Hour Silence for the 40,000 dead in Iraq

[TeeJay]

The actual report is here

Thanks for the link.

It is interesting to see that the overall figure - once violent deaths in Fallujah have been excluded - is extrapolated from 46 deaths pre-invasion versus 90 deaths post-invasion, reported from 988 households with about 7,500 people.

Excluding the Fallujah figures, the entire survey is based on the following pre and post invasion figures.
Number deaths .......... 46 > 90
Accidents ............... 4 > 13
Heart attack/stroke .... 11 > 18
Chronic disorders ...... 11 > 11
Infectious diseases ..... 1 > 5
Neonatal/infant ......... 6 > 10
Other .................. 12 > 12
Violence ................ 1 > 21


If someone presented numbers like this in the UK people would dismiss them out of hand for being far too small a sample and having a very lax interview method.

The 21 deaths due to violence (excl Fallujah) include people killed by criminals and by insurgents and insurgents and combatants killed, as well as people killed by US/UK bombs. In fact of the deaths only 4 for them were during the period of allied bombing, with at least half of them occuring a year or more after the invasion.

If you look at all violent deaths, including Fallujah, the report says the following:

Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground. To the contrary, only three of 61 incidents (5%) involved coalition soldiers (all reported to be American by the respondents) killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one of the three cases, the 56-year-old man killed might have been a combatant. In a second case, a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint. In the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the latter two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families of the decedents for the killings, indicating a clear understanding of the adverse consequences of their use of force. The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry. Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%) were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the greater number of male deaths was attributable to legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been disproportionately male, or if this was because men are more often in public and more likely to be exposed to danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years
of age.

All-in-all, actually reading the report completely undermines the claim that is frequently heard about "100,000 dead" innocent civilians being killed by US/UK forces. Even if you accept the Lancet methodology and 'best guess' they produce, they aren't even claiming this themselves.

 

[butchersapron]

"the claim that is frequently heard about "100,000 dead" innocent civilians being killed by US/UK forces."

How many more times Teejay? No one here is claiming this. Stop insinuating that they are. As you note yourself "they [the lancet]aren't even claiming this ".

 

[TeeJay]

3/ You don't want the prediction to be true.

I don't know how you know what I want or don't want, although you would have to be some kind of perverse human being to actually *want* so many people to have died.

Would it be fair, however, to reverse what you said and say: "You want the prediction to be true." ?

 

[chegrimandi]

All-in-all, actually reading the report completely undermines the claim that is frequently heard about "100,000 dead" innocent civilians being killed by US/UK forces. Even if you accept the Lancet methodology and 'best guess' they produce, they aren't even claiming this themselves.

look this is not the point of the thread.

Had I put as the thread opener - 'look at how many people the nasty US/UK/other forces have killed aren't they awful this figure is the truth and nowt else is' - you might have a point.

Whoever has perpetrated the murders/deaths/atorcities they are at horrific levels. Thats it. Yet we do not see too much mourning/grief over them in the mainstream press or by our politicians or by people in general.

I wonder why this is?

 

[dylanredefined]

Do what you want if you want a silence crack on .I 'm not prepared to take part .Not clever enough to understand how the lancet
worked out the figures . Does it really matter how many died ?Every innocent death is a tragedy .The argument over how many dead seems sick to me
100,000 dead bad 8000 dead good they were all people .Does the higher body count change your view on the war ?

 

[TeeJay]

it's an incredibly sick attitude. The people here who are in denial about the 100,000 figure (which I am sure is an underestimation in itself - it doesn't take Fallujah or a number of other incidents into account IIRC plus the few months that has lapsed since this research was done) and would rather quote 20,000 or whatever - how arrogant to talk about even this figure as if this is 'acceptable' (because that is how it is coming across). I just can’t begin to express how disturbing I find this attitude to be. Western arrogance at its worst.

Why are you "sure" 100,000 is an underestimation? On what basis? They were not counting numbers killed - they did a survey with 7 interviewers and have extrapolated from 90 deaths (of which 21 were 'violent'), leading them to give an estimate for a country of c. 25 million people.

My aim isn't to argue that 20,000 , 100,000 or 1,000,000 is "acceptable" or not - my point is to show people that they should actually look at these figiures with a criticial mind - just as they would look at government figures with a critical mind. It is pathetic if people are only careful and critical when looking at facts and figures presented by the government, but will simply accept and parrot stuff that they think supports their own arguments.

Whatever Butchers says about noone having made the claim that 100,000 innocent Iraqis being killed by US/UK troops I have seen this repeated many times both on urban75 and elsewhere, again and again.

Maybe I will be able to refer people to this thread the next time I see it stated?

 

[chegrimandi]

Do what you want if you want a silence crack on .I 'm not prepared to take part .

why not? did you 'do' the one today at midday?

 

[butchersapron]

Whatever Butchers says about noone having made the claim that 100,000 innocent Iraqis being killed by US/UK troops I have seen this repeated many times both on urban75 and elsewhere, again and again.

Maybe I will be able to refer people to this thread the next time I see it stated?

I've seen people claim that it doesn't matter if innocents are killed in Iraq as the wider picture is more important. I've not then gone onto other threads and demanded that other posters entirely unconnected with that claim either defend or reject that position. If you want to argue with those other posters, then please go and argue with them. Just stop posting up and refuting their claims on this thread where no one has made those claims. And stop pretending that i've said that non one has made that claim anywhere - i've gone out of my way 4 or 5 times now to make clear that i'm talking about this thread and this thread alone. It's simple really.

 

[chegrimandi]

My aim isn't to argue that 20,000 , 100,000 or 1,000,000 is "acceptable" or not - my point is to show people that they should actually look at these figiures with a criticial mind - just as they would look at government figures with a critical mind.

cool. We are all looking at all the figures with an open mind. Can we leave it now?

As you rightly point out its too many. so can we perhaps move on?

 

[TeeJay]

look this is not the point of the thread.

OK, fair enough.

I'll leave the Lancet stuff/numbers alone now.

 

[Hollis]

cool. We are all looking at all the figures with an open mind. Can we leave it now?

As you rightly point out its too many. so can we perhaps move on?

Yeah come on Chegs.. where/whens this silence taking place? I'm game.

 

[butchersapron]

OK, fair enough.

I'll leave the Lancet stuff/numbers alone now.

Gad, you'd better!

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

look this is not the point of the thread.

Whoever has perpetrated the murders/deaths/atorcities they are at horrific levels. Thats it. Yet we do not see too much mourning/grief over them in the mainstream press or by our politicians or by people in general.

I wonder why this is?

um, at a guess, it's because many of the people who live and work here in London either know people who were killed or injured in the bombings, or travel thru the areas that the bombs went off in. whereas the killings in another country do not have that direct causal link of experience. as i am sure you are aware.

i read in my newspaper every day about people getting killed by suicide bombers in iraq, (see today's indie story about shia kids killed by a sunni bomber) and it strengthens my belief that going to war was a mistake - but what do you suggest is done now to resolve this issue? simply pull troops out and the likelihood of inter-factionist war is immense, with many more killings. leave them there and i see no change. so I challenge you to make one positive suggestion as to what should be done - after all, i assume you're picketing parliament, lobbying your mp, involved in your local stop the war group, being active rather than simply taking the moral high ground.

(and i don't see at all where the dichotomy between expressing my sadness at what happened last week by taking part in a 2-minutes silence today in any way undermines my feelings and unhappiness about what goes on in other countries)

 

[dylanredefined]

Well as I was on my own didn't see the point .It would be hypocrticial of me to protest about the war when i took part in it now wouldnt it .

 

[chegrimandi]

Yeah come on Chegs.. where/whens this silence taking place? I'm game.

I'm awaiting the Queen/big tone/and the Beebs responses to tell me when to do it.....

 

[TeeJay]

...what do you suggest is done now to resolve this issue? simply pull troops out and the likelihood of inter-factionist war is immense, with many more killings. leave them there and i see no change. so I challenge you to make one positive suggestion as to what should be done...

I would hope that there are ways of cutting deals with mainstream Sunnis so that they decide to participate in the new Iraqi government. This won't completely stop jihadis and some other groups, but hopefully it will reduce their actions down to a very low level. I think there is a fear amongst Sunnis that the Shia will use the new government to take revenge and that they will be excluded from positions and power in the future. Some of them are demanding that they get their posts in the army back and that the 'de-Baathification purge' is reversed. I think that this (forgiveness of Baath party and former military and police) is maybe the price that needs to be paid to reconcile Sunni and Shia, but ultimately this is something that Iraqis need to decide upon themselves. In the mean time US and UK troops are doing a 'holding operation' which they should hand over to Iraqi forces as soon as they are capable.

 

[chegrimandi]

so I challenge you to make one positive suggestion as to what should be done - after all, i assume you're picketing parliament, lobbying your mp, involved in your local stop the war group, being active rather than simply taking the moral high ground.

I've suggested an hours silence where the whole country unites and remembers all the dead in Iraq.

I wouldn't be lobbying my MP, picketing parliament or getting involved in the stop the war group as they all advocate solutions through party politics which is the source of the problem.

 

[chegrimandi]

um, at a guess, it's because many of the people who live and work here in London either know people who were killed or injured in the bombings, or travel thru the areas that the bombs went off in. whereas the killings in another country do not have that direct causal link of experience. as i am sure you are aware.

so our grief/empathy only stretches as far as people we know or places we live.

Bit cynical that isn't it.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I've suggested an hours silence where the whole country unites and remembers all the dead in Iraq.

I wouldn't be lobbying my MP, picketing parliament or getting involved in the stop the war group as they all advocate solutions through party politics which is the source of the problem.

um, your first post was along the lines of

Please could someone email our betters and masters at the BBC, 10 Downing Street, the House of Commons and Buckingham Palace to ensure this happens or I won't be able to think about them properly.

Surely you're not just stirring things up without actually having the actions to back up your distaste.....

 

[chegrimandi]

um, your first post was along the lines of

Surely you're not just stirring things up without actually having the actions to back up your distaste.....

I admit I don't have the powers to organise such an event. Those people clearly do.

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the hypocrisy and lies of our government?

 

[kakuma]

i dont talk that much anyway

thats for how fucked up the world is

mourn the livng, not the dead

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

so our grief/empathy only stretches as far as people we know or places we live.

Bit cynical that isn't it.

who is this "our" that you refer to - does it include everyone here on brick lane, for example, who came out and stopped for 2 minutes? many of whom also went on the STW march? and the school kids who gave the cops the run around in a similar demonstration? and who may well be muslims as well?

i gave a general response to your question as to why people in this country may be more inclined to publicly mourn for the dead of this country - i didn't justify it, didn't say i supported it, but it's foolishness to pretend the situation is anything otherwise.

it's easy to berate people for choosing to mourn the deaths and injuries caused to people they live with, work with, or even simply rub shoulders with on their way into work. it's a lot more difficult to do anything about the situations you wish to highlight. on the one hand, you say that parliament et al are the problem, on the other hand, you admit they're the only people who can get things organised. confusing n'est pas?

 

[chegrimandi]

it's easy to berate people for choosing to mourn the deaths and injuries caused to people they live with, work with, or even simply rub shoulders with on their way into work. it's a lot more difficult to do anything about the situations you wish to highlight. on the one hand, you say that parliament et al are the problem, on the other hand, you admit they're the only people who can get things organised. confusing n'est pas?

I'm not berating anyone for the silences in which they partake. You are missing the point spectacularly.

State sanctioned grief at events caused by the actions of the state which attempts in propaganda and with the complicity of the media and the citizens of the state to obliterate the true cost of their actions in overseas war is not to my taste. Thats all.

 

[Hollis]

it's easy to berate people for choosing to mourn the deaths and injuries caused to people they live with, work with, or even simply rub shoulders with on their way into work. it's a lot more difficult to do anything about the situations you wish to highlight. on the one hand, you say that parliament et al are the problem, on the other hand, you admit they're the only people who can get things organised. confusing n'est pas?

Please read this link... (posted before on other thread.)

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA857.htm

 

[AverageJoe]

Chegrimandi - Are you George Galloway in disguise?

Actually I think its it good idea. I think you *should* stay quiet for two minutes every time someone dies. And then we can have a rest from all of your guff.

I'm sure i remember seeing a site that had a couple of real time tickers of people being born and people who had just died on it. It had names as well. You could use that to *really* be accurate. Shame i can't remember where it was...

 

[chegrimandi]

Chegrimandi - Are you George Galloway in disguise?

Actually I think its it good idea. I think you *should* stay quiet for two minutes every time someone dies. And then we can have a rest from all of your guff.

...

whilst I really value your opinion a great deal do you have anything of interest to add?

 

[X-77]

I'm not berating anyone for the silences in which they partake. You are missing the point spectacularly.

State sanctioned grief at events caused by the actions of the state which attempts in propaganda and with the complicity of the media and the citizens of the state to obliterate the true cost of their actions in overseas war is not to my taste. Thats all.

precisely. My cousin was injured on one of the bombed trains (the next carriage along), and my sister could very well have been on that same train that morning. I still can't get my head around the 'what ifs'. Doesn't mean that I'll miss the woods for the trees though and take part in a 2 minute silence called for by a government that is itself to blame - as Pilger said, let us not forget that they were Blair's bombs. Let us not be fooled either by Blair's phoney grief, the man is a complete and utter hypocritical mass murdering piece of crap Where the fuck is the outrage directed at him though, that's what I want to know

Edit to add: why is Chegrimandi talking 'guff' AverageJoe?? - I fucking despair of some here I really do. Like Galloway is the only one that gives a shit about our morally bankrupt foreign policy and the deaths of those at the hands of it - yeah right.

 

[maomao]

Chegrimandi - Are you George Galloway in disguise?

Actually I think its it good idea. I think you *should* stay quiet for two minutes every time someone dies. And then we can have a rest from all of your guff.

You don't get out much do you.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I'm not berating anyone for the silences in which they partake. You are missing the point spectacularly.

State sanctioned grief at events caused by the actions of the state which attempts in propaganda and with the complicity of the media and the citizens of the state to obliterate the true cost of their actions in overseas war is not to my taste. Thats all.

It's not such a simple cause and effect though is it i.e. war in iraq=suicide bombers in London? Do you really reckon that pulling the troops out of Iraq will end the killing there now? What about Palestine - how do you solve that? How do you deal with young British Muslims feeling so disaffected that, for reasons one should not speculate about, they decide to blow themselves and another 50-odd people into bloody little bits? Are these issues conjoined? I disagree with the war in Iraq, but i also disagree with people strapping a ruck sack on their back and blowing up a tube train. I can show my grief at the latter, and I can show my dissatisfaction with the former. S'got feck all to do with "state-sanctioned grief". Holding the politicians responsible for their actions is quite a task - look at the shite storm that enveloped GG on the day he questioned Blairs motivations/actions etc - but unless you involve yourself in the political process at some stage, then you're probably pissing in the wind tbh.

Hollis - i've probably thought much the same myself, esp. at the many sporting events that have become plagued by minute silences - however, i've not been that close to such wholesale death and destruction as took place last week, and i actually wanted to go out and do this today. The article is almost a follow-on from the Diana syndrome that took hold a few years back - collective grief to fill the hollow lives that many people live.

peace people, i'm out of here

 

[AverageJoe]

You don't get out much do you.

Not really.

Cheggers asked for my opinion. Well here it is.

We live in horrible, hard times where the age of people being nice and helping out with tea and scones at the village fete is well and truly gone, and has been superceded by the rise of the 'me' generation. And over time, I have slowly started to adapt in order to survive.

So my priorities are my family, my friends, earing enough to pay my bills and staying out of trouble.

Maybe its a bit insular and a bit harsh but someone dies in Africa - don't really care. Someone dies in Iraq. Don't really care. None of its really relevant to me. Someone dies in London. Well, I do care, but not enough to visit the family or to drop off some flowers or to write some mawkish comment in a condolency book.

Maybe when I'm in a position to change some of the injustices in the world then I will care more. And then I do something about it. But as it stands, its hard enough for me to get by on a day to day basis without getting weighed down by extraneous guilt. I know its harsh, but I don't think I'm the only one.