We don't do bodycounts

jonny72

Does anyone remember the days when the US military constantly chirped that line out.. so do they or don't they?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=KVUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The sad thing is that there really are people, many people who actually believe all this propaganda, they really do believe that every other week an Al Qaeda number 2 is killed, they really do believe that x number of people dead were all militants, they really do believe that coalition troops and their commanders are more like characters out of Saving Private Ryan, rather than dumb trigger-happy 20-somethings who hate the locals, hate the country, and couldn't give a damn about the whole situation. Very depressing altogether.

wes

The US Gov not being truthful about something, business as usual.

I do have to say, I am just surprised, that so many people still buy into there lies.

Manic Moran

Those are just the notable engagements. Not every person shot or every engagement entered is reported in either the mainstream or the MNF press releases.

NTM

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote: »

Those are just the notable engagements. Not every person shot or every engagement entered is reported in either the mainstream or the MNF press releases.

NTM

not by a very long shot. IBC report about 70k deaths, while more comprehensive studies put the figure between 750k and 1.2 million

(higher than the numbers Saddam was supposed to have murdered in his entire reign as dictator of Iraq.)

the_syco

Akrasia wrote: »

(higher than the numbers Saddam was supposed to have murdered in his entire reign as dictator of Iraq.)

The number that they have found, you mean?

Mr.Micro

The truth is the first casualty of war.Most of the Americans do not know what State they are next to let alone where Iraq is.Thats why they are easily led when it comes to the lies that are reported in the press and TV .Its always militants who are killed ,who in reality are often innocent women and children.

People in Europe are more cynical of these reports as we know that lies and more lies is the reality .I wonder if such a campaign was being waged in a US state or in Canada would the Americans wake up to what is going on in their name ?What sort of half wit hero would want to go fight in country that he knows nothing about ,a reason he does not understand or care ? Yes a half wit .

mrgalway

Akrasia wrote: »

not by a very long shot. IBC report about 70k deaths, while more comprehensive studies put the figure between 750k and 1.2 million

(higher than the numbers Saddam was supposed to have murdered in his entire reign as dictator of Iraq.)

Are you suggesting that these are caused by the Americans?

Almost all of them are caused by Iraqis on other Iraqis. Thats what happens when you get a sectarian civil war going on.

Akrasia

the_syco wrote: »

The number that they have found, you mean?

Saddams most violent phases were in the late 1980s when he was engaged in the Iran-Iraq war and a genocidal campaign against the Kurds near the Iranian border. Most estimates put the death toll around 150,000. (incidentally, the Al Anfal campaign happened at a time when the U.S. were supporters of Saddam and helped him to acquire the chemical and conventional weapons that he used against the kurds, and defended the Bathist regime in the U.N. and through international propaganda campaigns so they bear some of the responsibility there too)

His other period of extreme violence was just after the gulf war when he once again massacred the Kurds, who were engaged in an uprising after the war, and were promised U.S. support that never came.

mrgalway

His other period of extreme violence was just after the gulf war when he once again massacred the Kurds, who were engaged in an uprising after the war, and were promised U.S. support that never came.

You mean the Shia in the South.

Akrasia

mrgalway wrote: »

Are you suggesting that these are caused by the Americans?

Almost all of them are caused by Iraqis on other Iraqis. Thats what happens when you get a sectarian civil war going on.

Actually, the casualties are about 60% sectarian violence, and 40% Coalition. And there is plenty of evidence that much of the sectarian violence is attributable to the presence of the occupation forces (shooting collaborators is very common in Iraq)

The point is, America brought this war to Iraq based on a number of lies (choose one depending on what day of the week it is) One of those excuses was to remove a violent dictator, well that 'justification' falls to pieces when the process of 'regime change' caused far more harm than the regime that they changed

Victor

mrgalway wrote: »

You mean the Shia in the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#North_Iraq

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=KVUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Oct 22, 12:29 PM EDT
Bombs Hit Iraqi Shiite Areas; 7 Killed

By BUSHRA JUHI
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Bombs targeted Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad on Monday, killing at least seven people and wounding two dozen, while Iraqi police reported that a woman and her daughter were wounded in an American airstrike against the Shiite enclave of Sadr City.

The airstrike leveled a small shop selling engine oil, wounding a woman and her daughter who were in their house nearby, a police officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The U.S. military said it was checking on the report.

The number killed in Baghdad's main Shiite enclave was one of the highest tolls for a single operation since President Bush declared an end to active combat in 2003.

But Iraqi police and hospital officials, who often overstate casualties, reported only 15 deaths, including a woman, a 14-year-old boy and two toddlers. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh and other Iraqi officials said all the dead were civilians.

A local representative of Muqtada al-Sadr denounced the raid but urged followers to abide by the radical Shiite cleric's call to refrain from violence.

Al-Sadr has ordered gunmen loyal to him to put down their arms, but thousands of followers dissatisfied with being taken out of the fight have formed a loose confederation that the military says is armed and trained by Iran.

"We call upon the humanitarian organizations to be aware of the crimes of the Americans ... against innocent people," Falah al-Obeidi said. "We call upon al-Sadr's people to have self-restraint. Their reaction should be peaceful and should not violate the order of the leader Muqtada al-Sadr to freeze their activities."

An Associated Press reporter counted 11 death certificates linked to the raid Sunday in Sadr City's Imam Ali hospital, and hospital officials said one person died at the district's General Hospital and three others at the neurology hospital in central Baghdad.

The U.S. military said it was not aware of any civilian casualties, and the discrepancy in the death tolls and accounts of what happened could not be reconciled. American commanders reported no U.S. casualties.

"At this time, we still have no evidence to suggest there are civilian casualties," Lt. Justin Cole, a military spokesman, said Monday. He declined to comment on how the military determined 49 militants were killed, saying the information was classified.

The district council called on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to "announce its absolute rejection of the monstrous military campaigns staged by the Americans under different pretexts" and to conduct an investigation and compensate the families of those killed. The council demanded that the government assume responsibility for security of Sadr City and ban U.S.-led forces from entering the district.

Al-Dabbagh said on CNN that al-Maliki, a Shiite, had met with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, to protest the action.

The military has said Sunday's raid on the dangerous Shiite slum was aimed at capturing an alleged rogue militia chief, one of thousands of fighters who have broken with al-Sadr's mainstream Mahdi Army, although the military did not provide his name.

The U.S. operation was the latest in a series that have produced significant death tolls, including civilians, as American forces increasingly take the fight to Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida militants and Shiite militiamen.

On Monday, a bomb exploded in a square frequented by municipal workers from a nearby building in the mainly Shiite neighborhood of Zafaraniyah in southeastern Baghdad. Within minutes, another blast struck police arriving to help with rescue efforts.

In all, three civilians were killed and 11 people wounded, police said.

A roadside bomb struck a minibus in Karradah, another predominantly Shiite neighborhood in central Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 12, police said.

Police also announced that gunmen killed Ahmed al-Mashhadani, an adviser to the leader of the largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament, Adnan al-Dulaimi.

---

Associated Press writer Hamid Ahmed contributed to this report.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

The last few lines deal with separate events.

Are we reading the same story? The figures seem to be all over the place.

"The number killed in Baghdad's main Shiite enclave was one of the highest tolls for a single operation since President Bush declared an end to active combat in 2003." - but haven't there been individual cases of incidents claiming up to 1,00 lives?

Mick86

jonny72 wrote: »

Does anyone remember the days when the US military constantly chirped that line out.. so do they or don't they?.

Maybe what they mean is that they count the bodies but they don't use the figures as a yardstick for whether they are winning or not.

mrgalway

Many observers believe that attacks by Baghdad on the Kurdish-held zone have been restrained to some extent by Saddam's fear that they would provoke the intervention of Allied forces.

The Shia in the south suffered the brunt of Saddam's retribution after GW1.

As for the civilian killings, check some of the stories of multiple car bombs outsides of mosques killing and maiming hundreds. Hooded gunmen stopping busses and cars and taking men. Bodies found in mass graves, headless corpses floating in the Tigres and Euphrates.

Yes, there may be some civilian casualties but the majority are victims of the civil war. Of terrorist bombings.

Akrasia

mrgalway wrote: »

The Shia in the south suffered the brunt of Saddam's retribution after GW1.

As for the civilian killings, check some of the stories of multiple car bombs outsides of mosques killing and maiming hundreds. Hooded gunmen stopping busses and cars and taking men. Bodies found in mass graves, headless corpses floating in the Tigres and Euphrates.

Yes, there may be some civilian casualties but the majority are victims of the civil war. Of terrorist bombings.

According to the Lancet, most of the violent deaths are gunshot wounds, not explosion related injuries. Reporters like fisk and pilger have written about the dozens of bodies that are found every morning on the streets, victims of torture and execution. It is unknown who carries out most of these attacks, but we do know that there are death squads operating within the Iraqi security forces as well as the insurgent groups who consider all collaborators as valid targets.

jonny72

Mick86 wrote: »

Maybe what they mean is that they count the bodies but they don't use the figures as a yardstick for whether they are winning or not.

During the war the US military consistently countered any questions about civilian death tolls with the line 'we don't do bodycounts'.

Now the Vietnam model appears to have raised its ugly head again with any casualties, civilian or not, generally being counted as enemy combatants.

The US army is out of control down there, and has been for years.

lostexpectation

I came across this documentary on TV about finding US missing in action personnel, it was mainly about trying to find bodies of downed soldiers in fields of vietnam, but it also showed these teams of csi like soldiers and doctors who go around the world finding these lost bodies and id'ing them, they go to vietnam korea etc but they were also in the Baltic states and I think Iraq maybe at that stage,

so the act like their honouring the dead and helping out the countries even after they've rescued them and fighting is over but thats not what they doing they spending more millions trying to justify there actions by digging up these horrible but sadly real graves. its the same thing when you here these occasional stories about mass graves being found in Iraq, there not trying to help the Kurds move on its simply another military tactic for them. you won't seen them investigating so closely the corpses they make.

mrgalway

Akrasia wrote: »

According to the Lancet, most of the violent deaths are gunshot wounds, not explosion related injuries. Reporters like fisk and pilger have written about the dozens of bodies that are found every morning on the streets, victims of torture and execution. It is unknown who carries out most of these attacks, but we do know that there are death squads operating within the Iraqi security forces as well as the insurgent groups who consider all collaborators as valid targets.

But that is not the US military, who some here are trying to infer are responsible for the killings.


As for this statement:

The US army is out of control down there, and has been for years.

What proof do you have of making such a blatantly vile statement.

Considering the fact that you have people between the ages of 18 up to their 40's whou are away from their families, their wives or husbands, their children, their parents for up to 14 monts . Going out on patrol with the knowledge that there may be a sniper or a bomb that you may encounter. With the knowledge that there is a chance you may be killed or maimed before the end of the day. They are remarkably restrained.

How would you feel if you were in those circumstances? What would you do?

Say what you want about Bush and Co. or the War. But be real with your statements about the people that have to be there because of duty.

sovtek

mrgalway wrote: »

But that is not the US military, who some here are trying to infer are responsible for the killings.

Because even when they aren't directly responsible for civilian deaths their presence alone is a large part of the problem. Need I point out AGAIN that it's possible that the "MNF" fomented the civil war in the first place.

As for this statement:



What proof do you have of making such a blatantly vile statement.

Considering the fact that you have people between the ages of 18 up to their 40's whou are away from their families, their wives or husbands, their children, their parents for up to 14 monts . Going out on patrol with the knowledge that there may be a sniper or a bomb that you may encounter. With the knowledge that there is a chance you may be killed or maimed before the end of the day. They are remarkably restrained.

How would you feel if you were in those circumstances? What would you do?

Say what you want about Bush and Co. or the War. But be real with your statements about the people that have to be there because of duty.

I'm overly sympathetic as the next person to the plight of your average grunt on the ground. I understand how the situation they are thrown into can make them loose their humanity and commit war crimes. It doesn't excuse it though...morally or legally. There is so much evidence of war crimes committed by US troops out there that I have to laugh when you say "They are remarkably restrained". Their rules of engagement alone ensure they will kill civilians.
It's also their duty to refuse illegal orders. There are a very very very small minority with the courage to do that though.

MeatProduct

mrgalway wrote: »

Say what you want about Bush and Co. or the War. But be real with your statements about the people that have to be there because of duty.

Please excuse my ignorance but I thought military service was a matter of choice for US citizens? If that is the case then those people are there by choice so any defence you have for them is really quite irrelevant. I wouldn't put myself, by choice, into those situations which must be horrible. It's this justification of civilian killing that I find disturbing. "Ah sure the situation is terrible there lads" doesn't cut it. The cheapness of life is disgusting, let's all grow up a bit and get at least a bit responsible for our personal choices and actions shall we?

Nick

Edit: fixed typeo

Mr.Micro

. There is so much evidence of war crimes committed by US troops out there that I have to laugh when you say "They are remarkably restrained". Their rules of engagement alone ensure they will kill civilians.
It's also their duty to refuse illegal orders. There are a very very very small minority with the courage to do that though.[/QUOTE]SOVTEK

The US does not recognize the international court of human rights as far as I know and the Geneva convention went out the window some time ago and various other rights went in the reign of Gonzales the former Attorney general of the US .So who is going to take the military to task? Nobody but the military themselves if they want to .So without regard to any International conventions and respect of human rights the war crimes will continue .Its abig deal when a US soldier gets killed but nothing when many civilians get killed . Vietnam all over again .War there is no war, it is the American paranoia that keeps its military in operation ,and in the killing fields of the middle east and the third world .

Akrasia

mrgalway wrote: »

But that is not the US military, who some here are trying to infer are responsible for the killings.

The U.S. military trained and have operational control over the iraqi security forces, so yes, it is their fault.

Akrasia

mrgalway wrote: »

Say what you want about Bush and Co. or the War. But be real with your statements about the people that have to be there because of duty.

Do you extend the same sympathy to the iraqi insurgents who are fighting the U.S. occupation. Surely they have a duty too. Does that duty justify killing innocent civilians? If it does for the americans, then it must for the Iraqis too.

mrgalway

MeatProduct wrote: »

Please excuse my ignorance but I thought military service was a matter of choice for US citizens? If that is the case then those people are there by choice so any defence you have for them is really quite irrelevant. I wouldn't put myself, by choice, into those situations which must be horrible. It's this justification of civilian killing that I find disturbing. "Ah sure the situation is terrible there lads" doesn't cut it. The cheapness of life is disgusting, let's all grow up a bit and get at least a bit responsible for our personal choices and actions shall we?

Nick

Edit: fixed typeo

Yes, it is an all volunteer force. Unfortunately, once you sign up, you are in a different world, you cannot refuse an order. You will more than likely be imprissoned.

Yes, let's all grow up a bit and get at least a bit responsible for our personal choices and actions and stop talking tripe based on your left wing political views.

mrgalway

Akrasia wrote: »

The U.S. military trained and have operational control over the iraqi security forces, so yes, it is their fault.

Yes, I'm sure in your universe, all disasters from the begining of time are faults of the US Military.

mrgalway

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you extend the same sympathy to the iraqi insurgents who are fighting the U.S. occupation. Surely they have a duty too. Does that duty justify killing innocent civilians? If it does for the americans, then it must for the Iraqis too.

So let me guess, someone that straps on a bomb, goes into the middle of a crowd of worshiper, blows himself up and tries to kill or maim hundreds of men, women and childred, you would call him a hero?

Put your distaste away and listen to some American news, the only reason they are there is because of your "heros." They want their troops home, nobody wants to be in that hell hole.

Let me guess, you go to Shannon to protest the landing of the American "deathplanes," is that what you call them?

sovtek

mrgalway wrote: »

Yes, it is an all volunteer force. Unfortunately, once you sign up, you are in a different world, you cannot refuse an order. You will more than likely be imprissoned.

Which is the better choice? Being imprisoned for a principled stand or for war crimes?

Yes, let's all grow up a bit and get at least a bit responsible for our personal choices and actions and stop talking tripe based on your left wing political views.

You aren't doing much for your argument here.

wes

sovtek wrote: »

Which is the better choice? Being imprisoned for a principled stand or for war crimes?

Lets be realistic here. That will never happen (stand trial for war crimes).

mrgalway

sovtek wrote: »

Which is the better choice? Being imprisoned for a principled stand or for war crimes?

Perhaps you may like prison life for 20 years. I doubt most people would. And what war crimes?

You aren't doing much for your argument here.

What argument? To someone without pre-concieved anti US sentiments the whole post reads like tripe, so I mentioned it. The moniker Meatproducts is apropo I think.

sovtek

mrgalway wrote: »

Put your distaste away and listen to some American news, the only reason they are there is because of your "heros." They want their troops home, nobody wants to be in that hell hole.

I have listened to plenty of American news and plenty of American views. I am from Texas actually. Still, I would back up Akrasia's assertions here fully.

Let me guess, you go to Shannon to protest the landing of the American "deathplanes," is that what you call them?

I would support those who do in principle and would be there myself if possible.
Allowing them through Shannon implicates the Irish government in a war crime as well as the Irish people in general. Those who take a stand against it are rejecting that institutional crime and I fully support that despite being American myself.

MeatProduct

mrgalway wrote: »

Yes, let's all grow up a bit and get at least a bit responsible for our personal choices and actions and stop talking tripe based on your left wing political views.

You didn't really address my point about personal responsibility with that comment about my "left wing political views". I could rebuttal your comment by saying that you are doing what you are accusing me of but I shall not. If, by being labelled left wing by you, I have a respect for human life and do not make excuses why it should be so cavalierly extinguished then I can go along with that but it's a long way from explaing my political views. Please don't label me, I'll try to extend you the same courtesy.

To clarify, there is no excuse for personal responsibility while in difficult situations. Choice always remains and labelling me or anyone else to avoid the issues does not change that MrGalway. In this case I believe the responsibilty rests with the particular soldiers that are killing civilians. It's easy to blame Mr. Bush and big oil etc., and there is some responsibility for them to claim, but they couldn't do what they do without us lying down and blaming the world for all our problems while actively creating the world that we so hate.

What is it about what I had said that makes you think it is "tripe"? Is a respect for human life so absurd or undeserving?

Nick

sovtek

mrgalway wrote: »

Perhaps you may like prison life for 20 years. I doubt most people would.

According to the Nuremberg Principles following orders is not a defense for war crimes. Besides the moral and emotional damage one would experience from being a part of war crime(s) I would personally prefer that prison term for taking a principled stand as opposed to murder. Incidentally the people that have refused to serve have yet to get anything close to that long in prison. Meanwhile some of the people involved in Haditha (one of the very few war crimes the American government has acknowledged) are up for closer to your stated sentence than the latter.

And what war crimes?

The Nuremberg Principles state that a war of aggression is a war crime in and of itself. So technically everyone involved is a war criminal.
But other than that the military rules of engagement do not abide by the Geneva Convention to protect civilian life.
Then we have situations like Haditha and Falluja. The latter involved the Americans only allowing women and children to flee and trapping "combatant age" men in Falluja and then proceeding to kill everyone in the city, claiming them as "combatants". That's besides first attacking the hospital. All war crimes. That's one of many examples

What argument? To someone without pre-concieved anti US sentiments the whole post reads like tripe, so I mentioned it. The moniker Meatproducts is apropo I think.

Again you are attacking the messenger and not the message. It weakens your argument even further.