Iraq Body Count: SHAME ON YOU!!! - An appeal to the anti-war movement

Iraq Body Count: SHAME ON YOU!!! - An appeal to the anti-war movement
By Gabriele Zamparini

"There have also been around 70,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the military action by the US and its allies, according to the Iraq Body Count website."

US House calls for Iraq pullout by spring
James Sturcke and agencies
Friday July 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

While the Iraqi slaughtered by the Anglo-American illegal, immoral war of aggression might be well over one million, the Western mainstream media keep using the ridiculous figures provided by Iraq Body Count.

Nothing decent can at this point be expected by an organization that seems much more interested in its "reputation" than to the victims of this genocide.

It's not surprising that most of the mainstream media, starting with The Guardian, keep hiding the Anglo-American genocide of Iraqis since they are directly responsible for this genocide.

But the anti-war movement? Too many organizations, intellectuals and activists have been supporting IBC and defending its ridiculous counting and its shameful work to discredit the peer reviewed study published by the Lancet.

It’s quite time that those organizations and intellectuals in the anti-war movement that have more visibility and can get more attention from the mainstream media start to speak out against this revolting show. Too many people keep being deceived by the pernicious collaboration between IBC and the mainstream media. Silence is no more an option. Solidarity does not mean omerta.

Gabriele Zamparini

EMAIL TO THE GUARDIAN’S GEORGE MONBIOT

From: The Cat's Dream
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007
To: George Monbiot
Subject: RE: "your" newspaper and Iraqi genocide


Dear George,

Have you read "your" newspaper yesterday?

"There have also been around 70,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the military action by the US and its allies, according to the Iraq Body Count website."

US House calls for Iraq pullout by spring
James Sturcke and agencies
Friday July 13, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

As you well know, the Iraqi slaughtered by the Anglo-American illegal, immoral war of aggression might be well over one million by now.

Why does “your” newspaper keep deceiving its readers by using the figures provided by IBC instead of reporting the findings of the peer reviewed study published in the Lancet?

I congratulated you for your work and clarity when you debated the issue of climate change with Alexander Cockburn. There you wrote: “"If these papers have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they are not science. They carry no more scientific weight than an article in the National Enquirer. (...) This is why the peer-review process exists: to weed out nonsense."

The same can, should and must be said for the issue of the casualties in Iraq since the Anglo-American invasion.

Will you take the Guardian, “your” own newspaper, to task? Will you weed out its nonsense?

Thank you.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

From: The Cat's Dream
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007
To: George Monbiot
Subject: Good job RE: debate with Cockburn

Dear George,

I want to congratulate you for your excellent articles in the debate you had with Cockburn on global warming.

It's very important especially this passage:

"If these papers have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they are not science. They carry no more scientific weight than an article in the National Enquirer. (...) This is why the peer-review process exists: to weed out nonsense."

Not understanding this is not understanding science and philosophy of science.

Your clear and unambiguous words can, should and must be said also for the topic of the casualties in Iraq since the Anglo-American invasion. When the peer-reviewed scientific journal Lancet published two studies, one in 2004 and the other in 2006, the mainstream media (especially the liberal media), trashed and/or ignored them.

Surprisingly Iraq Body Count mounted a campaign, made of media interviews and press releases to discredit those studies "published in peer-reviewed scientific journals". Whereas after the publication of the 2006 Lancet study some media started to pay more attention to the Lancet's, disgracefully IBC kept discrediting it. Even more disgracefully, a few people (even within Znet: Brian Dominick's work in support of IBC was particularly important) kept supporting the IBC's "nonsense" against the "peer-reviewed scientific journals".

I hope your words will be read and meditated by many in the liberal and progressive media, starting with the progressive ZNet and C.

Thank you once again for your excellent work.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini