Shocking Tally of Iraq Civilian Causalities

[Occhidiangela]

Just like everybody here I don't know the exact details. So I will not say you are wrong or something. However, why should I believe you and not the guy from the article. I think you as well are biased, I mean being actually there as a part of the army.
And as Al Jazeera claims things that turn out not to be true, I'm sure also US media is doing that (I don't see any reason why not). Probably the real number of casualties lies somewhere in between. (the "playing" with numbers by both sides in a war is something that always happens, so we also should not be too shocked I think).

Anyway, I will stop now, otherwise Dick Cheney will tell somebody from the press the fact that my wife is a secret agent , undercover in China.....
[right][snapback]94079[/snapback][/right]

eppie

I understand your latent mistrust of persons military, however, given that I accrued knowledge based on involvement in the exact process under critique, your assertion of bias is at best a misuse of the word, at worst, a charge that I am unable to look at this grisly matter without blinders on. I will assume the former. :)

I have a perspective and a detailed understanding of casualty rates induced by things falling from the sky. I am also attuned to how casualties are characterized, and the modern art of Information Warfare: using information for a political goal.

My understanding is admittedly incomplete (I, like the author of the study, was also NOT on the ground counting bodies one at a time) but is based on a six month sample of the air strikes he charges with direct causation, as well as how events are characterized by observers to fit their agenda. (Cheney or Zarqawi, Rummy or Berlusconi, Chalabi or Al Sistani, Sadr or Tony Blair: each has an agenda and tries to fit observed events/facts into it.)

The numbers don't add up based on my sample, not even close, however, my own "sample" is taken under the set of conditions that were true for six months of a thirty month war. I acknowledged that conditions and events changed over time.

Your charge of bias, or rather what appears to be behind that charge, is not only groundless, it seems to betray your own bias vis a vis Americans, and military persons. Do you make the assumption that everyone interviewed is telling an objective truth? Ask any cop about the reliability of eyewitnesses as measured by objectivity.

How do you conclude that I am biased, based on my comments in this thread, which include "I'd like to see the original research to better understand his methodology" and "he may be on to something." My having served in the military in the operation does not automatically make me biased, but it will, I freely admit, color my understanding, which I am wise enough to account for.

A US Marine Captain recently left the Corps to work for Al Jazeera. He was there, in Iraq. Is he doomed to be a biased reporter? Do you assume that he too is victim of a bias that he cannot control, nor overcome, due to the handicap of having served and operated in the military in Iraq?

Work with me here, eppie. No one is a victim of their experience if they keep an eye open to new understanding.

Chaer: the "bloodless war" myth is indeed one of the most ludicrous bits of fantasy floating about, though I wonder at who propogates it? The Silver Bullet Crowd in Washington have been spinning that yarn for a long time, most egregiously in the wake of Desert Storm (1991 PG War.) But I digress, it's a very sore spot with me.

FWIW: Have you read anything by Chris Hedges? He's a former war correspondent whose commentary on war is very much out of the ordinary, and wel worth reading by both military persons and pacifists.

Occhi