Splashed on the front page of The Independent yesterday, was the figure 24,865. “Revealed: Iraq’s Civilian Death Toll”, read the headline.
It was not alone. The BBC’s bulletins ran with the same figure, as did the Daily Mirror and The Guardian — derived, said the latter, from “a detailed study of the human cost of the conflict”.
There is only one problem with the figure — not that you would know it from the credulous reporting. It is an entirely arbitrary figure published by political agitators.
The figure was released yesterday by two organisations, Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group. According to the BBC, the former “is one of the most widely-quoted sources of information on the civilian death toll in Iraq”. Indeed it is — because the BBC itself reports its propaganda as fact.
Do read the rest!
The whole way Iraq Body Count calculate their figures is so suspect nobody reasonable could rely on it. I bet is a site that is so suspect produced a low figure the BBC would jump on it as Neocon this or that.
Maybe Biased BBC could produce what it considers to be a more realistic Iraqi Civilian Death Toll for the purposes of comparison?
No, thought not. The resulting figure would not fit their agenda.
Something that was mentioned but not dwelt upon was who did the killing.
By their reckoning, the US and allies were responsible for 1/3 of the deaths. The rest are down to terrorism.
Despite this, the BBC’s news programmes managed to find someone in a Baghdad hospital who had been injured by US military action. They “balanced” this with someone else injured by a car bomb and then asked:
How come civilians are still being killed by the US Military.
The vast majority of injuries and deaths are now caused by terrorists and the military would basically kill no-one if they were not jumpy about the many ambushes, bombs and other incidents that happen everyday.
But asking why the terrorists want to kill children doesn’t fit their agenda.
i do wish fox news would be more easily available in the uk then i would never watch bbc.
the way they stuff their views on us is outrageous.
It’s free to view on satellite/cable. How much more easily available to you want??
Maybe Biased BBC could produce what it considers to be a more realistic Iraqi Civilian Death Toll for the purposes of comparison?
No, thought not. The resulting figure would not fit their agenda.
Ah the Hann defence, if anyone criticises something you ignore their points and demand they produce an alternative.
Not ignoring the point, just wanting to see if the figure they criticise is so out of step with outher findings.
If BCC Biased thinks that figure is inflated (this is the subtext, don’t even deny it), then producing alternative figures to back up this assertion can only strengthen their argument.
Assuming, of course, that the alternative figures are much different…
Seamus – how about we use Saddam Hussein’s ministry of propaganda figures (1250 deaths) instead of IBC numbers (6616 deaths) for Iraqi civilian deaths from the start of the war to the fall of Baghdad. That would reduce the total deaths caused by US military action by more than 5000 to a total of less than 4000, or 1 in 5 of the total not 1 in 3.