Coalition deaths now 1000+

[The Yosemite Bear]

Not for me I am just pointing out a basic archiac language and math problem, to to fold is to double something, as in 1 fold is 2 layers, two fold is 4 layers, my mistake it's not to square something but it's just another doubling 3 fold is 8,

1=2
2=4
3=8
4=16
5=32
6=64
7=128
8=256

etc

so to repaythem 20fold would actually require us to inflict 1,050,673,152 Iraqi deaths, erm does any one know if there are a billion Iraqi's?

[Stuart Mackey]

er, since when does the relative kill rates signify a sign of progress, or are yu still stuck in vietnam bodycount mode?

What people forget is perception and that wee word has very powerfull implications in any type of conflict.

[The Yosemite Bear]

so to repaythem 20fold would actually require us to inflict 1,050,673,152 Iraqi deaths, erm does any one know if there are a billion Iraqi's?

you know the requirement to pay back 3 fold or 8 times was bad enough the 20 fold payback, is just more proof that mike's right Yhwn is a genocidal fuck.....

[Chardok]

Uh... We already have.

20,000 iraqis dead? Link?

ern can't you do basic math?

fold is to square something

thus 3 fold is 3x3

thus to inflict 20 fold times as many causalties woild be 400,800 Iraqis.

My basic math is fine. It is apprently my english usage skills that need work.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Chardoc actually I made several mistakes

folding is doubling or

2^x
sorry.

[banquetbear]

20 thousand indeed.

Translated from SD.Netese to regular english:
Perhaps before making claims of righteousness involving certain subjects in certain threads, some consideration should be given to the views of most of the people participating in said thread. Perhaps the culture in which you live has a differing view of the "Right" way see things? I would also recommend a bit more tact at times. It would certainly cut down on the amount of hostility generated upon your fiery, and indeed sometimes inflammatory opinions you generally have.

Also foremost in your considerations should be the amount of knowledge posessed by you on the matter at hand. It certainly serves no purpose to make outrageous claims based on slipshod information you have recieved; especially when considering the nature of the board; that is, to challenge said claims of outrageousness. Reputable sources should be used when making said claims, and, while certainly, anyone saying anything can probably be found on the 'net, it takes a bit more effort to find sources generally accepted by the population at large to assist you in your arguments. It lends you, your argument, and indeed the entire debate credibility, as well as preventing it from turning into a mudslinging flamefest.

That said, have a fine day, and may the sun be at your back wherever you go.

...please help me-what IS a reputable source on the Iraqi civilian casualty figures?

Consider this statement from the British government:

In September 2003, Adam Ingram, the UK defence minister, offered the following non sequitur as government policy: "Through very strict rules of engagement, the use of precision munitions and the tactical methods employed to liberate Iraq's major cities, we are satisfied that the coalition did everything possible to avoid unnecessary casualties. We do not, therefore, propose to undertake a formal review of Iraqi casualties sustained."

or this, from the CPA

Last week, it was reported that the CPA has ordered the Iraqi health ministry to stop collecting statistics on civilian deaths. Dr Khudair Abbas, the Iraqi health minister, claimed such a study would not be feasible "because hospitals cannot distinguish between deaths that resulted from the coalition's efforts in the war, common crime among Iraqis, or deaths resulting from Saddam's brutal regime."

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq ... e_dead.htm
(originally published in the Guardian, by the co-founder of IBC)

...so the British government doesn't collect the statistics-and the CPA ordered the Iraqi government to stop collecting statistics on Iraqi casualities. So what source do you propose we use?

The methodology for Iraq Body Count can be found here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods

In light of decisions not to officially record civillian casualties, it is a sad state of affairs when Iraq Body Count is probably the best source of Iraqi casualty figures. Is it a biased site? Absolutely. Do they admit it? Absolutely.

Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.

Also, bear in mind that IBC only lists civillian deaths-there is no accurate figure on how many Iraqi soldiers died in the war-some estimate that twice as many soldiers were killed as civillians. So yes, it is entirely possible that upwards of 20,000 Iraqi's were killed in the invasion...

see also
http://civilians.info/iraq/
http://www.comw.org/pda/0305iraqcasualtydata.html