By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.


The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities.


"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq (news - web sites)," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.


"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Roberts told Reuters.


The report came just days before the U.S. presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue.


Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations (news - web sites) sanctions blocking food and medical imports but the researchers described what they found as shocking.


The new figures are based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq in September 2004. They compared Iraqi deaths during 14.6 months before the invasion in March 2003 and the 17.8 months after it by conducting household surveys in randomly selected neighborhoods.


Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.


By comparison about 849 U.S. military were killed in combat or attacks and another 258 died in accidents or incidents not related to fighting, according to the Pentagon (news - web sites).


VERY BAD FOR IRAQI CIVILIANS


The researchers blamed air strikes for many of the deaths.


"What we have evidence of is the use of air power in populated urban areas and the bad consequences of it," Roberts said.


Gilbert Burnham, who collaborated on the research, said U.S. military action in Iraq was "very bad for Iraqi civilians."


"We were not expecting the level of deaths from violence that we found in this study and we hope this will lead to some serious discussions of how military and political aims can be achieved in a way that is not so detrimental to civilians populations," he told Reuters in an interview.


The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths.


They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.


Before the war the major causes of death were heart attacks, chronic disorders and accidents. That changed after the war.


Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Falluja, the insurgent held city 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad which had been repeatedly hit by U.S. air strikes.

"Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes," Roberts added in the study.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal earlier this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq.

"But these findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq -- in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war," Horton said in an editorial.






THE WORLD IS A BRIDGE, CROSS IT, BUT BUILD NO HOUSE UPON IT!

“IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? ... TRESSPASS HERE AND FIND OUT”






CIA agent Geoffrey Kemp talking about Saddam Hussein:

“WE KNEW HE WAS A SON OF A BITCH, BUT HE WAS OUR SON OF A BITCH”

Terrible, but whats worse its that all these lives have been lost for no real reason

Most of the Iraqis are killed by Iraqis.
No respect for human life there.

No Virgins - No Terror !©

"No respect for human life there."

Hm...... sounds just like Israel!





THE WORLD IS A BRIDGE, CROSS IT, BUT BUILD NO HOUSE UPON IT!

“IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? ... TRESSPASS HERE AND FIND OUT”






CIA agent Geoffrey Kemp talking about Saddam Hussein:

“WE KNEW HE WAS A SON OF A BITCH, BUT HE WAS OUR SON OF A BITCH”

Nop , i think it sound muslim, just look at the ME.

No Virgins - No Terror !©

Well, actually, the Jews have more blood on their hands if you look at the proportion of them compared with the Arabs and the short period of time they have made a country. Jews are also motivated my greed and race, and believe in their own superiority and are prepared to kill none Jews allot easier because of this.
It is however true that the Arabs have a very violet history, but that might very well be contributed to their enslavement by the Turks and later the British.
In a way the Arabs deserve what they are getting, at the end of the day, none of this would have been happening, if they hadn't betrayed the Moslem Turks and sided with the British during the first world war. They have made their beds, now they have to sleep in it.




THE WORLD IS A BRIDGE, CROSS IT, BUT BUILD NO HOUSE UPON IT!

“IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? ... TRESSPASS HERE AND FIND OUT”






CIA agent Geoffrey Kemp talking about Saddam Hussein:

“WE KNEW HE WAS A SON OF A BITCH, BUT HE WAS OUR SON OF A BITCH”

and believe in their own superiority

haha,
Again the Chosen People.
U really suffer from lack of self confidence.

It is not only Arabs problem is muslim problem, look at Afghanistan, Indonesia,
India, Philippines and the list is long...



No Virgins - No Terror !©

What were we to do?

The Turks Abbandoned Morocco and Algeria to the spanish and french.

The Turks Abbandoned Libya to the Italians

The Turks Abbandoned the Khedive (Egypt) to the British

The wahabbis of what is (Todays Saudi), and the hashemites (of Todays Jordan)correctly expected that the Turks would not fight for Syria Infact there was a tremendous amont of fear of a Turkization Of Islam which had been going on since the 1600's which created Sufism.

The Young Turks were going to take what they wanted, the appearance of hundreds of thousands of Armenian refugges appearing in the Borders of URUK and Bil al Shami looked to many like the handwritting on the wall for us the arabs.

The Fact that the Sultan appeared powerless, that the Arabs could no longer have their say in their own land, that a Class of Turkish Effendis and the Hated Millet system combining with the de islamification of the Caliphate.


In 1910 It was a Turkish Empire and not a Caliphate.

The Arabs chose foreign unbelievers to the unbelievers who lived close to us.

Well, firstly, on in 4 people in the world are Moslems, so the probability of them being in a conflict is high, due to their very high numbers. But also if you actually look at all those places of conflict, you will see that the Moslems are always the Victims, and not the initiator of wars. Afghanistan didn't invade the Soviet Union, it was the other war round, same with Chechnya, and its India who is holding onto Moslem land in Kashmir, not Moslems holding Hindu land, the same in Philippines, and in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq and Bosnia! Moslems are the victims, and whenever they fight back they are labeled the Terrorist, while if the Jews were to massacre tens of thousands of civilians, it will be labeled a self defense.
And its not me who suffers from a lack of confidence, it’s the Jews who always try to come up with reasons why they are hated all over the world, and its not just now, it’s the way it has been since the times when they were slaves in Egypt!




THE WORLD IS A BRIDGE, CROSS IT, BUT BUILD NO HOUSE UPON IT!

“IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? ... TRESSPASS HERE AND FIND OUT”






CIA agent Geoffrey Kemp talking about Saddam Hussein:

“WE KNEW HE WAS A SON OF A BITCH, BUT HE WAS OUR SON OF A BITCH”

Well, firstly, on in 4 people in the world are Moslems, so the probability of them being in a conflict is high, due to their very high numbers.

No real connection, the number of the muslim does not change nothing.
How many muslim states there R? and how many R involved with wars?

But also if you actually look at all those places of conflict, you will see that the Moslems are always the Victims, and not the initiator of wars. Afghanistan didn't invade the Soviet Union, it was the other war round, same with Chechnya, and its India who is holding onto Moslem land in Kashmir, not Moslems holding Hindu land, the same in Philippines, and in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq and Bosnia! Moslems are the victims, and whenever they fight back they are labeled the Terrorist,

haha,
Moslems R victims?? did i read it right??
Tell it to the people who were murdered in 9/11.

I can easily debate with U on each of the conflicts U mentioned and show you
U now nothing.
Now explain the killing of muslim by muslim in Pakistan, Indonesia, SA, Syria...

while if the Jews were to massacre tens of thousands of civilians, it will be labeled a self defense.
But Jewish did not massacre thens of thousands oc civilians.

And its not me who suffers from a lack of confidence, it’s the Jews who always try to come up with reasons why they are hated all over the world, and its not just now, it’s the way it has been since the times when they were slaves in Egypt!

Yes U R suffer from lack of confidence, this is Y U alway talk about
"Chossen People", and yes Jewish R the most heated people- before Israel was
created and after and guese what? It only make me pride!!!.



No Virgins - No Terror !©

lol hadi,yeah thats right,all muslims are the victims...sigh

nothing to do with islam being an agressive religion or anything..lol