How many Americans have died in Iraq??

Almost anyone can tell you almost the correct number..

Published on September 27, 2007 By ShadowWar In War on Terror

I bet you can ask almost anyone on the street or in your immediate friends group "How many soldiers have we lost in Iraq?" and they will probably be able to tell you at least 3000 or 4000 soldiers. Why because you are told the number every day in papers and on the news and radio repeatedly throughout the day.

Ask them "How many terrorist have we killed in Iraq?" and they will not be able to tell you. Why?

Because of the lopsided reporting on this war. For the first time the numbers are coming out about how many terrorist have been killed, and its a interesting set of numbers. Now of course I wouldn't want you to take anything positive out of this, but did you know that 19,429 terrorist have been killed since 2003? No? I am not surprised. Did you also know that the statistics show that 4,882 terrorist were killed in this year, a 25% increase over all of last year? You didn't know that? Again I am not surprised.

How about that we have captured and have in custody over 25,000 terrorist? You didn't know that either? Hmmm something is not right then. Maybe just maybe you are not being told the "whole" story for a reason. And what reason could that be? If you were told daily how many terrorist were killed along with our own losses, would thatmaybe temper you idea that nothing positive is being done in Iraq? Maybe, just maybe you would look at glass as being half full instead of being half empty? Or maybe you just deserve all the facts from your press and meida, not just the half they want you to know.

Comments (Page 2)

danielost

on Sep 28, 2007

I did say "some 75,000 according to some conservative estimates". I did not say "some 75,000 according to the most conservative estimates" The first link I provided says between 75,000 and 80,000 civilian deaths, and the second from which i will now quote

ok so some 75,000 civilians have died since we have invaded this is indeed bad.

but up to 125000 civilians were dieing in iraq under saddam during the 10 years of sanctions.

Zoologist03

on Sep 28, 2007

How many do we have left to kill? That'd be a good number to know so we can wrap this crap up.

Personally I thought we should have just stuck to Afghanistan and Bin Laden. Why do we have to waste time screwing around in Iraq, anyway?

~Zoo

ShadowWar

on Sep 28, 2007

I am curious, if there are 5 guys plotting to blow up a bridge in NY, and only 4 of them take part in it, and it kills 100 Americans, and they are all from Yemen, and did this to cause fear, but the 5th guy did help plan it and was a source of information but did not actually take part. Is the 5th guy a terrorist, or is he just a criminal?

If you are part of a group that is considered a terrorist group, are you not a terrorist? Even if you only encourage or help the others but do not take part in the actual act of terrorism?

The vast majority of people fighting us in Iraq are part of groups that are conducting their aggression through a means of terror tactics (IED's, Assassination, Kidnapping, Murder, etc...) and violence. They belong to groups that use "terror" as the primary means to make the populace follow their directives. They do not wear a uniform, they do not follow any code of conduct on the batle field, hence they are "terrorist".

Hows that, did I explain my use of terrorist better?

Tiddler

on Sep 28, 2007

There is no point in debating someone who does not remember the last item they wrote, and then changes their mind and denies it (hint - you can edit your responses - but not after someone has quoted them).

What are you referring to here Dr Guy?

Tiddler

on Sep 28, 2007

ok so some 75,000 civilians have died since we have invaded this is indeed bad.but up to 125000 civilians were dieing in iraq under saddam during the 10 years of sanctions.

So you think 75,000 in 4 years is better than 125,000 in 10? Also bearing in mind that we invaded on a pretext of fictious WMD? No one ever said we're invading Iraq so we can we stop the death of Iraqi civilians due to the sanctions "we" chose to enforce. As you say we were quite happy for Iraqi civilians to die in their thousands for over a decade.

So Im sorry but i dont understand your "but" here.

danielost

on Sep 28, 2007

So you think 75,000 in 4 years is better than 125,000 in 10?

sorry i left out the per year part. that was 125,000 per year for 10

Tiddler

on Sep 28, 2007

I am curious, if there are 5 guys plotting to blow up a bridge in NY, and only 4 of them take part in it, and it

kills 100 Americans, and they are all from Yemen, and did this to cause fear, but the 5th guy did help plan it and was a

source of information but did not actually take part. Is the 5th guy a terrorist, or is he just a criminal?

No he's a terrorist and he deserves a bullet in the head just like the other 4.

If you are part of a group that is considered a terrorist group, are you not a terrorist? Even if you only

encourage or help the others but do not take part in the actual act of terrorism?

Affiliation alone doesn't make someone a terrorist. Helping terrorists to commit terrorist acts, Id say yes, dunno what

the law says.

Tiddler

on Sep 28, 2007

The vast majority of people fighting us in Iraq are part of groups that are conducting their aggression through a

means of terror tactics (IED's, Assassination, Kidnapping, Murder, etc...) and violence. They belong to groups that use

"terror" as the primary means to make the populace follow their directives. They do not wear a uniform, they do not

follow any code of conduct on the batle field, hence they are "terrorist".

For some of the 19,000+ the "terrorist" label no doubt fits. But 19,429 I dont buy into. It sounds great and obviously gives US the moral highground.

"1. They were all terrorists. 2. Terrorists are all bad and should be killed. 3. We've done the right thing by killing them. 4. We are the good guys"

Well 2 and 3 I agree with outright no matter what. But 4 only works if 1 is entirely correct. And I just dont buy that 1 is. The bulk I would suggest are more likely militants engaging in unconventional warfare against what they see as an occupying army. None of which would be neccessary, or at least our problem, if we weren't there.

And so why aren't Americans doing cartwheels in the streets over these numbers Shadow War? Its not some MSM "good news suppression" conspiracy, its just quite simply that the whole thing is a very shitty mess. And so trolling out numbers about how many more US killed this month, especially when classification of the dead into good vrs bad is at best debateable, well I fail to see how that does the pro-war camp any good at all.

Like I said, I think they MSM do you a favour not a disservice.

Tiddler

on Sep 28, 2007

Well maybe not good vrs bad, but rather legitimate vrs illegitimate

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2007

"1. They were all terrorists. ........ 4. We are the good guys"

But 4 only works if 1 is entirely correct.

So if a policeman accidentily shoots an innocent man, all policemen are bad?

And so why aren't Americans doing cartwheels in the streets over these numbers Shadow War? Its not some MSM "good news suppression" conspiracy

You ask and answer your own question. Bad form. The answer to your question is in this and other of his posts. Perhaps you should read before you ask a rhetorical question where your answer is purely subjective.

Like I said, I think they MSM do you a favour not a disservice.

And you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided it is.

Tiddler

on Sep 29, 2007

So if a policeman accidentily shoots an innocent man, all policemen are bad?

No Dr Guy, again you demonstrate your rather weak handle on logic. Saying that "we are the good guys" only works if everyone we killed was a terrorist is not the same as saying that 'we are all bad guys" because "they were not all bad guys". It simply means that sometimes, some of us are the bad guys. Which was the whole point of the remainder of what I said. This idea that we are 100% right and just is absurd. I dont believe everyone our forces have killed could be classified as a "terrorist", I dont believe 19,000 + terrorists have been killed. It sounds great (to some) but I dont buy it.

So the question is how often are we the good guys and my opinion is that given this was an invasion based on false pretenses our good guy stats are very, very low. So low that we should never have gone, should not still be there and sure as ever shouldn't be promoting the thousands more we've killed this year as a good and positive thing.

where your answer is purely subjective

Yep its about as subjective as the classification of 19,429 as all being terrorists.

And you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided it is.

ditto.

Now are you just going to gloss over this?

and then changes their mind and denies it (hint - you can edit your responses - but not after someone has quoted them).

What are you referring to here Dr Guy? Smells like nonsensical slander to me which doesn;t surpirse me considering you're clearly little more than a borderline troll.

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2007

aying that "we are the good guys" only works if everyone we killed was a terrorist is not the same as saying that 'we are all bad guys" because "they were not all bad guys".

maybe in parchesi or clue there are good, bad and ugly. But in war, there is just good and bad. The good guys dont always do good, and the bad guys dont always do bad. However, they are labeled as such for a simple reason. You either support them, or their enemies.

By implication, since we cannot prove that every death is a terrorist (nor can we prove that every guy a cop shoots warrants it), then by your definition, we must be against them for not being perfect. This goes directly to the whole farce of the ones on the left spitting on the troops (literally) while saying they support them. Sure, they do - in a pigs eye. The analogy with the police was to make it more real to you (since I doubt you have been to Iraq or in combat).

Smells like nonsensical slander

Only to someone who fears their own words. As no accusations were made, and just a hint given for your future reference, I can only surmise you are hoping no one copied your words so that you can erase some of them. Guilty conscious and all.

however, if you think that is slander, I invite you to contact your lawyer. I would love to recieve a letter from him over those words. if any of them are stupid enough to take such a case.

And while I may be a borderline troll, at least I read what I write and am not constantly contradicting myself and denying what I have written. Pot, meet kettle.

danielost

on Sep 29, 2007

I dont believe everyone our forces have killed could be classified as a "terrorist", I dont believe 19,000 + terrorists have been killed.

hate to burst your bubble but more civilians die in war than warriors because there are more civilians.

in this case tho the brave Muslims are hiding behind the civilians. so that when they get shot the terrorists. their buddies can come in grab their weapons and then claim that we shot civilians. where have you been during the conflicts with Israel.

Tiddler

on Sep 30, 2007

Only to someone who fears their own words. As no accusations were made, and just a hint given for your future reference,.

In other words there is ZERO basis for such a claim in this thread or any other and you're just trolling.

I can only surmise you are hoping no one copied your words so that you can erase some of them. Guilty conscious and all

Dr Guy Ive asked a number of times in this thread for you to quote me to support your claims that I said this and that. Thats hardly the action of someone with a guilty conscious, quite the opposite in fact. It's the actions of someone with absolutely nothing to hide. Lets recap:

Where Dr Guy, did I ever make the

contention that the American Troops have killed 75,000 (by your own statement the conservative side) Iraqis.

By all means, quit putting words in my *mouth* and point this out. The 75,000 figure link even has in reasonably large letters, right above it, "Documented civilian deaths from violence", it says nothing about US troops killing that number of civilians. So go for it Dr Guy "quote me". Cmon Mr Reading Comprehension "quote me".

The fact is Dr Guy you bandy around infantile terms and insults right from the get go, and then proceed to demonstrate that you are more incapable than anyone else. You attempt to put words in peoples "mouths" and make false claims that they said this or that. When you're called on it to back it up with quotes, you cant and instead of just admitting to that, you chose to embark on a game of insinuation that they back edit their posts to fit their current position.

When asked that you support these new claims with fact, you say you cant but that you know they must have a guilty conscious. You just cant back up a damn thing you say now can you?

You are Dr Guy a sad little troll and henceforth I shall treat and refer to you as one. Feeding time is over.

Tiddler

on Sep 30, 2007

hate to burst your bubble but more civilians die in war than warriors because there are more civilians.

My "bubble" doesn't rest of the idea that they were danielost.

The quote you've taken from me doesn't suggest any of the 19,429 were civilians but rather than not all of them were terrorists.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!