| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| US and allies 'kill most Iraqis' | |
| 2005-01-29 | |
Coalition and Iraqi troops may be responsible for killing 60% more non-combatants in Iraq than the insurgents, the BBC has learned. The civilian death toll for the last six months is contained in confidential records obtained by Panorama. More than 2,000 civilians were killed by the authorities, while insurgent attacks accounted for 1,200 deaths. The Iraqi Ministry of Health figures are usually available only to members of Iraq's cabinet. The data covers the period 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005, and relates to all conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals. The figures exclude, where known, the deaths of insurgents. That would be useful to know. How many lives are saved with the premature death of each would-be serial killer? The figures reveal that 3,274 Iraqi civilians were killed and 12,657 wounded in conflict-related violence during the period. Of those deaths, 60% - 2,041 civilians - were killed by the coalition and Iraqi security forces. A further 8,542 were wounded by them. Insurgent attacks claimed 1,233 lives, and wounded 4,115 people, during the same period. How do hospitals decide which perforated corpse is 'civilian' and which is 'insurgent'? Do they have magical insight? Or do they use guesswork and/or trust the word (Lancet-style) of whoever brings them in? Are medical staff intimidated to record dead insurgents as innocent civilians? Do most insurgent casualties fall in Sunni areas where medical staff may sympathise with their cause? How many insurgent dead never find their way to hospitals, to save their families and colleagues from Government and coalition identification? Panorama interviewed US Ambassador John Negroponte shortly before it obtained the figures. He told reporter John Panorama's film Exit Strategy, reported by BBC world affairs editor John Simpson from Baghdad, will be shown at 2215 GMT, Sunday night on BBC One. It's unfortunate that these figures have been revealed by the BBC so close to the polling that there won't be time to seriously question their reliability or veracity before the ballots have been cast. It's also unfortunate that there's no distinction between US and 'allies'' share of the figures. All very unfortunate. But I'm sure the BBC has no intention of furthering an anti-US / anti-coalition / anti-US-sympathetic-Iraqi-politicians agenda or of being a willing mouthpiece for an Iraqi source who regards the BBC as a suitable medium for channeling such a political agenda. They have obviously had the figures long enough to make a documentary about them, and have seen fit to publicise the programme's apparent message, in good time to influence Iraqi voters, yet they won't actually show the programme, with whatever clauses and counter-arguments it may contain, until voting's finished. Which is just coincidental, I'm sure. | |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #12 That's occurred to me as well. I often wonder if the only reason Hollywood and the BBC supported the Allies was because we were fighting on the same side as their beloved Uncle Joe. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-01-29 11:41:38 PM |
| #11 To think that we spent hours glued to the radio in the 40s to secretly listen to the BBC German Service, when anyone who overheard the famous bumbumbumbum could betray you and send you to the camps. What a fall. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-01-29 11:37:20 PM |
| #10 The BBC is apologizing now... They lied. |
| Posted by: DANEgerus 2005-01-29 11:28:50 PM |
| #9 Coalition and Iraqi troops may be responsible for killing 60% more non-combatants in Iraq than the insurgents, the BBC has learned. Contrary to what the BBC says, I seriously doubt they have "learned" anything at all. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-29 5:34:23 PM |
| #8 The average grunt distrusts them on sight. I am not sure what I would do with them on sight, if I were there, but distrust would be the least of their concerns. |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-01-29 5:12:22 PM |
| #7 One of my daughter's former boyfriends is now in Iraq. He emails me about twice a month. He says their biggest headaches come from reporters. Most Army troops have been quietly warned that anything they tell the reporters will be twisted against them. Ernie Pyle was loved by the GIs. Now all the "war correspondents" want to do is to break the next My Lai. The average grunt distrusts them on sight. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-01-29 4:58:28 PM |
| #6 If the BBC openly admitted they are against us, their attacks and sabotage would be less effective. It's one reason they publicly chant the "objectivity" mantra. |
| Posted by: Elmoluling Snesing5118 2005-01-29 3:44:42 PM |
| #5 Sure are glad the Brits are an ally! Hate to see the slant if they were against us. No offense toward most Brits BD, just can't stand the BBC and their 'in-depth' reporting. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-01-29 3:37:50 PM |
| #4 If memory serves me, isn't it U.S. policy to pay money to the families of innocent people killed in error by U.S. forces? This would be a big incentive to claim your dead terrorist is an innocent bystander. Not only does the guy (and 70 relatives) get to go paradise, but his family gets money from the infidels. |
| Posted by: Big Al 2005-01-29 3:17:30 PM |
| #3 The source is not reliable. I prefer my information without a anti-US and anti-Iraq freedom bias. The BBC doesn't qualify. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-29 11:13:52 AM |
| #2 *Yawn* Can't these clowns ever come up with something original? I think they intend to get their way by boring the normal people to death. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-01-29 11:08:37 AM |
| #1 We can only wonder what the true totals would be if the number of 'civilian' deaths reported by Dr. Sami al-Jumaili of the Fallujah hospital were correctly reported. No doubt many of his reported 'civilian'deaths were actually |
| Posted by: GK 2005-01-29 11:07:36 AM |