100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Porfiry, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. melodicbard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    I totally agree. Never mind the actual number of deaths. Be it 10,000 or 20,000,
    no words of condemnation can really match this. And I would be surprised if the number of insurgents (aka freedom fighters) does not go up under this circumstance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    I think we should remember one of of the studies major findings

    air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.

    Does this sound reasonable?
    Could this lesson,at least, justify the study?

    If we all agree, then it's just about the numbers.
    Dee Cee
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Of course not.
    The word "violent" proves it's a biased study, right wes?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    Their is a fine line between scepticism and paranoia.
    It is a sad reflection of the times that nobody can truly believe anything anymore.

    And I include myself in that.
    Dee Cee
     
  8. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Bullshit. You didn't address my point either. Be a dick about it if you want, but my point about Kerry trumps your whining.

    Neither do you, yet you apparently just accept it as valid. It seems to me like I remember something about extraordinary claims and evidence or something. Do you think "100,000 dead, mostly women and children" is somehwhat of an extraordinary claim? Isn't it enough to warrant an assload of evidence to back it up?

    Neither do you, yet you apparently just accept it as valid. I do know something about the methodology of statistical sampling though. Do you? My question regarding it above was very valid. There are a thousand ways the study could be skewed. Again, I don't claim it to be false, I claim that one should be very skeptical of it based on the conditions of its release. Be a bonehead about it if you want.

    And of course, the rather large astounding claim of its contents - which have not been vetted. If I'm not mistaken the authors used the out "it needs more study" or something. If I were a suspicious man, I might think that they put that in there as an "out" for three weeks later from now when someone shows their crap to be fundamentally flawed.

    Shit like this is released just days before the election, with no time to be vetted at all, and people are just supposed to believe it? Perhaps I should speak your language: Baaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Get me?

    LOL. Yeah, my claim "you should be skeptical of this based on the timing of its release and source" is something that should take convincing? What's your malfunction?

    My reasoning is not "halfassed". Your apparent bias shrouds your mind to it. I assert the following: If you are not skeptical of this article, you're a partisan (or perhaps stupid). That is very obvious, plain, common-sense reasoning.

    What? Show how this study reflects facts? You can't without more evidence can you? Right. Further, are you not paying attention to your own goddamned argument? Are you not listening to mine? You seem to be defending this as fact yet you have no evidence to support it besides the claim of the article.

    I believe that everyone with a functioning brain should be very skeptical of any "bombshells" dropped by either side of the political fence at this point. A week from now, not as much - but right now? Right now you shouldn't believe any large claims against either side of the election. Would you like to argue "100,000 slaughtered by US forces, mostly women and children" isn't a large claim?

    I would probably believe at least 20K killed, but if he said "hey look, only 3 really evil guys died in Iraq this whole time!" just days before the election, I would be VERY VERY suspicious. Wouldn't you?

    Fuck you then.
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Yes.

    It's important to try to determine how many have died, and why. The study should be repeated a number of times.

    The numbers lend to the believability of the claim don't they? If I claimed "1,000,000" dicks shoved up one_raven's partisan ass, you probably wouldn't believe me would you? Then again...
     
  10. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    It's never been any different really, it's just that at certain times things seem to matter more than others, then the truth comes to the surface as you put it: "you can't really believe anything". Seems to me all you can do is try to have a good theory going as to all the horseshit that's happening and adjust it to maintain logical consistency in your own experience, and be as honest with yourself as you can about it. Lastly, it helps to try to be respectful of other people's attempts at the same thing, though that can be the hardest part because most people (myself included) tend to get somewhat emotional about their perspective, having invested so much time and effort into making sure it's going to help them understand what's happening.
     
  11. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    wes,
    For the last time...
    I did not say it WAS valid, yet you keep claiming that I am biased because I said it WAS.
    I am asking for facts or proof on EITHER SIDE.

    Are you really that much of a fucking moron, or are you simply not bothering to read my posts?

    As I said, I am not claiming that this study is VALID or CORRECT, I am asking for FACTS or PROOF on EITHER SIDE.

    All I said is that you had no facts, no proof and I think your reasoning is not a valid argument at all because it is simply biased conjecture.

    So, like a mind-numbed biased idiot, you simply accuse me of being biased, because I guess you had nothing else.
    And you imply that I AM A SHEEP?

    Jesus christ, jackass, I know you can READ!

    Try reading this time, fuckhead!
    As I SAID...



    If you still don't get it, do yourself a favor and stick your head right back up your ass or you are just going to look more and more stupid.
     
  12. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    i absolutely agree with Wesmoris on this one.

    if you check this site: http://www.iraqbodycount.net , you'll see a completely different figure.

    100,000? i dont think so.

    and guess what: CNN this morning has prominantly and confidently used this number without even using "alleged", "claimed" or anything similar.

    partisan international hacks, working in alliance with an agenda-driven liberal media: perfect match.

    the looney left people on this board are gobling this imaginary number without even giving it a second thought.

    not surprising really
     
  13. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    100,000 dead...a little high but not out of hand. To me it doesn’t matter how many actually died what matters is will the killing stop and the answer is an obvious no. Any action taken by the US military in Iraq is immoral because the war is immoral, and something immoral, unjustifiable will ultimately end in disaster for the perpetrator. Yes I do believe in Karma, and the US right now is experiencing a perfect storm against her, and it’s about time. America is a child with too much power; she doesn’t have the experience, the wherewithal, and the money to continue on this path. When they say “we can’t afford another 4 years of Bush” they aren’t joking. America has like the British before her has overstretched her hand and will feel the consequences of a slow, gradual, and sad decline from the epitome of power. I suspect Iraq will be to the US what WWI was to England.
     
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Oth you seemed to miss in the article they discussed about the Iraq body count, and took that into account when formulating the article. Reading does the mind good.
     
  15. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Look man, if you don't agree that you should be skeptical of this study based on the circumstances of its release, then I think you're wrong. If you think that's wrong, then I think you're a partisan. My arguments above were in support of skepticism, which you seem to reject as "halfassed". The sound scientific basis with which to hold this study in "I'm skeptical status" is 'it hasn't been vetted'. Tell me about "peer review" and "repeatability".

    Releasing information like this that hasn't been vetted just days before an election is your standard cheap tactic. I wouldn't trust a word by either side about it unless it just said "hey let's be skeptical about this".

    Perhaps you took my assertion that you're a liberal a little too seriously. The point was simply that you'd have to be stupid or partisan not to be very skeptical about any dirt that lends a lot of weight to the appearance of either side.

    Actually now that I look back at it, you originally took me incorrectly by drawing the conclusion I'd said "he's a liberal" as a reason the study shouldn't be taken at face value. If you re-read it, you'll see what I said is consistent with the rest of my assertions. Either side dropping bombs at this point warrants strong skepticism. I only mentioned the word "liberal" in that context because it was "against" the conservative candidate.
     
  16. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879
    I thought that iraqbodycount.net only counted civilian deaths while the 100k statistic counted total deaths including soldiers etc.......if thats true then why would that number be a lie? the sad thing is that Iraq only has a population of about 30 million or so......how could people wonder how they would be pissed about the occupation.....look how mad Americans felt when 3000 people got killed outta 250 million
     
  17. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    What determines whether or not the person was a civilian?

    Are they dressed in civilian clothing? Are they missing a weapon near the body? What determines that, and where did the numbers come from? Who's counting the bodies and checking DNA against a Iraq Army List that was created during Saddam's reign? Who are the eye-witnesses that are giving statements that the person in question was a innocent civilian when they were killed? The number of dead, may be correct at 100,000. But it could have been because they were fighting back, because they had weapons aimed at Coalition troops, it could be because they were housing a member of the group that U.S. Forces were seeking to arrest. There will always be cilivian casualities in a military conflict fought on occupied soil. It is unavoidable. But what is avoidable is giving a number that is grossly whacked out on speculation, incorrect assumptions and uncalculatable circumstances.

    Someone mentioned that there were 600 dead in Fallujah alone.
    The people in Fallujah are fighting the U.S. So can they really be considered civilians when they are taking up arms against us? Militant behavior, whether dressed in civilian clothes or not should not be considered a civilian death.
     
  18. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    the number would be correct if they count all the deaths caused by disease and old age in the past 1.5 years all over Iraq, + civilian deaths (whatever the definition is), + terrorist-caused deaths + Saddam army deaths.
    then it would be at least believable
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    what's horrible about it IMO, is their intentional use of inflammatory shit "mostly women and children", when the study hasn't even been confirmed!!!!!!!

    sounds like another disgusting hack-job to me.
     
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Wes, you have yet to show intent, other then bleating the GOP line. Prove how this study is incorrect, enough on the political warfare games.
     
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Nico, I don't bleat. The insinuation is insulting and a patently dishonest representation of what I said. I'd expect more from someone who thinks so highly of themselves.

    Further, I have no affiliation with the GOP whatesoever.

    In case you're not aware, there is no way to either confirm or deny the accuracy of this study without more studies. That had to have been known by the publishers of the article regarding the study. Given that, it can only be considered an unfair, unfounded allegation that should not be taken seriously until verified by repeated studies. Given that, it's almost surely a cheap political jab by international asshats trying to influence the US election. That is indeed political warfare - and I haven't started or perpetuated it. I'm pointing it out for what it is, which you are apparently unable or unwilling to do.
     
  22. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    Read the bolded comments. It is an estimation. It is not a calculated death count. They focused on Iraq "hot spots", and it was not a large number of people surveyed. Also, they asked and did not neccessarily get death certificates for those that they counted amoung the dead. Not to mention that there was no military list, and families do not know if some of the deaths were because of their family members militant behavior.

    The release was politically motivated. Which already shows bias by the lead researcher. Not only that, but he targetted certain areas to make the report look worse. If you take out Fallujah alone, it drops a considerable amount.

    The proof is that the research done is heavily flawed, completely biased and politically motivated. The proof is that the results are incorrect, unprovable and not calculated correctly.
     
  23. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Nico, I don't bleat. The insinuation is insulting and a patently dishonest representation of what I said. I'd expect more from someone who thinks so highly of themselves.

    I don’t think highly of myself, others think highly of me. Understand the difference, I readily admit that I like everyone else on earth is completely ignorant and should not claim to know anything (I am an empiricist). Now were you bleating? By the tone in your posts, and your habitual condemnation of anything that goes against GWB or the GOP for that matter duly noted.

    Further, I have no affiliation with the GOP whatesoever.

    Are you registered Republican? Are you voting for Bush? If so then stop the lies.

    In case you're not aware, there is no way to either confirm or deny the accuracy of this study without more studies.

    Like I said about this thread I don’t care about the amount of people died, because one Iraqi dead is enough for me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2004

Share This Page