Since 9-11 and including the attacks on that day but excluding the recent bombings in spain, terrorists have killed an estimated 3375 civilian non-combatants.


Military action to stop terrorism in Afganistan and Iraq has resulted in an estimated 13,000+ civilian noncombatant (3000 Afganistan, 10,000 Iraq) deaths in this same time period.

Source for above figures and related commentary

When terrorists kill innocents in the name of their ideaology, it gets front page-breaking news status. Yet the innocent civilian killed as a result of our own military action is hardly, if ever, mentioned in the media. Certainly no press source is keeping a tally like they do with Coalition military causualties.


Do the ends really justify the mean?

Certainly terrorism is evil and despicable, but if such wanton death is the result of the tactics used to fight terrorism should we not seek out alternatives that will not cause such massive deaths? Have the tables turned? Have we, with good intentions, commited a greater evil in the name of stamping out a lessor rather than the other way around.

These are my thoughts and questions on this day, the one year anniversary of the war that has so far lead to a high estimate of 10,000 civilian deaths and a low estimate of 8,000.

R.I.P.

Lack of response and rebuttal leads me to begin supposing the sheer volume of dead (and not yet mentioned wounded)is simply indefensible. I was expecting the neccessary evil defense, perhaps even the good ole "collateral damage is ok" argument. Maybe someone would speculate that these actions have stopped terror attacks that would have amounted to more than 9,000 innocent deaths, thereby tipping the balance of dead bodies on the side of the "good guys" once again.

Well I'll just be happy talking to myself for now. Doesn't this many deaths make anyone sad? Feel regret? Wonder if many, if not all, of those deaths were avoidable? If this many deaths is considered ok, in your perspective, How many more deaths will be tolerable in the future? Is the sky the limit?

I was floored by the figures and amazed that it has never come up before. Sorry to disappoint you Chewbacca, but as usual, I agree with everything you posted. ;) It doesn't make for a good debate, y'know! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

You took: the 3375 civilian non-combatants killed by terrorist attacks (let's make it 3600 even after Spain).

and compared it to:

Military action to stop terrorism in Afganistan and Iraq has resulted in an estimated 13,000+ civilian noncombatant (3000 Afganistan, 10,000 Iraq) deaths.

I hate to tell you this, but the majority of the civilian deaths you cited there did not come from coalition bullets or bombs but rather from OTHER TERRORIST attacks. It's insulting you compared them. Come up with a real comparison and quit faking it. I mean, let's take for example a car full of terrorists in Iraq who drive their car into a post office shoot some people, and then blow the place up -- you are marking that in the "Coalition Civilian Casualties" column and it's just stupid.

[ 03-22-2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Actually Timber the number of deaths in Afghanistan during the major phase of the conflict is accurate. The number of deaths up to the end of main hostilities in Iraq was 7,356.

If you ignore those killed afterwards, it still means that 10,000 people died - as opposed to 3400 on 9/11. However, I don't see why we shouldn't include the numbers that are still dying as direct consequence of the war. There wouldn't be acts of terrorism/resistance and ethnic strife had the war not taken place. There was none before the war - no-one dared to cause trouble and risk spending an evening being entertained by the likes of Uday...

T.L., Your free to feel insulted, being a subjective state and condition and all, but the logic of those figures stands and is not stupid. You seem to me to be just acting out in an attempt to dodge the issue and avoid the questions.

Directly or indirectly coalition military action in Iraq (invasion/occupation) has caused 10,000 or so deaths. If only 7,000 or so dead makes you feel any better then we can deduct the 3,000 or so deaths that occured after invasion and during occupation.

Regardless if the coalition had not invaded and occupied, those deaths would not have occured, whomever actually pulled the trigger. The invasion and occupation is the root cause of those deaths. Simple logic, neither insulting nor stupid.

Well, duh, they should be included in the figures -- on the terrorist side of the tally. To do otherwise is like counting the deaths of the WTC as being the fault of the US for our imperialistic ways. It's simple: if a terrorist kills somebody, we tally it as a terrorist killing. It's not rocket science. Don't try to take the obvious and turn it on its head. THat very tactic is ducking the issue -- which it is funny that I was accused of ducking the issue. You turn the issue on its head -- I just set it back upright.

Not going to get into a chicken/egg debate with you. Wrong is wrong and when a goddamned terrorist comes barreling out of the sand in his car only to blow it up near innocent people I will not lay the blood of the victims upon those US Soldiers who are there trying to provide security and help get the country back in order. It's not fair to our good men and women who are over there trying to help these people.

Who said anything about blaming the people following orders? Its not fair to the thousands of dead noncombatents to deflect responsibility from the political hawks who made the decisions that lead to these deaths and put it on the good men and women who are just following orders. It is also not fair to imply that myself or Skunk would blame Private Johnson- Anytown, U.S.A. for the political decisions of the President and his Cronies.

[ 03-22-2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

More deflection. I am equally unwilling to lay that blood at Bush's feet. If the terrorist attacks that may result from freeing a country from a dictatorship are the FAULT of the liberators, no country suffering tyranny should ever be freed. This is simply wrong.

Before you go on a tirade about why the war was fought (e.g. oil, need to satisfy father's failures, or whatever) please consider the fact that such an argument is also a deflection of the issue. Whether Iraq was freed for world security, U.S. selfishness, or humanitarianism, the acts (and resulting blood) of the terrorists opposing such freedom should be laid at the feet of the terrorists, not the liberators.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
In fact, the figure should be bumped up by an additional 450 to include them too - but doing so would then increase the number dramatically as one would then have to include the Iraqi military war deaths.

And let's not cloud the issue by labeling groups as 'liberators' (when they refuse to hand over power and liberate anything), 'resistance fighters'(when they target civilians/non-collaborators) as it is simply a cheap tactic to divert attention from the real issue at stake: the incredible loss of innocent lives.

But yeah - maybe that's the whole problem. The uncomfortable truth that one middle-eastern life is worth one US life - and that they have suffered far more loss in the last couple of years than the US ever did. Better to shift unfortably in our armchairs mumbling about 'liberation' than to face those facts.
</font>