US and Coalition forces kill 60% more civilians than "insurgents"

[EnfantTerrible]

The BBC reports: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=2992

Coalition and Iraqi troops may be responsible for killing 60% more non-combatants in Iraq than the insurgents, the BBC has learned.
The civilian death toll for the last six months is contained in confidential records obtained by Panorama.
More than 2,000 civilians were killed by the authorities, while insurgent attacks accounted for 1,200 deaths.
The Iraqi Ministry of Health figures are usually available only to members of Iraq's cabinet.
The data covers the period 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005, and relates to all conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries recorded by Iraqi public hospitals. The figures exclude, where known, the deaths of insurgents.
The figures reveal that 3,274 Iraqi civilians were killed and 12,657 wounded in conflict-related violence during the period.
Of those deaths, 60% - 2,041 civilians - were killed by the coalition and Iraqi security forces. A further 8,542 were wounded by them.
Insurgent attacks claimed 1,233 lives, and wounded 4,115 people, during the same period.

<more>

edited for poor spelling

[Kagemusha]

1. BBC already apologized for alleged misreading of these figures

Just so you know.

[EnfantTerrible]

4. I didn't know that

What exactly was misread? Any link to the apology?

[Kagemusha]

5. The figures didn't say the dead was BY coalition forces

merely during coalition battles.

Without those figures being broken down further (I can't see why the coalition would ever want to...) it's hard to say what ratio of dead this is, 100% coalition, 20%, 50%, what. Who knows.

[EnfantTerrible]

8. So they think... what?

A good number of those was from natural causes?

Thanks for the heads up.

[Psephos]

10. Not alleged, but actual misreading

BBC did themselves no favors on this one.

[Kagemusha]

11. Well this is assuming the Iraqi govt isn't rewriting things after the fact

Probably not but, well, it's not like the coalition does itself favors either, in general...

[Psephos]

17. I agree, but I also disagree

Agreed: the coalition does itself no favors. Further agreed, that the official Iraqi govt. figures may or may not have been cooked.

Disagreed: the BBC didn't say it was reinterpreting figures it suspected to be wrong. It simply misreported them, in a way that appeared to make them look biased. I think they would have come out looking better if their official statement had been a bit more forthright.

We need a credible BBC. They're one of the few MSM voices that can be trusted to tell the whole story, and a lot of conservatives respect what they have to say.

There's an easy rule in politics: people will grumble a little if you make a mistake, but then accept it and move on. What they won't forget is the attempt to cover up or soft-sell a mistake. That's why advisors always tell their clients to "get in front of bad news." In other words, get it out in the open, take your licks, and then let the whole thing fade out.

[EnfantTerrible]

19. Did the BBC attempt to "cover up" or "soft-sell" this mistake?

Was this apology printed anywhere one might read it?

[EnfantTerrible]

20. I found it... never mind

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4217413.stm

Though I don't see a soft-sell. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Psephos]

24. They didn't soft-sell; sorry to give that impression

I was generalizing a bit, should have drawn the lines a little clearer.

The Beeb didn't pull any punches on its retraction. But their initial carelessness was below standard, which was my original point. I hate to see them give repugs any ammo with which to discredit all of their other valid reporting.

[EnfantTerrible]

26. I don't know of a single news org. that hasn't made mistakes

I don't believe this is the kind of thing that will give the rethugs any ammo... though it does make me wonder what exactly was said in the conversations that led them to present this info in the way that they did.

" Today, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to military operations."

[pocket]

2. "Fascist Occupation forces kill 60% more civilians than "freedom fighter""

n/t

[EnfantTerrible]

9. Kick

n/t

[aquart]

3. Well, no fair.

We shoot civilians because they look just like insurgents. Whereas the insurgents shoot the people who DON'T look like they belong in Iraq. And the ones in cop uniforms. So THEY have it a LOT easier.

[Rebel47]

7. Very True, especially since the insurgents

Hide behind the women and children, cowards that they are.

[LynnTheDem]

12. Wow never thought of it that way, you're so right! bush should go to Iraq

IMMEDIATELY and tell them insur gents to STOP playing so unfair the dirty rotten CHEATERS!

Can't trust anyone to fight us fair nowadays.

*watch this turn up as an actual RNC talking point lol!

Edit: Looks like one of them ALREADY fell for it, LOL!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Ignore who?

I was replying to aquart. :)

[EnfantTerrible]

18. tee hee. ;)

[LynnTheDem]

21. heh.

:D

[lebkuchen]

6. We'll break 100 US killed for this month, countless Iraqis

I read about the endless killing and can't help but wonder if perhaps the US would be better off staying put in the US, and securing its own borders post 9-11. After all, Ridge says we're going to be attacked again. That means he sees weaknesses in our security system.

Baghdad used to be a beautiful peaceful city. Sure, the people couldn't vote, but the Saudi people can't vote, either, and they are a best friend to the US.

Where are US priorities?

[LynnTheDem]

14. Oil. War-profiteering. Propping up America's failing economy.

Keeping bush's base -the Haves & HaveMores- filthy rich. And destroying America's middle-class so we're a nation of very rich and very poor.

[lebkuchen]

16. add to that a failed election, where we are putting all our "efforts"

CNNI is reporting a very low voter turn-out. If there isn't anywhere near a quorum, how can any candidate claim victory?

[LynnTheDem]

22. Yep. And they can't claim any victory.

Well, first the election is only to pick a group who will pick a group who will next year pick a group to pick a president, so it's not a single candidate thing to start with, but no group is going to be seen as legit.

I have a huhe pile of links to various top US military brass, and Republicans and ME experts and the like who all said this fake election would make the situ in Iraq WORSE; I'm waiting until that becomes fact (which it will) and then I can post all the links under "AGAIN they were RIGHT and the right were WRONG; as ALWAYS" aka "They TOLD YA SO again!".

With this total bush-wrought FUBAR, one must take one's pleasure where one can find any, and saying TOLD YA SO you STUPID MFers to the idiot rightwingnuts is a pleasure easily found. :D

[lebkuchen]

23. It's you against MSNBC

Current headline: Voters undeterred

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

If they edit that with a percentage sign in front of voters, I won't accuse them of yellow journalism.

I look forward to bookmarking your links. :)

[LynnTheDem]

25. Nope. It's most the entire world, including most the Iraqis

against the American rightwingnut fringe group minority. :)