Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Iraq Bodycount Released (UPI)

  1. Jul 13, 2005 #1
    http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050712-122153-5519r [Broken]

    Iraqi civilian casualties
    Published July 12, 2005

    BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

    Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

    'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

    The number includes those who died during the U.S. assaults on al-Fallujah and al-Qa'im. 'Iraqiyun's figures conflict with the Iraqi Body Count public database compiled by Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies' database, 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since March 2003. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued by the Pentagon, which insists that it does not do "body counts." The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 14, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    As 1,755 is approximately the same number of Iraqi troops thought to have been killed during the 2003 war does that make it a military draw? :tongue2:

    Correction: 1700 - 2200 is the estimate for Iraqi forces killed by air attack. The total of Iraqi combatants killed between 20 March - 20 April is thought to be between 4900 - 6370.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Jul 14, 2005 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  5. Jul 14, 2005 #4
    Number of troops killed does not make a difference...The North won against the South but the South killed a lot more Yankees...agreed?
  6. Jul 23, 2005 #5
    we have to multiply that number by 10.
  7. Jul 23, 2005 #6
    And it is known that most of the innocent casualties killed, have been by 'suicide bombers'!..by insurgents.

    Have the American's had a 'suicide policy', then no doubt the head-count would be vastly increased.

    Do the Maths.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  8. Jul 23, 2005 #7
    No one has disputed that many (though, I seriously doubt MOST, please quote a source of who "knows" that) deaths were caused by suicide bombers.

    The statement is, "This is how many deaths there were."

    The question is, "How many deaths due to suicide bombers were there BEFORE the US led invasion?"
  9. Jul 23, 2005 #8
    Well depending on how one looks at things, I would say that the Iraq><Iran skirmish, constitues 'Suicidal-Tendancies', in that most Iraqi's were 'not' press-ganged into the conflict by Saddam Insane, they were up for a "mass-suicide" conflict.

    So if one goes back to the late 1970s, who knows?

    Currently, I think personally that everyday 'suicide-bombings' are by non-iraqi's, this is not to say that there are no local idiology driven idiots, it just seems plausable.
  10. Jul 23, 2005 #9
    Oh, I don't know ... there were cases of soldiers turning up in dancing shoes in Gulf War 1. They were the ones who threw their hands in the air upon seeing a GI.

    Also, considering that the Sunis were and ARE of the same religious sect, there would NOT have been a race to sign up.

    Neither were they keen on fighting for a secular leader AGAINST Moslems since Islam provides for some nasty sentencing for Moslem killing Moslem.

    So what is it you're trying to prove? That Saddam was training suicide bombers? LOL.
  11. Jul 23, 2005 #10
    I agree.
    And they weren't happening before.
    Which, if you want to look at it pragmatically, seems to me that the US led invasion of Iraq has made the country a much more violent and dangerous place and is at least partly to blame for the majority of the current wave of suicide bombings.
  12. Jul 23, 2005 #11
    The converse view is that Saddam actually had managed to keep his country free of terrorism simply by enacting massive reprisals when an attack might occur.

    While we look at the Northern Kurds as people fighting a just war against Saddam, he looked upon them as rebels and terrorists. He just gassed them.

    Similar things have been noted after the downfall of the USSR. Lots of nations devolved into internal wars with ethnic cleansing upon receiving their freedom.

    Does anyone here think that if China was to have capitulated to the demands of Tianmen protestors that they would NOT have devolved back into the 'Warring States' period of their history with none of the subsequent 'nation states' represented in the UN?

    Brutal regimes may be nasty but they certainly limit the number of terrorist attacks in their areas.

    And NO I don't support all these brutal dictators just becasue I make an observation about reality.
    (That's for those of you who have a penchant for reading in about 10 lines of things I didn't say.)
  13. Jul 24, 2005 #12
    Your use of the words 'local ideology driven idiots' to describe people who are fighting against the invasion and occupation of their country is interesting; if your country were invaded, I imagine you would want some such 'idiots' to do something about the situation.

    EDIT: I do not condone suicide-bombings as a tactic of resistance to foreign invasion. I do, however, understand why people would want to resist domination by foreign forces.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2005
  14. Jul 24, 2005 #13
    It truly is a shame that we are now required to post these disclaimers or risk being accused of being terrorist sympathizers.
  15. Jul 24, 2005 #14
    Sign of the times, TSM - remember, 'you're either with us or against us' :uhh: It's all 'black' or 'white' nowadays, so if you mean a specific shade of grey, you'd better state this explicitly. It is a shame, I agree - but, oh well: our brave new world (the second time I've used this phrase tonight - I think this is all really getting at me now) :cry:
  16. Jul 24, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Actually it is known (per link posted on other thread) that US forces are responsible for 37% of civilian deaths and the 'suicide bombers' for just 9.5% (and that's including police and recruits as civilians)
  17. Jul 24, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  18. Jul 25, 2005 #17
    Actually it is not known fact. The figures come from A Dossier on Civilain Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005. These figures were arrived at via the numbers printed news articles sorted by people here in the US from various different media sources. I'd have to say that the source material is relatively dubious to begin with but then supposedly the project manager for the dossier has used questionable methodology, not having any qualification as a statistician from what I have read, and has refused to allow certain persons to evaluate his methodology and source material(again, this is what I have read). I'm not saying that it's all fiction just that it seems somewhat questionable.
    Secondly how about we check what exactly the source of these statistics says anyway. The dossier states that 30% of the total were killed by the US in the initial invasion, while the US was fighting the Iraqi military forces. Considering this then, during the time that the US has been dealing with the insurgent forces, the US has been responsable for 7% of the total which is lower(granted not by much) than the percentage attributed to the insurgents. The only insurgent attacks that were counted among the 9.5% you mention were ones specifically aimed at military targets. Any attacks that were not specifically aimed at military targets fell under Unknown Agents which makes up 11%. Then there is also the rather fuzzy catagory of Predominantly Criminal Killings. This may seem like I'm being nit picky but I think it paints a more accurate picture of what these statistics you are citing say.

    Also here's a link to the source straight from the IBC press releases page...
    Another thing to point out is that this disagrees rather wildly with the subject of the OP.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2005
  19. Jul 25, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    This posting is very reminiscent of the poem Tomlinson's Ghost by R. Kipling :smile:
    Perhaps you should read the report before criticising it. At least you could then critique it from a position of knowledge rather than 'I read a piece that said this or I heard a guy who thought that' You will find the methodology and source material is extremely well documented throughout.

    BTW in relation to the insurgents and unknown agents you referenced above you neglected to mention that the report says
    Perhaps you should also have a look at the Oxford Research Groups's home page to view their credentials before trying to dismiss their report. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/aims.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  20. Jul 25, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Be careful saying you can see things from behind the eyes of people who may become murderers. It makes your condemnation appear self-contradictory.

    [edited on request from Evo]
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2005
  21. Jul 25, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    I thought we had settled the debate over what constitutes terrorism?? Insurgents fighting against an occupying army are not terrorists. Check with D. Rumsfeld if you doubt this.
    That's an interesting point of view because the excuse used by the apologists when US forces inflict civilian deaths or torture prisoners is that we need to 'understand' the pressure etc. that they are under. Double standards perhaps? Or just plain bias?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook