On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 8:20:16 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> True death toll of the 'War on Terror' by EVIL WHITES is a staggering *6
> million people*
>
>
> https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/15/up-to-six-million-people-the-unrecorded-fatalities-of-the-war-on-terror/
>
>
> Nafeez Ahmed examines the direct and indirect deaths of the post 9/11
> era, as a new kind of state-sanctioned mass violence became globalised
> and normalised
>
> The Costs of War Project
>
> Earlier this month, Brown University’s Costs of War project updated its
> rolling analysis of the number of people killed in direct violence due
> to the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’.
>
> It found that just under a million people – between 897,000 and 929,000
> – were killed directly due to violence across five theatres of war
> involving significant US and Western military involvement: Afghanistan,
> Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
>
> These numbers have been widely reported as proving that around one
> million people have been killed in post-9/11 wars. Yet, they are
> extremely conservative figures.
>
> The real death toll is far, far higher – a fact that has not been
> properly reported in media reports.
>
> “The deaths we tallied are likely a vast under-count of the true toll
> these wars have taken on human life,” said the co-author of the Costs of
> War project report Professor Neta Crawford – noting that the tally does
> not incorporate indirect deaths due to the consequences of war through
> the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
>
> The new figures therefore do not account for the many indirect deaths
> the War on Terror has caused by way of disease, displacement and loss of
> access to food or clean drinking water, she acknowledged.
>
> The Geneva Declaration report concludes that we are safe to assume
> on average four indirect deaths to every direct death in contemporary
> conflicts
>
> An Invisible Death Toll
>
> The most accurate way to calculate the scale of total deaths would be
> through epidemiological surveys to determine ‘excess deaths’ by
> comparing pre-war and post-war mortality rates, which would encompass
> both direct and indirect deaths.
>
> However, in many of these countries, the infrastructure to monitor and
> collect the relevant data does not exist or is very hard to obtain,
> which is why such surveys are rare.
>
> In the absence of epidemiological analysis, it is still possible to
> develop a clear sense of the minimum likely scale of indirect deaths.
>
> Last September, when commenting on an earlier version of the project’s
> findings, Costs of War report co-author Professor Catherine Lutz pointed
> out that “one has to multiply that direct death number… by an estimated
> two to four times to get to the total number of people – in the millions
> – who are dead today who would not have been dead had the wars not been
> fought”. But even this approach is likely to produce an under-count.
>
> According to a landmark report by the Geneva Declaration on Armed
> Violence and Development – signed by 113 governments – in “the majority
> of conflicts since the early 1990s, for which good data is available,
> the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number
> of direct deaths”.
>
> The report found that, due to the impact of conflicts on public services
> and infrastructure, vastly greater numbers of people end up dying
> indirectly from the consequences of violence compared to the number that
> die directly from conflict.
>
> The range varies based on different factors such as the levels of
> economic development in a country before a war, the duration of
> fighting, the intensity of combat, the population’s access to basic care
> and services, and the success of humanitarian relief efforts.
>
> The more intense the fighting and the more degraded the level of
> infrastructure, the higher the number of indirect deaths.
>
> The report concluded that “a reasonable average estimate would be a
> ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary
> conflicts”.
>
> However, it should be noted that this ratio is a minimum average that is
> likely to be extremely conservative in relation to the impact of
> Western-backed military interventions. For instance, six months after
> the bombing campaign in Afghanistan in 2001, data assessed by the
> Guardian revealed that, although between 1,300 and 1,800 Afghans were
> killed directly, as many as 20,000 and possibly as high as 49,600 people
> had died due to the indirect consequences of the military intervention.
> In this case, the total number of indirect deaths was at least 15 times
> higher than direct deaths.
>
> If that higher, empirically-substantiated ratio was applied to the Costs
> of War direct death figures in Afghanistan since 9/11 (176,000 people),
> it would imply 2,640,000 indirect deaths in that country to date, which
> would suggest that in just one country a total of about 2.8 million
> Afghans have been killed due to the War on Terror.
>
> This scale of violence has been corroborated by one other assessment of
> avoidable mortality in Afghanistan by retired La Trobe University
> biochemist Dr Gideon Polya. His book, Body Count: Global Avoidable
> Mortality Since 1950, put total excess deaths of Afghans since 2001 at
> three million.
>
> The very dynamics of mass violence have become globalised and
> normalised, precisely because our political and cultural institutions
> are incapable of acknowledging that such state-sanctioned terrorism even
> exists
>
> While the Geneva Declaration approach cannot be used to produce precise
> figures, it can provide an accurate insight into the likely order of
> magnitude of total deaths in a way that simple direct death figures cannot.
>
> Applying its methodology to the Costs of War project figures suggests
> that the overall number of indirect deaths from 20 years of the War on
> Terror is between at least 3,588,000 and 3,716,000 people. This
> indicates that Brown University’s one million figure is extremely
> conservative and that the total death toll is actually at least between
> 4,485,000 and 4,645,000 people.
>
> Once again, these cannot be taken as specific figures, but rather as an
> indication of the real magnitude of deaths – likely to be a minimum of
> 4.5 million people. Even this estimate is highly likely to be too low,
> given that the real ratio could be larger than 4:1, and in Afghanistan,
> for instance, was 15:1 at the height of the 2001 bombing campaign.

"Just keep the patient isolated and under observation, nurse" RH

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:32:12 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/21/2021 8:26 AM, RH wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 8:20:16 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> True death toll of the 'War on Terror' by EVIL WHITES is a staggering *6
> >> million people*
> >>
> >>
> >> https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/15/up-to-six-million-people-the-unrecorded-fatalities-of-the-war-on-terror/
> >>
> >>
> >> Nafeez Ahmed examines the direct and indirect deaths of the post 9/11
> >> era, as a new kind of state-sanctioned mass violence became globalised
> >> and normalised
> >>
> >> The Costs of War Project
> >>
> >> Earlier this month, Brown University’s Costs of War project updated its
> >> rolling analysis of the number of people killed in direct violence due
> >> to the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’.
> >>
> >> It found that just under a million people – between 897,000 and 929,000
> >> – were killed directly due to violence across five theatres of war
> >> involving significant US and Western military involvement: Afghanistan,
> >> Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
> >>
> >> These numbers have been widely reported as proving that around one
> >> million people have been killed in post-9/11 wars. Yet, they are
> >> extremely conservative figures.
> >>
> >> The real death toll is far, far higher – a fact that has not been
> >> properly reported in media reports.
> >>
> >> “The deaths we tallied are likely a vast under-count of the true toll
> >> these wars have taken on human life,” said the co-author of the Costs of
> >> War project report Professor Neta Crawford – noting that the tally does
> >> not incorporate indirect deaths due to the consequences of war through
> >> the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
> >>
> >> The new figures therefore do not account for the many indirect deaths
> >> the War on Terror has caused by way of disease, displacement and loss of
> >> access to food or clean drinking water, she acknowledged.
> >>
> >> The Geneva Declaration report concludes that we are safe to assume
> >> on average four indirect deaths to every direct death in contemporary
> >> conflicts
> >>
> >> An Invisible Death Toll
> >>
> >> The most accurate way to calculate the scale of total deaths would be
> >> through epidemiological surveys to determine ‘excess deaths’ by
> >> comparing pre-war and post-war mortality rates, which would encompass
> >> both direct and indirect deaths.
> >>
> >> However, in many of these countries, the infrastructure to monitor and
> >> collect the relevant data does not exist or is very hard to obtain,
> >> which is why such surveys are rare.
> >>
> >> In the absence of epidemiological analysis, it is still possible to
> >> develop a clear sense of the minimum likely scale of indirect deaths.
> >>
> >> Last September, when commenting on an earlier version of the project’s
> >> findings, Costs of War report co-author Professor Catherine Lutz pointed
> >> out that “one has to multiply that direct death number… by an estimated
> >> two to four times to get to the total number of people – in the millions
> >> – who are dead today who would not have been dead had the wars not been
> >> fought”. But even this approach is likely to produce an under-count.
> >>
> >> According to a landmark report by the Geneva Declaration on Armed
> >> Violence and Development – signed by 113 governments – in “the majority
> >> of conflicts since the early 1990s, for which good data is available,
> >> the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number
> >> of direct deaths”.
> >>
> >> The report found that, due to the impact of conflicts on public services
> >> and infrastructure, vastly greater numbers of people end up dying
> >> indirectly from the consequences of violence compared to the number that
> >> die directly from conflict.
> >>
> >> The range varies based on different factors such as the levels of
> >> economic development in a country before a war, the duration of
> >> fighting, the intensity of combat, the population’s access to basic care
> >> and services, and the success of humanitarian relief efforts.
> >>
> >> The more intense the fighting and the more degraded the level of
> >> infrastructure, the higher the number of indirect deaths.
> >>
> >> The report concluded that “a reasonable average estimate would be a
> >> ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary
> >> conflicts”.
> >>
> >> However, it should be noted that this ratio is a minimum average that is
> >> likely to be extremely conservative in relation to the impact of
> >> Western-backed military interventions. For instance, six months after
> >> the bombing campaign in Afghanistan in 2001, data assessed by the
> >> Guardian revealed that, although between 1,300 and 1,800 Afghans were
> >> killed directly, as many as 20,000 and possibly as high as 49,600 people
> >> had died due to the indirect consequences of the military intervention..
> >> In this case, the total number of indirect deaths was at least 15 times
> >> higher than direct deaths.
> >>
> >> If that higher, empirically-substantiated ratio was applied to the Costs
> >> of War direct death figures in Afghanistan since 9/11 (176,000 people),
> >> it would imply 2,640,000 indirect deaths in that country to date, which
> >> would suggest that in just one country a total of about 2.8 million
> >> Afghans have been killed due to the War on Terror.
> >>
> >> This scale of violence has been corroborated by one other assessment of
> >> avoidable mortality in Afghanistan by retired La Trobe University
> >> biochemist Dr Gideon Polya. His book, Body Count: Global Avoidable
> >> Mortality Since 1950, put total excess deaths of Afghans since 2001 at
> >> three million.
> >>
> >> The very dynamics of mass violence have become globalised and
> >> normalised, precisely because our political and cultural institutions
> >> are incapable of acknowledging that such state-sanctioned terrorism even
> >> exists
> >>
> >> While the Geneva Declaration approach cannot be used to produce precise
> >> figures, it can provide an accurate insight into the likely order of
> >> magnitude of total deaths in a way that simple direct death figures cannot.
> >>
> >> Applying its methodology to the Costs of War project figures suggests
> >> that the overall number of indirect deaths from 20 years of the War on
> >> Terror is between at least 3,588,000 and 3,716,000 people. This
> >> indicates that Brown University’s one million figure is extremely
> >> conservative and that the total death toll is actually at least between
> >> 4,485,000 and 4,645,000 people.
> >>
> >> Once again, these cannot be taken as specific figures, but rather as an
> >> indication of the real magnitude of deaths – likely to be a minimum of
> >> 4.5 million people. Even this estimate is highly likely to be too low,
> >> given that the real ratio could be larger than 4:1, and in Afghanistan,
> >> for instance, was 15:1 at the height of the 2001 bombing campaign.
> >
> >
> > "Just keep the patient isolated and under observation, nurse" RH
> Good, at least YOU ACCEPTED that YOU "EVIL WHITES" are MURDERED 6 mil
> muslims in the last 20 yrs directly or indirectly.
>
> Both the EVIL WHITE CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS should and must CONTINUE to
> MURDER EACH OTHER so the remaining humans can live in peace and harmony.

Shall I prepare the padded cell just in case. doctor..." RH

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 10:43:25 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/22/2021 12:13 AM, RH wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 8:32:12 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> On 12/21/2021 8:26 AM, RH wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 8:20:16 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>>> True death toll of the 'War on Terror' by EVIL WHITES is a staggering *6
> >>>> million people*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/15/up-to-six-million-people-the-unrecorded-fatalities-of-the-war-on-terror/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nafeez Ahmed examines the direct and indirect deaths of the post 9/11
> >>>> era, as a new kind of state-sanctioned mass violence became globalised
> >>>> and normalised
> >>>>
> >>>> The Costs of War Project
> >>>>
> >>>> Earlier this month, Brown University’s Costs of War project updated its
> >>>> rolling analysis of the number of people killed in direct violence due
> >>>> to the post-9/11 ‘War on Terror’.
> >>>>
> >>>> It found that just under a million people – between 897,000 and 929,000
> >>>> – were killed directly due to violence across five theatres of war
> >>>> involving significant US and Western military involvement: Afghanistan,
> >>>> Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
> >>>>
> >>>> These numbers have been widely reported as proving that around one
> >>>> million people have been killed in post-9/11 wars. Yet, they are
> >>>> extremely conservative figures.
> >>>>
> >>>> The real death toll is far, far higher – a fact that has not been
> >>>> properly reported in media reports.
> >>>>
> >>>> “The deaths we tallied are likely a vast under-count of the true toll
> >>>> these wars have taken on human life,” said the co-author of the Costs of
> >>>> War project report Professor Neta Crawford – noting that the tally does
> >>>> not incorporate indirect deaths due to the consequences of war through
> >>>> the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
> >>>>
> >>>> The new figures therefore do not account for the many indirect deaths
> >>>> the War on Terror has caused by way of disease, displacement and loss of
> >>>> access to food or clean drinking water, she acknowledged.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Geneva Declaration report concludes that we are safe to assume
> >>>> on average four indirect deaths to every direct death in contemporary
> >>>> conflicts
> >>>>
> >>>> An Invisible Death Toll
> >>>>
> >>>> The most accurate way to calculate the scale of total deaths would be
> >>>> through epidemiological surveys to determine ‘excess deaths’ by
> >>>> comparing pre-war and post-war mortality rates, which would encompass
> >>>> both direct and indirect deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, in many of these countries, the infrastructure to monitor and
> >>>> collect the relevant data does not exist or is very hard to obtain,
> >>>> which is why such surveys are rare.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the absence of epidemiological analysis, it is still possible to
> >>>> develop a clear sense of the minimum likely scale of indirect deaths..
> >>>>
> >>>> Last September, when commenting on an earlier version of the project’s
> >>>> findings, Costs of War report co-author Professor Catherine Lutz pointed
> >>>> out that “one has to multiply that direct death number… by an estimated
> >>>> two to four times to get to the total number of people – in the millions
> >>>> – who are dead today who would not have been dead had the wars not been
> >>>> fought”. But even this approach is likely to produce an under-count.
> >>>>
> >>>> According to a landmark report by the Geneva Declaration on Armed
> >>>> Violence and Development – signed by 113 governments – in “the majority
> >>>> of conflicts since the early 1990s, for which good data is available,
> >>>> the burden of indirect deaths was between three and 15 times the number
> >>>> of direct deaths”.
> >>>>
> >>>> The report found that, due to the impact of conflicts on public services
> >>>> and infrastructure, vastly greater numbers of people end up dying
> >>>> indirectly from the consequences of violence compared to the number that
> >>>> die directly from conflict.
> >>>>
> >>>> The range varies based on different factors such as the levels of
> >>>> economic development in a country before a war, the duration of
> >>>> fighting, the intensity of combat, the population’s access to basic care
> >>>> and services, and the success of humanitarian relief efforts.
> >>>>
> >>>> The more intense the fighting and the more degraded the level of
> >>>> infrastructure, the higher the number of indirect deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>> The report concluded that “a reasonable average estimate would be a
> >>>> ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary
> >>>> conflicts”.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, it should be noted that this ratio is a minimum average that is
> >>>> likely to be extremely conservative in relation to the impact of
> >>>> Western-backed military interventions. For instance, six months after
> >>>> the bombing campaign in Afghanistan in 2001, data assessed by the
> >>>> Guardian revealed that, although between 1,300 and 1,800 Afghans were
> >>>> killed directly, as many as 20,000 and possibly as high as 49,600 people
> >>>> had died due to the indirect consequences of the military intervention.
> >>>> In this case, the total number of indirect deaths was at least 15 times
> >>>> higher than direct deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>> If that higher, empirically-substantiated ratio was applied to the Costs
> >>>> of War direct death figures in Afghanistan since 9/11 (176,000 people),
> >>>> it would imply 2,640,000 indirect deaths in that country to date, which
> >>>> would suggest that in just one country a total of about 2.8 million
> >>>> Afghans have been killed due to the War on Terror.
> >>>>
> >>>> This scale of violence has been corroborated by one other assessment of
> >>>> avoidable mortality in Afghanistan by retired La Trobe University
> >>>> biochemist Dr Gideon Polya. His book, Body Count: Global Avoidable
> >>>> Mortality Since 1950, put total excess deaths of Afghans since 2001 at
> >>>> three million.
> >>>>
> >>>> The very dynamics of mass violence have become globalised and
> >>>> normalised, precisely because our political and cultural institutions
> >>>> are incapable of acknowledging that such state-sanctioned terrorism even
> >>>> exists
> >>>>
> >>>> While the Geneva Declaration approach cannot be used to produce precise
> >>>> figures, it can provide an accurate insight into the likely order of
> >>>> magnitude of total deaths in a way that simple direct death figures cannot.
> >>>>
> >>>> Applying its methodology to the Costs of War project figures suggests
> >>>> that the overall number of indirect deaths from 20 years of the War on
> >>>> Terror is between at least 3,588,000 and 3,716,000 people. This
> >>>> indicates that Brown University’s one million figure is extremely
> >>>> conservative and that the total death toll is actually at least between
> >>>> 4,485,000 and 4,645,000 people.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once again, these cannot be taken as specific figures, but rather as an
> >>>> indication of the real magnitude of deaths – likely to be a minimum of
> >>>> 4.5 million people. Even this estimate is highly likely to be too low,
> >>>> given that the real ratio could be larger than 4:1, and in Afghanistan,
> >>>> for instance, was 15:1 at the height of the 2001 bombing campaign.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Just keep the patient isolated and under observation, nurse" RH
> >> Good, at least YOU ACCEPTED that YOU "EVIL WHITES" are MURDERED 6 mil
> >> muslims in the last 20 yrs directly or indirectly.
> >>
> >> Both the EVIL WHITE CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS should and must CONTINUE to
> >> MURDER EACH OTHER so the remaining humans can live in peace and harmony.
> >
> > Shall I prepare the padded cell just in case. doctor..." RH
> Good, at least YOU ACCEPTED that YOU "EVIL WHITES" MURDERED 6 mil
> muslims in the last 20 yrs directly or indirectly.
>
> Both the EVIL WHITE CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS should and must CONTINUE to
> MURDER EACH OTHER so the remaining humans can live in peace and harmony.