What's going on in Fallujah?
POSTED BY: InevitableBetrayal
UPDATED: Monday, November 21, 2005 04:21
VIEWED: 4808
PAGE 4 of 5
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 hpe I will be able to find the original paper.
Just out of curiousity, How many Iraqi insurgents have been polled about killing non-combatants and Iraqi Civilians?
It really seems ridiculous to me to constantly portray the military in such a onesided fashion, while completely ignoring the foreign insurgents and their actions against non-combatants and civilians as if they don't exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny: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!!
Ugh... A good many (majority) of the insurgents are not from Iraq, but are from other Islamic countries. It is far too easy to simplify a situation, by pretending that it is black and white. The Islamo-fascists look upon Israelis and Westerners as animals and teach such things to their children as soon as they can talk. It makes killing non-muslims that much easier. The same can be said for the Israelis.
Those of us who are not radicals view their actions as barbaric and non-human. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then it most likely is a duck.
Also, there are many who have joined the military and who are currently putting their lives on the line. Please stop declaring that everyone should join up to see the horrors of war first hand. I doubt very much that that would be a way to change anyones views on what the Insurgent/terrorists are. Quite the contrary, I believe it would prove the point and perhaps enhance it. I understand your feelings and for the most part can sympathize with them in their naivete. Unfortunately the world and war isn't as black and white as you would like to think it is or ever was.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ConnorFlynn- Apparently my postings have been seen as a diatribe against the American soldier. That's not my point, I support our soldiers evenif I don't support the mission. They're in a tough situtaion and doing the best they can, and I hope and pray that each and every one comes home safe and sane {edited to add} and morally unbent.
But when a general can say that he knows of no civilian fatalities in Falujah, the sheer brass just kind of takes my breath away. (Maybe that's why they're called "brass"?) Why does IBC have to squeegee the truth off Falujah streets? Why do civilian deaths have to be inferred from a stateside mental health survey? The military already has better data than anyone will ever have. What advantage does the military have in classifying civilian death data, when they publicize "insurgent" deaths?
If the military simply came out and said- "Since the invasion, xxx number of women, children and elderly have have been killed"... and their values could be validated (right now, I wouldn't trust the military upper-ups with "The sky is blue" w/o checking first) I might say "You know, for an invasion and resistance of this type, that's not too bad." Or I might say "That's kind of high; I think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do". Or I might even say "WOW! that's real professional soldiering!"
But what I'm reacting to is the CONSTANT, UNREMITTING SPIN. I feel like a pair of pants in the dryer. After a while, I just want to puke! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ConnorFlynn- Apparently my postings have been seen as a diatribe against the American soldier. That's not my point, I support our soldiers evenif I don't support the mission. They're in a tough situtaion and doing the best they can, and I hope and pray that each and every one comes home safe and sane.
But when a general can say that he knows of no civilian fatalities in Falujah, the sheer brass just kind of takes my breath away. (Maybe that's why they're called "brass"?) Why does IBC have to squeegee the truth off Falujah streets? Why do civilian deaths have to be inferred from a stateside mental health survey? The military already has better data than anyone will ever have. What advantage does the military have in classifying civilian death data, when they publicize "insurgent" deaths?
If the military simply came out and said- "Since the invasion, xxx number of women, children and elderly have have been killed"... and their values could be validated (right now, I wouldn't trust the military upper-ups with "The sky is blue" w/o checking first) I might say "You know, for an invasion and resistance of this type, that's not too bad." Or I might say "That's kind of high; I think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do". Or I might even say "WOW! that's real professional soldiering!"
But what I'm reacting to is the CONSTANT, UNREMITTING SPIN. I feel like a pair of pants in the dryer. After a while, I just want to puke!
Fair enough. Personally, the media in general spends all its time looking for negative aspects of the war for means of exploitation, to promote news. If I were the "Brass", I also wouldn't make direct accounting in those regards. It's too easy to demonize troops wrongly, regardless of facts or reasoning. Also, I would see it as very difficult to ascertain specific numbers of civilian casualties caused by the Allies, for a number of reasons:
1. Insurgents and Civilians dress the same. Very difficult to determine who's who.
2. Insurgents have been killing any and all civilians that don't support them.
3. Civilians were given an opportunity to flee Fallujah for example, prior to invasion. Therefore the coalition attempted to minimize civilian deaths. It is safe to assume then that those "civilians" that were left, were either sympathizers or were held in Fallujah against their will. Some were freed, some were unfortunately killed. *please don't take that as minimizing their value as human beings.
Personally, I don't see anything that would be considered productive at this juncture, from posting "Actual Civilian Casualty" counts. I would see it as an opportunity to demonize our troops even more as well as obscure the big picture. It would also be considered suspect regardless of factual basis or not, by the looney fringe.
I believe the Coalition is doing its absolute best to minimize innocent deaths.
In regards to spin - I hear you loud and clear.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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!!Quote:
I've had plenty of time to think of them as animals, since September 2001!!!!!!!!!!!! We are, after all, talking about the same kind of "person", hijacking airplanes or shooting from mosques.
Everyone dies alone.NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Relief, Medical Supplies Reach Fallujah
Updated: Monday, Nov. 22, 2004 - 6:57 PM
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS
Associated Press Writer
GENEVA (AP) - The Iraqi Red Crescent carried relief and medical supplies into Fallujah on Monday, the first time an independent organization has visited the embattled Iraqi city since U.S.-led forces invaded two weeks ago, the Red Cross said.
The convoy consisted of ambulances and three trucks loaded with blankets, drinking water and first-aid kits, said Ahmed Rawi, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad.
http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=255&sid=339328
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A good many (majority) of the insurgents are not from Iraq, but are from other Islamic countries.
Less than 2% of captives are foreign. Fallujah's insurgent leadership was local.
Quote:
( http://www.boston.com/dailynews/329/world/Insurgent_held_Fallujah_was_
un:.shtml
By Hamza Hendawi, Associated Press, 11/24/2004 13:56
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) Before the assault on Fallujah, U.S. officials described the city as a den of foreign terrorists, but its top commanders were an electrician and a mosque preacher both natives of the community and now on the run from American forces.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Less than 2% of captives are foreign.
Perhaps because they'd already left?
Quote:
Basra Police Arrest Five Arab Fighters
Updated: Thursday, Nov. 25, 2004 - 9:30 AM
By SAMEER N. YACOUB
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Five Arab foreign fighters who had escaped from Fallujah were arrested near southern Basra, where they were planning to attack coalition bases and police stations, authorities said Thursday.
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=1958
But still probably not a majority. Numbers get inflated by all parties, sort of like the 100,000 additional deaths reported in the Lancet became 100,000 civilian deaths, then 100,000 women and children, then 100,000 women and children killed by the coalition. Truth is the first casualty, on both sides.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All this was addressed in another post, so I'll just mention a few points here:
The Lancet excluded 2/3 of the violent-death casualties when they calculated the 100,000 figure. Obviously if they had not excluded data from Fallujah, the projection would have been 3 times higher. Let me do the math for you - for a total of 300,000 excess deaths. (1 - 2/3 = 1/3. 1/3 x = 100,000, x = 300,000.)
The 'women and children' calculation excluded ALL males between the ages of 15 and 60. That left a total of 54% of casualties as women and children (and one elderly male). The last time I checked, the term MOST means 'more than half'. MOST casualties (at a minimum) WERE women and children as obvious civilians.
Now, were ALL males age 15-60 insurgents? If they were, the US is in a boatload of trouble in Iraq. If not, then a MINIMUM of 54% of casualties were civilian, and it was probably more.
Nearly all deaths were caused by US forces, through airstrikes, missile, mortar etc attacks, and not by coalition gunshot or street violence.
I hope this clears up any confusion you might have.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
All this was addressed in another post, so I'll just mention a few points here:
The Lancet excluded 2/3 of the violent-death casualties when they calculated the 100,000 figure. Obviously if they had not excluded data from Fallujah, the projection would have been 3 times higher. Let me do the math for you - for a total of 300,000 excess deaths. (1 - 2/3 = 1/3. 1/3 x = 100,000, x = 300,000.)
But the authors of the survey exclude Fallujah because they consider it an outlier, causing uncertainty in the results, so your calculation is just that, yours, not theirs.
Quote:
We estimate that there were 98 000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000–194 000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja. In our Falluja sample, we recorded 53 deaths when only 1·4 were expected under the national pre-war rate. This indicates a point estimate of about 200 000 excess deaths in the 3% of Iraq represented by this cluster. However, the uncertainty in this value is substantial and implies additional deaths above those measured in the rest of the country.
Discussion
This survey indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is probably about 100 000 people, and may be much higher.
Based on Table 2 of the report:
Excluding Fallujah, 15% of the additional post-invasion deaths were due to violence. Including Fallujah, 51% of the post-invasion deaths were due to violence. This leaves us with between 15,000 and 51,000 deaths due to violence in all forms. It also shows how the Fallujah figures skew the calculations. This is probably why the authors decided to exclude them.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The 'women and children' calculation excluded ALL males between the ages of 15 and 60. That left a total of 54% of casualties as women and children (and one elderly male). The last time I checked, the term MOST means 'more than half'. MOST casualties (at a minimum) WERE women and children as obvious civilians.
Excluding Fallujah, of the 21 deaths by violence due to all causes in the survey, 8 (38%) were women, children, and the elderly. Including Fallujah, of the 73 violent deaths in the survey, 35 (49%) were women, children, and the elderly. Extrapolating this to the number of violent deaths as a whole, between 5,700 and 25,000 women, children, and elderly died by violence of some sort. Once again, Fallujah seems to cause anomolies. Even the lower figure is too many, and a matter of concern, but even the high figure of 25,000 is not 100,000.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nearly all deaths were caused by US forces, through airstrikes, missile, mortar etc attacks, and not by coalition gunshot or street violence.
Interestingly enough, the discussion of the relative numbers of civilians killed by coalition forces, and in airstrikes, (page 7 of the report) uses casualty counts that include Fallujah. I'm not sure why these figures would be used after the authors decided that Fallujah figures were not representative. They give no separate non-Fallujah figures, as they do in other places, which makes any analysis impossible.
The Lancet report is here:
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf
You may have to get a password and login to read it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME