All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Are

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 3:07:50 GMT krkey1 said:

Just notice how the two lancet studies completely contradict each other. No other study on Iraq Civilian deaths shows a number that high. Even the Iraqi government puts the estimate at 150,000

They don't contradict at all, in fact the follow-up study confirms the general trends found in the first. As for the number suggested by the Ministry of Health in Iraq the study refers to it in Appendix B, which I referred to earlier but you seem adamant not to read; "only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government’s surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq" (read the rest on pp. 16-17). In Figure 5 it compares the trends in mortality rates according to the different estimates (Department of Defence, IBC and this study) and finds the trends are almost identical, although the numbers are different, and this "difference in numbers but similarity in trends is typical of the differences between active and passive public health
surveillance seen in many conditions" and "is clear evidence that the three studies have measured the same events, and further reinforces the results of the population based data".

[krkey1]

so 150K does not contradict 655 K now. Amazing

Where are the bodies Zameel?

Where are the pictures of the killings?

Where is the media coverage?

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 3:27:25 GMT krkey1 said:

so 150K does not contradict 655 K now. Amazing

You said the "two Lancet studies" contradict, not the Ministry of Health figure and the figure from the study. Although these do not agree, the Lancet study gives reasons to doubt other counts, which although show similar trends (showing they measure the same events) do not give accurate figures.

[krkey1]

The first lancet study indicated 150 K dead the second one indicated 655K . One of those two studies is obviously garbage. Going with the fact every other study on the subject shows around 150, including Iraqi studies this is not hard for me to guess which study is trash..

I am going to keep asking you the same questions cause I know you cannot answer them.

Where are the bodies Zameel?

Where are the pictures of the killings?

Where is the media coverage?

and now

Why does no other study arrive at the figure of 655K

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 3:38:58 GMT krkey1 said:

The first lancet study indicated 150 K dead the second one indicated 655K .

I think what you are referring to is a similar study conducted by the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS), published in the New England Medical Journal, not the Lancet. The "violent deaths" in the three years according to this study was 150,000: content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782 . However, the results were in fact similar to the Lancet study in that it recorded excess deaths far more than told in official records (more than 500,000), the major difference being that the NEJM study attributes less of these to violent deaths; the excess deaths is also likely an underestimate (although quite accurate) as in parts of Iraq that were not accessible the study used data from the IBC.

Les Roberts, one of the researchers for the Lancet study, explains as follows:

"This new article in the NEJM is a good addition to the discussion. There is far more in common in the results of the two reports than appears at first glance.

"The NEJM article found a doubling of mortality after the invasion, we found a 2.4 fold increase. Thus, we roughly agree on the number of excess deaths. The big difference is that we found almost all the increase from violence, they found one-third the increase from violence.

"This new estimate is almost four times the 'widely accepted' [Iraq Body Count] number from June of 2006 (40,000), our estimate was 12 times higher. Both studies suggest things are far worse than our leaders have reported.

"There are reasons to suspect that the NEJM data had an under-reporting of violent deaths.

"They roughly found a steady rate of violence from 2003 to 2006. Baghdad morgue data, Najaf burial data, Pentagon attack data, and our data all show a dramatic increase over 2005 and 2006. ...

"It is likely that people would be unwilling to admit violent deaths to the study workers who were government employees.

"Finally, their data suggests one-sixth of deaths over the occupation through June 2006 were from violence. Our data suggests a majority of deaths were from violence. The morgue and graveyard data I have seen is more in keeping with our results."

www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1627

A similar explanation by Les Roberts here: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/01/ifhs_study_on_violent_deaths_i.php (which adds "We confirmed our deaths with death certificates, they did not. As the NEJM study's interviewers worked for one side in this conflict, it is likely that people would be unwilling to admit violent deaths to the study workers.")

[humphreyclarke]

Jan 25, 2010 2:28:46 GMT krkey1 said:

How Zameel

The study admitted to a 92 percent error rate.

The study is garbage. Let me try to explain this.

It took a tremendously small Sunni neighborhood. It looked at the deaths resulting from the 2003 invasion.

It figured out the death ratio in that neighborhood then it figured 2004, 2005 and 2006 were the same . Then it multiplied it times the entire population of Iraq. Complete Trash.

I'm with KrKey on this one. I recall both studies when they came out and I have to say that they are some of the worst I have ever seen. The second one, for example, reported by a team using a similar methodology to the Lancet report gave a deaths figure 1.03 million. Compared to the IBC figures at the time this represented a shortfall of 940,290 deaths, which must have gone unreported. That’s the equivalent of the whole population of a city the size of Birmingham being slaughtered without anyone noticing. Let’s put that number into context.

940,290 is roughly a third higher than the total number of Japanese civilian deaths during World War II, a conflict that involved the firebombing of all major cities and the use of two atomic weapons on Japanese territory.

940,290 is roughly the same number as the entire amount of deaths suffered by the United Kingdom during World War I.

940,290 is roughly twice as high as the total number of deaths suffered by both sides in the American Civil War.

940,290 is roughly the same as the Rwandan genocide, possibly about 200,000 deaths higher.

Could any of that happen without the foreign media picking it up, especially given the extensive coverage the war has received?. Also bear in mind that in such a war zone you would expect roughly twice as many casualties as deaths so you should be looking at 3 million dead and wounded overall.

[zameel]

Jan 25, 2010 6:53:55 GMT humphreyclarke said:

I recall both studies when they came out and I have to say that they are some of the worst I have ever seen. The second one, for example, reported by a team using a similar methodology to the Lancet report gave a deaths figure 1.03 million. Compared to the IBC figures at the time this represented a shortfall of 940,290 deaths

None of them reported "violent deaths" of 1 million (that may have been the total deaths), and the IBC was only concerned with violent deaths. The Lancet study concluded violent deaths of 600,000 and the NEJM study concluded 150,000 compared to IBC's 40,000. However, both studies nearly agree on the "excess deaths", but disagree on the "violent deaths". Les Roberts argues the Lancet study is more accurate (see above).

Lancet: web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

NEJM: content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782

The methodology (cluster sampling) has been successfully used in Congo, Bosnia, Darfur and other conflict situations without any protest; in fact the study on Congo was done by the same epidemiologist (Les Roberts) who did the Lancet study for Iraq archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/06/21/first.person/

I'm sure if the results were farfetched the Lancet or the NEJM would have picked it up.

Could any of that happen without the foreign media picking it up, especially given the extensive coverage the war has received?

As evidenced in other conflicts like Kosovo, Darfur and Congo, the media does not pick up more than 20% of the actual deaths. In this case the IBC based on media reports picked up only 7% of the actual violent deaths.

[krkey1]

Zameel can you show us any of that alleged 20% that you assert exists. Where is the media coverage for such carnage.

I was there Zameel. I was in the thick of it too where most of the fighting occured. There was no way about 600 civilians died on a daily bases cause of this conflict. I would have seen the bodies.

Yes civilians did die from the conflict, however my overwhelming experience was that the vast majority died at the hands of the insurgency. For obvious reasons the US Military has no vested interests in killing civilians. It makes the occupation all the harder.

You can believe me or not.

[penguinfan]

So, none of these attacks were by Muslim Americans. The Duke University study reported in CNN above shows “Muslim American communities have been active in preventing radicalization”. Charles Kurzman one of the researchers goes on to say “This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism [poor choice of word] has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.” In other words, despite Muslims being 2% of the American population, they were responsible for about 0.025% of all murders in the US since 9/11 (that’s about 80 times less than what would be expected assuming an even distribution).

Oh dear, what an interesting straw-man you have chosen to report - comparing deaths by terrorism with all forms of violent deaths.

Anyways, since no one believes that 600 or so Iraqis were killed on a daily basis between the start of the war till 2006, I will politely remind you if can show me the breakdown of deaths, by faith, from the second Sudanese civil war.

I think even 'Danios' would probably label you a loon and write a long article on you - if you were non-Muslim claiming that 600.000 people were killed by Islamists in Kashmir or Thailand, for example.

[zameel]

Jan 26, 2010 15:54:46 GMT penguinfan said:

I think even 'Danios' would probably label you a loon and write a long article on you - if you were non-Muslim claiming that 600.000 people were killed by Islamists in Kashmir or Thailand, for example.

I don't believe the Lancet or the New England Jornal of Medicine published papers using a sophisticated and approved statistical and epidemiological methodology (which involves interviewing thousands of people in difficult conditions) with the result that 600,000 suffered violent death in Kashmir or Thailand.

[krkey1]

Anyone notice that Zameel's argument can be summed up this way.

The Lancet said 600K people were killed in Iraq and therefore I believe it despite the fact I can produce no direct evidence of that carnage and despite the fact every other study ever done has concluded it was a forth of the deaths and mainly those deaths were caused by my co religionist.

[penguinfan]

I don't believe the Lancet or the New England Jornal of Medicine published papers using a sophisticated and approved statistical and epidemiological methodology (which involves interviewing thousands of people in difficult conditions) with the result that 600,000 suffered violent death in Kashmir or Thailand.

Why would they? Their report that 600.000, or whatever, died violently between 2003 and 2006 is widely discredited. For instance, every time al-Jazeera mentions the number of Iraqis killed, they say 'tens of thousands', not 'hundreds of thousands'.

I can't think of any source or person who has an ounce of credibility continue to claim that figure. As I said, it boils down to common sense - have six hundred died per day between 2003 and 2006? Does that sound realistic? Likely? Feasible?

Some peeps have common sense, others don't.

[zameel]

Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/