34,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2006, U.N. reports

NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
edited January 2007 in A Moving Train
Nobody knows the exact figures, but I think it is important to point out that the vast majority of these dead Iraqi civillians were not killed by American forces. Most were killed by their fellow Iraqis. The U.S. is not going around setting off bombs in markets, that is for sure. It seems to me most everytime I read about Iraqi's getting killed, it's becuase of an IED going off in a neighborhood, etc - not becuase Iraqi's were involved in a gun battle with US troops.

America had a civil war about 150 years ago, and we killed well over a million of our own before all was said and done. There were families divided with son fighting father and brother fighting brother in some cases. This is what is going on in Iraq right now, except for one HUGE difference!

It is important to point out that when Americans faught Americans, we formed armies and they fought each other. It was soldier versus soldier. In Iraq, civilians are targeted MORE than other combatants. Think about how savage this is you guys!!!!!! It just chaps my ass when people on here talk about how Americans are murderers. Do you even realize the barbaric nature of the civil war going on there now?

So basically, I would just like to point out that America is not the total bad guy here that we are made out to be. We tried to do something good, but we botched our effort and set off a civil war that has been brewing for three decades. That was our fault, and that is where we should take the full blame.

Yes, our soldiers have killed. But what we have done bad (Abu Ghraib, etc.) looks like Christmas morning compared to the violence that is raging now. But most people on this board just excuse the beheadings and bombings in neighborhood markets as the fault of the United States. It's like the Iraqi's can commit the most heinous crimes imaginable and people just point the finger at America.

I just hate how everybody is frustrated at what is going on in Iraq right now, but they put the large majority of the blame on the US. People act like Cheney and Bush are drooling over the people dying in Iraq and the Haliburton contracts that are being signed. As if as soon as they leave office in 09, they're gonna buy a private island and leave.....

I support this war and I always have, but i freely admit that our administration and the military leadership has botched the hell out of this effort. And YES, I do believe that some of the mistakes are borderline criminal.... But none-the-less... so much of the rhetoric that comes from the anti-war camp is just irresponsible non-sense!!!


POSTED: 8:56 a.m. EST, January 16, 2007
Story Highlights• NEW: "Massive" car bomb near university kills at least 15 in Baghdad
• U.N. report says more than 34,000 civilians "violently killed" in Iraq in 2006
• Death toll for November-December slightly lower than previous two months
• At least 38 killed and 135 wounded Tuesday by bombs in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- More than 34,000 civilians were "violently killed" across Iraq last year, with an average of 94 killed every day, according to a new United Nations report.

The grim figures came on a day when bombs, including a "massive" car bomb near a university, killed at least 38 Iraqis in Baghdad.

The bimonthly Human Rights Report of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, covering November and December, tallied the casualties of nearly a year of relentless sectarian strife, which skyrocketed after the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra on February 22.

"According to information made available to UNAMI, 6,376 civilians were violently killed in November and December 2006, with no less than 4,731 in Baghdad, most of them as a result of gunshot wounds," the report said.

"Compared to the number killed in September and October, there has been a slight reduction. It is evident however that violence has not been contained but has continued to claim a very high number of innocent victims. During 2006, a total of 34,452 civilians have been violently killed and 36,685 wounded."

The report said the "situation is particularly grave in Baghdad" and that "sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, is singled out as a major cause for an ever-growing trend in displacement and migration of all Iraqis, as well as the targeting of various professional groups, including educators, medical professionals, journalists, judges and lawyers, religious and political leaders."

Dozens killed, wounded in Baghdad bombings
In Baghdad on Tuesday, 38 people were killed and 135 wounded in four bombings, according to Iraqi Interior Ministry officials.

A massive car bomb exploded outside the Mustansiriya University in northeastern Baghdad about 4 p.m. (8 a.m. ET), killing at least 15 people and wounding 45 others, an Interior Ministry official said.

In two of the other incidents, two bombs were timed to detonate in the same area minutes apart, an official said.

The deadliest attack happened at midday when a bomb exploded near an Iraqi police convoy along a main road in central Baghdad, the official said.

When police and others responded to that blast, a second bomb exploded nearby, killing and wounding them. At least 15 people were killed and 70 wounded by the two bombs, the official said.

About two hours earlier, two Iraqi police officers who helped defuse a car bomb in central Baghdad's Karrada section were killed when another bomb hidden nearby exploded, the official said.

Two civilians were also killed in the blast, the official said. Ten people, including three policemen, were wounded by that bomb, the official said.

In Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood Tuesday, a bomb left inside a minivan killed four people and wounded 10 others, an Interior Ministry official said.

The blast occurred about 100 to 200 yards away from the main office of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army is considered one of the major participants in the Iraqi capital's raging sectarian violence.

Sadr City is overwhelmingly Shiite, and has been the scene of much violence.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    america is indeed the bad guy ... there is not one shroud of evidence that points to any moral motive in this war ... the botching of this war was deliberate - deliberately executed poorly that those who profit from these wars could enjoy the riches ... you don't spend billions on military bases on a country you hope to leave anytime soon ...

    supporting this war now and in the past is negligence in my opinion ... this is not a personal attack on anyone who does - it is just my opinion on the nature of this and most wars ... violence begets violence ... i hold it akin to lawsuits between two parties ... at the end of the day, the only people that really win are the lawyers ... and in this case, the only people who are winning are those signing big contracts with the US gov't ... domestically and foreign ...
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    polaris wrote:
    america is indeed the bad guy ... there is not one shroud of evidence that points to any moral motive in this war ... the botching of this war was deliberate - deliberately executed poorly that those who profit from these wars could enjoy the riches ... you don't spend billions on military bases on a country you hope to leave anytime soon ...

    supporting this war now and in the past is negligence in my opinion ... this is not a personal attack on anyone who does - it is just my opinion on the nature of this and most wars ... violence begets violence ... i hold it akin to lawsuits between two parties ... at the end of the day, the only people that really win are the lawyers ... and in this case, the only people who are winning are those signing big contracts with the US gov't ... domestically and foreign ...

    How can you dismiss the stated goal of pushing the Middle East in a more progressive direction by removing a dictator as not being solid moral grounds?
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    There is no accurate count of the number of civilian casualties from the American Civil War. Don't kid yourself into thinking their weren't any, though.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    RainDog wrote:
    There is no accurate count of the number of civilian casualties from the American Civil War. Don't kid yourself into thinking their weren't any, though.

    Not sure what you mean there... I'm well aware of the civillian casualties in the American Civil War and I never aluded to them being "light" either... In fact they were very terrible! How about Sherman's march to the sea, burning every town he passed including Atlanta???
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    How can you dismiss the stated goal of pushing the Middle East in a more progressive direction by removing a dictator as not being solid moral grounds?
    I'll say that because that dictator benefitted from American assistance through the 80s, it's kind of iffy when we now start talking about "moral grounds." Most of those people are still alive, and most remember who we are. Would you want an habitual liar teaching about ethics, or a rapist about human sexuality? And before you claim I simply hate America, I'm not the one who actually thinks this way - I'm only pointing out how we're viewed in the region.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    NCfan wrote:
    How can you dismiss the stated goal of pushing the Middle East in a more progressive direction by removing a dictator as not being solid moral grounds?

    because history has shown that is not what america is interested in ... look at all the democratically elected leaders (including Iran) where america has overthrown ... america is only interested in puppet gov'ts that will hand over resources to american interests ... it is the real reason why britain and the US are in iraq ... they used to own the oil in iraq - when they nationalized it way back when - they've been trying to get back in ever since ... and guess what - they have succeded ...
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    Not sure what you mean there... I'm well aware of the civillian casualties in the American Civil War and I never aluded to them being "light" either... In fact they were very terrible! How about Sherman's march to the sea, burning every town he passed including Atlanta???
    "It is important to point out that when Americans faught Americans, we formed armies and they fought each other. It was soldier versus soldier." Seemed like a dismissal of the civilian deaths during the U.S. Civil war to me.

    On another note - do you think we would allow the Sunnis and Shi'a to form separate armies, complete with uniforms, vehicles, and artillary, so that they could "properly" fight a civil war? I don't either.
  • NCfan wrote:
    How can you dismiss the stated goal of pushing the Middle East in a more progressive direction by removing a dictator as not being solid moral grounds?
    Because they were not the grounds :rolleyes:

    AND... what do you mean by 'progressive direction' please? Sounds a bit patronising to me... like your way of life is the best?
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    polaris wrote:
    because history has shown that is not what america is interested in ... look at all the democratically elected leaders (including Iran) where america has overthrown ... america is only interested in puppet gov'ts that will hand over resources to american interests ... it is the real reason why britain and the US are in iraq ... they used to own the oil in iraq - when they nationalized it way back when - they've been trying to get back in ever since ... and guess what - they have succeded ...

    That is such a narrow view... you can't judge our actions today based on what we did 50 years ago. 50 years ago in America, blacks couldn't use the same restroom - but look at our society and our values today.

    The world changes, societies evolve. You need to realize that because it is the truth. I don't think anybody would accuse Germany of trying to realize the dreams of the Third Reich if when they contributed troops to Afghanistan!
  • NCfan wrote:
    That is such a narrow view... you can't judge our actions today based on what we did 50 years ago. 50 years ago in America, blacks couldn't use the same restroom - but look at our society and our values today.

    The world changes, societies evolve. You need to realize that because it is the truth. I don't think anybody would accuse Germany of trying to realize the dreams of the Third Reich if when they contributed troops to Afghanistan!
    yeh now those middle eastern folk can't use the restroom :rolleyes:
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    NCfan wrote:
    That is such a narrow view... you can't judge our actions today based on what we did 50 years ago. 50 years ago in America, blacks couldn't use the same restroom - but look at our society and our values today.

    The world changes, societies evolve. You need to realize that because it is the truth. I don't think anybody would accuse Germany of trying to realize the dreams of the Third Reich if when they contributed troops to Afghanistan!

    50 years ago?? ... do you think america's covert actions have stopped? ... consider columbia now and other parts of latin america ... the only difference is that most of your resources are in iraq ...

    you played both sides of the fence in the iran/iraq war ... we're talking about who has driven america's foreign policy since the second world war ... nothing has changed ...

    at least in Germany - I see memorials of the Nazi era - I'm pretty sure you are not taught about how you had Salvadore Allende assasinated and then put in place a dictator who was being tried for war crimes and human rights violiations until he died recently ... nor Suharto or any of the other puppet regimes america has put in place ...
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Because they were not the grounds :rolleyes:

    AND... what do you mean by 'progressive direction' please? Sounds a bit patronising to me... like your way of life is the best?

    No, they were not the stated grounds - but it abundantly clear that is what our goal is now.

    But let me as you a question. Do you support gender discrimination (women can't work or vote), religious intolerance (believing in anything besides Islam is punishable by death), being a homosexual is against the law and punishable by death. Do you support those things, a yes or no will do....
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    No, they were not the stated grounds - but it abundantly clear that is what our goal is now.

    But let me as you a question. Do you support gender discrimination (women can't work or vote), religious intolerance (believing in anything besides Islam is punishable by death), being a homosexual is against the law and punishable by death. Do you support those things, a yes or no will do....
    No. Do you? Because that's likely what democracy will bring to the area. Remember, democracy does not equal freedom for the masses. It simply means those who are eligible can vote. Looking at the popular make-up of the region, I seriously believe that gender discrimination, religious intolerance, and death to homosexuals is in the near - and democratic - future.
  • NCfan wrote:
    No, they were not the stated grounds - but it abundantly clear that is what our goal is now.

    Can you say I...R...A...N?????? Nope? Try axis-of-evil. Abundantly clear? My arse!
    NCfan wrote:
    But let me as you a question. Do you support gender discrimination (women can't work or vote), religious intolerance (believing in anything besides Islam is punishable by death), being a homosexual is against the law and punishable by death. Do you support those things, a yes or no will do....
    Don't give me this shite, Iraq was one of the most equal opportune countries in the middle east. You wanna talk about equal rights... let's talk about Saudi Arabia!!!!!!!! The worst human rights record in the world and yet they're perfectly acceptable. No, I don't support these things but no, I also know for a FACT that's not what your leader has in mind.
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    RainDog wrote:
    No. Do you? Because that's likely what democracy will bring to the area. Remember, democracy does not equal freedom for the masses. It simply means those who are eligible can vote. Looking at the popular make-up of the region, I seriously believe that gender discrimination, religious intolerance, and death to homosexuals is in the near - and democratic - future.

    Of course I don't... However, I wouldn't mind a bit if a democratic Iraq enacted all of those rules for the time being. A democratic government is the best instution available to peacefully overturn all of those ways of life.

    Look at the US for instance. Used to womend couldn't vote and look what happened. Remember prohibition, you couldnt fucking drink in America for a few years. Look at the progress that has been made by blacks through our democratic system. It's just a matter of time before gays are allowed to get married in America.

    These things take time to happen, and often we need generational turnover for them to take place. But establishing a democracy now, no matter how fucked up it might be is the first stepping stone.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    NCfan wrote:
    How can you dismiss the stated goal of pushing the Middle East in a more progressive direction by removing a dictator as not being solid moral grounds?
    When that "push" results in tens of thousands of dead humans, I do tend of question those grounds your standing on.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Can you say I...R...A...N?????? Nope? Try axis-of-evil. Abundantly clear? My arse!


    Don't give me this shite, Iraq was one of the most equal opportune countries in the middle east. You wanna talk about equal rights... let's talk about Saudi Arabia!!!!!!!! The worst human rights record in the world and yet they're perfectly acceptable. No, I don't support these things but no, I also know for a FACT that's not what your leader has in mind.

    Why don't you support these things???? Oh, no... could it be that you think your way of life is (GASP) better??????????????????????????????
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    Of course I don't... However, I wouldn't mind a bit if a democratic Iraq enacted all of those rules for the time being. A democratic government is the best instution available to peacefully overturn all of those ways of life.

    Look at the US for instance. Used to womend couldn't vote and look what happened. Remember prohibition, you couldnt fucking drink in America for a few years. Look at the progress that has been made by blacks through our democratic system. It's just a matter of time before gays are allowed to get married in America.

    These things take time to happen, and often we need generational turnover for them to take place. But establishing a democracy now, no matter how fucked up it might be is the first stepping stone.
    Those milestones took decades, some more than a century, some now more than two centuries, to come to pass - and we did it of our own volition. We didn't need someone to come in and "free" us - and we likely would have been horribly insulted if someone offered (i.e. forced) help.

    Now, there is democracy in Iraq, however fragile. Do we hang around for a century to make sure it sticks?
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    RainDog wrote:
    Those milestones took decades, some more than a century, some now more than two centuries, to come to pass - and we did it of our own volition. We didn't need someone to come in and "free" us - and we likely would have been horribly insulted if someone offered (i.e. forced) help.

    Now, there is democracy in Iraq, however fragile. Do we hang around for a century to make sure it sticks?

    Actually, we did need some help. We practiacally begged the French to help us defeat our masters in Britain and without their contributions we wouldn't have gained our independence.

    However long we stick around depends. We've stuck around in Europe for the last 60 years to ensure it stays democratic and i don't think anybody has been yelling about that...
  • NCfan wrote:
    Why don't you support these things???? Oh, no... could it be that you think your way of life is (GASP) better??????????????????????????????
    Yes, I do... of course I do... I also think it's better than yours... I think it's great that I can drink myself to death or that I can go out and shag as many men as I please in a night or that I can get completely off my face on drugs... I can see why many MIGHT NOT see it as a utopia though! Can't you?

    *disclaimer: I'm not saying I DO those things... but I can!
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • NCfan wrote:

    However long we stick around depends. We've stuck around in Europe for the last 60 years to ensure it stays democratic and i don't think anybody has been yelling about that...
    Oh dear god, here we go again :rolleyes: I didn't see you in MY country... so if you want to say 'we hung around in France, Germany, Italy... wherever' that's fine... but NOT Europe. Don't bring up this argument again! Nobody helped us when WE needed it but WE sent men to 'Europe' to fight the bad guys too... SELFLESSLY, cos it was the right thing to do... ya don't hear us going on and on and on and on and on and on about it though, do ya?
    The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
    Verona??? it's all surmountable
    Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
    Wembley? We all believe!
    Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
    Chicago 07? And love
    What a different life
    Had I not found this love with you
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Yes, I do... of course I do... I also think it's better than yours... I think it's great that I can drink myself to death or that I can go out and shag as many men as I please in a night or that I can get completely off my face on drugs... I can see why many MIGHT NOT see it as a utopia though! Can't you?

    *disclaimer: I'm not saying I DO those things... but I can!

    Well why did you acuse me of thinking my way of life is better than what's going on in the Middle East, when so do you? Isn't that being a bit of a hypocrite?
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Because they were not the grounds :rolleyes:

    AND... what do you mean by 'progressive direction' please? Sounds a bit patronising to me... like your way of life is the best?

    This is the post in case you were wondering....
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    polaris wrote:
    50 years ago?? ... do you think america's covert actions have stopped? ... consider columbia now and other parts of latin america ... the only difference is that most of your resources are in iraq ...

    you played both sides of the fence in the iran/iraq war ... we're talking about who has driven america's foreign policy since the second world war ... nothing has changed ...

    at least in Germany - I see memorials of the Nazi era - I'm pretty sure you are not taught about how you had Salvadore Allende assasinated and then put in place a dictator who was being tried for war crimes and human rights violiations until he died recently ... nor Suharto or any of the other puppet regimes america has put in place ...

    i'll take it that you still believe america wants to bring peace and flowers to the middle east ...
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    NCfan wrote:
    Well why did you acuse me of thinking my way of life is better than what's going on in the Middle East, when so do you? Isn't that being a bit of a hypocrite?
    Perhaps, though I don't think so. Personally, I think the American way of life is better than what most of the Middle East has got going on. However, there is nothing hypocritical about saying that my way of life is better yet still believe it wrong to force that way of life onto another country. Yes, force.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    NCfan wrote:
    Oh, no... could it be that you think your way of life is (GASP) better??????????????????????????????

    The western way of life is different (with the american way of life in a category of its own). We are not to impose our morals and values (and sometimes decadence!) on countries that have such different ways to us, especially when no effort is made to understand their way of life. We are not to judge whether it's 'in their interest' or not.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    Oh dear god, here we go again :rolleyes: I didn't see you in MY country... so if you want to say 'we hung around in France, Germany, Italy... wherever' that's fine... but NOT Europe. Don't bring up this argument again! Nobody helped us when WE needed it but WE sent men to 'Europe' to fight the bad guys too... SELFLESSLY, cos it was the right thing to do... ya don't hear us going on and on and on and on and on and on about it though, do ya?

    Are you drunk? Nobody is going on and on about anything. I'm not pounding my chest and shouting how America is so great. Im just citing history. It'sa fact that America helped to protect Europe from the Soviet Union with tens of thousands of troops.

    No we didn't have troops in Ireland because it wasn't a strategic location to put them. There weren't 65 divisions of the Soviet army on your border where there? The same can't be said for Germany and other countries that bordered the Eastern Bloc.
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    RainDog wrote:
    Perhaps, though I don't think so. Personally, I think the American way of life is better than what most of the Middle East has got going on. However, there is nothing hypocritical about saying that my way of life is better yet still believe it wrong to force that way of life onto another country. Yes, force.

    But she didn't accuse me of wanting to force my way of life onto others. She accused me of merely THINKING my way of life is better than others..... That's just bullshit when she accuses me of something she agrees with!!!!
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    redrock wrote:
    The western way of life is different (with the american way of life in a category of its own). We are not to impose our morals and values (and sometimes decadence!) on countries that have such different ways to us, especially when no effort is made to understand their way of life. We are not to judge whether it's 'in their interest' or not.

    I think you do live where the sky's are purple... people judge each other and that is a great thing!
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    NCfan wrote:
    I think you do live where the sky's are purple... people judge each other and that is a great thing!

    So.. if I (as part of the most powerful country in the world) judge that your way of life is 'wrong', I can impose mine by aggression??? hmmmmmm......
Sign In or Register to comment.