Ken Bigley.

Hang on a minute Don. The website claims to document the number of civilians killed in Iraq and presents it's methodology is well documented and seems not unreasonable (requiring as it does the cross referenceing of at least two credible news reports).

To say this is "small print" is unfair and ignores the very obvious lengths they go to make their methods apparent. To require them to note diffenrences between "accidental loss of life" and "murder" is to imply that they editorialise rather than just report the facts (as established to their published standards). To say it's "blatant" "propoganda" when they apparently draw no conclusions and offer no opinions is odd to say the least.

Ultimately the website says that since the start of the war about 14,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Are you saying this figure is wrong? And in what sense is adding up this number a bad thing? Surely even those in favour of attacking Iraq would support the notion that we think about exactly what consequences these actions had?

Matthew

Great post, Don.

I have to say you're thinking exactly what I'm thinking but you're far better able than me to write about it.

Matthew, that website does not need to present conclusions or their opinion to be anti-American propaganda, the quote at the very top of the home page (under the red bar), and at the very bottom set the tone quite clearly for what they are trying to do imo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
is desperately sad for this thread.

---

Deane

So Don, the answer is NO, you have NO information that the Iraqbodycount is anything other than it claims, a running total of Iraqi fatalities. The “small print”, that you refer to is specifically referenced and clearly stated in the body of the bloody database. Why should there be an attempt to differentiate morally between those killed by US/UK forces and by insurgents or resistance? It’s only the morally bankrupt who strive to introduce such differentiation who care about such things. Each fatality states how they died be it US missile strike or suicide car bomb. What more could one need?
Long story short. You offer not one piece of extra evidence to support your knowing claim that:

quote:

---

Trust me on this one Alex ….(it’s a) totally biased and worthless piece of propaganda

---

As you can imagine, I am not surprised. With criticism of that quality the site doesn’t need defending.

As you to your second post, more vacuous codswallop which seems to be an inexplicably pointless repetition of my first post accompanied with some drivel from you where you accuse me of being sentimental or dear God, lacking in detail. Please tell me that you’re not going to do this for everyone’s post. It’s like one of those dangerously tedious DVD directors’ commentaries? Oh and I yeah, people are always accusing me of being sentimental. Do you even know what the word sentimental means and can you revisit those quotes and point out what what made them sentimental?

Trevor Newall said

quote:

---

how can we weed out this vermin and prevent them from being a threat to the safety of our future generations?

---

You must think Trevor’s posts are complete tearjerkers.

quote:

---

terrorists, and all other such vermin around the world come under that category such scum (and there is no other word for them) have nothing useful whatsoever to contribute to civilised society, so therefore don't deserve to inhabit the civilised world.

---

and patently not detailed enough for you.

Don, honestly, how on earth can YOU comment on anybody’s post as lacking detail? As I commented in my last post, when it comes to pre-adolescent analysis and NO supporting facts, you are the Queen to Parry’s King. Both pre-eminent blusterers and not a fact to your name.

quote:

---

how we stop the justification

---

You’re not even forming sentences with this one.

quote:

---

Also unbalanced in not asking the Palestinians to stop terrorists etc.

---

Amnesia again Don? I have consistently criticized the actions of both Palestinian terrorists and Israeli troops. In this instance, there were no Palestinian terrorists involved. AFAIAA the commander of this IDF unit has been suspended as his subordinates are alleging that he pumped bullets into the dead body. Still, it’s different, isn’t it, I mean they’re soldiers, it’s okay.

quote:

---

The footage of the F16 pilot

---

“Maverick" pilot is your word. The point is that the neither the pilot nor the ground crew had any idea who these people were and didn’t care to find out before authorizing the strike. They weren’t under attack and according to defence experts the crowd were clearly not behaving or moving in any way consistent with being a threat; they were simply a crowd of people running down the middle of the street, likely fleeing. Following the attack, the closest hospital treated a large number of men, women and children presenting with blast injuries. Make of it what you will, you obviously know more than the defence analysts.

Don’t you realize how morally destitute you are when you justify the killing of innocent people in this attack by the US/UK forces by saying that it pales into insignificance compared to the mass murder of Saddam’s regime? Nobody disputes the awfulness of what Saddam did and some of us also aren’t too happy with the West fitting him out to keep on doing it, never mind turning a blind eye when it suited. But the corollary of what you’re saying is that basically as long as the US/UK keeps this side of the mass murderer’s total body count, then we’re okay, you’ll happily remain an apologist for their actions and people, like the Ken Bigleys of this world and the average Iraqi in the wrong place will continue to be killed.

Brian you’re a bit of an enigma. What did you think was “great” about Don’s post? By his standards, he would have categorized most of your more pithy contributions to this thread as “somewhat sentimental and lacking in detail”. Also unless I’ve misunderstood your quote below, and if I have please correct me, you are diametrically opposed to Don’s view on the death of innocents, which is, after all, the nub of this argument. With Don’s spurious and groundless assertions and assumptions, I can’t honestly call it a debate.

BrianD said

quote:

---

However, it seems to me that whenever someone makes a comment about the crimes carried out by the likes of the murderers of Mr Bigley, it is *assumed* that they believe that it's ok for us to do it to them. That's not the case at all.

Any indiscriminate killing of innocent people by British and Americans is equally as bad, by being critical of what these scum have done to Mr Bigley and others does not mean I don't believe that.

---

Sorry, I can’t concur with your comments on iraqbodycount, especially in the absence of anything of meaningful to the contrary from Don. It does what it says on the tin; as I said above it lists fatalities from all causes, verifies them and references them as such. I find it remarkable that anyone should object to a database that lists ALL verified fatalities and makes me question their motivation. If the US quotes were wrong or irrelevant I could see your point. As many Iraqi agencies, including the interim administration are trying to keep tabs on the fatalities, why the US/UK forces AREN’T bothering is a valid question which has been bothering many people. Especially as, let’s face it, they and those who attack them are frequently the best placed to identify the number of casualties.


Hey Don, lest you forget, what’s the latest word on MY position and vested self-interest? I REALLY want to find out the details of my vested self-interest.

Oh, and what about your credibility theory, remember the one you had about visiting or working in any country reduces your credibility in any subsequent discussion? Can you get back to me on these?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:
I haven't a clue. But then I'm not being critical of what was done

---

Why not? Do you think it was OK to invade a sovereign state and kill 10,000 plus people? Was it to liberate the Kurds? From what I know about the Kurds it wasn't just Saddam that they had a problem with, since Kurdistan is part Turkish and part Iranian too.

Surely you need to express an opinion, rather than just questioning everyone elses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:

quote:

---

Also unbalanced in not asking the Palestinians to stop terrorists etc.

---

Amnesia again Don? I have consistently criticized the actions of both Palestinian terrorists and Israeli troops. In this instance, there were no Palestinian terrorists involved. AFAIAA the commander of this IDF unit has been suspended as his subordinates are alleging that he pumped bullets into the dead body. Still, it’s different, isn’t it, I mean they’re soldiers, it’s okay.

---

bigmick,

Let me just pick up this one aspect where I am in agreement with Don. You use the term "In this instance" above as if it was a 'given', neglecting to say that "this instance" was, in fact, your choice.

This awful act by an Israeli soldier was not particularly relevant to the kidnapping of Ken Bigley, yet you chose to highlight it. You could have specifically mentioned any number of terrorist massacres of Israeli children but you didn't. You could have highlighted the massacres of children by Saddam Hussein but you didn't. You could have mentioned that the use of children as bombers or as cover for terrorists makes it extremely difficult for Israeli soldiers but you didn't. As you have now said, the Israeli commander responsible has been suspended and is under investigation by the Israeli authorities. Would there have been such an investigation if the propagator had been a member of Hamas, Hizbollah or Al Qaeda?

Acts of terror are not considered "okay" when they are committed by soldiers, whatever their nationality. However such acts are rarely deliberate and when they are, they are usually committed by 'rogue soldiers'. They are not condoned by the governments involved, whether Israel, the USA, or the UK. However, neither are such acts of terror okay when they are committed against Israeli civilians.

Such selective reporting gives the impression that you are anti-Israel and certainly not even-handed. Is this the case?

Steve M

quote:

---

You use the term "In this instance" above as if it was a 'given', neglecting to say that "this instance" was, in fact, your choice

---

I seriously don’t know whether we’re speaking a different language, but in all honesty I fail to understand how you can misunderstand what I was saying. I’ll explain. Don made a clueless comment that my example of the Palestinian girl was unbalanced as I hadn’t criticized the actions of the Palestinian terrorists. I replied that I hadn’t done so because “in this instance”, i.e. in the example that I’d given, there were no Palestinian terrorists involved. If the incident had unfolded under a barrage of Palestinian gunfire then I would have criticized the Palestinian terrorists, as I repeat, I have consistently done in the past. Geddit? It’s as simple as that and I’m afraid that I can’t help you with any other interpretation you may have imagined.

You then go on to miss the point by a country mile by suggesting that I erred by not using the examples that you suggest. I described an incident where it was widely reported that this Palestinian girl, on her way to school was shot dead by Israeli troops. She was shot 20 times, 5 times in the head. By chance, just prior to my posting on the sickening report of Ken Bigley’s death, the report of this gruesome incident broke, as did the equally disturbing report of the F16 targeting the unidentified crowd of Iraqis. In the total absence of mitigating circumstances, we had an innocent Englishman killed by Islamic terrorists, a group of Iraqi people killed and injured by army who patently didn’t care who they targeted and an innocent Palestinian girl killed by Israeli troops. Do you think it matters if I also cited the example of the two Ethopian kids killed in Sderot by Palestinian terrorists? What difference would it make to my point? If we were posting two weeks ago when that story broke then that may well have been one of my examples but what you should understand is that it’s not a bloody competition and because I mentioned current breaking news as examples as opposed to pandering to your sensitivities by citing examples that you would have preferred doesn’t reduce the validity of my point.

It was only right that people posted on this thread to express revulsion, dismay, sadness and anger at his death, the death of a person who was not involved in battle yet suffered at the hands of killers who clearly put no value on the lives of certain people. I also wanted to add my thoughts and having done so, I also thought, as did others, that it was pertinent to note that Ken Bigley was not the only innocent victim, that every day innocent people are being coldly wiped out throughout the Middle East, not just by Islamic terrorism but by state terrorism. We should be mourning all of these victims and castigating their killers equally and I fail to see that these examples and the countless other atrocities that are unfolding every day in Iraq, Israel and across the middle East are not crimes against humanity. I don’t accept Don’s premise that innocent deaths arising from the actions of the US/UK forces are any more acceptable than those perpetrated by the Iraqi insurgents or resistance. As I said earlier, I can imagine that supporters of Iraqi insurgents argue that the innocent people killed as a result of their attempts to attack US/UK forces are just collateral damage, that hostage taking and the killing is just part of the conflict. It seems as messed up as Don’s position and I can’t agree with it.

Don thinks that the acts of terror carried out under the US/UK are okay. I think that the number of innocent Iraqis killed by the US/UK forces indicates a rather frightening level of incompetence or insouciance in what is an illegal conflict very much of their own making. The question of deliberately killing people is interesting. Neither the politicians, the generals, nor the pilot are looking their victims in the eye but does the fact that they are flicking a switch or giving the order to drop bombs where they don’t know who is in the crosshairs exonerate them, make the act any less deliberate and make them any better than the executioner with the sword?

Yes, my criticism of the killing of the Palestinian girl clearly indicates that I’m anti-Israel. Oh and the targeting of the fleeing crowd also makes me anti-American. And my criticism of Palestinian terrorists and the people who killed Ken Bigley is a sure sign that I’m anti-Arab. I’ve also been scathing of the UK role in this debacle this so I guess I’m anti-British. The TV in my study has started to switch itself off without warning and as I’ve been smacking it and casting aspersions on the manufacturer you can clearly add anti-German to the list. I shan’t go on as your remark was pathetic and really didn’t merit a response. I trust that you get the point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pingu:

Why not?
The answer to "Why not", is that I don't see how being critical is going to help the current situation.

Surely you need to express an opinion, rather than just questioning everyone elses?

---

Do you really expect me to say that I think it's great stuff to kill 10,000 people? I hope not, like. Even if I replied telling you I am in agreement with what has been done, you will then want to debate with me why I think that way. I frankly don't care about any of that. What's done is done. I'm interested in what should be done now and I find all this criticism to be absolutely pointless.

Since you asked though, this is my opinion: I believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Middle East and the world, I'm glad he's been removed. I don't like the fact that an excuse was made to do this rather than just admit it, I don't like the fact that this had to be done by force, causing lives to be lost, but it is unrealistic to have waited for the Iraqi people to have risen against him. It simply was not going to happen.

Now it's been done we have to deal with the aftermath. The griping can be done later, when Iraq is back on track.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:

Brian you’re a bit of an enigma.

---

No, I'm just stupid. I can't keep up.

quote:

---

What did you think was “great” about Don’s post?
This bit ...
"There is a colossal difference between murder and the accidental loss of life"
People are definitely confusing the use of suicide bombers, the hacking off of people's heads with blunt, rusty blades with an air attack going for the wrong target. Or something similar.

[quote]By his standards, he would have categorized most of your more pithy contributions to this thread as “somewhat sentimental and lacking in detail”. Also unless I’ve misunderstood your quote below, and if I have please correct me, you are diametrically opposed to Don’s view on the death of innocents, which is, after all, the nub of this argument.

---

I stand by what you quoted from me. However, I'm not sure what that quote has to do with your opinion that Americans are carrying out indiscriminate murder and my opinion that they aren't.

I am interested in what you write, I don't have to agree with everything you're saying to respect what you're saying, which is why I don't add sarcasm or insults to what I post.

Edit: BTW What I said to Matthew regarding the quotes at the top and bottom of the homepage of that link leave no doubt in my mind that there is an agenda behind that site. That is to portray the Americans in the worst light possible. They saw fit to add those comments, I see fit to assess their data while keeping that bias in mind.

SteveM said.....

quote:

---

Acts of terror are not considered "okay" when they are committed by soldiers, whatever their nationality. However such acts are rarely deliberate and when they are, they are usually committed by 'rogue soldiers'. They are not condoned by the governments involved, whether Israel, the USA, or the UK. However, neither are such acts of terror okay when they are committed against Israeli civilians.

---

Another bit of a post that I think is great. I wonder who won't agree with that? The mind boggles.

bigmick said.....

quote:

---

but in all honesty I fail to understand how you can misunderstand what I was saying.

---

I shouldn't laugh. I thought I was the one who posted clear comment that other's don't get.

You even went on to say.....

quote:

---

I can’t help you with any other interpretation you may have imagined.

---

Fantastic.

Sorry, it just made me smile despite what I know is a serious topic.

Briand wrote "Since you asked though, this is my opinion: I believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Middle East and the world"

What complete crap. Saddam tried to take on Iran and lost. He tried to take Kuwait, and lost. How can you compare failed attempts at beating local opposition with "world" domination.

The only thing that Saddam threatened was "oil supply", so in your reasons why we should have invaded Iraq, you should have said "in order to prevent Saddam from affecting global oil supplies". Then, and only then, might I agree with you.

As for being concerned with what to do now, that we (USA and UK forces) are fucked. My initial reaction is to say "fuck it".

Perhaps one ought to consider the individuals involved, but to be realistic, people don't join the armed forces to play Ludo.

cheers

cj (in danger of having Mr Robinson agreeing with me)

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
Yes, my criticism of the killing of the Palestinian girl clearly indicates that I’m anti-Israel. Oh and the targeting of the fleeing crowd also makes me anti-American. And my criticism of Palestinian terrorists and the people who killed Ken Bigley is a sure sign that I’m anti-Arab. I’ve also been scathing of the UK role in this debacle this so I guess I’m anti-British. The TV in my study has started to switch itself off without warning and as I’ve been smacking it and casting aspersions on the manufacturer you can clearly add anti-German to the list. I shan’t go on as your remark was pathetic and really didn’t merit a response. I trust that you get the point.

---

Not really, bigmick.

I acted towards you just as I act towards anyone else that I don't know. Generally, if I encounter what I consider may be bigotry, racism or prejudice, I ask the person whether he is, in fact, prejudiced in the way that I suspect him to be. I find that being up-front is the best policy and cuts out much of the crap.

Now, I believe that, through your sarcasm above, you're implying that you're no more anti-Israel than anti-Arab, anti-American, anti-British or anti-anything. I'm pleased to hear it. Prejudice is never an attractive or useful trait.

However, I didn't know that to be the case and your postings had led me to believe that the contrary may have been true. That being so, I don't really see why you say that my remark was "pathetic and really didn’t merit a response". So I don't think I do get the point. Sorry.

Steve M

BrianD also said "The griping can be done later, when Iraq is back on track."

What frigging track?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pingu:
Briand wrote "Since you asked though, this is my opinion: I believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Middle East and the world"

What complete crap. Saddam tried to take on Iran and lost. He tried to take Kuwait, and lost. How can you compare failed attempts at beating local opposition with "world" domination.

---

cj,

Actually, BrianD talked about Saddam Hussein being a threat to the Middle East and the world. Many would agree with him. No mention was made of 'world domination'.

Steve M

Will Saddam Hussein be able to tell his story ?(I think not)

quote:

---

Originally posted by pingu:

What complete crap.

---

See what I mean? I'm intererested in what should happen now, but all you want to do is insult what I'm saying on the basis you don't agree.

quote:

---

The only thing that Saddam threatened was "oil supply", so in your reasons why we should have invaded Iraq, you should have said "in order to prevent Saddam from affecting global oil supplies". Then, and only then, might I agree with you.

---

Ok, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was threatening the oil supply. As we rely on oil, as the Middle Eastern countries want us to do, that is a valid enough reason. Are you happy now
or are you going to find something else to write about other than what should happen to sort out the mess.

quote:

---

but to be realistic, people don't join the armed forces to play Ludo.

---

Since I'm an ex-serving member I am very much aware of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pingu:
BrianD also said "The griping can be done later, when Iraq is back on track."

What frigging track?

---

Can you expand a little on what your point is here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pingu:

What complete crap.

---

See what I mean? I'm intererested in what should happen now, but all you want to do is insult what I'm saying on the basis you don't agree.

quote:

---

The only thing that Saddam threatened was "oil supply", so in your reasons why we should have invaded Iraq, you should have said "in order to prevent Saddam from affecting global oil supplies". Then, and only then, might I agree with you.

---

Ok, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was threatening the oil supply. As we rely on oil, as the Middle Eastern countries want us to do, that is a valid enough reason. Are you happy now
or are you going to find something else to write about other than what should happen to sort out the mess.

quote:

---

but to be realistic, people don't join the armed forces to play Ludo.

---

Since I'm an ex-serving member I am very much aware of that.

---

Seconded innit²:

Steve, if you read any of my previous postings on the Israel/Palestine conflict you’d see that I have criticized the actions of forces on both sides. Both sides directed by leaders bent on pursuing on self-destructive and counter-productive policies with no desire to see an inclusive, equitable and durable settlement. You even quoted my criticism of both sides.

So even though I referred to:
The decapitation of Ken Bigley by Arabs,
The shooting of Iman Al-Hams by the IDF
The missile attack on the Iraqi group by the US.

You blocked out my criticism of Arab militants
You blocked out my criticism of the US/UK.
You blocked out that I had stated categorically that I have consistently criticized the actions of both Palestinian terrorists and Israeli troops.

The only thing that you saw, the only thing in my posting, was someone criticizing the actions of the Israeli troops and you thought, he's anti-Israel.

To automatically leap to that is bewildering in itself, but to then vocalize it is, in my opinion, and as I said, pathetic, and that was the point which you didn’t get.

If society becomes so crippled that one cannot legitimately and validly criticize without being branded an ‘anti’ then I guess we’re right back in the realm of McCarthyism. No thanks.

To be clear, I’m not anti-American, anti-British, anti-Arab, nor even anti-Israeli; just critical of certain aspects of them all. And many others besides.

Later

BrianD "can you expand a little on what your point is here?"

I guess my problem is with your use of the English language. How can we get Iraq back on track without restoring the same government that we just got rid of. Unless you mean back on track as being back in British Control as it was something like 75 years ago.

As regards your confirmation that its all about the oil, I do appreciate your honesty.

quote:

---

How can we get Iraq back on track without restoring the same government that we just got rid of. Unless you mean back on track as being back in British Control as it was something like 75 years ago.

---

Maybe "back on track" as in how Iraq was BETWEEN the two eras mentioned above?

According to my girlfriend, who is from Iraq, it was a very good time for the Iraqi people. They where very rich (from oil). An example: A couple who where teachers used there 2 month summer holidays to tour around Europe (they wheren't exactly staying at youth hostels), the wife bought completely new furniture EVERY year, the man changed cars at will.
Health care, schools and stuff like that was all free.

JohanR

quote:

---

Ok, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was threatening the oil supply. As we rely on oil, as the Middle Eastern countries want us to do, that is a valid enough reason.

---

But is it really? Why did we have to invade when we did? Did we have sufficient plans to stablise the country after the army was defeated? As the world has seen through our motives, and the price of oil is at an all time high, was is not a terrible mistake? What price to you place on the credibility of the UN, the USA and the UK? Even if you ignore the number of innocent lives lost, was the reason valid?
Simon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simon Perry:
... Even if you ignore the number of innocent lives lost, was the reason valid?

---

These are all good questions.

There is little doubt that the Iraq war is proving to be far more difficult than the UK or US governments expected. Should they have expected such extensive difficulties from a country liberated from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, particularly since there was no specific link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?

In terms of securing the supply of Iraqi oil to the West, I believe that it's too early to tell. After the elections have taken place we will be better able to judge whether the situation is likely to improve, remain as it is or deteriorate still further.

Iraq is extremely oil rich, of that there is no doubt. The Iraqi people have an enormous amount to gain if they can achieve a free and democratic society.

Steve M

I never bought the "It's all about oil" line which seemed naive and simplisitic to me. Of course the region is strategically important becuase of the oil and we would have no interest in it it this were not the case, but you can say that about all the West's involvment in the region not just the recent war.

I think it's much more to do with the particularly dangerous and unpleasant brand of idealogue in the Bush administration and their radical and dangerous ideas about a more aggressive, pre-emptive militaristic foreign policy for America. That's what is different, not the oil-motivated interest in the region (which is not, per se, unreasonable).

Matthew