29-10-2004 01:38									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1) Counting the victims of suicide bombings as victims of American intervention. 2) Counting victims of common crime as victims of American intervention.

Both of which are results of the complete breakdown of Iraqi law and order caused by the American invasion.

	29-10-2004 01:46									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If 100.000 is true, that's an awfull lot.
That would indeed raise the question if Iraq is indeed better of without Sadam... or not.

For now I doubt the 100.000 number. It sounds way too heigh. 100.000 is really much.
Besides that do I doubt if the numbers of during the Sadam regime are trustable. And of course if the interviewed people are trustable.

But in the end, if the 100.000 number is true, it might have been better to keep Sadam in place. (Eventhough 10 more years of Sadam might have gotten 100.000 extra deaths as well, assuming that between now and 1 year rest will return to Iraq)

	29-10-2004 01:53									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The United States is directly responsible for one half of a percentage point of the population of Iraq annihilated in 18 months, yea, I believe that.

Man has heart attack in Mosul, dies, because we bombed Falluja, that's how this great magnitude of a number comes to be. Man carrying AK47 dressed in civilian clothes, shoots at coalition forces, is killed, must be a civilian because he is wearing civilian clothes.

I got some land for you guys in Louisana for sale.

	29-10-2004 02:16									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

100,000 deaths is honestly too high.

The typically reported number is 10,000 to 15,000, which is too high, this time in the figurative sense.

	29-10-2004 02:26									#35
	Inflate your Upload Space

We started the war. We are therefore responsible for every death that has resulted from the war.

	29-10-2004 02:28									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Both of which are results of the complete breakdown of Iraqi law and order caused by the American invasion.

there was of course, no common crime in Iraq before the invasion.

And of course some of the people who are killing Iraqis in the '"insurgency" are the same people who were killing Iraqis when Saddam was in power.

But its Americas fault, of course.

	29-10-2004 02:31									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Oxblog:

(quoting IBC)'The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq. [Emphasis in original --ed.]
The ambiguity of this last paragraph is striking. It asserts that collateral damage caused by either side is the result of "our" , i.e. US-UK, intervention in Iraq.'

Oxblog responds: The application of this standard is even more striking. It includes not just those civilians killed by insurgents' bullets and bombs in the heat of battle, but civlians deliberately murdered by suicide bombers affiliated with the insurgents. This is a total perversion of the concept of moral reponsibility.

In order to understand the method behind this madness, one ought to consult the most recent IBC press release, which explains the political significance of its work:
'So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on.

Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500...

For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return...

The claim that a strategy which produces 14,000 civilian deaths is the expression of a "philosophy of tolerance and freedom" is a claim which we find incomprehensible. Our incomprehension is shared, we believe, by the majority of the world's people.'


The hypocrisy of this statement is stunning. IBC seeks to demonstrate that the United States is more dangerous than its terrorist opponents by blaming the United States for acts of premeditated murder that those same terrorists have perpetrated.

	29-10-2004 02:32									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara We started the war. We are therefore responsible for every death that has resulted from the war.

No, we are responsible for deaths that occured due to events that would not have happened without the war- events that might have occured with or without the war don't count.

	29-10-2004 02:33									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, this means that America should be responsible for the increase in common crime.

	29-10-2004 02:34									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris What's wrong with 1) and 2)? And 3) may be wrong, but it doesn't have any effect on the actual number of casualties.

1. The american intervention did not require suicide bombings as a response. Even if you assert,as some have, that a nationalist insurgency is the necessary concomitant of a war like this, it should be noted that some Iraqi insurgents have themselves been shocked at the suicide bombings.

2. Counting common crimes? Cause er, they happen anyway. Youd have to calculate the surplus of deaths from common crimes versus the average.

3. It was simply an indication of the general unreliability of IBC

	29-10-2004 02:35									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Evil Knevil [Bernard Lewis] Arabs are notorious exaggerators [/Bernard Lewis]

Or in the other direction, the punchline from an old joke:
"Some of them said they warn't dead, but you know how they lie."

	29-10-2004 02:38									#42
	Tired of ads?

The Health Ministry was reporting recently that there were very large numbers of civilians killed in our bombings.

	29-10-2004 02:42									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ramo The Health Ministry was reporting recently that there were very large numbers of civilians killed in our bombings.

Yeah, and anybody who not have his weapon fused to his body by the blasts has been reported to the authorities as a civilian.

	29-10-2004 02:44									#44
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. The american intervention did not require suicide bombings as a response. Even if you assert,as some have, that a nationalist insurgency is the necessary concomitant of a war like this, it should be noted that some Iraqi insurgents have themselves been shocked at the suicide bombings.

So you are going to argue about what is a 'necessary' tactic and what isn't? It won't change anything about the identity of those who caused them.

quote: 2. Counting common crimes? Cause er, they happen anyway. Youd have to calculate the surplus of deaths from common crimes versus the average.

Well, their study DID take into account the Saddam-era mortality rate and said it was half of what it is right now, which means this point is pretty much pointless.

quote: 3. It was simply an indication of the general unreliability of IBC

It doesn't seem that bad. If you can attack them on their numbers, do it, but don't try to discredit them on irrelevant facts.

	29-10-2004 02:51									#45
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The study used the number of people brought to hospitals (possibly morgues too, I don't recall). Insurgents generally wouldn't bring their casualties to hospitals to stay away from the authorities.

	29-10-2004 02:53									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Well, their study DID take into account the Saddam-era mortality rate and said it was half of what it is right now, which means this point is pretty much pointless. .

youre confusing the Hopkins study with the IBC study.

	29-10-2004 03:04									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

and let me ask you this - there were plenty of folks who said that they would welcome it if Iraqis overthrew Saddam - they just opposed the US doing it, because of implications for international law, etc.

Now IF the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam is not likely that the Sunni Arabs in general, and the Baathists. Wahabis and others privileged under the old regime in particular would have fought to retain power? Aided by foreign forces, as now? And that the Shiites and Kurds would have fought to establish the new regime? In a civil war probably far bloodier than what we have seen in Iraq? If what you would have liked to see (an internal overthrow of Saddam) would have resulted in as many, or more deaths as the current troubles, is there any meaning to "blaming the invasion"

What to do Iraqis think. From what I can read, among the majority Shias and some others as well, there is anger at the US not for invading, but for not coming down harder and faster on the terrorists. The Allawi govt is under considerable pressure from the southern tribes to deal with Fallujah, and to do so soon.

	29-10-2004 03:50									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark and let me ask you this - there were plenty of folks who said that they would welcome it if Iraqis overthrew Saddam - they just opposed the US doing it, because of implications for international law, etc. Now IF the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam is not likely that the Sunni Arabs in general, and the Baathists. Wahabis and others privileged under the old regime in particular would have fought to retain power? Aided by foreign forces, as now?

Few people, I suppose, are technically opposed to Saddam being deposed; the problem is probably that in the current state of Iraq, democracy is hardly feasible anyway, which means that he would be replaced by someone as bad, worse, or marginally better.

quote: What to do Iraqis think. From what I can read, among the majority Shias and some others as well, there is anger at the US not for invading, but for not coming down harder and faster on the terrorists. The Allawi govt is under considerable pressure from the southern tribes to deal with Fallujah, and to do so soon.

America has never been terribly popular over there anyway. Most Iraqis have many reasons to be angry at America, first their long-term presence (who wants foreign troops running his own country), and on top of that the lack of benefits brought by this presence.

Originally, the average Iraqi was probably skeptic-to-hostile about American occupation, and now, seeing its failure, is probably absolutely furious. America just missed an opportunity to prove them wrong when it was still time.

	29-10-2004 04:47									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap No, we are responsible for deaths that occured due to events that would not have happened without the war- events that might have occured with or without the war don't count.

You would also have to account for deaths that were prevented that would have happened were it not for the war. Of course that is not saying that a life lost for a life saved is a justification, but its a point of note when discussing statistical responsibility.

I would also question the degree of culpability or responsibility; being a required condition for the increase in deaths does not mean the increase is wholly are even partially the responsibility of the requisite condition. Failures related to duty of care would also have to exist for that to be so.

	29-10-2004 05:21									#50
	Increase Your PM Length

This is how it happens.

Journalist Seymour Hersh who broke the ABU Graib and My Lai.

quote: HERSH: I got a call last week from a soldier -- it's different now, a lot of communication, 800 numbers. He's an American officer and he was in a unit halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. It's a place where we claim we've done great work at cleaning out the insurgency. He was a platoon commander. First lieutenant, ROTC guy. It was a call about this. He had been bivouacing outside of town with his platoon. It was near, it was an agricultural area, and there was a granary around. And the guys that owned the granary, the Iraqis that owned the granary... It was an area that the insurgency had some control, but it was very quiet, it was not Fallujah. It was a town that was off the mainstream. Not much violence there. And his guys, the guys that owned the granary, had hired, my guess is from his language, I wasn't explicit -- we're talking not more than three dozen, thirty or so guards. Any kind of work people were dying to do. So Iraqis were guarding the granary. His troops were bivouaced, they were stationed there, they got to know everybody... They were a couple weeks together, they knew each other. So orders came down from the generals in Baghdad, we want to clear the village, like in Samarra. And as he told the story, another platoon from his company came and executed all the guards, as his people were screaming, stop. And he said they just shot them one by one. He went nuts, and his soldiers went nuts. And he's hysterical. He's totally hysterical. And he went to the captain. He was a lieutenant, he went to the company captain. And the company captain said, "No, you don't understand. That's a kill. We got thirty-six insurgents." You read those stories where the Americans, we take a city, we had a combat, a hundred and fifteen insurgents are killed. You read those stories. It's shades of Vietnam again, folks, body counts... You know what I told him? I said, fella, I said: you've complained to the captain. He knows you think they committed murder. Your troops know their fellow soldiers committed murder. Shut up. Just shut up. Get through your tour and just shut up. You're going to get a bullet in the back. You don't need that. And that's where we are with this war.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000172.html

	29-10-2004 05:27									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark "Violence accounted for most of the excess death and air strikes from (U.S.-led) coalition forces accounted for the most violent deaths," the report added" Spiff, it really helps to read the linked article.

Yep, read it afterwards. I shouldn't post when I'm tired and unwilling to make any effort

I don't feel like using this study. Not because of CNN's spin, but because the scientist seems overly biased on the issue (as the 2003 article appears). Besides, even if the amount of victims is true, the causes may very well be different, given that the causes of deaths are testimonies.

However, I do not rule out that the amount of victims may be far superior than what IBC says as well, given that their methodology is to count the deaths that can be confirmed by media or medical sources.

In any case, I am glad the war didn't kill 500,000 as many feared prior to it. And nonetheless, I'm still opoosing it, like I have been from the beginning.

	29-10-2004 05:30									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Oxblog responds: The application of this standard is even more striking. It includes not just those civilians killed by insurgents' bullets and bombs in the heat of battle, but civlians deliberately murdered by suicide bombers affiliated with the insurgents. This is a total perversion of the concept of moral reponsibility.

The people who write Oxblog are obviously thick.

It is not a perversion of the concept of moral responsibility if you understand that in any sane (i.e. not rightwing) sense. For example, if you, as a policy maker, knowingly adopt policies which you have good reason to believe will increase the number of deaths from violent crime, you are responsible for those deaths if you do it. The criminals who commit the murders are also responsible - responsibility is not a zero sum game, we must always consider the consequences of our decisions on the decisions that others will be likely to make.

Bush and Co. were told numerous times that this was likely to happen, that there would likely be an insurgency in response to an invasion, and that the death rate would spike for numerous reasons all connected with the invasion. Therefore, they are responsible for 100,000 needless deaths in just over a year. That's worse than Saddam.

Both Bush and Blair are no more than common criminals.

	29-10-2004 05:33									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Well, this means that America should be responsible for the increase in common crime.

Yes. It was a foreseeable consequence.

It's just like the person who refuses to tell the Nazi soldiers that he has Jews living in his basement. Sure, they are responsible for killing the Jews if he tells them, but he is responsible too, if he knows that they will kill the Jews.

	29-10-2004 05:39									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Yes. It was a foreseeable consequence.

Actually, before and during the war, a humanitarian crisis was foreseen (and preparations were made), but the extent of the political crisis -as Saddam's regime collapsed nearly instantly at the fall of Baghdad- baffled everyone. The initial surge of crime after Saddam wasn't foreseeable, at least not to that extent.

	29-10-2004 05:41									#55
	Tired of ads?

quote: Actually, before and during the war, a humanitarian crisis was foreseen (and preparations were made), but the extent of the political crisis -as Saddam's regime collapsed nearly instantly at the fall of Baghdad- baffled everyone.

It didn't baffle me, or any of the people I know who predicted social collapse. There was a reason Saddam was a tyrant, and that reason is that Iraq is a very unstable country with high ethnic and religious tensions.

	29-10-2004 05:44									#56
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It didn't baffle me

Gee... since you knew for sure what was going to happen, and didn't do anything to stop it, doesn't that make you resposible as well... and just as much a common criminal as Bush and company

	29-10-2004 05:50									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Gee... since you knew for sure what was going to happen, and didn't do anything to stop it.

"Ought" implies "can". Last time I looked, I was not the leader of a superpower or a high placed government advisor.

But I did attend all the Toronto anti-war rallies (and they were bloody cold too). That's about the best I could do, other than telling my students about the evils of Bush (which I refuse to do on principle).

	29-10-2004 05:56									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I am not sure how far it is off. What do you think the ration of combatant to collateral deaths is? The combatant deaths among the Iragis isurgents and terroists interlopers may since the end of major combat may well exceed 30,000. There was likely over 4,000 in the heaviest month, April 2004. Many in the "we do not take body counts" army are keeping an informal score card, but all such numbers are very aproximate.

	29-10-2004 05:58									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

This topic has made me angry.

I feel better after posting this image.

Attachment: sedition.jpg
This has been downloaded 64 time(s).

	29-10-2004 06:09									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon "Ought" implies "can". Last time I looked, I was not the leader of a superpower or a high placed government advisor. But I did attend all the Toronto anti-war rallies (and they were bloody cold too). That's about the best I could do, other than telling my students about the evils of Bush (which I refuse to do on principle).

What class do you teach Agggy?