Iraq Body Count (is this legit?)

[babsbunny]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[DainBramaged]

1. I think so, many of us have gone there before posting figures in posts

About the Iraq Body Count project
Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
IBC records solely violent deaths.
IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.
IBC builds on innovative uses of new technologies without which this citizens’ initiative would be impossible. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.

Finally, IBC could not exist without the journalists and media support workers, Iraqi and international, who labour to report war’s daily carnage at the risk, and all too often the cost, of their health or their lives.

For more on IBC’s principles and objectives see the Rationale.

For a more detailed description of IBC’s working methodology and inclusion criteria, see the Methods section.

For technical, research and media contacts, conditions of use, as well as a listing of IBC personnel, see Contacts/Staff.

[Ian David]

2. Yes. n/t

[Ilsa]

3. There was a period of time when the officials were told to stop counting, IIRC.

I don't remember all of the details, but that number looks terribly low. I thought it was more like 500,000 several years ago.

[Zynx]

4. Some of those estimates seem quite high.

They have been based off of household population surveys rather than media or morgue counts. When things were really really bad in 2006 and 2007 we were talking about 500-800 a week in the worst stretches. I think we're probably talking about 100,000 to 150,000. That's still terrible, but we are not in the millions or anything like that.

[Ilsa]

6. That sounds reasonable to me also. I think it was one of the human-rights-watch

groups that had set the number as high as 1/2 million.

We do know that millions became refugees, fleeing to the homes of families and friends in other nearby countries, like Jordan.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. The numbers are accurate and the survey respondants were able to provide

documentation in over 90% of the cases. Maybe you think your wishful hunch is more accurate than well established scientific methodology and peer reviewed research. Maybe you should ask you why you choose to believe your hunch rather than data. Minimizing the utter horror of the atrocities done in your name and on your watch may make you feel better, but lying to yourself about the extent of these crimes does not make the reality any less vile.

[Zynx]

9. I don't feel better about it or anything of the sort.

One thing I will tell you is that I don't believe an academic study simply because it was conducted in what appears to be a proper fashion. Methodology and sampling can be horribly warped. Considering the Lancet numbers were pretty much the only ones I saw with numbers that high.

Here was one by the WHO and the Iraqi government: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080109/iraqi-death-toll/

It was the same form of study, but came up with a lower number. Besides, I don't really see a difference between those sorts of numbers. They are both far far far too high to be tolerable by a civilized society. However, I do think there is a danger in simply assuming the highest estimates are correct just because I oppose the policy.

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. We are NOT?? And you feel confident of this based on what

evidence. Its always funny to me (and I'm not putting you in this group, just making a comment) that the same type of counting was used to figure the amount of people Saddam killed and the Rightwingers had NO problem with using those figures. But when those same agencies put a negative number on their HERO Monkeyboy, they scream foul.

[Historic NY]

5. there is another one also I use both together

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

[ConsAreLiars]

8. It only counts some of the deaths.

The methodology is explained, and it clearly describes why great majority of deaths caused by the US invaders are not included.

[pinqy]

10. but since the majority of the deaths counted

were NOT caused by the US, wouldn't it balance out? That's assuming you have actual evidence that there are clear, actual deaths not counted. But then, if there's proof those deaths occurred, then why aren't they counted? And if there's no proof, how can you say they actually occurred?