Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilian
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM

I think that's the number of civilians killed this month or something like that, but the heading has lost its tail.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM

When even Johns Ho[pkins admits that the 650,000 number may not be accurate but in their anaylsis there is a 95% chance that the number is between 400,000 and 900,000 still has to make the Teribus's and Beardedbruces of the world at least stop and take notice...

BTW, this study was funded and overseen by MIT so between MIT and Johns Hopkiins we ain't exactly talklin' Jim Jones University here but some very reputable institutions...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:37 PM

Okay, here we go:

ABC News International.

BAGHDAD, Iraq Oct 11, 2006 (AP)— More than 2,660 Iraqi civilians were killed in the capital in September amid a wave of sectarian killings and insurgent attacks, an increase of 400 over the month before, according to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry.

The increase came despite an intensified U.S.-Iraqi sweep of Baghdad that was launched in mid-August to try to put down the wave of violence that has swept over the capital. The violence consists of a deadly combination of bombings and shootings by Sunni insurgents, and slayings by Shiite and Sunni death squads.

The September numbers come as a controversial new study contends that nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq, more than 10 times higher than other independent estimates of the toll.

The rest of the story HERE.

But still, who changed the thread title and why?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM

Article about the 650,000 estimate
that shows that disagreement with the target article comes not only from people with a political agenda like Bush but also from scientific peers.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 07:19 AM

A lot of American intel people are very pessimistic about sectarian violence in Iraq. It is the most critical problem confronting the government and the Coalition. And many analysts see no way to curb it. Especially since militia leaders, such as radical cleric al Sadr, appear to have lost control of some of their followers. Much of the killing is being done by small independent cells, who no longer even pay lip-service to obeying their ostensible militia leadership. A few cells exist in the police, and are particularly dangerous.

Sectarian violence aside, there have been some useful successes in the war. Attacks on security forces and critical infrastructure are down, there has been some progress in co-opting the largely Sunni tribes of Anbar into the fight against al Qaeda. Recently, Iraqi intelligence operations managed to bring down a major Baathist network that was moving money around to finance local terrorist operators. In the process, police busted several important mid-level Baath officials, which will reduce Baathist terrorism. But the increase in sectarian attacks, mostly Shia on Sunni, but with some Sunni on Shia as well, is more than making up for the decline in attacks on security forces and infrastructure, or Baathist activity. The sectarian violence is all about revenge, with Shia, and even some Kurdish, gunmen out to avenge decades of murderous rule by the Sunni Arab minority.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 07:48 AM

So maybe there haven't been 350,000 to 900,000 deaths, but only half that number? That's really a bit like arguments as to whether Hitler killed six million Jews or "only" five million.   

In both cases exact figures can't be obtained, by the nature of the events - and this gets used by people and governments who have an agenda of denying the scale of the killing, as a way of avoiding the ugly truth.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 08:18 AM

Hey, its "just a number" anyway.

Relax. Mission Accomplished! some time ago.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:00 AM

3553 US civilians die in auto crashes per month. 155 per day.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM

So how come that isn't the priority, rather than being shrugged of as a price worth paying? No signs of a "War on Car Killing"...

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:32 AM

Guy:

Taking a Big Ugly Fact and trying to cover it up with a Small Ugly Fact is disingenuous, misleading, and deceitful. Your assertion about car deaths in the U.S. has no bearing or relevance, and you know that; so it is clear your intent is to simply occlude the conversation and act as a spoiler. You can do better.

A

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:51 AM

The recent survey, published in the British medical journal, "The Lancet," claiming over 650,000 civilian deaths due to the liberation of Iraq, was quickly labeled propaganda, not science.   Is the survey accurate? The answer is, apparently not. The survey is widely out of sync with casualty counts by other organizations, and by a wide margin. A 2004 study by the same authors claimed 100,000 civilian casualties – a survey at odds with one done by the United Nations at the same time (which estimated 18,000 to 29,000 deaths). To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq.

The Lancet survey, conducted by researchers from the American Johns Hopkins University, used a method that is generally acceptable for use in developing countries. This method involves the use of cluster points – interviews with a number of households (usually 10 to 40) in a given neighborhood in that country. This survey apparently only used 47 clusters of 40 people each, for roughly 1,800 people. The 2004 Johns Hopkins study used a grand total of 33 cluster points. This is a very small sample when compared to those of other surveys, which have used far more cluster points. For instance, the 2004 UN survey used 2,200 cluster points. The following year, a group of media outlets used 135 cluster points for their study. A survey in Kosovo used 50 cluster points for a population that was less than 6 percent of Iraq's. A 1992 Harvard study of Iraq used 271 cluster points. A survey of the Congo cited by the authors of the Johns Hopkins study used 750 cluster points.

Another sign this number is off is the fact that it implies that, on average, hundreds of civilians per day have been killed since the liberation of Iraq. Not even the mainstream media has reported death tolls that high. One recently reported "surge in violence" involved a total of 110 people killed in a two-day span. That is an average of 55 people killed per day – which would imply a total of roughly 72,000 civilian deaths (somewhat higher the Brookings Institution estimate).

Something else that has been ignored is the fact that in the past, false claims of massacres and a high death toll have occurred. One such example was the alleged massacre in Jenin. Palestinians claimed that over 500 civilians were killed. Later investigations revealed that the death toll was 52 – 30 of whom were Palestinian terrorists from various groups (including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade).

The small samples and the past history of exaggerated casualty counts have not stopped numerous opponents of the liberation of Iraq, like Greg Mitchell of " Editor and Publisher" (a publication geared towards the media), from citing the study – and attacking those who have questioned it. In this case, a highly questionable figure has been seized upon, and is now being bandied about – while the flaws have been ignored. Another favorite subject at " Editor and Publisher" is, "why don't people trust the media." Here is a case where the answer is closer than the editors of " Editor and Publisher" would like to admit.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:38 PM

A mere 72,000 civilian deaths? Well, that's all right, then, innit?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM

"the liberation of Iraq"...

That is some chutzpah!

Smoking doesn't cause cancer; there is no global warming; the holocaust hads been grossly exaggerated: and only 72,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Bagpuss
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:07 PM

If you cant access the article linked to by wolfgang, here's a news story reporting on it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1929817,00.html

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:34 PM

Quoted by Old Guy just above, presumably to defend Bush and show that 2,660 casualties in one month is--nyah--no big deal.

"3553 US civilians die in auto crashes per month. 155 per day."

Okay then, Old Guy, considering that the number of civilian casualties are the pretty much the same, why the big deal about the attacks on the World Trade Center?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM

Amos:

As usual you lack perspective. My statistic is intended to put the civilian deaths in Iraq into perspective.

For what purpose do Americans die in auto crashes? We are so civilized here in the US. We have perfect people like Amos that can instantly point their finger at the cause and cure for any problem involving the senseless death of human beings. Why do people continue to die from silly things like auto crashes? If we know the answer for Iraq why don't we know the answer for the USA?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:28 AM

DF:

"considering that the number of civilian casualties are the pretty much the same"

No, 3553 and 2660 are not pretty much the same.

"why the big deal about the attacks on the World Trade Center?"

I think the attacks on the world trade center caused roughly 3000 civilian deaths in one day which is a bigger deal than 155 per day or 89 per day in Iraq.

Apparently you think the the attacks on the World Trade Center were not a big deal.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:33 AM

Iraq has a population of around 26 million people. The USA has a population of 300 million people.

So 2,660 civilians in a month in Iraq killed is equivalent to about 30,000 deaths per month in the USA. Just "to put the civilian deaths in Iraq into perspective". (And that 2,660 pretty certainly doesn't include a lot of deaths caused less directly. )

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:48 AM

Or, to put it differently - 2,660 deaths per month in Iraq is equivalent, relative to the population of the two countries, of having a September 11 twice every week.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:49 AM

That number of 2,660 is for the city of Baghdad alone. Pick a comparable US city and imagine what the outcry would be at a similar death toll from any cause.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 03:19 PM

Old Guy, you are a real piece of work! It's your offhand dismissal of thousands of deaths as being "no big deal" that I was calling you on, and now you try to turn it around and say that that is what I was saying.

You, sir, are a liar!

And furthermore, that "crybaby liberal" bumpersticker you're so fond of using is pure Rush Limbaugh. Obviously that's where you get all your political and debating acumen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 03:24 PM

"War's just murder undisguised."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

You know, Old Guy, you remind me of a relative of mine. If someone makes a comment, he will contradict them, and the argument is off and running. And he won't quit until the person who made the initial comment throws up his hands and quits in disgust. He'll argue about anything:   politics, religion, sports, the weather. . . . And he never argues fairly. He ducks and dodges, he knows every fallacy in the book and uses them with some skill (straw man, ad hominem, begging the question, red herring—he's so fond of red herrings, you'd swear he was Scandinavian!—he uses them all).

Recently, I tried something on him just to see how it played out. We'd had one of our more heated discussions some time back. The next time I saw him, a month or so later, I brought the subject up again, but I took the position he had taken before. He disagreed with me—surprise surprise! He took the position that I had taken previously, and as usual, he wouldn't quit until finally I said, "Okay, you're right! Just forget it!" He was so busy smirking that he didn't notice that I was smirking a bit myself. I was sure now that I had his number.

So that pretty well nailed it down. He doesn't care about facts and he has no regard whatsoever for the truth. He just has this pathological need to win arguments.

Well, the difference between the two of you is that he can argue either side. I don't think you're quite that versatile.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:33 AM

DF: If that is your position then you are dismissing the greater number of deaths in the US as no big deal.

"If someone makes a comment, he will contradict them, and the argument is off and running. And he won't quit until the person who made the initial comment throws up his hands and quits in disgust." Sounds like you.

"He doesn't care about facts and he has no regard whatsoever for the truth" I ask you for facts and get nothing but personal attacks.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:29 AM

"the greater number of deaths in the US" - I think you should check your figures there Old Guy.

The death rate in Iraq is far higher than in the US even in absolute numbers. And that is a country with a tiny population compared to the USA.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:37 AM

The issue should not be the mere statistical number of deaths, but the reason why, and by whom they are being killed. (mostly tribal and revenge issues) The history books teach that it took the USA (original thirteen colonies) eleven years of peacefull negotiation to come up with a Constitution. Apparently you expected Iraq with all it's divisive and beligerent tribal qualities to do better?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM

An RAF serviceman saw Iraqi civilians with bags over their heads being shouted at and abused by British soldiers, he has told a hearing.

Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes spoke at the court martial of seven soldiers charged variously with treating Iraqi civilians inhumanely and manslaughter.

Cpl Donald Payne has already admitted the war crime of inhumanely treating civilian detainees in southern Iraq.

He and six others deny other charges relating to the alleged abuse in 2003.

The charges also relate to the death of Baha Mousa, 26, in custody in Basra.

        
CHARGES IN FULL
Cpl Donald Payne - manslaughter, inhumane treatment of persons, perverting the course of justice
L/Cpl Wayne Crowcroft - inhumane treatment of persons
Pte Darren Fallon - inhumane treatment of persons
Sgt Kelvin Stacey - actual bodily harm, alternatively assault
Warrant Officer Mark Davies - negligently performing a duty
Maj Michael Peebles - negligently performing a duty
Col Jorge Mendonca - negligently performing a duty

Mr Mousa, a hotel receptionist, was among a group of detainees arrested following a counter-insurgency operation in September 2003.

SAC Hughes told the court martial, at the Military Court Centre, Bulford Camp, Wiltshire, he was visiting a British detention centre in Basra where 11 Iraqi civilians were being held when he heard "loud noises" and "shouting".

When he went to investigate, he saw detainees with sand bags over their heads and arms outstretched.

SAC Hughes said he saw Cpl Payne attacking an elderly detainee, nicknamed "granddad" by the soldiers - later identified as Kifah Al-Matairi - and kicking him in the kidneys.

"He then put his fingers into his eye sockets and yanked his head up, it was as if he was gouging his eyes."

SAC Hughes said Cpl Payne had asked him: "Would you like to see the choir?"

Cpl Payne then went around the room kicking each detainee in the kidneys so each cried out in pain, SAC Hughes added.

        
I had never really seen anything like that before. I did not know why I stayed that long
Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes

He also told of the smell of excrement, sweat and urine in the building, saying he was told the prisoners had soiled themselves.

A day after his visit, SAC Hughes said he told his commanding officers what he had seen after hearing one of the detainees had died.

"I reported it because I had a conscience," he said.

"I had never really seen anything like that before. I did not know why I stayed that long. I was shocked."

Asked why he had not intervened, he replied: "They [the soldiers] were a lot bigger than me and I didn't know what their orders were."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:43 PM

He just has this pathological need to win arguments.

Think you'll find that this is a pretty near universal BuShite / NeoCon pathology and tactic.

Look at Limbaugh & the other radio clowns; look at Rumsfeld & Cheney.
And the guy in the street as well.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM

It was the invasion that unleashed and ignited the tribal and religious and revenge cycle of violence. And far from serving to damp it down, the evidence is that the continued presence of the occupation forces is making it worse. Some of the worst atrocities are being carried out by people armed by the "Coalition".

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 03:36 PM

There's no point in arguing with this clown. All Old Guy does is twist what you say and try to throw it back at you. Like the relative I mentioned above, he doesn't care about facts or the truth, he just wants to win.

To hell with it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 06:24 PM

One of Old Guy's arguing methods:

If I don't answer every question Old Guy asks, it's because he's not the least bit interested in the answers. His whole purpose is to divert the discussion from its main point as he demands that people answer questions that are actually irrelevant to the discussion.

Asking a question in an effort to clarify the main point is perfectly all right, but that's not what he's doing. He asks an irrelevant question, and if someone answers it, he immediately counters with another irrelevant question. Thus, if he has his way, the discussion stays off-point.

Asking questions off-point and demanding that people answer them before the discussion can continue is an obvious attempt to direct, control, or manipulate the course of the discussion, often to avoid confronting the main topic. It attempts to take advantage of the fact that some people are in the habit of feeling that they have to answer questions put to them, even when the question has nothing to do with the discussion at hand,

It's a form of red herring, and I won't fall for it.

Another dodge of his is to take something someone says, twist it, and throw it back at them. He compares thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq with the number of Americans killed in automobile accidents, and dismisses the deaths of both groups as negligible, as if to say, "Well, no big deal, that's just the way it goes." I call him on his callousness, and he tries to throw it back at me with the claim that that's what I said! He knows better, he's just trying to distract attention from his own crude and insensitive comment.

Let's face it:   Old Guy is a Right-Wing propagandist, no more, no less. Arguing with him is futile.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:31 PM

The other thing he does, like a lot of people involved in discussions here (on both sides), is to avoid the tricky points raised by other people.

In a useful discussion the thing is to concentrate on identifying the things which are said which challenge our own position, and then try to rebut them, or modify our position to take account of them. That way discussions can be useful in helping us clarify what we actually do think, and in understanding where the differences really lie.

Phony discussions are where we just pick on what seem like the weak points, and ignore the strong points. That can make for quite an entertaining game, batting debating points back and forth - but it is only a game, and some things are too important to be treated just as a game.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 09:55 AM

So maybe there haven't been 350,000 to 900,000 deaths, but only half that number? That's really a bit like arguments as to whether Hitler killed six million Jews or "only" five million. (McGrath)

This could be a good argument, McGrath, if you would not use it in a so one-sided way. Whenever a number which "the left" likes to quote is questioned and some argument for a lower estimate is presented, you bring this argumentation. When however, a lower estimate "the right" likes to quote is questioned and it is pointed out that the estimate may be too low, you are silent.

You have an obvious double standard of how you react when any estimate is questioned.

On the other hand, arguing the estimate was not why I did post the link in my last post. It was only to show that the argumentation above by Bev and Jerry is demonstratably wrong.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:16 AM

I think you misunderstand my point Wolfgang - it was that what matters here aren't the detailed numbers. The range of estimates given by this research is extremely wide, and even if the kind of criticisms of methodology made by those critics were accepted the figures arrived at would be far higher than the "official" estimates.

If people were arguing that the estimates were too low it would equally well be looking in the wrong direction. Or if it were a dispute as to whether 3,000 people were killed on September 11th or 4,000, that would equally irrelevant to the real issues. The same would apply if there was some argument as to whether David Irving's estimates of the number killed in the Dresden bombing was set too high.

I honestly don't think I have "an obvious double standard... when any estimate is questioned."
.........
"the argumentation above by Bev and Jerry is demonstrably wrong"

I can't actually see where Bev and Jerry's only post in this thread really comes into it:

Bush said, "And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate."

Like they had a choice.

What's that got to do with disputes about estimates concerning the number killed?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Cruiser
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:42 AM

Don,

You asked earlier why your thread had its title changed. There were several threads similar to your initial thread and one member openly complained that there were too many threads on the subject so an administrator merged at least one of those into yours. The current thread title modification reflects that merger.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:39 PM

The original title - BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - was a lot clearer and less ambiguous, and equally relevant for all the threads concerned. Still, that's water under the bridge - mistakes happen.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:11 PM

Thanks for the info, Cruiser. I agree with Kevin that the original title was less ambiguous and relevant for all threads concerned.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:45 PM

"Old Guy, you are a real piece of work! It's your offhand dismissal of thousands of deaths as being "no big deal" that I was calling you on, and now you try to turn it around and say that that is what I was saying."

I am not going to stoop as low as you and call you a liar. I said "a bigger deal". That does not imply the the other deal was not a big deal.

If I sad it was no big deal then you would be correct but you are wrong. You are twisting my words like you accuse me of doing.

Facts sure get you in a dither.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:25 AM

16,692 people were murdered in the US in 2005, 45+ per day and there is no insurgency here.

Poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000+- deaths in the US in 2000, 1096 per day.

These numbers are posted to put the Iraqi deaths in perspective.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:39 AM

435,000 people died from tobacco use in the US in 2005, 1191 per day.

5 million people die every year, world wide, form tobacco use, 13,698 per day.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:16 AM

Gunmen fire on Sunni pilgrims in Iraq

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writers 39 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen opened fire on a convoy of Iraqi Sunni pilgrims bound for the holy city of Mecca on Sunday, killing at least one person, while U.S. forces said they killed 17 insurgents preparing to ambush American troops.
ADVERTISEMENT

The pilgrims were about 15 miles from the city of Baqouba when gunmen showered their convoy with machine gunfire, said a spokesman for Diyala province's Public Relations and Information Bureau, who asked not to be named, citing security procedures. Such killing are usually part of
Iraq's growing sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

The convoy of U.S. troops ran into the insurgents planning the ambush near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, the military said. U.S. warplanes killed three suspected insurgents in an initial attack and 14 more in a second in assault with ground forces.

The U.S. attacks set off blasts among the insurgents that showed they had been armed with homemade mines and other explosives used to disable convoys.

"Despite the terrorists' ambush attempts, coalitions forces successfully continued their operation and detained three suspected terrorists," the military said in a statement.

Elsewhere, Iraqi and U.S. forces encircled the town of Hawija, 165 miles north of Baghdad, and searched for armed men who had fired on patrols, said Brig. Sarhat Qadir of the police force in the nearby city of Kirkuk. The area lies near a key pipeline linking Kirkuk's oilfields to Turkey that has been the target of repeated insurgent attacks.

In Baqouba, gunmen shot dead two policemen at a downtown intersection, said an officer, who asked not to named because of procedures to protect the identity of police.

On Saturday night, gunmen shot dead a translator for U.S. forces outside a restaurant in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, police said.

The violence came after a week of intensified exchanges between the United States and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who on four occasions challenged the U.S. handling of the war.

Al-Maliki, whose Shiite-dominated government is backed by U.S. troops, was angered by the U.S. ambassador's announcement Tuesday that al-Maliki had agreed to a U.S. plan to set timelines for progress in quelling Iraq's violence.

In a hastily arranged video conference with
President Bush, al-Maliki said that the U.S. president promised to move swiftly to turn over full control of the Iraqi army to the Baghdad government.

A close aid said the prime minister was intentionally playing on U.S. voter displeasure with the war to strengthen his hand with Washington.

"It's al-Maliki's chance to get what he wants. It's a chance for al-Maliki to force a better deal for himself," Hassan al-Suneid, a member of al-Maliki's inner circle, told the Associated Press.

Al-Suneid said the video conference was sought because issues needed airing at a higher level than with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Al-Suneid said the prime minister complained to Bush that Khalilzad, an Afghan-born Sunni Muslim, was treating the Shiite al-Maliki imperiously.

"The U.S. ambassador is not (L. Paul) Bremer (the former U.S. administrator in Iraq). He does not have a free rein to do what he likes. Khalilzad must not behave like Bremer but rather like an ambassador," al-Suneid quoted al-Maliki as saying.

On Friday, al-Suneid said, the prime minister told Khalilzad: "I am a friend of the United States, but I am not America's man in Iraq."

Following Saturday's talks, White House spokesman Tony Snow said al-Maliki was "not America's man in Iraq. The United States is there in a role to assist him. He's the prime minister — he's the leader of the Iraqi people."

Snow denied there was any rift between the United States and Iraq and said Bush had full confidence in al-Maliki.

A joint statement issued after Saturday's video conference said both countries were committed to their partnership "and will work in every way possible for a stable, democratic Iraq and for victory in the war on terror."

It said Iraq and the U.S. agreed to form an advisory group on achieving those goals. The group will consisting of the U.S. military commander, Gen. George Casey, Khalilzad and Iraq's national security adviser and ministers of defense and interior.

Al-Maliki has grown increasingly prickly as the Americans have pressed him to rein in Shiite militias and crush death squads that have sprung up since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni insurgents in February. Thousands of Sunnis have died in revenge attacks, many under brutal torture.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM

This month, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) sponsored a meeting of Sunni and Shia religious scholars in Saudi Arabia. The OIC issued a Fatwah calling on Iraqis to stop killing each other. This was accepted by the major Shia and Sunni clerics in Iraq. But the clerics agreed that their plea would likely be rejected by the hard core killers. There are several groups of these, each with specific reasons to keep up the mayhem. The Sunni Arab killers are largely motivated by a desire to avoid prison or execution for atrocities committed while serving in Saddam's government, especially in the security forces. That, in turn, has spawned groups of Kurds and Shia Arabs who are seeking vengeance. The Shias are the most lethal, because there are more of them, and some of the Shia death squads are working for the Iranian government. The Iranians are still eager to punish those responsible for starting the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. For the Iranian government, those considered most guilty are the senior members of the Baath party. Saddam Hussein has led that party since the 1970s, but the Iranian death lists contain several thousand names. For Iran, there can be no peace until all these Baath Party officials are dead. For the Sunni Arab terrorists, there can be no peace until the revenge killing stop. Two years ago, most Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists were motivated by the desire to put the Baath Party back in power. But now, just survival would be nice.

While the Shia and Sunni scholars agree on the need to end the violence, they don't agree on some fundamental religious and political issues. Many Iranian clerics believe that the Saud family, and their Sunni Arab allies, who currently run Saudi Arabia, are not legitimate rulers. The more extreme Iranian clerics believe that the Saudi Shias, who comprise about five percent of the Saudi population, should be in charge. The Iranian government is more circumspect on this issue, but would be under tremendous popular pressure to get involved, if there was a major Shia rebellion in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Shias are concentrated in the east, where most of the oil is.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:26 AM

O.G. - Such things as death by tobacco use, or obesity is different than being killed by another. Your perspective is a bit off.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:23 PM

Considerably more than a bit.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:23 PM

Population of Iraq: 26 million
Population of USA: 300 million.

"These numbers are posted to put the Iraqi deaths in perspective."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: GUEST,Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:45 PM

Dave

Thanks for that concise historical perspective.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:05 PM

The fact is that these deaths I have noted are avoidable.

Are the deaths in Iraq avoidable?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:26 PM

Yes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM

If you set fire to a building you are likely to get a situation where further deaths are inevitable. Set fire to a country and that's also true and that's what was done when our countries made war on Iraq.

It's too late to retrospectively avoid there being hundred of thousands of dead Iraqis and the thousands of dead Americans and others. And there are going to be many many more deaths before this is through, whatever happens.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:36 PM

So why do we bitch about avoidable deaths in Iraq and not worry about the avoidable deaths in the US?

How many civilians were excecuted under the Saddam regime?