Talk:Nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq, watchdog group claims

It would be interesting to see what average death rate per day was before the invasion.. broken down again, by insurgents, Iraqi military/government, crime, etc... I suspect figures may not be available. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if saddamn kept these records and very surprised if we didnt destroy them. -- Ross Koepke Talk 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed... --Chiacomo (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Saddam's trial will start soon, which I'm sure will bring some interesting information to light. Dan100 (Talk) 21:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

when even a superficial investigation will show they "duped" Saddam into starting WW3 []. Paulrevere2005 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Right on Dan; it's no wonder the U.S. has been delaying the trial []

BBC Pie Chart; Adult Male Casualties
The BBC has a nice pie chart: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4692589.stm Hmmm, 82% of those killed were adult males. Huh.
 * Indeed. The IBC press release itself says 80% were adult males, a fact I've added to the article. Dan100 (Talk) 21:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are some people afraid to deal with the real meat of this article; Why has the USA killed almost 10,000 civilians?
Here is my own personal opinion about this story's revelation and why we should not be surprised at all. We(USA) always kill a lot of civilians when we fight in wars. We did it with the native american indians; we did it in WW2 by atom bombing two cities in Japan and fire bombing Tokyo; we did it in Vietnam with Napalming villages; and we do it now in Iraq with cluster bombs and random murders. Our soldiers are taught to enjoy killing which is why some,like McVeigh, don't stop when they get out of service. That's why I don't give a rat's ass how many Saddam killed; he wasn't doing it with my tax money and he wasn't carrying my flag when he did it (even though he was getting support from my government when he did it). I am sick of all the apologists for America's war crimes under the pretense of war necessity. Anyone who supports the U.S. in Iraq should go join up and help with the killing; that'll be 1 less poor kid from Alabama who has to do it because joining the Army was the only job he could get. Paulrevere2005 17:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should Saddam Hussein get away with all the attacks? What mind in the world would allow this sicko to just randomly kill people he doesn't like?  I'm just glad we got the Hussein dynasty out of power before Uday or Qusay took control.  --Mrmiscellanious 23:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

*Comment -The whole family were puppets of our foreign policy controllers; that's the rub:The people we elected were the puppeteers;Saddam,just another Batista/Pinochet/Marcos type hired gun. The buck stops with the American voters.. and Nicholson was right; we just can't handle the truth; but at least most us us are clever enough not to seek it out[][] [] Because,alas, the devils who have managed our foreign policy for the past 200 years care no more about 25,000 Iraqis today than they did about 500,000 Vietnamese one generation ago; and they are speaking for you and for me. Paulrevere2005 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds not productive; perhaps I could add "well as for Japanese city bombardment, not only Tokyo but most of cities at that time was bombed, 46 prefectural cities, all except Kyoto was bombed and ..." but well though it is historical facts but unproductive as is --- perhaps it could help to achieve NPOV with additional stats casualties and murdered people by other parties including US and UK attack, if you would like to describe this topic. In my feeling the number 25,000 sounds sensetional and more boring headline like "IBCP publishes their estimation of Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq" like that" might reduce such POV tone, which Paulrevere2005 seems to care for. --Aphaia 00:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm a little disappointed this was on the Main Page when it fell so far short on the standards of Neutral point of view - if you don't agree, go have a careful read of that policy. Note in particular:

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one

and

when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

When I npov'd this I didn't use any sources other than the ones already being used. Yet I could add the Iraqi government's own figures and their response, and also Reuter's own response. I could also add who the IBC actually are, which is quite enlightening.

Please let's try and keep our articles well researched, balanced, and free from bias. Dan100 (Talk) 21:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * From my own reading, print and on-line, I basically with the 25,000 figure. Hard thing to measure, and so is Hussien's own killing, reportedly in the 100,000 range, but even more difficult to measure. -Edbrown05 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm....
I used the 'database' on the IBC site to get my own totals for before 1 May 2003, and found they were several thousand lower than the numbers used in the report. Hmmmm. I've e-mailed them asking why their database doesn't give the same figures their report does. Dan100 (Talk) 12:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good work,Dan. This is really the only way we can report accurate information is to do some research ourselves to corroborate the info the mainstream parrots are reporting. Paulrevere2005 16:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)