Mind grabbing a link for us
US war on terror has killed 500,000 people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq
- Thread starter MJJ
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
Mind grabbing a link for us
Really don't know how the American people live on with so much blood on their hands.
Iraq Body Count was considered one of the more reliable sources for deaths in the Iraq War during the 2000s, although it openly admitted that its confirmed killings represented an undercount given the difficulties in accounting for all the deaths that occurred.
In a report on 2003-2011 they estimated US and coalition forces to be directly responsible for 13% of all killings - https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
That link leads to this peer-reviewed study of deaths in the Iraq War from 2003-2008 (the most bloody, intense years of the conflict) - https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000415
It found:
"Coalition forces (identified by uniforms) caused 12% of these deaths, anti-coalition forces (un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets) caused 11% of the deaths; and unknown perpetrators, who targeted civilians and were indistinguishable from their victims (for example, a suicide bomber in a market), were responsible for three-quarters of civilian deaths. To link individual deaths with perpetrators and their methods, the researchers analyzed the 60,481 civilian deaths caused by short-duration events of lethal violence (events that lasted less than 24 hours and that occurred in a specific location; for example, overnight air strikes). Extrajudicial executions by unknown perpetrators were responsible for one-third of these deaths and disproportionately increased as deaths from other forms of violence increased across Iraq. Unknown perpetrator suicide bombings that targeted civilians and coalition aerial bombings killed most civilians per lethal event (19 and 17 deaths per lethal event on average, respectively)."
Also this interesting table on causes of deaths:
In a report on 2003-2011 they estimated US and coalition forces to be directly responsible for 13% of all killings - https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
That link leads to this peer-reviewed study of deaths in the Iraq War from 2003-2008 (the most bloody, intense years of the conflict) - https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000415
It found:
"Coalition forces (identified by uniforms) caused 12% of these deaths, anti-coalition forces (un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets) caused 11% of the deaths; and unknown perpetrators, who targeted civilians and were indistinguishable from their victims (for example, a suicide bomber in a market), were responsible for three-quarters of civilian deaths. To link individual deaths with perpetrators and their methods, the researchers analyzed the 60,481 civilian deaths caused by short-duration events of lethal violence (events that lasted less than 24 hours and that occurred in a specific location; for example, overnight air strikes). Extrajudicial executions by unknown perpetrators were responsible for one-third of these deaths and disproportionately increased as deaths from other forms of violence increased across Iraq. Unknown perpetrator suicide bombings that targeted civilians and coalition aerial bombings killed most civilians per lethal event (19 and 17 deaths per lethal event on average, respectively)."
Also this interesting table on causes of deaths:
Gladly.
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Casualty-Status/
Mind you, it’s not been updated since 10am, Nov. 5th, 2018, but I’m gonna go with it.
Shit thread and even shitter thread title. Clickbait attention seeking.
Probably because the media doesn't often give much, if any coverage at all, to what the US is up to around the world. In short, most Americans are terribly ill informed on their own governments foreign policies, or what the government has done in their name, or the long term implications both for the US and for the countries the US meddles with could be.
Americans are feed a steady diet of "we're the good guys, they are the bad guys". So you end up with situations like Yemen, where the US is actively supporting the Saudis by supplying arms and intelligence, while the Saudis are committing war crimes, and causing probably one of, if not the worst humanitarian crisis since the Ethiopian Famine in the 80's. Who voted for that? Most people have no idea what is happening, and if they read a quarter inch blurb on it, it definitely isn't going to mention the military support the US is offering Saudi Arabia.
The average American is a fine person. They enter the military with good intentions, with a desire to serve, maybe see some action if they end up with combat related job, but basically it is to do good.
It's hard to see the US government in a good light, however, when you run down its record post WW2. Frankly, Americans should be ashamed of what their government has done.
Look at the recent assassination of the Saudi journalist. The liberal media (which most of it is), is losing their minds on this attack on the press, and are suddenly coming to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia, might be bad. Meanwhile, they have barely uttered a word about what is happening in Yemen. How is that possible? How is what is tantamount to genocide, being ignored by a media that has a definite liberal slant?
We've already got people making comments that are little more than #fakenews. This is how you end up with the American people living with blood their government has shed without their consent, on their hands.
Supposedly the lack of coverage of Yemen is partially due the lack of reporting going on there. Too dangerous and all.
Will go down as the worst decision of the 21st century without a doubt.
Interesting breakdown, thanks.
Questions about the methodology (no time to read in the study atm):
Is the "unknown" category basically anti-coalition perpetrators without clear confirmation, or likely to include pro-government militias as well? Likewise, does the "coalition perpetrators" category include the post-Saddam Iraqi army/police and allied militias?
The numbers of executions and suicide attacks are staggering.
The kia is 11 and the wia is 41. And even that number includes fourteen other countries including Yemen.
So like I said
The OP seems to think they are.
Fact is the enemy are mixed in with the civilian population, tending to crops one minute and bearing arms the next. There is no other way to target them, they won't fight in the open. They know that leads to civilian casualties but they don't care.
Pretty much.
I'd like to know what the military strategists here would do when the enemy hides amongst civilians. You either strike and accept the risk of civilian casualties, or you ignore them and allow them to continue to get stronger and launch attacks of their own.
It's a very difficult war to fight when you're up against an enemy prepared to use their own countrymen as a shield.
1) Not fund jihadi fighters to fight against Russia
2) Not give a soft image to Saudi Arabia and help them promote wahabism through out the muslim world
3) Stay out of wars you have no right to be in
4) Make an effort not to kill civilians
I'm not talking about whether it was a good idea to get involved in the conflict, but once you're in the military has little choice but to actually try and fight the war, so the bolded is extremely difficult when your enemy actively hides behind civilians to try and stay alive.
They do make an effort not to kill civilians. Murdering civilians serves no strategic purpose other than to give the enemy a rallying cry and giving yourself bad press. The problem is, the enemy sets themselves up AMONG the civilians so at that point it becomes a very tricky situation.
In Pakistan alone there have been 65,000 civilians casualties atleast with only 11 americans dead(and that number is pooling the information for 15 countries). That's not making an effort to not kill civilians, making an effort would be changing your strategy after the first 100 deaths maybe?
The USA thought process is that it is worth killing one terrorist even if loads of civilians die in the process since their lives matter less.
What would you do then? You're fighting an enemy who bases themselves among the civilian population and will not come out and fight, period. They aren't about to take to the field, so you just leave them totally alone to build up strength and launch attacks of their own?
Also, I highly doubt 65,000 civilians have died from U.S strikes. You're looking at deaths in the low thousands from drones, not tens. Which obviously isn't acceptable but is pretty much inevitable when you're fighting this kind of war.
Well if you click the link in the first post.
So 23k are confirmed civilian victims out of the 65k, somehow I dont think the remainder were all taliban officials and even the author says that this number is understated. Not to mention the people who were abducted.
So the number of deaths has been in the tens of thousands atleast and no, it wasn't the only choice. I remember that the Pak military kept telling the US guys that indiscriminately bombing is not helping anyone as they are creating more terrorists but they didn't really care.
And the only attack launched on US soil was by the saudis and people who were given financial aid by the US itself.
That report is hardly decisive .. 'we may never know', 'may have died', 'may actually have been civilians'. It's not exactly filling me with confidence that the publisher has any real evidence whatsoever.
I can't find any genuine, concrete sources which say that tens of thousands of civilians have died because of U.S airstrikes, only speculation.
Maybe Pakistan could have considered not funding, arming and joining the Taliban in Afghanistan as an alternative strategy to the US bombing raids? Then they wouldn't need to drop so many bombs.
Well obviously, it is not really possible to get an exact number of civilian deaths given 1) they aren't being recorded and b) it is not in the interest of the U.S government but the numbers given in the report should be treated as a minimum. But again, if you want to bury your head in the sand and deny everything then yes you won;t find any genuine concrete sources.
The US don't take the field in these areas either they drop bombs from planes which are never 100% accurate, so both parties use cowardly tactics. Obviously, the US believe the inevitable civilian deaths that come with this is an acceptable price to pay, to me you can't defend either side, painting the US as saints as you have won't cause any change to happen.
Or, the easier way is to just stop fecking around in other countries and funding extremists for geopolitical reasons.
And who funded and encouraged Pakistan to facilitate the Taliban in the first place?
It's incredible to me that we still have apologists for the American wars in the Middle East, even now.
And the US still did not get their man there. The Taliban are still in Afghanistan and you appear to have considered negotiating with them. Not to mention , the United States left Afghanistan into a free fall after the Soviets pulled out, directly leading to the formation of the said Taliban.
Yeah, you're not going to be taken seriously if you argue that the US funding the Afghan fighters in 1980 is the reason the Taliban was full of Pakistani fighters in 2010.
I don't think many people support the reasons for going in, especially to Iraq, but its tiresome that people see the US as some kid of evil monster whilst overlooking the far worse things the Taliban and others do, often with the assistance of the civilian population.
But are these people supposed to mention the Taliban everytime they discuss the role of the US? It's not necessarily a case of overlooking the Taliban IMO. It's just that they're not that relevant to discuss. They're awful, but so are some of the US' actions.
Bottom line is that the US got involved on a different continent, started or joined in on wars that have killed hundreds of thousands or millions, and in the end the situation is no better than when they came in with lots of periods where the situation has been far worse.
There is no possible high ground to be taken if they can't say that they've done more good than bad. What difference does it make to people if they get killed by an ISIS suicide bomber or an American air strike?
You could replace America there with almost any country.The actions of the US are a result of the actions of the Taliban. It would be perfect if the they would fight conventionally on open battlefields and no civilians were injured, but they don't. They hide as civilians in populated areas, planting IEDs and taking pot shots at the Coalition forces, before running off again. The civilian population in many areas are complicit in it. Whether the US should be there in the first place is another story, but they don't have a leg to stand on complaining that the Americans retaliate and the way they fight leads to massive civilian casualties. It is the Taliban and other insurgent groups that took the battle into populated areas, not the US.
Your thread is about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. So are my statistics.
I knew you sure as hell weren’t going to post the casualty totals for the United States during your bashing of us.
Former drone operators have told how they were given orders to discard children in strike zones as goats or midget terrorists. The son of al-Awlaki was blown up while he was dining in a restaurant if I remember correctly.
1. He’s dead now, isn’t he?
2. That’s got nothing to do with the decision to go in to Afghanistan.
Huh? I know your reading comprehension is better than that.
Just admit you jumped the gun in your murica defense.
My reading comprehension is fine. I posted what I did on purpose.
And don’t give me the “Murcia defense” bullshit. I’m convinced you and some others on here would say that we should have turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor, much less 9/11.
Ah okay, yeah fair enough. Atleast you copped to manipulating numbers on purpose. Thats much better than what the other 'Muricans are doing.
And sorry, I wont engage your strawman. You can start a thread on it if it interests you.
So in your opinion does the fact that US got Osama in Pakistan justify the civilian casualties in Afghanistan?
My strawman?
Your entire thread is attempting to blame all deaths in this war on the United States. You’ve been asked multiple times how many of those deaths the enemy caused, only to cop out with “oh please the US bombs indescriminately using drones” and “...it’s pointless debating it”.
That’s not going to fly. You started this thread trying to pin every death in this war on the country you don’t like, and that’s all you’re interested in.
Not sure if serious. I hope to God this is parody. Funding the Taliban...I mean where to beg...
Huh? I was talking specifically about US bombing indiscriminately in Pakistan which it does.
I also find it funny that you think a thread about the loss of life caused due to America's war on terror is simply US bashing to you. If that's not 'Murica defense then I really dont know what is. Interesting, I supposed that's one way to lessen the blood on your hands.
Who asked me how many deaths the enemy caused? Please quote one without manipulating the data this time.
Pearl habour isn't a strawman?