QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Diane]

There have been 10,000 casualties in Iraq since the American-initiated invasion.

I mean 10,000 civilian casualties.

In this situation, Iwish to withhold that proportion of my taxes which is allotted to military uses.

As I understand it, some American Friends have taken this course. I should like to hear about their experiences.

Any Australian Friends involved in the same issue -I should like to get in touch.
_________________
"Friend, consider that you may be mistaken."

[Sylvanus]

[Pulpculture]

The Weapons That Kill Civilians — Deaths of Children and Noncombatants in Iraq, 2003–2008

Analysis of armed violence in Iraq reveals the weapons most lethal and indiscriminate to civilians

Researchers from King’s College London and Royal Holloway, University of London in the UK, together with members of the non-profit group Iraq Body Count, have published a new event-based analysis of the impact of different weapon-types on Iraqi civilians in the April 16, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine:

The Weapons That Kill Civilians – Deaths of Children and Noncombatants in Iraq, 2003-2008

Using the extensive and detailed database of Iraq Body Count (IBC), the researchers analyzed 14,196 events in which 60,481 civilians were violently killed during the first five years of the conflict in Iraq, thereby gaining an extraordinary overview of the harm that different weapons — from low to high tech — have brought to Iraq's civilian population. Dr Madelyn Hicks of King’s College London, lead author of the article, said, “By linking a large number of deaths to the particular weapons used in specific events, the IBC database offers a unique opportunity for detailed analysis of the public health impact of different forms of armed violence on Iraqi civilians.”

For overall combined causes of civilian death from weapons in the data-set — ranging from gunfire, to improvised explosive devices used in roadside bombs, to precision-guided missiles — the average number killed per event was 4. However, the researchers found that when air-launched bombs or combined air and ground attacks caused civilian deaths, the average number killed was 17, similar to the average number in events where civilians were killed by suicide bombers travelling on foot (16 deaths per event).

The authors relate their findings to international humanitarian law and the need for effective policies to protect civilians. Describing suicide bombers on foot as a form of precisely targetable “smart bomb,” they argue that their pattern of killing high numbers of Iraqi civilians can only result from disregard for civilian life when targeting opposition forces, or the direct targeting of civilians, which is a war crime. Regarding their finding of a high rate of civilian death from aerial bombs, they write, “It seems clear from these findings that to protect civilians from indiscriminate harm, as required by international humanitarian law (including the Geneva Conventions), military and civilian policies should prohibit aerial bombing in civilian areas unless it can be demonstrated — by monitoring of civilian casualties, for example — that civilians are being protected.”

The researchers were also able to analyze the demographic characteristics of noncombatants who fell victim to different forms of violence. Execution after abduction or capture was the single most common form of death overall, with by far most of its victims (95%) being male. Nearly a third of execution victims were described as bearing marks of torture, evidence that they had suffered “a particularly appalling form of violent death.”

For Iraqi females, and children, events involving air attacks and mortar fire were the most dangerous. In air attacks causing civilian deaths, 46% of victims of known gender were female, and 39% of victims of known age were children. Mortar attacks claimed similarly high proportions of victims in these two demographic groups (44% and 42%). By comparison, 11% of victims across all weapons types were Iraqi females, and 9% were children. The authors argue that their findings showing that air attacks (whether involving bombs or missiles) and mortars killed relatively high proportions of females and children is further evidence that these weapons should not be directed at civilian areas by parties to conflict because of their indiscriminate nature. As co-author Professor John Sloboda of Royal Holloway, University of London, who is also a co-founder of IBC, notes, “Our weapon-specific findings have implications for a wide range of conflicts, because the patterns found in this study are likely to be replicated for these weapons whenever they are used.”

The authors conclude that “Policymakers, war strategists of all persuasions, and the groups and societies that support them bear moral and legal responsibility for the effects that particular combat tactics have on civilians — including the weapons used near and among them.”


New England Journal Of Medicine
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Sylvanus]

ie war is not nice to 9% of children, 11% of females and 80% of men - whoever conducts that war or makes and distributes such weapons. However are we as Quakers and 'pacifists' willing to state that war will one day not exist. Its a nice thought, but one that is a bit naive, especialy when there is a socio-political organisation such a Islam that has violence enshrined in its 'holy' book, and had/has a leader that himself lived a life of violence and is regarded as the perfect example of how a Muslim should live.

I myself was always enamoured as a child by stories of Quaker pacificism in the early days of the 17th century, when women refused to cry out in case it should encourage the men to use violence to protect them, and I can without question state I would find it extremely difficult if not almost impossible to use violence or kill myself - Im even vegetarian as I extend that belief to animals. However Im not sure I could simply stand by and allow another innocent creature to suffer abuse without interfering in whatever way necessary to stop such abuse, and I am certainly not willing to appear tolerant of intolerance [or supporting those who make themselves appear to be the biggest victim] for the sake of appearing non-confrontational and concliatory, as so many pacifists seem to do, in some misguided belief that ignoring the violence, or supporting the most acceptable cause, all the nastiness might just simply just go away.

This next paragraph started - 'I think the Amish response to the school killings was exemplary' ............. however after much thought and several draughts I was not able to complete it, as so many thought and issues flooded my mind regarding 'forgivenss' and 'love', which I still find to be openly abused terms and concepts, especialy by those who would like to appear good and righteous before others.

[Pulpculture]

[Sylvanus]

[Kiahanie]

[Sylvanus]

[Pulpculture]

I've nearly finished reading "The Dark Side Of Christian History" and I think both religions are as bad as each other. What we're left with today, in Christianity, is a hideous journey to get where we are today. Christianity today represents absolutely nothing of what Christ was about.

Every Muslim I have known or worked with has been a decent and lovely person. Some are very good friends of mine, even now. Sorry I have never met an Islamic terrorist (probably because they are few and far between perhaps) but if it makes me an apologist then hey ho.

Sylvanus - A lot of what you say makes perfect sense. However taking the essence of what you are saying to the end (please correct me if I'm wrong) but you appear to be eluding to the solution being slugged out on a battlefield (with the Christians ideally winning)? If our ultimatum can't be peace, and or co-existing happily side by side (you're inferring the Muslims wouldn't ever accept that) - it has to be global war then?
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Shay]

I think it is unfair to paint the vast majority with beliefs and behaviour that can only be ascribed to a very small minority. The greatest slander of all, is for modern Islamist apologists and collaborators to try and sell Islam to the majority as a peaceful and progressive faith, something it most certainly is not.


Wait- it's unfair to paint the whole with the beliefs of the few, but then in the next sentence you're doing just that.

[Sylvanus]

[Sylvanus]

[Pulpculture]

Whilst there are purveyors of hate towards the Muslims they will have cause to hate back. Could the "Western" hate be fuelling the fire? Is there another way? Perhaps the "PC brigade" & "Islamist apologists" think the way forward is to hold out a hand and converse. If we don't get anywhere - feel free to take up arms and give it a go yourself.

[Sylvanus]

[Kiahanie]

[“Several hundred" years? Hardly. A good case can be made that Christianity as we know it was established by Constantine, not Jesus or Paul. In that light, Mohammed could be seen as a combination of Jesus and Constantine. Constantine was no slouch when it came to converting his known world to Christianity. Within 50 years, the churtch was executing "heretics."]

But the real point of this post is my wonderment at the pejorative use of several phrases in the above posts, particularly “Islamofriendly,” “trendy amongst Leftists and the politicaly correct,” “Leftist and Muslim propaganda.” It is as if the author believes there is something wrong with being friendly toward Islam and/or Muslims, some obvious error in being Leftist, an assumed defect in being politically correct. There is no attempt to demonstrate factual error, just the denigrating references implying that no serious response is necessary.

I am generally regarded as being on the “Left” end of the political spectrum. I certainly have friendly attitudes toward Islam and count many Muslims among my circles of friends/Friends. I have to acknowledge striving to be “politically correct” if that is taken to mean basing my political positions on facts rather than factoids. I see nothing in these positions that warrants an assumption that ideas should be viewed with suspicion if labeled Left, politically correct and friendly toward Islam. That kind of argumentation does not further a search for the truths lurking in all political and cultural situations.

I definitely sense the disdain the author seems to hold for people like me, but would nevertheless be willing to have a factual and historical discussion on the relations between Muslims and Jews and Christians, and on the various trends within Islam today, which actually do really exist in spite of the myths of “monolithic Islamic fundamentalism” thrown about by those who would demonize that half of the believers in the Abrahamic religions.

Unfortunately, that discussion will be delayed until the end of the month when I return from the American Southwest. I hope in the meantime this conversation can be continued in the language of respect and in that Light which shows us each our own way.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi