9000 dead U.S. Soldiers, not 1700?

[madhat]

Apparently there is reason to think so. If they die in Germany or on the way to a German hospital, they're not counted.

http://www.sftt.us/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4006
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/18/115832/501

"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.

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."

[kansasblue]

1. I'm not buying this.

[NewInNewJ.]

4. Nothing would surprise me with this Administration.

I mean, nothing.

[Stand and Fight]

10. Of course you're not buying it.

Your sole comment speaks volumes as to how open you are to different lines of thought.

Of course you're not buying it because the best argument you could come up with in opposition is the trite, "I'm not buying this," as if that has some validity in and of itself.

What reason, I ask, have you to believe otherwise, Kansas?

Is there any specific reason that you are so convinced that a government that has led us into an illegal war based on lies would be so forthcoming with the truth? Is there any reason that a government that obviously has little value for the lives of our servicemen and women would be forthcoming about their deaths?

Yes, you’ve every reason to believe the liars who led us into this war are more accurate than the same people who called them liars in the first place. Yes, let’s join hands with the Neo-Conservatives and unite against the lies that these anti-war types tell because obviously they don’t value the lives of American soldiers like good ol’ Georgie Bush and Dickie Cheney.

Indeed your damn comment speaks volumes.

[kansasblue]

26. your comments are well taken. Sorry to have answered your concerns that w

Ok. The names of the dead are listed in the paper every week and the names were shown on Nightline one night (remember the controversy). Under your theory there are about 7000+ families that have lost love ones in Iraq the have never complained that their son/daughter/husband/wife etc wasn't listed on those lists. Or that their picture is not on display at the Women In Military Service to America (display that's there all summer).

[Stand and Fight]

55. Yeah, because families are just obsessed with seeing a "death list".

It's absolutely important to the families that their loved ones be listed... Families are not immediately concerned -- if concerned at all -- with rather or not their loved one made the list. They are however gravely concerned with the fact that they've just been notified that a loved one has died. They are gravely concerned with more practical matters like coping with the lost, making funeral arrangements and figuring out the rest of their lives. Receiving notification that a loved one has died does not prompt one to verify the death when you have the god-damn Department of the Army telling you it is so...

Have you ever taken into account that some of the soldiers who died may not have loved ones at all? I know for a fact when I signed up six years ago that was the case. Had I gone to war in 1999 and been killed, no one would have ever known or cared. Admittedly this probably accounts for a small number, but it is a significant number of the fighting men and women in the armed forces. I cannot count the amount of soldiers I knew -- besides myself -- who had no family outside of the military. Young people who truthfully had no place else to go but the Army... That number is significant -- I can't account for the amount of individuals like this who may have died, but I can say that the number of those who would have no family to be notified is significant.

I assure you that the loved ones of those in the military are not monitoring the "death lists." They take it for granted that the government will contact them if anything should happen to a loved one, which the DoD does. However, I assure you that there is no network and no plan for a network of families across the U.S. who have lost families in this conflict. That being the case, it would not be that difficult to hide the numbers of dead. Furthermore, there are programs in place on military bases to help family members "cope" with this sort of thing, but these programs -- I say again -- are NOT nationally networked. Lastly, the DoD does not acknowledge or report the death of loved ones right away. There is always a lag. I know this for a fact and from first-hand knowledge.

[cliss]

136. I agree.

Thanks for posting. I myself am working on a list of the "uncounted dead". I smelled a rat a long time ago.

One of the most telling figures is the comparison between Viet Nam and Iraq. We were in Viet Nam for 10 years. We lost over 58,000 servicemen/women. That works out to 5,800 per year.

We've been in Iraq 3 years, and we've only lost 1,600+. That's 533 per year. See the problem? It doesn't add up. Now this is a crude comparison, because in VietNam the losses started out smaller, and they started to grow over the years.

But -- I have read that the Pentagon understands that Americans' patience with Iraq is directly tied to the number of deaths. Keep them low, and the Americans are willing to put up with it.

When the numbers go up, patience will run out. And that's what they understand. So they will try to hide EVERY death that they can.

[tx_dem41]

140. So, how have they kept this quiet from the thousands of families..

..and friends of these "phantom-dead"? I personally have known (at least peripherally) 5 people who have died in Iraq. I immediately looked for their names on the official lists. They're there. So, for your phantom-dead, what happens when the tens and hundreds of family, friends, and associates look for their name, and don't find it? What happens then? Are they co-opted into the administration's agenda?

[onenote]

148. do you actually know anything about the Vietnam war?

Such as the fact that at its peak, between 1966 and 1970 US troop levels in Vietnam ranged from 334000 to over 530,000 -- far more troops than are in Iraq. Or the fact that in Vietnam we were fighting a well-equipped army that had sophisticated weapons from the Russians. That they had an airforce with MIG-17s and MIG 21s that were capable of, and did, shoot down American aircraft. The Iraq army folded like a tent when we invaded. Our casualties now are being caused principally by IEDs, car bombs, and small arms fire. WE aren't having deadly battles over "hills" and in a jungle where the enemy had many advantages. And we didn't have the types of body armor and other protections that are around (albeit not in the quantity that they should be) today.

The number that died in Vietnam proves nothing about the numbers that are dying in Iraq other than the fact that for anyone to die in a stupid unjust war is terrible.

onenote

[earth mom]

108. Who's actually kept track of all the deaths?

Is there a list, a tally, from every state? From every town? Very doubtful that a list exists that's correct that we the public have access to. If someone had the time, energy and resources to research this and travel to every state and every town that's lost someone in Iraq-no doubt they would find that the figure is close to or more than 7000 dead rather than the low ball "official" * regime figure.

[tx_dem41]

109. Link

Very sortable by name, hometown, date, cause of death, etc.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Amazing that its been around for 2 years and some still don't know about it.

[earth mom]

116. I've seen those figures

and sorry, but they don't mean a damn thing. Where are the wounded soldiers that have died?! The ones in Germany?!

It's totally in the * regimes best interest to keep the numbers low. That way young men and women will continue to throw their lives away and enlist, the people of this country won't be alarmed and outraged and demand that the U.S. leave Iraq and last but not least, more of the "insurgents" aka as "citizens" of Iraq will die. :grr:

[tx_dem41]

119. When you've seen those figures, you obviously haven't been paying..

attention. For example (from last week in fact)

05/10/05 Bordelon, Michael J. 1st Sergeant 37 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 24th Infantry Reg., 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Morgan City Louisiana

Mr. Bordelon sadly died at Brooke Army Med Center (in San Antonio, I believe), from injuries suffered in an IED attack.

[onenote]

122. try looking for them, its not that hard

Check Paul Fisher of Marion IA or Philip Witkowski of Fredonia NY. They both died in Germany of injuries sustained in Iraq. And they're listed.

The constant repetition of false information doesn't make it true. It just makes it a distraction from the fact that too many have died.

onenote

[AndyTiedye]

187. Those 7000 Were Not "Killed in Action" by the DOD Definition

They are playing a cynical semantic game with the lives and deaths of our soldiers.
So very Rovian.

Those soldiers were wounded in action and then died shortly thereafter.
They're still dead, and Bush**'s war killed them.

They widely report the KIA number, implying that that is the whole
story. They keep the press out of Dover. That is a sure sign that
they are trying to cover up the true extent of the fatalities.
They do not want any independent count of the coffins!

[onenote]

192. those "7000" aren't dead

1600 plus are and that's bad enough. But even service personnel who were wounded and died weeks later are listed in the 1600.

onenote

[tx_dem41]

193. How do you explain this from the "official list"?

05/10/05 Bordelon, Michael J. 1st Sergeant 37 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 24th Infantry Reg., 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Morgan City Louisiana

Mr. Bordelon sadly died at Brooke Army Med Center (in San Antonio, I believe), from injuries suffered in an IED attack.

Unless the IED attack occurred in San Antonio, TX, then it appears they do count those that died "later on".


There are many many more similar cases on that list of 1600+.

Look for yourself. Make the effort.

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

[xxqqqzme]

98. I believe this is a more

accurate number. The son, of a local Democratic activist, is an Army doctor - sent to Germany - Landstahl(?) to re-organize the ER for Iraq-injured soldiers - because they were being overwhelmed w/ injured and the facility could not cope w/ the numbers - He told his mother that many died while in transit. They R not counted as KIA because they had been labeled medically stable when sent on to Germany. The transports have no medical support equipment and few attendents in the air.

[leftofthedial]

18. why not?

[justsomegirl]

71. Where's this kid? Nathan Taylor - US Navy

Then where's this kid on the rolls?



The casket bearing the body of US Navy Machinist's Mate Third Class Nathan Taylor goes over the edge of the USS Enterprise during a Burial at Sea ceremony.

From: here PENTAGON RELEASES HUNDREDS MORE WAR CASUALTY HOMECOMING IMAGES

Because I can't find him.

(edited to add name in subject line)

[onenote]

and which part of the afghan or iraqi navy killed this kid?

If you did a little research, you'd know that the Nathan Taylor was buried at sea on May 19, 2004. The USS Enterprise left the Arabian Sea in February 2004 and returned to Norfolk VA. It apparently was either in Norfolk or engaged in Fleet Week exercises in the Atlantic through the end of May. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

I don't know how Nathan Taylor died, but I'd bet it had nothing to do with the Iraq or Afghanistan and that explains why he's not on the casualty lists. He was a Machinist's mate for goodness sake -- he's stationed on the carrier, not land-based. He died. I don't have a clue why. But you don't have to die in combat to "qualify" for burial at sea.

onenote

[justsomegirl]

189. ok, but...

Thanks for the info regarding the Enterprise. I did a little research, but wasn't up to speed on checking the Fleet's movements.

Then why was the photo of his burial released as part of the FOIA request from the Pentagon for War Casualities?

[onenote]

191. because someone was incompetent

[carpetbagger]

188. Good question. Maybe he died outside the theater. Info below...

Here's the beginning of his obituary, from the Post-Tribune newspaper chain in NW Indiana...maybe someone at a library terminal can pull the whole article off Newsbank.

Taylor, Nathan Earle - NATHAN EARLE TAYLOR (MM3) U.S. NAVY Was born on February 22, 1983 and passed away on April 27, 2004. He is survived by his ...

190 total words

Published in the Post-Tribune from 5/2/2004 - 5/4/2004.

There's a Google Cahce from military.com. For some reason you need to translate it from German to English :shrug: you will find in it a "MM3 Taylor Nathan E" who is listed (posthumously?) as an enlisted graduate from 10 May 2004.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.military.com/MilitaryCareers/Content/0,14556,MPDC_PromoAlert_Navy_Enlisted_051704,00.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522taylor%2Bnathan%2Be%2522%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

[earth mom]

106. Self delete.

[Oreo]

2. Interesting

They do report them as troops that "died in Iraq" so literally they may be telling the truth. If it's true that they're not counting deaths that happen after they're sent elsewhere for care and the deaths were directly related to injury in the line of action... there will be HELL to pay.

[AllegroRondo]

3. Perhaps the 1600 'official' figure is only combat deaths

still, a sad way to play with the numbers


any idea why Ireland is a popular place for desertion?

[joneschick]

6. I understand that the Irish economy

is rocking. All areas of the economy are very strong. Sounds like a great place to go. I would if I could.

[rodeodance]

8. educated rumor---i would say uneducated rumor.

[leftofthedial]

19. 1600 died in combat in Iraq

If you get both legs blown off, a sucking chest wound and shrapnel in your brain, but they can keep you alive until you get to Germany (or Kuwait), and then you die, you are not one of the 1600+.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Bullshit

Check the detailed statistics at

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

[madhat]

84. You may be right, but is it worth discussing?

I think so. I posted this because I think ALL questions about this Administration's honesty should be raised.

There's a raging debate at dKos too -- some people taking your point of view, some wearing tin hats.

Discussion is good.

[tx_dem41]

86. Discussion is fine....

but one shouldn't just pull a number out of a hat as if it were true.

[madhat]

93. Did you see the question mark on the end of the title?

A question mark generally indicates that one is questioning, not stating a fact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. I prefer to discuss it...makes the bullshit easier to refute, see?

n/t

[madhat]

121. I posted a thread that said dKos diarist refuted this.

I still think these theories bear airing.

[donsu]

5. I've been saying and posting articles all along saying the count was

wrong.

as example we read/hear that 3 to 5 troops are killed in a day and the count goes up by one

or we read/hear of massive attack on troops with no deaths and few injuries. or a missle makes into the green zone but did no damage. what? it just went klunk and layed on the ground unbroken? come now. this is so much poop.

[Serial Mom]

7. Wouldn't there be more families trying to make this known?

I would think relatives and family, especially on military bases to figure out there were/are a lot more deaths than they are hearing from the government?

If it is true, then this is just another "fudge the numbers my way" for this mis-administration and there should be OUTRAGE!

[tx_dem41]

13. Ding, ding, ding!

You win. If it were 9000 and not 1600, imagine the number of family relatives and friends that could expose this fraud. Yet, no one has.

[CWebster]

15. How?

How does one isolated family know about how many more there might be excluded from the count- if they have no reason to question it??

[Chico Man]

27. They would not be listed here, for one thing

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Griffy]

34. Exactly.. they DONT know.. but some how THOUSANDS of..

people from military family showed up to protest the war.. we can solve this if we can get lists of the combat dead, and see if we can find people that arent on the list... but are now dead! I can tell you they dont count the soldiers that come home and commit suicide! .. and I had heard this before, that those that survive of the battlefield are not "combat casualties anymore" ..

but this is cukoobannanas orwelian world.. so look for more facts 1st

[Serial Mom]

51. I was not saying isolated families ...

I meant it groups of military families do get together, and some live on bases or near base, so if they would begin to think about how many funerals, or how many were mourned, couldn't they begin to question the totals?

[hector459]

77. If there were any investigative journalists worth a damn, they could put

out a call for all families to e-mail names and military serial number of their KIA soldiers and then the investigators could check the public records for death certs. It would be somewhat costly, but it could be done.

[TheFarseer]

58. I have heard

there are a number of foreign fighters fighting for us and there are probably some people that are not close with their family or have no immediate family. I'd have to guess if you have no next of kin, you are not listed as a casualty. I don't think this would be a significant number (maybe dozens?, maybe hundreds?, not thousands) but I'm sure they are fudging the count a little.

[Stand and Fight]

16. Good God, think...

How in the world are families going to know rather or not a loved one was tallied in the death toll? Good God. They'll be so wrapped up in their own grief they won't bother to look for specifics. You have to remember that for the majority of people, things like this only become an issue when it directly affects them. Before that it is just another name in black and white, another name in the paper or on the morning news. Unfortunately, that is the way things work.

You're right. There SHOULD BE OUTRAGE.

[Supersedeas]

22. Ding-Ding-Ding: most morning families aren't looking at Death Tabulations

[Chico Man]

28. I would expect them to want them listed on the rolls..

Like here:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Or on cnn:

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

[madhat]

41. How is it possible to match names and numbers?

There's too much data. If I were a family member how would I do it?

[onenote]

59. if you were looking for a family member, you'd use the search feature

Its not hard. If you lost a family member and you wanted to check to see if they are listed and that the info is correct -- and believe me, family members of service personnel who die as a result of their service in Iraq want to know these things -- its easy to use the search feature on the casualty list to find the info. There is no way that significant numbers of KIA are simply missing. By the way, who decides which KIAs are disclosed and on what basis? This is one of those stories that makes people look foolish and undermines the real case against this sick war.

onenote

[hvn_nbr_2]

65. Weird stuff!

Both those links appear to have lots of data and are hard to use.

The http://icasualties.org/oif site lists place of death, and it includes places that are not in Iraq.

It also has a filtering capability that allows you to filter to see only those who died at a particular place. However, the only possibilities are very detailed place names. So you can't filter on, for example, Germany. You have to know the names of places where they go in Germany, and filter each place separately. Most of the places on the available filtering list are places that I can't tell where they are. For instance, is Camp Pennsylvania (and myriad other similar names) a location in Iraq or in Pennsylvania or where? Also "hospital" as place of death doesn't really say much.

I did a filter by place of death = Walter Reed Medical Center, and got zero results. However, the very first page of the CNN listing shows one soldier who died at Walter Reed.

Hmmmm, now this gets interesting. I just went back to the icasualties.org site to verify the exact name they used for Walter Reed (to make sure my previous paragraph was exactly right), and the display is completely different! Wow, that site is fluctuating! I found a link to the previous display, re-ran the filter for Walter Reed, and now it shows some. This is very weird.

[mccoyn]

89. Those filters are cumulative.

If you filter one field and then filter another the result will be both filters are applied. This is exactly what you see if you look over the filter selections. If you want to start a completely new filter, you should press the "Remove Filter" button first and make sure all the options are set to "All".

This is what I suspect caught you. When I filter for Walter Reed I get 13 results. That site could use some better design, but the information is there.

[libertypirate]

149. How many have computers?

[tx_dem41]

153. Out of the thousands of family members, friends, and associates...

of these theoretical phantom-dead, I'm sure at least a few have computers. :eyes:

[onenote]

156. as I've asked before -- how does the govt know to hide only the names of

those whose family don't have computers....

Think about this for a moment.

onenote

[tx_dem41]

68. Let me guess this straight....for up to 2 years....

not one person in the family or friends of 7400 purported casualties (that number must total over 100,000 people) has ever gone to a website such as this one:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

to see if their loved one is listed.....

Nope, not buying it.

[Stand and Fight]

90. Guess it straight all you want.

I never said not one family has.

Keep posting your link though. I don't think enough people have seen the figures that were gathered from the DoD. :eyes:

[tx_dem41]

110. Sigh.....you didn't get it.

<Shaking my head>.

Logic is a lost art.

This is the perfect list to prove wrong, since it is based on DoD data. Think about it. Harder.

And, FWIW, it was the first time I posted the link (I subsequently just posted it again). Keep up with who is posting what, if you are inclined to sling accusations around.

[Sparkly]

147. I know what you're saying, but...

is it possible the families of soldiers not on that list were simply told that the list is "combat-only" deaths? I'm not sure what the criteria are for this list. Does it only include those who died nearly immediately, those who died without medical treatment, or only those who died in country? Those who survived long enough to be transported to Germany for example -- would they be on that list? And would that suffice as a reason for them not being on that list, acceptable to families?

(I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm really asking.)

[tx_dem41]

150. It involves all combat-related deaths where the cause of death happened...

...in Iraq (so it includes those that later died in hospitals in Germany and Stateside). It includes all non-combat related deaths that happened in Iraq (e.g. vehicular accidents, etc.). It includes all suicides that happened in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

158. Thanks. nt

[onenote]

154. and you can find answers up and down this thread

To summarize: the official list includes deaths that occur due to injuries sustained through hostile or non-hostile acts in Iraq. It includes deaths that occur in Germany and Maryland and Texas and god knows where else if the injury that caused it was incurred in Iraq. It includes deaths that occurred days and weeks after the injury was sustained. It includes deaths from vehicle accidents and suicides. (However, it doesn't include suicides that occur outside Iraq). It includes US citizens and non citizens. In other words, the arguments that there thousands of American families who have lost husbands, wives, sons, or daughters and no one has noticed that the government isn't telling anyone about these deaths is utter bull.

Why does this bother me? Because the administration got us into this damn war by lying. The one thing we have for us over them is our credibility. Accusing them of something that they haven't done (concealing large numbers of US war dead) gives them credibility they don't deserve and undermines the credibility of those who oppose the war.

onenote

[Sparkly]

159. Understood.

Thanks for the info. I see the point.

[libertypirate]

151. MOst people who join the military are from poor families...

So they either eat or buy a computer were you born dumb and arrogant or did it grow on you?

[tx_dem41]

163. I'll proxy for onenote, here...

How does the military know which soldiers have families, friends, and associates that don't have computers?

[onenote]

165. thanks

onenote

[zalinda]

80. And remember

many, many people are not on the Internet. And even if they dabble on the net, many wouldn't know where to find these body lists.

zalinda

[Stand and Fight]

92. Exactly.

Some people need to face up to something -- as Internet savvy as many DUers are, or may think they are, the majority of the U.S. population can't even tell you what URL stands for, much less that with tenacity almost anything can be found out online.

[onenote]

118. and the military knows which soldier's families are not internet savvy

so those are the one's that they don't disclose. Give. Me. A. Break.

onenote

[Serial Mom]

100. I was personally involved with family in 1991 ...

My daughter's boyfriend was killed in Kuwait, Irag or Saudi (depending on whose report you believe)- the first on the ground January 29, 1991. Scott was killed with 7 others in two LAVs hit by friendly fire (we didn't know this until about 3-4 weeks later). Four other Marines were killed that day also.

And I personally know for a fact that his family kept in touch with many of his friends from his platoon and they with the family for quite a few years.

Now I know that was a shorter war with fewer casualties, but some of the families of surviving soldiers and those of the ones killed do keep in touch with others, no matter how far away, apart they live.

[Eloriel]

101. And who would they tell if they DID look, and DID find their loved one

not on the list. But of course, an isolated instance here and there can be chalked up to good old CLERICAL ERROR.

[tx_dem41]

114. I would think anyone with a loved one or friend who was killed...

would tell the media if they didn't find someone on the list. Why do you think I've looked for five people on this list in the last 2 years?

[tk2kewl]

17. I would think you are right on that

as much as I hate this administration, and their pathological lying, i don't see how they could pull this off without a campaign to silence another 30,000 relatives of the 6,000+ uncounted dead

[CWebster]

31. Well shoot,, we don't care at all about how many Iraqis we kill

When asked during the first gulf war about Iraqi dead, Powell responded that "it isn't a number I am particularly interested in" and who can forget what Albright said when asked if all the Iraqi children killed by the sanctions were worth it - she responded "Yes, I think so". What makes you think this criminal lot care about anyone other themselves and their cronies in crime?

[tk2kewl]

44. I agree that the media should pay way more attention to Iraqi deaths

all I'm saying is it seems unlikely that even the BFEE could cover up the deaths of 6000+ servicemen and women

[tx_dem41]

69. Okay....we all agree with that....now can you address t2k's point?

"...i don't see how they could pull this off without a campaign to silence another 30,000 relatives of the 6,000+ uncounted dead"

[leftofthedial]

23. families don't know (or probably care) whether their loved one

is one of the 1600 or not

[Chico Man]

30. I doubt that assumption (nt)

[leftofthedial]

49. 90% of them probably assume their dead kid or dad or mom

is one of the 1620 (or whatever today's number is)

What they care about is the loss of their loved one, the pay, and the official disposition of the dead person's career.

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. Military families are spread out around the country and the globe.

Other than notification of their own loss and perhaps hearing about other soldiers they may have known on their current base or during previous assignments, they would have no concept of the true count.

This is why investigative journalism is so important but no one wants to foot the bill or stick their neck out any more.

[Chico Man]

33. Wouldn't they get suspicious of they were not listed here:

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

Or here:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

?? I sure as hell would.

[Pacifist Patriot]

45. That's a good point.

I really don't know. If I had lost a family member I don't know if I'd even check those lists. But I realize that is just me. It's a very good question. But I think the claim deserves to be investigated.

[katinmn]

35. Let's tell the WH press corps to ask the damn question

Do we have to do EVERYTHING??

[madhat]

32. Is there an official count by name

So that family members would be able to check?
CNN used to have such a list but I never counted them.

[Chico Man]

36. Lots

http://icasualties.org/oif/

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

Etc etc.

[bvar22]

82. That's right.

If the numbers were very far off, our Media would step in and ask the questions!!....wouldn't they?...Fox News would surely report it!

[Roland99]

112. Yes, there would be hundreds of families trying to make this known

[knowbody0]

9. i was tol d this long ago

by my friend who served in iraq

[Nordmadr]

11. The logic about 26,000 out of 158,000 is flawed since troops are

on a rotation. Mnay more than that have cycled in and out.

Olaf

[CWebster]

12. And another thing

The Iraqi death count has been at 100,000 for how many months?

[katinmn]

25. about a year?

[EST]

47. A little over six, I think.

[Mark E. Smith]

14. This Is Explosive

Needs to be on The Greatest page with about 40 reccs.

[katinmn]

20. I knew it. I knew it. This needs to be addressed now!

$#%^^%$%#%^ Bush $#@#@%^&^$% Rumsfeld %$$#@^% Liars!

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Why? It's false.

The only ones lying are those who pretend that troops who die in hospital outside Iraq are not included in the official count. That is an outright falsehood and easily refuted. See the "Place of Death" search feature at http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx.

Q.E.D. and done with this bullshit argument.

[katinmn]

64. you missed the point. icasualties is well-known as the official count

If you believe everything the neocons in power tell you, well....

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. That may have been the point, but the evidence is what counts

The point was that we shouldn't believe the official figures. Ayup. Whatever.

The evidence (and I use the term loosely) was speculation that no (that is NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA) troops deaths that occur outside the combat zone are counted in the official tally. If you think back to logic class, I need only one particular case to refute a universal claim. The claim is that NO troop deaths outside the combat zone are counted. I prove (easily) that dozens and dozens ofd troop deaths in hospital in both Germany and the US are counted in the official death toll. Done. So, tell me again why we shouldn't believe the official figures? If you have evidence, fine. SHOW ME. That's how reasonable people behave in public. When they have an argument, they provide evidence to support their claims. What we have here, rather, is an a priori. "We should not believe what the official count says, period, no evidence needed." Fine. But then don't tell me to believe that 9,000 are really dead, or 5,000, or 1,700, or ONE NUMBER more than the official count, because you are not operating by evidence, but by outright assertion, and nobody reasonable should take you seriously.

[danostuporstar]

21. Incredible

I know I'm stating the obvious, but if this were true it would be the absolute turning point for this administrations support.

[katinmn]

24. One would hope! God - what will it take to stop them?

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Absolute nonsense

I'm not sure why people keep selling this outright LIE when it is so easy to refute. Go to the icasualties.org FATALITY DETAILS page, then scroll down to the "Place of Death" search feature (http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx). You'll notice that dozens of deaths are counted at hospitals located in both Germany (Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and Hamburg University Hospital) and the US (Bethesda, Brooke, etc.).

Stop perpetuating this outright falsehood. It's embarrassing and unethical.

[madhat]

48. But are there names there?

How can anybody tell it's the truth if there aren't names?

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. Each person is named, with hometown

military unit and age and hometown. Is that sufficient identifying information?

Is this database new to you? Everybody I know and most of DU knows about it? Did you even LOOK at the link I provided, or are you just talking out of your ass, again.

[madhat]

57. Okay I looked....

But this site itself gives me pause. Look at the "about" page:


_____

About This Site
Where the Death Numbers Come From?


There is no magic to coming up with the number of coalition dead from our war on Iraq . Our sources are not secret. In fact, our primary source is the U.S. government. Any private individual or news organization who wishes to keep track of war dead gets their information from this same source.

Whenever a death occurs, CENTCOM (the United States Central Command in Tampa , FL ) issues a brief news release that gives the bare facts about the incident: when it happened, how it happened, and the soldier’s regiment, if known. The only information not provided at this point is the soldier’s name. These releases are published regularly on the Internet at:

http://www.centcom.mil/

After the soldier’s relatives are notified of the death, the U.S. Department of Defense then issues its own news release that gives the soldier’s name, age, unit and hometown. Again, these can be found on the Internet here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/

The trouble with this system of notification, however, is that the government provides no tally of those releases. Occasionally, the Department of Defense will release a total number of deaths to date. But it certainly doesn’t go out of its way to divulge those numbers. If you want to know the number of deaths at any given point, you have two choices: count up the news releases yourself … or find a non-governmental entity that is tracking the numbers and posting them somewhere.

This has not always been the case. We are told that during the Korean and Vietnam wars, the names and numbers of dead AND injured were readily available from the government. No longer.

Incidentally, it should be mentioned that the British do a much better job with their dead. All of their deaths are listed in one place at the British Ministry of Defense’s website at http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/casualties.htm .

Now, several private groups have indeed been counting up the death notices and providing lists of names and total numbers. But how accurate are their lists? And how easy are they to follow? Our research has determined that they are not always accurate, not always up to date, and often difficult to use.

One of the most popular lists on the Internet is at CNN:

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

It is an attractive site, with pictures of most of the soldiers who have died in the Iraq War. And a total number of deaths is given. But, that total number includes both British and American deaths. No attempt is made to provide a breakdown. Worse, the listing is done alphabetically. That’s fine if you are interested in one particular soldier, but makes it extremely difficult to follow recent deaths or determine what the current death rate is really like. And consider this. The site gives no backup for its data. How do you know that all deaths have been included? Only a thorough cross-check against DOD and British Ministry of Defense news releases will prove that they have indeed caught most of the deaths. Missing are two British casualties that appear on the British MOD website. However, has anyone counted the number of entries on the CNN list? We have … and we’ve consistently come up short of what they say their total number is. So where does their total number come from? We certainly can’t say.

Another popular site is the listing at the Army Times, here:

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-warkilled.php

Once again, it is a nicely presented site. Best of all, the deaths are listed by date which makes it easy to follow the latest deaths. But this site covers only U.S. deaths and not British ones. And they do not give a total number to date. Worse, a thorough cross-check of the data list against DOD news releases reveals the list to be short four U.S. soldiers who died in a helicopter crash on the first day of the invasion of Iraq . Moreover, they are very slow to update their list with the latest deaths.

Since May, we have scrutinized several other lists as well, and have turned up similar problems with all of them.

That is why this web site was developed … to provide information that has been scrupulously culled from government sources and cross-checked against other existing lists to ensure the most accurate and complete accounting of deaths that we can possibly assemble.

And then we take things a step further. We present the data in a way that will allow other researchers and interested individuals to easily analyze it for trends and benchmarks.

The raw death numbers are given on a daily basis in the Summary chart on the main page and are tabulated for three periods: (1) March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (the end of major combat)., (2) May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (the day of the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq)., and (3) June 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq) through today's date.

Clicking on “View Details” will bring up the actual data table with each soldier’s name and basic information … a table that can at present be filtered by date, by a soldier’s age, by a soldier’s rank, or by whether the soldier was with US or UK forces. In other words, with the use of the filters provided, it becomes easy to determine how many soldiers were 18 years of age, how many were sergeants, how many died on March 23rd (one of the heaviest days of fighting), how many were British, or how many died before June 1st.

Please be aware that this site is a work in progress. Improvements are always being made and many more are currently in the works. Needless to say, your comments and suggestions for improvements are always welcome.

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. This gives you pause why?

It is the most complete and detailed accounting of the Iraq War dead, and far surpasses any other half-assed research I've seen by conspiracy theorists, who always fall back on some "Why must divide by X and multiply by y" bullshit to get the so-called "real" numbers, rather than appealing to facts and data.

What's the problem with the site. It already, on its face, OUTRIGHT REFUTES the assertion that only those who die in Iraq or in combat are counted by the DoD as Iraq War Dead. That is a lie, and you should go ahead and admit that, since the site clearly shows DOZENS of deaths in German and US hospitals HAVE BEEN COUNTED. Can you admit at least that?

[madhat]

63. I start from this premise: I trust nothing about this W.H.

Let me say it again: I trust nothing about this Administration or the Defense Department.

I barely trust the statistics coming out of the Labor Dept. or any of the economic figures it puts out regularly, though I'm trying not to become a complete conspiracy theorist.

However, I trust nothing they say regarding the military, the expenditures, or the death count.

The site you keep referring to GETS ITS FIGURES FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

That fact alone smells.

[tx_dem41]

73. Fine...think it smells....

But its absolutely perfect to disprove your theory that 9000 have died. This list, from the Govt, says ~1650. This list is on the internet. It is widely known on the internet.Why has no one in the family and/or friends of these 7350 phantom dead (numbering 75,000-100,000 people, I would guess), looked at this GOVERNMENT list), not seen their friend and/or loved one and reported this to the media.

Some have had over two years to do this (I have referenced the list at least 5 times to look for people I knew), but not ONE family member or friend of your phantom-killed have ever done this. This must mean that at least 75,000-100,000 people are involved in this conspiracy. Mighty impressive.

[alcibiades_mystery]

103. Don't ask good questions

The true-believers will then start making veiled references to your participation in "that other board." :eyes:

Yes, it is completely implausible. Not one of 7,000 families (so, let's say 21,000 people, although this is surely a low-ball number) has decided to check the most well-known casualty count on the internet for their dead loved-one's name, and, having not found the name, not one - NOT ONE - has subsequently contacted the administrators of icasualties.org, or the news media or anyone else to inform them - ahem - "my SON was killed in Iraq and is not being listed among the confirmed killed!". NOT ONE! NOT FUCKING ONE!

That's what you'd have to believe to believe that the DoD is hiding 7000 dead. In other words, you'd have to be a certifiable lunatic. NOT FUCKING ONE.

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. Your original post started with the possibility

That troop deaths were not counted if they occurred en route to hospital in Germany or in those hospitals, or in stateside hospitals. That is clearly false, since I can provide the names, ages, units, and hometowns of dozens of troops who died stateside or in Germany and ARE on the list of Iraq war dead. So, your original hypothesis for the original post has proved false. It's not surprising that you'll fall back on the old "I trust nothing" out. One wonders where you'll then get ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. I'm satisfied to merely refute the OUTRAGEOUS and UNINFORMED LIE in the original post, which, admittedly, wasn't that difficult to refute.

[SouthernDem2004]

38. You do realize this is just a post from another site. Not a news story or

anything like that. No facts or research, just a post.

[madhat]

46. I know what it is: I posted it.

And I looked around to see where else it was available.
(Not getting into the question of what a "news story" is.)

But here's the thing: I go to Centcom.mil every day and look at the casualty list. I read the names in the paper. But there is no place where all the information is in one place: names and dates and place of death.

Nobody really knows what the count is. Is this "news"? No. Is it a "story"? Yes. Do we need a reporter to tell us to think about it? No.

[onenote]

54. its a bullshit story

The govt distinguishes between service personnel killed based on whehter the death was or was not the result of hostile fire. A soldier that dies weeks after being injured by hostile fire is considered to be KIA. There are numerous examples of DOD announcing the death of soldier "as a result of injuries sustained in combat" where the soldier died in Bethesda MD or Germany after being airlifted. In some instances, the death could occur weeks after the injury. Those deaths are reported as KIA as I understand it.

Too many are dying as it is. The idea that there are thousands of additional service personnel who have died but somehow no one has noticed is a crock.

onenote

[SouthernDem2004]

60. But an actual fact would be nice.

[tx_dem41]

74. Wonderful....

there's nothing to back your post up but your own quote. You need to work on that Conspiracy Theory 101 course.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

185. LOL!

God, I must have missed that! You mean this entired thread is based on someone quoting himself from another forum?

This is the power of the internet right here. Jesus, I need a drink!

[spunky]

111. THANK YOU! I was reading all these before I said this.

The OM posted two links, one to a message board posting (which contains ABSOLUTELY NO evidence supporting its claims) and the other to the Daily Kos, which is just refering to the same message board post.

Which means there is not one shred of evidence to back any of this up.

I distrust Bush and Co as much as the next person, but not enough to blindly believe everything I see on the internet.

Blogs and message boards are great, but just because you read something in one, doesn't make it true. Exercise a little critical reasoning and look for evidence before you believe something.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

184. You and I seem to be showing up in some of the same threads today.

What's going on? Is it the full moon? All of the crazies came out of the woodwork today.

[global1]

40. Can DU Act As Sort of A Clearing House of GI Deaths.....

or perhaps create a website where loved ones(family survivors) can submit the name of the GI and date of death. A database could be kept to catch duplications. There could be some verification with DOD, Pentagon, (whomever) records deaths to verify if the person is dead or alive.

I thought too that family see the death toll numbers but have no contact with anyone to verify if their loved one is counted or not. They just assume that their loved one is counted.

[Mass]

43. It is probable that the number is higher than the one given

for the reasons given by the article.

However, I do not know on what they base their 7000 number. What I have heard is that the number of people that live after serious injuries is very high, in fact, and a lot of people who would have died in previous wars are going to live with very serious disabilities and the VA is apparently not ready for that.

In addition, the number of wounded people is largely underevaluated, because they only count those people who are injured in combat , and not those who get sick or are injured in accidents.

[CWebster]

50. not the ones sick or injured in accidents

Wonder how many die in "accidents"?

[Mass]

52. Good question

but they are supposedly in the statistics - (some numbers I have seen say including suicide). But they all said "killed in Iraq", so the question is to know how many died after being rapatriated in Europe or in the States.

[EST]

53. I've been so wrapped up in the other horrors, I have not given this

much attention, lately. Given where the numbers were last November, yours look reasonable.

[GreenArrow]

62. the Soviets successfuly hid casualty figures in Afghanistan

for whatever that's worth. We may have done so in Vietnam as well, IIRC. The perception that one's army is invincible must always be maintained. Us hiding deaths now is quite thinkable; I certainly believe it is worse than we are told.

There's also the issue of non-citizen soldiers who hope to gain their citizenship by joining a service branch. I don't believe they are counted either.

[onenote]

67. wrong about non-citizens

If they aren't being counted, how did USA Today manage to run this story two years ago. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-08-noncitizen-usat_x.htm

Look...pretending that there are thousands of "hidden" dead US soldiers is (a) ridiculous and (b) minimizes the losses that have occurred. The fact is that 1600 plus is a large, unacceptable number. If we go off on some unsubstantiated and illogical claim that there are massive numbers of unaccounted for dead US soldiers, we are going to undermine our credibility. The govt has enough credibility problems as it is. Let's not make them look good by tossing around conspiracy claims that no one can/should/will take seriously.

onenote

[SouthernDem2004]

66. This is how goofy conspiracy theories get started...

Not one shread of evidence to support the claim made. The poster quotes himself which is rather misleading and links to post he claims to have made. Where are the facts?

[nashbridges]

70. There doesn't appear to be anything to back this up

My neighbor's son was killed on Iraqi election day by an IED (one of two KIA's that day) and he's listed.

My wife's brother's (follow along) army buddy died in a hospital here in the US after an RPG attack. He's listed.

That's two properly accounted for dead. One died in Iraq and one made it back here. Both are listed as KIA. I don't think either of their families care if they are on the casualty list, but I thought I would check.

[rndmprsn]

72. i wonder if anyone is counting the number of mercenaries and contractors?

anyone know...thanks.

[nashbridges]

76. Contractors are not counted in military deaths

They just aren't. It's not some grand conspiracy, the military doesn't track anyone but their own. Death reports of contractors are up to the individual companies employing them.

[rndmprsn]

79. thanks...still a valid Q

[nashbridges]

83. It IS a valid question

I suspect that American civilian deaths in Iraq would add significant numbers to the total dead.

[rndmprsn]

115. i'm just wondering how many americans have died...

becuase of the iraq operation, in iraq or died somewhere else, en route...military, mercenaries, contractors, civilian.

oh my...i bet we'd be aghast at the total number

[LuPeRcALiO]

120. That is the question. 10,000?

Just a guess, but a multiplier of 5-6x official military combat deaths seems reasonable.

[starmaker]

75. Heard about this in march

from a mom who's son died in iraq
she said only those who die on ground are counted
and the # is a lot higher
she spoke at Ft Bragg on the 2nd ann.
and asheville the next day
look for the truth to work it's way out

[onenote]

78. except its not true.

Service personnel who are injured in Iraq and who die from those injuries after they have been evacuated to military hospitals outside iraq (including both the US and Germany) are reported as KIA -- even if they die weeks later in fact.

YOur source may have said what she said, but that doesn't make it true.

onenote

[nashbridges]

81. based on this logic

Soldiers who die in a helicopter or plane crash are not counted.

It's easy to check on this, people! Go to:
http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

And look for:

Bordelon, Michael J.

Who, like everyone else in Iraq, died too young. He also died in Texas, and his record is written as such, even though he was fatally wounded in Iraq.

[RaulGroom]

88. Here he is

Michael Bordelon, died may 10th. Or is that your point? I'm confused.

[bvar22]

94. Cause of death for Bordelon, Michael is listed as:

Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack,

not an accident or non-combat related aircraft crash.

[nashbridges]

102. I wasn't clear

I was faulting the logic of the post I was responding to. He said "deaths on the ground" are the only ones counted.

The larger point is that the soldier in question was wounded in Iraq, died in the States, and was counted all the same.

[bvar22]

91. Also NOT counted:

Fatalities occurring from traffic accidents, non combat related homicides, suicides, death due to illness, disease, or training accidents.

[tx_dem41]

117. Au contraire....non-hostile deaths are included in the official count..

for example:

05/14/05 Gillican III, Charles C. Sergeant 35 U.S. Army National Guard 1st Battalion, 118th Field Artillery Reg., 48th Infantry Brig. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Camp Arifjan

Is anyone actually going to this link, that has been posted on this thread numerous times? Its only been up for 2+ years.

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

[Generator]

87. For what it's worth I heard something similiar

on my local cable access. The cause of death would certainly be war in Iraq. However, if they don't die in Iraq they don't get the full death benefit? I'm not sure on any of it.

But you can sure as shit bet that if there is ANY WAY to make the casualties look smaller to the American people that would be this slimy lying admin's number one priority and nothing else.

[katinmn]

85. This will be thoroughly investigated. Why anyone on this

board would want to discourage people from getting at the truth is beyond my comprehension.

THanks for posting it, Madhat.

[LuPeRcALiO]

95. not improbable

Is it true that suicides and deaths resulting from vehicle accidents are not counted as combat deaths?

If so, how many families who are informed that their relative had committed suicide would demand that s/he be properly counted?

[onenote]

130. vehicle accidents, suicides

are counted on the official list. The one exception: suicides only are counted if they occur in Iraq. If a soldier comes home and a year (or a day) later commits suicide, at home or in a military hospital, he/she doesn't get added to the list. Maybe that's the source of the mistaken impression that no one who dies outside of Iraq is included. BUt the facts are the facts. Deaths resulting from hostile or non-hostile injuries that occur in Iraq, are counted no matter where or when the injury causes death. Only suicides occurring outside Iraq are not counted. And if there were 5000+ of those, I think we'd have heard about it....

onenote

[sharonking21]

97. I have been tracking deaths

for three months now, down to names. In all of that time, I have never found a local news story about someone in our military dying who did not also appear eventually on the list. They often come out with local news stories about the deaths BEFORE the names are released by DOD. I know because I actively search for these. I think if that many more had been killed there would be a discrepancy in the local news stories at some time.

[bvar22]

107. That sounds like a Herculean task.

How do you manage to track all the local papers?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. That must be a full time job with a staff to help.

I am glad someone is doing this.

[bvar22]

104. The 2nd largest coalition force in Iraq are "mercenaries".

Between 20,000 - 30,000 independent contractors (mercenaries) are currently serving in the Iraq. This makes mercenary army the 2nd largest coalition force in Iraq. Mercenary KIA are not counted.

ALSO:
There are between 35,000 and 40,000 Legal immigrants serving in Iraq hoping to gain their citizenship. There are reported episodes of illegal aliens serving also, but there are no estimates of the number.
Are the deaths among the foreign troops being reported?

Signed by President Bush in November, the law grants automatic citizenship to any member of the U.S. Armed Forces who has served in active duty and is already a legal resident.

Prior to the law’s enactment, they would go through the regular naturalization process.

“It’s a lot easier now because all you have to do is serve one year in the military,” Ortiz said. “After that, they have the same rights that a U.S. citizen has.”

Cathy Travis, Ortiz’s spokeswoman, said 35,000 to 40,000 legal residents serve in the U.S. military.

“We don’t have any problems with that or the expediency to gr! ant it,” said Jack Martin, a spokesman for FAIR. “We do have concerns granting U.S. citizenship simply because they served in Iraq or any other area of conflict.

Martin said soldiers applying for citizenship should still be required to know about the basics of U.S. government and English.

Martin said they also have concerns that there are foreign nationals serving in the military that go unchecked by the government.

“I heard of a fellow who served in Iraq and he was an illegal alien,” Martin said. “Obviously, the military didn’t bother to check.”

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles3/soldier_using_military_experienc.htm

I wonder if the death of a foreign national would be diligently recorded and reported?

[David Zephyr]

113. Kick!

Actually, the article merits Late Breaking News status in my opinion.

It is breaking news.

[rocktivity]

123. Well, it's no secret that the 1700 we hear about were killed IN action

They don't count the people who die later on. But if they're off THAT much, that's really damning.

:headbang:
rocknation

[nashbridges]

126. They do count the people who die later on

Any personnel who die as a result of injuries sustained in battle are counted as KIA.

Is ANYONE in this thread going to icasualties.org?

[tx_dem41]

128. Sigh...apparently not, Nash.

I think it ruins the fantasies.

[nashbridges]

133. I think it ruins the fantasies - No kidding

What is baffling to me is that it's easy to figure out that there isn't any merit to these claims, or at the very least most of the assumptions are simply wrong.

Don't we have enough to worry about without wasting energy on theories we can't prove? The filibuster is under attack and we've got 130+ posts that started with a statement that is, at its very best, demonstrably false. Take some time and get a hold of your senators and prevent the elimination of one of our best protections against complete tyranny in congress.

[tx_dem41]

127. Well, I guess it is a secret....from my post #119

For example (from last week in fact)

05/10/05 Bordelon, Michael J. 1st Sergeant 37 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 24th Infantry Reg., 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Morgan City Louisiana

Mr. Bordelon sadly died at Brooke Army Med Center (in San Antonio, I believe), from injuries suffered in an IED attack.

Unless the IED attack occurred in San Antonio, TX, then it appears they do count those that died "later on".

And, before you answer back that they don't count vehicular accidents...guess again....they count those to.

[onenote]

131. that's not true no matter how many times its repeated

It doesn't matter if you die there or in Bethesda or Germany or wherever...personnel injured in Iraq are reported as part of the 1600+ that have died.

onenote

[donheld]

124. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Nothing that comes from "official sources" seems to contain a bit of truth.

[0007]

125. Who indeed knows the truth? Certainly junior and his crime

family doesn't. I would say that this administration would, and are doing everything possible to keep the truth and the real figures of dead American troops and mercenaries from the American public.

They paint a pretty picture of how everything is going smoothly in Iraq, while everyone on this planet know differently.

[VoiceOfFreedom]

129. unrealllllllllllllll .. ... ..............

No kiddin' dude!!!!!!!!! Why do you think we have so few allies left?????????????????(apart from rumsfeld opening his mouth

[LuPeRcALiO]

132. statistics don't lie, but statisticians do

Given the efforts of the Bush administration to restrict and distort any and every kind of information about Iraq, it is not unreasonable to assume that the official mortality figures are grossly inaccurate.

[onenote]

135. actually it is unreasonable

unless you assume that thousands of military personnel have died and no one has noticed that their deaths have gone unreported. They aren't buried anywhere, they aren't missed by anyone, including their comrades at arms. They just disappear. Yep. That's perfectly reasonable.

I don't trust this administration either, but if they say its 10 pm and your clocks say its 10 pm, are you going to go reset your clocks because nothing the govt says can be the truth?

onenote

[smoogatz]

134. I've seen similar theorizing before

in particular from a Russian news source a year or so ago that claimed only U.S. citizens were being counted. I'll believe it when I see proof; right now it's all just conjecture. And frankly, I think 1700 dead Americans and 100,000 dead Iraqis for a pack of lies is already pretty damning for Bushco.

[onenote]

137. non-citizens are counted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1791170&mesg_id=1791440

onenote

[smoogatz]

190. My point exactly.

Yet at the time we were all convinced that the US dead count was drastically understated. It may be, but I've yet to see any convincing evidence.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

138. Well, some guy on an internet forum said it.

It must be true!

[LuPeRcALiO]

141. he said "there is reason to think so"

He didn't say "It must be true," only that there are reasons to think that it might be, and he's right, there are. For one thing, the press has no way to verify that the statistics are accurate.

[onenote]

142. give me one reason to think its true

I havent seen one yet. All I've seen is a bunch of claims that are readily knocked down. And the fact that Bushco has lied about other things doesn't count as a "reason" to think that there are 5000 or so "hidden" dead servicemen/women.

onenote

[LuPeRcALiO]

144. I thought I did

The press has no way to independently verify these statistics, or anything else about the war. The only source of mortality statistics is the Pentagon, and they are not exactly famous for their accurate accounting.

[onenote]

161. local papers cover funerals every freakin' day

are these people not being buried? Where are the phantom-dead. You haven't given a reason at all. You don't believe the govt. But if they were able to and as good at hiding the numbers of dead soldiers, why did they let the last couple of weeks get so bad. There's been a big uptick in the number dying. Why let that happen?

onenote

[tx_dem41]

143. But the thousands of friends, relatives, and associates of these..

..phantom-dead do have a way of verifying that the statistics are accurate (or inaccurate). They're loved one/friend/associate is gone, and isn't reported on the official list. So, you want me to believe that thousands of people have never noticed that their now-dead friend/relative/associate are not on the list? Some for over two years? Yeah, right.

[LuPeRcALiO]

145. What if the cause of death is "under investigation,"

and the family is asked to not discuss it with the press until the investigation is complete?

How many military families would disobey that kind of order? Especially with death benefits hanging in the balance?

[tx_dem41]

146. Many would. If you haven't noticed many brave military families have been

..speaking out about military policy for the last two years. Also, would military families believe this explanation after two+ years? Having known many military families, I guess I give them more credit and respect than you do for not being mindless drones.

And, I'm not a member of a military family. I have had 5 friends/asociates die in Iraq. Guess what, if their family had not told me, I noticed they were gone. And, I checked the list (they were all on it).

You are asking people to believe that thousands of people are willingly or passively or mindlessly involved in this conspiracy. I'm not buying it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

162. I hope you're right.

And I hope these statitistics turn out to be too HIGH by a factor of ten, I really do.

But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they're too low by the same factor.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

160. Show me one single instance...

...of a parent of someone who's not officially on the list, coming forward to say that her son or daughter wasn't counted. One instance. That is all I ask.

[LuPeRcALiO]

166. Ask me that question in two years.

Our free press isn't so free any more, in case you hadn't noticed. Anyway a lot of families have more to worry about than whether their relative appears on a list, like whether they're going to eat and pay rent.

[tx_dem41]

167. I've had five friends or associates die in Iraq.

I checked the list. All it takes is one of the thousands of families/friends/associates of these phantom-dead to do the same over a two year period.

Also, these families care very much about having a military funeral. Where are these phantom-dead being buried?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

168. So you're admitting you have no proof.

Thanks, I'll be on my way now.

[LuPeRcALiO]

169. I have "reason to think so," which is what the PM asks about..

Sorry to disappoint you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

170. Reason based on no evidence...

We have a word for that.

[onenote]

171. actually its "reason against all evidence"

I'm not sure what the word for that is, but can't be good.

onenote

[LuPeRcALiO]

173. We were supposed to believe that Saddam had WMD based on US intelligence.

Sorry, I don't put much stock in Pentagon statistics.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

174. In that case there was ample, available evidence to the contrary

From many sources. From many people who were informed on the subject.

This is not that. You can't make it that by calling it that. You need to provide some sort of reason or evidence or at least a plausible theory. Some thread on a forum doesn't cut it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

177. Same war, same sources, same motive, means, and opportunity.

Same crime.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

179. Show evidence now.

Or stop making accusations. This gets tiring.

[onenote]

180. same war. different sources. different motive, means and opportunity

One out of five. Not so good. Throw in the "same crime" and its one out of six.

onenote

[tx_dem41]

182. No, not the same sources....

...have you been following along? There are thousands of potential sources to these phantom-deaths. Families, friends, and associates. So far, not one has materialized.

[onenote]

175. i know the word for this one: non-sequitur

I believe the administration lied about WMD. I believe the administration lies about lots of things. Does that mean they lie about everything? No. There was a reason to doubt what they were saying about WMD -- the word of independent inspectors among other things. But other than the fact that they've lied before, there is no evidence that they are hiding 1000s of US war dead. None. I'm not prepared to make the fact that the administration lied about WMD a "reason" for disbelieving anything else that they say when the evidence doesn't offer a shred of support for the claim that they're lying. I filed my taxes on April 15 which is the day the govt told me that they were due. They sent me a refund instead of a letter saying that I filed a month late. So they weren't lying about the due date. But based on your logic, I should have believed they were lying.

onenote

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

178. "But based on your logic, I should have believed they were lying."

Logic doesn't enter into it. It's emotion masquerading as logic, and it's what is killing the democratic party.

[onenote]

181. hopefully that response was directed somewhere else

You and I are on the same page saying the same thing.

onenote

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

183. Sorry about that.

I was quoting your post in the subject line of my post, and I realize that might not have been clear. I agree with your post.

[tx_dem41]

176. But there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.

There seems to be no contrary evidence to support this phantom-dead theory.

[Toby109]

139. Lessons learned from Vietnam

Our government will not, under any circumstances, reveal the true extent of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Nor will they admit the costs in taxpayer dollars. These are not stupid people when it comes to PR.

[libertypirate]

152. Yes hence the letters PR Perception Management

they are not stupid just plain evil.

[tx_dem41]

157. Wouldn't Perception Management be "PM"?

:)

[Q]

155. They did the same thing in Vietnam...

...playing with the numbers by not putting them all together at the same time. Sure, they notified the families...but numbers of dead and wounded were manipulated or delayed to make it look better than it was at any given time.

[tx_dem41]

164. There's only one problem with your theory....

the Internet wasn't around during the Vietnam War. It's a powerful and empowering tool.

[parasim]

172. Here's a conspiracy theory for ya...

That anonymous post on Kos making that outrageous claim? Planted.

Planted to sow the seed of doubt in the minds of blogreaders. So, when real verifiable data comes out that the official body count is say, 500 or maybe even 1000 less than it actually is, nobody will believe it. They'll just go, "Oh, you can't rely on bloggers, remember when somebody on Kos said the count was really 9000?"

Has the Daily Kos has been Newsweek'd?

[understandinglife]

186. The source of the info in the dKOS "9000 dead" OP was TBRNews....

.... as cited in an SFTT Forum post by "ghoster, SFTT Lieutenant."

"Note the little "TBR News" citation in the item from the SFTT board (where the claims originated) and this sentence in the first paragraph (that is absent from the OP that started this DU thread). Here's how the SFTT OP begins:

"Of course, it could be BS I got this from TBR news, anyone know anything about them?":

http://www.sftt.us/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4006

Always good to be especially cautious of folk citing that source, and if it had been present in the OP, I think it would have alerted many here.

And, here's a new post a dKos that addresses matters raised by others in this DU thread:

Iraq War Dead
by DaveOinSF


Wed May 18th, 2005 at 11:12:56 PDT

"Pay no attention to the recommended diary which purports that the military is not counting those who die in Germany or in the US of injuries sustained in Iraq as among the official Iraq War Dead."

more at the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/18/141256/609

(edit for clarification)

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Historic NY]

194. My niece just got home from a MAJOR HOSPITAL in Germany.....

yes, they had wounded but not many deaths. If you just step back and look again at those numbers it would be a staggering amount that couldn't be covered up. Why because most of the staffs in Germany were replaced with Reserves, while the combat medical teams went to theater. There are too many mouths that would have to be kept closed. There are also only a few major trauma level American Military Hospitals in Germany. These would have had to deal with an enormous causality rate. You can't hide bodies, people are always looking even if they tried to suppress the numbers. It would smack something of a conspiracy and that isn't happening. Perhaps someone misinterpreted the numbers. The hospitals there generally treat and stabilize for transport to the states. There have been some soldiers with major injuries that have been held for sometime prior to transport, critical care. So even if it were so these hospitals would have been swamped beyond their means, the article just doesn't make sense in that regard. My niece worked the emergency room for the past 16 months.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2471

[Moderator]

195. Locking, inflammatory and citing a questionable source.

Thank you for your understanding.