Morgue records shows 5,500 Iraqis killed

[J-10]

More than 5,500 Iraqis died violently in just Baghdad and three provinces in the first 12 months of the occupation, an Associated Press survey found. The toll from both criminal and political violence ran dramatically higher than violent deaths before the war, according to statistics from morgues.

There are no reliable figures for places like Fallujah and Najaf that have seen surges in fighting since early April.

An Iraqi woman reacts as she hears of the death of her son in Basra, southern Iraq, Sunday, May 23, 2004. [AP]
Indeed, there is no precise count for Iraq as a whole on how many people have been killed, nor is there a breakdown of deaths caused by the different sorts of attacks. The U.S. military, the occupation authority and Iraqi government agencies say they don't have the ability to track civilian deaths.

But the AP survey of morgues in Baghdad and the provinces of Karbala, Kirkuk and Tikrit found 5,558 violent deaths recorded from May 1, 2003, when U.S. President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, to April 30. Officials at morgues for three more of Iraq's 18 provinces either didn't have numbers or declined to release them.

The AP's survey was not a comprehensive compilation of the nationwide death toll, but was a sampling intended to assess the levels of violence. Figures for violent deaths in the months before the war showed a far lower rate.

That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein's regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.
....

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/24/content_333168.htm

[Yard Ape]

Most of these deaths would have been caused by terrorists (Iraqi or other) that kill indisciminatly or target civillians.

[moughoun]

Most of these deaths would have been caused by terrorists (Iraqi or other) that kill indisciminatly or target civillians.

How exactly do you know that?

[seruriermarshal]

More Iraqi killed because Saddam .

[LeMat]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040523_1135.html

But they were killed in free country!! Can`t you understand that? They were happy when they were killing - USA brought them FREEDOM!

[Jack Mehoff]

Is this number include the victims killed by terrorist bombs? Ever time I turn on the news there alway some innocent Iraqis or Iraqis policemen got blown up by car bombs.

[Moledet]

It's around 11,000 dead Iraqis and not 5,500.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Secret Squirrel]

It's around 11,000 dead Iraqis and not 5,500.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

umm i believe the above article is only dealing with the occupation, ie. a year after Bush made his Bull**** "mission accomplished" speech. And it only deals with Baghdad and three provinces. Geez learn to read man.
Also, the site you quote...did you actually go there and read how they arrived at their number? Did you know it also includes Iraqi policemen?

[Moledet]

It's around 11,000 dead Iraqis and not 5,500.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

umm i believe the above article is only dealing with the occupation, ie. a year after Bush made his Bull**** "mission accomplished" speech. And it only deals with Baghdad and three provinces. Geez learn to read man.
Also, the site you quote...did you actually go there and read how they arrived at their number? Did you know it also includes Iraqi policemen?
How do you think we got to 1000 deads? 250 are soldiers. How do you think the Palestinians got to 3000 deads? They also count the terrorists (even the terrorists that made suicide attacks).
You need to count everybody, not just civilians.

[Secret Squirrel]

It's around 11,000 dead Iraqis and not 5,500.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

umm i believe the above article is only dealing with the occupation, ie. a year after Bush made his Bull**** "mission accomplished" speech. And it only deals with Baghdad and three provinces. Geez learn to read man.
Also, the site you quote...did you actually go there and read how they arrived at their number? Did you know it also includes Iraqi policemen?
How do you think we got to 1000 deads? 250 are soldiers. How do you think the Palestinians got to 3000 deads? They also count the terrorists (even the terrorists that made suicide attacks).
You need to count everybody, not just civilians.

wooooooooooosh...over your head? the article dealing with around 5,500 dead is "correct" as it related to 1) only the occupation period, and 2) only deals with Baghdad and three provinces. You said it was around 11,000 and not 5,500 and you were wrong.

[American Patriot]

Linking to an insane Liberal site doesn't prove anything.

[Fenna]

But linking to a pro-war site does!
:cantbeli:

[Jack Mehoff]

But linking to a pro-war site does!

Like?

[scm77]

I wonder how many people they counted in the morgue during Saddam Hussein. Oh wait the hundreds of thousands of people he killed were just thrown into big pits. Damn those americans. :roll: :bash:

[Seoulstriker]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040523_1135.html

But they were killed in free country!! Can`t you understand that? They were happy when they were killing - USA brought them FREEDOM!

Spierdalaj ty chuju. :fork:


You obviously are clueless in regards to Iraq's situation. :roll:

[n.ignomo]

Just do a referendum out there in Irak, ask the population if they want the US of A to go or not and everybody's gonna agree the nation's choice ! You like democracy don't you ?

[Secret Squirrel]

Just do a referendum out there in Irak, ask the population if they want the US of A to go or not and everybody's gonna agree the nation's choice ! You like democracy don't you ?

but wouldnt that make it harder for Bush to get his hands on the oil? rofl

[scm77]

Bush was never gonna get his hands on the oil anyways dumbass. The oil was/is going to be used to reconstruct iraq.

[Old300]

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of those people are probably combatants.

One of the reasons why the Geneva Convention does not apply to many of the Iraqis in coalition prisons is because they are unlawful combatants - they don't wear uniforms, they use civilians as shields, they store weapons at and launch violent operations from religious and medical facilities, etc.

It would be very easy to include such people in a list of civilian dead.

However, I think pro-Iraq-war people such as myself should be careful about excepting X number of civilian casualties because enemy combatants used them as shields or blew them in a car bombing. The fact of the matter is that those people wouldn't have been misused by the insurgents if we hadn't invaded the country. The combatants who misuse them are still evil bastards, but we are nevertheless partly responsible for those dead civilians.

Having said that, though, yes, of course the number of innocent dead since last spring is many times lower than the number who'd have died under Saddam. And, anyway, hopefully the violence will mostly end this year. I think we're doing our best and that Iraqis will (once again) thank us for liberating them and the rest of the world will (silently, grudgingly) be glad we did, too.

[n.ignomo]

Doesn't the USA have more oil than Irak in they own land ? And actually oil isn't the main problem i care about about in Irak currently.
Old 300 i agree with you when you say that violence will stop, it HAS TO STOP, but since some over there can't get in their minds that "they can't go back so let's move on", violence will be their daily news. I just don't agree with the way the coalition forces handle it, but i'm confident in a close future things are gonna get better and better.

[usa320]

indeed. They failed to note the difference between combatants and non-combatants. After the bombing campaign we launched, im surprised the numbers werent higher.

[Yard Ape]

Most of these deaths would have been caused by terrorists (Iraqi or other) that kill indisciminatly or target civillians.

How exactly do you know that?See below:

Is this number include the victims killed by terrorist bombs? Ever time I turn on the news there alway some innocent Iraqis or Iraqis policemen got blown up by car bombs.Yes.

[Yard Ape]

However, I think pro-Iraq-war people such as myself should be careful about excepting X number of civilian casualties because enemy combatants used them as shields or blew them in a car bombing. The fact of the matter is that those people wouldn't have been misused by the insurgents if we hadn't invaded the country. That is as foolish as blaming weapons & automobile manufacturers for people misusing thier products . . . or blaming a rape victim for wearing a skirt.

[Denat]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040523_1135.html

But they were killed in free country!! Can`t you understand that? They were happy when they were killing - USA brought them FREEDOM!

Spierdalaj ty chuju. :fork:


You obviously are clueless in regards to Iraq's situation. :roll:

rofl rofl rofl
Seoulstriker, it's nice to hear that you know polish ;)
And what is more you're obviously right that this boy has no ****ing idea what is going on down there. He is undoubtedly liberal pacifist leftist scum, trolling around and notoriously blameing the U.S. for every homeless dog found dead on any road or highway in Iraq. Shame on him.
This is one of many examples of his "specific" point of view:


WARNING!! VERY VERY VIOLENT!!
NOT FOR PEOPLE WITH WEAK HEARTH!!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6010.htm

Yes. George W. Bush can be very proud. All US soldiers too.

[Secret Squirrel]

One of the reasons why the Geneva Convention does not apply to many of the Iraqis in coalition prisons is because they are unlawful combatants - they don't wear uniforms

Go re-read the good ole GC...

Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

As for the insurgents...

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

[NcDeuce]

You have to take all of these stories with a grain of salt. Look back in history, to Operation Just Cause. If you can recall, some human rights groups claimed that the invasion resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. SOUTHCOM estimated in the low hundreds. The House Armed Services Committee conducted an intensive investigation that estimated that less than 300 Panamanians were killed (of whom 100 were actual civilians and the rest members of the PDF and the Dignity Battalions).

The loss of innocent lives is tragic but as we all know, death is inevitable in conflict.

[SOG]

One of the reasons why the Geneva Convention does not apply to many of the Iraqis in coalition prisons is because they are unlawful combatants - they don't wear uniforms

Go re-read the good ole GC...

Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

As for the insurgents...

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

A. combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack.

terrorists do not, some insurgents do not

B. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

terrorists do not, some insurgents do not

Old300 was correct sir. not wearing combat uniforms or distinguishing yourself with armed features makes you fair game and outside the protection of the geneva convention. depending on how a insurgent conducts his warfare he may or may not be protected under the convention.

also:

The Red Cross movement (later renamed the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement) spearheaded the first Geneva Convention in 1864. The purpose of this first treaty was to protect wounded soldiers and those caring for them during times of war. Twelve nations signed the initial document. Over the following decades, more countries agreed to the convention.

In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.

[Secret Squirrel]

@SOG...thats all well and good and yes i agree terrorists arent readily identifying themselves as combatants. But the fact remains, once you take a prisoner or detainee in a warzone, you're legally responsible for their "humane" treatment. If the GCs do not apply, why is there constant reference to them by U.S military personnel when they discuss the prison scandle? Did you see this section..."Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

[SOG]

@SOG...thats all well and good and yes i agree terrorists arent readily identifying themselves as combatants. But the fact remains, once you take a prisoner or detainee in a warzone, you're legally responsible for their "humane" treatment. If the GCs do not apply, why is there constant reference to them by U.S military personnel when they discuss the prison scandle? Did you see this section..."Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

i dont mind that for the prisoner scandle nor did i speak against it, but say, something like the delta thread right, where people were arguing what they were doing was wrong in the "rules" of war, which may not be the case since we do not know how delta got or recieved thier captors.

yes i saw the section you pointed out and it all hinges on the 1st text, should any doubt arise. if theres no doubt about the status of said individual and he was obtained outside the rules of the convention, then quite simply the gloves may come off. so basically what that states is, if your "confused" about the status of a prisoner, then treat him like he was a official prisoner, but if he was captured outside the confines of the convention, then it lies all on you and how you want to deal with it.

im not saying its ethical treatment or right, since that can be debated from night into day, vs life and moral, but when people harp on others for tortuous methods and breaking the rules when in fact they could very well be outside the rules legally.

[Secret Squirrel]

@SOG...thats all well and good and yes i agree terrorists arent readily identifying themselves as combatants. But the fact remains, once you take a prisoner or detainee in a warzone, you're legally responsible for their "humane" treatment. If the GCs do not apply, why is there constant reference to them by U.S military personnel when they discuss the prison scandle? Did you see this section..."Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

i dont mind that for the prisoner scandle nor did i speak against it, but say, something like the delta thread right, where people were arguing what they were doing was wrong in the "rules" of war, which may not be the case since we do not know how delta got or recieved thier captors.

yes i saw the section you pointed out and it all hinges on the 1st text, should any doubt arise. if theres no doubt about the status of said individual and he was obtained outside the rules of the convention, then quite simply the gloves may come off.

im not saying its ethical treatment or right, since that can be debated from night into day, vs life and moral, but when people harp on others for tortuous methods and breaking the rules when in fact they could very well be outside the rules legally.

I think there are also sections in the GC pertaining to responsibilities of the occupaty forces which would weigh in on this issue. Honestly though, should anyone be placed outside the rules legally? This is a question U.S courts have asked regarding people at Gitmo. Most people would jump up quickly and shout that terrorists have no legal rights and they get what they deserve. I dont know if i completely agree because that line of logic is fine for dealing with well known terrorists but what if someone is mistakenly detained...much like the arguments behind the death penality where someone innocent was put to death. See the problem? When you detain someone in Iraq, whether its because the coalition found bombs or guns in their home, or they were taken after a firefight, do you classify them as an insurgent or a terrorist? Can the average soldier tell the difference between the various arab accents in the middle east?

[SOG]

wether anyone should be placed outside the rules legally doesnt really matter since people will always do what they want, illegal or no. so you could cover loopholes like in any law, but would that stop anything? probably not since stuff like this has been happening since the dawn of time. we all know theres units and missions that break laws all the time like the mission hopping and back and forth small insert attacks between russia and the US during the coldwar. a lot of shots were taken in the dark and behind the "official" curtains and missions like those are heavily weighed before taken. adjusting the law may curb something or include all but it wont stop anything.


See the problem? When you detain someone in Iraq, whether its because the coalition found bombs or guns in their home, or they were taken after a firefight, do you classify them as an insurgent or a terrorist?

it doesnt matter what you think they are, simply arrest them and move on. that could be for a court to decide later. or pending the immediate evidence, could lend proof of who they are. also it doesnt matter if they are a terrorist or insurgent, if they conduct warfare one way or another, they may or may not be entitled to protection under the convention no matter who they are.

the rules were amde to be flexible and allow a certain degree of gray area as any law has which in some cases is settled officially or unoficially. if its troubling to some that abuse of enemies can take place in a official context legally, welcome to war!

some people at gitmo could be innocent, guilty, or guilty to a lesser degree. honestly i dont know and i cant really judge. mistakes have and will be made on all sides.

are iraqis and maybe others being held against the convention or illegally. you bet. soldiers may get confused and snag the wrong people or large groups etc etc. alot of stuff is bungled over there but all these cases with crying hearts where now everybody thinks we can do no right, ehhhh! if you look at our courts here and the slime that slips through the cracks, imagine it just bigger and more confusing over there. **** happens no doubt, but there is alot of people in the prisons who deserve to be there no doubt, and alot who may not deserve to be there.

i think i see what you are saying in the context of, what if someone is found with something illegal, they can be classified as outside the rules and have the **** beaten out of them or something and that could be abused. in that case it comes down to what they were caught with, evidence wise, and the quality of the soldier/soldiers that snagged them. most of the US soldiers are very pro, a few are criminal and crooked as in any large org.