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.

 

Few US Troops Tried for Killing Civilians.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well and since the Noble US Forces do NOT DO Bodycounts, here is what people who DO bodycounts have to say about that:


Iraqi Bodycount Project

Who did the killing?

  • US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
  • Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
  • Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
  • Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

  • Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
  • Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
  • Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).



Looking at the Iraq Body Count (IBC) project there are more than a few items that I take issue with.

First is that Souljah's link is to Wikipedia. While I agree that there is plenty of good info on Wiki some of it is suspect. For this post I am going on the assumption that Wiki's info is correct.

Anything in italics is a direct quote from the IBC Wiki article.

The Iraq Body Count project is an ongoing effort to record civilian deaths resulting from the 2003 Iraq war and occupation. The group is staffed by volunteers consisting mainly of academics and activists based in the UK and the USA.

If these people are academics and activists the I have to call into question their bias on this issue. If they are based in the US and UK where or who are they obtaining their information from? Who is determining the causes of death of these victims?

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources.

What are the sources? As we have seen with media reports out of Lebanon, these are not always the most accurate sources of information.

All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

How are they checked? Do these three members go to the site and personally verify this information? If they are verified through media sources see my previous statement above.

IBC is purely a civilian count. IBC defines civilian to exclude Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, suicide bombers or any others directly engaged in war-related violence.

How do you tell who is an insurgent and who isn't? My guess would be by counting weapons, oh wait the insurgents take the weapons of downed members. Define war-related violence?

I could go on with this all day. All this group has is poorly documented speculation. While it's intent may be noble and I applaud its effort, all we have here is third or fourth hand information, extrapolation and conjecture. I am not saying that the IBC has intentionally tried to exaggerate or decieve, I believe that they present the information that they recieve accurately. It is the information that they get that I have a problem with. To quote the old computer saying "When you put garbage in you get garbage out.".

Please don't try to present this as fact.




[edit on 30-8-2006 by JIMC5499]




posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well and since the Noble US Forces do NOT DO Bodycounts, here is what people who DO bodycounts have to say about that:


Iraqi Bodycount Project

Who did the killing?

  • US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
  • Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
  • Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
  • Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

  • Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
  • Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
  • Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).



Looking at the Iraq Body Count (IBC) project there are more than a few items that I take issue with.

First is that Souljah's link is to Wikipedia. While I agree that there is plenty of good info on Wiki some of it is suspect. For this post I am going on the assumption that Wiki's info is correct.

Anything in italics is a direct quote from the IBC Wiki article.

The Iraq Body Count project is an ongoing effort to record civilian deaths resulting from the 2003 Iraq war and occupation. The group is staffed by volunteers consisting mainly of academics and activists based in the UK and the USA.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Looking at the Iraq Body Count (IBC) project there are more than a few items that I take issue with.

I bet you do.

Sorry I could not find a US .mil or .gov sites, because if I remember correcly,

The US DON'T DO BODYCOUNTY! (on Iraqi civilians)



First is that Souljah's link is to Wikipedia. While I agree that there is plenty of good info on Wiki some of it is suspect. For this post I am going on the assumption that Wiki's info is correct.

eXcuse me, but Wikipedia Quoted the Iraq Bodycount Project on their Page:



The website released a report detailing the civilian deaths it had recorded between 2003 and 2005. The report says the US and its allies were responsible the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attibuted to anti-occupation forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%).




If these people are academics and activists the I have to call into question their bias on this issue. If they are based in the US and UK where or who are they obtaining their information from? Who is determining the causes of death of these victims?

Well I am sorry yet again, but because the US Military does NOT DO BODYCOUNTS - we have to say, that these Academis and Activists are the Closest thing we have to the Death Toll of Iraqi Civilians Casualties.


IBC

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone elsecan only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.




What are the sources? As we have seen with media reports out of Lebanon, these are not always the most accurate sources of information.

I see that you did not even Bother to go and check their Page for Further Information.

Allow me to Demostrate:


IBC - Database

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.

Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.
METHODOLOGY AND DETAILS...

Does that Answer perhaps?

And since General Tommy Franks, US Central Command says:

“We don’t do body counts”

Well, who can we Belive then?

What are the Sources?


Sources

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
  • ABC - ABC News (USA)
  • AFP - Agence France-Presse
  • AP - Associated Press
  • AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
  • Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
  • BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
  • BG - Boston Globe
  • Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
  • CT - Chicago Tribune
  • CO - Commondreams.org
  • CSM - Christian Science Monitor
  • DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
  • FOX - Fox News
  • GUA - The Guardian (London)
  • HRW - Human Rights Watch
  • HT - Hindustan Times
  • ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
  • IND - The Independent (London)
  • IO - Intellnet.org
  • JT - Jordan Times
  • LAT - Los Angeles Times
  • MEN - Middle East Newsline
  • MEO - Middle East Online
  • MER - Middle East Report
  • MH - Miami Herald
  • NT - Nando Times
  • NYT - New York Times
  • Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
  • SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
  • SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
  • Sg.News - The Singapore News
  • Tel- The Telegraph (London)
  • Times - The Times (London)
  • TOI - Times of India
  • TS - Toronto Star
  • UPI - United Press International
  • WNN - World News Network
  • WP - Washington Post

    All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

Does that Answer?



How are they checked? Do these three members go to the site and personally verify this information? If they are verified through media sources see my previous statement above.

Allow me Moderators, to Quote IBC Again:


Limitations and scope of enquiry

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict.

Understand?

This is not a Wholly Accurate Figure - and since the Iraqi Morques do get overflown every single day with Bodies, nobody actually does the Checking, and when a Bomb goes off, the Agent Gil Grissom will Not arrive to the Scene of the Bomb Blast with his Team and carefully examine all the Evidence in his Lab later, and give us a full report and answer WHO DID IT?.

Looks like nobody really gives a #.



How do you tell who is an insurgent and who isn't? My guess would be by counting weapons, oh wait the insurgents take the weapons of downed members. Define war-related violence?

Good Question:

US Soldiers usually act, that Every Iraqi Civilians as an Insurgent, untill proved Otherwise.

Again, allow me to Quote:


"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"

Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account.

In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.




I could go on with this all day. All this group has is poorly documented speculation. While it's intent may be noble and I applaud its effort, all we have here is third or fourth hand information, extrapolation and conjecture. I am not saying that the IBC has intentionally tried to exaggerate or decieve, I believe that they present the information that they recieve accuratel

Poorly Documented Specualtion?

Want to go and Check out their DATABASE and go and read every single Report in their 88 Page Report?

Hmmmmmmm....

I am sorry yet again, but this is the CLOSEST Information we have about Iraq and the Civilians Death Cost of the People of Iraq - and lets not forget,

[size=+2]THE US MILITARY DOES NOT TO BODYCOUNTS.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Yes Souljah I did go to their site and read their information. I still stand by what I said. I'm curious as to why you posted the link to Wikipedia instead of a link to IBC's site?

As far as the US military is concerned, they do make a body count. What they don't do is release their count to the media, nor do they base sucess or failure of an operation on that count.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Sorry I could not find a US .mil or .gov sites, because if I remember correcly,

The US DON'T DO BODYCOUNTY! (on Iraqi civilians)

Well if the US did conduct body counts when exactly would you take them as fact?

BTW, no nation/military is bound to ever conduct any such activity.

Presenting IBC findings as absolute fact and throwing the pitch of having no other bench mark while opining the US’s lack/absence of keeping public records does not make IBC the “factual base”; furthermore, reporting third, forth, fifth etc…party information concerning numbers (as IBC relies upon) can not be accurate no matter how hard one tries.

See here for a start...simply search IBC bias, it’s that easy.

mg



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
One of the complains since the beginning of the war in Iraq by humanitarian groups was the lack of keeping records of civilian deaths in Iraq from both sides the Iraqis and foreign fighters to have a good grip of the progress of war.

The humanitarian groups were doing body counts on their own, specially the people brought to hospitals.



Human rights groups say the occupying powers have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths, giving the impression that ordinary Iraqis' lives are worth less than those of soldiers


news.bbc.co.uk...

The reason as why, I guess we should ask General Tommy Franks, US Central Command he was the one that said “We don’t do body counts”.

But the truth is that US stop counting bodies since the Vietnam war.



In fact, the Pentagon stopped counting the people killed by its soldiers after the Vietnam war,where the numbers publicized were often inflated by field commanders and Pentagon officials in attempts to show the war was going better than it was. Those attempts ultimately backfired when the body counts provided fuel for the anti-war movement.


www.cbc.ca...

Many deaths goes unreported because soldiers can not keep the count on their own.

The problem is that when Insurgents are killed many civilian casualties happen during cross fire.

The distinction between who is who is always ignored, unless among the death are women and children.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Great points Marg.

Especially this one:

Originally posted by marg6043
The distinction between who is who is always ignored, unless among the death are women and children.


How exactly does one in this scenario determine 'who' is exactly a deceased militant vs. that of a civilian? …and how does one sort out human shields and the moral onus of murder…moreover…who is really the murderer by action and MO?

Simple body counts will not give you this answer...

mg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join