The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on July 26th, 2017 at 01:53 pm
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.
- 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).
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
- 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”.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
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.