Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

31 Killed in Iraq, 200 injured - Iraqi lives not worth reporting eh? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I've not said that the US are an angel only trying to make things better, leave your prejudice at the door please lass.

    I'd love to see the study and methodology for those figures, because they're total BS. The number of civilians killed may be up around 200,000 by now, it's difficult to get an accurate number, but what we can be sure of is that the majority of them are killed by the insurjent fighters, although sadly quite a few are accidentally killed by the new Iraqi Army and Police.
    Well why don't you take a look at the methodology they used for yourself? This figure was published by a university and a research institute which to me sound like reliable sources. Where did you get that 200,000 figure from? In fact, they stated that the figure was an underestimate. That's because the survey didn't take account of those who fled Iraq after their family members were all killed and many other factors that would make this an underestimate. Also, it doesn't take account of the mortality rates of children with birth defects due to the depleted uranium from US bombs. There's a research published in the International Journal of environmental Research and public health with the finding that "Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945." Here's the link if you want to check since it out for yourself http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf

    So, though you're right about how the exact number is difficult to find, it definitely is more than 200,000 and it's still increasing all thanks to the US.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Muslims killing muslims isn't breaking news.
    This. It's also quite extraordinary that there's a view about that somehow the US should feel guilty when Muslims kill Muslims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    So why do you think America went to war with Iraq?
    Three reasons.

    1) There simply weren't enough "targets" in Afghanistan, and someone had to pay for 9/11, whether they were involved or not

    2) Taking the long view, the US military establishment knew it would never have a better opportunity to do this

    3) The Hussein crime family was a massively destabilising influence in the region. Despite the problems that have occurred since, Iraq is geopolitically more stable than it was prior to the invasion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims).

    BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it?

    This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less. *It is. Even if the intention is to get a 'shocking' story, American lives are worth more. Did we not have two major school shootings in a row? Many casualties in each? A few more violent massacres between that, then this? Every single time, the media has spent weeks on the news stories.

    Has anyone ever said 'oh we get school shootings a lot , nothing surprising'.? Why?


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

    At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.
    These were BOMBS guys.

    Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp.

    Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting.

    The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.


    I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?


    Apparently 6 Zionist Jewish men own about 95% of the media, together. If this is true, why on earth would they want to mention about the muslims that "glorious" isreal, WITH the back of America, is killing?

    Ofc not, it is better to show all the bombings that the "muslims" - I especially like the videos where beards are dropping off haha - are doing, and to hide the fact that they kill innocent children and women on a daily basis purely because they are muslim. Yipeee !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well said! You read my mind!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    News is a business, they publish what they think the public will find interesting.
    People in anglo/western countries can empathize more with victims in anglo/western countries, due to strong ties between nations especially within culture and history, thus they generally are more interested in news related to those anglo/western victims as they have stronger ties to them and thus feel more personally affected. Also the dog bites a man, man bites a dog argument which has been laid out above. Another example may be if there were attacks in India, those attacks would be more widely reported in Britain than say the united states, as the cultural ties are stronger.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandy95)
    Well why don't you take a look at the methodology they used for yourself? This figure was published by a university and a research institute which to me sound like reliable sources. Where did you get that 200,000 figure from? In fact, they stated that the figure was an underestimate. That's because the survey didn't take account of those who fled Iraq after their family members were all killed and many other factors that would make this an underestimate. Also, it doesn't take account of the mortality rates of children with birth defects due to the depleted uranium from US bombs. There's a research published in the International Journal of environmental Research and public health with the finding that "Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945." Here's the link if you want to check since it out for yourself http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf

    So, though you're right about how the exact number is difficult to find, it definitely is more than 200,000 and it's still increasing all thanks to the US.
    It's generally considered good form to give links to the Studies and such that you cite as a source, not to make people who question them search for them. And this is a place holder, I don't have the time to look at the studies right now but I will do later this week.

    200,000 figure is based around the Associated Press study, Iraq Body Count, Iraq Family Health Survey and the files that came out of Wikileaks along with official governmental figures. Most of these studies were done a few years ago, so I allowed a generous inflation to the figures in order that you ould not accuse me of being on the conservative side of the figures to suit my agenda

    There are various breakdowns of who has killed whom, but overwhelmingly deaths caused directly by Coalition forces do not exceed 50% and are more often a lot less. So this claim that the US has 'killed' 600,000 odd civilians is ridiculous.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    You know what? I agree with you. An Iraqi blood is worth less because we in england and the Us/canada relate less to that culture, and the media jumps on this. What a bitter reality. In addition , 31 people being blown up is not daily or even weekly. It is periodical but not as frequent as you make out.

    I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

    By the way, can i quote you in my OP? (you bring a new dimension to this, and echoe what some people briefly mentioned earlier)

    Thanks

    Well, I don't know if it's 5/95, but I agree there should be more coverage. It's not just that, when deaths are reported in the ME, there is so little emotion attached to it. I wish there was more in that regard, but I ultimately understand the detachment and apathy.

    Sure, you can quote it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    Well, I don't know if it's 5/95, but I agree there should be more coverage. It's not just that, when deaths are reported in the ME, there is so little emotion attached to it. I wish there was more in that regard, but I ultimately understand the detachment and apathy.

    Sure, you can quote it.
    Look to the news now. Commiserations and my true sympathy and prayers go to the people at the blast, but you will see what i mean on the news.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims).BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it?This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less. *It is. Even if the intention is to get a 'shocking' story, American lives are worth more. Did we not have two major school shootings in a row? Many casualties in each? A few more violent massacres between that, then this? Every single time, the media has spent weeks on the news stories. Has anyone ever said 'oh we get school shootings a lot , nothing surprising'.? Why?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.These were BOMBS guys.Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp.Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting.The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?
    iraq and afganistan does get frequent attacks, if not daily certainly weekly. I agree they get less attention, but would also say moslems pay no atention to them- they are far more likely to point out on tsr a stray american rocket killing somone than an islamist group blowing up 100 moslems in iraq or pakistan. so i guess hypocracy is universal
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    It's generally considered good form to give links to the Studies and such that you cite as a source, not to make people who question them search for them. And this is a place holder, I don't have the time to look at the studies right now but I will do later this week.

    200,000 figure is based around the Associated Press study, Iraq Body Count, Iraq Family Health Survey and the files that came out of Wikileaks along with official governmental figures. Most of these studies were done a few years ago, so I allowed a generous inflation to the figures in order that you ould not accuse me of being on the conservative side of the figures to suit my agenda

    There are various breakdowns of who has killed whom, but overwhelmingly deaths caused directly by Coalition forces do not exceed 50% and are more often a lot less. So this claim that the US has 'killed' 600,000 odd civilians is ridiculous.
    Wikileaks records are just from 2004 to 2009 so it takes account of neither 2003 (the year the war actually started!) nor the years after. So, even if it's accurate - it's bound to be a huge underestimate of the figure now. But you seem to have some appreciation of that.

    Now as to the 'Iraq body count and Iraq family health survey' i'd like to see those please and also the years they were published and who carried them out. If they've been carried out under the current Iraqi so-called 'government' then we can kiss goodbye any hope of any form of reliability. Also, it's funny how you're ok with going by those health surveys to get those low death figures but you were questionning the survey i linked.

    Here's a link to the article where i got the 655,000 figure - they talk about their sources and i believe they may even have links for the studies http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandy95)
    Wikileaks records are just from 2004 to 2009 so it takes account of neither 2003 (the year the war actually started!) nor the years after. So, even if it's accurate - it's bound to be a huge underestimate of the figure now. But you seem to have some appreciation of that.

    Now as to the 'Iraq body count and Iraq family health survey' i'd like to see those please and also the years they were published and who carried them out. If they've been carried out under the current Iraqi so-called 'government' then we can kiss goodbye any hope of any form of reliability. Also, it's funny how you're ok with going by those health surveys to get those low death figures but you were questionning the survey i linked.

    Here's a link to the article where i got the 655,000 figure - they talk about their sources and i believe they may even have links for the studies http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Family_Health_Survey

    The Iraq Body count is based on all deaths reported to the media, it may be a low estimate, but it's a good indicator.

    The Iraq Family Health Survey had a sample size of nearly 10,000 people across Iraq. By comparison your survey sampled merely 1,500 hundred people . And I believe your contension was that all 655,000 deaths were attributable to Coalition forces, which has no basis in evidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims). BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it? This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less. *It is. Even if the intention is to get a 'shocking' story, American lives are worth more. Did we not have two major school shootings in a row? Many casualties in each? A few more violent massacres between that, then this? Every single time, the media has spent weeks on the news stories. Has anyone ever said 'oh we get school shootings a lot , nothing surprising'.? Why? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863 At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say. These were BOMBS guys. Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp. Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting. The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event. I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Thursday 18 April: 30 killed Baghdad: 27 by bomb in cafe, 1 policemen by gunfire. Falluja: 1 by AED. Baquba: 1 policeman by AED. April casualties so far: 307 civilians killed. Wednesday 17 April: 8 killed Baghdad: 2 killed by gunfire, IED. Falluja: 1 judge by gunfire. Abu Ghraib: 2 by car bomb. Ramadi: 2 by AED. Samarra: 1 by gunfire. Tuesday 16 April: 20 killed Kut: 3 by car bomb. Tarmiya: 1 by car bomb. Mosul: 5 by gunfire. Aziziya: 4 by car bomb. Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire. Qunaytera: 2 Sahwa members by gunfire. Salahuddin: 1 Ministry of Interior official, by AED. Tuz Khurmato: 1 policeman by AED. Baquba: 2 policemen. April casualties so far: 269 civilians killed. Monday 15 April: 62 killed Baghdad: 30 by car bombs, IEDs. Tuz Khurmato: 7 by car bombs. Mussayab: 4 by car bombs. Tikrit: 4 by car bombs. Nassiriya: 2 by car bombs. Mosul: 2 by car bomb, gunfire. Ramadi: 3 by car bomb, gunfire. Khalis: 1 child by car bomb. Shirqat: 1 by gunfire. Falluja: 2 by car bomb. Kirkuk: 4 by car bombs. Tarmiya: 1 policeman by gunfire. Buhriz: 1 by car bomb. April casualties so far: 249 civilians killed. Sunday 14 April: 16 killed Muqdadiya: 4 (election candidate and guards) by IED, gunfire. Mosul: 6 policemen by IED. Falluja: 4 policemen by gunfire, IED. Tikrit: 2 brothers by AED. April casualties so far: 187 civilians killed. Saturday 13 April: 1 killed Baiji: 1 election candidate, by gunfire. Friday 12 April: 21 killed Kanaan: 13 by IED. Al-Badaa: 3 by IED. Hatra: 3 bodies. Hilla: 1 by gunfire. Mosul: 1 by gunfire. April casualties so far: 170 civilians killed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    #prayerforiraq

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims).

    BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it?

    This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less. *It is. Even if the intention is to get a 'shocking' story, American lives are worth more. Did we not have two major school shootings in a row? Many casualties in each? A few more violent massacres between that, then this? Every single time, the media has spent weeks on the news stories.

    Has anyone ever said 'oh we get school shootings a lot , nothing surprising'.? Why?


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

    At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.
    These were BOMBS guys.

    Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp.

    Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting.

    The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly, it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.


    I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

    What made me laugh was the reaction to the 19 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capture. People saying they could sleep at night and out celebrating in the streets. Frankly, I found it disgusting because while they are celebrating and thinking their safety was put under 'sooooo much threat', drones are flying over Afghanistan killing innocent children and women and there are bombings all over the middle east which kill even more innocent people. It pisses me off how Amerifags always think they are victims.

    might I add, under NO circumstances would I ever condone the terrorist attacks and I would give my deepest sympathy to the families who have lost a loved one in the boston bombing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NessEB)
    What made me laugh was the reaction to the 19 year old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's capture. People saying they could sleep at night and out celebrating in the streets. Frankly, I found it disgusting because while they are celebrating and thinking their safety was put under 'sooooo much threat', drones are flying over Afghanistan killing innocent children and women and there are bombings all over the middle east which kill even more innocent people. It pisses me off how Amerifags always think they are victims.

    might I add, under NO circumstances would I ever condone the terrorist attacks and I would give my deepest sympathy to the families who have lost a loved one in the boston bombing.
    Precisely. Condolences to everyone be it in America or the middle-east, but we just have to put it into perspective.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Three people are killed in Boston and the whole media reports it (don't get me wrong, my sympathies and prayers go to the families and victims).

    BUT 31 in Iraq have been slaughtered 200 injured, arguably SEVERAL shades more severe, but it's barely been reported. Where is the sticky for it?

    This clearly shows to the general public and coorporate media, and Iraqi blood is worth ten times less. *It is. Even if the intention is to get a 'shocking' story, American lives are worth more. Did we not have two major school shootings in a row? Many casualties in each? A few more violent massacres between that, then this? Every single time, the media has spent weeks on the news stories.

    Has anyone ever said 'oh we get school shootings a lot , nothing surprising'.? Why?


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22149863

    At least 31 people have been killed and more than 200 others wounded in a series of early-morning explosions in cities across Iraq, officials say.
    These were BOMBS guys.

    Echoes of what happened when israel led a siege on Gaza. I had to switch to a decent news channel to see people actually reporting the fatalities (many of which were women and children) in the Palestine camp.

    Don't take my word for it guys. Go and look at both sides for yourself. Look at the pattern emerging. People in Pakistan and Iraq are getting blown up and the causalities are magnitudes more than in other countries which get far more reporting.

    The Iraq bombings do not occur every day. Casualty numbers like this do not even occur weekly,(maybe they sometimes do in short bursts , and it is more frequent than in America, but it's a WAY more tragic event.


    I'm not advocating even giving media time proportional to which event is more serious - that would be too fair. I won't even say give them both 50/50. But surely 25/75, rather than the 5/95 ?

    Much respect for saying this..

    RIP to all that have died in both Iraq and Boston
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    seems like people have forgotten about the war in Syria now that the media have lost interest
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevchenko)
    seems like people have forgotten about the war in Syria now that the media have lost interest
    yes that is so true and to be honest whats really sad is that the London marathon is giving £2 for every person that passes the line to the families of those affected by the Boston marathon explosion!? like america isn't rich enough to pay for their own people whereas the Syrians have nothing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by nawal)
    yes that is so true and to be honest whats really sad is that the London marathon is giving £2 for every person that passes the line to the families of those affected by the Boston marathon explosion!? like america isn't rich enough to pay for their own people whereas the Syrians have nothing.
    Back in January the UK pledged 21 million pounds for Syrian refugees. The US yesterday just announced money for Syria. Kuwait just sent 200$ million dollars in aid to Syria. The EU just sent 30$ million dollars.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.