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.

 

Iraqi Death Toll

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Detailed figures

Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003:

Baghdad: 6103
Mosul: 2009
Basra: 6734
Nasiriya: 3581
Diwania: 1567
Wasit: 2494
Babil: 3552
Karbala and Najaf: 2263
Muthana: 659
Misan: 2741
Anbar: 2172
Kirkuk: 861
Salah al-Din: 1797.

The People's Kifah said the process of data gathering stopped after one of the group's workers was arrested by Kurdish militias and handed over to US forces in October 2003. The fate of the worker remains unclear.

english.aljazeera.net...


www.iraqbodycount.net...

We dont do body counts
General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
13182 15248


So which is the real figure? I believe close to 40,000 is more accurate. I would not say this total was all combat related.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
*crickets*

Just the fact that nobody replied to this post - even if it were to question it, question the sources or discuss it - tells me what I need to know about what value we give to Iraqi lives.

Sad, really.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Casualties of war happen, it is a sad fact, but a fact nontheless....i would also like to see a complete detail as to the cause of death of these people and the situations in which they died..... as it is certain insurgents would be killing their own people too ...for crying aloud these people send their own kids with bombs strapped on them.....and do suicide attacks on other mosques...

Let me ask you this... Would you prefer if there were UN sanctions again in Iraq, like what Clinton proposed and the UN agreed to? the same one that killed at least 500,000 children in Iraq?....


[edit on 12-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
*crickets*

Just the fact that nobody replied to this post - even if it were to question it, question the sources or discuss it - tells me what I need to know about what value we give to Iraqi lives.

Sad, really.


I agree with you is ok to talk about giving democracy to Iraq but talking about at what cost is tabu, bushes democracy kills inocent civilians.

And that is a fact it kills inocent children also, this is bushes war it was not the Iraqi people's war and it was not the people of this nations war either.

Taliban and bin-laden were not in Iraq after 9/11 they were in Afghansitan.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Muaddib - all that I'm saying is that if the U.S. want to show consistency with the fact that you're doing this for the Iraqis, I would expect people to show a little more curiosity or concern as to what is happening to those Iraqis. I understand the fact that Americans will grieve more for their lost soldiers, but you personally showing interest in learning more about how those Iraqis died makes you a rare breed. Sadly, almost NO ONE even bothers to wonder how many Iraqis died or how their died shows me that people don't care. Iraqi lives don't seem worth that much anyway. Sad.

I guess I'll have to shock people into considering this question, so I'll ask... how many Iraqis is one American worth?



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

I agree with you is ok to talk about giving democracy to Iraq but talking about at what cost is tabu, bushes democracy kills inocent civilians.

Taliban and bin-laden were not in Iraq after 9/11 they were in Afghansitan.


Marg, do you know there was a terrorist camp in Iraq that had a boeing 707 aircraft where the terrorist could train on? It was/is called Salman Pak.

Read the following if you want to be informed on this.

www.intelmessages.org...

[edit on 12-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
So, bin laded was in that "terrorist" camp that bushes administration created to justify the invasion after not MWDs were found. Right?

Still the "terrorist" camp does not justify the death toll in Iraq, yes muaddib I am informed of the "bushes could not find Al-queda Sadam link so he created one"

Guess what? is being around for a while already, the same way that "MWDs" from Sadam are hidden in "Syria" how convenient.

Its so easy to justify the death when is not your own family involve.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
37,000 civilian deaths and that tally is only for the first eight months of the invasion/occupation? The fighting has only increased since that time so the death toll must be well over 70,000 at this point. Possibly over 100,000 if this sort of thing is accurate. Absolute insanity.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me ask you this... Would you prefer if there were UN sanctions again in Iraq, like what Clinton proposed and the UN agreed to? the same one that killed at least 500,000 children in Iraq?....

I've been against it all. All the figures regarding the death tolls coming out of Iraq are heinous. I never even voted for Clinton due to his holding such policies over Iraq.

I prefer none of it. The U.S. should not be there killing Iraqis right now. If I was a religious man, I would be typing "May God have mercy on our souls." at the end of this post, but I'm not. So I'm at a loss as to expounding my emotions at the horror that the United States has felled the people of Iraq.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Why is it that even the Bush administration itslef says they can't make a between Iraq and Al Qeada, yet all these obscure web sites say there is. If it was accurate, why wouldn't the people who are trying the most and in the know the most us it to prove their point? Maybe Bush should hire some of these web sites to do his intel since they seem to know more than his people.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
"37,000 civilian deaths and that tally is only for the first eight months of the invasion/occupation? The fighting has only increased since that time so the death toll must be well over 70,000 at this point. Possibly over 100,000 if this sort of thing is accurate. Absolute insanity. "

I'm sure glad we protected them from Saddam.



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Funny how the president found on 2003 another link to Sadam and Al-Queda




TextSource: Washington Post, 2003-11-16

President Bush, introducing a new linkage between guerrillas in Iraq and global terrorism, said in an interview to be broadcast today that attacks on U.S. forces are partly the work of "mujaheddin types" and fighters seeking "revenge for getting whipped in Afghanistan



When was the link again? before or after the invasion?





TextAl Qaeda at Work in Iraq, Bush Tells BBC
President Suggests Connection Between Terrorist Group and Hussein Government

President Bush said in an interview that attacks on U.S. forces are partly the work of "mujaheddin types" and fighters seeking "revenge for getting whipped in Afghanistan."

That might be believable if, in fact, the battles of Afghanistan whipped anybody. In fact, the US left Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, leaving Al Qaeda time and resources to regroup.



When the link between Al-Queda and Sadam did not work bush invented the revenge link after the invasion.

How convinient.





TextBush said the deadly attacks on occupation forces were "nothing more than a power grab," primarily by devotees of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Of course, what he doesn't say is the US attack on Iraq was nothing more than a power grab, and those that were attacked are attacking back.





www.thetip.org...








[edit on 12-10-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 12 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me ask you this... Would you prefer if there were UN sanctions again in Iraq, like what Clinton proposed and the UN agreed to? the same one that killed at least 500,000 children in Iraq?....


Clinton was in power when resolution 661 was passed in 1990?
I thought it was George Bush.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
*crickets*

Just the fact that nobody replied to this post - even if it were to question it, question the sources or discuss it - tells me what I need to know about what value we give to Iraqi lives.

Sad, really.


*crickets*

Just the fact that nobody replied to this post - even if it were to question it, question the sources or discuss it - tells ME what I need to know about what CREDIBILITY we give to THIS INFORMATION.


[edit on 13-10-2004 by fledgling666]



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   


Casualties of war happen, it is a sad fact, but a fact nontheless


You are right Muaddib that casualties of war happen. But it might be a little easier to understand if the war was just and not illegal. These are all unecessary deaths, just as all of the deaths of the soldiers are.

Very sad



posted on Oct, 13 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan


Casualties of war happen, it is a sad fact, but a fact nontheless


You are right Muaddib that casualties of war happen. But it might be a little easier to understand if the war was just and not illegal. These are all unecessary deaths, just as all of the deaths of the soldiers are.

Very sad


Even though the very notion of wars as illegal or legal is Laughable. There is already a thread on that topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join