Iraqi death toll

[Tricky]

The L.A. Times just had an article claiming that the civilian death toll in Baghdad alone is "at least 1700" with more than 8000 casualties. While some of these casualties were not directly caused by US bombs or bullets, such as exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire, it is still a very telling number. And those are just the documented casualties. Islamic burial societied indicate that as many as 1000 more undocumented deaths may have occurred.

These numbers are ironically close to the deaths from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they are from Baghdad alone. At what point does the US have to stop wringing their hand about how many of their innocent civilians were killed in terrorist attacks?

A link to the complete article (but you have to register with the LA Times).
Baghdad's Death Toll Assessed

 

[Cleopatra]

These numbers are ironically close to the deaths from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they are from Baghdad alone. At what point does the US have to stop wringing their hand about how many of their innocent civilians were killed in terrorist attacks?

With all respect, I find outrageous to equate war casualties with the victims of terrorism.

This is not the first time I read this and when I don't get mad, I get shocked.

War is a very bad thing but it has its rules. Terrorism is the ultimate violence that doesn't mean to harm only the "targets" . The targets are the medium to control the majority with the most powerful weapon:fear. Terrorism has no rules.

So, if the numbers are true, yes, the casualties are high indeed, I am terribly sorry. I would be equally sorry if we were talking about 10 dead Iraquis.

But I can't equate War Casualties to the victims of 9/11 . I refuse to play the game of the terrorists.

 

[Captain_Snort]

Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

With all respect, I find outrageous to equate war casualties with the victims of terrorism.

This is not the first time I read this and when I don't get mad, I get shocked.

War is a very bad thing but it has its rules. Terrorism is the ultimate violence that doesn't mean to harm only the "targets" . The targets are the medium to control the majority with the most powerful weapon:fear. Terrorism has no rules.

So, if the numbers are true, yes, the casualties are high indeed, I am terribly sorry. I would be equally sorry if we were talking about 10 dead Iraquis.

But I can't equate War Casualties to the victims of 9/11 . I refuse to play the game of the terrorists.

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then? what is the difference between the shock and awe tactics employed by the so called coalition, and the shock and awe caused in terrorist attacks?

Its OK for countries that agree with the 'war' to totally ignore international law? Accusing Iraq of blatent disregard for the geneva convention when the US has the 'detainees'.

Myself I view little difference between the action in Iraq and afghanistan (and who knows where next) and terrorism.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then? what is the difference between the shock and awe tactics employed by the so called coalition, and the shock and awe caused in terrorist attacks?

Are you truly unable to distinguish between 'collateral' casualties of war and the direct targeting of civilians by terrorists?

 

[Tricky]

Are you truly unable to distinguish between 'collateral' casualties of war and the direct targeting of civilians by terrorists?

If the war were one of defense, I could understand them a little better. But there was no need for this war. I don't regard civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' in this war any more than I would have done when Germany invaded Poland. It was unjustified aggression and civilians died because of it.

I also disagree in principle with the way the US fights by dropping bombs knowing full well they will kill innocents. To me, that is as cowardly as terrorism. Let them do the honorable thing and march on Baghdad without 'softening them up' first. Yeah, it means more of our troops will die, but if you truly believe the war is worth it, then you should stand by those principles and fight fairly. Winning with overwhelming firepower and budget doesn't seem terribly brave to me. Problem is, most of the US people care a lot about our soldiers and not a thing about Iraqi civilians, so it is better politics to use our WMDs and too bad about those civilians.

Okay, I admit I am hung up on this "honor" thing.

 

[crackmonkey]

Give me a f*cking break... you think that large-scale infantry assaults are somehow more considerate of civilian casualties than precision bombings? Please...
And when does the US drop bombs knowing 'full well it will kill innocents'? There's always that chance, but we go to great lengths to avoid it. This sets us apart from thugs like the Iraqi fedayeen who want to maximize civilian casualties to garner international reproach for their opponents...

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then?

What illegal war?

 

[KelvinG]

The L.A. Times just had an article claiming that the civilian death toll in Baghdad alone is "at least 1700" with more than 8000 casualties. While some of these casualties were not directly caused by US bombs or bullets, such as exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire, it is still a very telling number. And those are just the documented casualties. Islamic burial societied indicate that as many as 1000 more undocumented deaths may have occurred.

These numbers are ironically close to the deaths from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they are from Baghdad alone. At what point does the US have to stop wringing their hand about how many of their innocent civilians were killed in terrorist attacks?

A link to the complete article (but you have to register with the LA Times).
Baghdad's Death Toll Assessed

C'mon Tricky. We all know that Iraqi lives mean nothing compared to lives of Americans.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

We all know that Iraqi lives mean nothing compared to lives of Americans.

Nearly all apologists for the illegal war in Iraq believe that to be true. It's an interesting kind of moral relativism...

Are you truly unable to distinguish between 'collateral' casualties of war and the direct targeting of civilians by terrorists?

When a war planner says we're going to bomb area X, but in addition to destroying the target, murder between 200 and 250 people, then the deaths are not accidential.

War is a very bad thing but it has its rules. Terrorism is the ultimate violence that doesn't mean to harm only the "targets" .

I posted on the shifting definition of terrorism in another thread. The American revolutionaries guerilla attacks on neat rows of British Red Coats violated the unwritten rules of war. Osama did not commit the 9/11 atrocities simply for the sake of death alone. They're religious fanatics who want US troops out of Saudi Arabia, the holiest of countries. He's an evil and deranged monster with a reckless disregard for human life; a beast that resorts to destruction and carnage to achieve his aims. As a proportion of the population, though, 3000 out of 300 million does not compare to 1700 out of 26 million. This is to say nothing of ten years of sanctions or the utterly decimated infrastructure leading to a humanitarian crisis.

 

[svero]

With regards to casualties of innocent lives I think the number has to be much much higher. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. Who knows... Those stats aren't reported. I just remember estimates of 80,000 troops at this blockade and so on... Who knows how many were killed or deserted or what.

According to the US... All we were told before and during the war was that the army was mainly comprised of draftees who's wives and children were threatened by a small loyal clique of Saddam followers and forced to fight. If that isn't an "innocent" Iraqi persecuted by the evil regime of Saddam I don't know what is.

Besides it's certainly offensive to separate and dismiss soldier deaths even for a volunteer army which is basically what's being done here. If 50 thousand US soldiers died in a chemical attack you'd bet it would be considered the greatest crime on planet earth right now. If 50 thousand Iraqi draftees are killed in US airstrikes... well so be it.. after all they weren't "civilians" right?

 

[Mike B.]

If the war were one of defense, I could understand them a little better. But there was no need for this war. I don't regard civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' in this war any more than I would have done when Germany invaded Poland. It was unjustified aggression and civilians died because of it.

I also disagree in principle with the way the US fights by dropping bombs knowing full well they will kill innocents. To me, that is as cowardly as terrorism. Let them do the honorable thing and march on Baghdad without 'softening them up' first. Yeah, it means more of our troops will die, but if you truly believe the war is worth it, then you should stand by those principles and fight fairly. Winning with overwhelming firepower and budget doesn't seem terribly brave to me. Problem is, most of the US people care a lot about our soldiers and not a thing about Iraqi civilians, so it is better politics to use our WMDs and too bad about those civilians.

Okay, I admit I am hung up on this "honor" thing.

Why stop there Tricky? I think it is cowardly for our troops to use any technology. They should fight with their bare hands. That is much more honorable than shooting someone from far away. For gosh sakes if the war is noble you shouldn't mind having your troops killed.

BTW, what is your definition of fighting fairly? I mean it was completely unfair the way the Soviets used their overwhelming numbers in World War II against the Germans. I mean they should have limited their numbers. Also very unfair for the Germans to use their superior tanks against the Allies. They should have used weaker tanks to be fair. And what is with the US and the UK using their air superiority against the Germans as well. They should have eschewed aircraft. It would have been more honorable and fairer that way...
The important thing is not victory or minimizing your losses. Generals should fight wars so they seem brave to people like you Tricky.
A little more historical perspective...

Guys really now, has any modern war been fought with greater restraint on civilian casualties? With the amount of firepower available Baghdad and Basra could have been turned into ash. The Marines in Najif could have given an warning for everyone to get out and then leveled the place with heavy artiliary. The troops did take losses because of this.

Where were the good leftists of the world when Putin carpet bombed Grozny and killed untold thousands of civilians a few years ago? No laser guided bombs there...I always get a kick out of Putin crying crocidle tears for the Iraqi civilians.

Sorry these posts are just too silly

 

[aerocontrols]

Nearly all apologists for the illegal war in Iraq believe that to be true.

Mass mind reading. Impressive.

 

[corplinx]

So, how does that number compare to the number of innocent civillians killed, tortured, or disfigured at the hands of Saddam?

 

[Tricky]

So, how does that number compare to the number of innocent civillians killed, tortured, or disfigured at the hands of Saddam?

Hard to say. Do you have real numbers or just "intelligence reports" from the same folks who claimed Iraq had lots of weapons of mass destruction.

Besides, I don't think it is any great honor to be lauded as "not as bad as Saddam".

 

[Cleopatra]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then? .

Let me clarify somethings. You might question the causes of a War. In my opinion, 99% of the Wars that broke -up in History were inexcusable.

Let's don't confuse the legitimacy with the justification.

The country A wants for some reasons( right or wrong) to invade the Country B.

There is a "protocol" , a procedure before and during a War.There are some rules.

This is what distinguishes a War from a terrorist attack.

I would say that a war has some nobility in its horror, where a terrorist attack is the tactic of the cowards.

 

[Earthborn]

I would say that a war has some nobility in its horror, where a terrorist attack is the tactic of the cowards.

Or the tactic of people who have no chance of succeeding in any other way...

Under normal circumstances the word 'coward' means 'someone who lacks courage/is afraid'. Now who is more courageous: someone who pushes a button to lauch a missile to drop a thousand miles a way, or someone who straps explosives on himself and blows himself up? I'm not talking about the legitimacy of those acts, only the courage needed to do it: who is the biggest coward?

 

[svero]

Or the tactic of people who have no chance of succeeding in any other way...

Under normal circumstances the word 'coward' means 'someone who lacks courage/is afraid'. Now who is more courageous: someone who pushes a button to lauch a missile to drop a thousand miles a way, or someone who straps explosives on himself and blows himself up? I'm not talking about the legitimacy of those acts, only the courage needed to do it: who is the biggest coward?

I have a hard time trying to imagine the mindframe of a suicide bomber, or a terrorist in general. I mean, it seems on the surface accurate to say that someone who is willing to blow themselves up for a cause is "courageous", but then the word "insane" also seems to fit. What is the mindset? My feeling is that it's one primarly of depression.

Faced with a scenario that seems like a no win scenario in this world - religion is combined with the utter desperation of their lives to motivate these people to look for something better in the afterlife while helping their compatriots who stay behind. If they truly believe they're headed for a better afterlife perhaps it's not so courageous after all. Or are they less religious than we've been led to believe? Are they truly selfless people dying for a cause they believe in?

 

[Cleopatra]

So, Earthborn you just dissagree with the mediums of the modern wars after they are declared...You prefer we used knives instead of missiles.

Ok. So, this post of yours contains your opinion regarding the mediums of War. Interesting but as a typical post coming from you, totally irrelevant to what we are discussing...

 

[Earthborn]

You prefer we used knives instead of missiles.

Only if the enemy agrees to use those too! Even better: pillows!
And whatever the means of war, I prefer the biggest cowards to win. I consider the high tech in warfare to be a progress: at least the politicians who make people fight wars don't put their own people on the line as much as in the past. There has been some progress in how the other side is treated too. Many civilizations of the past didn't even try to hide innocent civilians were killed: they were quite proud of it and didn't try to limit innocent deaths at all.

Interesting but as a typical post coming from you, totally irrelevant to what we are discussing...

Oh, I dare you to find another post of me that is irrelevant to a discussion!

 

[Baker]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

Originally posted by KelvinG

We all know that Iraqi lives mean nothing compared to lives of Americans.

Originally posted by Cain


Nearly all apologists for the illegal war in Iraq believe that to be true. It's an interesting kind of moral relativism...

Of course, the fact that it happens in every war doesn’t count does it?
Now there or illegal wars and legal wars which of course depends on who is for or against it.

When a war planner says we're going to bomb area X, but in addition to destroying the target, murder between 200 and 250 people, then the deaths are not accidential.

Let’s forget the fact that 'collateral' casualties happen in every war but since we don’t agree with the war let’s say they where brutally murdered.

As a proportion of the population, though, 3000 out of 300 million does not compare to 1700 out of 26 million.

From the article, some of these casualties were not directly caused by US bombs or bullets, such as exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire.

This is to say nothing of ten years of sanctions or the utterly decimated infrastructure leading to a humanitarian crisis.

This is to say nothing of 30 plus years of having a brutal dictator who had no value on the life of his own people.