Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jun 10th, 2003, 07:32 PM        3,240
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq

By NIKO PRICE
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 10, 2003; 2:07 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.

The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll - if it is ever tallied - is sure to be significantly higher.

Several surveys have looked at civilian casualties within Baghdad, but the AP tally is the first attempt to gauge the scale of such deaths from one end of the country to the other, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south.

The AP count was based on records from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals - including almost all of the large ones - and covers the period between March 20, when the war began, and April 20, when fighting was dying down and coalition forces announced they would soon declare major combat over. AP journalists traveled to all of these hospitals, studying their logs, examining death certificates where available and interviewing officials about what they witnessed.

Many of the other 64 hospitals are in small towns and were not visited because they are in dangerous or inaccessible areas. Some hospitals that were visited had incomplete or war-damaged casualty records.

Even if hospital records were complete, they would not tell the full story. Many of the dead were never taken to hospitals, either buried quickly by their families in accordance with Islamic custom, or lost under rubble.

The AP excluded all counts done by hospitals whose written records did not distinguish between civilian and military dead, which means hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims in Iraq's largest cities and most intense battles aren't reflected in the total.

During the first weeks of the war, the Iraqi government made its own attempt to keep track of civilian deaths, but that effort fell apart as U.S. troops neared Baghdad and the government began to topple.

The U.S. military did not count civilian casualties because "our efforts are focused on military tasks," said Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. The British Defense Ministry said it didn't count casualties either.

Cassella said getting an accurate count would have been nearly impossible because of the amount of weaponry used by both sides over wide swaths of a country of 24 million people.

In the 1991 Gulf War an estimated 2,278 civilians were killed, according to Iraqi civil defense authorities. No U.S. or independent count is known to have been made. That war consisted of seven weeks of bombing and 100 hours of ground war, and did not take U.S. forces into any Iraqi cities.

This time it was very different. In a war in which the Iraqi soldiery melted away into crowded cities, changed into plainclothes or wore no uniform to begin with, separating civilian and military casualties is often impossible.

Witnesses say Saddam Hussein's fighters attacked from ambulances and taxis and donned women's chadors or Bedouin robes, creating an atmosphere in which U.S. troops couldn't be sure who their enemy was.

Adding to the civilian toll was the regime's tactic of parking its troops and weapons in residential neighborhoods, creating targets for U.S. bombs that increased the casualties among noncombatants.

And while the great majority of civilian deaths appear to have been caused by American U.S. and British attacks, witnesses say some - even a rough estimate is impossible - were caused by the Iraqis themselves: by exploding Iraqi ammunition stored in residential neighborhoods, by falling Iraqi anti-aircraft rounds aimed at U.S. warplanes, or by Iraqi fire directed at American troops.

The United States said its sophisticated weaponry minimized the toll, and around the country are sites that, to look at them, bolster the claim: missiles that tore deep into government buildings but left the surrounding houses untouched.

"Did the Americans bomb civilians? Yes. But one should be realistic," said Dr. Hameed Hussein al-Aaraji, the new director of Baghdad's al-Kindi Hospital. "Saddam ran a dirty war. He put weapons inside schools, inside mosques. What could they do?"

Among the documents studied by AP journalists was the register at Kadhamiya General Hospital in Baghdad. Someone has taped up the shredded binding, as if that could fix the horrors inside. There are pages bathed in dried, reddish-brown blood, their letters smeared and unintelligible.

It and other registers at hospitals across the country record the names, ages and addresses of patients, the diagnoses and operations, the recoveries, and the deaths. They also list professions: for example, butcher, carpenter, soldier, student, or policeman. The AP investigation had to depend on the accuracy of the hospitals in distinguishing between soldier and civilians as there was no way to verify the records.

Some of the best record-keeping was in Baghdad, where AP journalists visited all 24 hospitals that took in war casualties. Their logs provided a count of 1,896 civilians killed. There were certainly more civilians dead; a few hospitals lost count as fighting intensified.

In some parts of the country, records are more spotty. The three civilian hospitals in Basra, Iraq's second largest city, recorded the deaths of 413 people. But while doctors estimate 85 percent were civilian, they have no evidence, so AP didn't include numbers from Basra in its count.

Some hospitals that began the war keeping records had to stop. The fighting came to them - in some cases, inside their front doors.

Doctors at Nasiriyah's Republic Hospital said seven patients were killed in their beds when a shell hit the building April 7. At Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital, doctors fled when U.S. tanks shelled a hospital building seized by Iraqi fighters. When they returned five days later, 26 patients were dead.

It will take months or more before anything like a final count emerges. One survey is being done by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, another by the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, which hopes to win U.S. compensation for victims or their relatives.

Meanwhile, from city to city, block to block, house to house, Iraqis are trying to come to terms with their losses. For many, the personal tragedy is more important than whether the casualty count is 3,000, or double that, or more.

There is little agreement about whether being freed from Saddam's tyranny was worth the cost in lives.

"If they didn't want to kill civilians, why did they fire into civilian areas?" asked Ayad Jassim Ibrahim, a 32-year-old Basra fireman who said his brother Alaa was killed by shrapnel from a U.S. missile that tore into his living room.

Al-Aaraji, at al-Kindi hospital in Baghdad, saw things differently.

"It was a war," he said. "This is the price of liberty."

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Niko Price is correspondent-at-large for The Associated Press. Contributing to this report were AP writers Sameer N. Yacoub, Bassem Mroue and Charles Hanley in Baghdad, Ellen Knickmeyer in Kut, Tini Tran in Basra, Louis Meixler in northern Iraq and Sharon Crenson and Richard Pyle in New York.


© 2003 The Associated Press
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jun 10th, 2003, 08:15 PM       
I attended a lecture during the Student Walk-Out in which a former military tactician demonstrated point after point how Hussein couldn't possibly be a threat to anyone, even if he did have WsMD stored out the wazoo. So I've always looked at the war from a humanitarian perspective, and have generally been against it. Putting the past behind us, it's highly implausible that Saddam was likely to kill 3,240 individuals before the end of his reign, IMO.

With that in mind, the utilitarian in me thinks that Bush should be indicted for crimes against humanity. It's a shame that global justice is so far-fetched.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #3  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Jun 10th, 2003, 11:28 PM       
holy F#$&(ing cow! and this is being reported as an early conservative estimate .. unfreaking real..
i mean i thought it would be 3k plus fer sure but i didnt really think we'd hear those numbers in the main stream press.

impeach the bastard already..
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #4  
The_voice_of_reason The_voice_of_reason is offline
Senior Member
The_voice_of_reason's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: yes
The_voice_of_reason is probably a spambot
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 03:05 AM       
Hey they started it, with their aid to Al queda




(Holy shit they have me brainwashed)
__________________
I like to masturbate
Reply With Quote
  #5  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 07:16 AM       
Isn't that almost exactly the death count of the WTC attack?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 09:02 AM       
I think one needs to add to that count all the Iraqui soldiers who were conscripted and no choice but to be where they were.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jun 11th, 2003, 09:16 PM       
I was thinking the same thing, Mr. Satan.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #8  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 11:34 AM        Yeah
I bet I could write half the responses I will get from this but I'm going to say it anyway.

Being the Lee Greenwood loving right wing fanatic that I am, I think there are a few things to point out here that hold some merit. I'm not trying to demean any amount of civilian casualties, etc., etc. I understand the "one is too many" argument and all that good stuff so don't bother insulting my intelligence with it.

Regardless, I think it should at least be noted that the "tens of thousands" of civilian casualties arguments used before the war were overdramatized. Let's be honest, even here there was a lot of discussion of the overwhelming numbers of civilian deaths many were certain would result from the war.

Second, in perspective, quite frankly given the nature of the conflict and where it was being fought, that is an amazingly low number. Tragic no matter how you look at it, but nevertheless amazing. Under different circumstances, how many other nations would have engaged in such a war with so much conscious effort to minimize such deaths?

Third, this whole "counting bodies" thing is a sham. It could have been 10,000, it might have been 500. There is no way any accurate figures can be done. Just as the article states the number could be lowballed as a result of many deaths not even reported, the number could also be swelled from inaccurate reporting. Iraqi shrapnel happens to look just like U.S. shrapnel. Do you suppose every Iraqi artillery/mortar/grenade round struck Americans? How many of those injuries were caused by Iraqi army/militia?

Again I'm not trying to say that there weren't a significant number of civilian casualties. And I'm not trying to marginalize death. The fact that were so many civilian casualties is worsened by the fact that so far there is still a substantial sense that the war was fought in vain in the first place.

But regardless, it's only fair to keep a little perspective on things. It's a bit of a fraud to insist that war in Iraq would no doubt cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties, then disregard it only to pretend that some 3,000 is just as bad.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Zosimus Zosimus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Zosimus is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 02:37 PM       
If you are interested in the Iraq body counts, I think that you might find the below link very interesting ( i believe that I may have posted it before). The site claims that there are MANY more bodies than the numbers stated in the starting tread. And the site has gathered information from medias all around the world, not just from a few "independant sources" in the US. It seriously worth checking out!

http://iraqbodycount.com/forum/
__________________
~I doubt, therefore I might be~
Reply With Quote
  #10  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 02:50 PM       
Ga i agree with you on one point "the war was fought in vain"

oops, its worse than that.. 9 times out of 10 a civilian death in iraq created a new terrorist, we will be paying for this war for oil for a long time.. and not just by trying to prove to the rest of the world that we're not ALL fascists but in loss of our freedoms here in the usa.

and don't forget that there are NEW civilian deaths every day because of our fascist regimes military 'solutions'

PLUS(!) depleted uranium from gulf war I is STILL killing folks over there via cancers!

omg, and we're still blocking food and medical supplies despite the fact that we support dropping the sanctions!
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #11  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 05:54 PM        Yeah
You're right Ranxer, the rest of my post was just utter bullshit. I'm glad you were able to weed out the truth from my nonsense.

Good on ya.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 06:29 PM       
Dear Ranxer:

On behalf of the "left of center" community and proponents of the English language, I would like to say "no thank you." We feel we will get along just fine without your hyperbolic dissertations. Perhaps we will miss your mastery of the "stream of consciousness" style, but I would hate to exhaust you any further.
-Seth Thomas Pace
___________________________________

GA, remember "Shock and Awe"? We were crying that there would be a horrendous number of casualties for very good reason. I wasn't posting at the time, but as suspense was building I was appalled by the media's failure (as far as I witnessed) to explain why such a strategy would be particularly deadly. In a regular spaced-out strafing of a city, a bomb takes out a building and the laws of physics cause oxygen to rush in from all sides via displacement. In a raid such as that proposed by Shock and Awe, all the air is depleted of oxygen simultaneously and thus displacement has to come from higher in the atmosphere, which can take several hours. In that period of time, people in hundreds of city blocks that may have not even been bombed would asphyxiate. Perhaps not everyone, but the elderly, young, and obese would be at particular risk.

If that sounds far-fetched, oxygen depletion is what caused such a high civilian casualty rate in Dresden. Due to the gravity of the atomic bomb droppings at the end of the war, most people completely overlook that there were months of fire bombing campaigns over Tokyo. Some historians have argued that as many as a million civilians died by asphyxiation in those raids.

I will be the first to say that it's an absolute blessing that Shock and Awe never happened. But that doesn't come to any real consolation for the fact that over 3,000 people were killed utterly without purpose.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #13  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 06:51 PM        What....
Is there ANY valid circumstances under which you could justify killing ANY civilians during a conflict? Probably very very few.

As I clearly stated, I'm not saying it's not a shame. However, once again, considering the nature of the battle that was fought, and the environment it was fought in, 3,000-ish is in all reality a pretty remarkable number. I undertand the desire to add emotion to the argument, but I'm saying from a strictly statistical standpoint, that's actually relattively unprecedented.

So far no one has made any sort of argument against the possibilty of any civilian deaths being caused by the Iraqis themselves. As if didn't happen. As if Iraqi militia didn't at any point intentionally or unintentionally kill Iraqi civilians. The United States has a tremmendous amount of technology and STILL ended up with "friendly fire" deaths. Do you suppose that Iraqi RPGS and mortars have "American only" rounds? And do you suppose that Dr.s who treated or saw civilian casualties were able to distinguish which injuries were caused by who?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 06:59 PM       
I understand where you're coming from and you have a point, but the fact remains that we instigated this war. It's not like Saddam commanded a Scorched Earth policy in which Iraqis deliberately killed Iraqis, so for the most part the blame for any civilian death should be pointed at us.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #15  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 07:40 PM        ...
Quote:
I'm not trying to demean any amount of civilian casualties, etc., etc. I understand the "one is too many" argument and all that good stuff so don't bother insulting my intelligence with it.
Yeah yeah I get all that. It's all our fault and all that good stuff. You're right. Super. No one is arguing that.


P.S. I am starting to think the DU argument is part of Ranxers sig because it seems to show up in every post.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 07:53 PM       
Quote:
Is there ANY valid circumstances under which you could justify killing ANY civilians during a conflict?
They got in the way.

:army
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 09:05 PM       
Quote:
so for the most part the blame for any civilian death should be pointed at us.
Don't say "us"! Say "THEM"!


Quote:
However, once again, considering the nature of the battle that was fought, and the environment it was fought in, 3,000-ish is in all reality a pretty remarkable number. I undertand the desire to add emotion to the argument, but I'm saying from a strictly statistical standpoint, that's actually relattively unprecedented.

There didn't have to be any civillian deaths. You may think it is unavoidable, but when it takes an effort to kill people, it takes no effort to not kill people.

And 3000-ish is a whole heap of deaths!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 10:05 PM        Really?
How much is 10,000 then?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Isaac Isaac is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near Detroit, Nearer Ann Arbor...
Isaac is probably a spambot
Old Jun 12th, 2003, 10:13 PM       
now cyour argument from a different forum confuses me...
__________________
BLAH!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jun 13th, 2003, 02:05 AM       
First, Iraqi Body Count's Math is off. They don't take proper physics into account.

Second, ranx, didn't I already explain DU to you? Did ou find any evidence to support your side, or just more baseless accusations?

Quote:
it takes no effort to not kill people.
It took no effort to sit by and watch Somalia and Rawnada collapse. But hey, at least it wasn't our bullets that killed 10% of them.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jun 13th, 2003, 08:33 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov
Quote:
so for the most part the blame for any civilian death should be pointed at us.
Don't say "us"! Say "THEM"!
You CANNOT be that stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Jun 13th, 2003, 08:40 AM       
I beg your pardon?

I am pretty sure of myself when I think that Sethomas and co. have not killed any Iraqi civillians. Responsibility should not fall on everyone in the US.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Jun 13th, 2003, 08:58 AM       
Woah. Wait one damn minute here. Are you that blind?

If the terrorists had their way, they would kill us ALL. They don't care about your politics. They don't care who you voted for. THEY CARE ABOUT YOU BEING MUSLIM OR DEAD.

You want to know why liberals are thought to be moronic and out of touch? Look at your former statements.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Jun 13th, 2003, 09:18 AM       
You have muddled up your terrorists/extreemists with your Iraq/Sadaam.

Please sort yourself out. PRONTO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jun 13th, 2003, 09:25 AM       
Al Quaeda=Terrorists=Muslims=Iraquis=Arabs=anyone standing within 50 feet of an Arabs getting killed=anyone who says different.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:26 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.