[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Music

The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat]

Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary

Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good'

America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL'

Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance

Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years

AMeRiKaN GULaG...

'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns

Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave

Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low

ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE

Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030

Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor

IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023

Boeing to be criminally INDICTED for fraud

0:35 / 10:02 Nigel Farage Embarrasses Rishi Sunak & Keir Starmer AGAIN in New Speech!

Norway to stockpile 82,500 tons of grain to prepare for famine and war

Almost 200 Pages of Epstein Grand Jury Documents Released

UK To Install Defibrillators in EVERY School Due to Sudden Rise in Heart Problems

Pfizer purchased companies that produce drugs to treat the same conditions caused by covid vaccines

It Now Takes An Annual Income Of $186,000 A Year For Americans To Feel Financially Secure

Houthis Unleash 'Attacks' On Israeli, U.S. And UK Ships; 'Trio Of Evil Hit' | Full Detail

Gaza hospital chief says he was severely tortured in Israeli prisons

I'd like to thank Congress for using my Tax money to buy Zelenskys wife a Bugatti.

Cancer-causing radium detected in US city's groundwater due to landfill teeming with nuclear waste from WWII-era atomic bomb efforts

Tennessee Law Allowing Death Penalty For Pedophiles Goes Into Effect - Only Democrats Oppose It

Meet the NEW Joe Biden! 😂

Bovine Collagen Benefits


World News
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: 24549
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-311) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#312. To: leveller, ALL (#308)

That's because he didn't send them there to start a war or to commence hostilities.

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."

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-06   22:04:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#313. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)

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.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-04-06   22:28:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#314. To: leveller, SkyDrifter, Diana, BeAChooser (#310)

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.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-06   23:19:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#315. To: BeAChooser (#271)

You don't know the meaning of lie.

What is 9/11 anthrax?

Diana  posted on  2007-04-07   2:19:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#316. To: Red Jones, BeAChooser (#314)

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/

Diana  posted on  2007-04-07   2:27:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#317. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#285)

Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians

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

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-07   2:28:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#318. To: Diana (#316)

I told you I was ahead of the curve with those saxon words. :)

"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar

Dakmar  posted on  2007-04-07   2:30:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#319. To: BeAChooser (#312)

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.

leveller  posted on  2007-04-07   8:15:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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."

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   15:52:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   15:58:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#322. To: Diana, ALL (#315)

You don't know the meaning of lie.

What is 9/11 anthrax?

Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   16:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#323. To: BeAChooser (#320)

Why bring up the existence of the two transcripts, if neither includes any warning from the US against the invasion of Kuwait?

leveller  posted on  2007-04-07   16:34:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

"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.

leveller  posted on  2007-04-07   16:40:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#325. To: leveller, ALL (#323)

Why bring up the existence of the two transcripts,

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?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   17:56:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#326. To: leveller, ALL (#324)

then you must be aware that the US and Britain conducted No-Fly Zone bombings without UN authorization

Did the UN say stop?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   17:58:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#327. To: BeAChooser (#326)

Did the UN say stop?

Who pays the bills of the UN?

leveller  posted on  2007-04-07   20:40:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#328. To: BeAChooser (#325)

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?

leveller  posted on  2007-04-07   20:41:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#329. To: BeAChooser (#326)

Did the UN say stop?

Chooser, why don't you post a bullshit dead link to prove your point?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   20:43:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#330. To: BeAChooser (#322)

Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?

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?

Diana  posted on  2007-04-07   23:07:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#331. To: Diana, ALL (#330)

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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   23:30:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#332. To: BeAChooser (#331)

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?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   23:32:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

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.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   23:33:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#334. To: BeAChooser (#333)

I only expect them to use their brains and realize that Iraq lied all the time,

Sort of like you huh?

Did Saddam go onto internet sites and post fabricated quotes supported by bullshit fake links in a deliberate effort to mislead the posters?

For the record, I note that you were busted twice tonight for doing exactly that. And there are instances where you have done this in the past as well. May we now assume that these earlier cases were not simple accidents?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   23:39:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#335. To: ..., nolu_chan, ALL (#332)

You claim I fabricated this quote:

"The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."

But if you go to post #94 of this 4um thread, you will find this link posted by nolu_chan:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw-anx-f.htm

Visit it and you will find that exact quote.

So are you accusing nolu_chan of posting fake quotes and making up links to support them?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-07   23:47:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#336. To: BeAChooser (#331) (Edited)

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.

I thought you don't think John Hopkins is a valid source.

Also the anthrax was a special highly-milled strain produced at Ft. Detrick, MD, and there is strong evidence that it was a case of revenge of a scientist who worked there against his Egyptian co-worker he was attempting to frame. I don't think even the govt said the anthrax attacks were related to those behind 9/11, even if you want it to be.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-07   23:54:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#337. To: BeAChooser (#335)

You claim I fabricated this quote:

"The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."

Possibly, but you are again trying to change the subject and obfuscate the fact that you got busted for posting fabricated information -- twice.

The quotes I claimed you fabricated are well marked on the thread. You know that and so does everyone else. What you are doing here is trying to cover up your misdeeds.

And recall that after you got busted, you put up two new and unrelated quotes and claimed they were what you were trying to post. I pointed out that they had nothing to do with the subject at hand and noted that you were lying to cover your prior lies. These "cover quotes" may be what you are trying use as a diversion now.

But even if the above quote is not one of your scummy "cover quotes", I jolly well may have accused you of fabricating the above quote somewhere along the line. After I busted you for fabricating quotes -- two times -- I questioned all the other quotes you posted. Any normal person would.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-07   23:59:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#338. To: BeAChooser (#331)

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.

Did those doctors at John Hopkins actually examine Mohammad Atta?

So now we are suppose to think Mohammad Atta was responsible for the anthrax attacks as well?

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:01:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#339. To: BeAChooser (#335)

Incidently, you are a worthless lying scumball for fabricationg quotes and links to begin with.

You are a double scumball for lying about it when caught.

And you are a triple scumball for once more trying to obfuscate your miserable and cowardly acts.

What culture do you hail from where this sort of dishonesty is tolerated?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:02:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#340. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#338)

So now we are suppose to think Mohammad Atta was responsible for the anthrax attacks as well?

That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.

Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.

Arator  posted on  2007-04-08   0:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#341. To: BeAChooser, ... (#335)

So are you accusing nolu_chan of posting fake quotes and making up links to support them?

Did you attend law school, is that where you learned the art of twisting things around so?

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:07:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#342. To: Arator, BeAChooser, ... (#340)

That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.

LOL good catch!

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#343. To: Diana, ALL (#336)

I thought you don't think John Hopkins is a valid source.

If they stick to medicine and diagnosing diseases they are usually pretty good.

Also the anthrax was a special highly-milled strain produced at Ft. Detrick, MD,

FALSE. You don't know what you are talking about.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:11:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#344. To: Diana, ALL (#338)

Did those doctors at John Hopkins actually examine Mohammad Atta?

No, but the doctor and pharmacist who did are ALSO on record saying that in hindsight the skin problems they had were anthrax.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:12:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#345. To: BeAChooser (#343)

Really? What kind of anthrax was it then? I mean besides being 9/11 anthrax?

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:13:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#346. To: Diana, ..., nolu_chan, ALL (#341)

Did you attend law school, is that where you learned the art of twisting things around so?

I didn't twist anything around. Go read the threads, Diana.

... said I fabricated that quote.

But nolu_chan posted a link that contains that exact quote.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:13:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#347. To: Diana, Arator, ALL (#342)

That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.

Do you know the incubation time of anthrax?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:14:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#348. To: BeAChooser (#347)

What does that have to do with your claim?

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:16:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#349. To: BeAChooser (#344)

No, but the doctor and pharmacist who did are ALSO on record saying that in hindsight the skin problems they had were anthrax.

Why don't you post a fake link to support this? Isn't that your style?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:17:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#350. To: BeAChooser (#347)

Do you know the incubation time of anthrax?

Chooser, as far as I can see nobody has even gaffed you yet. Why are you changing the subject? Just habit?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:18:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#351. To: BeAChooser (#347)

Or to put it another way, what do you mean I don't know what I'm talking about when I said the stain was a kind produced at Ft. Detrick? I believe that was reported by several sources.

If I am mistaken, I'd like to know, and I'd be curious to know what the source of the anthrax was.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:18:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (352 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]