Coalition records its 1,000th death in Iraq

[RetroLounge]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. soldier has died of wounds he suffered in fighting in Baghdad late Thursday, a U.S. military spokesman said.

The death brings coalition deaths -- both hostile and non-hostile -- since the start of the war to 1,000. U.S. military deaths now total 880, with 657 of them by hostile fire.

The soldier's name was withheld pending notification of next of kin, AP reported.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/09/iraq.main/index.html

Sad Milestone indeed...

RL

[Atman]

1. Which means it is actually several times that

Remember, beginning with BushCo's little Iraq adventure, the military stopped counting a soldier as KIA unless he was actually pronounced so on the spot where he fell, by the company medic. If the guy gets his head blown off but survives long enough to get airlifted out, even if it is one minute later, he is not counted as KIA.

Seriously.

BushCo knows how to manipulate numbers like no one else can. After all..he's running America like a business!

[demgurl]

2. I am not doubting Bushco would manipulate the numbers......

But I always feel the need to research everything. Can you tell me where you found out when they are pronounced KIA, please? I don't care if it is right or left wing, but I always research everything, like this, so I can quote sources to those who think the chimp is God. Thanks!

[Atman]

3. I'll do my best...

This was first reported a long time ago, as the invasion was in its early days. It's a tough thing to Google...the search teminology to find the right results in tricky, but here's a couple to start...

Many Deaths Left Out of Iraq Story

This does not mention the battlefield reporting I indicated. I have some more digging...it may be one of my thousand bookmarks, though I think I know where I can post which will turn up an answer!

And don't apologize for questioning me...that is what us Americans are supposed to do, remember? ASK QUESTIONS!

[Mr. Brown of MD]

4. The iCasualties (formerly Lunaville) database reveals all

You can find that at http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

It's the site that a number of DUers use to get the information on casualties. Basically, they collate everything that comes from the various news reports, and also the DoD (and its counterparts in other countries) and keep a database that includes the name, age, rank, branch, unit, hometown and state of record, cause of death, and place of death, of each soldier that dies in Iraq.

There are a number of people on DU, who I can only presume have never delved too deeply into that site, who like to try to argue that the coalition casualties are deflated because they don't count any people who do not die on the battlefield. The casualties site shows this argument to be false every time.

On only the 2nd of this month there was a death reported from Walter Reed Medical Center, a reservist from Wisconsin who was wounded about ten days prior. From time to time there are others that are clearly non-Iraq hospitals.

So again, it can't be said that they never count people who die of their wounds later. People can still try and argue that these numbers are hidden in some way, although as skeptical as I am of the official reports, I still don't see how they could hide people being dead for very long. If there were scores of extra casualties, families would know when the soldiers never came home.

A thousand fatalities is quite enough as it is. That should be the prime argument, not any speculation about possible greater numbers, which makes it seem like a thousand is acceptable.

-CollegeDude
With another rebuttal on this same issue

[markses]

5. Bullshit

You are even contradicted by the very story you are responding to! The story notes that a soldier died of wounds after the incident. Moreover, www.icasualties.org/oif/ has the same number of total coalition dead as this report, and often includes those who die after the fact, even out of the country. If you page down to #983 on this page: http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx, you'll see that staff sargeant Stephen Martin of the 330th Military Police Detachment died in Walter Reed Medical Center of wounds received previously during a car bombing in Iraq. Does this comport with your unsubstantiated theory? No. And yet icasualties.org (formerly lunaville, which is cited as ACCURATE in the very fair.org report you linked above!) has total coalition deaths at 1,000, just like your report. So what gives? Do you have any evidence for your claim that the reported deaths of 1000 coalition members is a low-ball figure? I trust icasualties.org (as does your own source!), and they say no such thing. So where are you getting it. Or is your claim only paranoid bullshit?

[Atman]

6. Well, I assume you are talking to me

Paranoid bullshit?

I though we were all on the same team. That does not mean I am looking for a rubber stamp. Honestly, I thought a lot more people had seen the same report I had, several months ago. I didn't make this shit up, it is just part of the vast pool of "stuff" that I've stored since researching this whole debacle. I recall reading a very real print piece regarding this method of casualty reporting, and I've yet to locate the original (I have not even looked since my last post, so don't get the impression it is taking forever because I can't find it).

I'll either find the report, or retract. Thanks for the examples you pointed out. Until I find the original story I was looking for, I'll stick by what I know I read, duly noting the contrary evidence you posted. It's called research.

It is your attitude that is bullshit.

[markses]

7. I'm not on your team

You spread falsehoods and vague beliefs without evidence, and generally confuse people. My attitude is the correct attitude towards people who make frivolous and ridiculous claims about so serious a matter.

[RetroLounge]

8. kick

:kick:

RL

[Atman]

9. Cheney you, markses

"You spread falsehoods and vague beliefs without evidence, and generally confuse people. My attitude is the correct attitude towards people who make frivolous and ridiculous claims about so serious a matter."

Speaking of things meant to confuse people...is this supposed to be a blanket statement regarding me in general, and all my posts? Who the hell are you, and where the hell do you get off making such a statement? If I made a post with a factual error in it, I will certainly correct it. I don't necessarily believe that is the case. But to assert that one inaccurate post warrants your labeling me as some sort of liar is just plain wrong and demonstrates to me that you have some serious problems.

There were lots of ways to point out a post you believe to be in error...the other posters in the thread managed to do it without being a dick. You should try it sometimes.

[markses]

14. Whatever

You made the claim, you live with the response. You can't go around saying things like that and not expect people to get angry. They should get angry. You make an unsubstantiated claim on so serious a matter, you get the push back. If that makes me a dick, fine. I'd rather be a dick who is pissed off at bullshit than an upstanding person who throws out bullshit so lightly. Deal.

[sandnsea]

12. They use the military

Here's the link to their methodology. If troops are coming home and dying and the military isn't counting them, they most likely won't be on Lunaville. If people die from something that the military decides isn't directly combat related, they may well not be released as a combat death. Perhaps that's okay in some circumstances. But even if somebody died from something simple like appendicitis, is it possible the person would have gotten medical attention quicker if they weren't in a war zone? Or if they died from what is decided is an unrelated complication, would they have died if they weren't physically weakened from being in a war zone? Those are the unknowns and I haven't seen where these kinds of things are reported or even investigated.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx

[markses]

13. And yet

Those kinds of things have never been counted in any war as a war-related death. Do the numbers of WWI dead include all the soldiers that died of influenza in Europe or in transfer back during demobilization? No. The initial premise is that the Pentagon is hiding the number of dead. I disagree. It is not enough to say that they don't count people that they never would have counted as war-related deaths and never have been counted as war related deaths. While that may be "hiding," it is more about the limited methodology of all war related accounting.

[meisje]

15. Are you sitting on a tack?

just wondering

[markses]

17. Wonder away

I'll keep sitting til I hear a point.

[demgurl]

10. Thanks to all for your posts and your links.

I know it is America and we need to ask questions, but I like to always be extra nice about it. There are so many pubes that come over that try to bait and cause problems. I always like the folks to know I am friendly, I am a dem, and I do want a truthful answer to the information I request. I try to never slam anyone because I do not like to be slammed myself. Sorry if I stirred any trouble and thanks for your time.

[Atman]

11. Demgurl, I'm sorry, too

and I'm glad you asked the question. I don't believe I have any record or reputation of posting bullshit. I go out of my way to make sure I have a source before I make claims. I have read the KIA claim in several places, for so long now that I've forgotten where I first read it. I e-mailed a buddy who archives everything and thought he might have a link, but haven't heard back. I stopped looking through all the bookmarks I have on the subject, because I really didn't give a rat's ass anymore what some guy I've never met and who doesn't know me thinks of what I write. If I made a mistake, I don't think I am the first person on these boards to do so. Markses just has a bad attitude that seems better suited to the other party. Thanks, at least, for starting the dialogue, as they say! I'll let you know if and when I find my link...until then, you and everyone else on the board has every right to be suspect of the claim I made. But Markses' response was just unwarranted.

[Atman]

16. Here is the source. I stand by my post.

Markses, while I am sure you'll discount this article too, it is the one I read back in November, and what I was recalling when I made that statement. You can disagree with the writer and his sources, and if they are wrong, than I quoted wrong information. That does not mean I made it up.

Again, Cheney you. Get off the tack.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/11/03/hsorensen.DTL

[markses]

18. Since I've already demonstrated to you, with real evidence

And not the musings of this poor researcher masquerading as a columnist, that we do, in fact, have information on those wounded who died even months afterwards, and that those deaths are included in the icasualties.org numbers, which match exactly the numbers presented in the article that you poo-poo'd as being lowballed and deceptive, your entire argument just evaporated in your very own source. How could you stand by your initial post? Your own source bases his assertion on the contention that no wounded who died later are accounted for. I showed you an example from this very week in which that happened. I could go through the icasualties database and show you more examples, but I don't think it will help. And yet you'll stand by your STILL unsubstantiated assertion that the 1000 killed number is lowballed. Several conclusions could be drawn from your obtuse clinging to this unsubstantiated assertion: You either don't know how to read, don't know how to reason, or don't know how to count. Or a combination. I love the "Cheney you," btw, as a cowardly little attempt to bypass the rules on personal attacks. But I suppose that is the default response for people with no real argument. At the end of the day, you continue your ridiculous deception of people. It's disgusting.

[Aidoneus]

20. oh, just say it..

"FUCK YOU MARKSES"--there, was that so tough? It's easier than admitting that he's right or proving wrong, I guess.

If you were making a point of unknown wounded, that's another matter. The number there is in the thousands (admitted), or tens of thousands (reasonable speculation). Events with wounded are only admitted when there is a death, and many resistance attacks where there are only injuries and not fatalities often do not see the light of day except in the most detailed regular resistance reports. Strangely enough, I see more official "accident" reports with just wounded and not a fatality involved.

On the other hand, it would be hard for the occupation officials to lie about the dead; too many eyes are watching, so it keeps the spokesbots on their best (ahem) behavior on such matters.

[Kilroy003]

19. A very sad milestone

Happened way too fast if you ask me. I actually remember wondering during F911 when we would hit that number, not that it makes a shit of a difference to the families of the previous 999.

It's even worse that 1000 brave young men and women are dead and all folks around here can do is pick apart others posts and say "Cheney you" to each other. Sad, sad, sad...

Edited for fairness, and now, spelling.

[Atman]

21. Not the case at all

Every poster here, save one, managed to be civil about this. I posted the source where I read what I posted. It is from last November. It the source is wrong, again, the all I did was get some bad info myself. Fucking SORRY. I don't know why markses got this holier than thou attitude...we are NOT fighting amonst ourselves, all I did was post what was asked by the first response...MY FUCKING SOURCE. I am so goddamn sorry someone has a disagreement with it, BUT I ONLY RELAYED WHAT I READ IN AN A NEWSPAPER WE ALL QUOTE ON THIS BOARD REGULARLY. Markses actually had NOTHING to add except the name calling.

I'm done. I did what I said I'd do, what I was asked to do...post my source. Sorry if you don't like it. I didn't write it.

And if you search my posts -- theres a hell of a lot of them -- you'll find that this is probably the first where I've resorted to this kind of crap. Because it is the first thread I was involved in in which a poster acted like such a tool toward me. Have a good weekend.

[markses]

22. More nonsense and poor argument

Your post #1 is not attributed to a source. It is an unattributed claim, as any person reading it can tell. That you decided to backpedal on your bullshit later is no concern of mine. I called bullshit when I saw it, then you got all sniffy and had your precious feelings hurt. Too bad. You're the one posting bullshit rumors, then carrying on like a five-year old. Too bad you got called on it.

[scarface2004]

23. yeehaw!!!

now i can pop the cork on the champagne i ve had on ice just for this moment!!!! let s go for 5,000 next!!!!!!!!!!!!