Iraqi dead?
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...976392,00.html


War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say

Simon Jeffery
Friday June 13, 2003
The Guardian

At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.
Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.

Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings.

Researchers from several groups have visited hospitals and mortuaries in Iraq and interviewed relatives of the dead; some are conducting surveys in the main cities.

Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone.

John Sloboda, professor of psychology at Keele University and an IBC report author, said the studies in Iraq backed up his group's figures. "One of the things we have been criticised for is quoting journalists who are quoting other people. But what we are now finding is that whenever the teams go into Iraq and do a detailed check of the data we had through the press, not only is our data accurate but [it is] often on the low side.

"The totality is now producing an unassailable sense that there were a hell of a lot of civilian deaths in Iraq."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said he had not seen anything to substantiate the report's figures. "During the conflict we took great pains to minimise casualties among civilians. We targeted [the] military. So it is very difficult for us to give any guidance or credence to a set of figures that suggest there was x number of civilian casualties."

IBC's total includes a figure of at least 3,240 civilian deaths published this week by the Associated Press news agency, which was based on a survey of 60 Iraqi hospitals from March 20 to April 20, when the fighting was declining. But many other bodies were either buried quickly in line with Islamic custom or lost under rubble.

Prof Sloboda said there was nothing in principle to stop a total count being made using forensic science methods similar to those used to calculate the death toll from the September 11 attack: it was a question of political will and resources.

He said even an incomplete record of civilian deaths was worth compiling, to assist in paying reparations and in assessing the claim before the war that there would be few civilian casualties.

Lieutenant Colonel James Cassella, a US defence department spokesman, said the Pentagon had not counted civilian deaths because its efforts had been focused on defeating enemy forces rather than aiming at civilians.

He said that under international law the US was not liable to pay compensation for "injuries or damage occurring during lawful combat operations".

The Iraqi authorities estimated that 2,278 civilians died in the 1991 Gulf war.

Those are some pretty round numbers.

Who is funding the study?

If you go to their website you'll see that they're not exactly non-aligned.

Anyway I do think a count should be made, but I don't see how it's even possible to be accurate.

-Rudey

“We don’t do body counts”
-General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

IBC's website has minimum number around 9,500 and maximum number around 11,300 for deaths occuring during combat and occupancy based on media reports.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

That's right WE are not there to do body counts.

-Rudey

some people a bit farther left of me would say "we're america- we just kill and destroy."

You are a stupid American - YOU just say stupid things.

-Rudey
--I like how you edit your posts to make it seem like you didn't say something.

We're America. We just prevented thousands of deaths from occuring at the hands of a genocidal regime.

As horrible as it is that there was collateral damage, and innocent civilians died, lets not forget that we also prevented thousands, if not tens of thousands of deaths.

What are you talking about? Saddam didn't hurt nobody and brought stability to the region.

-Rudey

I like to think of American history with Iraq:
We're America. We caused thousands of deaths to occur at the hands of a genocidal regime by encouraging them to revolt saying we would back them and then changing our minds and leaving them to be slaughtered.
Ah... the legacy of the Bush I.

Little boy, you can't even reason or think. You make statements left and right from bullshit you've read from some stupid ass grassroots leftist organization.

What should we have done then??? According to you since you created a fake illegal label for this war, then it would have been illegal. Come on can you even build an argument??

-Rudey

That was horrible, but we didn't perform that genocide, and it was not known that our actions would cause a genocide.

It is the lagacy of G.H.W. Bush. Its also the legacy of Clinton. He could have stopped it, and didn't. Just like Rwanda. I wouldn't bring partisan politics into the subject of genocide because Clinton has the worst record of any president on that subject.

But that was then. Looking at Iraq now, it is intellectually dishonest to bring up the civilian deaths of the recent war without bringing up the civilians who were spared from the Baathists.

That depends on the final death count you know? If we kill 5 thousand to save 2 thousand well . . . .

I find the idea of trying to use a cloak or moral superiority to be objectionable.

Bottom line: We invaded Iraq because we could. They lost. So they will suffer.

If they wanted a better shot at life they should have been born somewhere else.

Given the fact that so many Iraqis died before, I highly doubt the US will ever be able to match the number of Kurds, Shiites and Iranians killed.

-Rudey

Ouch.

Yeah, harsh i agree. But, thats life.

We didn't go to Iraq to fight the Iraqi people. We went to Iraq to topple Saddam and his regime. So civilian deaths are significant, though I do agree that it's not our job to conduct body counts. That's best outsourced to someone else while we do what needs to be done in other realms.

Civilian death count is very important. If America went to liberate these Iraqis and allegedly killed 10,000, then they need to re-evaluate their troops. What we should be asking ourselves are why are these figures are so damn high?

James,

They should have been somewhere else? Say what! I don't think these people asked for Saddam or America when they died (outta collateral damage).

You know the saying about making an omelette?

And you have no idea how many they killed. Again nowhere is 10,000 (a highly guessed number) even going to justify that we shouldn't have gone to war. Several million...then yeah.

-Rudey

Rudey,

10,000 IS a high figure. That's 10,000 innocent children, women, men, elderly and the disabled. To me, even 1 life is a high-number, but no war is perfect right. But whatever.

And about the 10,000....it's hypothetical and I'm only going by what the article was estimating. But you are right, I don't know the real figures.

1) It's not a number...it's a guess.

2) It's not just innocent people.

3) It's a war...people die in any war. It could have been a lot worse had we not put our soldier's lives in danger and made our sacrifices.

4) I don't see you crying over American soldiers.

-Rudey

By historical standards, 10,000 is a low number for a conflict of this scale.

I posted this before, and I'll post it again. Its intellectually dishonest to criticize the US for civilans who were killed without also praising the US for the civilians who were spared from the Baathists. Its two sides of the same coin.

Hence why I said the word hypothetically

The article was discussing civilians. I don't think they were talking about those overtly resisting the forces.

sure, that's the bad side of war. It's unncessary, and people die.


Because they are SOLDIERS, not civilians. Its their job to fight the war and they went to Iraq with the intention of fighting a war. Now, while I am against the war, I am not cold-hearted enough to think of them as just soldiers. I am sure they were fine young men/women with families and loved ones. But then again, its the bad side of war, and soldiers die.

It's a hypothetical. You don't know who was good or bad. In fact you don't know how they measured regardless, do you? I see soldiers die. And you see, civilians end up getting hurt as well. It's their job in life to deal with the good and the bad...and the random.

-Rudey

I think the discussion is fairly pointless if someone actually believes 10,000 civilians died.

Remember the news when a US bomb killed around 30 civilians and what a lot of propoganda that was? If there were 10000 civilians killed, where are the bodies -- were they civilians or soldiers? 10,000 enemy soldiers dead wouldn't surprise me at all -- it's war and we are trying to kill the other guys. I actually heard a lot higher numbers being thrown around during the war (around 30,000 was one that stands out in my mind).

I want to know:

#1: Who is funding this group that alleges this number of people were killed.

#2: I want to know their methodology in determining how many people were killed.

#3: I want to know how in the hell we are even discussing something that "estimates" between "5000 and 7000" died in the conflict. Well, 2000 is a pretty huge margin of error.

I don't doubt that civilians did die. But this is in my opinion statistical garbage being reported only because it is colorful and generates contraversy.

Well sure, these doctors can falsify their reports to make America look bad. But at the same time, if it is 10,000 + there has to be a way to take accountability for that (ethically speaking). I mean couple of thousands of casualities, ok.....but anything as high as what they are "estimating" should be raising eye-brows. I think it at least needs to be addressed, instead of being dismissed.

Yes it was addressed by saying it was inaccurate.

-Rudey
--Don't talk to us men...you will be stoned!

I mean addressed outside of GC, dumbass.


And I thought you said your country doesn't stone?


Ok, talk about CHILDISH..!

OH MY GOSH...

Every little website out there does not need to be addressed. Every little guess is still a little guess. Every politically motivated guess is still a guess. The fact that we're dying instead of just flying around the country dropping bombs is us addressing this issue and trying to minimize deaths to civilians while protecting our own.

-Rudey
--FREAKING IDIOT!

I think we should care about civilian deaths. Whether you agree or not is your opinion. But for someone who boasts about their educational background, you sure now how to debate.

Relax rudey, this is just a discussion, ok? How about you taking deep breaths and counting to 10.


:rolleyes:

I am addressing it. I'm saying the results of the report are questionable AT BEST. I'm calling into question some information that was left out from the report that I've read -- like who the IBC exactly is other than "American and British Academics". They could be American and British Academics that are in league with Al Qaeda for all I know -- and all you know unless you know something that I don't know.

There are definitely some key items that I laid out (see the # signs, I tried to make it easy for people like you to understand what I was saying) that I'm sure if I were in a governmental position I'd want to make damned sure were addressed before even thinking about responding to the claims of a group like this.

Until a lot of questions are answered about these findings, I don't think anyone can really take them seriously. Maybe the questions will be answered. My bet is that we'll never hear about the IBC again.

I totally agree with you KT. All claims should be checked for its credibility. But if Americans don't investigate those claims, and we let others do it, we will always speculate its validity.

You're the one talking about taking deep breaths and talking about my school. If anyone needs to take deep breaths and count to 10, it's you...even though it might be difficult to count that high.

-Rudey

I got As in all my math classes (calculus, trig, algebra, etc).

So yeah, I have a problem counting to 10.


Good one. You win. End of discussion.

I don't really even know why we need to worry about it. The Iraqi people (unfortunately) had to ultimately pay a serious price for their freedom -- as have many peoples in times of political upheaval. I'm sure that we accidently killed French civilians in WWII. I'm positive we killed MANY more than 10,000 civilians in Germany when we liberated them from Hitler. They're not entitled anything from us for this. We've paid for their freedom with the lives of our young people. How about they pay us back for that?

It would be nice to have a true and accurate number of civilian casualties. But I don't think it's any kind of priority to anyone of note for any other purpose than being fodder for propaganda. There are much more important things to dedicate resources to in Iraq. This falls waaay down on the list of priorities.

So basically you're so upset that you had to tell me what classes you took and what grades? Great job because I don't know what calculus, trigonometry, and algebra have to do with counting to 10. Perhaps you should have paid more attention.

-Rudey
--It's called Arithmetic.

ktsnake is correct... there were actually around 20,000 French killed in the D-Day operations alone; it is an unfortunate fact that civilians die in military operations. I also would love to see a breakdown of the civilian casaulties in Iraq, broken down by date and region... this would allow an accurate image to be formed, instead of just simple numbers... the context is as, if not more important, than a factual bodycount.

Why not? Even people who are doing the greater good, might still be using the wrong means to an end. Yeah, we should go in there, get some solid stats, and maybe in the future, train soldiers on how to prevent friendly-fires and civilian-casualties. Its about doing the right thing and preserving human life. Are you just going to look the other way, until something worse than Abu graib happens?

Like decapitating American soldiers?

-Rudey

Rudey,

Unfortunately, terrorists were responsible for that. And that is not the topic at hand, dear.