Department of Defense Suddenly& Silently Increases Iraq Death Toll

[JWS]

According to http://icasualties.org/oif/ the DoD increased US deaths for Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2108 to 2245, without giving any explanation for the increase.

[TomInTib]

1. Surprise,surprise,surprise.

Golllleeee!

[Charlie Brown]

2. What in the world? n/t

[Kagemusha]

3. Either a simple "error" or they changed their accounting somehow

It's not like a lot of people didn't suspect something was funny.

[whatever4]

4. Here's another recent discussion here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5466841

[acmavm]

5. To all those who have been squealing and yipping about icasualties

having the correct number and all of us who believe (believed to be underreported) let me be the first to tell you nyah nyah nyah nyah.

No was that they're giving the true picture, even now.

[jobycom]

19. People were claiming the number was two to four times higher than reported

This hardly justifies that claim.

[calimary]

31. Perhaps they're quietly trying to work up to it?

If they sneak this through and nobody says anything, then as they realize they've got to start reconciling the numbers even more factually, we'll be getting another "update" or two. Or five. Or fourteen...

[jobycom]

34. Maybe. But until it happens, or until some evidence of missing casualties

in large numbers is demonstrated, there's nothing but suspicion to support that theory, and a lot to oppose it.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Whatever you say. LOL.....

...I bet they're trying like Hell to avoid stating that the 6,000+ that are still missing in New Orleans are dead, too.

Since you seem to have proclaimed yourself a body-count expert, perhaps you can tell us the names of all the new people that have been added to the DoD list for Iraq.

[jobycom]

50. No, perhaps you can tell me the names of the ones who aren't on the list?

Keep the juvenile crap for the Danny and the Dinosaur forum.

And there aren't 6000 missing in New Orleans, either. There were 6000 people who someone was looking for. It's not the same thing, as the people who maintain the list have tried to explain to people.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. To what "juvenile crap" are you referring? The only "juvenile crap"....

...I see is your inability to deal with a differing opinion on the number of U. S. troops that have died in Iraq, and the number of people that are still missing in New Orleans from the Katrina disaster.

I find it really sad that despite the massive amount of lying by the NeoCon Junta that so many people like yourself are willing to believe what they tell you about the number of U. S. dead in Iraq, and the number of dead in New Orleans from Katrina.

What's even sadder is the way people like you treat those of us that refuse to take any information from the NeoCon Junta at face value.

[Iowa]

96. Yep...

It's all in one's perspective and I'm with you on this one. One can either assume they're telling the truth unless it is proven otherwise OR you can assume they're lying unless it is proven otherwise. It's pretty damned clear that you'll beat the odds with the latter. These rats would lie even if there was nothing to gain by doing so. It's what they do.

[leftchick]

36. a "body count dump"

I would not put it past the rat bastards. :grr:

[Occulus]

76. THEY were claiming it wasn't at all higher. THEY were, in fact,

claiming their numbers were right. They never liked any criticism whatever.

That always sets off alarm bells for me. Maybe it's because the people who won't tolerate criticism are almost always the most deserving of the same....

[pecwae]

35. Thank you. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. There remains no proof that the death toll is that high

The Pentagon numbers put out today are a mistake. There are not 137 families that have noticed that their loved one is dead. That's bunk. Either there was a mass casualty event, or the number today was erroneous. You can nyah nyah all you want, but you have no explanation for how (or why) the Pentagon would "cover up" these deaths. Notice also that you'd have to trust the Pentagon's new number to make any argument!

[Occulus]

75. never believed them for a second in the first place

They were WAY too defensive and FAR too sandpaperish about any criticism at all.

I was always thinking to myself, "these people have the hubris to think the wool isn't being pulled over their eyes because they believe they're too smart for that to happen."

I think it was the "we use the official numbers" pap that set off the alarm bells... um, HELLO.... your numbers are coming from WHERE, again?

I mean.... DUUUUUuuuuuuuhhhhhh.......

[Terran]

6. Reclassifying deaths?

Maybe they're now counting people who die from their wounds after returning to the States? Although I'd think that would be a lot more than 137 people.

[DrDan]

7. ???? - that site shows 2108

[dogman]

9. Read inside the box.

Underscored notation describes OP.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. What box? I see no reference to anything but the 2109.

Please explain. DoD claims 2108, icasualties claimes 2109. Where did this occur, and of what box do you speak? What do you mean by underscoring?

Gosh, where's Alcibaides_Mystery when ya really need him?

[sabra]

10. but check out the DOD site:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

61. Right. The NeoCon Junta would NEVER conspire to do anything,....

...would they?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. The part you left out

Why there is no contradiction. I've been clear on that throughout: I do not trust the DoD. There are too many checks on them for them to lie in this case. How I could be more clear is a mystery. I suspect I am being clear as a bell, and you are simply reduced to name-calling and lying.

Let me draw an analogy for you in any case. Suppose I know Jimmy to be a liar. If he says "I was wearing a yellow shirt" I'd be inclined to think he wasn't. I don't trust him. Now, suppose Jimmy walked into a party with 50 people, all of whom were interested in what he was wearing. Suppose the next day, Jimmy says "I was wearing a yellow shirt." I am inclined not to believe it, of course, so I go around to the guests who were at the party. I find not one guest who says "Jimmy wasn't wearing a yellow shirt." Not one. Whatever I might think of Jimmy, I know it would be very difficult for him to lie about what he was wearing precisely because there were too many eyes on the matter. It is very easy to explain that I 1) don't trust Jimmy and 2) believe what he says in THIS case because of the CHECKS on his information. There is no contradiction there, despite your airy abstractions. Now, I know you'll pretend not to understand this simple distinction, so I place it here primarily to make my point for others.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

80. They could with people that don't have family or friends

or do you think they don't have a way of knowing whether a person has family or friends?

Oh, coworkers. Notify the employer, but don't add it to the list. Childishly simple.

The icasualties proponents need to remove their rose-colored glasses.

There, I said it. Sue me.

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. Don't forget their comrades

Because you know how soldiers would allow the sacrifice in combat of one of their brothers to go unrecognized! Yeah, that's a pretty common practice, right? Gimme a break.

And all those other people they may be associated with that the DoD cannot control. The coworker's cousin, say, who is told of the death at a bar one night, etc. Listen, I can believe that SOME of the many people associated with each dead soldier never check the lists, but ALL? Since there has been NOT ONE instance of somebody reporting an unreported death, we're talking a 100% success rate on a massive and uncontrollable secret. That's ridiculous, and you must know it.

If the numbers of hidden casualties is large, the numbers are simply unmanagable. Stop abstracting and really try to think of all the people that would have to remain silent for a 100% success rate. It's astronomical. And because NONE of them has an interest in remaining silent, simply implausible. If the number is small, the risk is still extremely high with relatively little reward - why risk the damaging revelation of a cover-up for the negative effects of 100 or 200 more KIAs? It doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps the conspiracy jockeys should take their blinders off.

[Occulus]

98. I'll bite. Why not.

I have not a thing invested in this absurd "debate".

There's no debate; they're known to lie, regularly, and it's known deaths are faked or hidden regularly and have been throughout history. everything they have to say related to this in particular is suspect, therefore, in a self-evident fashion.

I somehow doubt the dead man's unit would speak too loudly if they all died, but that's the worst possible case and I won't go there: it presumes the Pentagon has in some way constructed some fighting units of only such men, who are at the moment alone in their lives.

If I were to go there, I could also point out that their own personality and psychological testing would reveal such persons very easily. It would be obvious, probably even to someone completely untrained, who was alone in life and who was not. And how are the soldiers to know beforehand that this is the case? And do we really expect them to care about that little fact- were it the case- when they have finally found a place they feel they belong, when they have finally found a family?

Such a unit composed completely of men alone in life could quite possibly be a better fighting unit than others, simply by virtue of the fact that they became a family by doing so, and further, it's the only family they have.

From whom would the cousin know in the first place? His cousin. Would he take his cousin at his word on such a thing? It wasn't family, it may not have even been a friend. It was a coworker, so he probably would take his cousin at his word on such.

You are forgiven for your singularly presented bad analogy. The people who check the lists are the people who care about the name being reported of every soldier who dies. This is, most often, friends, family, and activists. The first two, if they were going out of their way to hide only the deaths of those who are alone in their lives at the moment, would not apply, and neither would the last, because the activists would not know the person in the first place, and might not even know who he is.

We are talking about a 100%, or very nearly, success rate on hiding the deaths of people who have nobody in their life close to them. Maybe the employer isn't notofied- maybe the guy just never comes back.

I know for a fact if I were in the military, I wouldn't mail my workplace for any amount of money. They're simply not that close to me. As long as the job is waiting when I get back, I wouldn't much care. Sure, some people might feel different about it, but how many is that, among those who don't have anyone at home they care for in the first place?

Probably a very tiny, controllable number... and psych/personality testing would weed that out of them as well.

I don't imply the actual number is large. I do assert the official number is inaccurate to the order of hundreds, if not more than 1000. Among the numbers serving in Iraq, that's managable.

Now imagine this:

SOLDIER: (BETWEEN FIRING) I'm officially deployed to (X LOCATION)

How far does the number jump? Does it at all?

We don't know, because we know they lie.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. Here's where it falls apart

"This is, most often, friends, family, and activists."

I agree. Most often. Most often. But that's the intangible, and that's what makes the 100% success rate thoroughly implausible. The fact is that no barrage of psychological testing could predict every person with whom X soldier has contact and who cares to check on such things.

As for the unit that became a family, you'd have to assume that it was completely wiped out, by your own premises, for it would seem that any survivors would have a driving need even more intense than blood relatives to see the sacrifice recognized. And if the unit was entirely wiped out, wouldn't other units know about this? Now there's something else to cover up - the wiping out of an entire unit, hardly the sort of thing that one could keep quiet in a military setting (especially with digital camera happy insurgents themselves intent on getting any military success on the internet!). Plausible, perhaps, for very small special forces units (though they too would necessarily come into contact with command and logistic structures), but anything larger than that? Unlikely.

What's obvious from your response, in any case, is the degree to which you must stretch plausibility to make that 100% success rate. It's implausible for even 10 hidden casualties, much less 1000! I suppose I'm simply not convinmced that many people are so utterly alone, even if they are loners. The networks of knowledge are too vast, and the attempt to hide the thing too risky.

[Angry Girl]

8. HELLO! They're made up numbers anyway!

C'mon! Remember all the Mexicans promised citizenship if they enlisted? Ever heard of one of them on "the list"? We can't even get a real list of the people who died in Katrina and you expect the DoD to not lie to you?

It's like expecting our press to be telling the truth and inform its citizens.
It's like expecting an election in this country to be honest and fair.
It's like expecting our Justice Department to be equitable and uncorruptible and to abide by the U.S. Constitution.
It's like expecting the raving lunatic in the White House to have a shred of human dignity and compassion.

[Jara sang]

17. Good point.

[mazzarro]

33. Very good point about the non-citizen soldiers (eom)

[davsand]

46. Non US citizen deaths should make totals about 5-10% higher

I was told a few months ago that any death toll for the troops in Iraq should be adjusted upward by about 5-10% if you want to count the non-citizen KIAs.

I was also told that the numbers of injured are being under reported by something like 25%. Oh--and they also are not telling the truth about how severe the injuries are. I have never seen it confirmed anyplace, but I was told that inside the Pentagon there is much hub-bub about the fact that the weapons are so much MORE effective than they'd anticipated.

I can't give much detail about where I got all that from--I do not want to do anything to hurt the guy who told me, nor do I want to risk giving away any info that might ID him.

The bastards have lied every step of the way, and some of the Pentagon employees are most unhappy about it...



Laura

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. Here's one

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNGQ2CSURU1.DTL

Mexico City -- Fernando Suarez del Solar feels a sense of urgency about the war in Iraq -- and not just because he lost his only son there two years ago.

It is his duty, he says, to warn young Latinos about the perils of joining the U.S. military and becoming, like his son, a "green card Marine," lured by promises of a college education, post-service career and fast-track citizenship.

Three years ago, President Bush offered accelerated citizenship to any green card holder who has served in the military since Sept. 11, 2001.

Instead, the bereaved father tells would-be recruits, they could wind up like Marine Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez, killed at age 20 after he stepped on an unexploded cluster bomb in March 2003, during the first week of the war.

---snip---

Tell me again how these folks are not listed? His father is, in fact, a well-known anti-war activist. But I guess he's lying to suypport the junta as well, right? :eyes:

[Chicago Democrat]

11. My 2 cents.. 'counting battle deaths'

Subject: my 2c- battle causualty is worth A LOT of money in benefits for the spouse kids etc. burial benefits. charity benefits so this classification is extremely important. politically

etc...

But You don't count if you die OFF the battle field. So I AM GUESSING that 130 familiies CONTESTED the ruling and this is a 'catch' up.

Basically over 20,000 soldiers have been medically, mentally, pysically or TOTALLY destroyed BY BUSH's WAR! They are only acknowledging 10percent! That's the real story

[calimary]

32. This makes sense. And if some 130 families contested it, perhaps

they're fearful there will be MORE families stepping forward, emboldened by what's happened here. Not that there'd be any precedence for somebody else becoming emboldened about pressing an issue. We've certainly seen the religious extremists step up and help themselves, emboldened in their own agenda.

It is REASONABLE to suspect that what statements or figures or statistics are issued by THIS government might not tell the whole story. It is VERY reasonable to suspect this. They have been telling us lies and distortions and shadings of the "truth" ever since this bunch "took" office. I wouldn't be surprised if it's revised upward yet again. Maybe more than once.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. Truth to that

and one of the real fighters for the families was the Viet Nam era USMC Chief of Chaplains, John Cardinal O'Connor. I'm not even a Catholic - but he was the enlisted man's and the widow's and orphan's chaplain.

There's a special place in Heaven for Chappies like Cardinal O'Connor.

[xchrom]

12. kinda like how the repukes figure the economy

they're ''revising upwards''.

[politicaholic]

13. Perhaps the skirmishes with Syria on the border...

have a little hand in this.

The casualties in Cambodia during Vietnam didn't make press either.

[jobycom]

20. Hm. Interesting possibility.

They could be trying to slide a few numbers in from operations they've been silent about.

[Triana]

14. Isn't it true that...

...they don't count deaths that occur when the soldier is being transported to medical after injury or if (s)he dies after treatment?

That is, if he didn't die IN combat, but dies after being treated or on the way to being treated, they don't count them as 'died in combat'?

Not sure about that but someone mentioned it to me a few days ago. They could be adjusting their numbers in some similar fashion to more accurately count the REAL war dead instead of fudging the numbers like we all know they do.

Lyin barstids....

[jobycom]

21. Supposedly that's not true.

The numbers they report do include people who died in Germany or the US of their injuries from Iraq. Whether they include all such casualties is hard to say.

A lot of bloggers and liberal shows like Malloy have claimed that those deaths aren't counted in the totals we are given, but that's been debunked.

It will be interesting to hear the explanation of this. Maybe these are soldiers who died stateside and weren't reported at once, or maybe this is some file of fatalities at other hospitals that had to be verified, and were released all at once. Who knows?

[Coastie for Truth]

40. They were only included if you had a good case worker from

the Legion, VFW, etc. Trust me - I saw it during Viet Nam.

[jobycom]

48. Maybe in Viet Nam

Higher casualty rate makes it easier to hide grieving families. Families now are more eager to contact the media to report the casualties, and there are fewer of them, so it's easier to compare news stories to DoD press releases.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying I've seen no proof of any form to suggest that there are four to eight thousand troop casualties instead of the 2000 officially reported. It's like the Katrina counts--people assume a coverup, and declare without any doubt or any clue that there is a coverup. I don't doubt that they could be doing it, I just have seen no evidence of it. I like evidence--it's one of those things that separate me from the Republicans.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. So, you just dismiss any other line of thought as "juvenile crap", right?

[Coastie for Truth]

111. As as an active duty CACO-

and as a volunteer for one of the veterans' service groups after wards - I assisted families in several such matters.

Plus my cousin (who was like an older brother - taught me to swim, bat a base ball, field a base ball, shoot baskets, etc.) was killed by "friendly fire" - and we worked through the Renzie Park American Legion and the South Hills Twp American Legion and Congressman Joe Gaydos (and his Constituent Service Rep, Steve Zaychick) and Congressman Bill Morehead (and his Constituent Service Rep Nathan Shore) to get to the bottom of it.

Your interest is appreciated.

"Coastie"

Lieutenant, United States Coast Guard (Honorably Discharged)
By Direction

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. "Supposedly"?? That doesn't sound like one that is so confident of...

...the numbers that he refers to the comments of other posters as "juvenile crap".

[DJ MEW]

15. They have been suppressing the number for quite some time

they probably figured that no one is talking about the troop deaths anymore so they can publish a major correction and no one will notice.

Next war we need to come up with our own way of keeping track of the deaths.

[SoCalDem]

24. Shades of Viet Nam.. the news reports always were a joke

reporter: "The pentagon reports thast 4,956 viet cong were killed yesterday, and 7 US soldiers lost their lives, 14 were injured"..

we would sit there day by day, dumbfounded at the phony numbers..
The totals were SO outrageous, and we always wondered just how stupid they thought the public was.. we SAW the coffins arriving daily..

Eventually the issue was settled in the streets

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. The reported numbers of US troop deaths in Vietnam were accurate

If you study the press reports, the numbers add up. That is, if you accept the official figure of approx 59,000. If you then go back and look at the weekly totals as they were being reported, they indeed add up to 59,000.

Now, you might challenge the official toll of 59,000, but I'd then like to see evidence. Can you provide any?

Needless to say, the enemy death toll reported by the US military was indeed a joke, but nations always overblow the enemy death toll, and iot is much harder to suppress deaths from your own country than it is to inflate deaths in another country.

[Jara sang]

16. This needs to be on the DU frontpage

[bluestateguy]

18. We don't know if this is true yet

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm sure they are cooking the books and have been for awhile now, but don't be surprised if the little neo-cons at the Pentagon (pencil neck geek civilian staffers, young kids who put their resumes on the Heritage Foundation website) quietly retract this brief moment of candor. And of course, 30%-35% of Americans will believe them.

[MADem]

22. A lot of the civil servants working in the bowels of the Pentagon

are Democrats, FWIW. African American, career civil servants. Good, hardworking people who know their jobs after doing them for decades. I don't think they'd sit idly by and let this kind of shit go on if they became aware of it.

Of course, if the numbers never get to them for data entry, that's a different story entirely.

[NYdemocrat089]

23. This is shocking.

I'm praying this is just a mistake...but I'm guessing it isn't. They better comment on this.

[Lochloosa]

25. Am I missing something. The Link shows 2108 not 2245 n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. According to Will Pitt in a thread he posted in GD

the Pentagon is saying this new number is just a clerical error and that the original number is correct. Yeah, sure.

[sabra]

27. here's a google cache of the report from 11/22

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QXs7w7JZbwAJ:www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf+&hl=en

could be a typo? but who really knows...

[daleo]

28. Perhaps it is a clerical error

But it seems like a number that is far too important to make such an error with. Maybe somebody there leaked this number for a bit, and it was caught. Maybe somebody is sending a bit of a subliminal message ("don't trust our numbers").

The matter is strange any way you look at it.

[Occulus]

83. Exactly

You don't make this kind of typing mistake. Ever.

Even as a bad typist, you don't make this kind of mistake. Clerical error.

Sure.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

110. You would have us believe...

...that out of 100 people, NOT ONE PERSON in ONE SINGLE FAMILY of ANY SINGLE ONE of those 100 people bothered to ever look at a LIST OF IRAQ CASUALTIES and notice that the name was NOT INCLUDED? Give me a fucking break.

[sabra]

29. Guess what? The DOD updated the PDF:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Total count is now 2106

[NuttyFluffers]

91. ?? did Jesus and Lazarus recently come back? 2 resurrections?

what the hell? okay, that's one too many changes for me to keep up with. someone else figure it out and report it to me. even if it's plucked out of one's ass it's starting to make more sense than these "floating point" totals.

[emlev]

30. Perhaps they have redefined death?

[Festivito]

37. What is the clerical 137: suicides? Syria? Visa-hopefuls? Black-ops?

Perhaps the wounded count was misplaced. 137 would be about right.

Hiding 137 names would be very hard for them to do. George Stephanopolous would have a long list of names come Sunday. Except the above titled might not be counted, and that would also be a nasty telling little error.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. Maybe comatose soldiers who didn't die until after they left Iraq.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. I've been thinking that for quite some time...out of sight, out of mind.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. First of all, the link I provided definitively refutes the previous poster

Regardless of its source. The poster implied that those who die outside of Iraq are not inbcluded in the official count. Logically (and I'll go slowly, since I know you are averse to logic), I need only provide one death in the official count outside of Iraq. I've provided dozens. Unless you dispute that those on that list died outside of Iraq? Or that they are in the official count? Do you dispute those assertions? On what grounds? Be specific please. Evidence helps.

Second, I have no faith in the DoD telling the truth. Fortunately, I need not rely on the DoD for my beliefs. They are grounded in the widespread dissemination of the DoD claims, and the fact that these claims have not been challenged by anyone. The DoD may lie, but it is very difficult to believe that they would have a 100% success rate in such a public lie, especially when the very people that would have to be enlisted in the lie (the families, friends, coworkers, and comrades of the "hidden dead") have no interest in participating and - in fact - have a driving interest in exposing it. You cannot answer this argument except with vague generalities. You have no argument or evidence there.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

68. So you believe the DoD and Centcom are good sources? Hmmmm.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. Do you ever tire of these shameful diversions?

Are you never embarrassed that you fail to address arguments, resorting only to childish invective? The question is not whether they are good sources. The question is whether there are sufficient checks on the information they are putting out. And there are sufficient checks. It would be impossible for them to hide any significant number of deaths, since so many public sources purport to have lists of ALL the dead. What you think of the DoD as a source, in such a case, is irrelevant. The most dishonest source would be quickly exposed with all such checks. Or the most predictably dishonest source would be FORCED to produce good information, as is happening here.

As I said, I need not believe that the source is good, because the checks are sufficient. Why you keep lying about my position is obvious, though: you have no serious response, and therefore should not be taken seriously.

On edit: Nevertheless, I'll address your point again. In order to prove that soldiers who sustained wounds in Iraq but were since moved out of the country, and died in hospital in the US are included in the official list, I need only provide one. Do you then dispute that "Staff Sgt. Tommy S. Little, 47, of Aliceville, Ala., died May 2 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, of injuries sustained on April 19 near Iskandariyah, Iraq (...)" as stated in this DoD press release:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050503-2922.html

Do you also dispute this AP article on same:

ACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi Army National Guard soldier from Alabama has died of injuries he received when a roadside bomb ripped through his vehicle in Iraq.

Four others were injured in the April 19 blast.

Staff Sgt. Tommy S. Little of Aliceville, Ala., died Monday, the Guard said. Little was assigned to the Guard’s Battery A, 2nd Battalion, 114th Field Artillery in Columbus.

Little was being treated at Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, when he died.

“This is another tragic loss for the Mississippi National Guard,” Maj. Gen. Harold Cross, the state’s adjutant general, said in a Tuesday statement. “I know members of the Mississippi National Guard will mourn the loss of this brave soldier.”

Gov. Haley Barbour said his family was “deeply saddened by another death of one of our Guardsmen serving in Iraq. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Little family during this difficult time.”

Critically injured in the same attack was Sgt. 1st Class Grayson “Norris” Galatas of Meridian. He is now at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., family members said.

Lt. Col. Tim Powell, a Guard spokesman, earlier identified three others injured in the same blast as Sgt. Terrance A. Elizenberry of Clinton, Sgt. Wyman H. Jones of Columbus, and Pfc. Stephen B. Brooks of Columbus.

Do you dispute, finally, Mr. Little's own mother?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. Okay...have you stated at least once in this thread that you....

...don't trust the DoD?

Have you also stated that you trust the figures made public by the same group you don't trust?

You don't have any choice but to answer "Yes" to both of the above questions. Do you not see the problem inherent in your responses?

Based on the above, have I lied about your positions in this or any other post in this thread? No, I have not.

Have I used personally insulting language to belittle your point of view? No, I have not.

And yes, I absolutely question the numbers made public by the DoD to date on the number of U. S. troops killed in Iraq. No amount of personally abusive/insulting comments from you or any other poster in this thread is going to make me change my opinion.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

109. " Do you not see the problem inherent in your responses?"

That is absurdly illogical. I suppose it isn't even worth asking if you've got any evidence of any individual soldier who's not included in the count.

[Occulus]

84. Can you cite a site whose information is NOT in question, please? n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

112. That WAS the VietNam era experience.

[Coastie for Truth]

113. That is the direct result of a law suit brought during the Korean War.

Believe it or not - Cardinal O'Connor (when he was Chief Chaplain of the USMC) put me on to that case.

[Coastie for Truth]

38. "When" a soldier dies can determine some non-governmental benefits

There are various state and private benefit package for surviving family members (real estate tax breaks, state income tax breaks, college scholarships, CHAMPUS/Tri-Care coverage, etc.) that - because of sloppy legal draftsmanship - only kick in if the soldier died:

* in combat (i.e., right there on the battle field)
* as a result of combat (anytime, because of weakened condition due to wounds)
* as a direct result of combat (in the hospital without regaining consciousness)
* as a result of enemy action (accidents and friendly fire don't count), etc.

Usually, the determination of the Secretary of Defense is determinative. Any change is going to open "some" benefits to "some" surviving family members.

I think some Congress people pushed to get some narrowly defined class of deaths redefined as "combat deaths" to get "something" for the kids or surviving spouse.

[onenote]

42. sorry, but there's an obvious explanation

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but if you look at the DOD list, its pretty obvious what happened. Despite all the posts here claiming that the difference between the number published by the DOD and the corrected number is 137, its 139: 2006 v. 2245. And 139 is exactly the number of fatalities that DOD reports for the combat operation period (March 19 03 through April 30 03). http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

Seems quite likely that someone just screwed up and counted the 139 twice when they updated the list. I know that a bunch of DUers aren't going to accept this explanation, but sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer.

onenote

[hack89]

45. Obvious answers are not allowed...

it has to be a conspiracy!!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. And we all know that the NeoCon Junta has never lied to us, right?....

...While you're puzzling over the response to that question, tell us all the rationale the NeoCon Junta used to invade Iraq.

Then tell us whether or not a conspiracy was involved in fabricating the evidence for that rationale.

Remember, a conspiracy by definition consists of two or more people that decide to undertake a certain task.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. This is your typical answer, and it is shoddy as all hell

Whether the "neo-con junta" has lied to us is beside the point. I don't trust the DoD, onenote probably doesn't trust the DoD, and - in fact - no citizen worth his salt should trust the DoD on this question. That's beside the point. It would be far to risky for the DoD to hide even 10 deaths for any sustained period, much less 100, or 1,000. There are too many public source purporting to provide complete lists, and - on the other side - too many unknown elements who have no stake in playing along with the cover up. If you add together everyone who knows even one troop in Iraq, and knows that troop is in Iraq, and would notice that troop to be missing or unheard from in days, weeks, months, you have a huge number of people, none of whom has a stake in allowing the sacrifice of that troop go silent (this is not to mention the very real financial need some of these people might have, nor the troop's comrades in arms - as if other members of his platoon would let the government hide his death in combat!!!).

Your strategy here is very dishonest. You try to portray people who believe that the icasulaties count is accurate as "trusting the DoD." We do not. We proceed, rather, with the evidence and common sense. You seem to have an allergy both to evidence (you never provide any) and to common sense (for you cannot answer the most common sense inquiries on this matter, other than by retreating into vague notions of some secret conspiracy).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. I'm absolutely questioning the evidence provided by the DoD and....

...Centcom, and I'm also questioning the critical thinking skills of anyone that takes their data as unimpeachable. In fact, you seem confused about how to defend your stance on this issue. You claim not to trust the DoD, but then you turn around and state that the numbers of dead U. S. troops in Iraq have to be correct. Do you not see your own confusion on this issue?

The fact that Rummy heads up the DoD, is part of the NeoCon Junta, a signatory of PNAC, and has lied repeatedly on a number of subjects, makes me wonder what else he is lying about. If you want to trust them, that's your business, but you have absolutely no business telling me or anyone else how to think on this or any other subject.

Additionally, your attempt to use "conspiracy nut" to describe those of us not willing to swallow the "official truth" is more than a little insulting. That's not any better, IMHO, than another poster in this thread referring to an opposing viewpoint as "juvenile crap".

You two remind me of the Warren Commission apologists against whom I've argued the facts of the JFK assassination for the last forty years. No matter how many statements, film, photos and documents that have been unearthed from the Government files placing the Warren Commission Report in disrepute, they continue to support the "official truth".

Sad, really.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. After I've explained in detail to you how it is not confusion

You persist.

So be it. You refuse to address the argument without anything but lies and distortions.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. There you go again...must be getting very tight back in that corner.

[alcibiades_mystery]

94. Lacking any argument, as usual

Listen, I understand that you take this as an article of faith. You have no reasonable evidence to provide, you just begin with the premise that nbothing the DoD says is truthful and that's that. When you are faced with argument, you simply keep repeating that premise. When that premise is challenged, you don't justify it, but repeat it. It is a dogma.

[Occulus]

87. IF THE TREE IS POISON, SO IS THE FRUIT!!

He-LOOOOOO! Do you have any conception of the central objection we skeptics have?

Um, more eyes on them means more chances for them to hide something.

Do you understand any of even the simplest suspicions here? Check this out: if they did succeed in hiding someone's death, there wouldn't be proof because their hiding it was a success!!

You are being deliberately obtuse about this, and it raises my icasualties alarm bells even further.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. More eyes means more chances to hide something?

Oy vey. I'll let the irrationality of that assertion stand on its own.

As for success, you're talking about a 100% success rate. It ois my argument that this success rate, when translated into real people (and not airy suspicions) is simply implausible, given the number of people who would have to know and remain quiet. And yet you suppose that the more people would have to know and remain quiet, the more chance for success! Has any secret ever worked this way in history? It's ludicrous.

[Occulus]

100. Read my other post above.

That has all I want to say on this subject.

As for the analogy thing, it came out wrong. Allow me to restate: There are many, many more chances in the Iraq war for them to hide something than there are with ONE person wearing a shirt in front of FIFTY people.

Edit to define: each shirt is a death, and each death is a shirt, correct?

For your analogy to be accurate, there would need to be, for example, fifty people each wearing a different colored shirt, each with fifty interested parties in the color of their specific shirt, and each with the opportunity to lie to each of the fifty witnesses of the forty-nine others who were wearing shirts as to what color shit they themselves were wearing.

Now the analogy you presented is accurate. And too complex to actually work.

[alcibiades_mystery]

103. No, that's not the analogy

The analogy merely demonstrated that one can distrust a person in general and still trust their declarations in a given case if there are sufficient checks on that declaration. There is no contradiction between thinking Jimmy is a liar and thinking Jimmy is telling the truth about the shirt. That's all the shirt analogy demonstrates. The analogy does indeed demonstrate that, don't you think?

[greenleaf]

118. Say they wanted to hide the real number of killed

One methodology they could adopt would be to delay announcing fatalities as a matter of course. Secondly study the number of queries about that particular soldier if then the level of interest reaches a certain level they announce the death. On the other hand if the level of interest is bellow a certain thresh-hold they go back to the start ie delay publishing etc.

This way they could keep the numbers artificially low.

[hack89]

117. Since they lied once...

they always lie? Can't question that logic. :eyes:

Besides your hatred of all things Bush, what evidence do you have that it was not a simple admin error? Or does the reach of the evil neo-cons reach into every mundane corner of the government? Do you completely disallow the possibility that the 100,000s of government workers cannot make innocent mistakes and everything must be viewed through the prism of a neo-con conspiracy?

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. Ding Ding Ding

Don't worry, the conspiracy nuts will eat you alive. Nobody entering information into a DoD spreadsheet ever makes mistakes, you see, and everything has a secret meaning. It's easier to live that way for some people. Feeds there sense of oppression, I guess.

Needless to say, not one of them can explain how 139 deaths could go unremarked upon when numerous public sources have purported to provide complete lists of those killed! Not one of the conspiracy theorists with their "gutr feelings" can explain how that could happen, though they'll throw out vague stupidities about "non-citizen" troops and other nonsenses.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

64. Calling people with a different opinion of what you believe to be facts...

...."conspiracy nuts" is not going to win you any arguments for you, and it's certainly not going to gain you any converts to your point of view.

Maybe you should try the tactic of calling other opinions "juvenile crap" like one of your allies in this thread. Somehow, I don't think that's going to work either.

How many times does the NeoCon Junta have to lie to you to cause you to begin to suspect and double-check...no, triple-check...everything they say?

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. There word on this matter is not only triple checked

It's checked a million times. It is public record and cannot be avoided.

Maybe you should start triple-checking your own arguments to determine why you are perpetually unable to provide any evidence at all for them?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

85. I don't have to provide any evidence to refute anything....

...the mere fact that the DoD has lied repeatedly on a number of subjects pertaining to Iraq makes me, and any other person capable of critical thinking, want to question their death count of U. S. troops killed in Iraq.

Speaking of "fact-checking", perhaps you should have checked the first word in your post. I believe you meant to write "Their", not "There". IMHO, that's an example of poor attention to detail...perhaps that also applies to your arguments in this thread.

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. LOL

There/Their! Oh my. It's getting desperate in here (or is it hear?). :rofl:

[Qibing Zero]

115. And what the public officials say and do daily is not 'checked' as well?

Look how well that has stopped them from lying right to our faces, and how it's stopped them from changing press conference manuscripts, and stealing elections, and abusing executive power, etc, etc...


Say they've covered up 25 military deaths. Use whatever explanation you need - say they were covert, they were not citizens, they have little family. These bastards have already killed 2100, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and they still have free reign - do you really think the public is going to go apeshit NOW if we discover a few deaths are unannounced?

Goddamn. We say this every time something big happens, and they're still in power. You'd love to believe there are still checks and balances in our government, but it just isn't true. The people have no checks at all once someone is in office, especially when some group has control of all three branches of government.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. The major flaws in your argument are simple

1) There has not been one instance of non-reporting. Whatever the effects of discovery might be, that is a fact. Other things may be "checked" as well, and there are often outcries over this and that. But this is constantly being checked, and not one additional death has been brought to light, for all the sound and fury. The point is that they cannot lie about this number for many troops without being discovered, not that such discovery would have this or that effect. We don't know what the effects would be, precisely because it has not happened. NOT ONE. A 100% success rate in covering up information that is easily determined by unpredictable interested parties. It doesn't hold water.

2) OK, you might say, what about small numbers, say, 25 hidden deaths. The question here is also simple: Why the fuck would you risk so much for negligible returns. The entire reason to hide war deaths would be to stem a negative reaction to mounting numbers in the public mind. But would the public really be that upset about 25 more deaths that you'd risk discovery to hide them? Of course not. It's ridiculous. You'd be taking a massive risk for relatively little return. Nobody would engage in such behavior.

So, to sum up, hiding a large number of deaths would be next to impossible given the public focus on the deaths and the numerous and unpredictable parties interested in seeing each death officially recognized. Here, the reward would be great, but the risk is astronomical to the point of impossibility. Hiding a small numbers of deaths is much less risky (since you limit the number of interested parties that could expose the deception), but the rewards are negligible (an additional 25, 40, or 100 deaths would not significantly move public opinion); the risks, which continue to exist, far outweigh any benefit derived from the procedure. Neither option, therefore, makes much sense.

[Qibing Zero]

119. And you completely miss the point

What risk is there involved?

I'm saying that if the public hasn't burned them at the stake for what they've done so far, and the other branches of the government are right there with the bastards (or can't do a damn thing about it), who is going to hold them responsible if it comes out that they fudged the numbers? Seemingly no one.

[alcibiades_mystery]

121. But then why hide the deaths at all?

LOL!

If it is not a question of reducing public agitation, why bother hiding any deaths? Yours definitely takes the cake for the most bizarre counter-argument. If there are no risks in exposing the numbers of deaths, you've automatically destroyed the only motivation for hiding the deaths in the first place!

:rofl:

[Qibing Zero]

123. Nono. Don't patronize me as the opposite of your opinion.

I'm not giving examples supporting that they have covered up deaths. I'm saying that even if they have, who will hold them responsible? There are no checks on them at all apparently.

On the other hand, I could see the number being much higher being a check on them by their bastion of religious ferver, simply because of the warped views they seem to hold.

They don't care about the lies - it's still a good cause.
They don't care about the Iraqis dead - it's sad but they're not Americans.
They don't care about the human rights abuses - they only happen to the bad guys who deserve it anyway.

But do they care about good ol' white Christian American boys and girls dying? You betcha!

[alcibiades_mystery]

126. By checks I mean that they would be discovered

Whether they would be held to legal account is another matter. If you don't think that the discovery of even three hidden deaths would cause a PR shitstorm, I'm not sure what else to say. I'd only have to assume that you're not paying attention.

[Qibing Zero]

127. Oh okay.

But no, I don't think discovering even three hidden deaths would do anything. They'd just spin that it was a grave error or something, and express their 'deepest sympathies' and their base wouldn't even blink.

I'd have to counter that paying attention bit by mentioning Katrina. There's just no way any member of the administration should still be in office after that, and yet here we are and the country has all but forgotton.


This could be an interesting topic though... trying to find something that they couldn't just spin their way out of!

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. Katrina has been a disaster for them

That's the point. We have short memories. Bush before Katrina was a much different animal. Katrina was a PR disaster of first order. It basically peeled away everyone bu the die-hard base and crippled Bush politically. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

[pecwae]

108. Amazing how

some of the same people who have no trust in the neocon junta on most all other issues, but will fervently believe and defend DoD reporting because it is being 'checked.'

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. It is being checked

from multiple sources outside the administration who have no interest in perpetuating the DoD lies. How can one run a cover-up under such circumstances. You sneer out "checked" with such disdain, yet you cannot explain how the hidden deaths could be hidden, on the one hand, while massive lists purporting to contain ALL the dead freely circulate, on the other. Few of the "hidden death" proponents have any explanation for this, and the ones that do have to stretch plausibility to the breaking point in order to doctor up something vaguely reasonable to explain it. "Checked" isn't an abstract concept here. It is the concrete action of having millions of eyes on the information you put out, no way to control how those eyes will respond, and many of them having no interest in assisting you with cover up. That's real, not the airy speculation of "The DoD lies about everything..."

[Occulus]

88. I did data entry for USPS

We had to perform 15,000 keystrokes or better per hour at a 98% accuracy rate or higher.

edit: we were checked weekly. Two (2) poor reviews meant suspension with appeal, I believe, pending termination.

The people who do such jobs do not make this sort of mistake. Ever. It just does not happen. They will transpose numbers or enter keystrokes shifted to the left or right on the board if they make a mistake at all.

You are really getting desperate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. So it's just a fluke that

The "real" number of total deaths equals 139+2106 (2245), or the number in the first row added to the number in the second? It's just a fluke that the number of hidden deaths equals the number of deaths before May 1? That's onenote's explanation, and it looks pretty good to me.

:eyes:

[Occulus]

101. No, it means that

they wouldn't have typed 2245 if they meant to type 2106. It's a completely different finger shape and keyboard motion.

My God. Do you you Dragon Naturally Speaking to post here or something?

edit: the point was, they meant to type in that particular number. Meaning, it was no accident, even if it was changed back afterward.

[alcibiades_mystery]

104. But that is neither onenote nor my assertion

I'm not saying that they meant to type in 2106 and mistakenly typed in 2245. I'm saying that they meant to type in 2245 because of a previous conceptual error, whereby they placed 2106 in the May 1 - present row, and then added row 1, 2, and 3.

[onenote]

106. the one thing I'm certain of is that people make mistakes

Sorry, but perfection is an ideal, not a reality. People fuck up.

onenote

[leftchick]

44. ICC seems to have pulled the commentary and link

I don't see it anymore.

[mia]

47. Another blog reporting this.

http://truth-about-iraqis.blogspot.com/2005/11/us-military-fatalities-jump-130.html

[lovuian]

54. Somebody must be calling them on their statistics!!!

Lies Lies Lies!!! and its with the numbers too!!!

[althecat]

71. Cool site - shows Zero Friendly Fire accidents since April 2003

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

.. I don't beleive that

[NVMojo]

72. Wonder how many days it's going to take them to inch it up to the truth?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. I'm thinking it's going to take years....possibly long after the NeoCon...

...Junta has been removed from power.

[Occulus]

90. and their sympathizers or pushovers stop defending them n/t

[mia]

105. Figures at the bottom of the page show 139 dead before May 1st

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Latest Military Fatality Date: Nov 26, 2005

Total Fatalities since May 1, 2003: 2059
March 20th through May 1st: 139
Hostile US Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 1546

Hostile Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 1664

US deaths since July 22, 2003: 1871
(the deaths of Odai & Qusai Hussein)
US deaths since July 2, 2003: 1901
(Pres. Bush announces, "Bring Them On")
Total Fatalities since December 13, 2003: 1761
(Saddam Hussein is captured)
Total Hostile Fatalities since December 13, 2003: 1426
(Saddam Hussein is captured)

[mia]

107. 295 contract workers died as of March 25, 2005

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12000



IRAQ: 136 Titan Corp. Workers Killed Since Iraq War Began
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12000

Titan Corp., The defense contractor that provides translators for U.S. forces under a linguistic services contract with the Army's Intelligence and Security Command has sustained the highest number of casualties of 119 U.S. companies operating in Iraq.

by Bruce V. Bigelow, The San Diego Union-Tribune
March 25th, 2005




San Diego's Titan Corp. has sustained the highest number of casualties of 119 U.S. companies operating in Iraq, according to data released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Labor.

At least 136 Titan employees and subcontractors have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led war began in March 2003.

...Halliburton had the second-highest number of fatalities. The Labor Department data shows at least 26 Halliburton employees have died in Iraq. The company holds contracts that could eventually be worth up to $18 billion for work that ranges from restoring Iraq's oil production facilities to serving food to U.S. troops.

An additional 35 Halliburton subcontractors were counted in a review of civilian deaths compiled by Bloomberg. Most were truck drivers, construction workers and security guards affiliated with KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root.

The number of deaths among civilian contract workers totaled 295, according to insurance claims compiled by the Labor Department. Federal law requires U.S. companies to report death or disability payments for workers who are killed or injured overseas while employed on U.S. contracts.

[upi402]

120. Freespeech TV; US doesn't report them if they'rer alive after take-off

When they transport troops out of Iraq to hospital, they don't count them as caualties if they make it out of Iraq in an airplane alive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

122. Demonstrably false

The following link is to troops who died of wounds in Germany and the United States. They are all included in the official count. Your claim is therefore utterly refuted with evidence:

http://icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

Now, care to provide any evidence that would support your claim?

[upi402]

124. your condescending reply barely deserves this

( THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS FROM www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1682.htm )

U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.

by Brian Harring, Domestic Intelligence Reporter

Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded* (See note below. This figure is now over 24,000 Ed) and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers , rapes, courts martial and so on –

I have a copy of the official DoD casualty list. I am alphabetizing it with the reported date of death following. TBR will post this list in sections and when this is circulated widely by veteran groups and other concerned sites, if people who do not see their loved one’s names, are requested to inform their Congressman, their local paper, us and other concerned people as soon as possible.

The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages) are shipped home, to Dover AFB. You ought to realize that President Bush personally ordered that no pictures be taken of the coffined and flag-draped dead under any circumstances. He claims that this is to comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep the huge number of arriving bodies secret. Any civilian, or military personnel, taking pictures will be jailed at once and prosecuted.

...This listing program is finished so act accordingly. If there is an actual variance of, say, 10 names, that is acceptable. 50 would indicate sloppiness and anything over 100 a positive sign of lying. As of June 16, TBR has received 32 new, unlisted names

*The latest on the wounded: “Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, is a 150-bed hospital that's already seen over 24,000 wounded military patients from Iraq and Afghanistan since the commencement of hostilities “. Knight Ridder Newspapers June 6, 2005 (Note: The Pentagon refuses to publish accurate lists of any wounded. Ed)

LINK TO FULL, "OFFICIAL" ALPHABETICAL LIST: www.tbrnews.org/Archives/list.htm
(The list is updated regularly.)

[alcibiades_mystery]

125. Is that what you call evidence?

A manifest that is never revealed and "educated rumor"? When asked for evidence, you merely point to another source that itself offers no evidence? Tightly argued, then. :eyes:

The second link (which is supposedly updated regularly, though it is currently over 500 names short of the official death toll!) apparently has only those names that are on the official list (I only spot-checked 20 names, but they're all on icasulaties.org), so that proves nothing.

The point is simple here. You said that those who die in hospital outside Iraq are not counted. I pointed you to a list of 77 names that ARE on the official list and did die out of Iraq. How can you square that with your claim?

Never mind the fact that to believe TBR News laughable speculations, you'd also have to believe that tens of thousands of people who lost a loved one say nothing when numerous public organs purport to list EVERYBODY who died in Iraq, but do NOT list their loved one. A great mystery, that...:eyes: