The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

Executions are leading cause of death in Iraq!

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby greeney2 » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:32 pm

With numbers no where near 650,000, nobody wants to report this side of the Iraq death count. Those outspoken with wild numbers the USA is responsible for, never report things like this.

Iraq study: Executions are leading cause of death
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print AP – FILE - In this Nov.20, 2008, file photo, a woman weeps over the coffin containing her relative, one of …
Slideshow:Iraq Play Video Iraq Video:Iraqis take holidays as security improves AP Play Video Iraq Video:Minn. National Guard Members Head Out Today WCCO Minneapolis By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer Kim Gamel, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 6 mins ago
BAGHDAD – Execution-style killings, not headline-grabbing bombings, have been the leading cause of death among civilians in the Iraq war, a study released Wednesday shows. The findings, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, point to the brutal sectarian nature of the conflict, where death squads once roamed the streets hunting down members of the rival Muslim sect.

Estimates of the number of civilians killed in Iraq vary widely. The study was based on the database maintained by Iraq Body Count, a private group that among other sources uses media reports including those of The Associated Press.

The authors concede the data is not comprehensive but maintain that the study provides a reliable gauge of how Iraqis have died in the six-year conflict.

The findings also provide further evidence of the brutal sectarian cleansing and retaliatory violence between Shiites and Sunnis that pushed the country to the brink of civil war before easing a year and a half ago.

"I think that a lot of the executions with torture had to do with trying to get people to move out of their houses," said Michael Spagat, one of the study's authors. "It had to strike fear into people's hearts. A lot of it is just hatred and retribution."

The study covered the period from the March 20, 2003 invasion through March 19, 2008, in which 91,358 violent deaths were recorded by Iraq Body Count.

The total number of civilian deaths in Iraq is widely disputed, but the count by the London-based group is widely considered a credible minimum.

Apart from media reports, Iraq Body Count uses figures from morgues and hospitals since the war started.

However, the authors focused on only 60,481 deaths linked to specific events, excluding Iraqis killed in prolonged episodes of violence during the U.S.-led invasion and the U.S. sieges of the former insurgent stronghold of Fallujah in 2004.

The study found that 19,706 of the victims, or 33 percent, were abducted and killed execution-style, with nearly a third of those showing signs of torture such as bruises, drill holes or burns.

That compared with 16,922, or 27 percent, who died in bombings, most of them in suicide attacks.

The figures were similar to those recorded by the AP.

While the study didn't assign blame for the killings, death squads largely run by Shiite militias were believed to be behind many of the bullet-riddled bodies that turned up by the dozens on the streets of Baghdad and other cities — often stripped of any identification.

Those death squads were seeking revenge for the deaths of Shiite civilians at the hands of al-Qaida and other Sunni religious extremists in suicide bombings and other attacks.

The authors said the number of execution-style killings is likely to be higher because it excluded Iraq Body Count's morgue figures. The morgue numbers were omitted because the specific weapon used could not be determined in those cases.

Nor did they attempt to speculate how many missing people could be dead.

Although such killings continue, the numbers of bodies found every day have dropped to the single digits since the U.S. troop surge and a cease-fire called by the main militia leader, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, in August 2007.

The drop in violence is also due in part to the fact that many formerly mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad have been effectively segregated after the minority sect was purged by the death squads. Baghdad has since become a maze of concrete walls and checkpoints aimed at ensuring security.

Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst with the New York-based Human Rights Watch, blamed the sectarian violence and insurgency that followed the ouster of Saddam Hussein on poor postwar planning by the United States.

"It bears out what we have known for some time now — that there was a massive shift in the 2004 time frame from civilian casualties caused by U.S. and multinational forces to the insurgency," he said.

Only 4 percent of the Iraqi deaths included in the study, or 2,363, were a result of U.S. airstrikes, which frequently targeted suspected insurgents hiding in houses. But 46 percent of the victims whose gender could be determined were female and 39 percent were children.

The authors caution that those percentages may be inflated "because the media may tend to specifically identify female and young victims more readily than male adults among the dead."

The airstrikes also caused the largest number of civilian deaths in individual attacks, with an average number of 17 people killed in bombs dropped by warplanes, compared with an average of 16 people killed by suicide attackers on foot, the figures showed.

Garlasco, who was not involved in the study, said that reflected a grim reality.

"The airstrike data is very similar to Afghanistan in that when civilians are killed in an airstrike it tends to be a significant number," he said. "Air power can be a very discriminating force, but when mistakes are made civilians pay and they pay big."

___

The AP News Research Center in New York contributed to this report.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Dark-Samus » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:52 pm

Sad really, the ones that will always suffer the most, are the innocent.
It´s pathetic.
I guess most of these politicians and other power hungry maniacs didn´t have good parents.
And that is really the truth...

Just look at Mr John Greenewald.
He must have had good parents. 8-)
Otherwise he wouldn´t be as succesful as he is today wouldn´t he greeney? :mrgreen:
Truth doesn´t control you, you control it...
User avatar
Dark-Samus
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Cole_Trickle » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:14 am

Question:

How many deaths is the USA responsible for in Iraq? If even 1 and it just so happened to be you, or a beloved family member would that lone wolf be one too many, or simply a casualty of war?

We Americans love to cut of our noses despite our faces at every turn, we even go out of our way to do it on occasion. Such with trying to justify something that never should have happened in the first place.

But hey~~If~~if's and but's were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas every day!

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2709
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby screamzero » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:43 am

Cole_Trickle wrote:Question:

How many deaths is the USA responsible for in Iraq? If even 1 and it just so happened to be you, or a beloved family member would that lone wolf be one too many, or simply a casualty of war?

We Americans love to cut of our noses despite our faces at every turn, we even go out of our way to do it on occasion. Such with trying to justify something that never should have happened in the first place.

But hey~~If~~if's and but's were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas every day!

Cole


...wolf piss.
User avatar
screamzero
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Texas, U.S.A.

Postby inja » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:50 am

Your point is what Greeney.......somehow this article is accurate? Interesting? Valuable? Realistic?

I do believe any article EVER posted by anyone in regards to the Iraqi deaths where in one form or another disputed by you (and others) because the numbers came from....

database maintained by Iraq Body Count


...and holy crap your article pulls their info from the same source.


So are you inclined to believe the article or are ye just playing devils advocate?????
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.
inja
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Rob72 » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:58 pm

inja wrote:Your point is what Greeney.......somehow this article is accurate? Interesting? Valuable? Realistic?

I do believe any article EVER posted by anyone in regards to the Iraqi deaths where in one form or another disputed by you (and others) because the numbers came from....

database maintained by Iraq Body Count


...and holy crap your article pulls their info from the same source.


So are you inclined to believe the article or are ye just playing devils advocate?????



Image
User avatar
Rob72
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:27 pm

The point is the 650,000 number was based on some kind of limited study where a handfull of people were interviewed and that was multiplied by the remainder of the population. Those numbers, and numbers of sanctions killing 500,000 since the gulf war, were rounded off guestimates, and had they not picked such outrageous numbers, the articals would be unnoticed. So people beleieve it and skip over hard questions like we discussed before. The catagory of "other" in that study as skipped over, and a big %, not a minor 1-2%. That study never said a word about deaths from their own people, yet we were supose to believe 650,000 were dead from just the USA. This study may or may not be accurate, but it at least talks about numbers that are not rounded up to the nearest 100,000 or so in even numbers. It at least gives numbers breaking down to the last digit, which at least in my mind lends some credibility of actually counting something.

I'm curious why you are immediatly defencsive instead of asking the question, why is there such a huge difference between 650,000 AND 91,358, or the fact it deals with exact numbers. And no comment about almost 100,000 murdered in cold blood, by their own people. Whats your point in avoiding that?
greeney2
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby inja » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:43 pm

Absolutely!

Rob72 wrote:
inja wrote:Your point is what Greeney.......somehow this article is accurate? Interesting? Valuable? Realistic?

I do believe any article EVER posted by anyone in regards to the Iraqi deaths where in one form or another disputed by you (and others) because the numbers came from....

database maintained by Iraq Body Count


...and holy crap your article pulls their info from the same source.


So are you inclined to believe the article or are ye just playing devils advocate?????



Image
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.
inja
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby inja » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:47 pm

greeney2 wrote:The point is the 650,000 number was based on some kind of limited study where a handfull of people were interviewed and that was multiplied by the remainder of the population. Those numbers, and numbers of sanctions killing 500,000 since the gulf war, were rounded off guestimates, and had they not picked such outrageous numbers, the articals would be unnoticed. So people beleieve it and skip over hard questions like we discussed before. The catagory of "other" in that study as skipped over, and a big %, not a minor 1-2%. That study never said a word about deaths from their own people, yet we were supose to believe 650,000 were dead from just the USA. This study may or may not be accurate, but it at least talks about numbers that are not rounded up to the nearest 100,000 or so in even numbers. It at least gives numbers breaking down to the last digit, which at least in my mind lends some credibility of actually counting something.

I'm curious why you are immediatly defencsive instead of asking the question, why is there such a huge difference between 650,000 AND 91,358, or the fact it deals with exact numbers. And no comment about almost 100,000 murdered in cold blood, by their own people. Whats your point in avoiding that?


Defensive? What nonsense. Just wanna know what your point is and you reasoning seems a bit off. They are using the same numbers from the same source but you are saying this article could be more accurate because they are utilizing numbers that possible show the amount of deaths from their own people. Alrighty than. In other words it is easier for you to accept because those deaths aren't due to US and Allies military actions.
Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.
inja
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:20 pm

Boloney Inja, the 650,000 study was based on about 600 actual deaths known from the handful of people interviewed, around 1500. That was leapfroged to 650,000 by multiplying by the remainder of the poplation. It did not talk in any specifcs about beheadings, executions, mutilations or even mention insurgents whatsoever. It did not detail at all deaths of any kind that were done in any form from Iraq military, insurgents or Al-queda. It grouped nearly 70% of the projected deaths as caused by "Other", and "Other" was not defined, but assumed to be by the USA. The groupings were vaugh, and the rounding up of numbers was ridiculas. 70% of 650,000 is 455,000 and thats a pretty big number to just place as "other" and have no definition. Any study, graph, or report, statistics would be listing anthing classied as "other", some small % no more than 2% of totals. That speaks to the total credibility of the study. That is my point, the numbers never had credibility.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9668
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Next

Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest