War Crimes Update: Over One Million Dead In Iraq - Page 2 - PhillyBlog

gravenewworld · #11 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KENfmt

As much as I dislike the war, and the loss of life as a result, I also dislike false propaganda, even when it supports my position.

That methodology is sloppy, and the results are nowhere close to what anyone else is estimating anywhere.

IraqBodyCount has the number between 81k to 88k. That's quite a difference from a million.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Even 88k is wrong.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/5/484

Quote:

On the basis of the simulation that took into account the sampling errors and the uncertainty in factors for missing clusters, the level of underreporting, and the projected population numbers, we estimated that there were 151,000 violent deaths in Iraq (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) during the post-invasion period from March 2003 through June 2006.

Quote:

the Iraq Body Count is also affected by considerable underreporting but is likely to be a valuable way to monitor trends over time.

Grappler · #12 (**permalink**) 02-27-2008, 10:16 PM

That's it?! Only 1 million? Sh*t, we better start dropping more bombs!

Tannhauser · #13 (**permalink**) 02-28-2008, 02:40 PM

I guess the bigger question is:

Since Saddam was responsible for the deaths of about 25,000 Iraqis a year, the vast majority innocents, and since OIF started the number is about 18,000, many of whom were terrorists, why would any rational person view this as a negative development?

Ezra · #14 (**permalink**) 02-29-2008, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

I guess the bigger question is:

Since Saddam was responsible for the deaths of about 25,000 Iraqis a year, the vast majority innocents, and since OIF started the number is about 18,000, many of whom were terrorists, why would any rational person view this as a negative development?

My big question to you is... why is it better for the US to be responsible for these deaths?

You say 18K a year... I still say over a million (total).

http://www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom.aspx

Quote:

January 2008 - Update on Iraqi Casualty Data

Further survey work undertaken by ORB, in association with its research partner IIACSS, confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003.
>click here for more details

Nice photo. You get that from Hallmark?

Try reality.

Quote:

The Photos Washington Doesn't Want You To See

By Gary Kamiya

The grim reality of Iraq rarely appears in the American press. A photo gallery reveals the war's horrible human toll.

Images like this have rarely appeared in the world's media

This is a war the Bush administration does not want Americans to see. From the beginning, the U.S. government has attempted to censor information about the Iraq war, prohibiting photographs of the coffins of U.S. troops returning home and refusing as a matter of policy to keep track of the number of Iraqis who have been killed. President Bush has yet to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Click here to view the accompanying photo gallery on Salon.com. But first a few words of warning: these pictures are extremely graphic and disturbing.

To be sure, this see-no-evil approach is neither surprising nor new. With the qualified exception of the Vietnam War, when images of body bags appeared frequently on the nightly news, American governments have always tightly controlled images of war. There is good reason for this. In war, a picture really is worth a thousand words. No story about a battle, no matter how eloquent, possesses the raw power of a photograph. And when it comes to war's ultimate consequences -- death and suffering -- there is simply no comparison: a photo of a dead man or woman has the capacity to unsettle those who see it, sometimes forever. The bloated corpses photographed by Mathew Brady after Antietam remain in the mind, their puffy, shocked faces haunting us like an obscene truth almost 150 years after the soldiers were cut down.

"War is hell," said Gen. Sherman, and everyone dutifully agrees. Yet the hell in Iraq is almost never shown. The few exceptions -- the charred bodies of American contractors hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, the blood-spattered little girl wailing after her parents were killed next to her -- only prove the rule. Governments keep war hidden because it is hideous. To allow citizens to see its reality -- the shattered bodies, the wounded children, the incomprehensible mayhem -- is to risk eroding popular support for it. This is particularly true with wars that have less than overwhelming popular support to begin with. In the case of Vietnam, battlefield images played an important role in turning the tide of public opinion. And in Iraq, a war whose official justification has turned out to be false, and which a majority of the American people now believe to have been a mistake, the administration would prefer that these grim images never be seen.

But the media is also responsible for sanitizing the Iraq war, at times rendering it almost invisible. Most American publications have been reluctant to run graphic war images. Almost no photographs of the 1,868 U.S. troops who have been killed to date in Iraq have appeared in U.S. publications. In May 2005, the Los Angeles Times surveyed six major newspapers and the nation's two leading newsmagazines, and found that over a six-month period, no images of dead American troops appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Time or Newsweek. A single image of a covered body of a slain American ran in the Seattle Times. There were also comparatively few images of wounded Americans. The publications surveyed tended to run more images of dead or wounded Iraqis, but they have hardly been depicted in large numbers either.

Ezra · #15 (**permalink**) 03-03-2008, 06:33 AM

The "compassionate conservatives" on the board aren't overly concerned about human deaths. Non-American human death I should say.

Maybe this will pull a heart string...

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/4346...oit_puppy.html

*spoiler alert*

its a puppy being hurled off a cliff by an American soldier... don't watch it if you don't want to see that.

Tannhauser · #16 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

My big question to you is... why is it better for the US to be responsible for these deaths?

So when AQIZ goes into a town, rounds up all the men, takes them to the edge of town, and the next morning the soccer field is full of human heads, that's the U.S.'s fault?
You really have a pathological disdain for America, ezra.

Malloy · #17 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 07:44 AM

Your content has been unusually weak lately....and this post isnt helping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

The "compassionate conservatives" on the board aren't overly concerned about human deaths. Non-American human death I should say.

Maybe this will pull a heart string...

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/4346...oit_puppy.html

*spoiler alert*

its a puppy being hurled off a cliff by an American soldier... don't watch it if you don't want to see that.

Ezra · #18 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malloy

Your content has been unusually weak lately....and this post isnt helping.

Sorry... this better?

Soldiers blow up dog, find it funny
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4b_1198349822
soldiers blow up another dog, find it funny
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1be_1204379225&p=1
Here is a bbc docu. where a soldier kills a dog, a longer version exist, shows the dogs owner coming out visibly upset, nothing he can do, he has a heavily armed invading army in his backyard.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wj32twJXxsY&
Soldiers, tormenting a dog...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fy_BSksdvAM
Soldiers shoot another dog
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54e_1182844511
Soldiers throw grenade at sheepherder/sheep and find it funny
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULcj-Epr1rI&
Soldier shoots yet another dog
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a5ee2d6eb
killing civilians in front of their children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSTI3Ast45Q
scaring an injured puppy repeatedly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK2BTt9_YJk
blowing up a kitten and cheering
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=64d_1199566522&p=1

Dana Lynn · #19 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 04:28 PM

Ezra, you sorry ass, get a life!!! Only the most pathetic losers on the planet would seek out that kind of crap. Not to mention the fact that it supports none of your assertions, and instead, only validates Tannhauser's point about how anti-American you are. Not that we needed further proof, since you burn an American flag with every post, and obviously only frequent this forum to do just that. Again, get a life!

five apples · #20 (**permalink**) 03-04-2008, 05:11 PM

I heard the one million dead were all freedom haters, so they totally deserved it. At least all their family members can enjoy the tranquil, stable democracy that we have created there in the last few years. Thank god we didn't lose any soldiers and that the oil paid for all of it.

Oh wait, none of that is true.

There is a difference between hating this war and seeing it for the disaster it has been, and being anti american. The problem with some people on this board is that they equate criticism of their particular position with being anti american. Not sure how they got that right, but it gets a tad old to read it over and over again.