Iraqi civilian casualties mounting

[Zeebadee]

Hearts and minds, where have we heard that phrase before??

" Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."



" Juan Cole, a history professor at University of Michigan who specializes in Shiite Islam, said the widespread casualties meant that coalition forces already had lost the political campaign: "I think they lost the hearts and minds a long time ago."

"And they are trying to keep U.S. military casualties to a minimum in the run-up to the U.S. elections" by using airstrikes instead of ground forces, he said. "



"The Americans do not care about the Iraqis. They don't care if they get killed, because they don't care about the citizens," said Abu Mohammed, 50, who was a major general in Saddam Hussein's army in Baghdad. "The Americans keep criticizing Saddam for the mass graves. How many graves are the Americans making in Iraq?"


"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be."

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeenne...ews/9753603.htm

[bishop]

not to mention how we propped up chalabi who was hated by all. one survey said that more people liked saddam than chalabi. now they have alawi, who also has little support.

for all of bush's strong talk, he doesn't have a clue. i'm not sure anyone has a clue, unfortunately. you read scholarly works on iraq, and they don't have a clue either. does ANYONE have a clue how to fix this situation?

imo, it can't be fixed - the recent intelligence estimate is entirely correct. at best we get tenuous stability, at worst we get civil war. just today, powell announced that a new military campgaign is going to begin - now we're going to enter zones that are completely controlled by the insurgents. the blood's going to stain the streets red this week, that's for sure. if anything, we must fire the current administration that plunged our nation into this cesspool and hope that the next person will manage our affairs better.

[RickSp]

The great tragedy in all this is that we have already lost the war, but the generals and the politicians don't know it.

We are in a guerilla war without the support of the Iraqis at large and our overwhelming military force only works against us. The more civilians we inevitably kill, the more fighters rise against us. We are the invader and occupier that killed an estimated 10,000 civilians in the first phase of combat and have continued to kill large number of civilians attempting to "pacify" the country.

An exclusive report from Knight Ridder's Washington office, which has gained much renown for this sort of thing in the past year, revealed Saturday that U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis, most of them civilians, as attacks by insurgents. The statistics were compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder. Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by the U.S. side and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. Although most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, however, are never reported. Charts show the number of casualties surging in August and September. According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 (when the ministry began compiling the data) until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children under 12. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said. "Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of innocent civilians," wrote KR's Nancy A. Youssef. "Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government. "That suggests that more aggressive U.S. military operations, which the Bush administration has said are being planned to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, could backfire and strengthen the insurgency."

Another Knight Ridder Iraq Scoop: This Time, On Civilian Casualties

How many more Americans and Iraqis will die before the generals and the politicians give up this fool's crusade?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Iraqi civilian casualties mounting

Casualties happen during military operations, especially at wars, while civilizans are not any exception.
However, I do not think U.S.-led coalition military forces have been targeting civilians on a purpose.

[RickSp]

However, I do not think U.S.-led coalition military forces have been targeting civilians on a purpose.

I doubt that makes a lot of difference to the families of the dead.

How would you feel if an Islamic army invaded and occupied America and killed say 120,000 civilians (a rough body count proportional to our population as compared to Iraq's) including members of your family or your friends or neighbors.

Would you pick up a gun and fight them? I would.

[bishop]

seriously... get real rainbow.

*ohhh sorry, even though we've killed tens of thousands of civilians - it was all an accident.*

while that may be the case, don't expect them to be satisfied with that excuse.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by RickSp, I doubt that makes a lot of difference to the families of the dead. How would you feel if an Islamic army invaded and occupied America and killed say 120,000 civilians (a rough body count proportional to our population as compared to Iraq's) including members of your family or your friends or neighbors. Would you pick up a gun and fight them? I would.

#1
That is very sad event in everybody's life, no doubt.
However, during a war it happens.
#2
120,000 civilians death ?
That is appx. 6,666 monthly and appx. 222 daily.
What is the source ?
#3
Nope. These are assumptions.

[Paavo]

120,000 civilians death ? That is appx. 6,666 monthly and appx. 222 daily. What is the source ?

How would you feel if an Islamic army invaded and occupied America and killed say 120,000 civilians (a rough body count proportional to our population as compared to Iraq's) including members of your family or your friends or neighbors.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, while that may be the case, don't expect them to be satisfied with that excuse.

There is no technology a weapon to "by-pass" civilians and hit combatants, yet.
Are you trying to say, that suicide bombers hit military personnel, only ?
Do you have data on civilian casualties caused by suicide bombers, as well ?
Post it.

[bishop]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

#T. go ahead and chew on the numbers and let us know if the terrrists have killed more iraqis than we have.

-#. and, don't expect them to find numbers from the pentagon - they don't believe that the deaths of iraqi civilians are worth counting.

[tusaki]

Originally posted by Paavo, How would you feel if an Islamic army invaded and occupied America and killed say 120,000 civilians (a rough body count proportional to our population as compared to Iraq's) including members of your family or your friends or neighbors.

That's not entirly fair, so if we invaded, for example, Luxemburg and killed 5 people, that would be equivalent to 5.000.000 US dead? and how does quantifying things make it worse or better? when is it 'over the top'? In this case I don't think relativity counts.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, #T. go ahead and chew on the numbers and let us know if the terrrists have killed more iraqis than we have.

Go ahead and tell terrorists not to hide in biuldings, facilities, ect. civilians dwell. No civilian is hurt.

[RickSp]

Rainbow, I said that this would be the number of civilian deaths proportionate to the US population. This is assuming civilian deaths in Iraq of only around 10,000, a very low number. Most estimates are between 13,000 and 15,000. Iraq Body Count

Tusaki, the point I was trying to make was to reflect the impact of a comparable civilian loss as a function of the size of the country. Seems completely appropriate to me. And on a comparative basis killing 5 people in Luxemborg would be proportionate to killing 3,000 in the US, not 5,000,000.

[RickSp]

Do you have data on civilian casualties caused by suicide bombers, as well ? Post it.

I posted this once before but you obviously didn't read it. Do try to pay attention.

An exclusive report from Knight Ridder's Washington office, which has gained much renown for this sort of thing in the past year, revealed Saturday that U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis, most of them civilians, as attacks by insurgents.

Another Knight Ridder Iraq Scoop: This Time, On Civilian Casualties

So currently for every one Iraqi killed by suicide bombers two are killed by the US.

[bishop]

Originally posted by Rainbow,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rainbow,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bishop, #T. go ahead and chew on the numbers and let us know if the terrrists have killed more iraqis than we have.

Go ahead and tell terrorists not to hide in biuldings, facilities, ect. civilians dwell. No civilian is hurt.[/b][/quote]


your comment had absolutely nothing to do with the my statement that you quoted. i said to compare the number of deaths caused by our bombs/bullets/shells to the number of deaths caused by terrorist activities.

you ask for figures, then you ignore them.. if you're going to be like that, why do you bother posting here?


or, were you trying to say that because the terrorists were in a certain location, that civilian deaths were an unfortunate accident? well, if you did, then you just went full circle - ON YOURSELF!

as i said:

*ohhh sorry, even though we've killed tens of thousands of civilians - it was all an accident.* while that may be the case, don't expect them to be satisfied with that excuse.

#j

[Rainbow]

The explanation :
In time I posted my replies, I was in a hurry (really).
Sorry for that "little mess" , guys :-))) . My apology to all.

(I will try to answer to all the posts addressed to me, within this reply)
I re-read the whole issues once again, carefuly enough this time.

Paavo
Thanx for the hint.
I think tusaki has already answered that issue with numbers.

Originally posted by tusaki+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tusaki)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> That's not entirly fair, so if we invaded, for example, Luxemburg and killed 5 people, that would be equivalent to 5.000.000 US dead[/b]

RickSp
<!--QuoteBegin-RickSp

Tusaki, the point I was trying to make was to reflect the impact of a comparable civilian loss as a function of the size of the country. Seems completely appropriate to me[/quote]
I understand that and I agree as well.

bishop
As I have already posted :
There is no weapon that can hit combatants, only.
There is no such technology available, as of yet. "Precision strikes" are based on a laser-guided technology, and "improved" military equipement, but it is still far away from military claims.

Additionally, it is not that simple to distinguish civilians from combatans, especially since Iraqi "insurgents" use a common civilian clothings. Women can use weapons, as well as older persons. The exceptions are young children for sure.

Also, we have no exact numbers on civilians casualties that occured in the early stages of the war, or post-war events.
Regardless of these informations, there is no way to avoid civilian casualties, using the actual technology.

P.S.
I hereby nominate you (for your relentless efforts to kick my ass) and grant you a title : "cardinal"
A ceritfied diploma will be sent separately for a little fee of $999.95 only :-))) Enjoy it :-)))

[bishop]

again, you completely miss the point.. i am not suggesting that we either directly aim for civilians.. i'm talking about how the IRAQIS view our behavior in their country.

we do, try to limit civilian deaths, but we aren't very successful in that regard. the march to baghdad supposedly caused so few casualties because we weren't currently engaged in urban combat. an important disctintion to take note of.

i'll repeat and reword my origional point:

the iraqi public is not impressed by our self-professed efforts to limit civilian deaths because we have already killed tens/hundreds of thousands of them. or, simply put, the iraqi public is disillusioned. - i.e. they don't believe the bullshit response of "sorry, it was just an accident.".

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, again, you completely miss the point.. we do, try to limit civilian deaths, but we aren't very successful in that regard. the march to baghdad supposedly caused so few casualties because we weren't currently engaged in urban combat. an important disctintion to take note of.

I think you misunderstand my post.
I just merely say "the same or similar" but I rather concentrate on military equipment and technology. If the technology is sophisticated enough, the civilian casualties are minimal to none.

[Sonart]

Casualties happen during military operations, especially at wars, while civilizans are not any exception.

All the more tragic then, when the war was started by mistake and completely unnecessary.

Additionally, it is not that simple to distinguish civilians from combatans, especially since Iraqi "insurgents" use a common civilian clothings. Women can use weapons, as well as older persons. The exceptions are young children for sure.

And we were expecting.......??

Go ahead and tell terrorists not to hide in biuldings, facilities, ect. civilians dwell. No civilian is hurt.

Unfortunately the insurgents are fresh out of M1A1s, Bradleys, A-10s, etc. to compete with the Americans, so they go with what they have, hide'n'seek, asymetrical guerilla warfare. And that includes using brutal videos to scare the piss out of American contractors and other foreign workers in order to hamper reconstruction and delegitimize the Alawi government.

Like I asked, we were expecting.....??

[bishop]

I just merely say "the same or similar" but I rather concentrate on military equipment and technology. If the technology is sophisticated enough, the civilian casualties are minimal to none.

yeah... that's nice and all, but,

#5. your comments have nothing to do with how iraqis perceive deaths caused by our actions. your comments about military technology are completely irrelavent in that regard.

#q. the current civilian casualties are very significant, not minimal to none.

*^2. if we don't win hearts and minds (which is influenced by massive civilian casualties), then the mission in iraq will fail.