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.

 

Amnesty International: Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
news.amnesty.org...


A year after the war began Iraqi civilians are still being killed every day. Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed since 18 March 2003 as a direct result of the military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation. The figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings. "We don't have the capacity to track all civilian casualties," US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told Reuters in February.
For all the surgical strike capability and avoidance of civilian casualities cliamed by the United States, over 10,000 dead civilians shows otherwise to me. Would these same 10,000+ civilians died under Saddam's rule in the last year?

This was not a clean war. Well, for the U.S. side I suppose its been fairly clean. Not for the opposition at all.




posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Sounds like a damn good start to me



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Todeskopf
Sounds like a damn good start to me
You trying to say you wish more Iraqis had died?



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
There is no such thing as a "clean" war. The bombing campaigns of any war are nasty and fairly arbitrary.

At least now they are trying not to hit civilian targets, but a totally clean war is impossible.

I think 10,000 is a pretty low number considering the amount of firepower expended.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Todeskopf
Sounds like a damn good start to me


If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you have some issues that need to be worked out.

Either that or you need to grow up and get out of highschool before you open your mouth.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   


Would these same 10,000+ civilians died under Saddam's rule in the last year?



Probley not.......it would have been a different 50-60 thousand, would that have made it better?



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
That number isnt deaths caused by the USA, make sure everyone knows this, people of the on the left and right seem to leave out certain things for us in the middle.

At least 1000 have been killed by terroists. and many more from Iraqs Army.

the deaths left probaly over 5K are USA's and as Sad as death is , and it is for any one. Speaking of war its never been so little or such care for it to be so little.

Just remember as bad as everyone may think this is. We took alot of care to reduce numbers like never before in any other campaign from any other country. BUt I m sure no one likes to talk about that,




[Edited on 20-3-2004 by ShiftTrio]



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Had the U.S. not invaded, the 10,000+ number given by Amnesty International regarding the war would not have existed. These deaths are a direct result of U.S. action whether caused by the U.S. military or the Iraqi opposition.

[Edited on 20-3-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I dont think the US thought the war through enough... death happen in war but if the US had just used political and economic pressure on Saddam i'm sure he would have fallen in line... seeing as he didnt actually have WMD's if the US had allowed the UN to let inspectors back in we would've known that by now... and if the US had used diplomacy i'm sure Saddam would;ve been a good boy over the last year or so... but then again when your a bully when do you ever talk a kid out of his lunch money?



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by Todeskopf
Sounds like a damn good start to me


If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you have some issues that need to be worked out.

Either that or you need to grow up and get out of highschool before you open your mouth.


I think he was saying what you were saying that the number of casualties are realtively low.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
Had the U.S. not invaded, the 10,000+ number given by Amnesty International regarding the war would not have existed. These deaths are a direct result of U.S. action whether caused by the U.S. military or the Iraqi opposition.

[Edited on 20-3-2004 by heelstone]



As such, your point heelstone?
I mean besides the fact that you, along with those who opposed this war, opposed the Bush Administration's and other nations who joined the Coalition against Iraq, decision's to go to war, what is your point?
That "war" is indeed "hell", and that civilians are indeed accidently and/or inadvertantly killed or wounded in such?

You then emphasize the word: "clean" in the sentence: "This was not a clean war." Huh?

History records and will indicate that what you have seemingly insinuated is bogus or a point and wording that you have totally mis-used out of it's historical context?

Name a war that was or has been termed "clean" enough for your definition as implied in "clean war", were innocent civilian's have not been accidently or inadvertantly killed or wounded. Can you? Iraq is no different, or is it that to you and others, it was supposed to be?


What innocent Iraqi lives that were lost is certainly a tragedy, no disputing that, but please, and I encourage you, check and see how the nation, as a whole, feels about the removal of Saddam. Do they think they are better off without him or with him? Do they fear the Coalition occupation moreso than they feared Saddam's rule? Do they want a tyrannical rule or that type government back or do they want democracy and the ability to make choices that they certainly did not have under Saddam?

You and others are certainly entitled to your beliefs and convictions, just as those who disagree are entitled to their own beliefs and convictions?



seekerof

[Edited on 20-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
After time you sorta forget what it was all about. Saddam is long gone. Its still a game of propaganda these days. You just see the impact of the war on the people now. war is never clean. but sometimes civilian death cant be escaped. i personally think this was a waste of force and firepower.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
wait....
ok argue all u want about collateral damage and civilian deaths during this war.... but i got one that should shut most of u up..... what about the 500 000+ iraqi's ( men women and children )... that starved to death because of us imposed sanctions on iraq for over 10 year's since the first gulf war.. and that whole bull$h!t oil for food program nice humanitarian aid that was... even the un was skimming money off the top of that one



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Well CanadaCANfight,
I guess you need to take your grievances and address them to the United Nations, maybe?
Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future

Or better yet, address them to this administration?
Clinton administration blocks easing of sanctions against Iraq

Or perhaps the Arab worlds major leaders?
Kuwait Seeks 'Milosevic Model'
to Confront Saddam


Excerpt:
"Arab leaders are now convinced that Iraq doesn't want sanctions lifted, that the status quo suits it, and that the regime is afraid of any change whose consequences it would not be able to master."



seekerof



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Seekerof

It doesn't change the FACT that many civilains were KILLED and wounded in a HIGHLY SUSPECT war.

It also doesn't change the fact that many AMERICANS and IRAQIS will have a little depeleted uranium to enjoy in the not too distant future. Not to mention the pleasant spring remembrances of a 'SHOCK and AWE' campaign, which affects the nervous system of a small child in ways unimaginable.

It also AMUSES me that you as a MODERATOR rate threads low simply because you don't agree with them...



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
"It also AMUSES me that you as a MODERATOR rate threads low simply because you don't agree with them...

Get a clue?



seekerof



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
What amuses me is "liberal" human rights activists supporting Saddam.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, your point heelstone?
I mean besides the fact that you, along with those who opposed this war, opposed the Bush Administration's and other nations who joined the Coalition against Iraq, decision's to go to war, what is your point?
That "war" is indeed "hell", and that civilians are indeed accidently and/or inadvertantly killed or wounded in such?


The point that should be made is that rather unruly means were used in a war that was based on lies.

Cluster bombs anyone? 2000lb bombs being used in residential areas for the sake of a few targets? That's a war crime.

One can say that war is hell. It's easy to say. Though, try asking the little boy who lost both his arms and his entire family when a US missle gave them a wakeup call.

You then emphasize the word: "clean" in the sentence: "This was not a clean war." Huh?

History records and will indicate that what you have seemingly insinuated is bogus or a point and wording that you have totally mis-used out of it's historical context?

Name a war that was or has been termed "clean" enough for your definition as implied in "clean war", were innocent civilian's have not been accidently or inadvertantly killed or wounded. Can you? Iraq is no different, or is it that to you and others, it was supposed to be?


Yeah, it was supposed to be different. It wasn't even supposed to happen. The loss of these lives, American and Iraqi could have been avoided if our resident thief and his cronies weren't in office. The fact remains is that many lives were lost because of a lie.


What innocent Iraqi lives that were lost is certainly a tragedy, no disputing that, but please, and I encourage you, check and see how the nation, as a whole, feels about the removal of Saddam. Do they think they are better off without him or with him? Do they fear the Coalition occupation moreso than they feared Saddam's rule? Do they want a tyrannical rule or that type government back or do they want democracy and the ability to make choices that they certainly did not have under Saddam?


Unfortunately, I think they are doomed to a tyrannical rule, atleast for awhile. Can you imagine an American-like nation surrounded by other nations that support or sponsor terrorism? Do you think it's even possible for Iraq to stand out like that and not recieve backlash for it? They are too vunerable. Look what happened to Ahfganistan after we left them to their own devices. The Taliban just moved right back in and opium production was sky high.

Yeah, I am sure there are many in Iraq that are glad Saddam is gone. But I doubt those same Iraqi's have seen the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Nor do I think they know who exactly Saddam got his weapons from at one point...



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
To quote the Dave Chapelle Show, and in following with what I believe to be true "President Bush KNOWS Iraq has WMD- he has the receipts". But that's just my two cents.



posted on Mar, 20 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpower
What amuses me is "liberal" human rights activists supporting Saddam.
The article did not mention support of Saddam Hussein. Rather it is stating that human rights have yet to improve and appear to be getting worse in post-Saddam Iraq. Does that imply support for Saddam's regime? Perhaps if human rights were better off back in Saddam's rule then I guess it does. Otherwise, there was no support of the old Iraq within the article linked.







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join