BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?

Subject: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 09:55 PM

This is from The Washington Post


"The Health Ministry's full-year death toll of 22,950, although incomplete, is higher than the 13,896 violent deaths of civilians, police officers and soldiers reported Jan. 1 by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. The United Nations, in a November report, estimated that more than 28,000 Iraqi civilians had died violently in the first 10 months of 2006, but that count was disputed by the government. The differences in the numbers could not be reconciled."


Many people here have been siting ten times this amount... yet even this many seems like a lot to me.

Is this confusing or what?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 10:25 PM

The Associated Press has again put out an Iraq story detailing events that did not happen. This time, it involves an airstrike that, " killed a family of four during a firefight." However, according to the press desk of Multi-National Forces-Iraq, no air strike happened during that firefight, and MNF-I also reported that which six insurgents were killed by American troops in Baghdad on January 1. This is the second time in roughly six weeks that the AP has been caught fabricating events.

In November, the AP's report of six people being burned by in an attack on a mosque, cited a Captain Jemil Hussein of the Iraqi police. This report was challenged by Central Command and the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, who pointed out that they had no record of a Jemil Hussein in their initial searches. The AP has stood by the story, yet this questionable Iraqi police official has not been quoted once since the story was questioned – despite being used in dozens of stories prior to the controversy. After several weeks of investigating, several blogs, including Flopping Aces, found very little evidence that Captain Hussein existed – until the AP reported that an arrest warrant was issued by the Ministry of the Interior for Hussein, whose phone has conveniently been turned off.

This is the latest media scandal involving phony news. In August, Reuters had to pull photographs that had been doctored to create the appearance that Israeli air strikes in Lebanon were doing more damage. Other photos taken during the summer fighting were discovered to have been staged by Hezbollah. In 2005, media reports that guards at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Koran turned out to have no basis in fact (the actual flushing was done by detainees).

This pattern of misreporting is being noticed by blogs, most notably Flopping Aces (www.floppingaces.net). One of the Iraqi reporters for the AP, Quais Abdul Raazzaq was recently interviewed, and made statements that appeared to be biased. Other blogs have been digging deeper into some of the reporting. And the skepticism about media reporting about Iraq seems to be increasing. In December, the Gallup Poll reported that 56 percent of Americans believe the mainstream media's reporting of the situation in Iraq is inaccurate.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 03:12 AM

Indeed, it has been shown that the whole Iraq war has been faked by the gay liberal media. The only deaths have been a few unfortunate road accidents where excited children waving flags have momentarily distracted convoys of US Marines distributing toys to deprived neighbourhoods, although there is also an unconfirmed report of one teenaged girl being killed with kindness.
We owe people like the Guest above an infinite debt of gratitude for leading us down the path of the right.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:28 AM

Typical, interesting topic raised by ttr, illicited a response from a GUEST poster that provided some examples of how reported and actual figures may diverge and how sources reporting deaths should be viewed with care. Now because this second post could possibly be read as being "pro-MNF", which it is not, if anything it is extremely neutral, it merely points out that the the world's Press are not above creating sensational stories where in fact none exist, we get the attempted sarcastic "piss-take" by CG, that attacks Guest's post without challenging any of the examples stated and adds absolutely nothing the point of discussion raised by ttr.

From the article linked to the original post:
"The Associated Press count for last year, assembled from its daily dispatches, is roughly 13,700 civilians, police and soldiers. But the news service has said that it believes its figures are substantially lower than the actual number of deaths because it lacked access to government data. Iraq Body Count, a British-based research group that reports on civilian deaths in Iraq, says the number is at most roughly 58,000 since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The group relies on deaths reported by the news media, and suggests on its Web site that its totals are an underrepresentation because "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported." Critics have accused the group of grossly underreporting Iraqi deaths.

A study on Iraqi mortality rates published in October by the Lancet medical journal estimated that more than 600,000 Iraqis had died from violence since the invasion. That number was extrapolated from population surveys rather than a compilation of actual deaths. The U.S. and Iraqi governments, as well as Iraq Body Count, dismissed the Lancet findings as inaccurate."

I believe that the main cause is very well indicated in the The Washington Post's article as the AP figure of 13,700 roughly agrees with the 13,896 reported by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. But those are only the deaths caused by "political/sectarian" violence. IraqBodyCount, literally, minute by minute provides two sets of figures showing a least and worse case, but they complain of "unreported" deaths, but it should be remembered that they too restrict themselves to deaths caused by "political/sectarian" violence.

The Iraqi Ministry of Health issued a second figure for deaths of just under 23,000 for 2006 while the UN reported 28,000 deaths for the period Jan to October. So where do the differences come in:

- Difference between casualties reported and deaths reported
- The lower figures (13,700 and 13,896) are those actually killed in reported incidents (i.e. the deaths), in incidents involving roadside bombs and car bombs there are many people injured, a number of those casualties die days after the incident and those deaths are not attributed to any incident and by and large go unreported
- The larger figure (22,950) supplied by the Iraq Health Ministry includes all deaths (Natural causes, Road deaths, Accidental death, Criminal deaths) so they should be higher than those figures made up of only those attributed to "political/sectarian" violence.

It should also be pointed out, as it is not clear from the The Washington Post's article the Lancet (John Hopkins Study) and IraqBodyCount figures start from the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:34 AM

Terry, Terry; liebschen...
Let us, for a moment, take the lowest figure as the correct one (by way of conjecture - personally I have my doubts, but, like you, have no way of verifying it).
That is, 13,700 people dead in reported roadside bombs and car bombs. That, I take it, does not include those killed as a direct result of Coalition action - just from 'internal causes' that you insist do not represent an incipient civil war.
Since April 2003 that amounts to nearly 700 people a month. With your military experience, do you consider this an acceptable bodycount for what has been achieved in Iraq?
13,700 people. By your own admission, at least 13,700 people. It is as if the entire population of a town like Sidmouth had been removed from the map. And for what?
Please, Terry, do remind us what - apart from the removal of the Ba'ath party from power - has been achieved in Iraq?
What were the monthly body counts from similar causes in Germany in the three years after it was liberated from dictatorship?
And would such rates justify our attacking Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea?
Sorry to keep asking all these questions, but in the absence of another latter-day Clausewitz here, you are my only hope!

PS: Any chance of answers to some of my earlier questions, poppet?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:36 AM

The 22,950 figure can't include all deaths (by natural causes). It is much too low for that. The Iraq overall death rate per year is a bit larger than 5 in 1000. Iraq has roughly 27,000,000 inhabitants. That makes roughly 130,000 to 150,000 dead people per year from natural causes alone.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 08:51 AM

Thomas, there are various agencies (Iraqi, US and UN and NGO) keeping (or at least reporting) casualty counts, using different statistical modalities and with a variety of axes to grind. Since it is Muslim custom/law to immediately bury the dead, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that there will ever be an accurate count.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:09 AM

My apologies Wolfgang, that is a very good point and you are perfectly correct the figures issued are only for those Iraqi's who have died violent/unexpected deaths and does not cover those who have died from natural causes. I believe that overall yearly death rate given for Iraq is 5,37 in 1000, and projecting ourselves forward to March 2007 so that we have four years to consider, the following figures would result. In the period between March 2003 and March 2007 the total number of Iraqi's from all causes would expected to be 575,664.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:17 AM

Er, Terry....?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM

How's the war on terror going? That's a difficult question to answer, because there is wide disagreement on exactly what the war is. For example, there are many Islamic terrorist groups active, many of them were in action long before September 11, 2001. This includes the violence between Sunni Arabs, and everyone else, in Iraq, and the war between the Taliban, and various opponents inside Afghanistan. Outside of those two areas, where al Qaeda declares itself a participant, there has not been a lot of al Qaeda activity. In 2005, al Qaeda attempted nine attacks, and succeeded in seven of them. But last year, al Qaeda attempted seven attacks, but only one succeeded.

Islamic terrorism has always been around, just look at the history of areas where Moslems and non-Moslems live close together. This terrorism began to intensify in the 1980s. The 1980s war in Afghanistan is often described as the birthplace of al Qaeda and the current round of Islamic terrorism, but that's not the case. The violence began in the 1970s, and that outbreak culminated in a 1979 attack, by Islamic radicals, on the Islamic holy of holies in Mecca. At about the same time, the leadership of Pakistan (a military dictatorship at the time) decided to back Islamic radicalism. In that same year, Islamic radicals took over in Iran. It was al Qaeda, an organization formed by failed Islamic radicals, forced to flee Saudi Arabia (Osama bin Laden), Egypt (most of the other senior leaders) and other Arab nations. It was al Qaeda that decided to attack the West. Before that, Islamic radicals were trying to take control of the nations they lived in. That, however, proved difficult. It only worked in Iran and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda blamed the difficulty in overthrowing Moslem government on the West. This resulted in bringing the West into the war, against the Islamic radicals. Not a wise move, as the violence against Moslems in Iraq has caused al Qaedas popularity to plummet across the Moslem world. Attacks on the West also led to the overthrow of the Islamic government (the Taliban) in Afghanistan.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 would appear to have been a plus for al Qaeda, as Saddam Hussein, and his Baath Party, had long been an enemy of Islamic radicalism. But Saddam got religion after his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. During the 1990s, Saddam became a major supporter of Islam, building many mosques and proclaiming himself a major defender of the faith. Al Qaeda was wary of this, but did enter into negotiations with Saddam. After all, Saddam and al Qaeda shared a hatred for the West, and especially the United States. A major fear was that Saddam would provide a refuge for al Qaeda, and supply them with chemical or nuclear weapons (if not a bomb, then radioactive material.) The fighting in Iraq is basically between the Sunni Arab minority, assisted by al Qaeda, against the majority Kurds and Shia Arabs. While much is made about Iraq becoming a "school for terrorists," few of the "graduates" have shown up anywhere else, pulling off successful attacks. On the other hand, many known Islamic terrorists have gone to Iraq, and gotten themselves killed or captured. So Iraq has to be seen as a net loss for al Qaeda.

Same story in Afghanistan. Most of the recent al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan is from bases in Pakistan. For nearly three decades, Pakistan has been a base for Islamic radicals and terrorists. Pakistan joined the U.S. as an ally in the war on terror largely to get some help in clearing out its own Islamic terrorists. Most senior officials in the Pakistani government regret their earlier support for Islamic radicalism, but getting rid of the problem is proving difficult. There's a similar situation in Saudi Arabia. That sort of thing can be considered an "internal problem." That said, the al Qaeda "war on the West" is not going well at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:59 AM

That said, the al Qaeda "war on the West" is not going well at all.
I think you're probably right there. The trouble is, al Queda is a loose-knit, barely-structed 'organisation' that seems to exist largely to inspire others to do the dirty work. Remember that in Arabic the name merely means 'the base' in the sense of a springboard or foundation.
Al Queda itself does not plant bombs, hijack vehicles or kidnap people; it has legions of wannabes to do that, many of whom are prepared to act on the indirect inspiration of al Queda and therafter claim the attrocity for al Queda.
The other problem is that, although the 'war on the west' may appear torpid from al Queda's point of view, the war against terror (twat) is proving to be extraordinarly costly, in terms of human lives, materiel and the liberty and human rights of civilians across the globe.
More US personnel have now died in Iraq than on 9/11, and in pursuit of a war that has had the net result of having more terrorists today than existed in April 2003.
In August 2000 the USA was hated by a small group of essentially crackpot hardline militants calling themselves al Queda. Today it is probably fair to say that the USA is hated by millions.
And the tragedy is that that is not down to al Queda; that is entirely down to George W Bush. In that sense, George's war on the west is going remarkably well!

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:04 AM

In Iraq, 600-700 U.S. troops are evacuated from the country each month for medical reasons. Only 23 percent of these, on average, are for combat wounds. The rest are for non-combat injuries (21 percent) and diseases (56 percent). Only the most serious cases are evacuated. Each month, another 3-4,000 troops are treated locally, and nearly all return to service quickly. So far, there have been 27,000 combat casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of that number, 12 percent died, and 2.7 percent lost a limb, or part of one (a third lost a finger, toe or part of a hand or foot).

Troops are much more likely to get sick in Iraq or Afghanistan, than to get injured in combat. This reverses a trend that began about a century ago. Back then, for the first time in history, wars saw more men die from combat than from disease. During World War II, for example, two thirds of the deaths were from combat, the other third were from accidents and disease. But now, combat deaths are lower than they've ever been in the history of warfare. About twenty percent of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are from non-combat causes (mostly vehicle accidents). This was the same ratio as in Vietnam, but you were three times as likely to get killed or wounded, from any cause, in Vietnam.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:11 AM

Yes, and the point is?
Are you saying that today things get screwed up with more efficiency than in the past? 3,000 dead US personnel is still 3,000 dead US personnel. You're not trying to say that, had they stayed at home, they'd still be dead, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:14 AM

I fear this thread, with the word 'statistics' in the title, is going to encourage a random and inchoate outpouring of figures with little in the way of analysis. As such, it could very rapidly become quite meaningless.

Terry, are you able to come to our rescue with some hard, crunchy facts?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:42 AM

The bureaucracy of death is so broken in Iraq that nobody's figures have any real credibility. There may be a legal requirement that death certificates be issued, but it's probably ignored more often than not.

If a Suni Iraqi is shot dead, it makes far more sense for the family to have a guiet, unannounced, undocumented funeral than to turn the body over to a morgue and risk having other family members killed when they come to claim the body.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:52 AM

What is your point in conducting a futile discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 11:03 AM

Futile? It may help to remind people of the things for which they voted.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Arne
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:52 PM

Guest said:

In November, the AP's report of six people being burned by in an attack on a mosque, cited a Captain Jemil Hussein of the Iraqi police. This report was challenged by Central Command and the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, who pointed out that they had no record of a Jemil Hussein in their initial searches. The AP has stood by the story, yet this questionable Iraqi police official has not been quoted once since the story was questioned – despite being used in dozens of stories prior to the controversy. After several weeks of investigating, several blogs, including Flopping Aces, found very little evidence that Captain Hussein existed – until the AP reported that an arrest warrant was issued by the Ministry of the Interior for Hussein, whose phone has conveniently been turned off.

So he existed, he's been charged with actualy talking to reporters (what a crime!), and the RW foamer blogs are all wrong....

Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:22 PM

How many? Way too goddamned many. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Shaneo
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:48 PM

The man who makes the body-bags is laughing all the way to the bank ,while Bush sends more lambs to the slaughter

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:37 PM

The AP reported???? you believe them??? the man did not exist in the first place... who issued an arrest warrant? anyone check the validity of their claim???

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM

Got it in one, Greg!

Yo! Teribus... Thanks for the back-up.

Common sense sure is distinctive around here sometimes...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 07:05 PM

Thank you for making those points Guest 05:37PM in resonse to Arne's post you have saved me the trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: 282RA
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 07:16 PM

The count has to be very high. Before the 2004 election, Bush himself put the number at roughly 30,000. Assuming he had good intelligence this time, we can surmise this number was already inaccurately low. It is unlikely Bush would report an accurate figure when we remember this administration's obsession with secrecy. The real number of dead is likely far higher than that.

So the accurate count by now is anyone's guess, I would think. It will be years before we really get any handle on the magnitude of this thing. Assuming, of course, we won't still be there.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

282RA... 'We' may not agree.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:46 AM

Thank you for making those points Guest 05:37PM in resonse to Arne's post you have saved me the trouble.
Aye, it's usually young Terry who makes the messy ejaculations around here, marked by excitable punctuation and an absence of joined-up words and thinking. It's useful to have another guardian of the truth on standby. Maybe, my love, you could take it upon yourself to answer some of the questions that our Terence is being so shy about?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:51 AM

Whatever your final tally may be; add another 10,000 displaced Iraqis and you get a far better idea about the devastation in Iraq.

...and lets not forget the wounded.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:33 AM

"Whatever your final tally may be; add another 10,000 displaced Iraqis and you get a far better idea about the devastation in Iraq." - dianavan

News of further improvement must be welcomed - on the other thread where displaced Iraqi's are mentioned it was hundreds of thousands, it's now ten's of thousands but that is surely better than the millions that existed under Saddam's rule.

In that other thread, dianavan mentioned the contribution made by Iran in sheltering refugees and referred to the Iranian census taken in 2001. The refugee's sheltering in Iran in that census in 2001 mentioned by dianavan would primarily have been made up of:
- Kurdish refugees fleeing from Saddam Hussein
- Ma'adan Shia (Marsh Arabs) refugees fleeing from Saddam Hussein
- Tajik Afghan refugees fleeing from the Taleban

As for Ciggy's "questions"

Ciggy Question 1:
"That is, 13,700 people dead in reported roadside bombs and car bombs. That, I take it, does not include those killed as a direct result of Coalition action - just from 'internal causes' that you insist do not represent an incipient civil war."

Answer to Ciggy Question 1:
No Ciggy go and take the trouble to read The Washington Post article. The figures given by AP and a collection of Iraqi Ministries identifies those killed in all types of reported incidents on the day of the incident. Those incidents include road side bombings and car bombs, but they do not include those people injured in such incidents who died later (i.e. not on the same day - OK Snaps)

Ciggy Question 2:
"Since April 2003 that amounts to nearly 700 people a month. With your military experience, do you consider this an acceptable bodycount for what has been achieved in Iraq?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 2:
All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be - after all Ciggy, if Saddam held to his lower average the number killed per month would be 4620.

Ciggy Question 3 (Complete with two question marks):
"13,700 people. By your own admission, at least 13,700 people. It is as if the entire population of a town like Sidmouth had been removed from the map. And for what?
Please, Terry, do remind us what - apart from the removal of the Ba'ath party from power - has been achieved in Iraq?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 3:
Now let's see Ciggy, how about closure of all outstanding matters relating to United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to Iraq? How about one less sponsor of international terrorism in the area? Tell me Ciggy what do you think Saddam's reaction would have been to what is happening in Iran at present if he was still in power?

Ciggy Question 4:
"What were the monthly body counts from similar causes in Germany in the three years after it was liberated from dictatorship?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 4:
No idea Ciggy, although hunger, disease and weather conditions must have taken a toll, there was no armed insurrection. Now had you asked me about Greece Ciggy, there's a completely different story, and much nearer as a point of comparison. In the four years following 1945, in Greece there was an insurrection, there was a civil war. The "body counts" were as follows:
- Killed 50,777
- Wounded 37,732
- Missing 4,526

Ciggy on the killed body count alone that amounts to a monthly total of 1058. Oh yes Ciggy, on this "civil war" in Iraq, could you please enlighten us as to who the combatants are?

Ciggy Question 5:
"And would such rates justify our attacking Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 5:
As far as I am aware neither Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea have been threatened by anyone let alone attacked. Apart from which what on earth would monthly fatality figures in Iraq have to do with either?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 07:11 AM

Thanks Tel,
Now, let's have a game of tennis...

1) I've read the Washington Post article. It does not make clear the make-up of the lowest body-count. However, the interior ministry's figures, from which dey drawm "do not include the wounded who die later from their injuries, those kidnapped and later killed, armed men who die in clashes with U.S. or Iraqi forces, unidentified bodies, and other categories of deaths."

2) Would you have regarded that figure as 'very much on the low side' compared to, say, Northern Ireland? Would that have been an acceptable figure in the six counties? After all, there was significant 'potential for taking life' there.

3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq was not a sponsor of interntional terrorism before 2003, and now houses quite a number of international terrorists. AS for the UNSC resolutions, with the exception of the controversial 1441, they were largely concerned with the 'oil for food' programme. Of course they was closure, you chump, as the regime was removed.

4) I asked about Germany because that is a close comparison - removal of a dictator and d-nazi/baathification by an occupying power gradually handing over to a german/iraqi government. Greece is entirely different.
And I would have thought the combatants were fairly obvious. It is a split on sectarian lines between Sunni and Shia factions. The Washington Post article refers to "politically motivated bloodshed " and "sectarian strife". To quote Edward Wong, who wrote "A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?" in the New York Times November 26, 2006: A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

5) As I understand it, the US went to war with Iraq because Saddam allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat to peace. The US announced a 'coalition of the willing' to rid Iraq of its WMDs and invaded without the consent of the UNSC. Given that we know both Iran and North Korea actually have WMDs and are run by oppressive regimes, is it not logical to assume that the US would like to do the same in their case? The US says Iran is an active sponsor of terrorism. It has also efused to exclude the use of force to stop perceived Iranian nuclear ambitions. Need I go on...?

Your go, poppet.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM

1) That in a nutshell is the topic under discussion the variance in the figures and what categories those figures comprise of. So glad that you've caught up.

2) Now that I don't know, maybe you should ask someone who was playing, or directing the game on behalf of your team, they after all killed almost 60% of the total, and certainly killed most of the civilians. Actually looking at the stats for those killed in that conflict over the 30 years we have:

British Security 362
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1020
not known 80
Republican Paramilitary 2056
TOTAL 3523

Significant potential? Certainly, but all paramilitary groups in terms of internal security were as leaky as rusted collanders, so tip-offs and intelligence on forth-coming operations tended to be pretty good.

There were effective and efficient emergency services on hand - remember Bloody Friday "Ginge". What was Gerry Adam's and the PIRA's contribution to the protection of the population of Northern Ireland on that particular day. I recall it took the form of 22 bombs planted indiscriminately in the centre of Belfast, timed to go off between 14:09 and 15:30, spaced evenly that would be one explosion every 3 minutes 40 seconds, bombs placed in such a way that as the civilians were cleared from one threat they went towards the next bomb to be set off. In order to wrong-foot, confuse and over-extend the task of the already stretched emergency services in saving life, hoax bomb threats were called in. What was the final tally for the day "Ginge"? - 9 dead and 130 injured, so ultimately not too successful a day for the bomber - but it spoke volumes for the courage, dedication and professionalism of the Police, Security Forces and Emergency Services though.

Yes "Ginge" the potential within the PIRA for taking innocent life was there, certainly the will and intent within the PIRA for taking innocent civilian life was there, thankfully for the people of Northern Ireland at the time the Police, Security Forces and Emergency Services were more than up to the task.

Readers should note that throughout this period there is not one instance of any member of any paramilitary group operating in Northern Ireland ever sacrificing his/her life in order to save a single innocent bystander - unless of course you count the clowns who blew themselves making and transporting their own bombs.

Before anyone complains about thread drift I happen to answering a specific question.

3) Iraq most certainly was a sponsor of international terrorism during the reign of Saddam Hussein. His sponsorship of suicide bombers was extremely well documented.

With regard to United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to Iraq you are very much mistaken:

Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990,
Resolution 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990,- WMD & WMD Programmes
Resolution 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, - Hey "Ginge" - Abduction of 605 Kuwaiti Nationals
Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, - Hey "Ginge" - International Terrorism - Safwan Conditions for "Ceasefire"
Resolution 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, - Hey "Ginge" - repression and lack of humanitarian monitoring
Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991,
Resolution 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991,
Resolution 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, - Hey "Ginge" - Oil For Food
Resolution 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999,- Hey "Ginge" - Abduction of 605 Kuwaiti Nationals - all subsequently murdered by Saddam
Resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001

So other than 1441 all UN resolutions had to do with Oil for Food did they Ginge. Well there's the list Ginger, ould son, apart from 1441, 1382 and 1284 all other resolutions predate the Oil for Food Resolution which was 986 from 1995.

4) Germany/Iraq - No comparison at all Ginger. Sorry, no civil war in Iraq as yet "Ginge". What you do have is an insurrection that is rapidly running out of steam, instances of sectarian violence and criminal activity.

5) As far as I am aware neither Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea have been threatened by anyone let alone attacked. Please prove otherwise- establish the fact. And I repeat my question:
What on earth have monthly fatality figures in Iraq to do with the justification for any supposed attack on Iran or North Korea?

Or are y' just blatherin'

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:55 AM

Terry, my love, you're in danger of vanishing in a puff of smoke up your own freckle!
1) Can't really see your point, but carry on.
2) Playing with fire here, aren't you?! But not answering the question.
3) Read, laddie: The most recent and relevent were largely concerned etc.
4) The WP article expresses concern at a sharp rise in deaths. Running our of steam, eh?
5) Ahmadinejad has been widely condemned for perceived threats to Isreal. Korea represents about as big a risk as Iraq did.

As for the relvance of figures - the Iraqi figures probably don't matter a bean, but the US figure of 3,000 might have a bearing on Bush's intentions elsewhere!
Your turn to blather, honeybunch.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM

*SIGH* Here we go...

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM

State of the game so far:

1) Closed

2) You asked about Northern Ireland, playing with fire? Hardly, nobody will refute a single thing I have said about it above, those facts are very well known.

3) No Ciggy old son, YOU READ - What you did say on this was - "AS for the UNSC resolutions, with the exception of the controversial 1441, they were largely concerned with the 'oil for food' programme." As you have been shown they clearly were not. Now If you wish to change and qualify your initial remarks to state "the most recent and relevant were largely concerned etc" then just say that that is what you want to do.

4) What has the Washington Post article got to do with your illogical comparison between Germany and Iraq?

5) Since when has being widely condemned for remarks made equated to a threat of military action?

As to how the so-called Axis of Evil were ranked in terms of potential threat you should ask the Joint House Security Committee, they studied the problem in relation to Iraq, Iran and North Korea between 1998 and 2002.

My personal reckoning remains as before, Iran will implode without any interference from outside and North Korea poses no threat whatsoever beyond international blackmail. It has most to fear from it's immediate neighbour, China, if it ever makes any serious move with regard to nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,Dick Cheyney
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM

"...What you do have is an insurrection that is rapidly running out of steam..."

In its last throws if you will.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM

Germany - a country ruled by a tyrant with dreams of megalomania and a record of massive persecution and repression, defeated militarily and occupied under an interim government until such time as it was deemed able to govern itself.
Iraq - er, ditto.

As for Northern Ireland, I don't dispute your figures for a moment, my love. I was expressing surprise at your view that 700 deaths a month from sectarian and internecine violence was acceptable, and asking if you would have accepted the same in Northern Ireland. Your cut and paste of the figures - depressing as they were - was in aid of what exactly?

As for the UN resolutions, how far back do you want to go? I went back as far as September 2001, which seems to have been when the US started jumping up and down about Iraq for some reason. If you want to go further back, does that mean you'd like to accept that Iraq was on the Republicans' 'to do' list before then? UNSC resolution details here if you need to refresh your memory, poppet.

And as for military action, either directly or by proxy, 'cannot rule out military action' is surely sabre-rattling. Oh, and have a read of this, or this or even this - from a bunch of limp-wristed know-nothing morons without your grasp of the issues admittedly, but still food for thought.

Shall we play on for two more sets and then end the game, Terry m'dear?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM

Ah "Ginge", me ol' mate starting to struggle a bit are we?

By the bye "Carrots" - please point out exactly where I expressed any view at all that 700 deaths a month from sectarian and internecine violence was acceptable - in fact I am on record for stating exactly the opposite.

Don't put words in my mouth then attempt to take me to task for them.

Your Blog links I will get round to later, the first of which in relation to a possible US/Israeli attack on Iran I think I have ripped to shreds before, Scott Ritter, well what can one say? The third from FP, I haven't yet read.

Got to go now got things musical to do.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:20 PM

Struggling sweetie? Don't make me bark, you silly sausage; swivel-eyed pointy-heads pose no fears for me!

"All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be". I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would infer "acceptable". Your actual meaning?

BTW, have you offered your services to HMG or the State Department? I'm sure your ability to rip arguments to shreds woul dbe hugely appreciated, as they don't seem to have your skills.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:34 PM

PROOF TECHNIQUES

written by Armen H. Zemanian, published in The Physics Teacher, May 1994.

The usual techniques for proving things are often inadequate because they
are merely concerned with truth. For more practical objectives, there are
other powerful - but generally unacknowledged - methods. Here is an
(undoubtedly incomplete) list of them:

Proof of Blatant Assertion: Use words and phrases like
"clearly...,""obviously...,""it is easily shown that...," and "as any fool
can plainly see..."

Proof by Seduction: "If you will just agree to believe this, you might get
a better final grade."

Proof by Intimidation: "You better believe this if you want to pass the
course."

Proof by Interruption: Keep interrupting until your opponent gives up.

Proof by Misconception: An example of this is the Freshman's Conception of
the Limit Process: "2 equals 3 for large values of 2." Once introduced, any
conclusion is reachable.

Proof by Obfuscation: A long list of lemmas is helpful in this case - the
more, the better.

Proof by Confusion: This is a more refined form of proof by
obfuscation. The long list of lemmas should be arranged into circular
patterns of reasoning - and perhaps more baroque structures such as
figure-eights and fleurs-de-lis.

Proof by Exhaustion: This is a modification of an inductive proof. Instead
of going to the general case after proving the first one, prove the second
case, then the third, then the fourth, and so on - until a sufficiently
large n is achieved whereby the nth case is being propounded to a soundly
sleeping audience.

More proof methods: Proof by passion: The author gives the proof with a lot
of passion,
expressive eyes and vigorous movements...

Proof by example: The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that
it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation: 'Trivial.'

Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom or seminar
setting.

Proof by cumbersome notation: Best done with access to at least four
alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion: An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof
is useful.

Proof by omission: 'The reader may easily supply the details.' 'The other
253 cases are analogous.' '...'

Proof by obfuscation: A long plotless sequence of true and/or
meaningless syntactically related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:
The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a
theorem from literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding: How could three different government agencies be
wrong?

Proof by personal communication: 'Eight-dimensional colored cycle
stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication].'

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem: 'To see that infinite-
dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to
the halting problem.'

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple
corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir
of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance: A large body of useful consequences all follow from
the proposition in question.

Proof by accumulated evidence: Long and diligent search has not revealed
a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology: The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or
meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference: In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow
from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown from Corollary 6.2 in
reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference
A.

Proof by metaproof: A method is given to construct the desired proof.
The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by picture: A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines
well with proof by omission.

Proof by vehement assertion: It is useful to have some kind of authority
in relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference: Nothing even remotely resembling the cited
theorem appears in the reference given.

Proof by forward reference: Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper
of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by semantic shift: Some standard but inconvenient definitions are
changed for the statement of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition: Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help
here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Top of page] [Bottom of page] [Index] [Send comment]

Even more Proof Techniques

Methods for getting people to believe you (as good as, if not better than,
proof). A collection of proof techniques that will prove invaluable to
both mathematicians and members of the general public.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #1 - 'Proof By Induction'

    1. Obtain a large power transformer.
    2. Find someone who does not believe your theorem.
    3. Get this person to hold the terminals on the HV side of the
         transformer.
    4. Apply 25000 volts AC to the LV side of the transformer.
    5. Repeat step (4) until they agree with the theorem.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #2 - 'Proof By Contradiction'

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Wait for someone to disagree.
    3. Contradict them.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #3 - Fire Proof

    1. Summon all your inferiors for a departmental meeting.
    2. Present your theorem.
    3. Fire those who disagree.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #4 - The Famous Water Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Wait for someone to disagree.
    3. Drown them.

    NB. This is closely related to the 'bullet' proof, but is easier
    to make look like an accident.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #5 - Idiot Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Write exhaustive documentation with glossy colour pictures
         and arrows about which bit goes where.
    3. Challenge anyone to not understand it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #6 - Child Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Encapsulate it in epoxy and shape it into an ellipsoid.
    3. Put it in a jar with all the other proofs (one with one of
         those Press-to-Open lids).
    4. Give it to a professor and challenge him to open it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #7 - Rabbit Proof

    1. Generate theorems at an altogether startling rate, much
         faster than anybody is able to refute them. Use up every
         body else's paper. Run away at the slightest sign of danger.
    2. Leave any crap in small, easily identified piles, in
         prominent places where you no longer are, and it cannot in
         fact be proven that you ever were.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #8 - Fool Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Invite colleagues to comment.
    3. If they don't agree, exclaim loudly, "You Fools!"

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM

And then there's "Proof By Bloviation"......

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:47 PM

Not at all Greg F there is proof by boredom.

"Jesus-H-come-dancing-Christ", please give give me a reasoned arguement. And once again I would say to Ciggy, please do not put words into my mouth then take me to task on what you have said that I have said.

I ask you once again please quote where I have said that ANY civilian deaths are acceptable.

If you cannot please acknowledge that you are in error, apologise and withdraw in good grace. I imagine that you are incapable of either course of action, being neither honourable nor honest, that is the mark of a true PIRA apologist.

It doesn't matter a jot, because within this forum you will plainly be seen for what you are, irrespective of what others in this forum think of me.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:47 AM

PIRA apologist?
From where do you draw that inference? Here is not the place to discuss this, but that is be priceless coming from a lard-arsed armchair matelot who sat out his service careet in a prefab box in Pompey, and whose most direct experience of the paramilitaries was scratching his head over bikini codes and trying to remember to look under his car every morning.
Reread my post, you Saddam apologist. I inferred. As any sensible person would in the face of your verbiage. To repeat, for the hard of thinking: "All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be". I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would infer "acceptable". Your actual meaning?
And rather than make poiontless (no pun intended) Aquinean arguments over individual words, please stick to the argument. The death toll in Iraq is growing unacceptably and the situation is not submitting to control. Agreed?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:46 AM

Once again Ciggy, please do not put words into my mouth then take me to task on what you have said that I have said.

Please quote where I have said that ANY civilian deaths are acceptable.

If you cannot, then come on out and say so.

What you infer I say, in order to suit your arguement is very different from what I have actually said. I believe that that being the case you owe me an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:47 AM

Apologise? Don't make me bark! I have put no words into your mouth, my little bundle of fluffy pomposity, so there is no reason to apologise.
And could you tell me what you actually meant when you said "All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be" when I said it was too high a price to pay for what has been 'achieved'?
Any thoughts on firing squads, by the way, sweetiepie, or has that been put in the little trouser shiner's plastic 'pending tray'? Any chance of an apology from you for being wrong on that score as well?
And as for your silence on the PIRA slur, I infer from that that even you now accept that you went too far on that one and feel suitably chastened. A ripe remark about dicharged seamen springs to mind, but I'll refrain...

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM

Personally, I am astounded that Teribus even responds to the ever so smarmy cat house calls, sleazily and unwantedly displayed by Captain Ginger. 'His' swingin' 'tenderloin' is about as welcome here as sausages in a 'whole earth' catalogue... Why does he persist?

Suppose I just ask him real nicely to take it back to the spa where he found it?

...and just answer the original query... instead of displaying, like a mock peacock... his petrified and heterophobic aimlessness.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM

So... the confusion remains.

It doesn't help the situation in Iraq to exagerate the numbers in either direction... or to ad hominem the 'opposition' here at home. We need to know what is really going on in Iraq in order to make qualified policy decisions... because we are there. No objective is attainable... whether it be peace and/or domination... without verifiable facts and statistics.

We must know what is happening in Iraq. It's in the job description for 'citizens of a Democracy'... no matter what your political persuasion... to be informed. This holds true for the US media... but it is much more important for Iraq as a whole. Democracy can not and will not grow without popular belief in the governing principles that must sustain a government's integrity. It may very well be the case that democracy needs to be created and supported from 'below'... with engouragement and protection from above. However, it is doubtful whether Democacy can be 'imposed'... especially if the population as a whole is skeptical as to the intentions behind the occupation.

The most valuable assets to any democracy are accurate reporting, and verifiable sources. This is made all the more poignant by the Bush administration's insistance that Iraq must continue to be the 'keystone' of US foriegn policy... and perhaps... of his presidency.
As we channel enough money to have guarenteed all Americans complete health care for many years... into this war...is it unreasonable to ask for obtainable goals and clear unbiased reporting? No.

Otherwise... it is all 'spin'... and consequentially, confusion that is probably being taken advantage of by someone...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:05 AM

Why does he persist Bizarrely for probably the same reason as young Terry; because I'm not entirely gruntled with the way truth has been pushed aside and facts manipulated to make capital over the war in Iraq.
Unfortunately we come from diametrically opposed sides. He believes that Bush is right and that there is a wilfull conspiracy by lily-livered liberals to lie and confuse the issue which will deny him his status as a giant among statesman.
I believe there has been a policy of lies and half-truths from the neo-cons which will one day show the Bush administration to be moral and intellectuall pigmies.

As such, the position here mirrors the position in the grown-up world outside, and that means that you are never going to get accurate figures. It's the nature of stupid, evil of just plan controversial acts that the truth about them is often quickly fudged. More than 60 years after the event, we still don't know how many people died in Dresden. How many people did Stalin murder? We'll never know. Just as I fear we will never know the final butcher's bill for Iraq.

One of the reasons I adopt the tone I do with Teribus is because of his tendency to patronise and to belabour any opposing viewpoint with a barrage of selectively cut-and-pasted received opinion and because, in his pomposity, he often gets things plain wrong. In the past he has also made much of his naval background to imply that he has been vouchsafed a knowledge of strategic matters denied to us mere landlubbers.
And, as is my childish wont, I quite like pricking windbags.

As for the original question, looking back over an awful lot of windbaggery, I see Is this confusing or what?
My answer, unequivocally, is YES!

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM

Well, well, well...

Once one gets beyonds the academic squabbling then we have the Vietnam War as perhaps the best model on how body counts get manipulated by a US administration involved in an unpopular war...

So while some here are ready and willing to sing the company fight songs, it will be historians who will come closer to sorting out the real truth..

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:05 AM

Here's a new figure thats being trotted out by the New York Times... please pardon the cut-n-paste... but I think the url was too long to fit into the little box on the blue clicky thingy...

BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 — The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths...

This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month.

sounds legit so far...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:35 PM

MSNBC:
Iraq has lost about one third of all their physicians during this war.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 05:48 AM

Donuel--


That can't be so. After all, according to Teribus, every day in every way, Iraq is getting better and better.