07-19-2005, 10:37 PM #1
Report: 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq
Report: 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq
Wednesday 20 July 2005, 3:31 Makka Time, 0:31 GMT
About 25,000 civilians have died in violence in Iraq in the two years after the start of the US-led invasion, says a British report published on Tuesday.
American forces were responsible for more than a third of those deaths, while criminals accounted for a similar number and anti-occupation forces carried out some 10% of the killings, the Iraq Body Count research project found.
"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq," said John Sloboda, a psychology professor at Keele University in central England and co-founder of Iraq Body Count.
"On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003."
Britain's Foreign Office said it didn't have its own figure for civilian fatalities in Iraq.
"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq"
Professor of Keele University, UK
"There are no wholly reliable figures for civilian deaths," a spokesman said. "It is recognised by everybody that statistics are very hard to collect under these circumstances."
"Any civilian being killed in war is a terrible thing," the spokesman added.
The Iraq Body Count estimate was much lower than the figure of 98,000 civilian deaths that appeared in a study in medical journal The Lancet in October 2004.
Iraq Body Count compiled the figure of 24,865 civilian killings occurring between 20 March, 2003 and 19 March, 2005 from media reports. It relied mostly on online English-language reports by the major news agencies and British and American newspapers.
Iraq Body Count found that 7299 civilian killings - or 30% of the total - occurred in the six weeks until 1 May when US President George Bush declared major combat operations over. Another 6215 civilians died in the period to 30 March, 2004, and 11,315 died in the period to 19 March, 2005.
Forces from the US-led forces alone were responsible for 9270 deaths - or 37.3% of the total - and American troops were accountable for 98.5% of those fatalities.
Sloboda said the Iraq Body Count report did not discredit the Lancet study, which was based on a small number of interviews with Iraqis about their experiences of the invasion and occupation.
07-19-2005, 11:18 PM #2
Nice article. Whereja get it?
07-19-2005, 11:51 PM #3
Who cares........they're just brown people who hate freedom......
07-20-2005, 12:20 AM #4Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
B'man its nothing to do with their skin colour and well you know it.
07-20-2005, 12:24 AM #5Originally Posted by Badgerman
07-20-2005, 05:07 AM #6
07-20-2005, 06:42 AM #7
Hereís the PDF file of the actual report.
Who was killed?
24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Women and children accounted for almost 20% 18% to be exactof all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
When did they die?
30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).
Who did the killing?
US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.
I wonder how many of these men were actually fighting for one side or the other.
The numbers were gathered from a variety of sources, from Morgues, journalist, medics, relatives, eyewitnesses and many other sources. I canít help but wonder how many of the deaths were reported 2 or 3 times.
The report seems biased, to me. I base that on the rounding up of numbers when it suits the producers of the report, and the use of anti-war quotes contained within.
07-20-2005, 07:27 AM #8
Even 1 civilian death is too much. And must be avenged.
07-20-2005, 08:08 AM #9Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
Please don't think that I was attempting to justifying any civilian deaths.
I was simply trying to show that there was more than one way to interpret the information that was provided.
Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
07-20-2005, 08:38 AM #10Originally Posted by Bigen12
Like the US didnt avenge 9/11?
07-20-2005, 08:59 AM #11
Who gave me that wild lookin avatar........I don't even own an assault r***e.....
07-20-2005, 09:01 AM #12Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
but if you want to present an example of equal logic. What the insurgent terrorists and criminals are doing in Iraq, would be like the US army taking out California as revenge for 9/11.
The insurgents are killing Iraqis, they are targeting Iraqis. the preferred targets are Iraqis.
So you tell me the insurgent problem is a justified product of the US lead invasion to free Iraq.
I say it is an excuse, nothing more nothing less...
07-20-2005, 09:01 AM #13Originally Posted by Badgerman
07-20-2005, 09:02 AM #14Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
But if we go around and avenge every single death even accidental deaths, there will never be peace.
07-20-2005, 09:03 AM #15Originally Posted by singern
Tell me why there werent any insurgent attacks when Saddam was in power.
Plus if it wasnt for the war the insurgents wouldnt be there. Most Iraqis dont blame the insurgents, they blame the US for letting it happened. It might be flawed logic, but that is what is happening.
07-20-2005, 09:03 AM #16Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
No mistake, Bageman is Iranian, proud and true.
07-20-2005, 09:05 AM #17Even 1 civilian death is too much. And must be avenged.
07-20-2005, 09:09 AM #18Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
What? The US wants the terrorists in Iraq? you sure this is the statement you want to go with?
1 Saddam was a brutal dictator, and as the countless mass graves show, he put down uprisings by ruthlessly, and swiftly taking out whole villages and cities guilty or not.
2 I read the AlJezeera on line every day and yes the Iraqis do certainly blame the insurgents and not the Americans. They are unafraid to say the criminals are not Iraqis not Muslims, and not wanted in Iraq.
07-20-2005, 09:12 AM #19
If Iraq was peaceful the US would have to leave. The US does not want to leave. In fact the US wants a permanent base in Iraq.
The US knows that even if they stay in Iraq for 100 years, there will be insurgents, infact the more time the US spends in Iraq, the more insurgents and terrorists will be created.
07-20-2005, 09:39 AM #20Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
You know very well your statement is fictional crap, you can do better..
07-20-2005, 09:48 AM #21We went to do a job,
08-10-2005, 07:44 AM #22
awful, but not really a lot if u compare it to other wars...
08-10-2005, 10:55 AM #23Originally Posted by singern
08-10-2005, 02:21 PM #24Permanent presence with a puppet government........a base to launch future attacks against Iran........this is obvious to everyone but a blinded knoob like yourself
Puppet Government....That's a bit simplistic isn't it. Do you really believe a puppet government without an Iraqi agenda is possible? The people of Iraq will obviously benefit from the stabilization in the region. Iraq is not capable at the moment of governing itself.
A base to launch future attacks against Iran. Again, thatís the point. The threat of immediate response will act as a deterrence, which is its intent.
Hey, somebody has to take the responsibility of stabilizing this region. Unfortunately, this will take generations of time. Let the process work. Give those people freedom and the right to choose their lives with dignity. But first, you have to create some sort of order. Canít have people blowing each other up on a Dailey basis.
Last edited by Theatrix; 08-10-2005 at 02:25 PM.
08-10-2005, 06:03 PM #25Originally Posted by symatech
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)