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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Who Turned Off The Gaslight?

Head Of Chase Bank Warns Customers: Era Of Free Checking Is Likely Over

Bob Dylan - Hurricane [Scotty mar10]

Replacing Biden Won't Solve Democrats' Problems - Look Who Will Inherit His Campaign War Chest

Who Died: Late June/Early July 2024 | News

A top Russian banker says Russia's payment methods should be a 'state secret' because the West keeps shutting them down so fast

Viral Biden Brain Freeze During Debate Sparks Major Question: Who’s Really Running the Country?

Disney Heiress, Other Major Dem Donors: Dump Biden

LAWYER: 5 NEW Tricks Cops Are Using During DWI Stops

10 Signs That Global War Is Rapidly Approaching

Horse Back At Library.

This Video Needs To Be Seen By Every Cop In America

'It's time to give peace another chance': Thousands rally in Tel Aviv to end the war

Biden's leaked bedtime request puts White House on damage control

Smith: It's Damned Hard To Be Proud Of America

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi slams ‘deranged rant’ calling for assassination of Trump

Stalin, The Red Terror | Full Documentary

Russia, Soviet Union and The Cold War: Stalin's Legacy | Russia's Wars Ep.2 | Documentary

Battle and Liberation: The End of World War II | Countdown to Surrender – The Last 100 Days | Ep. 4

Ethereum ETFs In 'Window-Dressing' Stage, Approval Within Weeks; Galaxy

Americans Are More Likely To Go To War With The Government Than Submit To The Draft

Rudy Giuliani has just been disbarred in New York

Israeli Generals Want Truce in Gaza,

Joe Biden's felon son Hunter is joining White House meetings

The only Democrat who could beat Trump

Ukraine is too CORRUPT to join NATO, US says, in major blow to Zelensky and boost for Putin

CNN Erin Burnett Admits Joe Biden knew the Debate questions..

Affirmative Action Suit Details How Law School Blackballed Accomplished White Men, Opted For Unqualified Black Women

Russia warns Israel over Ukraine missiles

Yemeni Houthis Vow USS Theodore Roosevelt 'Primary Target' Once it Enters Red Sea


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: 25090
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 (1-320) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#352. To: Diana, ALL (#348)

What does that have to do with your claim?

Well think about it.

How long after 9/11 did the first case appear?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:18:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#353. To: Diana (#352)

What does that have to do with your claim?

Well think about it.

Diana, it doesh't have anything to do with your claim. You were probably getting close to asking a question that he knew he would get hammered for spinning. So he changed the subject. Just be grateful he didn't try tactic number one: personal insult.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:21:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#354. To: Diana, ALL (#348)

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you simply ignored the amazing coincidence that the first case of anthrax would show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying. Backing the incubation time off the first case, ask yourself whether a domestic source for the anthrax would have known where the hijackers were staying at the time he'd have had to mail the letter that supposedly infected the first case.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:21:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#355. To: BeAChooser (#354)

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you simply ignored the amazing coincidence that the first case of anthrax would show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying.

Why don't you just make up a quote proving that they were guilty as sin and then post a fake link to support the quote. That's what you did twice this evening already. Why waste time with all this silly banter when you can just lie?

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:23:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#356. To: BeAChooser (#352)

Well think about it.

OK. I did. For two seconds. That's all it took to reconfirm that your posts are excrement.

Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.

Arator  posted on  2007-04-08   0:24:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#357. To: BeAChooser (#347)

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

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

From wikipedia:

Although the anthrax preparations were of different grades, all of the material derived from the same bacterial strain. Known as the Ames strain, it was first researched at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. The Ames strain was then distributed to at least fifteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and six overseas.

DNA sequencing of the anthrax taken from Robert Stevens (the first victim) was conducted at The Institute for Genomic Research beginning in December 2001. Sequencing was finished within a month and the analysis was published in the journal Science in early 2002 (see abstract here). The analysis revealed a number of differences that ruled out laboratories in England, and subsequent testing showed the anthrax to be identical to the original Ames strain from Fort Detrick.

Radiocarbon dating conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in June 2002 established that the anthrax was cultured no more than two years before the mailings. In October 2006 it was reported that water used to process the anthrax spores came from a source in the northeastern United States.[2] Press reports in 2003 indicated the FBI failed to reverse engineer the type of anthrax found in the letters.[3][4]

Diana  posted on  2007-04-08   0:25:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#358. To: BeAChooser (#354)

You haven't whined about your silly victimhood for a half hour or so. Why don't you start whining about how unfair it is to discuss your dishonest, sleazy deeds of earlier this evening? Tell us how unfair it is for you to be held up to account for your scummy lies.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:27:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#359. To: BeAChooser (#355)

You were famous for your cowardly whining on LP. Lets have a taste. You were doing it earlier.

.

...  posted on  2007-04-08   0:29:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#360. To: Diana (#351)

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?

That not what you said.

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

There is nothing to suggest this anthrax was milled at Ft Detrick. And there were other potential sources for this strain of anthrax since it was a type that was sent to labs around the world. And we know for a fact that at least once Iraq tried to obtain it (from the British). But there are other places they could have obtained it.

Here, this was from one of robin's sources:

"While some sources have estimated Ames might have been used in as few as 20 labs, one scientist who has worked with anthrax said the total cannot be known exactly, but is probably closer to 50."

"Until the last few years, a graduate student would call up a friend at another lab and say, 'Send me Ames,' and they'd do it," the scientist said. "There wouldn't necessarily be any records kept."

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-08   0:31:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (361 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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