[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
Are these so called millions directly or inversly proportional to Saddams WMD....
[/QUOTE]
These so called millions were Muslims that suffered under the hand of this despot. Why don't you care for them? 1700 is such a small number compared to just one of Saddams mass graves.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
These so called millions were Muslims that suffered under the hand of this despot. Why don't you care for them? 1700 is such a small number compared to just one of Saddams mass graves.
[/QUOTE]
WoW this is the same despot you supplied chemical weapons. Boy, try your tears elswhere....
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole:
1700 is such a small number...
[/QUOTE]
If you say so, but some would call it mass murder. But add on 3000 graves the US forces are concealing in Iraq, and you have 4700 Iraqi civilians possibly killed by the US forces. Still think that is such a "small" number? Before you answer that remember that is twice the number of people that were killed in the terrorist attacks on WTC...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
some would call it mass murder.
[/QUOTE]
Some would call Husseins systematic imprisonment, torture. murder and displacement a crime against humanity. Apparently you don't.
Malik, you were for the U.S. going in and taking out Saddam back in 1991 correct?
1,700? ....1,700?????
After all the dire predicitons of 500,000 CHILDREN dieing and tens of thousands of other civilian casualties, we find out there were 1,700 civilian casualties and someone has the audacity to point to this figure and say, "The terrible truth is finally emerging..."
I agree gentlemen. Falacies. First, all deaths are ascribed to the US. (despite the article saying that a significant number of deaths may have been from Iraqi fire.). Second, all deaths are civilian, even though the article seems very clear that Iraqi soldiers shed their dog tags and uniforms. Third, no consideration is given to the possibility that civilains were intentionally killed by the fedayeen to cause a media outrage. Fourth, the article clearly states that casualties were intentionally overstated by Saddam's regime during the war, but that seems so obvious that we all knew it, even the most ardent Al-Jazeera watcher. Fifth, all the anti-sanctions crowd was telling us how many innocents were killed by lack of medicine, bad water, etc. etc. etc. Presumably these situations are allievated sometime in the near future, and deaths are avoided, swinging the balance to a point where fewer people are killed.
Let's face it, civilian casualties are simply a propaganda tool. Undoubtedly there are people injured and killed. But the readers in these forums have a pavlovian response that equates civilian deaths with anti-US inflamatory rhetoric. I would love to have a dime for everytime the casualty count of the first Gulf War, or Bosnia was mistated by orders of magnitude on these boards. Bad driving, smoking and malaria kill more people than the US military does, but those do not make good politics....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Malik, you were for the U.S. going in and taking out Saddam back in 1991 correct?
[/QUOTE]
What I have asked before is why the US did not "take out" Saddam in 1991, instead of letting tens of thousands of Iraq's get killed after your government encouraged them to rise up. I could mention earlier incidents stretching back to 1980 and after, but I am sure I will get some hypocrital justifiactions?
But the fact remains that after dismissing the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi children as a result of sanctions, as a "price well worth paying"; now American's think having killed thousands upon thousands (much more than those terrorists you are going after) is "such a small number".
Is it any wonder the Iraqi people place the American's alongside Saddam when they state "No Saddam, No USA etc..."
So…an estimate of 1700 in the capital and its suburbs. What of Najaf? What of Mosul? What about Rutbah? Nasiriyah, Basrah, Umm Qasr?
According to the Iraq body count website, the minimum number of civilian deaths in Iraq due to this invasion, is 4065. It’s worth keeping in mind, perhaps, that as per Islamic regulations regarding burial - it should be done as quickly as possible. In isolated or outlying villages, what sort of realistic hope is there that reliable numbers of civilian deaths will ever be tabulated?
i hope Bush is satisfied. At least he will never have to face the pain of meeting a family member of one of those 4000+ Iraqi victims.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
So...an estimate of 1700 in the capital and its suburbs. What of Najaf? What of Mosul? What about Rutbah? Nasiriyah, Basrah, Umm Qasr?
[/QUOTE]
Good point. That is 1700 dead in Baghdad alone, plus another 3000 bodies they won't let anyone see. Then as you rightly point out does not include the scores of civilians killed by the US across the rest of Iraq, but one thing is pretty clear - the US military campaign has been the biggest act of terrorism seen in many years, far surpassing the acts of the terrorists the US is going after.
It must be noted that if one tries to defend the casualties of war in this last American/Iraqi saga, then it will be no amazement when the WTC incident will be brushed off. Ask any Al Qaeda supporter and he'll most probably argue that these were just casualties of war! It works both ways I'm afraid. Be very careful oh American patriots!
The fact remains that innocents were actually killed by the coalition despite no-one asking them to come and liberate the Iraqis. However that is now water under the bridge. Instead of using lame ass excuses justifying the relatively small number of civilian casualties, why doesn't the god forsaken US take the same stance with the Palestinian issue? Go in now and liberate them? Brush aside potential civilian deaths.
Why didn't the US give the Iraqis a roadmap?
Manyy questions will be asked for years to come.
Secondly, what security issue? Are the American forces scared that a US reporter will steal the bones from the graves and try to sell 'em off as caveman relics to a museum! Please.
I've always argued that the US foreign policy was written whilst sitting on the lavatory and the actual realities of this policy are now being seen.
One rule for one and a hundred rules for any other!
Ahem,
I have been waiting for someone to bring up the “Iraq Body Count” web site.
Let’s look at the possible sources of error here. First, the site in and of itself is extremely biased. Many of the topics posted are the same left wing views we find here. This is not research, but politics with a thin coating of fact.
First, all they have done is compile news reports. As described above, the “officials” at various hospitals were encouraged by the former Saddam regime to enhance their figures.
Second, nowhere on this site is a discussion of civilians vs soldiers, vs. military-aged men. As we have seen time and time again, “Everyone” admitted to the hospital was presumed to be a “civilian”. I have not seen a single story where it attempts to distinguish or discuss the possibility that the count included soldiers dressed as civilains, or reporting themselves as civilians to be admitted to the hospital. With all of the fighting around Baghdad, there is not a single report of “military” deaths.
Third, some of the reports, such as from Kirkuk and Mosul include deaths due to landmines. Saddam has laid over 11 million landmines since the 1980’s. In the north, with NO conflict one child is killed per day by landmines. This is the normal running rate for deaths.
The site includes figures such as civilains shot by other civilians during looting. This is obviously an attempt to inflate the figures, as we are now reporting what is essentially crime, not combat.
Fifth, Malik alludes to 3000 bodies that the US will not let anyone see. I have seen reports that the US is now trying to protect grave sites, and has been ASKED, by such organizations such as Human Rights Watch to preserve the evidence of war crimes by Saddam. That Malik is now trying to doctor this information into some prsumption that the US is trying to cover up a mass grave site of civilians killed by the US is typical crap.
See the Commentary by Human Rights Watch:
"Iraq: Protect and preserve mass grave sites
(New York, April 30, 2003) U.S.-led coalition forces, working with local religious and secular leaders, should urgently protect and preserve mass grave sites, Human Rights Watch said today. "
So here is the disclaimer. We all knew there would be civilian casualties in a war. Very horrible. Very awful.
But the hue and cry pre-war about half a million or a million casualties were grossly inflated. If some NGO had stood up and said, “There could be 4,000 civilian deaths”, it sure would have sounded reasonable compared to the predictions of half a million! The same happened with refugees. The dire predicitons of millions of refugees crossing the borders did not happen. The UN high commissioner for Refugees must be very disappointed…
If I had told you that the people of Iraq has risen up against Saddam to overthrow him and that 4,000 people were killed in the process, it would seem an absolutely remarkable low number.
Let’s face fact. The business of body count is one of politics. It is an issue that RESONATES in various quarters. There is a political motive in inflating and sensationalizing the Body Count, and that cannot be dismissed. As we have seen before, the actual count, done by professional after the conflict are always significantly less than the initial reports.
But here is the view of many of my compatriots as noted above. The US took extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties while waging war. Compared to the brutality Saddam has shown for 30 years against his own people, the US took great care to avoid killing civilians. No one is cavalierly dismissing even the prospect of 4,000 deaths. Rather, we are all relieved that the combat phase of the war went as well or better than anyone expected, and we are happy and relieved that it was not significantly worse.
Sometimes I am so astounded how you make it so very easy for me. :rolleyes: Your HRW report is dated 30 April, where the HRW calls on the US to protect the graves, but that has not happened and two weeks later (on May 14) the HRW reports:-
Iraq: U.S. Unresponsive on Mass Graves](http://hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq051303.htm)
It seems the only graves the US is “protecting” or rather hiding from the rest of the world, are the bodies of the 3000 people near the airport that they control, and where the fiercest fighting occured. As the HRW demands, as the Red Crescent is:-
“The U.S.-led coalition must take the lead, not only in securing gravesites, but quickly communicating its commitment to exhume and identify the remains.”
Then you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You allege that there are 3000 bodies in graves that the US is hiding, yet you say that the US is not protecting grave sites. Your allegation that the US is covering up 3000 deaths is outrageous, and indefensible, and typical of the "body count" game that you play trying to muster outrage.
So far as the gravesites, the world has had 18 tons of documents captured from the Iraqis after the Gulf War. The documents expose ethnic cleansing, (the arabization of Kurdish areas), genocide, the destruction of 4000 villages, and the organization of concentration camps. Yet the UN and the world have done nothing. The graves are proof of what has already been known. The Iraqi people can organize thier own trials, tribunals, and war crimes efforts. The world has not cared, and has not protected them from Saddam.
The documentation that currently exists is extrordinarily compelling. Not only were photographs of every person taken prior to his execution, the victims were tickled so that the photographs would show them smiling! But no country has organized trials, it will be up to the Iraqi people to do it.....Undoubtedly Human Rights Watch wants to continue to press the case for trials, a fine goal. The indictment of these people will be extraordinarliy simple, but it will be done through the excruciatingly detailed Baathist records, not mass graves.
OG is quite right (on the political aspect of such things). If you will remember back some months you will realize the same thing happened with 9/11. Immediately after the incident some were speculating there were upwards of 10K dead. Once some work started being done it dropped to 3-4K. Now that everything has been dug up and counted at the physical sites and administrative investigations have ended, the number is significantly lower.
Problem is, in Iraq it may not be so easy to do the administrative proofs for wartime casualties. And the point that Nadia brought up, most being Muslims they would have buried their dead right away. It might wind up being easier finding WMD than finding an accurate number for this.
But my question is: Why does the State Dept post Iraq WMD reports on the same page as its 9/11 reports? (Go here, click “September 11th Attacks” or just go here)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
[/QUOTE]
This coming from the person who ever so selectively quoted one HRW report (dated 30 April) calling on the US to protect grave sites, but somehow failed to post a later report (dated 14 May) where the HRW is criticising the US for not doing so. At least be honest about sites you quote from, because to often it has left you embarrasingly exposed...for all to see.
The fact remains that the only grave site the US seems interested in protecting i.e. hiding from the rest of the world is the graves of the 3000 dead bodies near the airport on land they control. But it is one thing "protecting" this mass grave from looters, but why is the US failing to show the outside world i.e. Red Crescent etc this grave site? and fulfilling the demand of the HRW to quickly communicating its commitment to exhume and identify the remains.”
OG, stop farting through the wrong end, are you saying LA times, Red Cresent, HRW are all baised sites?. US has killed millions in other conflicts killing few thousand is no big deal for a Country like US. Yeah next you will be disputing agent orange and use of nukes.
The discussion here is about civilain casualties. Malik, you have absolutely no proof that there are 3,000 civilian casualties being covered up by the US. This is a figment of your fertile imagination, with absolutely no basis in fact. Nobody is buying it...
The news reports Abdali, are always in the form of "Hospital Officals report...", and these, particularly while Saddam was still in power, were grossly exaggerated, and never distinguished between military and civilain casualties. A fighter walks into a hospital and says a bomb went off, and he is a civilain, because he shed his uniform two days earlier. Simply adding together news reports about what was told to them by Iraqi officals is not necessarily accurate.
Were thousands of civilians killed? Yes, that is highly probable. Is that a low number considering the intensity of the conflict, the ousting of a regime, and the control of a nation of 27 Million, yes it is. Will many more lives be spared in the coming years because Saddam is gone? Absolutely!
To leave out the number of lives that will be spared as a result of a brutal regime that is no longer in power is to ignore the obvious, and there must be strong weight to the million or so Muslims Saddam has brutalized, murdered, tortured and disappeared over the last 30 years. With a lot of work and God's help the people of Iraq now have a CHANCE at a better life that they never could have had while Saddam was in power. The pretense that only YOU are concerned about the conditions of the people of Iraq is a bunch of holier-than-thou self serving crap.
You can take any news report and an instant snap shot of any incident and look no further. Bush (and remember I did not vote for the guy) is at least taking a long view of things, not falling victim to the instantaneous opinion polls that shape todays media.
When you remove a dictator, things will be chaotic. The hope for this country 5 years, 10 years and 20 years in the future is the ultimate goal, and prospects for the people of Iraq are much brighter than they were 6 months ago.
** "Were thousands of civilians killed? Yes, that is highly probable. Is that a low number considering the intensity of the conflict, the ousting of a regime, and the control of a nation of 27 Million, yes it is. Will many more lives be spared in the coming years because Saddam is gone? Absolutely!" **
This is loads and loads and loads of horse crap just like WMD to Al-Qaeda links to liberation BS. The reason the casulty figue is not that hight is because Iraqi army or civilians have nothing to fight back with. Had it been a conflict like NK or Vietnam where millions were killed by US. US would not have hestate repeating the same in Iraq. Yeah sure Saddam killed millions just like he had WMD.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
Yeah sure Saddam killed millions just like he had WMD.
[/QUOTE]
Are you being sarcastic or not?