Home | Community | Message Board


Azarius
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

100,000
    #3340653 - 11/10/04 10:48 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

i've recently been seeing this number quoted as the number of civilians killed by the recent invasion of iraq. it's a hell of a lot higher than any other number i've seen. where did this number come from?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebf6
Keep the highfive alive!

Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 3,121
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340654 - 11/10/04 10:49 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I'm not sure either. I'd be interested to know though.


--------------------
The only thing that burns in Hell is the part of you that won't let go of life, your memories, your attachments. They burn them all away. But they're not punishing you, they're freeing your soul. So, if you're frightened of dying and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away, but if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth...

bloodflower6

Yay for Pornography!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: 100,000 [Re: bf6]
    #3340656 - 11/10/04 10:50 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Its another left wing lie.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340658 - 11/10/04 10:52 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

100,000 is the conservative estimate. May well be closer to 200,000.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340668 - 11/10/04 10:55 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

It's from an article published by The Lancet. The research was done by scientists from Johns Hopkins.

But pay no attention, it's all part of the 'libural conspircy'. USA can do no wrong.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 100,000 [Re: Xlea321]
    #3340669 - 11/10/04 10:56 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

so i've heard. what i'm asking is who this comes from.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340671 - 11/10/04 10:56 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I think the number came from a European medical study and was published in The Lancet, which I guess is a medical magazine.

What numbers have you been seeing, mush?


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340681 - 11/10/04 10:59 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

so i've heard. what i'm asking is who this comes from.

Hmm..somethings not quite right here mush. The articles been posted several times on this site, you could find it with a 2 minute search on google..what's the deal about asking where it comes from?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: 100,000 [Re: Xlea321]
    #3340685 - 11/10/04 11:00 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

The faster the Islamic terrorists die the better off the world will be.


Edited by Great_Satan (11/10/04 11:01 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAntiMeme
yankee doodledandy
Registered: 08/11/04
Posts: 208
Re: 100,000 [Re: Gijith]
    #3340687 - 11/10/04 11:01 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Of course gijith.. it must be a eurotrash study. From that liberal eurotrash institution Johns Hopkins University.

Since none of you illiterates seem to know how to use a search engine:

The article in question

Login: http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=www.thelancet.com


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 100,000 [Re: Great_Satan]
    #3340692 - 11/10/04 11:02 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

The faster the Islamic terrorists die the better off the world will be.

Damn you're looking for some attention today satan.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: 100,000 [Re: AntiMeme]
    #3340708 - 11/10/04 11:09 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Oops. My mistake. I just remember that the Lancet was British, so I assumed.

Yeah, John Hopkins.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 100,000 [Re: Gijith]
    #3340715 - 11/10/04 11:11 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

15 to 20 thousand.

you are right about where the 100,000 number came from.

here was the methodology that was used:

" The estimate is based on a September door-to-door survey of 988 Iraqi households -- containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods -- selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases.

The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine.

Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey.

"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said.

The researchers and the Lancet editors acknowledged that the study has clear limitations, including a relatively small sample of violent deaths that were examined directly and the researchers' reliance on individual memories for some information. But the researchers said the findings represent the most reliable estimate to date."

that doesn't sound incredibly reliable to me, and it's a hell of a lot higher than anything else i've seen.

here is what marc galasco, senior military analyst at human rights watch, has to say about the study:

"'The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting,' said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. 'These numbers seem to be inflated.'

Garlasco of Human Rights Watch said it is extremely difficult to estimate civilian casualties, especially based on relatively small numbers. 'I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach,' Garlasco said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

why am i not surprised?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340721 - 11/10/04 11:16 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Ah..so you managed to find an article knocking it but not the article itself?

As you said...why am i not surprised?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 100,000 [Re: Xlea321]
    #3340739 - 11/10/04 11:23 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

i typed, "iraq civilian deaths 100,000" into google and i posted one of the first hits i got. i was interested in who the number came from and the methods used to obtain it, so the article i found worked nicely. is there anything pressingly important missing from the article i found?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340749 - 11/10/04 11:28 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

i was interested in who the number came from and the methods used to obtain it, so the article i found worked nicely

Only if you trust some journalist with an obvious agenda and his half-baked interpretation of a report...as you yourself said in a recent thread "Why are journalists so stupid"..

I'd start with the original report and THEN go onto journalists intepretations of it..you'll find why the 100,000 figure was actually the most conservative figure they could come up with and 200,000 may be more accurate.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340759 - 11/10/04 11:34 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

www.iraqbodycount.org, which tracks actual civilians deaths, incident by incident, is a far better source on iraqi casualties that a door to door survey relying on the memory and honesty of iraqi survey participants, most of whom are not happy with the occupation if i remember correctly.

"Iraq Body Count response to the Lancet study estimating "100,000" Iraqi deaths

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.

One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database. Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely conducted and without official interference - have the potential to far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their findings.

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been. This total can only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or transnational authority.

Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others. At an earlier stage, we did indeed provide an assessment of other counting projects [link], to provide what clarity we could for better public understanding of the issues involved. In that instance the projects under review were similar to ours, in that they attempted to amass data on actual deaths (and some of their findings have subsequently been integrated into our own count). Nonetheless, the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 deaths - which is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima - has, if it is accurate, such serious implications that we may return to the subject in greater detail in the near future. As of this writing we are more concerned with renewed air and ground attacks on Falluja, which last April left over 800 Iraqis dead, some 600 of them civilians (see previous IBC press release below).

It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn't simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched (see IBC Press Release September 23rd 2003 [link]; also AP 24th May 2004 [graphic chart]).

We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.

Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII."

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: 100,000 [Re: Xlea321]
    #3340768 - 11/10/04 11:38 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

did i quote anything from the article which was not factual?

was there anything in the article which is not factual?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340793 - 11/10/04 11:46 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I presume you've made up your mind the article is wrong and are now seeking out articles to prove you are right?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 100,000 [Re: ]
    #3340800 - 11/10/04 11:49 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Don't worry about it, mushmaster. The Lancet article has been attacked by virtually every statistician who has seen it. The methodology is fatally flawed and their conclusion is so vague as to be meaningless. The Lancet is probably extremely embarassed they were conned into publishing such a shoddy piece of work.


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Millionaire Offers $100,000 For Scientific Proof WTC Towers Collapsed As Bush Administration Claims
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 3,282 37 12/16/04 10:29 PM
by ekomstop
* Hizbullah Lifts Pay for Suicide Attacks to $100,000 lonestar2004 677 2 07/07/05 09:14 PM
by question_for_joo
* Wheelchair ramp will cost $100,000 a foot lonestar2004 657 4 02/27/08 01:14 PM
by lonestar2004
* More Than 100,000 Protest Bush in NYC daussaulit 1,070 10 08/30/04 05:38 PM
by BleaK
* Obama rallied 100,000 people underneath St. Louis’ Gate
( 1 2 3 all )
downforpot 2,303 43 10/19/08 05:12 PM
by Arose Chaos
* Clinton says we need 100, 000 MORE cops, 4B$ more in fed taxes redistributed to crim. justice system johnm214 475 2 04/13/08 04:18 PM
by dill705
* Civilian casualties in Iraq due to US action around 1-2 thousand zappaisgod 921 7 11/30/05 12:50 AM
by Madtowntripper
* New Scientist reports findings on civilian deaths in Iraq
( 1 2 3 all )
GazzBut 2,641 58 11/11/04 12:04 PM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,697 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 20 queries.