At last some 'official' Iraqi civilian casualty stats

[crozby 0]

So much for the idea that insurgents are killing most of the Iraqis...

Quote

Official figures, compiled by Iraq's Ministry of Health, break down deaths according to insurgent and coalition activity. They are usually available only to Iraqi cabinet ministers.


The data covers the period 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005, and relates to all conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals. The figures exclude, where known, the deaths of insurgents.

The figures reveal that 3,274 Iraqi civilians were killed and 12,657 wounded in conflict-related violence during the period.

Of those deaths, 60% - 2,041 civilians - were killed by the coalition and Iraqi security forces. A further 8,542 were wounded by them.

Insurgent attacks claimed 1,233 lives, and wounded 4,115 people, during the same period.

Quote

Conflct-related civilian deaths in Iraq. July 2004 to January 2005

3,274 civilians killed in total
2,041 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
1,233 by insurgents
12,657 civilians wounded in total
8,542 by coalition and Iraqi security forces
4,115 by insurgents

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4217413.stm)

[Gravitymaster 0]

It doesn't say how they differenciated a civilian from an insurgent. Did they have a reporter there to verify whether the dead, non-uniformed Iraqi was carrying a gun or hadn't been firing at coalition forces? I can't imagine a situation where this information could be accurate. Please explain.

[freeflydrew 0]

It also doesn't say if they include all the INNOCENT civilians that were blown to pieces while their buildings exploded... I doubt anyone has sifted through the reckage, trying to piece everyone back together and get a real casualty count.

[GQ_jumper 4]

how do they determine who killed who? i'm calling bullsh$t

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It also doesn't say if they include all the INNOCENT civilians that were blown to pieces while their buildings exploded... I doubt anyone has sifted through the reckage, trying to piece everyone back together and get a real casualty count.

In other words....

"It doesn't make the U.S. military look bad enough, so I'm not going to believe it"....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

The retraction about the misrepresentation of the statistics, printed by the BBC, in the referenced article:

The BBC reported these figures as meaning that the deaths and injuries resulting from "military operations" were the result of actions by the Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces.

Today, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to military operations. It states that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis killed by terrorists, not only those killed by Coalition forces or Iraqi security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action included terrorists themselves, and Iraqi security forces.

The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday.

They were a bit quick to blame the U.S. for all those deaths. Imagine that...

[Trent 0]

John, I expect the silence on your post to be as deafening as it was when I went through the anti-war site, "Iraq Body Count's" list of casualties case by case and tried to identify what was probably a casualty from terrorist action, US action, and indetermined action. Bottom line was... terrorists seem to kill more than people think, very very few incidents could be identified as 100% "innocent" casualties resulting from Coalition action, and many claims of casualties were aggregate claims from hospitals and included any deaths from the beginning of the Coalition efforts and, incedentally, had no means of identifying a casualty as an "innocent" or terrorist.

When you come down to it, you have the people here who think that anyone who dies in Iraq was an innocent deliberately murdered by Coalition forces, and you have those who think about it and ask questions and realize that the rhetoric isn't very accurate at all. This battle has been fought several times already. Most anti-war people won't even question anything that seems to (logically) dispute their claims.

Oh, hello again!

[Gravitymaster 0]

So what else is new?

[crozby 0]

Quote

When you come down to it, you have the people here who think that anyone who dies in Iraq was an innocent deliberately murdered by Coalition forces

I would be really surprised if you found anyone posting here thinks that. I posted the article because it purported to be the fist 'official' report on casualty figures. It was said to have come from the interim Iraqi government so one would hope it was vaguely realistic.

[Trent 0]

Quote

It was said to have come from the interim Iraqi government so one would hope it was vaguely realistic.

No, it came from the BBC. It was the Iraqis who straightened out the BBC's misinterpretation of their stats.

Quote

I would be really surprised if you found anyone posting here thinks that.

Hyperbole, but don't be too surprised. Stick around or go back and read some of the discussions about casualties. You'll see it.

Oh, hello again!

[vmsfreaky1 0]

Quote

coalition forces

How abou the term occupying forces or invasion forces, you people change your terminology to make yourselves seem so righteous.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How abou the term occupying forces or invasion forces, you people change your terminology to make yourselves seem so righteous.

I'm fond of "liberation agents".

. . =(_8^(1)

[justinb138 0]

Quote

How abou the term occupying forces or invasion forces, you people change your terminology to make yourselves seem so righteous.

You people? Ohh. I see what this is about..

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

How abou the term occupying forces or invasion forces, you people change your terminology to make yourselves seem so righteous.

You people? Ohh. I see what this is about..

Didn't Archie Bunker use that term quite a bit?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

When you come down to it, you have the people here who think that anyone who dies in Iraq was an innocent deliberately murdered by Coalition forces

I would be really surprised if you found anyone posting here thinks that. I posted the article because it purported to be the fist 'official' report on casualty figures. It was said to have come from the interim Iraqi government so one would hope it was vaguely realistic.

My guess is we would find a lot of people on here who would say you posted it because you were thinking it would be a good Bush bash.

[crozby 0]

Quote

My guess is we would find a lot of people on here who would say you posted it because you were thinking it would be a good Bush bash.

I would suggest those people switch to a variety of weed that doesn't make them so paranoid.

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

News:

"The BBC has apologised for incorrectly broadcasting figures which suggested more Iraqi civilians had been killed by coalition and Iraqi forces than by insurgents..."

Full story: BBC