Slashdot Mirror
100,000 Civilians Dead in Iraq
asldihf writes "New Scientist is reporting that 100,000 civilians in Iraq are now dead due to America's war in Iraq. Make sure you vote next week."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
RTFA
The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes...
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
I was going to make a +5 Funny post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe, but the subject is just too horrible.
The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.
How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.
The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.
That also includes the invasion itself. At this rate, eventually it may go down.
Latewire
Uh- Kerry always said he would have gone to war too, that's why I voted for Kucinich in the primary. The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft- and more planning- even if it meant giving the inspectors a few more weeks- and better intelligence- even if it meant confirming every detail- and probably would have actually *bothered* to guard or destroy munitions depots as we went. Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA- he would have disarmed civilians as we invaded as well (how stupid do you have to be to invade a country, destroy it's entire civil government, and NOT disarm the people?). I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
For this report, the sample numbers were EXTREMELY EXTREMELY low: 988 housholds. The potential for error here is astounding. So they had confirmation of 6%. That's silly. The death count is constantly overreported. Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly. It's the standard line and it gets old and less believable each time. I would really like to see statistics on who was killed and how the deaths occurred. Firefights with US troops? Bombings? Deaths during reconstruction? Who is called a "civilian?"
Household Survey Sees 100,000 Iraqi Deaths
And there are some troblesome excerpts:
Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be in a position where we are comparing ourselves to Saddam Hussein.
I'm calling BS on this article. They conducted a sampling survey to generate these numbers? Come on now. I'm more inclined to believe iraqbodycount.org and the media always gets it wrong (and never corrects themselves.) And to blame most of the deaths on the US bombing? Total horse $hit. Have innocent people died in Iraq? Hell yes. Have many of them been our fault? Yes. Have any of them been deliberate? No. Half of the innocent lives lost over here, by estimation and observation for the past eight months I've been in Baghdad (being a little involved in intelligence reports), come from the insurgents/terrorists. Their road-side bombs and car bombs as often target civilians and Iraqi security forces (the ones who take huge personal risk upon themselves and their families to try to make a difference in the future of their country) as they target Coalition Forces. This article is BS BS BS BS!
...is what would the cost in lives have been if the U.S. had done nothing? In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
> And why are they still doing air strikes? It's not for fun, it's not just to kill people. If the intent was to kill civillians, they'd pretty much all be dead. They're trying to get at the terrorists.
And you can see how well bombing suspected terrorists in civilian neighborhoods has worked for Israel against the Intifada.
Moreover, the air strikes in Fallujah seem to be hitting primarily citizens. Either they're bombing the city on bad intelligence, or else just bombing it to cow the population.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops? How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
Interesting...so we were there to help.
Ah, so if another country...say China for instance...were to send troops to America to "help" us we would just lay down our arms, and welcome them with open arms? I mean, they're just trying to help right?
And if by "free from tyranny" you mean "all out civil war" then yeah, that's really something!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Can I mod the article as -1:Troll? "Make sure you vote next week?" Let's skip all the rigamaroll...just post at the end of every politics article "And remember...we don't like Bush, we like Kerry!".
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
--trb
Yes, because the media is always right and always reports accurately especially when they have reliable Iraqi civilians feeding them information. And the media is unbiased of course. I understand what the Israeli's go through with the media reports having now heard how ours and the world's reports what happens here. It's a lot different from reality.
Terrorists are considered Civilians according to international reports. Insurgents are considered Civilians according to most international reports.
So what % of those civilians are terrorists and insurgents?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
>
If Iraq's women and children are shooting at us, we've got a bigger problem than even the anti-war types realize.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As TFA notes: this is 100,000 deaths above the death rate for a previous pre-war period, and; the most common cause of these deaths was airstrikes.
So unless you're suggesting that their countrymen have an extensive air force that they'd been planning on using regardless of the US's invasion, no, it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.
When both Presidential nominees, Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich, support the war what the hell is "make sure you vote next week" supposed to mean? If you're really against the war you'll be voting Nadar or Badnarik, but I'd be off my rocker to think that's what michael was implying by letting the article through.
Article points:
+100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US)
+1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam)
+5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Direct away from face when opening.
I'd like to meet these "experts." Do they count the bodies? What makes them so expert on this subject?
I'm starting to believe that these 100,000 civilians dead are a product of a frightened liberal media, mixed with lies from the arabs. Every time there was action in Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban would make anouncements like "they hit a hostpital," or "they hit a school." I'm doubtful that we'll ever get a true word out of the middle east / southern asia.
I'd like to see the accounting measures that these "experts" used. I'd like to see video of them counting dead civilian bodies. Until then, it is best to remain skeptical of anything coming out of American media regarding the middle east.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Firstly it started off as WMDs, which are now proved to be complete crap
Then it turned into Osama and Iraq were working together which has not only not been proved, but I believe it was made official this week that there was no link
Then it turned suddenly to regieme change, yeah that's a good one lets throw out one dictator.. and put in one that's several thousand miles away
The problem with the regieme change is there are loads of other countries that are far far worse than Iraq but we like to keep those quiet.
It basically all comes down to the fact that whichever of the many reasons you choose to believe, this was an immoral and illegal war in the opinion of most people, and the US and UK governments think we're all so stupid that we'll just swallow whatever they say. And the sad thing is, a lot of us will.
What's worrying is this: I've watched part of the debates, and I watched some of question time last night. People were heckling and jeering opinions that didn't match their own. No one in the USA (and this is the viewpoint of a fair few UK people) seems to ever listen. Everyone believes whatever they choose to beleive, usually on one-sided evidence and refuses to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, those people are then allowed to vote.
I just hope that whatever does happen, someone keeps their brain in gear, because only when all the world leaders come up from their bunkers and see there is no one and nothing left to rule over, will they realise that nobody wins a war. Nobody.
Get paid to search..It's geniune and
But it is an interesting thing to observe, I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
We also frown upon tying people to crosses and lighting them on fire. Funny how times change.