Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


86,000 Iraqis killed since 2004, official figures show

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 October 2009
AT LEAST 85,994 Iraqis lost their lives between 2004 and 2008 because of violence, Iraq's government has said, in its first comprehensive tally released since the war began.
The report by the human rights ministry came out as part of a larger study on human rights in the country. It said 85,694 people were killed in the four-year period, and 147,195 were wounded during the same period.

The toll counted Iraqi civilians, military and police. It did not cover foreign military deaths, insurgents, or other foreigners, including security contractors.

The Iraqi death toll has been a hotly disputed subject and critics across the political spectrum have accused others of manipulating the death numbers to sway public opinion.

As Iraq became increasingly violent following the 2003 invasion, it also became increasingly difficult to track such figures independently on a wide scale.

The most recent numbers from Iraq Body Count, a private London-based group that has tracked civilian casualties since the war began, puts the number of civilian casualties as of 14 October at 93,540.

A study by the World Health Organisation in 2008 put the figure at 104,000 to 223,000.

Most controversially, a study published in the medical journal the Lancet in 2006, put the death toll at 655,000 – using criteria that included 50,000 deaths other than from violence, such as those who died from disease and other causes related to the invasion.

The latest report was based on death certificates issued by the health ministry. Statistics from the initial months of the invasion in 2003 have been extremely difficult to obtain as there was no functioning Iraqi government during that time and the interim government was not seated until mid-2004. The report described the years that followed the US-led invasion, which toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, as extremely violent years.

"Through the terrorist attacks like explosions, assassinations, kidnappings and forced displacements, the outlawed groups have created these terrible figures, which represent a big challenge for the rule of law and for the Iraqi people," it said.

The report also breaks down some specific numbers, saying 1,279 children and 2,334 women were killed. It puts the death toll of university professors at 263, judges at 21, lawyers 95 and journalists at 269 – some of the professions specifically targeted as the country descended into chaos.

The toll also included 15,000 unidentified bodies not claimed by their families and buried in special cemeteries.

Iraq's death toll continued to climb yesterday, when three near-simultaneous blasts struck the southern Shia holy city of Karbala.

At least six people were killed, Iraqi police and medical officials said.

A police official said the first blast took place at 4pm near one of the city's two major shrines. Two more explosions followed soon after at the second shrine.

Police said at least 40 people had been wounded in the attacks.

The casualties have been confirmed by an official at the Karbala hospital.

Both the police and medical official spoke on condition of anonymity, because they were not authorised to release the information.

Despite a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq, insurgents continue to target civilians, especially Shiites and their shrines.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 October 2009 9:47 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Iraq , War in Iraq
 
1

,

15/10/2009 00:22:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Claris,

15/10/2009 02:20:02
I think the Lancet in 2006, put the death toll at 655,000 is far more accurate. Many of these deaths were caused by pilots dropping bombs on civilians.
3

Evidenced Based Thinking Please,

15/10/2009 02:40:56
#3
And prhaps, I think the man-on-the-moon's number of six trillion is far more accurte. Why? What evidence are you basing this upon? We simply do not have accurate statistics. You state the cause for "many of these (655,00) deaths". Perhaps your dossier of primary research could be passed over the International Court in the Hague.

Perhaps, you would share with us the per annum death rate prior to 2003. One thing is for sure, the evidence from mass graves suggests it was non-zero.
4

Derango,

USA 15/10/2009 02:50:24
The massive civilian death toll due to the Iraq war should be analyzed by the international court in the Haige as soon as possible, the perps need to be dealt with.
5

Ballindarroch,

Highlands 15/10/2009 03:33:04
"The death toll counted Iraqi civilians, military and police."

And most rational people will admit the majority of these deaths are the result of insurgents from Iran and a few other neighbouring countries.
6

Greenfox,

hamilton 15/10/2009 03:41:46
This is just beyond belief! Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but I wonder who's responsible for thousands of the citizens of Iraq being killed.
The people of Iraq need "justice" - do we live in a civilised country - I await the Haig taking immediate action.
It is shameful!!
7

mike - across the pond,

claris.... 15/10/2009 03:41:47
you think.... really?

based upon WHAT? no really...

what is it you base your fantastically horrific projections upon?

a death toll you would LIKE to see... so you can villify the very forces that have spilt their own treasures to buy YOU the safety from which you castigate them...

simply stated, you ARE reprehensable...
8

Greenfox,

15/10/2009 04:34:35
"The Iraqi death toll has been a hotly disputed subject and critics across the political spectrum have accused others of manipulating the death toll to sway public opinion"

Indeed! Is there ever an accepable death toll or what would be regarded as unacceptable?
Thousands and Thousands of Iraqis have been killed - we will probably never know exactly how many thousands.
This is the sad fact!
9

Canis Majoris,

TEXAS 15/10/2009 04:41:32
#8 Sir what safety are you referring to. Are you talking about the US.
10

Simon,

Edinburgh 15/10/2009 06:27:07
Its an horific number, however lower than when Saddam was in power.
11

,

15/10/2009 07:01:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Wally,

By TheRivers Of Babylon (USA) 15/10/2009 07:25:34
lets recall basic history in the matter. there were some college professors, I think from both US & UK, who did a survey of the Iraqi population and concluded that well over a million Iraqis died due to the invasion. The invasion triggered a lot of violence including violence committed against many Iraqi civilians by unknown characters. This level of violence experienced by the Iraqis for several years after the invasion was far higher than anything they experienced under Hussein excluding the war with Iran which was in fact instigated by the US. The war with Iran killed 400,000 Iraqis & 600,000 Iranians. That was started because a US official asked Saddam Hussein to start it. Saddam Hussein was paid $40 billion for that. Iraq had not one single incidence of a suicide bomber prior to the March, 2003 invasion. and after the invasion it experienced several per week for years. Let's also recall that the US killed over 1 million Iraqis by means of economic sanctions during the 1990's and up to 2003. Also, of a population of 28 million Iraqis about 3 million fled in the years after the US invasion.

Why would an Iraqi government lie about these basic facts? Let me give an explanation. I don't know who their current prime minister is, but they did have a fellow named Maliki. At one point Maliki was under pressure to agree to a framework for US occupation. US soldiers came to the home where a cousin of Maliki was staying in the night and made everyone assemble in a central room at the home. Then a US soldier walked up to Maliki's cousin and shot him dead. Later the US said it was a mistake.

Can you now better comprehend why it is that the Iraqi government might not be truthful in this matter?
13

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 15/10/2009 07:35:53
Greenfox in #9 asked if there is ever an acceptable death toll? Do you all recall that maybe 7 years ago a journalist was interviewing the American woman who had been secretary of state during the Clinton years. They told her of how the UN estimated well over 1 million people mostly children were killed by the US-led economic sanctions against Iraq over a 10+ year period. They asked her if it was worthwhile to kill all those children. She answered immediately without hesitation very affirmatively that yes it was OK to kill a million children.

The US did not like that Hussein's air force flew some jets in locations it didn't want them to fly in. so the US imposed economic sanctions. baby food, simple medicines and many other things were not allowed to be imported into Iraq. Many many nations cooperated with the US plan to isolate Iraq. One million children under 5 years old died from simple diseases they would have survived, but for the sanctions. and the US leaders said it was very worthwhile to kill them.

Today they're trying to do something similar against Iran. civilized people can all agree that it is wrong to kill children like this. but the people who rule us (in America) are not civilized.
14

,

15/10/2009 07:59:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Ben Thehoose,

15/10/2009 08:18:11
Saddam Hussein would never have achieved this level of slaughter. Blair, Brown and Bush must be really proud of themselves.
16

Greenfox,

15/10/2009 08:35:14
Look at the photo of the father rushing his wounded little son to the hospital.

What I wonder if anything did this family do to have their lives turn into a living hell.

Pity we don't see all the broken bodies, gore and blood on the tv news - no reality tv, not the real war games and why do you soppose that is?
17

Alan B,

15/10/2009 09:12:07
#Ben Thehoose

Are you sure about that. how many died when sadam chemical weaponed his own people (ie the kurds) in 88. How many died from the shias in the south when Sadam a sunni muslim turned his attention on them after they tried to rise up and kick him out. How many kuwaits pre first gulf war.

Even if the war was wrong we should not gloss over the shear awfulness of the Sadam regime.
18

Greenfox,

15/10/2009 09:28:05
#Allan B

Sadam was evil but where do you think he got the chemical weapons from? Also it took the world some time to care about the kurds.

War is always wrong - bombs have the same result as chemical weapons irrespective of regime.

19

hubris,

15/10/2009 09:47:25
18#

The Kurdish chemical attack involved hundreds not thousands reprehensible though it was.

The southern shias rose as a result of western encouragement and were then abandoned
20

,

15/10/2009 10:21:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

,

15/10/2009 12:47:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

mike - across the pond,

hmmm 15/10/2009 13:58:37
illegal war..

what war would that be? Iran invading Kuwait?

certainly you are not speaking of the documented breach of the 1991 UN cease fire accords that the US enforced in 2002...

the very accords that HANS BLIX warned Saddam Hussein that the US was ITCHING to enforce... if Hussein did not comply 100% with...

so yes... the war WAS illegal... Saddam Hussein broke international law... then broke the cease fire accords that left him in power... and his country paid... which is why they MUST have a democracy... so THE PEOPLE of iraq never again have to pay for the actions of a despot and dictator who puts them in an "illegal position"...

THAT illegal war?
23

mike - across the pond,

greenfox 15/10/2009 14:11:59
you ask a question...

"where do you think he got the chemical weapons from?"

you wont like the answer...

the USSR... Iraq was a sattelite of the USSR... hence the missiles... their tanks... their airforce... their infantry weaponry...

during the iran-iraq war, we did provide Iraq some support to a small extent, but the vast majority of the materiel was from the USSR... and the vast majority of Iran's materiel came from the US... which is why Iran fought a conventional war... and Iraq gassed entire Iranian infantry divisions...

and the reason you dont see it on TV... because 99.9999% of humanity cant handle it... heck we cant even handle single digit losses as NUMBERS... much less pictures or video...

but think about THIS for a moment... could we handle the pictures of gassed villages any better? could we handle the attrocities despots inflict upon their own populations?

do the despots allow documentation of those attrocities?
24

mike - across the pond,

bill... 15/10/2009 14:31:13
still driving the blue bus?

murder for profit...
are there folks out there profiting? yes
do we wish that they wouldnt profit? yes

is there any way to "purchase" liberty for our fellow man without those profiteers?

buddy, if you can figure out how to do that... YOU, my friend, will win a Nobel Peace Prize...

to the wild adulation of the entire planet... except for those profiteers you put out of work... lol
25

mike - across the pond,

ah wally 15/10/2009 14:58:19
there you go being inflamatory again...

I'm no Madeline Albright fan... but never did she say that it was alright to sacrifice a million children... SHOW ME... prove me wrong... please do...

Sanctions... yes, that IS the progressive liberal way, grab your "opponent by the throat" squeeze until they give in... the problem with this approach is it only works if the sanctions are enforcable... for Iraq, the sanctions were enforced ONLY by the US/UK... and failed...

the absolute GHOULISH part about this is that the UN and others provided Hussein with anything he wanted... that includes all the medicine and other materials...

HUSSEIN refused to acquire anything for his people, instead providing the support HIS OWN PEOPLE needed thru the framework, he passed the sanctions on to the Iraqis...

so putting the "million" on the US is more than just a little self loathing... its acutally disengenuously creepy...
26

,

15/10/2009 15:56:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Media ones back,

15/10/2009 16:40:35
Unbelievable!
You fabricate an attack on your own soil and murder innocent people so that you can attack another country whose oil fields are desperately needed. And then when you get there you murder countless thousands of them and worry not about your own young men who are dying every day.
WHAT A F@@%&&ING disgrace.
28

,

15/10/2009 17:14:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 15/10/2009 17:33:47
Mike in 26:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

here's your quote. Madelaine Albright said it was OK to kill a million children. those sanctions started around 1992 and continued until 2003. It is believed close to 1.5 million people died as a result. The overwhelming majority were children under 5. Some were elderly. Their death rate among newborn children went up to pre-1900 levels.

Its just like I said. After the war in the early 1990's the US forced Iraq to sign an agreement or else to keep fighting. So they signed the agreement. The agreement said that Iraq wasn't allowed to fly its jets in some parts of their country. Saddam Hussein violated that term. The US imposed economic sanctions as a result killing 1 million children. Those children we were not at war with. Yet we killed them. and many nations helped us to kill them too, it wasn't just the US. Consider the blockade of Gaza today. Israel does it, but Egypt, the US and other nations cooperate. Withholding food and medicine from people is wrong, but we do it, it is a form of warfare.

this is outrageous. I am a rebel against what Mike believes in. Because I am with George Washington. My first priority is my god, my 2'nd loyalty is to my family, my 3'rd loyalty is to my nation. Just like Washington, I have no special loyalty to the government. Mike is by contrast loyal to that government and thus willing to tell any lie to justify any evil.
30

Wally,

How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? 15/10/2009 17:39:47
Regarding Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, it is true that they actually came from the US. The US was very reluctant to give it to him, but they did to help him win the war against Iran. Iran & Iraq both used them in the war. This is extremely well documented actually by information released by the US government. A photo even exists of Donald Rumsfeld handing Saddam Hussein a vial of chemical weaponry during a meeting. It was a symbolic thing to show they gave it to him.

Hussein himself was put in power because the US wanted him in power. He was associated with the US at age 18.

Hussein invaded Kuwait after asking US ambassador Glespie if the US would mind if he did it. The ambassador to Iraq told him the US didn't care. then he invaded. I'm only repeating simple facts for you.
31

Greenfox,

15/10/2009 19:47:39
#31 Wally

Well said!
32

to the victor the spoils,

edinburgh 15/10/2009 20:43:11
see comments at #2, #4 + #6. Says all that needs to be said between them. Well done those 3. Sense in an ever more senseless forum
33

Tarik Toulan,

Jeddah 15/10/2009 21:09:06
To : Mike - across the pond,

So, you simply want to say that the US-led invasion to Iraq was like an inevitable surgery to rid the Iraqi people of Saddam, being the cause of their misery. It’s OK, let me agree with for a while, although this was one of several alleged reasons for invading Iraq, but was never the actual one. Now, five years after the invasion, what is the result? It’s definitely a big failure and extremely disastrous as the figures in this report and similar reports say.
For those who are aware of Iraq’s history, they know, beyond any doubt, that Iraqis are nowadays leading the most miserable life they have ever come through. And what is the Hell the use of toppling Saddam and bringing democracy if Iraqis are displaced, starving and even afraid to go outdoors?
34

Greenfox,

15/10/2009 21:27:35
In my humble opinion Iraq is in a real bad way, if that's not bad enough they know that the world-focus has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan.
As they didn't invite others to invade them and destroy their lives, apart from funds that can be spent in Iraq fixing things up again there needs to be an option for those who want to leave Iraq. Perhaps the ones who dropped the bombs etc would care to throw open their doors to a willing exodus of Iraqis.
It seems to be the very least that can be done.
35

Tarik Toulan,

Jeddah 15/10/2009 22:01:53
Eh, let Dubya, the amateurish politician, who once said he was having dialogues with God, who has successfully brought about the global financial crisis, who sent thousands of Americans all over the world for death without avail...let him enjoy the harvest of his thorn seeding in Iraq!
36

American,

16/10/2009 05:32:02
I'm confused! When GW was president, they (the media) said hundreds and hundreds of thousands were dying. Obamas president, and the number went down by hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Could it be obama really is the messiah as many think and has raised some of the dead??
37

,

16/10/2009 06:48:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

mike - across the pond,

wally.... 16/10/2009 18:51:13
a VERY interesting argument you pose there wally.... VERY interesting indeed....

in 1991, were you living in a cave with a bag over your head?

we forced Hussein to sign a cease fire agreement... really... what an astonishingly nieve interpretation of history....

Schwartzkopf was Patton... he had the Iraqi army on the run. With no command and control, the Iraqi army could never have 'regrouped'... and we would have crushed the "royal guard" in Bhagdad... as Patton wanted to crush the russians at the end of WW2... unlike Patton, Schwartzkopf had everything he needed...

there was total agreement that the war was LEGAL at the UN....

there was no USSR or Russia to hem and haw at the UN

all was lost and the Iraqis knew it... all "mother of all battles" bravado aside...

and as the perspective of history has proven, not pressing the advantage proved a collossal mistake, as was reigning in Patton, and MacArthur...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Madeline Albright.... 60 minutes quote...
you DO understand that this was a sound byte excerpt from a "news journal" show... correct?

that this quote, while as a sound-byte it sounds damning, it is most assuredly taken out of context... neither you, I, nor anyone here is privy to the entire interview...

And even so, this only PROVES my point about the futility of sanctions, that Hussein KNOWINGLY deprived HIS people of the goods and services they so desperately needed... putting THIS toll at the feet of Albright/Clinton (you KNOW I am not a fan of either) is... disingenuous...

the POINT is, you either have to back TOTAL victory... staying there until the job is complete... OR you have to back the sanctions... and the implications of sanctions diplomacy... either you back the iron fist... or you accept the HALF million unintended consequences....

sanctions are a slow death... if you LOOK at it, W's war has been LESS costly purely in terms of lives lost than the 8 years of
39

mike - across the pond,

wally.... cont'd 16/10/2009 18:55:38
sanctions are a slow death... if you LOOK at it, W's war has been LESS costly purely in terms of lives lost than the 8 years of Clinton era sanctions that preceded it... dont you agree?

so you are supporting this "illegal war" then?

hmmm VERY interesting wally....
40

,

16/10/2009 19:03:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

mike - across the pond,

worlds end.... 16/10/2009 19:51:35
the Tommy Franks quote...

IF you remember, Franks was being pressured for "body counts" on a daily basis by the media...

Franks (and ALL US commanders) are initmately aware of what the media did/does with numbers like that...

if they are playing in our favor, they portray us as heartless killers who dont care about the disparity in casualties we inflict vs suffer.... how unfair it is to kill infantry from 30,000 feet...

if the numbers are even, or playing in the opponents favor.... how futile the war is... how we shouldnt even be there...

I remember how Walter Cronkite played those numbers during VietNam... and how my grandmother stated that those numbers while bad were NOTHING compared to WW2...

there was no attempt to HIDE the numbers... Franks simply stated that they were not interested in "keeping score"...

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.