Posted on 10/11/2006 8:08:06 AM PDT by aculeus
BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 — A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.
The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion.
But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Who says Pinch doesn't have a sense of humor?
Pales when you remember how many Saddam the madman killed.
Or when you compare it to the number that most rational people think is the correct figure. This study was completely fictional.
Cripes, why not a margin of error from 426,369.31 to 793,662.97.
69% killed by terrorists should be the headline. Probably half of the number left were terrorists.
If it's October in a US election year, look for another bogus report on Iraqi deaths from Lancet.
The release of the first bogus Lancet report (remember the 100,000 dead trope?) was released in October 2004.
This, the second bogus Lancet report, is released in October 2006.
At this rate, the bogus Lancet report released in October 2008 will count > 2 million Iraqi dead.
I think that your 69% is way too low it's probably more in the range of 90.
The number is from the Glenn Beck show, so if I am wrong, he is too.
You must mean the new improved NON-PARTISAN, Cumbayah singing, "why can't we just all get along" Glenn Beck that was hosting his show this morning. I think that he has been cnn'd!
LLS
see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1717405/posts
Well, if 1 in 25 people in Iraq were pro Saddam or pro Terrorist then I would have no trouble with that number if it is correct. Add a few more zeros to it for all I give a pig's @$$.
If Glenn Beck is not conservative, then conservatives don't exist.
Yeah, and I wonder who is responsible for more of those killed, the US military or the terrorists?
Because now you're manufacturing precision. /sarc
They cautiously rounded the actual numbers.
A whole lot of "Assuming" going on in this study and it is curious that it comes out weeks before an election-just like their last study.
Bingo. If at first you don't succeed, tell a bigger lie the next time. When they saw that the bogus 100,000 figure didn't affect the 2004 election, what else could they do? I shudder to think of where the estimate will be in 2012, but it could easily exceed the population of Iraq.
In a separate study, I have just estimated that the total killed in Clinton's war in Bosnia was 15,239,651 give or take.
Whatever the number, those who would inflate it and say these people would be alive but for the invasion are begging the reader to condemn the US actions. They are begging Western nations to be even more risk averse to taking on difficult swamp-draining tasks. Nobody wants these no-win situations, but it is necessary for the civilized world to establish a limit to the endless games played by oppressive, aggressive regimes who, one way or another, will get WMDs.
It's a start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.