Wow, you’ve ignored almost everything in the link I provided.
As well as backing up your comments, are you able to suggest a better way to collate such statistics?
No, I took a quick look and found vague terms like, “comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts.” What does that mean? They give a list of some of the sources they use. Why not list them all? Who are the “eyewitnesses?” How are they filtered? Do they have any form of, I don’t know, reason to lie? What are “deaths by violence”? What is their proof that a given death was directly caused by the U.S.? In fact, does the U.S. even have to directly cause the death to have it listed? Does it include deaths due to the insurgency murders, because the “insurgency wouldn’t have happened if the U.S. hadn’t attacked?”
Stating a methodology, and having it be, “Oh, various sources, you know, here and there, when we can’t figure it out we kinda min/max it,” doesn’t help me trust their accuracy very much.
Of course, naming the site “Iraq Body Count” doesn’t help their credibility so much either, but that’s a separate issue.
- have you an argument with this?
While we could certainly quibble over details, this seems a fairly straightforward statement.
I repeat my question, rephrasing it - if you don’t approve of this method of gathering information about civilian deaths as a result of actions in Iraq, what method would you recommend?
Is it possible it cannot be accurately gathered? I mean, how do you even define, “As a result of actions in Iraq?” People who might have been insurgents but can’t be proven? People who probably died to U.S. fire, but might have to insurgents?
When you start going to vague sources like “eyewitnesses,” which quite possibly means “Mom, whose son never could have possibly joined the insurgency, he was a good boy,” then how could you ever hope for anything approaching accuracy? In fact, does the site even believe there is an insurgency, or is every death that has happened since 2003 and not a natural death like a heart attack, “a result of the actions in Iraq?”
I don’t have to have a methodology to discredit theirs. I’m not the one with a website. I’m not the one trying to state a min/max number. It is possible that the answer is, “There is no way of knowing.” Your question is part of a point; I look with suspicion on anyone who tries, at this point, to state a “body count,” whether it be low or high.
But if you want to state one, you’d better have a better methodology than they have on their site.
By dealing with Bush-apologists/warmongers throughout the past few years – times flies even when you’re not having fun – I’ve come to realize they have a certain aversion towards anything that might conflict with their ordained ‘reality.’ Which, of course, is only a long-winded way of saying that they are ideologues with little or no concept of the pragmatic results of the application of their doctrines. Question is, since I don’t recall either prior exchanges between us and/or posts of yours on this matter, where do you fit in? Because, quite frankly, I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with yet another member of the “make our own reality crowd.”
That being said, the answer to your query is clearly no if not only for the reasons put forth in that link (most times I link I wonder why do I ever bother, but that’s obviously no concern of yours.
Not much for the Bricker style of debate, but I’d be willing to put up a hundred thousand US dollars dollars if you could come up with a site that said as much using the same methodology (there’s that irksome word yet again) that IBC does.
Here’s my contention: the US is directly/indirectly responsible for over, at minimum. 20,000 deaths in Iraq. I DARE you to refute that fact.
Oh bull-fuckin’ shit there isn’t --there’s actually every reason to do so. It’s called political survival. Hardly anything novel in the political landscape other than to a political wannabe wonk as you appear to be.
As for IBC beeing " humorous," we obviously have entirely conflicting opinions on what humor actually is. And this coming from someone who’s fond of black humor.
Great point. Would you rather live in [Baghdad today](Baghdad today) or prior to the Anerican invasion?
Never mind, rethorical question. At least for the make our own reality crowd.
Like root canal. My musings I mean.
Rah rah, USA, #1!