[Ghostfire]

eh...600,000....90,000....48,000...nobody really cares enough to find out the true number. maybe it's impossible to find out. I just love how we can toss around numbers though. 600k? omg no! 50k? oh hey that's a good number I like that one. OK 50k dead people makes me feel better than 600k. wooh! now i can still get some sleep at night!

[hp_lovecraft]

The "British Health Report" was discredited A LONG TIME AGO.
The problem was they did not actually COUNT ANYTHING.

They merely interview a handful of Iraqis, and then tried to extrapolate statistics from there.
There result? Total deaths are between 1,000 and 600,000.

if you read the fine print, they admit that the 600,000 figure was just the extreme HIGH END of the error variance.

But notice that CNN leaves that part out.
CNN, the same company, that agreed to SUPRESS attrocities committed by Saddam in order to have special access to his inner circle.

Good old Ted Turner. Didn't he just say yesterday that he hasnt decided which "side" he is on yet.

nick

[$$Andrew1944$$]

Damn liberal media!! They don't even mention the millions that saddam killed each year. Just proves how liberal and anti american (as the country) the media is. They will post anything even if its false as long as it attack the republicians and the president. Take the foley case for example, i'm not saying what he did is right (because for God's sake it isn't) but if a demecrat had done it, you wouldn't have heard about it as much. Everyone in america needs to come together in the face of global violence and terrosim. We need to stop looking at each other as demecrat or republician and look at each other as americans. We all need to be more patriotic (SP) and support the country no matter who is president. Its just amazing how some people (ie: michal moore and whats his name from Denver university) Will say they hate america and that everything about is wrong just becaues they don't like the current president.

I don't really like president bush and think that he should have done thing differently but I strongly believe that he didn't just go into iraq for oil, but went in so that he could take out saddam's evil regiem that was hiding terrioust and killing millions, so that the citizen [of iraq] could be free and safe.

Another great example of americans hating america. Is that stupid 9/11 consperisy theory. Bush might not be the smartest but he is a christian and would never kill thousand of his on citizen just so he could fight a war. But yet the bush hater come up with this so the prisident would look bad look bad. The new South park episode that just came out is a good example of how i look at the situation. (i'd be kyles view)

BTW yes i am a republician, but i'm an american first.

[Ghostfire]

Originally Posted by $$Andrew1944$$

Damn liberal media!! They don't even mention the millions that saddam killed each year. Just proves how liberal and anti american (as the country) the media is. They will post anything even if its false as long as it attack the republicians and the president. Take the foley case for example, i'm not saying what he did is right (because for God's sake it isn't) but if a demecrat had done it, you wouldn't have heard about it as much. Everyone in america needs to come together in the face of global violence and terrosim. We need to stop looking at each other as demecrat or republician and look at each other as americans. We all need to be more patriotic (SP) and support the country no matter who is president. Its just amazing how some people (ie: michal moore and whats his name from Denver university) Will say they hate america and that everything about is wrong just becaues they don't like the current president.

I don't really like president bush and think that he should have done thing differently but I strongly believe that he didn't just go into iraq for oil, but went in so that he could take out saddam's evil regiem that was hiding terrioust and killing millions, so that the citizen [of iraq] could be free and safe.

Another great example of americans hating america. Is that stupid 9/11 consperisy theory. Bush might not be the smartest but he is a christian and would never kill thousand of his on citizen just so he could fight a war. But yet the bush hater come up with this so the prisident would look bad look bad. The new South park episode that just came out is a good example of how i look at the situation. (i'd be kyles view)

BTW yes i am a republician, but i'm an american first.

yah nobody ever heard of bill clinton in a sex scandal. the liberal media let bill clinton get away with it and his marriage as been perfect ever since.

[ipoppedtimmy]

Originally Posted by $$Andrew1944$$

Damn liberal media!! They don't even mention the millions that saddam killed each year. Just proves how liberal and anti american (as the country) the media is. They will post anything even if its false as long as it attack the republicians and the president. Take the foley case for example, i'm not saying what he did is right (because for God's sake it isn't) but if a demecrat had done it, you wouldn't have heard about it as much. Everyone in america needs to come together in the face of global violence and terrosim. We need to stop looking at each other as demecrat or republician and look at each other as americans. We all need to be more patriotic (SP) and support the country no matter who is president. Its just amazing how some people (ie: michal moore and whats his name from Denver university) Will say they hate america and that everything about is wrong just becaues they don't like the current president.

I don't really like president bush and think that he should have done thing differently but I strongly believe that he didn't just go into iraq for oil, but went in so that he could take out saddam's evil regiem that was hiding terrioust and killing millions, so that the citizen [of iraq] could be free and safe.

Another great example of americans hating america. Is that stupid 9/11 consperisy theory. Bush might not be the smartest but he is a christian and would never kill thousand of his on citizen just so he could fight a war. But yet the bush hater come up with this so the prisident would look bad look bad. The new South park episode that just came out is a good example of how i look at the situation. (i'd be kyles view)

BTW yes i am a republician, but i'm an american first.

[Swerve22]

[vantrepes]

Originally Posted by X_Paint

You are off by a zero -

There were 6 Million Jews killed in WW@

About six million Jews died in the "Final Solution", but about 2 to 4 million others were also killed. 3 million Polish Catholic/Christian, Serbs, about 750,000, Soviet military prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territories including Russians and other East Slavs, the mentally or physically disabled, homosexuals, Blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists and political dissidents, trade unionists, Freemasons, Eastern Christians, and Catholic and Protestant clergy, just to name a few.
Sorry, it's a sticking point for me.

Anyway, this total is bunk.
Note that most of the deaths are males from 15 to 44..... In other words, fighting age. Most of the deaths are from small arms fire, which also indicates that these are not people being blown up on the sidewalk as they go shopping.
They went out, and polled a bunch of families, asking them "How many people in your family have died?" then extrapolated the figure. So, if you poll people in hot spots, then extrapolate the total country from that, guess what? You get a number through the roof, like this one.

[scumquat1]

Originally Posted by vantrepes

..... Serbs, about 750,000, Soviet military prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territories including Russians and other East Slavs, the mentally or physically disabled, homosexuals, Blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists and political dissidents, trade unionists, Freemasons, Eastern Christians, and Catholic and Protestant clergy, just to name a few.
Sorry, it's a sticking point for me.

I may be misreading your statement above, but are you saying that the WWII death toll of all of the people listed above was only 750,000? The reason I ask is because I know that the death toll of civillians in occupied territories was higher than that. On the other hand if you're referring to just the "Final Solution" part of the death toll, then you're probably right. But, deaths in the field would have been considerably higher, I believe. Didn't the Soviet Union lose something along the lines of 20 million people in total?

[KingTomis]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id= 245457969874818

World War III: The anti-war left will no doubt tout and incorporate a flawed study of civilian deaths in Iraq into its mantra. But all the study proves is the adage about lies, damned lies and statistics.

A study by a group led by Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, to be published Thursday on the Web site of the Lancet, a British medical journal, will claim that about 600,000 Iraqis have died from violence in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

Burnham writes, "Deaths are occurring in Iraq at a rate more than three times that before the invasion of March 2003."

One wonders how he knows that since Hussein, Uday and Qusay did not invite researchers to observe their burying of people alive or stuffing them feet first into tree shredders. Those who disappeared, disappeared. Those who talked about it also disappeared.

This study is an update of an earlier Johns Hopkins study, one released just before the 2004 presidential elections. The lead researcher on that study, Les Roberts, admitted that the timing was deliberate.

The earlier study, published in the Lancet in October 2004, was a calculated attempt to influence the election, with the claim that nearly 100,000 deaths had resulted from the U.S. liberation of Iraq.

That effort failed, but the 100,000 figure, like the "3 million homeless" of an earlier era, has taken on a life of its own, endlessly repeated and always included in any litany of U.S. "mistakes" and charges of human rights violations.

As pointed out by Michael Fumento, former IBD reporter and now senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, the first Lancet "study" did not involve counting actual bodies or death certificates, but rather sending teams to interview 998 families in 33 allegedly randomly selected communities in Iraq and extrapolating the "results" to Iraq as a whole.

These families were asked how many people had died in each household and of what. It just took their word for it, without factoring in religious or political affiliation or whether respondents might be former regime supporters or members of a terrorist cell.

That sample was so small that the researchers estimated the number of deaths throughout Iraq at anywhere from 8,000 to 194,000. So Roberts and friends used the scientific method, split the difference and came up with the 100,000 number, which they called "conservative." A better word would be "worthless."

They used a methodology known as "cluster sampling," which can be valid if using real data and not anecdotal reporting. Most of the original Lancet clusters reported no deaths at all, with the journal admitting, "two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Fallujah." Fallujah? Hello?

Fallujah at the time just happened to be a major concentration of pro-Saddam and anti-American sentiment, the home base for the homicide bombers and terrorist "resistance" before the U.S. Army and Marines cleared out that nest of thugs.

"They're almost certainly way too high," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said of the new numbers, noting the results were released just before another U.S. election. "This is not analysis, this is politics."

Indeed, a private group called Iraq Body Count puts civilian casualties in this war at 44,000 to 49,000.

For Burnham's study, researchers from late May to early July gathered data from 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents. That sample, which likely includes jihadists, terrorists and others who want the U.S. out of Iraq, was used to extrapolate the total.

This methodology is like determining how many Americans wear dentures by surveying only nursing homes. Yet the new mythical number will be endlessly quoted by those who silently ignore the atrocities of Hussein or the millions of purple fingers that signified democracy's struggle to take root in Iraq.

[Wenuliveudie]

Originally Posted by KingTomis

Dont believe everything you read on the internet kiddies.

The death count is no where near even 100k let alone 600k.

But I suppose it's all a conspiracy and the bodies are being hidden by the US army in secret undergorund medical oporations where they steal the organs to sell on the black market....

But no one knows for sure. So your answer may be just as wrong as the number 655 000. You have no definitive proof that the toll is under 100k. Now, I say that considering this new study indicates the other studies were incorrect.

You may be wrong.

Done with devil's advocate, for now...

[KingTomis]

I seriously cant believe that you people are falling for it again.

The group ADMITTED the last time they put out skewed numbers it was political, to just to sway votes.

They know there are stupid people that will believe it and you have just proven that.

[Wenuliveudie]

Whoa, do not, for one second, believe that I have taken their report to heart. I am merely playing devil's advocate.

Ok, so they admitted they had lied about a previous issue. Maybe they are lying again. Maybe they have learned their lesson and no longer lie. Who is to say? You, because you know the true numbers? Or You because you know that they lied last time?

Again, I am merely playing devil's advocate. I have never stated my belief on this issue. You may think that I believe this new study is correct...

[vantrepes]

Originally Posted by scumquat1

I may be misreading your statement above, but are you saying that the WWII death toll of all of the people listed above was only 750,000? The reason I ask is because I know that the death toll of civilians in occupied territories was higher than that. On the other hand if you're referring to just the "Final Solution" part of the death toll, then you're probably right. But, deaths in the field would have been considerably higher, I believe. Didn't the Soviet Union lose something along the lines of 20 million people in total?

They killed about 750,000 Serbs civilians alone. Most of them were killed in camps. That number does not include the soldier that died in the field.

My point was that while the Jews were the main target of the Nazi, there were about 4 million non-Jews killed by the Nazis, both in camps, like the Polish Catholics, and out of camps, like most captured Russian soldiers.
None of those figures include battle field loses, but deliberate murder by German troops under the Nazi government.