OMG! I just did some math, on numbers from the ISG Report! ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!

[originalpckelly]

I and couple of other DUers posted this excerpt from the ISG Report:

"In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq.

The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

Now we all focused on the purpose of this paragraph, that we the American people are being lied to, and that all the BS about not reporting the good news is actually totally wrong, because the journalists haven't been told all the bad news.

That's not the half of it. If the murder rate for Iraqis is about the same everyday as that one day this year in June, then those there are some startling numbers.

In only fifteen days of the Iraq war, the same number of Iraqis are murdered as in an entire year in the United States.

If the numbers are at least the same everyday for a year, about 400,000 Iraqis will die.

That's about 1.4% of the Iraqi population which will die this year.

If America had the same murder rate, 4.2 MILLION Americans would die every year.

[YDogg]

1. That struck me as freaking crazy when I read it, although I had not ...

... run those calculations. It's pretty damned sobering.

[originalpckelly]

3. Well, we all heard that Lancet report...

and it seems like it was right. Because obviously the violence is worse there this year than it was in '05, so it probably works out to their numbers.

[YDogg]

5. Yeah. And Lancet is quite reputatble. They were likely to be on target.

[originalpckelly]

8. True. but I have to admit, before I heard this number...

I was a little skeptical, because the media is not being told how many Iraqis are dying each day.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

45. Proportionally, Iraq suffers two 9/11s every week. Week in, week out. Two 9/11s.

Proportionally, Iraq suffers two 9/11s every week.

Population of Iraq is one tenth of the US. If we take the war/insurrection/lawless death rate in Iraq as 100 per day, that is 700 per week or the equivalent of 7000 per week if it were the USA, and that is more than two 9/11s every week.

This is the legacy Bush is creating in Iraq while he simultaneously loses the war that had been won in Afghanistan. Worst President ever.

The poster exaggerates figures, since 1,100 acts of violence do not equal 1,100 deaths, but the actual rate of violence and death is horrific, all the same.

[originalpckelly]

2. The murder rate in Iraq is 280 times higher than the murder rate in America.(nt)

[originalpckelly]

4. Sorry for all the "OMG!"s but I was totally shocked when I did the math...

this is outrageous. This is worse than our Civil War here in America. In only half a year more Iraqis die than in the entire America Civil War.

I should note those are figures for Killed In Action. The deaths of the wounded whom survived the battle are much higher.

[bdamomma]

6. we are committing genocide, on a country that did nothing to us

all for lies, and for what mission? and all those people dead both Americans and Iraqis, this has been a hellish three years of war.

[originalpckelly]

7. This SOB President is going to be remembered as the worst in history...

If this gets picked up in the MSM, then the shit is going to hit the fan. He may have to resign.

[originalpckelly]

9. How can they lie to us so well...

how is it possible that no found this out before?

This is fucking insane!

[MadMaddie]

11. Because the fourth estate...the media and....the 12 year Rebublican

led Congress failed to do their jobs.....they are directly responsible for the deaths.....may the rot in hell....

[originalpckelly]

13. I know, but a more than 10 to 1 lie is a hard lie to sell...

but I guess the first and only indication something wasn't up with these murder rates was the Lancet report. If the MSM catches on to this, this will end Bush and his presidency. It's like Watergate in Iraq.

[MadMaddie]

16. I hope it is worse for the bastard....he is in his bunker menality

now...he will not back down he will stay the course because he truely believes we are winning....

These crimes are worthy of the Hague....The * presidency is over come January......he is done..

[originalpckelly]

18. I think you might be right...

Only a month ago it seemed like Rumsfeld was permanent member of this Admin. so I don't think it is actually too unreasonable. If people find out about this, Bush might be run out of the WH.

[Kellyiswise]

10. So that scientific estimate of about 600,000 Iraqis killed since invasion

is pretty accurate?

[originalpckelly]

12. I'd say so...

Obviously, 2003, 2004, and 2005 didn't have the same death rates as June 2006, but together they did probably equal the 655,000 of the Lancet report.

[elocs]

14. Isn't there also funny business about the American deaths in Iraq?

Such as if they do not die in Iraq, but back in the States or elsewhere that they do not count as a Iraq War death?

[originalpckelly]

15. This is a new scandal, even worse than the lies that got us into this war...

It's a scandal about how many Iraqis are being killed.

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. Yes. Apparently, they've been taking the 'killed in Iraq'

quite literally. When a soldier or marine is taken to Germany and dies, they're not in the count.

[LynnTheDem]

36. That is not true.

Go to Iraq Casualty Count and you can see which troops died in Germany, Italy, USA etc from wounds sustained in Iraq.

[Norquist Nemesis]

37. I love it when

people keep me informed here at DU. Thanks! :loveya:

"The following is a list of U.S. Fatalities who have died in hospitals in Germany and The United States. Some have claimed that The Department of Defense does not report these deaths, they are obviously mistaken.
Note: these deaths are included in our overall totals. "

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

[LynnTheDem]

35. Regardless where US troops die, they are counted.

[elocs]

43. So if a soldier is wounded and comes back to the States

and dies 3 months later from their wounds, then that person's death is figured and counted on the nightly news as part of the Iraq war death toll?

[LynnTheDem]

55. Yes they're counted regardless when & where they die...

but as to them making the nightly news, that's another story (or rather, lack of story).

[elocs]

56. I don't think they get counted on the running death toll

which shows up on the nightly news and that is the one which most people pay attention to.

[LynnTheDem]

57. They are counted in the total.

[elocs]

59. What total and whose total?

I have never heard any total on the news that included any soldiers that did not actually die in Iraq and not back in the States or in Germany days or months after their injuries. The news will say that 11 soldiers died in Iraq yesterday, not 11 soldiers died in Iraq yesterday as well as 2 others who where injured last month. I have never heard any death total on the news ever refer to those who died elsewhere from previous injuries. I am sure they are counted in a total somewhere, but not in the total that the American people see each night on the news.

[elocs]

60. Now I remember more specifically why I wondered about the death total.

There was a soldier from Wisconsin who died from his wounds in Iraq 9 months after they occurred and here at home. His death was not counted that day or the next day in that running total we always see on the news. What you heard was that so many soldiers died after their vehicle hit an IED, but nothing about a Wisconsin soldier who died at home 9 months after being wounded. I am sure his death was counted somewhere, but it certainly is not in the total that most American are aware of by watching the news. So there is that total and a different and larger total. It could be said that the tv total is accurate because those are the ones who actually died in Iraq and not later and elsewhere as a result of their injuries.

[malaise]

17. More Bush lies exposed publicly

I found this stunning information.

[originalpckelly]

19. I freaked out when I heard this...

I was SO SHOCKED! I couldn't believe my eyes.

[applegrove]

20. That is so sick.

[originalpckelly]

21. Simple and true.

:cry: Those poor poor Iraqis.

[ms liberty]

22. K&R - Just when you think you can't be shocked into speechlessness anymore...

You find out something else.

I have no words for how angry I feel.

[originalpckelly]

23. I know, I thought I'd heard every lie...

but my GOD! they are lying 10 to 1!

[Quixote1818]

24. But what about 9/11? they killed 3,000 of us!

Seems a fair trade! 4.4 million of them to 3,000 of us.

:sarcasm:

[midnight]

27. I know that many times we hear that the terrorist were Saudi, but

we also have heard it was an inside job-American style. So it seems to me that none of these deaths will ever be justified.

[exlrrp]

30. Just like Vietnam

58,000 of our dead compared to over 2 million of their's

[leftofthedial]

25. that's why they hate us for our freedoms

by all means, let's stay there. It will get so much worse, if we leave, right?

[HughMoran]

26. Is an "act of violence" necessarily a "murder"

I'm not sure your logic follows?

[rman]

29. Sunnies and Shiites chopping off each others heads,

and you want to classify it as an "act of violence"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. A bomb that injures, but doesn't kill, someone is still an "act of violence"

but not murder.

On the other hand, one act of violence can kill multiple people. The lesson is that simple mathematics like the original OP doesn't prove very much, because the definitions aren't precise.

[HughMoran]

53. Did you read the original post?

?

[originalpckelly]

54. Actually, I think it is ambiguous language...

they may be talking about Iraqi murders or they may not. It would seem, in conjunction with the Lancet report, that they were talking about the murder rate of Iraqis, because that rate would be required to have a death toll of 655,000.

[Boo Boo]

28. That paragraph says 1,100 acts of violence, not murders...

that includes attacks on U.S. forces in which no one is injured. I'm not trying to minimize the significance of that figure---I think it would surprise a lot of Americans---but if you're arriving at your estimate by multiplying 365 by 1,100, then you've made an error.

Still, it does imply that over the course of the war the death toll has probably been higher than anyone in an official position has been willing to admit, and that the Lancet numbers are not as far fetched as Bush would have us believe---perhaps not far fetched at all.

[exlrrp]

31. Agreed

365 times 1100 acts of violence does not equal 400,000 murders a year.
But the numbers have always been way understated--they didn't even keep an official count of Iraqi dead at all untill just recently, have no acccurate figure now.
This was done to minimize the damage but instead it gave rise again to an old term: Credibility Gap.
I don't beleive any numbers right now but know the situation's a complete diaster.

[originalpckelly]

34. Yeah, I know...

technically 365*1100 does equal 401500, but that's assuming someone in Iraq was killed in every attack.

[rgbecker]

52. Read the Lancet report for yourself. Link here

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltext

Don't bother if your idea of science is that evolution is "just a Theory."

[file83]

38. More specifically, the report said that on the day of 1100 AOV, there were 93 deaths...

...so really, to extrapolate, you might suggest about a 8.45 % death rate for acts of violence.

If every day were like this, then in one year there would be

365 x 1100 = 401,500 acts of violence (AOV)
which comes to 401,500 x .0845(%) = 33,926 deaths per year

What's the population of Iraq, 25 million?

Assuming that, then deaths would come to 0.1357% of the Iraqi population.

America's population is 300 million, so that would be

300,000,000 x .001357 = 947,100 American Deaths per year

Even this more realistic equivalence is disgusting. That would be like if almost 1 million Americans were dying every year.

In 2005, the US murder rate was about 16,800 people total. Even with the conservative numbers in Iraq, there are about 33,926 people dying from violent deaths every from a country 12 times as small a population as the U.S.

Think about that: 1/12 the size, but TWICE the deaths. Sick.

[Joanne98]

39. Elaine Chao must be in charge of the accounting method..

I was wondering why she stayed for the second term.

[Bicoastal]

40. Bill O'Reilly has now switched from denying the violence

...to blaming the victims. Basically, he's saying "Geez, Iraqis, keep it together! It's all your fault your country is in such a mess right now!"

Which reminds me of Jon Stewart saying the other night, sacrcastically: "Man, you go through the trouble of unbalancing an entire nation's infrastructure, and this is the thanks you get?"

Only Bill ain't being sarcastic--sheesh!

[indepat]

41. But everyone who planned and implemented the invasion and and occupation of Iraq and

tens of millions of Amurikans who still support all the administration's policies, actions, and wars don't give a diddledy-damn a or diddledy-f*ck about any one of those 400,000 extrapolated deaths or 400,000 deaths in aggregate for that matter: they just don't care a whit because those lives have absolutely no value in their eyes.

[GeorgeGist]

42. Sloppy Math...

1100 acts of violence DOES NOT EQUAL 1100 deaths. It is discouraging how few respondents applied critical thinking skills to your OP. :shrug:

[Pawel K]

44. Nevermind

never mind, I need to drink so more coffee. Post deleted by me.

[originalpckelly]

47. I agree, partly.

An attack on an America unit will not always, and in fact will rarely result in a death, because of the sophisticated armor and medical facilities we have as a country. However, an act of violence against an Iraqi is likely to kill that Iraqi. If you think about it, how do they know there is an act of violence without a body? They really don't.

Hence my assumption.

In addition a report, which goes all the way back to far more stable times in Iraq, 2003, put the murder rate in Baghdad alone at a maximum 185 per 100,000 Iraqis in that city. That rate was for a period from April to October in 2003. For 1 year it would be doubled, if the violence stayed about the same. Multiply that rate times 7 million (population of Baghdad) and you get about 26000. That rate alone, for that city alone was about 70 Iraqi murders per day.

Of course those were the early days of the invasion, and we all know the rate of violence has become far worse since then.

Actually this story is from FOX News:
"On the other side, a New York Times op-ed by two Brookings Institution (search) researchers, Adriana Lins de Albuquerque and Michael O’Hanlon, claims that Baghdad’s murder rate is among the highest in the world. Supposedly Baghdad’s annualized murder rate from April to October this year ranged from an incredible 100 to 185 per 100,000 people -- a number, they pointed out, that averaged several times greater than the rate in Washington, D.C.

Even an op-ed in the U.S. edition of the Wall Street Journal by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey says that Rumsfeld is in “denial” when he claims the “crime levels” are comparable in the two cities. An AP story points to bodies in the morgue and claims, "Baghdad is in the midst of an unprecedented crime wave."

Yet, according to the Wall Street Journal Europe, the U.S. Army 1st Division in Baghdad reports that the numbers fell continually from a high of 19.5 per 100,000 in July to only 5 per 100,000 in October. The October rate is actually lower than the 5.6 U.S. murder rate in 2002. By contrast, the New York Times’ latest numbers for October claim to show a murder rate of 140 per 100,000 -- a difference of 28-fold!"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105954,00.html

I think it is very plausible to say the rate of Iraqis dying per day is in the range of 1000.

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. Watch your maths again

185 was the upper annualized limit per 100,000 people - so you shouldn't be doubling it. Say that rate applies to the whole of Iraq (which in itself is not one you can put much trust in - the rate in Fallujah has certainly been a lot higher at times, but other area, such as the Kurdish area, are more peaceful than Baghdad, which has a volatile mixture of Sunni and Shia). The total Iraqi population is about 25 million - so that's an annual rate of 185 * 250 = 46,250; or 127 per day.

In the end, you are better off taking the John Hopkins/Lancet report figures - they look at the whole country, and are done in a recognised statistical way.

[Lasthorseman]

46. But of course

it's outrageous. It is simply a delay/diffuse blame/stall/CYA tactic. A turd is a turd, so why study it.

If you did happen to be CEO of the world would you continue to put up with 300 million energy sucking brats who think they are God's gift to the world when there is a profit margin of 6 billion exploitable souls available?

[Bullshot]

48. Some ignorant talk show host this morning was downplaying the death toll in Iraq.

He was arguing that we didn't keep a daily head count of the deaths during WW II the way we are in Iraq.

As usual, this numbnut is missing the point. We retaliated against Japan because they attacked Pearl Harbor. We attacked the Nazis in Europe because they were invading our allies and engaging in genocide of the Jews.

What did Iraq do? Again, this idiot is trying to coerce the lemmings into believing there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Like, that hasn't been rebutted millions of times already.

The systematic dumbing down of America...brought to you by Clear Channel.

[Javaman]

50. On top of that 100,000 new refugees are created each month in Iraq...

What we are seeing is the Feudalization of Iraq.

The intellectual base has virtually vanished. The local warlords and Imans are in charge. Death on a massive scale is a daily occurrence and people who can get out are doing so in a constant flood.

What is left? The poor and uneducated that have neither the means nor the money to leave.

Those who don't go along with the warlords, die. Those who do, are given a gun.

[G_j]

51. recommend this one

and kick

[Jcrowley]

58. Kick