"DSK" wrote in message
...


Wrong. The figures I've cited specifically exclude hostages, bomb victims,
and include only verified civilian casualties of US miltary action.


Nope. The Lancet numbers don't exclude casualties caused by the other side.

In addition, the Lancet study used a sample of 988 households. In those 988
households, there were 73 deaths from violence. However, 2/3 of the violent
deaths were in Fallujah (n=52). Since Fallujah was one of the hot spots for
terrorists, it makes sense that they accounted for the most casualties.
However, the Lancet folks decided to extrapolate those numbers across the
entire population and came up with this:


Somewhere between 8000 and 194,000 more deaths occurred in the 17 1/2 month
period after the war than the 14 1/2 month period before it. First of all,
that's a pretty big spread. Second of all, how can they extrapolate data
from 988 households, and include data from a city that had the most severe
fighting, and then tell us "8000-194,000 more people died"!?!? Their
"scientific" methods are almost laughable.

Finally, they don't quantitatively differentiate between folks killed by
terrorists and folks killed by US forces. They simply state "coalition
forces caused most of them". The "study" is an absolute joke. It's a null
hypothesis...and the theory that US forces are causing the deaths has not
been proven.

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol...search.31264.1