LANCET DISRESPECTED

In noting the grim statistical milestone™ of 2,000 US deaths, civil warmonger Paul McGeough disses Lancet’s 100,000 dead Iraqis claim:

Statistics on Iraqi civilian deaths are kept with less precision, but the most respected tally, from the Iraq Body Count, estimates Iraqi deaths at between 26,690 and 30,051.

The rest of the piece? Standard anti-war stuff, now involving a calculator.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/27/2005 at 10:49 AM
    1. “Most respected”? By whom?

      Iraq Body Count has already been demonstrated to have included multiple reports of the same incident in their tally. More than once. After a worshipful citation in a Robert Fisk column, this same group’s “Afghanistan Body Count” was the subject of the first online fisking, IIRC.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 10/27 at 11:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, “most respected” could be akin to a 3 on a 10-point scale, in case everybody else is even worse. The Lancet study should rate about minus 8, incidentally.

      I do think the IBC guys are making a reasonably good faith effort at an accurate count, even if obviously coloured by their own political biases (e.g. “Civilians reported killed by military intervention”, as though all, or even most, of those casualties are directly attributable to the Coalition military).

      Posted by PW on 10/27 at 12:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. Certainly civilians get killed in war.  But the MSM has shown itself perfectly capable of calling some of the casualties “civilians” when there’s ample doubt that they were.  And how many civilians (read women and children) would not be dead if the terrorists hadn’t been hiding behind them?

      Posted by RebeccaH on 10/27 at 01:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. Statistics on Iraqi civilian deaths are kept with less precision, but the most respected tally, from the Iraq Body Count, estimates Iraqi deaths at between 26,690 and 30,051.

      Take an average of these numbers:  28,371

      Divide by 2 to reflect bias:  14,185

      Divide by 2 to deduct Baathist insurgents killed (please don’t cheer):  7,093

      Divide by 2 to deduct Islamist terrorists killed (please no high fives):  3,546

      Divide by 2 to deduct innocent civilians killed by insurgents and terrorists:  1,773.

      Divide by 2 to deduct innocents killed by unfortunate or foolish acts on their part (such as driving fast up to a check point):  887.

      That’s my best estimate:  887.  I’d put it up against any that the left can come up with.  Feel free to cite it as a proven statistic.

      Posted by wronwright on 10/27 at 02:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why isnt P McG on strike? – scab!

      Posted by rog2 on 10/27 at 03:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. If McGeough is now conceding these markedly reduced figures, then you can rest assured that the actual figure is, in all probability, considerably lower than that!

      Posted by Brian on 10/27 at 07:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe two occurrences don’t make a trend, but I’ve been surprised recently to hear MSM reports which include dead terrorists in the overall death tallies of certain events.  They certainly did this with the recent Chechnya terror attack, and just last week I heard some MSM report refer to the London bombings as having killed 56 people, “including the four suicide bombers”.

      Posted by cuckoo on 10/27 at 09:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. NOW THAT MCGEOUGH HAS DISSED THE LANCET STUDY, IT’S TIME TO GET PRE-EMPTIVE.

      LET’S SHOOT THE “T” AND “B” SO THAT ANY POSTING BY TIM LAMBERT BECOMES IM LAMER.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 10/27 at 11:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. Anti-war but not anti “stateless” acts of war?
      Pro-UN but not in favour of its decision about the jews having a state?
      Anti-Israel but happy to see Islamic states created?
      Anti-globalisation but pro-Kyoto or any other rules for everyone which fit your world view?
      Pro Human Rights but don’t bother to ask you to defend real freedom or undertake the attached responsibilities?
      Pro Free speech but only as long as it is free speech you approve of?
      Support the troops but white-ant public morale and secretly call the troops fascist?
      Its a long list …. I’ll leave it there.

      Posted by blogstrop on 10/28 at 05:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. You aren’t suggesting that they might be, ah, err, um, hypocrites, would you, blogstrop?

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 10/28 at 10:35 AM • permalink

 

  1. Wow, it only took how many years of continued thrashing and bashing to put that one beast to bed?  Just think… someday we might finally put that plastic turkey to rest.  It just takes a long time for the facts to sink in with some people.

    Posted by Sortelli on 10/28 at 03:51 PM • permalink