<< KONSISTENT KOFI ~ MAIN ~ ROCKY II >>

THIS IS RIDICULOUS

Lancet’s latest Iraq body count (published, as usual, shortly prior to an election): 655,000.

UPDATE. SCD notes: “Tim, your text is wrong. The ‘study’ counts ‘excess deaths’ - that is, above the number that Sadaam would have killed anyway. So the total body count (er, or ... body imagining) is waaaaaay more than 655,000.” That number, by the way, represents 500 deaths every single day since the invasion. The Associated Press reports:

“They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

“This is not analysis, this is politics,’’ Cordesman said.

The New York Times:

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”

But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

UPDATE II. Professor Peter von Nostrand:

It is as clear as a summer day what happens next: As they did before with the Lancet Report to their utter discredit, the right will deride this research as liberal propaganda and drive it out of public debate faster than you can say “Dan Rather.” Yet it isn’t liberal propaganda.

Glad that’s settled. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Hamit Dardagan, co-founder of Iraq Body Count, a London-based human-rights group, called the Lancet study’s figures “pretty shockingly high.” His group tabulates the civilian death toll based on media reports augmented by local hospital and morgue records. His group says it has accumulated reports of as many as 48,693 civilian deaths caused by the U.S. intervention.

UPDATE III. TigerHawk:

Whatever the base credibility of The Lancet’s editors, their propensity to publish these things in October of even-numbered years makes them look like partisan hacks.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/11/2006 at 12:47 AM
  1. Reporter: Tom, I’m currently 10 miles outside of Beaverton, unable to get inside the town proper. We do not have any reports of fatalities yet, but we believe the death toll may be in the hundreds of millions. Beaverton has a population of only about 8,000, Tom, so this would be quite devastating.

    I can’t say it better than South Park.

    Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2006 10 11 at 01:04 AM • permalink

  2. The random number generator is the most powerful tool in the leftist arsenal.

    Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 10 11 at 01:06 AM • permalink

  3. One for each of Kofi Annan’s ‘deeply concerned’ moments, almost.

    Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2006 10 11 at 01:08 AM • permalink

  4. Regardless of the actual toll, each death is a tragedy and one that is a direct result of an “insurgency” that almost exclusively targets civilians. I mean, what is the military value in attacking a fish market or a crowd of children?

    The coalition has to stay in Iraq until each one of those murdering bastards is brought to justice.

    On the plus side, at least they admit 100 000 is wrong.

    Posted by Matthew Lawrence on 2006 10 11 at 01:15 AM • permalink

  5. The number is far too low. Why, 600,000 died in the American civil war, when the US had a population of 32 million. The Civil War was fought the old fashioned way with large armies and devastating battles. The new fangled methods in Iraq, with no major battles and 17 of the provinces mostly peaceful, must inevitably have led to a much greater number of deaths. I would say they have to be around 10%, a nice number constructed from the most fundamental digits, 0 and 1. So the number of Iraqi deaths must be some 2.3 million. Can I get my preprints now?

    Posted by charlesr on 2006 10 11 at 01:19 AM • permalink

  6. I love it!

    From the article:

    The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country

    Knock knock… Good day sir. Have you, or has anybody you know, died as a result of the war?

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 10 11 at 01:19 AM • permalink

  7. You know, I could do the same thing - take a random sampling from, oh, lets say, around Maquarie Fields and Cronulla, and ask how many people know anyone who has been involved in a riot in the last year or two. Then I can extrapolate it to Australia wide, and show that Australia is full of anti-government insurgents, racists and criminals. And if I spin it well enough, I can hammer the Howard government’s ‘racist agenda’ for it.

    Posted by Stuart Lord on 2006 10 11 at 01:23 AM • permalink

  8. Can anybody confirm whether any of these people putting together the Lancet are current or former employees of Roy Morgan Research??

    Posted by Hank Reardon on 2006 10 11 at 01:28 AM • permalink

  9. If a few disorganised jihardons with obsolete Soviet gimcracks can croak 655,000, imagine what devastation will be wrought by Federovskys Comet?

    I safely predict megadeaths in the quazillions, with future and past generations being decimated as well.

    Posted by Habib on 2006 10 11 at 01:28 AM • permalink

  10. Well Dan, that’s what that fraud Les Roberts was supposed to have done (more or less) for the last pre-election Lancet campaign. Only he admits that during the survey work he hid in his hotel room for much of the time.

    Posted by C.L. on 2006 10 11 at 01:29 AM • permalink

  11. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country

    The estimated death toll would have been higher but the researchers had a lot of trouble finding residents who were still alive to interview.

    /moonbat

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 10 11 at 01:31 AM • permalink

  12. Tim Lambert is going to cream his pants over this.  Random numbers are right up his alley.

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 11 at 01:39 AM • permalink

  13. All these guys do is get a number and add a few zeros to the end of it. And then they blame it on a typo00000000000000.

    Posted by The Best Infidel on 2006 10 11 at 01:40 AM • permalink

  14. You know, I require context. 

    I know we were killing millions of children with the sanctions.  Let’s give the former Government a bit of credit here too—reckon what, 15 or 20 people a year accidentally died by the hands of Saddam and Sons, Inc?

    So war is about what, 250k a year dead?  How many died because of the peace?

    Posted by hella on 2006 10 11 at 01:51 AM • permalink

  15. Suely they must be kidding.
    By my estimate it should be closer to a trillion.

    Posted by Bonmot on 2006 10 11 at 01:56 AM • permalink

  16. Please tell me that this is an elaborate joke somebody. Please.

    A hundred thousand was unbelievable nonsense!

    I’ve started a thread on a message board about this http://greatworlddebate.net/gwdsmf/index.php?topic=8187.0 , and am waiting for the usual suspects to deploy their usual tricks in trying to defend this absurd number.

    Posted by Garth on 2006 10 11 at 02:07 AM • permalink

  17. I can just picture it now :

    Bush : ‘Wow, Rove/Cheney - (for these purposes, Rove and Cheney have shown themselves for what they really are - demonic Nazi battle robots of destruction from outer space (from the Planet Jew in the Zion sector, it has been speculated) bent on destroying all the peace and love in the world) - ‘Wow, look at all those Iraqi’s dead. Are they the bad Iraqi’s, or the good ones?’

    Rove/Cheney : ‘The only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi! We must crush them all under our oversized imperialist fists!’

    Bush : ‘So this is a good thing we are killing so many?’

    Rove/Cheney : ‘Many? Many? Puny earthworm, this is only the start of our secret plan of super secret world ruling destruction.’

    Bush : ‘Can we go through this plan one more time? I don’t seem to get it.’

    Rove/Cheney : ‘Well, first we lower tax rates, then invade two third world countries and rid them of their despotic ruling systems, and then, WORLD DOMINATION DESTRUCTION!’

    Bush : ‘That doesn’t quite make sense, you know’

    Rove/Cheney : Well, we arn’t quite sure about what goes in between invading Afghanistan and Iraq and WORLD DOMINATION DESTRUCTION, but we’re pretty sure it involves global warming and corporations and christian fundamentalism and maybe slaves or something. It will come along, I’m sure. But killing Iraqi’s for no particular purpose or gain is pretty much where we are at at the moment.

    Bush : ‘Oh, I see. What’s for lunch again?’

    Now this was pretty lame, but still, I enjoyed it :p

    Posted by Stuart Lord on 2006 10 11 at 02:08 AM • permalink

  18. #14 Thanks, hella.  We should always remember the children killed by the evil US sanctions.

    It’s interesting how they all sort of disappeared when we quit sanctions and tried war.

    Posted by Synova on 2006 10 11 at 02:10 AM • permalink

  19. Maybe they could give us the name and last home address of the deceased, as well as their cause of death to verify this number.

    Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 11 at 02:10 AM • permalink

  20. Computer “scientist” Lambert: “...these numbers seem plausible”.

    From The Guardian:

    "They’re almost certainly way too high,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

    “This is not analysis, this is politics,” Cordesman said.

    The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study - that one was released just before the November 2005 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.

    It’s another political stunt.

    Posted by C.L. on 2006 10 11 at 02:13 AM • permalink

  21. Oh this is too good. Check out Marilyn Sheepherd’s latest at The Oz:

    What has loving or hating Jews got to do with despising the West for their multitude of murders, invasions, slaughters, lies and distortions to steal resources?
    Jews are human beings, just like Muslims and so-called Christians.

    She is a so-called dickhead.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 10 11 at 02:15 AM • permalink

  22. the November 2005 presidential election

    Uh, in what country?

    Posted by Pixy Misa on 2006 10 11 at 02:17 AM • permalink

  23. The last sentence in an article on this from the NYT:

    Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

    Posted by Hanyu on 2006 10 11 at 02:17 AM • permalink

  24. #21 Dan, I am having quite the lunch break baiting her and Merv.

    Did you know That Isreal created Hamas?

    Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 10 11 at 02:17 AM • permalink

  25. Tim, your text is wrong.  The “study” counts “excess deaths” - that is, above the number that Sadaam would have killed anyway.

    So the total body count (er, or ... body imagining) is waaaaaay more than 655,000.

    So, Dan lewis @ #6, the question actually would have been:

    Knock knock… Good day sir. Have you, or has anybody you know, died as a result of the war, that would not have been killed by Sadaam anyway?

    Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 11 at 02:34 AM • permalink

  26. oh yes, that is certainly a credible figure, after all its only 1/3 of the total German civilian deaths in WW2 and we deliberately bombed German civilians for years, by day and by night, using thousands of bombers dropping bombs of up to 12,000lbs and using doctrines specificly developed to increase the civilian casualties.

    Plus Germany was invaded by both the Allies and the Soviets, fighting major land battles on both the east and western fronts.

    yep 655,000 in Iraq seems just about right to me…

    Posted by Harry Buttle on 2006 10 11 at 02:47 AM • permalink

  27. #24

    Did you know That Isreal created Hamas?

    Yes. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who founded Hamas in 1987, was in fact a well-known Mossad operative. His real name, was Hymie Loewenstein. Whilst most of the world believes Yassin was assassinated in 2004, the blinding flash, thought to be an Israeli rocket was actually he (and his wheelchair) being transported (using Zionist teleportation technology) to a secret location, possibly with Elvis.

    It is understood Israel couldn’t hit his wheelchair even if they had wanted to, as it didn’t have a prominent red-cross by which they could zero their aim.

    Although most people swallow the Zionist Lie that Yassin is now burning in hell, fluffing Adolph Hitler and being cornholed half-hourly by Satan, the reality is he’s actually quite happy in far North Queensland, writing occasional letters to the editor.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 10 11 at 02:47 AM • permalink

  28. The only thing more ridiculous than this fantastical fiction they’ve cooked up is that there will be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of leftist moonbats who will treat it as holy writ.

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 10 11 at 02:53 AM • permalink

  29. #27 - Uh Huh! Now it is all clear.

    I see you chose not to deny that you were a George Bush voting, redneck American from Arkansas.

    Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 10 11 at 02:53 AM • permalink

  30. Actually, Dan Lewis’ fable in #27 is more plausible than Lancet‘s

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 10 11 at 02:55 AM • permalink

  31. #29

    I see you chose not to deny that you were a George Bush voting, redneck American from Arkansas.

    Now why would I want to deny that?

    Sadly, it seems a few people got the last word in on that silly thread, and they closed comments robbing me of a right to reply.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 10 11 at 02:57 AM • permalink

  32. #30

    Dan Lewis’ fable in #27 is more plausible than Lancet‘s

    Thank you. I forgot to mention my source. The information in my earlier post was compiled from interviews with residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country. Special weighting was given to those residents found to be licking the windows.

    Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 10 11 at 02:59 AM • permalink

  33. Dr Les Roberts (lead researcher for the previous Lancet report) commented as to why the previous report was not often raised by the Democrats at the time:

    I can’t really speculate about that, but they didn’t. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq. Most of the Democratic Party went along with this. That makes them at the least complacent in this fiasco.

    Fiasco huh? Thanks for the tip off as to your abject personal bias.

    http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271

    Posted by lingus4 on 2006 10 11 at 03:06 AM • permalink

  34. Trim the herd.

    Posted by Howzat on 2006 10 11 at 03:06 AM • permalink

  35. What’s the bet that by the end of the week we’ll see left wing bloggers and news sources rounding this figure up to million.

    Posted by Hanyu on 2006 10 11 at 03:56 AM • permalink

  36. God, I’m so sick of these people.  They are shameless, myopic, and so detached from reality that it will genuinely shock them when they find themselves forced to pay most of what they earn for the privilege of breathing Muslim air.  Of course, most of them won’t be earning anything because the jobs they now enjoy require the very freedoms they are working like mindless little ants to destroy.

    Posted by saltydog on 2006 10 11 at 04:32 AM • permalink

  37. Ha! Final proof we really are winning the ‘war’!

    According to dear ol’ wikipedia (heh), Iraq has a population density of 66 people per square kilometre.

    So, using ‘Lancet Logic’(tm), that’s ~7.6 square kilometres pacified a day - which means we should be able to pacify Baghdad (204.2km^2) by the first Tuesday in November.

    All hail the unifying political power of questionable mathematics! =)

    Posted by pache on 2006 10 11 at 04:44 AM • permalink

  38. Does the ‘study’ look at how people died? Old age? Heart attack? Cancer? Car crash? Terminal dandruff? Lightning strike? Or are the septics and their mates fighting the good fight responsible for these Iraqi ailments as well? Of those felled by bullets do the autopsies reveal AK rounds or NATO rounds? These body count studies are a load of frogshit.

    Posted by EliotNess on 2006 10 11 at 05:31 AM • permalink

  39. I am calling horseshit.

    From 1940 to 1945 Bomber Command dropped 955,044 tons of weaponry on Europe(some of this was mines and the land total on Germany is less than this figure).

    It conducted 391,137 sorties.

    The area bombing campaign was by today’s standards indiscriminate bombing of cities.

    593,000 german civilians died (AJ Levine, The Strategic Bombing of Germany 1940-1945, Prager, 1992, p.190)

    The lancet claims that MORE than this number has been killed in Iraq!?!!

    Bullshit. Where are the levelled cities, the policy of indiscriminate attack on civilian targets, and the enormous contracts for bombs and shells to DO this.

    MarkL
    Canberra

    Posted by MarkL on 2006 10 11 at 05:47 AM • permalink

  40. Kramer is blogging?

    Posted by Hanyu on 2006 10 11 at 05:57 AM • permalink

  41. "This is Kermit Le Frog reporting from Paris. So many of my relatives ‘ave now had their legs couped off for the aggrandisement of the restaurant trade that I am moved to report zis blatant amphibicide. As my great but somewhat spineless relative, Horace Tadpole said, “"Legs are a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who fall.” I think he had been drinking at the time. Like those idiots at Lancet, who should stick to their knitting, lancing boils and suchlike."

    Posted by blogstrop on 2006 10 11 at 06:07 AM • permalink

  42. Clearly, the count includes approximately 600,000 domestic leftists who have been disappeared by the Bush junta for their opposition to the Iraq War.

    Posted by PW on 2006 10 11 at 06:54 AM • permalink

  43. Chimpy McBushitler to Truman: I’ll see your Hiroshima and raise you 8 times!

    Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 10 11 at 06:56 AM • permalink

  44. And what a surprise, it’s the ABC’s new lead story.

    Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 11 at 06:59 AM • permalink

  45. According to Wiki around 214,000 people died due to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    You guys should have just nuked the Sunni triangle.

    *removes tongue from cheek*

    This study shows two things: Doctors don’t understand statistics and the Lancet has incredibly low standards.

    Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 10 11 at 07:28 AM • permalink

  46. Does the ‘study’ look at how people died? Old age? Heart attack? Cancer? Car crash? Terminal dandruff? Lightning strike? Or are the septics and their mates fighting the good fight responsible for these Iraqi ailments as well? Of those felled by bullets do the autopsies reveal AK rounds or NATO rounds? These body count studies are a load of frogshit.

    There’s another question that occured to me: how are they estimating the pre-invasion death rate? Is it from death certificates? If so, are they positive that the occupants of the many mass graves around Iraq were duly recorded? Or that the people murdered by the Baath were recorded?

    Are they positive that every death in the Anfal campaign was accompanied by a slip of paper? Or that there are any relatives left to remember?

    And what about the marsh Arabs? Was the extermination campaign against them properly filed?

    Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 10 11 at 07:36 AM • permalink

  47. I didn’t actually find the original lancet study to be that implausible, but this one is taking the piss. I would be surprised if they could actually point to one day in Iraq and show 500 violent deaths. For it to be an average seems implausible.

    Posted by Ross on 2006 10 11 at 07:43 AM • permalink

  48. Do a Google News search on it and look for the different numbers - some say 655,000 others say 600,000 and a Californian article has decided the number is 601,027.

    And this curious quote:

    Some groups, such as Human Rights Watch, had been skeptical of the previous estimate done by the Johns Hopkins researchers. But Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division, said her group had no reason to question the accuracy of the new survey.

    Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 11 at 07:54 AM • permalink

  49. His group says it has accumulated reports of as many as 48,693 civilian deaths caused by the U.S. intervention.

    Right.  So we can blame the yanks for the 43,000 which were murdered by Islamoid fanatics and various other fascists as well.  That’s cleared that one up then.

    Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division, said her group had no reason to question the accuracy of the new survey.

    Why does that not surprise me?

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 11 at 08:31 AM • permalink

  50. Of course, CNN has the headline “655,000 Iraqis dead since invasion, study says”

    Turds.

    Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 10 11 at 08:52 AM • permalink

  51. 600 big ones hey?  That’ll give Timmy Lambert enough jack off material, at least until the next US election.  Nothing like a big pile of bodies murdered by big bad Americans to get Lambert’s minute knob hard.

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 11 at 09:32 AM • permalink

  52. Yep.  Right on cue.  The ABC blows its load.

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 11 at 09:38 AM • permalink

  53. Sigh-655,000 people would be about 2.5% of Iraq’s population of 26 million.

    One person in 40.

    It strikes me as the kind of thing that would get noticed on a regular basis (in Baghdad alone it would amount to almost 150,000 dead).

    Lefties don’t care if the lie is plausible-they know that the media will dutifully repeat it-just so long as the lie furthers the “greater truth”.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 11 at 09:42 AM • permalink

  54. I am deeply concerned that the Lancet has apparently adopted global warming math in its assessment of mortality statistics in Iraq. Shouldn’t be too long before the mag’s online site is linked by Pravda.

    Posted by paco on 2006 10 11 at 09:52 AM • permalink

  55. Well, nobody was paying attention to the report of 100,000 dead, so they needed to jack up the number to twice what Saddam was reported to have murdered.  After all, we are EVIL RIGHT WING DEATH BEASTS, we are TWICE as bad as Saddam, poor persecuted lamb.

    How long until kalli/Miranda/trolldujour pops up with a comment citing this figure?

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 11 at 10:20 AM • permalink

  56. BTW-I don’t know if our Aussie friends have heard about this, but one of the Zucker brothers (Airplane, Scary Movie, etc) has made a political commercial that has some lefties crying foul.

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 11 at 11:25 AM • permalink

  57. Yes, paco, it’s obvious that the climate study’s researchers just fed the population of Iraq into a Greenpeace climate modeller--probably feet first. Oh, and carried the one.

    Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 11 at 11:38 AM • permalink

  58. 91B30

    Seen.  I also understand that YouTube have marked it as inappropriate content.  Fascists.

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 11 at 11:44 AM • permalink

  59. Murph --

    Now the Google acquisition makes sense.  Totalitarian enablers, and all that.

    Posted by cosmo on 2006 10 11 at 12:14 PM • permalink

  60. Hmmm.

    I’d comment on this but I’m going to wait until the declared number of dead Iraqis is above 2 million.

    I.e. sometime in April, 2007.

    Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 11 at 12:33 PM • permalink

  61. It’s always breathtaking to realize how the current generation of leaders in all sorts of fields (i.e. medical journals, human rights groups, network news divisions) have become so self-important and so warped with political correctness and ideology that they would simply throw away the well-earned professional reputations of the institutions they’ve inherited.  They are using the respect earned by decades of their forbears as a cover to push their own personal political agendas, and in so doing destroying the very respect they were counting on to support their case.  Talk about bad stewardship.  They are going to owe a huge apology to those that come after them, because a reputation is a very difficult thing to get back.

    Last I heard The Lancet was a medical journal.  Shouldn’t it talk about medicine?  Why was it even doing a study like this?  And in such a blatantly political way.

    The absolute short-sightedness of these people in not being able to distinguish between their own personal political beliefs and the best interests of institutions that pre-date them and will live long after them, and of which they are only temporary custodians, is, as I said above, breathtaking.  When large sections of the public stop thinking of The Lancet as an objective medical journal and start dismissing it as a political rag, the editors will have only themselves to blame.

    Posted by kcom on 2006 10 11 at 12:37 PM • permalink

  62. ed

    Don’t be ridiculous.  It’ll be October 2008 and the number will be a googol raised to the power of infinity cubed.

    Posted by murph on 2006 10 11 at 01:01 PM • permalink

  63. Billy Fish:  Him Uttar, king of this city. I tell him you are Gurusahib.  Fall from the sky!

    Daniel Dravot: Good man, Billy Fish. Now, ask him if he has any enemies.

    Billy Fish: Hamdela hamdela?

    Uttar:  Hamdela hamdela! Hamdela hamdela!

    Daniel Dravot: so, what does he say?

    Billy Fish: Oh, enemies all around, Sahib.  The worst are the Bashkai.  Always raiding, killing mens, taking womens.  And when we go to bathe, they are pissing in the river!

    Daniel Dravot:  Shocking state of affairs, Peachy ...  Billy Fish, ask him how many of his men they have killed.

    Billy Fish: Hamdela Hamdela.

    Uttar. Hamdela hamdela! Hamdela hamdela! Hamdela hamdela!

    Danile Dravot: So, what he say, Billy Fish?

    Billy Fish:  Him say 650,000, alas by Jove!

    Peachy:  Let’s see, 3 1/2 years, that’s 1280 days, give or take a few. That’s more than 500 a day. Cor blimey! Billy Fish, ask this Uttar where he’s buried them.

    Billy Fish: Oh, him say buried all around.

    Peachy: Lying bugger!

    Daniel Dravot: You tell this Uttar, Billy Fish, that if he doesn’t stop telling stories, I’ll flog him in front of his women and use his head for a polo ball!

    Posted by crittenden on 2006 10 11 at 01:03 PM • permalink

  64. #60 ed,

    Hmmm.

    I’d comment on this but I’m going to wait until the declared number of dead Iraqis is above 2 million.

    I.e. sometime in April, 2007.

    For the 2008 election cycle, Lancet editors are hoping for the magical 6,000,000 figure, so they really can compare Bush to Hitler.

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 10 11 at 01:12 PM • permalink

  65. Then of course, there’s the reliably loony Kevin Barrett of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and member of “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”, who claims that “...comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.”

    Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 10 11 at 01:30 PM • permalink

  66. "Lancet”

    A lying, pro-Baathist propaganda outlet masquerading as a medical journal.

    Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 10 11 at 01:54 PM • permalink

  67. Crittenden-don’t be going around making references to Kipling inspired films and making us look all cultured.

    We’re blood-thirsty death beasts (oh-wait a minute, carry on then).

    Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 11 at 02:48 PM • permalink

  68. EliotNess wrote:

    Does the ‘study’ look at how people died? Old age? Heart attack? Cancer? Car crash? Terminal dandruff? Lightning strike?

    If they did, I’m sure they didn’t include those causes or buried it deep in the footnotes so people would presume Coalition forces killed those people.

    Anything to inflate the bodycount.

    Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 10 11 at 03:14 PM • permalink

  69. Spiny Norman wrote:

    For the 2008 election cycle, Lancet editors are hoping for the magical 6,000,000 figure, so they really can compare Bush to Hitler.

    Which will deep-six Bush’s re-election chances, I’m sure. ;)

    Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 10 11 at 03:17 PM • permalink

  70. Also note that the “normal” and “excess” deaths are no longer being bulldozed into the ground. So where are all the funerals? Seems like nothing would ever get done what with the wailing, sackcloth tearing and gnashing of teeth. Ya know, stuff like three elections, stock market, currency, rebuilt infrastructure, armed forces, police, etc. Well, if they could fake a moon landing…

    Oh, wait! What about the fat cat funeral directors? And the ginormous Hillenbrand profits? And where was my stock broker during all this hot casket market action?

    Posted by tongueboy on 2006 10 11 at 04:58 PM • permalink

  71. "(C)aused by the U.S. intervention”?  Or are they caused mostly by the scum who want to either restore the Ba’athist tyranny or institute an Islamist tyranny?  And that was a liberation not an intervention, just ask the Iraqis who have voted in three major nationwide free elections and innumerable local ones since Saddam was booted off his blood-soaked throne.

    It seems all the liberals and leftists in the world (with rare exceptions) have decided to support fascist tyranny so long as it is anti-American (or anti-Jewish, or both as is usually the case).  Well now their perfidy is out in the open.  The only people in the world who support freedom are conservtives. Those who still fancy themselves leftists or liberals (American style liberals, not real ones) who support it are going to find themselves purged unless they recant their heresy.  Look at Joe Lieberman, purged from the Democratic Party for having a smidgeon of good sense about the War, when he swallows whole all the other nonsense of the liberals (sensu American).

    Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 10 11 at 08:21 PM • permalink

  72. From the Washington Post: "The new study _ which attributes roughly 600,000 of the deaths directly to violence and 55,000 more to other war-related causes _ was released Wednesday on the Web site of The Lancet, a respected medical journal. But just how good is its conclusions?"

    I think they left out one word.  It should have said “a formerly respected medical journal.”

    P.S. I don’t know what’s up with the goofy underscores.

    Posted by kcom on 2006 10 11 at 10:48 PM • permalink

  73. a spokeperson for this survey on BBC last night confirmed that the figures include all those who had premature heart attacks brought on by the imperialist aggressors!

    Posted by een on 2006 10 12 at 07:54 AM • permalink

  74. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.