[Mulderator]

Ok I started a thread on this issue in general but I am going to try to point out some of the most ridiculous stuff people swallow in large numbers. Some of you have probably heard about the "Lancet Survey" that estimates the number of civilians killed in Iraq at 650,000 (low of 350,000 or so up to 950,000 on the high--accepted to be in the middle). You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_...vasion_of_Iraq

Now this thread isn't to debate the Iraq war because if even 1000 civilians are dead and the war is unjust, than its wrong. But its to show how damn gullible, illogical, and irrational people can be when they have a strong motivation to accept as true facts that make absolutely no sense to a logical rational person with no bias. The IBC (Iraqi Body Count) which is certainly no "right wing" site--in fact, its more leftist than anything else with right wing sources claiming their estimates are high (they started the count to keep people aware of how many people are dying). You can read IBC here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/contacts.php

IBC estimates the Iraqi civilians killed at 1/10th of the number provided by the Lancet study (60,000 to 70,000).

IBC has responded to the Lancet study here (from the BBC):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm

The IBC response isays that if the Lancet sruvey is correct that 650,000 cvilians have been killed in the war, than all the following MUST be true:

On average a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every day in the first half of 2006, with "less than a tenth being noticed by any public surveillance mechanism."

-Of 800,000 wounded people in the past two years, "less than a tenth received any kind of hospital treatment."

-Over 7% of the male population has been killed; 10% in central region.

-Half a million death certificates were issued to families but not officially recorded.

-The Coalition has killed far more people in the last year than in the invasion and Falluja type-operations of earlier years.

The IBC says that such assertions suggested incompetence/fraud on a massive scale by hospitals and ministries, self-destructive behaviour by the wounded, an utter failure by agencies to notice decimation of the male population and an abject media failure to observe the scale of events.

The IBC concludes: "In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy."

'Missing' dead

One issue that arises is why, to speak crudely, the numbers of bodies being discovered do not match the Lancet figures.

If it is assumed that there were 601,000 violent "excess" deaths between March 2003 and July 2006 (about 40 months), that should produce an average of about 500 violent deaths per day.

This is not going to be so all the time, given the spikes of violence, but it is a rough criterion.

The latest figures from the Iraqi health ministry (reported by the Associated Press news agency on 11 October) stated that 2,667 people were killed in Baghdad during September, 400 more than in August.

This gives an average of about 86 per day in the capital.

Baghdad is not the whole country of course, but AP reported the United Nations as saying that in July and August, 6,599 people were killed across the country, of which 5,106 were in Baghdad.

This suggests that Baghdad has by far the highest number of actual and percentage dead.

So, if the current rate in Baghdad is about 86 and the countrywide figure should be about 500 according to the Lancet report, where are the "missing" dead?

See--anyone with a rational, analytical mind would immediately recognize that the estimates of the dead at 650,000 are absurd--they just don't make any common sense and require a conspiracy of huge proportions. Again--being that I realize most conspiracies (in fact probably 99.9%) are hysterically and emotionally driven, and understanding the simplest answer is almost always the correct one, the simple answer is the Lancet "survey" is complete bull$hit--that is the dead as reported officially is close to accurate rather than off by 1000 percent!

Again--if you're rational--you'll consider the IBC response and scratch your head--if you're irrational or politically motivated, you'll simply swallow the stuff as you'd like it to be true. And in fact, that's why most conspiracy theories exist in the first place--because people want it to be true (as oppossed to any real evidence).

[Mulderator]

BTW--to save you the time--the way the Lancet Survey arrived at its number is to have taken a very small survey of families and essentially ask them how many people in their family were killed and than extrapolated that number over the entire population. Its more scientific thant than that, but that's it in a nutshell. It sort of like taking a survey of a very small number of people in the United States and then asking them if they had a family member who died of cancer and then from that extrapolate the number of people who died from cancer! It a bogus way of estimating the number of people killed because they cannot control all the crossovers or variables that exist. In other words, the statistical sample is completely invalid.

The IBC on the other hand uses real reported deaths primarily plus estimates for undrepresentation -- they don't extrapolate.

[Mulderator]

I love this (from links above):

Critics of the Lancet study have pointed out other difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics in a war zone. The authors of the study readily acknowledge this point and note the problems in the paper; for example they state that "there can be a dramatic clustering of deaths in wars where many die from bombings". They also said that the data their projections were based on were of "limited precision" because the quality of the information depended on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study.

Ya think? Geez--I guess there would be no reason for any of the households to give false information!

"Lancet Polster: "Yes--Hello, I'm from Lancet and I'm doing a survey to figure out how many people died in your household due to the American Troops invading your country since the start of the war?"

"Iraqi: Let me think--510 people in my household alone! American Pigs!!!!! "

"Lancet Polster: Thank you, thank you very much. Ok--Joe, if we extrapolate these numbers, errr, that's 650,000 total dead!!!"

That's not a real interview--I just made that up!

Here is the pre-war mortality criticism because Lancet compared post war to pre-war mortality:

Fred Kaplan argued in Slate that the study's prewar mortality rate estimate of 5 deaths per 1000 is erroneously low because Iraq's mortality rate in the period from 1980-1991 were all higher, ranging from 6.8 to 8.1, so that the study's conclusions were overstated because of this discrepancy. Kaplan's pre-war mortality estimates were based on the findings of Beth DaPonte, whose 1980-1990 numbers came from United Nations figures; most of Daponte's estimates of Iraqi casualties from Desert Storm and its aftermath are higher than those of other researchers

And I love this:

The results of the study were politically sensitive, since a heavy death toll could raise questions regarding the humanitarian justifications on the eve of a contested US presidential election. Critics objected to the timing of the report, claiming it was hastily prepared and published despite what they perceived as its poor quality in order to sway the U.S. electorate. On this topic, Les Roberts stated "I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election. My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq. I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives

LOL! Honestly--you really have to be a real polarized political hack to believe that load of garbage!

Ok--where are you kooks--bring on your support for 650,000!!!!

[PhoenixNEW]

All I know about the iraq war: the total number of deaths ranges from 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 if the gulf war 1 and 2 is taken into account. Saddam has never killed this many people, but the civilized world(US and UK) has created not only a mess in iraq but also blood bath that it is time to punish Bush And Blair as war criminals. But that never happens.. West is always civilized.. Instead of talking about war dead it is time to focus on mending the wounds that allies have inflicted on the poor and helpless people.The precision and power of today's U.S. munitions dont lower civilian casualties, especially when war involves urban targets, as in Iraq.Intensity" of civilian casualties -- the number of civilians died-- is actually rising, especially as more precision weapons are used.

The problem is not with the scholars who conducted the study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.There's a further complication when studying the results of war, especially a war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few areas. However, trying to extrapolate the figure based on some random villages and then representing them to all of the country is worthless idea.The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates..NUmber might be lower or higher Many bodies are trapped under rubble or buried somewhere or eaten by some scavengers etc..Who knows? Its Known fact that iraq was under brutal dictator and many iraqis were purged from their homes and many expected the war to bring peace but it brought more blood shed.Let it be 40000 or 60000 but the these are still shocking. According reports iraqis is more likely to die after invasion than before the invasion. This speaks a lot about US and UK govt and military's inability to bring the peace and hope for these people who where under a repressive regime that US and UK govt have supported for many years. What was the result out of this misadventure? Does even matter how many are dead? When a loved one sees their parent or child dead you should tell them about your numbers ,you should tell them about your numbers--these numbers you call is worthless in the eyes of these tear filled mother or a child.

The possibility that americans and british have actually killed half a million people suggests a war crime.
In some countries, denying the fact of mass murder is considered a felony offence, incurring harsh penalties. But then, it all depends on who is being murdered, and by whom.

Those hypocrites and bushies will change their attitude when same random sampling is applied in darfur and other parts of africa. When 1.7 millions died or (when americans died in twin tower crash) in those countries there was no howling or anger about these body counts. Nobody then questioned the methodology. This shocking figure prompted immediate action from UN.. What I find is that US-Uk are just trying to save their skin but never wants to admit their mistakes and they know this war was a mess.. right wing nuts are just bunch of empty vessels...Denial is easy, for Iraqis are a nation of unpeople in the West, their panoramic suffering .....; and when they are news, care is always taken to minimize Western culpability.Right and left wing critics accuse the Lancet study casualty figures as being exaggerated. If that is the case, then the cost per casualty is even higher. Instead of placing infinite value on human life, we are placing a value on human death..It is mind boggling that many so-called Christians like Mulder and others would go so far as to commit murder in order to protect the life ,while remaining silent on the dying tens of thousands in Iraq. The value of human life then, is based upon the value system of the evaluator. And US evaluators, like any other, are prejudiced like mulder et all...And the tragedy will continue as long as the attitude persists in the United States that an American life is worth more than any other.

A good government is one that values all human life and cares for it and not for the destruction of them.Winning in Iraq is the only thing to right wing bastiches, It does not matter how many lives they are rescuing. Iraqis deaths will always be considered less important to americans deaths... this attitude will bring only more problems.

it does matter whether figure is small or high but it is important to stop this debate on dead body and have respect for them./Interesting how the righties and lefties will listen to one detractor and ignore all of the others who reviewed the lancet report and stated the methodology was sound.

The same methodology they use for many other studies.

They just don't like the result, so have to criticize the source.
The huge difference in the figures of 50,000 to 650,000 only tell you how Bush/Blair look at Iraq civilians, worthless in life and in death, not deserving of any respect!people have died, does it make a difference how many, of what nationalty, color or creed? One human casued death is more than anyone needs.

Cmon this is about human life. Reverse the situation and you will here howling and anger in the media. This war was committed by people who admit hey were wrong in planning and execution. Why are you damn people quibbling over how many are dead. Answer me , how or why did this happen or how to end this mess. it is clear Western leaders are to be charged with murder just as saddam. when will the world understand this? The victims here are iraqis and Bush and Blair needs to be executed for their misadventure and that is the truth. American govt know that they are responsible for the mess and must do a favor for the world. Lets those bush and blairs pay for the war and build the country rather than blaming the iraqis for the mess. Why should iraqis be faulted for the vision that americans have created for their benefit?

[PhoenixNEW]

I admit that some people use exaggerated figures to use them as political tool for their cause. They are evil just like right nuts. 50000 and 400000 is same to me and they are humans and that is what I am talking about.... There should not be debate on such numbers. it is time to hang those who committed the crimes in iraq. bush, blair and terror groups etc...

[angelize56]

Originally Posted by PhoenixNEW

it is time to hang those who committed the crimes in iraq. bush, blair

[SlackAli]

Seems a shame to join in here as Mulder was doing so well by himself.

The alternative view about the methodology of the research leaked out last month:

"Following a Freedom of Information request, BBC World Service Newshour has learnt that a senior British Government official advised ministers to show "caution" about publicly criticising a report published last October in the Lancet, which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war in Iraq.

If the Lancet survey is correct, two-and-a-half per cent of the Iraqi population - an average of more than 500 people a day - have been killed since the start of the war.

The Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Ministry of Defence described the methods used by the Lancet survey as "close to best practice" adding that the "study design is robust.""

More info here

Mulder I presume you know what the Lancet is? Just asking.

[Cédric]

Originally Posted by PhoenixNEW

I admit that some people use exaggerated figures to use them as political tool for their cause. They are evil just like right nuts. 50000 and 400000 is same to me and they are humans and that is what I am talking about.... There should not be debate on such numbers. it is time to hang those who committed the crimes in iraq. bush, blair and terror groups etc...

At last someone says the truth in TechGuy forums! Thanks Phoenix.

[angelize56]

*PAUSE*

Ceddy!! How have you been...and where have you been hiding?

*RESUME*

[PhoenixNEW]

Originally Posted by angelize56

[WarC]

Gotta love that philosophy - Any human death is wrong, so we shouldn't go to war to stop human death.

The people dying isn't the concern, its for what cause - and more important (which we have forgotten) - getting it done.

What is more of a travesty? 60,000 dead and a collapsed state, or 60,000 dead and a representative republic? Versus the type of systems and liberties (or lack thereof) that existed there before.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

Seems a shame to join in here as Mulder was doing so well by himself.

The alternative view about the methodology of the research leaked out last month:

"Following a Freedom of Information request, BBC World Service Newshour has learnt that a senior British Government official advised ministers to show "caution" about publicly criticising a report published last October in the Lancet, which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war in Iraq.

If the Lancet survey is correct, two-and-a-half per cent of the Iraqi population - an average of more than 500 people a day - have been killed since the start of the war.

The Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Ministry of Defence described the methods used by the Lancet survey as "close to best practice" adding that the "study design is robust.""

More info here

Mulder I presume you know what the Lancet is? Just asking.

That's nice but respond to the IBC points please--with logic rather than political BS. Where's all the bodies? How the hell are 500 people a day (1000 a day in 2006) being killed and it not being realized by ANYONE in Iraq? How are 1000 a day being killed in 2006 when the most bloody fighting was initially and in Fallujah? Where are all the bodies? Why do only 1/10th of 800000 people injured by gun shots and shrapnel never seek any medical help? Why have 500,000 people been killed with no death certificates?

Let me ask you--do you also believe in Santa Claus?

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by Mulder

That's nice but respond to the IBC points please--with logic rather than political BS. Where's all the bodies? How the hell are 500 people a day (1000 a day in 2006) being killed and it not being realized by ANYONE in Iraq? How are 1000 a day being killed in 2006 when the most bloody fighting was initially and in Fallujah? Where are all the bodies? Why do only 1/10th of 800000 people injured by gun shots and shrapnel never seek any medical help? Why have 500,000 people been killed with no death certificates?

Let me ask you--do you also believe in Santa Claus?

Hey, I'm not defending the Johns Hopkins research: I take on your points, and admit I was puzzled by the maths of the figure when I first heard it. But then I was also puzzled why the UK government, which initially rubbished the figure, went suddenly quiet. At least that has been answered.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

Hey, I'm not defending the Johns Hopkins research: I take on your points, and admit I was puzzled by the maths of the figure when I first heard it. But then I was also puzzled why the UK government, which initially rubbished the figure, went suddenly quiet. At least that has been answered.

Well that restores my faith in you--you always seemed to be a very logical and rational person--albeit a bit too cynical at times!

Look--I'm not trying to sell the Iraq War--if it was wrong, than 60,000 dead is pleny to indict Bush/Blair, etc. My only point is that people need to view what they hear and read very critically when its politically motivated--that's right or left. That doesn't mean its necessarily wrong, just that it has to add up--it has to pass the "smell" test. It has to make logical sense. Its very easy to fool people--I know because I can both do it if I'm so inclined and debunk it if I have to. I rarely fool people on purpose unless I'm yanking their chain. I don't ask you to take my opinion, I ask you to look at the facts objectively and make logical, rational conclusions. If everyone did that, we'd have a lot less stupid laws (and I've seen plenty of stupid laws based on emotional decisions) and a lot more problems would be solved. Now I'm not so naive as to believe that most people are going to do that, but some people will and that's all we can hope for!

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Well that restores my faith in you--you always seemed to be a very logical and rational person--albeit a bit too cynical at times!

Look--I'm not trying to sell the Iraq War--if it was wrong, than 60,000 dead is pleny to indict Bush/Blair, etc. My only point is that people need to view what they hear and read very critically when its politically motivated--that's right or left. That doesn't mean its necessarily wrong, just that it has to add up--it has to pass the "smell" test. It has to make logical sense. Its very easy to fool people--I know because I can both do it if I'm so inclined and debunk it if I have to. I rarely fool people on purpose unless I'm yanking their chain. I don't ask you to take my opinion, I ask you to look at the facts objectively and make logical, rational conclusions. If everyone did that, we'd have a lot less stupid laws (and I've seen plenty of stupid laws based on emotional decisions) and a lot more problems would be solved. Now I'm not so naive as to believe that most people are going to do that, but some people will and that's all we can hope for!

Thanks for the (qualified) endorsement.

I agree with your points. To my mind, any statement of research has to be both internally coherent/logical in its formulation, and empirically testable. The latter is always going to be difficult in the situation within Iraq, but I would agree the Lancet article does appear to be doubtful in both contexts.