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.

 

War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Firstly darksided America is responsible for all the violence in Iraq because it has taken all of the country over, allowed the looting and witnessed its deterioration into something that’s hard to imagine.
On both accounts they have lied to do so, and they have done it against everyone's but their own self listening advice.

And it is America along with its pressure on the U.N that had reduced the resource rich nation of Iraq to third world poverty even after its leader set the example and got rid of WMD's.
And when your Iraqi democracy is democratically aligned with Iran I will ask you if you are happy? If you think your leaders serve your country? Or is it the arms industry, the mass media and those who buy into it first and foremost? (along with America various "lobbyists").

I'll give you one thing; if you hate Saddam maybe you also like people who would force you to covert to Islam at the barrel of the gun? Who knows next life maybe?




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

LA Times

Higher than the US estimate but thought to be undercounted, the tally is equivalent to 570,000 Americans killed in three years.

At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.

In the three years since Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, the Bush administration has rarely offered civilian death tolls. Last year, President Bush said he believed that "30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."

The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137.

According to a 2003 Times survey of Baghdad hospitals, at least 1,700 civilians died in the capital just in the five weeks after the war began. An analysis by Iraqi Body Count, a nongovernmental group that tracks civilian deaths by tallying media reports, estimated that 5,630 to 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed nationwide from March 19 through April 2003.

I think the Numbers speak pretty much for Themselves.

There are many reports, which are very difficult to obtain, and are not really detailed and the numbers vary alot. And since Coalition troops "Do Not Do Bodycounts On Iraq CIVILANS" nobody actually knows the real number of Iraqi Civilans killed.

But I think that the number is even Higher then this New Death Toll, which actually already tops the Bush goverment "Official Story".



Whats your point In ww2 tens of thousands of people died in single battles.

More people were killed by saddam so that his people could control the other 80% of the population through terror. Where your bleeding heart for them whom would be dying daily anyway if he were still in power...

I guess you just like spreading bad news.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Firstly darksided America is responsible for all the violence in Iraq because it has taken all of the country over, allowed the looting and witnessed its deterioration into something that’s hard to imagine.
On both accounts they have lied to do so, and they have done it against everyone's but their own self listening advice.

And it is America along with its pressure on the U.N that had reduced the resource rich nation of Iraq to third world poverty even after its leader set the example and got rid of WMD's.
And when your Iraqi democracy is democratically aligned with Iran I will ask you if you are happy? If you think your leaders serve your country? Or is it the arms industry, the mass media and those who buy into it first and foremost? (along with America various "lobbyists").

I'll give you one thing; if you hate Saddam maybe you also like people who would force you to covert to Islam at the barrel of the gun? Who knows next life maybe?


Actually the middle east is a very violent place to begin so lets not act as if america invaded iraq and poof iraq became a place where people get murdered. Right now sunni arabs are fighting to regain control over the other 80% of native iraqis that want us there.

YOu are right though about those half ass sanctions thanks UN and everyother country that supported them not just the US.

As for Iran, Iraq will not become a bed fellow with them the kurds and sunnis want nothing to do with shiite iran and they control enough of the gov to prevent that also alot of shiites are not to thrilled with the idea of a fundementalist religous gov, they see iran and its issues. They want better.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
American madman you are wrong. The other 80% of Iraqis DO NOT want us there…
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Where do you get your information from? Fox News?

Under Saddam you had nearly everyone living in peace because there was a centralised government with a clear secular objective. What more did we want? Before we invaded in 1991 93% of Iraqis had access to free healthcare of a first world standard; and over 92% were literate. Most of the infrastructure the roads and many of the other things you still see today were built by Saddam.
All secularism requires is that you tolerate other peoples beliefs; because Saddam followed this (and many other Western ideas) economic success was his.

After the 1991 invasion to prevent Kuwait being reunited with Iraq after less than 70 years apart (traditionally Kuwait had been part of Iraq for thousands of years) we introduced the sanctions that led to the desperate poverty you see today. The sanctions have been lifted but without Saddam’s secular centralised government we have anarchy the very thing he had killed people to avoid. And what do we have to show for it as people are still being killed for speaking their mind; when mass graves of sometimes 50 bodies are still being dug?

I think you have a point though about the Kurds and Sunni not wanting to go the way of Iran. Trouble is that the Sunni are being exterminated; they are minority within their own country and they resist the occupation not just because of the power have taken away from them; but because of what your President and “my” Primeminister has done. This is how the war on terror has failing; it has given a real footing to Al Qaeda in Iraq; whilst before Al Qaeda was in hiding in Iraq because Saddam hated them for being fundamentalist.

Regardless of the efforts of other nations both the sanctions and this occupation have been driven by America and Britain. We are most responsible for turning an orderly country with an apparently wrongly bloody leader, into a disorderly country with a bloody (somewhat uncontrollable) daily reality. Before 1991 Iraq was a great country; we have turned up their twice and look at what we have done. (Arguably it’s more than twice as we dropped more bombs than during world war two “policing” things like the no fly zones in-between 1991-2003).

With this in mind (but referring to your previous post) I find it amazing how you compare our occupation to WW2. And how does the deaths of war like that justify one like this? Enlighten me.
In world war two we fought for our survival. It was defensive and because of that it was honourable. These are facts and history can judge WW2 and most other wars on facts.
In contrast this war was justified on lies; more lies in the middle (and no doubt more now) to galvanise support for it. WW2 was defence, and secured freedom. This one has both required and been justified on power projection (may turn out like that in the long run). Perhaps there is less freedom in Iraq; as now journalists are no longer safe given that more have died there than Vietnam. For Iraqis speaking your mind still guarantees death; and as for the future it looks like a bit of nightmare (apart from the Kurdish area). And Saddam would have been happy for us to invade that; providing we kept the Turks out. So even that is not much of an accomplishment given that we could always have had it (if we had really wanted it). Saddam wasn’t against the Kurds in the way Hitler was against the Jews; he hated them for siding with Iran; it’s that which caused negotiations to brake down which could have given them autonomy within their own parts of Iraq (this is long time ago way before the alleged gassing).

Back to topic; America has taken Iraq over; installed an incompetent government which can’t help but fight with itself as the ship sinks. And there is little denying that actions pioneered by America have led between Iraq pre 1991 and Iraq 2006 being a comparison of extreme deterioration (especially as about 40% of Iraq’s intellectuals are thought to have fled the country since 2003). (They are targets for kidnapping).



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Alls fair in love and war, and i thought it was more like 100,000 dead.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Hey liberal1984

What makes you source anymore valid then mine...?

Mine btw is a multitude of news outlets both tv and internet and oh yeah that thing under my skull. If the other 80% didn't want us there both sides of the death count would be much higher.

Why wouldn' the kurds want us there they have gained independence under our planes flying over head. And the shiites are no longer murdered for questioning the goverment. Saddam was slowly cleansing the shiites, without the US the shiites would not have huge sway over their democratically elected gov neither would the kurds...

Your news source is no more valid then anyone elses.

If they didn't like what we broought they would not be taking part in the gov.

Let me ask you something liberal1984 did you serve in iraq do you know anyone who has served in iraq? I haven't served there but know people who have and their word means more the any news outlets...

Oh for the sunnis who have fled the country.... More then a million people have come back to the country, people who left because they were scared of saddam, because saddams way of running things was through domestic terrorism. Millions of pilgrams have started making there way back to iraq for religious reasons which weren't allowed during saddam reign.

YOu keep on blaming america first though...

[edit on 2-7-2006 by American Madman]

[edit on 2-7-2006 by American Madman]



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
But I think that the number is even Higher then this New Death Toll, which actually already tops the Bush goverment "Official Story".

Oh defender of terrorism and terrorists alike, you were keeping track of Saddam's "death toll" numbers when and where, exactly? Oh, thats right, it did not matter then....hypocrite, huh?



seekerof



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
What makes this source:
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
more valid American Madman? Well putting it simply it’s an MOD opinion poll. What is the MOD? It stands for Ministry of Defence (Britain’s ministry of defence that is). Given that our troops are dying like yours; and our prime minister lied like your president (arguably more as he placed far greater emphasis on WMD threat than Bush) I would be surprised if this is anti war propaganda. Furthermore the Daily Telegraph is often nicked named the Tory Graph as it is a very Conservative newspaper.

You say 80% of Iraqis supporting the occupation comes from a “multitude” of news networks. In that case why not join me by providing a link or two?
In any case the mass media is highly “corrupt”. Rupert Murdoch not only owns Fox News, Sky News, the Sun, the Times, and the News of the World (about a quarter of Britain’s national newspapers) and also over 200 sky channels but out of all 172 titles he owned at the start of the Iraq war all 172 supported it. See Rupert Murdoch assets here: www.ketupa.net... this list is incomplete so if you can do better please tell me.
CNN, ABC news are not too dissimilar. CNN is obviously more liberal but then it caters for the more liberal end of the market. Even so you are unlikely to hear from them about Iraq’s pre 1991 living standards, the evermore clear radiation effects of Depletive Uranium used in some of our armour piercing shells, the fact the toppling of the Saddam statue was staged (in fact they continue to mention-use it without mentioning much if anything about that). Nor will you here from them that Kuwait used to be part of Iraq for thousands of years up and till the British occupation of the 1920’s when we separated it from Iraq because it had oil, that its EARLIST history goes back about 200 years. I’ve heard next to nothing about the chronic shortage of painkillers in most of Iraq’s hospitals (obviously in spite of the coalition being there). And I’ve never heard them doubt Saddam gassed the Kurds even though the wrong type of gas was used (something since confirmed by weapons inspections both before and after the invasion). In fact here is the testimony from CIA senior political analyst at the time (writing in 2003)
www.sovereignty.org.uk... (it’s the colured background bit)
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
www.worldnetdaily.com...
www.polyconomics.com...

In fact for a so called “liberal” news channel there is an awful lot more about Iraq you won’t here on CNN. Trouble is CNN is about as liberal as the mainstream media gets and this obviously posses a problem both for fair debate; and therefore Western democracy. The point I'm making is that you shouldn’t take for granted that 80% of Iraqis support the coalition even IF you did here it on the mainstream.

Your logic that if more Iraqis wanted us out then there would be more than 2500 Iraqi is quite right as there is already more than 2500 U.S deaths. But unless you have a brain like a super computer I don’t think I can believe you if say it should be double that. Anyway using more ruthless tactics will always bring our own injured down.

Oncewascool here are the number of deaths recorded by Iraq body count which picks up deaths on the media and requires a death certificate. (Obviously not very accurate). www.iraqbodycount.net...
Here are the number of deaths the first gulf war caused according to U.S military anyway which is 100,000 and 300,000 injured (bear in mind Iraq has less than half the population than the U.K). (about 27 million) www.cnn.com...

My guess once in a while is that even if the first gulf war did only kill 100,000 Iraqis (many people think it’s at least 250,000) then don’t you think its a lot higher this time round?

Seekerof Why is souljah a defender of terrorists? Don’t you think that statement dishonours your 2003 award (or wasn’t ATS that good back then?). As for inserting that Saddam’s deaths didn’t matter I kind of agree. They were mostly against the Shiite (who are Muslim fundamentalists) and the core of the people who now want side with Iran and destroy our democracy now that we have given it to them (a mere 60% of the population). I think by defending them you defend the real enemy (especially as they were supporting Al Qaeda under Saddam) (before anyone else apart from the Kurds dared to in Iraq).

American Madman You said Saddam had been “ethnically cleansing” the Kurds and Shiite. What was his aim? To reduce Iraq’s population by 3 quarters?
I have to say that’s a new one for me. (But thinking through things always pays of).
In fact I didn’t even know Saddam was racist; although he was defiantly a practicalist who had offered the Kurds complete autonomy within there own section of Iraq shortly after coming to power back in 1970…
“Under the former Iraqi Ba'athist regime, which ruled Iraq from 1968 until 2003, Kurds were initially granted limited autonomy (1970), and after the Barzani revolt in 1961, were given some high-level political representation in Baghdad. However, for various reasons, including the pro-Iranian sympathies of some Kurds during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the regime implemented anti-Kurdish policies and a de facto civil war broke out. Iraq was widely-condemned by the international community, but was never seriously punished for oppressive measures, including the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, which resulted in thousands of deaths. (See Halabja poison gas attack.)”
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Yep the Kurds blew it for the same reason they were offered it. Their leaders continued to accept Iranian bribes in exchange for causing trouble in Iraq. Do your history and you will learn that Iran’s apparent failure to stop doing this (after Saddam had given them some disputed land) was particularly the sole reason for his invasion against them which caused the Iran Iraq war. Iran actually hated Saddam at the time for being secular and in their eyes worst of all pro American.
Hay that’s another piece of reality you won’t get on CNN!!!

American Madman I respect you because I think we are both trying to contribute to the greater right (even though we are mostly at opposite perspectives). But that’s constructive because if you can disprove what I say then we both learn and we both win; fail to do that only you may learn and only I will win.
Beware about disinformation in the mass media; in fact fear it anywhere. But the government is doing what I suggest you do. Unfortunately they are doing it by making the facts up (obviously) to justify their non existent version of reality: See this really good ATS thread…www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Yep it’s by Seekerof’s terrorist supporter; so be afraid, be very afraid!!).



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Lets not forget about what is to happen in the future from all the use of Depleted Uranium. How many babies born deformed, how many cases of cancer etc etc. If its affecting our troops, it will surely affect the Iraqis in the long term once that stuff starts entering the water tables and the scrap metals irradiated works its way into peoples homes.


Pie



Pie, if you mention that you are anti american. Why do you want to hate america? These non sequiturs come flying at you as soon as you bring up something relevant. It happens to everyone and the right just continues to put their gigantic ostrich head into the ground. We can't even have a report of this on the national news regarding the sickness and ailments that our troops are facing. Because what happens if we do? A town cryer from hannityville jumps out in the street and yells....what

LIBERAAAALL MEDDIAAAAAAAAAAAAA"



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

American madman you are wrong. The other 80% of Iraqis DO NOT want us there…
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml


Well who do they want then? they didn't like Saddam but didn't have the guts to oust him lest we all forget that fact. They didn't like what they had before and they don't like what they have now. What are they anyways children? I think if the US left Iraq now the bloody place would simply collapse.

then the critics of the US would still complain. You lose no matter what you do because they don't want you to win in the first place.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Oh defender of terrorism and terrorists alike, you were keeping track of Saddam's "death toll" numbers when and where, exactly? Oh, thats right, it did not matter then....hypocrite, huh?

Oh the Great Allmighty Taliban - I mean Seekerof...

Actually the Word "Terro-ism" I just being used to label Muslim extremists - but how do you label American foreign policies, that have repressed goverments, assassinated leaders, planned coups, organized death-squads, armed militant islamists and many other "thingies" you always seem to forget to mention?

That is spreading of Democracy right?

Sorry but Terror-ism is a the Weapon of the STRONG.

And the Strongest country on this world is US of A - which can only mean one thing.

That You are actually the defender of Terrorists and Terrorism.

And you argument is also kind of pathetic - since when Saddam killed those hundereds of thousands of his own people, nobody said anything to him; the US goverment sent mister Rumsfeld to shake hands with him, and sell him more weapons technology and chemical agents, so that he would win the war against Iran - so it really did not matter what he did to Kurds or Shia.

But that is Another Story, right?

Kind of - ah well, you know....




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   


posted by Souljah

Actually the word "Terror-ism" I being used to label Muslim extremists but how do you label American foreign policies, that have repressed governments, assassinated leaders, planned coups, organized death-squads, armed militant Islamists and many other "thingies" you always seem to forget to mention?
[Edited by Don W]



Well, the list is endless. It started even before the US became a country. The Indians had this land, and the white settlers wanted the land. We took it. It the Indians fought back, we killed them. Simple. Americans don’t like dissenters. We ran the Loyalists out of the country in 1783. We ignore them and that. If a teacher taught our American history truthfully and completely, he or she would be fired!

The Army or CIA or both tracked down Argentine medical doctor Ernesto “Che” Guevara in Bolivia (on behalf of the US tin mine companies) and killed him while in custody. The US arranged for the assassination of President Salvador Allende of Chile who was a socialist. The only freely elected president of Guatemala, Jacob Arbenz Guzman another socialist, was killed by CIA “hit men.” In 1980, 3 nuns and 1 social worker were killed in El Salvador by Army forces backed by the US because the Catholic Church in El Salvador wanted land reform and a decent wage for the United Fruit Company workers. Don't forget the Pope joined the repressionist US and ordered "his" bishops to quit socializing the laymen. 1953 US overthrew Premier Mosedegh of Iran and imposed the Shah which led straight to Ayatollah Khomeini and today's Islamic Republic of Iran. Sort of justice coming back? Thank You Ike. The US has invaded Central American and other countries more than 20 times, and even the USSR in 1920. Granada. Panama. three times in Haiti. Once we stayed there from 1918 to 1933. Yet Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. And has been for 150 years. Why's that?

Most Americans A) don’t know this, and B) don’t give a rats ***.

One man’s hero is another man’s terrorist.



[edit on 7/3/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join