Saddam Captured? (part 2)

The topic "Saddam Captured?" has a technical glitch, and has been closed.Please carry on, in this topic.Adminnemooseusps: I'm having currently having trouble getting part one to download to me.

Well, looks like I'm getting into a quagmire... (sorry, bad humor)Rei Says:

quote:

---

Instead of insinuating, why don't you attempt to call into question some specifics? It's not like they hide their data sources. Also of note is that this really is a lowball, because it only covers A) people who made it to the hospital, and B) people lucky enough to be reported on by western media. Also, this only covers deaths; the wounded are always far more common than the dead. Also, this omits military casualties, both dead and wounded.

---

(A) I did not know that the site only reports casualties that made it to the hospital, perhaps you could better inform me because I was under the impression that it was a list of casualties reported by the media.(B) I did not know that al-Jazeera, The Hindustan Times, the Jordan Times, and the Times of India were "Western" media.Given these two misunderstandings of mine, I suppose you have the upper hand.

quote:

---

Name a case that you feel was due to a preexisting condition - to quote the saying, "put up or shut up". Insinuation isn't a good style of argument when the data is sitting right in front of you.

---

Try j036. Deaths due to bad water. Why is their water bad? Because Saddam let the infrastructure rot for 30 years, because of UN sanctions, or because of the war?

quote:

---

Actually, it does make a distinction for Iraqis who were "simply...killed".

---

Ok, take x169. A security guard is killed. How do you know that particular event had anything to do with the occupation? Or k004, there's a shootout with bankrobbers. How do you know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

quote:

---

Ah. So if Iraq came over and killed Jenna Bush, she would be a "combattant"? Get real.

---

Yes, she would be a legitimate target if she had an AK-47 and were firing on troops.And if you were a soldier there, being shot at by a 14 year old, would you not defend yourself?And if the age of the guy with AK-47 who is desperately trying to kill you actually makes a difference, which it doesn't, how would you be able to tell how old the combatant is from outside the building, where you are pinned down and returning fire?

quote:

---

Try to read better before you post.

---

Ok.

quote:

---

And I'm sure FoxNews doesn't have political motives, nor is it playing for an audience. Right?

---

But Rei, FoxNews is "a legitimate network" and is "popular" in the US.....

quote:

---

Get real. Al-Jazeera is a legitimate network, and one of the more popular ones in the middle east at that; what, do you think they forged footage or something conspiratorial like that?

---

I thought you said al-Jazeera was Western media.Change your mind?I did not know that popularity was linked to accuracy, or being a "legitimate" network, whatever that is.And no, my accusation is that al-Jazeera will tend to highball the numbers and bias its reporting.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2003]

I checked the source file for the thread and could find no problem with it. Let's keep our eyes open and see if something similar happens again. I made a change to message editing yesterday, perhaps it caused a bug.--Percy

[quote]

quote:

---

Also of note is that this really is a lowball, because it only covers A) people who made it to the hospital, and B) people lucky enough to be reported on by western media. Also, this only covers deaths; the wounded are always far more common than the dead. Also, this omits military casualties, both dead and wounded.

​

(A) I did not know that the site only reports casualties that made it to the hospital, perhaps you could better inform me because I was under the impression that it was a list of casualties reported by the media.

---

Please pay attention to conjunctions. It covers (A) *and* (B). A large number of their figures are from a combination of (A) and (B) - i.e., hospital counts reported by the media.

quote:

---

(B) I did not know that al-Jazeera, The Hindustan Times, the Jordan Times, and the Times of India were "Western" media.

---

Good point. I just wanted to point out "non-Iraqi" media.

quote:

---

Try j036. Deaths due to bad water. Why is their water bad? Because Saddam let the infrastructure rot for 30 years, because of UN sanctions, or because of the war?

---

You can read for yourself.

quote:

---

Ok, take x169. A security guard is killed. How do you know that particular event had anything to do with the occupation? Or k004, there's a shootout with bankrobbers. How do you know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

---

Are you in disagreement that Iraq has become a hotbed of lawlessness as a result? Because if so, you're in disagreement with 96% of Iraqis.That said, the security guard was killed by a British soldier.Why don't you look these things up first?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah. So if Iraq came over and killed Jenna Bush, she would be a "combattant"? Get real.

---

​

Yes, she would be a legitimate target if she had an AK-47 and were firing on troops.

---

Correction: If some Iraqis said that she was firing, and other said that she wasn't, and she was in her home, not taking part in the war, and she was 14 years old.How young is too young for you?

quote:

---

And if you were a soldier there, being shot at by a 14 year old, would you not defend yourself?

---

Um, the soldiers first blasted the place to smitherines with TOWs. And, once again, even they didn't have a concensus of agreement as to whether the child actually fired at them. Gen. Sanchez (who does the PR) stated that he was firing. Several of the soldiers involved in the operation denied this. Mustafa's body was found under his bed in the bedroom; Uday, Qusay, and his bodyguard (the people who noone disputes were fighting) were holding out from the bathroom.Oh, and I might add: one Iraqi bystander was killed in the operation, and 5 were wounded, so they very well might not have been counting Mustapha at all. I would have....

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I'm sure FoxNews doesn't have political motives, nor is it playing for an audience. Right?

---

​

But Rei, FoxNews is "a legitimate network" and is "popular" in the US.....

---

Nicely put in quotation marks. Might I also add, it is "Fair and Balanced"!

quote:

---

And no, my accusation is that al-Jazeera will tend to highball the numbers and bias its reporting.

---

How do you highball video? Even their print coverage, they have a reporter on the scene. If they don't get the numbers firsthand, a source (such as a doctor or witness) is cited - these things are standard journalistic coverage.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

How young is too young for you?

---

Anyone old enough to make a legitimate effort at killing someone else is old enough to be killed in self defense.Maybe you see things differently, being more morally conscious or something...but that's my way of looking at it.

quote:

---

Um, the soldiers first blasted the place to smitherines with TOWs

---

This was after the first attempt at siege failed and the troops fell back with two wounded.And since missiles were used, how do you know they knew the 14 year old was in the house when they attacked?

quote:

---

How do you highball video?

---

How do you know video is involved? See the next line in your own quote.

quote:

---

Even their print coverage, they have a reporter on the scene. If they don't get the numbers firsthand, a source (such as a doctor or witness) is cited - these things are standard journalistic coverage.

---

I'm sure you're aware of how questionable witness testimony can be. (Like with the incident above).

Another question, since the hospital figures were used, taking the increase in casualties over pre-war levels and assuming they are all the fault of the coalition, what if the numbers fall in the future? What if ten years from now, with a new Iraqi government, violence falls below pre-war levels? Will the coalition then be credited?

Everyone else jumped on responding to your request before giving me a chance. Frankly, I usually look at iraqometer.com because they have cooler graphics and decent have ballpark figures, but I also tend to use iraqbodycount.com.HOWEVER, I am a born sceptic and am open to all criticisms and reevaluations of data. Look how the WTC casualty estimates plummeted from 10+K, to 6K, to eventually somewhere around 3K. It takes time to sort these things out.There was a more thorough review of casaulties during the war itself, put out by a mmmm kind of a conservative thinktank. It is a military assessment group.Here are two links to the results of the study:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqi war deaths 'total 13,000'
Up to 15,000 people killed in invasion, claims thinktank | World news | The GuardianHere is a link to a copy of the study:
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0305iraqcasualtydata.pdfA conservative estimate, and based on those who made it to hospitals, is ~4K civilian casualties, and 15K combatant casualties. This was limited to the period of the invasion and so does not include ongoing civilian deaths during the occupation.Does this lower number make it "better" for you?

quote:

---

Why is their water bad? Because Saddam let the infrastructure rot for 30 years, because of UN sanctions, or because of the war?

---

Do you really believe this argument? Does anyone really have to go find you sources which explain how WE bombed electrical plants and knocked out clean water supplies?The pentagon itself during its briefings would explain to reporters how much infrastucture was getting fixed up to prewar levels. That means we had degraded them, and not Saddam Hussein.

quote:

---

A security guard is killed. How do you know that particular event had anything to do with the occupation? Or k004, there's a shootout with bankrobbers. How do you know that wouldn't have happened anyway?

---

A military occupying power is responsible for establishing law and order. That makes us responsible for civilian deaths if we fail to do so. The obvious has already been admitted by Garner (Bremer's predecessor) that the military did little to nothing to establish law and order as was our duty... if not common sense.Rumsfeld reacted to the resulting chaos of our invasion, by stating we knew this would happen. Does that not mean the chaos that resulted was our doing?You may claim that a bankrobbery is commonplace, it is aided and promoted by the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure (like police) with no coordinated replacement.

quote:

---

Yes, she would be a legitimate target if she had an AK-47 and were firing on troops. And if you were a soldier there, being shot at by a 14 year old, would you not defend yourself?

---

This does not answer Rei's question. Civilians naturally go to the defense of their family who come under attack. That does not make them less civilian in the eyes of international law.Would you want yourself counted as a civilian killed or as a soldier killed if your brother was wrongfully killed in front of you and you picked up a gun to shoot the soldier who did it?Yes a soldier has a right to defend himself. This is why nations should not be putting soldiers into positions where they are likely to have to gun down citizens enraged by foreign invasion, occupation, and murder of innocent loved ones.In the end the individual soldier may be right, but it doesn't change the status of the person killed, nor the ramifications for the government which sent the soldier in.I would suggest that according to your line of argument, anyone in the Jewish ghettos killed fighting back against Nazi soldiers would have to be considered valid soldier combatants. Is this where you want to go?

quote:

---

FoxNews is "a legitimate network" and is "popular" in the US.....

---

You were joking with this, right? Fox is documentedly bad.

quote:

---

And no, my accusation is that al-Jazeera will tend to highball the numbers and bias its reporting.

---

Unlike US media that exaggerated the threat Hussein posed to the world, and to his own population to pump up knee jerk reactionary feelings in the US public?Ot how about highballing WTC death estimates? Do we now discount the tragedy because current numbers are less than half the initial media estimates.Or is each innocent life taken a tragedy in and of itself?------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Anyone old enough to make a legitimate effort at killing someone else is old enough to be killed in self defense.

​

Maybe you see things differently, being more morally conscious or something...but that's my way of looking at it.

---

Wow, do you really mean this?Do you actually view a young girl who uses a gun as an invasion force breaks into her home as an "attacker" and the invading soldiers as "defenders"?Isn't it more correctly viewed that civilians have the ability to defend themselves and their homes from invading military powers? Wasn't the girl simply defending herself and her home?The soldiers were attacking. We were the invaders. We are the occupying power. The onus is on us to not provoke civilians to action, not the other way around.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, the soldiers first blasted the place to smitherines with TOWs

---

​

This was after the first attempt at siege failed and the troops fell back with two wounded.

---

Four wounded, but yes.

quote:

---

And since missiles were used, how do you know they knew the 14 year old was in the house when they attacked?

---

Odds are, they didn't. Odds are, they didn't know they were killing innocent people 99% of the time that they did. That's what war is like. Now, you *can* change your rate of killing civilians by the tactics that you choose. For example, our choice to stress cluster bombs in civilian areas is reprehensible, while our usage of GPS-guided munitions is commendable (not that GPS munitions don't have a disturbing failure rate, or that when 1-4 tons of explosives goes off and makes a building collapse in a densely populated area (think WTC collapse), or you don't have on-ground intelligence as to who is in what building, that innocent people won't die). Some of our choices are to be highly commended; some are borderline war crimes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Even their print coverage, they have a reporter on the scene. If they don't get the numbers firsthand, a source (such as a doctor or witness) is cited - these things are standard journalistic coverage.

---

​

I'm sure you're aware of how questionable witness testimony can be. (Like with the incident above).

---

It's one thing to not be able to tell if you're being shot at in the heat of battle (or to want to cover up if you were involved in a massacre or the killing of a child). But what motive would a doctor (a commonly cited source) have to lie about the number of bodies - especially in the cases *after the war ended*?Also, I never did get your opinion on the massive number of casualties that were thrown away because they couldn't certify that they were noncombattants or didn't keep death records, and the death of people who never got to the hospital or lived in remote areas. As an example, had a human shield team leaving not had to detour, this might never have been reported. (I can't find the original report - I got it from the AP site before, but they don't keep stuff around long; this site has a mirror)------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

What if ten years from now, with a new Iraqi government, violence falls below pre-war levels? Will the coalition then be credited?

---

How does that change anything? The coalition must be held responsible (or at least shoulder the burden) for the deaths it caused directly, and indirectly for failing to provide adequate law and order.If in the future violence in regular day to day affairs drops below prewar levels then it goes to the credit of whoever is running the government at the time. It does not suddenly whitewash unnecessary devastation during the war.By the way, if it does drop below prewar levels, who is to say it wouldn't have dropped anyway in ten years time, especially if sanctions were removed so their standard of living could improve... and without the "aid" of a devastating war?------------------
holmes

quote:

---

Another question, since the hospital figures were used, taking the increase in casualties over pre-war levels and assuming they are all the fault of the coalition, what if the numbers fall in the future? What if ten years from now, with a new Iraqi government, violence falls below pre-war levels? Will the coalition then be credited?

---

Um, we're not talking about a statistical blip here.Civilian casualties mount behind the smokescreen of battle
Hospitals buckle as casualties escalate
http://www.pbs.org/...middle_east/jan-june03/iraq_06-19.htmlAt some points, the influx was over 100 an hour for a given hospital.Of course, the US (and consequently, the CPA) don't want a count. And so, it stops:http://www.azstarnet.com/.../thu/31211ICivilianCasualti.html------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

A conservative estimate, and based on those who made it to hospitals, is ~4K civilian casualties, and 15K combatant casualties. This was limited to the period of the invasion and so does not include ongoing civilian deaths during the occupation.

---

I'll take that. I just wanted you to back up a claim.

quote:

---

The pentagon itself during its briefings would explain to reporters how much infrastucture was getting fixed up to prewar levels. That means we had degraded them, and not Saddam Hussein.

---

Yes, we degraded infrastructure. But so did sanctions and so did Saddam. Let me ask you again, can you prove that those deaths occured as a direct result of the invasion?

quote:

---

​

You may claim that a bankrobbery is commonplace, it is aided and promoted by the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure (like police) with no coordinated replacement.

---

It is also "aided and promoted" by every convicted criminal being released by Saddam. Can you prove that that robbery happened because of occupation and not because of Saddam?Again, you assume that everything bad happened as a direct result of us, that, in effect, Saddam and loyalists take no responsibility for the body count. Even though several of the Iraqis killed died as a result of the *insurgency*, not coalition operations.

quote:

---

Would you want yourself counted as a civilian killed or as a soldier killed if your brother was wrongfully killed in front of you and you picked up a gun to shoot the soldier who did it?

---

Personally, I wouldn't care.But the fact remains that soldiers have a right to defend themselves when under attack, whether from enemy soldiers or combatants. You would have done the same.

quote:

---

You were joking with this, right? Fox is documentedly bad.

---

I think you misunderstand that remark.

quote:

---

I would suggest that according to your line of argument, anyone in the Jewish ghettos killed fighting back against Nazi soldiers would have to be considered valid soldier combatants. Is this where you want to go?

---

I really like this line of reasoning you used, I doubt anyone could do better at eliciting an emotional response to distract from the real issue of the inherent right of soldier (or anyone) to self defense.But still, it fails. The Nazis were doing something immoral and illegal, and this has been clearly demonstrated by various courts. BUT, under international law, and I think natural law, and I think, any just law imaginable, people have a right to defend themselves, even in war. Whether or not the Nazis in your example had the right to defend themselves depends on whether their orders were just, and courts have concluded they were not. Therefore in your Nazi example it would be unjust.For the incident we are discussing to be considered equally unjust requires an a priori assumption that the war itself was unjust.

quote:

---

This is why nations should not be putting soldiers into positions where they are likely to have to gun down citizens enraged by foreign invasion, occupation, and murder of innocent loved ones.

---

What about in WWII? If German civilians sniped British troops that were invading their homeland, would that be ok? After all, Germany was invaded by foreigners, occupied, and there were civilian deaths ("murders") you call them.How about a compromise? The Husseins did what they felt they needed to do to defend themselves, and the soldiers did what they needed to do. Each acted within their rights to defend themselves. Agree?

quote:

---

Um, we're not talking about a statistical blip here.

---

No, Rei, you did not answer my question.If in five years from now, the casualty rate in Baghdad drops below pre-war levels, will the coalition be credited? After all, we are blamed for the current increase.

quote:

---

By the way, if it does drop below prewar levels, who is to say it wouldn't have dropped anyway in ten years time, especially if sanctions were removed so their standard of living could improve... and without the "aid" of a devastating war?

---

That's the same as saying that most of the violence in Iraq would've happened anyway.So let's review. If it's bad, it is America's fault. If it's good, it's because of the Iraqi government.No double-standards here.

quote:

---

No, Rei, you did not answer my question.

​

If in five years from now, the casualty rate in Baghdad drops below pre-war levels, will the coalition be credited? After all, we are blamed for the current increase.

---

Your question is like saying, "Yes, the death rate in New York City went up when al-Qaeda attacked.. .but if the death rate goes down, should we give them credit?"It's a silly line of argument. The death rate goes up from the war. Once it stabilizes, it's unrelated once again.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."