You want to make comparisons with World War 2, FireGarden? Sure thing.
The Lancet 2 researchers claim that about 601,000 Iraqis died as a result of intentional (i.e., violent) causes (i.e., the result of murder or armed conflict) in the first 39 months of the Iraq war. The majority of those deaths were said by the researchers to be due to "gunfire".
Now let's compare that to our strategic bombing campaigns in WW2.
First, let's look at Germany.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tc is the "The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report". It states that official German statistics place total casualties (dead) from air attack at about 250,000 for the period from Jan 1, 1943 to Jan 31, 1945. It states that "a careful examination of these data, together with checks against the records of individual cities that were attacked" indicates that number is too low. It states a revised estimate of the minimum is 305,000 over the entire period of the war. Numerous other estimates have been made by various authors over the years. They range from 300,000 to 600,000 dead. In short, all of them are equal to or less than the number that Lancet 2 researchers claimed died violently in Iraq in just the first 39 months of that war.
To kill that many people, the allies dropped 3 million TONS of explosives on German targets with little or no concern for German civilian casualties. For example, British bombers deliberately attacked Hamburg, Germany creating a firestorm over nine squares miles of city in which temperatures of 1800 F killed 40,000 people. This is what Hamburg looked like after the 1943 bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hamburg_after_the_1943_bombing.jpg
And Hamburg wasn't the only city devastated by strategic bombing. This is what Dresden looked like during and after it's bombing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Dresden_Aerial_View_-_February_13_14_1945.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Dresd_4.jpg
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II, the Dresden bombing "created a firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500°C (2700°F). ... snip ... A Dresden police report written shortly after the attacks stated that the old town and the inner eastern suburbs had been engulfed in a single fire which had destroyed almost 12,000 dwellings including residential barracks. The report also said that the raid had destroyed "24 banks; 26 insurance buildings; 31 stores and retail houses; 6470 shops; 640 warehouses; 256 market halls; 31 large hotels; 26 public houses; 63 administrative buildings; 3 theatres; 18 cinemas; 11 churches; 60 chapels; 50 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics; 39 schools; 5 consulates; 1 zoological garden; 1 waterworks, 1 railway facility; 19 postal facilities; 4 tram facilities; 19 ships and barges. The report also mentioned that the Wehrmacht's main command post in the Tauschenberg Palace, 19 military hospitals and a number of less significant military facilities were destroyed. ... snip ... British assessments ... concluded that 23 percent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,700 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged."
City after city in Germany received this treatment. About the only ones that weren't leveled were a couple (like Heidelburg) that the allies wanted to use as after the war. You starting to get the picture? Lancet researchers are claiming that the above wholesale destruction killed fewer people than the number who died in Iraq, mostly from gunfire, in a shorter time period. Does that make any sense to you?
Likewise, the number of dead from allied bombing of Japan is estimated by various groups to be between 330,000 and 500,000. The first number is the US Strategic Bombing Survey's reported minimum. Again, the number killed is about the same as the number that Lancet 2 claims for Iraq. But to kill that many, the allies again had to level virtually every major city. This is what Tokyo looked like during one of several firebombing raids on it alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg
In one raid, 334 B-29s dropped 1700 tons of bombs and destroyed 16 square miles of the city, killing 100,000 people in the resulting firestorm. This website (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II ) has a table listing the percent of the area "destroyed" by strategic bombing in 69 cities in Japan. The average percentage destroyed I calculate to be 49%. This is what the typical Japanese city looked like after the war:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/Hansell/img/p236a.jpg
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/images/osaka-damage3b39707r.jpg
You starting to get the picture? Lancet researchers claim that far more people died by gunfire in Iraq in 39 months than in Japan by that type of destruction over about the same length of time. Does that make any sense to you?
Where are the photos of the massacre in Iraq?
Where the videos?
Where are the bodies?
Where are the death certificates?
Where is destruction of infrastructure even remotely similar to what you see above?
Do you really think they care about making sure you know about what's going on? Al-Qaeda is only one player in this shambles.
And why didn't the LATimes find any evidence of those death certificates?
