried in mass graves --- after our attack on
>> Fallujah, for example. The Lancet figure also included Iraqis that
>> the US considered insurgents, i.e. non-civilians.
>
> The radio show This American Life last week discussed this very
> topic in some depth. It's the one called "What's in a Number" at
>
> http://www.thislife.org/
>
> The whole show is there and it's free. It's well worth listening
> to.
There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JH
report published in the Guardian the other day, link below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
Helped me to make sense of the numbers and methodology.
Quote below:
"The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
of 655,000 additional deaths."
655,000 doesn't look unreasonable viewed this way and
may indeed be an underestimate.
Alan
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 07:40:46
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
"Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message
news:NK6dnSBVaKH_DMnYRVnyjg@bt.com...
>
> There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JH
> report published in the Guardian the other day, link below:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
> Helped me to make sense of the numbers and methodology.
> Quote below:
> "The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
> period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
> 1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
> that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
> Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
> year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
> size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
> of 655,000 additional deaths."
>
> 655,000 doesn't look unreasonable viewed this way and
> may indeed be an underestimate.
>
> Alan
The initial Lancet study included a range of accuracy for their report.
The range was something like 6,800 to 251,000.
A study with a possible range like this is just a WAG.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 11:31:56
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
In article <ovOdnfLsx_FD6MXYnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
> "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:NK6dnSBVaKH_DMnYRVnyjg@bt.com...
> >
> > There was also an excellent analysis of the Lancet/JH
> > report published in the Guardian the other day, link below:
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1925587,00.html
> > Helped me to make sense of the numbers and methodology.
> > Quote below:
> > "The researchers discovered that the death rate in the
> > period since the invasion has been 13.3 people per
> > 1,000 per year. Before the war, their figures indicate
> > that the mortality rate was only 5.5 per 1,000 per year.
> > Therefore the death rate has risen by 7.8 per 1,000 per
> > year, and if you multiply this by the time elapsed and the
> > size of the entire Iraqi population, you arrive at a figure
> > of 655,000 additional deaths."
> >
> > 655,000 doesn't look unreasonable viewed this way and
> > may indeed be an underestimate.
> >
> > Alan
>
> The initial Lancet study included a range of accuracy for their report.
>
> The range was something like 6,800 to 251,000.
> A study with a possible range like this is just a WAG.
No it is not. The 95% confidence interval for the 2004 study was
8,000 to 194,000. That does not mean that all values in that
interval are equally likely. Far from it. The surveyors are 97.5%
confident that at least 8,000 were killed. But they are 90%
confident that more than 44,000 were killed. As you move from
98,000 - to either side - the probability goes down.
This is a highly respected team of epidemiologists/statisticians.
Tony Blair and Colin Powell (in front of Congress) repeatedly
quoted previous studies by the same lead author (Les Roberts) on
war deaths in the Congo. The methodology in the two studies was
the same.
There's a good article on the 2004 Lancet study at
http://chronicle.com/free/2005/01/2005012701n.htm
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_an
d_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#_note-19
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:38:33
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
multi wrote:
> The Iraqi health minister estimated the number of deaths of civilians
> and police to be 150,000 since the US invasion of Iraq.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
>
> He rejected the recent Lancet/Johns Hopkins figure of 600K, but the
> latter figure includes deaths not handled by hospitals or morgues.
> Many Iraqis were buried in mass graves --- after our attack on
> Fallujah, for example. The Lancet figure also included Iraqis that
> the US considered insurgents, i.e. non-civilians.
>
Speaking of Fallujah, that city is now back in enemy hands.
> Fun Fact: one of the very few reasons Bush has given for the invasion
> that turned out to be true was that Saddam tried to assassinate his
> dad. If the health minister is correct, Bush's reprisal for that
> attempted assassination has cost 150,000 lives. Saddam was recently
> sentenced to hang for his reprisal for an assassination attempt
> against him. The reprisal was alleged to have cost 140 lives.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:54:29
From:
Subject: Re: OT: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
> >Speaking of Fallujah, that city is now back in enemy hands.< <
They want their terror state back.
|
| |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 07:36:31
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:fbg7l2dmlahfu16f0vfds4527bnvja05bl@4ax.com...
>
> Fun Fact: one of the very few reasons Bush has given for the invasion
> that turned out to be true was that Saddam tried to assassinate his
> dad. If the health minister is correct, Bush's reprisal for that
> attempted assassination has cost 150,000 lives. Saddam was recently
> sentenced to hang for his reprisal for an assassination attempt
> against him. The reprisal was alleged to have cost 140 lives.
Here is a fact. Bush never said this was a reason.
Back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theories....
|
| | |
Date: 13 Nov 2006 10:25:57
From: multi
Subject: Re: New estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq
|
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:36:31 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:fbg7l2dmlahfu16f0vfds4527bnvja05bl@4ax.com...
>>
>> Fun Fact: one of the very few reasons Bush has given for the invasion
>> that turned out to be true was that Saddam tried to assassinate his
>> dad. If the health minister is correct, Bush's reprisal for that
>> attempted assassination has cost 150,000 lives. Saddam was recently
>> sentenced to hang for his reprisal for an assassination attempt
>> against him. The reprisal was alleged to have cost 140 lives.
>
>Here is a fact. Bush never said this was a reason.
>
>Back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theories....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-17.html
" This is not a partisan issue, folks. This is an issue that is
important for America. This is an American issue, a uniquely American
issue. And it's -- as I reminded the members, that -- I say uniquely
American issue because I truly believe that now that the war has
changed, now that we're a battlefield, this man poses a much graver
threat than anybody could have possibly imagined. Other countries, of
course, bear the same risk. But there's no doubt his hatred is mainly
directed at us. There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is
a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.
I take my responsibility seriously as the Commander-in-Chief. I want
you to know I understand the -- how serious it is to commit our
troops. But I truly believe that history has called us, and we're
going to have to act if he doesn't he's expected to do. And when we
do, we'll be swift and strong. If we have to, we'll win. And the world
is more likely to be at peace after it happens. (Applause.) "
|
|
