[Futurework] Iraqi Body Count (was More thoughts on the London attacks)

[Harry Pollard]

Lawry,   The IBC are a fine a bunch of bleeding heart liberals as one might find. They are anti-war scientists and researchers. They always have two counts – a total count and a confirmed count. They have used hospital and morgue records and in the beginning they used the results of a large survey carried out by an Iraqi doctor with either 150 or 250 people on the ground (rather than the 7 Iraqis used in the Lancet study).   These are some of the media sources of the IBC.   ABC - ABC News (USA) AFP - Agence France-Presse AP - Associated Press AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation BG - Boston Globe Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun CT - Chicago Tribune CO - Commondreams.org CSM - Christian Science Monitor DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur FOX - Fox News GUA - The Guardian (London) HRW - Human Rights Watch HT - Hindustan Times ICRC - International Committe of the Red Cross IND - The Independent (London) IO - Intellnet.org JT - Jordan Times LAT - Los Angeles Times MEN - Middle East Newsline MEO - Middle East Online MER - Middle East Report MH - Miami Herald NT - Nando Times NYT - New York Times Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet) SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation SMH - Sydney Morning Herald Sg.News - The Singapore News Tel- The Telegraph (London) Times - The Times (London) TOI - Times of India TS - Toronto Star UPI - United Press International WNN - World News Network WP - Washington Post   Did I do my take of the “100,000” study on FW or on another list? If I didn’t do it here, I should repeat it for Natalia.   The mathematics and statistical methods may have been solid, but we must remember that as an English Lord once remarked (who was he?):   “It all comes down to the watchman on the beat.”   In this case it is 21 bodies which multiplied by 4,667 comes to 98,000.   And as the report says of the bodies, “many” may have been combatants.   Harry     ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042 818 352-4141 *******************************     From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence deBivort Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 6:42 PM To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: RE: [Futurework] More thoughts on the London attacks   Harry’s source is not an official one; the US government refuses to release its own estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths. Harry’s source is a group that just adds up newspaper accounts of bodies brought to certain facilities, like hospitals.  (Harry, please correct me if I am misrepresenting their work.)  Thus they don’t include the deaths of people who are not brought to those stations then reported. The JHU study, reported in the Lancet, estimates the actual number of deaths, brought into those facilities or not.   I looked at their methodology and it was solid.  I don’t know what the Fallujah casualties were, but several sources essentially said that the town had been destroyed, so I imagine they were high.  Here in Washington, people in the government are using the unofficial figure of 150,000 Iraqi civilian deaths to represent the toll to date.   If anyone has any good numbers for Fallujah and post-Fallujah, I would like to see them.  My Arab sources are talking of Fallujah like it is in their minds a major watershed, where if there had been any doubt before in anyone’s mind, the US went ‘over the line.’     From: Darryl and Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Lawrence deBivort'; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: [Futurework] More thoughts on the London attacks   Harry,   In a previous posting which addressed the inappropriate notion of a "brilliant military invasion" of Iraq, I referred to an actual scientific study carried out by the British medical journal The Lancet on the post-invasion death toll. I had the following accepted for publication June 23/05 in the Victoria Times Colonist. It sheds light on erroneous assumptions, and today, in light of some of your responses to Lawry, seems like a good day to ask you to look at things from another perspective. Note that this study was done November/04, before the Fallujah massacre. Merely checking in with www.iraqbodycount.com or whoever to obtain your numbers puts you at the official numbers that both sides want you to believe for their own purposes, but logic alone should tell you that with the egregious tonnage of bombs, including napalm and cluster, and the rounds of ammunition that included DU applied in this campaign, the official reports cannot be correct.   Natalia    *****************************************************************************           In response to June 19/05 letter to the Editor, titled "Terrorism didn't start on 9/11"  -- I submit the following for publication:   U.S. Government Terrorists   Thanks to Ken Scott for his letter citing U.S. government terrorist acts. Supporting his point, a scientific survey of post-invasion death toll among Iraqis was published by the British medical journal The Lancet (reviewed by Andrew Mack, Globe and Mail, Nov. 3/04). Researchers, led by Johns Hopkins epidemiologist Les Roberts, surveyed almost 1000 households in 33 neighbourhoods across Iraq. Roberts' team estimated 98,000 Iraqis died since the invasion who would otherwise be alive had there been no war. Further, most deaths were from violence, not disease or malnutrition. Numbers pre-date the Fallujah invasion.   The survey showed 84% of violent deaths were caused not by rebels, but by coalition forces. Women and children made up more than half of these deaths, 38% of the total being children. Media reports at the time cited only 14,000-16,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.   The Lancet report substantiated that no matter how precise the weaponry, high civilian casualties are inevitable when high-tech armies seek to reduce their own casualties via air strikes where dense populations exist. The body count consequences were revealing: for every 100 dead Iraqis (mostly civilians) only one U.S. combatant was killed. The huge civilian death toll  accounts for U.S. inability to win over Iraqi people, but should send a clear message to the world about the hypocritical actions of a U.S. government that claims to be fighting terrorism. U.S. forces are amongst the most formidable terrorists--next to the handfull of cowards controlling the U.S. Defense Department.   Natalia Kuzmyn   From: Harry Pollard To: 'Lawrence deBivort' ; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:35 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] More thoughts on the London attacks   Lawry,   You know that’s a ridiculous remark.   As was your “Tell that to the Iraqis who have died and been maimed by the US and its allies in Iraq, Harry.”   The number of civilians who were killed up to the capture of Baghdad was about 7,300. Since then, perhaps another 18,000 have been killed. Overwhelmingly, they would not have died had not the terrorists brought war to the neighborhoods.   Fortunately, some 90% of Iraq is peaceful and living without fear of Saddam. As you know, Iraq suffered a climate of fear before we entered in force. Any present climate of fear is engendered by the activities of the terrorists – not the Americans.   In similar fashion, Africans have been torturing, slaughtering, and raping other Africans in huge numbers. Even such horrors as British reaction to the Mau-Mau pales in comparison to African massacres.   So, no more cute little jabs. Write the way you usually do which is bloody good.   Harry   ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042 818 352-4141

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework