100,000 excess deaths reported in Iraq since the war started

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1) Counting the victims of suicide bombings as victims of American intervention.

2) Counting victims of common crime as victims of American intervention.

Both of which are results of the complete breakdown of Iraqi law and order caused by the American invasion.

[Robert]

If 100.000 is true, that's an awfull lot.
That would indeed raise the question if Iraq is indeed better of without Sadam... or not.

For now I doubt the 100.000 number. It sounds way too heigh. 100.000 is really much.
Besides that do I doubt if the numbers of during the Sadam regime are trustable. And of course if the interviewed people are trustable.

But in the end, if the 100.000 number is true, it might have been better to keep Sadam in place. (Eventhough 10 more years of Sadam might have gotten 100.000 extra deaths as well, assuming that between now and 1 year rest will return to Iraq)

[Defiant]

The United States is directly responsible for one half of a percentage point of the population of Iraq annihilated in 18 months, yea, I believe that.

Man has heart attack in Mosul, dies, because we bombed Falluja, that's how this great magnitude of a number comes to be. Man carrying AK47 dressed in civilian clothes, shoots at coalition forces, is killed, must be a civilian because he is wearing civilian clothes.

I got some land for you guys in Louisana for sale.

[mrmitchell]

100,000 deaths is honestly too high.

The typically reported number is 10,000 to 15,000, which is too high, this time in the figurative sense.

[chequita guevara]

We started the war. We are therefore responsible for every death that has resulted from the war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Both of which are results of the complete breakdown of Iraqi law and order caused by the American invasion.

there was of course, no common crime in Iraq before the invasion.

And of course some of the people who are killing Iraqis in the '"insurgency" are the same people who were killing Iraqis when Saddam was in power.

But its Americas fault, of course.

[lord of the mark]

Oxblog:

(quoting IBC)'The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq. [Emphasis in original --ed.]
The ambiguity of this last paragraph is striking. It asserts that collateral damage caused by either side is the result of "our" , i.e. US-UK, intervention in Iraq.'

Oxblog responds: The application of this standard is even more striking. It includes not just those civilians killed by insurgents' bullets and bombs in the heat of battle, but civlians deliberately murdered by suicide bombers affiliated with the insurgents. This is a total perversion of the concept of moral reponsibility.

In order to understand the method behind this madness, one ought to consult the most recent IBC press release, which explains the political significance of its work:
'So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on.

Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500...

For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return...

The claim that a strategy which produces 14,000 civilian deaths is the expression of a "philosophy of tolerance and freedom" is a claim which we find incomprehensible. Our incomprehension is shared, we believe, by the majority of the world's people.'


The hypocrisy of this statement is stunning. IBC seeks to demonstrate that the United States is more dangerous than its terrorist opponents by blaming the United States for acts of premeditated murder that those same terrorists have perpetrated.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We started the war. We are therefore responsible for every death that has resulted from the war.

No, we are responsible for deaths that occured due to events that would not have happened without the war- events that might have occured with or without the war don't count.

[Fake Boris]

Well, this means that America should be responsible for the increase in common crime.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What's wrong with 1) and 2)?

And 3) may be wrong, but it doesn't have any effect on the actual number of casualties.

1. The american intervention did not require suicide bombings as a response. Even if you assert,as some have, that a nationalist insurgency is the necessary concomitant of a war like this, it should be noted that some Iraqi insurgents have themselves been shocked at the suicide bombings.

2. Counting common crimes? Cause er, they happen anyway. Youd have to calculate the surplus of deaths from common crimes versus the average.

3. It was simply an indication of the general unreliability of IBC

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
[Bernard Lewis]
Arabs are notorious exaggerators
[/Bernard Lewis]

Or in the other direction, the punchline from an old joke:
"Some of them said they warn't dead, but you know how they lie."

[Ramo]

The Health Ministry was reporting recently that there were very large numbers of civilians killed in our bombings.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Health Ministry was reporting recently that there were very large numbers of civilians killed in our bombings.

Yeah, and anybody who not have his weapon fused to his body by the blasts has been reported to the authorities as a civilian.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. The american intervention did not require suicide bombings as a response. Even if you assert,as some have, that a nationalist insurgency is the necessary concomitant of a war like this, it should be noted that some Iraqi insurgents have themselves been shocked at the suicide bombings.

So you are going to argue about what is a 'necessary' tactic and what isn't? It won't change anything about the identity of those who caused them.

2. Counting common crimes? Cause er, they happen anyway. Youd have to calculate the surplus of deaths from common crimes versus the average.

Well, their study DID take into account the Saddam-era mortality rate and said it was half of what it is right now, which means this point is pretty much pointless.

3. It was simply an indication of the general unreliability of IBC

It doesn't seem that bad. If you can attack them on their numbers, do it, but don't try to discredit them on irrelevant facts.

[Ramo]

The study used the number of people brought to hospitals (possibly morgues too, I don't recall). Insurgents generally wouldn't bring their casualties to hospitals to stay away from the authorities.