Coverup of the Number of US Soldiers Killed in Iraq (states actual 4,076)

[Whoa_Nelly]

Coverup of the Number of US Soldiers Killed in Iraq
by Jesus Davila

July 12, 2005
El Diario (Puerto Rico) and the Coastal Post

Official US. government reports on soldiers under US command killed in Iraq are so fragmented that they account for less than half of the total number, according to information uncovered as part of an inquiry by the Government of Puerto Rico regarding the total number of Puerto Rican war casualties.

This analysis was confirmed by El Diario/La Prensa's review of multiple documents, including official reports issued by the US Department of Defense, the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior and more than 230 battlefront reports, which reveal that more than 4,076 troops under US command have been killed in 799 days of battle.

This information contrasts markedly with the limited information on casualties generally issued by US military authorities, which focus only on US uniformed troops. These total 1,649.

<snip>
Calculations are even more difficult when it comes to the wounded, which US authorities number at more than 12,600, and medical discharges -- those maimed or suffering from physical and mental injuries -- about whom only partial reports can be obtained. In this category, large discrepancies in counts have been publicized by news outlets such as the national German Press Agency (DPA), which ran a story reporting on US Army documents putting the number of US soldiers with war-related mental ailments at 100,000.

more...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAV20050712&articleId=666

[Stand and Fight]

1. Oh boy... Here we go again...

:popcorn:

[beam me up scottie]

2. Move over.

:hide:

[democracyindanger]

3. Debunked

time and time and time again. Boooring.

[aquart]

5. Debunked by whom?

[democracyindanger]

9. Here for one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4079096#4079125

and plenty of other times. In threads which, it should be noted, were locked because the claim has been debunked.

[whatelseisnew]

11. read beyond the headline and read the replies here please

thanks

[democracyindanger]

13. The point is the headline

The intention of the headline is to contribute to the lie that US military deaths are underreported to a degree in the thousands.

Thanks.

[whatelseisnew]

14. I have been addressing the headline in other replies

sorry about that 'thanks' , it was snarky, but your link doesn't

address the substance of the article.

[aquart]

4. Wow. Great work.

[whatelseisnew]

6. Title is wrong , read the article it says 'under US command'

includes Iraqi army and all coalition deaths

[whatelseisnew]

8. Headline should read: US Media Ignores Coalition Deaths

[berni_mccoy]

7. Pay ATTENTION PEOPLE and READ the FUCKING ARTICLE

This isn't the same old story.

This one says 2000 Iraqi soldiers under U.S. command are not being reported, which when you throw in the 1700 U.S. troops and the 250 Mercenaries + < 100 other soldiers, you get around 4000.

I agree with a previous poster though... the title of the article is deceiving...

[whatelseisnew]

10. More than deceiving, it is a lie, allowing 'debunking'

debunking allows continued ignoring of total casualties and

perpetuates ignorance in the public of the state of the occupation

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[frictionlessO]

15. Actually this story when read in total make a little more sense than the

usual 4000-9000 US soldier deaths estimate. I still think it full of holes, but just because the poster you responded to got foul doesn't mean you have to use the tinfoil roll to bang them over the head.

We want them to see the light not be blinded by it...

You can always alert on this as well, since Mods have been removing the worst of these lately.

[beam me up scottie]

16. I was referring to the source, not the poster.

Check the link I provided and you'll see what I meant.

[frictionlessO]

17. So if the source is completely invalid say so and point out why...

Whats more if you believe that this source is not worthy of the forum alert on it.

[beam me up scottie]

18. delete dupe

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Proud_Lefty]

26. What about the independent contractors?

I just got had a nice visit with a friend of mine who was home from Iraq on a short break. He said that most the people on the front lines came over with Halliburton and found they could make much more money working for another company out of San Diego, Tyco (sp?). Is there anyway to get a count of U.S. independent contractors' deaths in Iraq?

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. That article doesn't indicate any cover-up of US deaths

What the fuck are you trying to pull?

[Imagevision]

After what this administration has pulled thus far- I believe they've been

deceptive on US. troops death/casulty counts -- First they forbid any video-coverage of returning dead US. troops returning at Andover, of course they knew the public wasn't going to back them seeing all the flag-drapped coffins - perhaps it could have been possible to question the actual number killed and what the Pentagon states?

[NMDemDist2]

31. Locking

Debunked many times in the past month - http://icasualties.org/oif / or contact DUer Lynn the Dem "