U.S. Soldier Dies in Baghdad Attack - U.S. Military

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030821/ts_nm/iraq_attack_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - One U.S. soldier was killed and two wounded by an improvised explosive device in Baghdad late on Wednesday night, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

The latest death brings to 63 the number of U.S. soldiers killed since President Bush (news - web sites) declared major combat over on May 1.

more

[paper chase guy]

1. now they're not even bothering to say "combat deaths" anymore.

just "63 soldiers killed since may 1 blah blah blah"

what's the real number? 100 something?

[leftchick]

2. yes more than 100 since May 1

the whores....

[catmandu57]

3. They revised the numbers last week

to 131, surprise, just like all numbers coming out of this misadministration. This if it isn't a rewpeat of yesterday's story should make 133.

[alcuno]

9. Probably 133 deaths since May 1. The "tipping point" approaches.

When the number of dead after May 1, exceeds the number who died prior to May 1. It looks like that number is 147.

http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/

[leftchick]

10. I get 152 US combat/noncombat deaths since May 1

according to the Alertnet link I posted below on #7. I wonder what the difference is from? Perhaps they are counting soldiers who die from wounds in addition to the ones dying on the "battlefield"?

:shrug:

[alcuno]

11. My link included them as well.

It will say when they were injured and when they died. I'll look. Counting Afghanistan maybe?

[alcuno]

12. Found it. 61 + 71 = 132.

not 152.

[leftchick]

14. duh!

thanks, do I feel dumb! :dunce:
I do agree that once we pass that thresh hold things will become grim for the little emperor. Why else all the fudging of numbers since May 1 and nary a word about each individual soldier that dies.

[TioDiego]

4. He didn't say "major".

Dang it. The lying bastridges.

[Drifter]

5. The body count ...

propogranda is disgusting. I thought I had already heard this bogus number (63) weeks ago.

They give you a number that represents the body count after some arbitrary date. Then, this number does not include those who die as a result of friendly fire or accidents. Are these people less important than someone who gets their head blown off by an RPG. Are the soldiers that died before AWOL Bulging Pants announce Mission Accomplished any less important ?

I wish they would simply give the total number of soldiers killed as a result of this entire illegal war. This includes the build up.

Cheers
Drifter

[chiburb]

6. Even worse,

In this morning's Chicago Sun-Times AP story, the death wasn't mentioned until the 5th paragraph.

[leftchick]

7. alertnet link to combat/noncombat deaths as of Aug.18 -285 killed!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14676551.htm

snip < U.S., BRITISH, AND MULTINATIONAL TROOPS KILLED:

COMBAT/ATTACKS

United States 192 (61)

Britain 15 (7)

Multinational 0 (1)

NON-COMBAT

United States 93 (71)

Britain 30 (5)

Multinational

IRAQIS KILLED:

MILITARY 2,320#

CIVILIANS Between 6,087 and 7,798*

# = U.S. military estimates relating only to fighting in or near Baghdad. No other figures available. >

very sad you have to dig so hard to find the truth....

[Kellanved]

8. CNN says 314 as of Aug. 20

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Possibly missing the Dane killed in a firefight.

[alcuno]

13. Kellanved, you might want to use this link instead because

they are listed by date of death as opposed to alphabetically.

http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/

[saigon68]

15. IN A WORD THE PEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON ARE MOTHERFUCKERS

They are following the party line to a tee. No guts there. I imagine moral must be just sweet. The people will turn on the leaders soon. I've seen it happen before.

Also how about the total blackout coverage restriction on the bodies, returned to Dover AFB Delaware. Unreal, I think we are in Nazi Geramny CA: 1944