100,000 Iraqi's die at hands of USA & Britain



limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
The respected British Medical Journal - The Lancet - has produced a figure
of 100,000 Iraqi casualties at the hands of "Coalition of the Willing" troops
(US & British) in Iraq since March 2003.

The Lancet is a highly respected monthly journal issued to general doctors and specialist physicians

The statistical basis for the Lancet findings are internationally approved and respected and have been used to estimate conflict casualties in Kosovo and
Bosnia.

Thursday October 28, 2004

As many as 100,000 more Iraqi civilians have died in the 18 months since the US-led invasion last year than would have been expected in the period before the war, a study claimed today.
Researchers said the chances of a violent death were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it.

The study, whose results were published today by the respected Lancet medical journal, was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors. The findings were compared with the pre-war death rate.

The researchers came from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The report conceded that the data the projections were based on was of "limited precision".

The figures indicate many more Iraqis may have died since the intervention to topple dictator Saddam Hussein than was previously estimated.

There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. One human rights group, Iraq Body Count, estimates that there have been up to 16,289 civilians killed by military intervention.

By yesterday, 1,081 US service personnel and 68 British troops had been killed.

The Lancet study is thought likely to be used by critics of the US-led intervention who question the opinion of the White House and the British government that the invasion was justified to help Iraqis.

The survey indicated that violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and that air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers said.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they added.

The Lancet routinely publishes papers on the web before they appear in print, particularly if it considers the findings of urgent public health interest.

The report comes just days before the US presidential election, but there was no one at the Lancet immediately available to comment on whether the early release of the survey was timed to stimulate last-minute debate before the election.

The journal's spokesmen said they were uncertain which print issue the Iraqi report would appear in. They said it was too late to make tomorrow's issue, and possibly too late for the November 5 edition.

Richard Peto, an expert on study methods from Oxford University who was not involved with the research, said the approach the scientists took was a reasonable one to investigate the Iraq death toll.

To conduct the survey, investigators visited 33 neighbourhoods spread evenly across the country in September, randomly selecting clusters of 30 households to sample.

Of the 988 households visited, 808, comprising 7,868 people, agreed to participate in the survey.

Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s.

Even with the city of Falluja, the centre of the recent insurgency, factored out, the survey "indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is more likely than not about 100,000 people, and may be much higher," the report said.

The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases.

However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces - with about 95% of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships.

Violent deaths - defined as those brought about by the intentional act of others - were reported in 15 of the 33 clusters examined.

Twelve of the 73 violent deaths reported were not attributed to coalition forces. The researchers said 28 children from the survey households were said to have been killed by coalition forces. Infant mortality rose from 29 deaths per 1,000 live births before the war to 57 deaths per 1,000 afterward.

The Lancet called for further examination of the fatalities by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organisation
 

sbouge

New Member
Jul 30, 2004
15
0
0
Boy now thats just a darn shame, your right we have been to easy on them. I for one, call for some good old carpet bombing of cities like we did in WWII.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
By yesterday, 1,081 US service personnel and 68 British troops had been killed.
That's a damn shame for the military and civilians but war is not pretty. If it were'nt for the inpouring of terrorist's due to bush's proclamation of "bring 'em on !!!", the casualties would'nt be so high. I hope that he get's his "just desert's" by losing the election come nov 2, just like bush #41 :)
 

pomod

New Member
Apr 27, 2004
78
0
0
iknowtest said:
100,000 - That's a good start.


100 000 civilians is bloody disgusting. Way to win their hearts and minds boys. America and the coalition should be ashamed of themselves. George W Bush, Donald Rumsfield and the other thugs in his administration should be brought before the Hague for fabricating this atrocity. (which sadly we all know will never, ever happen) As we all pretty much agree, Sadam was no Mother Teresa but a stronger commitment to diplomacy on America's behalf would have prevented these and the 1000 plus US casualties. The wide spread distrust and really flat-out hatred of the US in the Muslim world would be minimized and the US would have maintained a shred of its international integrity.

But anyway, thanks for your sentiments Mr. callous "that's a good start" for confirming that you are indeed another ignorant Redneck slob. You do your country proud. If you can get your average up to a "C" you may even be president one day.
 

pomod

New Member
Apr 27, 2004
78
0
0
iknowtest said:
100,000 - That's a good start.

BTW, I've been wondering who the hell Ann Coulter even is and after reading your tag line I'm not surprised I haven't heard of her. Anyone who makes a statement like "we should covernt them all to Christianity" or endorses carpet bombing pretty much forfeits any credibility their arguments may have otherwise had. I guess I should tune into FOX news more.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
davidmc said:
That's a damn shame for the military and civilians but war is not pretty. If it were'nt for the inpouring of terrorist's due to bush's proclamation of "bring 'em on !!!", the casualties would'nt be so high. I hope that he get's his "just desert's" by losing the election come nov 2, just like bush #41 :)

I suspect the influx of foreign militants is grossly overstated. The sources that make that claim are the same ones who claimed they had hard evidence (with quantities too) of Saddam's WMD stockpile. You would have to be retarded to trust anything said by people with a dubious agenda and a history of fabrication to support it.

As for the casualty figures... It's doesn't take much effort, commitment, skill or courage to kill women and children with B-52s. artillery and sniper rifles. It's nothing to be proud of. I can't say I was surprised to see the usual suspects endorse cowardly and indiscriminate brutality from their armchairs.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Let's remember - Iraq never attacked the USA nor was it a threat to the USA.

9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda and 19 Saudi Arabians.

I agree with Darkboong - there is no way that 100,000 terrorists have infiltrated
Iraq since March 2003.

Many inncent civilians have been murdered by the USA and Britain.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
limerickman said:
Many inncent civilians have been murdered by the USA and Britain.

Let's face it the UK has plenty of Empire building experience and shiny happy Tony was probably wanting to leave a skidmark on the underpants of British History. However we shouldn't forget that the US have the attempted genocide of the Red Indians under their belts.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38


"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they added.

War isnt pretty?, inpouring of terrorists?

davidmc, didnt you read the report?
 

iknowtest

New Member
Oct 20, 2004
192
0
0
pomod said:
Way to win their hearts and minds boys.
Yes, we've already won the hearts and minds of millions in Iraq. As for the rest, grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
skydive69 said:
You took the words right out of my mouth!

It's amazing how many arses Cheney has penetrated. Whenever he orgasms you see the jism spewing forth from a thousand lips.
 

skydive69

New Member
Aug 23, 2004
255
0
0
darkboong said:
It's amazing how many arses Cheney has penetrated. Whenever he orgasms you see the jism spewing forth from a thousand lips.
Is that Kool-Aide dripping from your lips pal? LOL
 

Ruedy

New Member
Jun 17, 2004
90
0
0
But, it was ok to carpet bomb my father's boyhood home in Germany?-My Dad and his family were innocents......women and children.
No one whined about that.

Kill 'em all and let God sort em out.......That seems to be part of the fanatic terrorist Muslim religion anyway. Play by their rules, only do em one better.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
Ruedy said:
But, it was ok to carpet bomb my father's boyhood home in Germany?-My Dad and his family were innocents......women and children.
No one whined about that.

Nope it wasn't right, and in actual fact they did whine. The policy of "terror bombing" was not well liked by anyone. Post war it was revealed to be utterly useless as far as demoralising the opposition went.

At some point in the war a conscious decision was taken by Bomber Command to undertake what they called "Terror Bombing", the goal of which was to demoralise the civilian population to the point where the Nazi war-effort collapsed. To put it simply they deliberately bombed civillians. At the time there was also a notion of "pay-back" for what was done to places like Coventry and London. Churchill approved the plan.

On reviewing the PR and other intelligence some time after this policy was adopted Churchill changed his mind and asked for the practice to be stopped. He was uncomfortable with the moral aspects of it and was also concerned that it was diverting valuable offensive resource from attacking genuine military and industrial targets. Churchill wasn't the only who felt uneasy about it by a long chalk.

In actuality the bombing of civillian targets continued, sometimes by accident (eg: misidentifying a target), sometimes by intention (take any target of opportunity) and sometimes in "self-defence" - such as jettisoning a bomb load in order to reduce fuel consumption.

Ruedy said:
Kill 'em all and let God sort em out.......That seems to be part of the fanatic terrorist Muslim religion anyway. Play by their rules, only do em one better.

That simply legitimises their methods and their goal. This is bad for two reasons.
1) It will encourage people to join their cause.
2) It will make those people fight harder.

Point 3) is that the British and American empires have tried the kill em all approach time and time again. It has never worked.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
MountainPro said:
War isnt pretty?, inpouring of terrorists?

davidmc, didnt you read the report?
The report conceded that the data the projections were based on was of "limited precision".
I read the report, it's an estimate. It may be accurate & it may, also, not be accurate. There are going to be civilian casualties, especially in an urban guerrilla conflict. We are not "officially" at war right now, correct ? Bremer was moved in because "official" hostilities were over. This is the war after the war. Combatants can't be discerned from non-combatants for the most part. If they conceal their weapons, they can pass for non-combatants. There are no iraqi insurgency uniforms that i'm aware of. :confused: So, how does one tell the diff.? It is'nt that easy. The insurgents know the importance of blending in, so they're going to dress like everyone else. As far as the inpouring, the border w/ syria or jordan was'nt given the attention necessary in the beginning of the conflict. This theater is enticing to young, upstart jihadist's to make a name for themselves. You don't think they'd jump at the chance to "cut their teeth", so to speak, fighting against the great satan (bush & co.)? Come on let's be realistic.
 

szbert

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
336
2
0
darkboong said:
that the British and American empires have tried the kill em all approach time and time again. It has never worked.
What a whiney doper! Quitters never win, and winners never quit. Just because Edison failed a few hundred times making the light bulb, you'd rather live in an age of candlelight and whale oil lamps.

We just keep killing them until the enemy is gone or their will to fight is completely extinguished.