world

Iraqi deaths higher than U.S. count: WikiLeaks

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Al-Jazeera, one of several news organizations provided advance access to the WikiLeaks trove, reported the documents show 285,000 recorded casualties, including at least 109,000 deaths. Of those who died, 66,000 were civilians, nearly two-thirds of the total.

109,000 dead over these 7 years is a tragic figure, especially since nearly all of this was Mohammedan killing Mohammedan, but the publication of this is good news.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have destroyed the dangerous and malignant lie, propagated by the once respectable Lancet Journal of all sources, that as of 2004 close to 600 000 Iraqis had been killed.

Good work. I for one feel vindicated. It was a sad and strange time, to see what Bush Derangement Syndrome could do to people.

I hope the Lancet and everyone who parroted their lies can one day regain some measure of respect and credibility, not to mention a respect for the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have destroyed the dangerous and malignant lie, propagated by the once respectable Lancet Journal of all sources, that as of 2004 close to 600 000 Iraqis had been killed.

The Wikileaks number is recorded violent deaths. The Lancet number is estimated violent deaths. Big difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dudes! WAR IS NOT PRETTY! People must die, will die, will not die but wish they did die because now they have no arms, no legs, etc...we should be happy and appreciate all of our young men, women, gays,lesbians, bisexuals etc..who are PROTECTING not only our country but trying to do the right thing by killing off a few bad, evil terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What an absolute waste of life, resources and trust. As for the apologists, sure, the henchman supported by the West needed to be removed, but in a moral, just and legal process, not executed via the expression of a personal vendetta on the part of Bush. The way in which the apologists rationalize the death of children, women and innocent men --you know PEOPLE, families?-- is as abhorrent as anything Saddam did in the marshes or in the north; don't you see that? You don't value life if it's 'OK' that these people died or, you use the amoral adage, 'War is not Pretty etcetera' .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is bad enough as an American to be ashamed of my government and obedient dogs of our military. But to have other Americans support this crap still? All the secrets. All the lies. And you know what? For some people, none of it matters, not even to have the truth paraded in front of their faces. No matter what, they would pathetically cling to their image of bravery and justice, and swear the crap that has been heaped on their heads is a fine patriotic hat to wear. Little disgusts me more than the weak-kneed inability to accept the truth and the shame that comes with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wikileaks and Julian Assange have destroyed the dangerous and malignant lie, propagated by the once respectable Lancet Journal of all sources, that as of 2004 close to 600 000 Iraqis had been killed.

The Lancet Journal's article also included consequential and preventable deaths as a result of infrastructure destroyed by the war, e.g. no ambulances, polluted water because sewerage plants were destroyed, etc.

The Lancet Journal covered this in the "methodology" section of the article. Learn to read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Lancet Journal covered this in the "methodology" section of the article. Learn to read."

Heh, let's not forget the same multividual refused to accept Iraqbodycounts "figguh" a few years back.....

....until Iraqbodycount became the lowest count of cadavers caused by the invasion that is.

One has to wonder why the old friend is bemoaning "Mohammedan killing Mohammedan" - perhaps someone should let him know "they" were there a tad before the invasion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"rival Islamic sects"

Oh for cryin' out loud...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

66,000 were civilians

? Seems people will be shocked at how low that number is given the wild estimates that have been thrown around over the years. Nice headline, tho.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I am not even surprised that you would throw a number out and conveniently forget all the significant qualifiers. Just sickened.

Those are civilian deaths the U.S. knew about but chose to hide, for some reason, as if there could possibly be a good one, in a country where they and no one else could possibly know about all civilian deaths.

I don't even think anyone is truly finished going through the documents yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madeline Albright claimed 500 000 died during the Clinton years, from the sanctions imposed on Iraq.

Looks like julian Assange and Wikileaks have proved that far fewer Iraqis died during the Bush years.

ABC news:

“The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 ‘civilians’; 23,984 ‘enemy’ (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 ‘host nation’ (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 ‘friendly’ (coalition forces),” WikiLeaks said in a statement regarding the documents’ release. “The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60 percent) of these are civilian deaths. That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six-year period.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote at 11:22 PM JST - 23rd October Madeline Albright claimed 500 000 died during the Clinton years, from the sanctions imposed on Iraq. Looks like julian Assange and Wikileaks have proved that far fewer Iraqis died during the Bush years.

No, the death count in this report is strictly deaths directly caused by the violence of the occupation. Madeline Albright was referring to deaths caused by lack of medication, sanitation chemicals, etc, what is commonly referred to as consequential deaths (deaths resulting from tertiarty factors). Once you factor in consequential deaths then, at least from a body count perspective, more Iraqis died during the Bush years.

What's most tragic about consequential deaths is that it's mostly the most vulnerable who die, children and the aged, and almost never soldiers (who have a better diet, health care and sanitation).

Also let's bear in mind that 9/11, which is allegedly what sparked this entire war (although those with half a brain know that Bush Jnr was just looking for a reason and had already decided to do it way before 9/11) was about 3000 civilian deaths. The direct civilian death toll in Iraq alone (not counting Afghanistan and Pakistan) is 22 times the losses suffered by the U.S.

What is the message here? 1 U.S. civilian is worth more than 22 other civilians so it's okay? That's complete b/s. These were normal people just trying to live their lives and they were killed because George Bush had a point to prove and the U.S. wanted cheaper oil (which it didn't get, so it looks like the only "winner" was Bush).

The entire thing is obscene.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't see how Iraqi death squads are any threat to you.

hehe....just kidding. I'd have to be an "anti-war" supporter circa 2003 to be saying things like that. But it is interesting that those leading the charge to keep Saddam and his death squads in place in 2003 are now the ones leading the outrage in 2010.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"leading the charge to keep saddam"?

Heh. Give up with that one already :-)

The other side to that coin is arguing you've led the charge to replace saddams death squads with islamic death squads, militia death squads, mafia death squads and even corrupt government death squads.

I don't think it's a credible position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also let's bear in mind that 9/11, which is allegedly what sparked this entire war (although those with half a brain know that Bush Jnr was just looking for a reason and had already decided to do it way before 9/11) was about 3000 civilian deaths.

I'm inclined to agree Bush wanted to do something about Iraq well before taking office. In fact, though living in Japan, I recall quite clearly his insistence about regime change being made in the debates preceding the 2000 elections. Why did the mainstream Lib media look the other way?

It is safe to say Dumbya had already decided on liberating Iraq.

What does 9-11 have to do w/anything?

Did Bush steal all a duh oil da oil from I-rak?

No, he didn't...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As opposed to what? Death squads with a perpetual dictator?

The fact is that over time with a democracy you're going to see those things fade in time, as they already have started to do. With a dictator, there is no end in sight. If that's your answer then I don't see how you could possibly feel that you're in any kind of credible position to criticize.

"No threat to me"....right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saddam wasn't immortal you know. Who's to say what would happened had the invasion not gone ahead, and as one Iraqi politician stated, "opened the bowels of hell".

Who's to say what will happen in the future? If you're honest, it's far from either certain or positive. The Iraqi's did just break the world record for the longest time to choose a government, something the newly installed regime still hasn't achieved.

Belittling the anti-war / anti Bush co movement as supporters of Saddam or comfortably sweeping under the rug the weight of the huge amounts of civillian casualties your intervention propogated doesn't quite promote the "humanitarian" angle for me. As you know, it never has.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and then there was all the state sanctioned bullshit and fear-mongering......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Old firend I give you the coveted yearly "Revisionist Award", not just for the bush election proposal fantasy, but for alleging the delusional notion the American mainstream media didn't take up the drum for war.

I must admit this level of Denial hasn't been seen for a few years.

Impressive. Most impressive,.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And on reflection Super, your "no threat.to me" is pretty out of line. Nothing has further advanced and fuelled the cause of Islamic extremism than this foly. Dem pesky supporters of Saddam shoulda thought o that!!

Wait a mo....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From a presidential debate held October 11,2000:

MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean?

GOV. BUSH: Yes, and --

MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there?

GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also let's bear in mind that 9/11, which is allegedly what sparked this entire war (although those with half a brain know that Bush Jnr was just looking for a reason and had already decided to do it way before 9/11) was about 3000 civilian deaths. The direct civilian death toll in Iraq alone (not counting Afghanistan and Pakistan) is 22 times the losses suffered by the U.S.

Your analysis here is just bizarre. Yes, 3000 died on 9-11. But the intended death toll was much, much higher. People like you come off as disappointed that more didnt die and the White House wasnt hit.

You want death from "tertiary" factors? Americans are the most generous people on the planet. But 9-11 resulted in, among other things, a huge drop in private charity and donations to developing nations.The very people in whose name bin Laden claimed to be fighting the Great Satan suffered indirectly , since most Americans donated to 9-11 causes instead. And of course after 9-11 came intense scrutiny of any and all organizations dealing with countries that had even small Mohammedan populations.

"These were normal people just trying to live their lives and they were killed because George Bush had a point to prove and the U.S. wanted cheaper oil (which it didn't get, so it looks like the only "winner" was Bush). The entire thing is obscene."

The vast majority of Iraqi dead, as the documents show, were killed by their co-religionists. It is a tragedy, yes, but it is not George Bush's fault that Shias kill Sunnis or that Al Qaeda brought the Palestinian Zarqawi to Iraq to do as much murder and mayhem as possible.

What "point' did Bush have to prove? And even if he had one, it still took Congress to authorize force. I can believe a lot of things about Dumbya but the notion that he hoodwinked Congress is not one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "Who's to say what would ( have ) happened if the invasion ( the liberation of Iraq ) not gone ahead"

We can be pretty sure that Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces whilst thumbing his nose at the U.N. and plotting to ressurect his WMD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts is the clear winner here. The leak proves many got hoodwinked on the war, they just don't want to admit it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The leak proves many got hoodwinked on the war, they just don't want to admit it

The Left in the UK and the US put death tolls at 600,000 - as early as 2004. But these people, unless innumerate, were not hoodwinked. It was deliberate. They wanted as much 'collateral damage' as possible. The disappointment on the left when Saddam Hussein was caught and when Zarqawi was killed was visible for all to see. Many even admitted they wanted the 'insurgents' to prevail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Madverts is the clear winner here"

Har!

"many got hoodwinked on the war"

The indisputable fact is if those who were against the liberation had their way, Saddam Hussein or one of his winsome sons would still be running Iraq into the ground.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

far more Iraqis died than previously acknowledged

So what. It's difficult to keep exact count. Saddam's gone and Iraq is a free country with a freely elected government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Sarge, why then is North Korea left alone? Or, Zimbabwe? Again --rabble-- those who dismiss these deaths are as amoral and as 'evil' as Saddam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why then is North Korea left alone?

Might just as well ask the Bush-wanted-their-oil crowd if that were the case couldnt we just have invaded Mexico, or Canada? There is no end of silly questions when all you are interested in is moving the goal posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Mister, seeing as you paint it with what you are you must be on one side of it, the wrong one at that, obviously. Iraq was invaded illegally, under a false pretense and those who wiggle round that and dismiss the deaths of women, children and men, innocent PEOPLE, are just as culpable to anything Saddam did. Silly? How dare you be so glib.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lovin it. Wikileaks shows the 600 000 dead lie, trotted out just before the 04 election in an obvious and cynical attempt to sway it for Kerry, getting blown away again; and it is done by a group the sham pacifist Left initially hailed as brave whistle blowers and gate keepers blah blah blah but now those once cheering seem somewhat flummoxed by Assange's exploits..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The latest batch of leaks reveal Iran sent chemical weapons agents into Iraq. What is Assange trying to do, foment war with Iran? Is he some kind of neo con or something? Why release such info ? It makes Obama and the doves surrounding him look like babes in the woods.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Big surprise here... the military downplays the numbers incredibly while others exaggerate them. I'm sure they're much higher than the military claims, since they want the numbers to be as low as possible for support reasons, but no one can really say with any credibility exactly how high they are -- how would they know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure they're much higher than the military claims

But....you wanted to see the documents to know the "truth." Now that the numbers have been released and they aren't as high as you're expecting you're trying to find the truth behind the truth? heh Why not just say that you'll only accept numbers that are high enough to meet your expectations? Anything less than that is just another US lie, anything more than that is...well...I guess the US being honest depending on your expectations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure they're much higher than the military claims, since they want the numbers to be as low as possible for support reasons,

I don't know. 23,000 dead terrorists is a nice total. I'd like to see it higher. But I realize our troops are also building schools, building wells, rebuilding communities, training cops and soldiers, providing free inoculations, etc. I guess they can't be out killing terrorist scum all the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Latest edition of Popular Mechanics claims that the Wikileaks docs and photos show evidence Iranian rockets were used against US and coalition forces in Iraq.

"Wikileaks Provides Another Clue That Iranian Missiles Are In Iraq" is article title.

Good on ya, Julian Assange !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites