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.