50,000 captured/killed....

[Peter_Puget]

....is it true?

 

Q General Conway, General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of the Army has apparently just come back from Iraq. And he has said at a luncheon yesterday that U.S. forces had either captured or killed some 50,000 insurgents so far this year. Is that number accurate? Can you tell us how many were captured or how many were killed? And whether or not -- you know, what that says about the size of the insurgency?

 

GEN. CONWAY: I just saw the article this morning, and I accept the fact that General Keane has been in-country certainly since I have. I can't speak to his source of the figures. I can tell you that we don't keep that metric here. So I'm afraid I can't confirm or deny the accuracy of those figures

 

 

..no denial here...

Edited August 2, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[cj001f]

Only 26 million to go!

[mec]

and today we just crossed the 1800 mark of soldiers killed...

[JoshK]

PP, do you see the aim of war to kill as many of the "other guys" as possible? I might possibly see the positive in this (considering the shitheads that we have no other choice but to kill), if it weren't for the fact that the more you kill, the more pop up. Just like weeds.

 

Do you have a high school diploma or is your mind constructed completely of the opinions found on your right wing blogs and "think tanks."?

[ChrisT]

It seems that the US had to abandon Vietnam 30 years ago because they couldn't keep up with those pesky Viet Cong. Will it take another 10 (15? 20?)years for the fall of Baghdad? We can't even secure the three miles from the US fortress to the airport. I don't think we're making any progress at all.

[archenemy]

Only 26 million to go!

Brutal

[Peter_Puget]

PP, do you see the aim of war to kill as many of the "other guys" as possible? I might possibly see the positive in this (considering the shitheads that we have no other choice but to kill), if it weren't for the fact that the more you kill, the more pop up. Just like weeds.

 

Do you have a high school diploma or is your mind constructed completely of the opinions found on your right wing blogs and "think tanks."?

 

Josh you and Cjxx324 often completely miss the point of my posts. You do however never stop spewing complete crap in response. To that I can only marvel at your idiocy and consistency - a rare combination.

[TheJiggler]

50K "Insurgent" captured or killed eh? Fuck Yeah! After all we're Americans, we're the good guys. We only kill bad guys. So that 6 month old baby, or the dozen or so people we killed at a wedding party. They were insurgents! They must have been right, cause after all we killed 'em and we only kill bad guys. Oh and I'm sure all of these guys we killed were executed after a being found guilty by a jury or thier peers. America, Fuck yeah!

[cj001f]

Josh you and Cjxx324 often completely miss the point of my posts. You do however never stop spewing complete crap in response. To that I can only marvel at your idiocy and consistency - a rare combination.

 

Forgive me for my ignorance Peter. You so rarely suffer the indignity of elucidating your opinions to us heathen masses, so I'm left wandering in search of the light

 

Now what was your point? That we've killed alot of people? That the more people we kill the fewer will resist? The former is certainly true, the latter requires a suspension of history.

[billcoe]

YOUR QUESTION WAS: 50,000 IS IT TRUE?

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

 

There is an indepandant site with over 23,000 confirmed CIVILIAN deaths. So no or yes, if not true, and you should be suspicious of a General with a round number like 50,000, it's still a shit load. How that gets distributed would be interesting. We have seen examples of ordinance causing collateral damage like walls on buildings falling over and killing kids. You have to figure that a truckload of the numbers are insurgents.

 

I would tend to believe the military numbers more like in this case as they are on site to actually count, unlike the independant site refered which is reading news articals and only putting casualties down if they are verified by an independant secondary source... speaking for both sets of numbers in general.

[ChrisT]

hmmm I thought there were more like 100K civilian deaths. In any case, PP is only referring to *insurgents* captured and killed...civilians don't count.

[billcoe]

hmmm I thought there were more like 100K civilian deaths. In any case, PP is only referring to *insurgents* captured and killed...civilians don't count.

 

100 K - Not even close. The opponents of the war have signifigantly less. Small consolation if your family was one of 23,000 people "accidentally" wiped out.

 

as the independant site doesn't seem to count insergents separatly, it may be tht they count insurgents as civilians? No?

 

Following is their methodology, which seems to be saying that insurgents are civilians, how would you separate the numbers. So of the 23000 plus, 22000 of them may be rotten bastards well deserving of death: or reversed, who can determine?

(cut and pasted)

 

"Methodology:

 

Overview

Sources

Data Extraction

Data Storage

Publication of data (including conditions of use)

Limitations

 

 

 

1. Overview

 

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

 

2. Sources

 

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).

 

ABC - ABC News (USA)

AFP - Agence France-Presse

AP - Associated Press

AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology

Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation

BG - Boston Globe

Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun

CT - Chicago Tribune

CO - Commondreams.org

CSM - Christian Science Monitor

DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

FOX - Fox News

GUA - The Guardian (London)

HRW - Human Rights Watch

HT - Hindustan Times

ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross

IND - The Independent (London)

IO - Intellnet.org

JT - Jordan Times

LAT - Los Angeles Times

MEN - Middle East Newsline

MEO - Middle East Online

MER - Middle East Report

MH - Miami Herald

NT - Nando Times

NYT - New York Times

Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)

SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation

SMH - Sydney Morning Herald

Sg.News - The Singapore News

Tel- The Telegraph (London)

Times - The Times (London)

TOI - Times of India

TS - Toronto Star

UPI - United Press International

WNN - World News Network

WP - Washington Post

 

For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.

 

The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.

 

Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.

 

3. Data extraction

 

Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.

 

1. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.

2. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.

3. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.

 

The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:

 

* Date of incident

* Time of incident

* Location of incident

* Target as stated by military sources

* Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)

* Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)

* Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)

* Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)

 

Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.

 

Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum

 

Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.

 

Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.

 

Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.

 

As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA Factbook 2002.]

 

4. Data storage

 

Although it is expected that the majority of sources will remain accessible on the web site from which they were drawn, the project will create a secure archive of all original sources (in both electronic and paper form). Where judged appropriate by the project team, this data may be released to bona-fide enquirers, for verification purposes. At an appropriate juncture, the entire archive will be passed to an institution of public record (such as a University or National Library) for permanent access by bona-fide researchers. The copyright of original sources will remain with the originators. The copyright of the Iraq Body Count data extraction remains with the named researchers on the project (see About us).

 

5. Publication of data (including conditions of use)

 

Once verified through the processes described in section 3 above, each new incident will be added as a new line on a spreadsheet database which will be updated regularly (at least daily) on the www.iraqbodycount.org site. The total minimum and maximum deaths will be automatically updated, and will feed through to all remotely positioned web-counters donwloaded from the site.

 

Permission is granted for any individual or agency to download and display any of the web counters available on this site, provided that the link back to the www.iraqbodycount.org site is not disabled or otherwise tampered with when displayed on a live interactive web-site. Permission is also granted for cut-and-paste downloads of the spreadsheet database listing each incident. All press and non-commercial uses are permitted. Other commercial uses are prohibited without explicit permission (contact info@iraqbodycount.org).

 

We request that you acknowledge any use of the Iraq Body Count data base or its methodology by mentioning either the project name ("Iraq Body Count") or the url (www.iraqbodycount.org) or the names of the principal researchers, Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda.

 

6. Limitations and scope of enquiry:

 

Any project has limitations and boundaries. Here are some FAQs about this topic and our answers to them.

 

Why don’t you report all civilian deaths in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ended?

 

Our decision to stick with deaths from Jan 2003 is mainly tactical, and based on the resources we have. We would rather provide one stream of verifiable evidence to a high degree of reliablity than spread ourselves too thin. Current deaths are more newsworthy than past deaths, and will be of more interest to the general websites who will carry the IBC Web Counters. We agree that reckoning total deaths since 1991 is a very worthwhile project. We would be happy to support someone wanting to do this, but we can't manage it ourselves with current resources.

 

Why don’t you report civilian injuries as well as deaths?

 

Injuries are difficult to quantify. Anything from shock to loss of limb can be classified as an injury. Also, injuries can recover, so that by the time there is independent verification the injury can have healed. The level of resource we would need to track and categorise the far higher number of injuries would likely overwhelm our resources. Deaths are irreversible and immutable. Again, they are the most "newsworthy" tip of the iceberg, and the greatest crime against innocents.

 

"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"

 

Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.

 

(The above FAQ does not apply to sanctions; although we are opposed to them, our study deals with the consequences of our current military actions in Iraq. It has also been newly revised due to our growing awareness that we were too narrowly-focused on bombs and other conventional weapons, neglecting the deadly effects of disrupted food, water, electricity and medical supplies. These effects, though relatively small at the outset of a war, are likely to become much more significant as time passes, and we will monitor media reports accordingly.)

 

Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?

 

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.

 

Will you co-operate with other similar projects?

 

Many projects are needed to evaluate the full human cost of this war. We value them all, but this one is ours. We need to ensure that our study is focused and that its intent, scope and limits are widely and clearly understood. We will certainly build up and maintain our set of links to projects doing related work so that viewers of this site can be pointed to related activity."

 

[ChrisT]

ok maybe it was 100K killed *and* injured as reported by the nightly news. Sucks to lose an arm or a leg.

[archenemy]

Better than losing a child or a brother.

[billcoe]

ok maybe it was 100K killed *and* injured as reported by the nightly news. Sucks to lose an arm or a leg.

 

That could very well be the case.

[archenemy]

As long as men with Keane's and Bush's mindset keep at this, the count will reach a 100K.

Can you believe Keane talks like this:

Although civil war would be a tragedy, with immense costs, it would at least force a definitive outcome to the ongoing struggle in Iraq. But there are no signs of that happening at this time

 

From his perspective, war is the only *althought regretable* method to bring about change. Never mind the the countries we've tried to force to change (via war, economic sanctions, any other coercive method) don't change in the direction that we want them to. However, the countries that we opened up trade with seem to naturally develop economically, politically, and socially.

[billcoe]

 

From his perspective, war is the only *althought regretable* method to bring about change. Never mind the the countries we've tried to force to change (via war, economic sanctions, any other coercive method) don't change in the direction that we want them to. However, the countries that we opened up trade with seem to naturally develop economically, politically, and socially.

 

Are you saying that Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan, Phillipines, Cuba (the first time, not the 2nd time:) , Nigarqua, Chile, USSR and Grenada just to name a few did not change via war and economic presure?

 

Now we have a discussion.

Edited August 2, 2005 by billcoe

[archenemy]

Indeed.

 

And no, I did not say that they did not change under force. Of course they did. But the direction of change is markedly different when the country in question is being pressured by war rather than by open market policy.

[Mal_Con]

Hell's Belles in Nam we used to require a pair of ears for a proper body count. Usually if they were dead they wereassumed to be VC, including water buff or kids. Seems we are headed down the same track in Iraq.

[JoshK]

PP, as I have said before you don't even bother to argue a point with your posts. You simply come on and PLOP a right wing turd and leave it at that. My responses are not meant to be meaningful arguments. I gave up on debating with your type long ago cause you just don't get it. I'd rather just tell you to shut the fuck up, despite it accomplishing nothing. Are you too stupid to just open your eyes and admit that not only has this debacle in Iraq been a failure but that our domestic situation has been in steady decline for 5 years? Open your fucking eyes and point out one thing that has been accomplished at home or abroad. Oh, and please think of these yourself rather than dropping blog turds.

[billcoe]

Indeed.

 

And no, I did not say that they did not change under force. Of course they did. But the direction of change is markedly different when the country in question is being pressured by war rather than by open market policy.

 

Ahhh, so you must be refering to the open market policy which the Clinton Administration persued with China.

 

OK, ....got it. Yes, I agree with you. Very different. Now I understand.

[billcoe]

Hell's Belles in Nam we used to require a pair of ears for a proper body count. Usually if they were dead they wereassumed to be VC, including water buff or kids. Seems we are headed down the same track in Iraq.

 

Even better, there was a multiplication factor on the body counts in nam. (Later in the war) As it went up the chain of command, it magically multiplied. Pretty soon, it was apparent to all Americans that we were only a few min. away from winning the war. Just check the counts coming out of command. Typical engagements would be 247 VC, 2 US Troops lost. Until you asked the troops, they'd day "I was there, yeah, VC? What VC? We didn't see the bastards". "There were bullets flying everywhere (mortar rounds too) and they got 2 of us."

 

Morning would come, and troops could see bloodstains off into the bush, no bodies. Start counting.

[Peter_Puget]

PP, as I have said before you don't even bother to argue a point with your posts. You simply come on and PLOP a right wing turd and leave it at that. My responses are not meant to be meaningful arguments. I gave up on debating with your type long ago cause you just don't get it. I'd rather just tell you to shut the fuck up, despite it accomplishing nothing. Are you too stupid to just open your eyes and admit that not only has this debacle in Iraq been a failure but that our domestic situation has been in steady decline for 5 years? Open your fucking eyes and point out one thing that has been accomplished at home or abroad. Oh, and please think of these yourself rather than dropping blog turds.

 

 

Via Bablefish:

 

I'm not really an idiot. I just play one on cc.com.......Uh reallly...........really really...

 

[Peter_Puget]

Can't resist....

 

I'll triple respond

 

comparing last recovery to this one:

 

Unemployment rate

Prior recovery: 5.8%

This recovery: 5.0%

 

Long term unemployment rate (15+ weeks)

prior: 2.25%, which is 40% more than

this: 1.58%

 

average real weekly earnings from pre-recession high

prior: -1.9%

this: +0.25%

[TheJiggler]

Since we're now posting un-attributued non-sequiter quotes:

Economists who argue that there's something wrong with the unemployment numbers are buzzing about a new study by Katharine Bradbury, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, which suggests that millions of Americans who should be in the labor force aren't. "The addition of these hypothetical participants," she writes, "would raise the unemployment rate by one to three-plus percentage points."

. . .

In fact, because older Americans, especially older women, are more likely to work than in the past, labor force participation should have risen, not fallen, over the past four years. As a result, she suggests that there may be "considerable slack in the U.S. labor market": there are at least 1.6 million and possibly as many as 5.1 million people who aren't counted as unemployed but would take jobs if they were available.