And now for something completely different, well actually a continuation of Ugly Liberal II.
The next link sunny points to is Shots to the Heart of Iraq from Common Dreams-Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community. Well that is a non biased source. Not. I do feel with the victims of Coalition Forces violence on civilians. But let us look at scale:
U.S. officials have repeatedly declined requests to disclose the number of civilians killed in such incidents. Police in Baghdad say they have received reports that U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days. This does not include incidents that occurred elsewhere in the country or were not reported to the police.
And from here:
Iraq Body Count, a peace group that counts casualties based on media reports, says on average 38 Iraqis a day die violently.
So 1/2 death per day vs. 38 deaths per day.
sunny's next three links are Lenin's Tomb?, here and Znet?. All three links are of little value since the first is someone who honors Lenin the second is just an unknown blog and the third is Znet has the likes of Chomsky and Ward Churchill. I have not been able to read the original article but from what the blogs are trying to say in 10,000 words is that the confidence level of 95% puts the range of excessive deaths from 8,000 to 194,000. This means that the median should be 98,000 but why did they not say 98,000 but 100k? Doesn't this show laziness? When presenting the information they gave a single number where Dr. Rummel gives a range of numbers to show that if the numbers vary by much and the percentage from low score to high score is high then the data supporting the estimate was probably not of high quality or the sample size was too small.
The second point is that yes the Lancet report does measure excess deaths vs. violent deaths, but when the information was presented and used by the left, it left out the fact as to what the deaths were derived from and thus left the impression that Coalition Forces directly caused all these deaths. And this meme has been used by the Democrats to a wide and unchallenged field. Dr. Rummel does use excess death on his democidal statistics but gives us the raw data to interpret and shows the confidence range and CI.
... the IBC’s new dossier. It reports that 24,865 civilians died in the first two years, 20% of them women and children, with the number twice as high in year two as in year one. Further, “US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims”, while “Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims”. Over half of all civilian deaths resulted from explosive devices, 64% of which were caused by air strikes – and the resistance don’t have an air force. That corroborates another aspect of Lancet, which is not only that most of the excess deaths have been caused by violence, but that the bulk of the violent deaths were caused by the occupiers.
American military officials said "damage will happen" in their effort to wrest control of some areas from insurgents. They blamed the insurgents for embedding themselves in communities, saying that's endangering innocent people.
Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said the insurgents were living in residential areas, sometimes in homes filled with munitions.
"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be."
Again I have not finished this thread, but next time I will discuss these links:
the Weekly Standard
IraqiBody count dosier
Common Dreams-More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows
The Prof Who Can't Count Straight