It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

25,000 civilians killed since Iraq invasion, says report

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The number of Iraqi civilians who met violent deaths in the two years after the US-led invasion was today put at 24,865 by an independent research team



The figures, compiled from Iraqi and international media reports, found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence.

Civilian deaths attributed to US and coalition military forces peaked in the invasion period from March to May 2003 - which accounts for 30% of all civilian deaths in the two-year period - but the longer-term trend has been for increasing numbers to die at the hands of insurgents.

"On average, 34 Iraqis every day have met violent deaths since the invasion of March 2003"

According to the Iraq Body Count report, 53% of those who died in the two years since the invasion were killed by explosive devices. Half of the total number died in Baghdad, and a fifth were women and children.

Rsearchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion.

Source:
Guardian

Lets read this Again:

US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence.

Intersting, no?




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Niiiiiice,

You may want to include that the source that you are using seems to make no difference between civilians that are directly killed by coalition forces and those that have been killed by insurgents.
From the source



The figures, compiled from Iraqi and international media reports, found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence.


Notice, it does not say that US or the coalition forces were the killers. The way that they have arrived at this number is questionable. They are attempting to show that somehow the coalition forces are directly responsible for these deaths. That the coalition forces have killed these civilians. I guess if the mere presence of the coalition forces being in Iraq could be construed that way.
Then of course there would never have been any fighting between the coalition forces and Iraq forces and now the insurgents. But that is like saying that someone got his sunburn just because the sun was out.




The figures up to March 2005 do not include the period since the elected Shia-led government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister, took office and the insurgency has worked at an increasing rate to kill Iraqi civilians and police officers.

At least they are honest enough to add that.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
They are attempting to show that somehow the coalition forces are directly responsible for these deaths. That the coalition forces have killed these civilians.


Yeah? And you're saying? ...

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the "US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths" means something other than the coalition military forces killed 37% of the civilians who are dead?

They do say an additional 9% are killed by anti-occupation forces and insurgents.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
The numbers don't add up...

37% were killed by US Forces, most in the first three months of the action (9250)

9% from the insurgency (2250) "this number HAS to be wrong, There have been 1700 deaths in the US forces by the insurgency, and only 500 more civilian deaths by insurgency forces!?!? I can go back on CNN and count up 500 civilian deaths by IEDs in the last two months alone!"

36% killed by criminal action (9000) A lot a violence yes, but as a comparison, there were 8339 homocide deaths in the US in 2000 (CDC Figures)

These numbers are intentionally skewed, and I suspect that the Numbers should be much higher for insurgenct related deaths.

Also, 53% of the deaths in the last two years were by explosive devices. One could extrapolate this to show that the insurgents have killed more civilians since the occupation than the Coalition did during the invasion.

All in all, MUCH lower than the 100,000 figure thrown around by the liberal left.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
That is what the source is implying. That the deaths of these civilians is DIRECTLY the fault of the coalition forces. In other words that these civilians were killed by coalition bullets and explosives.
The report does not try to differentiate those who were killed by Iraq forces nor the insurgents. It lumps the deaths together and is implying that they were killed by the US.
There is a token mention near the bottom of the source that reports some of the deaths that the insurgents have wrecked on the civilians.

The basis of the figures that they are using is that all deaths that have occured to civilians would never had occured if the US and the coalition forces had never entered the country.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I'm not understanding your post Kenshiro. It seems that 9% of the deaths have been caused by insurgents, 37% by coallition forces. Yet you're saying they didn't differentiate between the two??

If you read the full report you'll see many of the civilian deaths by explosives are attributed to cluster bombing and unexploded munitions set off by children.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
All in all, MUCH lower than the 100,000 figure thrown around by the liberal left.


All in all over three times the amount that died in 9-11 (AMerica's main arguing point). Interesting no?

We have killed SIX times the amount that the "terrorist" did during their worst strike on American soil. We should all hang our heads in shame, for supporting this, and letting it happen.

Where is the worlds outrage at this, as with 9-11?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
What I'm not understanding is why you seem to be infatuated with the War on Terror. You have proven that you will drag any stinking pile of dung to the board if it makes the U.S. look bad, and it can be the most blatant lie that the enemy (you remember the type; the ones who have been attacking and killing us for years - decades now) can print.

Are you related to Syrian Sister? Is it your jobs to spread propaganda? What nation do you hail from? More importantly, to what or whom do you pledge allegiance?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
From the article:

"Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the US and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad put the civilian death toll at up to 100,000 since the invasion."

In any case, 5000 or 25,000 or 100,000 innocent civilians, women, children who had nothing, nothing, NOTHING to do with 9/11 at all! Bah!

I am outraged and ashamed.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Biggest lie of the 21st century.

"Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, even though we went to war based on the fact that Iraq is related to 9/11".

Please, please, please, to those on the left. Enlighten me. Find me a transcript from Bush, find me a video. Anything where Bush says we should go to war with Iraq, because Iraq contributed to 9/11.

We went to war in Iraq because Hussein was an wacko nutcase and was a danger to his people, his neighbors, and to us. Yes, there were no WMDs, but that doesn't mean we didn't think there were. Bush didn't lie, he was wrong.

The crowd that spouts the biggest lie of the 21st century is also the crowd that can't name their House Representative, can't tell me who Karl Rove is, and can't tell me how many Supreme Court Judges there are.

There's a new segment of society...

Pop Activists. These are people who don't know much about History, Politics, or Government, yet manage to find something to protest. A bunch of 20-somethings riled up about a cause but without a lot of facts.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Hey! What happened to the Lancet Report and those 100,000?!

Oh my, now there is a report indicating 25,000. What happened to the other 75,000 and some odd change that you were spouting over and taunting a few months ago, Souljah?

Now your making issue with a report that totally contradicts your, and others, past positions and call to rhetoric? Am I missing something here? :shk:


Care to explain the "8,935 of the civilian deaths on crime" that this report asserts? How about explain how this was determined: exactly how did they determined or judged whether those civilain deaths were the acts of insurgents or crime?

Interesting that the report fails to note or mention Saddam's Fedayeen, who used innocent civilains as human shields during the major combat phase...you know, prior to Bush asserting that major combat had come to an end. Nope...no mention at all....

Isn't it also interesting that the more than half of civilain deaths were attributed to 'explosive devices'? Hello?! Can you say *insurgents* and *foreign fighters*?


More than half of all civilian deaths were said to have been caused by explosive devices, which disproportionately affected children.

BBC's Take on this

Furthermore and most interestingly, I find it highly ironic that the US has supposedly killed more innocents than the insurgents and foreign fighters have. Maybe those who did the report failed to incorporate those numerous suicide bombings and police force personnel and headquarter targetings, among a host of other non-considered and non-mentioned things.

Kudos to Iraqi body Count for their attempt at trying to obtain some realistic numbers, verses those who vehemently heralded the vaunted and then debunked Lancet report. *cough Souljah cough*

Btw, how many innocent civilains did Saddam kill in a year and he did so for how many years? I thought so....





seekerof

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The BBC sre reporting this information too.

news.bbc.co.uk...

With a more detailed analysis here:

news.bbc.co.uk...


Our data has been extracted from a comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 press and media reports... Our accounting is not complete: only an in-depth, on-the-ground census could come close to achieving that


Which suggests the amount of dead is likely in reality higher. The amount of injured civilians is massive.

A download of the report can be found here:

news.bbc.co.uk...

The link to this was found here:

news.bbc.co.uk...


"Nearly two-and-a-half years on, neither the US or UK have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed," Professor John Sloboda, one of the authors of the report, said.

"Our report has shown that what is lacking is not the capacity to do this work but the will."


I think that is true, but in our defence, it is a massive undertaking.


Shock and awe invasions using massive air power and overwhelming force caused a far higher concentration of deaths, injuries and child fatalities than even the intense insurgency we are experiencing now


Professor John Sloboda

Well, that is an obvious statement that we are all aware of as being a fact. Falujah was a prime example of this, the population had no where to go and so had to return.

Again in defence, the only other alternative would be a ground offensive. We would have suffered many more casualties. However there may have been less civilian casualties.

Does it really come down to whos lives are more valuable?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
You may want to include that the source that you are using seems to make no difference between civilians that are directly killed by coalition forces and those that have been killed by insurgents.

I dont Understand Your Post.

The Numbers are Pretty Much Clear and Speak for Themselves.

Its probably all the "Friendly Fire" and all the Cluster Bombs dropped, that have caused all these Deaths. But then again, the Coalition Forces are Not Counting the Iraqi Civilians ANYWAY - meanin they dont CARE.

Neither the US nor the UK, the former occupying powers, provide figures for the numbers of Iraqi civilian dead.



Originally posted by soulforge
These numbers are intentionally skewed, and I suspect that the Numbers should be much higher for insurgenct related deaths.

And Why would they "Skew" with these Numbers in the First Place?

At least somebody is trying to Count all the Casualties, considering its a VERY Tough Job.



Biggest lie of the 21st century: "Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, even though we went to war based on the fact that Iraq is related to 9/11".

You want MORE BIG LIES?

I suggest You start Taking Records of what President of the US is saying. He has Spread more Lies and more Deceptions in his "War on Terror" then Anybody!



Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Are you related to Syrian Sister? Is it your jobs to spread propaganda? What nation do you hail from? More importantly, to what or whom do you pledge allegiance?

Are Those Questions Directed at Me?

Well, I will answer them anyway.

#1. Nope

#2. Nope.

#3. I am a Citizen of Socialistic Federative Republic of Yugoslavia - OK, I was, Today I am just a Citizen of Slovenija.

#4. I Pledge Allegiance to the TRUTH, FREEDOM and to MYSELF.



Originally posted by Seekerof
Oh my, now there is a report indicating 25,000. What happened to the other 75,000 and some odd change that you were spouting over and taunting a few months ago, Souljah?

Well Sir, its an article from the Guardian that I wanted to Share with you all.

I am not saying that its 25.000 Dead in Iraq, because Honestly I have no Clue how many Innocents have died in this Conflict. And I belive neither does the Guardian, You, or anybody else in Iraq or here.

What I found Interseting is the Percentage of the Casualties and who is Responsible for them.

If you ask me, I belive that the Number is MUCH Higher then this and its probably really close to the 100.000 mentioned before.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Man, I'm reading the report. They count 1300 deaths during the assaults on Fallujah as civilian deaths by US forces! So, odds are they count insurgent deaths as civilian deaths! Why else would 81% of the deaths be males?

Wow, if that doesn't skew the figures.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What I'm not understanding is why you seem to be infatuated with the War on Terror. You have proven that you will drag any stinking pile of dung to the board if it makes the U.S. look bad, and it can be the most blatant lie that the enemy (you remember the type; the ones who have been attacking and killing us for years - decades now) can print.

Are you related to Syrian Sister? Is it your jobs to spread propaganda? What nation do you hail from? More importantly, to what or whom do you pledge allegiance?


Is this directed at me? If so, I don't recall dragging stinking piles of dung and blatant lies to this board, I'm not related to Syrian Sister, it's not my job (or my practise) to spread propaganda, I'm an American, and I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
the dreaded number 100,000 dead includes everybody that died in Iraq becouse of the all the bombings AND economic sanctions that are hitting Iraq for what, a decade now. 20,000 might just be about the right number for the latest war there, give or take a few thousand.....but hey, whos counting, right



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
This just doesnt add up!
The given data is 37%+36%+9%=82% . So what about the rest!
This is clearly not a statistical data as it doesnt add up. Also the fact that the article reeks with bias and grossly misquotes the findings of the actuall research in a desperate attempt to malign the coalition forces and make a hero out of the terrorists in Iraq is quite blatant.

The liberal view that Iraq has nothing to do with the WOT is totally wrong, it started out as a war on Saddam but when the insurgents came and started to conduct terrorism it started to become the WOT in IRAQ! That is what you have to understand, even Topny blair who spoke with Afgan president Karzai said that the opposers of war and the muslim fanatica see the American effort in Iraq as a conspiracy against the muslims, he said that this argument is a "slipppery slope from which no rational point can be made" and also said that because of the human spirit and the fact that today Afganistan and Iraq are on the path of being democratic nations, the first succesfull one is the Muslim world, these fanatics see this as an end to their propaganda! Thsu they attack and want to see to it that such does not happen.
Though he said it better than what I have written, he ment that the fact that muslims and people of all religions are treated with respect and granted the right to practise their religion freely shows that this theory of conspiracy cant be true at all!
Another point is, the main reason Iraqi civilians are dying is because they want to, indirectly of course. They have not made any attempt to actively shun the militants and fight them off themselves, they are subjugated by their religious attachments and are afraid that disregarding the militants will make them outcasts of their religion, also the militants exsistence is the main reason the Coalition is in Iraq trying to safegaurd Iraq, as soon as the terrorists are gone it is certain that the coalition will pull back and leave Iraq completely.
That in the end all deaths whether they are coalition deaths or the insurgents bombings they are all because of the presence of militants in Iraq, the Ameicans and the British are their to protect not to kill!

Anyboydy who sees it anything other than that is severly brainwashed with all the liberal propaganda.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
BTW..you can download the whole report from the BBC site. Man, it's littered with anti-us quotes and sob stories...



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
Man, I'm reading the report. They count 1300 deaths during the assaults on Fallujah as civilian deaths by US forces! So, odds are they count insurgent deaths as civilian deaths! Why else would 81% of the deaths be males?

Wow, if that doesn't skew the figures.

Agreed.

Did you happen to read the reports mention on the number of men over 18 year olds that made up 82% of those killed?
Assuming here, but unless the US-led Coalition has developed and is currently utilizing testosterone seeking munitions, there is a major disparity in their findings, cause quite frankly, the majority were probably insurgents and freedom fighters, that were killed in action, who were then categorized under "civilain" deaths.






seekerof

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
We have killed SIX times the amount that the "terrorist" did during their worst strike on American soil. We should all hang our heads in shame, for supporting this, and letting it happen.
Where is the worlds outrage at this, as with 9-11?

What you forget my fanatical leftist is that 3000+ people died on ONE day during the 9/11 bombings !!
While this report is for the a period of many years, and 25000 is a pretty ggo dnumber considering the odds and the way Iraqi militants recklessly blow them selves up near women and childeren!
It is the leftists and the other America-haters that should be ashamed and outraged that they are propagating a smear campaign against a noble and just cause for the saftey and security of Iraq, for the dignity of the iraqi people and the future they deserve!

The democratization of Iraq is a UN backed proposal and thus you cant claim this to be some American agenda!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join