« it's a hate mail kind of day! | Main | i've created a monster »

counting the dead must be a peace thing

On that Iraq Body Count site I referred to earlier.

It is an anti-war site. I'm assuming the sole purpose of the body count is to use as propaganda later on when people like Ted Rall and Noam Chomsky want to write hyperbole-filled rants loaded with misleading numbers.

It is interesting to note that the major news sources for counting up the civilian deaths for that site include Al Jazeera network, AP, Reuters, New York Times, The Guardian and Agence France-Presse.

Notice a trend?

It's also interesting to note that quite a few people emailed me to call me bloodthirsty when they thought IBC was a pro-war site, but when I emailed them back to correct them, they suddenly thought that counting up the dead - real or imagined - was a good idea.

Besides, when I'm in the mood for a bloodthirsty head count, I go here.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference counting the dead must be a peace thing:

» Iraq Bug Out Count! from No Prerequisite
After spotting the Iraq Body Count over at michele's, I decided that I need something a little different: the Iraq... [Read More]


Overinflated numbers?

This project aims to record single-mindedly and on a virtually real-time basis one key and immutable index of the fruits of war: the death toll of innocents.

Well, when the Red Cross has confirmed that one civilian was killed and 14 injured in overnight attacks on Baghdad, I'd say that current figure of 16 looks a bit on the high side.

Of course, the Red Cross is just a puppet of the despotic US and UK regimes isn't it? Either that or I suppose it's BBC propaganda misquoting reliable figures to paint a rosier picture for the masses.

mmmmmmm.....bloody heads......

Shouldn't there be a body count of how many people of his own peopple Saddam has killed during his rule? Oh, wait, I forgot, it's ok as long as the US didn't do it.

please, the body count is probably higher than their hit count.

I'm really surprised that the count isn't up to 36 yet. I guess 20 of their 36 sources haven't yet reported the death noted by the Red Cross.

Anyone notice Herrold's Afghan count, besides double entries, etc, exceeded (accurate, mmmhhh) Taliban counts in nearly every case? He used most of the sources Michele names here, sitting on his left buttock in New England. This is hard research? Then, math genius Garofalo roughly doubled Herrold's.

PS: Jean and Mark, if I misspelled your names, I don't give a crusty fuck.

Ken has hit the nail on the head. If three sources report the same three dead civilians, they'll claim it as nine dead civilians.

What won't they count the number of dead civilians under the Hussein regieme? (Rhetorical question; I know the answer.)