Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

Look I didn't pick 1,700 dead Americans (and we haven't even discussed the number of dead Iraqi people) out of the thin air. I researched the numbers before I posted it (And newbie those figures are common knowledge even though Bush & Co. have tried to hid the body bag count and the actual bodies from the US people since the war began). And now it has been confirmned by newbie with US Dept of Defence stats. There is nothing wrong with admitting one is wrong. It happens to the best of us sometimes, even me (this is a joke).

[cybercoma]

people die in wars, it's kinda what happens when you shoot bullets at each other and drop bombs.

[mirror]

But we didn't have to have this war. however if you are so much in favour of war why don't you go and sign up for the US Marines or join the Canadian troops going to fight the taliban. I hear they are having difficulty getting recruits. I wonder why.

[BHS]

Look I didn't pick 1,700 dead Americans (and we haven't even discussed the number of dead Iraqi people) out of the thin air. I reseached the numbers before I posted it (And newbie it is common knowledge even though Bush & Co. have tried to hid the body bag count and the actual bodies from the US people since the war began). And now it has been confirmned by newbie with US Dept of Defence stats. There is nothing wrong with admitting one is wrong. It happens to the best of us sometimes, even me (this is a joke). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still not disputing the 1700 American dead figure.

But let's examine what antiwar.com has to say about Iraqi civilian deaths, shall we?

antiwar.com

Bottom of the page. antiwar.com has decided to forego keeping count of civilian deaths in favour of letting Iraq Body Count do all the work. Fair enough. Iraq Body Count is doing it anyway, no need for duplication.

Iraq Body Count

You'll note that the front page of the site is quite plain, showing an estimated range for the number of dead, labelled as "Civilians Reported Killed By Military Intervention in Iraq". This is done intentionally, so that a casual researcher, following the link to this site and taking the presented information at face value without delving further will simply believe that the Americans have killed a given number of civilians in Iraq. This extremely is misleading, as I'll explain in detail below.

UPDATE: Dang, hit enter by accident and prematurely posted. See the next post.

[BHS]

Continued:

Iraq Body Count Database

This is the first of many pages to the database. Please note that the perpetrators for each incident are not listed. Please direct your attention to column 5, "Target", and column 6, "Weapons". Please examine the first entry in the database, and note that the target was a police convoy blown up by a roadside bomb. Please note that the Americans don't target police convoys, and don't employ roadside bombs.

Feel free to peruse the rest of the database at your leisure, and be sure to take note of the high number of entries that don't apply to American Army activity.

What the creators of this site are saying, in essence, is that the Americans are responsible for all civilians deaths in Iraq, regardless of whether it was their actions that caused the death. Insurgents killed by the US are claimed as civilians and added to the list. Children blown up by suicide bombers are treated as casualties of US actions. If a schizophrenic Iraqi with no knowledge or concern about the invasion was to get ahold of a gun and shoot his entire family, their names would be added to the list as well.

How can anyone claim this is an accurate representation of what the US is doing in Iraq? All harm is treated as a US responsibility regardless of how the harm occurred.

Here's an analogy to illustrate the faultiness of this logic: I don't support the Liberals, didn't vote for them, don't want them running my country. Does that mean I can blame every failure in our society on their misrule? Don't they have a responsibility to make Canada perfect, right now?

[vslayer]

ok, i really dont get that site, but recently the confrimed civilian death count has reached 128,000. and it doesnt matter what proportion were americans shooting into the crowd, or mujahideen attacking americans. all that matters is: that wasnt happening before!

it is clear proof that either the removal of hussein, or the american occupation(both actions of america) has caused it. whether they want to admit it or not, america has(directly and indirectly) caused 128,000 civilian deaths!

[cybercoma]

But we didn't have to have this war. however if you are so much in favour of war why don't you go and sign up for the US Marines or join the Canadian troops going to fight the taliban. I hear they are having difficulty getting recruits. I wonder why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

medical discharge.

[cybercoma]

ok, i really dont get that site, but recently the confrimed civilian death count has reached 128,000. and it doesnt matter what proportion were americans shooting into the crowd, or mujahideen attacking americans. all that matters is: that wasnt happening before!

it is clear proof that either the removal of hussein, or the american occupation(both actions of america) has caused it. whether they want to admit it or not, america has(directly and indirectly) caused 128,000 civilian deaths!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, because Saddam Hussein gassing, raping, torturing and burying people alive was oh so much better.

[Argus]

ok, i really dont get that site, but recently the confrimed civilian death count has reached 128,000. and it doesnt matter what proportion were americans shooting into the crowd, or mujahideen attacking americans. all that matters is: that wasnt happening before!

it is clear proof that either the removal of hussein, or the american occupation(both actions of america) has caused it. whether they want to admit it or not, america has(directly and indirectly) caused 128,000 civilian deaths!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's like saying the removal of Adolph Hitler caused millions of deaths, because if he'd just been left in place there wouldn't have been all that shooting and bombing going on so less people would have died.

[vslayer]

87% fewer deaths per year for now, but as the war goes on, resistance increases, american bombardments increase, the death toll rises.

if in 10 years the death toll is still lower than under saddams regime then i will admit america made SOME progress. but with an average of 5 new mujahideen recruited for every one killed, it wont be long before the war is taken to the streets in force

[GostHacked]

I have heard it being as high as 120,000 civilain deaths as well.

BUT lets look at this just released today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692589.stm

Up to 25,000 civilain deaths and 1/3 was caused by US operations, during the initial invasion which lasted only a few months.

That seems damn high to me. as when you compare the number of deaths caused by insurgents over the next 2 and a half years. The ratio is quite disproportionate.

I think the death toll is alot higher myself. but aside from the Iraqis I doubt anyone will know their true cost of the war.

[Shady]

whether they want to admit it or not, america has(directly and indirectly) caused 128,000 civilian deaths!

Wrong. According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) the maximum number of Iraqi civilians killed is 25881. And I would bet that the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq are by "insurgents" "helping" the Iraqi people from under the "oppressive" "occupation" of America.

Please don't inflate casualty numbers for poltical purposes.

[Black Dog]

What the creators of this site are saying, in essence, is that the Americans are responsible for all civilians deaths in Iraq, regardless of whether it was their actions that caused the death. Insurgents killed by the US are claimed as civilians and added to the list. Children blown up by suicide bombers are treated as casualties of US actions. If a schizophrenic Iraqi with no knowledge or concern about the invasion was to get ahold of a gun and shoot his entire family, their names would be added to the list as well.

How can anyone claim this is an accurate representation of what the US is doing in Iraq? All harm is treated as a US responsibility regardless of how the harm occurred.

This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies in 2003. In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

Wrong. According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) the maximum number of Iraqi civilians killed is 25881. And I would bet that the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq are by "insurgents" "helping" the Iraqi people from under the "oppressive" "occupation" of America.

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.

In other words, if the death does not get reported, it doesn't get tallied.

[kimmy]

...

In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

That's a ridiculous standard to hold the occupying authority to. We don't even hold our own government to such a standard. That's comparable to holding the Government of Canada responsible for homicides (or even deaths from drunk driving) by failing to uphold law and order.

-k

[Black Dog]

That's a ridiculous standard to hold the occupying authority to. We don't even hold our own government to such a standard. That's comparable to holding the Government of Canada responsible for homicides (or even deaths from drunk driving) by failing to uphold law and order.

The two situations (military occupation by a foreign power versus civil governance) are simply not analagous. The U.S. invasion precipitated the breakdown of the civil order in Iraq, therefore it is the occupiers' responsibility under international law (and their own standards) to uphold civil order. By summarily dismissing the entire Iraqi army, police, and security forces shortly after the war (without a back-up plan for maintaining order), the U.S. S. created the conditions for increased crime and lawlessness. Furthermore (as evidenced by the flurry of post-Saddam looting) the U.S. failed to fulfill its obligation to maintain public order.

The only way your analogy would work is if the government of Canada first disbanded the RCMP, instituted mrtial law, but neglected to intercede in the resulting civil strife.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

The only way your analogy would work is if the government of Canada first disbanded the RCMP, instituted mrtial law, but neglected to intercede in the resulting civil strife

Don't forget, when the Iraqi National Guard was defeated in the invasion, the country was occupied, the military disbanded...but they were allowed to keep their guns!

[cybercoma]

87% fewer deaths per year for now, but as the war goes on, resistance increases, american bombardments increase, the death toll rises.

if in 10 years the death toll is still lower than under saddams regime then i will admit america made SOME progress. but with an average of 5 new mujahideen recruited for every one killed, it wont be long before the war is taken to the streets in force

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then the blame lays squarely with the terrorists killing innocent civilians in defiance of the United States liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's murderous rule.

[cybercoma]

That's a ridiculous standard to hold the occupying authority to. We don't even hold our own government to such a standard. That's comparable to holding the Government of Canada responsible for homicides (or even deaths from drunk driving) by failing to uphold law and order.

The two situations (military occupation by a foreign power versus civil governance) are simply not analagous. The U.S. invasion precipitated the breakdown of the civil order in Iraq, therefore it is the occupiers' responsibility under international law (and their own standards) to uphold civil order. By summarily dismissing the entire Iraqi army, police, and security forces shortly after the war (without a back-up plan for maintaining order), the U.S. S. created the conditions for increased crime and lawlessness. Furthermore (as evidenced by the flurry of post-Saddam looting) the U.S. failed to fulfill its obligation to maintain public order.

The only way your analogy would work is if the government of Canada first disbanded the RCMP, instituted mrtial law, but neglected to intercede in the resulting civil strife.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The US invasion precipitated the breakdown of civil order in Iraq"

I suppose killing, raping and torturing your own citizens isn't a breakdown in civil order.

[kimmy]

That's a ridiculous standard to hold the occupying authority to. We don't even hold our own government to such a standard. That's comparable to holding the Government of Canada responsible for homicides (or even deaths from drunk driving) by failing to uphold law and order.

The two situations (military occupation by a foreign power versus civil governance) are simply not analagous. The U.S. invasion precipitated the breakdown of the civil order in Iraq, therefore it is the occupiers' responsibility under international law (and their own standards) to uphold civil order. By summarily dismissing the entire Iraqi army, police, and security forces shortly after the war (without a back-up plan for maintaining order), the U.S. S. created the conditions for increased crime and lawlessness. Furthermore (as evidenced by the flurry of post-Saddam looting) the U.S. failed to fulfill its obligation to maintain public order.

The only way your analogy would work is if the government of Canada first disbanded the RCMP, instituted mrtial law, but neglected to intercede in the resulting civil strife.

I can buy that the occupying force should be held responsible for maintaining public order.

However, I believe that the occupying forces and fledgling Iraq government are making reasonable efforts to do so.

Lumping organized resistance in with general crime and lawlessness is absurd.

-k

[mirror]

The occupying forces in Iraq should be held responsible for the suicide attacks on UK and US soil.

If some country were to invade Canada, there would resistance in many different forms, and people would die. Of course it would be the invaders that would resposible for the Canadian deaths, civilian and otherwise. So why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that it is the US & UK that are responsible for all the deaths in the Iraq?

[Shady]

So why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that it is the US & UK that are responsible for all the deaths in the Iraq?

Because they're not, that's why. It's the terrorists who target innocent women and children. It's the terrorist who blow up schools, and hospitals, and the Red Cross. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this? If another country had attacked and was occupying Canada, I sure as hell wouldn't be killing thousand of innocent Canadians. No Canadian would. The Jihadists realize that if Iraq succeeds, then they fail. And killing innocents is their perverse way of derailing progress. Put the blame where it belongs. On the suicidal jihadists who kill innocent people in the name of Allah.

[mirror]

The occupying forces in Iraq should be held responsible for the suicide attacks on UK and US soil.

If some country were to invade Canada, there would resistance in many different forms, and people would die. Of course it would be the invaders that would resposible for the Canadian deaths, civilian and otherwise. So why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that it is the US & UK that are responsible for all the deaths in the Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are going to quote me do please use the entire quote otherwise it distorts what I am saying.

I assume that you agree with my statement that it would not be Canadian terrorist's fault for any deaths if they were to fight back against an invader, and the same goes for Iraq terrorists fighting back against their invaders or puppet governments.

[mirror]

Osama bin Laden must be laughing

It seems that this invasion of Iraq has been really botched by the Bush administration. Look for the US to pull out with their tail between their legs before the next Congressional election in November, 2006.

[Shady]

I assume that you agree with my statement that it would not be Canadian terrorist's fault for any deaths if they were to fight back against an invader

Fighting back against an invader is one thing. Purposely killing innocent civilians is another. I assume you agree with me, that packing a truck full of explosives and driving it into a school, or hospital is nothing close to fighting back against an invader/occupying force.

[Black Dog]

I suppose killing, raping and torturing your own citizens isn't a breakdown in civil order.

Technically no, as those occurances were part of the civil order under Saddam.

Note that atrocities under Saddam, horrific as they unquestionably were, were limited primarily to the regime's political oppossition. Under the current set of circumstances, violence, daeth and destruction are far more indiscriminate.

However, I believe that the occupying forces and fledgling Iraq government are making reasonable efforts to do so.

Lumping organized resistance in with general crime and lawlessness is absurd.

But general crime and lawlessness are also epidemic. Business is boooming in the black market (since most goods are in short supply). Violent crime, including kidnapping and murder has been on the rise since the occupation began.

Because they're not, that's why. It's the terrorists who target innocent women and children. It's the terrorist who blow up schools, and hospitals, and the Red Cross. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this? If another country had attacked and was occupying Canada, I sure as hell wouldn't be killing thousand of innocent Canadians. No Canadian would. The Jihadists realize that if Iraq succeeds, then they fail. And killing innocents is their perverse way of derailing progress. Put the blame where it belongs. On the suicidal jihadists who kill innocent people in the name of Allah.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the nature of the insurgency. Three's no central leadership, no central ideaology. The whole works is a mish-mash of former fighters from Saddam's forces, tribal groups, and a small number of foreign jihadis (a small faction that has been overwhelmingly responsible for teerrorist activities). the only unifying charateristic all the factions seem to share is the ouster of the U.S. from Iraq. It just so happens that the U.S.'s handling of the war from Day One set the stage for the current state of affairs.

Fighting back against an invader is one thing. Purposely killing innocent civilians is another. I assume you agree with me, that packing a truck full of explosives and driving it into a school, or hospital is nothing close to fighting back against an invader/occupying force.

I wonder how uniformly your standards apply.

27 Die in Suicide Attack in Baghdad as U.S. Troops Hand Out Candy and Toys

US airstrike near Mosul kills civilians

What's the difference?