The Cellar - View Single Post - 100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war

Undertoad · 02-08-2005, 07:22 AM

<b>CB:</b> 2:1 injured to killed is a rule of thumb. It's NOT random. In every war we have fought, including this one, the ratio is much higher even - more like three or four injured to one killed.

The paper claimed that most of the deaths were due to violence and most of the violence was coalition air strikes. If you drop a 500-lb bomb on something, the thing it hits will die, as will everything within 20 meters. Within 500 meters there is a chance for death or injury. If you kill 100,000 people with bombs there will be a massive amount of very obvious damage and people will missing limbs and eyes and shrapnel leaving quarts of blood in the streets. People will notice, and report on it.

The paper claimed that most of the people killed were women and children. But bombs simply don't discriminate in this way. This is not violating math and statistics, it is violating common sense. I don't attack it from the perspective of what it takes to create a good study because I'm sure it IS a good study. And I'm 100% certain that we could examine back issues of The Lancet and find studies that were equally well-received and peer-reviewed in great detail... that were completely incorrect.

02-08-2005, 07:22 AM	#57
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	<b>CB:</b> 2:1 injured to killed is a rule of thumb. It's NOT random. In every war we have fought, including this one, the ratio is much higher even - more like three or four injured to one killed. The paper claimed that most of the deaths were due to violence and most of the violence was coalition air strikes. If you drop a 500-lb bomb on something, the thing it hits will die, as will everything within 20 meters. Within 500 meters there is a chance for death or injury. If you kill 100,000 people with bombs there will be a massive amount of very obvious damage and people will missing limbs and eyes and shrapnel leaving quarts of blood in the streets. People will notice, and report on it. The paper claimed that most of the people killed were women and children. But bombs simply don't discriminate in this way. This is not violating math and statistics, it is violating common sense. I don't attack it from the perspective of what it takes to create a good study because I'm sure it IS a good study. And I'm 100% certain that we could examine back issues of The Lancet and find studies that were equally well-received and peer-reviewed in great detail... that were completely incorrect.