You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Group says civilians toll 6,000 in Iraq war
2003-07-10
New information from remote locations of Iraq has pushed up the civilian death toll from the US-led war by 500 in the last month to at least 6,000, an Anglo-American research group said on Wednesday. The Iraq Body Count's (IBC) latest figures, based on media reports and more than a dozen counting projects from independent investigators in and outside Iraq, put the minimum number of civilians dead at 6,055 and the maximum at 7,706. "Both the US & the UK said they were taking every effort to minimize civilian casualties and talked a lot about smart, precision weapons," IBC researcher John Sloboda told Reuters. "From that, one could have expected a clean war with very few casualties, but I don't call 5,000 to 7,000 very few. It is clear the coalition claims were political claptrap."
Speaking of claptrap, I'd first have to wonder what the definition is of "civilians" these simpletons are using. Does it include the non-uniformed Bad Guys getting wiped out when they attack convoys? That'd push the numbers up.
The latest IBC toll has risen by about 500 after information arrived from areas that had not been reached before by outsiders.
I'd also have to wonder about reports coming in from places nobody's been. If nobody's been there, how'd we kill 'em? Mail 'em SCARE packages and have them drop dead from heart failure? If there're large numbers of deaders in places where nobody's been, how did the Academics and Peace Activists™ verify the reports?/td>
The group says its statistics are the most comprehensive collation of civilian deaths available.
"Comprehensive" wouldn't appear to be the same thing as "reliable."
"If you look at a map of Iraq, there are still a lot of places, that you would imagine allied troops have gone through, where there have been no reports of killings yet, simply because no journalist or researcher has gone there," said Sloboda, a psychology professor from Britain's Keele University.
Or because nobody got killed...
The IBC, run by British and American academics and peace activists, has chastised London and Washington for not setting up an official investigation into civilian deaths. "Then there are the deaths by malnutrition and dehydration as a consequence of the war which we haven't even started talking about," Sloboda added.
And don't forget all those dead puppies and kittens and baby ducks...
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#2  Group says a lot of things. They've already been debunked by Oxblog

I prefer the testimony of eyewitnesses myself.

Allow me to plug my page debunking Leftists lies about Iraq
Posted by: marlowe   2003-7-10 8:30:24 PM  

#1  This groups count everyone that died during that period and probably includes many that were killed by Saddam's henchman. There was an American left wing group that counted about 3k, but they will probably boost that number to match this groups. This group is really fueling that anti-american setiment with their numbers. Our forces UK/U.S. went well out of their way to minimize collateral damege and this count makes it look like we targeted civilians. The Bathists are using this body count to recruit Arabs to fight in Iraq. I wasn't there but I would take a second look a the dates the person died and where our forces were fighting. I will bet anyone that this number will be halved before too long.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2003-7-10 8:30:07 PM  

00:00