Iraqi civilian body count site

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I know there's been a lot of discussion of the civilian death toll in the war here, so I thought people might be interested in this site; it's clearly anti-war, but their methodology for keeping track of the deaths 9or, technically, the media reports of deaths) seems clear, fair, and well-thought-out, regardless of where they stand:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Nothing to add, really; just thought it was a good resource, and one of those things the web does well.

[Nubclear]

Re: Iraqi civilian body count site

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I know there's been a lot of discussion of the civilian death toll in the war here, so I thought people might be interested in this site; it's clearly anti-war, but their methodology for keeping track of the deaths 9or, technically, the media reports of deaths) seems clear, fair, and well-thought-out, regardless of where they stand:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Nothing to add, really; just thought it was a good resource, and one of those things the web does well.

[SlowwHand]

Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Bush, Hussein....They should both be 'exiled' for the evil they have created

[Spec]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Should is the key word here.....but IMHO, I dont think he gives a shlt.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Why?

The site does look very fair, and given the amount of force used, the numbers given are low, compared to what they could be.

If someone can point out an problem with it, please, point it out.

[Kropotkin]

It is much fewer than I feared before the war even if we have seen far from the end of it yet...

It has to be said about the US/UK army that their tactics seems to have been a good way of keeping down the figures.

[SlowwHand]

Nothing like the 500,000 insisted upon, is it ?

And I say Hussein should care, because in theory, they're his people.
Hell. Coalition troops care more than Hussein about his people.

[Kropotkin]

What happens in Bagdad in the future will determine if this war will be a bloody one or not so bloody. Surely it will not be anyting like the east front of WWII but only a real pessimist could have though that.

[Ming]

It seems like the tactics being used by Iraq... like having troops dressed as civilians and then using them to ambush Amreicans... people surrendering, then waiting for a chance to strike... are designed to inflict more civilians casualties on it's own side.

A sad event to say the least.

While you may argue that the US, in starting the war, is responsible for all the deaths... you also have to be honest and say that at least the US are TRYING to minimize civilians injuries and death. The same can't be said about Iraqs own leader.

[Kropotkin]

"You"? Are you talking to me?

Well, that was what happend in Vietnam. The VC fought in the way that worked but it turned the US forces against the civilians they claimed they where there to fight for. Surely this will not last for years so that will not be such a large problem.

[Willem]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Nothing like the 500,000 insisted upon, is it ?

They haven't reached Baghdad yet, the numbers are bound to climb once the street fighting starts. Though I admit I doubt it will reach 500,000. How many I refuse to speculate, it's already much lower than I thought it would be with the bombing. They've done a good job on that score.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
"You"? Are you talking to me?

Nahhhh... that was a "generic" you for those who are just going to say that since we are the ones attacking, we are the cause for all deaths.

My statement was not meant to get into the issues of why the war is happening, or even state that I supported the reasons why we are at war... just pointing out that the war right now is a reality... and that one side is at least trying to limit civilian casualties, while the other side seems to be trying to maximine them amoung their own people.

I find that sad.

[Kropotkin]

I got a bit confused there, as I thought I was accused for opinions have no recollection of having stated at all.

To be fair (if one can be that) I don't think the reason the Iraqis sometimes fights in that way is to cause more suffering for the civilians. They probably don't take the potential civilian loses into much consideration but that's not really the same thing as having civilian loses as on of the goals for their warfare.

[GePap]

Of course Saddam doesn't mid high civilian casualties in the South. He has killed enough of them before, and high civilian casualties will lead to greater anti-US resentment outsie of Iraq, and make it harder within Iraq. That is also why the US is doing evrything it can to keep them low, like not having taken out the electric (and hence perhaps water system) of Baghdad yet.