9000 Dead GIs In Iraq?

[doodadem]

Can this be possible???
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/246435.shtml

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.

[babylonsister]

1. Yes, I'm sure it can be true. And why

isn't this being addressed in the news?:mad:

[tx_dem41]

2. This has been debated over the last two weeks...

ad nauseum on this site.

If you look at this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

you will see that the initial premise that soldiers who died in German hospitals is false since you will find 24 soldiers listed who died in Germany. For example, the most recent:

05/22/05 Seesan, Aaron N. 1st Lieutenant 25 U.S. Army 73rd Engineer Company, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

Also, consider the figure of 6,210 phantom-dead. How many family members, friends, and associates would these men and women have? Conservatively, 50,000..realistically 100,000+. How come not ONE single person has reported that their loved one, friend, or associate has NOT been listed. Its been 2+ years, and so far NO ONE has reported this.

[Protagoras]

5. hmmmm

I seem to remember a couple reports last year indicating that the Pentagon was not reporting deaths occurring out of theater. Perhaps that has changed. What I think is clear is that we're grossly underreporting the cost of this war in terms of money and life.

Who do we believe about casualties? Hard to say...I don't think I buy the DOD numbers...but I'm not quite ready to unquestioningly believe Lancet either...

But the truth is definately somewhere in between the two...and no matter how you add em up...the death and suffering is WAY WAY WAY too much. Especially when it's all based on lies.

Here is a link talking about a 60 minutes story from Nov 04 about undercounting of casualties
http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/extrapages/pageTrueCasualties.htm

I'm sure a bit of googling can turn up more stuff to stir the pot.

[Just Me]

6. PNAC has been out there for 7 years. How come it isn't a HH name?

:shrug:

We are constantly having to chase the truth because there are those who want it hidden from public view. It's no surprise to me that, under the circumstances, EVERYTHING is being questioned.

[tx_dem41]

9. Question all you want....

while you're questioning, question yourself why not ONE single person has stepped up to report one of these 6000+ phantom-dead in the last 2 years. No where, not in the MSM, not in the independent media, not on liberal blogs, or anywhere else in cyberspace.

[Protagoras]

20. Just to calrify...is your issue with the specific number of 6K

phantom dead....or are you claiming that we aren't underreporting the dead and injured?

If you're quibbling with the exact number, then I'm with you since I think most of these things are "rough estimates" given the lack of concrete info we're given. I'd even say they could be deliberately as over exaggerated as I believe the government Underreports...lots of politics on both sides. I'd assume we'd hear about a full 6000 as well..but I'm also sure that we don't hear about all of em (call it natural cynicism)

Claiming that the numbers we are getting from the government are "solid" and that questions about this or conflicting reports haven't been all over...that would seem to be worth of a bit more googling.

Here's the site linked in the 60 Minutes report...haven't read it all but looks like they do try and research the matter in a professional way.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_notes.htm

[tx_dem41]

21. I am not quibbling about number injured.....

....that can be an inexact science...and I COULD believe that a very small number (<10) of deaths have been unreported (although that would be due to misadministration not conspiracy since there really would be nothing to gain). I AM "quibbling" about larger numbers, yes.

[Protagoras]

23. apologize for the use of that word

didn't mean to sound smarmy with the word "quibble". Just wanted to clarify what the disagreement was.

I am probably too skeptical to believe our government has only accidentally underreported 10 or so deaths...but I'd agree that 6000 seems like an unlikely large number.

But I've found that whenever I think the most negative about Bushco...I'm often not far wrong.

Still digesting that global research article.

[tx_dem41]

25. Again, and I don't mean it as an insult...

...I'm not trusting *co either. I am trusting my own rational thought process.

[merh]

8. Now see, I don't believe anything this admin says.

They lie all the time and it would not surprise me if they are under reporting the numbers.

Your argument about "Also, consider the figure of 6,210 phantom-dead. How many family members, friends, and associates would these men and women have?? doesn't hold water. Everyone that is a victim considers themselves 1 of 1683, they don't sit down to compare and they don't have reunions. There are also those that have no family to complain for them or their families are in other countries and cannot complain.

Bottom line, I see it as a possibility, given there were no WMD's and Saddam was no threat to our nation's security. :hi:

[tx_dem41]

12. "Your" military is truly amazing....

they have been able to pick out 6,210 phantom-dead that have NO family, friends or associates (how DOES one not have associates....for example, they're in the MILITARY), within hours after their deaths. AND, they've been 100% accurate for 2 years running.

"YOUR" military is amazing. Or, at least you think so.

[merh]

16. Just saying, I don't believe this admin and your logic

is yours. Others think differently from you. That's life.

I am saying the possibilities are there and your absolutes may not be absolutes. :crazy:

[tx_dem41]

17. I don't believe this admin either....

I do believe my own rational thought process though.

[merh]

28. Good for you, so glad you trust your rational thought process

that is based upon the information provided by an administration that lies.

Like I said, some folks have a different take on things and their thought process is just as rational. That's life, especially life under the controls of the BFEE, don't know what information to trust, what stories to believe. Can never be sure of anything. :shrug:

Have a great day! :hi:

[tx_dem41]

32. Its amazing that you know so much about me....

for example, you know that my thought process is "based upon the information provided by an administration that lies".

Guess what? You're wrong.

[merh]

33. Excuse me, but what information are you relying on?

And who the heck do you think is the source of the information?

[tx_dem41]

35. Indy media, blogs, international media on "both" sides of the war...

...and friends and associates over there. Oh, and my brain.

[merh]

41. And the information released by the gov.

:hi:

[tx_dem41]

44. Feel free to worship at *co's altar...

He is ALL-powerful and ALL-knowing. Revel in his abilities.

I'm not going to.

[merh]

49. You mistaken my doubts for worship, my use of what "I know" for

my "imagination". It is you that worship at their altar, you believe what you are told and don't question it. How ironic you blame me for your own failings.

Odd, when confronted with different rational, some folks don't want to consider other possibilities, they just want to make personal attacks. :hi:

Peace!

[tx_dem41]

53. As long as the rationale is based on rational thought...

...(isn't it supposed to by the common base of the words?), I agree. But, its a key distinction that we obviously will never agree upon.

As for worshipping at an altar, I am a Humanist. If anything, I "worship" at the altar of my own thought process which includes my ability to analyze all incoming data and discern what is true and what is false.

[merh]

57. Your thought process, based upon the information

"released" by our government ("incoming data"), could be flawed as the administration, the entity responsible for releasing that data, has been known to tell lies, blur the truth, create and doctor the facts.

If you don't accept the possibility that you are relying on BAD information and your conclusions may be wrong, then you worship at more that the altar of your own thought process.

Hope you have a lovely day! :hi:

[tx_dem41]

58. It could be flawed, I admit....

....as could yours.

[merh]

59. See, I have admitted that throughout my posts.

I have admitted that I don't know and that there are possibilities beyond what has been "accepted" as the facts. If you go back and read my first post, I refer to possibilities, never saying for certain one way or the other.

Wanting a fight for the sake of a fight can get in the way of understanding the message in the post.

:hi:

[doodadem]

22. This makes sense to me

"Your argument about "Also, consider the figure of 6,210 phantom-dead. How many family members, friends, and associates would these men and women have?? doesn't hold water. Everyone that is a victim considers themselves 1 of 1683, they don't sit down to compare and they don't have reunions. There are also those that have no family to complain for them or their families are in other countries and cannot complain." Yeah, I can buy that. Especially considering the types of recruits they are pulling in now.

As for the "sick of hearing" this couple, then go to another thread somewhere. To some of us who may have missed the original thread, it's news, and I posted it here to hopefully gain some further info. I think we all agree that there's something fishy going on with these figures.

[tx_dem41]

30. I'm not sick of hearing it...

I'm sick of people not using a rational thought process. For example, how does a person (ESPECIALLY in the military) have no friends OR associates? How does one disappear off the face of the earth and no one notice? And, how do 6,210 people disappear off the face of the earth and no one notice?

And, if we assume that such people exist, how does the military know they have no friends and associates and how have they been 100% accurate in that knowledge?

Too many people here worship at the "Administration is all powerful" altar. Me? I know they're not. In fact, I know they're incompetent in most things. They've proved it time and time again. How come they haven't proven it to you?

[Dhalgren]

50. This isn't really all that difficult to run to ground (or shouldn't be).

The military must keep records of deaths for active duty service personnel. For instance, where could we find out the number of deaths reported for active duty personnel at Walter Reed over the past year? How about the same stat for Army hospitals in Germany? Those numbers aught to be available. If the total number is in the thousands, then I'd say something is being hidden.

As far as how easy or difficult it would be to hide or alter the reported number of deaths related to action in war. That wouldn't be difficult at all with the kind of secrecy and media control that this administration has. I find it hard to believe there isn't more doubt than there is - not that anyone would be suspect of the administration's numbers...

[Just Me]

54. These people are experts at "fudging" numbers.

Hell, they'd be willing to order that those who die from blood loss rather than the actual bullet will be classified as something other than KIA. They've done shit like that their whole careers and are polished at misrepresentation.

Personally, I feel completely justified in ALWAYS questioning their "numbers" ALWAYS assuming that the neoCONs are lying.

[tx_dem41]

55. And I find it hard to believe that most seem to not be thinking...

..rationally. Please explain how "secrecy and media control" would be used to cover up the deaths of 6,210 people. How would Bush control over 100,000 widely-ranging people that know of these phantom-dead. You might think your all-powerful Admin is capable of it. I think they're incompetent.

[merh]

31. The only thing I know for certain is that this administration lies.

Outside of that, I haven't a clue. :hi:

[bpilgrim]

61. "ad nauseum on this site" - that's why we're popular

and probably why you're here, eh?

BTW: you sound very certain in your speculation :hi:

peace

[Midwest_Doc]

3. Also NOT Being Reported ...

The thousands of US combatants suffering permanent debilitating injuries - such as major brain injuries. Why all of the secrecy at military hospitals?

[Selatius]

4. The first casualty in war is the truth

icasualties.org would report these as inflated numbers or false readings.

Regardless, I hope to see the report published so that the people can study it and find holes, if there are any. We will know the truth in the end, God willing.

[erpowers]

10. Book Title

You know the title of your post is the title of a book about war journalism. Though I can believe this I have a question. How could this go unreported with the parents getting the remains of their children. It seems like these parents would speak out.

[Selatius]

29. I remember hearing about how the USSR did things in the Afghan War

When they got bogged down in the bloody war in Afghanistan, they simply didn't report the casaulties, and the news media wasn't open to ordinary parents asking why their sons had died. The only avenue was by word-of-mouth and rumors. That was really the only thing left to ordinary people. One number I heard was 15,000 dead Russian soldiers over the course of their war. (About 1,500 dead per year x 10, which is not that far off our current numbers)

Of course, in the Soviet system, the news media was run by the state. In the US, it's run by the corporation.

[Igel]

7. The numbers on desertions treat desertion as a permanent,

irreversible state of existence, which a person can only do once. Once AWOL, always AWOL: you can never go back, never get caught, never repeat the act.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. This again? For God's sake.

It ain't true. Full stop.

[tx_dem41]

14. Sadly, a_m....

IT'S BACK! Rational analysis is a dying trait it appears. Too many like to worship at the "Bush is all-powerful" altar. Funny, why a bunch of DUers would think that way?

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. It's an incredibly stupid proposition

That defies all logic and experience.

I simply don't have the energy to demonstrate, yet again, how incredibly foolish this belief is, so I'll leave you to it.

[bpilgrim]

64. lol

your always so "incredibly" declarative in your insults :hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

62. you sound certain of your speculation

often

peace

[acmavm]

13. My opinion is that the fact that it is possible that the DOD and Rummy

are hiding the real casualty figures probably more than likely. How many? Who the hell knows. We haven't been told the truth about one thing in regard to this slaughter. Why would anyone think that we know the truth about the number of service men and women who've been killed for bush** and the oil companies?

[catmandu57]

24. That's the way I feel

I accept icasualties numbers with the knowledge that these are a bunch of lying bastards. I don't really believe the 6200+ number, but, I do believe they hide the true count whenever possible.
These "people" and their associates are masters of misdirection and manipulation, eventually we'll know the truth. I only hope that the ones responsible for this clusterfuck face rightous justice, and, that I'm around to see it.

[acmavm]

38. So do I, so do I. And when the truth is known, I sincerely hope that the

paybacks are just as horrific for the guilty as the injury they've inflicted on innocent people everywhere. (Because it's not just Iraq. Not by a long shot. They provide support to a number of governments that are corrupt and who torture and kill anyone and everyone their feel are a threat or show any sign of independent or intelligent thought. The BFEE has supported the most dangerous, corrupt, and bloodthirsty regimes mankind has ever seen. May their Karma match their deeds.)

[theboss]

15. So...parents are told...what?

Your son is....on assignment...in...um....Tibet....he'll be back in 2019.

This is insanely stupid.

[EFerrari]

26. Believing any number put out by the Pentagon

is insanely stupid.

[tx_dem41]

34. Who is believing numbers put out by the Pentagon?

We should analyze any number put out by the Pentagon, research other sources and then rationally reach a conclusion. I have.

[EFerrari]

37. Commendable.

In your estimation, do you have access to good enough data to reach a "conclusion"?

[tx_dem41]

40. To reach a conclusion?...

...yes. But, one should always be looking for new sources of information and analyze them too.

[EFerrari]

45. Agree. In the age of The New Reality, we have no choice. n/t

[theboss]

36. I don't trust the Pentagon

But I don't think it can make 7,000 bodies disappear with no one asking questions.

My dad would probably ask where I was at some point.

[EFerrari]

43. Sure, or he would believe you were among the counted, or

he might not speak English or he might not know you weren't counted because you died in Germany. Or, he might be in another country like Mexico or El Salvador.

There's just too little reliable information to know, isn't there, what the gap is between the offical line and the truth. Heck, look what they were able to pull off with the poor Tillman family and for how long.

[grumpy old fart]

19. PLEASE STOP THIS NOW. Quit making us look like a bunch of tin hatters.

This is such an obvious bunch of crap that just keeps floating to the surface every few weeks, it's just getting, well, embarassing.....

[EFerrari]

27. That's what the British told Golda Meir when she tried to tell

them about the death camps. "Do you expect us to believe everything we hear? Please!"

[TWiley]

39. I believe it absolutely.

Some military friends told me that it is the practice to count only the dead on the battlefield as KIA. They do not count accidental deaths, those who die enrout, or those who die later on. Those people are considered to have "died from complications", and were not "killed in action".

[tx_dem41]

42. Please go to....

http://icasualties.org/oif/

and prove your military friends wrong.

[SmokingJacket]

46. Show me the name of ONE DEAD SOLDIER

either someone whose obituary is in a local paper or who you maybe knew in high school or something, but who is NOT on the official lists, then I'll believe this story. These mysterious dead soldiers have family and friends who would raise hell if they weren't counted.

Until then, this is just speculation without evidence.

[EFerrari]

48. This wouldn't be a bad idea. To actually do a survey among

military families. The problem would be intruding on grieving people, and that kind of scruple is what makes them ripe for exploitation.

If one of my sons were killed, probably the last thing I'd do at the time would be to ask if his "sacrifice" had been tallied. And the second to the last thing I'd want to do is talk to a bean counter about it.

[theboss]

51. So, when someone lists the dead soldiers in the Times or Nightline

or Doonesbury...no one checks to see if their high school buddy is there.

My little town of 5,000 lost a soldier in Vietnam. I believe that half the homes in the town have an etching of his name from the wall in DC. If he wasn't there, we would know.

[SmokingJacket]

52. If I were his or her mother, I agree. But if the soldier was my cousin...

and I do have two or three cousins over there, I'd check all the lists. Ditto if it was someone I knew in school.

[theboss]

56. I have a few friends there

If they (God forbid) died, I would check every list that was ever produced. I would probably have framed this week's Doonesbury.

If they weren't there, I would know and I would have Sen. Rockefeller on the phone very quickly.

[EFerrari]

60. Me, too. Finally, I hope you are right and I am wrong but there's

just too much room for malfeasance, to much secrecy around our dead coming home, too much control over the media over there on the ground for me to have confidence even in the numbers Lynn so painstakingly produces.

:(

[SmokingJacket]

63. Well, I felt like you do about a year ago...

and I went and researched all the dead soldiers I could find -- the local ones, the ones in small-town online papers. I couldn't find any who weren't listed.

And when I read the lists -- I read them very carefully because I used to live on an army base -- I noticed that often they mention soldiers who "died of injuries received four days ago" or whatever. So the rumor that the soldiers who are killed immediately are the only ones listed is clearly false.

I have NO trust in our government or media -- but I would like to see some evidence before this story is repeated again.

[SidDithers]

47. Impossible....

LynntheDem, from icasualties.org has adressed this matter a number of times. Search for her posts for more info.

Sid

[bpilgrim]

66. how many people do icasualties.org have on the ground?

the CERTAINTY reminds me of the WMD claims

peace

[wakeme2008]

65. Impossible ... Garry Trudeau has listed all the names

and Niteline has too....

If you were a parent/wife/husband of a military member killed in Iraq,,, the Garry Trudeaus would be receiving tons of mail on why did you forget my XXXX name.....

[Moderator]

67. Locking

This is sourced to an article from TBR (The Barnes Review), an extreme right hate site.