Originally Posted by Botnst
So, ... .even though these happened sequentially through time in some cases and parallel in others; and even if they have different origins, they are all STILL proximate causes?
Well, unless you have a better definition of Proximate Cause than Lexus Nexus and the cut and paste to Wiki:
Originally Posted by Wikepedia
In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law, cause-in-fact and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but-for" test: but for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
The number used by the UN and the Human Rights Commission counts Violent deaths [non combatants only], and is spread over 54 months, each death would still count individually so I believe that YES, they all would fall under your definition.
So whether we use the massive numbers from the first few months during the Shock and Awe phase or the weekly IED civilian deaths, very few [but still counted] rape/murders by US troops, or the Surge hunts for #2 collateral damage deaths, they fall into the Violent Deaths, caused by WAR activities.
I am curious as to why, when even our fumbling Administration has accepted the UN numbers [the 500,000+ civilians killed] since Tony Snow used it as a reference two weeks ago to say that: paraphrase "the 500,000 deaths will seem like nothing if we pull out", and it has been used on both sides of the aisle of Congress for months, that you still have a problem with its accuracy?