A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) concluded that—as of a year ago—600,000 Iraqis had died violently due to the war in Iraq. That is, the Iraqi death rate for the first 39 months of the war was just about 15,000 per month.

These shocking statistics are made all the more horrific when we realize that among the 600,000 or so victims of Iraqi war violence, the largest portion have been killed by the American military, not by carbombings or death squads, or violent criminals — or even all these groups combined.

The Lancet interviewers asked their Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died and who was responsible. The families were very good at the cause of death, telling the reporters that over half (56%) were due to gunshots, with an eighth due each to car bombs(13%), air strikes (13%) and other ordinance (14%). Only 4% were due to unknown causes.

The results are nevertheless staggering for those of us who read the American press: for the deaths that the victims families knew for sure who the perpetrator was, U.S. forces (or their “Coalition of the Willing” allies) were responsible for 56%. That is, we can be very confident that the Coalition had killed at least 180,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006. Moreover, we have every reason to believe that the U.S. is responsible for its pro rata share (or more) of the unattributed deaths. That means that the U.S. and its allies may well have killed upwards of 330,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006.

Even if we work with the lower, confirmed, figured of 180,000 Iraqi deaths caused by the occupation firepower, which yields an average of just over 5,000 Iraqis killed every month by U.S. forces and our allies since the beginning of the war. And we have to remember that the rate of fatalities was twice as high in 2006 as the overall average, meaning that the American average in 2006 was well over 10,000 per month, or something over 300 Iraqis every day, including Sundays. With the surge that began in 2007, the current figure is likely even higher.

HOW COME WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS?
These figures sound impossible to most Americans. Certainly 300 Iraqis killed by Americans each day would be headline news, over and over again. And yet, the electronic and print media simply do not tell us that the U.S. is killing all these people. We hear plenty about car bombers and death squads, but little about Americans killing Iraqis, except the occasional terrorist, and the even more occasional atrocity story.

How, then, is the US accomplishing this carnage, and why is it not newsworthy? The answer lies in another amazing statistic: this one released by the U.S. military and reported by the highly respectable Brookings Institution: for the past four years, the American military sends out something over 1000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill insurgents and terrorists. (Since February, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.)

These thousands of patrols regularly turn into thousands of Iraqi deaths because these patrols are not the “walk in the sun” that they appear to be in our mind’s eye. Actually, as independent journalist Nir Rosen described vividly and agonizingly in his indispensable book, In the Belly of the Green Bird, they involve a kind of energetic brutality that is only occasionally reported by an embedded American mainstream journalist.

This brutality is all very logical, once we understand the purpose and process of these patrols. American soldiers and marines are sent into hostile communities where virtually the entire population is supports the insurgency. They often have a list of suspects’ addresses; and their job is to interrorgate or arrest or kill the suspect; and search the house for incriminating evidence, particularly arms and ammunition, but also literature, video equipment, and other items that the insurgency depends upon for its political and military activities. When they don’t have lists of suspects, they conduct “house-to-house” searches, looking for suspicious behavior, individuals or evidence.

In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances: in many instances, for example, knocking on doors could invite gunshots through the doors. Their instructions are therefore to use the element of surprise whenever the situation appears to be dangerous—to break down doors, shoot at anything suspicious, and throw grenades into rooms or homes where there is any chance of resistance. If they encounter tangible resistance, they can call in artillery and/or air power rather than try to invade a building.

Here is how two Iraqi civilians described these patrols to Asia Times reporter Pepe Escobar:

“Hussein and Hasan confirm that the Americans usually ‘come at night, sometimes by day, always protected by helicopters.’ They "sometimes bomb houses, sometimes arrest people, sometimes throw missiles’”

If they encounter no resistance, these patrols can track down 30 or so suspects, or inspect several dozen homes, in a days work. That is, our 1000 or so patrols can invade 30,000 homes in a single day. But if an IED explodes under their Humvee or a sniper shoots at them from nearby, then their job is transformed into finding, capturing, or killing the perpetrator of the attack. Iraqi insurgents often set off IEDs and invite these firefights, in order to stall the patrols prevent the soldiers from forcibly entering 30 or so homes, violently accosting their residents, and perhaps beating, arresting, or simply humiliating the residents.

The cumulative brutality of these thousands of patrols can be culled from the recent inquest into the suspected war crimes committed in the city of Haditha back in November 19, 2005. The investigation seeks to ascertain whether American marines deliberately murdered 24 civilians including executing with point blank head shots nineteen unarmed women, children and older men in a single room, apparently in retribution for the death of one of their comrades earlier in the day. These horrific charges have made the incident newsworthy and propelled the investigation.

But it is the defense’s version of the story that makes the Haditha useful in understanding the translation of American patrols into hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. First Lt. William T. Kallop, the highest ranking officer in Haditha that day, told the military hearing that he had ordered a patrol “to ‘clear’ an Iraqi home in Haditha after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine” earlier in the day. Later, after the firefight that this action generated, he went to inspect the home and was shocked to discover that only civilians had been killed:

“He inspected one of the homes with a Marine corporal, Hector Salinas, and found women, children and older men who had been killed when marines threw a grenade into the room.
“‘What the hell happened, why aren’t there any insurgents here?’ Lieutenant Kallop testified that he asked aloud. ‘I looked at Corporal Salinas, and he looked just as shocked as I did.’

It is important to keep in mind that Lt. Kallop would not have been shocked if there had been one or more insurgents among the dead. What made the situation problematic was that all the fatalities were clearly civilians, and it led to the possibility that they had not been in hot pursuit of an enemy combatant.

Later, however, Lt. Kallop decided that even this situation involved no misbehavior on the part of his troops, after questioning Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, who had led the patrol and commanded the military action:

“Sergeant Wuterich had told him that they had killed people [in that house] after approaching a door to it and hearing the distinct metallic sound of an AK-47 being prepared to fire.
“‘I thought that was within the rules of engagement because the squad leader thought that he was about to kick in the door and walk into a machine gun,’ Lieutenant Kallop said.”
According to Kallop, the soldiers were thus following the rules of engagement because if the squad leader “thought” that he was going to be attacked (based on recognizing a noise through a closed door), he was authorized and justified to use the full lethal force of the patrol (in this case a hand grenade), enough to kill all the people huddled within the apartment.
__________________________________________
God bless the Americans

Many Americans are still too uncomfortable about this information to take it in. We need about 6,700 more brave, dead GIs to get second thoughts. Or another war while we're not ready. We make the rules, and the rules say Iraqis don't count. Bring 'em on.

The world outside of the USA is fully aware of the torture and killings. No 'ex-generals' telling the audience 'what great guys our soldiers are'. Much more coverage of civilians slaughtered and terrorized by an occupation.

If you were the militia commander of the resistace fighting Americans and you had a bit of time to do something before the Americans came back what would you do?

Is it inconceivable to think they would move dead and wounded men out of the area to make it look bad for the Americans? Would you grab rifles off of dead women and children to use them in later attacks?

You know if there's a good time to make a move against the US it's now that much of their troops are abroad. The Art Of War states to strike when there's such an opportunity. I guess there's no such alliance against the US afterall since there's no attack on US outside of a few sad little terrorists. I really have no idea why these self-proclaimed freedom fighters are fighting he frontline when they can take it to their backyard. Frankly they deserve to die for being so stupid IMO. By hanging around to fight in Iraq these jihad baka are just going to invole civilians of their own faith as well. Not the best way to make any radical statement to the world ne. However if they keep at it they might foirce a second Vietnam job on the US troops. Even so that's an unnecessary long drawn out plan IMO. Attrition can be but is not always the best ne...

desi: "Is it inconceivable to think they would move dead and wounded men out of the area to make it look bad for the Americans? Would you grab rifles off of dead women and children to use them in later attacks?"

Is it conceivable that they shoot their own kids in their own home windows and doorways. Then take the toddler's AK. Pick up that little girl's RPG. They must go to a lot of trouble just to make Americans look bad. That's more likely than rogue Americans in Iraq. Right?

These guys get on an airplane anywhere near the US they're going to get picked up by interpol and shipped to Gitmo or some other cozy place for a long drawn out painful conversation. Big brother knows who goes to terrorist training camps.

desi: "Is it inconceivable to think they would move dead and wounded men out of the area to make it look bad for the Americans? Would you grab rifles off of dead women and children to use them in later attacks?"

Is it conceivable that they then shoot their own kids in their own home windows and doorways. They must all be really sick people to do that just to make Americans look bad. That's more likely than rogue Americans in Iraq. Right?

I'm sure Americans shot them and blew them up. Just like I'm sure the squad leader heard a bolt hit home before fragging the room. I would have done the same thing in his place.

desi: "Big brother knows who goes to terrorist training camps."

Big Brother's an idiot.

"Just like I'm sure the squad leader heard a bolt hit home before fragging the room."

You don't know what he heard. You can't frag and wildly shoot up a house just because you're scared. Not if you want to be considered the Good Guys.

"Is it inconceivable to think they would move dead and wounded men out of the area to make it look bad for the Americans? Would you grab rifles off of dead women and children to use them in later attacks?"

If that's true, then they also shoot their own kids in their own windows and doorways. They must all be really sick people to do that and cover it up, that is if there really are no rogue Americans in Iraq.


The tie them up and hack off their heads,

40 tortured bodies found in Baghdad
Most showed signs of torture and had their hands and legs bound; five were beheaded. Operation Together Forward, a security drive to clear the capital ...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-09/28/content_698895.htm

Bodies of 40 torture victims found in Baghdad | Iraq | Guardian ...
... 100 miles south-east of the Iraqi capital. Most showed signs of torture, and had their hands and legs bound. Five had been beheaded. ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1882949,00.html

The Jawa Report: MSM Replaces Term, Obvious Signs of Torture ...
The beheaded remains were found in the Sunni Muslim village of Um al-Abeed, ... and the PAO liaison to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior to investigate. ...
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188498.php

aq Body Count | DATABASE | Latest Updates
k2757, 21 Mar 2006, -, Jamiya, west Baghdad, bodies found bound, shot and tortured, gunfire, executed, tortured, 5, 5, CNN 22 Mar Al-Shar 21 Mar ...
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount_date_down116.php?ts=1183921237

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World
Iraqis Tortured and Beheaded for Surfing the Web. ...... Twenty-nine victims of sectarian hatred within the Religion of Peace are found bound and executed. ...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Monday: 83 Iraqis Killed, 42 Wounded; GI Missing - Antiwar.com
In Amarah, the beheaded, bullet-riddled and severely tortured body of Hussein al-Bahadli was found; he was the brother of a local Mahdi Army leader whose ...
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=9905

Bodies of 12 Baghdad Pepsi workers found [Feeds4All.com]
Bodies of victims bound, tortured and shot have been found in Baghdad for months. ... The bodies, nine of whom were beheaded, were discovered near the Sunni ...
http://www.feeds4all.com/Item.aspx?ItemID=14718585

OC Online Community home - In Pictures: Iraqi Children Witness ...
Should we adopt the practice of beheading people here instead of 'lethal ..... The family was bound and tortured, before their throats were slit in accord ...
http://talk.ocregister.com/archive/index.php/t-13269.html

2006 in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The bodies of 16 Iraqis who had been kidnapped and tortured were found .... [262]**Two women were found dead in Kut. One was beheaded, the other burned. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_in_Iraq


Security Ring for Baghdad Underway - washingtonpost.com
The plans were announced on a day when officials said 52 bound and tortured corpses were found across Baghdad over a 24-hour period. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091501232_pf.html

Iraq Body Count | DATABASE | Latest Updates
k4370, 26 Oct 2006, -, Mosul, bodies found bound and shot, gunfire, executed ... 'a citizen was killed and ten others, including three Iraqi policemen, ...
http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount_date_down58.php?ts=1183543750

There are 10,600 more sites on how the Terrorist treat the Iraqi men, women, and children.

desi: "Big brother knows who goes to terrorist training camps."

Big Brother's an idiot.

Big Brother looks like an idiot. He has alot of useful idiots working for him. His moves are calculated years in advance though. What appears random is actually rehearsed and planned for. As the rest of us ooh and aah big brother merely notices and leads us to the next spectacle as the weight from our pockets lightens and our vast freedoms diminish ever so slowly like a frog in hot water.

"[Terrists] tie them up and hack off their heads..."

Yes, but they've fallen far behind. We take out more in their sleep, and going to school, work, and the hospital. Every day.

"Just like I'm sure the squad leader heard a bolt hit home before fragging the room."

You don't know what he heard. You can't frag and wildly shoot up a house just because you're scared. Not if you want to be considered the Good Guys.


Everyone knows if you shoot civilians you take heat for it and probably go to the brig. Even if you mistreat prisoners on orders this happens.

You can and you do attack if you think you are in danger if you want to make it back home alive at the end of the day.

desi: "[Big Brother's] moves are calculated years in advance though"

Miscalculated.

...You can't frag and wildly shoot up a house just because you're scared.


"You can and you do if you want to make it back home alive at the end of the day."

Not too smart. You have another patrol in the same neighborhood in 4 hours. Get your shit together. There's an IED out there with your brave name on it.

Bet all the "insurgent" killings were in Shiite districts. By US armed Sunnis.

http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750

Reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq as of Wednesday, 11th July 2007

So even if we are not invlouved, we still are blaimed for the deaths of Iraqis civilians, not the Terrorist but the U.S. is blaimed? and it is in print and it is from the site that sam and hype love to point out,

desi: "[Big Brother's] moves are calculated years in advance though"

Miscalculated.

Yeah. We fumbled our way into control of the hottest piece of real estate on the planet, as mineral rights go. I've got a bridge I've been looking to get rid of. Give you a hell of a good deal on it.

"We fumbled our way into control of the hottest piece of real estate on the planet, as mineral rights go."

No, we have fucked ourselves right out of it. Are you nearsighted?

Yeah too bad the Lancet showed how underreported the deaths are.

desi: "[Big Brother's] moves are calculated years in advance though"

Miscalculated.

...You can't frag and wildly shoot up a house just because you're scared.


"You can and you do if you want to make it back home alive at the end of the day."

Not too smart. You have another patrol in the same neighborhood in 4 hours. Get your shit together. There's an IED out there with your brave name on it.


I'm glad the draft isn't in effect. I sleep better at night knowing people like you aren't in charge of men over there.

"We fumbled our way into control of the hottest piece of real estate on the planet, as mineral rights go."

No, we have fucked ourselves right out of it. Are you nearsighted?

Yes, thank you.

I have just done a quick run of the death total in Iraq and starting in June of 2004, deaths from U.S. and Coalition military action drops of dramatically, and death from terrorist activity starts to rise, foreign fighters, and then shifting to factional differences, and lastly foreign fighters, the vast majority of deaths as listed in http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750, are from terrorist and sectarian violence, not American action and that is from a anti American Site.

Its from the Lancet, a respected medical journal from a study by John Hopkins and the army details are from the well respected Brookings Institution. Its interesting how the rightwingers are clinging to Iraq Body count when all respected scholars in the field have accepted the Lancet figures. And in this OP I used the lowest possible estimate, 180,000; not the possible 600,000.

Besides this may give you a clue as to why there are so many "insurgents" in Iraq.

You know if there's a good time to make a move against the US it's now that much of their troops are abroad. The Art Of War states to strike when there's such an opportunity..


ahh i get a shiver down my spine when somebody quotes the art of war. its like sex to me,

:):):)

peace.

Why can't we just have a war of art? It would be more colorful, and considerably more enjoyable for all.

Its from the Lancet, a respected medical journal from a study by John Hopkins and the army details are from the well respected Brookings Institution.

A detailed killing by killing Date time cause and weapon used report the people of http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750, are very thorough in there documentation of the death total,


k276 14 Jul 2004 PM between Beiji and Tikrit convoy carrying Nineveh governor, Osama Youssef Kashmoula, killed with 2 guards grenades and gunfire 3 3 AP 15 Jul
REU 14 Jul

k275 11 Jul 2004 AM Beiji US military patrol, civilian killed roadside bomb 1 1 AP 11 Jun
REU 11 Jul

k271 6 Jul 2004 4:15 PM Khalis local officials attending wake suicide car bomb 13 13 BG 07 Jul
Al Jaz 07 Jul

k265 4 Jul 2004 8:00 PM Baquba office of district chief, Uday Adnan al-Kharn, 2 relatives killed gunfire 2 2 AFP 06 Jul
MEO 05 Jul

Yes exquisitely detailed as to who was killed, how many killed weapons use, and date, and the terrorist are the one who have done the killing since June 2004

Why can't we just have a war of art? It would be more colorful, and considerably more enjoyable for all.

then maybe the french can win something.


peace.

SAM:

Is your opening post original, or is there a source?

A detailed killing by killing Date time cause and weapon used report the people of http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750, are very thorough in there documentation of the death total,




k275 11 Jul 2004 AM Beiji US military patrol, civilian killed roadside bomb 1 1 AP 11 Jun
REU 11 Jul

k271 6 Jul 2004 4:15 PM Khalis local officials attending wake suicide car bomb 13 13 BG 07 Jul
Al Jaz 07 Jul

k265 4 Jul 2004 8:00 PM Baquba office of district chief, Uday Adnan al-Kharn, 2 relatives killed gunfire 2 2 AFP 06 Jul
MEO 05 Jul

Yes exquisitely detailed as to who was killed, how many killed weapons use, and date, and the terrorist are the one who have done the killing since June 2004


we don't do body counts. :yawn:

we don't do body counts. :yawn:

Yes your own anti war people do body counts, and guess what the body counts show?

They show that if the terrorist had stayed out all of these people would be alive today,

k6546 27 May 2007 - Baghdad bodies found shot dead gunfire, executed 44 44 NINA 27 May
Al-Shar 28 May
k6547 27 May 2007 PM New Baghdad Khalil Ibrahim Al-Zahawi, famous Arabic calligrapher gunfire 1 1 KUNA 27 May
AP 27 May
k6548 27 May 2007 PM Mohammad Sakran, southwest of Baquba - mortar rounds 3 3 Al-Iraq 27 May
NINA 28 May
k6549 27 May 2007 - Obaidi, east Baghdad - roadside bomb 1 1 NINA 27 May
XIN 28 May
k6550 27 May 2007 - Al-Ta'mim, Ramadi police checkpoint car bomb, possibly suicide 7 7 McCla 27 May
LAT 28 May
k6551 27 May 2007 - Abi al-Khasib, near Basra Salem al-Musawi, Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council official, escort also killed gunfire 2 2 NINA 27 May
VOI 27 May
k6552 26 May 2007 -
27 May 2007 - Kirkuk Turkman singer, responsible for music programming for local TV station found in burning car 1 1 McCla 27 May
LAT 28 May
k6553 27 May 2007 - Fadhil, Baghdad clashes between US/Iraqi forces and gunmen crossfire 1 1 NINA 27 May
NYT 28 May
k6554 27 May 2007 - Nahrawan - mortar rounds 2 2 REU 28 May
XIN 28 May
k6535 26 May 2007 PM Mansour, Baghdad - roadside bomb 1 1 REU 26 May
NINA 26 May
k6536 26 May 2007 AM Alam, between Tikrit and Dour police Captain Hamid Abdullah gunfire 1 1 NINA 26 May
McCla 26 May
k6537 26 May 2007 4:00 PM near Abu Uluk cemetery, central Kirkuk charred body found in car burnt to death 1 1 REU 26 May
McCla 26 May
k6538 26 May 2007 - Baghdad bodies found shot dead gunfire, executed 20 20 NINA 26 May
VOI 26 May
k6539 26 May 2007 around 12:00 PM Bayaa, southwest Baghdad market area car bomb 5 7 REU 26 May
NINA 26 May
KUNA 26 May
VOI 26 May
k6540 26 May 2007 PM Bayaa, southwest Baghdad residential area mortar rounds 2 2 NINA 26 May
AFP 26 May
k6541 26 May 2007 AM Basra suspected militiamen British air strike 8 8 REU 26 May
AFP 26 May
k6542 26 May 2007 - Al-Ria, southwest Baghdad police checkpoint gunfire 3 3 REU 26 May
NINA 26 May
k6527 25 May 2007 - Falluja house of policeman car bomb 2 2 DPA 25 May
VOI 25 May
k6528 25 May 2007 7:50 PM Rubaidha, Daquq bodies found tortured tortured 3 3 REU 25 May
McCla 27 May
k6529 25 May 2007 8:00 PM Al Amil, southwest Baghdad - mortar round 2 2 McCla 25 May
XIN 25 May
k6530 25 May 2007 PM Aswad, near Muqdadiya clashes between villagers and gunmen gunfire 17 17 NINA 25 May
Al-Shar 26 May
k6531 25 May 2007 8:00 PM Abu Dshier, south Baghdad residential area mortar rounds 1 1 McCla 25 May
NINA 25 May
k6532 25 May 2007 - Baghdad bodies found shot dead gunfire, executed 20 20 McCla 25 May
VOI 25 May
k6533 25 May 2007 PM Um Al Romman, Jadidat al-Shat, near Baquba village of Umm al-Rumanah gunfire 3 3 McCla 25 May
Al-Shar 25 May
k6534 25 May 2007 AM Sadr City, Baghdad - US airstrikes 3 3 LAT 25 May
WP 26 May
k6505 23 May 2007 -
24 May 2007 overnight central Samarra police patrol roadside bomb 5 5 REU 23 May
VOI 24 May
k6518 23 May 2007 -
24 May 2007 - Al-Yarmok, Falluja Allawi al-Issawi, member of Albu Issa tribe gunfire 1 1 NYT 25 May
VOI 24 May
k6519 24 May 2007 9-11:30 AM Andalus, central Falluja funeral procession for Allawi al-Isawi suicide car bomb 33 34 VOI 24 May
WP 25 May
k6520 24 May 2007 - west Baghdad US army patrol roadside bomb, interpreter killed 1 1 REU 25 May
VOI 25 May
k6521 24 May 2007 6:30 AM Al-Dakhil Street, Sadr City, Baghdad construction workers waiting for work roadside bomb 1 2 VOI 24 May
Al-Shar 24 May
REU 24 May
KUNA 24 May
k6522 24 May 2007 PM Abu Dsheer, Dora, Baghdad - mortar round 1 1 McCla 24 May
NINA 24 May
k6523 24 May 2007 - Baghdad bodies found shot dead gunfire, executed 22 22 McCla 24 May
NINA 24 May
k6524 24 May 2007 4:30 PM Husseiniyah, north Baghdad passengers in minibus and police and civilians coming to their rescue gunfire, bomb in bus 13 13 McCla 24 May
NINA 24 May
k6525 24 May 2007 - Shaab, north Baghdad passengers in minibus suicide bomber 1 1 REU 24 May
KUNA 24 May
k6503 23 May 2007 - Chibernat, north of Baquba bodies ov kidnap victims found executed 9 9 VOI 23 May
NINA 26 May
k6504 23 May 2007 9:30 - 11:00 AM Sinak, central Baghdad shops or Blackwater security convoy gunfire 4 5 CNN 23 May
AP 23 May
NINA 23 May
McCla 23 May
k6506 23 May 2007 PM Palestine Street, east Baghdad Ali Salim Hasan Abbas official at Labour and Social Affairs Ministry gunfire 1 1 NINA 23 May
VOI 23 May
k6507 23 May 2007 3:00 PM Atar Street, Karrada, Baghdad - mortar rounds 3 6 REU 23 May
McCla 23 May
AP 23 May
Al-Shar 24 May
k6508 23 May 2007 - Hawi, Mosul Peshmerga forces roadside bomb 1 3 REU 23 May
Al-Shar 24 May
AP 23 May
k6509 23 May 2007 - Ramadi bodies found shot, tortured - 5 5 REU 23 May
LAT 24 May
k6510 23 May 2007 - Baghdad bodies found shot dead - 30 30 NINA 23 May
LAT 24 May
k6511 23 May 2007 - Zumar, northwest of Mosul member of Kurdistan Democratic Party drive-by shooting 1 1 REU 23 May
AP 23 May
Incident
code Date Time Location Target Weapons Reported Minimum Reported

SAM:

Is your opening post original, or is there a source?

Its an article by M Schwatrz.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/24310

I thought I put the link. :)

Sorry the Lancet study shows that 56% of the deaths are by the US and coalition, I'm not surprised the deaths are not reported.

Please stop spamming the forum, use links, no one reads your BS anyway.

Hay sam why didn't lancet use http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750, in its report, they have very detailed reports of the killings in Iraq, and who caused them.

They preferred interviews and death certificates from the Iraqis.

Sorry the Lancet study shows that 56% of the deaths are by the US and coalition, I'm not surprised the deaths are not reported.

Please stop spamming the forum, use links, no one reads your BS anyway.

You don't read and its no BS, it fact, or can you refute the documentation of
http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750, it is very detailed, or is it because that you can't refute it that you want to bury it, and dismiss it. It is all from your own side of the war sam, from your own people. I could post another 190 pages of documentation as to who is doing the killing, and it is the IslamicTerrorist, al Quaida, Moslem killing Moslem, innocent men women and children, it is all in the tables of; http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750

They preferred interviews and death certificates from the Iraqis.

The same methodology that
http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750,
uses?

Dam precise in their identification of the people and incidents.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount_date_down2.php?ts=1184208196

METHODOLOGY AND DETAILS...


The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:

Date of incident
Time of incident
Location of incident
Target as stated by military sources
Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.

Except that iraqbodycount uses the media, not personal interviews;the Lancet publication is a study, not a media report.

Except that iraqbodycount uses the media, not personal interviews;the Lancet publication is a study, not a media report.

And as we all know people don't lie. can Lancet back up every interview with a time, place, weapon used, corroboration from another independent source? How many of the interviews are backed up by that?

You'll have to show that the Lancet published fraudulent data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

You'll have to show that the Lancet published fraudulent data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

The data I posted from;

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/databas...?ts=1184208196

isn't fraudulent, it seem to be very well documented, or are you telling us that the news media that you love to shove down our throats when it has a story that you agree with are liars? and that the Causalities that they post and the Bombing and Beheadings, the Assassinations are all figments of the news medias imagination?

A media reporter is limited by journalistic access, or don't you recognise that obvious fact?

Medical researchers are not.

And you still have to show why the Lancet data is fraudulent.


As Iraq Body Count states on its website:

"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."

A media reporter is limited by journalistic access, or don't you recognise that obvious fact?

Medical researchers are not.

And you still have to show why the Lancet data is fraudulent.


As Iraq Body Count states on its website:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00436.htm

Lancet Iraq Study Flawed: Death Toll Too High
Friday, 20 October 2006, 10:36 am
Press Release:
Lancet Study Fundamentally Flawed: Death Toll Too High
October 19, 2006 – 1 page –
For immediate release:

Researchers at Oxford University and Royal Holloway, University of London have found serious flaws in the survey of Iraqi deaths published last week in the Lancet.

Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London contend that the study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq.

->The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed.

->Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the researchers surveyed.

->This obvious selection bias would not matter if you were conducting a simple survey on immunisation rates for which the methodology was designed.

->In short, the closer you are to a main road, the more likely you are to die in violent activity. So if researchers only count people living close to a main road then it comes as no surprise they will over count the dead.

During email discussions between the Oxford-Royal Holloway team and the Johns Hopkins team conducted through a reporter for Science, for an article to be published October 20, it became clear that the authors of the study had not implemented a clear, well-defined and justifiable methodology. The Oxford-Royal Holloway team therefore believes that the scientific community should now re-analyze this study in depth.


The team can be reached for comment at;

Gourley: s.gourley1 @ physics.ox.ac.uk mobile:+44 (0) 7733113558
Johnson: n.johnson @ physics.ox.ac.uk
Spagat: M.Spagat @ rhul.ac.uk

http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750



So even if we are not invlouved, we still are blaimed for the deaths of Iraqis civilians, not the Terrorist but the U.S. is blaimed? and it is in print and it is from the site that sam and hype love to point out,

were blamed because we started the war it is a valid argument

were blamed because we started the war it is a valid argument


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

No. THEY started the war back in '79 when they took our guys hostage over in Iran. That should have been our warning sign but, no. We had an impotent POTUS that did nothing, just reinforced their bad behavior. Then we had years of nothing being done to stop them.

I didn't read all the replies but my answer is no. We are killing very few. It is the evil terrorist "insurgents" that are doing all the killing.
The Real 2006 'Iraq Body Count': 16,791 Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
225 Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
and Islamic Terrorists.

Iraqis aren't dying from war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists, and terrorists who may have been counted as civilians)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

And: Al-Qaeda 'kills, wounds' 4000 in six months::(

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22060251-38201,00.html

As far as in the 2 days in Iraq: alQaida killed/wounded: 58 villagers in Sherween, 41 in sectarian violence in Baghdad, 4 Nasariyah children, 12 people in Tikrit, 29 in Balad in a roadside bombing, 12 in Mada'en where workers at a Pepsi plant are abducted and slaughtered by Shia terrorists, 55 in Baghdad in various bombing and shooting attacks by jihadis. In Ghazaliya 4 members of a family are kidnapped and strangled by Islamic terrorists....

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

So the answer is still no. The US isn't killing Iraqis. alQaida is. :(

No. THEY started the war back in '79 when they took our guys hostage over in Iran. That should have been our warning sign but, no. We had an impotent POTUS that did nothing, just reinforced their bad behavior. Then we had years of nothing being done to stop them.(

Actually it started further back when the CIA toppled the democratic government of Iran (Mossadegh) for nationalising the Iranian oil (1953) and put their puppet Shah in place. They also trained the vicious Savak and for 25 years the Iranian liberals were tortured and killed. When the people finally revolted, they entered the US embassy and found evidence of the US coup, that was when there was a revolution and they kidnapped the Americans.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/25/1534210

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00436.htm

Lancet Iraq Study Flawed: Death Toll Too High
Friday, 20 October 2006, 10:36 am
Press Release:
Lancet Study Fundamentally Flawed: Death Toll Too High
October 19, 2006 – 1 page –
For immediate release:

And what is the evidence that the figures are too high?

Do they have an explanation for that?

They did another study and confirmed their first results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2 003_invasion_of_Iraq

->The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed.

->Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the researchers surveyed.

->This obvious selection bias would not matter if you were conducting a simple survey on immunisation rates for which the methodology was designed.

->In short, the closer you are to a main road, the more likely you are to die in violent activity. So if researchers only count people living close to a main road then it comes as no surprise they will over count the dead.

During email discussions between the Oxford-Royal Holloway team and the Johns Hopkins team conducted through a reporter for Science, for an article to be published October 20, it became clear that the authors of the study had not implemented a clear, well-defined and justifiable methodology. The Oxford-Royal Holloway team therefore believes that the scientific community should now re-analyze this study in depth.

Iraqi insurgents often set off IEDs and invite these firefights, in order to stall the patrols prevent the soldiers from forcibly entering 30 or so homes, violently accosting their residents, and perhaps beating, arresting, or simply humiliating the residents.

I kinda don't believe this bit. Any group that's willing to blow the hell out of hundreds of civilians just to make a point one day doesn't strike me as "Pancho Villa" types that now turn about and ever-so-nobly try to protect them the next. Seriously: setting off a bomb is going to prevent the Americans from doing a search?

As for the Lancet stats; yeah, there was all kinds of stink about them. CIs too high, method of sampling unconservative, etc.

I kinda don't believe this bit. Any group that's willing to blow the hell out of hundreds of civilians just to make a point one day doesn't strike me as "Pancho Villa" types that now turn about and ever-so-nobly try to protect them the next. Seriously: setting off a bomb is going to prevent the Americans from doing a search?

As for the Lancet stats; yeah, there was all kinds of stink about them. CIs too high, method of sampling unconservative, etc.

You do realise that you are not differentiating between the groups funded by the US and the groups against the US?

And even if you use the lower estimates of the Lancet review (as I did) its still 108,000 Iraqis. The true figure is probably double that. Its a standard methodology in field studies, and John Hopkins is known in the field of epi for using these estimates as the best possible in all kinds of conflicts. Policy decisions are made based on John Hopkins data.

Interpretation

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2 003_invasion_of_Iraq
Or you questioning all epidemiological studies as nonsensical?

->The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed.

->Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the researchers surveyed.

->This obvious selection bias would not matter if you were conducting a simple survey on immunisation rates for which the methodology was designed.

->In short, the closer you are to a main road, the more likely you are to die in violent activity. So if researchers only count people living close to a main road then it comes as no surprise they will over count the dead.

During email discussions between the Oxford-Royal Holloway team and the Johns Hopkins team conducted through a reporter for Science, for an article to be published October 20, it became clear that the authors of the study had not implemented a clear, well-defined and justifiable methodology. The Oxford-Royal Holloway team therefore believes that the scientific community should now re-analyze this study in depth.

All you have to do is give the real figures, but then you don't do body counts and the Lancet review is the ONLY study conducted using the best available methods in the field. As such, unless the Pentagon is keeping tabs, they are the ones that stand scrutiny.

The human cost of the Iraq war

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

All you have to do is give the real figures, but then you don't do body counts and the Lancet review is the ONLY study conducted using the best available methods in the field. As such, unless the Pentagon is keeping tabs, they are the ones that stand scrutiny.

I have the;

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
http://iraqbodycount.net/database/bo...?ts=1183543750

They have a very precise listing, that is verifiable incident by incident, not a extrapolation by interview, which ends with a estimated death toll.

The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:

Date of incident
Time of incident
Location of incident
Target as stated by military sources
Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.

I have the;



They have a very precise listing, that is verifiable incident by incident, not a extrapolation by interview, which ends with a estimated death toll.

As Iraq Body Count states on its website:
“
"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."

As Iraq Body Count states on its website:
“
"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."

Which is a far better count, a estimated death count, or a actual count of those killed in incidents, and what we are looking for is deaths caused by military action, and those are reported in the news and by the Hospitals.

Please tell me when the news media doesn't report the smallest incident of mayhem in Iraq? and what the Lancet piece was purported to be was the numbers of deaths caused by the war.
The methodology that they used was interviews, that were not backed up with death certificates, and from that they made a estimate of the death toll, which in the end means that the count could be anything they wanted.
Iraq Body Count uses identifiable deaths that are reported either in the news or confirmed by death certificate, and even there some duplication of reported deaths occurs, but they have identifiable point of reference, and are honest enough to use only actual incidents for their numbers, though they want to intimate that the toll is much higher because some deaths may go unreported.

In case you don't know it, journalists only go where it is safe to go now in Iraq. Which is not in many places

JOURNALISTS KILLED ON DUTY: 108* (http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Iraq_danger.html)

It started as arguably the best-covered war in history: Hundreds of reporters traveled with the military as it invaded Iraq, and then hundreds more moved freely around the country as troops secured Baghdad. Today, it has become for some journalists the least-covered war.

Newspapers and other media have cut the number of reporters in the war zone. The reporters who remain in Iraq find leaving their hotels or rental houses difficult for fear of being killed or kidnapped.

To get to the news, they generally must either "embed" with U.S. or Iraqi forces, work the phones from their hotels or houses, send Iraqi staff to events or make carefully planned reporting trips protected by hired guards.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-03-22-media-criticism_x.htm

Media Map of Iraq
A bird's-eye view of where journalists are (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=27071)

And the Lancet estimate is the best right now.

You do realise that you are not differentiating between the groups funded by the US and the groups against the US?

The US is funding terrorists to blow up civilians in Iraq?

And even if you use the lower estimates of the Lancet review (as I did) its still 108,000 Iraqis. The true figure is probably double that. Its a standard methodology in field studies, and John Hopkins is known in the field of epi for using these estimates as the best possible in all kinds of conflicts. Policy decisions are made based on John Hopkins data.

From this sampling technique specifically?

Or you questioning all epidemiological studies as nonsensical?

I'm questioning ones where you go to an area that's hostile to a given power and ask them how many of their civilians this power killed. It's a bit open to bias.

The methodology that they used was interviews, that were not backed up with death certificates, 90% of the deaths counted by Lancet were backed up with death certificates. The rest had other evidentiary support.

Or so they claimed in their "methods" section, in the original report.

Policy decisions are made based on John Hopkins data. ”

From this sampling technique specifically? Yes.
I'm questioning ones where you go to an area that's hostile to a given power and ask them how many of their civilians this power killed. It's a bit open to bias. That's dealt with in the "methods" section, as well. They were more careful than that in putting the questions.

They classified the deaths by violence into three categories: Coalition definitely, Iraqi definitely (begs the question of whose Iraqi), and unknown source. The three categories were similar in size.

The oddity I noticed was the high ratio of Coalition firearms kills to Coalition bomb kills - that might be evidence of a "main street" bias, if the US is not bombing as much on main streets, or shooting relatively more. So either there would be fewer firearms deaths and possibly more bomb deaths elsewhere, or the civilian firearms kills in Iraq are at a level that calls attention to the ROE.

Again, the US military direct observation numbers would be very handy - but the military is not compiling them, they say.

No. THEY started the war back in '79 when they took our guys hostage over in Iran. That should have been our warning sign but, no. We had an impotent POTUS that did nothing, just reinforced their bad behavior. Then we had years of nothing being done to stop them.

I didn't read all the replies but my answer is no. We are killing very few. It is the evil terrorist "insurgents" that are doing all the killing.
The Real 2006 'Iraq Body Count': 16,791 Iraqi civilians killed last year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
225 Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
and Islamic Terrorists.

Iraqis aren't dying from war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists, and terrorists who may have been counted as civilians)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

And: Al-Qaeda 'kills, wounds' 4000 in six months::(

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22060251-38201,00.html

As far as in the 2 days in Iraq: alQaida killed/wounded: 58 villagers in Sherween, 41 in sectarian violence in Baghdad, 4 Nasariyah children, 12 people in Tikrit, 29 in Balad in a roadside bombing, 12 in Mada'en where workers at a Pepsi plant are abducted and slaughtered by Shia terrorists, 55 in Baghdad in various bombing and shooting attacks by jihadis. In Ghazaliya 4 members of a family are kidnapped and strangled by Islamic terrorists....

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

So the answer is still no. The US isn't killing Iraqis. alQaida is. :(

by the way if alqueada is so evil we did we ignore them and invade iraq?

by the way if alqueada is so evil we did we ignore them and invade iraq?

We didn't, we went after them in Afghanistan if you would care to notice the news reports from that time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) began on October 7, 2001, as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States of America (U.S.). This marked the beginning of the U.S. War on Terrorism. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy Al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbour to Al-Qaeda.

Which was against international rules as well, since the Taliban were well within their rights to ask for evidence.

Osama will not be extradited without evidence: Taliban (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/13/stories/0313000b.htm)

No evidence to blame Osama: Taliban (http://www.hindu.com/2001/09/14/stories/0314000f.htm)

Should The Taliban See The Evidence? (http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/100501ShouldTalibanSeeEvidence.htm)

Bush rejects offer from Taliban (http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2001/10/15/News/Bush-Rejects.Offer.From.Taliban-1407024.shtml)
US refuses to enter Taliban Bin Laden talks (http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0919/afghanistan.html)

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html)

Nothing but a bunch of whiny overgrown bullies.

Which was against international rules as well, since the Taliban were well within their rights to ask for evidence.

Osama will not be extradited without evidence: Taliban (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/13/stories/0313000b.htm)

No evidence to blame Osama: Taliban (http://www.hindu.com/2001/09/14/stories/0314000f.htm)

Should The Taliban See The Evidence? (http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/100501ShouldTalibanSeeEvidence.htm)

Bush rejects offer from Taliban (http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2001/10/15/News/Bush-Rejects.Offer.From.Taliban-1407024.shtml)
US refuses to enter Taliban Bin Laden talks (http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0919/afghanistan.html)

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html)

Nothing but a bunch of whiny overgrown bullies.

Now that we have the insults out of the way, Evedence was offered, and the Talaban rejected it, the request for OBL started in 1996.


Now in the Shria' where is the trial of a accused to take place?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/30/taliban.talks/index.html


The State Department held its first meeting with a Taliban official September 18, 1996, when the political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, asked that bin Laden be made "unwelcome" in Afghanistan.

RELATED
State Department document

According to the document, the U.S. official was told by the Afghani deputy foreign affairs adviser that "the Taliban do not support terrorism and would not provide refuge to bin Laden."

Gandhi said he was particularly struck by a U.S. request in early 1997 that it be allowed to visit "militant training camps in eastern Afghanistan," and that a Taliban official initially agreed. But the Afghan government kept delaying the visit and finally rescinded the offer in April.

The cable recounts, in chronological order, a series of attempts to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan that continued before and after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, which the United States linked to al Qaeda. The U.S. government warned the Taliban, for example, in September 1998, that they would be held accountable for any future terrorist actions by bin Laden.

The Taliban offered a series of responses, most of which were made public at the time. First, the Afghan government told the United States that to oust bin Laden "would violate Taliban rules of hospitality," then later said they would put bin Laden on trial. However, the Taliban rejected the evidence linking bin Laden to the embassy bombings.

At one point, a Taliban spokesman also told a U.S. official that his government could not expel bin Laden because it "would result in the downfall of the Taliban."

The Bush administration continued the warnings, with contacts February 8, March 19 and July 2, 2001. In the last communication, the Taliban deputy foreign minister told the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan that bin Laden had not been convicted and that officials of his government "still consider him innocent."

Now that we have the insults out of the way, Evedence was offered, and the Talaban rejected it, the request for OBL started in 1996. While it is true that the Clinton administration seems to have made a few informal, oddly ineffective, and occasionally violent attempts to obtain or kill OBL,

nevertheless, no US government has ever filed a request for extradition of OBL from any country (why not? it's a simple bit of paperwork, easily submitted during the month or two it takes to set up an invasion) and

several informal offers of OBL have been turned down, as not meeting US requirements.

Now this is of course unimportant to many Americans, who regard international law as something that only works when it's working for US interests, and have no respect for law in general, when dealing with the weak or despised.

But the kinds of "requests" made of the Taliban government,

for the handing over of a guest, a fellow Muslim claiming refuge in a tribal house, and someone who many Afghanis regard as greatly responsible for removing the Soviet boot from the Afghani neck - a war hero

with no evidence presented, and nothing to soften the servility that would be demonstrated by acquiescence,

could hardly have been expected to be met. They were extralegal, non-negotiable, and basically insults - preliminaries to a foregone war.

The war may have been a good idea. Pipelinistan is valuable, and the terrorist training grounds were a cler and present danger. But we should not fool ourselves about how it started.

Has the US sent the CIA agents on trial in Italy for kidnapping and torture?

iceaura

While it is true that the Clinton administration seems to have made a few informal, oddly ineffective, and occasionally violent attempts to obtain or kill OBL,

nevertheless, no US government has ever filed a request for extradition of OBL from any country (why not? it's a simple bit of paperwork, easily submitted during the month or two it takes to set up an invasion) and

several informal offers of OBL have been turned down, as not meeting US requirements.


Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, ... that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. ...
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm


USATODAY.com - Saudi: Bin Laden extradition botched
Saudi: Bin Laden extradition botched CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi ...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/03/extradite.htm

Yes Clinton was a useful as tits on a bore hog when it came to anything but blow jobs and ruining fine Cuban cigars. He screwed the pooch on this big time and left the problem for the Bush Administration, and it came on the wings of 9/11.


Buffalo Roam
The Bush administration continued the warnings, with contacts February 8, March 19 and July 2, 2001. In the last communication, the Taliban deputy foreign minister told the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan that bin Laden had not been convicted and that officials of his government "still consider him innocent."

He wasn't convicted yet? the Taliban wanted him convicted in absentia? so they could hand him over?

So they would have handed him over if we had convicted him in absentia?

This lancet report study has been debated mulitple times on this forum. Though the science leading to the results seems solid, closer examination shows how impossible these numbers become.

It is a rule of thumb that usually there is between 3 to 4 casualties per death. According to that figure, there should have been somewhere between 1.8 to 2.4 million people in the hospital. This represents about 8% of the Iraqi population. As you would expect, it is inconceivable.

Needless to say, the Iraqi hospitals never reported even close to this, and would have been even unrealistically overwhelmed than they were.


According to this study, Iraq, with a population of about 28 million, had about 20 thousand more civilian deaths that Japan did during world war II ( a population of about 71 million at that time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

This includes the total destruction of Japan's major cities, as well as both cities destroyed by nuclear weapons. Does this sound realistic? The Americans have been about 2.5 times more destructive to civilians then they were to Japan in World War II, whose cities were in ruin?

Why does what seem like good science go bad?

Let's consider the authors for a moment. First, the ridiculous Les Roberts:

If you remember Les Roberts who did the previous Lancet study claiming 100,000 civilian deaths in 2004, then you will have an accurate comparison to this new bogus study.

Les Roberts is the same man who admitted his last study was "based on a small sample", yet he still released his findings. This is the same man who called his own Congo studies shoddy....

http://healtoronto.com/african_numbers.html


“ "Extrapolating from 1.5 million to 20 million, it's shoddy, but it's the best we can do right now," Mr. Roberts said. "People correctly criticized us for that." ”

Now consider the fact that the two main authors, Ronald Waldman and Gilbert Burnham, both contributed large sums of money to both Les Roberts campaign and also to John Kerry.... Nothing political going on here hugh? The fact that the studies are also always released right before elections is not suspect at all either...... This study is crap, and everyone knows it. Respected studies put the real death toll at around 50K.

True story: Iraqi authorities captured a few squirells in Iraq and claims that they(the squirels) were equiped with microchips and transmiters. Apprently(and this is what the authorites claim) the squirells were used as spies for western countries. However, in the midst of all this, the Iraqi authorities have also cited they are ready to take back Iraq from the Americans. Hey, if they are vigilant enough to spot spy squirels, they probably are ready to take back Iraq.

This study is crap, and everyone knows it. Respected studies put the real death toll at around 50K. Uh, no, to be respected a study would have to put the real death toll much higher than the IBC actual, verified count of a mere subset of the deaths - so well over 65k, probably at least double.

You make reasonable points about the Lancet study, but those (along with the main street problem) simply lead to the low estimate they produced.

Iraq has been shelled and bombed and shot up pretty heavily for five years, for example, and a civilian death toll somewhat in the range of Japan's in closer to five months is not that far out of line.

It's fortunate that the tens of thousands of Iraqis tortured and murdered by the American troops is getting constant press coverage by much of the world press outside of the USA. Fortunately the American population is starting to understand the horror that the invasion and occupation has inflicted upon the Iraqi population:

This flippant attitude towards dead Iraqis willchange if americans are exposed to the real horror on their screens and not sterile numbers.

A state-of-the-art research ...

lots of art went into this one, alright

and art usually goes hand in hand with drugs -- certainly in the case of this "report"

lots of art went into this one, alright

and art usually goes hand in hand with drugs -- certainly in the case of this "report"

Are you categorically stating that you know this report to be untrue?

a.Uh, no, to be respected a study would have to put the real death toll much higher than the IBC actual, verified count of a mere subset of the deaths - so well over 65k, probably at least double.

b.You make reasonable points about the Lancet study, but those (along with the main street problem) simply lead to the low estimate they produced.

c.Iraq has been shelled and bombed and shot up pretty heavily for five years, for example, and a civilian death toll somewhat in the range of Japan's in closer to five months is not that far out of line.



:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

a. Why?

b. A small sample in a high density area lead to a higher incident rate when the estimates are made, not a under report of incidents.

c. Your proof? citation is needed, and who has been shooting up Iraq? From the News Reports every day it seems to be the Islamic Terrorist, al Quaida, and the Sunni/Shia. the U.S. hasn't mounted a major bombing campaign since the war ended, The bomb strikes have been in support of specific targets and the biggest of those was Fallujah, the rest have been on call strikes at specific targets.

Are you categorically stating that you know this report to be untrue?

the burden of proof lies with the writers of the report, not on me.

but i'll indulge you just a bit just cause i'm bored. when the report just came out a few years ago i read a critique about it. this number is statistically extrapolated, and the stats are wrong. if i remember correctly, the methodology was to ask a sample of Iraqis if they had anyone in their family killed/injured. given the large families of Arabs and the double (and sometimes even tripple or quadruple) counting, the number came out looking like genocide.

furthermore, you're attributing all of those deaths to the US

so, the numbers are wrong, and the attribution is wrong.

other studies coming out from serious players and the US military said something like between 15K-16K (that was about a year ago). and of those, the majority is death due to terrorism, not American boys killing Iraqis.

who's blowing up people in markets?
who's blowing up police stations?
who's blowing up holy shrines?
who's kidnapping and beheading dozens of people at a time?

i just can't take the left seriously because they continuously ignore these things, or blame it on Bush

the burden of proof lies with the writers of the report, not on me.

but i'll indulge you just a bit just cause i'm bored. when the report just came out a few years ago i read a critique about it. this number is statistically extrapolated, and the stats are wrong. if i remember correctly, the methodology was to ask a sample of Iraqis if they had anyone in their family killed/injured. given the large families of Arabs and the double (and sometimes even tripple or quadruple) counting, the number came out looking like genocide.

furthermore, you're attributing all of those deaths to the US

so, the numbers are wrong, and the attribution is wrong.

other studies coming out from serious players and the US military said something like between 15K-16K (that was about a year ago). and of those, the majority is death due to terrorism, not American boys killing Iraqis.

who's blowing up people in markets?
who's blowing up police stations?
who's blowing up holy shrines?
who's kidnapping and beheading dozens of people at a time?

i just can't take the left seriously because they continuously ignore these things, or blame it on Bush

You did not read the actual report did you? :)

and you haven't read all of my post, have you

the report i've read was either the 600000 death one, or the 100000 death one.

so if the 100000 one was flawed, the 600000 one is 6 times as flawed!

and you haven't read all of my post, have you

the report i've read was either the 600000 death one, or the 100000 death one.

so if the 100000 one was flawed, the 600000 one is 6 times as flawed!

Like I said, you haven't read the actual study nor do you appear to be conversant with cluster sampling methods.

Not to mention methods of cluster bombing.

The families were very good at the cause of death, telling the reporters that over half (56%) were due to gunshots, with an eighth due each to car bombs(13%), air strikes (13%) and other ordinance (14%). Only 4% were due to unknown causes.

The results are nevertheless staggering for those of us who read the American press: for the deaths that the victims families knew for sure who the perpetrator was, U.S. forces (or their “Coalition of the Willing” allies) were responsible for 56%. That is, we can be very confident that the Coalition had killed at least 180,000 Iraqis by the middle of 2006.Is this just coincidence, or are the researchers attributing every death by gunshot to Americans? Do the terrorists not have guns?

Gunshots (as in mainstream media) rain down now and then. Airborne miniguns rain down a lot, but rarely make the news. Guess what: spray that thing out over Baghdad tonight, and you know you're a baby-killer. Urah!

Or just had a bad day? Did your buddy get blown apart by remote control, with the killers out of reach? "Git Some" and feel better. Hajji families are in open season. Especially if they're in a hurry in their car. Feel better, American Hero? At least superficially aware and in control of self and situation? When these these things, along with personal security become difficult, it's just an indicator that one is on the losing side of a war. We know that bad guys can win Blitzkriegs. But we also know that in the protracted wars, like tiresome Westerns, everybody loses. Which brings the inevitable contest over who's left with the most to lose. Not US, Right?

Of course not :rolleyes:

conversant with cluster sampling methods

hahaha
you're taking a risk of looking like a fool when you're trying to use complicated expressions, because you might do it incorrectly

anyway, all that anyone needs to know about sampling is that it should represent the population. are you conversant with that idea?

i've tried to google an "official" figure from the US military, which i couldn't find.

all i was able to find was this Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Vari ous_estimates

from the link above:
- an Iraqi government guy estimated the civilian deaths to be at around 130,000, but his method was not scientific. he just took an "estimated" daily number of dead, and multiplied it by the number of days since March 17, 2003 (1st day of the invasion of Iraq)
- the "IBC" group estimates "a minimum of 59,720 and a maximum of 65,573 as of 25 March 2007" -- it looks like these guys are pretty credible because they do the least extrapolation and the most actual counting. BUT, if you read into their methods you'll discover that they not only count deaths caused by the coalition and by the insurgency, but also by crime (36% of deaths, by their estimates), and "unknown agents" (11%).
that's 47%)

personally i think the number is somewhere about 15,000-25,000, which is the feeling i get from watching all the over-reported violence on all the news networks... which is what you get if you take IBC's numbers, remove the 47%, and give it a bit more further scrutiny. but 655,000? give me a f'n break.

Gunshots (as in mainstream media) rain down now and then. Airborne miniguns rain down a lot, but rarely make the news. Guess what: spray that thing out over Baghdad tonight, and you know you're a baby-killer. Urah!

Or just had a bad day? Did your buddy get blown apart by remote control, with the killers out of reach? "Git Some" and feel better. Hajji families are in open season. Especially if they're in a hurry in their car. Feel better, American Hero? At least superficially aware and in control of self and situation? When these these things, along with personal security become difficult, it's just an indicator that one is on the losing side of a war. We know that bad guys can win Blitzkriegs. But we also know that in the protracted wars, like tiresome Westerns, everybody loses. Which brings the inevitable contest over who's left with the most to lose. Not US, Right?

Of course not :rolleyes:


hypewaders; you claim to have been in the service? I am ready to now call you a liar with this last post, uncontrolled mini gun fire over Baghdad at night? ROE wouldn't countenance that, under the ROE to open fire over a city would require clearance from C&C, and to fire with out authorization on anything that wasn't a clear identifiably danger (and clearly located source), to your aircraft will get you in front of a Courts Martial Board.

i went to this IBC's website http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

looks very detailed. their numbers are all coming from (supposedly) direct reports, not statistical extrapolation from sampling. the only problem with it, that i can think of, is that the reports can be exaggerated, as have been found in the past.
i'm trying to think of a percentage by which ti discount IBC's figures, but i honestly can't. all i know that it must be less than what they're reporting, but not by much.

otherwise it looks solid.

the unfortunate thing is that all of these deaths are attributed to the US army, at least implicitly. that's not fair. all that the military's been trying to do is to reduce the numbers, but hyperbolic "peace" activists are screaming their guts out that the US are the cause.

no.

if the US leaves Iraq right now, the number really will rise to 655,000, pretty fast, too

hahaha
you're taking a risk of looking like a fool when you're trying to use complicated expressions, because you might do it incorrectly

I work on epi data so I am using the expressions I am conversant with; as they said in the Lancet study the confidence intervals range from 180,000 to 900,000 so we can be confident at an alpha level of significance of 95% (ie 95% confident) that at least 650,000 people have died; this is the most conservative estimate; even at 99% confidence level the death toll does not drop below 500,000 so I fail to see what you are mumbling about.

If you have issues with the methods, then you need to devise a new one, since this method is the most standardised one utilised for casualties in conflicts. All the so-called scientists challenging the info are those with no background in epidemiology. Find me someone from NIH epidemiology (like NHANES) or CDC who challenges this study since they use the same methods for policy formulation at the national level.:rolleyes:

that's all great. too bad all the trees are blocking your view of the forrest

the IBC study's method is to individually count each occurrence - the entire population is counted. no stats are used at all. that's better than any statistical estimate, which is [almost] all of the other studies' methodology

and btw, you're not conversant with basic stats, so it seems. when you're 95% confident, the alpha is 5%, not 95%... mr. statistician :P

and another thing - i'm sure the math behind the extrapolation is solid. it's the sample that is used that is the problem.

garbage in = garbage out ... even with a perfect formula

that's all great. too bad all the trees are blocking your view of the forrest

the IBC study's method is to individually count each occurrence - the entire population is counted. no stats are used at all. that's better than any statistical estimate, which is [almost] all of the other studies' methodology

and btw, you're not conversant with basic stats, so it seems. when you're 95% confident, the alpha is 5%, not 95%... mr. statistician :P

The IBC itself says that they only use media reports; how many reporters are there outside the city do you think?

In its "Quick-FAQ" [4] the IBC states: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

Also they use only English media sources and require at least two sources for coalition related deaths

PS Gimme a break, I was posting between collecting tail bleeds.:o

and another thing - i'm sure the math behind the extrapolation is solid. it's the sample that is used that is the problem.

garbage in = garbage out ... even with a perfect formula

Like I said, they will be glad of any suggestions you may have to offer.

They repeated the study and found similar results

Update Nov 2006: New study of mortality in Iraq finds more than 600,000 excess deaths

This briefing note discusses a 2004 study of mortality developments in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. On 12 October 2006, an updated study was published in British medical journal _The Lancet_. This found that between 393,000 and 943,000 excess deaths have occured in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, with 655 thousand the most likely estimate. We have added an extensive new section with analysis of the new study and mortality estimates in Iraq more generally.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/mortality/

break given :D

The IBC itself says that they only use media reports; how many reporters are there outside the city do you think?
terrorists are most likely to attack the capital and big cities... this is consistent in all conflicts. i've read many many reports about how the Iraqi "countryside" has been consistently quiet.
so if there's an attack, it's likely to be in the city. and if it's in the city, it's very likely to be reported. that's what terrorists want, right? to achieve as much as possible with as little fighting as possible. the principle "kill one, scare a hundred", which has been used in terrorism since the beginning of time, says that successful attacks do go reported, because terrorists will attempt to only create the type of attacks that will go reported (the question then, is how reliable the reporting is)

the IBC states: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."
the fact that they disclose this fact makes them look more credible to me

IMO, most attacks do get reported. though the quality of info hasn't been great. the reason why the attacks get reported is simple: there is so much press in Iraq (foreign and Iraqi) that it's literally impossible not to notice things.

break given :D


terrorists are most likely to attack the capital and big cities... this is consistent in all conflicts. i've read many many reports about how the Iraqi "countryside" has been consistently quiet.
so if there's an attack, it's likely to be in the city. and if it's in the city, it's very likely to be reported. that's what terrorists want, right? to achieve as much as possible with as little fighting as possible. the principle "kill one, scare a hundred", which has been used in terrorism since the beginning of time, says that successful attacks do go reported, because terrorists will attempt to only create the type of attacks that will go reported (the question then, is how reliable the reporting is)


the fact that they disclose this fact makes them look more credible to me

IMO, most attacks do get reported. though the quality of info hasn't been great. the reason why the attacks get reported is simple: there is so much press in Iraq (foreign and Iraqi) that it's literally impossible not to notice things.

Why is your opinion more credible than the opinion of the IBC and Lancet?

because Lancet are too arrogant (believing that their sampling is correct beyond a doubt).
as for IBC, they put that line there as a disclaimer, and acknowledge that they only show what's reported - meaning not only that "there might be other stuff we have missed", but also that the stuff we do have might be flawed.

i've seen enough cases of over-counting to be certain that the number that they have is larger.

because Lancet are too arrogant (believing that their sampling is correct beyond a doubt).
as for IBC, they put that line there as a disclaimer, and acknowledge that they only show what's reported - meaning not only that "there might be other stuff we have missed", but also that the stuff we do have might be flawed.

i've seen enough cases of over-counting to be certain that the number that they have is larger.

They repeated the study and got similar results, they also compared their extrapolation to pre-war figures and got the same figures as the CIA world factbook (5/1000) which was lower than the WHO figures (9/1000) that included the excess infant deaths (under 1 year of age) due to sanctions.

Besides, the authors (who are supported by their peers) have offered a challenge:

In a letter to The Age, published Oct. 21, 2006, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study's "methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously."[57]

A Reuters article reports on other researchers, epidemiologists, professors, and physicians who have defended the study. For example; this quote from the article;

"Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.[58]

Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology in the University of Oxford, described the 2006 report as "statistically valid" in an interview on BBC television.[59]

Dr. Ben Coghlan, an epidemiologist in Melbourne Australia, writes: "The US Congress should agree: in June this year [2006] they unanimously passed a bill outlining financial and political measures to promote relief, security and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bill was based in part on the veracity of a survey conducted by the Burnet Institute (Melbourne) and the International Rescue Committee (New York) that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of the conflict. This survey used the same methodology as Burnham and his associates. It also passed the scrutiny of a UK parliamentary delegation and the European Union."[60] Burnham is one of the authors of both of the Lancet studies.

October 19, 2006 Washington Post article[34] reports:

"The numbers do add up," said Daniel Davies, a stockbroker and blogger for the Guardian. He argued that the sample of 1,849 households interviewed by Iraqi doctors working for the JHU research team was as large as that used by political pollsters.

An October 16, 2006 MediaLens article quotes many health experts, epidemiologists, biostatistics experts, polling experts, etc. who approve of the Lancet study and methodology.[61] For example:

John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said: "The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." ...

Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said: "They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."

In an October 31, 2006 MediaLens article, Lancet study co-author Les Roberts responded to several questions on the report, concluding that: "Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's '30,000 more or less' figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq."[62]

Your article also says:The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year.

Your article also says:The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year.

Yeah it seems 45% of the "insurgents" are Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, the same ones being armed by the "coalition forces" Booyah!

the IBC study's method is to individually count each occurrence - the entire population is counted. no stats are used at all. that's better than any statistical estimate, which is [almost] all of the other studies' methodology It is not better than a statistical estimate if what you want is some idea of how many civilians are being killed total in the whole country.

Becasue it does not even try to estimate that. It only records verified, media reported kills identified by body. That is probably not even a majority of the civilians killed.

So it misses, for example, most of the civilians killed in the three assaults on Fallujah, the assaults on Ramadi, Mosul, etc, in the rocket attacks in rural areas, in the bombings in rurla areas, in the shellings in rural areas, etc. Very few of the civilians killed in those situations were identified, or reported individually in the media.

It is not better than a statistical estimate if what you want is some idea of how many civilians are being killed total in the whole country.

Becasue it does not even try to estimate that. It only records verified, media reported kills identified by body. That is probably not even a majority of the civilians killed.

So it misses, for example, most of the civilians killed in the three assaults on Fallujah, the assaults on Ramadi, Mosul, etc, in the rocket attacks in rural areas, in the bombings in rurla areas, in the shellings in rural areas, etc. Very few of the civilians killed in those situations were identified, or reported individually in the media.

You need to read the site, those causalities are included in the death toll, and they state the death toll is from the intervention, which means that they mix the deaths caused by the terrorist with those cause by the coalition forces.

Now what I would love to see is a break down on who is doing the most killing, and guess what, the Terrorist are responsible for most of the causalities.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount_count_down.php

Reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq as of Friday, 20th July 2007

x453
Notes... 8 Nov 2004 -
30 Nov 2004 - nine neighbourhoods of Falluja 'bodies [recovered] from rubble where houses and shops once stood' -
minmum-581
maxum-670
IRIN 04 Jan
(Provisional)
x360
Details... 5 Apr 2004 -
30 Apr 2004 - city of Falluja 'insurgents', incl. those responsible for the killing of four US security contractors air attacks and ground battles
minimum-572 maxium-
616 Multiple - see
"Details" (left)
and

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines

LA TIMES: Iraq Death Toll is Page 1; Terrorists as the Cause of it is Page A29

"War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000,"

Shouts the front page of the LA Times today. In the very first paragraph, the Times lays this death toll at the door of the Bush administration:

BAGHDAD - At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies - a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

You have to turn to page A29, and wade through 7 paragraphs, to find out that the death toll is overwhelmingly due to terrorists, not to our troops:

At the Baghdad morgue, the vast majority of bodies processed had been shot execution-style. Many showed signs of torture - drill holes, burns, missing eyes and limbs, officials said. Others had been strangled, beheaded, stabbed or beaten to death.

The morgue records show a predominantly civilian toll; the hospital records gathered by the Health Ministry do not distinguish between civilians, combatants and security forces
But Health Ministry records do differentiate causes of death. Almost 75% of those who died violently were killed in "terrorist acts," typically bombings, the records show.

You'd never know from this article that there were a similar number of civilian deaths under Saddam - with no drive toward freedom and Democracy:

...under Saddam's rule, the death toll [included] 600,000 civilian executions recorded by the Documental Center for Human Rights, and the 100,000 Kurds killed during the Anfal operation. A violent day under the coalition would be just a routine day under Saddam.

The article is slanted as an attack on Bush, and you'd think from the article that if the U.S. left Iraq, the death count would cease. But the article shows that the vast majority of civilian deaths are due to terrorists. If the U.S. left Iraq it would leave the terrorists in place to assert their dominance via a bloodbath.

The only chance the Iraqi people have of putting an end to this death toll, is for the U.S. to stay in place and, with the Iraqi army, finish the job of eradicating the terrorists.

It is unacceptable for the LA Times to print such a slanted story, which tries to hide the fact that it's the terrorists who are responsible for all this killing, in the very month when U.S. operations have arrested or killed hundreds of those very terrorists.

It is unacceptable for the LA Times to print such a slanted story
why do you think they do it anyway? here are some options... tell me which one you think it is:

1) gross incompetence by LAT
2) their hatered of Bush is stronger than any sense of journalistic integrity LAT staff (or i should say editors) might have
3) being gullible and believing that by withdrawing the troops the situation in Iraq will improve for Iraqis (which would justify the nasty distortions they're printing)
4) something else?

why do you think they do it anyway? here are some options... tell me which one you think it is:

1) gross incompetence by LAT
2) their hatered of Bush is stronger than any sense of journalistic integrity LAT staff (or i should say editors) might have
3) being gullible and believing that by withdrawing the troops the situation in Iraq will improve for Iraqis (which would justify the nasty distortions they're printing)
4) something else?

Personally I think it's because they think they are the arbiters of truth, and that they are smarter than the public at large, but what don't they get by their falling subscriptions, they have forgotten to print the news, and that is what people want, the news, they don't need to be lead by the hand to a preconceived conclusion, leave the editorials to the Editorial Pages, Print the Facts, and only the Facts, I don't give a rats ass about the reporters opinion, any opinion is biased, and the fact that 80% of the Reporters are Democrat, doesn't give me any faith in their neutrality.

Hey Sam, Got any links on palestinian civillians killed since 1967 ? That issue's been put on hold until Iraq cools down.... Sorry , just pushing my own point of view here...

Anyways, The American effort in Iraq, has failed, That much is clear, The opportunity to win their hearts and minds, has long gone and faded,. The presence of thousands of contractors adds to the idea that the West was there for oil and the continued secular oppression due to the U.S supporting the Shia dominated militia and a Shiite/Shia dominated parliment that only meets for 3 days a week and never gets anything done....
Yep, Iraq is going to be worse for at least half a century, unless of course, someone tries to undo the damage done in that region.

Many Americans are still too uncomfortable about this information to take it in. We need about 6,700 more brave, dead GIs to get second thoughts. Or another war while we're not ready. We make the rules, and the rules say Iraqis don't count. Bring 'em on.

brave? you're lost.

Yes, but society has conditioned me to be brave whenever I am lost. I thought was found, but now, am lost- I see that I am blinded. It's a start. Let us pray.

Yes, but society has conditioned me to be brave whenever I am lost. I thought was found, but now, am lost- I see that I am blinded. It's a start. Let us pray.

Amazing grace? Come on.:p

It's because Grace is readily amazed that's it's amazing. I was raised a Christian- so I enjoy a little blasphemy.

It's because Grace is readily amazed that's it's amazing.

Out of sorts today? I'm not gonna wrestle. :p

What a pity.