First, the presumption that all of those deaths are wrong. Go look at the way that the IBC calculates "civilians". Actually look at the database entries. Notice the huge entries for 300, 800, 600? what they did during the first few weeks of the war was to got to the Baghdad morque and ask how many death there were last month. Then they assumed all of them were civilians despite the fact that 90% were men. (see any insurgents in uniform lately?).
Then they assumed that all of these men were killed by the US. Then they take a WAG (that is "wild ass guess" to the statistically challenged) to assume 900 in Fallujah. In short, more than half of the "assumed" deaths are due to the US, and probably less than 30%, to true civilians. The vast majority of these were years ago.
But those who are analytically challenged still will regurgitate when it suits their prejudice. And frankly I have spent a lot of time looking at the IBC methodology. Please do the same, and we will extract the data ourselves. But frankly having looked at the methodology, virtually all of the points in the Newsweek article are dead on!
Yes, Here is a challenge. Go directly to the Iraq body count database and tell me how many people THEY list as being killed in the last 90 days. Go ahead, and give me your data base reference citations.
You have said that Americans are killing Iraqis according to IBC, I challenge you to personally invest a moment of your time to REALLY find out who is killing Muslims.
My Iraqi barber hates the Americans. He, being a Shia, didn’t like Saddam…but then, also being from Baghdad he can attest that Saddam’s troops never barged into anyone’s house at the middle of night, nor was there a threat of getting hit by a stray bullet from a republican guardsmen. Basically, if you stayed away from politics you were living pretty stable and well. Not any more.
He knows that the next republic will be an Islamic one, and what Saddam is today, the Shias will be tommorow…i.e. boogy men to justify another war.
In fact, most of the kilings are by US troops. The next most are caused by criminals. Only a minority of the killings can be attributed to terrorists and insurgents.
Needless to say, the sooner the Iraqi police and army are trained, and the sooner the Americans go home…we can hopefully see the death rate drop.
Who is this newsweek guy trying to kid? “Fog of war”? Those deaths ARE directly attributable to the US forces. Bottom line is, in those cases it’s an American bullet, bomblet shrapnel, or whatever embedded in some poor Iraqi civilian’s skull.
42.3% for insurgents and terrorists? What? What the heck happened to the crimnal element, who are neither? The fact is, the terrorist attacks are spectacular, but not a daily event. We hear about ALL terrorist attacks, but nothing about “collateral damage” or criminal activity.
The fact is, iraqbodycount’s estimates are conservative as they follow media reports. Media reports tend to cover one kind of incident much more than the other. Lies and damn lies indeed…
Americans are the biggest jacka$$es this world has seen. One often wonders what the hell the neo cons are smoking in Washington.
Lets put all the propaganda aside for a second about who is killing who.
At the very least, the Americans have handed control of Iraq to Iran by installing the Shias in power. If any of you Americans on here think that Shias love ISrael and US more than Sunnis you have another thing coming..... Either way this plays out, at the end of the day, you guys lose :)
yes you can catty. Before the invasion there were no bombs going off in Iraq. Public (in general was safe), only Saddam’s enemies were killed. Social/financial infrastrutcure was in ruins thanks to shackling embargos and sanctions. Every death in Iraq be it by US soldiers or otherwise is and should be attributed to US presence. There is no other way to look at it. Also, ask your journalist friend, how many people died after the first gulf war and how many of those remaining Iraqis are happy that US is back to save them again.