Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by shanerz
The old Abu Ghraib photos were released to the public on April 28 of 2004.news.bbc.co.uk...
Index of Casualties of Iraq war:
According to this, deaths of US soldiers in April, 2004 were at 135. But is this a result of photo exposure?
January = 47 deaths
February = 20
March = 52
April = 135
May = 80
June = 42
Yet between March 26, 2004 and April 26, 2004
Total deaths: 266
Hostile death: 122
Between April 26, 2004 and May 26, 2004
Total deaths: 83
Hostile deaths: 68
(Following references are in .PDF)
In fact, as you see, the numbers suggest that the increase in violence happens before the release of the photos. If you want to speculate based on
these numbers, you can say people declined to fight against the US after the pictures were released. But I'm sure it was used as propaganda, yes...
But the numbers show that this propaganda wasn't needed, and was, as I - a non-professional on this kind of thing - believe, over powered by the
societal- and psychological-environmental influences on youth of that region.
September 20, 2004: Judge rules 87 unseen pictures of Iraqi inmates abused by US troops should be released.
Now this Nov uprising is followed by 78 deaths in Dec. and 107 in Jan. After which, numbers fall back more into line. I dont know, but I'm willing
to bet on Religious purposes for a hike in violence. Don't know what muslims got for that time, but Christains have... well, Christmas. Again,
don't quote, I'm no expert.
Feb 15, 2006: Australia's SBS TV broadcasts previously unpublished images.
Jan, 2006: 62 deaths
Feb, 2006: 55
Mar, 2006: 31
Apr, 2006: 76
Again, it appears we have no real initial increase in violence due to new photo exposure. I did not correspond the dates of the "prophet" scenario,
maybe someone else might want to substantiate their claims?
My conclusion: I really do not see a huge overall advance in violence further down the line, due to photo exposure. Yearly violence seems to stay the
same from 2004-2007, then we see a down turn in violence. Enemy numbers wearing thin? Now you can say that they will be desperate and use more
photos as propaganda, but as you will see, the effects of the initial photo exposure is not substantial proof of increased violence in the Iraqi
Off topic: Determined individuals losing their army? Kinda interesting to see what will happen in the next couple years. My advice, pull out. Take
our losses, get over the fact we "failed" to take out a person killing his 'subjects'. We "failed" to take out a lot of psychopathic
individuals. "Failed" to set up a place where people can vote for their leaders. After all, we have Israel to make sure nothing goes terribly
wrong right? We have satellites, we have stealth bombers, etc. We can keep the nuclear facilities safe. The Iraqi police we trained, by the way,
are meant to defend it's citizens - that's not where our tax cash is going to. It went to the establishment of that new society, and rightfully so,
imo. And it is also my opinion that after 6 years and a monthish, those police forces should be able to hold their own. Give em guns, ammo, give all
the voting citizens guns, and let them decide what they want, etc..
I'm glad you decided to relax a bit, calling names and such gets us nowhere. And maybe I am wrong, like I said - I'm no expert.
*Edit for bad paragraph location.
[edit on 22-5-2009 by shanerz]