100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

With 950 people per square km, assuming that you killed all of them, in order to kill 100,000 people in Baghdad alone you would have to carpet-bomb 105 square km of Baghdad, or roughly twice the area of Manhattan. Again, I think someone would take notice.

Assuming you did it all in one go, in the smallest possible geographic area, that would indeed be difficult to hide.

[glatt]

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

[jaguar]

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

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Carbonated_Brains

Shrodinger's Cat: You're relying too much on a single study. The Lancet, although peer reviewed and respected, is not infallible. One single study by one statistician, whatever his methods, does not constitute an entire ironstrong moral argument toward the idea that 100,000 civilians have been killed. The Iraqis don't live in huts and caves; they are documented citizens and records will eventually show how many have gone missing and been killed. As a scientist, you should respect the ideal of holding each and every study up to the light before you form a solid opinion.

That single study is the only one we have at the moment. I, too, would like to see more data. As you have pointed out, we may eventually have it. But as you also pointed out, you are skeptical of Iraqi's doing the count. The final count will probably be done by the Iraqi side, and, thus, dismissed by you.

[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.