See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 36943
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-417) not displayed.
.
.
.
#418. To: ..., ALL (#403)
If you don't see it on page 54, look on page 55 or page 53. Don't be lazy. It's there. Right at the top of the page on the left column. "War-Related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000. In Orange type. What I quoted was not out of context. And what the report concluded is entirely relevant. It was published shortly after the first John Hopkins' (the one claiming 100,000 deaths) study. The second John Hopkins' study (the one claiming 655,000 deaths) claims the results of the first study were found to be valid. Regardless of purpose, the study estimated war related deaths and it was in fact done in much the same manner ... through interviews, clustering, etc. The report states "The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey." And the study was based on much larger sample than the John's Hopkins' study. You are wrong. The study mentions the Lancet study on the same page. Right below the Table 39 it states "Another source (Roberts et al. 2004) estimates the number to be 98,000, with a confidence interval of 8000 to 194,000." You just can't face the possibility that the Les Roberts' study was bogus, can you. Why that would shatter your whole world-view. ROTFLOL!
You are doing the accuseing BAC, and accusseing Diana of something YOU said not her. She never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying. No honest person reading her comment could assume that. "have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?" So now you are calling it a genocide??? BAC???? Which is it, just an acceptable number of collateral damage or a genocide??? BAC?? Or does it depend on how you are trying to emote the matter at hand??
How nice of you to admit that the truth doesn't matter. Just victory for your agenda. I suppose that would make your side no different than Bush.
You make me laugh, nazi clown.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Ping to #418.
Actually, it does. Depending on how you read the page numbers, it is either on Page 53, 54 or 55. And you could have easily used the search feature of whatever application you used to open the pdf to find the quote. That's what I did. But I guess that's perhaps a skill you don't have. You are too use to being spoon fed.
Oh boy it's time for the BeAChooser Show!
Yes, that would be the American agenda, not this neocon, Zionist-driven swill you assclowns have swallowed whole. Got it, putz?
You have any idea of the payload of the B-17 compared to the payload of an F-18 or a Spectre AC-130? Of course you don't.
The source where I think you got that list of US casualties, http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx also lists Iraqi civilian deaths reported from April 28, 2005 to now as being less than 25,000. But during same period, Les Roberts and his John Hopkins team are saying that over 370,000 excess deaths occurred. You don't see a problem in that?
Go back and read my whole post and you will see how foolish you are being by putting words in my mouth.
Not the issue. The issue is whether the John Hopkins study is bogus or not. And by the way, most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities. And unlike the modern precision guided bombs, the ones dropped on Germany were dumb. That's why they carpet bombed. Cities. Yet you folks want us to believe that more Iraqis have died with the Coalition going out of its way to spare civilians than died in Germany. I think most visitors to this forum might see a flaw in that logic. And most will probably be amazed to see you folks still defending that flaw in the face of what I've posted on this thread.
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice. To which you reply: It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
illed in the war. That was the second time I’d read of the military censoring a casualty-related site. http://Memoryhole.org, the site that first showed photos of flag-draped coffins being shipped back from Iraq, said in June that one of its readers had a similar experience. GIs trying to visit that site were greeted with: Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Extreme;Politics/Religion" The Armed Forces takes great care to ensure whenever there is a casualty the family receives the information first. Non-DoD sites reporting casualty figures can lead to inaccurate information being distributed. [Note: I've put Capt. Karns’ full response is the previous post.] P.S. To its credit, the military has started to do the job it once left to http://icasualties.org: It now posts daily casualty tallies. In case it's not already clear, there are other sites blocked besides casualty count sites. Karns goes into more detail in another email: "Certain sites are blocked if access is not required to perform the individuals official duties. Components may be more strict if they deem it appropriate." When I asked what qualifies as an appropriate site, he said, "If it’s tied in to be able to have a greater understanding of world events and it’s a legitimate news source than chances are service-members will have a chance of seeing it." Of course, as I mentioned, http://icasualties.org and CNN rely on the Pentagon's own announcements. In fact, http://icasualties.org does such a thorough job that active duty officers have written in praising it. TrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pentagon Acknowledges Blocking Casualty Sites: » Free Press in Iraq from Political Animal FREE PRESS IN IRAQ....Should soldiers in Iraq have access to websites that list the number of casualties suffered in the war so far? The Pentagon doesn't think so and blocks access to all such sites. Eric Umansky has the details.... [Read More] » Pentagon learns from the CCP from The Peking Duck » Fighting for Freedom from Snow World » September 18: Today's Reason to Not Elect George W. Bush from Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog » Military censors http://icasualties.org, CNN casualty page from Infothought Tracked on September 20, 2004 at 01:55 AM » Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites from vowe dot net Eric Umansky reports:Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that compiles casualty figures for Americans Iraq, as well as CNN33;s page on servicemembers killed in t... [Read More] » Ask About That from Ask About That » Time>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">Time is not on my side from Uranus sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
HAH!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
So you admit 600,000 bodies are missing. What did they do with these bodies then, you must know since you know exactly how many are missing!
Hippies make them drop bombs on jungle, I suppose...? Holy frijoles you are one stupid clod.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
He obviously knows all about it and what happened to those 600,000 bodies, he's busted!
your argument in 412 is brilliant BAC. You've won this one. The US & UK bombed germany during WW2 and therefore - the Johns Hopkins study showing that 650,000 Iraqis died since the invasion who otherwise would not have died without the invasion is false. Why didn't I think of that? My awe for your reasoning powers is fully restored after you stumbled on the 911 thread a few days ago.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
And what might that be, bedwetter?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Yes, I see the problem. The ratio of dead INVADERS to innocent Iraqi civilians should be reversed.
Actually I simply asked her questions. She tried to explain away the fact that there is NO physical evidence to support the allegation that 655,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq through July of last year by stating "In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later." Now maybe you don't see that as assertion that our soldiers must be involved in covering up the bulk of that death but I think most people will. And I think most will understand my logic in suggesting it would take quite a few soldiers to hide all that evidence and keep reporters away. And soldiers being soldiers, I think most will agree that by now all soldiers in Iraq would know this is going on. In which case, they must be keeping it quiet. Which can only make them accessories to the crime. Right? She certainly implied someone connected to our government is doing the burying. If not our soldiers, WHO? And how could anyone hide what they were doing from our soldiers? Sorry, but I think it is highly illogical to believe that this scale of attrocity (which, by the way, it greater than the one Saddam was accused of) is going on without our soldiers being aware of it and therefore complicit.
Actually it doesn't. But it does serve your purpose to say that it does. Wouldn't you be better off on a forum where people didn't click your links and chek them out? You could then just go back to posting bullshit links like you were doing at the top of this thread. Wouldn't that be easier?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Maybe if you posted another link selling magazine subscriptions people would fall for your BS. You might as well try it. You are not getting anywhere with what you are doing now.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice. To which you reply: It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position? Diana posted on 2007-02-19 20:48:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply He sat in that one.
BAC I an happy to have an honest questioner of the events as presented. I am sure we can both find common ground in finding the mass media wanting in accuracy and depth.
She certainly implied someone connected to our government is doing the burying. Proof. Even remote proof may be allowed. I am not against your POV, I , as I have to assume you are thirsty for the truth.
so when are you going to give us your ron brown kookery? it's been a more than a full week now.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
nice pictures, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in china? you posted some more bogus links and you are trying to distract people?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
I take it we are to believe that the bio and chem weaponry would be launched on the back of sand fleas which would/could magically fly or float on wind streams from over there to over here? The disinfo from the admin is only surpassed by your feeble attempts to baffle with bullshit.
BAC's argument in #412 is brilliant. Who would've figured that out (except BAC) that because the allies bombed Dresden during WW2 the John Hopkins study is false. Who would've ever figured that out? And I'm afraid that now with the Dresden argumnent in BAC's arsenal he can defeat us all in any argument about any subject. All he has to do is bring up the FACT that the allies bombed germany during WW2 and this can disprove any assertion that anyone makes about anything. I think we're going to have to put up with BAC winning all arguments from now on.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It's hopeless to argue with a person who can't distinguish lies from the truth, and won't recognize other people's points, just distorts their words to fit his agenda. He's simply rude and dishonest to the core. There is no reasoning with him. I have to wonder if he relates to everyone this way, or if he is some type of supremecist, for whom he has a different set of standards when he is among them. Somehow I suspect this guy is this way with everyone though, he's devoid of conscience, a hopeless sociopath. BAC since you think lurkers are so impressed with you and what you have to say (not), why don't you go post at DU? That is a much larger forum, I'm sure there would so many more people over there to impress with your brilliant dishonesty. This is a small forum and not many people read here. You would have such a greater audience over at DU, imagine the number of people you would manage to sway to your way of thinking. I would consider making the switch so you could reach more people.
Oh! Got a problem with the 4um posters, eh BAC? Ever consider the term "Hospitality?" There's a reciprocal relationship implied - something about common sense manners. {Christine, is it time for BAC to go? Should there be a vote?}
You're such a sweet person, Diana. Thanking for being such an outstanding example of FD4UM members.
Gee, SKYDRIFTER, I thought you welcomed the opportunity to debate me here at FD4UM. I distinctly remember whole threads devoted to the topic of my not daring to come over here and do that. And as any reader of this forum can see, I've been very courteous. No labels, no name calling. Just sourced facts and logic that don't seem to jibe with some of the articles and *facts* FD4UMers have been posting. Now FD4UMers could debate those facts and logic with credible sourced articles and logic of your own. But you haven't done that. Instead, the general response has been to use the bozo filter in large numbers and call for my banning. Along with throwing out mountains of adhominems. That's rather suggestive of a group that does not want to be challenged about what it claims. Don't you think?
You may have a point but: Hell, he can't hurt us with black pixels on a screen and we know what he is and where he stands (intellectual prostitute). I say let him stay, I find his comments entertaining, comical and borderline lunacy. Even if, because of his agenda we can't "wake him up", it's still better than "preaching to the choir".
No one is attempting to misstate you views. Contrary to what you may believe, I did not make it a habit of reading every single post you made at LP. I did however, read some of them. The one I remember reading had to do with him not being a metallurgist. If there was more, so be it. One thing is for sure though and that is that Professor Jones has at least as much credibility as the worthless blogs you've been spamming this thread with. No, Hayek, you know full well that I've posted over a dozen different sources on this thread alone that say Les Robert's studies are not what you and he claim. Why don't you try arguing what the blog actually says? Why don't you TRY to address the points I raised in post 123? Is the basis of your belief so thin you can't do that? Don't hide. Do you wish to claim the following points are untrue? Yes or no? By the way I've added a few based on what I discovered during the course of this thread. I cannot argue what the blogs say because I don't know the faintest thing about epidemiology and my one business statistics class was more than twenty years ago. I am not qualified to make an argument one way or another. The basis of my belief is that the Johns Hopkins School of Public Heath is the number one ranked school of public health in the world. Unlike yourself, I do not believe that they would risk that prestige in order to score political points against the Bush administration. Administrations come and go. The school has a reputation to uphold. If you want to take the word of unknown bloggers BAC, then hey, knock yourself out. If you want to take the word of the UN as gospel, then once again, BAC, knowck yourself out. I don't care. I choose not to and you've not convinced me that the Lancet study was some political gotcha against Bush. As I've stated before, if the questions you ask were valid, then that information would not have to be disseminated in unknown blogs but instead would be made public as studies in peer reviewed journals. Now I'm done with this conversation. You've said what you had to say and I've said what I've had to say.
Anybody that followed this administration into war based on lies is bereft of facts and logic.
No labels, no name calling. ..... fear is good! BAC, if anyone wanted to call you a lying piece of shit, they would have to stand in line. But, you don't seem to learn. In any case, thank you for being so obvious.
I don't see it.
And how would an out of context quote from a report on another subject
This report wasn't done at the same time as the Lancet study,
it wasn't done for the same purpose and wasn't done in the same manner.
In addition, I am almost certain it deosn't even address the Lancet study.
#419. To: BeAChooser (#414)
(Edited)
So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
#420. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#406)
Did the John Hopkins report mention your side is getting it's ass kicked?
#421. To: BeAChooser (#420)
your side
#422. To: Minerva, ALL (#407)
I don't see it. It doesn't say what you claim it does.
#423. To: Minerva, ALL (#409)
You did post one article from the UN however, but you didn't give us the specific quote or tell us why it was at all on point.
#424. To: BeAChooser (#408)
#425. To: BeAChooser (#420)
Just victory for your agenda.
#426. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#412)
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of strategic bombing:
#427. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#411)
Here you go: dead American corporate cannon fodder.
#428. To: BeAChooser (#414)
Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
#429. To: Dakmar, ALL (#413)
And we dropped more on Vietnam and environs than total used during WWII by allies and axis combined.
Does that make it right?
#430. To: BeAChooser (#414)
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
#431. To: BeAChooser (#427)
Access Denied (content_filter_denied)
I assumed this wasn’t policy, but rather an overzealous sys-admin with too much time on his hands. I was wrong. An Army spokesman has now explained to me that it is indeed the Army’s intention to block service-members from viewing non-Pentagon casualty sites. (Other services apparently have similar policies and do use filtering software.) Captain Chris Karns, a spokesman with Centcom, explained: If a web site is not an official DoD web site or if it is not required to perform official government functions it can be blocked. In this case, it is important to ensure consistency and accuracy when dealing with causalities.
Karns’ concerns are understandable—and irrelevant: http://Icasualties.org and CNN compile their figures from the Pentagon’s own press releases. Nor are names attached to them—unless it’s a link to a previously published article. And even if the problem did exist, isn’t the purported solution just a wee heavy-handed?
UPDATE
Since most people seem to be accessing this post directly, here's some further detail from other posts: TrackBack
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1137856
Interesting. It seems the Pentagon blocks US soldiers in Iraq from accessing Web sites that list US casualties in our glorious war. Why? What are they worried about? Bush says freedom and democracy are spreading like wildfire. What's a few... [Read More]
Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites Our soldiers fight for freedom, but the Defense Department doesn't trust them with it. Nice example to set for the Iraqis. Next thing you know, they'll put Baghdad Bob back on the air, telling everyone [Read More]
Today's shrill critic of George W. Bush is Eric Umansky: Eric Umansky: Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites: Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that... [Read More]
In war, truth is the first casuality [Read More]
Ask About That [Read More]
Talk is going on about... [Read>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">[Read More] Comments
#432. To: BeAChooser (#429)
Not the issue.
#433. To: BeAChooser (#430)
It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing.
#434. To: BeAChooser (#429)
most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities
#435. To: Dakmar, Diana, ALL (#416)
"But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes."
You are one sick son of a bitch if you have that audacity to hang something like that on a stranger.
Diana - Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies.
BeAChooser - Prove that claim (BAC - Iraq having the capability of launching missiles to the US in 45 minutes) was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't.
Diana - Are you serious?
Diana - Are you saying that was never said right before the war? Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
#436. To: tom007, BeAChooser (#419)
So now you are calling it a genocide??? BAC????
#437. To: BeAChooser (#412)
#438. To: BeAChooser (#435)
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
#439. To: BeAChooser (#427)
You don't see a problem in that?
#440. To: tom007, Diana, ALL (#419)
"So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?"
You are doing the accusing BAC, and accussing Diana of something YOU said not her.
She never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying.
#441. To: BeAChooser (#423)
Actually, it does.
#442. To: BeAChooser (#423)
#443. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#430)
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
#444. To: Diana (#436)
(Edited)
#445. To: BeAChooser, diana (#440)
he never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying.
#446. To: BeAChooser (#440)
#447. To: BeAChooser (#412)
#448. To: BeAChooser (#435)
..."civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies."...
#449. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#447)
#450. To: Red Jones, tom007, Dakmar, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, All (#449)
I think we're going to have to put up with BAC winning all arguments from now on.
#451. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#435)
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
#452. To: Diana, ALL (#450)
Somehow I suspect this guy is this way with everyone though, he's devoid of conscience, a hopeless sociopath.
#453. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#451)
Christine, is it time for BAC to go? Should there be a vote?
#454. To: SKYDRIFTER (#451)
{Christine, is it time for BAC to go? Should there be a vote?}
#455. To: BeAChooser (#400)
There is much more to my reason for not believing Steven Jones than his not being a metallurgist. Why try to misstate my views, Hayek?
#456. To: (#453)
Just sourced facts and logic
#457. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#453)
And as any reader of this forum can see, I've been very courteous.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
DoD's daily casualty tallies are nothing new. They have had them available for months now. For example, http://GlobalSecurity.org keeps an archive of them going back to November 2003.
Posted by: anonymous | September 18, 2004 at 07:22 PM
Hi; Perhaps of interest:
I compile this weekly datasheet on military fatalities. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/DeRooij_Iraq-Coalition-Toll.htm
About two weeks ago my access to DefenseLink was blocked, and now I must use another account to view that website...
Kind rgds
Paul
Posted by: Paul de Rooij | September 20, 2004 at 11:50 AM
Please note that there are 43 casualties from South Carolina listed on our website, which is more than the 29 listed on http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx website. We are searching info. to learn if there are more SC citizens that have died from wounds in hospitals.