11 1 min 10 yrs

I see that the Lancet’s much quoted figure of Iraqi civilian deaths at 650,00 has been shown to be slightly out. The truer figure is just over 100,000 with “cost effective” suicide bombers responsible for 10,000+ of these. I do hope the Lancet and the Guardian and the BBC and all those other left wing propagandists who pretend to be news gatherers will apologise….then again, Bush is gone so mission accomplished?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

11 thoughts on “LANCING THE LANCET.

  1. Suicide bombing would indeed be cost effective if self annihilation was the only result. Otherwise it’s not suicide bombing but homicide bombing.

    Lets hope all the suicide bombers all decide to self terminate in a field in the middle of nowhere all at once. The world would be a better place.

    As a back up location may I suggest the Lancet Offices?

  2. “The truer figure is just over 100,000 with “cost effective” suicide bombers responsible for 10,000+ of these.”

    So the suicide bombers still didn’t manage to kill as many civilians as coalition forces. My, my.

    By the way, with over 100,000 civilian deaths, do you guys who supported the war still think it was worth such a toll of innocent lives?

    What if those 100,000 were British or American civilians – stil worth it?

  3. So the suicide bombers still didn’t manage to kill as many civilians as coalition forces. My, my.

    It doesn’t follow that the coalition forces killed all those not killed in suicide bombings. The terrorist groups and sectarian death squads had other means of killing civilians.

  4. “It doesn’t follow that the coalition forces killed all those not killed in suicide bombings.”

    Of course not. But the links show that the coalition forces killed over 11,000 civilians, more than the suicide bombers did.
    And of course there are also the thousands of Iraqi soldiers killed in the initial onslaught – they were “shocked and awed”, I think the phrase was.

    I wonder who will be mourning them in the coming days.

  5. Of course not. But the links show that the coalition forces killed over 11,000 civilians, more than the suicide bombers did.

    According to the CNN report on the study, suicide bombers killed 12000+ civilians.

  6. Yes, I see that. The Lancet itself also gives that figure.
    I was going by David’s figure of 10K+. Iraq Body Count says 5.5 K had been killed by suicide bombs by March 2008. Difficult to see how it could have more than doubled since then.

    I must admit though it’s somewhat reassuring to see people on the right starting to be concerned about the number of Iraqis civilian victims. Otherwise one could be forgiven for assuming that nobody really cares about how many Iraqis were killed in the war they called for.

    And of course not only war kills civilians. I remember Madeline Albright saying the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids is worth it if Sadaam is damaged.

    There are more than just 3000 victims to be mourned on the anniverssary of 9-11.

  7. there is no such thing as civilians when the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform.

    Noel there were 2,996 killed on 9/11, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims so the only number of people to be mourned is 2,977

  8. And of course not only war kills civilians. I remember Madeline Albright saying the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids is worth it if Sadaam is damaged.

    Sounds like invading Iraq involved much less bloodshed than the alternative method of containing Saddam Hussein’s ambitions- sanctions.

  9. Ross, both involve disproportionately high numbers of civilian death, a price that of course many consider worth paying for that hallowed goal because it was someone else, brownskinned Arabs, doing the dying.

    Both cause and effect of 9-11 all in one, folks.

    Troll, your argument is the one beloved of tyrants everywhere.

Comments are closed.