[von Wrangell]

See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4694123.stm

and for the full report here: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_d..._2003-2005.pdf

Key findings:
Women and children account for about 20%
During the same period around 42 000 innocent civilians have been injured.
US forces alone account for just under 10 000 innocent dead. Or about 37% of the total.
During 20th of March until the 9 of April in 2003 the US killed on average 315 people or in total 6 616 people.


So what is the limit to how many innocent civilian deaths are acceptable vs. the threat that terrorists pose?

[Doofy]

Women and children account for about 20%

This seems very odd. 80% are guys?
If the guys were truly innocent, then I'd expect the figure for the guys to be only a little over that of the women and kids. 40% women/kids, 60% guys maybe.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

This seems very odd. 80% are guys?
If the guys were truly innocent, then I'd expect the figure for the guys to be only a little over that of the women and kids. 40% women/kids, 60% guys maybe.

I guess you have never been to an active war area. Women and children tend to stay at home(often in the basements for some false security) while the men try to get the food and drink, as well as often try to get some money by working.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I guess you have never been to an active war area. Women and children tend to stay at home(often in the basements for some false security) while the men try to get the food and drink, as well as often try to get some money by working.

Iraq isn't an active war area. It's a terrorist nightmare, for sure, but not an active war area.

Oh yes... ...and how are we defining "innocent"?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Iraq isn't an active war area. It's a terrorist nightmare, for sure, but not an active war area.

Oh yes... ...and how are we defining "innocent"?

I use the international version.

That is, not the version you use that all Muslims are guilty.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I guess you have never been to an active war area. Women and children tend to stay at home(often in the basements for some false security) while the men try to get the food and drink, as well as often try to get some money by working.

HAH! Except when terrorist "insurgents" deliberately target Iraqi children, as in the recent case involving soldiers passing out sweets, huh?

How, if everyone is cowering in basements, do you explain all the people on the streets in every news report filmed in Iraq, regardless of source?

Methinks you speak from the other end of your spine (as usual), Logic.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

HAH! Except when terrorist "insurgents" deliberately target Iraqi children, as in the recent case involving soldiers passing out sweets, huh?

How, if everyone is cowering in basements, do you explain all the people on the streets in every news report filmed in Iraq, regardless of source?

Methinks you speak from the other end of your spine (as usual), Logic.

Just that you think makes me happy.

Have you been to an active war area?

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So what is the limit to how many innocent civilian deaths are acceptable vs. the threat that terrorists pose?

I guess I don't understand the question. Civilian deaths aren't acceptable, but unfortunately they do happen. However, isn't the threat that terrorists pose the killing of civilians? And according to your figures, aren't terrorists now responsible for more civilian deaths than the US military?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Just that you think makes me happy.

Have you been to an active war area?

Ever hear of Desert Storm? ex-USAF Pararescueman here, there goes that rug from under your feet again.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Ever hear of Desert Storm? ex-USAF Pararescueman here, there goes that rug from under your feet again.

pwned

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by idjeff

I guess I don't understand the question. Civilian deaths aren't acceptable, but unfortunately they do happen. However, isn't the threat that terrorists pose the killing of civilians? And according to your figures, aren't terrorists now responsible for more civilian deaths than the US military?

They obviously are acceptable when you invade a nation because you don't like that nation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had no WMD's. Iraq didn't pose a threat to their neighbours anymore. Your government(I'm not accusing you here, just your government) obviously accepted the civilian losses since they decided to invade Iraq.

Yes, terrorist pose a threat to civilians. I think that was established a while ago.

I can't remember but it seemed like the terrorists and the US have killed a similar amount of innocent civilians. What difference does that make to the Iraqi people? The Iraqi people didn't have to be afraid of being killed by foreign troops or terrorists before the US invaded. Now they have to. And the sad thing is that this is exactly what most of us against the war said would happen. Perhaps it's time you start to listen. Just so you don't leave any more more unnecessary innocent dead in your trail.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Ever hear of Desert Storm? ex-USAF Pararescueman here, there goes that rug from under your feet again.

And you saw a lot of kids and women running around? I doubt it.

[Millennium]

As a [i]directi] result? Surely you jest. As a result of the insurgency, perhaps, but that's still a level of indirection from the invasion. The number who have died as a direct result -for example, under fire from US troops- is a small fraction of this number by even the most liberal estimates.

Even if it were not, consider the two million innocent civilians who died during the twelve years between the first and second Gulf Wars. That's a rate of 166,000 per year. If the invasion has truly cut the rate of deaths as a result of the ruling power (whoever that may be) by 85%, as your numbers would show, then this is cause for outright celebration. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But the situation is not as black and white as you claim it to be.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

As a [i]directi] result? Surely you jest. As a result of the insurgency, perhaps, but that's still a level of indirection from the invasion. The number who have died as a direct result -for example, under fire from US troops- is a small fraction of this number by even the most liberal estimates.

Even if it were not, consider the two million innocent civilians who died during the twelve years between the first and second Gulf Wars. That's a rate of 166,000 per year. If the invasion has truly cut the rate of deaths as a result of the ruling power (whoever that may be) by 85%, as your numbers would show, then this is cause for outright celebration. Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But the situation is not as black and white as you claim it to be.

Another way of cutting the deaths between GWI and GWII would have been to stop the sanctions.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

And you saw a lot of kids and women running around? I doubt it.

Doubt all you want, everyone here has seen the television coverage of Kuwait City, et al

Can't keep that rug under there, can you?

[BRussell]

I don't get it. The article says:

The report's assertion that 37% of deaths were caused by the US-led forces may cause dismay among Western governments, especially as only 9% are attributed to insurgents.

But even if another 11% attributed to "unknown agents" is included in the second figure, the report says coalition forces are still the main cause of death.

If 37% were caused by the US, and 9% to insurgents, who is killing all the civilians? Jack the Ripper?

[edit] Hmm, Jack the Ripper wasn't too far off. The report says that about 1/3, approximately the same killed by the US, were criminal killings.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't get it. The article says:

If 37% were caused by the US, and 9% to insurgents, who is killing all the civilians? Jack the Ripper?

[edit] Hmm, Jack the Ripper wasn't too far off. The report says that about 1/3, approximately the same killed by the US, were criminal killings.

Still leaves 21%.
Heart attacks while watching Double Jeopardy?

[Macrobat]

Bored to death watching Logic post.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Bored to death watching Logic post.

Then put me on ignore




ps. what's funny is that I haven't posted between the two last posts of yours. Have you started imagining things now?

[loki74]

we can all whine about how many lives are lost when something happens. Nobody said its good, but it is better, as demonstrated by Mellinium's post.

I say, just get over it and stop whining. This is war.

Not to mention the great dishonor everyone who whines about this does to the dead of whom they speak, using that death to push a political adgenda. I mean, it sure as hell doesn't sound to me like you've got any bright ideas as to how our forces can better handle the enemy threat. Sounds to me like you're just trying to make Bush look bad (political agenda).

I think we should be congratulating our soldiers on the fact that this few civilians have died--its not like the terrorists/insurgents are wearing uniforms.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4694123.stm

and for the full report here: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_d..._2003-2005.pdf

Key findings:
Women and children account for about 20%
During the same period around 42 000 innocent civilians have been injured.
US forces alone account for just under 10 000 innocent dead. Or about 37% of the total.
During 20th of March until the 9 of April in 2003 the US killed on average 315 people or in total 6 616 people.


So what is the limit to how many innocent civilian deaths are acceptable vs. the threat that terrorists pose?

Of the 80% that are men, none of them were inocent. They were all quilty of murder and terorist activities.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Of the 80% that are men, none of them were inocent. They were all quilty of murder and terorist activities.

^^^ Remarkably Stupid Post of the Month ®

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally Posted by loki74

... using that (civilian) death to push a political adgenda.

Oooh, now there's a thought.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Of the 80% that are men, none of them were inocent. They were all quilty of murder and terorist activities.

And that's why we still have people who think Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by loki74

I think we should be congratulating our soldiers on the fact that this few civilians have died--its not like the terrorists/insurgents are wearing uniforms.

"What difference does it make to the dead... whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

Ghandi