Author Topic: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion  (Read 2232 times)

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« on: November 07, 2004, 03:42:54 PM »
Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune

PARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
   
Advertisement

Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.

Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.

The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.

In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.

Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.

Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.

"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.

In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.

The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies and included doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.

There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.

That project, which collates only deaths reported in the news media, currently put the maximum civilian death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Mr. Lipscomb said.

The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers. Each team included an Iraqi health worker, generally a physician.

Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.

Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.

The study is scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.

"This study shows that with moderate funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained," the authors wrote.

_____

For the original study see:


http://www.thelancet.com/home
 

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2004, 03:48:43 PM »
There's nothing scientific in this research.
 

Sikotic™

Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2004, 06:48:14 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me.

Is this massive loss of lives really necessary?
My Chihuahuas Are Eternal

THA SAUCE HOUSE
 

tommyilromano

  • Guest
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2004, 07:59:14 PM »
Study Puts Iraqi Deaths of Civilians at 100,000
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune

PARIS, Oct. 28 - An estimated 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 United States-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
   
Advertisement

Coming just five days before the presidential election the finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since it is far higher than previous mortality estimates for the Iraq conflict.

Editors of The Lancet, the London-based medical publication, where an article describing the study is scheduled to appear, decided not to wait for the normal publication date next week, but to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the election.

The Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.

In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.

Although the authors acknowledge that data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect is extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.

Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.

"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins team. Dr. Burnham said the team excluded data about deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, because that city was the site of unusually intense violence.

In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in their families since the conflict started. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by American-led forces, mostly airstrikes, and most of those killed were women and children. The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers reported.

The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies and included doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.

There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, since that translates into an average of 166 deaths a day since the invasion. But some people were not surprised. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University, who works on the www.iraqbodycount.net project.

That project, which collates only deaths reported in the news media, currently put the maximum civilian death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Mr. Lipscomb said.

The researchers said they were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited by the decision to cut down on driving time when possible in order to reduce the risk to the interviewers. Each team included an Iraqi health worker, generally a physician.

Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also requested to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.

Some of those killed may have been insurgents, not civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in deaths included a rise in murders and some deaths were caused by the decline of medical care. "But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Dr. Burnham said.

The study is scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But Dr. Roberts and his colleagues are critical of the Bush administration and the Army for not releasing estimates of civilian deaths.

"This study shows that with moderate funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained," the authors wrote.

_____

For the original study see:


http://www.thelancet.com/home

You need a hobby.
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2004, 08:59:15 PM »
You need an education, and judging by that picture, a haircut as well
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

Machiavelli

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Karma: 134
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2004, 02:25:00 PM »
How many Terrorists have we killed.
 

*Jamal*

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1215
  • Karma: -34
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2004, 02:35:33 PM »
How many Terrorists have we killed.

Are you really that retarded?

What if some terrorist said "When we attacked on 9/11, we were aiming to kill the people who might've been a threat to society... we're sure there were at least a few child molestors in that building"

 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2004, 03:17:27 PM »
How many Terrorists have we killed.

Are you really that retarded?

What if some terrorist said "When we attacked on 9/11, we were aiming to kill the people who might've been a threat to society... we're sure there were at least a few child molestors in that building"


it was a fair question i'd like to know corellation between civilian and terrorist deaths, the civillian deaths in iraq are disgusting and they only add ammo to terrorist army in the way of increased recruits, i blame american tactics of indescriminate bombings and targeting people without verifying who they are, did anyone see that footage of the crowd of people funning through the street in iraq when an american plane was flying over all that was said was they could see them running it took 2 seconds for comand and control order a misile into the crowd

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

Machiavelli

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Karma: 134
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2004, 03:31:03 PM »


did anyone see that footage of the crowd of people funning through the street in iraq when an american plane was flying over all that was said was they could see them running it took 2 seconds for comand and control order a misile into the crowd
Quote

Yeah, i saw that shit man, some fucked up shit..The guy was on the plane and he saw a group of people and he was like "i can spot a targert" then he droped the bomb then and killed at least 50 people.
 

Rampant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
  • Karma: -13
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2004, 06:24:15 PM »
I just read that at least 15,000 innocent civillians were killed. 100,000 is a little off.

And honestly, how do people in baltimore know how many innocent iraqis have died? Its not like their counting dead bodies themselves.

But im not going to go against your argument that lots of innocent civillians are dying. Even if the number was 5,000 that is still too many, especially when our "goal" is to liberate them.
 

Thirteen

  • Guest
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2004, 08:23:29 PM »
How many Terrorists have we killed.

Are you really that retarded?

What if some terrorist said "When we attacked on 9/11, we were aiming to kill the people who might've been a threat to society... we're sure there were at least a few child molestors in that building"


it was a fair question i'd like to know corellation between civilian and terrorist deaths, the civillian deaths in iraq are disgusting and they only add ammo to terrorist army in the way of increased recruits, i blame american tactics of indescriminate bombings and targeting people without verifying who they are, did anyone see that footage of the crowd of people funning through the street in iraq when an american plane was flying over all that was said was they could see them running it took 2 seconds for comand and control order a misile into the crowd

how are you going to blame americans when the iraqis do the same thing? it's WAR, get used to it
 

tommyilromano

  • Guest
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2004, 08:23:46 PM »
I call bullshit.

Interviews with civilians to determine casualties? You count, not poll, the dead.
 

BuddenzNasir

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
  • Karma: 118
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2004, 08:25:50 PM »
i believe on CNN and Fox News it said the count was wrong, it was not 16,000 it was at a 100,000.....bush is on the best Murder Spree ever.....i bet those Columbine shooters  r crying in helll cuz there attempt sucked compared to this one! =p
 

acbaylove

  • Guest
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2004, 10:38:08 AM »
1. In the list you should add all the civils (journalists, doctors, etc..) killed by terrorists, and the death of those ones is as brutal and wrong as the death of all the other "innocent" Iraqi people. Cause all i read here is that Americans are bombing innocents. But guess what? Terrorists are doing the same! They bombed the Twin Towers, and there were no soldiers in it (am i wrong?). They boicotted airplanes using innocent people like "bombs". They've bombed Italian Carabinieri, and they were there to help building streets and helping doctors in the Badgad hospitals. They've bombed Red Cross. They've bombed UN. They've bombed Iraqi police. They've killed the most important political Iraqi who were about to instaure Democracy in Iraq. They've killed journalists and beheaded people live on tv. So please, when you make topics like this one, always remember that. Cause if you dont, you only say a small part of the story. Dont reply with: "They had to defend themselves", cause i didnt quote the deaths of soldiers, but the deaths of innocent people who wasnt fighting a war. Just like the "poor" Iraqi citizen arent.

2. This research has NOTHING scientific, like i said. It's impossible to determine the exact number of killed people from Baltimore, or interviewing the population. One example: when the war was at his best, sometimes a bomb bombed a plaza. Well, if you interviewed the common people the deaths were 200, if you interviewed the Red Cross and the Iraqi police the deaths were 20 and if you interviewed the Americans the deads were terrorists. Who do you trust? Why? This poll counted probably the "rumors" from the common people, but it's nothing "scientific". It's like when parties makes parades in the streets and manifestations. If you ask it to the organizators, there are 300,000 people parading. If you ask it to the Police, there are 50,000 people parading. It's like that everywere. You cant simply say that they were 300,000 just cause you interviewed someone. You know what i mean? If you wanna do something scientifical, you have to count them one by one. If you cant, simply dont sell your poll like something "scientifical", expecially when the US Government says deaths are like 14-20,000 and you say they are 100,000.

3. It's not possible to make a war and not kills innocent guys. The population is ALWAYS the first victim of every war. But this one wasnt a war Iraq vs USA. This one was something different. USA invaded Iraq to free their population from Saddam. They did. If you ask the politicians in Iraq, and the organizations of Iraqi refugees all over the world, they all thank USA for their support. Of course they aint satisfacted about victims, but they know it's impossible to make peace without fighting. Also, if you ask UN now, they'll say to stay there cause now that the first step is done, they have to give Iraq freedom by letting them organize free elections. Once again, when you have a mission, you have to judge it, and not the number of deaths. If the mission was to free Iraq, then the mission is almost complete. Then you can discuss if the "mission" was right or wrong, but you cant use the civils deads to argument it. Cause like i said, when you make a war, you make victims. And your men got killed.

4. You should ask Iraqi people: "do you prefeer to die to have freedom or do you prefeer to live under the Saddam regime?". REAL MEN should better die then living trapped. So ask them if the deads are dead in vain or if they're dead to make Iraq (and them all) free. Ask it.

5. I can quote you dozen of other polls about Iraqi deads in Iraq since 2003 US Invasion. Some are "bigger" (150,000), some are "smaller" (12,000), some are in the middle. Where's the scientific thing in all that?
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: 100,000 Civilians Deaths Since 2003 US Invasion
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2004, 12:21:58 PM »
I just read that at least 15,000 innocent civillians were killed. 100,000 is a little off.

And honestly, how do people in baltimore know how many innocent iraqis have died? Its not like their counting dead bodies themselves.

But im not going to go against your argument that lots of innocent civillians are dying. Even if the number was 5,000 that is still too many, especially when our "goal" is to liberate them.
from what i heard it was a joint iraqi american group who carried out the survey based on the average loss of life per family i think it was something like 1 in 20 families had a family member die as a result of the invasion, falluja was excluded from the poll die to the high loss of life. i am more inclined to believe the 100000 figure due to the amount of bombs america has dropped opporation shock and ore probably did 16000 alone.

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?