Thursday, October 14, 2010

US military says 77,000 Iraqis killed in 5 years

"In its most extensive death tally of the Iraq war, the U.S. military says nearly 77,000 Iraqi civilians and security officials were killed from early 2004 to mid-2008 — a toll that falls well below Iraqi government figures.

The military's count, which spans the bloodiest chapter of Iraq's sectarian warfare and the U.S. troop surge to quell it, is short of the 85,694 figure released last year by the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry that covers early 2004 to Oct. 31, 2008."

31 comments :

Don Cox said...

I don't think there will ever be complete accuracy in such figures. You would be lucky to get closer than 15% error.

Both figures are well below the estimates of around 125,000 which I previously thought were the most reliable.

Some people throw around figures ten times as great, which seem highly unlikely.

I wonder if there will ever be reliable figures for the Iran-Iraq war.

Bruno said...

Riiiight. Actual statistics companies and polling companies revealed a death toll from all causes to be closer to a million dead. But then, that data eventually did come from Iraqis, and, as the warmongers have told us, Iraqis are all terrible liars. far better to trust the Pentagon, which has no interest whatsoever in trying to present a lowball estimate of the havoc their actions caused.

Dolly said...

But see Bruno, when Iraqis release those high death toll figures, they don't mean it as an indictment of the aggressor country USA.
Instead, the point of their numbers is to say that "da terrorists" did the killing.

Also, this guy Andrew Waples from Sioux City IA said to me around 2006: "What do you call 100,000 dead Iraqi? A good start."
Which shows that you can't really shame Americans with those statistics, even if they acknowledge them.

Don Cox said...

The low US figure is of civilians and security forces actually shot or blown up. It does not include anti-government fighters killed.

A figure of deaths "from all causes" would include, for example, small children dying of water-borne dieases caused by disruption of water treatment, hospital patients dying because of disruption of medical supplies, and so on.

Aton said...

"I can't wait for Hezbollah to smash up the Israelis again. Should be worth watching."
Bruno

Bruno, you are the warmonger.

Bruno said...

[dolly] "But see Bruno, when Iraqis release those high death toll figures, they don't mean it as an indictment of the aggressor country USA. Instead, the point of their numbers is to say that "da terrorists" did the killing."

Indeed, many Iraqis WERE killed by people like Al Qaeda, not to mention the many sectarian militias which ran their bloody trade in Baghdad especially ... in addition to the Iraqis mowed down by the Americans. I, however, see US culpability in the deaths caused by "da terrorists" since all the assorted scum were either kept out of Iraq or under control prior to the invasion.

[dolly] "Also, this guy Andrew Waples from Sioux City IA said to me around 2006: "What do you call 100,000 dead Iraqi? A good start." "

Typical American scuzzbucket. PLENTY of them on the interwebz. It also needs to be added that there are many many Americans that are the opposite of that asswipe. Unfortunately they don't run US policy.

[bruno] "I can't wait for Hezbollah to smash up the Israelis again. Should be worth watching."

[aton] Bruno, you are the warmonger.

Nonsense. I don't recall Hezbollah invading Israel. I do, however, note that Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006 and before that. They got what they deserved. A good hiding. I must add however, that you are right in saying that no invasion of Lebanon is better than an invasion, even if the Israelis get their butts whipped.

Bruno said...

[cox] "anti-government fighters"

Sounds like some sort of Soviet propaganda term. Can't y'all do better than that?

Don Cox said...

"anti-government fighters" seems to me to be a good general term for various groups fighting against the government in Iraq.

That would cover both AQI, Baathists, and groups supported by the Iranians.

Bruno said...

What would you call Iraqis fighting against invading Americans?

Maury said...

I would call them dumbass fucktards on crack Bruno. You would call them useful idiots. But hey, let's not argue over semantics.

Dolly said...

Well Cox, the hole in your argument is that they are not a real government. Are you familiar with the term quisling, the name comes from a 20th century hero of reconstruction who stood up to anti-government thugs

Dolly said...

• It also needs to be added that there are many many Americans that are the opposite •

Yes but there is a deeper problem. Tony Blair says muzlim extremists are a minority, but some of their rhetoric is used by the mainstream. I would like to borrow his point and use it on the U.S.

It's possible that evil warmongers are a minority in the U.S., but → some of their rhetoric is accepted by the mainstream.

For example, not every American believes in "eradicating all camel jockeys," but almost every American thinks the military involved in these wars is great and fantastic. So they will praise the degenerates actually doing all the killing and war crimes

This cannot be ignored, and the cancer is deeper than just the overt war supporters.

Dolly said...

So Maury, seriously: if America was attacked and occupied by China and they killed massive numbers of your people and terrorized the populace in the dead of night. Would you then react in the following way:

Put on a uniform, and help the Chinamen mow down more of your fellow citizens.

I think you have to admit that would be crazy

Bruno said...

[dolly] " ... quisling ... "

LOL. People forget, sometimes. I think a reasonable argument could be made that the Nazis were more popular in the European countries they occupied than the Americans were in Iraq.

[bruno] "• It also needs to be added that there are many many Americans that are the opposite •"
[dolly] "not every American believes in "eradicating all camel jockeys," but almost every American thinks the military involved in these wars is great and fantastic."

That's a good point. "Supporting the troops" is a universal heart-tugger. That's precisely why I knew that the Americans would not be welcomed and would face stiff resistance in Iraq. Even though there are many Iraqis that did not like Saddam, and wanted him gone, those same Iraqis did not want to see thousands of their own countrymen mowed down by invaders for that to be accomplished. Which is why I think that speaking about these things and working towards a policy shift in US politics is most important. In other words, geting Americans to acknowledge that the best way to "support the troops" is to GET THEM OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST and similar senseless wars.

[dolly to maury] "Put on a uniform, and help the Chinamen mow down more of your fellow citizens."

Predicted response: "Yeah but if the Chinese were getting rid of an evil dictator an' replacing it with freedom n' democracy then bla bla blah"

Tried this before. Ye olde Warmongers are impervious to logic. I mean, just look at Maury's hysterical response to a simple question!

Maury said...

Bruno calling people warmongers, is like a porn addict railing against sex. Bruno thrives on blood and gore. He revels in it. I wish I had a nickle for every gleeful post he made after an "insurgent" attack.

And yeah, those so-called insurgents were fucktards. They would slither around under the cover of darkness to plant roadside bombs that killed more Iraqi's than Americans. They would fire their mortars and run, killing Iraqi families that lived nowhere near the supposed American targets.

They were retarded cowards. And you cheered them on for five long years Bruno. If that's not a warmonger, what the hell is?

Bruno said...

... you may want to get quotes reflecting me cheering any killing of innocent Iraqis, Maury.

Meanwhile, I hear that Americans are proud of the dastardly terrorist insurgents that fought the brave and honourable British using cowardly hit and run tactics and similar travesties of war. How awful!

Bruno said...

I bet Maury cheered for the Nazis.

Maury said...

You cheered the killing of US soldiers Bruno. What do we call someone who cheers for war casualties Bruno? Oh yeah, that would be a WARMONGER. You throw the warmonger label around like you aren't the world's biggest warmonger. Worse, you probably don't even see the hypocrisy. Dolly is a Takfiri that wants to run for office. The two of you are made for each other.

Bruno said...

[maury] "You cheered the killing of US soldiers Bruno."

Last I heard, a people or nation under attack from an invader had the right to defend itself.

Let me guess: the Jews under attack from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto were also "warmongers"?

[maury] "What do we call someone who cheers for war casualties Bruno? Oh yeah, that would be a WARMONGER."

Uh, no. I refer:

"A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage a people or nation to go to war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger

I was always against America invading Iraq ... unlike y'all bloodthirsty warmongers.

Maury said...

Bruno isn't a warmonger because he only cheers for the death of people he doesn't like.


Uh....okay.

"A warmonger is a pejorative term that is used to describe someone who is eager to encourage a people or nation to go to war."

And you didn't encourage Iraqi's to fight the evil amreekans Bruno? You aren't just a warmonger. You're a warmonger on steroids.

Bruno said...

Maury, let me make this very simple for you: the person who opens up hostilities, particularly unprovoked hostilities, as was the case with Iraq, 'owns' the war and the consequences of it.

The defending party is in the right.

In other words, the Iraqis have every right to exterminate as many invading Americans as they can, and good luck to them in this endeavour.

Bruno said...

An American, I believe, once said this:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Of course, those days are long past. Today, starting a war is a virtue amongst the Amreeki.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Saddam initiated two wars of aggression and mass murdered Iraqis. It's too bad so many Arabs defended him.

Maury said...

"In other words, the Iraqis have every right to exterminate as many invading Americans as they can, and good luck to them in this endeavour."

You are the very definition of a warmonger Bruno. The US goal was to get Saddam and get out. Everyone with a sane head told you that from the beginning, and that's exactly what's happening now. If not for WARMONGERS like yourself, this day would have come a lot sooner.

Spin it any way you like. But, the truth is those fucktards you cheered on kept US troops in Iraq a lot longer than necessary.

Warmonger.

Bruno said...

[maury] "The US goal was to get Saddam "

No it wasn't.

[maury] "and get out."

They're still there.

[maury] "Everyone with a sane head told you that from the beginning"

I seem to recall much blathering about WMD and invading Iran. But then, I'm not equipped with your industrial-grade reality filters.

[maury] "If not for WARMONGERS like yourself"

All the Germans wanted to do in 1941 was to get rid of Stalin. Surely that was a noble goal? LOL

[maury] "But, the truth is"

... invaders can be and should be resisted wherever possible. I congratulate the Iraqis that stood up for their country against the invading scum.

Bruno said...

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Bruno said...

Of course, IF we use Maury's logic, then Saddam's wars were also justified.

I mean, he was acting against:

Kurdish terrorism
Shiite rebellion
Kuwaiti thievery
Iranian attempts to overthrow his government.

Heck, if we use Maury's logic, an Iraqi strike against the US would have been justified if only to "just get rid of GWB and then go home".

Of course, warmonger logic is analogous to a one way valve.

Maury said...

Your argument is that it's okay to be a warmonger, as long as you pick the right side. That's pretty damned lame Bruno....even for you.

What's worse, the side you picked was a bunch of fucktards that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent women and children. The retards killed 10 civilians for every soldier they targeted. I don't know how you sleep at night Bruno.

Bruno said...

[maury] "Your argument is that it's okay to be a warmonger, as long as you pick the right side."

Your argument is that the victim and the perpetrator are morally analogous.

In other words, there's something wrong inside your head.

Bruno said...

Oh, I love your Stat-O -Matic instant statistics, btw. They were pretty funny.

Bruno said...

Americans killed 20 civilians for every guerrilla they targeted. Disgusting fucks. :|