PLEASE stop spreading the "uncounted death" rumor.

[spindoctor]

- This hoax was started by TBRNews, a notoriously unreliable source ran by Neo Nazi wackos

- DOD has dozens of official press releases of soldiers who died from wounds sustained in Iraq who died in Germany, the US an other countries.

- Out of 9,000 families there would be someone raising a fuzz about their loved one being denied the "honor" of being listed.

1,700+ death Americans and 13,000 wounded is terrible enough. There is no need to discredit our fallen children by challenging the credibility of those numbers.

[ollie79]

1. hey

Thank you for posting that. My brother is a Marine in Iraq, and I appreciate that.

[kansasblue]

2. Thank you! We get one about once a week

when someone finds that site.

[kittenpants]

63. I've seen 5 of them in the last 3 days!

It's like a recurring nightmare. Yesterday the OP of the thread said Ed Schultz was his source on this! I hope to God Ed isn't spreading this crap.

[dissent1977]

3. I agree, this is a trap

I think whoever put this out is hoping we make a big fuss about this so they can discredit us. If there were really 9,000 deaths it would be impossible to hide for long, families are going to figure out somethings up if they suddenly stop hearing from their family members serving in Iraq.

We need hard evidence before we start making accusations like this, and we quite simply do not have the hard evidence to back this one up.

[Atman]

Do not say Nazi. It makes you look crazy.

Oh, wait...does that apply to NEO Nazi, too?

:eyes:

[still_one]

7. how does murderers sound when referring to the administration?

[END_HATRED_NOW]

4. what actual proof do you have that this is false?

I'm not trying to say yeah or ney here on this issue, I just like to see facts before I choose if something is true. To say this is not true, what can you offer other than your opinion?

[dissent1977]

5. The burden of proof is on the accuser

Quite simply if you believe this is true YOU have to provide the evidence to back it up. It is innocent until proven guilty.

We need hard evidence before we start making accusations like this, or they will discredit us very quickly.

[Internut]

9. And really not much proof is required -

just find one family member of one soldier who died who should have been in the list but was not included. Not one such person was ever presented by all the people who present this bizarre conspiracy theory.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Tell us why they continue to fly in the coffins at night. Tell us why....

...they won't allow reporters to photograph the coffins. Tell us why, as Biden stated yesterday, senators are not allowed to meet a coffin with the family members of the deceased.

[LynnTheDem]

39. When was the Dover ban first put in place?

Hint; wasn't bush.

[comsymp]

68. Actually, it WAS Bush... v1.0

In 1989, some networks showed split-screen images of caskets arriving at Dover fresh from the Panama invasion alongside images of Bush Sr. goofing around at a press conference.

Soon enough, the frazzled president issued an order to ban all images of the flag-draped boxes returning to the U.S. The edict was largely ignored over the years, until the current Bush admin decided to enforce it right before sounding the war drums.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:dkmkclAL6FsJ:www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2003-12-18/news_feature_p.html+dover+ban+bodies&hl=en


On December 21 1989, President George Bush senior was holding a press conference about the US intervention in Panama as the first American fatalities from the conflict were arriving at Dover.
At the beginning of the briefing the president had told reporters he was suffering from neck pain. At the end he did a duck walk to illustrate his stiffness.

Unbeknown to the White House, three major news networks had moved to a split screen. While the president shared his light-hearted moment with the press corps on one half, America's dead were arriving in caskets on the other. It was a public relations disaster. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater described the coverage as "outrageous and unfair" and vowed to express his "extreme dissatisfaction" to the channels concerned.

Less than a year later the White House decreed a ban on traditional military ceremonies and media coverage marking the return of the bodies of US soldiers to Dover. It was an abrupt shift in policy for what had become a national wartime ritual. Along with yellow ribbons and flag waving, the scenes from Dover were part of the American war experience.

For the next 12 years the ban was largely ignored, even after it was extended to all military bases during the last days of the Clinton administration. But this March, shortly before the war began, the Pentagon handed down a directive that made it perfectly clear it expected the policy to be heeded.

Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:3JcjX0nexJUJ:www.democracynow.org/article.pl%3Fsid%3D03/11/11/153256+dover+ban+bodies&hl=en


Having a precedent doesn't make it right. Hell, we all know that GWB and his apologists have cited precedents for numerous Administration acts, which this gang of criminals then carry to egregious extremes. Not the same at all, IMO.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

78. Wrong.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. Because they don't want it on TV.

Can't have people finding out that war makes dead people.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. Or can't have a war where someone other than the Pentagon can....

..COUNT the incoming caskets.

And where else besides Dover are the caskets arriving?

[Atman]

6. I've heard this too, for quite a while.

But I've never heard anyone actually attempt to debunk it. As OP said, what is your source? I recall first reading about the not-dead-unless-on-the-battlefield in a major newsmag, like Time or Newsweek, a looong time ago, but I've never seen anything saying it wasn't true.

[spindoctor]

8. Here is one example...

Now show me some proof that there is ONE dead soldier who is not listed.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040106-084...

<SNIP>
DoD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Spc. Luke P. Frist, 20, of West Lafayette, Ind., died of wounds on Jan. 5 at Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Frist was part of a convoy that was struck with an improvised explosive device in Baghdad, Iraq. Frist was assigned to the 209th Quartermaster Company, U.S. Army Reserve, based in Lafayette, Ind.

This incident is under investigation.
</SNIP>

[stevans_41902]

11. Thanks for your post...

over 1700 dead is horrible enough, and just b/c there is not more does not justify Bush's actions by even a percentage.

[johnaries]

14. Don't believe anything you read on TBR. It is not a reliable

source. Rush Limpball and o'Lielly are more reliable than they are. You wouldn't quote them, would you?

Check out their "book reviews". That's what finally convinced me of who and what they are.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Actual proof

that it's false to say troops who die in hospitals in Germany and USA etc from wounds suffered in Iraq aren't counted?

Died in the USA from Iraq;

1856 06/03/05 Mendoza, Antonio Corporal 21 U.S. Marine 5th Bat., 11th Marines, 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire - explosion Brooke Army Med Center, TX Santa Ana California US
1830 05/24/05 Collins, Randy D. Sergeant 1st Class 36 U.S. Army 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Bethesda Naval Hosp., MD Long Beach California US
1797 05/11/05 Schmidt III, John T. Lance Corporal 21 U.S. Marine 3rd Bat., 8th Marines, 2nd Marine Div., II Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire - explosion Brooke Army Med Center, TX Brookfield Connecticut US
1790 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 US
1768 05/02/05 Little, Tommy S. Staff Sergeant 47 U.S. Army National Guard 2nd Battalion, 114th Field Artillery Regiment Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Aliceville Alabama US
1726 04/12/05 Dickens, Tyler J. Corporal 20 U.S. Army 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack (?) Brooke Army Med Center, TX Columbus Georgia US
1677 03/03/05 Jones, Michael D. Sergeant 1st Class 43 U.S. Army National Guard 133rd Engineer Battalion Non-hostile - illness Syracuse, NY Unity Maine US
1494 01/04/05 Washington, Bennie J. Sergeant 25 U.S. Army 44th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Atlanta Georgia US
1483 12/29/04 Nelson, Craig L. Specialist 21 U.S. Army National Guard 1st Battalion, 156th Armor Regiment Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Bossier City Louisiana US
1393 11/27/04 Smith, Michael A. Sergeant 24 U.S. Army National Guard 1st Bat., 153rd Infantry, 39th Brig. Cmbt. Tm., 1st Cav. Div. Hostile - hostile fire - sniper Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Camden Arkansas US
1382 11/24/04 Nolte, Nicholas S. Sergeant 25 U.S. Marine 2nd Low Alt. Air Defense Bat., 2nd Mar. Aircraft Wing, IIMEF Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Bethesda Naval Hosp., MD Falls City Nebraska US
1381 11/23/04 Edinger, Benjamin C. Sergeant 24 U.S. Marine 2nd Force Reconnaissance Co., II Marine Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Bethesda Naval Hosp., MD Green Bay Wisconsin US
1370 11/19/04 Downey, Michael A. Lance Corporal 21 U.S. Marine 1st Bat., 3rd Marines, 3rd Marine Div., III Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire - sniper Bethesda Naval Hosp., MD Phoenix Arizona US
1280 11/07/04 McVey, Otie Joseph Sergeant 1st Class 53 U.S. Army Reserve 706th Transportation Company Non-hostile - illness Beaver, WV Oak Hill West Virginia US
1246 10/22/04 Gadsden, Jonathan E. Lance Corporal 21 U.S. Marine 1st Combat Engr. Bat., 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Vet's Hospital, Tampa, FL Charleston South Carolina US
1205 10/03/04 Pettaway Jr., James L. Staff Sergeant 37 U.S. Army Reserve 223rd Transportation Company Non-hostile - vehicle accident Brooke Army Med Center, TX Baltimore Maryland US
1200 09/30/04 Nolan, Allen Specialist 38 U.S. Army Reserve 660th Transp. Co., 88th Regional Readiness Command Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Marietta Ohio US
1172 09/19/04 Adams, Brandon E. Sergeant 22 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 32nd Inf. Reg., 10th Mountain Div. Hostile - hostile fire - grenade Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Hollidaysburg Pennsylvania US
1061 08/09/04 Houghton, Andrew R. Captain 25 U.S. Army 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Houston Texas US
1028 07/21/04 Engel, Mark E. Lance Corporal 21 U.S. Marine 2nd Lt. Armd Recon Bat., 2nd Mar. Div., II Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Brooke Army Med Center, TX Grand Junction Colorado US
1017 07/15/04 Mardis Jr., Paul C. Staff Sergeant 25 U.S. Army 3rd Bat., 5th Special Forces Group Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Palmetto Florida US
987 07/02/04 Martin, Stephen G. Staff Sergeant 39 U.S. Army Reserve 330th Military Police Detachment Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Warsaw/Rhinelander Wisconsin US
811 04/22/04 Dunham, Jason L. Corporal 22 U.S. Marine 3rd Bat., 7th Marines, 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Bethesda Naval Hosp., MD Scio (Allegany Co.) New York US
687 03/20/04 Vega, Michael W. 1st Lieutenant 41 U.S. Army National Guard 223rd Military Intelligence Co., 223rd Mil. Intel. Battalion Hostile - vehicle accident Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Lathrop California US
587 01/05/04 Frist, Luke P. Specialist 20 U.S. Army Reserve 209th Quartermaster Company Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Brooke Army Med Center, TX Brookston Indiana US
534 12/02/03 Young, Ryan C. Sergeant 21 U.S. Army A Co., 1st Bat., 16th Infantry Reg., 1st Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Corona California US
511 11/20/03 Tyrrell, Scott Matthew Private 21 U.S. Army C Co., 299th Engineer Bat., 4th Infantry Div. Non-hostile - munitions accident Brooke Army Med Center, TX Sterling Illinois US
459 11/08/03 Jimenez, Linda C. Sergeant 39 U.S. Army 2nd Sqd. Combat Spt. Aviation, 2nd Armored Cav. Reg. Non-hostile - accidental fall Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Brooklyn New York US
378 10/01/03 Ramos, Tamarra J. Specialist 24 U.S. Army 3rd Armor Med. Co., Medical Spt. Squadron, 3rd Armd Cav. Non-hostile - unspecified injury Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Quakertown Pennsylvania US
356 09/16/03 Pinkston, Foster Sergeant 47 U.S. Army National Guard 878th Engineer Battalion Non-hostile - illness Augusta, GA Warrenton Georgia US
347 09/07/03 Thompson, Jarrett B. Specialist 27 U.S. Army Reserve 946th Transportation Company Non-hostile - vehicle accident Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Dover Delaware US
254 07/04/03 Coons, James Curtis Master Sergeant 35 U.S. Army 385th Signal Company, 54th Signal Battalion Non-hostile - suicide Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Conroe Texas US
231 06/18/03 Latham, William T. Staff Sergeant 29 U.S. Army Troop E, 2nd Squad., 3rd Armored Cav. Hostile - hostile fire Walter Reed Medical Ctr. Kingman Arizona US

Died in Germany from Iraq;

1816 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 Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Massillon Ohio US
1725 04/09/05 LaWare, Casey M. Private 1st Class 19 U.S. Army 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Non-hostile - building fire Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Redding California US
1678 03/04/05 Garceau, Seth K. Sergeant 27 U.S. Army National Guard 224th Engineer Battalion Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Oelwein Iowa US
1434 12/09/04 Renehan, Kyle J. Corporal 21 U.S. Marine Marine Air Ctrl. Sq-2, Mar. Air Ctrl. Gp-28, 2nd Mar. Air Wing Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Kaiserslautern Oxford Pennsylvania US
1410 12/01/04 Pena, Javier Obleas-Prado Gunnery Sergeant 36 U.S. Marine 2nd Recon Battalion, 2nd Marine Div., II Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Falls Church Virginia US
1378 11/20/04 Heredia, Joseph J. Corporal 22 U.S. Marine 3rd Bat., 5th Marines, 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Santa Maria California US
1376 11/20/04 Welke, Joseph T. Lance Corporal 20 U.S. Marine 3rd Bat., 1st Marines, 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Rapid City South Dakota US
1231 10/13/04 Baker, Ronald W. Specialist 34 U.S. Army National Guard 39th Support Battalion Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Cabot Arkansas US
1194 09/28/04 Prewitt, Tyler D. Sergeant 22 U.S. Army 2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Phoenix Arizona US
1053 08/05/04 McCune, Donald R. Specialist 20 U.S. Army National Guard 1st Bat., 161st Infantry Reg., 81st Brigade Combat Team Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Ypsilanti Michigan US
933 06/03/04 Bolding, Todd J. Lance Corporal 23 U.S. Marine 2nd Bat., 4th Marines, 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Hostile - hostile fire Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Manvel Texas US
901 05/18/04 Chaney, William D. Staff Sergeant 59 U.S. Army National Guard B Company, 1st Battalion, 106th Aviation Regiment Non-hostile - illness Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Schaumburg Illinois US
876 05/08/04 Holmes, James J. Specialist 28 U.S. Army National Guard C Company, 141st Engineer Combat Battalion Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. East Grand Forks Minnesota US
809 04/20/04 Fox, Bradley C. 1st Sergeant 34 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 36th Inf. Reg., 1st Armored Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Adrian Michigan US
682 03/19/04 Matthews, Clint Richard "Bones" Specialist 31 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 18th Infantry Reg., 1st Infantry Division Non-hostile - vehicle accident Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Bedford Pennsylvania US
679 03/18/04 Sutphin, Ernest Harold Private 1st Class 21 U.S. Army 2nd Bat., 11th Field Artillery, 25th Infantry Division Non-hostile - vehicle accident Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Parkersburg West Virginia US
447 11/06/03 Fisher, Paul F. Sergeant 39 U.S. Army National Guard Det. 1, Co. F,106th Aviation Battalion Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) Homburg Hospital Cedar Rapids Iowa US
320 08/17/03 Ivory, Craig S. Specialist 26 U.S. Army 501st Forward Spt. Co., 173rd Airborne Non-hostile - illness - heat related Homberg Univ. Hospital Port Matilda Pennsylvania US
319 08/14/03 Kirchhoff, David M. Private 1st Class 31 U.S. Army National Guard 2133rd Transportation Company Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Anamosa Iowa US
303 08/06/03 Colunga, Zeferino E. Specialist 20 U.S. Army 4th Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Reg. Non-hostile - illness - acute leukemia Homburg Hospital Bellville Texas US
266 07/12/03 Neusche, Joshua M. Specialist 20 U.S. Army Reserve 203rd Engineer Battalion Non-hostile - illness - pneumonia? Homburg Hospital Montreal Missouri US
260 07/08/03 McKinley, Robert L. Private 23 U.S. Army H & H Company, 1-101st Air Assault Non-hostile - illness - heatstroke Homburg Hospital Kokomo Indiana US
214 06/01/03 Lambert, Jonathan W. Sergeant 28 U.S. Marine Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Div. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Newsite Missouri US
168 04/24/03 Jenkins, Troy David Sergeant 25 U.S. Army B Co., 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Reg. Hostile - hostile fire - bomb Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. Ridgecrest California US

Died in Kuwait:

1803 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 Brunswick Georgia US
1739 04/18/05 Thornton, Steven W. Major 46 U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command Non-hostile - illness - sudden collapse Camp Arifjan Eugene Oregon US
1693 03/15/05 Marracino, Salvatore Domenico Sergeant 28 Italian Army 185th Parachute Regiment Non-hostile - weapon discharge (accid.) Kuwait City (hospital) Apulia Italy IT
1536 01/23/05 Rangel, Jose C. Staff Sergeant 43 U.S. Army National Guard 1106th Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot Non-hostile - illness - sudden collapse Camp Arifjan Fresno California US
1534 01/21/05 Lusk II, Joe Fenton Captain 25 U.S. Army 3rd Battalion, 3rd Aviation Regiment Non-hostile - unspecified injury Camp Buehring Reedley California US
1456 12/19/04 Farmer, Donald B. Staff Sergeant 33 U.S. Army 180th Transportation Battalion, 13th COSCOM Non-hostile - vehicle accident Ash Shuaybah Zion Illinois US
1455 12/19/04 Meza, Barry K. Sergeant 23 U.S. Army 180th Transportation Battalion, 13th COSCOM Non-hostile - vehicle accident Ash Shuaybah League City Texas US
1249 10/24/04 Boles, Dennis J. Sergeant 46 U.S. Army National Guard 171st Aviation Battalion Non-hostile - illness - sudden collapse Camp Arifjan Homosassa Florida US
697 03/27/04 Toney, Timothy Master Sergeant 37 U.S. Marine Headquarters Bat., 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Non-hostile - illness - sudden collapse Camp Wolverine Manhattan New York US
674 03/16/04 Thigpen Sr., Thomas R. Master Sergeant 52 U.S. Army National Guard 151st Signal Battalion Non-hostile - unspecified cause Camp Virginia Augusta Georgia US
672 03/14/04 Normandy, William J. Sergeant 42 U.S. Army National Guard 1st Battalion, 86th Field Artillery Regiment Non-hostile - illness - heart attack Camp Virginia East Barre Vermont US
658 03/08/04 Milczark, Matthew G. Private 1st Class 18 U.S. Marine 2nd Bat., 4th Marines, 1st Marine Div., I Mar. Exped. Force Non-hostile - weapon discharge Camp Victory Kettle River Minnesota US
656 03/05/04 Gray, Michael J. Petty Officer 2nd Class 32 U.S. Navy Navy Detachment Non-hostile - vehicle accident Kuwait Naval Base (near) Richmond Virginia US
535 12/02/03 Boone, Clarence E. Chief Warrant Officer 50 U.S. Army Hqtrs. & Hqtrs. Co., 4th Infantry Division Non-hostile - accident (?) Kuwait City Fort Worth Texas US
486 11/15/03 Petrucci, Pietro Caporale 22 Italian Army Regular Army Hostile - hostile fire - car bomb Al Sabah Hospital Casavatore, Napoli Italy IT
465 11/12/03 Bailey, Nathan J. Staff Sergeant 46 U.S. Army National Guard 1175th Transportation Company Non-hostile - weapon discharge Camp Arifjan Nashville Tennessee US
369 09/25/03 Rooney, Robert E. Sergeant 1st Class 43 U.S. Army National Guard 379th Engineer Company Non-hostile - vehicle accident Shuabai Port Nashua New Hampshire US
342 09/01/03 Sarno, Cameron B. Staff Sergeant 43 U.S. Army Reserve 257th Transportation Company Non-hostile - vehicle accident Kuwait City Waipahu Hawaii US
339 08/27/03 Sherman, Anthony L. Lieutenant Colonel 43 U.S. Army Reserve 304th Civil Affairs Brigade Non-hostile - illness Camp Arifjan Pottstown Pennsylvania US
300 08/05/03 Loyd, David L. Staff Sergeant 44 U.S. Army National Guard 1175th Transportation Co., Tenn. ANG Non-hostile - illness - heart attack? Not reported Jackson Tennessee US
262 07/09/03 Tetrault, Jason Lance Corporal 20 U.S. Marine 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Not reported Moreno Valley California US
259 07/08/03 Boling, Craig A. Sergeant 1st Class 38 U.S. Army National Guard Co. C, 1-152nd Infantry, IN Nat. Guard Non-hostile - illness - heart attack? Camp Wolf Elkhart Indiana US
246 06/26/03 Hubbell, Corey A. Specialist 20 U.S. Army Company B, 46th Engineer Battalion Non-hostile - illness - breathing difficulties Camden Yards Urbana Illinois US
229 06/17/03 Tosto, Michael L. Sergeant 24 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 35th Armrd Reg., 1st Arm. Div. Non-hostile - illness - pneumonia? Camp Wolf Apex North Carolina US
192 05/19/03 Shepherd, David Corporal 34 Royal Air Force Royal Air Force Police Non-hostile - natural causes Not reported Not reported Not reported UK
183 05/10/03 Smith, Matthew R. Lance Corporal 20 U.S. Marine Comm. Co., 4th Force Svc. Spt. Group Non-hostile - vehicle accident Not reported Anderson Indiana US
179 05/09/03 Bruns, Cedric E. Lance Corporal 22 U.S. Marine 6th Engr. Spt. Bat., 4th Force Spt. Gp. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Tac Assy Area Coyote Vancouver Washington US
175 05/04/03 Deibler, Jason L. Private 20 U.S. Army 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment Non-hostile - weapon discharge Camp New Jersey Coeburn Virginia US
95 04/01/03 Maglione III, Joseph Basil Lance Corporal 22 U.S. Marine 6th Eng'g Spt., 4th Force Serv. Spt. Gp. Non-hostile - weapon discharge Camp Coyote Lansdale Pennsylvania US
85 03/30/03 Brierley, Shaun Andrew Lance Corporal 28 British Army 212 Signal Squad., 1 (UK) Armoured Div. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Not reported W. Yorkshire England UK
66 03/25/03 Stone, Gregory Lewis Major 40 U.S. Air National Guard 124th Air Spt. Oper. Squadron - Idaho Non-hostile - homicide Camp Pennsylvania Boise Idaho US
27 03/23/03 Seifert, Christopher Scott Captain 27 U.S. Army 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Div. Non-hostile - homicide Camp Pennsylvania Easton Pennsylvania US
13 03/21/03 Ward, Jason Major 34 Royal Navy 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Plymouth England UK
12 03/21/03 Stratford, Mark Warrant Off. 2nd Class 39 Royal Navy 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Plymouth England UK
11 03/21/03 Seymour, Ian Oper. Mech. 2nd Class 28 British Army 148 Commando Battery, Royal Artillery Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Poole England UK
10 03/21/03 Hehir, Les Sergeant 34 British Army 29 Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Poole England UK
9 03/21/03 Hedenskog, Sholto Royal Navy Marine 26 Royal Navy 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Pretoria South Africa UK
8 03/21/03 Guy, Philip Stuart Captain 29 Royal Navy 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) N. Yorkshire England UK
7 03/21/03 Evans, Llywelyn Karl Lance Bombardier 24 British Army 29 Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Llandudno Wales UK
6 03/21/03 Cecil, John Colour Sergeant 36 Royal Navy 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Plymouth England UK
5 03/21/03 Waters-Bey, Kendall Damon Staff Sergeant 29 U.S. Marine MAW&TS-1, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Baltimore Maryland US
4 03/21/03 Kennedy, Brian Matthew Corporal 25 U.S. Marine MAW&TS-1, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Houston Texas US
3 03/21/03 Beaupre, Ryan Anthony Captain 30 U.S. Marine MAW&TS-1, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Bloomington Illinois US
2 03/21/03 Aubin, Jay Thomas Major 36 U.S. Marine MAW&TS-1, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing Hostile - helicopter crash Umm Qasr (near) Waterville Maine US

Died in Qatar:

1839 05/28/05 Smart, Albert E. Lieutenant Colonel 41 U.S. Army Reserve 321st Civil Affairs Brigade Non-hostile - illness Doha San Antonio Texas US
1134 09/06/04 Boria, John J. Captain 29 U.S. Air Force 911th Air Refueling Squadron Non-hostile - vehicle accident Doha Broken Arrow Oklahoma US
640 02/10/04 Mariano, Jude C. Master Sergeant 39 U.S. Air Force 615th Air Mobility Operations Squadron Non-hostile - vehicle accident Doha Vallejo California US
346 09/04/03 Brown, Bruce E. Technical Sergeant 32 U.S. Air Force 78th Logistics Readiness Squadron Non-hostile - vehicle accident Al Udeid (near) Coatopa Alabama US
280 07/20/03 Scott, David A. Master Sergeant 51 U.S. Air Force 445th Communications Flight Non-hostile - unspecified cause Doha Union Ohio US
129 04/05/03 Smith, Edward 1st Sergeant 38 U.S. Marine 2nd Bat., 5th Marine Reg., 1st Mar. Div. Hostile - hostile fire Doha Chicago Illinois US

And every one of them, RIP, is included in the 1700+ count.

[madeline_con]

42. I have a question.

Is there supposedly a list of NAMES somewhere, not an arbitrary number, but a who's who of all those who've died?

[Internut]

44. Yes, come on, fire up your google

and find it.

http://www.icasualties.org

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

[friesianrider]

51. Check cnn.com nt

[LynnTheDem]

72. Several.

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

[seemslikeadream]

10. They're still lying about Gulf War I

Some steps have been taken to better identify chronic casualties within the Department of Defense (DoD) and Veterans’ Administration (VA) health facilities. The illnesses collectively called Gulf War Illnesses or GWI are usually not fatal; however, thousands of veterans have died since the war, and we have no idea how many veterans’ family members have died when illnesses spread to family members. Possible reasons why these deaths have not been evaluated in official studies may be the limited populations studied, and the lack of information on veterans who left the Armed Forces and died outside of military and VA hospitals and absence of information on immediate family members. Estimates of between 15,000 and 25,000 or more deceased U.S. veterans have been advanced, but the exact figures are classified and may be much higher.

http://www.immed.org/reports/gulf_war_illness/SOF.Gulf%20WarIllness03.3.12ss.html

Why wouldn't they be lying now

[spindoctor]

12. This is not about Gulf War Syndrome

GWS is a whole different subject all together.

[seemslikeadream]

13. lying is lying

lying about dead soldiers is lying about dead soldiers

[dissent1977]

18. It is still a totally different situation...

I agree there has been a massive coverup on gulf war syndrome, but that is easier to cover up because it does not kill instantly. It is not immediately visable to the general public.

There is no way in hell that they have the ability to keep thousands of combat fatalities secret for long. At least a few of them thousands of families would notice their sons or daughter's names are not on the official list. If you find me one example of a soldier dying and not being reported I will reconsider my position, but for now I see no evidence to back the charges up.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. No, it's not. It's the same department lying about yet another subject...

...They've been lying about virtually everything since I first began paying attention to what they were saying during the Vietnam War.

If you believe what the DoD is telling you, fine, that's your opinion, not mine.

Tell me why they're flying the coffins in at night and why they won't allow reporters to photograph them? What are they hiding?

[LynnTheDem]

40. Media, about the Dover ban, you should know 2 things.

1. That ban on photos was in place long before bush the Stupid was in office.

2. The majority of military families want that ban enforced. A whole lot of us don't; but the majority do and that same majority were not very pleased with Clinton when he'd relaxed the ban a couple times.

I can also tell you why the flights come in at night, but you won't believe me on that, either, lol! :P

You're wrong on this...but you're a good egg. :hug:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. 1. Yeah,....it was Bush I, a ruling that was set aside during the....

...Clinton years.

2. Was there a poll conducted of the military families on this issue? Maybe I missed it.

And you're correct,I wouldn't believe ANY reason given by the DoD as to why they bring the planes in at night. They could just as easily leave Iraq and/or Germany at a time that would allow them to land in the US during the day.

And yes...you too are a good egg! :-)

[LynnTheDem]

88. No it wasn't "set aside" during Clinton's years.

He allowed photos for a couple incidents; a 1996 plane crash in Croatia, and from an accidental helicopter crash in the United States last year. An image also exists of a soldier's coffin being loaded in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1994.

[dissent1977]

61. I agree that the DoD are liars

Believe me I am about as anti-military as they come. I know the Pentagon lies on a daily basis, I just think we have a lot of lies we can show to be false that we should be focusing on.

To say that there are thousands more Americans dead than are being reported just quite simply does not add up. The Pentagon may lie, but it is pretty difficult to hide thousands of dead bodies (unless of course we are talking about Iraqi's, as the Pentagon IS lying about the number of dead Iraqi's).

If you can name me one American who was killed in Iraq, but is not listed in the official reports I will look into it. But please, lets have some evidence.

On Edit: As far as not allowing photographs of the coffins to be taken, that is another seperate issue that we SHOULD be paying attention to. To my knowledge all of those coffins contain people who were in fact reported dead, but the government knows that seeing a person's coffin is a lot more difficult than hearing their names.

[dissent1977]

62. Sorry double post

[gumby]

17. Why not?

It seems that GWS is all about "combat deaths."

I don't know about TBRNews, but I certainly DO NOT believe anything this administration says.

[geek tragedy]

20. Don't believe it because it's what the Pentagon says. Believe it

because it's what common sense and logic say. This would require a gigantic cover up and conspiracy from the gang who can't shoot straight, and there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

None. Zilch. Nada.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There isn't any proof here at all.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Ah, yes. Pentagon = common sense and logic. Riiiiggghhht.

[geek tragedy]

55. That's not what I said. eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. Right.

[chknltl]

85. July 4th '05 DVD inre: Gulf War Syndrome

Click the "beyond treason" link on my signature line below. Here is where we will find further info on America's discounted casualties I suspect. (Gonna be another smoking gun IMHO)

[geek tragedy]

15. Amen. Rule of thumb: If TBRnews says something, and they're the

only ones saying it, it's a lie.

If TBRnews says they have proof, but don't produce it, it's a lie.

[Oversea Visitor]

16. Don't really make a different

The numbers of dead will just keep climbing. The only time it will stop is when US get the hell out of there. Saddam fight these guys all the time. Now Bush took over this job. As usual he mess it up so now is a free for all with US smack in the middle and on everyone hate list. Oh yeah its a generational commitments all right.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Indeed

esp without concrete proof. We discredit ourselves as well.

[kster]

22. You find out this way, not with one persons word

This is the way to find out, and gradually we in the blogosphere may get a picture of whether this most cruel of deceptions has really taken place. You have to hope not. But in light of everything we've learned, do you think this is beyond them? An Administration which forbids photographs of returning coffins? An Administration whose President has yet to attend a single Iraq-related funeral or memorial? It appears almost nothing is beyond them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jim-lampley/the-ultimate-deception_2838.html

[END_HATRED_NOW]

24. sorry

quote>Rush Limpball and o'Lielly are more reliable than they are. You wouldn't quote them, would you?<<

Rush Limpball???????:rofl:

[Internut]

28. You missed Lampley's article in which

he apologizes for the article that you refer to:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jim-lampley/a-poor-choice-of-sources_2891.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

32. Let's take a look at what Lampley is really apologizing about....

Lampley states the following:

"The material in my previous post was strong, so I tried to err on the side of caution by suggesting I had no way of verifying the credibility of the website I cited as a source."

MY NOTE: In fact, he did ask for help from his readers to determine the credibility of TBRNews. If I'm reading his comments correctly, and despite the negative response he received in regards to TBRNews, he still has questions about the US casualty count.

He goes on to state:

"Over the weekend The Huffington Post has received numerous corrective comments from observers who apparently know a good deal about the website in question, and the general impression is that I would have shown better judgment not to air the material here. Questions regarding its credibility are too severe and too plentiful."

MY NOTE: Lampley is acknowledging that he received part of what he was asking for...the credibility of TBRNews itself.

And he finishes his note with the comment:

"With apologies for any setback this may have dealt in the short run to the cause of re-examining the Iraq War, I am asking the editors to remove the previous post. It gave credence where none may have been deserved."

MY NOTE: Despite the fact that TBRNews has been determined by Lampley to have little or no credibility, he is still very interested in "re-examining the Iraq War." I am assuming that the re-examination also includes a close evaluation of the US casualty count in Iraq.

Quite a few of us are still interested in finding out why the NeoCon Junta refuses to allow reporters to photograph the coffins as they arrive. Quite few of us are interested in finding out why the coffins are being brought in at night. What are they hiding? Are they afraid that someone might start counting the coffins?

The attempts by you and others to shut off debate on this subject is disappointing, to say the least. DU should be the very last place that debate should be squelched...on any subject.

[kster]

45. Methinks they are

helping Lampley. :rofl:

[kster]

34. Thank you,I didn't see that article but

I still agree with lampley in part,"An Administration which forbids photographs of returning coffins? It appears almost nothing is beyond them". Mums the word.

[LynnTheDem]

43. So did the Clinton admin. forbid Dover photos. So did bush41.

Guess we are just a one-party state.

[kster]

47. I did

not know that !(Johnny Carson)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Quite a few DU posters, including myself, have had reservations

...about the "official" Iraq casualty count long before TBRNews posted their article to their website. I also have reservations about the "official" casualty count of the "Forgotten War" in Afghanistan.

If you, and others, wish to trust the DoD and the NeoCon Junta on the "official" Iraq casualty count despite their countless lies since the NeoCons took over in December 2000, that's fine with me. If that's your opinion, you're welcome to it. But I do wish you would answer the three following questions for me:

1. Why has the Pentagon refused to allow reporters to photograph the incoming coffins?

2. Why are the coffins being brought in at night?

3. What are they hiding?

There is really no need for you to discredit your fellow DUers for holding an opinion different from yours. That kind of attitude would be held in high esteem among the NeoCons, but I'm puzzled why anyone would try to shut off discussion on DU.

[spindoctor]

30. Certainly

Ad 1. Bad press. This Administration thrives on PR.

Ad 2. Who says? But a cargo plane leaving Iraq early in the morning would arrive in the US at night. I imagine that the cargo would be a lot more visible in Iraq (with all the press hanging around) than here in Idaho.

Ad 3. You tell me.

I am all in favor of discussion, but this subject has no ground for that. Unless someone provides some actual evidence...a SINGLE case, there IS no discussion.

By stubbornly holding on to unfounded allegations you discredit yourself, DU, and the actual number of casualties.

[rfrrfrrfr]

31. This OMG their lying about the number of deaths bunk has got to stop.

For the morbid amongst you.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Complete listing of iraqi casualties to date.

And the debunking of this stupid idiotic rumor at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/20/24437/8204
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/13126/2340

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. I've had several discussions with LynnDem on her casualty count....

...figures, and we've agreed to disagree. They rely on official data from the DoD and CentCom to arrive at their figures. Here is a passage on their website in regards to their methodology:

"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."

Does that give you a lot of confidence in the information being given out by the DoD and CentCom?

Well, I have to tell you that I have a very difficult time accepting as truth any information that comes from the DoD. They have lied repeatedly about virtually every subject you can imagine for as long as I can remember (going back to the beginning days of the Vietnam War), and Rumsfeld is the biggest offender in that regard.

I'm not going to stop posting on this subject until we start getting some independent third-party verifications. Period. If that upsets you and the rest of the DU posters who seem overly intent on shutting down discussion on this subject, too bad. Get over it.

[LynnTheDem]

50. I've asked you nicely many times to stop saying that; it's NOT TRUE!

"They rely on official data from the DoD and CentCom to arrive at their figures."

FALSE.

You KNOW it's not true, you KNOW I've said so to you over & over again.

WHY do you persist in posting a false statement again & again???

We VERIFY and CONFIRM US deaths with Centcom/DoD releases WHENEVER WE CAN. We DO NOT "rely on official data" to "arrive at" our figures.

We DO chase after the DOD and Centcom when we have confirmed deaths and no official releasses because we want ALL US deaths to have official US confirmations.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

83. Whatever you say, Lynn...whatever you say.

[LynnTheDem]

89. Thank you.

I do know how we get our figures, Media. I do know why I sit 8+ hours a day searching worldwide media, and it isn't for waiting on DOD or Centcom releases.

If you think I'm just lying, why don't you email Pat and ask her directly? I've also asked her to update the methodology page; you may have noticed it's dated July 2003. When the "mission accomplished" was supposed to have been in place and the dying over, and our jobs done with.

[LynnTheDem]

49. Answers:

1. Because that ban has been in effect since 1991; thru bush 41, thru Clinton, and now thru bush, and because the majority of the US military want that ban in place. I don't. Many of us don't, or don't care either way. We're not the majority.

2. They're brought in at night because of late departures from Germany. That's from Germany's flightpath scheduling, as well as the doctors', and family & troops who probably prefer arriving at the airport for departure in the afternoon and sleeping through the up to 10 hours of flying time. (Germany is 6 hours ahead of US east coast)

It isn't just the dead coming back on those flights, don't know if you're aware of that.

Take a look at the photos of coffins being unloaded; broad daylight.

3. Not a damn thing. Soldiers simply would not put up with any hiding of their comrades' deaths. By now we'd have one name of a "hidden" death out of those alleged "9000".

So now my question:

Got one single name of a dead US soldier whose name isn't on the list?

[marions ghost]

94. good point

the skepticism about the official count existed long before TBRnews.

[spindoctor]

33. Alright, one more argument for those who won't give up

Unless you are willing to take this to the level of a global conspiracy, please note that the percentage of dead Americans is much higher than that of other countries involved.

Casualties for other countries (some have already withdrawn):

US, 150,000 troops, 1723 dead = 1.15%

UK, 8,850 troops, 89 dead = 1.00%

South Korea, 3,600 troops, 0 dead = 0.00%

Australia, 900 troops, 0 dead = 0.00%

Italy, 3,000 troops, 26 dead = 0.87%

Netherlands, 1,500 troops, 2 dead = 0.13%

Spain, 1,300 troops, 2 dead = 0.15%

Poland, 1,700 troops, 17 dead = 1.00%

Romania, 800 troops, 0 dead = 0.00%

Japan, 600 troops, 0 dead = 0.00%

Denmark, 500 troops, 1 dead = 0.20%

[Internut]

35. aww, spindoctor, don't you realize, this just "proves" that other

countries are fraudulently hiding their casualties as well.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. Actually, it just proves that you have made yet another attempt to....

...shut off this discussion through the use of ridicule.

[dissent1977]

77. No one is attempting to shut off discussion

He was merely presenting facts to make his case.

Look, I don't like the Pentagon any more than you do, but please there are enough things to attack them on that can be backed up by evidence.

If you can find a single person who died in Iraq and has not been reported, please let me know. I would be very interested in looking in to this if there is evidence to support it.

So far I have not seen that evidence, so I am going to criticize them on other things.

Yes, it is true the Pentagon is trying to downplay casualties. But that doesn't mean their numbers are necessarily false, it is just that they are hiding the images of the dead. They don't want you to see the coffins because they know that is a powerful image that turns people against the war. This is wrong, and it should be pointed out but it does not mean there are thousands more American casualties than are being reported.

Now there is one possible way you could say that there are casualties not being reported. That would be by looking at the people, who may not be dead yet but will die because of their exposure to Depleted Uranium and other toxic chemicals the government used in this war. This is what we should be focused on as there is evidence the Pentagon used chemicals that put people in serious danger. You can show this with evidence, and therefore it makes much more sense to focus on that than it does to focus on some report that gives no evidence to back it up.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

37. Sources?

[spindoctor]

41. of course

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908900.html
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=403&issue_id=35
http://icasualties.org/oif/

[The Magistrate]

46. Good For You, Doctor

Your effort is much appreciated, though it doubtless will have to be repeated at regular intervals....

[LynnTheDem]

54. I tell ya, if bush is SO COMPETENT that going on 3 years later and

hiding "9000" dead US troops with NOT ONE NAME getting out, NOT ONE family member or friend or fellow soldier saying NOT ONE WORD about their loved one being hidden or not showing up on any of the memorials or casualty lists, then we've BADLY misunderestimated bush's competence.

And I just wouldn't accept that bullshit no way no how.

LOL!

[Telly Savalas]

57. The families don't know about because the DoD have cloned...

those killed in combat. Just try and prove me wrong. I'm the one making the outrageous claim, so I don't need any evidence to back it up. The burden lies on you.

[OneBlueSky]

48. well, you're mostly right . . .

but rest assured that BushCo is doing whatever they can to minimize the official number . . . and that whenever there's an opportunity to exclude someone from that total, they do . . .

you're right about TBR and their ridiculous claims, though . . . that guy is a real head case . . . I kinda think TBR is pretty much a one-person operation and that he writes most of their stuff himself . . .

[kster]

52. kick.nt

[spindoctor]

53. kick

shameless self-kick to send the message off to a good stzrt in the morning.

[Tinoire]

56. It's NOT a rumor & is substantiated by trustworthy journalists in Iraq

YOU tell me who I'm going to trust? A lying Pentagon in cahoots with a lying media or reporters with proven integrity on the ground? The choice is very clear to me and my brain is NOT going to disengage just because some people prefer to believe the information that the government sees 'fit to release' & that the media sees 'fit to repeat'. Your intelligence alone should tell you that out of the 20,000+ soldiers medevac'd to German hospitals for intense treatment, 25% for severe headwounds, more subsequently died than 24, as reported by CENTCOM, the media and the icasualties.org/. icasualties.org/ is doing what they can with the information released and if you don't believe this administration is controlling what gets released, I have a bridge in Iraq to sell you from the trunk of my car.

It's the height of arrogance to believe that any independent source relying on the media and the CENTCOM releases can come up with the full count. It is also folly to believe that any internet list is known to more than a handful of people and that the families of the dead are going to know to go there and ask for the inclusion of the lost loved one.

Until the day the Pentagon releases an OFFICIAL list that people can check the same way they did in previous wars, any list unofficial is either a best guess or a cover-up. icasualties.org's admirable effort gets a best guess vote and I've already told Lynne that.



Read the following report and ask yourselves some questions. And let me tell you right now that I already combed the media, CENTCOM press releases AND icasualties.org and they ALL report only 2 dead soldiers: Eric Paliwoda & Marc Seiden for January 02, 2004. Someone is wrong and I KNOW it's not Dahr Jamail who's gotten has ass shot at to report the truth to us & been hailed as a hero by the Progressive Left.


===================================================================




Conflicting numbers and a Surreal Press Conference

Dahr Jamail

4 January 2004: (ICH) Yesterday I reported on an attack upon a US Humvee patrol in Al-Dora, Baghdad, which is in the Al-Rashid district. ((pasted below))

However, statements taken from three boys and five men who witnessed the US military clean-up and medical
evacuations all reported the same story: The US military flew in medical choppers to air lift 2 wounded soldiers from the scene. They all witnessed at least five bodies loaded into US vehicles and driven from the scene.

These statements were taken from some scene of the incident the day after it occurred, as well as taken from several men from other areas of Al-Dora.

A phone call from the scene of the incident to the Coalition Public Information Center (CPIC) provided information that the US military reported two dead and three wounded soldiers.

This is confirmed by accessing the following information:

According to press release 04-01-03C on 2 January, US Cent Com reports 2 dead, 3 injured Task Force 1st Armored Division Soldiers Killed in Ambush in Al Rashid district at about noon when their convoy was struck by an IED, then the soldiers taking small arms fire after the explosion.

The full press release may be seen here:

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/Casualty_Report.asp?CasualtyReport=20040106.txt

The same press release can be found on the Combined Joint Task Force seven website, release #040103g, with the same dead and injured count, here:

http://www.vcorps.army.mil/www/CJTF7/Releases/releases_jan/cjtf7_media_040103g.htm

Thus, the usual conflict in the number of US soldiers killed and injured rests between the many Iraqis who witnessed the scene during the US cleanup and medical evacuations, and the figures given by CENTCOM and Combined Joint Task Force 7.

The US military in Iraq has been under constant scrutiny for under-reporting US casualty figures from attacks throughout Iraq. The effect of this is to give the impression to both the media and people of Iraq, as well as people in the US that the degree of loss of life by US military personnel in Iraq is lower than it may actually be.

Thus, the sense of urgency the US military is faced with in Iraq isn’t being conveyed to the public. For example, I just moments ago returned from a CIPIC press conference by General Kimmit where he stated there are 25 attacks per day on coalition forces.

Nor are people being allowed the opportunity to grasp the seriousness of the mounting US casualties in Iraq as a result of the occupation.

This being an election year in the US only brings more doubt about the actual figures being reported by the military here as compared to the numbers provided by Iraqis witnessing the attacks and/or the medical operations which ensue.

Virtually every investigation I’ve conducted on events of this nature has provided a disparity in the numbers of US dead and wounded between those reported by CPIC and Iraqi witnesses; be they civilians, hospital staff, or figures from the morgue.

This point is further underlined by the incident in Samarra at the end of November when the US military claimed a convoy came under attack by a highly organized group of Fedayeen fighters and responded by killing 54 of them. Upon further investigation by myself and several other journalists to the hospital, morgue, and several interviews in Samarra, the highest Iraqi body count recorded was 8. The US military never adjusted their figures to reflect this, despite the fact that no more than 8 bodies have ever been found as a result of this battle.

Not only has the US casualty rate in Iraq continued unabated since the capture of Saddam Hussein, it has increased.

On a daily basis US soldiers are dying here, as well as being severely wounded. When one looks at a general headline on a news website and reads: 1 US soldier killed, 2 wounded, it is not shown the degree to which these soldiers are wounded. Many have suffered permanent brain damage, loss of feet, legs, hands, arms. There lives are changed forever by permanent disabilities; rather than the impression the mainstream media leaves of injured by cuts and bruises.

The system of information control runs deep in Iraq today. The CPA has recently released a law stating that no public demonstrations are allowed without their approval and consent. If a demonstration occurs without said, the people will be detained promptly.

During the aforementioned press conference this evening, attended not only by media but the additional 15 US soldiers in the room, I paid close attention to the words used by General Kimmit and the very uptight man in the suit standing next to him assisting him in answering questions posed by the media.

After laughing and looking at one another while smiling on two different occasions while giving a press conference while reporting attacks on US troops resulting in them dying and being wounded, the two men at the podium used interesting terms in order to avoid the term ‘resistance.’

Resistance fighters are thus referred to as ‘anti-coalition fighters’, ‘anti-coalition suspects’ (detainees), and of course the mainstay, ‘terrorists.’

We are shown a slick video taken by military personnel of a raid conducted on the Ibn Taimiyah Mosque last Thursday. This raid brought great scrutiny on the CPA for disrespecting the traditions and culture here, due to the fact that US soldiers raided it wearing their combat boots and wielding weapons. They rolled up the pray rugs while looking for tunnels hiding weapons caches, and coming up empty on the tunnels.

While the raid did yield many weapons, TNT, and grenades, the method in which it was conducted may be more detrimental to the occupiers efforts than the fruits it yielded.

They arrested its prayer leader, Shaikh Mahdi Salah al-Sumaidi, a member of the Supreme Council for Religious Guidance, along with 20 of his assistants. General Kimmit went out of his way to point out in the video, how the Sheikh was bound and handled as fairly as all the other detainees.

My Iraqi friend sitting next to me holds her hand to her forehead, holding her head and shaking it slowly while watching the bound Sheikh, as well as the soldiers wearing boots in the mosque, carrying weapons, and rolling up the rugs. She is in disbelief.

While US soldiers may need to conduct raids on mosques, wouldn’t a better policy be to let IP’s (Iraqi Police) or Iraqi Civil Defense personnel handle this culturally sensitive operation?

In addition, General Kimmit went out of his way to stress that IP’s and ICDC’s were ‘fully integrated’ in the force that raided the mosque. If so, why didn’t these men conduct the raid? Why were only US soldiers seen in the mosque on the video?

During the rattling off of statistics of numbers of raids, detainees, and weapons caches found, there is never any mention of Iraqi civilian casualties.

Instead, they discuss a ‘whole new group’ of Iraqis stepping forward to help the coalition since the capture of Saddam Hussein. They divide these two groups into the ‘Hopefuls’ (those who want to help now that he is gone) and the ‘Fearfuls’ (those who were too afraid to help while his shadow was still at large).

After the carefully conducted press conference comes to a close, I walk out of the surreal atmosphere of the CPIC in the fancy conference hall, back into the insecure streets of Baghdad to return home. The usual sporadic gunfire from various parts of the city echoes off the buildings as night falls over the land of the ‘Hopefuls’ and ‘Fearfuls.’

Dahr Jamail, is an independent American journalist reporting from Iraq

Copyright: Dahr Jamail.

=====

Dispatch From The Provinces

US Military Mis-Information and Terrorism in Iraq

Dahr Jamail

3 January 2004: (ICH) I learned yesterday that one of the main sites which posts the writings of independent journalists and activists in Iraq, www.electroniciraq.net, has been banned from at least one of the US military bases in Iraq.

Celebrate free speech, read a banned website!

Like other repressive dictatorships and regimes, the US military has now followed suit in Iraq by attempting to select what its personnel should and should not read.

It is happening at home in the US as well. For example, the only news I see about Iraq on major American news outlets yesterday is about the one US soldier killed when his helicopter was downed. Iraqis who observed the chopper being hit by a rocket reported watching it being broken in two pieces and falling to the ground in flames. Thus, the other soldier, while reported as being injured, more than likely must have been very seriously injured. Again, no specific reporting on that either.

However, this could have something to do with the fact that a Reuters news team filming at the scene was fired upon by the Americans, then detained by military personnel near the crash site.

A military spokesperson stated that the military believed the Reuters team were resistance fighters posing as media. The US military today reported that the Reuters news team was firing machine guns and RPG at US military at the site.

There was no news about another US soldier who died yesterday by being shot by a weapon that discharged while being cleaned. Nor was there news about another US soldier who died when a truck he was riding in with a large convoy flipped, killing him and injuring several others. The toll of the occupation on US military personnel in Iraq mounts daily, just as it does on the Iraqi people.

Last night huge explosions rocked the outskirts of Eastern Baghdad.

Today a few of us decided to go check into it ourselves.

While driving around the farmlands of rural Baghdad in Al-Dora, a beautiful area of palm groves and green fields, we came across a man who told us Iraqi witnesses reported a US Humvee Patrol hit by a large roadside bomb, killing 5 soldiers, and injuring 2 others yesterday.

If this was true, it is yet another case of unreported news by US media, as there has been nothing of US soldiers being killed in Al-Dora by an IED yesterday.

We continued down the road, and soon came upon a huge crater, one meter deep, and 20 meters away off the other side of the road were skidding tire marks and a palm tree partly burned. Off the side of the road near this crash were small pieces of Humvee, a bloody bandage, a piece of green cloth with blood on it, and some bullet casings. Down in the dirt where the Humvee struck the palm tree sat a US grenade, splattered with blood.

Over near the crater was a partially used I.V. bag and a piece of paper with instructions on how to perform CPR, written in English of course.

Three Iraqi boys at the scene tell us that at 11:45am yesterday, the 2 Humvee Patrol was hit by the bomb. One Humvee was tossed off the other side of the road and burned, and the other was partially destroyed. They too, reported 5 US deaths, and 2 wounded.

One of the journalists in our group called CPIC from the scene, and they confirmed that a US patrol was hit by an IED yesterday here, but only 2 dead and 3 wounded.

More men arrived at the scene and agreed with the 5 dead, 2 wounded casualty count, and told us they were working in the nearby fields and saw the aftermath of the strike. They told us more soldiers arrived shortly after the attack and promptly detained 15 men from nearby homes.

While interviewing the men at the scene a huge explosion is heard in the distance. One of the men slaps his hands together, as if dusting them off, and says, “America finished!”

I checked the internet upon arriving back at my hotel to find that there was no report from a news agency about this attack yesterday, even though CPIC had confirmed the attack and at least 2 US soldiers killed.

We continue on down the street to find a farmhouse where a bomb from the nightly attacks the US has hit, via Operation Iron Grip.

In this Albu Aitha area of Al-Dora, it is nothing but farmers and wide open fields, lined with rows of palm trees.

Just beside an old stone house here, an older man points out a large crater, shrapnel scars marking the front of the home and huge chunks ripped out of a nearby palm tree.

The family had been eating dinner two nights ago and the bombing began. They were in a nearby room from area near the strike, or they would have been hit by shattered glass and shrapnel from the explosion.

Hamid Salman Halwan, the owner of the home, said, “Two nights ago they bombed here from 6-9pm, then resumed it again at 4am. I think it was jets shooting missiles, because I could hear the engines. Last night they bombed some more in this area. I suppose they think resistance fighters are hiding in the fields here.”

His wife tells us her children are afraid of any noise now, and have trouble sleeping at night. The family hasn’t slept in their home since the bombing 2 nights ago, for fear of another strike on their home.

“We don’t know why they bomb our house and our fields. We have never resisted the Americans. There are foreign fighters who have passed through here, and I think this is who they want. But why are they bombing us?”

U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters Friday that Operation Iron Grip in this area sends “a very clear message to anybody who thinks that they can run around Baghdad without worrying about the consequences of firing RPG’s, firing mortars. There is a capability in the air that can quickly respond against anybody who would want to harm Iraqi citizens or coalition forces."

The family took us out into their nearby fields to show us a plethora of unexploded mortar rounds. The white bombs are sticking halfway out of the hardened mud as children play around them, pointing to them with excitement.

I count 9 small tails of the mortar rounds sticking into the air in this small section of the field.

Mr. Shakr, the brother of the man whose home was struck by a bomb, points to a distant hill and says, “The Americans shot mortars at us from there. You can see the crater where one exploded, but here are the rest. We had been told the Americans only use sound bombs here, but now we know different.”

He goes on to say that it was two nights ago when the Americans shot mortars at their fields behind their home, from 6:30-10pm, then again at 4am.

We asked if the family had requested that the Americans come remove the unexploded ordnance.

Mr. Shakr, with a very troubled look, said, “We asked them the first time and they said ‘OK, we’ll come take care of it.’ But they never came. We asked them the second time and they told us they would not remove them until we gave them a resistance fighter. They told us, ‘If you won’t give us a resistance fighter, we are not coming to remove the bombs.’”

He holds his hands in the air and says, “But we don’t know any resistance fighters!”

He grows somber, and quietly says, “We will have to leave this land because we cannot farm our fields with bombs in them.”

A little further into this area which has been struck so hard by ‘Operation Iron Grip’ we speak with a man standing in front of his farm house.

He invites us to his home and we sit sharing chai in the setting sun. His 3 year old boy, Halaf Ziad Halaf, walks up to us and with a worried look on his face says,

“I have seen the Americans here with their tanks. They want to attack us.”

Halaf’s uncle leans over to me and says,

“The Americans are creating the terrorists here by hurting people and causing their relatives to fight against them. Even this little boy will grow up hating the Americans because of their policy here.”

Dahr Jamail, is an independent American journalist reporting from Iraq

Copyright: Dahr Jamail.

=============

Reprinted in full with permission from Dahr Jamail

From : Dahr Jamail <[e-mail]>
Reply-To : [e-mail]
Sent : Sunday, January 30, 2005 2:37 AM
To : [e-mail]
Subject : Re: Contact From the Dahr Jamail Iraq Web Site

Thanks a lot xxx,

Please post whatever of my work you like and keep up the great work.

Best,

Dahr


[e-mail] wrote:

The following message was sent to you from a visitor to DahrJamailIraq.com. The person entered: [e-mail] as the return email address. If you reply to this message, it will be sent to [e-mail].

******
Hello Dahr,

First I need to tell you how AWED I am of the good work you\'re doing in keeping us informed of what's really going on in Iraq- not that we would believe the mainstream media for one minute but your information is VERY important to the antiwar movement.



I would like your permission to repost some of your writings at the reasonably Leftist web-site www.democraticunderground.com . Most of the posters there are passionately antiwar and have been fighting this madness for years. Most of us are Dean/Kucinich types but lately there has been an infestation of 'moderates' trying to convince people that everything in Iraq is just well. Today what really blew my mind is an xxx supporter talking about his JOY at these elections and how Iraqis were about to be free. Dahr, I beg you, please allow me to repost some, just a few, of your web blog entries at that site to fight that creeping propaganda from the right-wing. I promise to give you FULL credit with a link taking people back to your site (which I've already been extensively advertising). The site has over 60,000 registered users (though I'd warrant only about 2000 are active) and many lurkers. Would you please allow me to repost a few of your blog entries in their entirety? I am determined to fight the sickening propaganda that there's any sort of an "election" in Iraq.

God bless you whether you say yes or no. You are a hero in my eyes.

Sincerely and gratefully,

xxxx

[geek tragedy]

58. Then you should have absolutely no trouble finding the names of

soldiers who have died whose names have not been listed.

Until then, this is all speculation with no proof.

[spindoctor]

60. To use a 250 yr old cliche: The first casualty of war is always the truth

I read the article and let me lift out one paragraph that perfectly illustrates the issue at hand:

Three Iraqi boys at the scene tell us that at 11:45am yesterday, the 2 Humvee Patrol was hit by the bomb. One Humvee was tossed off the other side of the road and burned, and the other was partially destroyed. They too, reported 5 US deaths, and 2 wounded.

One of the journalists in our group called CPIC from the scene, and they confirmed that a US patrol was hit by an IED yesterday here, but only 2 dead and 3 wounded.

Point 1: any police officer can tell you that there is no more unreliable source than bystanders at an accident. Every one will have a different account of what happened and most are inaccurate.

Point 2: Unless these Iraqi farm boys have medical degrees, I don't know why we should rely on their assessment of who is dead and who is wounded.

Point 3: Who says the 2 discrepancies in this story are A. American, B. Military and C. Dead?


I hope you see the problem with stories like these. Without facts (something actually verifiable...like names), they are just that even if their author is hailed as a hero by the progressive left.

In any war scenario there will be outright lies, fabrications and fishing stories. I am sure that the DOD will do anything they can to picture the most positive representation of their achievements in Iraq. Systematically omitting fallen American soldiers is just not a proved part of that.

And that's what my plea is about. According to the latest rumor, soldiers who are wounded in Iraq but flown out to other countries and subsequently died of their injuries are not included in the Iraqi body count.
This is a factual MYTH (see above for Lynn's list of counted soldiers who fit the description).

Your article questions the accuracy of reporting and the answer to that is simple. There is no accuracy in war reporting. People in war situations are usually too busy doing other things.

(edited for typo)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

65. Must be one hell of a reliable reporter.

Seeing as the link to his own website is broken.

[LynnTheDem]

73. And as soon as any of them find ONE NAME out of the "thousands

hidden", we'll have something to go on.

Sorry but I find it impossible that bush could be so competent that going on 3 years and "thousands hidden", not one family member, not one friend, not one fellow soldier, not one of the complicit thousands that would be required in such a cover-up, have not come forward with one name of a "hidden" dead US soldier.

[shance]

75. Hey there Tinoire***sure have missed your terrific presence lately

Nice to see you as always****

hoping all is good with you. :)

[onenote]

59. thanks to LynntheDem

for her work and for debunking the bogus story about underreported body counts.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the most powerful weapon those of us who oppose this war have is our credibility, which can be used to great effect in contrast to the lies told by the administration to get us into this war. But if we undermine our credibility by making claims that not only are unsupported by any evidence but also conflict with common sense (thousands of unreported deaths and not a single family member, friend, or most importantly, fellow combatant, has noticed), we will do our own cause great harm.

onenote

[tinfoilinfor2005]

66. Yesterday I initiated a thread on this topic because I heard a report

about this on AAR. It was the first I'd heard of it, and I wanted some input. I'm not very good at finding information on the DU search...don't know why, but I generally just come away frustrated.

I was given information on both sides of the matter by many DUer's, but at the end I was firmly convinced that the numbers are correct and that dedicated and responsible citizens are committed to providing accurate information.

We can all agree to disagree, but I think it weakens our position if we disproportionately challenge irrefutable evidence.

[kittenpants]

67. I don't blame you for asking about something you heard on AAR.

I DO blame Ed Schultz for spreading misinformation though! He has a team of researchers... I guess we do too in a way. :)

[spindoctor]

70. Actually, hearing it on AAR triggered my thread too

It really scared the crap out of me that this nonsense is making its way around so fast.
As I mentioned before, I am all for debate but this is not a debatable issue and by continuing to spread the rumor it hurts our credibility AND the actual facts that are bad enough.

I did not start this thread as a personal attack to anybody who posted about this or raised questions about it, but rather as a clearly visible warning for (the many) people who are anxious to report on it and involuntarily help to spread this hoax, serving whatever agenda TBR might have.

It's really not a good thing that this story made its way to fine institutions like the Huffington Post and AAR.

[anarch]

69. "uncounted deaths"? How about Iraqis?

If you all want to talk about uncounted deaths...

http://iraqbodycount.net/

Also, agreed: 1,700+ dead and 13,000+ wounded = absolutely terrible.

[spindoctor]

74. True, they are mostly uncounted but again that is a different topic. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

71. Who was that fake soldier supporting this claim on the radio?

I guess he was part of the conspiracy as well - I'm as susceptible as the rest of the sheeple sometimes I guess!

[many a good man]

76. Let's choose our battles wisely

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP.

Making this argument just diminishes your credibility. Just like Nazi comparisons. Even though it may be true.

The best forms of argument lead the other person to the conclusion you want them to reach; you don't just throw it in their face and flog them about the head with it.

[democracyindanger]

80. Answer from EXPERTS

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/13126/2340

An email about this, from a representative of icasualties.org, who've been tracking casualties since DAY ONE.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia D. Kneisler
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:34 PM
To: Zwissler, Robert-E
Subject: Fw: Iraqi Casualties

Hello, Rob. Michael White just forwarded your message on to me.

In a word ... NO ... I do not believe such a discrepancy is even remotely possible. I hadn't seen the DKos diary, so went there just now and scanned through the diary and comments. It never ceases to amaze me what otherwise sensible people will fall for.

For two solid years now, Michael White and I have followed the deaths in Iraq literally on a daily basis. We haunt the CENTCOM, MNF-Iraq and DOD websites ... as well as all of the major news feeds. In fact, the two of us have grown adept at finding death notices in the news media prior to the military issuing them. For about the past year and a half, Michael and I have been joined in the research by Evan D., an historian in the Washington D.C. area, and by Lynn L., another researcher whose husband is in the 4th ID. So that makes 4 of us searching the news media and the military sites, each and every day mind you, for deaths.

And after all this time, we all four of us concur. Yes, there are a few unreported deaths, which I'll explain in a minute. But not thousands. We'd have found them if there were.

Here's something that might interest you. If you go to our homepage, you'll notice a place up top that says "Fatality Details". Click on that. That'll take you to our fully searchable database.

When you get there, scroll down to the bottom of that page to where the Filters are. I'm finding that many people simply don't realize these handy, dandy little tools are there. Go over to the right to where it says "Country of Death" ... and select, say, "Germany" from the drop down list. Then hit the "Apply Filter" button over to the left.

Voila ... a list of 23 guys will appear ... all of whom died in Germany from wounds or illnesses incurred in Iraq ... all of whom have formal releases from the DOD and who are on the DOD's death list.

Now go back to the filters and hit "Remove Filter" so that you can start fresh. Go back to the "Country of Death" and select "USA", then hit "Apply Filter". There's 31 troops who died in the USA and whom the DOD has owned up to.

So there's no truth to the rumor that if you die outside of Iraq, the DOD automatically ignores you. Yes, occasionally it does ... especially if the death happens months after the soldier gets back from Iraq (Lynn's husband knows of 5 men that this applies to). And I am told that occasionally Special Forces deaths may be hush-hush. But as a rule, no. It's just a wild rumor.

And it's the same with this 7,000 business. If our list were missing thousands of names, can you imagine the e-mails we would get from enraged grannies, aunts, best friends, etc. for daring to leave their loved one OFF !!!!!??? I shudder to think of it. I get called to task for every little goof-up I make as it is. I recently mistakenly entered a soldier's service branch as "U.S. Army National Guard" because that's what a news article said. Oh my ... the chaplain for the man's unit had an e-mail in to me within the HOUR complaining that it was U.S. ARMY RESERVES, dammit! And then there are the parents who write to say that the DOD published the wrong hometown, and would I please put the correct one in my database. We have thousands upon thousands of eyes out there watching that list. We aren't missing thousands of names.

The last thing to consider is this: the Bush administration isn't GOOD ENOUGH to hide that many deaths. They haven't managed to hide Halliburton's over-runs. They haven't managed to hide the troop equipment shortages. And they haven't managed to hide their own ineptness in the whole occupation. Somehow the truth has a way of seeping out between the cracks.

And me and Michael and Lynn and Evan watch those cracks like hawks.

Oh, dear ... didn't mean to write a diatribe. But this rumor is really starting to set my teeth on edge. I think I may send the above to Markos and see if he'll publish it ... at least let me get my very considered opinion in!

Thanks for the tip on the article. I hope I answered your question.

Pat K.
Researcher, ICCC

[spindoctor]

84. Thanks. I hope that settles it once and for all. n/t

[democracyindanger]

86. Unfortunately, we both know it won't.

We can lead them to water, but they'll still scream that it's kerosene.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. I believe the Lynne of icasualites is LynneTheDem here on DU

and yet there are still people arguing with her in this thread. Apart from special forces, who may try to avoid publicity about how and where their troops die, I agree that family and colleagues would scream too loud at coverups.

[LynnTheDem]

95. That's me, yeppers. Also a new ICCC member is a DUer; "frictionless".

And I posted Pat's response last month...and here we are again. :eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

90. I suspect one reason this rumor started...

is because there have been several srories over the past year or two saying that there might have been 10,000 additional deaths if the new medical systems hadn't been in place.

Bragging about the new system is Pentagon PR, no doubt, and exaggerating the possible deaths without it may be par for the course, but misundestanding this number by just one or two "sources" could have started the trouble.

[sendero]

91. I tend to believe you....

... the administration is pretty good at not telling lies that can be easily factually proven to be lies.

But I wonder - are civilian/contractor deaths counted? I mean, they make up 20-25% of our personnel over there, no?

[spindoctor]

92. Last night's Frontline mentioned 300+ contractors dead

That number was based on press releases. They noted that not all companies announce their employees departures publicly.

I believe icasualties.org also carries an incomplete list of contractors.

I don't know what the actual number of contractors is (and I doubt anybody knows for sure). There are tens of thousands. A KBR spokesman in the Frontline documentary said something about having the equivalent of 3 battalions out there (just for the logistic operations).

[LynnTheDem]

96. The US military ONLY counts US military; ie troops.

So no, of course they don't count civilians.

We try to, in separate lists, but because they are civilians, their employers cannot be compelled into telling how many of their personnel have been killed or wounded and they don't want to tell.

ICCC:

Contractors killed; 244 known by name
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx

Journalists killed; 45 known by name
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/journalist.aspx

Iraqi police/military known of; 2418
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

[redqueen]

98. What about accidental deaths and suicides?

Just curious... are all of those included as well?

[LynnTheDem]

100. Yes they're counted, and murders (fraggings) IF they happen in-theater.

So a soldier in Iraq is killed by another soldier; he's counted.

A soldier in Iraq who dies in a vehicle accident; counted.

A soldier in Iraq dies of a heart attack; counted.

Soldiers who are sent to hospitals from Iraq and kill themselves WHILE STILL IN HOSPITAL, are counted. (Hospitals are in effect the same as still being in-theater for soldiers wounded or ill and who then die, but the military has recently decided to also include soldiers in hospital for PTSD and kill themselves in the hospital.)

But soldiers who are returned to their bases, be they in the US or Germany etc, and who then kill themselves or other soldiers or accidents, no they are not counted.

It's very difficult to determine which deaths, for troops no longer in the warzone, are attributable to having been in the warzone, so an arbitrary line has to be drawn. Soldiers, being just people like every other person, do commit suicide and murder and die in accidents, having nothing to do with having been in a warzone.

The line drawn then is deaths that can be directly traced to the warzone; all deaths for ANY reason IN the warzone, and all hospital deaths where soldiers were in the warzone taken directly to hospitals.

ICCC does try to count all US soldiers' deaths from accidents/murder/suicide, but separate lists from the 1700+ count. DUer "frictionless" is in charge of the US-based deaths.

[redqueen]

102. Thanks...

that's exactly what I was wondering... where that line is drawn.

And thanks also for all your efforts to clear up this issue.

:yourock:

[LynnTheDem]

103. You're welcome. :)

It's nasty to have to draw any line...but as it's arbitrary no matter what way ya slice it, the military draws it at soldiers who die, from ANY cause whatsoever, IN the warzone, or who are evac'ed to hospitals FROM the warzone and die in the hospitals.

[marions ghost]

93. Staying out of this, but just a comment...

This as a classic debate between 'Believers' and 'Skeptics.'

1.--BELIEVERS: icasualties.org strongly believe in their methods and findings, and have many supporters here who echo the same arguments. Independent oversight of any gov't figures is a noble goal, deserving of our respect. But part of the believers' argument is an appeal to "common sense" in a world where that kind of blind trust in rationality is just...gone. Therefore a skeptical response from others should not cause Believers to become overly defensive--if they are strong in their convictions.

2.--SKEPTICS: others here who question the validity of DOD stats, point out the ways in which the government lies, has lied in the past, and routinely manipulates every form of information. We all know we have been criminally misled about the reasons for invasion of Iraq. OK maybe the government has NOT deliberately misled us in the case of casualties--partly because of the level of scrutiny by military families--but if they wanted to, they probably could get away with some form of cover-up for awhile. I'm not sure I think they are capable of pulling it off, BUT we just don't really KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt, in the strictest scientific sense.
--------------------
The Believers are not going to convince Skeptics, and Skeptics will not convince Believers. This is a world where Truth about anything is difficult and expensive--to pin down.
--------------------
The idea that whether we believe the DOD figures or not as critically reflecting on our credibility and our image and all that--is questionable and a bit myopic. Our image as progressives is not hinging on this; that's a very thin-skinned defense. Some disagreement among us is typical. This debate is nuance in the bigger scheme of things.

To most Americans the official DOD death toll is already way too high. And the cost of the war in US funds is way too high. This is the Big Picture.

[geek tragedy]

99. You've got it backwards. The "believers" are those who raise the

extraordinary claim that there are thousands of soldiers' deaths that have not been reported.

There has been absolutely NO proof or evidence to substantiate that claim.

Therefore, those who reject it are the skeptics. Adhering to the best values of the Enlightenment, we require that claims be supported by logic and evidence.

The tin foil theory in question here is completely devoid of such substantiation. It is nothing more than wild speculation based on a rejection of some evidence, not based on any of its own evidence.

Until the tinfoilers on this theory produce some kind of evidence, we're right and they're wrong as a matter of empirical fact.

[marions ghost]

101. More black and white thinking....

:boring:

semantic gymnastics. Re. your appeal to the quaint and lovely days of "enlightenment values"--have you noticed that we don't HAVE logic at work these days and any evidence can be twisted on ANY subject? Empirical facts? I see passionate arguments, but NOT empirical facts, not yet anyway.

Not saying your view is right, not saying it's wrong. Just saying
NOBODY has definitive proof at this point. This does not involve any kind of wild speculation on my part. Allow for a middle ground. It's OK for some of us to remain firmly planted in the middle about something we just. cannot. know.

[geek tragedy]

105. You have a poor grasp of the concept of "evidence" and "logic."

There is zero evidence that there are thousands of dead soldiers unaccounted for.

None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. The empty set.

The argument that there are thousands of missing dead is ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT. There is no factual or logical support. All there is are paranoids pointing at the Pentagon and screaming "Liar liar."

Pentagon reports, press reports, independent fact-finding ALL confirm the 1700+ number.

When one claim has the support of all available evidence and logic, and there is absolutely no evidence or logic supporting the other side, it's not a matter of believers vs. skeptics. It's thinkers vs. non-thinkers.

[marions ghost]

106. Don't need a lecture on logic...

but your haranguing tone leads me to logically conclude that you do not have the courage of your convictions.

You say your evidence comes from: the Pentagon, the Press, and "independent fact-finders."
Now Logic tells me that I cannot believe all Pentagon reports, nor press reports....
But 'The jury is out' for me as to whether the "independent fact-finders" are correct. I support their work, but we may not know until later just how accurate they are. I certainly hope that they are very accurate. But I have no evidence, certainly no empirical evidence.
Logic tells me this is a dead end discussion...and the evidence is building for my departure. :hi:

[frictionlessO]

108. I understand and empathetically agree...

I understand folks having serious misgivings about any truth coming out of anything done by this admin. I totally FEEL for where most who disagree with ICCC's count are coming from. I live here too! It is crazy, it is upisdownism. For that though, you cannot trust anything in the end not even Dem/Prog leaders.... I personally have to draw the line somewhere in regards to casualty counting, and it doesn't stop at DOD's door.

Marion you took a very firm and good neutral ground here. It is a suitable place to plant the flag that says "We are one each others side". If people who believe the military count is 2-4 times larger than it is are right, well then I can't think of anyone who wouldn't say "you were right, we were wrong". After saying that, we'll storm the barricades together... anyways just like we would've done.

That is mostly my point, iCasualties is doing the absolute best they can. For now, there is no other way of doing independent counts, not without the taint of government which is what most of the "higher count" posters seem to take issue with. I wont reiterate the methods that we use because Lynn has done a helluva a bang up job doing that (time and again;). Suffice it to say, when it comes to "nuanced" issues like this only time is gonna tell.. and folks we don't have the time to keep bogging down in this issue... yet.

Finally I will guarantee to anyone who can find a single news report containing any names of deceased Iraq combat vets not counted that I will run out a thorough and total investigation on it, till the truth is delivered up as well as I can make it out into DU's hands (oh and ICCCs as Im sure they'd be very interested in it as well). I will put myself in the way of physical injury to make sure every last name is known and counted. I take this as serious as anything in life and death...

Marion thanks again for finding some middle ground. I soooo very much appreciate.

[redqueen]

97. This should be pinned.

[libodem]

104. I'd still like an accurate accounting of

the civilian death count in Iraq...that's where we've been duped on the numbers....freedom and democracy...my ass

[geniph]

107. I'd think, if there were thousands more dead,

there'd be tens of thousands of family members screaming bloody murder. Look, I have a cousin and a nephew just returned from Iraq, and another cousin still in Afghanistan. Had they been killed and the deaths somehow unreported as combat casualties, I can assure you my entire very large, very vocal, family would be shouting that fact from the rooftops. My family is not unusual in this regard.