Iraq: 1000 civilian casualties a month

[Jason McCullough]

By way of Kevin Drum (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html?ei=5090&en=a31c2c1015e003ac&ex=1301634000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all).

About 900 Iraqi civilians died violently in March, up from about 700 the month before, according to military statistics and the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent organization that tracks deaths. Meanwhile, at least 29 American troops were killed in March, the second-lowest monthly total since the war began.

Good news, less dead troops. Bad news, the Iraqis are getting 1,000 civilians killed a month, which is about the equivalent of 10,000/month for the US population, which is three times the 9/11 death toll......

[shift6]

So during which month were there 1000 civilian casualties?

[Jason McCullough]

March, as it says in the quote. Excuse me for rounding.

[shift6]

For someone who has used the phrase "rounding error" in like every third P&R thread, rounding this up over 11% seems a big deal.

[Tim Partlett]

Only 900 and not 1000? Phew, for a moment then I thought I'd have to show some compassion. Clearly 900 is not something to concern ourselves about.

[Mike O'Malley]

Tim-
If 900 is so persuasive on its own, why did Jason round up? Sheer melodrama.

[Tim Partlett]

Sure, but the figures are a tragedy whether they are 700, 900 or 1000. I've seen people round up the death tolls in the Tsunami, 9/11, etc. to the nearest thousand and never saw anyone complain. These are estimates after all, and the latest Associated Press count (http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2006/04/04/1519017-sun.html) puts the figure for last month at over one thousand, at 1,038.

[Mike O'Malley]

I agree with you completely; it's a tragedy. Given that, I don't see that exaggerating makes it any more so.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh yes, wild exaggerating on my part. Christ.

[Robert Sharp]

And 700 the month before. The problem, Jason, is that you say 1000/month as if that's basically what it has been every month since the war began. Yes, it's still a problem, but in this case the rounding and insinuation is misleading.

Now, back to the point. How are these people dying? Is it mainly terrorist/guerrilla bombings?

[Jason McCullough]

Really? Can you indicate where I implied 1,000 civilians a month have been dying since the beginning of the war? Hell, quoting a sentence that says things like "before it was less" makes it sound like I wasn't even implying it.

[Ben]

the Iraqis are getting 1,000 civilians killed a month

Character limit.

[shift6]

I've seen people round up the death tolls in the Tsunami, 9/11, etc. to the nearest thousand and never saw anyone complain.
So rounding 2986 deaths (in 9/11) up to 3000 is pretty much the same as rounding 900 deaths up to 1000?

I only called him on the title of the thread because of how often he discounts data he disagrees with by referring to "rounding error". I can't easily get an exact count because searching for an exact phrase is apparently too "hi-fi" for vB, but 16 threads in P&R (not counting this one) contain both words.

Really? Can you indicate where I implied 1,000 civilians a month have been dying since the beginning of the war? Hell, quoting a sentence that says things like "before it was less" makes it sound like I wasn't even implying it.
The title. Iraq: 1000 civilian casualties a month.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh fine, mr. touchy pants. I changed the title to "Iraq: *Exactly* "about 900" civilian casualties a month." Unfortunately subject edits don't appear to work.

I only called him on the title of the thread because of how often he discounts data he disagrees with by referring to "rounding error".

I use that phrase a lot, but in reference to "the influence of that is so small that it amounts to a rounding error", not "your data has rounding errors so it's wrong."

[Tim Partlett]

So rounding 2986 deaths (in 9/11) up to 3000 is pretty much the same as rounding 900 deaths up to 1000?

I only called him on the title of the thread because of how often he discounts data he disagrees with by referring to "rounding error". I can't easily get an exact count because searching for an exact phrase is apparently too "hi-fi" for vB, but 16 threads in P&R (not counting this one) contain both words.

Before that figure was arrived at there was plenty of rounding up by a few hundred to the nearest thousand. It happens all the time.