Do y'all realize that the numbers appear to be for the
total civilian deaths?
Quote:
|
The Baghdad morgue reported receiving 1,855 bodies in July, more than half of the total deaths recorded in the country.
|
I noticed in the article that the terms used were "civilian deaths" or "violent deaths" but never "violent civilian deaths". Every day there are headlines such as "Baghdad bomb kills ##". The deaths are not secret and surely the violence in Baghdad has escalated, but something is fishy about the article itself. Further inquiry brings up this article:
Baghdad Morgue Tallies 1,815 Bodies in July
Quote:
|
The Baghdad morgue took in 1,815 bodies during July, news services quoted the facility's assistant manager, Abdul Razzaq al-Obeidi, as saying. The previous month's tally was 1,595. Obeidi estimated that as many as 90 percent of the total died violent deaths.
|
This is puzzling. It appears that our friends at the NYTimes would like you to believe that these deaths were all the result of the war when in fact they were not. Strangely enough, whether you take the 1815 number or 1855, the resulting death rate is far less than the death rate for Los Angeles County. For the death rate to equal that of LA County, over 3000 Baghdad people would die. Please fell free to help me clear up this puzzle. I know Baghdad is not a safe place, but is LA County really THAT bad?