SH4President

Heres an interesting link for you out there that give a damn about the civilians killed by the coalition.

http://iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Falstaff

It's just another antiwar website, there are lots and lots of antiwar websites, what makes this one any more credible?

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

Many over those paced arond or inside the Valid MILLITARY TARGET that fired on US and often are soldgiers in civilians clothes.... some of them probubly killed by iraq soldgers ect.... after the attacks and some of thes bombs weren't fired by coilltion troops so it mean Saddom fired them... at his own people to drum up US hatered ..... would all be alot easyer and less cassualties if china,france, germany,russia,seria, would stop shipping defenceof weapons
, tanks, cruse missles, scuds, FROGS (missle), mortar shells, night vision, jammers, technoligy etc... Many BANNED materials....and suplies

__________________

SH4President

Have you looked at the site at all??
Check the sources!!!

SH4President

Read the site you idi-t!!

"This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003."

"Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?
We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western (including long established press agencies such as Reuters and Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count."

ToshiroOC

SH4President, please check your PMs.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Falstaff

i am very cynical of any website that combs the media sources to obtain numbers for absolute casualty counts whether it is military or civilian, Many websites are obviously constructed to feed data to antiwar interests for the purpose of influencing opinions for and agains the war. My brother is a Major serving in Kuwait right now, he describes the potentiol for 1 in 1200 civilians caught between coaliton guns and bombs and their own miltia being injured or killed. Now my conclusion is that Saddam is going to use chemical weapons, with the prevailing weather conditions and the consistently active wind conditions in the theater of operations, I shudder to think that the number might be accurate. Do you know how many people are trapped between the lines or around Bagdad. It is difficult to imagine but it could happen, I am going by the BBC numbers and it still doesn't look good. Can you imagine over a million martyrs for Saddam Hussein killed because they couldn't protect themselves from their own military's use of chemical weapons...And I fear for my brother and my collegues there now, just as vulnerable to chemical attack....All it takes is one or two bombs into a cache of chemical warheads to start the whole terrible thing rolling....

__________________

SH4President

Well, where you gonna get information if not from media??
And remember this is western media!

bluelight

Is there anyone here that seriously believe that civilians are not killed in this war just as in all other wars?


Bluelight

bluelight

Ive checked the link.

It seems reasonable.The figures are similar to estimations i have heard in media from different sources.


Bluelight

Falstaff

Just got an email from my brother....sure seems like Saddam might use the chemicals, if we don't stop him, I wouldn't be surprised if we start going after the generals now, they are just as elusive as Saddam...they all hide around the residential districts in Bagdad...cowards...every damn one of them, they will sacrifice their people to hang on to their Swiss bank accounts...at least the ones in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are frozen, and I think the French have frozen their accounts as well, where will they flee?

__________________

Reuter

It's getting wierd.
Saw a short debate on BBC World this afternoon.
Seems there are a lot of talks about the people in Basra having no water or food and how the coalition could bring it to them.
Unfortunatly the city is not taken yet, so the people cannot be helped ect.....
Fact is the coalition bombed the major food suply dump and made shure there was no water left.
Another "little" mistake they called it.
Funny war if you ask me.
All losses come from friendly fire, the bombings full of mistakes and yet they are claiming good progression of the war.Just wondering if they know in which direction they are going anyway

Falstaff

Is this more BBC propanda? If there was food left on the Republican Guard side, you can bet they are using it, not the people..I am going to check out the BBC site right now...this sounds terribly inconsistent with was seems to be factual.

__________________

dipstick

What's your point here SH4? Who's more to blame, US or Saddam for putting soldiers and military equipment in the back yards of his own people. Grow up, this is freaking war! What are you some kind of Saddam lover or something? People are dying out there to make this a better world, but there always has to be someone like you out there doesn't it.
I don't really post in the political threads, but your posts leave me speechless. ALways talking about the US has paused for 4 days or whatever. What's your point again? What do you think they're gonna fly through and win in a week? Well, they could if they didn't care about the poeple, and just went in there with guns blazing. But they are trying to win this war with minimal casualties. DO you understand what that means???
Btw, I shouldn't even bother with you since your username probably stands for Saddam Hussein 4 pres right? Geeez man.

Reuter

Well it's the BBC man, the most respected of them all.
Better check out the Belgian VRT chanel 2.
They just broadcasted a superior documentary about the first Gulf War and the time of the sanctions and believe me it aint pretty for the US.
Better had taped it, so I could send it to you because you or neighter American would believe what their gouvernment is capable of.

SH4President

Whats my point??
Well heres my first message again if you didnt get it:


"Heres an interesting link for you out there that give a damn about the civilians killed by the coalition.

http://iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm "



Maybe you dont give a damn?

dipstick

Did I ever say I don't care? Did I ever say that these things won't happen during a war? Did I mention that most people won't leave because they are shot if they try to? Did I mention Saddam putting military equipment within feet on residential areas? How do you expect these things not to happen? I'm not saying I like what is happening or that I'm thrilled about anyone dying. I wish it never had to come to this, but something had to be done about this whole situation. People are dying on both sides for reason.

Falstaff

your cranking out the same message, over and over again...I still haven't heard your point yet. The BBC by the way is not the "most" respected news agency by my standard, great footage, but lots of sensationalism...

__________________

raid517

Well I don't know about the BBC, sensationalism is certainly a new accusation. A lot of people would say they are the most conservative news broadcasting agency in the world. They are run by "old school establishment types", so this level of conservatism is generally to be expected. Given this, I still find them to be mostly objective - although like all media I do sometimes get tired of their constant speculating about this war. The one news channel I can't take seriously is Fox News. Yes I know Conservatives love them, but that is because they only ever tell one side of the story. Talk about sensationalist, they are the "National Inquirer" of the news broadcasting industry.

Well anyway what I did see on the news tonight (ABC BTW) was bus loads of angry Iraqis queuing up at the borders surrounding Iraq to re-enter the country and to fight for their country. There are also growing reports of other Arabs crossing the border to join the fight and of suicide bombers forming death squads all over the Arab world.

This isn't the flag waving happy welcome Rumsfield expected - and told a lot of others to expect too.

Q

Falstaff

when the coalition forces are successful, however long it takes, the sacrifice isn't worth it, unless theier families are being rewarded by monetary gifts or prestige...I don't undertand the arab mind, but in IRAQ it is tribal above all else..

__________________

GOG

And the soldiers in the USMC are fighting for free? Don't worry Jeff, your President doesn't understand the arab mind either, can't you see what you've started here? You can't beat an enemy that isn't afraid of dying and doesn't follow any rules, not without massive civilian/own casualties, thought you learned that in Vietnam.

ByteMe

The more civilians we kill now the less we have to feed after we win.

raid517

Ahh ByteMe is back... Lol Byte... After all this is over, the Iraqi's will be filthy rich, they have all that oil remember... That is so long as America agrees to give them it back...

Q

ByteMe

We have always said it was THEIRS. (well, after we take our share

raid517

Jeff they believe there is a greater reward in the after life. That is why they do not fear dying for their beliefs. What if 'however long it takes', might take an indefinite amount of time? Is it still worthwhile? What you do not understand about the Arab mind, but what many other people saw well in advance of any of this happening is that as much as Iraqis and Arabs hate Saddam Hussein, they despise America every bit as much. If they wanted to be rescued - and no one asked them if they did, they certainly wouldn't have wanted America to do it for them. If you spoke to a lot of Muslims (as I have done often in the past) they simply do not value America's model of 'freedom and democracy', indeed they view the American ideal of democracy as being positively oppressive. Crime, drugs, alcoholism, pornography and all the ills of what we call democracy are abhorrent to the Muslim mind. They would rather have an authoritarian regime that forbids these practices. That doesn't mean they don't want democracy, just nothing that even vaguely resembles the American/Western model of democracy. It is sheer arrogance to assume that Arabs need to be 'civilised' by forcing them to accept our moral standards and precepts. Understand this and you will understand the majority of Arabs.

Q

ByteMe

I support that 100%.

raid517

I think what you mean byte is that you would like to help dispatch them there. Am I right?

Q

ByteMe

Since they are volunteering. Why not.

raid517

Well I'm talking about wider Muslim sentiment, not just the suicide bombers, although I have a bad feeling we are going to see an awful lot more of these... Mind you if you are saying you would like to dispatch all muslims, that's another matter. You would have to talk to the forum moderators about that one I think...

Q

ByteMe

While I'd agree that your thinking is a possibility. I believe the exact opposite will happen. Once more muslims see how well we treat the Iraq people after the war they will rethink what they think of us.