Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/11/06 07:19 PM, Altarus wrote: K, I know that IBC is a private group, but how would this affect the official count? Apparently, since the government issued a death certificate, they are aware of the death and probably the circumstances, yet they did not see fit to count the death as war-related. Hmm... how strange.

Even more precisely: "Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?
Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.
"

And there's also their list of notable sources, of course, they don't simply use death certificates but only media reports and eye witness accounts. What the Lancet-published study looked at was the number of deaths as a whole, while IBC only looks at deaths directly attricuted to US forces, backed up by multiple media sources. The former study is naturally going to find higher outcomes. However, the deaths that occurred after the mortality rates changed following the US/UK invasion are attributed to the invasion itself just like increased lung cancer rates among smokers are attributed to the habit of smoking.

Even if the Iraqi government took the reason for a death into account, the objective of this study is not to find to find the "direct" cause. The study established that mortality rates soared after the invasion. What could the reason possibly be? The invasion itself, maybe? Maybe?

At 10/11/06 07:23 PM, Altarus wrote: Oh noes, more criticism from highly respected sources:

You know, it would be convenient if you stated your sources. I don't feel like searching the entire internet for what this guy considers to be wrong about the methodology of this survey.

At 10/11/06 07:37 PM, lapis wrote: You know, it would be convenient if you stated your sources.

And by that I mean hyperlinks. A google search turned up nothing so state where your information comes from so I can read it without searching the entire internet.

At 10/11/06 05:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 10/11/06 04:51 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: A life is a life, and to think otherwise is disgusting and degrading.

Yeah sure whatever.

So Kurt Cobain and Steve Irwin dying are equivalent to Joe Bum who starved yesterday. Sure.

What makes Kurt Cobain any better than Joe Bum? No life is worth more than the other. The thousands of Joe Bums dying in Iraq are just as human as Kurt Cobain, except they have lived much harder lives (unless they never got a chance to live at all.)

Thinking that one human is more important that another human seems to me an ignorant statement. What is your method of choosing who is a superior human? Those who have been noticed?

At 10/11/06 07:41 PM, Tancrisism wrote: What makes Kurt Cobain any better than Joe Bum? No life is worth more than the other.

You guys are arguing over moral systems. Neither person is right, and you can't get the other person to agree with you by slamming their head into a wall.

Personally I think the value of a human life is intrinsic, that there is no difference between a white American and a brown Iraqi. But others disagree. *shrug*

At 10/11/06 07:41 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 10/11/06 05:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So Kurt Cobain and Steve Irwin dying are equivalent to Joe Bum who starved yesterday. Sure.

What makes Kurt Cobain any better than Joe Bum? No life is worth more than the other.

Joe Bum didn't have a soul who cared about him. Steve Irwin does/did.

Listen, we seem to think that the other holds the extreme view of either "all lives are worth the same, regardless of what that life contributed to humanity" and "popular people are worth more"

What a person does with their life is what makes it valuable, and things with value are inherently NOT identical.

The thousands of Joe Bums dying in Iraq are just as human as Kurt Cobain, except they have lived much harder lives (unless they never got a chance to live at all.)

Kurt Cobain killed himself (no Courtney jokes). He didn't, however, do it in a manner that killed dozens of others in the process. Therefore, Kurt Cobain's life (and subsequent death) is more valuable than the life of the disturbed individual who plants bombs on a bus.

Get my drift?

Thinking that one human is more important that another human seems to me an ignorant statement. What is your method of choosing who is a superior human? Those who have been noticed?

Those who respect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Show me a person who holds the above values and show me a jihadist, then tell me that their lives have equal values, in spite of their ideals.

wow i didn't know it was that bad omfg

At 10/11/06 05:11 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

If you think fame is a measure of life value then you’re even more messed up than I thought.

Meh go figure. He's from Minnesota a state no one ever hears about and nothing noticable ever comes out off. Thats all they have to live on, worshipping the flag and gossipng about celebrities.

At 10/11/06 07:51 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 10/11/06 07:41 PM, Tancrisism wrote: What makes Kurt Cobain any better than Joe Bum? No life is worth more than the other.

You guys are arguing over moral systems. Neither person is right, and you can't get the other person to agree with you by slamming their head into a wall.

Good point.

Personally I think the value of a human life is intrinsic, that there is no difference between a white American and a brown Iraqi. But others disagree. *shrug*

I agree with that, and I think LazyDrunk might as well, if I am understanding my misunderstanding.

At 10/11/06 07:57 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 10/11/06 07:41 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The thousands of Joe Bums dying in Iraq are just as human as Kurt Cobain, except they have lived much harder lives (unless they never got a chance to live at all.)

Kurt Cobain killed himself (no Courtney jokes). He didn't, however, do it in a manner that killed dozens of others in the process. Therefore, Kurt Cobain's life (and subsequent death) is more valuable than the life of the disturbed individual who plants bombs on a bus.

I didn't realize we meant by Joe Bum the jihadists/terrorists. I meant the average civilian.

Those who respect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Show me a person who holds the above values and show me a jihadist, then tell me that their lives have equal values, in spite of their ideals.

I agree completely in this, it appears I misunderstood what you were talking about.

At 10/11/06 08:02 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

The funny thing is Tancrisism is thatwe were talking about all IRaqis not just jihadist unless thats what u considre all iraqis to be. LAzy just decided to add that jihadist part becuase he realized what an idiot he sounded like.

At 10/11/06 08:04 PM, goozebump wrote:

At 10/11/06 08:02 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

The funny thing is Tancrisism is thatwe were talking about all IRaqis not just jihadist unless thats what u considre all iraqis to be. LAzy just decided to add that jihadist part becuase he realized what an idiot he sounded like.

I don't consider all Iraqis to be jihadists. I reread my post and I can't really find any area where you would think that was implied; if anything it was negated.

Hence:

At 10/11/06 08:02 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I didn't realize we meant by Joe Bum the jihadists/terrorists. I meant the average civilian

That acknowledges a difference between civilian and jihadist, I would think.

At 10/11/06 08:10 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

I was not talking about you, I was talking about Lazy who implied that all IRaqis were were in the same camp as Jihadist earlier on in the thread. Then he decided that only the jihadist was bad later on to save face.

At 10/11/06 05:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So Kurt Cobain and Steve Irwin dying are equivalent to Joe Bum who starved yesterday. Sure.

I think the untimely demise of Joe Bum is more tragic than a guy who annoyed a stingray until it stabbed him to death.

At 10/11/06 08:14 PM, Elfer wrote: I think the untimely demise of Joe Bum is more tragic than a guy who annoyed a stingray until it stabbed him to death.

Dude that sucks, have some respect for the dead. The same goes for the previous moron trying to say the homeless have little value. Not all homeless are that way by choice you know.

Anyway, I saw a brief talk on CNN about the high death toll. CNN is mainly focused on the plane crash in NY right now so they didn't go into detail about it. All they said was Bush and the Iraqi government are questioning the exact accuracy of those figures.

Whatever the exact figures may be, there's no denying they're high as heck. I'll say high is... I dunno 500,000.

At 10/11/06 02:47 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: 500 people a day killed as a result of the war? Cmon. Id believe 200-300 a day. But 500 directly dead as a result of the war? Im sorry, that just doesnt fit with the media coverage we have recieved of the war.

You and me both. What the fuck. I'm all for the Foley scandal, but now these numbers magically appear 4 weeks before an election, not to mention way out of line with the media coverage of the war.

I hailed the Foley leak as a savy political blitz by the dems, but coupled with this now, it just stinks. Sometimes I wish my party would like, not suck so much at everything nowadays.

At 10/11/06 10:08 PM, Nylo wrote:

At 10/11/06 02:47 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: 500 people a day killed as a result of the war? Cmon. Id believe 200-300 a day. But 500 directly dead as a result of the war? Im sorry, that just doesnt fit with the media coverage we have recieved of the war.

You and me both. What the fuck. I'm all for the Foley scandal, but now these numbers magically appear 4 weeks before an election, not to mention way out of line with the media coverage of the war.

Dude your party isn't a home team, this isn't a game :P If you read closely what FAB0L0US said: "Im sorry, that just doesnt fit with the media coverage we have recieved of the war." That is exactly why I don't fully trust the U.S. media. I'll trust about 80% of what they're telling me, maybe 90% but I can almost be there are some details they just unanimously withold from us in order to not cause turmoil or political unrest.
I don't just bash FOX of witholding information, I think all U.S. media and all media over the world (Al Jazeera anyone?) does it to some extent. I'd say the BBC is a bit less restricted when it comes to giving out the full scoop, maybe about (96% of the details) then there's national public radio which is also known for laying out facts and keeping political spin out of the news as much as possible.

At 10/11/06 10:08 PM, Nylo wrote: You and me both. What the fuck. I'm all for the Foley scandal, but now these numbers magically appear 4 weeks before an election, not to mention way out of line with the media coverage of the war.

It was a British study, it has nothing to do with your election.

At 10/11/06 10:16 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 10/11/06 10:08 PM, Nylo wrote: You and me both. What the fuck. I'm all for the Foley scandal, but now these numbers magically appear 4 weeks before an election, not to mention way out of line with the media coverage of the war.

It was a British study, it has nothing to do with your election.

Even though half of the British Newspapers and media outlets openly supported John Kerry in 2004??? The British media are incredibly biased and would love nothing more than to watch Republicans lose the Congress majority.

British media released other nonsensical and incredibly INNACCURATE and BIASED reports during 04 right before the elections, so how can you think that they aren't doing that now?

Anyway. In case all of you people didn't know, this report has conclusively been rejected by ever other major source. The Iraqi government, the UN, and even Arab-owned agencies in the middle east have provided WAY LOWER estimates.

You people need to realize that this 665,000 figure is a COMPLETE exaggeration and is the result of biased and dishonest means of collecting information.

The way that they came to that conclusion was just by asking Iraqis in THE SUNNI TRIANGLE how many people they have known or how many family members had died. They only asked I think 1800 people and used those figures to extrapolate an estimate for the entire country.

This method is NOT credible for many reasons:

1) Many people could have lied, or reported the deaths of people who were reported by other participants of the survey.

2) There is no physical proof whatsoever for the findings

3) They surveyed people who live in the most violent area of Iraq and pretended like that represented the rest of Iraq as a key, when actually, most of Iraq is relatively peaceful

4) All the OTHER death-toll findings that used BODY COUNTS, not PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, found that the number is somewhere in the 50,000 range.

Therefore anyone who believes that finding is an idiot.

At 10/11/06 11:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Even though half of the British Newspapers and media outlets openly supported John Kerry in 2004??? The British media are incredibly biased and would love nothing more than to watch Republicans lose the Congress majority.

This report was not conducted by a newspaper. And any non-Murdoch paper doens't give a rat's ass about the complexities of US politics.

A lot of the British media portray Bush as an idiot I’ll agree, but that’s because he’s essentially a comedy figure here.

British media released other nonsensical and incredibly INNACCURATE and BIASED reports during 04 right before the elections, so how can you think that they aren't doing that now?

What reports are these then?

At 10/11/06 10:15 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: I'd say the BBC is a bit less restricted when it comes to giving out the full scoop, maybe about (96% of the details) then there's national public radio which is also known for laying out facts and keeping political spin out of the news as much as possible.

NPR and the BBC are among the most left-wing news sources you can pool from. BBC polls the United States as the most dangerous country in the world right below Iran. They're left-wing news sources. Does that discredit them? Of course not, but they are what they are.

And yeah, when the Dems completely lose their edge to Liberalism just like Conservatives got subverted by Neo-Conservatism, it's completely legit right now for both lefties and righties to be mighty pissed with their parties.

At 10/11/06 11:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Therefore anyone who believes that finding is an idiot.

Therefore could you please provide us with some sources so we can stop being so idiotic?

At 10/11/06 11:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The way that they came to that conclusion was just by asking Iraqis in THE SUNNI TRIANGLE how many people they have known or how many family members had died.

They included 16 out of the 18 administrative districts in Iraq, they mention predominantly Shi'ite districts like Basra and Najaf.

They only asked I think 1800 people and used those figures to extrapolate an estimate for the entire country.

1,850 families, making up 12,800 people.

1) Many people could have lied, or reported the deaths of people who were reported by other participants of the survey.

92% of the deaths were backed up by death certificates.

It's isn't a British study by the way, it was conducted by the American Johns Hopkins University and it will be published in a famous British medical journal. What's funny is that it's obvious you didn't even read the report, yet you call it flawed in the strongest terms. But what's even more funny is that you call the British biased and yet discard the findings of this study simply because it doesn't fit in your partisan view of the world.

At 10/12/06 02:25 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/11/06 11:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Therefore anyone who believes that finding is an idiot.

Therefore could you please provide us with some sources so we can stop being so idiotic?

Here

And read this

and

At 10/11/06 02:47 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Im sorry, that just doesnt fit with the media coverage we have recieved of the war.

That is the most naive statement I have ever heard.

At 10/12/06 11:54 AM, AMFYOYO wrote: That is the most naive statement I have ever heard.

You have anything worthwhile to say or is that it?

Unlike you, I follow the news pretty damn closely. I have read numerous books on Iraq. None of which suggested a death count even nearly as close as this. This doesnt fit with our coverage because its big news when 200 die in a day. Big news. And that doesnt happen often. And they say coalition forces caused 31% of the deaths. That would be about 220000 something. That by far surpasses IBC death toll of ALL violent deaths in Iraq (not just coalition caused deaths) of 50,000 something.

You trollers who add nothing are a pain in the ass. And I have noticed you have done it to me acouple of times now. Add something and stop being so annoying.

And this same journal published this about 2 years before.

It says 100,000 dead. Figuring if that has any truth, we would now expect the death toll to be around the 300,000 range now 2 years later. Maybe as high as 400,000 if the killing accelerated much.

This study does not fit our media coverage. It does not. It doesnt fit the BBC's coverage (who I read alot of and respect) CNN's coverage, MSNBC's coverage, NYT coverage, anyones coverage. Retard. I hope you get banned.

At 10/12/06 01:15 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: And this same journal published this about 2 years before.

Meh, their results are pretty consistent. From the study: " Since the 2006 survey included the period of time contained in the 2004 survey, we could compare these two results for the time frame from January 2002 through August 2004. In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000."

And besides, it's all still statistics in the end. Their 95% confidence interval ranges from 426,369 to 793,663 so the death toll doesn't necessarily have to be 654,965 - that number is simply the most likely number among all other numbers. But according to their survey, the probability that less than 426,369 "excess deaths" have occurred since the outbreak of the war is less than 2.5%.

They were criticised earlier because their findings seemed unreal, but their methodology was mostly villified by politicians whose causes were damaged by the study. The methodology itself was also used in for example Congo and Darfur where it produced sound results, but the Lancet's confidence interval ranged from 8,000 to 194,000 due to their small sample so they repeated the survey in the entire country and among many more people and basically came to the same conclusions. Everything about it seems correct. The only thing that's funny is that they released both their findings just prior to US elections.

Yay for population control

And yet all we hear is leave us alone we are a peaceful religion, who practises tolerance. the numbers show that it is civilians getting killed for there beliefs and the sad truth is it is caused by the clerics, with is the closest thing they have to a leader. the only people who are protecting them is the coalition . If they could only practice what they claim to believe, and get some true leaders who cared this bullshit would end and our troops could come home.. probably just to go take care or N.KOREA, AND IRAN..

At 10/12/06 03:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Here

And read this

and

Thank you cellardoor for providing the links. Phew it's just around 45,000 people, it's ok folks we can spare a few more :S

Oh and this statement was unsettling.
“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

Yes that's good advice because he knows they'd be up in arms if they saw that as any one of you would if you saw people you knew or people like you being killed in an invasion of your home. Some advice for the Brigadier General would be... "don't kill any civilians" that seems a lot more rational than just ignoring innocent death as he suggests.

At 10/13/06 04:46 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/12/06 03:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Here

And read this

and

Thank you cellardoor for providing the links. Phew it's just around 45,000 people, it's ok folks we can spare a few more :S

Goddamn you are a fucking moron. The point is that 45,000 is based on the body counts, not personal accounts and this LEGITIMATE finding is alot lower than the 665,000 number. Therefore I provided a link to document that, now you use your stupid sarcasm "we can spare a few more..."

Oh and this statement was unsettling.
“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

Source???

Some advice for the Brigadier General would be... "don't kill any civilians" that seems a lot more rational than just ignoring innocent death as he suggests.

First of all, the Brigadier General or anyone even near such a high rank does no "killing" themselves. Besides that, civilian casualties are a fact of war, especially in an insurgency. If all US forces were simply killing innocent civilians on command by Generals then there would be a whole fucking lot more casualties, even more than the wild estimate and unverifiable claim of 665,000. If US forces had the policy of just killing every Iraqi civilian they saw and weren't trying to avoide civilian casualties like they are ordered to, there would be millions of casualties, the whole country would be a pile of burning rubble.

Besides, it's hard not to "kill civilians" when the people you are fighting wear civilian clothes and are SURROUNDED by civilians don't you think?