100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war

[glatt]

What exactly was "Shock and Awe?" Wasn't it carpet bombing Bahgdad before the invasion?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by glatt

What exactly was "Shock and Awe?" Wasn't it carpet bombing Bahgdad before the invasion?

Baghdad was not carpet-bombed. We even left the lights on until day 5. There has never been a higher incentive not to kill civilians.

[jaguar]

UT - take a look at some recent pics of fallujah.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jaguar

UT - take a look at some recent pics of fallujah.

Yes, Jag, do take a look at what the Marines and Iraqis will do together to a city after they have moved the civilians to camps.

[Beestie]

[proclaimation]

Ahem. thump, thump -- this thing on? Testing. One. Two. Three.

feedback screech.

We, the United States of America, slaughtered 100,000* innocent, civilian Iraqi women, children and elderly people in cold blood even though we could easily have avoided killing even one of them.

* Give or take 93,000.

[/proclaimation]

There. I said it.

[jaguar]

you missed the 'and took their money'.

[jaguar]

Yes, Jag, do take a look at what the Marines and Iraqis will do together to a city after they have moved the civilians to camps.

You have to be kidding me.

[Undertoad]

Well a lot of them relocated pre-action

We killed 2000 in Fallujah. Here's the powerpoint

[jaguar]

A fucking powerpoint presentation? Christ a website would have been easier.
First things first, this document immediately tries to imply that insurgents were a regular fighting force, either they are, then the Geneva convention applies and the US are in violation when it comes to guantanamo, or they aren't, make up your fucking mind, you can't have it both ways. Secondly, since when was a video of how to throw a grenade a fucking atrocity? Thirdly, what is that foreign fighter involvement document? Looks like a grocery store accounts book to me.

Of course, I'm sure whoever wrote this little lump of propaganda is sure that every single death in Fallujah was an insurgent. Of course. No question about it. Damn insurgents, eh? Never mind the Red Cross official estimate that nearly 50% of the toll there was civvies, 800 in fact. That was the lowball end. But lets not let these partisan organisations get in the way of The Truth(tm(, right UT?

Hard to tell though, when they won't even let the red cross in to deliver medical aid. Makes it easy to have nice low death tolls of all insurgents when you can clean up after your boys have been through. We've all seen the videos demonstrating the callous disregard by US troops for life and property why should be assume their death tolls are any more upstanding or accurate?

[Undertoad]

Makes it easy to have nice low death tolls of all insurgents when you can clean up after your boys have been through. We've all seen the videos demonstrating the callous disregard by US troops for life and property why should be assume their death tolls are any more upstanding or accurate?

You know, I think we've come around to my point here: causing a high number of deaths of women and children via coalition air strikes would require both ill intent for the civilians, combined with a massive coverup.

The military must both want to kill people and want to cover it up. Even in Fallujah, this is the only way for a numeracy-literate and war-literate person to come up with a valid explanation for the Lancet number.

I'm sure that our resident world traveler believes that of the US Mil, and I'm not saying they're not capable of it but I do think it would be a stretch. After all there were embeds involved, some of whom documented military activity which some people found questionable. (I suppose Mr. Sites missed the massive civvy killing that would have won him the Pulitzer, but perhaps it was happening the next block over.)

So Jag, what is left for you to figure out in this mystery, is motive, a critical factor in any murder investigation and what I asked for in post #28:

Why would we kill that number of people? Bad aim?

[jaguar]

easier to spray a room and shoot anything that moves, including any number of the 50000 civvies that were left in the city than it is to pick out and selectively fire at those firing weapons in your direction.

[Undertoad]

sorry man, I edited my post after you posted. the bit about the embeds and kevin sites is my answer to your answer

[jaguar]

I doubt documenting US war crimes would have got him a pullitzer, it's fairly routine.
There were documented civvy killings (and very well documented killing of wounded POWs or whatever it's legally astute to kill people you shoot these days) in fallujah. I'm not suggesting, as you would like to imply, some kind of mass-scale genocide, merely that many that the US would love to tack down as 'dead insurgents' are most likely poor bastards in the wrong place at the wrong time. I said 800 civvie deaths, lowball, in fallujah, considering the scale of conflict and the number of dead, not to mention the source, you're going to have a real tough time shooting that down.

Were 100,000 killed overall? Maybe, maybe more, maybe less, I don't have a goddamn clue but plenty of innocent people have been killed by US forces, either though inaction, outright murder or accident and there's no escaping that fact.

[Undertoad]

That is true, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the number 100,000 is the topic of the thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That is true, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the number 100,000 is the topic of the thread.

UT, the topic goes right back to how you also knew those aluminum tubes were for weapons of mass destruction. You acknowledge error only because you have no alternative. But you still fail to acknowledge a reason why you were wrong. Same reason is why you are now challenging the '98,000 dead Iraqi' number. You just know - facts be damned. Or better still, you still blindly believe what the administration says. The administration says 15,000 dead. Therefore it must be 15,000? History alone says a number from that source cannot be trusted. Why do you still believe what they hype?

If you have a problem with that number, then stop the wild speculation as to why those people died. Again, provide a reasonable study that either has numbers based in logic, or that explains how so many Iraqis (military and civilian) died. I keep asking for this that you don't provide.

That is topic. Does UT, et al believe science or does he believe the administration spin? Those who believe reality verses those who blindly follow spin and myths. Is it 98,000 dead Iraqis due to Americans, or the politically spun 15,000? The first number is based upon facts. The second ... well we don't even know how they got that number. Karl Rove? Same person who hyped an aluminum tube myth?

History alone says numbers from the administration are not credible. Need we cite another recent example? The latest massive cost increases in the administration's prescription drug program? By now, UT, I would have thought you learned that lesson - why you were totally wrong about aluminum tubes. What is the subject? What numbers are to be believed? Those based upon science or those hyped by an administration that often lies? Shrodinger's Cat has demonstrated why the study is so credible. UT - your only response has been, "I don't believe it; facts be damned". Same reasoning used to hype those alumimun tubes.

Don't just acknowledege you were wrong. Address the reason why you were wrong. Same reason is being used to challenge 'America's 98,000 dead Iraqis'.