Civilian deaths rose slightly in August ... according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press.
Ahhhh, these are AP's figures. And they did it in one day no less. Guess that settles it.
Posted on 09/01/2007 2:18:13 PM PDT by Westlander
Civilian deaths rose slightly in August as a huge suicide attack in the north two weeks ago offset security gains elsewhere, making it the second deadliest month for Iraqis since the U.S. troop buildup began, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press.
U.S. deaths remained well below figures from last winter when the U.S began dispatching 30,000 additional troops to Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Michael Moore must be very proud of his ‘freedom fighters’.
In the AP’s eyes, this means the surge is not working. Hey AP, how many terrorists died, and how does that compare to other months?
What, you don’t know? I didn’t think so...
Well its not just the ROP. The real losers in any war are the people who live where it is fought.
Are the 1809 all innocent civilians or are the MSM reclassifying some insurgents as civilians?
They are indeed counting bad guys as civilians.
And not saying so. Shameful.
“Are the 1809 all innocent civilians or are the MSM reclassifying some insurgents as civilians?”
Some?
I keep asking this question. Tim Robbins said we've slaughtered 400,000 "civilians". Seems like we should have gotten a couple of bad guys in the mix. That is while we're in the process of raping and pillaging Iraq for HalliburtonOilMcChimpyNeoconPNAC.
They don’t mention the levels are substantially lower than when Saddam was in power.
Most of those 1809 are terrorists...not Iraqi civillians. Our boys have been sending them to Allah at a record pace.
For some reason everyone (right and left) subscribe to some weird conventional wisdom according to which if there's a lot of civilians being killed in Iraq, that somehow shows that the Iraq military presence ought to be ended.
Which is nonsense.
This story shows that Iraqi civilians are under assault. I remind everyone here that Iraq's government has formally requested our military presence, under a UN mandate, in order to try to help it maintain stability against just such attacks, and that is why our military remains there.
What this story shows, then, is that we are right to have a military presence there, and indeed, that our presence is needed.
Everyone just has everything reversed, seems to me. If Iraq were peaceful then that would be an argument for withdrawal. But lots of civilians being murdered is the opposite of an argument for withdrawal; it's an argument that our military presence there is quite necessary.
So I wish the right would stop reacting so knee-jerk to these stories. It doesn't show we must "withdraw" unless you somehow buy the (bogus, weird) concept that Iraqis getting murdered proves we should abandon them. That is indeed what the left seems to think, but why do folks on the right go along with that?
Civilian deaths rose slightly in August ... according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press.
Ahhhh, these are AP's figures. And they did it in one day no less. Guess that settles it.
The one terrorist attack that left 520 dead is the difference between the second highest since the surge and the lowest in 14 months. The one helicopter crash due to mechanical failure is the difference in US troop deaths being 2 higher than last month and a 13% decrease.
I read recently our guys are killing 1500 terrorists
a month in Iraq....The AP would never report that stat!
How do they define “civilians”? Would sal-Qaeda fighters be considered civilians, since they wear no uniforms?
They're reporting that right here; it's just that they call the terrorists "civilians".
Agreed...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.