reply to post by budski
What I am saying is that if a claim is made(i.e. John's Hopkins, Lancet), there should be corresponding evidence that would support that claim.
Their figures are based on statistics, not on how much violence has actually been witnessed. I am saying if the claim and the evidence can't be
reconciled, then perhaps they should take another look at their numbers. Most every other guess(i.e. UN, World Health Organization, etc...) has been
considerably lower- 80,000-150,000.
"Since taking over the administration of their own country in late June 2004, the Iraqis have stepped up their efforts to keep track. In January
2007, Iraqi authorities reported that 16,273 Iraqis, including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers, died violent deaths in 2006."
" Keeping track: counting or calculating?
One organization has been keeping track of what it calls Iraqi "civilians" killed since the beginning of the war: a group of academics in both the
United States and Britain calling themselves Iraq Body Count.
By tracking — and rigorously checking — media reports of deaths, the group has kept a running total of Iraqis reported killed during the major
combat phase of the war"
"the numbers that appear on iraqbodycount.net are estimates based on actual reports of real people killed.
That's in contrast to the numbers contained in a study released in fall 2004 by the British medical journal The Lancet. That study surveyed Iraqi
households and compared death rates before the invasion to those after, and concluded about 100,000 civilians are likely dead because of the coalition
That number is an estimate extrapolated from a survey. While it might reflect the reality in Iraq, it might not."
[edit on 28-1-2008 by BlueRaja]