Iraq violent death rates 'plunge'

[Praxius]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq violent death rates 'plunge'

The number of Iraqi civilians killed per month in bombings and shootings has fallen to the lowest level this year, the Iraqi government says. In September, 884 civilians were killed by violence, less than half the figure for August, the government said. The BBC's Jon Brain in Baghdad says the figures suggest the so-called surge involving 30,000 extra US troops is having some success. September also saw the lowest number of US troops killed for more than a year. There were 62 US military fatalities - the fewest in a single month since July 2006. The troop surge and accompanying security crackdown is designed to give Iraq's politicians breathing space to achieve reconciliation between the country's rival factions. However, our correspondent says, the political situation remains deadlocked and there are fears that when the extra troops are withdrawn the violence will escalate again. Additional figures released by the government indicated that the death toll had fallen by 38% compared with last year's Ramadan, according to the Muslim calendar. The figures showed 78 members of the Iraqi security forces were killed, down from the 87 killed in August. The militant death toll was 366, a drop of 106 from the previous month.

Well that's honestly some good news..... er.... or are they just running out of people to kill? But either way, if this continues, it'd be a suprise none the less.

[bishop]

ain't it great when civilian deaths are little more than a statistic?

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop ain't it great when civilian deaths are little more than a statistic?

aint it great that less civilians are dying?

[grandpa]

Death figures fluctuate.

Grandpa h.

[bishop]

Quote by: dieval aint it great that less civilians are dying?

oh yeah, roughly 1,000 civilians dying in a single month due to violence is a great thing. hooray! 2007 is gearing up to be the bloodiest year for civilian casualties, just as 2006 broke the record set in 2005..

sorry, i don't drink kool aid - one month does not equal a repeatable trend.. especially given that the number of troops in the surge are temporary.

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop oh yeah, roughly 1,000 civilians dying in a single month due to violence is a great thing. hooray! 2007 is gearing up to be the bloodiest year for civilian casualties, just as 2006 broke the record set in 2005.. sorry, i don't drink kool aid - one month does not equal a repeatable trend.. especially given that the number of troops in the surge are temporary.

Let me repeat what I said...."aint it great that less civilians are dying?"
LESS ARE DYING. That any are dying is bad, but isn't it great to have LESS dying??

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval Let me repeat what I said...."aint it great that less civilians are dying?" LESS ARE DYING. That any are dying is bad, but isn't it great to have LESS dying??

If that's the goal you want to set yourself to, perhaps..... I don't think it's great that any of them are in the situation they currently are in..... one that could have easily been avoided if people were paying attention to what was going on to what lead up to it.

Iraq has been a humanitarian crisis since Saddam was ousted.

I agree less dieing is somewhat of a good thing.... if one was diggin for remote positives in this situation.... but it still doesn't make things much better.

And no, I didn't post this to take a stab at the situation, but as a matter of fact, was supposed to show some kind of promise thus far.

Whether it can last or even better.... improve, remains to be seen.

It could have also have something to do with the number of civilians who have fled Iraq prior to what happened around the last Ramadan.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius Iraq has been a humanitarian crisis since Saddam was ousted.

Iraq was a humanitarian crisis prior to Saddam being ousted. See (the failed) Oil for Food Program.

[bishop]

Quote by: Dieval Let me repeat what I said...."aint it great that less civilians are dying?" LESS ARE DYING. That any are dying is bad, but isn't it great to have LESS dying??

like i said, i don't drink the kool aid. and i'm definitely not about to drop my pants over the results of a single month. the only thing good about this news is the statistical decline in deaths.

too many are still dying, too many have already died, too many will die in the future.

[Dieval]

Quote by: bishop like i said, i don't drink the kool aid. and i'm definitely not about to drop my pants over the results of a single month. the only thing good about this news is the statistical decline in deaths. too many are still dying, too many have already died, too many will die in the future.

"don't drink the kool aid" all you want, but less deaths durring the month is a good thing, no matter how you slice it.

[Sr. Trueno]

True, but the amount of deaths is till a bad thing no matter how you slice it. Sure, there are fewer deaths, but any report is just a reminder of the loss of life already present.

[bishop]

dieval's simply attributing more importance to statistics than hard numbers/lives. not too surprising that such an argument would come from an apologist for bush and the war.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sr. Trueno True, but the amount of deaths is till a bad thing no matter how you slice it. Sure, there are fewer deaths, but any report is just a reminder of the loss of life already present.

Never said it was a good thing that people are dying. I said it was a good thing the number was DOWN.

Quote by: bishop dieval's simply attributing more importance to statistics than hard numbers/lives. not too surprising that such an argument would come from an apologist for bush and the war.

I'm not an " apologist for bush and the war". There's nothing to apologize for.

[another day]

Quote by: Dieval I'm not an " apologist for bush and the war". There's nothing to apologize for.

That's not what apologist means. It just means defending bush and the war.

[Gaius]

Quote by: another day That's not what apologist means. It just means defending bush and the war.

Most bush apologists dont understand much of anything, this guy is simply fitting the profile of a bush bot.
sadly, even his incorrect understanding of the word wont let him apologize for the misery and destruction the US invasion has brought to the people of iraq. but since when did christian conservative bush bots care about non-christians and non-whites anyway?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Gaius but since when did christian conservative bush bots care about non-christians and non-whites anyway?

Oh they care a little.... I mean if it wasn't for the mentioned above, they themselves would have to go to war. :rolleyes:

[Dieval]

Quote by: another day That's not what apologist means. It just means defending bush and the war.

An apologist is someone who defends a belief of an idea....and "Bush apologist" fits your description better...

Excuse the hell out of me for thinking apologist had something to do with apologize... I can see how my assumption was tototally out of line.. :rolleyes:

[Dieval]

Quote by: Gaius but since when did christian conservative bush bots

You speak as if you know exactly who I am, yet your ignorance shines through. I am neither Christian nor religious. Your gross generalization of me(and Christians) is completely unfounded and inaccurate. I do support Bush on some of his actions and ideals, yet there are quite a few that I disapprove of. Please get your information correct before you start generalizing and calling people names.

[Gaius]

Quote by: Dieval You speak as if you know exactly who I am, yet your ignorance shines through. I am neither Christian nor religious. Your gross generalization of me(and Christians) is completely unfounded and inaccurate. I do support Bush on some of his actions and ideals, yet there are quite a few that I disapprove of. Please get your information correct before you start generalizing and calling people names.

Its all poop to me, I dont differentiate between different types of poop.
Although some do.

also, you are most likely a white, single, male, over the age of 30, voted for bush in 2000, again 2004, voting republican again, and you believe the christian myth, and in typical bush bot fashion dont like islam, also you bought into the whole "moderate vs radical why dont they protest against terror" pseudo-thinking going.

[Gaius]

Quote by: Dieval Excuse the hell out of me for thinking apologist had something to do with apologize... I can see how my assumption was tototally out of line.. :rolleyes:

I would suggest continuing your education, your posts become more liberal as your education increases.