Debunking The 'Civilian' Casualties Myth
(Hat Tip: LGF)
A fascinating report here which exposes one of the central myths about the Iraq War and its '100,000' supposed civilian casualties. It points out that the demographic breakdown in this hardly pro-War report, itself only giving a fraction of the casualties which the Lancet's apocalyptic 'analysis' (for which read 'blind guess skewed by Leftist bias') did is, well, just a leeeetle strange.
Its like this. Iraq has an almost perfect 50-50 male/female split in its population demographic, and also has an unusually high proportion of children, almost half in fact, Iraqi women apparently averaging more than four children each. Yet despite the fact that this means that, doing the maths, adult males must therefore comprise only 25-30% of the Iraqi population, here's the thing. 81% of the supposed 'civilian' casualties are - well, here's a shocker - adult males!
So can it be that the dastardly Crusaders have managed to create missiles and smart bullets that are three times better at targeting Iraqi men? Some kind of testosterone-seeker that the evil Jooooz created for them?
Or could it be that the fact that the reason Iraqi males make up such a ridiculous proportion of the 'civilian' casualties be that the vast majority are not actually civilians at all, but in fact 'fighters', 'insurgents', 'militants', 'combatants' or one of the other sweet and saccharine euphemisms for 'murdering terrorist bastard'?
Any true civilian casualties in warfare are to be regretted, of course. But the fact that the US has managed to keep the number of actual civilian casualties to a tiny fraction of the figures propounded by the likes of the Lancet (and let us not forget the tiny omission that, erm, terrorists have killed about five times as many people post-invasion as the US have killed enemy terrorists post-invasion) to less than 0.1% of the entire Iraqi population, the disgustingly distorted nature of the figures propounded by the Left becomes apparent.
So the next time you see another report in the MSM about the horror of Iraqi 'civilian' casualties, remember this report. It is another step along the long road to debunking the Left's favourite mythos, and that is always a good, good thing.
A fascinating report here which exposes one of the central myths about the Iraq War and its '100,000' supposed civilian casualties. It points out that the demographic breakdown in this hardly pro-War report, itself only giving a fraction of the casualties which the Lancet's apocalyptic 'analysis' (for which read 'blind guess skewed by Leftist bias') did is, well, just a leeeetle strange.
Its like this. Iraq has an almost perfect 50-50 male/female split in its population demographic, and also has an unusually high proportion of children, almost half in fact, Iraqi women apparently averaging more than four children each. Yet despite the fact that this means that, doing the maths, adult males must therefore comprise only 25-30% of the Iraqi population, here's the thing. 81% of the supposed 'civilian' casualties are - well, here's a shocker - adult males!
So can it be that the dastardly Crusaders have managed to create missiles and smart bullets that are three times better at targeting Iraqi men? Some kind of testosterone-seeker that the evil Jooooz created for them?
Or could it be that the fact that the reason Iraqi males make up such a ridiculous proportion of the 'civilian' casualties be that the vast majority are not actually civilians at all, but in fact 'fighters', 'insurgents', 'militants', 'combatants' or one of the other sweet and saccharine euphemisms for 'murdering terrorist bastard'?
Any true civilian casualties in warfare are to be regretted, of course. But the fact that the US has managed to keep the number of actual civilian casualties to a tiny fraction of the figures propounded by the likes of the Lancet (and let us not forget the tiny omission that, erm, terrorists have killed about five times as many people post-invasion as the US have killed enemy terrorists post-invasion) to less than 0.1% of the entire Iraqi population, the disgustingly distorted nature of the figures propounded by the Left becomes apparent.
So the next time you see another report in the MSM about the horror of Iraqi 'civilian' casualties, remember this report. It is another step along the long road to debunking the Left's favourite mythos, and that is always a good, good thing.
posted by Dangerouslysubversivedad at 7:47 AM
1 Comments:
Seem to remember seeing the original debunking of this myth.
The Lancet cited a source that said 100,000 had died and used a statistical notation that indicated that what they meant was that they were 95% that the figure was between 1,000 and 175,000. The Lancet then simply split the difference and reported it as a fact that the Scottish Socialist Party has been happy to mindlessly parrot ever since.
NOTE: This is from memory and is bound to be inacurate but the gist is figures of between very low 4 figures and quite high 6 figures forming a nonsense total plucked from the air to fit a pre-defined left wing conclusion.
Post a Comment
<< Home