What's going on in Fallujah?
POSTED BY: InevitableBetrayal
UPDATED: Monday, November 21, 2005 04:21
VIEWED: 4808
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Assuming that the 600 dead figure from the April attacks is close to correct"
No, the figure is 800. Each death has been validated by the IBC, so the the total is correct even if biased low due to under-reporting. Along with the USA press, the military, and the IHM, Geezer like to play with the truth.
That was 600 civilians, since that's what we were talking about (I thought).
Quoting from the IBC link you provided above:
Quote:
Because reporters were barred from entering the city during the April 2004 siege of Falluja, IBC's estimate of 572 - 616 civilians killed during the April 2004 siege of Falluja is based on reported cumulative totals rather than a series of individual reports...
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which was raised after the seige when people merged to report their dead.
"Iraqi civilian casualties mounting
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."
www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How many soldiers when surveyed reported killing Iraqi non-combatants? 1%? 5%? 10%?
According to a survey conducted by six metnal health spcialists and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) approximately 28% of Marines and 14% of Infantry reported killing AT LEAST ONE Iraqi non-combatant. This translates to
"an absolute minimum of 13,881 noncombatants since March 2003. And that figure omits all civilian deaths caused by the Air Force and by noncombat Army and Marine forces."
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270332/posts
I hpe I will be able to find the original paper.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How many soldiers when surveyed reported killing Iraqi non-combatants? 1%? 5%? 10%?
According to a survey conducted by six metnal health spcialists and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) approximately 28% of Marines and 14% of Infantry reported killing AT LEAST ONE Iraqi non-combatant. This translates to
"an absolute minimum of 13,881 noncombatants since March 2003. And that figure omits all civilian deaths caused by the Air Force and by noncombat Army and Marine forces."
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270332/posts
I hope I will be able to find the original paper.
Here it is. Google is your friend.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13?hits=20&where=fullte
xt&andorexactfulltext=and&searchterm=iraq&sortspec=Score%2Bdesc%2BPUBDATE_SORTDATE%2Bdesc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&searchid=1101088141721_11713&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=nejm
A couple of things about it.
The participants in this survey were in Iraq during the invasion portion of the war, not recently. The percentages given were for soldiers and marines involved in direct combat only, and only during the invasion, not for all US troops in the country. I'd have to say that based on these caveats, the figure of 13,881 might be viewed with some suspicion.
One more thing. The survey question was about "being responsible for the death of a non-combatant" not "killing a non-combatant". Depending on how this was taken by the respondents, it could include being unable to prevent non-combatants from being killed by enemy fire. Remember, this survey concerned post-traumatic stress disorder, not scorekeeping of non-combatant casualties.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which was raised after the seige when people merged to report their dead.
"Iraqi civilian casualties mounting
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."
www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm
But earlier you said the Iraqi Health Ministry was "demonstrably untrustworthy".
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What is my point? I note that IHM, Military briefings and USA press are demonstrably untustworthy
If you trust them now, then you do you believe that only 344 civilians were killed in all of Iraq in April 2004.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I have the time, which has been remarkably short these last 3 or 4 months, I make a game of comparing news reports and press releases to each other - nationally, internationally, and over time.
I've found that one can trust governments to minimize admitting the negatives. Official reports and press releases will always be rosier than real life. Negative reports and releases that have to be issued will be made public Friday afternoon (in the US) b/c Saturday news is overlooked. Real information will be classified.
Corporate national 'news' outlets can be expected go along with the government. Even when there are major internal errors, contradictions to their OWN stories and archives, and obvious omissions, mum's the word.
The exception to this internal collusion is when something will unavoidably become known in the near term. Then generally, 'revised' figures, estimates, reports etc will be released to span the gap between the fantasy and the real. When numbers go up from sources that can be considered servile to the ruling interests, it's because there is a leetle problem that could be ready to blow.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The participants in this survey were in Iraq during the invasion portion of the war, not recently. The percentages given were for soldiers and marines involved in direct combat only, and only during the invasion, not for all US troops in the country. I'd have to say that based on these caveats, the figure of 13,881 might be viewed with some suspicion.
Apparently (I have not had time to look this up) results were adjusted for the amount of actual combat the soldiers experienced, and for months covered by the survey versus the months of occupation.
Quote:
But earlier you said the Iraqi Health Ministry was "demonstrably untrustworthy".
Yes, the IHM is untrustworthy. However, their bias has been low not high, so if the results are low I'm not surprised. What the figures were used for was relative numbers Without being able to examine the data and know its flaws, I don't put too much emphasis on these results. It's just a value against which to check other values. (Hypothesis: Fatalities caused by Coalition/ Iraq security forces are greater than those caused by insurgents. Check it against other reported figures)
My point is not that we are worse than terrorists. It's that we do not live up to OUR ideals and OUR goals. So unlike terrorists, we don't torture and disembowel people and post the results on the interent. (Except in Abu Ghraib and other prison where we killed "a few" prisoners and taken pictures). What we do is kill a significant number of non-combatants and then we hide the numbers- by policy. We do everything in our power to obfuscate, delay, and "disappear" the non-combatant casualties. By burying the information (so to speak) it becomes impossible for the average American to weigh the cost versus the goals: Was it worth killing so many people to eliminate WMD (which didnt' exist)? To topple Saddam?
How many bodies is it worth to "spread democracy"? 1000? 10,000? 1000,000? At what point does killing become counterproductive to installing a democracy? What major groups (like Sunnis) might we be alienating, potentially setting the stage for civil war? Are we moving towards or away from our goals using military occupation? If we face an accelerating or increasing number of civilians deaths, should we change our tactics?
The Pentagon, and even more importantly the Administration, has done everything it can to control the news. I AM NOT TRYING TO SHOW that American soldiers are bad, that the American military is a rapacious slaughtering machine. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the informaiton that we get is tightly controlled at all levels, starting on the ground at Falujah (and elsewhere) extending all the way to the NYTIMES. That is why I keep pointing to the APril and November invasions of Falujah- it provides a case study, not of how many people we've killed, but how that information is "interdicted" by the military, massaged by the press and defended by people who trust what the government says or (worse) believe the government has a right to lie to its citizens. And quite frankly, being lied to by my government- having them manipulate information every single godd*mn step of the way and lie to my face pisses me off no end.
I happen to believe that democracy functions best when we have the information available so that we can make our own individual, independent judgement on what to do next what to expect next. I feel that its' my righ as a citizen to know what my government is doing with my tax money and in my name. Maybe I'm just weird like that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Those animals believe that they must take as many of the Marines with them, even if they die in a hail of bullets at close range. When dealing with these fanatics, who are no more than brainwashed serial killers
Those animals!!!!
don't you mean those people ..those human beings...two wrongs don't make a right..lets not forget that those people you talk of are in their own courntry....and we are over in thier courtry killing them...we have no right to be there to kill them there is no reason for it..when you talk about them you talk about yourself ..you call them animals..well we are all amimals..big deal your just as brainwashed and fantical as they are ...think about it!!
Please ...Please..go and join the miltary...go get a 1rst hand look and taste of war let it cover you in its stench go experience it ..and then come back and talk brainwashing and fantics and animals!!
at the very least just think about it when you have to start dehumamizing people by thinking of them as something other then human beings to justify whats going on..thats a sure sign of brainwashing
what makes you think your better or more deserving then any of them
think!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue and Signym.
You have your opinion on the reporting and number of civilian casualties, with which I do not agree. I have my opinion, with which you don't agree. We can go on finding quotes from various sources which appear to support our positions forever. If you want to keep that up, go ahead, and just take it as read that I disagree with you. I've said my say, and don't have anything else to add.
Any opinions on the upcoming Iraqi elections?
Edit: and thanks, HKCavalier, for the wakeup call in the other thread. Point taken.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I could trust our government with at least SOME transparency, then my hackles would come down. But right now all I see is secrecy, evasion, manipulation, obfuscation, delay, and proven lying (You know, the kind where internal documents are opposite of public fodder.) on every front, from tabulated election results to Social Security actuarials to the number of dead Iraqi civilians. That part has very little to do with you, Geezer.
I just can't seem to get my hackles down over being lied to. I'm REALLY sorry but I just can't no matter how hard I try. Sorry.
EDITED TO ADD: Geezer, would you split the link that immediately follows "Google is you friend"? That way the text wouldn't run off the page. Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME