SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 02-13-11, 07:24 AM

FWIW:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

From their Rationale:
"The continuing high level of violent death in Iraq since 2003 is a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. None of the deaths we record would have happened were it not for the invasion. The USA and the UK are electoral democracies. Voters and tax-payers of these countries share in the responsibility for their governments’ actions. Iraq Body Count team members are all citizens of the USA or UK who believe that it is our continuing responsibility to record every known Iraqi death resulting from the actions of our leaders."

About them:
"Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.
IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.
Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
IBC records solely violent deaths.
IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised. "

Keep note of their criterion for what they count - and what not. The total loss of life actually is higher than what they count.

However, "Sourcewtch" has a somewhat critical opinion about IBC, but it is difficult to judge whether or not their criticism is justified - anyone can come along and accuse the other whose opinion he odes not like, to be"just an amateur". I am an amateur for number-tracking stuff myself - but still I have knoweldge of the basics of statistics and studied it for several semesters.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...raq_Body_Count

Next, there is this:

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

Very different numbers.

I wonder if the lack of correct number tracking for wounded soldiers and civilian deaths is intentionally done by the Pentagon - to hide the costs of war. Only KIAs seem to be correctly counted.

Two things I take for certain:

1. the US and UK have no interest in revealing the full perspective about wounded and killed people, in order to hide the real costs of the war,

2. therefore it is a safe bet that the actual numbers are much higher than the official statements by government and military speakers.

Or have politicians all of a sudden learned their responsibility to not to deceive their people but to always speak the truth?

02-13-11, 07:24 AM	#15
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,830 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	FWIW: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ From their Rationale: "The continuing high level of violent death in Iraq since 2003 is a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. None of the deaths we record would have happened were it not for the invasion. The USA and the UK are electoral democracies. Voters and tax-payers of these countries share in the responsibility for their governments’ actions. Iraq Body Count team members are all citizens of the USA or UK who believe that it is our continuing responsibility to record every known Iraqi death resulting from the actions of our leaders." About them: "Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others. IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures. Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when. Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that: IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths. IBC records solely violent deaths. IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths. IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised. " Keep note of their criterion for what they count - *and what not. The total loss of life actually is higher than what they count. However, "Sourcewtch" has a somewhat critical opinion about IBC, but it is difficult to judge whether or not their criticism is justified - anyone can come along and accuse the other whose opinion he odes not like, to be"just an amateur". I am an amateur for number-tracking stuff myself - but still I have knoweldge of the basics of statistics and studied it for several semesters. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...raq_Body_Count Next, there is this: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq Very* different numbers. I wonder if the lack of correct number tracking for wounded soldiers and civilian deaths is intentionally done by the Pentagon - to hide the costs of war. Only KIAs seem to be correctly counted. Two things I take for certain: 1. the US and UK have no interest in revealing the full perspective about wounded and killed people, in order to hide the real costs of the war, 2. therefore it is a safe bet that the actual numbers are much higher than the official statements by government and military speakers. Or have politicians all of a sudden learned their responsibility to not to deceive their people but to always speak the truth? __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 02-13-11 at 07:40 AM.