Study: U.S. Wars Have Left Over 1 Million Dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan

[Horhey]

[YT]4iFYaeoE3n4[/YT]

^^
But one of many establishment sociopaths.

False impressions held by most of the U.S. public, fostered by the liberal free press:

…mainstream media … only quote figures given by the pro-U.S. administration in Iraq or by the project Iraq Body Count…

A poll carried out by the Associated Press (AP) two years ago found that, on average, U.S. citizens believe that only 9,900 Iraqis were killed during the occupation. With such distorted figures, outrage about the war is hardly to be expected. This state of affairs could be very different if the public were made aware that the actual number is likely to be more than a hundred times higher.

Likewise: Civilian Victims in Yemen Ignored Because U.S. and its Allies Are Responsible, Glenn Greenwald, Intercept

Study: U.S. Wars Have Left Over 1 Million Dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Democracy Now!

A new report has found that the Iraq War has killed about one million people. The Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and other groups examined the toll from the so-called war on terror in three countries — Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The investigators found "the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around one million people in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan (i.e. a total of around 1.3 million). Not included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen. The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware. ... And this is only a conservative estimate," they wrote. They say the true tally could be more than two million.

See also: New Stanford/NYU study documents the civilian terror from Obama's drones, Guardian

Retired US general: Drones cause more damage than good, Al Jazeera

Retired General: Drones Create More Terrorists Than They Kill, Iraq War Helped Create ISIS, Intercept

Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan, NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

It's all horrible. Blowback is a real consequence.

But I don't know if I've ever seen that figure where only 9000 Iraqis were thought to be killed in that war. Maybe 9000 Americans. Most news over here in the states tell of a very high death count, especially compared to coalition death counts. In the states, we've heard numbers like 600k Iraqis to 5k coalition soldiers.

 

[Greens]

Induced by the liberal free press? I'm pretty sure liberals know that the figures are high.

 

[Horhey]

Induced by the liberal free press? I'm pretty sure liberals know that the figures are high.

That's my sarcastic way of characterizing the corporate media. Rightists often assert that the media is liberal.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That's my sarcastic way of characterizing the corporate media. Rightists often assert that the media is liberal.

I thought we all agreed that the media is super liberal (Rupert Murdoch's media empire being the exception and hence its popularity).

 

[Horhey]

I thought we all agreed that the media is super liberal (Rupert Murdoch's media empire being the exception and hence its popularity).

This concept of whether or not the media is liberal is irrelevant, in the context of it's propaganda function.

Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue, L.A. Times, July 03, 2004

Media Still Hype Staged Toppling of Saddam Statue as Genuine

The tearing down of Saddam Hussein's statue in 2003 was a propaganda event, choreographed by US psy ops

Goebbels couldn't have done it better:

Psy ops directed at the domestic audience is illegal, especially when the "free press" sells it as genuine, as in this case.

 

[Horhey]

 

[MaceB]

I thought we all agreed that the media is super liberal (Rupert Murdoch's media empire being the exception and hence its popularity).

Just like the liberal, multimillion dollar corporations that own and operate them... right? Read the book, "What Liberal Media?" The wide scale lie that media is liberal is propagated by conservatives who don't like the fact that reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Victarion]

We should probably start using the drones to off ISIS members, destroy their strong holds, assessts etc if we'rd going to keep using them.

 

[Horhey]

We should probably start using the drones to off ISIS members, destroy their strong holds, assessts etc if we'rd going to keep using them.

The problem with drones is this. What if Russian intelligence believed there was a suspected Chechen terrorist shopping at a local supermarket in the United States? Would they be justified if they acted on such intelligence by blowing up the supermarket with a drone strike?

That is essentially what the Obama administration has been doing in Pakistan, Yemen, and in other places. But they go even further. They also kill all the first responders so to make sure no one survives.

Its been called a "terrorist generating machine" by experts and yet they keep doing it. Ponder that.

 

[Victarion]

The problem with drones is this. What if Russian intelligence believed there was a suspected Chechen terrorist shopping at a local supermarket in the United States? Would they be justified if they acted on such intelligence by blowing up the supermarket with a drone strike?

That is essentially what the Obama administration has been doing in Pakistan, Yemen, and in other places. But they go even further. They also kill all the first responders so to make sure no one survives.

Its been called a "terrorist generating machine" by experts and yet they keep doing it. Ponder that.

The first question: No, but I'm ok with the US doing whatever it thinks it needs to do to nab our suspect(s). I don't especially like this, but its hard times all over.

I don't like that this. I need to ask - does no one include the ISIS operatives and ISIS suspects? I'd prefer we just made off with their financial assets, letting them fall apart from the inside.

Last point: If its "generating terrorists", it evidently has those embracing the radical ideology frightened. Which is kind of where you should be if you're in the middle of a war.

Again, its hard times all over; those require compromises and pragmatism. Idealism is fine, but its not likely that you'll get anything done if you stand on principle alone. You need to temper it with pragmatism.

 

[Horhey]

The first question: No, but I'm ok with the US doing whatever it thinks it needs to do to nab our suspect(s). I don't especially like this, but its hard times all over.

You are rejecting the most elementary of moral truisms: that we apply to ourselves the same standards that we apply to others. If its justified for us to kill deozens of civilians with drones just to kill one terrorist "suspect", than it would justified for Russia or any other foreign power to do the same in the United States.

I don't like that this. I need to ask - does no one include the ISIS operatives and ISIS suspects? I'd prefer we just made off with their financial assets, letting them fall apart from the inside.

Last point: If its "generating terrorists", it evidently has those embracing the radical ideology frightened. Which is kind of where you should be if you're in the middle of a war.

Again, its hard times all over; those require compromises and pragmatism. Idealism is fine, but its not likely that you'll get anything done if you stand on principle alone. You need to temper it with pragmatism.

The first step for you is to stop watching cable news: Why They Hate Us

Its what the CIA terms "Blowback":

Blowback is unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the aggressor. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are unaware of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.

Thus, the tactics being used in the War on Terror only increase the threat of terror. Reducing the threat just isn't a high priority for Washington.

 

[Victarion]

You could make that justification - but you can also bank on whatever nation, Russia in the case of your example, to stand on the expected moral truisms. It's what they preach, so best they practice it. I'm not concerned with Russia, however, seeing as they're in a precarious enough position that they wouldn't risk raising our ire. In truth, your example is a nonissue - any terrorist in the states would get taken out in a heartbeat.

Sacrifice is a part of war. You have to weigh that sacrifice against the lives saved by marking hard, if morally compromising decisions. Standing on morals are fine - you're doing that when you weigh the cost of your decision before making that decision. However, you are also making a compromise. Its a bitter necessity, but the fact that there's compromises to be made doesn't mean that you throw away all of your morals.

 

[Horhey]

You could make that justification - but you can also bank on whatever nation, Russia in the case of your example, to stand on the expected moral truisms. It's what they preach, so best they practice it. I'm not concerned with Russia, however, seeing as they're in a precarious enough position that they wouldn't risk raising our ire. In truth, your example is a nonissue - any terrorist in the states would get taken out in a heartbeat.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what Russia would or would not do. If we as Americans would not want a foreign power killing a bunch of civilians with drones just so they could take out one person they suspect is a terrorist, then we shouldn't be ok with doing it to others. By approving of it we are essentially saying our lives are worth more than theirs. They are expendable.

Sacrifice is a part of war. You have to weigh that sacrifice against the lives saved by marking hard, if morally compromising decisions. Standing on morals are fine - you're doing that when you weigh the cost of your decision before making that decision. However, you are also making a compromise. Its a bitter necessity, but the fact that there's compromises to be made doesn't mean that you throw away all of your morals.

No. It is wrong to kill civilians. It should not be done. Period. And from a practical standpoint, its counterproductive because it generates resentment and is used by jihadi groups as a recruiting tool. No good can come of it.

 

[Victarion]

Mine is worth more - to me. But, you need to realize the countries we're active in aren't much more than deserts, mountains, the your warlords of the week. We've nothing to fear by doing what needs doing. Our allies wouldn't do the same against us. I don't like it - but that's the hard truth of it.

I agree -it should not be done; thankfully, it isn't. Its fortunate that the US aren't the ones telling the terrorists to hide in heavily populated areas. The collateral damage is to be laid at the terrorists' doorsteps. They chose to hide among people that they know to be innocent. The blood's on their hands, and it is a horrid tragedy that they'd be so cruel to their own people. The people that decide to join these groups will have seen how we handle the jihadis. They effectively are taking their lives into their own hands with their decision.

 

[Horhey]

Mine is worth more - to me. But, you need to realize the countries we're active in aren't much more than deserts, mountains, the your warlords of the week. We've nothing to fear by doing what needs doing. Our allies wouldn't do the same against us. I don't like it - but that's the hard truth of it.

I agree -it should not be done; thankfully, it isn't. Its fortunate that the US aren't the ones telling the terrorists to hide in heavily populated areas. The collateral damage is to be laid at the terrorists' doorsteps. They chose to hide among people that they know to be innocent. The blood's on their hands, and it is a horrid tragedy that they'd be so cruel to their own people. The people that decide to join these groups will have seen how we handle the jihadis. They effectively are taking their lives into their own hands with their decision.

You are beyond my reach. No use in continuing this conversation.

 

[Victarion]

Fair enough. If it is any consolation - I don't both with the cable broadcasts. When I do get my news, it comes from Youtube's Vice News.

 

[Horhey]

 

[chaseter]

Obama is just as much a war mongerer as his predecessor was.

 

[Horhey]

SHAME!

Living Under Drones

[YT]6yMOzvmgVhc[/YT]
​

Nearly 90 Percent Of People Killed In Recent Drone Strikes Were Not the Target, Huffington Post, 10/20/15

U.S. drone strikes have killed scores of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia

Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan, NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School

 

[Victarion]

I wonder if the parents of the deceased know that they're being exploited for political gains?

The actual deaths are sad - though I feel that the ISIS crowd are the ones these should be directed at. Since they're the ones that're making the drones a continued necessity.

 

[Marvolo]

Horhey, this is a forum that young kids visit. Might want to clear those images with the mods if you havent already.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Who is to be blamed? The sons of *****es that brought war to those countries. The extremists. Don't want collateral damage? Stop allowing terrorists from hiding among your young. Many more scores of children have been killed by violence directly caused by these radicals.

 

[Horhey]

It's all horrible. Blowback is a real consequence.

I hope you're not suggesting that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was retaliation for 9/11. Perhaps this news didn't reach you. I can't force you to read it but I did what I could:

Iraq war justifications laid bare, BBC News, 9 September 2006

The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Friday's report, issued by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, provides another definitive statement that that assertion is simply not true.

It says that debriefings conducted since the invasion of Iraq "indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaeda. No post-war information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with [Osama] Bin Laden.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda... refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support."

The report supports the intelligence community's finding that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the man who was al-Qaeda's chief operative in Iraq between the invasion and his death in June this year - was indeed in Baghdad in 2002.

Was this an Iraqi link to al-Qaeda?

No, says the report. Far from harbouring him, Saddam's regime was trying to find and capture him.

Another propaganda tactic is referring to Iraq war veterans as "heroes" as if they somehow saved us all from a state that collapsed within 1 week of foreign invasion. All the U.S. military did was take out an enemy of Al Qaeda - the 9/11 terrorists - which resulted in hundreds of thousands of people killed by "shock and awe", the occupation forces and their "special police commandos" (SPCs), and "foreign fighters" i.e. ISIS, millions of refugees, and an unknown number of deformed newborns effected by depleted uranium from exploded U.S. bombs. Do we refer to Russian veterans of their invasion of Afghanistan as "heroes"?

And the Iraqi regime still wouldn't have been a threat, even they possessed WMDs. From the 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate]:

Key Judgments [from October 2002 NIE]

Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.

Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.

He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.

We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.

Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.

Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

I wonder if the parents of the deceased know that they're being exploited for political gains?

The actual deaths are sad - though I feel that the ISIS crowd are the ones these should be directed at. Since they're the ones that're making the drones a continued necessity.

ISIS is in Iraq and Syria so we're not even on the same page geographically. This is about Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan.

Horhey, this is a forum that young kids visit. Might want to clear those images with the mods if you havent already.

How ironic is it that your concern is that Western children might see these horrors, yet you say nothing of those who are living it.

Who is to be blamed? The sons of *****es that brought war to those countries. The extremists. Don't want collateral damage? Stop allowing terrorists from hiding among your young. Many more scores of children have been killed by violence directly caused by these radicals.

You presuppose that they are "allowing" terrorists to hide among them. That's a bold assumption and not a very thoughtful one. A reminder that terrorists are hiding among citizens all over the world, including Europe and the United States. So the next time the FBI discovers terrorists hiding among us we should all expect a drone strike in a city or a suburb to deal with that threat.

Even if you feel nothing for these people you could at least consider your own self interest and acknowledge the counterproductive nature of such tactics. But you don't. You have already assumed that they are all terrorists collaborators anyways so it doesn't matter how indiscriminate the killing is. The logical conclusion then is by necessity: "kill them all and let God sort them out."

14 people are killed by terrorists in California and the world stops. Meanwhile, over million Arabs are killed and few even notice it.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

How ironic is it that your concern is that Western children might see these horrors yet you say nothing of those who are living it.

His concern is with your ability to post on this site.

I hope you're not suggesting that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was retaliation for 9/11. Perhaps this news didn't reach you. I can't force you to read it but I did what I could:

What are you talking about? Do you know what blowback is? Blowback is ISIS. Blowback is Al Queda. Consequences of American action in the Middle East. The mess in Iraq right now is blowback from the Iraq war. The mess in Syria right now is blowback from the Arab Spring failing.

You presuppose that they are "allowing" terrorists to hide among them. That's a bold assumption and not a very thoughtful one. A reminder that terrorists are hiding among citizens all over the world, including Europe and the United States. So the next time the FBI discovers terrorists hiding among us we should all expect a drone strike in a city or a suburb to deal with that threat.

Not at all. I do expect the FBI and Homeland Security to take the terrorists out. Something that doesn't seem to be happening in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc...

Even if you feel nothing for these people you at least consider your own self interest and acknowledge the counterproductive nature of such tactics. But you don't. You have already assumed that they are all terrorists collaborators anyways so it doesn't matter how indiscriminate the killing is. The logical conclusion then is by necessity: "kill them all and let God sort them out."

I understand that they allow themselves to be ruled by a theocracy and because of that they will continue to live in the dark ages. They have no system that keeps them safe because they allow their government to be ruled by men who use religion as a guise to keep them down and under control.

14 people are killed by terrorists in California and the world stops. Meanwhile, over million Arabs are killed and few even notice it.

Few notice it? Every bombing that happens in a market in Pakistan or Syria is reported. It's over there and not here so it doesn't have the same impact. The United States is on the brink of bankruptcy trying to stop terrorism all around the world. Theocracies around the world need to be burned to the ground yet I don't see many in the Middle East willing to do what's necessary.