|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
A Year In America: 16,912 Murders; 92,837 Rapes
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| A Year In America: 16,912 Murders; 92,837 Rapes
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Ironpirate |
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060612/D8I6TAE81.html
| Quote: PHILADELPHIA (AP) - FBI statistics Monday confirmed what big cities like Philadelphia, Houston, Cleveland and Las Vegas have seen on the streets: Violent crime in the U.S. is on the rise, posting its biggest one-year increase since 1991. |
Damn maybe if you guys focused on the US and less on the Iraq war than you could could actually help. hmm 2,500 us deaths in a hostile Iraq for 4 years destroying Saddam and thousands of terrorists. But its unnecessary, sure.... |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060612/D8I6TAE81.html
Damn maybe if you guys focused on the US and less on the Iraq war than you could could actually help. hmm 2,500 us deaths in a hostile Iraq for 4 years destroying Saddam and thousands of terrorists. But its unnecessary, sure.... |
You ass-rabbit. In Baghdad alone, there has been 6000 bodies collected this year. Do the math, if you're able... |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| Im talking about the US here and AMERICANS. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060612/D8I6TAE81.html
Damn maybe if you guys focused on the US and less on the Iraq war than you could could actually help. hmm 2,500 us deaths in a hostile Iraq for 4 years destroying Saddam and thousands of terrorists. But its unnecessary, sure.... |
There are only a handful of people on this planet dumber than you...
Keep in mind this article was written in 2004.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16
One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.
The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.
Pentagon officials say they do not keep tallies of civilian casualties, and a spokesman said yesterday there is no way to validate estimates by others. The spokesman said that the past 18 months of fighting in Iraq have been "prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare," and that "the loss of any innocent lives is a tragedy, something that Iraqi security forces and the multinational force painstakingly work to avoid."
Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far lower, never exceeding 16,000. Other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of documented deaths upon which it was based make the conclusions 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."
The estimate is based on a September door-to-door survey of 988 Iraqi households -- containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods -- selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases.
The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine.
Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.
The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey.
"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said.
When the researchers examined the causes of the 73 violent deaths collected in the study, 84 percent were due to the actions of coalition forces, although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct. Ninety-five percent were due to airstrikes by helicopter gunships, rockets or other types of aerial weaponry.
Forty-six percent of the violent deaths involving coalition forces were men ages 15 to 60, but 46 percent were children younger than 15, and 7 percent were women, the researchers reported.
The researchers and the Lancet editors acknowledged that the study has clear limitations, including a relatively small sample of violent deaths that were examined directly and the researchers' reliance on individual memories for some information. But the researchers said the findings represent the most reliable estimate to date.
The paper was "extensively peer-reviewed, revised, edited" and rushed into print "because of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq, Richard Horton, the journal's editor, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
But Garlasco of Human Rights Watch said it is extremely difficult to estimate civilian casualties, especially based on relatively small numbers. "I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach," Garlasco said.
In addition, his group's investigation indicated that the ground war, not the air war, caused more of the deaths that have occurred.
Staff writer Josh White and research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
|
That is at least 100,000 less people able to throw flowers and candy in honor of George W. Asshole and his unnecessary war. |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060612/D8I6TAE81.html
Damn maybe if you guys focused on the US and less on the Iraq war than you could could actually help. hmm 2,500 us deaths in a hostile Iraq for 4 years destroying Saddam and thousands of terrorists. But its unnecessary, sure.... |
USA: 16,000 murders in a population of 300 million = 1 in 18,750
Iraq: 100,000 civilian deaths out of a population of 26 million = 1 in 260.
US Military in Iraq: 2,500 deaths out of a population of 130,000 = 1 in 50; 20,000 wounded out of a population of 130,000 = 1 out of 7.
NOW STFU YOU FUCKING RETARD. |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Im talking about the US here and AMERICANS. |
You're truly retarded. Some college actually awarded you a degree? |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Jack Shit
You're truly retarded. Some college actually awarded you a degree? |
That's the part that freaks me out.
I had to bust my ass to finish college -- this kid obviously strolled right up to the podium and collected his degree with getting an education of any sort?
How the fuck does that happen? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| Are you telling me the same 130,000 have been there the past 4 years? and how many death the past year? thank you, time for you to go to bed. |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Are you telling me the same 130,000 have been there the past 4 years? and how many death the past year? thank you, time for you to go to bed. |
Good grief.
You can't make this shit up. |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Are you telling me the same 130,000 have been there the past 4 years? and how many death the past year? thank you, time for you to go to bed. |
I guess you didn't take statistics, did you dumbass? Let me give you a clue. The POPULATION of George Washington Carver Middle School is 450. The INDIVIDUALS who make up that POPULATION change every year. Get the idea?
|
|
|
| Ironpirate |
Quote: Originally posted by Jack Shit
I guess you didn't take statistics, did you dumbass? Let me give you a clue. The POPULATION of George Washington Carver Middle School is 450. The INDIVIDUALS who make up that POPULATION change every year. Get the idea? |
So your saying only 450 attended there for 4 years, stfu. Come on give the last 12 months deah toll in Iraq..... |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| I LOOKED IT UP ITS 831 IN THE PAST YEAR. Your vietnam bullshit talk wont work here. |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
I LOOKED IT UP ITS 831 IN THE PAST YEAR. Your vietnam bullshit talk wont work here. |
I'll do the math for you.
About 850 a year are KIA, therefore the chance that a US soldier will be killed in any given year is 1 in 150.
An average of 7000 a year over the past two years have been seriously wounded, therefore the chance that a US solider will be wounded in any given year is 1 in 18.
And the chance that one will be killed OR seriously wounded is 1 in 16. |
|
|
| cashflow |
I wonder if 1 in 16 was on the all-volunteer army application.
What a fucking war! |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
Its not 1 and 16,
its actually 1 in 156, past years deaths out of 130,000, but there have different amount of soldiers in Iraq |
|
|
| ihatecabbie |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Its not 1 and 16,
its actually 1 in 156, past years deaths out of 130,000, but there have different amount of soldiers in Iraq |
Did you have to take an English class at any point? This is completely unintelligible. |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Its not 1 and 16,
its actually 1 in 156, past years deaths out of 130,000, but there have different amount of soldiers in Iraq |
What the fuck are you trying to say, my retard? :confused: |
|
|
| Crazytree |
troop rotations.
similarly, replacements is why some Marine units during the Iwo Jima operations had casualty rates of 120%. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
I guess it's easy to brush off casualty numbers for our troops when you know you will never be one of them due to lack of balls...
Can you tell us again how you refuse to enlist because it doesn't fit your "career path"?
Quote:
Benchmarks: US Iraq Casualties Stay High
By Martin Sieff
United Press International
Wednesday 22 March 2006
Washington - As Iraq teeters on - or over - the brink of civil war the pressure is not easing on the hard-pressed U.S. ground forces there.
Over the past month, the average rate at which U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq has significantly fallen, but the rates at which they are being wounded have dramatically increased.
U.S. mainstream media reports have focused only on the numbers being killed. But over the past eight months, we have repeatedly emphasized in this column that the far larger numbers of U.S. troops wounded, especially those wounded too seriously to return to active duty, represent a far broader and more statistically significant figure of the scale of insurgent activity and the degree to which it is succeeding or failing to inflict significant casualties on U.S. forces.
The total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq through Tuesday, March 21 since the start of U.S. operations to topple Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2003, was 2,319, according to official figures issued by the Department of Defense, a rise of 49 in the past 39 days or an average of just over 1.3 killed per day.
The good news is that this is a more than 60 percent improvement on the rate of 3.1 killed per day in early February. And it is a 350 percent improvement on the 33 U.S. soldiers killed in only seven days from Jan. 11 through Jan. 17, an average of 4.7 soldiers killed per day.
The bad news, however, is that in the 39 days from Feb. 11 through March 21, 616 U.S. soldiers were injured in Iraq, an average of 15.8 per day. This was more than twice as bad as the Feb. 4-10 period when 47 U.S. soldiers were injured at an average rate of just under seven per day. And it was also more than 36 percent worse than the rate of the five-day period from Jan. 30 through Feb. 3 when 58 U.S. soldiers were injured, according to the DOD figures, at an average rate of 11.6 per day.
These figures are also of significance in that they represent a trend over almost 40 days - a far longer period than than the ones in which we usually examine casualty rates and their statistical trends in the conflict.
The number of U.S. troops wounded in action from the beginning of hostilities on March 19, 2003, through March 21, 10, was 17,269, according to the Department of Defense figures.
Some 7,981 of those troops were wounded so seriously that they were listed as "WIA Not RTD" in the DOD figures. In other words: Wounded in Action Not Returned to Duty, an increase of 275 such casualties in 39 days, at an average rate of just over seven injured per day.
This more than twice as bad as the 3.3 per day average of the Feb. 4-10 period and it was almost 50 percent worse than the Jan. 30-Feb. 3 period when 24 U.S. troops were wounded seriously enough that they were not returned to duty at an average rate of 4.8 per day.
These figures should also be seen in the context of another trend in the Iraqi conflict. Since the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque in Samara last month, for the first time Iraqi Shiites have started reacting in a popular, violent manner on a broad scale against the Sunni community.
This might be expected to distract the Sunni Muslim insurgents from focusing on targeting U.S. troops and, indeed, just a few days ago USA Today reported a trend we have been monitoring and documenting in this column for almost four months - the number of attacks and casualties inflicted on U.S. forces has been decreasing somewhat while the insurgents have turned with increasing ferocity first on the new Iraqi security forces and, since January, against Iraqi civilian targets.
However, as we noted above, the capability of the insurgents to go on waging attacks on U.S. forces and increasing the number of them they are injuring has not diminished, it has increased: The insurgency is therefore clearly growing in its capabilities as it has been able to inflict far worse punishment on the Iraqi Shiite community while maintaining or even increasing its rate of casualties inflicted on U.S. troops at the same time.
President George W. Bush's optimism and determination to stay the course in his press conference Tuesday must therefore be tempered by the sobering reality reflected in the statistics issued by his own Department of Defense: There is not the slightest indication that current U.S. strategy and tactics in Iraq are diminishing the popularity and capability of the insurgency. It continues to grow in its tactical capabilities against both U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians. |
|
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Its not 1 and 16,
its actually 1 in 156, past years deaths out of 130,000, but there have different amount of soldiers in Iraq |
Do you want to buy a verb? :) |
|
|
| Turbo_Nerd_Eric |
Wow I always knew IP was dumb but I am truly amazed that he got a degree in economics. Not being able to undertand simple ratios and statistics.
Stick to cut and paste. When you start out on your own it is just not going to go well. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| "cut and paste" to someone of cockpirate's intellect is something they normally do after recess, but before nap time... |
|
|
| HighPitchHoward |
| Most of those murders in the U.S. are worthless gangbangers and meth-addicted losers. The fact is if you're a regular guy paying your taxes, working 9 to 5, and just living a normal life in America, your chances of being murdered are about the same as any other western nation, which is about zero. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
Its not 1 and 16,
its actually 1 in 156, past years deaths out of 130,000, but there have different amount of soldiers in Iraq |
Let me ask you a question. There have been more soldiers killed and wounded by IED's then actual combat operations.
Knowing that the insurgency was inevitable and this is a fact that can't be disputed, don't you think there were mistakes made in Iraq? Namely not enough troops and secondly, in the initial push to Baghdad, the bypassing of the fadayeem radicals that allowed them to live and fight another day? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Looks like there is an elected Representative with the morals and intellect of our very own cockpirate:
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/13/king-dc-safer/
Rep. King: My Wife ‘Is At Far Greater Risk Being a Civilian In D.C. Than An Average Civilian In Iraq’
Last night on the House floor, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) downplayed the violence on the ground in Iraq, claiming his wife is taking a greater risk by living in Washington, D.C. King said:
27.51 Iraqis per 100,000 die a violent death on an annual basis. 27.51. Now what does that mean? To me, it really doesn’t mean a lot until I compare it to people that I know or have a feel for the rhythm of this place. Well I by now have a feel for the rhythm of this place called Washington, D.C., and my wife lives here with me, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, she’s at far greater risk being a civilian in Washington, D.C. than an average civilian in Iraq. 45 out of every 100,000 Washington, D.C. regular residents die a violent death on an annual basis.
Watch it.
King’s stats are faulty.
First, using the most recent 2004 data, the violent casualty rate in D.C. is 35.8 deaths per 100,000, not 45. Second, the King comparison has an obvious problem of scale, comparing the entire country of Iraq to one concentrated urban area. Taking Baghdad for instance, the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index estimates an annualized murder rate of 95 per 100,000 Iraqis for that city, a rate more than 2.5 times as high as D.C.’s. (Brookings notes this number may be “too low since many murder victims are never taken to the morgue, but buried quickly and privately and therefore never recorded in official tallies.”)
Even the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page noted that King’s numbers have “painted a misleadingly Pollyanish picture of Iraq.”
Apparently, Bush hasn’t read King’s study. On his trip into Iraq today, Bush employed “extraordinarily-tight protective measures,” which were deemed necessary “because of Iraq’s tenuous security situation.” Bush “never seriously considered” staying overnight, wanting to leave Iraq immediately for the safety of Washington, D.C. |
|
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Ironpirate - over 1400 examples of faulty logic served.
Comparing US crime statistics with death rates from a war zone is about as stupid as it gets. |
|
|
| Robinsmuff |
Quote: Originally posted by Jack Shit
You're truly retarded. Some college actually awarded you a degree? |
 |
|
|
| jasantia |
I agree with the guy that says most of the murders are from worthless gangbangers and meth addicts.
I have a solution though...
We but an island somewhere relatively close. We have to make sure it is in shark infested waters.
Then we take all of the 2 million or so prisoners that are in our systems and we drop them off on it. Kind of like a real life survivor.
F all these murderers, child molesters, etc.
If they dint care about life why should we care about theirs ? |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| So who favors the death penalty? |
|
|
| Jack Shit |
Quote: Originally posted by Ironpirate
So who favors the death penalty? |
If stupidity were a crime, you'd be a Dead Man Walking. |
|
|
| Ironpirate |
| oh man you got me there....... |
|
|
|
|
|
