ZNet, Iraq Body Count and that omerta on the left

UPDATE 3: Reply from ZNet's Michael Albert and further exchange

Michael Albert's reply:

Hi,

We don’t see everything on common dreams, and even when we do, we don’t rerun it all…very rarely in fact…If naiman sends to us, it will go up, of course. I think you are right about the good timing, though, so perhaps you could suggest to him that he send it our way?

***

As Suggested by Michael Albert, this is my email to Robert Naiman:

Dear Robert Naiman,
CC Dear Michael Albert,
CC Dear Mark Harris,

I am forwarding you an exchange with ZNet’s Michael Albert on Iraqi deaths caused by the US-led war of aggression.

As you can read below, Albert agrees this may be a good timing to republish your article - Is the U.S. Responsible for the Death of Nearly a Million Iraqis? - (or maybe an updated version?) on ZNet.

I believe this would be particularly useful to contrast that media-government propaganda campaign aimed to minimize the horror inflicted by the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq. That propaganda campaign has been very successful through the delegitimization of the two studies published on the Lancet and their consequential disappearing from media reports. As always, the public must be kept ignorant.

Disgracefully IBC bas been actively contributing to this delegitimization for the past three years, with press releases, media interviews, articles, e-mails, etc.

It was really shocking to see on ZNet an article highlighting those IBC’s figures and completely ignoring the Lancet’s.

The vast majority of the population in the US and UK (to limit to those countries having the major responsibilities for these atrocities upon the Iraqi people) has no idea of the extent of the horror. In 1990 Iraq was a modern, quite developed country with the best schools, hospitals, public services, infrastructures. All over the Middle East people use to send their children to study in Iraq, a country that had defeated illiteracy according to UN agencies.

After the first Gulf War, a 13 year long genocidal embargo, the longest aerial bombardment since WWII and now this new Empire’s adventure, the war of aggression for which the major Nazi war criminals were hanged in Nuremberg, Iraq doesn’t exist anymore as a country. Iraqi Freedom has transformed it into a graveyard.

For these reasons, every single time we have the chance to talk and write about this war, I believe it’s important to mention at the very least those Lancet’s studies and that one million of innocent human beings slaughtered because of the mental illness of a bunch of lunatics in Washington and London.

I would be very grateful if you could send your article or an updated version of it to ZNet.

Thank you

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

********************************************************************


UPDATE 2: New e-mail to ZNet's Michael Albert and Mark Harris: happy birthday and ONE MILLION more to come!

Dear Michael Albert,
CC. Dear Mark Harris,

Today Mark Harris’ article celebrates its forth day of life on ZNet TOP PAGE and the following paragraph remains unchanged:

“And dead Iraqis there are. An estimated 68, 347 and 74,753 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the military intervention, according to the log of reported deaths kept by Iraq Body Count. In the chaos of occupation and civil war, this is invariably a conservative figure.”

On Media Lens message board I could read the exchange between Media Lens’ Editors and Mark Harris

In that exchange, Harris writes,

“Please keep in mind that this was an op-ed piece written by me without editorial review by anyone, other than whoever reads submissions for ZNet”.

By the way, I have been trying to find in ZNet website the following article published on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 by CommonDreams.org but I couldn't find it.

Is the U.S. Responsible for the Death of Nearly a Million Iraqis?
by Robert Naiman

This is a very important article and I am sure ZNet must have republished it. Maybe I missed it?

If ZNet hasn’t published it yet, maybe this could be a good timing for publishing it?

In this forth day, please let me wish ZNet and Harris’ article happy birthday and ONE MILLION more to come!

The Spirit of Resistance Lives!

Gabriele Zamparini


UPDATE: Znet, Iraq Body Count and the launching of Darfur Body Count website (please, see previous exchange below)

Dear Michael Albert,
CC. Dear Mark Harris,

Since ZNet has still on its TOP PAGE Harris’ article with the following paragraph unchanged:

“And dead Iraqis there are. An estimated 68, 347 and 74,753 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the military intervention, according to the log of reported deaths kept by Iraq Body Count. In the chaos of occupation and civil war, this is invariably a conservative figure.”

I was wondering if you could circulate the following press release I received just a few days ago:

For immediate release. Launching of Darfur Body Count website

With the usual propaganda coming from the state-corporate media, I believe it’s important to keep ZNet’s progressive readers seriously informed.

Thank you

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini

********************************************************************

Dear friends,

This is an e-mail I sent to Mark T. Harris and ZNet's Michael Albert about an article published by ZNet. That article ignores completely the magnitude of the genocide inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the Anglo-American invasion and occupation. The ZNet article simply refers to the inherently unreliable and obviously incomplete figures provided by Iraq Body Count.

ZNet is not new in this shame of burying the truth about the Iraqi deaths. You may read some details here

It's not only the liberal media and ZNet has proved it. Maybe it's time for someone to write an update to the classic Manufacturing Consent?

But on the "left", silence has become the most distinguished characteristic of this strange idea of solidarity. The word 'omerta' is surely a better choice.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

Dear Mark T. Harris,
CC. Dear Michael Albert,

In We Are All Living on Planet Hiroshima, published by ZNet, you write:

“And dead Iraqis there are. An estimated 68, 347 and 74,753 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the military intervention, according to the log of reported deaths kept by Iraq Body Count. In the chaos of occupation and civil war, this is invariably a conservative figure.”

Could I ask you why you decided to quote the figures from IBC and ignored the studies published in the Lancet?

The figures coming from Iraq Body Count – an amateurish organisation presenting inherently unreliable and obviously incomplete figures - are NOT an estimate but a COUNT made upon some reports in English language media. This is a methodology which is not accepted by any professional epidemiology or statistic scientists.

There is no controversy whatsoever in the world scientific community on that study published on the Lancet’s, a study conducted by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, world leaders in the field of epidemiology, and published as peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world's leading medical journal.

So much so that on March 26 the BBC reported:

President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report." But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

The Lancet’s (please, see below the study’s summary and its link) was published last year and by now there could be arguably 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of the Anglo-American invasion. Please read this article:

U.S. Responsible for the Death of Nearly a Million Iraqis? by Robert Naiman

I hope to get a reply and/or you to correct that paragraph in your article.

I would also be interested to know what ZNet and Michael Albert have to say on this issue, after ZNet’s members have done an invaluable job in supporting IBC against the Lancet, science and the truth. This is not a detail and I see the shame of burying the truth continues.

Great job Michael & friends!

In solidarity,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey
The Lancet, Volume 368, Number 9545, 21 October 2006

Summary

Background

An excess mortality of nearly 100000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003–September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods

Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings

Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12?801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654965 (392979–942636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601027 (426369–793663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Interpretation

The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.

***

Mark Harris' reply:

Gabriele,
Thanks for sharing this information with me. I can't disagree with it. When I wrote my article, I used the IBC figures as a kind of bottom line for verifiable civilian deaths caused by U.S.-led military forces. But, of course, the Lancet study is significant and deserves to be referenced, too.

Best,
Mark Harris
Bloomington, IL

My reply:

Thanks Mark, I do appreciate your reply.

Well, yes, I guess that since the scientific methodology tells us that there could be 1 million Iraqi killed because of this illegal aggression, 70,000 can be easily defined as “bottom line”. The fact remains: you haven’t mentioned the peer reviewed study and its devastating findings but preferred this “bottom line” coming from an amateurish organisation presenting inherently unreliable and obviously incomplete figures. Why?

Will you correct your article using the Lancet’s findings?

If you like to use both, Lancet’s and IBC - and since the reader could be a little disoriented by the GAP – will you explain your readers that there is no controversy in the scientific world on the Lancet’s? As I wrote you, even the BBC wrote:

President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report." But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

So I’d expect an article on ZNet to have at least the same standards of the BBC.

I look forward for your reply. As you can easily imagine, this is a very important issue that cannot be emphasized enough.

Best,
Gabriele
PS I will CC this exchange to the same people I sent my original email.