Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In America's War on Iraq 1,004,925

[babylonsister]

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Add this to your website

The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on the only scientifically valid study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. Here is simple HTML code to post the counter to your website and help spread the word.


Actions you can take right now

Sign the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have likely been killed and urging them to end this war now. A large number of signatures on this and other petitions is a compelling way to keep pressure on Congress as there are more votes on the war. Add your name»

Begin organizing in your community by hosting or attending a showing of the new documentary narrated by Sean Penn and based on interviews with Norman Solomon, War Made Easy. If you host, Just Foreign Policy will help out with the cost of the DVD by sending you $5 if you're one of the first 50 to send us a picture of the folks who attend. Hold up a sign with your hometown and a message against the war. Sign up for a screening»

Tell your friends about this estimate of Iraqi deaths. Spread the word now»


Support this Campaign

With a tax-deductible contribution, you can help us continue this important work. Click to contribute.


Post the Iraqi Death Estimator on your website

Fight attempts to minimize Iraqi suffering and remind visitors to your site of the awful human costs of continued war.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

[babylonsister]

1. NO ONE CARES? This site's number changed big-time, but

it's not worth noting?

OK. It is to me, always, but whatever.

[sanskritwarrior]

2. Not even people that believe the moon landing was

a hoax buy this number.......

Also any study that says it is the only scientific study of said phenomenon is probably going to fall on deaf ears........

For that number to be true the following would have to occur........

Length of Iraq war and occupation....... 1600 days give or take a few

More than 630 people per day everyday would have to die for your number to be true........sorry doesn't pass the smell, common sense, or the sanskritwarrior time spent in Iraq test........

[babylonsister]

4. You I know. Have you heard of the Lancet study last October?

It was up to 655,000 then. Makes sense to me that it's surpassed that now.

[sanskritwarrior]

6. So you are saying

360,000 Iraqis have been in less than a year.........

LMFAO........

And yes I have heard of the lancet study, we had a copy in our latrine for all the soldiers to wipe our ass with, that's how unseriously we took the Lancet study......I have a pic somewhere with it being used as TP, let me check my external hard drive and see if I have that picture.........

[Breeze54]

8. You were on the ground? Were you in every corner of the country?

Were you dropping the bombs and then landing on the bombed site and counting the body parts?
You couldn't possibly know everything that happened all over Iraq and between the bombings
and the refugee's, nobody knows, including Rummy or the rest of them!

[sanskritwarrior]

31. No I wasn't

but neither was this survey and therein lies my whole point......If you can prove it with actual numbers, I will gladly admit I'm wrong, I am open to new information all the time, but that information has to be proven.......not taken on faith.

[babylonsister]

9. We are done. You apparently aren't taking this as seriously as I am.

Have a good life in Iraq, or wherever you wind up. And don't expect any respect from me, because you are lacking it.
I just don't get your attitude. Bye.

[babylonsister]

26. Why are you so nasty, and why are you so opposed to seeing these

numbers come out? I honestly don't get it. What, in your opinion, would be a more appropriate number?
My guess is you don't give a hoot how many Iraqis die. That's a major difference between you and me.

[Forkboy]

27. Hey,he wiped his ass with the Lancet report.

'nuff said on his feelings about dead Iraqi civilians.

[sanskritwarrior]

32. You would be wrong on my opinion

and the number IMHO is between 100,000 and 350,000......

It's not the number my dear, it is the fact that some people on this site run with half assed assertions all the time. No one holds anyone accountable for their BS.....We have posters that make crap up about Iraq and then when called on it, call the people wanting accuracy haters, we have people that post daily diatribes against the military and when called on it get upset that anyone dared challenge them for breaking DU's rules and yes we even have people that believe things like this study when to believe this study one has to set aside reality and believe that 610 people had to be killed a day every single day of the occupation of Iraq. If there was a day where only 500 were killed then the next day had to have 720 to keep pace.........After a while the statistics of such an accusation become impossible to prove. Some days in Iraq very few people are killed, some days like yesterday 400-500 are killed, and many days it hovers around the 150 mark. I make no light of those deaths, each one is a tragedy and an injustice, each one deserves justice, but to throw out a number that is unproveable is to make a mockery of the whole cycle of death in Iraq. Proof requires more than a computer model and a theory, proof requires evidence, and in this case, numbers, damn numbers are hard to fake.

610 per day every day for 1600 days (give or take a few)......again I don't know every death in Iraq but I do know in our area if we averaged 10 a day that was a lot and that was in Kirkuk, the 4th largest city in Iraq.......Some days we had 0, twice we had large car bombs that killed over 100......But averaged out and taking out places where death almost never happens like the Kurdish zones or Maysan or Dhi Qar province makes it even harder to get your numbers to work........Sorry, the math isn't there, if the math isn't there, then forgive me if I my sarcasm comes out.........

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Right, but you disregard global warming too.

Guess how seriously scientists take people like you.

[sanskritwarrior]

34. Hmmm

Are we talking now global warming or 1930's global warming, cause NASA is unsure now when the hottest years were.......

[tabasco]

39. Once again, you're full of it.

You forgot to mention the corrected NASA data refers only to the contiguous 48 states.

The effect on global temperature data is expected to be 0.01 degree.

Why are you always flinging corporate/right-wing bullshit on this site?

And why do you think your (purported) status as a rear echelon soldier gives you some magic knowledge that no others have? You think no others have been to Iraq or in the military?

My guess - you're full of shit. Whatever job you have in the Army, if any, it sure must be a cushy one (even for a 96B) to have so much time to post bullshit on this site.

Apologies to the OP for the OT rant.

[sanskritwarrior]

41. LOL

why do you always try and say I have no time to post.......

A cursory glance at my posting time would show that I always post after 1700 HST, what exactly am I supposed to be doing after duty hours that precludes me from posting.....

And exactly what right wing crap am I peddling?

Since when is it right wing peddling to demand accuracy.........

And where have I ever claimed my status as a soldier gives me something no other soldier has? I do believe I am more astute on the daily intel picture within Iraq solely based upon the work I do and my experiences, I would never claim to have a greater understanding of combat than a guy outside the wire everyday, I would never claim to know more about IED's than an EOD tech, I would however claim to know more about the sectarian causes and reasons behind much of the violence within Iraq, I would claim to know more about that than an Infantryman, a medic, or a wire dog.......

And why do you keep saying I am full of shit, because I disagree with many peoples warped perceptions of Iraq? Prove it tabasco, we have already demonstrated how full of it you are my friend........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1568340#1568651

But hey why debate me when you can drive-by attack me......I guess you aren't anyone on DU until you have your own troll, thank you Tabasco.......

[personman]

43. Disgusting...

And I'm not talking about the ass-wiping remarks, although that is pretty gross. I'm talking about the little window in to the mentality of our "fine fighting men and women" you just provided.

I'm sure it's far from unheard of for occupying forces participating in an illegal aggressive war to so openly laugh at and mock estimates of civilians casualties they share responsibility for, but seeing it first hand, and in a country that blows so much smoke up it's own ass about having a moral high-ground...I'll just say I have nothing to say about it that wouldn't be a violation of DU rules, and leave it at that.

Support the Troops!
:sarcasm:

-personman

[sanskritwarrior]

44. So it is now outrageous

to have an opinion about a study that can't be proven? BTW can you find me the Congressional resolution or the Supreme Court ruling that makes the Iraq War illegal? Because if the war were truly illegal I would be more than happy to not deploy at the end of the year. However, if you can't provide those items then the war is as of today August 16th, 2007 totally legal. Ball's back in your court

And what mentality were you just able to view? I am curious what you mean, just say what you think, free speech is a wonderful thing.....

So I take it you don't "support the troops", if not why not.......if so why did you end your post with a sarcasm tag........Please help me your post was confusing.

[Help me help Earth]

45. Didn't the Lancet study have a margin of error of + or - 300,000?

I wish I could have gotten away with that in statistics...

[Breeze54]

5. combining the Lancet and IBC would probably produce overlaps but

but nobody will really know the true numbers as nobody was bothering to count from the beginning.

Snip-->

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/counterexplanation.html

How Just Foreign Policy’s Iraqi Death Estimate is Calculated

For the Iraqi Death Estimator, Just Foreign Policy accepts the Lancet estimate of 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths attributable to the U.S. invasion and occupation as of July 2006.

To update this number, we need to obtain a rate of how quickly deaths are mounting in Iraq. For this purpose, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) provides the most reliable, frequently updated database of deaths in Iraq. (The IBC also usefully provides a database of all violent Iraqi deaths demonstrable through press reports and thus relatively undeniable.) The IBC provides a maximum and minimum. We opted to use the midpoint between the two for our calculation.

We multiple the Lancet number as of July 2006 by the ratio of current IBC deaths divided by IBC deaths as of July 1, 2006 (43,394).

The formula used is:

Just Foreign Policy estimate = (Lancet estimate as of July 2006) * ( (Current IBC Deaths) / (IBC Deaths as of July 1, 2006) )

Use of the Iraq Body Count Database
It is worth noting that, to the extent that the English-language media covers less of the violence in Iraq over time – if they are progressively less capable of receiving accurate reports from outside the Green Zone or certain sectors of Baghdad, for example – then to that extent, the violent death rate derived from IBC will be lower than the actual death rate that would be picked up by a scientific, statistical survey. This would tend to make the Just Foreign Policy Estimate lower.

This actually seems to have been the case from 2004 to 2006. In September 2004, the scientific estimate from the Lancet was about 9 times the IBC death estimate. By July 2006, the Lancet estimate was about 12 times the IBC death estimate, suggesting that IBC was picking up a smaller percentage of total deaths.

This combination of the IBC and the Lancet is not perfect, although we think it the best way of obtaining a rough estimate using existing tallies while awaiting another scientifically-based number. For example, the IBC, unlike the Lancet and the Just Foreign Policy Estimator, seeks to exclude “combatant” deaths from their tally. This could lead to differences between the IBC rate of increase and the actual rate of increase in overall Iraqi deaths, but it is not clear in which direction this difference goes.

Since our interest is simply in providing a rough estimate – rather than a scientifically accurate estimate – of current Iraqi deaths, we can accept the possible inaccuracies produced by combining the Lancet and IBC.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. If you extrapolate from the Lancet study you get ~1,000,000

It's within the margin of error, and assuming there's been no rapid upswing in violence since the original Lancet report.

[mudesi]

12. Why is THAT so hard to believe?

630 per day sounds about right to me.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karenina]

21. If not a conservative figure...

What the *MIC has perpetrated in Iraq has stained everything America ever even thought she stood for...

[Forkboy]

25. Because he's part of it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Now THAT'S hard to believe.

:rofl:

[Breeze54]

3. That number is staggering.....

Bookmarked. :(

:kick: & Recommended

[ConsAreLiars]

7. The US military has been ordered to become mass murderers and butchers.

They are conned/ordered into committing acts of unspeakable evil. No wonder PTSD is even more common than brain injury and amputations. Good kids forced to perform atrocities. See the photos at http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm and continue to search that site. This is the truth of what this "war" is about. It is about butchery that makes the worst mass murderers an sadists look like play time in a day care center.

(edit - always a typo)

[Breeze54]

10. All wars are about death and killing.

[ConsAreLiars]

13. There is a difference between

defending against an invasion and launching one. On one side, self-defense is justifiable. On the other, murder in the first degree is the usual charge on a smaller scale. Or war crimes charges on the scale of nations.

[Breeze54]

17. You do realize you're preaching to the choir, don't you?

:shrug:

I think you make valid points. You should share them with those
who don't understand. Choose any republican messageboard.

[ConsAreLiars]

40. Yeah, just stating the obvious.

Not sure that stating the obvious on a republican board would have any impact on the dittoheads. Past experience suggests not. After all, Lord Jesus made The Royal Monkey the Decider.

[sanskritwarrior]

42. So if the vast majority of deaths are a result of

Iraqi on Iraqi violence where exactly does the US military fit into that equation........I see your oblique "I don't blame the troops, but look at what monsters they are" attack on the troops continues.......

[merh]

11. 8 million Iraqis 'need urgent aid'

8 million Iraqis 'need urgent aid'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About eight million Iraqis -- nearly a third of the population -- are without water, sanitation, food and shelter and need emergency aid, a report by two major relief agencies says.

Oxfam and the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Coordination Committee in Iraq have issued a briefing paper that says violence in Iraq is masking a humanitarian crisis that has worsened since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

The paper, called "Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in Iraq," is the latest documentation of the misery faced by Iraqis.

"Eight million people are in urgent need of emergency aid; that figure includes over two million who are displaced within the country, and more than two million refugees. Many more are living in poverty, without basic services, and increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition," said the relief agencies' report. The population of Iraq is 26 million.

~snip~

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/30/iraq.humanitarian/index.html

:cry:


NOT.IN.MY.NAME. :cry:

[babylonsister]

18. Not. In. My. Name. Either.,, merh.

:-(

[L. Coyote]

14. The accuracy of the proposed numbers is less important than the fact. THEY WERE KILLED.

"THEY WERE KILLED."

Thou shall not kill. Or, so they told me! Is this still the rule?

[Selatius]

15. They estimated by the end of Viêtnam something like 2,000,000 civilians died.

It's been four years since the start of the invasion. We are well on our way to killing roughly that many in Iraq by the time the 10th year of war rolls around.

[coco77]

19. I have believed this all along..

there may be more. How could they count all of the bodies when they did shock and awe and other bombings.

[malaise]

20. People do care

but MSM and Bushco do not care. I'm not sure Dems care either since I haven't heard one mainstream candidate discuss the slaughter of Iraqis.

[The Stranger]

22. That is genocide.

[thegreatcause2]

23. Has the number deaths of Iraqis since the war started surpassed Saddam's killings?

[Help me help Earth]

46. Depends how you figure it.

If you count the Iran Iraq war, Saddam probably had upwards of 1.5 to 2 million deaths on his hands.

[L. Coyote]

24. BUSH'S WAR ON IRAQ = DEATH TOLL for a mere $450 billion spent

3,676 US troops killed
26,558 US troops injured
292 Coalition troops killed
414 Contractors killed
74,927 Iraqi Civilians killed (confirmed media reports, source iraqibodycount.org)

This from an ad in the Eugene Weekly on Aug. 9, 2007. Bush spent $122 million for each US troop killed.

For each Iraqi reported and confirmed dead, Bush spent $6,000,000. That's way more than cost per Indian killed conquering America.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[ComerPerro]

35. reminds me: I got that stupid "You are six times more likely to die in DC than in Iraq" email

and this post got me thinking.

From the email:


If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths,(when this was written) that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period . . . and that was while handguns were outlawed. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.


The figure of 2,112 shows how old this bullshit email is in the first place.

But when you consider that its civillians, and not just soldiers, being killed

Iraq population, about 27 million according to a google I just did.

So you have a 80 in 100000 chance of being killed by violence in DC. Thats a 1 in 1,250 chance of dying in DC. Compared to 1 in 27 in Iraq....

Yeah, much safer....


When are conservatives gonna start proving how safe and under control it is by going and vacationing there?

[Breeze54]

37. But that e-mail failed to mention the bombs!

The IED's, the USA Air Force bombings and the car suicide bombers.

I think I got that same e-mail or a copy with a groan from the sender.

Just like the argument,

"There more killed in WWII in one week, than have been killed in Iraq for the whole invasion!!"

:crazy:

Obvious Swift Boat Liars Propaganda to me! :grr: But I know you know that.

I was just commenting on the e-mail, not you. ;)

[ComerPerro]

38. I do love and appreciate that email. It highlights key conservative beliefs

such as, civilian casualties aren't important enough to even be mentioned, let alone counted; and soldiers deaths, while important enough to be mentioned, aren't important enough to not be trivialized in the form of poorly constructed statistics to prove a political point.

[burrowowl]

36. Thanks for link!

K&R

[RL3AO]

47. Probably not that much higher than if the U.S. wasn't there though.

[mmonk]

48. The hard part about any accurate count of Iraqi deaths

is the fact many were not taken to morgues. Many have been burried in small towns and the countryside. The morgues are mainly urbanites. Add to that displacement of people, any accurate assessment will be whenever the nightmare is over.