Quantcast

Civilian casualties in Iraq are what again...? 160K...?

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Here is the breakdown on Iraqi civilian deaths due to Coalition Forces, Iraqi Forces, and the Insurgents-for the period 1st July 2004 to 1st January 2005:

3,274 civilians killed in total
2,041 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
1,233 by insurgents
12,657 civilians wounded in total
8,542 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
4,115 by insurgents


Iraq Health Ministry Figures
BBC | 30 Jan | LINK

On Thursday, January 27 2005, the Iraqi ministry of health released to the BBC's Panorama programme statistics stating that for the six-month period from 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005:

- 3,274 people in Iraq were killed and 12, 657 injured in conflict-related violence
- 2,041 of these deaths were the result of military action, in which 8,542 people were injured
- 1,233 deaths were the result of "terrorist" incidents
These figures were based on records from Iraqi public hospitals.

The BBC initially reported these figures as meaning that the deaths and injuries resulting from military operations were the result of actions by the multinational force and Iraqi security forces.

On Saturday, the Iraqi ministry of health issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that the conclusion could be drawn from the figures relating to military operations.

It stated that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis killed by terrorists, not only those killed by coalition forces or Iraqi security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action included terrorists themselves, and Iraqi security forces.

The BBC regrets mistakes in its initial published and broadcast reports.

Previous figures from the Iraqi ministry of health were cited in Parliament by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on 17 November 2004 in a written ministerial statement.

He said: "In many cases it would be impossible to make a reliably accurate assessment either of the civilian casualties resulting from any particular attacks or of the overall civilian casualties of a conflict. This is particularly true in the conditions that exist in Iraq.

"However, since 5 April 2004 the Iraqi ministry of health has sought to collect casualty data.

"Explaining the procedure, the Iraqi minister of health stated on 29 October: 'Every hospital reports daily the number of civilians (which may include insurgents) who have been killed or injured in terrorist incidents or as a result of military action. All casualties are likely to be taken to hospital in these circumstances except for some insurgents (who may fear arrest) and those with minor injuries. The figures show that between 5 April 2004 and 5 October 2004, 3,853 civilians were killed and 15,517 were injured. I am satisfied that this information is the most reliable available'."

Mr Straw continued: "We share this view. The ministry's figures do not of course cover the whole of the period since military action was taken, but they do include the months of April and August, when casualty figures were particularly high." (Source: Hansard)
 

El Santo

Chimp
Apr 14, 2002
78
0
the 'burbs of SF
N8 said:
Here is the breakdown on Iraqi civilian deaths due to Coalition Forces, Iraqi Forces, and the Insurgents-for the period 1st July 2004 to 1st January 2005:

3,274 civilians killed in total
12,657 civilians wounded in total
So, is this meant to imply that because 160,000 civilians *haven't* died, that everything is hunky-dory over there?

N8, seriously, are you on glue?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Santo, have you met Changleen yet? You guys ought to go pet kittens together sometime.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,908
2,876
Pōneke
Hmm, Pity you overlooked the following:

1) This whole thing started on the 21st March 2003. Not the 1st July 2004. If you remember, you dropped a few bombs on a few cities in the previous YEAR!
2) These figures only include those who get to a hospital. Not those who are buried under tonnes of rubble for months, or who are obviously dead and simply buried straight away by friends or family, or those who are blown to a fine pulp by advanced high explosive weaponry. Or those who for the million other reasons which start with 'Because of the American occupation' don't ever make it to a hospital.

Nice try.
 

El Santo

Chimp
Apr 14, 2002
78
0
the 'burbs of SF
BurlyShirley said:
Santo, have you met Changleen yet? You guys ought to go pet kittens together sometime.
Yeah, we have our own clubhouse where we throw darts at pictures of Wolfowitz and drink microbrews from Blue states.
 

Lexx D

Dirty Dozen
Mar 8, 2004
1,480
0
NY
BurlyShirley said:
Santo, have you met Changleen yet? You guys ought to go pet kittens together sometime.
That would be nice but no way could they be as cute as the puppies you and N8 have together. Which one of you do they call mom?
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Changleen said:
Hmm, Pity you overlooked the following:

1) This whole thing started on the 21st March 2003. Not the 1st July 2004. If you remember, you dropped a few bombs on a few cities in the previous YEAR!
2) These figures only include those who get to a hospital. Not those who are buried under tonnes of rubble for months, or who are obviously dead and simply buried straight away by friends or family, or those who are blown to a fine pulp by advanced high explosive weaponry. Or those who for the million other reasons which start with 'Because of the American occupation' don't ever make it to a hospital.

Nice try.
Those number have more credability than the phony agenda-driven 160k figures...
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
N8 said:
Yupper...


However, for those who are looking for a bit higher body count because a few thousand doesn't suit your agenda try here.
You're aware the Lancet study didn't have a hard number? (like all epidemiological studies, it had a range and a confidence level)

You're also aware that the Lancet study measured mortality increases and not just civilians actively killed?

You're also aware the stats you posted today, which you want to compare to the Lancet study, miss more than the entire ****ing first year after the invasion?

Tomorrow I'll post some photos of apples and oranges and we can work on telling those apart!
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
TheMontashu said:
Lets not forget that curdish village that sadam GASSED.
While we're straying from the subject:

"Let's" "Kurdish" "Saddam"

Nice work on "gassed" though. You're improving.

Also, it was more than one village
 

TheMontashu

Pourly Tatteued Jeu
Mar 15, 2004
5,549
0
I'm homeless
N8 said:
Those number have more credability than the phony agenda-driven 160k figures...
yes because bush has been pushing his agenda sence before he was even running?!?!?!?!?!?! N8 if you seem like an idiot to me you must realy not be to bright
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,908
2,876
Pōneke
fluff said:
Specially for you N8:
Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,908
2,876
Pōneke
N8 said:
N8, seriously, even in your republican befudled brain, how can you sit there and post casualty figures, irrespective of their completeness or accuracy, for less than a quarter of the time the US has been carrying out this operation and use them to deride any estimate of the complete body count? Are you gunning for a career in politics?
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,908
2,876
Pōneke
N8 said:
What if the truth is a not as exciting as you are hoping it will be?
N8, Only you find massive civilian casualty figures 'exciting'. Most people find them depressing, wasteful, immoral, unnecassary, criminal...

Care to answer my question about the months and years not included in your figures?
 

El Santo

Chimp
Apr 14, 2002
78
0
the 'burbs of SF
Changleen said:
N8, Only you find massive civilian casualty figures 'exciting'. Most people find them depressing, wasteful, immoral, unnecassary, criminal...

Care to answer my question about the months and years not included in your figures?
He's too busy ironing his brown shirt.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Changleen said:
Hmm, Pity you overlooked the following:

1) This whole thing started on the 21st March 2003. Not the 1st July 2004. If you remember, you dropped a few bombs on a few cities in the previous YEAR!
2) These figures only include those who get to a hospital. Not those who are buried under tonnes of rubble for months, or who are obviously dead and simply buried straight away by friends or family, or those who are blown to a fine pulp by advanced high explosive weaponry. Or those who for the million other reasons which start with 'Because of the American occupation' don't ever make it to a hospital.

Nice try.

Even the your Lancet study concluded there were more deaths from the ground war than the air war phase.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Changleen said:
That still doesn't mean you can ignore them...

Who's ignoring them? There were several dozen killed today by Saudi/Iraqi militants... they were just regular folks going about their lives until some terrorist decided, in order to maintain control, killed them.

US soldiers die weekly to protect the positive gains made in the average Iraqi's way of life.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
N8 said:
US soldiers die weekly to protect the positive gains made in the average Iraqi's way of life.
The increased death rate? The lengthy fuel queues? I could go on.

In case you forgot, we didn't invade for the sake of the average Iraqi, we just decided that was the only good reason we could come up with to be there when all the other reasons got proved wrong.