According to a Washington Post article about the release of the Lancet study ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html ), "Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far lower, never exceeding 16,000," and other experts said the method used by the Lancet study -- extrapolating from a small sample rather than documenting actual casualties -- was suspect. "'The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting,' said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. 'These numbers seem to be inflated.'"
Of course the death toll does not include things like post-traumatic stress disorder -- such figures never do. Any indirect casualties resulting from damage to infrastructure such as sewer and water need to be measured against the number of Iraqis who were dying from such indirect causes under international sanctions prior to the invasion. Since the invasion, of course, the insurgency has greatly hampered U.S. government efforts to repair and upgrade the infrastructure, which was in a sorry state to begin with.
As to the hacker, I'm sure if they extradite him they will be interrogating him to find out how he did it.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
The estimated number of civilians killed by the military according to Iraq Body Count is from 23,000 - 26,000. These are CIVILIANS killed by the MILITARY.
See : http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
According to Lancet the UK equivalent to the US Journal of Medicine they are estimating 100,000 civilians killed through military action.
Even taking averages between those figures you have a lot of innocent civilians killed by the military. This does not include those who were wounded and subsequently died from their injuries from inadequate medical care because of lack of medical equipment and medicine.
This also does not include those who died due to infrastructure break down on water and sewage. Who die from diseases who would not have died had the infrastructure not been damaged or destroyed due to the War On Iraq.
This also does not include the deeply ingrained psychic wounds to the surviving family members from the death of a father or mother or brother or sister.
As far as the Hacker who disrupted the military computer systems he does not deserve an award but should get an reward for pointing out to the military flaws in their encryption methodology and computer secruity systems. So instead of trying to extradite him they should be interviewing him and asking how he did it.
Do you really think the U\.S\. military killed 100,000 Iraqis during the
invasion, or are you counting all the people killed by the insurgents
since then? That number sounds way high to me even counting the latter
-- which of course I do not think it is fair to lay on the shoulders of
the U.S. government. A November 2003 article from a self-described
"progressive" site puts the total of "the invasion and its aftermath"
at 21,000 to 55,000, and of that number, incidentally, estimates
civilian deaths (whether killed by U.S. forces, insurgents, or others)
at under 10,000 -- http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1111-10.htm
. Sure you could argue that the invasion was the "root cause" of all
those deaths, just as leftists say poverty, racism, capitalism, etc.,
are "root causes" of crime, but don't we believe in individual
And of course I don't see any of the deaths as "ours" \-\- for good or
ill, we're talking about the U.S. government, which doesn't represent
me any more than a rapist represents his victim -- even presuming the
rapist is my court-appointed guardian and I living as his dependent.
Just because I may think part of the rape wasn't too bad doesn't make
me responsible for the act, does it?
While I agree that 9/11 was an effective demonstration of the
shortcomings of military security, that "demonstration" sure came at an
awful price, didn't it? I would rather be spared any further such
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
> I don't, indeed, see it as a very big stretch to consider as terrorism
> our killing 100,000 Iraqis in an unprovoked attack on their country.
> And 9/11 was a splendid demonstration how just how worthless out
> military security is. If this guy can get that far singlehandedly in
> disabling government, that seems to me like a good thing. And there's
> no more dangerous or important branch of government to disable than
> used to be called the War Department.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Starchild
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:07 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Should we nominate this guy for a Jefferson
> Even if you see the U.S. government's foreign policy as akin to
> terrorism (a very big stretch in my view), do you really think it
> laudable that this guy apparently caused military security to be
> relaxed on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks?
> <<< Starchild >>>
>> 24) Hacker "left note on US army computer"
>> Guardian [UK]
>> "A British man accused of hacking into the US military computer system
>> left a note on an army computer saying US foreign policy 'is akin to
>> government-sponsored terrorism,' a court heard today. Gary McKinnon's
>> note continued: 'It was not a mistake that there was a huge security
>> stand-down on September 11 last year ... I am SOLO [the name by which
>> he was known online]. I will continue to disrupt at the highest
>> levels,' the court was told." (07/27/05)
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.