Falluja in pictures

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Shame on EVERYONE. The loss of one diminishes us all.

 

[Rogue]

Let's not also forget that insurgents indescriminately kill, wound and maim civilians all the time in Iraq. I'm not absolving any Soldier or Marine from similar attrocities, accidental or otherwise, but war is war. Terrible things happen. Innocent people die.

 

[BBond]

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.

Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".

The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.

When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.

They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.

"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families.

"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.

The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.

The researchers criticise the failure of the coalition authorities to attempt to assess for themselves the scale of the civilian casualties.

"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts'," they write, but occupying armies have responsibilities under the Geneva convention."This survey shows that with modest funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilan deaths could be obtained."

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: LordNoob
War is hell. Watch apocalypse now, watch saving private ryan, watch real footage from Iraq or elsewhere. There is no debate: war is hell. Now should we be there? Separate issue.

the "hell" always gets censored out - at least in the US

War in the us is always something really, really cool Especially against the almighty, evil "terrorists".. 51% of Americans cant be wrong...

[/plays patriotic music]

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: LordNoob
War is hell. Watch apocalypse now, watch saving private ryan, watch real footage from Iraq or elsewhere. There is no debate: war is hell. Now should we be there? Separate issue.

Should we be there is the semenal issue.

When will Americans wake up and hold Bush accountable?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

The insurgents reacted to an invasion. If someone invaded the US claiming Bush stole the election and that we needed regime change would you fight the invaders or not?

Bush is not threatening his neighbors with WMD's. Bush does not mass murder innocent civilians.

We are living in a post 9/11, remember that. I know its hard, but try anyway

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

God bless the troops who have achieved remarkable goals.

So, when do you sign up to help quell the people protecting their homeland from an occupying force? Hmmm?

you doof, most of these insurgents are sent in thru Iran or Syria. And a lot of them are non Iraqis

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: BBond

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.

Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".

The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.

When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.

They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.

"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families.

"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.

The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.

The researchers criticise the failure of the coalition authorities to attempt to assess for themselves the scale of the civilian casualties.

"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts'," they write, but occupying armies have responsibilities under the Geneva convention."This survey shows that with modest funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilan deaths could be obtained."

this study was proved false.

your about a month late

 

[miketheidiot]

The whole bitching about foriegn insurgents is somewhat ironic in my mind after what we did in afghanistan. I rememeber something about finacning foreign insurgants to overthough a governemnt that was being put in place by a foreign power... ah maybe I just imagined that.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

God bless the troops who have achieved remarkable goals.

Such an ignorant statement.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

The insurgents reacted to an invasion. If someone invaded the US claiming Bush stole the election and that we needed regime change would you fight the invaders or not?

Bush is not threatening his neighbors with WMD's. Bush does not mass murder innocent civilians.

We are living in a post 9/11, remember that. I know its hard, but try anyway

the insurgents believe bush mass murders innocent civilians.





































PS: thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died because of the war bush initiated.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

God bless the troops who have achieved remarkable goals.

So, when do you sign up to help quell the people protecting their homeland from an occupying force? Hmmm?

you doof, most of these insurgents are sent in thru Iran or Syria. And a lot of them are non Iraqis

Wrong again, "doof". The foreign fighters are, maybe, 10% of the insurgent fighting force from everything that's been reported so far.

 

[earthman]

Those photos are sad. I didn't think that many civilians would be involved. The media made it seem as if they all left.

Iraq was full of civilians last time I checked.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

The insurgents reacted to an invasion. If someone invaded the US claiming Bush stole the election and that we needed regime change would you fight the invaders or not?

Yes I would fight the invaders. For one, Bush is not a dictator and is accountable for his actions, he did not gas poor people in West Virginia, We did not invade and occupy Canada to improve the nations bottom line, and we did not wage war on Mexico because we felt thier brand of Catholicism was different and our borders should be corrected, I am free to worship in the manner I see fit, I can criticize the goverment etc etc. Not the same situation as Iraq.

We gave what the Iraqis clamored for. That is Freedom from opression under Saddam. A lot of the Saddam loyalists survived the intital ground war and are able to convince their countrymen that killing fellow iraqis with car bombs is the way to go.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

The insurgents reacted to an invasion. If someone invaded the US claiming Bush stole the election and that we needed regime change would you fight the invaders or not?

Yes I would fight the invaders. For one, Bush is not a dictator and is accountable for his actions, he did not gas poor people in West Virginia, We did not invade and occupy Canada to improve the nations bottom line, and we did not wage war on Mexico because we felt thier brand of Catholicism was different and our borders should be corrected, I am free to worship in the manner I see fit, I can criticize the goverment etc etc. Not the same situation as Iraq.

We gave what the Iraqis clamored for. That is Freedom from opression under Saddam. A lot of the Saddam loyalists survived the intital ground war and are able to convince their countrymen that killing fellow iraqis with car bombs is the way to go.

Yet another Bushie who has completely forgotten that the sole justification for the invasion was the known existences of stockpiles of WMDs. Let's keep the facts on the table, shall we?

 

[shilala]

The pictures brought a tear to my eye, and I'm just about the most insensitive asswipe you'll see.
When I saw the pics of the young men who were alive 10 days ago, I thought "For what? For oil?"
Where's the taliban? Why do 2 year old boys have to have their legs torn off? What about the mothers?
The flush of emotions that got me was overwhelming.
Imagine how these soldiers of ours feel. Imagine the pain they go through every day trying to steel themselves against the things they have to see and feel.
I can feel nothing less than complete respect for those patriots, as well as the Iraqis who are trying to defend what's theirs.
I have to have faith that what we are doing there is right and just on the grounds that it is securing my family's future. It's very difficult to have faith in something that is so absolutely wrong on a moral base, something I disagree with so strongly. Shooting Osama in the head is one thing. Rolling tanks over the bodies of innocents to get a good shot is another. When the old bastard does finally bleed out, is it worth even one single life?
War is hell.
I'm going to take time to pray for all those who have to personally face this horror day in and day out.
May God have mercy on us all.

 

[cwjerome]

LOL, invaders attacking the US? Nice context dropping :roll:

Simply amazing that some people try and ascribe legitimacy to the insurgents. Twisted minds.....

Props to our men for a job well done.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Frankly, if I were in the Iraqis' shoes, with a foreign army murdering tens of thousands of civilians, I'd have to say that I'd pick up a gun and fight too.

For every bullet we fire, for every bomb we drop, for every child we murder, we create 10, 50, maybe 100 new insurgents.

Now we want to elect an assembly? Utterly ridiculous.

We we lied to about WMD's, went into Iraq without a plan, murder thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, many of them take up arms against our troops and now they're being considered terrorists.

I'm not saying that there aren't some terrorists in Iraq now (flooding in from other countries), but I'd bet the farm that most of these "insurgents" are ordinary citizens that want revenge for the death of a loved one.

I wish people would get it through their heads.

1) You cannot implement democracy on another country through violence and the barrel of a gun.
2) They hate the United States MORE than they ever hated Saddam Hussein.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Shame on the "insurgents" for carrying out this conflict.

The insurgents reacted to an invasion. If someone invaded the US claiming Bush stole the election and that we needed regime change would you fight the invaders or not?

Bush is not threatening his neighbors with WMD's. Bush does not mass murder innocent civilians.

We are living in a post 9/11, remember that. I know its hard, but try anyway

For the last time, there were NO WMDs. NONE. ZIP. NADA. ZILCH. Bush spent over $150 million dollars over a period of more than a year with over 1,200 'experts' in the Iraq Survey Group searching unhindered for WMD. THEY FOUND NOTHING. IT WAS ALL A CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED LIE.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, therefore there was no threat. Anyone who suggests there were WMD is more delusional than Baghdad Bob.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: BBond

100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.

The study, which was carried out in 33 randomly-chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, stroke and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.

Last night the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid, but extensive peer review and editing because, said Lancet editor Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". But the findings raised important questions also for the governments of the United Sates and Britain who, said Dr Horton in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".

The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards.

When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.

They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.

"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one case, a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say, in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint and in the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families.

"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.

The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.

The researchers criticise the failure of the coalition authorities to attempt to assess for themselves the scale of the civilian casualties.

"US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts'," they write, but occupying armies have responsibilities under the Geneva convention."This survey shows that with modest funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilan deaths could be obtained."

this study was proved false.

your about a month late

The study is the best estimate of civilian casualties to date. Just because some neocons don't want the truth to be known and some Americans are willing to join in their ignorance doesn't mean the study was false.

What are you going to tell us next? That Baghdad Bob Allawi is right when he says there were no civilians killed in Fallujah???

Ridiculous. Read the study. It was vetted by colleagues of the scientists who conducted it worldwide. Stop living in fantasyland.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, invaders attacking the US? Nice context dropping :roll:

Simply amazing that some people try and ascribe legitimacy to the insurgents. Twisted minds.....

Props to our men for a job well done.

I have a link to pictures from Fallujah that I won't post here due to graphic content. The pictures include U.S. soldiers, 'insurgents', and pictures of kids as young as 16 months with limbs blown off and other horrendous injuries sustained in the U.S. attack on Fallujah. They also include pictures of a street in Fallujah littered with bodies of children 9 years old and younger.

Job well done.

 

[BBond]

BTW, raildogg,

Bush is threatening his neighbors with WMD. Depleted uranium to be exact.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: BBond
BTW, raildogg,

Bush is threatening his neighbors with WMD. Depleted uranium to be exact.

Not to mention there is far more likelyhood the US will use nukes in the world than Saddam would have.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cwjerome
LOL, invaders attacking the US? Nice context dropping :roll:

Simply amazing that some people try and ascribe legitimacy to the insurgents. Twisted minds.....

Props to our men for a job well done.

I have a link to pictures from Fallujah that I won't post here due to graphic content. The pictures include U.S. soldiers, 'insurgents', and pictures of kids as young as 16 months with limbs blown off and other horrendous injuries sustained in the U.S. attack on Fallujah. They also include pictures of a street in Fallujah littered with bodies of children 9 years old and younger.

Job well done.

 

[cwjerome]

BBond says, "I have a link to pictures from Fallujah that I won't post here due to graphic content. The pictures include U.S. soldiers, 'insurgents', and pictures of kids as young as 16 months with limbs blown off and other horrendous injuries sustained in the U.S. attack on Fallujah. They also include pictures of a street in Fallujah littered with bodies of children 9 years old and younger."

Indeed, the insurgents are making things very ugly.

But the Fallujah operation represents an incredible success in military terms. Over 1600 insurgents dead, over 1000 captured, fewer than 50 Americans killed, historically low -extremely low- collateral damage in infrastructure and life, while invading and occupying a city of that size. One for the record book, and our troops should be proud. 25 years ago, we would have killed and lost a great many more lives.... 50 years ago we would have just leveled the city.