Robert Fisk’s mail bag
In his latest column for the British Independent, Robert Fisk writes:
Being that excellent reporter we all rightly respect, Robert Fisk surely knows about the scientific studies on this topic published on the British medical journal The Lancet as well as the polls published by the British ORB, that estimated that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003 [Please, see below]. Nevertheless he let his friend’s words unchallenged in a piece whose central point is exactly those figures his friend writes about.
Maybe some of my readers could write to Robert Fisk to gently (and rightly) correct those figures he used in his latest Independent’s column so that when he checks his mail bag next time he will have more letters to write about. [It seems Robert Fisk doesn't use the Internet, so please write him a letter and send it to The Independent]
You may want to send Robert Fisk the following:
Iraq: the Human Cost
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
ORB Update on Iraqi Casualty Data
Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys
Counting Iraqi Casualties -- and a Media Controversy
What is the real death toll in Iraq?
PLEASE, READ ALSO:
EXTRA ZERO - An Exchange With The Independent’s John Rentoul
‘WITH TOTAL DESTRUCTION’ - THE FAILURE OF JOURNALISM IN IRAQ
ALL SMOKE, NO FIRE - THE NATIONAL JOURNAL SMEARS THE LANCET
“By chance, as Bush was speaking this week, my mail bag flopped open to reveal a letter from my old American military analyst friend, George W Appenzeller. He gently (and rightly) corrects some recent comparative figures I used on US casualties in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.”After making several good points, toward the end Fisk writes about the most important one:
Now for much more blood, the civilian variety. According to George, "About 1,600,000 were killed in the Korean war, 365,000 (according to American authorities) and four million (according to the Vietnamese government) during the American phase of the Vietnam war, and who knows how many in Iraq. No fewer than 250,000, certainly." Not that long ago, Bush claimed that civilian fatalities in Iraq were "30,000 more or less" – again, note the "more or less" – but I can see why these statistics matter even less for him. (…)While it’s important to remember that Bush’s "30,000 more or less" came from Iraq Body Count, it’s ironic that Robert Fisk reproduces a letter of his “old American military analyst friend, George W Appenzeller” to correct “some recent comparative figures”, when Fisk’s old friend seems to wander in the dark as he writes “and who knows how many in Iraq. No fewer than 250,000, certainly".
Being that excellent reporter we all rightly respect, Robert Fisk surely knows about the scientific studies on this topic published on the British medical journal The Lancet as well as the polls published by the British ORB, that estimated that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003 [Please, see below]. Nevertheless he let his friend’s words unchallenged in a piece whose central point is exactly those figures his friend writes about.
Maybe some of my readers could write to Robert Fisk to gently (and rightly) correct those figures he used in his latest Independent’s column so that when he checks his mail bag next time he will have more letters to write about. [It seems Robert Fisk doesn't use the Internet, so please write him a letter and send it to The Independent]
You may want to send Robert Fisk the following:
Iraq: the Human Cost
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
ORB Update on Iraqi Casualty Data
Answers to Questions About Iraq Mortality Surveys
Counting Iraqi Casualties -- and a Media Controversy
What is the real death toll in Iraq?
PLEASE, READ ALSO:
EXTRA ZERO - An Exchange With The Independent’s John Rentoul
‘WITH TOTAL DESTRUCTION’ - THE FAILURE OF JOURNALISM IN IRAQ
ALL SMOKE, NO FIRE - THE NATIONAL JOURNAL SMEARS THE LANCET
28 Comments:
Zamparini wrote:
"ORB [estimated] that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003"
Are you sure that ORB estimated the number of "civilians" killed? Perhaps you should check the correctness of your own facts before you write to "correct" Fisk.
And if you're really interested in scientific studies, you might want to mention the two studies which give estimates of 151,000 and 125,000 Iraqi deaths (from, respectively, World Health Organisation and Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels).
The above two studies (WHO and CRED) are from experts in the field, unlike the ORB poll which was conducted by someone (Munqith Daghir) with limited formal training in survey methodology, and with only a few years of experience (he started polling in 2003).
On estimates of the killings, see here and its links -
http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2008/01/violent-deaths-in-iraq-since-invasion.html
Thanks, Harry - a well-informed piece. Readers of this blog may also be interested in Independent journalist John Rentoul's latest comment on the Iraq mortality issue, which comments on Medialens, among other things: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/04/a-little-more-t.html
Shall we then believe to the usual "anonymous", to the "Labour Friends of Iraq" and - last but not least - to Tony Blair's biographer. I think not ;-)
That's ad hominem, Gabriele. If you want to debate like an adult, address arguments, not the person.
You can start by answering some of the points I've raised in previous comments (all of which you've so far avoided):
1. Did ORB estimate "civilian" deaths as you claim?
2. Do you consider the WHO team to be "genocide deniers"?
3. Why do you omit to mention the WHO (and ILCS and CRED) studies in your blog or in emails to journalists? These studies are from "leading epidemiologists". Do you not care about science?
4. You claim that you "started to write about IBC [...] as soon as the first Lancet study was published [in 2004]". Please support this claim with examples. I think it's false - I believe you started writing about the issue only after Medialens's 2006 campaign began.
5. In 2007, you wrote: "Iraq Body Count has been carrying out a three year long campaign to discredit the two Lancet studies and its authors." Please either support this statement (with pre-2006 examples of IBC "discrediting" the Lancet study) or withdraw it.
6. Please give examples of the "many, many, many Mediahell.org crusades" that you wrote of, or withdraw your remark and apologise to Media Hell. (I'll be charitable and assume that "many, many, many" refers to double digits, not treble).
These are all points dealing directly with your claims. Will you have the integrity to reply to them, or will you squirm, divert and evade, as usual?
LOL ;-)
Answer the questions, Gabriele. Stop playing your childish games of evasion.
Gabriele, it's one thing for you to change the word "civilians" to "citizens" in your blog, thereby correcting your error (albeit without notifying anyone that you've corrected it - as of 16/4/08, 12:55).
But it's dishonest of you to edit the word in my quote (of your initial erroneous version) without notifying anyone. Your surreptitious edit makes my point (first comment on this page) difficult to comprehend.
This is dishonest of you. I can see why ZNet's Michael Albert called you "contemptible".
LOL ;-)
Seriously now, "anonymous": I am not a doctor, sorry, I can't help you. But I wish you well.
So, you're denying you made the edit?
Do you not have a single shred of integrity, Gabriele?
The cat's dream: From your initial response it seems that what matters to you is who says what and not what they say? That makes life easy.
To Harry Barnes:
Of course I could be wrong, who knows, maybe you and Rentouls do know better than UK Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser:
Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'
By Owen Bennett-Jones
BBC World Service
The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.
But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".
Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".
The cat's dream: whether the correct figures are those on your clickometer or the type of level I accept, this still leaves us with the position that (a) the invasion should never have taken place, (b) it was then undertaken in an inept fashion, (c) it undermined an already fractured and brutalised society, (d) our attention should be focussed on how we can help the Iraqi people to overcome their plight and (e) in helping we should direct our attention (i)towards aiding the best elements within Iraq (such as their Trade Union Movement) and (ii) encourage (and work with) bodies such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to exercise an impact upon the problematic elements within today's Iraq which include terrorists, Islamists, sectionalism, maladministration, corruption, occupation forces and private security firms.
To Harry Barnes:
You write: "whether the correct figures are those on your clickometer or the type of level I accept"
It seems you have problems in accepting sound science, at least by reading your blog
The US media watch FAIR wrote a few weeks ago: "There is no more important question about the Iraq War than the question of how many Iraqis have died. It is impossible to truly evaluate the war or discuss where to go from here without knowing the human cost of the war, and that cost has overwhelmingly been borne by Iraqis."
Do you agree with that?
Do you agree that the illegal invasion-occupation by the UK-US governments are the real, true responsible for the Iraq genocide?
Do you agree that the US-UK illegal occupation should end immediately, being that the only solution for the Iraq carnage?
Do you agree that the US-UK governments should give compensation (not help, compensation) for what the US-UK governments have done to Iraq and Iraqis since 1990?
Do you agree that those responsible for this war of aggression should be taken before justice and tried in an international criminal court for their massive crimes against humanity?
If you don't agree with that, sorry but the last thing Iraq and Iraqis need are the 'Labour Friends of Iraq'.
In peace,
Gabriele
Zamparini says another poster has "problems in accepting sound science".
But it's Zamparini who doesn't accept sound science: ILCS, WHO, CRED and even Lancet 2004 - all of them peer-reviewed studies unlike the ORB poll which Zamparini accepts.
And Zamparini is dishonest. He's surreptitiously edited his blog to hide his own embarrassing error over the term "civilians" (see above).
How do your lies and evasions help the people of Iraq, Gabriele?
LOL - the mad man is back! Have fun ;-)
Post your childish ad hominems, Gabriele - but it won't hide your dishonest attempts to cover up your errors.
To the readers of this blog:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
The cat's dream/Gabriele : this is the start of a BBC report at 11.37 today -
"At least 30 people have been killed and many wounded in a suicide attack on a crowd of mourners in Iraq.
The attacker detonated his explosives in the Sunni village of Bu Mohammed, near the city of Baquba, north of the capital, Baghdad.
Officials said the funeral was for two members of a local group who had died fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq militants."
If Iraq Body Count add, say, 30 deaths to their count because of this; then your clickometer will add a figure of around 360. For in updating its figures, it multiplies Iraq Body Count figures by a factor of roughly 12 for their recorded deaths since June 2006. This does not seem plausible to me as pointed out here - http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2008/01/violent-deaths-in-iraq-since-invasion.html
On your five questions -
(1) I agree that we should be given reliable figures about deaths in Iraq with them placed into meaningful categories. But I think that we can still make judgements about what should be done, especially as we know that there has been (and continues to be)massive carnage.
(2) I agree that the invasion of Iraq was entirely unjustified and completely wrong. Which is why I was on the platform at the launch of "Labour Against The War".
(3) I agree that if the invasion had not occured, we would not have had the consequences which followed. We would still, however, have needed to look for ways to help the Iraqi people to overcome what would have been the alternative evils of Saddam's regime. I also believe that whoever undertakes acts of murder has a responsibility and answerability for their actions, be they terrorists, insurgents, coalition troops or criminals.
(3) If the occupation forces just left, then I do not believe that this would significantly reduce the carnage in what is now a fractured and broken society thanks to Saddam, sanctions and then the invasion. But I am for the Iraqi Parliament and not just Malaki deciding the timing and means of the Coalition's withdrawal. As a start in the correct direction I am for the removal of the private armies of security firms.
(4) Compensation could come in the form of seeking to advance and improve Iraq. If Iraq feels that it needs help (with replacement troops or otherwise), then this should be mainly funded by the US, UK et al. The UN and, say, the Organisation of Islamic Conference could be agencies to assist and send out the bills.
(5) The problem with your final demand is that it makes it even more difficult to get support for your other demands - or even my versions above. Of course, you might prefer to find a demand which blocks the progress of your other claimed concerns. But for me purity is not enough.
I note that apart from trying to understand the numbers of deaths, you have not disputed the points I made earlier. I hope that you will not just dismiss what I say by putting me in one of your boxes.
Shalom or (if you think that is ideologically suspect)Ma asala'meh. Harry.
Gabriele sorry for the gender slip, I should have ended - Ma asala'man, Harry.
[url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold[/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold [/b][/color][/url]
[url=http://www.aocsale.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold[/b][/color][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold[/b][/color][/url]
[url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][color=#800080][b] buy aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b] buy aoc gold[/b][/color][/url]
http://www.buyfastgold.com
http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com
http://www.aocsale.com
http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com
http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com
Age Of Conan Gold Age Of Conan Gold Age Of Conan Gold buy age of conan gold buy age of conan gold buy age of conan gold aoc gold aoc gold aoc gold buy aoc gold buy aoc gold
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
轻型货架
中型货架
搁板式货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
托盘货架
托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
塑料托盘
钢制托盘
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
手推车
静音手推车
铁板手推车
物料架
整理架
挂板架
钢制料箱
钢制周转箱
网格式料箱
料箱
手动液压托盘搬运车
电动托盘搬运车
手动液压堆高车
半电动堆高车
手动叉车
塑料周转箱
物流箱
塑料化工桶
塑料卡板箱
工具柜
上海工具柜
南京工具柜
抽屉柜
工作台
工作桌
南京工作台
上海工作台
刀具车
刀具柜
刀具架
刀具座
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
南京货架
货架公司
货架厂
仓库货架
仓储货架
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架
货架厂
货架公司
南京货架
上海货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架公司
南京货架
上海货架
杭州货架
北京货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
轻量型货架
角钢货架
中量A型货架
中量B型货架
货位式货架
横梁式货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
悬臂式货架
贯通式货架
通廊式货架
驶入式货架
辊轮式货架
流利条货架
压入式货架
移动式货架
密集架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
汽车4S店货架
汽配库货架
自动化立体仓库货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架公司
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架公司
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
仓库货架
货架厂
货架厂
货架公司
货架公司
货架
货架
货架
货架
轻量型货架
角钢货架
货架
中量型货架
次重型货架
货位式货架
重量型货架
横梁式货架
仓储货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
仓储货架
悬臂式货架
仓储货架
贯通式货架
通廊式货架
驶入式货架
仓库货架
库房货架
抽屉式货架
模具货架
仓库货架
库房货架
汽车4S店货架
汽配库货架
货架厂
货架公司
南京货架
上海货架
无锡货架
苏州货架
货架厂
货架公司
北京货架
天津货架
沈阳货架
大连货架
货架厂
货架公司
广州货架
深圳货架
宁波货架
杭州货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
货架厂
货架公司
搁板式货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
中型货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
通廊式货架
贯通式式货架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
悬臂式货架
南京货架
北京货架
广州货架
服装货架
精品货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
货价厂
搁板式货架
轻量型货架
角钢货架
中型货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
服装货架
精品货架
通廊式货架
贯通式货架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
悬臂式货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
广州货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
货架厂
货架公司
搁板式货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
中型货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
服装货架
精品货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
通廊式货架
贯通式货架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
悬臂式货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
广州货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
货架厂
货架公司
搁板式货架
轻量型货架
角钢货架
服装货架
精品货架
中型货架
横梁式货架
重型货架
货位式货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
通廊式货架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
悬臂式货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
广州货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
货架厂
货架公司
搁板式货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
中型货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
阁楼式货架
钢平台
通廊式货架
贯通式货架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
悬臂式货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
广州货架
货架
仓储货架
仓库货架
库房货架
货架厂
货架公司
搁板式货架
轻型货架
角钢货架
中型货架
重型货架
横梁式货架
货位式货架
阁楼式货架
服装架
钢平台
精品货架
通廊式货架
贯通式货架
模具货架
抽屉式货架
悬臂式货架
南京货架
上海货架
北京货架
广州货架
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓库笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
折叠仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
储物笼
上海仓储笼
南京仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
储物笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
仓储笼
仓库笼
折叠式仓储笼
蝴蝶笼
南京仓储笼
上海仓储笼
北京仓储笼
广州仓储笼
手推车
置物架
挂板架
堆垛车
堆高车
叉车
手动液压托盘搬运车
物料整理架
巧固架
堆垛架
置物架
载物台车
物流台车
登高车
平板手推车
静音手推车
手推车
钢制料箱
钢制料箱
手推车
静音手推车
平板手推车
登高车
物流台车
载物台车
置物架
堆垛架
巧固架
挂板架
物料整理架
手动液压托盘搬运车
叉车
登高车
堆垛车
钢制料箱
手推车
静音手推车
平板手推车
登高车
物流台车
置物架
堆垛架
巧固架
物料整理架
手动液压托盘搬运车
叉车
堆高车
堆垛车
手推车
铁板手推车
手推车
静音手推车
置物架
工业置物架
家用置物架
堆垛架
巧固架
整理架
挂板架
物料整理架
登高车
仓库登高车
消防登高车
物流台车
载物台车
料箱
钢制料箱
托盘搬运车
手动托盘搬运车
电动托盘搬运车
堆高机
堆垛机
手动堆高机
电动堆高机
叉车
电动叉车