The facts given out by Iraq Bodycount are pretty well supported. The figures
are considered pretty solid by folks involved in statistical studies. I take
the liberty of posting the basic methodology:
Methodology:

1. Overview
Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media
reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing
figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are
independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq
Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before
publication.
2. Sources
Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A
list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added
provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with
the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories
separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3)
source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language
site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting
agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected
international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing
items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By
requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are
willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the
self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international
media network.
Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their
urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this
reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the
iraqbodycount site.
3. Data extraction
Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in
opposite directions.
a. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is
differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially
confused.
b. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production
and public scrutiny.
c. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is
available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by
restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core
facts that most news reports tend to include.
The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the
following information only for each incident:
* Date of incident
* Time of incident
* Location of incident
* Target as stated by military sources
* Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
* Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
* Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
* Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data
extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers
prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should
further details become available at a later date.
Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and
potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the
same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated
with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be
entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following
paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the
minimum.
Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by
at least two of our approved list of news media sources.
Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the
listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower
number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a
report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any
deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to
a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum
column.
As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports
refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as
a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present
clearly identifying some or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the
number of identifiable civilians will be entered into the minimum column
instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as
meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6. -CIA
Factbook 2002.]

If one visits the Bodycount website more facts can be easily established,
and in any case, that listing is far superior than relying on an anecdotal
representations made by one soldier. The fact simply is, that Bodycount
figures are the best data that we have, and it is solidly based on
ascertainable reports so quoting them is perfectly acceptable on this or any
other page. We simply cannot personally verify every fact that we use, and
faith in the accuracy of a reporting agency is always a question. In this
case they meet standards for and accuracy.
The question of the degree of support of soldiers for this war is best
answered by the DoD (Department of Defense) study that reports over 70% of
soldiers in Iraq as having low morale. Another DoD study shows that the
suicide rate among US soldiers in Iraq is double the normal rate in the
Armed Forces.

The statement that US military's strict regulations will prevent the
unauthorized importation of artifacts is just silly. We have many laws
against drunk driving and tens of thousands of folks drive drunk every
weekend, we have draconian laws against drug use and over 40% of folks in
this country have used or are using illegal drugs. Anyone, who has been in
the military knows that many regulations serve more as a challenge to be
overcome than a deterrent.

Last point. All of our soldiers are trained to kill. They are therefore
either actual or potential killers. That is how they are making their
living. In fact, because of the type of warfare currently in Iraq additional
training in killing is given drivers, mechanics and other non-combat
personnel. All our soldiers are volunteers who have acquired the skill of
destroying human life. They may be our sisters, brothers, sons and fathers,
but they are also trained to kill and should be considered dangerous.
The core question that we should not forget on this list is: Should a museum
accept war booty? In my opinion, under no circumstances should a civilian
museum do so, on moral grounds alone, leaving aside legal and policy
questions. The facts above help contribute to the moral dimension of this
problem.
PeaceNick



-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Tracie Evans
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:38 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Iraq donation

Idewey-
I wonder if perhaps we could keep the unsupported "facts" about the war off
this list because if you have not been in Iraq and seen the pre-war as well
as war time conditions, it might be important to not believe everything you
read!  Body counts have a way of being manipulated so I would caution you
about believing an "on-line" site with the counts (who is doing these
estimates?) and how was it determined that "the overwhelming majority of
those people have been killed by the US military and its government."

I have spoken to one of the men who served on the front lines over there and
he indicated that he saw killing happening by their own army.  Also, we
spoke about several of the historic locations that they saw and he talked
about how they positioned themselves to protect these locations, not destroy
them.  He told me about one museum that the Iraqi people had looted and
destroyed and about the curator who stayed to protect what he could all by
himself.  He also talked about the terrible conditions of the country that
we there before they arrived and the anti-tank and air-craft guns that were
placed in playgrounds and school yards. (I even saw photographs)  Iraq is
not like the US, do not apply your standards to their culture or political
activities.  Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy and he regularly shielded
himself and his government with his own people which placed them in danger.
Also, not all Iraqi want us there, but not all many this soldier interacted
with were happy to have them there.  Use caution when drawing conclusions
about what is happening in Iraqi based on news reports which have various
biases themselves.

The US military and the US now have very strict regulations about the
materials that people (military and non-military) are allowed to bring back
with them.  Unfortunately, not everyone understands the importance of
historical materials and will try to smuggle illegal items back home as
souvenirs.  If those types of materials are offered, museums should handle
them the same way we would illegally obtained materials from other places.
Please be sure however that it is a looted item and illegal, the Middle
Eastern culture does produce many fake antiquities to sell to the "tourist"
and these can be purchased, traded for by the soldiers and sometimes even
found on the ground.

I'm not giving you my political views about whether our soldiers should or
should not be there, but I do believe that the majority of our soldiers are
not killers or looters.  Remember that interpretation is just that and your
"truth" may not always coincide with other peoples "truth."  It will be
interesting to relook at this war (as well as the earlier war with Iraq) in
the future to see how our views of today's "truths" will change.

Sincerely
Tracie Evans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ldewey [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:42 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Iraq donation
>
> Was it Samuel Johnson who said 'patriotism is the last refuge of
> scoundrels'? I forget. It's not important.
>
> In any event, I support the GIs who question and dissent from their own
> role in the occupation, and I assume many do. We have heard of a few
> who have refused to go along, there are probably many who we will not
> hear about.
>
> Still, most of the people who have been killed in Iraq are
> non-combatant Iraqi people. The current estimate is somewhere between
> 8,800 and 10,000, according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ . And the
> overwhelming majority of those people have been killed by the US
> military and it's government. That is a simple fact.
>
> Audience research shows that uninterpreted object displays are not very
> effective as self-directed communication. So if a museum intends to
> display 'war booty', it ought to include the context. Certainly that
> should include the conditions of the war; the aerial bombardments of
> urban residential areas, water supplies, and power plants (all
> proscribed as 'war crimes' by the Geneva Convention, btw), the cluster
> bombs and maimed children. Perhaps an autographed picture of government
> emissary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein (1983), or a
> list of the US, British and German firms who supplied the chemicals
> used in the Iraq-Iran war. Perhaps an annotated map showing the
> international oil investments near Tirkut.
>
> -LD (aka person C)
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 5, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Automatic digest processor wrote:
>
> > Date:    Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:44:49 -0700
> > From:    Deb Fuller <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: Iraq donations
> >
> > --- Indigo Nights <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> You have a history here of touting the soldiers and
> >> their beleagured families.  Your patriotism is
> >> admirable.  But this is a multinational list with
> >> folks who do not feel the same way, including some of
> >> your own countrypersons.
> >
> > I don't want to drag this out either but let me set the record
> > straight about
> > my attitude towards the whole situation. I don't consider myself
> > "patriotic"
> > but someone who genuinely cares about all people, regardless of race,
> > religion,
> > occupation or nationality. I happen to believe that the average person
> > out
> > there is trying to do the best they can with what they've got. So I do
> > get
> > defensive of people who I think are trying to do their best and are at
> > the
> > mercy of a usually one-sided media world.
> >
> > In any highly controversial political situation, I find that it's an
> > alarming
> > tendency to jump on the "little guy" like the soldiers instead of the
> > people up
> > the chain of command who are calling the shots. Blame is usually put
> > on the
> > people who have the least control of the situation but happen to be
> > right in
> > the middle of it.
> >
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
> read "help" (without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
> [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
> "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).