T Nation

Iraqi Casualties


"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children."

John Hopkins School of Public Health
Public Health Center
October 26, 2004


Yes, but its all worth it. This war is the best thing to happen to our country. Havent you seen how much better its making everything? I mean, Iraq has freedom, we no longer have millions of homeless people who we need to help despite of our war efforts, terrorists are now running scared and we no longer have to fear them! Dont you see?

Because its going so good we can efficiently respond to natural disasters in our own countries, feed starving people living under bridges, and osama bin laden has been captured and shall no longer threaten our patriotic way of life. You see all the good its done? How dare you post something of this ilk on here? Why you, you liberal traitor!!




From today's Associated Press. Seems like the terrorists are killing most of the civilians.

"Since Friday, at least 125 Iraqi civilians have been killed in bombings and suicide attacks. They include 76 people who died in near-simultaneous suicide bombings at two Shiite mosques in Khanaqin along the Iranian border. Four people have been arrested, including one believed to have been planning another suicide attack, a security officer in Khanaqin said.

On Saturday, a suicide bomber detonated his car in a crowd of Shiite mourners north of Baghdad, killing at least 36 people. The bomb exploded late in the afternoon as mourners offered condolences to Raad Majid, head of the municipal council in the village of Abu Saida, over the death of his uncle. Abu Saida is near Baqouba, a religiously mixed city 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

Police said about 50 people were injured.

Earlier, a car bomb exploded among shoppers at an outdoor market in a mostly Shiite neighborhood in southeast Baghdad, killing 13 people and wounding about 20 others, police reported. Witnesses said they saw a man park the car and walk away shortly before the blast.

In Jordan, family members of Jordanian-born al-Qaida in Iraq chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi renounced the terror leader, whose group claimed responsibility for Nov. 9 suicide attacks on three Amman hotels that killed 59 other people.

The family of al-Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmed Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, reiterated their strong allegiance to Jordan's King Abdullah II in half-page advertisements in the kingdom's three main newspapers. Al-Zarqawi threatened to kill the king in an audiotape released Friday."


And, the follow-up: how many people had the terrorists killed before we "liberated" the country?


Hey, a fresh thread to trap libs on!! Alright!!!
Saddam WAS a gd terrorist! He held his countrymen IN TERROR all the time. By your reasoning, Iraq should still be ruled by a terrorist, Hussein.

Let's send you there to punch the terrorists in the throat. End of problem. (And Marmadogg, why the user-name change?)


You make less and less senss every post. Try to keep up.


This conflicts with the latest report I saw from either the Red Cross or UN (I don't recall). It said 2/3 of civilian casualties were due to the terrorists over the last year or year and a half.




Saddam knocked off a few thousand a month before we knocked him off. Why no outcry from you and the Al-Appeasment cronies before that.

Keep up the good work. I am sure the people you support so blindly will have a spot for you if they get the caliphate back one day.


How many are dying in North Korea right now? How many are dying in Africa right now?

Somehow, the acts of dictators against their own people is only a reason for war when you actually desire a war, not because of the principle involved.

Using such issues as an argument against people who are against collatoral damage to suggest they support terrorists is asinine. I suppose if you aren't for a war in Africa and also in North Korea you are a terrorist appeaser?

Somehow, I think terrorist appeasers are probably an unpatriotic anti-american bunch. Too bad nobody ever uses the tactic of branding people as such around here... since I was recently asked to show it happening.

Anyhow, please, get serious. Saddam was a bad man. Everyone knows that. Nobody, or at least I'm not aware of anyone, thought otherwise, but that is not why the nation went to war.

It went to war because the Bush administration wanted the war, for reasons which may or may not have been explained to us, and because the media was used to drive fear into hearts of Americans.

Oh, yes, in my opinion.


So the Saudis are different how? Or the Russians with the Chechnyans? Or the British with the Irish?

I know those thirteen degrees and 243 IQ are gonna help you one day, but you need logic classes.


So do you support harris's position or not?

It's not asinine to draw the conclusion that someone who supports our enemy in wartime is probably not very supportive of the US. It's actually just common sense, unfortunately easily missed by the liberal psuedo-intellectual crowd.

I couldn't really give a flying fuck if he is anti-american or not but he shouldn't try to hide behind something he isn't. He doesn't care about our troops, the mission or the direction of the war. He's just anti-Bush, bordering on the silly at this point.

The reasons for the war have been posted many times over. Your opinion, as well as mine, is speculation. Reasons given in a speech are not. I won't belabor the issue, yet again by posting them, since they are already on a current thread.


That Lancet report was widely discredited shortly after its release, here's but one argument against.


"Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English,which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language(98,000)is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board."

The U.N. did a study in 2004 that placed the number somewhere around 24,000. Of that number it is not known how many of the 24,000 were innocent civilians killed by coalition forces.



The paper, written by researchers at the Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University, was based on a door-to-door survey in September of nearly 8,000 people in 33 randomly selected locations in Iraq. It was dangerous work, and the team of researchers was lucky to emerge from the survey unharmed.

The paper that they published carried some caveats. For instance, the researchers admitted that many of the dead might have been combatants. They also acknowledged that the true number of deaths could fall anywhere within a range of 8,000 to 194,000, a function of the researchers' having extrapolated their survey to a country of 25 million.



The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures?one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology?


Please stop lying.

Please show me where I "supported the enemy during wartime".

Please show me where I ever spoke against the troops. YOU wanted the troops in harm's way. YOU think it's a good idea to keep them there.

So, wouldn't that make YOU against the troops?


Why don't we ever get a straight forward response by those who claim to be conservatives of why we aren't equally supporting war in these other dictatorships? What made Iraq so special? Iraq trumps Africa and North Korea, why? Are we just waiting on more troop to be born and choose to go into the military?

My gut tells me that if there were a homeless Iraqi family standing on the street right now, that very few of the same people jumping for "Iraq Liberation" would open their doors and alow them to sleep in their house. How far does this care for the people of Iraq go and how does it overcome the care of these other people in other territories?


There's a world of difference. Oppression versus sometime genocide.


The figure I saw recently was 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the invasion. Even if the insurgents aren't responsible for the vast majority of these, which seems unlikely but could be debated, all it does is reinforce the moral burden on the U.S. to set things right in that country.

No reason to lose 30,000 innocent Iraqis and 2,000 American soldiers and then fly home in disgrace, while leaving 25 million Iraqis behind to face, at best, dictatorship.