0
   

Dead Insurgents, How Many?

 
 
Pitter
 
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 08:38 pm
I see on the yahoo news blurb that twenty four american soldiers have died now in the assault on Falluja and an estimated one thousand insurgents. That's stunning! What is the total number of insurgents estimated to have been killed in the war?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,179 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 09:07 pm
I'd be interested in how you tell an insurgent from an innocent bystander. Are they saying they found a thousand corpses with weapons held in death grips, or just a thousand non-American corpses in conflagration locations?
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 09:10 pm
Well, U.S offical said that 22 US soldiers and five Iraqi soldiers have been killed, and almost 180 US soldiers wounded.
Further, that up to one thousand "insurgents" killed.
But it is unclear how many civillians are dead.

More informations: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36167

Latest reports from Falluja speak of a typhoid outbreak.
0 Replies
 
J-B
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2004 11:50 pm
It has reminded me of somalia Confused
0 Replies
 
Pitter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 05:40 am
What I'm asking is if there is an official tally of "insurgent" or "enemy" deaths for the whole war following the initial invasion. I recall seeing somewhere a military statement saying they don't keep track of "enemy" deaths so I guess it's impossible to know but if a thousand were killed in just the last four or five days the total for the "war effort" must be staggering not to mention the innocents.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 06:08 am
Yes. <sigh>
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 09:01 am
Lots, hopefully.
0 Replies
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 10:13 am
sorry folks the time for worrying about insurgents and terrorists is over...they were warned this was coming...I hate that innocents are collateral damage..but I am all for saving american soldiers lives...
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Nov, 2004 06:13 pm
Sure Willow - wouldn't the best way of saving them be to have them in the USA?

And, in your philosophy, how many innocent Iraqi lives is one american soldier's life worth, roughly?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:36 am
Pitter wrote:
What I'm asking is if there is an official tally of "insurgent" or "enemy" deaths for the whole war following the initial invasion. I recall seeing somewhere a military statement saying they don't keep track of "enemy" deaths so I guess it's impossible to know but if a thousand were killed in just the last four or five days the total for the "war effort" must be staggering not to mention the innocents.


No there isn't. The statement you probably have in mind is "We don't do body counts" by General tommy Franks.

But there are decent estimates from third party groups.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 12:44 am
I think willow_tl was putting you on, hingehead. Such was my immediate assumption based on our history of amiable disagreement in nearly all things political.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 01:50 am
About the only halfway credible tally of military-action-related civilian deaths in Iraq is IraqBodyCount , a website operated by an anti-war group, which since the beginning of hostillities has maintained a running update based on independently multiply verifiable civilian deaths due to military activity. Some discrepancies exist, which they accommodate by listing "minimum-maximum" figures. The current figure is between 14, 378 and 16,514.

It should be noted they include in their running total deaths caused by insurgent activity - car bombs, assassinations, etc. - as well as by Coalition activity, and it should be noted too that Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence accounts for exponentially more Iraqi deaths than does Coalition activity.

The detail database available there does disclose that, thouh the running total min/max tally makes no such distinction. Final caveat; digging a bitdeeper into their database reveals that some 3029 war-dead civilians have been identified by name. Draw your own conclusion.

Current DoD-released casualty count in Fallujah is a bit more than 30 Own Force, the preponderance of which are American, and 1800 to 2000 inurgents killed, approximately 500 in custody. Several hundred of the killrd and captured have been positively identified as foreign nationals, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Iranians, and Somalis, mostly, but Chechens, Afghanis, and others have been confirmed also.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:08 am
Re: Dead Insurgents, How Many?
Pitter wrote:
I see on the yahoo news blurb that twenty four american soldiers have died now in the assault on Falluja and an estimated one thousand insurgents. That's stunning! What is the total number of insurgents estimated to have been killed in the war?


Reminds me of the damn "body-counts" (read "body-lies") in Vietnam. The whole thing was disgusting back then - too.

Insurgents wear a red crescent.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:12 am
timberlandko wrote:
About the only halfway credible tally of military-action-related civilian deaths in Iraq is IraqBodyCount , a website operated by an anti-war group, which since the beginning of hostillities has maintained a running update based on independently multiply verifiable civilian deaths due to military activity. Some discrepancies exist, which they accommodate by listing "minimum-maximum" figures. The current figure is between 14, 378 and 16,514.

It should be noted they include in their running total deaths caused by insurgent activity - car bombs, assassinations, etc. - as well as by Coalition activity, and it should be noted too that Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence accounts for exponentially more Iraqi deaths than does Coalition activity.

The detail database available there does disclose that, thouh the running total min/max tally makes no such distinction. Final caveat; digging a bitdeeper into their database reveals that some 3029 war-dead civilians have been identified by name. Draw your own conclusion.

Current DoD-released casualty count in Fallujah is a bit more than 30 Own Force, the preponderance of which are American, and 1800 to 2000 inurgents killed, approximately 500 in custody. Several hundred of the killrd and captured have been positively identified as foreign nationals, Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Iranians, and Somalis, mostly, but Chechens, Afghanis, and others have been confirmed also.


You say that this is the "only half-way credible" count - on what basis?

As you know - this is only one estimate - other studies suggest many more.

Why are you so confident about this one?

Here is another estimate - with a description of its methodology- and raising possible problems with its counting.

: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6354133/
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:22 am
Because it is the only one with academically valid, forensically sound, independently corroboratable methodology. I suppose you will bring up the recent Lancet study. If you choose to go with that, fine, choose to go with that. There are a number of problems with that study ... among which is the fact the widely touted 100,000 figure is the mid-point of the study's 95% Confidence Level of a minimum of 8000 and a maximumum of 192,000. While the study has its proponents, it is not well regarded by folks generally considered to be authoritative on the Iraq conflict or in the field of statistical analysis.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:27 am
Which folks?

The Lancet is, ot course, known for its hysteria....
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:33 am
The Lancet Study Summary (large PDF file)

100,000 Dead - or 8000?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 02:54 am
Here ... I just took a screenshot of the primary table of the study's "findings"

http://www.able2know.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10156/lancet.jpg

Apart from the fact their database consisted entirely of anecdotal evidence drawn from a study sample of fewer than 1000 respondants, a glance at the estimated-cause-of-numbers-deaths attributions shown in the table above leads a statistician to .... well, wonder. About a number of things. There are some very problematic, if not downright improbable, representations there.


Incidentally, some of the folks associated with the Lancet study are among the folks who were postulating a humanitarian crisis of biblical magnitude was sure to ensue from the million-plus refugees they were certain the invasion would drive to the woefully unprepared NGO emergency refugee camps adjacnt to Iraq's border throughout the region that wound up getting dismantled unused after the fall of Baghdad.

In sum, the study claims that with 95% probability, the number of war-related civilian deaths lies somewhere between 8000 and a bit less than 200,000. Well, Duh! I could say that it is 95% likely it will rain on somewhere between a half dozen and 350 days next year.

Consider that to reach the 100,000 figure would call for roughly 200 war-related civilian deaths every single day without pause over the entire time between the invasion and the conclusion of the study. That, to say the very least, is an improbable of high order.

I suspect the true number of war-related civilian deaths lies far closer to the total IraqBodyCount postulates than the median 95% Confidence Level figure of the Lancet study.


But believe as you choose.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Nov, 2004 07:36 am
willow_tl wrote:
sorry folks the time for worrying about insurgents and terrorists is over...they were warned this was coming...I hate that innocents are collateral damage..but I am all for saving american soldiers lives...


Hang on, willow! You're talking about peoples' homes! And what about the sick, the elderly, very young children, people who couldn't evacuate for what-ever reason ... ? I think it's reasonable to think about their lives, too!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2004 11:21 am
This is confusing, I thought we were there to "liberate" the Iraqis.

Can the verb "liberate" be taken to mean kill? Or do we want to kill some Iraqis and liberate others?

Does it make sense to liberate the Iraqis that are"enemies"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dead Insurgents, How Many?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 06:55:20