Why is Antiwar.com hiding the Iraq Genocide?

Dear Margaret Griffis,
AntiWar.com

I hope you’re well.

I read on Antiwar.com that you edit the website’s page Casualties in Iraq - The Human Cost of Occupation

While that page includes a big Iraq Body Count’s banner and other IBC references, I could not find any mention of:

• the studies conducted by the world leaders in the field of epidemiology and published as peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world's leading medical journal, the Lancet;

• the recently published ORB poll suggesting a total of 1,220,580 deaths as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)

The British media watchdog Media Lens recently wrote:

IBC only collects records of violent civilian deaths reported by two different (mainly Western) media sources operating in Iraq. Epidemiologists report that this type of study typically captures around 5 per cent of deaths during high levels of violence, such as exists in Iraq. By contrast, the Lancet studies provide figures for all deaths - violent and non-violent, civilian and military, reported and unreported. [The Media Ignore Credible Poll Revealing 1.2 Million Violent Deaths In Iraq, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 ]

In its latest Alert, Media Lens wrote:

The mainstream media are continuing to use figures provided by the website Iraq Body Count (IBC) to sell the public a number for total post-invasion deaths of Iraqis that is perhaps 5-10% of the true death toll. [MEDIA ALERT: IRAQ BODY COUNT: “A VERY MISLEADING EXERCISE”, October 3, 2007]

Gilbert Burnham, MD and Professor of International Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Les Roberts, Associate Professor at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health recently wrote:

Not wanting to think about civilian deaths in Iraq has become almost universal. The average American believed approximately 9,900 Iraqis had died as a result of the war according to a February 2007 AP poll. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that things in Iraq may be one-hundred times worse than Americans realize. (...) There are now two polls and three scientific surveys all suggesting the official figures and media-based estimates in Iraq have missed 70-95% of all deaths. The evidence suggests that the extent of under-reporting by the media is only increasing with time. [Ignorance of Iraqi death toll no longer an option, Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham]

Patrick McElwee and Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy recently wrote:

The best estimate indicates that more than a million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation. It is reasonable to suppose that if politicians and news media in the United States were forced to confront this reality, pressure for the end of the war would increase dramatically, and cavalier discussions of new military actions in Iran and Pakistan would be less likely. [Is the U.S. Responsible for a Million Iraqi Deaths?, Patrick McElwee and Robert Naiman]

In April 2006 I wrote Antiwar.com on the same issue but I didn’t received any reply.

I know other people wrote you on the same issue in these years and again in these weeks and days. Again, Antiwar.com has not replied to anybody.

Why is AntiWar.com - on its page Casualties in Iraq - The Human Cost of Occupation - hiding to its readers the Iraq Genocide?

Thank you for your time and please, I would like to hear from you this time.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini
London

***

REPLY FROM ERIC GARRIS, Webmaster/Managing Editor Antiwar.com

What a jerk you are. Rather than making a suggestion, you have to make accusations.

I have never heard of the study you mention. In spite of your being such an asshole, I will take a look.

MY REPLY TO ERIC GARRIS AND THE OTHER ANTIWAR.COM TEAM

Thanks Eric.

I’m delighted to know that now you’ll take a look.

I have published your reply on my blog and I also hope to update it again when Antiwar.com will include the info – so mysteriously unknown to Antiwar.com’s folks - I sent.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

REPLY FROM ANTIWAR.COM'S Editorial Assistant Scott Horton

Gabriele,

I don't know if Eric Garris had that day off or what, but we ran stories about the ORB study two weeks ago when it came out. You might ask ORB why they have refused 6 requests to be interviewed about it.

Of course, we also ran the news about the Lancet/Johns-Hopkins studies of 2004 and 2006 WHEN THEY WERE NEWS in 2004 and 2006.

But, hey, you keep practicing that richous indignation. Someday you'll be complaining about someone's actual shortcoming and then you'll feel great!

Scott Horton
Antiwar.com

MY REPLY TO ANTIWAR.COM'S Editorial Assistant Scott Horton

Thanks Scott,

So, you had heard about the lancet and the ORB poll. That's great! So why Margaret Griffis, responsible for Antiwar.com page "Casualties in Iraq - The Human Cost of Occupation" doesn't even mention those studies in your website's page dedicated to the human cost of occupation?

I saw that that page is very rich of details about the US military personnel but nothing about the Iraqis, besides that big IBC banner.

Do you have any comment on the issue besides making the moral on my "richous indignation"?

Best wishes,
Gabriele

ERIC GARRIS, Webmaster/Managing Editor Antiwar.com writes again...

These studies you cite ARE on our website, just not in the exact place you want them.

I don't see how your slander "Antiwar.com hiding genocide" really applies. How about "Antiwar.com put stuff on a page I don't like."

But don't worry about us ignoring your emails in the future. I will be blocking your slanderous rants so I don't even have to think about them.

and again...

And you appear to be quite the coward as well. Make sure you block all further critical comments, that way you can rewrite history just like your mentor (GW Bush).

ANTIWAR.COM'S Editorial Assistant Scott Horton writes again:

Gabriele,

There is a page for dead Americans and a separate page for dead Iraqis. Both of them are linked right there at the top of the page.
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
http://antiwar.com/updates/

Margarete's page is new every single day and tracks every reported violent death in Iraq - a service unavailable from any other source.

You just keep being right about everything and someday the ones you accuse will actually be in the wrong. That will be a great day for you indeed.

If you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to covering up the war.

Best,
Scott Horton
Antiwar.com

BEFORE RECEIVING THIS LAST REPLY FROM SCOTT HORTON I SENT HIM THE FOLLOWING EMAIL. THE POINT RAISED IN MY ORIGINAL BLOG ABOVE AND AGAIN IN MY REPLIES AND HERE BELOW STILL STAND 100%. READERS CAN DRAW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS:

Dear Scott,

After this entertaining email exchange I had with you and Eric Garris, what I understand is that the Antiwar.com page "Casualties in Iraq - The Human Cost of Occupation" refers exclusively to Iraq Body Count and not to the Lancet studies and the ORB poll because, as you wrote, your website published the latter "WHEN THEY WERE NEWS".

Instead the IBC data are always fresh new. I understand.

Curiously, this seems to be one of the reasons used by the state-corporate media. For example, the BBC wrote me back in October 2005:

“Thanks for your email. We did cover this report in detail when it was released - see link below. The figures it details are now around one year old where as those produced by Iraq Body Count are continually updated.”

The only difference is that the BBC was then much more kind and polite in its reply.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

ANTIWAR.COM'S Editorial Assistant Scott Horton's reply:

Maybe if you hadn't started with ridiculous accusations from your high horse, I would have been more polite.

Instead, how do you say in England? Piss off.

Scott

REPLY FROM Research Editor Jason Ditz

Indeed, I personally put every single story I could find about both the Lancet study and the ORB in the database from the time they came out up until the present day. These all ended up on the page, and many times were the headline story for the day. See, for instance:

http://antiwar.com/past/20041029.html

I don't see how any regular reader of antiwar.com could think we're somehow keeping these things a secret.

REPLY TO Research Editor Jason Ditz

Thanks Jason,

The page you sent me is Updated Oct. 29, 2004 – 9:40 pm EDT

As I wrote a number of times and then more, why can't the Antiwar.com page titled "Casualties in Iraq - The Human Cost of Occupation" refer to the Lancet studies and the ORB poll? Why do you only have the IBC counter?

All the insults I got from the Antiwar.com folks can't change this fact.

I sent lots of info in my first email (published on my blog) why that would be extremely important and helpful.

I think my question is a very important one and I am shocked from the replies I got so far.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

[to be continued?]

UPDATE - ANTIWAR.COM CHANGED ITS PAGE "Casualties in Iraq - The Human Cost of Occupation"