See other World News Articles
Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source:
Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24200
Comments: 394
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday. The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence. The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636. The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-271) not displayed.
.
.
.
#272. To: BeAChooser (#271)
ROTFLOL!!! So Aziz, the war shill, paraphased Glaspie's statement long after the fact and just as it started to damage Bush's war effort. And from your post above, he didn't do it in a consistent manner. In other words Azis tried to spin the inconvenient statement Fox News style when it started to become a problem. And moronic, gullible goobers like yourself slurped it up with a spoon. Let me clue you in on something chooser. That is the reason he did it. To fool idiots like youself.
.
That doesn't mean the original facts came from NewsMax. It just might mean Newsmax got it right when it republished what others first published. But then you apparently never read anything but Newsmax so you wouldn't know. What possible motivation might he have for admitting something that might link him to an anthrax attack in the US that killed people? Do you know that neither the CIA or FBI can confirm that Atta was in the United States during the same period? But since you are so informed, scrapper, perhaps you can explain another strange coincidence in this story. al-Ani ... the Iraqi case officer that Atta is reported by the Czechs to have met ... had an entry in his day calendar for the day in question about meeting "a Hamburg student". What a coincidence that Atta's travel documents listed him as a "Hamburg student". Any explanation you care to float?
So tom, did you say anything when I was called "evil" and worse because I dared to note that a free fall collapse of the WTC towers would take 10 seconds but the towers actually took 15 seconds to fall? No??? Have you had anything to say the uncounted times I've been called a shill, bushbot, moron or any number of other demeaning labels? No???
Stop your pathetic whining. Your wingnut victimhood is truely digusting. Take it off the board and spare us.
.
BAC, you asshole, we went over this at ElPee. Glaspie later let is slip that "....we didn't expect them to take all of Kuwait." In other words, if Hussein had just grabbed the northern Kuwaiti oil fields; that would have been okay. BAC - you're such a fucking disinformationisat asshole!
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html) that "She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation." He went on to say "So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States." Aziz told the New York Times on 31 May 1991 that "She didn't give a green light, and she didn't mention a red light because the question of our presence in Kuwait was not raised. ... And we didn't take it as a green light ... that if we intervened militarily in Kuwait, the Americans would not react. That was not true. We were expecting an American attack on the morning of the second of August." USA Today reported that "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says neither he nor Saddam Hussein thought U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait in a notorious July 1990 meeting". It quoted Aziz saying "We didn't have any false illusion about the position of the United States. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction against that. So we didn't have any false expectations the United States would sit and watch" the invasion. It quoted him saying that "At that stage we knew that it would lead to a conflict. And later on, when they sent troops, we knew it would lead to a war." So once again, ..., you demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. I guess you are just generally uninformed.
A further demonstration of how badly informed you are. Tariq Aziz made those statements in the 1990's long before Bush's war effort. He made the statements when Saddam was still in power and he still worked for Saddam. Just keep digging the hole deeper, ...
ROTFLOL!! OK, I give. He was spinning in the run up to take out Saddam. Great.
.
When you can figure out the methodology of the hit involving the bullet wound let me know.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Here's a feasible possibility. The plane was spoofed into hitting the mountain by a portable beacon. (Aviation Week said this would fit the flight path data and a portable beacon did go missing right before the crash.) Those doing it knew roughly where the plane would come down. (Obviously) The arrived at the crash well ahead of anyone else. (AP reported that the first rescuers to supposedly arrive were actually met by 3 Americans.) They found Brown still alive. (The crash was a low speed affair. The rear section was still intact. Dr Wechts, one of America's foremost pathologists said that other than the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable.) They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head). They control the crash scene and the examination of the body. Now that may or may not be the way it happened. But one thing is sure. The pathologists in the case think the nature of the wound merited an autopsy because it at least LOOKED like a bullet wound rather than blunt force trauma. Now you go hide, because obviously that's what you want to do.
But since you are so informed, scrapper, perhaps you can explain another strange coincidence in this story. al-Ani ... the Iraqi case officer that Atta is reported by the Czechs to have met ... had an entry in his day calendar for the day in question about meeting "a Hamburg student". What a coincidence that Atta's travel documents listed him as a "Hamburg student". Any explanation you care to float? Sure - try this on for size, BAC - a declassified report today states that Saddam had no collusion or relationship with AQ - so I guess that means Saddam did not know any of the characters that weekly standard and newsmax et al spun stories about. In fact, Doug Feith - traitor and criminal extraordinaire - leaked MANUFACTURED intel to weekly standard et al. The story just broke on Washington Post. So take your AQ-Saddam phony lies and choke on it. And the same goes for your neocon traitor pals. Let them choke on their lies and their bile. Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians and over 3000 US soldiers - for lies - may he rot in hell. And shills like you who push lies made up by the Office of Special Plans are accessories after the fact. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49583&Disp=7#C7 "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted" Washington Post/ Front Page/April 05, 2007 Doug Feith lied and US soldiers died!
You are a ridiculous, wild eyed, drooling conspiracy kook. Do you know that?
.
The plane was spoofed into hitting the mountain by a portable beacon. (Aviation Week said this would fit the flight path data and a portable beacon did go missing right before the crash.) Those doing it knew roughly where the plane would come down. (Obviously) The arrived at the crash well ahead of anyone else. (AP reported that the first rescuers to supposedly arrive were actually met by 3 Americans.) They found Brown still alive. (The crash was a low speed affair. The rear section was still intact. Dr Wechts, one of America's foremost pathologists said that other than the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable.) They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head). They control the crash scene and the examination of the body. Now that may or may not be the way it happened. But one thing is sure. The pathologists in the case think the nature of the wound merited an autopsy because it at least LOOKED like a bullet wound rather than blunt force trauma. Why BAC, we finally have something we agree on. Personally, I think it was something on the order of a .45 Cal blank, doing fatal damage with only the consequent skull fragments, propelled into the brain. Possibly a bullet, going down the spine / chest cavity. Don't forget about the surviving flight attendant who mysteriously turned up dead.
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. If you don't know by now that John Hopkins did NOT claim 650,000 CIVILIANS were killed, you are clueless. But of course, I can't call anyone clueless on 4um because that would be insulting. And I'm not allowed to be insulting.
No rational response huh? So you try BAC tactic number two: personal insults and belittling the posters. Why didn't you just try to change the subject? Isn't that what you normally do?
.
I find that as plausable as demolition charges bringing down the WTC.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Chooser, arn't you going to keep thrashing around and making people laugh at you? The night is still young and the GOP still has a 29% approval rating for you to thrash.
.
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility. Now I challenge you to quote a REAL expert in structures, demolition or any of the relevant fields who suggests that demolition charges brought down the WTC towers. You won't be able to do it.
NewsMax or the National Enquirer? And remember moron, flapping your arms and flying is a possibility. You really do need to learn how to think critically.
.
And what do you say about: a) Feith being a traitor who lied us into a war? b) what do you say about Feith contributing to the needless deaths of over 3000 US soldiers? c) Do you dispute the findings of the Inspector General's report which was de- classified and reported on the front page of the Washington Post today? d)Do you think traitors like Doug Feith should be arrested, tried, and executed?
Where'd he go? Don't try to get him banned, I want to know what 911 anthrax is.
Oh there you are. What is 9/11 anthrax?
This was posted by Whitesands over at LP. *********** The illumnatai had planned this long ago. Proof that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy can be found in our currency. U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks! Yes! see for yourself... 1st) FOLD A NEW $20 BILL THIS WAY 2nd) CONTINUE TO FOLD THIS WAY Compare your fold precisely to this picture. 3rd) FOLD THE RIGHT SIDE UNDER, exactly as you folded the left side. You'll immediately see the Pentagon ablaze! (red circle) 4th) NOW FLIP IT OVER AND SEE OTHER SIDE The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are hit and smoking. What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks? ***********
Proof that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy can be found in our currency. You believe this crap? As I said before, you need to learn how to think critically.
.
What is the significance of the Ron Brown story/murder? Why is that so important to BAC, because Ron Brown knew too much about corruption regarding Clinton? I'm probably not the only one who doesn't know, but most people don't want to admit if they don't know something.
This certainly doesn't mean you believe now this was a conspiracy, I find it odd that this would come from White Sands, another poster like Aaron from LP who wants to throw all 4um posters into Gitmo, unless he's making collective fun of "conspiracy theorists". By the way, what is 9/11 anthrax, why won't you answer me on that?
Uh...and White Sands at LP has his PhD in origami? WTF is White Sands and why should I care about this pal of yours? What does White Sands' tricks with a $20 bill have to do with my questions to you about the declassification today of the report by the Inspector General of the DOD revealing that a traitor named Doug Feith manufactured false intel ( contradicting the CIA's own reports) to propel us into a needless war that got 3000+ US soldiers killed needlessly? My President, your President, our President lied. He did not act on bad intel. He acted on manufactured intel - manufactured by his own hand picked DOD cabinet ministers, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith. Do you get it? GWB and Cheney should be impeached. Feith and Wolfowitz should be arrested and tried for treason. These officials with their purposeful lies have killed and injured more Americans than Bin Laden dreamed of doing. Catch a clue, if you love America. The state of the Oval Office is rotten to the core.
Name me the exotic gun.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I find that very strange, White Sands is one of the worst and most vicious of the radicals over there. He regularly calls for the deaths of posters from other forums, or used to.
I don't know White Sands but the likes of him and other IsraelFirster war monger pigs are probably experiencing exploding head syndrome as we speak. The Washington Post front page today exposes the lies of these pigs. So now they are jumping from a sinking ship - pointing to other folks as being "the problem." Illuminati - yah, rigggght - that's an intellectual construct - we have for real traitors on front stage at the highest levels of gov't - White Sands is merely creating a diversionary tactic from the evil that walks and struts and preens and gives press conferences before our eyes. Impeachment and trials for treason are the only way. America deserves nothing less. If the Democrats don't act on these revelations they reveal themselves to be party to the crimes of treason against this fair republic!
From the little bit I know of White Sands, that would be bizarre to the most extreme if he is now blaming the illuminati, but when people are desperate or caught in a corner they will resort to most anything blaming anyone. Very strange though, it's like we've been living in Twilight Zone these past several years. I hope to God it all finally comes to an end and all this madness can stop.
The Democrats have more than enough reasons to "bring them down." Madness will be ended only if the neocons are arrested. They are traitors. Who the f**k cares about over charges by Halliburton or political appointee lawyers fired - what matters is the Iraq War for lies, the Patriot Act, and the MCA - bring the mother f**kers down - orange jumpsuits and ball and chains is what America wants to see - bring the neocons down and don't let them serve their sentences in Israel. That fat ugly mass of lard Cheney needs to meet his Gitmo Club cellmate, Mohammed, up close and intimate. And Goofy needs to make friends with the Egyptian rendition crew - hello cheerleader. And Fatboy Dougie and Holes Wolfowitz need to be greeted by the Shiite families in Basra for the wonderbar democracy they have bestowed on their sons six feet under. Shalom.
You believe I believe it? ROTFLOL!
"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe. Christopher Ruddy, January 11, 1998, ... snip ... Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun. Hause recalls Spencer responded that drug traffickers used such a weapon to kill U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena in Mexico in 1985. Hause noted that a captive-bolt gun, normally used to slaughter livestock, creates a perfectly circular hole in the skull that closely resembles a gunshot."
Of course not. It would pass another porkbarrel-laden crime law. But it would not embarass itself with a solemn declaration of war against a gang. Gangs aren't countries, BAC.
Did we have an extradition treaty with Saddam's regime or the Taliban? Or if we did can you cite an instance where it was used successfully? You missed the point. When we diplomatically isolate ourselves from foreign countries by refusing diplomatic recognition, we can't negotiate extradition treaties.
That's because he didn't send them there to start a war or to commence hostilities. He sent them there to defend shipping from attack, not to invade a foreign country. This is at least the third time on this thread that you have implied that an equivalence exists between the two. This is a disturbing trend in your style, BAC, and one that I would have thought you would have given up, long ago. When logically checkmated, you retreat into a repetitive mode, pretending not to understand that the mantras you utter have been refuted many posts ago. You need to either refine your positions with more research or concede them. Repeating yourself until the other side loses patience and moves on is not a victory in anyone's book but your own. You have a chance, at this 4um, to liven things up, but we need better efforts from you.
We need a cite.
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." Gee ... that language sounds a lot like the language Congress passed in 2002 regarding Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. Fascinating. You reversed the order of teh two passages that you cited, to create the false impression that Jefferson sent the forces before war had been declared by Tripoli. When the two passages are restored to the order in which they appeared in the Wikipedia article, they convey a quite different impression: "On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'" When all that one must do to refute you is to simply read the authorities that you cite, then you have become far too easy a target, BAC, and much less of a challenge than one would hope.
For whatever reason, apparently BAC is as enraged about the Ron Brown killing as most are about the 9-11 stuff. Brown challenged the Clintonistas, advising that he knew too much to be investigated or prosecuted ('They' were after him.) The Clintonistas took care of that. The murder was on par with the 9-11 cover-up, as far as execution and the so-called "investigation." I don't know all of BAC's position on Brown, but it sound as though he and I would find no adversarial beliefs in that issue.
Yes he did. http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/011206et.pdf "Specifically, in 1802, Congress authorized hostilities between the United States and the Bey of Tripoli without a formal declaration of war. In doing so, it authorized the President to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify," suggesting that it believed a state of war could exist even though it had not formally declared it. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in two cases from its 1800 and 1801 terms. Both cases, Bas v. Tingy and Talbott v. Seeman, involved the measure of prize money due for the capture of ships at sea, which depended in that instance upon whether the United States had been at war with France. The Court ruled that it had been, based upon the actual naval hostilities and Congress' authorization of those hostilities."
Comments (313 - 394) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#273. To: scrapper2, ALL (#265)
Strange but I found many of the "facts" you quoted in a 5 part NewsMax series by Phil Brennan and the Al-Ani thingie in a newsmax article as well.
Al Ani was captured by Coalition forces in July and has reportedly denied to U.S. interrogators any meeting with Atta.
Neither the CIA nor the FBI can confirm, for instance, that Atta met specifically with Iraqi intelligence.
#274. To: tom007, ALL (#268)
You could get alot more milage by not be constantly so accusing, In my humble opinion.
#275. To: BeAChooser (#274)
So tom, did you say anything when I was called "evil" and worse because I dared to note that a free fall collapse of the WTC towers would take 10 seconds but the towers actually took 15 seconds to fall?
#276. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
#277. To: ..., ALL (#269)
"Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US,"
Ahhhh .... the old dancing paraphrased quote tactic.
... snip ...
"Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly."
And both of these "quotes" are nothing more than your BULLSHIT interpretation of what Aziz actually said - if he said anything at all. Or dare I say it? Both of your phoney quotes are a BULLSHIT paraphrasing that puts the words you need into somebody elses mouth.
#278. To: ..., ALL (#272)
So Aziz, the war shill, paraphased Glaspie's statement long after the fact and just as it started to damage Bush's war effort.
#279. To: BeAChooser (#278)
#280. To: BeAChooser (#248)
#281. To: Destro, all (#280)
When you can figure out the methodology of the hit involving the bullet wound let me know.
#282. To: BeAChooser (#273)
(Edited)
Do you know that neither the CIA or FBI can confirm that Atta was in the United States during the same period?
#283. To: BeAChooser (#281)
#284. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#281)
Here's a feasible possibility.
#285. To: scrapper2, ALL (#282)
Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians
#286. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#285)
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that,
#287. To: BeAChooser (#281)
They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head).
#288. To: BeAChooser (#285)
#289. To: Destro, ALL (#287)
"They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head)."
I find that as plausable as demolition charges bringing down the WTC.
#290. To: BeAChooser (#289)
(Edited)
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility.
#291. To: BeAChooser (#285)
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. If you don't know by now that John Hopkins did NOT claim 650,000 CIVILIANS were killed, you are clueless. But of course, I can't call anyone clueless on 4um because that would be insulting. And I'm not allowed to be insulting.
#292. To: SKYDRIFTER (#256)
#293. To: BeAChooser (#262)
If the Mafia was operating openly in a state after declaring war on us, would Congress simply ignore them and that state?
#294. To: scrapper2, ALL (#291)
#295. To: BeAChooser (#294)
The illumnatai had planned this long ago.
#296. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#284)
#297. To: BeAChooser, ... (#294)
What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks?
#298. To: BeAChooser (#294)
(Edited)
What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks?
#299. To: BeAChooser (#289)
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility.
#300. To: scrapper2 (#298)
#301. To: Diana. ..., bluedogtxn, aristeides, nolu_chan, robin, leveller, BeAChooser (#300)
(Edited)
I find that very strange, White Sands is one of the worst and most vicious of the radicals over there. He regularly calls for the deaths of posters from other forums, or used to.
#302. To: scrapper2 (#301)
The Washington Post front page today exposes the lies of these pigs. So now they are jumping from a sinking ship - pointing to other folks as being "the problem." Illuminati - yah, rigggght - that's an intellectual construct
#303. To: Diana (#302)
Very strange though, it's like we've been living in Twilight Zone these past several years. I hope to God it all finally comes to an end and all this madness can stop.
#304. To: ..., ALL (#295)
You believe this crap?
#305. To: Destro, ALL (#299)
Name me the exotic gun.
#306. To: BeAChooser (#262)
If the Mafia was operating openly in a state after declaring war on us, would Congress simply ignore them and that state?
#307. To: BeAChooser (#263)
Extradition treaties provide remedies against international criminals.
#308. To: BeAChooser (#264)
Yet one of the key Framers didn't declare war ... didn't even consult Congress ... before sending his fleet to attack countries in the Med
#309. To: BeAChooser (#266)
And you fail to mention to our readers that there are TWO transcripts of the meeting
#310. To: BeAChooser (#270)
Jefferson deployed the navy to protect shipping, when attacked, under the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. He did not authorize the Navy to wage aggressive war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
#311. To: Diana (#296)
#312. To: leveller, ALL (#308)
That's because he didn't send them there to start a war or to commence hostilities.
.
.
.