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: 24462
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 (1-293) not displayed.
.
.
.
#294. To: scrapper2, ALL (#291)
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."
Glaspie's Freudian slip about the US not expecting Saddam to take ALL of Kuwait settled the differences. SpookDaddy obviously knew & approved of the invasion of the Kuwaiti oil fields.
BAC (Treasonous Queer), It seems that you have been proven to be BOTH a liar and a TREASONOUS QUEER! in #310. you should get down on your KNEES! and repent for this offense. Do not come before me and pretend that you support the men (and women) who are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan unless you do this that I tell you - get down on your knees and repent for this. I have too much respect and familiarity with actual soldiers who have served to respect a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What is 9/11 anthrax?
He won't answer me to tell me what the 9/11 anthrax he mentioned is. Maybe he has bozoed himself from me. He should take the personality test Brian S posted so that we can understand him better and you won't have to call him a TREASONOUS QUEER! anymore. http://www.personaldna.com/
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. And Chooser wonders why we love him...
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I told you I was ahead of the curve with those saxon words. :)
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Apparently you have completely forgotten what you are arguing about. Citing an 1802 action is besice the point. By then the war was already under way. Pay attention.
What you need to do is learn to use your browser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie "At least two transcripts of the meeting have been published." http://home.comcast.net/~jackott2/missed_opportunity.htm "She bases her assertion on one of two transcripts ... " http://www.search.com/reference/Gulf_War "Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial."
Fascinating. You think Tripoli declared war on us without a formal written declaration ... just by a mildly hostile act. By that token, wouldn't some of the things that Saddam did be considered a declaration of war? And if Jefferson was justified in sending forces to deal with Tripoli (up to and including toppling the despot who ruled it using Marines), don't you think Bush as justified in sending Marines to topple Saddam? And note that Jefferson didn't get Congress to approve his actions before sending his forces. At least Bush did that. It even passed a law with the word WAR in it.
Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?
Why bring up the existence of the two transcripts, if neither includes any warning from the US against the invasion of Kuwait?
"Some of the things"? Don't let specifics and details bog you down. Assuming that you are referring to the period between the cease-fire and the US invasion in 2003, then you must be aware that the US and Britain conducted No-Fly Zone bombings without UN authorization, and any acts of resistance against those ilegal bombings could only be characterized as self defense.
Well a transcript is supposed to be an accurate representation of what was said at a meeting or interview. Right? If there are TWO DIFFERENT transcripts of this meeting and BOTH were put out by the Iraqi government, doesn't that make you suspicious about the accuracy of either ... especially since we know that Iraq has LIED in documents previously? Furthermore, if Tariq Aziz, a high ranking Iraqi who was present at the meeting, says the transcript is INCOMPLETE and that Glaspie didn't say any anything unexpected, doesn't that make you wonder if the transcripts are an accurate representation of what what said? And if Glaspies testifies under oath that she told Saddam that the US would not accept anything but a peaceful solution to the Kuwait dispute and Tariq Aziz says Saddam knew full well that invading Kuwait would mean war, doesn't that make you wonder if you are interpreting the transcript correctly?
Did the UN say stop?
Who pays the bills of the UN?
Do you really expect any rational person to believe that Saddam, who was practically the creature of the US, would have invaded Kuwait if Glaspie had not given the green light?
Chooser, why don't you post a bullshit dead link to prove your point?
.
The anthrax attacks happened some weeks after 9/11. So your answer to my question "what is 9/11 anthrax?" is to ask me if there was an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11. Are you implying that there is a connection?
You don't think there is, given that the first case of anthrax just happened to show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying prior to 9/11? If you ask me, that's a mighty big coincidence to swallow, Diana. Especially when doctors at John Hopkins have gone on record saying the skin disorder that Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for before 9/11 is most likely anthrax.
Hey chooser, if you really want to con people, why don't you just post some fake quots and make up some bullshit links to support them. That's what you got busted for earlier tonight. Busted for it twice in fact. I mean, if you are going to be a dishonest scumbag, why not go all the way?
.
I only expect them to use their brains and realize that Iraq lied all the time, that Iraq put out 2 different transcripts of the meeting (so one or both have to be wrong), that Glaspie said (under oath) the transcript was fabricated and did not include much of what she told Saddam, that Tariq Aziz also said the transcript was "incomplete" and that Tariq Aziz said Glaspie did NOT give Saddam a green light and that Saddam knew an invasion would mean war with the US.
Comments (334 - 394) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#313. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
#314. To: leveller, SkyDrifter, Diana, BeAChooser (#310)
#315. To: BeAChooser (#271)
You don't know the meaning of lie.
#316. To: Red Jones, BeAChooser (#314)
#317. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#285)
Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians
#318. To: Diana (#316)
#319. To: BeAChooser (#312)
#320. To: leveller, ALL (#309)
"And you fail to mention to our readers that there are TWO transcripts of the meeting"
We need a cite.
#321. To: leveller, all (#310)
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.
#322. To: Diana, ALL (#315)
You don't know the meaning of lie.
What is 9/11 anthrax?
#323. To: BeAChooser (#320)
#324. To: BeAChooser (#321)
wouldn't some of the things that Saddam did be considered a declaration of war? And if Jefferson was justified in sending forces to deal with Tripoli (up to and including toppling the despot who ruled it using Marines), don't you think Bush as justified in sending Marines to topple Saddam?
#325. To: leveller, ALL (#323)
Why bring up the existence of the two transcripts,
#326. To: leveller, ALL (#324)
then you must be aware that the US and Britain conducted No-Fly Zone bombings without UN authorization
#327. To: BeAChooser (#326)
Did the UN say stop?
#328. To: BeAChooser (#325)
#329. To: BeAChooser (#326)
Did the UN say stop?
#330. To: BeAChooser (#322)
Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?
#331. To: Diana, ALL (#330)
Are you implying that there is a connection?
#332. To: BeAChooser (#331)
#333. To: leveller, ALL (#328)
Do you really expect any rational person to believe that Saddam, who was practically the creature of the US, would have invaded Kuwait if Glaspie had not given the green light?
.
.
.