Iraqi civilian body count site

Rufus T. Firefly · March 25, 2003, 15:34

I know there's been a lot of discussion of the civilian death toll in the war here, so I thought people might be interested in this site; it's clearly anti-war, but their methodology for keeping track of the deaths 9or, technically, the media reports of deaths) seems clear, fair, and well-thought-out, regardless of where they stand:

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

Nothing to add, really; just thought it was a good resource, and one of those things the web does well.

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I know there's been a lot of discussion of the civilian death toll in the war here, so I thought people might be interested in this site; it's clearly anti-war, but their methodology for keeping track of the deaths 9or, technically, the media reports of deaths) seems clear, fair, and well-thought-out, regardless of where they stand:

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

Nothing to add, really; just thought it was a good resource, and one of those things the web does well.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 15:38

Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Bush, Hussein....They should both be 'exiled' for the evil they have created

Spec · March 25, 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Should is the key word here.....but IMHO, I dont think he gives a shlt.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 15:48

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Something Hussein should be interested in seeing.

Why?

The site does look very fair, and given the amount of force used, the numbers given are low, compared to what they could be.

If someone can point out an problem with it, please, point it out.

Kropotkin · March 25, 2003, 15:53

It is much fewer than I feared before the war even if we have seen far from the end of it yet...

It has to be said about the US/UK army that their tactics seems to have been a good way of keeping down the figures.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 16:00

Nothing like the 500,000 insisted upon, is it ?

And I say Hussein should care, because in theory, they're his people.
Hell. Coalition troops care more than Hussein about his people.

Kropotkin · March 25, 2003, 16:03

What happens in Bagdad in the future will determine if this war will be a bloody one or not so bloody. Surely it will not be anyting like the east front of WWII but only a real pessimist could have though that.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 16:05

It seems like the tactics being used by Iraq... like having troops dressed as civilians and then using them to ambush Amreicans... people surrendering, then waiting for a chance to strike... are designed to inflict more civilians casualties on it's own side.

A sad event to say the least.

While you may argue that the US, in starting the war, is responsible for all the deaths... you also have to be honest and say that at least the US are TRYING to minimize civilians injuries and death. The same can't be said about Iraqs own leader.

Kropotkin · March 25, 2003, 16:09

"You"? Are you talking to me?

Well, that was what happend in Vietnam. The VC fought in the way that worked but it turned the US forces against the civilians they claimed they where there to fight for. Surely this will not last for years so that will not be such a large problem.

Willem · March 25, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Nothing like the 500,000 insisted upon, is it ?

They haven't reached Baghdad yet, the numbers are bound to climb once the street fighting starts. Though I admit I doubt it will reach 500,000. How many I refuse to speculate, it's already much lower than I thought it would be with the bombing. They've done a good job on that score.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
"You"? Are you talking to me?

Nahhhh... that was a "generic" you for those who are just going to say that since we are the ones attacking, we are the cause for all deaths.

My statement was not meant to get into the issues of why the war is happening, or even state that I supported the reasons why we are at war... just pointing out that the war right now is a reality... and that one side is at least trying to limit civilian casualties, while the other side seems to be trying to maximine them amoung their own people.

I find that sad.

Kropotkin · March 25, 2003, 16:20

I got a bit confused there, as I thought I was accused for opinions have no recollection of having stated at all.

To be fair (if one can be that) I don't think the reason the Iraqis sometimes fights in that way is to cause more suffering for the civilians. They probably don't take the potential civilian loses into much consideration but that's not really the same thing as having civilian loses as on of the goals for their warfare.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 17:59

Of course Saddam doesn't mid high civilian casualties in the South. He has killed enough of them before, and high civilian casualties will lead to greater anti-US resentment outsie of Iraq, and make it harder within Iraq. That is also why the US is doing evrything it can to keep them low, like not having taken out the electric (and hence perhaps water system) of Baghdad yet.

JCG · March 25, 2003, 18:20

I saw this a couple of days ago...I agree with the need for such a tally (though probably this one isn't going to be the most accurate, it's a start).

Yeah, the numbers will climb up really quick once urban fighting starts in the capital, but Saddam Hussein also carries a fair share of the blame for that....I mean, arming the population, placing SAM batteries in the middle of cities, etc....

Urban Ranger · March 25, 2003, 23:06

Rufus,

Good link. So you are sticking around...

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Of course Saddam doesn't mid high civilian casualties in the South. He has killed enough of them before, and high civilian casualties will lead to greater anti-US resentment outsie of Iraq, and make it harder within Iraq. That is also why the US is doing evrything it can to keep them low, like not having taken out the electric (and hence perhaps water system) of Baghdad yet.

Not anymore.

Further, AFAIK, they have knocked out power and water supply in Basra.

DinoDoc · March 25, 2003, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Further, AFAIK, they have knocked out power and water supply in Basra.

Source?

PS Seems that the civilian revolt everyone has waited on has started. Here's hoping that it gathers steam.

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/interna...m?id=360492003

Dis · March 25, 2003, 23:20

Is this kind of thread allowed?

Urban Ranger · March 25, 2003, 23:23

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Source?

PS Seems that the civilian revolt everyone has waited on has started. Here's hoping that it gathers steam.

ABC

Jaguar · March 25, 2003, 23:31

Why wouldn't it be, Diss?

MichaeltheGreat · March 26, 2003, 01:08

First - power was cut to deny Iraqis air defense and comms assets. Loss of water was incidental, since it has to be pumped. At last word, the allies had water running in some 40 percent of Basra and were working on restoring it.

Second, most of the estimated civilian casualties will be indirect, as a result of interruptions of food and water supplies and medical treatment, so the numbers of direct casualties are low in comparison with the total impact. The effects of this type of deprivation will continue even well after the war is over, for example, kids and old people in particular with compromised immune systems from malnutrition, dying before they otherwise would have, but not from direct action on either side.

Third, the Saddamites bit about the fake surrenders and fedayin in civvies isn't about not caring about civilian life. It's a given that the Saddamites don't care about civilian life, but that in itself isn't a motivation.

The real issue here is military, at least Saddamite style. Two facts the Saddamites know well: We are a lot thinner in ground forces than last time, and his conscripts and militia have a natural desire to surrender. The current tactics address both of those - the fedayin in civilian clothes are part of Saddam's special security services, almost exclusively Tikriti, and personally loyal to Saddam and Qusay Hussein. These are the bastards who went around last time dispensing summary punishment and often summary executions among the regular conscript army. The fact that they're operating in civilian clothes is a danger to the regular Iraqi grunt as much as it is to the allied forces - moreso, in fact, because for the Iraqi grunt who is ill-informed as to who's doing what in this war, these guys have the full power and sadism of the regime behing them.

The fake surrenders fit the same pattern - it makes it harder for the Iraqis to surrender, between fear of the fedayeen, SRG and ISSS detachments, and fear of getting shot by us when they try and surrender. On the flip side, allied forces will have to be much more careful handling prisoners, catch and release is less feasible, and we have to tie up more of our limited manpower on the ground escorting groups of prisoners out to where they can't do any harm.

That's the intent, not a disregard for Iraqi civilians, which is just incidental background for the Saddamite regime.

Rufus T. Firefly · March 26, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Rufus,

Good link. So you are sticking around...

Thanks. And yes, we're sticking around. The meeting with the ambassador was mostly reassuring; he even drew a laugh when he said (and you have to imagine this bing said in a government-bureaucrat monotone): "On reason to evacuate would be if the Turkish military and civil forces were no longer able to maintain order in Turkey. We do not envision that happening."

They did go into high dissembling mode about Turkish troops in Iraq, saying something like (and I'm not making this up), "Turkey has promised to co-ordinate any troop movments with us. To date, they have not sought to co-ordinate any troop movemnts with us. Therefore, there have been no troop movements."

But I didn't mean to threadjack my own thread. Back to casualties...

Gatekeeper · March 26, 2003, 04:08

MtG:

How many actual fighting men and women have we got in Iraq so far? Total numbers I've read say between 250,000 and 300,000, but obviously not all of them are front line troops.

How many bodies and equipment would the 4th Infantry Division add to the field if and when it ever disembarks into Kuwait?

Gatekeeper