FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Just in case this hasn't been seen (Iraqi death toll)

 


S3nd K3ys
Sources say that nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the Iraq invasion. That makes a good case for the anti-war croud to say we're killing civilians by the tens/hundreds of thousands.

Fact is, the US has killed less than 1,000 Iraqi civilians. Read more here:

http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

Quote:
...There is indeed a mind-blowing story about collateral damage that needs to be told, but that story is one in which we honor the extraordinary achievement of the United States military: two years of combat since the fall of Baghdad, much of it urban warfare, with less than 1,000 civilians killed as a result of U.S. action:

...

For those who claim the United States is indirectly responsible for the several hundred deaths a month caused by insurgents and criminals, they would do well to note two facts: 1) just over 32% of the fatalities in the chronological table represent civilians, and 2) that this figure is a 93% decline from the monthly average piled up by Saddam Hussein over 24 years


Here's something else to consider:



The above is pretty much typical of the civilian deaths, showing the targets and the weapons. It spells out how most civilian deaths were caused by terrorists targeting civilians.
LeviticusMky
This article does raise a good point, mainly that the number of civilian casualties is inproportionately male, and inproportionately adult.

This leads me to believe that the numbers are calculating the insurgents that are an unknown to the US forces, and are thus included in the "civilian" death toll.

However, it still doesn't make the casualties that they have suffered acceptable. Regardless of the fact that Saddam killed more and more often, essentially what we're saying is, "well, sure, we killed a lot of civilians, but the evil guy killed more." That puts us in the same boat as him.

Ending physical violence with physical violence perpetuates the need for physical violence. There is no acceptable number of Iraqi civilian casualties unless it is zero.
shr3dd
Quote:
That puts us in the same boat as him.
Well, no I'd have to disagree. You can't really read can you? The link S3nd K3ys gave you shows that the majority of Iraqi civilian casualties were NOT caused by the US. Most were caused by insurgency.
S3nd K3ys
shr3dd wrote:
Quote:
That puts us in the same boat as him.
Well, no I'd have to disagree. You can't really read can you? The link S3nd K3ys gave you shows that the majority of Iraqi civilian casualties were NOT caused by the US. Most were caused by insurgency.


Yes.

Also, the fact that Saddam was removed from power has actually SAVED more lives. (Unless you actually believe he would have stopped killing by the hundreds of thousands because the UN shook it's finger at him)
52tease
Oh, wait. We didn't cause the insurgency by attempting to topple a dictator with a pre-emptive war without any sort of reasonable planning put into the 'after war'.

That's right.
xalophus
Making smart claims by quoting numbers ?
I guess it's easy to go around doing that once you ensure that the numbers are not being counted anymore.

Isn't this the precise reason why two years ago officials were asked to stop counting dead Iraqis ?
Quote:
Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The health minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, denied in an email that he had anything to do with the order, saying he didn't even know about the study.

Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department, said the order was relayed to her by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who said it came on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop.

"We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn't agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn't want this to be done."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm

Surprised ?
Don't be -
Quote:
"We don't do body counts on other people" - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301273.html
Dante
I cannot believe the level of self delusion going on here. Do you really think that you can invade a country and only cause 1000 civilian deaths? You need to check you history books, that is not the way it goes. Consider Vietnam, or any other foreign invasion or occupation you wish to look at. 1000 is laughable in that context.

Studies by the British Medical Association's Lancet put it at more like 100,000. The US army has admitted to using white phsophorous in Falluja. There were certainly innocent civilians trapped in Falluja, so the US has used weapons which harm by chemical action against civilians. This is a war crime, a crime against humanity. Wake up, you are living in a criminal state.

see: http://www.monbiot.com/

Look at the articles on the 8th, 15th, 22nd of November in the Guardian, one of the worlds most visited and trusted online newspapers. Consider the evidence, and start to see through the lies that your government have told you.

Daniel
Deji
one thing you need to differenciate between is direct and indirect causes of civilian deaths.

Direct
1)white phsophorous in Falluja, will have killed a number of innocent civilians chances are the US will claim that 95% of them where insurgents but as it burns heavily burning skin / clothing it is going to be very difficult to identify who was infact fighting.

2)airstrikes/arms fire, accidents happen especially in a city which has to be one of the worst situations for anyone to be fighting in. I cant find a trust worthy source at the moment but recently there was an incident where US troops opened fire at a minibus / people carrier killing / wounding several civilians as apparently they where driving erraticly..

this will amount for a decent amount of civilian casualties.

Indirect
1) Lack Of Security, since the US (and its allies) invaded a country you suddenly have the problem of insurgents and because of this many civilians have died because the US didnt have any real long term security plan.

ok they arnt directly murdering civilians but they have caused their deaths (much of the blame rests with the suidide bombers etc.) but while the US fights with these small factions in iraq innocent people are caught in the violence.

2) Human Rights Abuse - is as bad as it was in the days when saddam was in charge. (again i cant find an actual source to link) but didnt they find somewhere in the region of 150 prisoners in an iraq prison who had been badly beaten and starved ....

its only a matter of time before things like that lead to more civilian deaths.

I dont honestly think that the US has caused 100,000 civilian deaths but i think to claim that when you fight a war only 1000 people are killed is just wrong.

Those figures simply play with how you classify a civilian death caused by the US.

lets decide that only people who where killed on a tuesday not by suicide bombers or mortor rounds are to be counted as caused by the US. Im sure that will bring the figures down nicely. Wink

25,000 is probably a good middle ground between 100,000 (realy high) and 1000 (stupidly low).

However i do believe that removing saddam was the right thing to do, when you hear stories of how he treated people and casually talked about having his "friends" and family murdered / tortured then you realise that something had to be done. the only real arguement i have is the method they used and the fact that they dont want to take any responsibility for the consequences of invading a country (civilian deaths)
LeviticusMky
shr3dd wrote:
Quote:
That puts us in the same boat as him.
Well, no I'd have to disagree. You can't really read can you? The link S3nd K3ys gave you shows that the majority of Iraqi civilian casualties were NOT caused by the US. Most were caused by insurgency.


Well, if I can't read, you can't understand.

Even if we've killed one civilian in the attempt to usurp a bad person, we have murdered that person.

War is not an excuse for murder.
ocalhoun
LeviticusMky wrote:
War is not an excuse for murder.


Really? It was last time I checked.
S3nd K3ys
LeviticusMky wrote:
...

Even if we've killed one civilian in the attempt to usurp a bad person, we have murdered that person.

....


So you would rather sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to save only a few? Shocked
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.