To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The Lancet Study

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The Lancet Study

By Noam Chomsky at Aug 07, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
It's correct that the Lancet study, by far the most authoritative available, deliberately excluded Fallujah, because that would have raised the estimates much higher -- recall that as in all scientific inquiries in related areas (technically, anywhere), this one is based on extrapolation from samples, and they wanted to err on the side of conservatism. For the same reason, they included Kurdish regions where there was very little conflict, thereby reducing the estimates. You are also correct that the study ended before the devastating attack on Fallujah, a major war crime. For this and many other reasons, their 100,000 "most probable" estimate would be considerably higher if a similar study were done today. Judging by news reports (not in the US, as far as I saw), a later study of a Swiss research institute basically confirmed the Lancet study, in their case investigating only direct killings. The Iraq Body Count studies have been useful, but as the investigators explain, these are considerable underestimates, relying solely on newspaper reports of deaths and official figures. The Lancet study was a much more serious inquiry, and therefore has been ignored or attacked regularly in the US (and to a less extreme extent, England). Any mention of it is usually accompanied by the statement that the "controversial" Lancet report estimates that extra deaths resulting from the invasion "may have been as high as 100,000," or something similar. Every such study -- e.g., the effects of cancer surgery on longevity -- is "controversial." And the 98,000 estimate was "most probable, so that an honest report would add "may have been as low as 100,000. What is amazing about these studies is that they have been undertaken. In the past, atrocities carried out by the US and its clients rarely are investigated. Take Vietnam. Apart from completely fraudulent "body counts," there was essentially no inquiry. We do not know, literally within millions, how many people died as the result of the US attacks on Indochina. Same in case after case. Crimes of enemies have to be scrupulously investigated, with massive forensic inquiries, etc. One's own have to no less scrupulously ignored (or simply denied).

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (71)

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 04, 2005 20:05 PM
Noam Chomsky said it on his website www.chomsky.info he's become quite a jingo recently. What'dya mean HBO aint a mainstream media outlet! It's owned by Time Warner Inc the largest media conglomerate in the world! America's killer gay army is pretty tough but nonetheless it's still necessary to militarily conquer the U.S. with thermonuclear devices subjugate the belligerent domestic population and force the political leadership to march naked through the streets with their saggy old man tits swinging to and fro. "Admiral" Poindexter can bring up the rear with a poop scoop. I don't know why anyone gives a tin whistle about Cindy Sheean or her dead gay rapist white trash son.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Sep 29, 2005 04:05 AM
I mean Stanley Aronowitz not "Rabonowitz."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Sep 29, 2005 03:06 AM
I remember once Chomsky said if the New York Times started carrying his articles regularly he would rethink what he was doing. Well it's about time he started rethinking since he has appeared on HBO, was flatteringly treated by the New York Times Sunday Magazine, the Boston Globe (New York Times Company) called him "America's most useful citizen" So what's that all about? And how can the U.S. have a "quintessential commitment to democracy" and be a "leading terrorist state"? Giving interviews to cranky outlets like "Gendertalk" doesn't help his intellectual credentials either. That's the kind of thing science writer Martin Gardner would have debunked, I hope he doesn't think reality is a "social construction" along with literary-pseudo Stanley Rabinowitz, et al.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 25, 2005 20:19 PM
Well either the abyss is completely psychotic or there is some history between him and Chomsky. Otherwise why waste all this time spewing pages and pages venomous attack against Chomsky the person(not his ideas)? The abyss is constantly abusing and harassing others,--in particular poor Greame,--for alledged Chomsky worshiping, it is clear that HE is the only one here obsessed woth Chomsky the man. I think the abyss might have failed Chomsky's course at some point.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Aug 25, 2005 17:19 PM
Although I like Chomsky's writing style a lot, it does require that you know a thing or two about what he's talking about, which can drive readers away. He's using words few others use, and long and complex sentences. That is not particularly hard to read, but what he is writing often requires some background knowledge. I and many others don't see Chomsky as a Godlike creature. We don't have a Chomsky figure to pray to before we go to bed, does that surprise you abyss? We admire the man for the knowledge he gives us and the rest of the world about world events. He admire his clarity, and the fact that he's been doing the exact same thing since the 60s. The NYT has written, and I agree, that Chomsky is the most important intellectual alive. Much of what he writes is in the public domain, but is hard to obtain for the regular guy and gal. Chomsky connects the threads, and he has got an immense historical knowledge. These are the reasons we admire the man, not that we see him as an almost religious figure it is pointless to question. I don't always agree with Chomsky, but most of the time I do.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 25, 2005 16:10 PM
And let me spell out why: to appeal to as many people as possible - not just those who've been to university. Unfortunately, many Chomsky fans, or so it seems, are so in awe of the professor's intelligence that they think simpler actually means INTELLECTUALLY INFERIOR, and that just won't do! Chomsky is a god, and gods shouldn't have to worry about whether mortals can keep up with them or not. P.M.S. Blackett was a renowned British physicist, who won a Nobel Prize in physics for "his development of the Wilson cloud chamber method, and his discoveries therewith in the fields of nuclear physics and cosmic radiation". Get hold of a copy of “Fear, War, and the Bomb”. His writing style is an order of magnitude better than Chomsky's; and, if we're going to play who's-the-most-intelligent, then I think the majority would agree that a physicist beats a mere professor of linguistics hands down. Graeme fails to react when others are criticised. All that matters to Graeme is Chomsky. Graeme is merely hero-worshipping the guy. He cannot see that others deserve praise for dedicating hours and hours of their lives to trying to understand what is going on in the world – and for no reward! Graeme thinks Chomsky has done it all himself, educated every single one of us, shown us the reality we couldn't see before. Graeme has created an elaborate fantasy for himself. Well, it's time for him to shake off this ridiculous illusion, and come back down to earth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 25, 2005 15:34 PM
Graeme cannot see that the posture he assumes when anyone criticises Chomsky is the exact same posture many Americans take when you attack their government. Graeme has decided that everything Chomsky does is right, that every motive Chomsky has is pure. When you criticise Chomsky, Graeme flies into a rage. "YOU LIAR! HOW DARE YOU! You...you...YOU SICK, TWISTED, SON OF A BITCH!" In the above paragraph, replace the word "Chomsky" with "America", and you've got the same response Chomsky gets when he criticises the U.S. government: "OH MY GOD, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT ABOUT AMERICA/CHOMSKY! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS COUNTRY/BLOG, LEAVE IT!" It's the same irrational response. Graeme isn't armed with all the facts about Chomsky, and the American people aren't armed with all the facts about their government. Graeme cannot see that questioning a man one hasn't met is NOT the same as hating that man after one knows what he's about. Graeme has lost the plot. He's not interested in the issues anymore; he's only interested in Chomsky, THE MAN! Or should that be Chomsky, THE CELEBRITY! To me, Chomsky is just another author I stumbled across. I found out most of what I "needed" to know before I came across Chomsky. Chomsky's dense prose is forbidding, even to highly intelligent readers. But even that criticism, Graeme will not permit. Yet, if Chomsky is serious about what he is doing, he would adopt a much simpler writing style.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 23, 2005 06:39 AM
As for my impeccable research, I told you: I obtained the company accounts of that pop musician to discover the truth about his claims that he was impoverished. That cost me quite a bit. But it gave me his Balance Sheet for the last three years. After I criticised him, he rang me up, and changed his story. Now, it wasn't that he was too poor, he just "felt" he had done enough. >Here, I'll give you a number: $50 million. >That's right, Noam Chomsky gets $50 million >per speaking engagement. From the sublime to the ridiculous. Graeme never fails to disappoint. >Or is that per second? No, that would be Bill Gates you're thinking about. >He is barely aware this blog exists. Exactly my point. Chomsky doesn't give a damn. And it's time his fans wake up to that fact. "The Chomsky Blog" should be renamed "The Chomsky Bulletin Board". In "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky says he "wants the world to go away", to leave him alone (a cry for help like Michael Jackson), then gets his cronies to set up a fake blog that he can't be bothered to visit. You've heard the expression talk is cheap. Chomsky is cheaper! Don't expect me to feel sorry for Chomsky's hard life, Graeme. My brother's friend committed suicide, a neighbour was found dead, having drunk himself to death, and someone I know, their father killed himself. The wealthy always moan about their hard life. Woe is Chomsky.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 23, 2005 06:13 AM
Graeme, the one-celled brain, writes: >Wow, your sourcing and fact-checking >techniques are impeccable. You really aren't very bright, are you? How can I fact-check Chomsky's earnings? It's impossible for someone in my position to do that. Chomsky refuses to disclose his income. It's like you fact-checking my earnings. You can't do it. However, it's not so impossible with Chomsky, as he gives public speeches, and some of those who attended them, as well as the organizers, will know how much he charges. The figure $12,000 was listed along with perfectly credible earnings for other celebrities. Chomsky wasn't being singled out. >You're pulling numbers out of the air. Pulling numbers out of the air implies I am making up the figures, which I am not doing. >"People?" "Someone?" "Celebrities?" Celebrities, yes, such as Bill Cosby, Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, etc. >That's worse than FOX News. I'm not Fox News, and I'm not wealthy. I'm not stressing myself out more than I have to because Chomsky, who has a cushy life, unlike me, likes to play games with people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 23, 2005 05:21 AM
Graeme writes: >I'm sure he'll respond to you. I'm sure he would. However, if he wants to be left in peace, I will leave him in peace, even though I think it's being a bit hypocritical. On the other hand, if he wants a blog, then he should, at least, visit it. And maybe set people straight on major points of contention.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 23, 2005 04:58 AM
I wrote: "It's, therefore, not unreasonable that someone of Chomsky's calibre would receive $12,000 or more." What I meant to say was: "It's, therefore, not unreasonable TO ASSUME that someone of Chomsky's calibre would receive $12,000 or more." I knew precisely how much that British pop musician had earned the year before last (30 million) because I obtained his company accounts; he later threatened to leave Britain if the income tax of the rich was increased; he needn't have worried, Blair takes good care of the wealthy. I know how much George Galloway and the Mayor of London earn from their scribblings, after-dinner speeches, etc., because, as politicians, they have to disclose their earnings. As Chomsky refuses to tell anyone how much he "earns", I have to hazard a guess, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS LYING, Graeme. People have quoted $12,000, and cited the figures for other celebrities. So that's what I'm going with. I don't know whether that's for a single speech, or per hour. Someone said $15,000 an hour. Who knows? >He responds to cranks like "Roger the anti- >Chomsky" But I don't think he'll respond to you, even though I'm sure you've already contacted him, telling him about the evil machinations of the-abyss. Graeme, your brain has malfunctioned and you've become delusional. It would be just plain wrong of Chomsky to write back, as that would only be encouraging you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 23, 2005 04:12 AM
Graeme, the man who said Chomsky relied on the sale of his books to feed himself, writes: >In fact, why don't you just ask him the- >abyss? Graeme, I told you why I wouldn't e-mail him. At the end of "Manufacturing Consent", in a 2002 interview, he said he wishes "the world would go away". OK, so he doesn't want people to contact him, so I'm not going to embarrass myself by doing so. >Perhaps because your lies will be exposed? You really are a fruitcake, Graeme. What lies? I said, as far as I can discover, that's how much Chomsky charges. Chomsky DOES charge a fee. He says so himself in one of his books. And, for your information, Graeme, a fee is not the same as having your travelling expenses reimbursed. But, if Chomsky can't be completely open about these things, then people have to take a stab at how much he earns, and guess at his motivations. George Galloway, after lambasting Congressional Senators, was mulling an offer to tour American universities for $5,000 a speech, according to "The Scotsman" (www.scotsman.com). It's, therefore, not unreasonable that someone of Chomsky's calibre would receive $12,000 or more. I also did not lie about students at a U.S. university protesting Chomsky's speaking fee. That's a fact. Unless it was a hired "mob" paid for by the Republican Party. Anyone who criticises Chomsky must be right-wing, deliberately lying, or a government agent. It's rather pathetic. Only in America, as they say!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 22, 2005 22:20 PM
For those who don't leave their brains behind when they read Chomsky, and for other interested parties, from what I can discover, Chomsky charges $12-15,000 per speech, or per hour, to lecture students on his political views, and give them facts that are in the public domain. Also, last year, or earlier this year, I discovered that a group of students at a U.S. university were protesting paying an exorbitant amount to have Chomsky speak at their campus. If, as Graeme (another poster) claims, Chomsky merely charges for his travelling expenses, why were these students so angry? I also found a chat board, in which Chomsky supporters were vehemently denying Chomsky was making any money from all this, saying, look how few people are on this site - hardly anyone reads Chomsky! Oh really? "9-11" has apparently sold over 300,000 copies. Below are some old figures, which need revising - upwards! "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" - over 216,000 copies. "The Prosperous Few And The Restless Many" - 145,000 copies. "Secrets, Lies, and Democracy" - 123,000 copies. "The Common Good" - over 47,000 copies On and on it goes. Then there are his books that have been turned into movies/documentaries. "Manufacturing Consent" being the most famous. And let's not forget the articles he writes for newspapers e.g. "The Guardian". It seems we are paying Chomsky very handsomely for his time. Therefore, no one needs to praise or thank the guy. He's merely a savvy businessman.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Organum, Baby at Aug 21, 2005 01:01 AM
Media can include the madrasas or any other place designed to spread news , wiews , etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 18, 2005 02:33 AM
"Solving the problems "we" created is both morally necessary and will have the added benefit of indirectly solving some of the problems "they" created in reaction to "us."" If you want solutions then suggest some. All I see is finger-pointing and opposition to every plan that is proposed. "No" to sanctions. "No" to war. "No" to criticism. Well, what is your solution?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 17, 2005 04:26 AM
Graeme, I get your point, I think. Once again you are advocating a more introspective approach and saying, I think, "we can't control them, so bitching about their behavior is pointless. Lets worry about our own". 1) On the level of Government intervention, I would definitely agree with you. Our government cannot spread democracy, or womens rights, by force 2) On the level of a "grass roots awareness campaign", however, I do not. The insurgents know the REAL battlefield is the media - both to get recruits and to undermine support for the war in the west. A major reason the beheading vids are no longer being made is that even supporters of the resistance said "that goes to far" and that the insurgents realised it would be a PR mistake to continue them - that it might cost them more support than it was worth. The anti-war movement has SOME power in this regard. I looks to me, however, that they are just sacred of using it for fear of "helping" the cause you oppose. However, this 'any sign of weakness on our part only helps our enemy' kind of reasoning is strategically amateurish. As in Judo, sometimes going with your opponents momentum is the best way to overthrow his balance and drop him.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Richard, Frankr at Aug 15, 2005 08:04 AM
Before I submitted my commment to this thread, I didn't realize what the checkbox to "Notify me of follow-up comments" entailed. My mailbox is now being flooded with replies, each more retarded than the previous. I guess I'll think twice about checking that box the next time...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 14, 2005 23:19 PM
Watch out, the abysmal, you might get a "nasty" riposte. Don't want you blubbing again! Regards Nasty boy Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 14, 2005 19:58 PM
Don't forget, folks, Chomsky's new book will be hitting the stores soon. It's called, "The London Bombings (Why London, Why Now)", a contemporary analysis of terrorism in Britain. Only 19.95 USD. Or JUST £19.95 GBP (fleece the British, why not!). Where your money goes, nobody knows! Chomsky will also be publishing a number of articles in the British press - how much they pay him is anyone's guess. But the hard left in Britain, such as George Galloway and London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, make hundreds of thousands writing for newspapers. Oops, I forgot. Chomsky is a religion, so I have no right to question his integrity. I'm meant to trust him like my own father. Say six Hail Marys and eight Our Fathers, the-abyss. Read Chomsky's book. Read his articles. It won't change the world; it won't change your life; it won't change government policy; it won't change anything. As Chomsky, himself, noted: the U.S. is back where it was 20 years ago, with a Republican government, and a recycled administration from Reagan's era, more emboldened than ever. Yes, the U.S. public in their infinite wisdom said screw the world, to us it makes no difference if Bush or Kerry wins, but to you foreigners, rewarding Bush for lying - and for killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis - is a bad idea, but we don't give a damn. DIE FOREIGNERS! DIE! Hold on, Chomsky has something to say. Spit it out, Professor. "America is the greatest country in the world" FAN-TAS-TIC!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 14, 2005 19:48 PM
America or United, States; England, or Britain..As long as the context is clear there is no chance in misunderstancing, who cares! It is really anal to nitpick about correct usage even on internet fora. Next someone would come along and argue about the fine points of grammar and spelling. You know, the retired matrons who write to the newspaper criticizing its report on Iraq because the reporter messed up the grammar. That is, according to her 100 year old English grammar book which was written by fallable humans about a human convention,--as opposed to the "hard wired" unversial grammar of the Chomsky school. The abyss seems to be a very cranky and bitter person using this forum for his therapy. I suppose znet is performing a community service after all for folks who cannot afford the expensive psychosis medication.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 14, 2005 16:05 PM
Noam Chomsky fans are like Michael Jackson fans. Question Chomsky's integrity and honesty, and you'll get the same reaction you'd get from Jackson's fans: How dare you try to sully Jackson's name! The man is a beautiful human being. So, he shares his bed with boys – SO WHAT! It's innocent for God's sake! He loves children. Look at what he's done for children over the years, how much he cares for them. Leave the man alone! Go away, you loser!! Assuming Jackson is innocent, if he cares for children, why does he expose kids to potential exploitation by their parents and by the media? One satisfactory explanation would be that Jackson is stunted mentally. However, if I were a cynic, I'd say the best kids to abuse are those with lousy parents, those who come from poor or broken families, then if I get accused of anything, I just blame it on the lousy, no good, money-grubbing parents. But, back to my point, how did these fans get to know Jackson so intimately? And how do Chomsky fans know what motivates Chomsky? Neither set of fanatics knows the truth. But fanatics don't care about the truth. They are taken in by a seductive image, and from that point on, the world has lost them. Fanatics have a picture inside their heads of someone they wished existed. They project the qualities of that imaginary person onto their idol. This is why fanatics are so hostile: they are frightened you might shatter their comforting illusion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 14, 2005 04:17 AM
An intellectual - or a master of deceit? - "...but in 'Manufacturing Consent', in a 1992 interview, he says he wishes 'the world would go away'" I should have said "in a 2002 interview".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 14, 2005 03:52 AM
Graeme, a selfish, conceited old man, who considers helping a homeless kid a childish act, needs to get a life. This kid was Russian, Graeme. In Russia, kids are at risk of getting raped. Bloody pious Chomsky fanatics; you all think you're on some mission from God. All of my Chomsky books have been binned. Read Chomsky's books, debates, and discussions, and all you'll do is throw your life away, and end up killing yourself. My advice to young people: if you don't have a death wish, keep away from Chomsky. This is a game for middle-aged and old people to play. Chomsky doesn't care about anyone. I was going to write him a letter merely asking him for any books he could recommend (since life is short and I don't have a lot of money to waste researching this stuff), but in "Manufacturing Consent", in a 1992 interview, he says he wishes "the world would go away". So I didn't write him a letter (I was hesitant to do so, anyway, after I found out he had this "massive" following), I visited his blog instead. But his blog is run by others, and there are no recommendations. It's like a promo site for Chomsky. There's an expression: if it's too good to be true, it usually is. Chomsky is too good to be true! Chomsky is like a religion. You have no right to question him. And even thinking about doing so is considered blasphemy. If America nuked the world, America would still be "the greatest country in the world", according to Chomsky's definition.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By K, Mr at Aug 13, 2005 05:58 AM
seems like a de-centralized insurgency works the best against superpowers. How long can the propaganda hold? When will public opinion count?! Stay tuned....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 13, 2005 03:55 AM
For Graeme's benefit, here's a definition of "Cognitive Dissonance": "Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent...Because the occurrence of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people are motivated to reduce it...." (Aronson, 1988, pp. 116-117) I suppose wannabe intellectuals like Graeme will confuse this term with the word ambivalence. >interjecting his dispassionate wisdom in a >display of weary superiority. More gibberish! >Whereas, you are, in fact, a sad prick >scouring the margins of the internet in a >febrile attempt to uncover heterodox >opinion. If anyone's making a vain attempt to sound like an intellectual - it's you! >Love, Calvin You are incapable of loving anyone. In fact, you don't even know what that word means. That's it, Calvin, my discussion with you is over. Life is just too short to waste it on nasty people like you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 13, 2005 03:46 AM
"As far as that goes, the United States should never, strictly speaking, be referred to as "America," as this refers to dozens of countries in two continents" As far as I know, however, none of them have the word "America" in their names.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 13, 2005 03:30 AM
Calvin posted: "Why do you think that your reference to George Bush's privileged lifstyle has any bearing on a discussion about Chomsky's privileged lifestyle?" You're as thick as two short planks. You said Chomsky's privilege has turned him into someone who is reluctant to take action of any kind. I then demonstrated that class has nothing to do with it. Bush comes from extreme privilege, yet doesn't hesitate to act, so long as it's other people who die and suffer as a result of his decisions. >You seem to have a delusionary image of >yourself as an aloof intellectual maverick God only knows what that means. Presumably, you're puzzled as to why I haven't become a member of the imaginary Chomsky Club, joining my fellow Chomsky followers in a great Chomsky debate. First, THERE IS NO Chomsky Club. Second, a person has to account for his own actions. I, therefore, follow no one. However, refusing to follow others does not preclude supporting them. As for seeing myself as an intellectual, I DO NOT! I'm not using any scientific or technical terms to make myself sound clever - unlike others I will mention; namely, Graeme, who, if I remember correctly, said I was suffering from "cognitive dissonance". Graeme could have used plain English, but decided to show off, instead, because he considers himself intellectually superior to me. He also believes only those with Ph.Ds are entitled to have a say in how our lives are run.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tufty, Tufty at Aug 13, 2005 01:25 AM
- "England" and "Great Britain"...are often used interchangeably - Well, stop it then. How are you going to change the world if you don't know where it is...or can't express yourself properly politically. Print this list and keep it closeby for future Znet discussion purposes: British Government British Prime Minister British Monarch British Armed Forces British Electorate British Passport British Embassy British Foreign Policy British Public Opinion British UN Veto British National Press British Political Party Former British Empire British Commonwealth English Football Team

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Aug 12, 2005 16:17 PM
And politically there is no America (or merica) either!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tufty, Tufty at Aug 12, 2005 11:50 AM
Chomsky: "The Lancet study was a much more serious inquiry, and therefore has been ignored or attacked regularly in the US (and to a less extreme extent, England)." If you mean Britain, write Britain. Politically, there's no "England".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 12, 2005 09:30 AM
I just thought of something else that made me laugh. We all know damn well that most of you would, in fact, totally condemn a citizen who accidently killed an innoent person while shooting back at a guy on a killing spree. It would be "American gun culture" this and that and a good amount of the the blame would be, rightly, laid at the feet of the guy who was justifiably defending himself with UNJUSTIFIABLE disregard for the lives of others. You would hold him to the same standard that you hold yourselves and not claim that the original crazy shooter gave the victims the right to blast away back at him with utter disreard for the people around them. What about this siutation makes it so damn different that it justifies actions that are LESS defenible? Are we MORE guilty than a man on a shooting spree? Are they LESS guilty than any regular citizen who shoots back at one?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 12, 2005 09:02 AM
"Killing a human shield while taking out an enemy that is shooting at you is not the same as shooting from behind a hostage you took" And I just want to add that I believe this applies NO MATTER WHAT!!! It would not be ok to use an innocent human shield if I was on the run for a crime I didn't commit and the police had me surrounded. I wouldn't be if I was the target of a mafia hitman and he was shooting at me when I did it and it was the only way to protect myself . It wouldn't be NO MATTER HOW OR WHY I got in whatever situation I was in. Even if I was totally justified in protecting myself, I would NOT be justified in using an innocent hostage. If you are in the middle of a crazy shooting spree, would you be justified in using a nearby person as a human shield to keep you safe? Furthermore, if someone did this, and the hostage got shot, would you honestly lay ALL the blame on the shooter and none on the hostage taker? I think they would ALL be guilty. The fact that the hostage-taker was totally blameless, and the shooter started the whole thing, does NOT mean he is allowed to start using other blameless people as fodder.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 12, 2005 08:35 AM
"As regards Iraq, I think one should make the crucial distinction between 'resistance' and 'terrorism'. " This is the point I was clumsily trying to make. But the more I think about it, the more I think this involves deep moral beliefs/assumptions. It's not as simple as "was the invasion immoral" either. I can agree that it was, but unlike some, I don't believe that that fact justifies any and all acts of "resistance". I believe that targeting armed soldiers is different than targeting civilians. Killing civilians in, even predictable, accidents is not the same as targeting them. Bombing a factory to stop production of war materials is not the same as bombing it simply to kill people. Killing a human shield while taking out an enemy that is shooting at you is not the same as shooting from behind a hostage you took. Obviously many of you disagree. It's a subjective matter. But did it ever cross you mind that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is exactly what you also claim is now biting us in the ass? We backed Saddam because he was the enemy of Iran. We backed the Mujahideen because they fought the USSR. I, for one, think the lesson is that maybe it's better to be a bit more cautious. It's tragicly comedic. You point at US and say "you created the radicals and now look", but think you won't regret jumping into bed with them too? Who is more stupid? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Aug 12, 2005 07:16 AM
Lastly, I remain optimistic about the future of Iraq and its people. Its society is being destroyed, and as a cultural entity it faces near-extinction -- as a recent endangered cultural areas survey noted, whose name at the moment escapes my mind. But I maintain hope. Their future belongs to freedom, not the irrational suspicion and fear that leads to hate and violence. Ours, too.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Aug 12, 2005 06:52 AM
These foreigners are going to exploit the xenophobia and insecurity of the broader population to recruit for their cause, but the mass of Americans are against the Mexican and Canadian invaders and a strong majority of the insurgents just want the Martian occupying forces out of the country, while the citizenry is confined largely to the crossfire of the ensuing civil war between factions and ethnic rivalries throughout the country. As regards Iraq, I think one should make the crucial distinction between 'resistance' and 'terrorism'. To make this painfully clear, Graeme and I construct a metaphor that can bring it home: Americans who take up arms against the Martian occupation, versus the Mexican/Canadian jihadis who seek nothing but to disrupt the very fabric of American society by, say, using suicide terror. (Of course, we must remember that this is just our analogy, so don't read anything else in this.) My main point is that the broad mass of Americans want nothing but their normal lives, while a minority of guerillas and terrorists wreck chaos along (and I'm having our geography roughly mirror that of Iraq here) the Southwest and the corridor along the Colorado, as major energy infrastructure is sabotaged within the region that surrounds the Mississippi. (While I'm at it, the only secure areas are New England, which is a semi-autonomous area, and the Florida Peninsula.) But I digress. [Pt. 3 soon, word limit be damned!]

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Aug 12, 2005 06:29 AM
Graeme, you bring up an analogy that I had been thinking of for some time now. I guess you cut me to the chase. In this hypothetical alien occupation (and we're keeping it in proportion), there are roughly 1,475,000 troops (let's call them Martians, for the sake of argument) occupying these United States of America, and somewhere between 118,000 and 218,300 "insurgents" are fighting the Martian "coalition". Another 150,000 or so are held prisoner (of which nearly 4,000 are foreign fighters - jihadists, as it were - who have streamed in from Mexico and Canada). Okay. These foreigners are going to exploit the xenophobia and insecurity of the broader population to recruit for their cause, but the mass of Americans are against the Mexican and Canadian invaders and a strong majority of the insurgents just want the Martian occupying forces out of the country, while the citizenry is confined largely to the crossfire of the ensuing civil war between factions and ethnic rivalries throughout the country. (Pt. 2 to come)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 11, 2005 19:04 PM
"Would this fact have any bearing whatsoever on the justness of the cause of American liberation, whatever the tactics some of these groups employed, even if they included indiscriminate bombing attacks against alien military targets that often resulted in hundreds of American civilian deaths, including those of children?" Yes. It would undercut the justice of their cause quite a bit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 11, 2005 10:02 AM
"Falluja was a stronghold for FOREIGN FIGHTERS" How do you know? As I recall the U.S said after they have leveled the city that most AlQueda men left days before the bombing. How can you be sure they were there to begin with? I think you should be a bit more skeptical about U.S claims. I don't expect you to hold them to the same high level of scrunity as you did with the Lancet report, but you can do a lot better than just repeating the partyline. But even if some foreign fighters were holed up in Fallujah. Does that justify flattening the whole place? The civilian deaths was completely predictable when you bomb with such ferosity. You've to be very naive to believe in the spin that all the dead were "militants",-- foreign or not.How could the U.S even tell? "Iraq belongs to ALL the people, not just the fanatics" Almost all Itaqis want the U.S out. It not just the "fanatics" who are fighting against the occupation unless you DEFINE a "fanatic" to be anyone who engages in armed resistance. The resistance is widesperad and diverse. It is not consist of just foreign jihadists though they always get the headlines,--not surprisingly.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By K, Mr at Aug 11, 2005 03:57 AM
yeah yeah yeah warcrimes on everyside of the border. Yeah yeah yeah we heard all the death and destruction yet this guy still gets elected. your all born wageslaves subservient to the state. obey or die. 100 000 so far and maybe it'll take a million or two before total subjugation is complete. It seems like the Yankees need more bullets or an act of god cause the balance of public opinion is turning against the neo-con masters of the universe. The masses are wondering what's the deal with this high oil price? Why are these people not joining the 'team'? Seems like Islamic fundamentalism is the best religion money can't buy. I'll buy that for a dollar! How much is my faith on the open market? I know these neo-con's would sell they're sister for two! How much to clean up all that depleted uranium?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 11, 2005 03:32 AM
"Iraq is THEIR COUNTRY. Anything they do against invaders in their country is by definition defensive." 1) Falluja was a stronghold for FOREIGN FIGHTERS. 2)Iraq belongs to ALL the people, not just the fanatics. It also belonged to the 24 children blown up by these same assholes last month. You can blame us, but you know damn well that the bomber knew those children were going to die and he CHOSE not to wait for another chance to hit the americans when they were not surronded by Iraqi children. He killed 24 muslim children just to get at 1 soldier. This wasn't a timebomb or a situation where he didn't know the children would be there. He drove right up to them and saw them up close before killing them. Suppose Canada was invade by Bush. You would fight, but would you kill 24 children to kill 1 enemy soldier?? Can you really say that you would have no choice? That we "forced" you to do such a thing? No one who cared about his home, or the lives of his people, would destroy the children of his country in such wildly disproportionate numbers. That is why there has been recent fighting between the Nationalist resistance and the Jihadists. The Jihadists, whom the Western Left wrongly lumps in with the truly nationalist resistance, DO NOT CARE about the people - they are fighting to RULE them, not liberate them. But, rather than looking at the individual motivations of the actual groups involved, you are just lumping them together under a romantic illusion.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 11, 2005 03:01 AM
>What makes you think I care a rat's ass about the invasion of Iraq? I happen to think that Saddam Hussein was a perfectly good dictator. A man we could have done a deal with. Perhaps if we emulated Saddam and fed the religious fanatics plus their families into plastic shredders, we might be able to establish order in that godforsaken country. I like you Calvin. You're not afraid, in the end, to do away with all the justifications, all the flimsy contradictory arguments, and all the crap, and deal with the cold hard reality of your position. So many people have your point of view, but lack the strength of character to come to terms with it, and instead cloak it in layers of sweet illusion. I can never, never, never agree with you, but in my own mind I've tried to work out the arguments of the "other side", and found that yours is the most tenable. You use Nietzsche as a philosophical solvent to reveal an image of human affairs where power is the only real good. Your mistake is this: you forget that Nietzsche's claim that all philosophies are "confessions of their authors" holds true in his own case as well. Your world view is every bit as much a social construct as mine, as his, or anyone elses. Perhaps you choose this construct because you think it is real, that you are an authentic individual in a world of "phoneys"; humanity is not, in fact, so easy to pin down as you think. Or maybe I've got you all wrong?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 11, 2005 01:31 AM
jbrownil, "Calvin, you are a complete ignoramus" "Typical right-winger just attacking people" Like uh helooooooooo! mind, So the Muslim fanatics who hack the heads of hostages are to be regarded as "bank robbers" and dealt with in a similar way. I will show just as much respect for Muslim lives as they show for the lives of my people. the abyss, "Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, go in and slay them all; let none come out alive. And they smote them with the edge of the sword. And they brought forth the images from the house of Baal and burned them all"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Jautter, Mind at Aug 11, 2005 00:15 AM
A man robs a bank , killing a guard and a teller in the process. While making his escape running down a crowded sidewalk, police open fire, killing the robber and ten pedestrians.Would such a scenario be tolerated in the U.S.? Hell no, unless the robber was Sadam and the pedestrians were "ragheads".Evidently, we consider American lives more valuable than those of Vietnamese,Laotions,Arabs,etc.Our soaring national deficit is eclipsed only by our mounting Karmic debt.

Reply this comment

Person

By Jbrownil, Jbrownil at Aug 11, 2005 00:09 AM
Calvin, you are a complete ignoramus who has yet to make a valid point at anytime, anywhere on Chomsky's blog. Typical right-winger just attacking people and talking about jerking-off. Trying to make yourself feel important as your meaningless existence dwindles to nothing. Just off yourself now, no one will notice anyway.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 10, 2005 21:16 PM
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with the sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 10, 2005 21:09 PM
Dear sinister goth child whooooo! Vonnegut's best book is "Goodbye Blue Monday", or possibly "Deadeye Dick", but what the hell! I tend to find late sixties literary chic a bit passe over a quarter of a century after its heyday. What makes you think I care a rat's ass about the invasion of Iraq? I happen to think that Saddam Hussein was a perfectly good dictator. A man we could have done a deal with. Perhaps if we emulated Saddam and fed the religious fanatics plus their families into plastic shredders, we might be able to establish order in that godforsaken country. On the other hand, I care as much about dead Iraqis, as the Palestinians who danced in the streets after Sept 11, cared about dead Americans. The gassing of the Kurds is a myth. I can almost smell the shrill feminine hysteria as you screech, "You are a murderer". You, sunshine are a bog standard brat generation pussy. I'll settle for murderer any day.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 10, 2005 16:44 PM
Article by George Monbiot: "He made the moral case for war – but backs a dictator who boils prisoners to death": http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/10/28/tony-blairs-new-friend/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html Relations between the U.S. and Uzbekistan have cooled quite a bit recently, and America is threatening to withhold aid following a recent massacre. After its display of barbarity in Iraq, the U.S. is under close scrutiny, and is now trying to repair its shattered image by dissembling concern. But Bush and Blair are fooling no one. These "great leaders", along with Karimov, are responsible for slaughtering innocent people; people who were merely protesting for a better life, for democracy: "Terrified Uzbeks tell of three massacres": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1622286,00.html Excerpt from another article in "The Times": "BRITISH military equipment was used by troops who massacred hundreds of protesters in Uzbekistan this month despite government promises that it would block arms exports to tyrannical regimes. "Photographic evidence examined by The Times shows Uzbek soldiers crouching for cover alongside armoured Land Rover Defenders as they pointed guns at unarmed demonstrators in Andijan on May 13 — when up to 500 men, women and children were shot dead." - Calvin, you merely support whatever your government does, no matter how much blood is spilt. You are a murderer - as is Bush and Blair.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 10, 2005 16:15 PM
>Dear, the-abyss. A nice start there by Calvin. >Why do you think that your >reference to George Bush's privileged >lifstyle has any bearing on a discussion >about Chomsky's privileged lifestyle? And why do you think Chomsky's views have any bearing on what is going on in the world? Chomsky can say what he wants; the government isn't listening. Calvin, you are a puppet of power. If you agreed with the invasion of Iraq, then why weren't you on the streets in the 1990s protesting, telling the government to: "BOMB IRAQ NOW! OUST SADDAM NOW! SAVE THE IRAQI PEOPLE NOW!" You didn't do anything. You didn't care. The sanctions were crippling Iraq, killing the very young and the very old, but you weren't bothered. Had the 2003 invasion not gone ahead, you'd still be doing nothing. In the 1980s, when America and Britain were arming and supporting Saddam, why weren't you (and if you weren't old enough, then those just like you) condemning the actions of your government? Why did you sit back and allow your country to strengthen Saddam's vile regime? After the gassing of the Kurds, many people - those whom you have condemned along with Chomsky as "naysayers" - wrote letters to the British government condemning its support for Saddam. And why have you refused, over the last few years, to condemn Britain and America for arming and supporting the President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, a dictator, every bit as nasty as Saddam Hussein?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Aug 10, 2005 15:41 PM
"By contrast, the methodology of Iraq Body Count is more serious, not less. It's based on 40 news services, gives the date and time per incident, and provides a minimum and maximum count." The Iraq body count study is a pure joke! No one can seriously think that they can deduce the number of civilian deaths by looking in the paper. Who is controling the flow of information in this occupied country? Would all of the deaths necessarily make it into the paper? No! The Lancet report is the most accurate study to date on civilian deaths. Those of you attempting to discredit it I would only ask why? Is it that much worse to have 200,000 civilian deaths than 8,000? Remeber that on 9/11 there were 2600, and the reaction was amazingly large. Or Londons recent bomb were 50 some people died and there is a huge response. I would posit that all of those claiming the Lacet's study numbers are too high are placing a different value on Iraqi lives then on western lives.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 10, 2005 15:12 PM
"Your act is as dismally unimpressive as your pretentious and immature, teen-acne, goth-doom moniker. Do yourself a favour and stick to masturbation. Love, Calvin" - Calvin clearly showing why the U.S. public school system is such a laughing stock. Do yourself a favour, Calvin, and die like a good American ought to. All you Yankees do is slaughter others, time and time again, and then get Chomksy, Howard Zinn, et al, to excuse your crimes by blaming it all on the media. As for my moniker, my original name was "PlayerPiano", which is also the title of a book by Kurt Vonnegut. For those who can read (so that eliminates Calvin), visit this link for a review: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385333781/qid=1123675126/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/202-0034767-1652666 "the-abyss" means nothing to me; only a lunatic like you is stupid enough to deduce my nature from eight meaningless letters. Are you Graeme's brother by any chance?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 10, 2005 14:46 PM
Graeme is an utter hypocrite. And the fact that I was condemned on this pathetic blog, while Graeme was supported, shows what a self-serving liar Chomsky and his supporters are. Fine words. But when it comes to action, don't expect any. Chomsky cites The Lancet study. Chomsky is praised by his supporters. For doing what? For quoting the hard work of LES ROBERTS and his team who risked their lives to obtain data Chomsky was too lazy and too selfish to obtain for himself. Read Chomsky's post again. Nowhere will you find Les Roberts' name mentioned, proving what I said before, Chomsky loves the spotlight trained on him. The 100,000 figure also includes combatants, people who may have chosen to fight, so let's not treat this study as the last word. Chomsky writes: "What is amazing about these studies is that they have been undertaken." No, what's amazing Chomsky is your breathtaking hypocrisy, how you love the sound of your own voice, how you love journalists turning up at your MIT office to pay homage to you, yet can't even be bothered to cite the author of a study, to give credit where credit is due. I'm the Great Chomsky, look at me, LOOK AT ME! But what have I done for others apart from live a privileged life, massage my own ego, and encourage my fanatics to attack people for no reason.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 10, 2005 14:06 PM
Dear, the-abyss. Why do you think that your reference to George Bush's privileged lifstyle has any bearing on a discussion about Chomsky's privileged lifestyle? It appears that you do not think that the two things can exist concurrently. Hardly surprising from someone who seems incapable of holding two thoughts simultaneously. You seem to have a delusionary image of yourself as an aloof intellectual maverick interjecting his dispassionate wisdom in a display of weary superiority. Whereas, you are, in fact, a sad prick scouring the margins of the internet in a febrile attempt to uncover heterodox opinion. Your act is as dismally unimpressive as your pretentious and immature, teen-acne, goth-doom moniker. Do yourself a favour and stick to masturbation. Love, Calvin

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 10, 2005 06:01 AM
r4d20, You brought up Waco. Actually Janet Reno was severly criticized for too heavy handed in the Waco incident. The criticism didn't just come from the usual "bleeding hearts". From what I recall the only somewhat valid justification of the attack was that Kurash(sp?) was planning to kill all his followers anyway and swift action might save some innocent lives. That was surly not the case in Fallujah. No one, except for the U.S, threatened to kill all the inhabitants. I don't think Waco was an appropiate analogy to begin with. But even leaving aside all the context just for argument sakes the two situations were still not equivalent.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 10, 2005 05:35 AM
"Come on Bwong. You are not seriously suggesting that hostage taking should be allowed to become a trump-card for anyone crazy enough to do it, are you?" Actually "hostage taking" is somewhat misleading. It is more like a group of gunmen holed up in a shopping mall and the cops decided to toss hand grenades. The gunmen didn't kill the hostage. The cops did. " They were launching mortar attacks from their positions - its not like they were purely defensive." Iraq is THEIR COUNTRY. Anything they do against invaders in their country is by definition defensive. The premise of "Islamacists" using women and children as "human shields" is questionable. It is not like the fighters are some outsiders who went into town to take hostages. Most likely they lived there. It is interesting that you exhibit great skepticism about Lancet's methodology,--which I applaud as a healthy dose of skepticism ia always a good thing,--while totally buy into the U.S's party line. It cliamed all(or most)of the killed were "terrorists"(or militants)but how did they know? What methodology did they use to identify the corpses and established that they were "terrorists" in the aftermath of such savage bombings where they couldn't even count the bodies?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 10, 2005 04:55 AM
" What does that tell you about the Americans who decided to bomb away even knowing that the "Islamacists" were using women and children as human sheilds??" Come on Bwong. You are not seriously suggesting that hostage taking should be allowed to become a trump-card for anyone crazy enough to do it, are you? They were launching mortar attacks from their positions - its not like they were purely defensive. I simply cannot understand how you can try to flip this around to make the hostage taker look good. "Do you think they would have done the same in a hostage taking situation in a white neighbourhood in the U.S.A?" I don't know - I can speak only for myself. However, Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind as powerful counter-examples to your "racism" thesis. If white christian sepratists took hostages and refused to back down I would support an eventual assualt even if it put them in danger. The lives of the people are important, but so are the lives that would be put in danger by letting criminals know that they can always escape justice as long as they are prepared to hold an innocents hostage. You advocate a position that is penny-wise and pounbd-foolish. You would save a few lives while condemning many more to death by the example.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 09, 2005 23:58 PM
"I don't think Chomsky is uncomfortable with action in general, just action that leads to thousands of deaths." (frankr) - You don't know what Chomsky really thinks or feels. If he can't be bothered to visit his own blog, don't put words in his mouth. Chomsky hasn't read my posts, so I no longer read his. I just post. Other people ought to do the same. It's always the privileged trying to influence and educate the less privileged - time the roles were reversed!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Aug 09, 2005 23:22 PM
Calvin, I've done my fair share of criticising Chomsky, but for legitimate reasons. You're just an idiot. "Chomsky is just a carping naysayer who reduces everything to talking because he comes from a demographic faction and sub-culture which is uncomfortable with action." That's an allusion to Chomsky's privileged life at MIT, is it? And what life do you think George Bush has had, if not one of privilege? Bush was born into wealth, unlike Chomsky. Remember the courageous words Bush uttered amid a rising toll of troop casualties: "Bring them on!" Bring them on? And whose going to fight these hordes of terrorists Bush is attempting to rouse from their lairs? Whose sons and daughters are going to die, lose a limb, or be paralysed for the rest of their life? Bush is comfortable with action because he comes from a privileged class that never suffers the consequences of decisions taken by others. How much action did Bush see in Vietnam, for instance? None! Because he went AWOL. A real man of action, wouldn't you say?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Protocol4, Nemo at Aug 09, 2005 22:40 PM
"So Chomsky was a big critic of Saddam Hussein. Why the big protest at his ousting then?" to add to what frankr said, remember how suharto was deposed, by a mass uprising in indonesia? the same could have happened to saddam a long time ago; the sanctions actually strengthened him since it made people more dependent on his distribution system.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Aug 09, 2005 22:32 PM
The Lancet study's figure of 100,000 civilian dead is inherently exaggerated, a fact that was immediately recognition following its publication. The number was derived from their extrapolations of the household survey, which by any measure brings in a lot of uncertainty. According to the Washington Post, Human Rights Watch 'senior military analyst' Marc Garlasco said, "'The methods that [the researchers] used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting.'" He added that "'these numbers seem to be inflated,'" and "said it is extremely different to estimate civilian casualties, especially based on relatively small numbers," stating that "'100,000 is a reach.'" By contrast, the methodology of Iraq Body Count is more serious, not less. It's based on 40 news services, gives the date and time per incident, and provides a minimum and maximum count. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, given the margin of error: something like 25,000 civilian dead.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Richard, Frankr at Aug 09, 2005 16:13 PM
I don't think Chomsky is uncomfortable with action in general, just action that leads to thousands of deaths. The crimes of others don't justify ours. That's just basic morality. Chomsky is merely observing how the study is being quoted and expressing his own astonishment that it was even done. No need to jump to the barricades yet.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 09, 2005 12:27 PM
So Chomsky was a big critic of Saddam Hussein. Why the big protest at his ousting then? Chomsky didn't like Hussein. Chomsky didn't like the economic sanctions against Hussein and Chomsky didn't like the military toppling of Hussein. Chomsky is just a carping naysayer who reduces everything to talking because he comes from a demographic faction and sub-culture which is uncomfortable with action.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 09, 2005 04:32 AM
"The Islamacists use women and children as human shields" is standard excuse for the U.s and its allies,--notably Israel,--to evade the responsibility for indiscriminately killing civilians. This line of defence serves the dual purpose of 1)shifting the blame to "Islamacists",--apparantly all the male casualties in Fallujah, I wonder how did they know. and 2) dehumanizing the enemies. Afterall what kind of coward scumbags would use the weak and innocent as human shields. But beneath the soundbite the hypocrisy and double standard is really amazing. First the hypocrisy. As noted, what kind of monster would go ahead and shoot knowing in advance that your advesraries are using "women and children",--as if adult males all deserve to die,--as shields? Are "we" better than "Islamacists" who alledgely put the innocents at risk by deciding that their lives don't worth a game of chicken? Now the double standard. Israel has been claiming for years that 1) illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied terrories are "civilian"(hence attacking these outposts are "terrorism") 2) it justifies these settlements citing security, that it needs a buffer against the Palestinian "terrorists". The inescapable conclusion from 1) and 2) is that it is an official, systematic policy of Israel to use civilians as human shields. Where is the hue and cry?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Gammon101, Bwong at Aug 09, 2005 04:10 AM
"The "devastating" atack on Fallujah, yeah, prompted by the devastating Islamicist tactic of using Muslim women and children as human shields. If you don't want your mosques blasted don't use them as ersatz fortresses." I wonder where did you get the information from. But let's suppose it was as you said. What does that tell you about the Americans who decided to bomb away even knowing that the "Islamacists" were using women and children as human sheilds?? Do you think they would have done the same in a hostage taking situation in a white neighbourhood in the U.S.A? You just shoot yourself on the foot with you own shameless spin. Nice job!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Protocol4, Nemo at Aug 09, 2005 01:53 AM
calvin, i'm sorry but you are just misinformed (to put it mildly). chomsky spoke against saddam when the u.s. and u.k. were funding him against iran and even afterwards (if you cared to read him you would find that chomsky bitterly condemned george bush sr. when he allowed saddam to crush a rebellion immediately after the first gulf war). please check your facts before commenting

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Blairhead, Calvin at Aug 09, 2005 00:07 AM
Hey what a pity Chomsky wasn't around to catalogue the death rate under Sadam's dictatorship. Oh wait a minute, he was. Its just that he wasn't interested in Iraqi deaths until their deaths could be used as a weapon in hisdreary anti-Western polemics. The "devastating" atack on Fallujah, yeah, prompted by the devastating Islamicist tactic of using Muslim women and children as human shields. If you don't want your mosques blasted don't use them as ersatz fortresses.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Adabanasik, Ap2k at Aug 08, 2005 23:42 PM
“The 95% confidence iterval of the studay was 8,000 - 200,000. No meaningful inference can be drawn from such a large spread.” Are you saying that 8,000 deaths are not meaningful (it's obvious that 8,000 is a terrible underestimate, but hypothetically…)? We attacked Kossovo for massacres that added up to a few thousand dead. We attacked Japan (supposedly) for Pearl Harbor, and I'm not sure how many sailors died in that attack, but I don't even think it was a 100.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Poverty, 2010: at Aug 08, 2005 21:48 PM
Meanwhile fuel prices climbs. I have planted in my ground near my house 1200mq of solar pannels. I earn much more than growning grain or onions. I bought also an electric car... How much does it cost fuel for me? I don't give a dollar to Bin Laden! (and Mr Cheney) Domenico Schietti 2010 Eliminazione Povertà http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Protocol4, Nemo at Aug 08, 2005 02:55 AM
"The 95% confidence iterval of the studay was 8,000 - 200,000. No meaningful inference can be drawn from such a large spread." You forgot to add that within this interval, 98,000 represented the highest probability. also in the circumstances, i could not think of a better designed and executed study. also i personally happen to know that the study went though a few tatisticians before it was published (insider knowledge since i happen to be a student at johns hopkins and know some people involved in the study).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 08, 2005 01:47 AM
Interesting. I checked out on the internet about this Swiss report. I can't find the actual report, and I wouldn't be able to read it even if I did, but I read some articles about the report. It apparently built on the data collected by the Lancet, and came up with a figure of 39,000 deaths from combat alone. The figure was part of their small arms study. The Lancet study, by contrast, was designed to measure "excess deaths." Even if the methodology was rock solid, we of course know this is mostly correlation, not causation. It will probably be impossible to get accurate data about war casualties without cooperation from the institutions responsible for causing these deaths. The U.S. armed forces and the Iraqi government are not likely to do this, and the actual swathe of destruction, whether it encompasses 8000, 20,000, or 100,000 will remain obscure. But lets not kid ourselves. This war is not a picnic, and civilians are dying. The numbers suggested by the Lancet study are certainly plausible, and since the people best able to provide us with accurate numbers are unwilling to do so, IBC, Lancet and others are all we have to go on. It's ludicrous that the military doesn't have a study of it's own for us to see and criticize. This is people's lives we're talking about - it is not a trivial question to ask an army how many people it has killed, if for no other reason than to gauge its effectiveness and rate of error.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Aug 08, 2005 00:28 AM
"Any mention of it is usually accompanied by the statement that the “controversial” Lancet report estimates that extra deaths resulting from the invasion “may have been as high as 100,000,” or something similar" Actually, the criticism was much more specific. The 95% confidence iterval of the studay was 8,000 - 200,000. No meaningful inference can be drawn from such a large spread. Some people object to the Lancet report because it is politically unpalatable for them. Other people object because, unlike the majority public, they are not mathematically and statistically illiterate, and we refuse to sell out to those who want soundbites for political purposes. It's just this simple: the methadology of trhe test was unsound and it's results cannot be taken seriously. Oh, and it's really suspicious not to publish any actual info about this "Swiss Report". Do you have a problem with your readers verifying from the source?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The Lancet Study

By Michael, Bobbo at Aug 07, 2005 22:25 PM
100,000 deaths. That's a lot of nine-elevens... But, considering the effects of the sanctions in Iraq before the war, it's hardly surprising. If the number was actively discussed in the American media, we would have some Madeline Albright type gravely telling us that it's the price people have to pay for democracy, freedom and prosperity. Even if this were true, the crime of the Iraq invasion would be obvious. The choice to "...prefer liberty with danger to peace in servitude" is fine if it's your liberty for your danger. But if one consider this stance obligatory for all peoples everywhere, a crime is in the making. It is easy to make other people pay the price for your vision liberty. And they will keep on paying, just like the people of Indochina, for years after this war ends thanks to depleted uranium, cluster bomblets, mines, poverty and psychological duress.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (71)

Loading_border