I'm not saying all the troops have behaved this way, but a fair percentage have. Just trying to place some perspective here is all.
And I'm a philosophy major.
This is a ridiculous statement. What the hell is a 'fair percentage'?.. I'm not going to ask where you get this information because it's obviously made up.
Trying to 'put something into perspective' by creating this illusion is just rude on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are in the US military and follow the rules day in and day out.
Funny thing is, the same government that takes a moral high ground and acts like God by murdering it's own citizens in the name of 'justice', is also guilty of murdering over 1 million Iraqi's in an illegal occupation which continues as we speak.
Every day soldiers return home from Iraq and are treated like heroes, yet many of these people have just been murdering unarmed men, women and children.
too bad you have so little trust in the individual soldiers who fight every day. MANY as you put it do not murder unarmed women and children. That is a ridiculous overstatement that you should take back. If you cannot see the difference in what a soldier does and what a murderer does than I feel sorry for you.
Seems like you and I disagree on a lot of stuff, I really am not trying to be difficult with you or anything. Just so I can get to know where you are coming from a little bit, are you a sociology major by any chance? Not making fun of that in anyway, I am one too. Just seems like you have a mind for the social sciences
I'm not saying all the troops have behaved this way, but a fair percentage have. Just trying to place some perspective here is all.
And I'm a philosophy major.
first, what is a fair percentage? if you are talking about anything more than <1% you are really over estimating
That would have been my next guess, I minored in philosophy, which has given me more than any other degree. People really do underestimate the importance of reading and understanding philosophers. But i would maybe say to you, get past the conflict theorists. Seems like you have a strong grasp of them, and their philosophy on government and everything else, but it isn't as simple as Marx would have you believe. Not calling you a marxist in the negative sense but I get a lot of what he says out of what you say . . . if that makes sense at all
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
first, what is a fair percentage? if you are talking about anything more than <1% you are really over estimating
I have no idea, but when seeing such things as the 'Winter Soldier Testimonies' I get the impression that random killing of civilians was a common occurrence. Also, one million Iraqi's had to have been killed by someone, and according to the casualty surveys aerial bombardment was the leading cause of death amongst Iraqi civilians.
That would have been my next guess, I minored in philosophy, which has given me more than any other degree. People really do underestimate the importance of reading and understanding philosophers. But i would maybe say to you, get past the conflict theorists. Seems like you have a strong grasp of them, and their philosophy on government and everything else, but it isn't as simple as Marx would have you believe. Not calling you a marxist in the negative sense but I get a lot of what he says out of what you say . . . if that makes sense at all
I've actually never read Marx. Despite appearances, I really have little interest in politics.
At university I read mainly Kant, Nietzsche, and the Continental philosophers like Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, e.t.c.
first, what is a fair percentage? if you are talking about anything more than <1% you are really over estimating
I have no idea, but when seeing such things as the 'Winter Soldier Testimonies' I get the impression that random killing of civilians was a common occurrence. Also, one million Iraqi's had to have been killed by someone, and according to the casualty surveys aerial bombardment was the leading cause of death amongst Iraqi civilians.
That would have been my next guess, I minored in philosophy, which has given me more than any other degree. People really do underestimate the importance of reading and understanding philosophers. But i would maybe say to you, get past the conflict theorists. Seems like you have a strong grasp of them, and their philosophy on government and everything else, but it isn't as simple as Marx would have you believe. Not calling you a marxist in the negative sense but I get a lot of what he says out of what you say . . . if that makes sense at all
I've actually never read Marx. Despite appearances, I really have little interest in politics.
At university I read mainly Kant, Nietzsche, and the Continental philosophers like Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, e.t.c.
I am not talking about politics, I am talking about government. I don't think you can say you have no interest in government. Also, I find it strange you made it through without having to read marx. You should pick up some, he has interesting topics and thoughts. Nietzsche is similar but you cannot replace marx himself. Check it out it is worth the read if you still like to read that is. I know when I finished I was ready to never see a book again
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Self defense is one thing.. .we're talking murder, death penalty and killing with a purpose. I'd hardly call any war/military engagement the US has been in a long, long, long time as "self-defense".
understandable but than is there ever a justified killing? I happen to think so, but how about you?
If someone tries to kill you than you fight back.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I am not talking about politics, I am talking about government. I don't think you can say you have no interest in government. Also, I find it strange you made it through without having to read marx. You should pick up some, he has interesting topics and thoughts. Nietzsche is similar but you cannot replace marx himself. Check it out it is worth the read if you still like to read that is. I know when I finished I was ready to never see a book again
On second thoughts, I did a course in political philosophy and read some Marxist philosophers like Herbert Marcusse and Adorno, but it was a long time ago.
Self defense is one thing.. .we're talking murder, death penalty and killing with a purpose. I'd hardly call any war/military engagement the US has been in a long, long, long time as "self-defense".
understandable but than is there ever a justified killing? I happen to think so, but how about you?
If someone tries to kill you than you fight back.
right, agreed. I wouldn't call a war self defense either, but if you are killing enemy combatants you are not committing murder and I don't believe it is wrong. If you murder someone in cold blood and there is no shred of doubt, than I have no problem with the death penalty. However, because of our system and inherent flaws in it, I just don't think we can implement it without killing at least one innocent person, which makes it too big of a risk.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
right, agreed. I wouldn't call a war self defense either, but if you are killing enemy combatants you are not committing murder and I don't believe it is wrong. If you murder someone in cold blood and there is no shred of doubt, than I have no problem with the death penalty. However, because of our system and inherent flaws in it, I just don't think we can implement it without killing at least one innocent person, which makes it too big of a risk.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
right, agreed. I wouldn't call a war self defense either, but if you are killing enemy combatants you are not committing murder and I don't believe it is wrong. If you murder someone in cold blood and there is no shred of doubt, than I have no problem with the death penalty. However, because of our system and inherent flaws in it, I just don't think we can implement it without killing at least one innocent person, which makes it too big of a risk.
yep, when a service man or woman is killed in the line of duty it isn't murder.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ok fair enough... How does "collateral damage", bystanders and similar fit into this equation? At some point or level, someone is responsible - correct?
yep, when a service man or woman is killed in the line of duty it isn't murder.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
right, agreed. I wouldn't call a war self defense either, but if you are killing enemy combatants you are not committing murder and I don't believe it is wrong. If you murder someone in cold blood and there is no shred of doubt, than I have no problem with the death penalty. However, because of our system and inherent flaws in it, I just don't think we can implement it without killing at least one innocent person, which makes it too big of a risk.
I wonder how many of the 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children were enemy combatants?
did you just pick the largest number you can find? I realize that an accurate number is almost impossible to get, but by just saying 1,000,000 civilians have died without links and proof seems kind of shortsided.
I also wonder how many were actually women and children?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
did you just pick the largest number you can find? I realize that an accurate number is almost impossible to get, but by just saying 1,000,000 civilians have died without links and proof seems kind of shortsided.
I also wonder how many were actually women and children?
Iraq Body Count relies solely on Iraqi civilian deaths reported in the media. Seeing as most civilian deaths in Iraq are not reported in the media then their figures are obviously flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... ercounting Iraq Body Count project (IBC) states: "We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording"
As for the 1 million number, do you think I just made it up?
Out of all the Iraqi casualty surveys so far, only the Lancet surveys and the Iraq Family Health Survey were peer-reviewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).
The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).
According to the article, violence was responsible for most of the extra deaths whether or not the Fallujah data was excluded. Coalition airstrikes would be the main cause of these violent deaths if Fallujah data were included. The study makes the controversial conclusion that: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces." and "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths." The study estimates that the risk of death specifically from violence in Iraq during the period after the invasion was approximately 58 times higher than in the period before the war, with the CI95 being 8.1-419, meaning that there is a 97.5% chance that the risk of death from violence after the invasion is at least 8.1 times higher than it was before. Newsday reported:
"The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships".
It was noted that the large estimate of excess death is even more shocking in view of the widely accepted belief that deaths in Iraq were already very high at 0.5% per year, particularly among children, due to UN sanctions against Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey ... casualties
On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[2][3] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.
On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[4][5]
ORB reports that it has been "tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005."
did you just pick the largest number you can find? I realize that an accurate number is almost impossible to get, but by just saying 1,000,000 civilians have died without links and proof seems kind of shortsided.
I also wonder how many were actually women and children?
An April 2005 article by The Independent[145] reports:
"A week before she was killed by a suicide bomber, humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka forced military commanders to admit they did keep records of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces. ... in an essay Ms Ruzicka wrote a week before her death on Saturday and published yesterday, the 28-year-old revealed that a Brigadier General told her it was 'standard operating procedure' for US troops to file a report when they shoot a non-combatant. She obtained figures for the number of civilians killed in Baghdad between 28 February and 5 April [2005], and discovered that 29 had been killed in firefights involving US forces and insurgents. This was four times the number of Iraqi police killed."
The December 2006 report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) found that the United States has filtered out reports of violence in order to disguise its policy failings in Iraq.[146] A December 7, 2006 McClatchy Newspapers article[146] reports that the ISG found that U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence on one day in July 2006, yet "a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light more than 1,100 acts of violence." The article further reports:
"The finding confirmed a Sept. 8 McClatchy Newspapers report that U.S. officials excluded scores of people killed in car bombings and mortar attacks from tabulations measuring the results of a drive to reduce violence in Baghdad. By excluding that data, U.S. officials were able to boast that deaths from sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital had declined by more than 52 percent between July and August, McClatchy newspapers reported."
From the ISG report itself: "A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."[146]
According to Project Censored, the undercounting and underreporting of Iraqi casualties has led to a widespread belief among the United States public that very few Iraqis have been killed, with an average "estimate" of under 10,000 reported by an Associated Press poll in February, 2007.[2] This survey was, itself, not reported in the mass media, even by the Associated Press.
'...criticism of IBC came mainly from the media-watchdog website Media Lens that published four pieces[7][13][20][21] on what they saw as the "massive bias and gaps" reflected in the IBC database and their totals.
This view of IBC was based on the belief that IBC figures are extremely low due to pro-US media bias and inadequate reporting due to its heavy (though not exclusive) reliance on Western media sources, which has led some of these critics to claim IBC should be called the "Iraq Western Media Body Count". These biases and inadequacies, they claim, mean IBC's count is low by up to a factor of 10, and that it specifically minimizes the proportion of deaths caused by US forces.
MediaLens article of January 26, 2006[7] states: "First, the dramatic absence of examples of mass killing by US-UK forces suggests that the low IBC toll of civilian deaths in comparison with other studies is partly explained by the fact that examples of US-UK killing are simply not being reported by the media or recorded by IBC. Visitors to the site - directed there by countless references in the same media that have acted as sources - are being given a very one-sided picture of who is doing the killing."
Stephen Soldz wrote a February 5, 2006 article titled "When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths".[8] It stated: "Of course, in conditions of active rebellion, the safer areas accessible to Western reporters are likely to be those under US/Coalition control, where deaths are, in turn, likely to be due to insurgent attacks. Areas of insurgent control, which are likely to be subject to US and Iraqi government attack, for example most of Anbar province, are simply off-limits to these reporters. Thus, the realities of reporting imply that reporters will be witness to a larger fraction of deaths due to insurgents and a lesser proportion of deaths due to US and Iraqi government forces."
A further claim has been that IBC does little or nothing to correct misuse of their figures by public officials or media organizations. It is claimed that the media often misuse IBC's estimate of the total number dead. It is also claimed that the media use the IBC's estimate in order to ignore or downplay the October 2004 excess mortality study published in the Lancet Medical Journal, which estimated a far higher figure. Critics of IBC argue that the Lancet study is the most accurate estimate so far and is more reliable than IBC's estimate.
The January 26, 2006 MediaLens article[7] stated: "We accept that the IBC editors are sincere and well-intentioned. We accept, also, that they have often made clear that their figures are likely to be an underestimate. But we believe they could have done much more to challenge the cynical exploitation of their figures by journalists and politicians. And they could have done much more to warn visitors to their site of the number and type of gaps in their database."
I'm not saying all the troops have behaved this way, but a fair percentage have. Just trying to place some perspective here is all.
This is a ridiculous statement. What the hell is a 'fair percentage'?.. I'm not going to ask where you get this information because it's obviously made up.
Trying to 'put something into perspective' by creating this illusion is just rude on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are in the US military and follow the rules day in and day out.
I suppose all of the following statements by U.S troops are also ridiculous and made up?
I suppose you think that the 1 million Iraqi dead killed themselves?
What do you think the U.S Troops are doing in Iraq anyway? Putting on a pantomime for the locals?
Maybe the following videos will help you to see what the troops are doing over there:
Collateral Murder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU ... r_embedded
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
I'm not going to ask where you get this information because it's obviously made up.
http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony ... %3A+Part+1
It was just after 9-11 when Hart Viges joined the Army and the start of the occupation when he entered Iraq in March 2003. As a mortar man, he had his first taste of what he calls the loss of humanity that comes with war, when he helped set up rounds aimed at civilian neighborhoods in a small town on the way to Baghdad. He felt his humanity further slipping away when he fell into the habit of labeling everything with the racist epithet, "hadji." His testimony includes stories of raids on the wrong houses, which resulted in prolonged detention of innocent people, and his refusal to pose for a photo with a dead Iraqi man found lying in the road, not because he was disturbed by the death, but because it wasn't his kill. Later, he found a moment of clarity in the midst of chaos. Training his gun site on the face of a man standing in a doorway with an RPG strapped to his back, he saw an expression of fear and confusion that he understood to mirror his own. He didn't pull the trigger.
Clifton Hicks and Steve Casey testify about their experiences in a "free-fire zone" where there were supposedly "no friendlies." But Hicks and Casey never saw any enemy combatants. In November, 2003, according to Hicks, an AC-130 gunship opened fire on an apartment complex, completely destroying it as Casey and his comrades watched and cheered from a nearby roof. Casey didn’t think about it at the time, but now the loss of civilian life truly bothers him.
Hicks says this building demolition was the most destructive act he'd ever seen, and the building was not a legitimate military target. A sniper team could have neutralized the enemy sporadically firing from that location, but leadership chose to destroy the building and the civilians inside.
Casey also shows a video of a house raid in which GIs destroyed the contents of a house while a woman shrieked, only to find out they were at the wrong house. He says he is not indicting those he served with. It was the result of the environment they were in.
Steven Mortillo arrived in Iraq in March, 2004, in the Army. He spent most of his time conducting "presence patrols", walking down the street waiting for something to go wrong. One time, his squad was attacked and could not return fire due to the angle of the Bradley weapon system. They fired warning shots into a wall to prevent any more action. That day, they showed remarkable restraint, but that changed once they started taking casualties.
On a dismounted patrol in December, Mortillo's squad came under fire. The fighting was intense. They evacuated their wounded platoon leader into a waiting Bradley. The enraged Bradley crew directed all their firepower at the area the attack had come from, a densely populated residential neighborhood. According to Mortillo, it is difficult even to know whether you are following the Rules Of Engagement in the thick of the action, especially when you believe you are avenging the death of a friend.
Jesse Hamilton, who'd been in the Army since 1998, was entirely against the war when he signed up to go and serve as an advisor to the newly formed Iraqi army. But the Arabic speaker wanted to do what he could to expedite the war's end. Hamilton found untrained Iraqi soldiers who often resorted to "spray and pray" techniques in which they would shoot indiscriminately and hope it hit their target, and who would abuse their prisoners. "It is a lost cause in Iraq," says Hamilton.
Adam Kokesh did not agree with the war, but he volunteered to serve in Iraq to "do the right thing" and "clean up our mess." He was in Fallujah shortly after the four Blackwater contractors were killed. In that city, the rules of engagement were always changing. During the siege of Fallujah, fires broke out and Iraqi firefighters and police raced to the scene. US forces saw their silhouettes in the area from which they had taken fire and started shooting. Miscommunication was often the cause of scenes like this.
Kokesh's unit was told Al Zarqawi was fleeing the city in a Black Opal and to stop all black Opals . . . black Opals were everywhere in Iraq.
He testifies that all the detainees, guilty or innocent, get treated the same, which leads more and more "innocent" ones to join the insurgency.
Jason Hurd, a self-described Tennessee mountain man, spent ten years in the Army and National Guard. He enlisted after high school, though his father, a Marine in WWII, objected. Hurd says of his father, "He was one of the most war-mongering, gun-loving people you could ever meet," but he didn't want his son to enlist because he knew firsthand the psychological toll war takes on its warriors. Hurd spent his year in Iraq in central Baghdad as a medic, sometimes doing meet-and- greets with the local population, but he didn't escape the shooting and bombardment of civilian targets, which he describes in his testimony. He tells of an incident that took place while he was guarding a checkpoint. Car bombs were an ever-present danger, he says, so when a car kept approaching, despite his escalating signals to stop, he raised his gun and was about to fire at the driver. Suddenly, a man appeared and got the car to turn around. An old woman, highly-respected in the community, emerged. "I am a peaceful person," Hurd says, "but I drew down on an 80-year-old woman who could not see me." He attests to the harassment and disruption of Iraqi lives that he says happens - and continues to haunt him - daily.
Marine Corps Rifleman Vincent Emanuele was deployed to an Iraqi village, near the border with Syria, in August 2004. During his eight months there, he witnessed and participated in: the aimless shooting at Iraqi vehicles; the random firing of rifles and mortars into the village rather than at specific targets; the physical abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the driving of prisoners out into the desert where they were abandoned; and the disrespectful handling of the Iraqi dead. And in his testimony, Rifleman Vincent Emanuel repeatedly said: “These were not isolated incidents.”
As the casualties grew in Sergio Kochergin's platoon, the rules of engagement eroded. After seeing their friends blown up, "We were angry," he says, "we just wanted to do our job and come back." At one point, that meant that an Iraqi carrying a heavy bag and a shovel was at risk of being shot. Within months, Kochergin says that the rules of engagement were left entirely up to he and his fellow soldiers. "I want to apologize to all the people in Iraq," says a shaken Kochergin.
Jason Washburn’s unit was told to shoot anyone digging near the side of the road because they might be planting a bomb. They carried spare weapons and shovels in their vehicles. If they killed an innocent Iraqi, they could throw a shovel on the corpse and say the person had been digging. At one point, Washburn’s commander called the unit together to praise Marines for accurate shooting, his pride apparently undiminished by the fact that the victim was not an insurgent but the local mayor.
In Iraq, the rules of engagement are being loosely defined and broadly enforced at the expense of the Iraqi people, says Jason Lemieux. "Anyone who tells you different is either a liar or a fool." When he got to Baghdad, he says he was explicitly instructed by his commanders that he could shoot anyone who made him uncomfortable and refused to move when he ordered them to do so. "Better them than us," was the prevailing philosophy, he says, and everyone on the street was considered an enemy combatant who could be killed.
Jon Turner went to Iraq with an Arabic phrase tattooed on his wrist. It says ‘fuck you.’ “I got that because it was my choking hand. Anytime I felt the need to take out aggression, I would go ahead and use it.” But in his video testimony, and through the use of video and photographs from his tour, Turner recounts the mistakes that he made. That everybody in Iraq made. “On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed kill. This man was innocent,” he says. In case of such mistakes, the company carried Iraqi weapons to drop, Turner recalls. They instigated fights and sprayed bullets like sugar. “I just want to say that I’m sorry for the hate and destruction that I’ve inflicted on innocent people…” Turner says. “I am no longer the monster that I once was.”
When U.S. Army scout sniper Garett Reppenhagen got to Iraq, he realized that the rules of engagement he’d just learned in training had evaporated. Two Iraqi farmers trying to work their fields past curfew one night learned that at the point of a machine gun and belt-fed grenade launcher not even authorized for use on enemy combatants. They were only the first of many innocent civilians that Reppenhagen would see gunned down.
Funny thing is, the same government that takes a moral high ground and acts like God by murdering it's own citizens in the name of 'justice', is also guilty of murdering over 1 million Iraqi's in an illegal occupation which continues as we speak.
Every day soldiers return home from Iraq and are treated like heroes, yet many of these people have just been murdering unarmed men, women and children.
All that stuff copied and pasted all over is fine and dandy, but the way you put this in your original post is pure propaganda.
I'm not saying these terrible things dont happen, but you sounded like a typical reporter trying to make it sound like troops are just wandering around using kids as target practice. When you say 'MANY' of those men and women are murdering unarmed men, women and children, it just comes off slanted in my opinion.
But thanks for those links, i saw what happened in that situation on 2007, and it looks like a terrible, terrible mistake that casued death and suffering. I really really wish this war never happened.. :(
You say to read these links to understand the 1 million body count and yet these links show nothing to back up your claim. I've googled and googled and googled and I can not find anywhere, just once where it says the body count from the Iraq war is a million or more. Do you and others on this forum just make this shit up???
I think my history teacher in high school put it right, I'm not sure if he was quoting or not, but the question asks, are 10 guilty men's lives worth the life of one innocent man...
I think my history teacher in high school put it right, I'm not sure if he was quoting or not, but the question asks, are 10 guilty men's lives worth the life of one innocent man...
exactly.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I think my history teacher in high school put it right, I'm not sure if he was quoting or not, but the question asks, are 10 guilty men's lives worth the life of one innocent man...
exactly.
here in Greece we say:better 100 guilty out of prison than 1 innocent in prison
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I think my history teacher in high school put it right, I'm not sure if he was quoting or not, but the question asks, are 10 guilty men's lives worth the life of one innocent man...
exactly.
here in Greece we say:better 100 guilty out of prison than 1 innocent in prison
is that a real saying? that seems odd to have a saying like that ;0
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You say to read these links to understand the 1 million body count and yet these links show nothing to back up your claim. I've googled and googled and googled and I can not find anywhere, just once where it says the body count from the Iraq war is a million or more. Do you and others on this forum just make this shit up???
I've already answered your previous accusation about my making shit up. I posted the links to both the Lancet report and the ORB report. Try opening your fucking eyes.
You say to read these links to understand the 1 million body count and yet these links show nothing to back up your claim. I've googled and googled and googled and I can not find anywhere, just once where it says the body count from the Iraq war is a million or more. Do you and others on this forum just make this shit up???
I've already answered your previous accusation about my making shit up. I posted the links to both the Lancet report and the ORB report. Try opening your fucking eyes.
I also looked, Byrnzie, and I couldn't find any figure anywhere in the links (or even links inside the links) you provided. Can you provide a direct quote? Either I missed it or I'm looking in the wrong spot or something.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I also looked, Byrnzie, and I couldn't find any figure anywhere in the links (or even links inside the links) you provided. Can you provide a direct quote? Either I missed it or I'm looking in the wrong spot or something.
They're on the previous page. Page 7 of this thread. This is page 8.
Here, I'll post them again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).
The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).
The relative risk of death due to the 2003 invasion and occupation was estimated by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6 months preceding it. The authors stated, "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Among such "conservative assumptions" is the exclusion of data from Fallujah in many of its findings. Since interpreting the results of the study would be complicated by the inclusion of an outlier cluster in Fallujah, where heavy fighting caused far more casualties than elsewhere in Iraq, the study focused mainly on the results that excluded the Fallujah cluster. While the authors argued that the Fallujah cluster's inclusion could be justified as a normal part of the sampling strategy (the authors noted that other "hotspots" like Najaf had not ended up being surveyed), and the authors presented two sets of results in some cases (one set including the Fallujah data and one not), the article, and most press coverage of the article, stresses the data that excluded the Fallujah cluster.
The main debate in the media in the U.S. and UK focused on whether 98,000 (95% CI 8000–194,000) more Iraqis died as a result of coalition intervention, calculated from their estimate of an increased mortality of 1.5 times (95% CI 1.1-2.3) the prewar rate (excluding the Fallujah data). Had the Fallujah sample been included, the survey's estimate that mortality rates had increased about 2.5 times since the invasion (with a 95% CI 1.6-4.2) including the Fallujah data would have resulted in an excess of about 298,000 deaths (95% CI ?-?), with 200,000 concentrated in the 3% of Iraq around Fallujah (Roberts et al. p. 5).
According to the article, violence was responsible for most of the extra deaths whether or not the Fallujah data was excluded. Coalition airstrikes would be the main cause of these violent deaths if Fallujah data were included. The study makes the controversial conclusion that: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces." and "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths." The study estimates that the risk of death specifically from violence in Iraq during the period after the invasion was approximately 58 times higher than in the period before the war, with the CI95 being 8.1-419, meaning that there is a 97.5% chance that the risk of death from violence after the invasion is at least 8.1 times higher than it was before. Newsday reported:
"The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships".
It was noted that the large estimate of excess death is even more shocking in view of the widely accepted belief that deaths in Iraq were already very high at 0.5% per year, particularly among children, due to UN sanctions against Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey ... casualties
On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[2][3] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.
On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[4][5]
ORB reports that it has been "tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005."
You say to read these links to understand the 1 million body count and yet these links show nothing to back up your claim. I've googled and googled and googled and I can not find anywhere, just once where it says the body count from the Iraq war is a million or more. Do you and others on this forum just make this shit up???
Though actually, what's interesting is that these reports have been around now for about 5 years and yet you don't know about them.
I also looked, Byrnzie, and I couldn't find any figure anywhere in the links (or even links inside the links) you provided. Can you provide a direct quote? Either I missed it or I'm looking in the wrong spot or something.
They're on the previous page. Page 7 of this thread. This is page 8.
On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[4][5]
ORB reports that it has been "tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005."
Thanks Byrnzie. That's vomit inducing facts right there.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
This is a ridiculous statement. What the hell is a 'fair percentage'?.. I'm not going to ask where you get this information because it's obviously made up.
Trying to 'put something into perspective' by creating this illusion is just rude on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are in the US military and follow the rules day in and day out.
That would have been my next guess, I minored in philosophy, which has given me more than any other degree. People really do underestimate the importance of reading and understanding philosophers. But i would maybe say to you, get past the conflict theorists. Seems like you have a strong grasp of them, and their philosophy on government and everything else, but it isn't as simple as Marx would have you believe. Not calling you a marxist in the negative sense but I get a lot of what he says out of what you say . . . if that makes sense at all
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I have no idea, but when seeing such things as the 'Winter Soldier Testimonies' I get the impression that random killing of civilians was a common occurrence. Also, one million Iraqi's had to have been killed by someone, and according to the casualty surveys aerial bombardment was the leading cause of death amongst Iraqi civilians.
I've actually never read Marx. Despite appearances, I really have little interest in politics.
At university I read mainly Kant, Nietzsche, and the Continental philosophers like Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, e.t.c.
I am not talking about politics, I am talking about government. I don't think you can say you have no interest in government. Also, I find it strange you made it through without having to read marx. You should pick up some, he has interesting topics and thoughts. Nietzsche is similar but you cannot replace marx himself. Check it out it is worth the read if you still like to read that is. I know when I finished I was ready to never see a book again
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
On second thoughts, I did a course in political philosophy and read some Marxist philosophers like Herbert Marcusse and Adorno, but it was a long time ago.
right, agreed. I wouldn't call a war self defense either, but if you are killing enemy combatants you are not committing murder and I don't believe it is wrong. If you murder someone in cold blood and there is no shred of doubt, than I have no problem with the death penalty. However, because of our system and inherent flaws in it, I just don't think we can implement it without killing at least one innocent person, which makes it too big of a risk.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
yep, when a service man or woman is killed in the line of duty it isn't murder.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I wonder how many of the 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children were enemy combatants?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/
did you just pick the largest number you can find? I realize that an accurate number is almost impossible to get, but by just saying 1,000,000 civilians have died without links and proof seems kind of shortsided.
I also wonder how many were actually women and children?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Iraq Body Count relies solely on Iraqi civilian deaths reported in the media. Seeing as most civilian deaths in Iraq are not reported in the media then their figures are obviously flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... ercounting
Iraq Body Count project (IBC) states: "We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording"
As for the 1 million number, do you think I just made it up?
Out of all the Iraqi casualty surveys so far, only the Lancet surveys and the Iraq Family Health Survey were peer-reviewed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).
The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).
According to the article, violence was responsible for most of the extra deaths whether or not the Fallujah data was excluded. Coalition airstrikes would be the main cause of these violent deaths if Fallujah data were included. The study makes the controversial conclusion that: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces." and "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths." The study estimates that the risk of death specifically from violence in Iraq during the period after the invasion was approximately 58 times higher than in the period before the war, with the CI95 being 8.1-419, meaning that there is a 97.5% chance that the risk of death from violence after the invasion is at least 8.1 times higher than it was before. Newsday reported:
"The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships".
It was noted that the large estimate of excess death is even more shocking in view of the widely accepted belief that deaths in Iraq were already very high at 0.5% per year, particularly among children, due to UN sanctions against Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey ... casualties
On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[2][3] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.
On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[4][5]
ORB reports that it has been "tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties ... ercounting
Systematic underreporting by U.S.
An April 2005 article by The Independent[145] reports:
"A week before she was killed by a suicide bomber, humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka forced military commanders to admit they did keep records of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces. ... in an essay Ms Ruzicka wrote a week before her death on Saturday and published yesterday, the 28-year-old revealed that a Brigadier General told her it was 'standard operating procedure' for US troops to file a report when they shoot a non-combatant. She obtained figures for the number of civilians killed in Baghdad between 28 February and 5 April [2005], and discovered that 29 had been killed in firefights involving US forces and insurgents. This was four times the number of Iraqi police killed."
The December 2006 report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) found that the United States has filtered out reports of violence in order to disguise its policy failings in Iraq.[146] A December 7, 2006 McClatchy Newspapers article[146] reports that the ISG found that U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence on one day in July 2006, yet "a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light more than 1,100 acts of violence." The article further reports:
"The finding confirmed a Sept. 8 McClatchy Newspapers report that U.S. officials excluded scores of people killed in car bombings and mortar attacks from tabulations measuring the results of a drive to reduce violence in Baghdad. By excluding that data, U.S. officials were able to boast that deaths from sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital had declined by more than 52 percent between July and August, McClatchy newspapers reported."
From the ISG report itself: "A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."[146]
According to Project Censored, the undercounting and underreporting of Iraqi casualties has led to a widespread belief among the United States public that very few Iraqis have been killed, with an average "estimate" of under 10,000 reported by an Associated Press poll in February, 2007.[2] This survey was, itself, not reported in the mass media, even by the Associated Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_ ... #Criticism
Iraq Body Count
'...criticism of IBC came mainly from the media-watchdog website Media Lens that published four pieces[7][13][20][21] on what they saw as the "massive bias and gaps" reflected in the IBC database and their totals.
This view of IBC was based on the belief that IBC figures are extremely low due to pro-US media bias and inadequate reporting due to its heavy (though not exclusive) reliance on Western media sources, which has led some of these critics to claim IBC should be called the "Iraq Western Media Body Count". These biases and inadequacies, they claim, mean IBC's count is low by up to a factor of 10, and that it specifically minimizes the proportion of deaths caused by US forces.
MediaLens article of January 26, 2006[7] states: "First, the dramatic absence of examples of mass killing by US-UK forces suggests that the low IBC toll of civilian deaths in comparison with other studies is partly explained by the fact that examples of US-UK killing are simply not being reported by the media or recorded by IBC. Visitors to the site - directed there by countless references in the same media that have acted as sources - are being given a very one-sided picture of who is doing the killing."
Stephen Soldz wrote a February 5, 2006 article titled "When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths".[8] It stated: "Of course, in conditions of active rebellion, the safer areas accessible to Western reporters are likely to be those under US/Coalition control, where deaths are, in turn, likely to be due to insurgent attacks. Areas of insurgent control, which are likely to be subject to US and Iraqi government attack, for example most of Anbar province, are simply off-limits to these reporters. Thus, the realities of reporting imply that reporters will be witness to a larger fraction of deaths due to insurgents and a lesser proportion of deaths due to US and Iraqi government forces."
A further claim has been that IBC does little or nothing to correct misuse of their figures by public officials or media organizations. It is claimed that the media often misuse IBC's estimate of the total number dead. It is also claimed that the media use the IBC's estimate in order to ignore or downplay the October 2004 excess mortality study published in the Lancet Medical Journal, which estimated a far higher figure. Critics of IBC argue that the Lancet study is the most accurate estimate so far and is more reliable than IBC's estimate.
The January 26, 2006 MediaLens article[7] stated: "We accept that the IBC editors are sincere and well-intentioned. We accept, also, that they have often made clear that their figures are likely to be an underestimate. But we believe they could have done much more to challenge the cynical exploitation of their figures by journalists and politicians. And they could have done much more to warn visitors to their site of the number and type of gaps in their database."
If you want to learn a bit more about Iraq Body Count then I suggest you read the following articles:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/0603 ... _count.php
March 14, 2006
IRAQ BODY COUNT REFUSES TO RESPOND
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/0604 ... _count.php
April 10, 2006
IRAQ BODY COUNT - A SHAME BECOMING SHAMEFUL
I suppose all of the following statements by U.S troops are also ridiculous and made up?
I suppose you think that the 1 million Iraqi dead killed themselves?
What do you think the U.S Troops are doing in Iraq anyway? Putting on a pantomime for the locals?
Maybe the following videos will help you to see what the troops are doing over there:
Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0YFaLN_LFs
Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DeszyFWL_g
Graphic War Footage: Soldiers Speak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjIwQYiV ... re=related
Iraq Veterans Against the War Speak Out (1 of 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABx4fG1ZJL4
Iraq Veterans Against The War
http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony ... %3A+Part+1
Collateral Murder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU ... r_embedded
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com
http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony ... %3A+Part+1
It was just after 9-11 when Hart Viges joined the Army and the start of the occupation when he entered Iraq in March 2003. As a mortar man, he had his first taste of what he calls the loss of humanity that comes with war, when he helped set up rounds aimed at civilian neighborhoods in a small town on the way to Baghdad. He felt his humanity further slipping away when he fell into the habit of labeling everything with the racist epithet, "hadji." His testimony includes stories of raids on the wrong houses, which resulted in prolonged detention of innocent people, and his refusal to pose for a photo with a dead Iraqi man found lying in the road, not because he was disturbed by the death, but because it wasn't his kill. Later, he found a moment of clarity in the midst of chaos. Training his gun site on the face of a man standing in a doorway with an RPG strapped to his back, he saw an expression of fear and confusion that he understood to mirror his own. He didn't pull the trigger.
Clifton Hicks and Steve Casey testify about their experiences in a "free-fire zone" where there were supposedly "no friendlies." But Hicks and Casey never saw any enemy combatants. In November, 2003, according to Hicks, an AC-130 gunship opened fire on an apartment complex, completely destroying it as Casey and his comrades watched and cheered from a nearby roof. Casey didn’t think about it at the time, but now the loss of civilian life truly bothers him.
Hicks says this building demolition was the most destructive act he'd ever seen, and the building was not a legitimate military target. A sniper team could have neutralized the enemy sporadically firing from that location, but leadership chose to destroy the building and the civilians inside.
Casey also shows a video of a house raid in which GIs destroyed the contents of a house while a woman shrieked, only to find out they were at the wrong house. He says he is not indicting those he served with. It was the result of the environment they were in.
Steven Mortillo arrived in Iraq in March, 2004, in the Army. He spent most of his time conducting "presence patrols", walking down the street waiting for something to go wrong. One time, his squad was attacked and could not return fire due to the angle of the Bradley weapon system. They fired warning shots into a wall to prevent any more action. That day, they showed remarkable restraint, but that changed once they started taking casualties.
On a dismounted patrol in December, Mortillo's squad came under fire. The fighting was intense. They evacuated their wounded platoon leader into a waiting Bradley. The enraged Bradley crew directed all their firepower at the area the attack had come from, a densely populated residential neighborhood. According to Mortillo, it is difficult even to know whether you are following the Rules Of Engagement in the thick of the action, especially when you believe you are avenging the death of a friend.
Jesse Hamilton, who'd been in the Army since 1998, was entirely against the war when he signed up to go and serve as an advisor to the newly formed Iraqi army. But the Arabic speaker wanted to do what he could to expedite the war's end. Hamilton found untrained Iraqi soldiers who often resorted to "spray and pray" techniques in which they would shoot indiscriminately and hope it hit their target, and who would abuse their prisoners. "It is a lost cause in Iraq," says Hamilton.
Adam Kokesh did not agree with the war, but he volunteered to serve in Iraq to "do the right thing" and "clean up our mess." He was in Fallujah shortly after the four Blackwater contractors were killed. In that city, the rules of engagement were always changing.
During the siege of Fallujah, fires broke out and Iraqi firefighters and police raced to the scene. US forces saw their silhouettes in the area from which they had taken fire and started shooting. Miscommunication was often the cause of scenes like this.
Kokesh's unit was told Al Zarqawi was fleeing the city in a Black Opal and to stop all black Opals . . . black Opals were everywhere in Iraq.
He testifies that all the detainees, guilty or innocent, get treated the same, which leads more and more "innocent" ones to join the insurgency.
Jason Hurd, a self-described Tennessee mountain man, spent ten years in the Army and National Guard. He enlisted after high school, though his father, a Marine in WWII, objected. Hurd says of his father, "He was one of the most war-mongering, gun-loving people you could ever meet," but he didn't want his son to enlist because he knew firsthand the psychological toll war takes on its warriors. Hurd spent his year in Iraq in central Baghdad as a medic, sometimes doing meet-and- greets with the local population, but he didn't escape the shooting and bombardment of civilian targets, which he describes in his testimony. He tells of an incident that took place while he was guarding a checkpoint. Car bombs were an ever-present danger, he says, so when a car kept approaching, despite his escalating signals to stop, he raised his gun and was about to fire at the driver. Suddenly, a man appeared and got the car to turn around. An old woman, highly-respected in the community, emerged. "I am a peaceful person," Hurd says, "but I drew down on an 80-year-old woman who could not see me." He attests to the harassment and disruption of Iraqi lives that he says happens - and continues to haunt him - daily.
Marine Corps Rifleman Vincent Emanuele was deployed to an Iraqi village, near the border with Syria, in August 2004. During his eight months there, he witnessed and participated in: the aimless shooting at Iraqi vehicles; the random firing of rifles and mortars into the village rather than at specific targets; the physical abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the driving of prisoners out into the desert where they were abandoned; and the disrespectful handling of the Iraqi dead. And in his testimony, Rifleman Vincent Emanuel repeatedly said: “These were not isolated incidents.”
As the casualties grew in Sergio Kochergin's platoon, the rules of engagement eroded. After seeing their friends blown up, "We were angry," he says, "we just wanted to do our job and come back." At one point, that meant that an Iraqi carrying a heavy bag and a shovel was at risk of being shot. Within months, Kochergin says that the rules of engagement were left entirely up to he and his fellow soldiers. "I want to apologize to all the people in Iraq," says a shaken Kochergin.
Jason Washburn’s unit was told to shoot anyone digging near the side of the road because they might be planting a bomb. They carried spare weapons and shovels in their vehicles. If they killed an innocent Iraqi, they could throw a shovel on the corpse and say the person had been digging. At one point, Washburn’s commander called the unit together to praise Marines for accurate shooting, his pride apparently undiminished by the fact that the victim was not an insurgent but the local mayor.
In Iraq, the rules of engagement are being loosely defined and broadly enforced at the expense of the Iraqi people, says Jason Lemieux. "Anyone who tells you different is either a liar or a fool." When he got to Baghdad, he says he was explicitly instructed by his commanders that he could shoot anyone who made him uncomfortable and refused to move when he ordered them to do so. "Better them than us," was the prevailing philosophy, he says, and everyone on the street was considered an enemy combatant who could be killed.
Jon Turner went to Iraq with an Arabic phrase tattooed on his wrist. It says ‘fuck you.’ “I got that because it was my choking hand. Anytime I felt the need to take out aggression, I would go ahead and use it.” But in his video testimony, and through the use of video and photographs from his tour, Turner recounts the mistakes that he made. That everybody in Iraq made. “On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed kill. This man was innocent,” he says. In case of such mistakes, the company carried Iraqi weapons to drop, Turner recalls. They instigated fights and sprayed bullets like sugar. “I just want to say that I’m sorry for the hate and destruction that I’ve inflicted on innocent people…” Turner says. “I am no longer the monster that I once was.”
When U.S. Army scout sniper Garett Reppenhagen got to Iraq, he realized that the rules of engagement he’d just learned in training had evaporated. Two Iraqi farmers trying to work their fields past curfew one night learned that at the point of a machine gun and belt-fed grenade launcher not even authorized for use on enemy combatants. They were only the first of many innocent civilians that Reppenhagen would see gunned down.
All that stuff copied and pasted all over is fine and dandy, but the way you put this in your original post is pure propaganda.
I'm not saying these terrible things dont happen, but you sounded like a typical reporter trying to make it sound like troops are just wandering around using kids as target practice. When you say 'MANY' of those men and women are murdering unarmed men, women and children, it just comes off slanted in my opinion.
But thanks for those links, i saw what happened in that situation on 2007, and it looks like a terrible, terrible mistake that casued death and suffering. I really really wish this war never happened.. :(
You say to read these links to understand the 1 million body count and yet these links show nothing to back up your claim. I've googled and googled and googled and I can not find anywhere, just once where it says the body count from the Iraq war is a million or more. Do you and others on this forum just make this shit up???
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
exactly.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
is that a real saying? that seems odd to have a saying like that ;0
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I've already answered your previous accusation about my making shit up. I posted the links to both the Lancet report and the ORB report. Try opening your fucking eyes.
I also looked, Byrnzie, and I couldn't find any figure anywhere in the links (or even links inside the links) you provided. Can you provide a direct quote? Either I missed it or I'm looking in the wrong spot or something.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
They're on the previous page. Page 7 of this thread. This is page 8.
Here, I'll post them again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_sur ... casualties
The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).
The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).
The relative risk of death due to the 2003 invasion and occupation was estimated by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6 months preceding it. The authors stated, "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Among such "conservative assumptions" is the exclusion of data from Fallujah in many of its findings. Since interpreting the results of the study would be complicated by the inclusion of an outlier cluster in Fallujah, where heavy fighting caused far more casualties than elsewhere in Iraq, the study focused mainly on the results that excluded the Fallujah cluster. While the authors argued that the Fallujah cluster's inclusion could be justified as a normal part of the sampling strategy (the authors noted that other "hotspots" like Najaf had not ended up being surveyed), and the authors presented two sets of results in some cases (one set including the Fallujah data and one not), the article, and most press coverage of the article, stresses the data that excluded the Fallujah cluster.
The main debate in the media in the U.S. and UK focused on whether 98,000 (95% CI 8000–194,000) more Iraqis died as a result of coalition intervention, calculated from their estimate of an increased mortality of 1.5 times (95% CI 1.1-2.3) the prewar rate (excluding the Fallujah data). Had the Fallujah sample been included, the survey's estimate that mortality rates had increased about 2.5 times since the invasion (with a 95% CI 1.6-4.2) including the Fallujah data would have resulted in an excess of about 298,000 deaths (95% CI ?-?), with 200,000 concentrated in the 3% of Iraq around Fallujah (Roberts et al. p. 5).
According to the article, violence was responsible for most of the extra deaths whether or not the Fallujah data was excluded. Coalition airstrikes would be the main cause of these violent deaths if Fallujah data were included. The study makes the controversial conclusion that: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces." and "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths." The study estimates that the risk of death specifically from violence in Iraq during the period after the invasion was approximately 58 times higher than in the period before the war, with the CI95 being 8.1-419, meaning that there is a 97.5% chance that the risk of death from violence after the invasion is at least 8.1 times higher than it was before. Newsday reported:
"The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships".
It was noted that the large estimate of excess death is even more shocking in view of the widely accepted belief that deaths in Iraq were already very high at 0.5% per year, particularly among children, due to UN sanctions against Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey ... casualties
On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[2][3] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.
On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken September 20 to 24, 2007. As a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[4][5]
ORB reports that it has been "tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005."
Though actually, what's interesting is that these reports have been around now for about 5 years and yet you don't know about them.
Thanks Byrnzie. That's vomit inducing facts right there.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My pleasure. I'm always happy to make people vomit :P