6,558 terrorists & insurgents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2006
Sources;
Terrorist Death Watch
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
6,558 terrorists & insurgents killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2006
Sources;
Terrorist Death Watch
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
So......
6,558 "terrorists" (or, more accurately, Iraqis who want an occupying army out of THEIR country)
out of 650,000 civillians.
Hey, at least 1% of the people getting killed are the "right ones".
Eternally Under the Authority of Satan
Originally Posted by Sockfucker
What's this supposed to mean, Shultz?
We're not losing?
We're winning?
We're gaining ground over there?
Where's the bar chart showing how many more "terrists" we have to kill till our guys get home from Iraq?
You getting it yet?
No?
Here's why:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jteZR77knz4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jteZR77knz4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
You and your kind never listen...
Hurray for body count!
Published on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Body Count Redux
by Ivan Eland
During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military released body counts of enemy and friendly dead to the media, which reported them voraciously. Invariably, the military’s data—showing more enemy than friendly dead—was designed to give the illusion that the United States was winning the war. What the data didn’t show was more important: that a tenacious enemy fighting for its homeland would be willing to incur high casualties and outwait an opponent with a short attention span. Similarly, in Iraq, the U.S. military gleefully reports that attacks against U.S. soldiers have dropped by more than half since their peak in November of last year and that firefights between U.S. soldiers and Iraqi guerrillas in Iraqi towns have also diminished. But like the body counts in Vietnam, the American public should be wary of such rosy assessments.
The major reason that fighting between the U.S. military and the insurgents has declined is that the American forces have vacated the field of battle. However unfortunate, with a competitive election coming up this year, the White House knows that the only thing in Iraq that matters to the American public is how many U.S. soldiers are killed and wounded there. Thus, “force protection” has become the number one unstated goal in Iraq. American forces have been pulled out of Iraqi cities and towns and most security functions have been turned over to the amateurish, ill-trained and poorly equipped Iraqi security forces. This same phenomenon occurred in Bosnia in the mid-to late-nineties, when American public support for U.S. involvement in peacekeeping there was lukewarm. American soldiers were ridiculed by the peacekeeping forces of other nations for rarely coming out of their fortified bastions.
What is the result of a policy designed more to avoid a catastrophe before the election than to pacify Iraq? Answer: One of the worst weeks of violence since America’s occupation began. Last week, 125 people were killed in suicide bombings of a police station and an Iraqi Army recruiting station and a violent raid on an Iraqi police station to free prisoners. In addition, guerillas, seemingly tipped off that a VIP would be visiting, attacked the motorcade of John Abizaid, the American general in-charge of all U.S. forces in the Middle East. Most of those attacked or killed in this recent spate of attacks—save the U.S. general—were Iraqi police or military people perceived as collaborating with the American occupation.
Although U.S. officials claim that security in Iraq is improving, a confidential and little noticed report by the American occupation authority itself belies those statements and confirms the intuitive impression that attacks by insurgents are getting worse. The occupation authority’s findings, as reported by London’s Financial Times, state that “January has been the highest rate of violence since September 2003. The violence continues despite the expansion of the Iraqi security services and increased arrests by coalition forces in December and January.” The report concludes that in recent months, attacks against international and nongovernmental organizations, strikes using mortars and explosives (including roadside bombs), strikes in Baghdad and attacks that were non-life threatening have all increased substantially. Also, attacks on military targets rose faster than strikes on their civilian counterparts.
Yet the only recent public indication of underlying security problems was made by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, who was forced by last week’s mayhem to admit that the indigenous security services would not be ready to guarantee public safety in time for the ostensible mid-year turn over of Iraq to the Iraqis, “I think it’s quite clear the Iraqi security forces, brave as they are, and beaten and attacked as they are, are not going to be ready by July 1.” Ideally suited for his job, Mr. Bremer has a gift for understatement.
So if the Iraqi security forces are in shambles and insurgent attacks are rising, the casual observe might ask why are the Americans pulling back to fortified garrisons outside Iraqi cities? Answer: That policy saves the lives of American soldiers while leaving the Iraqi citizenry to the wolves. Strangely, the U.S. military admits this increased risk to Iraqis. So much for the Bush administration’s high-flying rhetoric about making Iraq a better place for its citizens. If a civil war eventually breaks out—as a U.N. representative recently warned and as the occupation authority worried euphemistically in its report—Saddam Hussein’s regime could seem like the good ole’ days for Iraqis.
So although the Bush administration’s policy may be achieving its primary goal—avoiding a sharp escalation in the U.S. body count before November—the voting public should not mistakenly conclude that the United States is winning this war. A reckless Bush administration—like the Johnson and Nixon administrations during the Vietnam War—has stumbled into a war that it can neither win nor escape from gracefully.
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the book, 'Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World'. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org.
Copyright 2004 The Independent Institute
###
That he is willing to lie in order to justify the occupation.Originally posted by hideyoursheep
What's this supposed to mean, Shultz?
CNN: Baghdad morgue overflowing with bodies in courtyard
Look up the sources used. If you believe the # of US. casualties (same source) then you must believe the # of terrorists/insurgents.Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
That he is willing to lie in order to justify the occupation.
CNN: Baghdad morgue overflowing with bodies in courtyard
The number of US casualties is also incorrect. Far more have died than what has been reported in your corporate media.
How do I know this to be true?
I'm the Devil. And I know my construction budget is exploding, keeping up with all the new "tenants" I'm getting as a result of this illegal war.
St. Peter tells me that they have similar immigration difficulties "up there" as well, but at least Heaven is capable of expanding naturally to keep up with it.
Plus, just cos they get labeled "terrorists" or "insurgents" doesn´t mean they are! Considering the USA´s administration´s track record for honesty and correct information, all I´ll believe is that they´re dead!Originally posted by Satan
So......
6,558 "terrorists" (or, more accurately, Iraqis who want an occupying army out of THEIR country)
out of 650,000 civillians.
Hey, at least 1% of the people getting killed are the "right ones".
Liars seek out lies that match their own. Nice try, sociopath.Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Look up the sources used. If you believe the # of US. casualties (same source) then you must believe the # of terrorists/insurgents.
So, you don't believe any sources regarding coalition deaths or terrorist deaths? Where does the media gets its figures that they breathlessley talk about each time US deaths hit another "grim milestone?" The same place these figures are coming from.Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Liars seek out lies that match their own. Nice try, sociopath.
Ain't you just the smartest boy for figuring that out all by yourself.Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
So, you don't believe any sources regarding coalition deaths or terrorist deaths? Where does the media gets its figures that they breathlessley talk about each time US deaths hit another "grim milestone?" The same place these figures are coming from.
Since every Iraqi we kill pisses off another 10-20 Iraqis, I fail to see how the body count is really that great of a metric for our success. Especially considering we were there to defeat saddam's forces and liberate the Iraqi people.
Now we're supposed to be happy about how many Iraqis are killed?
Considering that these insurgents try to blend in to the population, how are we to know for sure which people that got blown to bits in an airstrike or cut to pieces with a 50mm were actually terrorists?
Sgt, your argument is spurious. It's clear that your debate prowess is suffering due to the utter failure of your president's initiatives.
gnaw on it
Amen!Originally posted by ODShowtime
Sgt, your argument is spurious. It's clear that your debate prowess is suffering due to the utter failure of your president's initiatives.
1. The insurgents and invaders are the US goverment which invades another nation just because of the petroleum.
2. Let each nation to solve their own problems!
3. USA has no legal authority to invade an independent nation just because they think is "correct".
4. Let's FINISH with the Cuban embargo! Reagan finish with the Cold war in the 80's.
5. Viva Chávez and the unification of all Latin american countries!
Originally posted by Carlosyella
1. The insurgents and invaders are the US goverment which invades another nation just because of the petroleum.
the invaders are US, british and others. The insurgents are iraqis, saudis, syrian, IRANIANS, and other a-rabs
2. Let each nation to solve their own problems!
that's fine unless their problems involve housing or enabling international terrorists
3. USA has no legal authority to invade an independent nation just because they think is "correct".
power is authority
4. Let's FINISH with the Cuban embargo! Reagan finish with the Cold war in the 80's.
no argument there
5. Viva Chávez and the unification of all Latin american countries!
so you'd approve of a socialist dictator nationalizing key industries and shutting down television stations in Puerto Rico?
OD I think you are one of the few "left-leaning" reasonable people here and I respect you. Using reason, logic, history etc. with others around here seems to be a waste of time.Originally posted by ODShowtime
Since every Iraqi we kill pisses off another 10-20 Iraqis, I fail to see how the body count is really that great of a metric for our success. Especially considering we were there to defeat saddam's forces and liberate the Iraqi people.
Now we're supposed to be happy about how many Iraqis are killed?
Considering that these insurgents try to blend in to the population, how are we to know for sure which people that got blown to bits in an airstrike or cut to pieces with a 50mm were actually terrorists?
Sgt, your argument is spurious. It's clear that your debate prowess is suffering due to the utter failure of your president's initiatives.
The insurgent/terrorist body count is long overdue because all we are treated to every day is the American body count - which everyone accepts as accurate. If all you hear of is how many American soldiers are being killed in combat, while never hearing of any insurgent/terrorist KIAs year after year it's not surprising that people feel discouraged. This is exactly what the press and the left wants.
What we don't know is how many of the insurgents/terrorists killed are Iraqi. Sunni/Ba'athists, Sunnis targeting Shia, and Iraqis who have joined al Qaeda are all legitimate targets. We don't know what percentage are fighters coming in from many other countries.
There are sources out there that do count the Iraqi civilian deaths - but most of these are caused by terrorists - not Americans.
In just one article linked and used as a source (anyone out there actually read one?) they went into detail about how they knew the insurgents/terrorists were in a vehicle but they waited until the vehicle was away from a populated area before attacking them. There's no argument from me that civilians are being killed by Americans in the war. Compare the current civilian deaths to the civilian deaths in our "good" and "noble" war, WWII. There is no comparison.
Ever since the notorious Vietnam body counts (blood trails, drag marks etc) the U.S. Military, press, and public have been skeptical regarding body counts, with reason. However, this is no longer the case. Vastly differing terrain and the different nature of the conflicts Vietnam vs Iraq also mean that you cannot compare Vietnam body counts vs Iraq body counts.
The point of the original post - if we all trust the sources being used for US casualty figures then we should do the same for insurgent / terrorist KIA figures. The press has NOT been doing that for the entire war because it didn't fit with how they wanted to report the war - that being, in a negative light. Deaths on both sides should be reported, information should not be withheld.
Rosie says its closer to 250,000.
frod believes him!
How many of those others were coerced into the "coalition of the 'willing'"? The insurgents wouldn't be there if the US hadn't gone in. Why is it okay for the US to have a multi-national force, but those fighting to get the invaders out of their country can't?Originally posted by ODShowtime
the invaders are US, british and others. The insurgents are iraqis, saudis, syrian, IRANIANS, and other a-rabs
Don't forget to mention that those terrorists got INTO Iraq in the first place because of the opportunity the US presented when they went in there!that's fine unless their problems involve housing or enabling international terrorists
"Ya know what they say about angels... An angel is a supernatural being or spirit, usually humanoid in form, found in various religions and mythologies. Plus Roth fan boards..."- ZahZoo April 2013
I respect you as well, even though you are a weird motherfucker.Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
OD I think you are one of the few "left-leaning" reasonable people here and I respect you. Using reason, logic, history etc. with others around here seems to be a waste of time.
The insurgent/terrorist body count is long overdue because all we are treated to every day is the American body count - which everyone accepts as accurate. If all you hear of is how many American soldiers are being killed in combat, while never hearing of any insurgent/terrorist KIAs year after year it's not surprising that people feel discouraged. This is exactly what the press and the left wants.
What we don't know is how many of the insurgents/terrorists killed are Iraqi. Sunni/Ba'athists, Sunnis targeting Shia, and Iraqis who have joined al Qaeda are all legitimate targets. We don't know what percentage are fighters coming in from many other countries.
There are sources out there that do count the Iraqi civilian deaths - but most of these are caused by terrorists - not Americans.
In just one article linked and used as a source (anyone out there actually read one?) they went into detail about how they knew the insurgents/terrorists were in a vehicle but they waited until the vehicle was away from a populated area before attacking them. There's no argument from me that civilians are being killed by Americans in the war. Compare the current civilian deaths to the civilian deaths in our "good" and "noble" war, WWII. There is no comparison.
Ever since the notorious Vietnam body counts (blood trails, drag marks etc) the U.S. Military, press, and public have been skeptical regarding body counts, with reason. However, this is no longer the case. Vastly differing terrain and the different nature of the conflicts Vietnam vs Iraq also mean that you cannot compare Vietnam body counts vs Iraq body counts.
The point of the original post - if we all trust the sources being used for US casualty figures then we should do the same for insurgent / terrorist KIA figures. The press has NOT been doing that for the entire war because it didn't fit with how they wanted to report the war - that being, in a negative light. Deaths on both sides should be reported, information should not be withheld.
I DON'T trust the US soldier body count. I'm not positive, and too lazy to check, but I'm pretty sure if you make it back to the central hospital, you don't count as a combat death. I know if you get to Germany and die on the operating table, it doesn't count.
And all deaths from accidents caused by riding around in helicopters and shooting mortars and what not don't count either.
There's gotta be at least 10,000 dead US soldiers, sailers, and Marines that have perished as a direct result of this clusterfuck, and that doesn't even count the US contractors.
I just can't get excited about killing Iraqi's who are fighting for their freedom. It's not their fault that they were ruled by a vicicous dictator. Judging by the demographics over there, few were alive before saddam consolidated power.
Who do you think you're typing to? Do you pay attention in here?Originally posted by Angel
How many of those others were coerced into the "coalition of the 'willing'"? The insurgents wouldn't be there if the US hadn't gone in. Why is it okay for the US to have a multi-national force, but those fighting to get the invaders out of their country can't?
Don't forget to mention that those terrorists got INTO Iraq in the first place because of the opportunity the US presented when they went in there!
I'm just straightening out that viva chavez joker.
"Sgt" Schultz is tossing out these numbers to show us just how "cost effective" he feels the occupation really is. This to him is some way to gauge the success of the occupation.
I love how he vilifies the very media that spent thousands of hours in air time to sell the "war" to dummies just like him.
Treating these figures like video game scores, as "Sgt" Schultz has here, displays the conservative's ability to callously politicize a pile of dead human bodies as a means to make one's point.
It's pathetic.
Last edited by DEMON CUNT; 06-14-2007 at 12:33 AM.
The obsession continues.Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Rosie says its closer to 250,000.
and I enjoy playing devils advocateOriginally posted by ODShowtime
Who do you think you're typing to? Do you pay attention in here?
I'm just straightening out that viva chavez joker.
Are you just uninformed or just a blind liberal? Most of the "insurgents" are from other countries like Syria and Iran. The ones who come from Iraq are Sadam's old butt buddies who are now no longer allowed to oppress the other civilians and have to give up the power they once had.Originally posted by Satan
So......
6,558 "terrorists" (or, more accurately, Iraqis who want an occupying army out of THEIR country)
out of 650,000 civillians.
Hey, at least 1% of the people getting killed are the "right ones".
Hey, if I was a psycho child molester like Mohammad or I believed that oppressing women and denying freedom of other religeons was my "God"'s will, or if I was so pussy hungry and a pedophile that I believed I was going to get to play with virgin cunts for eternity if I blew myself up, then I would be over there bombing our soldiers too....fortunately I actually have some common sense.
But you go right on ahead and defend these depraved lunatic bastards all you want, you fit right in with them.
Exactly! Where was the criticism when the media was essentially a big, embedded bunch of fucking cheerleaders as things were going well on the rush to Baghdad?Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
...
I love how he vilifies the very media that spent thousands of hours in air time to sell the "war" to dummies just like him.
...
BTW, I've seen plenty of stories relating that we're killing more insurgents than they are our boys and girls.
But what is the fucking point of it? Is this still the same fraudulent that "we're fighting them over there instead of here" bullshit?
'Cause I'm pretty sure there were not Republican Guards divisions on the Rio Grande in the winter of 2002...
Actually, TongueNAss, only SEVEN PERCENT of Iraqi insurgents are "foreign fighters."Originally posted by TongueNGroove
Are you just uninformed or just a blind liberal? Most of the "insurgents" are from other countries like Syria and Iran.
Try reading a little more often, and beLIEving bullshitting pundits less...
Well here is one article I managed to read that says 70% of insurgents captured are foriegn. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ts-arabs_N.htmOriginally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, TongueNAss, only SEVEN PERCENT of Iraqi insurgents are "foreign fighters."
Try reading a little more often, and beLIEving bullshitting pundits less...
Also, lets not forget where these insurgents wether foreign or Iraqi are getting their missles, guns and bullets etc.. Iran and Syria are playing major factors in this war.
Says who?Originally posted by TongueNGroove
Iran and Syria are playing major factors in this war.
The same fucking Likud Zionfascist pieces of shit who lied us into this war in the first place?
They have less credibility than Chimp himself.
"From the Nile to the Euphrates" is all that matters to those god damnable sons of treasonous bitches and they don't care about this country, only their own. Fucking deport every last one of those "dual citizenship" warmongering shitbags.
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
And an Iraqi "intelligence officer" said so, eh?
Um dude, US intelligence says that only 7% are non-Iraqi. Whatever...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../04/wirq04.xml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1116-23.htm
and this:
From tomorrow's Washington Post
As for al-Qaeda: True, its Iraqi branch has established a stronghold in Anbar province, and trained fighters from Iraq are, predictably, returning to their home countries, hardened by combat and looking for blood. But thus far, the chief jihadist threat to the West continues to emanate from Pakistan, not Iraq. The proportion of foreign fighters in the insurgents' ranks is smaller than ever -- perhaps 10 percent of the total number of Sunni combatants. Moreover, al-Qaeda's Iraqi forces are already under pressure, not just from the United States but also from other Sunni leaders jealously guarding their own turf. And beyond all that, it's simply too late to stop jihadist blowback from Iraq, which will persist regardless of whether U.S. forces remain.
U.S. Forces continue to decimate enemy in Iraq
DoD Press Briefing with Lt. Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war
R.I.P Van Halen 1978-1984
hopefully God will ressurect you
"i wont be messing with you in future.the fearsome redballjets88 for fear of you owning me some more" Axl S
" I liked Sammy Hagar " FORD
Wow thats a very liberal response of you.Originally posted by Redballjets88
if we went by number of people killed then the south would have won the civil war
Long Live Classic VH
yeah see im not an idiotic neocon like people portray me
Sometimes you really support their views.
the times in which i "support" their views are in threads about very controversial topics, such as palestians vs israelis.
I guess.
lets see
im against the war in iraq, its pointless for us to have gone there in the first place.
im for stem cell research
i vote independent
bush is an idiot
so i dont see why im seen in such a shitty light.
Ok calm down there chief.
im calm big guy no worries
They do? But the funny thing is "sgt" is that the insurgents just keep operating with virtual impunity, and have inflicted far more casualties on BOTH US and "Iraqi" forces and allied militias....Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
U.S. Forces continue to decimate enemy in Iraq
DoD Press Briefing with Lt. Gen. Odierno from the Pentagon
So, what is the criteria for success here?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote