U.S. accused of reporting less than half its casualties in Iraq

[Greylyn58]

WASHINGTON, May 26 – Prensa Latina informs that official US reports on Iraq reflect less than half the numbers of soldiers killed in that war of aggression, according to an article by El Diario-La Prensa online in New York.

An article datelined San Juan, Puerto Rico, says that troops under the US command have suffered at least 4,076 fatal casualties over 799 days of action.

The information markedly contrasts with reports published by the authorities in Washington, which focus on the fallen wearing US uniforms, which totals 1,649, the article notes.

It refers to the difficulties encountered by the Puerto Rican government in obtaining a figure of total Puerto Rican casualties during the present war.

<snip>


http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=12110&l=x&size=1&hd=0


I don't want to believe that this is true, but with everything we do know about the pResident and his cabal, I'm afraid it might be. And if it is, then this man and his evil empire need to be exposed for the liars they are. If I said what I'm really feeling, I'm afraid I'll be kicked off the board or worse.

[blurp]

1. Uhg. You really think 1,000+ Americans would die and no one would notice?

[shadowknows69]

7. You really think

that Bush would take us to war on lies. Then it be proven and no one would notice.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. It took 30,000 American dead in Vietnam to REALLY kick-start....

...the anti-war movement and get people of all backgrounds into the streets. The first US troops were assigned to Vietnam as advisors by Ike in 1954. By mid-1967, thirteen years later, we had lost 30,000 dead.

We're barely two years into the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan has definitely become the "Forgotten War".

You were saying something about not noticing?

[Massacure]

194. McNamara knew it was a deathtrap too. LBJ didn't want to believe him.

Powell knew Iraq was a deathtrap. Look who didn't believe him.

The pendulum is swinging.

[leesa]

92. How would they know? They wouldn't be COUNTED as casualties

They would still be dead. How would the various family members know the total numbers?

[converted_democrat]

94. Uh........

I don't know anyone currently in the military, and neither does anyone else in my family. So that's 50+ people that know no one in the military. I really don't think 1,000 people would be that hard to cover up. That only comes out to 20 people per state.

[tx_dem41]

98. You have your logic in reverse.....

its how many people the military person knows (in and out of the military), NOT how many people in the military a non-military person knows.

[converted_democrat]

99. Maybe my logic is wrong, but it's still only 20 per state.............

I think this article is talking about mercenaries, too. Those people would'nt have anything to do with a base, or the people on it.


"The information markedly contrasts with reports published by the authorities in Washington, which focus on the fallen wearing US uniforms, which totals 1,649, the article notes."

Wearing U.S. uniforms?

[tx_dem41]

101. This article talks about forces "under U.S. command".

The mercenaries to which you refer, are NOT under U.S. command. Most are private security forces hired by civial contractors. So the "phantom-dead" of 2400 or so, does not include "mercenaries".

http://icasualties.org/

[converted_democrat]

108. Ya, know what?

I believe just about anyone over the U.S. government right now, kay? I admit that I know very little about the military. Sounds like you do, great. My area of expertise is finance, and the numbers coming out of the FED and the Treasury have been way off since January. Yet, all of the talking heads don't talk about it, and most investors I know are clueless. So, you really want me to believe that they are fiddling with some numbers, but not others? I'm not buying. Sorry. Nothing personal, I just don't believe it.

[tx_dem41]

111. The only thing different about THESE numbers is...

that they can be quite easily debunked by the thousands and thousands of people who are associated (family, friends, work, etc.) with these "phantom-dead". So far, after two years, not one person has stepped up.

[libertypirate]

226. Do you have anything more then just another Bush coincidence?

I hate to burst a bubble but there are way to many coincidences that end up relieving * Co. from having to deal with the path they have left behind.

Here is another did you know that an aircraft frame is so strong that the wings can cut steal and not break off? If you believe that I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.

[tx_dem41]

229. Do I have anything more than just another Bush coincidence?

Yes, I have a rational process to analyse a situation. What do you have (other than a Bush coincidence, that is)?

[libertypirate]

232. The rational sense not to speak from my buckeye which is equal

to not making the bull shit fit the smell.

[tx_dem41]

234. I agree...

lots of bull sh*t in this thread.

[elehhhhna]

178. Please tell more re: " Numbers coming out of the FED..."

... and the Treasury have been way off since January."

What numbers? How "way off" ?

[converted_democrat]

209. I pm -ed you. Look in your inbox.

[elehhhhna]

217. Thanks. I pm'd back--

please start a thread on that info. Please!

[LuPeRcALiO]

123. Yes.

Starting with the ones who don't speak such good English.

Why? For a million "strategic" reasons.

[warrens]

166. They medivac serious wounds out of Iraq as fast as they can

If they die in Germany or Kuwait, they don't count.

[LynnTheDem]

175. Bullshit.

Absolute, provable and total BULLSHIT.

And we damn the rightwingnuts for stating bullshit as "fact".

[katinmn]

222. but, LynnTD, how can you be absolutely sure?

After all we've learned about the Bush Team, would you put it past them?

I know it would be difficult to hide but I think we have to accept that these torturing criminals are not above lying about soldiers' deaths.

[LynnTheDem]

235. Because it's not bush and his lying Cartel.

And because if you go to the ICCC you can read all the names of troops who died in Kuwait...and Germany...and America...

[katinmn]

259. Ok. I just don't trust those lying, thieving

bastids and I know they'd lie if they could.

Still, you have the best argument for why it's not true.:)

[LynnTheDem]

271. You'd be INSANE if you did trust those lying thieving MFing bastards.

And hell yeah they'd order the US Military to lie if they could.

And most the US Military knows that.

Contrary to rightwingnut myth, of the 85% of the military that are the enlisted troops, only 1/3 are republicans. Two-thirds are Dems and Indies.

And while the other 15%, officers, are heavily republican, that doesn't equate to heavily pro-bush. One need merely look at the comments made by many of the Military's top brass, retired and active duty to see that. :)

[tx_dem41]

204. I thought we accused the other side...

of slinging the bulls**t all the time. It's disconcerting to see someone on our side spew it...especially since its so easy to disprove. Next time....do your homework before you buy into the administration meme of 1650+ dead being insignificant.

[JRob]

268. Yup! I truly think it could...

-typos

I'm not saying it's a fact, but 5 years ago you couldn't have convinced me that a lot of what's happened since could or would happen. And I was pretty cynical about a potential Bush administration before he was appointed king by the Supreme Court.

These fuckers could and would for the slightest reason. They're just numbers...

...and more than half the country's is hooked into the Matrix.

[Enraged_Ape]

2. I see no reason not to believe it

The White House and the mainstream media have lied about everything from day one. So why is this hard to believe?

[FreedomAngel82]

95. I agree

They haven't talked about any of the deaths for a good while now. I remember in the beginning watching MSNBC and during the switching of shows they would show the soliders photo and date of birth/date of death. Now they don't even mention it. Everything is hunky doory. :mad: For a while they didn't even let photographs of the casket's be out! Now that really blew my mind.

[acmejack]

3. This has been pretty thoroughly debunked

In threads here on DU among others. It would be difficult to pull off, how long could such a subterfuge be maintained?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Nonsense. Debunked by whom...those who continue to believe....

...what we're being told by the NeoCon-controlled mainstream media??

[LynnTheDem]

29. Debunked by me, for example. And by Pat. And by COMMON SENSE.

Answer from Pat @ Iraq Coalition Casualty Count:

Question:

Is it possible the US military is hiding large numbers of US soldiers' deaths?

Answer:

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 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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3688105

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Pardon me! Don't take this personally, but the US Government....

...has been hiding information for more than a couple of hundred years. They've gotten quite good at it, just in case you and your fellow researchers haven't noticed.

The only information you'll get from them is what they want you to know, usually in the form of what's known in the intelligence world as a "limited hang-out". They feed us stories that are partially true and continue to hide the information they most want to protect.

You do realize that a large number of US troops in Iraq are Special Ops, don't you? If they are killed while involved in top-secret operations, their deaths will not be revealed to anyone, perhaps not even to their own families. And if their families are told of their deaths, they will be told to keep that information quiet for reasons of National Security. If need be, they will be suitably frightened to keep their mouths shut.

With all due respect, you and your fellow researchers don't really know what you're dealing with...and that's REALLY setting my teeth on edge.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. In order to believe that

you'd have to believe that NOT ONE person associated with these extra supposed KIAs is familiar with the various online databases of the dead, or, being familiar, decided not to contact the managers of said databases. That is, quite simply, utterly implausible. So, let's say there are 4,000 KIA. That's 2,350 more than icasualties.com has verification for. So, let's consider how many people would be connected in some way to those 2,350 dead. Let's say friends, neighbors, teachers, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings. Let's put the number, conservatively, as 30,000 (I'm assuming every one of the dead knows only 15 people who are aware that they've been killed in Iraq, a laughably low number if you've ever planned a wedding! - the real number would be closer to 100,000). Of that 30,000, not one - let me repeat NOT ONE - is aware of the most well-known database of the dead on the Internet (icasualties.org), or, being aware, has not 1) searched for the name of their dead relative/student/friend/acquaintance and 2) not finding it, has not contacted the administrators of the site to alert them to the error. NOT ONE! NOT ONE!

Is that plausible? Does that make sense to you? Would any reasonable person believe that? I think not. I think anyone who believes that (and there could be NO OTHER EXPLANATION) would have to be a credulous fool to say the least, and perhaps devoid of any reasoning capacity whatsoever. So tell me, friend, is this what you believe? NOT ONE!

[ooglymoogly]

172. you are either with us in which case you are just real smart or you

are agin us in which case you are a fool with no reasoning capacity whatsoever for believing the government might be lying....thousands of soldiers are recruited from latin american countries and probably would not be aware of your crack watching. i have no way of knowing if this is true but; is it possible and worth a debate?...with this bunch...you betcha. after all that is how you make a reasoned judgment innit. i have lived in many foreign countries and for the natives america for many, is another planet and so far out of their focus that it is not even visible on their radar.

[alcibiades_mystery]

179. So all 2,350 extra dead

are recruited from Latin America and other countries, and none have Internet access, or none know where their kids/friends/relatives ended up, and none had comrades in the service who can look up shit for themselves, etc.? I mean, please. The stretches you have to make to provide plausibili8ty end up destroying plausibility. Can you explain why NOT ONE relative/friend/comrade has contacted anybody at these various lists and made a complaint or can't you? The "military recruits from many countries" is simply a silly answer to this question.

I too agree there should be discussion, and I approach this with an open mind. If it was simply the government making the claim, I probably wouldn't believe it either. But the fact that you'd have to have upwards of 50,000 people "in on it" who would have absolutely NO REASON to consent to the conspiracy, and MUCH REASON to resist the conspiracy (we're not going to count YOUR KID in the list of names), or are so far off the radar that they couldn't even be approached to participate (i.e., John who used to work with my girlfriend Anna was killed in Iraq...) makes the conspiracy simply implausible, like a ton of lead floating up unassisted into the atmosphere: it doesn't comport with any known experience. I want to discuss reasonably, and that's my reasoning for rejecting the claim. When certain people who are convinced of something implausible from the outset refuse to listen to reason, then it is fair, however, to call them unreasonable.

[MadisonProgressive]

182. Well, if they say 'US Casualties'

then they wouldn't have to count non-citizens in the count at all. Since they are not serving their home country, it wouldn't be counted there either. I could see the evil bastards doing that.

[ooglymoogly]

183. thats why we have debates on du

you read both sides and come to a conclusion....my experience is most on du are pretty smart and not devoid of reason.

[tx_dem41]

205. "i have no way of knowing if this is true but; is it possible and ....

....worth a debate?"

Yep, all great debates start with "facts" that are pulled out of your a**.

:eyes:

[ooglymoogly]

230. my my aren't we testy

and i always thought you could debate just about anything....and at the end you have a better understanding of the truth...flat earth, gravity, evolution, add infinitum.......whether the govt is lying seems to me to be less of a stretch. so whether someone is pulling something from his ass, as you indelicately put it, or whether it comes from, as some would say a respectable article...its still debatable.

[tx_dem41]

231. Evidence pertaining to the charge....

please. A debate demands it.

[LynnTheDem]

48. We DON'T GO BY the US govt.

We POST the names AFTER we have confirmation by the US govt but we DO NOT sit back & simply wait for the US gov to release death notices.

Yes, almost ALL special ops deaths are released. They simply don't release the info that it was special ops troops. They say "soldiers", no referance to special ops.

Back to COMMON SENSE. My husband was in Iraq for 18 months. I heard from him 3 times/week on average. Do you REALLY think I'd not have shouted the bloody world down if I hadn't heard from him for weeks or months or years???

Do you REALLY think the families and friends of this mythical "thousands hidden deaths" wouldn't be shouting the world down???

Yet NOT ONE FAMILY has spoken out about their loved one being "missing".

You REALLY think out of the thousands of people necessary to cover up these "hidden deaths", including loved ones & friends, it's believeable that NOT ONE PERSON has come forward???

With all due respect, we researchers most certainly DO KNOW what we're dealing with, and you do not. And that's REALLY setting my teeth on edge.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

278. You just use them as sources. Hmmmm.

[blurp]

59. Don't bother debunking it. Their tinfoil hats are on too tightly.

:tinfoilhat:

[LynnTheDem]

60. I've noticed that. And they're just as bad as the wingnuts who denigrate

and marginalize and trivialize the number of troops' deaths.

By trying to overstate the number of soldiers' deaths, it says, whether one means to or not, that the real number of deaths is INSIGNIFICANT.

The opposite are the wingnuts who try to trivialize the number of soldiers' deaths. Again, they're saying (and this bunch are doing so on purpose) that the real number of deaths is INSIGNIFICANT.

And on a personal note: I truly and deeply resent and find very offensive anyone who HASN'T and DOESN'T spend HOURS every damn day for the past 4 years searching through 10,000-21,000 news articles every 15 minutes from around the globe searching for any & all troop deaths and holding Centcom and the DoD accountable for death notices of every one of those deaths, telling me that I don't know what I'm doing.

[ooglymoogly]

186. duh, isn't this the du or have i logged into the wrong site.

us tinfoil hatters have been right on the voting scandal years before the truth came out, and had our finger on the story behind the downing st. memo years before the memo came out...and a few other things...so proud to be a tinfoil mad hatter searching for the truth.

[KittyWampus]

76. That's No Debunking. It Starts With "I BELIEVE". That Is Opinion Only

and research from some nebulous 'researcher'?

[LynnTheDem]

79. Cool, I've never been called a "nebulous" before!

I'll add that to the list of names the rightwingnuts call me for being a traitor by tracking US soldiers' deaths, and the names the leftwingnuts call me for not adding extra non-existant US soldiers' deaths.

Good thing the hours every day I spend tracking US soldiers' deaths and ensuring the US gov account for every one of them is something I do for the SOLDIERS, and NOT something I do for Americans.

And bonus; the US dead never call me names, either.

[ooglymoogly]

154. just as long as our government works in total secrecy

and doesn't allow any photos of war dead coming home, and the press keeps telling us lies.

[whistle]

4. The 4,076 figure is closer, but I believe that perhaps twice that...

...number have died in the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. Just how the military is hiding that from the country is a mystery, but I just don't believe that with 175,000 U.S. troops deployed in a hostile war theater like we have seen in these two countries for the past 800 days that we should expect only an average of 2.2 deaths per day.

My guess is that with more than a million and a half U.S. troops deployed around the world and all of the secrecy and black-out policies that the military can employ, they might very well be hiding combat fatalities from the families, by having the troops fictitiously transported to locations outside of Iraq or Afghanistan, then report them killed in other arenas. Didn't they make up some stupid story about a football star being killed in action, when he was really assassinated by friendly fire? Well, if they'll do that shit, you can bet they'd cover-up the real combat fatalities of this very unpopular war.

If Americans knew the real deaths in Iraq from the beginning, Bush's ass would have been grass last November. It's another cover-up.

[arikara]

5. I heard that its because they only give the count for

ones killed in combat who actually died in Iraq. They airlift them out really fast when injured and many die later of their injuries. These aren't counted, so the true number is way higher than you hear on your faux type news.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Not true.

ALL troops who are wounded in Iraq, REGARDLESS where they die, are counted.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Prove it. Then name your sources that provide accurate information.

[LynnTheDem]

31. I work with the ICCC.

Name ONE FAMILY who haven't heard from their loved one in Iraq for 2 months...10 months...1 year.

Name ONE FAMILY.

But you're trying to say THOUSANDS of troops are DEAD and NOT ONE FAMILY MEMBER has spoken up about not having heard from their loved one???

I DON'T THINK SO!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. I repeat....you don't know what you're dealing with. See my post above.

[LynnTheDem]

51. Yes, actually, I DO know what I'm dealing with. COMMON SENSE and

many hours every day spent researching.

You do not know what you are dealing with.

I suggest you start spending 10 hours a day looking through 10,000-21,000 news articles every 15 minutes from around the globe that are referanced in any way to Iraq, and another 10,000-20,000 news articles every 15 minutes from around the globe that are referanced in any way to Afghanistan.

Then after a week of that, you will realize why I say there is NO WAY hundreds, let alone thousands, of soldiers' deaths could be covered up.

[marions ghost]

68. is it possible that

the families ARE notified, but the totals are not accurately reported? Lying with numbers is so easy, and as we have seen the govt does it often.

I'm sure that most people with half a brain understand that the families of the dead have been notified, or there would be hell to pay. But how are you so sure that totals provided are accurate?

[LynnTheDem]

73. No.

And NOT ONE family member or friend speaks out that their friend/loved one doesn't appear on any of the dead lists??? For 1000 troops you're talking what, 10,000 friends and family and neighbors and acquaintances...and NOT ONE says anything about the soldier's name not appearing on any of the dead lists?

Common sense.

NOT ONE of those "thousands" of hidden soldiers were given a funeral by their families???

Because if they were, and if the funeral notice mentioned "soldier/Iraq/wounded" etc, then I'd have seen the funeral notice and would check name of dead against the ICCC list.

Read all my posts; I believe they explain how I am so sure the totals are correct.

[marions ghost]

78. OK and please understand that I'm questioning the statistics,

and methods of collection--not your sincerity. It's good to have someone like you who is so deeply involved in this to ask questions of, since we have seen that accuracy in the govt and media cannot be trusted. Thanks for being here with this. I'm looking for info, not an argument.

Questions:
--Do families of the dead always check the lists of the dead? Who do they report to if a name is not found? Are there any independent reports of a family whose loved one does not appear on any list? I'd like to see some research on this--rather than appeals to common sense.

--I thought we are talking about roughly 2300 possible casualties, not "thousands." ??

--What are your figures for numbers of funeral notices you glean vs. no. of officially reported casualties? Have you ever found funeral notices that exceed the numbers of casualties?

--Have you ever found funeral notices to be LESS than the official numbers of casualties?

[yebrent]

121. People fly across the Country to touch the etched names...

of fallen friends and loved ones from the Vietnam War. I find it hard to believe that the ICCC would not be inundated with calls from loved ones if their names were left off. Impossible, unless all these "uncounted" dead had no family or friends to speak of, which seems just as unlikely.

It has been said several times, but is worth repeating. By arguing that thousands more are dead and unaccounted for, you are actually trivializing the 1600+ that have died. Somehow 1600+ dead from a war based on lies isn't significant enough, that we need to find more dead soldiers. IMO, this is just as bad as the right trivializing their deaths by bringing up how many died in WWII.

[KittyWampus]

77. No, We're Saying The ALL The Dead Aren't Being Counted Into Total

who says families aren't notified... they ARE.

Their dead relatives aren't being added to the total.

You've contacted every single family and asked them if their relatives name was on the official tally?

[LynnTheDem]

80. Believe whatever you like. Fact is, the dead ARE added to the total.

If you find one soldier who has died from wounds sustained in Iraq and who is not listed on the ICCC, let us know.

[marions ghost]

91. LynntheDem

gives no sources, or links to independent research. And does not answer any in-depth Q about methodology conducted by his/her group. Until I see that I don't think I can buy these counter-arguments...

[LynnTheDem]

105. I TOLD you several times EXACTLY how I research. WHAT do you NOT

UNDERSTAND about it???

LAST TIME.

1. I search worldwide news articels using newsfeeds, 1 for Iraq and 1 for Afghanistan.

The newsfeeds seacrh 10,000-21,000 articles every 15 mins for any blogs/articles/newsfeeds etc around the globe that have my key words.

2. When I find any mention of soldiers' deaths, I pass the articles on to the others at ICCC.

3. Slots are set up for however many dead soldiers articles list.

4. WHEN Centcom & DoD CONFIRM these deaths, we post the deaths onto the public ICCC list.

5. IF Centcom & the DoD do NOT confirm any deaths within 2-3 days, we chase down Centcom & the DoD.

What "sources" do you WANT??? My newsfeeds??? My Lex-Nex??? WHAT "links to independant sources" do you WANT??? My newsfeeds??? My Lex-Nex???

How much further "IN DEPTH" can I answer you repeated questions??? I have already, several times, TOLD YOU how ICCC researches deaths.

We SEARCH EVERY NEWS ARTICLE, EVERY BLOG, EVERY ONLINE MENTION of ANY soldier's death we can find, and we spend HOURS DAILY searching.

Now let's turn it around...SHOW ME ONE FAMILY MEMBER who says his loved one is not counted. JUST ONE.

Surely if "thousands" of loved ones are dead and being hidden, ONE FAMILY MEMBER would speak out.

Meanwhile, you're free to "buy" whatever you like. Why don't you WALK your talk, and spend ONE WEEK, 8 hours a day, searching newsfeeds that search 10,000-21,000 articles every 15 minutes.

[LuPeRcALiO]

129. hate to break it to ya

but the Pentagon controls the "news" coming out of Iraq.

And if they don't like what a foreign reporter is writing, well, ask Giuliana Sgrena what happens.

[tx_dem41]

132. Ahhhh....the "BFEE is Omnipotent "meme....

...how sad to see it played out by DUers incessantly.

Simple analysis of the situation shows one that assuming the list is a lie is a perfect way to discount the conspiracy theory.

1. The list is a lie.

2. 2400-7000 (depending on the CT)people aren't on the "false" list.

3. For up to 2+ years, not ONE of thousands and thousands of people have looked at the "false" list to prove the list's falsness.

Yep...great Conspiracy Theory you got going there. Keep trying to sell it though...what did P.T. Barnum say?

[LuPeRcALiO]

134. I'll go with your first two propositions. The third is irrelevant

As for Barnum, I think we disagree over who are the suckers.

[tx_dem41]

135. Given the blossoming of the internet and blogs....

the third is unavoidable. The MSM does not control information anymore, unlike during Vietnam.

[LuPeRcALiO]

136. Tell that to the families living in Barrio Turabo

that don't have phones.

[tx_dem41]

137. The "phantom-dead" are not all from ...

Barrio Turabo or so the theory goes.

[LuPeRcALiO]

138. No matter where they're from

their families are probably poor, non-white, incarcerated, missing or dead.

And yes, the military knows exactly who gets how much mail from whom.

[LynnTheDem]

141. ROTFLMAO!!!

Sorry for laughing but that crap deserves to be laughed at.

LynnTheDem,
US Military spouse

[LuPeRcALiO]

143. poverty isn't especially funny

but it's real.

[LynnTheDem]

139. Gee, then why am I and others spending hours every day! We should just

GIVE UP right now! And THOUSANDS of Americans are KEEPING THEIR MOUTHS SHUT about all them hidden dead soldiers!

Ummm...NOT.

[LuPeRcALiO]

142. I'm not saying you're not doing important valuable work!

Just that there are many casualties that you would have no way of knowing about.

[LynnTheDem]

145. NAME ONE.

Just ONE.

Name ONE family member who has spoken out that their loved one isn't counted.

YOU know more than I do, apparently, although it's actually my work, so NAME ONE.

ONE SOLDIER dead and not counted.

ONE family member who says their soldier is dead and not counted.

NAME ONE.

[LuPeRcALiO]

147. Finding them is your game, not mine.

I'd help you if I could.

[LuPeRcALiO]

148. p.s.

why don't you get in touch with El Diario-La Prensa?

[LynnTheDem]

151. Why don't YOU learn to read Spanish. Then you'd realize the article

is referring to IRAQI troops not being counted...NOT American troops.

[LuPeRcALiO]

153. it says "troops under the US command

have suffered at least 4,076 fatal casualties over 799 days of action."

In English.

:shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

158. READ a bit more carefully.

troops under the US command have suffered at least 4,076 fatal casualties over 799 days of action.

The information markedly contrasts with reports published by the authorities in Washington, which focus on the fallen wearing US uniforms, which totals 1,649, the article notes.

******

ALL Iraqi troops in Iraq fall under "US Command". The only other "command" ANY troops in Iraq fall under is the UK.

ALL TROOPS in Iraq fall under the command of the USA or the UK.
OF COURSE the USA doesn't count Iraqi troop deaths. They don't count UK troop deaths, either. They count *gasp* US troop deaths.

Geeebus.

[LuPeRcALiO]

160. You're misinterpreting the third paragraph

as I explained here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3751044&mesg_id=3753761

[LynnTheDem]

163. No I am not.

Original article;

http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/detail_archive.aspx?section=20&desc=&id=1156951&Day=27&Month=5&Year=2005

"1,649 fatal losses of regular troops of the U.S.A., 88 of Great Britain, 92 of other countries members of the coalition, 238 are added informed by the companies contractors into mercenarios, and at least 2,000 Iraqi troops."

[LuPeRcALiO]

167. "En ese punto hay más controversias"

If you read the seventh paragraph, you'll find that the official U.S. numbers are disputed, which is the whole point of the article in the first place.

[LynnTheDem]

173. Actually not.

Paragraph 7 is not referring to disputed number of US troops killed.

[LuPeRcALiO]

185. It refers to "discrepancias graves en las cuentas" = serious discrepancies

in the officially reported numbers of injured, mentally disturbed, and dead.

[LynnTheDem]

150. Now why was I expecting exactly such a response.

rotfl!

[LuPeRcALiO]

El Diario-La Prensa is reporting over 2,000 uncounted casualties.

Why don't you get in touch with them?

[LynnTheDem]

156. Uncounted NON-AMERICAN casualties. HELLO.

IRAQI troops.

HELLO.

By the way, "casualties" doesn't mean "dead", so be careful what anyone means when they say "casualties".

[LuPeRcALiO]

159. I think you're misreading the third paragraph:

"WASHINGTON, May 26 – Prensa Latina informs that official US reports on Iraq reflect less than half the numbers of soldiers killed in that war of aggression, according to an article by El Diario-La Prensa online in New York.

"An article datelined San Juan, Puerto Rico, says that troops under the US command have suffered at least 4,076 fatal casualties over 799 days of action.

"The information markedly contrasts with reports published by the authorities in Washington, which focus on the fallen wearing US uniforms, which totals 1,649, the article notes."

1,649 is the number "published by the authorities in Washington," not the number of "fatal casualties," which is 4,076.

[LynnTheDem]

161. The article is referring to NON-US troops.

Again, OF COURSE the US doesn't count non-US troops.

[LuPeRcALiO]

162. There's no mention of "non-US troops" in the article.

I suggest you get you in touch with the paper instead of relying on this second-hand report.

[LynnTheDem]

164. Again, I suggest YOU learn how to read Spanish.

And English, actually.

Anyways, the original article:

De acuerdo a los documentos revisados, además de las 1,649 bajas fatales de tropas regulares de EE.UU., se suman 88 de Gran Bretaña, 92 de otros países miembros de la coalición, 238 informadas por las compañías contratistas de mercenarios, y al menos 2,000 de las tropas iraquíes leales.

1649 US troops
88 UK troops
92 other "coalition" troops
238 mercs
and
"at least 2000 IRAQI TROOPS."

[LuPeRcALiO]

168. I do, and you're missing the point of the article

As I explained above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3751044&mesg_id=3753831

[LynnTheDem]

170. Give me ONE NAME.

Just one.

Ain't it funny how no one has come up with one single name of a "hidden" dead US soldier.

But then, there are articles discussing how the earth is actually flat.

Come up with ONE NAME. Until then, it's just rumor-mongering and denigrating the actual number of our troops who lay dead for a pile of bullshit.

[LuPeRcALiO]

188. ask Jesús

If you really want to find uncounted casualties, why don't you get in touch with the reporter, Jesús Dávila? The paper is published in New York so the chances are good he's bilingual.

[LynnTheDem]

192. Tell ya what...YOU can do my job!

And ya won't even have to do the hours daily work! You can just go around stating as "fact" something you have no knowledge of, no grounds for, and no evidence of, and all in the face of fact and common sense!

Post when you get ONE NAME. Until then, have a nice life. :)

[LuPeRcALiO]

195. What you're doing is great.

I believe what you're saying about your work and I'm not knocking it. If you weren't doing it, the numbers would probably be even lower, so I hope you'll keep at it. You're one of the good guys!

:patriot:

[LynnTheDem]

171. The original article is referring to IRAQI troops under US command.

Come up with ONE NAME.

Until then, it's just rumor-mongering.

[LuPeRcALiO]

187. It refers to ALL the numbers officially reported by the US

Dept of Defense. It also reports those numbers.

[marions ghost]

218. Please answer these simple questions...

directly LynnThe Dem--or post your website URL if the answer is there. I fully understand that you work from newsfeeds/net searches. As much as the internet provides us with useable info I am also aware of how much info it does NOT provide.

Q:
1--Do you plot the discrepancy between your figures and the govt figures? If so, what's that rate over a given period of time? Another way to look at it is, what's your success rate of matching yours and govt figures? Have they ALWAYS matched pretty closely?

2--When you ask DOD to confirm deaths that have appeared in your data but not theirs, how long does it take before the DOD responds, and therefore what is the usual lagtime there? And do they respond
exactly to your request, or does this response number vary too?

3--Why do you believe that internet tracking is 100% accurate? Can you prove that ALL soldiers death notices are accessible via the net? Have you ever considered that they might not be?

--------------
Instead of being defensive, LTD, can you please just answer these fair questions from a skeptical researcher. I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm not out to undermine you. But you are being evasive, so I'm wondering why. :-)

[LynnTheDem]

240. Answers (again)

1. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

-We search out deaths.

-We open "slots" for each death found.

-We wait for Centcom/DoD confirmation by death notices.

-When confirmed, deaths are posted publicly and included in the count.

-When slots remain open, ie no confirmation within 2-3 days, we chase down Centcom & DoD.

To date twice Centcom was slow in issuing releases and subsequently did issue the 2 death notices.

A suicide was in debate for 21 months; Centcom has since issued a death notice and the suicide is now included in the ICCC total.

Centcom and our count have always been within 5 deaths of each other. Our non-public count can be 2 to 5 difference. No deaths are included in ICCC's count until official confirmation is received.

The reason for this should be failry obvious in many ways, not the least of which is the possibility of a bunch of freeper morans posting around the net about their loved one Sgt So & So and Capt This & That dead in Iraq, we add those deaths to the count, and then the freepers jump up and say AH HA BULLSHIT! and try to debunk the entire list of deaths.

2. Centcom took I believe 7 days to issue the 2 deaths they'd missed per above, and 21 months waiting on a military court decision on a suicide.

Normally Centcom releases death notices the same day as the deaths, but without names. Centcom issues named death notices when families have been notified; this can take 2-3 days to a week or two. Centcom responds directly to Michael or Pat at the ICCC.


3. I have never, anywhere at any time said "the internet tracking is 100% accurate".

What I, and others, have repeatedly said is there is no way "thousands" of troops' deaths could be hidden, and remain hidden, with the thousands of people who would have to be involved in such a cover-up, and NOT ONE NAME has to date ever come across on the net.

All it would take is ONE NAME of a dead soldier to be posted by a friend or relation or neighbor etc on a discussion forum or a blog or message board or anti-war site or veterans website or one of any of the numerous soldiers sites, and that name would be caught by trackers, who would then look at the lists to see if that name was on the list.

One million US troops have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan in the last 4 years; and not one single name of a soldier not on the lists, or of a person out of the thousands that would be in on the cover-up, or of a single family member or friend of a "missing" soldier, has shown up on the net.

Out of all the memorial exhibits around the country, of all the lists, of all the news articles both online and hardcopy that give links to casualty count sites, not one parent or friend or fellow soldier or employer etc has come forward via any of the casualty sites, or CNN, or ABC or Ted Koppel, or tons of the 'non-neocon Junta' media, or anywhere online, and said their loved one is missing from the lists.

I'm sure a handful of troops do slip through the cracks.

I'm equally sure there are not 50 or 100 or hundreds or thousands of them, and I'm sure the US military is not trying to cover up soldiers' deaths.

It would be far too difficult, involve far too many people, be absolutely certain of discovery, and when discovered would raise holy bloody hell with soldiers and military families and a whole lot of Americans that not even the bushCartel could find enough teflon against...and all for a very short-term temporary "fix" that isn't worth the risks or the return.

By the way, I don't get my info just from the net. And that is all I will say on that. But bottom line is, sooner or later, out of these supposedly "thousands" of hidden deaths, ONE NAME would crop up online, especially with the huge number of people who would have to be part of the cover-up and because of the huge number of people, such as myself, looking for that one name.

If we haven't managed to find one name, I really have a tough time believing there are "thousands" of them. I also give military families a hell of a lot more credit than some people appear to do; I'm one of those military family, and had my hubby been "disappeared" or had I been told to "keep my mouth shut", the world would know about it.

[marions ghost]

250. You really could haved saved all these words.

The fact that you say you "don't get your info just from the net" at least tells me you may be doing some other kinds of verification. You offer no proof, so of course we can't be sure. OK. At least you came closer to answering that.

You say--"All it would take is ONE NAME of a dead soldier to be posted by a friend or relation or neighbor etc on a discussion forum or a blog or message board or anti-war site or veterans website or one of any of the numerous soldiers sites, and that name would be caught by trackers, who would then look at the lists to see if that name was on the list."

--And I and others have argued here that there may be many soldiers' families who are not posting on websites or looking for these lists for whatever reason--the simplest being that they aren't clued in to the fact that they need to...you are making the assumption that everyone's doing this. When a death occurs, it probably isn't a top priority. I'm just saying that more than we know may be falling through the cracks if only web tracking is done. But you do say (finally) that you do more than that, so I'll have to take your word for it.

BTW
This has nothing to do with not giving military families "credit." I grew up in a town near a military installation, my stepfather was career military, and my SO is from a military family (army). Not relevant. Don't go there.

[LynnTheDem]

254. Have a nice day!

:)

[MadisonProgressive]

184. Her argument is based on her knowlege

But it is also based on common sense. It's hard to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove that there are people missing from the list. I think her argument is pretty airtight and I've seen nothing from you that makes much sense.

[LuPeRcALiO]

189. Her knowledge is based on news. News from Iraq is 100% controlled

by the Pentagon. Sorry, that's the way it is.

[MadisonProgressive]

190. Did you miss the common sense part?

Can you think logically?

[LuPeRcALiO]

191. "Common sense" = hunch or feeling. I'm talking facts.

And the facts is, the Pentagon goes to considerable lengths to controll all news, domestic and foreign, reported from Iraq.

Google "Giuliana Sgrena" if you think I'm kidding.

[LynnTheDem]

198. You're wrong. And THAT is a FACT.

FACT: NOT ONE NAME out of ONE MILLION US troops has been made public as being a "hidden death" or that they were told to "keep their mouth shut".

FACT: in case you haven't noticed, a shitload of news on Iraq & Afghanistan that bush REALLY didn't and doesn't and won't want made public has been and will continue to be made public and keeps being made public. So much for that "control" of the media!

FACT: NOT ONE NAME of any "hidden death".

FACT: the vast majority of the soldiers themselves, and their families, would NOT take part in such a cover-up and they would have to take part in it to maintain such a cover-up.

FACT: to hide even ONE death would require at least DOZENS of people being in on it, most of whom would have no reason whatsoever to keep silent and a lot of reason to go public.

FACT: bush DOES NOT CARE how many US troops are killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and his entire administration is too damn incompetent to cover up ANYTHING, let alone the MASSIVE cover-up that would be required for this.

FACT: When a family member or lover or friend doesn't hear from their soldier for weeks or months or years HELL YES the vast majority will speak out publicly. And NO the US media would not be able to cover that up, because all it would take is ONE PERSON naming ONE NAME to any blog on the net, or to any anti-war site on the net, or to any alternative media on the net to bring that "disappeared" soldier to the light.

FACT: ONE MILLION US TROOPS have served in Iraq/Afghanistan over the past 4 years, NOT ONE NAME has come to public attention as being "disappeared" or "hidden"; NOT ONE person has gone public about not hearing from their soldier, or being told to "keep their mouth shut".

Sgrena was ONE INCIDENT involving 3 people and NO ATTEMPT to hide corpses. You're talking about US soldiers' deaths being covered up;

-Who HIDES THE CORPSES???

-Who ensures NOT ONE SOLDIER in the units of the "hidden" mentions the death(s) to anyone?

-Who ensures none of the at last DOZENS of people involved speak out to anyone about the cover-up?

-Who threatens the family and friends of the "hidden" to ensure they don't speak out?

You'd have a bloody army of people running around doing the cover-up!

You have NO facts.

[LuPeRcALiO]

199. If there's "a family member or lover or friend" who could inquire,

then it's doubtful that the death would be hidden, as I've pointed out. I'm talking about the cases where no next of kin are capable of making such inquiries. Not everybody is wired.

And if you or I or anybody here knew of such a casualty, then it wouldn't be hidden, would it?

Fact: the Pentagon has taken extraordinary measures to conceal every type of information about this war that might reduce public support.

Fact: Casualty figures are a type of information that might reduce public support.

QED.

:shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

200. Tellme you're NOT SERIOUSLY suggesting the US Military knows

which dead soldiers don't have anyone who would inquire???!! And they can do this within minutes of soldiers' deaths??? I'm sorry but that's way beyond totally ridiculous!

MOST soldiers DO have people who would inquire; so if you're talking "hundreds" or "thosuands" or even FIFTY hidden deaths, we'd have AT LEAST ONE NAME. And we don't.

FACT: The Pentagon is one of the most incompetent bunch in bush's Cartel. They have not taken "extraordinary measures". Not allowing pics at Dover? Check into exactly WHEN that law was put into place and by WHOM. It was not bush.

FACT: Every day SHITLOADS of info is made public out of Iraq & Afghanistan that bush would DEARLY love to not have come out. Which is why bush constantly bitches about the "fog" that "conceals all the good news" from Iraq & Afghanistan.

FACT: As the most the Pentagon could conceal, by your own words, are any troops with no one to inquire, which somehow the Pentagon would have to find out about and within minutes of soldiers' deaths, and would STILL need to shut up DOZENS of people involved, even bush's Pentagon could not and would not try.

JUST ONE PERSON mentioning the name of a dead soldier anywhere online or to anyone who at any time mentions the name of a dead soldier anywhere online and that name would be brought to light, compared to the lists, and found to be missing from the lists.

Let's try to hide 100 US soldiers' deaths. Assume you tell the families, but you don't want the 100 dead added to the official count;

1. Ensure NO news media reports ANY of these 100 deaths; ICCC would have empty death slots and chase after Centcom & the DOD, as would most of the other tracking sites.

2. Ensure the families don't ever mention their dead soldiers' names at any time to anyone so that the name(s) could never end up online.

Not on any blog, not on any forum, not on any message board, not any anti-war site, any veterans' site, not anywhere online; ("My son/husband/cousin, Sgt X, was killed last week/mth/year in Iraq/Afghanistan") doing so would immediately bring the name(s) to the attention of "trackers" who would immediately check death lists and discover the name(s) wasn't/weren't listed.

3. Ensure no friends, neighbors, religious advisors, old school chums, casual acquaintances, are ever told of the soldiers' death(s). They could mention the name online at some point...see #2 above.

4. Ensure no mention at any funeral or memorial service that Soldier X died from Iraq/Afghanistan service. Someone in the service may mention the name(s) online, or be a reporter or blogger. See #2 above.

5. Ensure none of the dead soldiers' fellow soldiers ever mentions the dead names to anyone; not family, not friends, not other soldiers, definately not reporters or bloggers or anti-war sites or veterans' sites. See #2 above.

6. Ensure none of the payroll staff compare official death notices to pay-outs of death benefits (there wouldn't be any official death notices for the "hidden dead".)

7. Ensure none of the public auditors compare.

8. Alternatively, ensure all staff and public auditors are in on the cover-up. If they're brought in on the cover-up, ensure none of them ever mention it or any dead soldiers' names on any blog, forum, message board, to alternative media reporters, honest politicians, dishonest politicians wanting to crush bush, or to anyone who may post any name on anything that gets to the internet. See #2 above.

9. Ensure all paperwork on the sending end (overseas) is lost or altered and ensure exactly the same paperwork on the receiving end (USA) is lost or altered exactly the same.

10. Ensure the silence of all on-site medics, doctors, nurses, general hospital staff, transport crews, flight crews, chaplains, autopsy staff, funeral staff etc. Ensure none of the above ever mention any name(s) to anyone, as a name could end up on the internet. See #2 above.

11. Ensure the silence of all off-site medics, doctors, nurses, general hospital staff, transport crews, flight crews, chaplains, autopsy staff, funeral staff etc. Ensure none of the above ever mention any name(s) to anyone, as a name could end up on the internet. See #2 above.

12. Somehow fiddle the records so the families get their soldiers' death benefits while the dead soldiers' names aren't read out at any base memorial services; someone may post name(s) of "hidden death" troops somewhere on the net or tell someone who may post on the net or tell someone else who may post on the net...See #2 above.

The above is some of the issues that would be involved in covering up US deaths while still letting families know of the deaths. Even more difficult (impossible) would be covering up deaths and NOT telling the families of the deaths.

There's more but my arm's about to fall off.

Just ONE PERSON mentioning a dead soldier's name anywhere online, and sooner or later that name will come to the attention of the "trackers" watching for exactly that. And when that dead soldier's name doesn't appear on any death lists and has no official death notice, trackers are going to demand answers. Out of 100 dead "hidden" soldiers, ONE NAME at the very least is going to surface. "Hundreds" or "thousands" of "hidden deaths" is just not possible.

As for the bushCartel being in control of the news coming out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan...are ya NUTS???! Anyone thinking that isn't paying the slightest bit of attention to reality. As you must know, there's massive amounts of news coming out EVERY DAY that bush & Cartel REALLY do not want coming out.

And that's it for me on this subject. I live this for hours every day of the week; I don't need to argue it as well. ;)

[LuPeRcALiO]

203. "Assume you tell the families."

What if there is no family? Or they don't speak English? Or they live in an unknown Ecuadoran town? Or in prison? And yes of course military personnel would know, just like any other employer would, especially since they receive and deliver everybody's mail, and spend weeks if not months recruiting individual members.

[Frederik]

249. Bravo, Lynn

Those who want to continue to spread this unsubstantiated rumor have a very thin case. I don't trust the Pentagon any more than the next leftist, but to hide a large number of dead soldiers is simply not possible. Keep up your excellent work, Lynn!

:thumbsup:

[LynnTheDem]

255. Thanks, Frederik! The really silly thing about their "case"

is that if the Military wanted to "hide" deaths, they could simply stop releasing any death notices and any info and any bodycount numbers. Period.

Thanks, again!

:hug:

[MadisonProgressive]

207. More like common sense = basic math in this case

[marions ghost]

210. Oboy the old appeal to "common sense" again...

:boring:

LynnThe Dem does not answer even the simplest questions about the his/her methodology. When touting your "knowledge" you should be prepared to discuss the specific ways in which you arrived at your knowledge and how we can judge the veracity of your numbers. Don't expect me to take anybody's statistics on face value, no matter how sincerely obtained. And LTD has not provided any true statistical evidence. I wish I could believe LynnTheDem's arguments, but so far I've seen nothing that makes me believe that this type of citizens' verification of government statistics via the INTERNET is credible. There are too many gaps in what information makes it to the net, if you are familiar with media sources. (TorchtheWitch elaborates on that issue very effectively in this thread). LynnTheDem is not willing to give any figures or "corrections" for this flaw in the overall design of his/her research.

I have not made a counter-argument to LynnTheDem in this thread, except to ask questions. My questions are based on MY knowledge about the media and the internet. But my questions are not addressed, even though LynnTheDem has replied. It's always the defensive one-size-fits-all "soapbox" response. That response is telling.

[LynnTheDem]

213. I have fully responded; if you're incapable of comprehending, I can't

help you with that.

Thanks and have a nice day. :)

[tx_dem41]

216. Yep....no good deed goes unpunished...

especially on DU.

Funny, I have found the answers to all your questions...on this thread and with a little bit of research. Just takes a little "sweat".

[FreedomAngel82]

97. I've heard that story too

I think that's what they're doing. Counting people who die in combat and not in the hospital after they're flown there. Disgusting really.

[tx_dem41]

100. If that were true, how do you explain....

the listing of 32 U.S. military personnel that have died in the United States? How do you explain the listing of 24 U.S. military personnel that have died in Germany?

Please, before you buy into easily-debunked conspiracy theories, arm yourselves with knowledge...and common sense.

http://icasualties.org/

[LynnTheDem]

107. Tx-Dem, it ain't just the rightwingnuts who are sorely short on those 2

commodities, apparently.

:eyes:

[tx_dem41]

110. Believe me, Lynn...

I've been on this site for 6 months now. I think I learned that during the first week. :)

[LynnTheDem]

106. NOT TRUE. GEEEZ PEOPLE!!!

HOW MANY TIMES does this BULLSHIT need to be DEBUNKED???!!!

If a soldier is wounded in Iraq, then REGARDLESS where he dies, he is COUNTED.

Go to ICCC; use the filters and check out troops who died in the USA. Check out troops who died in KUWAIT. Check out troops who died in GERMANY.

And we laugh at the rightwingnuts for constantly spitting out the same BULLSHITE.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!

[yebrent]

116. Thank you for all the good work you've done Lynn.

I feel so bad that this keeps coming up after you thoroughly debunked it so many times. People fly from all over the country to rub their fingers across the etched names of fallen friends or family members from the Vietnam war. Likewise, people are sure as shit going to be checking the ICCC to be sure that their fallen loved ones are counted and counted accurately.

What is sad is all this BS results in actual number of troops dead (1657 today) seem less significant in many peoples eyes. By arguing that actually 4000 or 7000 soldiers are dead, it is like they are saying that 1657 isn't a significant number.

People should be outraged at 1000 dead, 500 dead, or even 1 dead soldier based on a war founded on lies. There isn't a magic number where people should be outraged, and less than that is just fine. This is really infuriating.

[tx_dem41]

120. Very good point, yebrent...

about the conspiracy theorists buying into the Administration meme that 1657 is somehow an insignificant number.

Haven't we learned about "framing" at DU? I get lectured on it all the time.

[LynnTheDem]

144. EXACTLY!!! Those who try to inflate the actual numbers are JUST AS BAD

as those who try to denigrate the numbers with their idiotic apples to trucks comparisons.

By inflating the figures, these people ARE, whether they mean to or not, saying the ACTUAL figures are insignificant. That's NOT TRUE.

ONE SOLDIER DEAD for LIES is TOO MANY.

ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE US SOLDIERS DEAD FOR LIES IS TOO DAMN MANY.

To every person who refuses to use basic common sense, and insists on spreading false rumors of inflated troop deaths, I say to you:

STOP DENIGRATING THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF OUR DEAD SOLDIERS! 1661 is TOO MANY as it is.

[Gelliebeans]

126. Lynn,

I have been reading your updates and the other updates on ICCC and I have full trust in your forms of research. Please don't let the naysayers get you down sister.
You have been an invaluable source of information. I know how hard it must be especially when your own husband was over there.

[still_one]

6. from what I understand, if they are wounded, and later die

outside of Iraq, they are NOT counted

[shadowknows69]

8. How many deaths in "vehicle accidents"

aren't considered combat deaths.

[LynnTheDem]

25. They aren't combat deaths if they die in accidents. But they ARE COUNTED.

[Frederik]

27. No, but the 1655 figure

is all deaths, not just combat deaths.

[Roland99]

12. Then you understand incorrectly. This has been discussed here many times.

That claim has been disproven several times.

Also, the people behind http://icasualties.org have written a letter debunking claims like this.

[Greylyn58]

14. The only reason I posted this link is that

it came from:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#war

Which I believe to be a fairly truthful site. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. And where does THAT site get the numbers they use? From the....

...NeoCon-controlled mainstream media?

Give me a break.

[Roland99]

16. Uh....no.

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

[Media_Lies_Daily]

21. Have you bothered to read the information in the link you provided?....

Here's a few quotes that cast a great deal of doubt on the numbers being reported:

QUOTES:

Whenever a death occurs, CENTCOM (the United States Central Command in Tampa, FL) issues a brief news release...

...snip...

After the soldier’s relatives are notified of the death, the U.S. Department of Defense then issues its own news release...

MY NOTE: Based on the repeated lies told by these two organizations, these are HIGHLY questionable sources who have an agenda to hide the real number of dead, wounded, and missing in Iraq. Additionally, no running total of casualties from Afghanistan currently exists, and is NEVER discussed by the NeoCon Junta.

...snip...

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.

MY NOTE: "No tally of releases" says quite a bit, doesn't it?

...snip...

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

MY NOTE: No kidding. After all, on what reliable source would they base their numbers?

...snip...

And finally, in the words of the site's owners:

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

MY NOTE: What was that you were saying about the accuracy of the US casualty count?

[Roland99]

28. As I've said before, this has been discussed and debunked here before

If there are an extra 4,000 or so deaths, where the hell is the outrage from the families? Surely someone in one or two of those families would have noticed a name missing from http://icasualties.org or the centcom site or CNN's list or any number of other locations.

Sorry...a conspiracy numbering in the tens of thousands of people involved just doesn't fly.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. What if those families have been told to keep their mouths shut?....

And just where do you think those families would express their outrage...in the NeoCon-controlled mainstream press?

If the NeoCon Junta was telling us the truth about the actual number of dead in Iraq, then why do they insist on bringing the dead back to the US at night, and banning US photographs of the coffins?

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. That's your answer?!? Completely ridiculous.

Here's what you'd have to believe:

NOT ONE person associated with these extra supposed KIAs is familiar with the various online databases of the dead, or, being familiar, NOT ONE decided to contact the managers of said databases. That is, quite simply, utterly implausible. So, let's say there are 4,000 KIA. That's 2,350 more than icasualties.com has verification for. So, let's consider how many people would be connected in some way to those 2,350 dead. Let's say friends, neighbors, teachers, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings, other troops and comrades. Let's put the number, conservatively, as 30,000 (I'm assuming every one of the dead knows only 15 people who are aware that they've been killed in Iraq, a laughably low number if you've ever planned a wedding...or a funeral! - the real number would be closer to 100,000). Of that 30,000, not one - let me repeat NOT ONE - is aware of the most well-known database of the dead on the Internet (icasualties.org), or, being aware, not one has 1) searched for the name of their dead relative/student/friend/acquaintance and 2) not finding it, NOT ONE has contacted the administrators of the site to alert them to the error. NOT ONE! NOT ONE!

Is that plausible? Does that make sense to you? Would any reasonable person believe that? I think not. I think anyone who believes that (and there could be NO OTHER EXPLANATION) would have to be a credulous fool to say the least, and perhaps devoid of any reasoning capacity whatsoever. So tell me, friend, is this what you believe? NOT ONE!

And your answer is that 30,000 people have been told to remain silent and 30,000 have assented to that order...for fear of...WHAT? icasualties.org is not connected to the "dominant media." One of its administrators is a DUer, for chrissakes! So there goes THAT argument. You have no counterargument to these numbers, because there is no reasonable counterargument. But first let me ask you whether you assent to these numbers. is it reasonable for me to assume that 30,000 people - who have no stake in covering the information up and have a serious emotional stake in exposing the cover-up - would have to be involved in this cover-up? Is that a crazy assumption to you, and if so, why? I don't think you can answer, but give it your best shot.

[tx_dem41]

88. Oh come now! The BFEE can surely control a mere 30,000 people...

scattered across the US/World and keep them from talking. They're omnipotent according to most of what I read here on DU. :eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. LOL

I sometimes wonder how people who make these arguments can organize trips to the supermarket. It's like living in an alternate reality. :-)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

275. There is more to support the idea that the DoD is lying to us than...

...there is to support the idea that the DoD is telling us the truth.

You seem to think the US Government/DoD is somehow incapable of controlling approximately 30,000 people. IMHO, you're being more than a little naive. I seem to recall that the the CIA and NSA employ incredible amounts of people...far more than 30,000 people...and very little information leaks out from those organizations unless it is allowed to leak.

Now, what do you suppose the US Government/DoD uses to keep the intelligence agencies under control? Would it have anything to do with the punishments that would be meted out for revealing secrets?

And how would the US Government/DoD control a mere 30,000 people? Do you think agreements might be signed, the breaking of which might affect the payment of insurance, back pay, and anything else owed to the families of the dead? For those unimpressed by paper agreements, how about simple veiled threats made toward children or other relatives? How about the loss of employment? How about arrests for crimes never committed? Detainment in secret locations? Any and all other methods?

If you don't think our current form of government is capable of doing such things, then I suggest you do some reading about the actions of Lincoln during the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson during WWI, FDR/Truman during WWII, Truman during Korea, an Ike/JFK/LBJ/Nixon/Ford during Vietnam.

And how many people do you think are effectively controlled by the Patriot Act as enforced by Homeland Security?

[tx_dem41]

282. LOL....CIA and especially DOD...

leak like sieves.
Now, exactly WHO is being naive?

[tx_dem41]

284. Oh, and how do you control 30,000 people...

when you can't even identify them? Having personally known 5 military personnel in Iraq that have died, rest assured, there is no possible way for the Government to have identified me as an "associate" of the soldier. You seem to think that DoD has some black, secret list of everyone that every soldier has ever known. Laughable.

Again, I repeat...exactly WHO is being naive???

[mtnester]

211. Hate to say it, but even I did not know about this site until now

And after a quick poll of all my family members, NONE of them knew either.

I am thoroughly mortified too, as I consider myself quite up to date, and it appears that I was woefully ignorant on this. I assumed all sites listing casualties were run by the government (easy to do in this atmosphere)..no offense to Lynne, I am impressed with your site, and will visit frequently.

In response to your specific quote, yes, it can be EASY for an entire family or the majority of them to not know of this site.

Not backing any one theory or research up, just commenting.

[LynnTheDem]

237. But you were aware of government sites.

Were you also aware of sites such as ABC and CNN, who list names?

How about ABC's Nightline reading out the names?

Would you have known how to google for the info had you need of it?

And if you read any of the numerous news articles that have the link to ICCC and other count sites, would you know how to clik onto those links, had you need for that info?

And in fact you DID find out about the ICCC site. And you didn't need to. Thankfully and hope you never do!

;)

[tx_dem41]

258. Did your family have any members die in Iraq?

The many families that I know, are quite aware of this site. Military families, especially ones that suffer deaths in a war, are quite attuned to the desire for some form of recognition, some sort of acknowledgement for a sacrifice. I suggest that anyone that doubts this, spend an hour at the Vietnam Memorial. Its quite moving to see three-four generations of people performing a pencil rubbing over a simple, but loved name, of a family member that has been gone for 30-40 years.

[mtnester]

273. We just had family go, just last week

I have a nephew (previous marriage but still my family dang it, I did not divorce the family, only my simple ex husband!) and also a co-worker leave late last week. I am getting more information from my ex brother in law tomorrow.

so this will be one of the other things that I get up to speed on real fast.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

276. Perhaps you should do a little research on how many people....

...directly affected by unreported casualties are actually online. And of those that can actually afford to be online, how many have the time to search the Net for any of the databases to which you refer? How many actually are aware that such databases actually exist?

I find it interesting that so many folks that are fully adapted to using the Internet seem to think that everyone else is also on the Net and know how to use it. Sorry, but DUers represent a very small percentage of the total users of the Net, which represents in turn a very small percentage of people not using the Net.

As to your argument about the site administrator of icasualties.org being a fellow DUer, I'm fully aware of that having been reminded of that constantly. Quite frankly, all I'm getting from that direction is a continued rant that the numbers used on icasualties.org are accurate, based on sources that have lied to us repeatedly and continue to lie to us today. Does that make any sense to you?

[LynnTheDem]

34. I spend HOURS every day searching TENS OF THOUSANDS of

world-wide news reports for ANY mention of funerals or deaths of soldiers ANYWHERE on the globe.

We don't POST any numbers until Centcom releases a death notice; but we DO spend HOURS every day searching TENS of THOUSANDS of global news reports searching for ANY mention of troops' deaths. And IF we come across a death that s/be counted and Centcom hasn't issued a release, then we get on Centcom's case until they release a notice.

And I believe so far we've found TWO such cases.

Use COMMON SENSE PLEASE.

My husband was in Iraq for 18 months. I heard from him on average 3 times a week.

Do you REALLY think I'd not say anything to anyone if I suddenly hadn't heard from him for WEEKS or MONTHS or a YEAR OR TWO???!

Yet not one family has spoken out about not hearing from their loved one for weeks or months or years in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. Interesting. You're using information from organizations that have...

...lied repeatedly to the American people, and you want me to use common sense??

Just curious, but have you researched any cases where the families have been told to keep their mouths shut? Oh, that's right...you're waiting for someone to "speak out".

[LynnTheDem]

50. I use info from AROUND the GLOBE.

Name ONE FAMILY that has been told to "keep their mouths shut".

Do you KNOW what would happen if ANYONE had told me my hubby had died in Iraq and that I was to KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT???!!

You'd KNOW what would happen, because I would have screamed so damn loud, you would not have been able to MISS my screaming.

And that's just me.

Then there's his mum, and dad, and 3 sisters, and his uncles and aunts and cousins and his friends...

And that's just ONE SOLDIER.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

277. And where would your "screaming" have been reported? In the....

...captive mainstream media of which you apparently think so highly?

Give me a break.

[LynnTheDem]

292. First, please stop lying.

I have many many many times on this thread posted that I research GLOBAL MEDIA.

I have mentioned BLOGS.

I have mentioned ALTERNATIVE MEDIA.

So please, stop lying.

Thanks.

Second, who would report my "screaming"?

Message boards;

1. Basham
2. DU
3. Luna

Blogs;

1. Air America
2. DKOS
3. Atrio
4. Lunaville
5. 114 others

Alternative media;

1. MemoryHole
2. GNN
3. CounterPunch
4. BuzzFlash
5. Alternet
6. Common Dreams
7. TruthOut
8. TalkLeft
9. VillageVoice
10. TomPaine

likely mainstream media:

1. LATimes
2. Boston Globe
3. Iconoclast
4. Houston Tribune
5. Austin Tribune
6. Army Times
7. Stars & Stripes
8. Mother Jones
9. CBC Canada
10. the Guardian
11. The Independant
12. Minn Star Tribune
13. Time
14. Newsweek
15. SacBee
16. SFG
17. Salon
18. IHT

Other:

Pelosi
Rangel
Boxer
Dean
Reid
Chet Edwards
Robert Byrd
Various other Dem & anti-Iraq Republican reps & senators
Eric Alterman
Robyn Blummer
Sy Hersch
Sid Blumenthal
Marie Cocco
Richard Cohen
Joe Conason
David Corn
Maureen Dowd
Ellen Goodman
Thom Hartmann
Bob Herbert
Ari Huffington
Jim Hightower
Molly Ivins
Doug Basham
Paul Krugman
Dave Lindorff
Gene Lyons
Greg Palast
Ted Rall
Richard Reeves
Robert Renp
Frank Rich
James Ridgeway
Robert Scheer
Helen Thoman
Al Franken
Randi Rhodes
Michael Moore
Air America

I'm pretty sure a few on my list would report my screams.

[marions ghost]

65. dupe

[marions ghost]

66. this webpage on casualties.org says their primary source

is the US govt.

So how is this an independent reporting service?:shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

74. We RESEARCH DEATHS FIRST...THEN we CONFIRM deaths with

Centcom and DoD.

How many times must I post this, lol!

1. We SEARCH for deaths.

2. We set up "slots" for every dead soldier. We DO NOT include these deaths into the number of dead UNTIL the deaths are CONFIRMED.

3. When Centcom & DoD CONFIRM the deaths via death releases, THEN we include the deaths in the count.

4. After 2-3 days if there are slots of deaths and no Centcom/DoD release notices THEN we go after Centcom and DoD to find out why.

We search for deaths and wait for CONFIRMATION by the US government. We don't include the deaths in our official count number UNTIL CONFIRMED by the US government. If the deaths we know of are NOT CONFIRMED, THEN we chase after Centcom & DoD.

We DO NOT just sit on our asses waiting for Centcom/DoD to tell us a soldier is dead. Centcom & DoD are OFFICIAL CONFIRMATIONS.

[marions ghost]

67. dupe

:banghead:
oops

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. And how many US troops are so badly wounded that they never leave....

...the hospital complex in Germany?

[LynnTheDem]

35. If they die in Germany then they are counted.

Go to ICCC and see for yourself.

If they die in a US hospital, then they are counted.

Go to ICCC and see for yourself.

[LynnTheDem]

23. Not true.

ALL troops who are wounded in Iraq, REGARDLESS where they die, are counted.

[mmonk]

33. From the icasualties web site

"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."

[LynnTheDem]

36. Yes, that's why we at the ICCC keep running totals. Which the US

doesn't.

But the US govt DOES still release a dath notice for all troops killed by wounds sustained in Iraq, be they enemy fire or accident.

[mmonk]

38. They are making all organizations

that are keeping stats do more work by having to eye different notices and reports. They need to be more forthcoming and efficient like the Brits.

[LynnTheDem]

53. But on the other hand, that they make us have to work harder is good,

because we're DAMN sure we are not missing deaths; not 100 missing, not 1000 missing.

If they were efficient, we'd be more liable to take them at their word, instead of researching up, down & sideways.

[mmonk]

206. Hope you're right

[tsuki]

9. How many green-card fatalities? They may not be citizens, but they

are wearing the US uniform.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Bingo. I bet that's exactly how they're playing their little game.

[Roland99]

18. Why don't they name names, then? Shouldn't be hard.

But, the Pentagon does report deaths for people who were born outside the U.S.

Here's Puerto Rico, for example.

ID Date Name Rank Age Srv Branch Unit Cause of Death Where Hometown State Country
1731 04/15/05 Ramirezgonzalez, Aleina Specialist 33 U.S. Army 3rd Brigade Troop Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Tikrit (near) Hormigueros Puerto Rico US
1673 03/01/05 Robles, Lizbeth Specialist 31 U.S. Army 360th Transp. Co., 68th Corps Spt. Bat., 43rd Area Spt. Gp. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Tikrit (228th Cmd. Spt. Hosp.) Vega Baja Puerto Rico US
1478 12/27/04 Rivera-Serrano, Jose A. Specialist 26 U.S. Army B Co., 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Div. Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Baghdad Mayaguez Puerto Rico US
1275 11/05/04 Camacho-Rivera, Carlos M. Sergeant 24 U.S. Army 368th Transportation Co., 11th Transportation Battalion Hostile - hostile fire - rocket attack Baghdad (31st CS Hospital) Carolina Puerto Rico US
1142 09/08/04 Martinez, Michael A. Specialist 29 U.S. Army 1st Bat., 6th Field Artillery Reg., 1st Infantry Div. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Baqubah (near) Juana Diaz Puerto Rico US
1122 09/05/04 Vaillant, Gary A. Staff Sergeant 41 U.S. Army 2nd Battalion, 72nd Armored Regiment Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Khaldiyah (nr. Fallujah) Trujillo Puerto Rico US
941 06/06/04 Mora Lopez, Melvin Y. Sergeant 27 U.S. Army Reserve 245th Maintenance Company Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack Taji (Camp Cooke) Arecibo Puerto Rico US
741 04/06/04 Mendez-Aceves, Fernando A. Petty Officer 3rd Class 27 U.S. Navy Naval Medical Center, 1st Marine Div. Detachment Hostile - hostile fire Ramadi Ponce Puerto Rico US
443 11/05/03 Rivera, Jose A. Sergeant 1st Class 34 U.S. Army H & H Co., 3rd Bat., 505th Para Infantry Reg. Hostile - hostile fire - ambush Mahmudiyah (near) Bayamon Puerto Rico US
441 11/04/03 Martinez, Francisco Sergeant 28 U.S. Army B Detachment, 82nd Soldier Spt. Bat. (Airborne) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack Baghdad Humacao Puerto Rico US
438 11/02/03 Perez, Joel Sergeant 25 U.S. Army 2nd Bat., 5th Field Artillery Regiment Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) Fallujah (near) Rio Grande Puerto Rico US
432 11/02/03 Vega, Frances M. Specialist 20 U.S. Army 151st Adj. Gen. Postal Detachment 3 Hostile - helicopter crash (missile attack) Fallujah (near) Fort Buchanan Puerto Rico US
287 07/24/03 Serrano, Juan M. Sergeant 31 U.S. Army H&H Co., 1st Bat., 37th Armor, 1st A Div. Non-hostile - vehicle accident Baghdad Manati Puerto Rico US
271 07/16/03 Torres, Ramon Reyes Specialist 29 U.S. Army Reserve 432nd Transportation Company Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack Baghdad Caguas Puerto Rico US
245 06/26/03 Orengo, Richard P. Specialist 32 U.S. Army National Guard 755th Military Police Company Hostile - hostile fire - ambush Najaf (near) Toa Alta Puerto Rico US

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Are you certain that this is an all-inclusive list of ALL Puerto Rican....

...deaths in Iraq?

Do you really trust the same people who have lied to us repeatedly since late 2002 to tell us the truth about our war dead, especially when they know it's not politically popular.

[Roland99]

32. Well, where is the outrage from the families of the other 4000+ dead?

As I said, if someone claims the gov't is lying, start naming names of the dead and get it out in the open. Otherwise, it's an empty argument.

[LynnTheDem]

43. No kidding, Roland! "Thousands" dead, yet not one family speaks up

to say they've not heard from their loved one in weeks or months or years.

Don't think so.

"Thousands" dead, yet not one family member or friend notices their loved one isn't on the ICCC, isn't on any of the other lists of the dead (CNN etc), isn't read out by Koppell.

NOT ONE person speaks out about their loved one not being on the lists?

Don't think so.

"Thousands" dead and hidden, yet not one of the thousands of collaborators needed, such as the soldiers' fellow soldiers, medics, morgue attendants in Iraq/Germany/US, chopper pilots, casket attendants, pilots, ambulance attendants, color party, hospital workers, doctors, nurses...

Don't think so.

And if these "thousands" are hidden from their own families, NOT ONE FAMILY MEMBER speaks out about how they've not heard from their loved one??? NOT ONE FRIEND speaks out???

Don't think so.

And if these "thousands" are hidden from the public but the families are told, NOT ONE family member speaks out about their being told to keep their loved one's death hush-hush???

Don't think so.

And keep in mind, if ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER shows up in ANY media about any "soldier/former soldier/wounded/Iraq/Afghanistan", such as the soldier's hometown paper printing a funeral notice, I will find that notice and compare the soldier's name to the ICCC list.

And if that name is NOT on the ICCC list, Pat will chase Centcom for answers as to why that soldier is not on the list.

And if any friend or family member posts anything online about their "soldier/former soldier/wounded/Iraq/Afghanistan", I will find that post and compare etc.

A handful of deaths may slip through; there is no way hundreds or thousands do.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Right. Keep trusting the NeoCon Junta.

[LynnTheDem]

56. WORLD WIDE MEDIA is now the "neocon Junta"???

I don't think so.

[tx_dem41]

75. I don't trust the NeoCon Junta....

But I do trust military families, friends of people in the military, and associates of people in the military. Since not one of probably 100,000 people associated with these 2500 "phantom-dead" have spoken out in up to 2 years, are you saying that every SINGLE one of them is part of the "Junta" as well?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

157. I do not think that word means what you think it means. n/t

[Occulus]

81. How many soldiers in our military have no real social ties back home?

I'm just wondering, as there's always a few people who are 'alone' enough in life for their absence to not be noticed as much.

-also-

If a soldier has no family at home (parents dead, only child, unmarried, for example) would 'friends' be on the list of people who were officially notified of their deaths?

Who would be notified in such a case? I'm not saying this number comes close to reaching the claims we're discussing, mind, but still...

[tx_dem41]

82. So what your saying is that the military knows every soldier's

number of family, friends, and associates (including those military people not in Iraq), and "disappears" only those with NOT ONE single family, friend, or associate. And, since this "disappearing" has been successful according to the article, the military has NEVER been wrong. The military is amazing. :eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. Hardly a credible solution

to the implausibility of it all. Just to restate, we'd be talking about 2,350 people who have no contacts, etc. - not even people they've met along the way or other troops who were with them at the time of their deaths. It's completely implausible that the military could hide even TEN such deaths, much less 2,350.

[tx_dem41]

85. The military would also have to know exactly WHICH soldiers...

have no associates. And, they would have to be darned close to 100% accurate.

[TorchTheWitch]

93. good question

How many soldiers in our military have no real social ties back home?

I personally know of one. He came back a couple of months ago after an 18 month tour. His parents are dead. He has no siblings. He has no kids. His official "next of kin" is his ex-wife of many years who is a drug addict, and for all he knows she may be dead herself. One of his fears about dying there was that there would be no one here who would necessarily know or care. He's told me he's hardly the only one, and that there are many people who have so little social ties in the US that the Army is their "family". Should he have died, and there was someone to have a death notice put into the local paper, it wouldn't appear online as his local paper has no website.
MOST local papers have no website. I live not far from a major city and THREE of our major local papers still don't have websites.

I do believe it is possible to hide a number of dead soldiers from the official rolls. If you consider the fact that so many local papers have no website, that so many soldiers come from poor families in backwater towns where their next of kin doesn't have a computer or get cable tv and are content with a death notice from the military and one in their local paper, yes, it is conceivable that a number of deaths would go uncounted... not UNNOTICED, but officially uncounted. Personally, it would not have occurred to me should I have lost a family member or friend in the war to be concerned with whether or not they were officially counted by the government until this issue came up... I would just have ASSUMED they were had I seen or received an official document from the military informing of their death.

This is exactly how the old Soviet Union was able to keep thousands upon thousands of their dead soldiers from being counted... granted, it was easier with their extensive propaganda, lack of a system to check newspapers all over the country like the internet, but most especially the ASSUMPTION of most of the citizens that if they received a death notice their love one was counted.

[LynnTheDem]

165. If you personally know of one, then in fact he DOES have at least one tie

back home.

No it isn't possible to hide large numbers of dead US soldiers. We family members of soldiers DO actually give a shit about our loved ones and we DO actually notice if we haven't heard a word from them in weeks or months or years.

[TorchTheWitch]

180. excuse me

but I only met him AFTER he came home. Should he have died in Iraq, HE HIMSELF would have been worried that no one here would have known or cared. And should he have died in Iraq and his next of kin did put a notice in the local paper, you still wouldn't have seen it because, as I said, his local paper HAS NO WEBSITE... and therefore, you would have missed his death and he wouldn't have been added to your count. Of course, if I knew him before he deployed I'd be anxious to know how he was fairing. But if I didn't hear from him after a period of time, although I might be worried he may be dead, I'd more likely assume he either ceased to care about me and therefore inform me of his status, or was too shellshocked to correspond, or wasn't able to correspond... I wouldn't necessarily automatically assume he'd been killed and the government was hiding that fact from me. As I also stated, until this subject came up for discussion on DU, I wouldn't have had an idea in the world how to go about checking to see if he was on the official roll as being dead, MIA or whatever.

We family members of soldiers DO actually give a shit about our loved ones and we DO actually notice if we haven't heard a word from them in weeks or months or years.

Well, NO SHIT! What a fucking rude thing to say! OF COURSE those family members of deployed soldiers are going to give a shit whether or not they've heard from their loved one in a long time! My point was, as I stated, that while he was deployed HE HAD NO FAMILY. THERE WERE NO LOVED ONES HERE TO BE CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT HIS STATUS TO CHECK.

I'm still waiting for some kind of response to the many inquiries about how you go about addressing the fact that most local papers don't have a website. If all your research only involves the use of the internet, then it is ABSOLUTELY conceivable that deaths whose notices appeared in only those papers that have no websites could be hidden especially when the next of kin did get an official notice from the government informing them of their loved one's death and ASSUMED their loved one was added to the official count.

[LynnTheDem]

181. It doesn't matter a damn if most locals don't have websites.

Most locals ARE picked up by the larger & state papers, and they ARE on the net, especially when it's funerals for soldiers.

All it takes is ONE PERSON ANYWHERE on the entire net to mention ONE SOLDIER'S NAME who doesn't appear on the ICCC list.

A friend posting on a blog.

A local paper's funeral notice without a website that one person puts onto the web, such as on DU. Or any other blog.

A family member posting on a blog, or on any anti-war site.

ONLY ONE PERSON needs to name ONE SOLDIER who is dead and not on any of the death lists. And yet NOT ONE SUCH PERSON has.

There is simply NO WAY the US gov could hide 100 US deaths, let alone "hundreds" or "thousands".

[TorchTheWitch]

196. ugh

Most locals ARE picked up by the larger & state papers, and they ARE on the net, especially when it's funerals for soldiers.

"Most" meaning not ALL, yes? I've already stated that most local papers are NOT on the internet... the three largest ones in my area DO NOT HAVE WEBSITES, and I hardly live in some backwater. Major papers don't pick up death notices from the locals or reprint them in their paper for free. For example, if you want your death notice to appear in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is the major paper here, you have to PAY them to put it in just as you have to pay the local paper to print a death notice. In fact, even the death notices that appear in the printed newspaper aren't always available on the online version of the paper according to the wishes of whoever bought the space for printing, which just goes to show you that there are plenty of people who DON'T WANT the death of their loved one to show up on the net...

"All paid death notices published in the Philadelphia Inquirer or Philadelphia Daily News also appear online, unless otherwise requested at the time of submission."
http://www.legacy.com/philly/LegacyHome.asp

Even if you were correct in assuming that most of the death notices that appear in the locals will be picked up by the majors, without SEEING all the nations local papers, you have no way of KNOWING whether or not the major papers picked up ALL or even MOST of the ones that appeared in the locals. My own father's death notice appeared in only one of our local papers and did not appear in the Philadelphia Inquirer which was how my mom wanted it. If he had died only a few weeks ago seeing as the one local paper where his death notice appeared still has no website, and there was never any other source that printed the death notice, should he have died in Iraq YOU WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND IT ON THE NET if he wasn't officially counted by the government. And there are still those people who don't want a death notice printed in ANY paper, which is their right.

All it takes is ONE PERSON ANYWHERE on the entire net to mention ONE SOLDIER'S NAME who doesn't appear on the ICCC list.

A friend posting on a blog.

A local paper's funeral notice without a website that one person puts onto the web, such as on DU. Or any other blog.

A family member posting on a blog, or on any anti-war site.

One more time... everyone in the entire country does not have internet access. If all newspapers had websites there would be no need to print paper newspapers at all. I know of many people who don't own computers, don't use computers and still don't know how to use them although they could certainly afford to. And what about all those people that can't afford to have a computer even if they wanted to? Let's not forget that a good chunk of soldiers came from dirt poor backgrounds where luxuries like computers, cell phones, cable tv, etc. are a DREAM. I live a few minutes from Philly, but hardly an hour's drive into the low rent 'burbs are entire communities that are so poor that most people don't even have HOME PHONES much less a computer with internet access. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of areas where a big chunk of our soldiers come from... the military is full of people that signed up as the only real option to GET OUT of that environment. My own middle class sister lives in a very nice Philly suburb, drives a nice car, and has never once logged onto the internet... and she has little desire to. She has no idea what a blog is, what a forum is and would be hardpressed to explain even what a website was much less how to do a search for one. She gets her news from the local papers and the tv and is perfectly satisfied with that.

ONLY ONE PERSON needs to name ONE SOLDIER who is dead and not on any of the death lists. And yet NOT ONE SUCH PERSON has.

How do you know? Because you didn't find any on the internet? For all you know there could be dozens if not hundreds of people trying to find out from the government if their dead loved one has been officially counted, but you don't believe that even one such person exists because you haven't seen it on the fucking internet? Are you serious? A situation doesn't exist if it's not on the net? WOW... I guess since my dad's death notice can't be found on the net, he never died. Has it not also occurred to you that the death of a loved one is considered by some people to be not the business of the general public and is a personal and private matter?

There is simply NO WAY the US gov could hide 100 US deaths, let alone "hundreds" or "thousands".

Yes, there is. And the way it could be done has been explained. It's been done before in other countries in much the same way, although clearly with the advent of the interent, it makes it more difficult. The easiest way is to prey on the trust and assumption of the general citizenry as was previously explained and which you haven't yet commented on. It is POSSIBLE. That doesn't mean it's happening or happening in large numbers, but it IS possible. It is also very clearly in our present admin's interest to do so, and they paved the way right from the beginning by locking down the whole area where the coffins come in.

[LynnTheDem]

197. Give me just ONE NAME. You MUST have ONE NAME.

There's been 1 million US troops that have served in Iraq/Afghanistan.

SURELY you can name JUST ONE dead soldier who isn't counted.

SURELY you can name JUST ONE family member who's spoken out about their soldier being missing, or being told to "keep their mouth shut" about their soldier's death.

SURELY you can name JUST ONE NAME of a friend or neighbor or fellow soldier or medic crew or doctor or nurse or transport crew or flight crew or morgue crew or US Military admin person or honest politician, JUST ONE, that has gone public with a soldier's death being "hidden" or a soldier's family being told to "keep their mouth shut".

SURELY you can name JUST ONE NAME of ANYONE who knows a soldier that died and isn't on ANY death lists, isn't on ANY memorial lists, isn't on ANY memorial sites, isn't mentioned at base services.

"there could be dozens if not hundreds of people trying to find out from the government if their dead loved one has been officially counted"...YEAH RIGHT. And NOT ONE of those "dozens or hundreds" has spoken to any anti-war site, any veteran site, any reporters or government reps, NOT ONE has spoken publicly to ANYONE???

HOW STUPID do you think we US military family people are???!! :wow:

JUST ONE. Out of ONE MILLION US TROOPS and you can't name JUST ONE.

NO it is NOT possible for the US military to hide soldiers' deaths.

Until you name ONE NAME as proof to back up your assertion of "fact", that is the end of the story, imo.

[marions ghost]

208. Once again, LynntheDem...

in your response to Torchthewitch, you did not bother to answer the points that were made about the fact that many deaths (of any kind) DO NOT end up as notices on the internet. Since you obviously use NO sources other than those on the net, it is reasonable to assume that your figures may be inaccurate. Don't you even see this as a possibility? Why don't you address this point directly?

[LynnTheDem]

212. Yes actually I did respond.

Thanks and have a nice day.

:)

[marions ghost]

215. Nope--you consistently refuse to answer

the question about how you account for the deaths that never show up as notices on the internet, LynnTheDem. Anyone reading this is just supposed to assume that your methods are good because you say so. You refuse to answer any further questions about what you are actually doing, and you refuse to give any real numbers--such as a comparison between the official numbers and your independent findings. I'm assuming you have those figures--but I can't imagine they come out exactly the same all the time. I'm just asking--what is the differential between them over time?--a logical question.

You respond, yes--but you do not even attempt to answer the question. Big Diff.

[LynnTheDem]

114. If a soldier has no family, no friends, none of his fellow troops know him

or care about him one way or the other, then sure, the military could probably "hide" his death.

Why would they? Why would they even try for one or two or a handful of troops, when just ONE PERSON speaking out would blow it all sky-high?

Who buries or cremates this one or two or handful? Just "mass-grave" them in Iraq? And who operates the bulldozers and who works in the refrigeration units and who transports these "hidden"? And how do you make sure NOT ONE of these people speaks out?

As for who would be notified, ALL SOLDIERS MUST give info on "next of kin"; that may be family, it may be a friend, but it is a requirement.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. Interesting. Are you really telling me that you trust the information....

...prepared and released by the NeoCon Junta?

Really?

Now who's making an "empty argument"?

[Roland99]

46. "Where's the beef?"

All I'm seeing are empty allegations. No proof.

[LynnTheDem]

58. HELLO! Last time explaining this; We DO NOT sit back & wait for

Centcom/DoD releases.

We track ALL mentions of troop deaths and set up slots for each; we then match Centcom/DoD releases to those deaths.

ANY DEATHS which don't get a Centcom/DoD death notice release we then go after Centcom and DoD.

I track ALL mentions of troop deaths by newsfeeds, one for Iraq, one for Afghanistan. These feeds search from 10,000 to 21,000 articles and blogs around the globe every 15 minutes for any articles that mention the words I set the feeds to.

We RESEARCH FIRST.

We SLOT DEATHS FIRST...but NOT PUBLICLY.

We PUBLICLY LIST deaths AFTER Centcom & the DoD CONFIRM the deaths. This is to ensure we don't double-count or miss any deaths.

We go after Centcom & the DoD for any slotted deaths that don't receive Centcom/DoD death notices within 2-3 days.

WE DO NOT sit on our asses and simply post deaths from Centcom and DOD death notices.

[marions ghost]

69. why do you assume

that all small town death notices make it to the web? I'm just curious about why you feel that internet tracking is so accurate?

Also, do you have any reliable figures for the numbers of severely (permanently) brain-damaged, or are these lumped with all other injuries...

[TorchTheWitch]

177. i'm still waiting for an answer on that one too

why do you assume that all small town death notices make it to the web? I'm just curious about why you feel that internet tracking is so accurate?

It isn't all that accurate since most small town local papers don't have a website. Contrary to popular belief, the entire world is not plugged into the net. I brought this up in my post, #93.

And what about those people who don't put a death notice in their local paper? Believe it or not, not all families do this. A lot of people purposely don't put a loved one's death notice in the local paper because they want to avoid a possible flood of condolence calls... many people can't deal with that. That was one of the most difficult thing to deal with when my father died... I appreciated the sincere condolences of people, but it made it much harder to deal with his death by being bombarded with them. If I had to do it over again, I would have preferred that my mom hadn't put his death notice in the local paper.

As long as the next of kin gets an official notice from the government that their loved one was killed in Iraq, and they TRUST their government, they may very often ASSUME that because they got a death notice, their loved one was added to the official count. How many people who had a loved one die in Iraq even know where to go to find out whether or not their loved one was added to the official count? Until this subject came up here, I wouldn't have had an idea in the world how to go about checking that out.

And how do we know there is no family member fighting with the government to get their loved one's name listed on the official count? Assuming there is such a person or persons out there and they ask a major news outlet to cover the story of the fact that their loved one's name hasn't been added to the official count, given the state out our MSM, how far do you think that would go? For crying out loud, we can't even get MSM to cover the Downing Street Memo. Or when someone does scream at the government that their loved one wasn't added to the official count, the government would do a "whoopsie, we made a boo-boo, we'll fix that for you", fix it, and don't bother fixing any similar boo-boo's from loved one's that AREN'T screaming at them to fix it. Should the government wish to hide large numbers of fatalities in Iraq without the general citizenry knowing about it, that's probably exactly what they'd do... fix only the ones not added to the count that they get hassled over (then there is conveniently no story coming out in the press to prick the interest of the citizenry).

This seems to be a much more plausible reason why there is such a lock-down when caskets come home... there's no press able to count caskets and compare that with the official total.

[ooglymoogly]

233. puerto rico is not a good example

it has been on the edge of statehood for decades. it is very sophisticated, phones per capita, computers per capita, internet connection per capita, etc. compare that to large areas of mexico where a telephone is an anomaly and a computer is magical apparatus. multiply this throughout latin america and you have some questions to add to a debate.

[mmonk]

19. Numbers always seem to get foggy

in war. Just as some civilian dead may be counted as insurgent deaths. Anyone remember the numbers games in Vietnam?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. Yep. Each body part was counted as a single enemy KIA.

[LynnTheDem]

20. Bullshit. It's that simple.

LynnThe Dem
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

[evermind]

37. DEBUNKED??? Here's where that story originates. Can you translate it?

It's in a Spanish languages news outlet, El Diario NY, at:

http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/detail_archive.aspx?section=20&desc=&id=1156951&Day=27&Month=5&Year=2005

Had a look at it yesterday, but my Spanish doesn't exist. I did run it through Google translation though.. The impression I got is that the story *is* based on documents, but if you read it down to the bottom, it seems to be saying the 4,000-odd figure is troops under US command, *including native Iraqi troops* acting under US command. With maybe some minor discrepancies in the US-native figures.

Anyone speak good enough Spanish to translate it and clue us in on what it actually says?

Google version of relevant passage:

According to reviewed documents, in addition to the 1.649 fatal losses of regular troops of the U.S.A., 88 of Great Britain, 92 of other countries members of the coalition, 238 are added informed by the companies contractors into mercenarios, and at least 2.000 of the loyal Iraqian troops. It is the integrated nonspreading of the losses of those soldiers of own Iraq, but that fights under the command of the expeditionary force, the main defect of the accounts that have spread.

Clear enough? You gotta love that ol' "integrated nonspreading" ;-)

[lockdown]

84. Exactly, it's about other nationalities under US command

All these flames back and forth and nobody seems to have read the original post. But, as long as all the brave American heroes are accounted for and have their place on the memorials who gives a fuck eh? Collateral damage.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Anyone who believes this is an idiot, and I'll tell you why

In order to believe this, you'd have to believe that NOT ONE person associated with these extra supposed KIAs is familiar with the various online databases of the dead, or, being familiar, NOT ONE decided to contact the managers of said databases. That is, quite simply, utterly implausible. So, let's say there are 4,000 KIA. That's 2,350 more than icasualties.com has verification for. All the other online databases more or less reflect the same names and numbers, and Nightline is doing a reading of the names again this week. So, let's consider how many people would be connected in some way to those 2,350 dead. Let's say friends, neighbors, teachers, parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings. Let's put the number, conservatively, as 30,000 (I'm assuming every one of the dead knows only 15 people who are aware that they've been killed in Iraq, a laughably low number if you've ever planned a wedding, or a funeral... - the real number would be closer to 100,000). Of that 30,000, not one - let me repeat, NOT ONE - is aware of the most well-known database of the dead on the Internet (icasualties.org), or, being aware, NOT ONE has 1) searched for the name of their dead relative/student/friend/acquaintance and 2) not finding it, NOT ONE has contacted the administrators of the site to alert them to the "error." NOT ONE! NOT ONE!

Is that plausible? Does that make sense to you? Would any reasonable person believe that? I think not. I think anyone who believes that (and there could be NO OTHER EXPLANATION) would have to be a credulous fool to say the least, and perhaps devoid of any reasoning capacity whatsoever. So tell me, friend, is this what you believe? NOT ONE!

[hector459]

52. If stats are kept in more than one place and more than one place reports

on their dead, it would be easy to keep the left hand from knowing what the right hand was counting.

There needs to be a way that death certificates for the military can be counted and reviewed but then they could hide these also.

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. Ridiculous

Numerous places online, including the major news sources, purport to have a complete list of the dead, including names. Stats aren't kept separately; they are fully integrated in all the lists. That's a non-answer to my argument, which you cannot answer reasonably, because there is no reasonable counterargument.

[tx_dem41]

90. Umm...they can't hide the 50,000-100,000 members of family, friends...

...and associates of these "phantom-dead". Funny, how no one out of this very large number has ever spoken up.

[mmonk]

54. Don't kill the messenger

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. I'm not killing the messenger

The fact that the messenger has no reasonable argument means that the messenger is killing him or herself. I'm discrediting the messenger, which is perfectly acceptable in a society which values reason.

[Zynx]

55. Total BS. Don't post this lunatic fringe junk here.

Hiding casualties isn't possible.

[mmonk]

57. except the enemy's

[Wilms]

62. kick n/t

[SmileyBoy]

63. That story's a bunch of bullshit.

I've taken my time and read a lot of what icasualties.org has to say on their site. I don't believe for a second that the number of dead US troops in Iraq is more than the current count of 1,657.

[Solly Mack]

64. Oh piffle

[tx_dem41]

70. This is one of the sillier articles I've read in awhile.

The names of the 1600+ are rigorously documented on several websites. For this article to be true, the families, friends, and associates of approximately 2,500 phantom-dead (my guess is that this would easily number over 100,000 people), would never have checked to see if their loved one, friend, or associate is on the list....for up to 2 years!

As an example, I have known 5 people that died in Iraq....they are all on the list...I checked.

[TalkingDog]

104. Is anyone accounting for Illegal immigrants...

who are joining so they can get citizenship?

They aren't American soldiers, only soldiers fighting for the American army.

Are those people listed too?

[tx_dem41]

109. Yes they are....

They are U.S. military personnel regardless of citizenship status.

http://icasualties.org/

[MADem]

127. They are not illegal, for starters

If you join the military, and you are not a citizen, you already HAVE a green card. There were many scandals with regard to kids enlisting with phony cards back in the seventies, and that little loophole was closed decisively in the mid eighties, when Reagan was in charge, by requiring the services to loop back through INS for status confirmation BEFORE the kid could be sworn in.

That green card makes you a LEGAL (not illegal) RESIDENT, though not a citizen. You can buy a house, go to college, pay your taxes, get your benefits...everything short of voting. I have friends who have been legal residents for thirty years--they just aren't citizens.

Additionally, you enlist from your "home of record"--not your "hometown" or place of birth. Home of record is the address you are living at when you enter service. Thus, a kid born in Matamoros, MX, with a green card, who is not a citizen, but a LEGAL resident, who enlists in Dallas and dies in Iraq, is listed a dead from DALLAS, not from Mexico.

Lynn is doing good work, and this sort of shit is not helpful. I suspect these people are taking numbers that include a sailor getting drunk on the beach in Pattaya and drowning, the kid who crashes his car into a tree and dies in Okinawa, the guy who has a heart attack and dies on base in Germany...and adding up all of those numbers and trying to include them in the casualties coming out of the combat zone. They are also including every broken arm and leg that comes out of any base, be it active duty or dependent.

Also, when anyone is injured, the command is required to put out a Casualty Report. They also put out casualty reports when a key piece of EQUIPMENT that they need to do their mission is broken. So, there can be thousands of CASUALTY reports, but not all of those reports are associated with death, with combat, or even with PEOPLE.

I don't get irritated with people who do not KNOW how things are done, what does bug me though is that when people are told how things work, that they refuse to alter their mindsets to accomodate new information--because they are so angry, they want to paint this administration with a broad brush. Point is, we don't have to MAKE SHIT UP--the truth is powerful enough.

Keep up the fine work, Lynn, and don't let it get to you. Regretfully, this seems to have devolved into an "I'm right--you're wrong" contest, which has more to do with the source of the assertion's desire to maintain an untenable position, than the facts.

[mopaul]

71. a related story

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1622.htm

[leftchick]

112. Very interesting mopaul...

~snip~

The Bush Butcher’s Bill: Officially, 72 US Military Deaths in Iraq from 2 through 25 May, 2005 – Official Total of 1,735 US Dead to date (and rising)

U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.

by Brian Harring, Domestic Intelligence Reporter

Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers , rapes, courts martial and so on – Brian Harring

[tx_dem41]

113. Of course they have previously been counted...

as can be seen at...

http://icasualties.org/

I see the "phantom-dead" number is bouncing all over the place. Now we're back up to 6,000+. Can't the different conspiracy theorists get together and manufacture one consistent number? It would be greatly appreciated.

[mopaul]

72. delete

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

96. Oh, not this bull"$*& again.

How many times does this need to be debunked? How many members of DU who are with the armed forces (or used to be) need to tell you that this is crap before you accept it?

At least it's not in LBN this time.

[Stand and Fight]

102. I got out February of last year.

Got out of the Army as a Sergeant Promotable, and I am here to tell you and other "haters" that this story could very well be true.

I am not saying it is true. I am not saying that it is false. However, I am admitting the distinct possibility that our government is not only capable of doing this, but also willing to do it because of those currently in power.

[leftchick]

122. The real number of US deaths in Vietnam were not revealed

until well after the conflict was over. They have a pattern.

[tx_dem41]

124. We, the public, has a "pattern" (so to speak), to counteract

..."their" pattern. In this case, its called using the Internet. It wasn't around in the Vietnam era. In fact, I doubt there was anywhere where one could see an up-to-date list of official-dead back then. Now there is. And the conspiracy unravels. Knowledge is most assuredly power.

[Stand and Fight]

125. Patterns don't necessary equal conspiracy.

We can see any pattern we wish to see if we look too long at anything.

[alcibiades_mystery]

149. That is absolutely false

The weekly casualty figures for Vietnam were accurate. There have been studies on this.

I defy you to show one shred of evidence for that false claim. Who said that and what is their evidence?

The only "hiding" of casulaties in Vietnam was due to a change in the way POW/MIAs were calculated beginning in 1967. In all previous wars, MIAs were listed as KIA if it was obvious enough what happened, whereas in Vietnam, the MIA category became more shady. This was exacerbated once Nixon saw he could keep the POW wives on board by playing up the POW/MIA issue, and of course, the myth of the POW/MIA was useful for the reactionary governments of the 1980's. So we're STILL short 2000 or so KIAs because of this cynical accounting.

Other than that, however, the figures revealed weekly on the news programs did in fact add up to the approximately 59,000 we now consider KIA. Your claim is false, either because you're ignorant of the research, because you've been led astray by someone else's false claim, or because you're deliberately lying. But once again, I defy you to show any evidence that Vietnam accounting was not accurate as the war was going on. It is simply not true.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

152. No, it isn't capable of doing it.

This is absolute gibberish with no sort of supporting evidence whatsoever and completely flies in the face of logic and common sense.

[tx_dem41]

103. Apparently, with the second roll-out of this conspiracy theory....

the number of "phantom-dead" has been decreased from around 7,000 to about 2,400.

[indepat]

115. We can take great comfort knowing our government would not mislead or lie

to us.

[tx_dem41]

118. This conspiracy theory is not contingent on only the Government..

...lying to us. It is also, more importantly, contingent on the thousands and thousands of family members, friends, and associates (including disinterested associates)of the "phantom-dead" either lying to us, or keeping a secret (for 2+ years and counting), or just being too plain dumb to look for the "phantom-dead" in an official list.

[bush_is_wacko]

117. Personally, the way the world works today, I think it would be fairly easy

to keep the deaths of several thousand soldiers quiet. Military families tend to keep to their own the same way cops do.

How is the average American citizen to know how many people they never even noticed before are missing?

I know OF one person who served in Iraq during the Gulf War and then opted to serve in the reserves to finish up his tour. He has been missing since the inception of this war. My family has been unable to locate either him or his wife or his mother for that matter. He was perfectly easy to find whenever we looked for him before. We often lost touch for up to a year or so and then got back in touch with him. We can't find him ANYWHERE. I often think I should check the names of the deceased soldiers, but really, if we can't find hide nor hair of him or his family where we always have been able to before now, what makes me think I could find his name on one of the combed/sifted/illegitamate lists of the dead?

[LuPeRcALiO]

119. It's easy. The white guys with "50,000" friends and family get reported.

The others don't. That's why you're hearing about it from a Puerto Rican paper.

DOH!

[MADem]

128. You are showing your ignorance--Puerto Ricans ARE AMERICANS

Check their passports...they're the same ones those 'foreign' GUAMANIANS carry....and those people who live in the 50 states carry. Puerto Rico is a US TERRITORY, bright eyes!

The ignorance of people astounds me.

[LuPeRcALiO]

130. thanks, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my post..

:)

[MADem]

146. I invite your attention to post 127 of this thread

Now, let's look at the article, this paragraph, particularly:
It refers to the difficulties encountered by the Puerto Rican government in obtaining a figure of total Puerto Rican casualties during the present war.

If a kid with a US passport who is born in PR enlists from Brooklyn, NY, his home of record is Brooklyn, and his casualty count accrues to NY, not PR.

Doesn't matter where you were born, they don't track them that way. They track them by HOME OF RECORD. Otherwise, a kid born in a military hospital in Germany, who followed a parent into the Army and was killed in Iraq, would be credited as a German death, when he was in fact a US citizen.

If you are a citizen, you are a citizen. If you hold a green card, you are a LEGAL US resident. And your residence at time of enlistment determines which state gets the check mark on the body count.

[LuPeRcALiO]

193. thanks, but that's still beside the point

I was talking about class, not citizenship. Thanks though.

[Flagrante]

131. And CNN calls itself a news channel?

Today at lunchtime I saw CNN; Wolf Blitzer, Behind the Lines. It’s been some years since I’ve watched the TV news, and I was at a pizza parlor near work, lunching with some colleagues (yes I’m working on the holiday), when I saw it today. My goodness, what passes for news these days? What was supposedly a close look at life with the troops in Iraq appeared much more like a feature length advertisement for Army recruiting than an honest view of reality. The show featured the daring adventure of night-time helicopter flying, the exciting danger of a navy pilot’s carrier landing, the heroic recovery and return to battle of a soldier who lost a leg. Now, these exploits are no doubt impressive and worthy, but if all I had to go on was CNN, I’d have a very different view of the Iraq quagmire and the inept stewardship of our nation by Evil Monkey and his gang. Thank goodness for Democracy Now!, Bartcop, Crooks and Liars, Liberal Oasis, Jabberwonk and Democratic Underground. I fear for the health of the internet, because it seems the only check these days against the evil cabal who would be Kings, and we all know how they feel about checks to their power.

[tx_dem41]

133. Of course here...you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, too...

just as on CNN.

[Clark2008]

140. Gray, this isn't the first time I've heard this.

I'm beginning to wonder when the families are going to rise up and question the status of their loved ones.

[LynnTheDem]

174. As a military family member who had a hubby in Iraq for 18 mths, and was

in contact with that hubby soldier an average of 3 times a week, had TWO WEEKS gone by without me hearing from him, I would have contacted the US military every hour on the hour demanding to know WTF was going on.

Had I not heard from my hubby for ONE MONTH I'd have been emailing every newsmedia in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, every major blog, called every senator and rep and generally raised bloody fucking hell.

Had I not heard from my hubby in TWO MONTHS, YOU would have known about it. The entire bloody WORLD would have known about it.

And I'm the shy & quiet type, unlike the large number of military & military families in the numerous anti-war groups.

[Qanisqineq]

201. This really doesn' t have anything to do with the whole debate

but I was just going to say, "Wow". I was LUCKY if I heard from my husband ONCE A MONTH while he was in Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

202. Hubby took his laptop.

So at least 3 times/week he was able to chat with me online. He was able to email me daily.

By phone, he was able to call me once, sometimes twice a month.

I also chatted online with dozens of troops in his unit, took messages for their various friends/family, wrote down their care package wants, etc.

As well, I chatted and/or emailed with dozens of other troops from other divisions on a weekly basis to pass on messages and/or write down their care package wants.

I heard more often from more soldiers than I ever have and ever want to again. :D

[applegrove]

155. I would not be surprised if there was some number crunching. You know -

if you are a suicide you don't count. If you are a foreign national you don't count.

Don't know. The numbers seem hight enough to me. Would be awfully obvious in the end what the numbers were. You know - the monument and all!

[Pinboy]

169. re: suicide

From today’s LBN:

Soldier Who Killed Self Added to War Casualties

By Theola S. Labbe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 30, 2005; Page A16

A U.S. soldier who committed suicide at Walter Reed Army Medical Center nearly two years ago has been added to the official Defense Department tally of Iraq war casualties.

The name of Army Master Sgt. James C. Coons, 35, was added last month to the more than 1,600 other "Fallen Warriors" of Operation Iraqi Freedom who are listed on a public Web site of the Defense Department, http://www.defendamerica.mil . A military casualty board ruled in December that Coons's suicide in July 2003, which came after he received a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and was evacuated from Kuwait, should be considered a casualty of war.

MORE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900918.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1510580

[applegrove]

176. Glad he was added. PTSD during War is a direct injury. I almost

climbed a tree when the army issued a statement saying woman were suffering from more PTSD because they obviously had abuse in their past. You need a few types of trauma to get PTSD. But you can get all types during a week in Baghdad - I'm sure. Glad they seem to be counting people in that regard.

[LynnTheDem]

253. Suicides committed by soldiers IN Iraq are counted, always have been.

The issue on this one was his not being in Iraq and it's not possible to directly tie suicides out of theater to combat. A soldier can come home and commit suicide with it being nothing to do with his having been in combat.

In this case, the soldier was sent from Iraq directly to Reed, had attempted suicide in-theater, was diagnosed with PTSD in-theater, and was still in Reed when he killed himself, so the direct tie was there.

Soldiers who are wounded in Iraq and die in Walter Reed from their wounds are counted, so this soldier's suicide was (correctly, imo) deemed the same; an injury sustained in Iraq that he died from in Reed.

But a soldier who finishes his tour in Iraq, comes home, and then commits suicide won't be included in 'combat deaths'.

[Occulus]

214. How many others?

Certain Parties on this thread are in denial, plain and simple. Now we have one that wasn't added to the official count for two years. That one was a suicide. Certain Parties now have the one they were clamoring for earlier in this thread.

This makes me wonder how many combat casualties were actually reported as 'suicide' just to keep them off the official combat death count.

Certain Parties, apparently, ascribe too much trust to a system known to dick over its participants on a regular basis. I guess these Certain Parties are unaware of the political considerations military commanders have taken throughout history to hide excessive wartime deaths from a populace that would be outraged if it knew the truth.

Do we really imagine that, after the lesson of Vietnam, any US administration would not go to any lengths it could to underreport those numbers?

I know we would hope our military decision-makers and bean counters would be completely forthcoming regarding the numbers of wartime deaths. I know we all would be comforted by the belief that our military would not lie about that one statistic, even though we all know it lies- and for good reason- about a great many other actions it takes during war. However, we see proof- proof right in front of our faces- that our military and its Commander in Chief lied about the very reasons it started this war in the first place. You can take the crown of the liar off your head, but once you put it on, it leaves a stain there for all time.

Motive, motive, it's all about motive. Who gains from trying to hide wartime deaths? We already know they don't count Iraqi civilian deaths. We already know some groups within our own military are thought of as cannon-fodder by certain people in charge of the whole mess. We already know those same people, if words are coming out of their mouths, are lying.

Why would this President and this administration wish to hide the true US military death total? Always ask why. Certain Parties here may not be in posession of all the facts simply because their sources do not want them in posession of all the facts. It would be hubris to a high degree to presume one is in posession of all the facts from this administration in any case.

But why, in the first place, would this administration do this? The answer is, to stay in power.

If we can admit to ourselves it would want to hide the true death total (and I think we all know * and co. would want to do so if they could), the next question is how. This whole thread is trying to answer that question. We already know it didn't count this one suicide on the official deal rolls for two years. This makes me utterly certain there was a whole lot more than one.

Do we honestly believe they wouldn't lie when asked "how many others?"

I'll not dismiss this outright, because I've been watching this administration right along with everyone else here since it came into power, and I think I'm not alone in saying that such a thing as not reporting the true total of Iraq war US military casualties is well within the power of this administration.

I'm not saying our military personnel do not do their very best to present an accurate count. I am saying the top of this administration would do their worst to muddle that count.

That's one thing I think we all can 'count' on.

[LynnTheDem]

219. The suicide was known about for the past 2 years, sorry to disappoint

you.

We do not add ANY deaths to the count WITHOUT official confirmation. The reason why6 shold be very obvious.

Now we have the official confirmation, now we've added the death to the count, and removed that soldier from our "pending" file.

Isn't it funny how "Certain Parties" didn't stop to think about the fact that Centcom didn't have to rule on this suicide at all, let alone as a war casualty, that Centcom doesn't have to release any death notices at all for any soldiers, and that "Certain Posters" wouldn't know about this soldier's death at all if other "Certain Posters" hadn't been helping to keep track of all soldiers' deaths and demanding the military rule the suicide as a war casualty in the first place.

Some "Certain Parties" should give up 50-60 hours of their time for a week and help research, instead of trashing the hours "Certain Posters" spend weekly doing, rather than trashing.

[tx_dem41]

220. Geez, Lynn....

Quit ruining everybody's "fantasies" with facts. What a spoilsport you are! ;)

[LynnTheDem]

223. LOL! Thanks, Tx!

Sure am glad I do this nightmare for the SOLDIERS. Otherwise I'd be tempted to say "just fuck it" already.

Putting up with the rightwingnut crap of marginalizing and trivializing soldiers' deaths is bad enough without this shit from the left.

:eyes:

[Pinboy]

224. Actually, this case supports Lynn

I thought that was obvious, so I posted the item without comment. Perhaps I should have pointed out:

This suicide occurred not in Iraq, but in the United States, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. If deaths really were being hidden, this would be the easiest case to exclude.

The family actively pushed for this outcome, and this soldier's case was the subject of a FRONT PAGE STORY in the Washington Post last year.

Suicides which occur in the OIF combat theater (including Kuwait) do count, as do all other hostile and non-hostile fatalities, even when the deaths occur in Germany, the U.S., or elsewhere following evacuation.

Given the conduct of this Administration, it's natural to raise the question about counting fatalities; but you can't draw a conclusion from a question. Lynn and the others at iccc, and others elsewhere, are doing the grunt work of following up on the question and keeping the Administration honest on the issue. They can hardly be accused of being in denial.

[marions ghost]

227. I would like to know for sure

that Lynn's group is "keeping the administration honest" so that's why I ask questions. I'm surprised that ICCC rely only on internet sources for info about soldiers. Considering that, I'm not but SO surprised that apparently there are almost no discrepancies between
their figures and the government sources they check against. So therefore we should trust the govt figures I guess?? Do you see that as a logical conclusion?

Looking at it the other way, why do you think we should trust any of these web-based totals from anybody? I think you'd have to have a secondary way of checking that is physically based.

[LuPeRcALiO]

236. "The family actively pushed for this outcome," so it contradicts Lynn.

Lynn is saying that every military death will somehow make it onto the Internet, where she can find it and check to see that it's on the official list.

But this story shows that only soldiers with survivors who can make inquiries get counted, often after some delay (two years in this case).

The question is, what happens to the ones who don't have relatives capable of making them "the subject of a FRONT PAGE STORY in the Washington Post"?

Who's tracking them, and how?

[LynnTheDem]

241. And you are again incorrect.

The ICCC was aware of this suicide last year. And aware of the family wanting it to be classed as a war death. Last year.

SUICIDES have never been included as combat deaths. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and yes it is an arbitrary line. But in this case, because the suicide happened while the soldier was still in the hospital, the military ruled it as a combat death.

The only thing about this particular death was whether it should be included as a combat death, or as a suicide (which we also track) and not in the official war death count.

But the DEATH ITSELF was indeed known.

So much, again, for your assumptions that you state as "fact".

[LuPeRcALiO]

242. The point is that there's a family capable of making inquiries.

What if there wasn't? Or what if they didn't live in the US, and the contact information got "misplaced"? Or what if they did, and they got a scary warning from the INS?

You might not realize it, but the military recruits heavily from what used to be called the underclass, and they don't always have Norman Rockwell families.

[LynnTheDem]

245. We KNEW about his death BEFORE the family said ANYTHING

publicly.

The POINT is, YOU insist THOUSANDS of soldiers' deaths are hidden. That's bullshit, because out of the THOUSANDS you keep insisting on, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM would have ONE PERSON who would scream bloody fucking murder very publicly...not to even mention the thousands of people who would be required to be in on any such cover-up.

I "might realize" a lot of things, especially as I AM PART OF THE US MILITARY and have been for the past 14 years with a 20-year career officer husband, THANK YOU.

And while your (imo racist) belief that them poor folk don't have the brains to figure out how to get help and public notice if their loved one was suddenly not heard from again, or if they were told to "keep their mouth shut", I refuse to believe them poor folk are all that stupid or need to be "Norman Rockwell" families to give a shit about their friend/father/mother/son/daughter/husband/wife/cousin/neighbor/fellow soldier/priest/employer/employee(s) et-bloody-cetera.

[LuPeRcALiO]

246. Sigh. The point, again, is that there IS a family.

What if there wasn't? Would you have known? No way of knowing.

And who's going to scream bloody hell if there's nobody to scream bloody hell? If somebody dies and nobody notices, who's going to notice?

p.s. I've suggested several times that you get in touch with the El Diario reporter and see what he knows. If you haven't already, I hope that you will.

[LynnTheDem]

251. Sigh. You make MY points for me.

It doesn't matter if a dead soldier has no family, no friends, a next of kin that for whatever reason can't be contacted or doesn't care, no fellow soldiers that care; that soldier's death could slip through the cracks, but NOT HIDDEN because to hide that one soldier's death would involve a lot of people and ANY ONE of them could go public.

And there is NO WAY THOUSANDS of troops' deaths could be hidden, as YOU keep insisting, because NOT ALL OF THEM would have no families, no friends, no next of kin that doesn't care, no employers, no employees no anybody whatsoever, and STILL there would be a lot of people involved in such a cover-up and ANY ONE of them could go public.

And this really is enough already; you keep on with the same nonsensical illogical bullshit.

p.s. I know how to do my work, and don't require your suggestions. However, you of course are quite free to do your own research. ;)

[LuPeRcALiO]

256. If your point is that you track casualties announced on the Internet,

then I guess I do. Happy to help.

My point, though, is that you have no way of tracking the ones that aren't.

[LynnTheDem]

257. Have a nice day!

:hi:

[Pinboy]

244. On the contrary

Lynn pointed out that large numbers of deaths would be extremely difficult to hide because families would want the deaths acknowledged as war casualties and would not be silent. This family did indeed challenge the government -- with the result that a soldier who committed suicide in the United States is now counted by DoD as a casualty of the Iraq War.

[tx_dem41]

225. Yes, I agree, "Certain Parties" on this thread ...

are in denial...denial of their natural ability to rationally analyse a situation and apply logic to it, free of their ideological/political beliefs.

Some examples of this denial:

1.) Not seeing that the previously cited suicide actually supports the belief that these sorts of lies are close to impossible to achieve. ESPECIALLY on the level that the OP article suggests.

2.) Worshipping at the altar of "Administration/Uncle Karl are omnipotent" meme, and not thinking rationally and realizing that thousands and thousands of "plain ol' normal" (and often quite disinterested) Americans would have to be complicit in such a conspiracy.

3.) Not doing research and actually going to the ICC website. Instead, cite such statements as "They don't count people who die in the US or in Germany...only the ones that died in battle IN Iraq". Again, do your homework before making such laughable statements.

Yep, lots of denial around here.

"That's one thing I think we all can 'count' on."

[ArkDem]

221. great source

[kerry-is-my-prez]

228. They DON'T count the numerous American contractors in the deaths.

That much we do know. They have tons of people who are supposedly "private citizens" doing jobs for corporations. These jobs in the past would have been done by the military. That is how they get away with not reporting all of the actual deaths.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1703272,00.html
Deaths remain unreported

But several sources in the private security industry admit many deadly attacks probably remained unreported.

"We get internal reports and there are often deaths that don't make it in the media. It's an industry that doesn't communicate and secrecy is one of the reasons we're here," said one on condition of anonymity.

Unprecedented outsourcing has allowed the US military to ease the pressure on troops already stretched by several wars and is seen as a way of keeping body bags away from the public eye.

"If you don't get shot on the airport road or a busy area but instead die in an ambush on an open supply route in a remote corner of northern or western Iraq, there's a good chance the news won't come out," the industry source added.

[demo dutch]

238. What about hidden casualties, soldiers that die outside of Iraq

whether is because they're shipped out or committed suicide etc.
Besides this goverment lies about everything!, so they're definately lying about this as well!

[LynnTheDem]

247. Soldiers who die of wounds sustained in Iraq are counted REGARDLESS

of where they die. FACT.

Go to the ICCC and you can read all the names of troops who died in Kuwait...and Germany...and America...AFTER theyw ere wounded in Iraq. (I say this shit in my dreams now, having said it so damn often already.)

Suicides ARE NOT combat deaths unless they can be directly traced to combat and that is usually very difficult to do. Not all soldiers who commit suicide do so because of previous combat. And then you'd have to include all the "suicide by drunk driving" accidents. Couldn't many of them be directly related to the soldier's combat stress?

Those who suffer injuries in theater are counted, regardless where they actually die. Injuries suffered out of theater are not.

This particular suicide was included because it happened while the soldier was in the hospital with combat-related PTSD.

bush lies like a sidewalk, but he isn't trying to hide soldiers' deaths by ordering the US Military to do a massive cover-up involving thousands of people, most of whom would have no incentive to stay silent and plenty of incentive to go public.

[tx_dem41]

260. Shaking head...

did you actually take the effort to LOOK at the website that has been mentioned on this thread several times? If so, why did you ask such a needless question?

[LynnTheDem]

243. Amazing, isn't it; the US Military only counts US Military troops.

But yes, the military is outsourcing as much as possible; that's Rummy's plan & has been for decades.

His "lean stream-lined fighting force". Which is why our troops ended up short on food and water; civilians can't be forced into a raging combat zone.

The US Military also doesn't count UK troops, "coalition" troops, Iraqi troops, or any other troops. They count only US Military troops.

[tx_dem41]

261. Lynn, let me point out....

that although, the US Military does not count UK (and other Coalition troops) troop deaths, your wonderful site does.

Thank you for your efforts...and pass it along to the ICCC staff.

[LynnTheDem]

270. Why thank you very much!

I shall pass that generous compliment on, where it will be much appreciated! :)

Not "my" site tho, I'm just a helper; Pat & Michael are the Big Cheezies. :D

:hug:

[insane_cratic_gal]

239. You can't photograph

the coffins coming into the states.

You really think it's to protect the family? Quite honestly, I don't believe that, they are flag drapped coffins. Nothing identifies them as (ex) Marc Sabbat or Shelly Smith, so why worry about the "privacy" issue, when their name is all over the news the minute family is notified. Unless of course your trying to hide something, then you never want a head count.

There really wouldn't be anyway to know for sure without contacting 150,000 families to verify, not to mention the article seems to suggest it's not Just US troops we are talking about here.

Given the state of troops, lack of armor.. scrap metal trucks, the daily bombs, IED's, The propaganda machine of BushINC, giving information would on military deaths in Iraq "encouraging to the enemy" in the view of Dick and Rummy at least.

Why is so hard to believe they "trickle" numbers out slowly?

[LynnTheDem]

248. And whose law is that, anyways? Hint; not bush's.

No he doesn't want photos on the telly of all those coffins. Not because someone would be able to sit and count all these coffins that look exactly the same as each other and say "AH HA hidden deaths!"

It's because photos of flag-draped coffins are very emotional and he doesn't want Americans to notice Americans dying and get emotional about it; they may demand the dying stops.

And that law was in place long before bush came along.

[insane_cratic_gal]

262. I still think

they are trickling those deaths out gradually. If 25 died in one day, it's slowly released over a two week period, it's a much easier pill to swallow.

War is all psychological, It's all about control and mind games. They've already divided the deaths from American and collation forces.. then narrowed it again by Combat and Non combat. and divided yet again by Military and civillian (contractor).

I have alot of respect for you Lynn. I'm nottrying to be argumentive, but I'd much rather not assume anything bout the Bush Cartel and how they operate, even if that makes me look irrational and parnoid.

I guess we can really never know, DOD and military all release what they wish to release. Abu took 6 months to break open, 2002 was the first instance of Gitmo slop bucketing the Koran, but it took a year, and then another to make big news. So is it possible they are slowly releasing the deaths. I believe it is.

Now is it 1,400 difference? Probably not since a tour is 6 months, you'd need to trickle 4 a day for 365 days, to come close.

but what if the death toll is 30 a day, isn't just as damaging and emotional to release that information in one whole swoop (as it were with the flags on the coffins) We become enraged, and start boycotting, picketing..(raising hell).

[LynnTheDem]

269. 25 over 2 weeks? So where are they storing these corpses?

And how many people are involved in this cover-up of storing scores of US corpses in the refrigerators for a couple weeks? Quite a few.

And there would be some VERY angry soldiers who would of course be aware thiswas going on and they would not remain silent about it. YOU DO NOT treat fallen soldiers in such a manner, and even my arch enemies Abizaid and Myers wouldn't countenance it, if just for the fact that they'd be drummed out of the military in absolute disgrace & shame by the rest of the military.

And they better hope that the families don't get autopsies done on their loved ones...which several families have done. Could be a bit tricky explaining that.

Then there's the fact that most of the troops in Iraq, depending where they're stationed, are in daily to 2-3 times/week contact with family, friends and military personel back here in the US. Two weeks and no word from soldiers would ring a lot of alarm bells.

Next, there's what's known as the Family Readiness Support Group. They're the family members of troops stationed in Iraq and are a support group for the family members. Each unit in Iraq has constant contact with at least one of the FRG members.

Thing is, this is NOT about bush & Cartel.

This is about the US Military, Centcom, the DoD, and the soldiers, their families, friends, medics, chaplains, fellow troops, transport crews, doctors, nurses, autopsy staff...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

279. Photographing military flag-draped coffins has been allowed up....

...until the time we invaded Afghanistan. From that point on, reporters have not been allowed to photograph the coffins.

Check your history.

[LynnTheDem]

281. Check your history; 1991

[tx_dem41]

263. Its heartbreaking to see military families, including the families of ..

DU members, treated so disrespectuflly on this site.

[lonestarnot]

252. Stop the War of Lies Now Bastards!

[LuPeRcALiO]

264. The "ICCC" simply compiles statistics provided by the US government.

From the ICCC: "our primary source is the U.S. government."

But: "the government provides no tally of those {news} releases."

So: the ICCC makes a tally of news releases issued by the US and posted on the Internet, checked against various news sources.

But: THE ICCC MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIM TO REPORT EVERY COMBAT DEATH.

So any claims to the contrary made in this thread are misrepresentations.

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

[tx_dem41]

265. You said: "The "ICCC" simply compiles statistics provided by the....

....US Government"

Then you posted from the ICCC: "our primary source is the US government".

So in other words, the title of your post is incorrect. Ever heard of the word "secondary"?

Please, if you want us to listen to you, I would suggest making the titles of your posts clear of misstatements. In other words, be honest.

[LuPeRcALiO]

266. Have a nice day.

And please, no more fake outrage, thanks.

[tx_dem41]

267. My outrage is only too real for someone who would dissemble

words to attack a DUer. That's what I expect from the Administration. You have learned well from Uncle Karl.

Now, learn some ethics.

[LynnTheDem]

272. No we do not. And I should know, dontcha think?

I have explained many many many times already how we go about researching.

-We search for deaths.

-We open "slots" for each of those deaths in our working files.

-When the deaths are confirmed, by Centcom and the DoD,
-When slots remain unconfirmed, we chase after Centcom & the DoD.

And *I* have never made any claim that we report every combat death, either. But I, and Pat, both of us from the ICCC, have said the US military IS NOT HIDING deaths.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

274. I'm not at all sure what you know, much less....

...what you're using as sources.

Let's see if I can cut through the flak...you're using untrustworthy US Government sources like Centcom and the DoD to verify what you find in the untrustworthy US mainstream media about deaths in Iraq.

You insist that the DoD is telling you the truth. This is the same US Military which does not allow reporters to report, film, or photograph live action at what passes for the front line these days.

This is the same DoD that will not allow reporters to report, film, or photograph (or count) coffins arriving in the US.

This is the same DoD that continues to resist reporting an accurate count of ALL of the casualties from Iraq, and has all but stopped any reporting from the "Forgotten War" in Afghanistan.

This is the same DoD that continues to insist that it could release only five interceptors to pursue the hijacked airliners on 911, and continues to insist that Flight 93 was not shot down despite the 8-mile debris trail and eyewitness reports from the ground.

But you continue to insist that you trust what you're getting from that organization and insist on berating those of us who have grown VERY wary of anything the NeoCon Junta tells us.

Interesting.

[LynnTheDem]

280. LOL!!!

Have a WONDERFUL day!

:)

[dogday]

283. I believe every family is being notified but I don't believe that every

death is being counted in Iraq. Of course this is nothing new, previous administrations have fudged these numbers. This is about public perception, nothing more.

Do I believe that non-citizens are being counted? No, I do not...

Do I believe those who died in or on their way to the hospital are counted? NO, I do not....

Do I believe any information that the DOD furnishes us? No, I do not....

[LynnTheDem]

288. And yet if ya bothered to go to ICCC, you'd see all the names of troops

who died in hospitals. In Germany. In America.

And you'd also see the names of troops who are non-US citizens who died.

And all of them are counted.

[dogday]

291. I have been there, it is a great site with great intentions, no doubt

Still does not change my mind that the administration has fudged these numbers. Sorry LynnTheDem, this dog just believes this government to be corrupt in all phases and records of this war....

[LynnTheDem]

294. Then your statements were just lies?

You posted:

Do I believe that non-citizens are being counted? No, I do not...

Do I believe those who died in or on their way to the hospital are counted? NO, I do not....

******

Yet as I said, and as you must know, as you say you've been to ICCC, that in fact there are soldiers listed who did die in hospitals, who did die outside of Iraq, and who are non-US citizens.

Of course this govt is corrupt. That has nothing to do with it. Unless all US soldiers, all US family members, world-wide media, the entire internet, and all the thousands who would need to be involved in such a cover-up, are all corrupt, too.

[frictionlessO]

285. Naysayers!!! Read this shit!!

I am the newest person aboard at ICCC, I've been observing just the process of report and confirmation within this group of diehard dedicated slightly crazy people.

First off let me state straight out that I've got more tinfoil than all of you on this thread, thing is I dont use it to bash my own.

Now let me tell you something about ICCC that I knew before I came on board there. ICCC is run by left leaners, ICCC is the most widely sourced and credited casualty count available anywhere. Right wingers source ICCC, rightist war supporters actually thank ICCC for trying (and succeeding) at remaining unbiased. Anything else would be a diservice to the fallen on all sides, also would make it like every other site out there left or right and thus useless in regards to bring attention to these already too high numbers.

Now please just think about that alone... Do you know how much of an accomplishment that is??? Do you understand what kind of integrity that takes? These people have devoted their lives to these numbers and they are on your side, dammit!!! They have jobs and families and all the other normal life shit on top of doing nothing but breathing and thinking and reading about death and maiming for years now. Not a single one of you here can claim that!!! They do it for free out of compassion, empathy and hopfully a small modicum of hope that chimpy will get his ass handed to him by the very people he ground up for his and his friedns own ambitions.

Why so many of you seek to impugn a great resource that has managed to cross the biggest damn void in America (left to right) is beyond me. Lynn has tirelessly shown you all how its done (and trust me they review and research like they are obsessed, which they are and which I am), if you don't believe her than its because you're never going to believe anything that might not damage the BFEE as much as you think it should.

Got proof thats non anecdotal? Gonna call me out and say you spend 40-60hrs a week reseraching every story that comes out of Iraq from everywhere in the world? Wanna prove that we are all Kool-Aid drinkers at ICCC?? Wait, before you answer any of those questions understand this frimly and completely and with the tough kinda love that I intend it.

Go start your own site with the "correct" counts. Remember to source every single damn death three different ways to wednesday. Remember to do it with an unbiased slant so we get people from across the aisle to recognize that we on the left do care and are patriots who aren't out to destroy and defame America. Finally please remember this, you will have to set up large chunks of time to constantly defend your site and its content from people who are supposedly on your side.

In short if you think we are so wrong and blinded by any poltical group, I suggest you go on with your supreme intellect and unquestionable integrity and do it better. Seriously!! Don't give me any shit about how you dont have the time, money, or knowledge that holds as much water as the pro war freaks who never go in any service branch, and Im sure you dont want to be like them....

[marions ghost]

286. I believe you, but I think you confuse

honest skepticism with "bashing."

When you try to get support for any organization or project, no matter how well-intentioned it is, you have to be able to answer questions and handle negative reactions. Most people expressing doubts about the topic here are not overly critical. This government does not inspire trust or confidence--true? The abuse of trust has been very profound--true? Media complicity is obvious--true? So you would expect an indication of that distrust in the responses to the ORIGINAL OP's thread about body counts--true? The defensive and sarcastic tone coming from ICCC's rep Lynn does not help matters. We are impugning the government, not Lynn and co's integrity. That's making it TOO personal.

In dealing with a public forum, it would be better for LynnTD and her cheerleader Tx_dem to try to understand and respect the deep vein of mistrust surrounding government sources--and try to help people out, instead of labelling us "naysayers" and making us adversaries. Nobody wants to do your job or make life hard for you as you do your chosen work. You don't need to defend your obviously worthy cause in such strident terms. Most of us just want to understand what you're doing, and exactly WHY we should trust your figures. I'm sure there are plenty who are ready to support you whole-heartedly without question and if that's what you need emotionally, fine. I can understand that. But realistically, if you do care so much about getting skeptics on board, try better PR--or are you just blowing us off?

[insane_cratic_gal]

287. I agree

I wasn't attacking anyone, all I said was I wouldn't doubt it that the body count was higher. I never attacked Lynn, I never attacked ICCC. Matter of fact I skipped most of the threads with the bashing going back and forth.

I added my two skeptical cents about believeing it was possible and got a bit chewed out for having a counter opinion?

I thought I was very respectful, yet all I saw was defensive postures for no reason.

[LynnTheDem]

289. You are entirely welcome to your own opinion.

I am not a "rep" of the ICCC; I help do research.

As I am not a "rep", as I am not seeking to "get support" from anyone in any way. I am not seeking "PR". I am not trying to get "skeptics on board".

I post on DU as a member of DU, just as you do and just as you are.
And as such, I will post on this board in any way I choose, just as any other board member may do.

No one has to believe anyone's numbers.

What I don't like is the fact that by speading RUMORS of "thousands" of soldiers' deaths being hidden, with no basis in fact (or common sense & logic) whatsoever, it is TRIVIALIZING OUR SOLDIERS' DEATHS.

And THAT is something I will fight against, whether you're a rightwingnut, a leftwingnut, or just an idiot.

And that's a royal "you".

[marions ghost]

290. you represent ICCC to me now

as does frictionless, therefore in a loose sense you are reps.

Obviously you don't care much about PR even as you are here expecting to find support for your organization.

Obviously you have no tolerance for skeptics or those who even mildly question your project.

Obviously you take everything personally to a large degree. How about calming down for half a minute. We are on the same side of the fence (I think).

NOBODY is trivializing the deaths of American Soldiers around here. That statement is too ABSURD. The very allegation is insulting. The only ones trivializing those deaths is our government.

------------
OK--now go ahead and have the last word...I can see you want that, so go ahead, have it. Your mind is closed. Don't worry, I won't reply ;)

[LynnTheDem]

293. I can represent the easter bunny to you, if you like. That's up to you.

And no, I don't care about "PR".

PUBLIC RELATIONS for keeping track of soldiers killed in Iraq & Afghanistan? HUH???

And yet again; I AM NOT WANTING nor "EXPECTING" nor "SEEKING" SUPPORT for ANYTHING.

And no, actually, that statement is NOT absurd. People who go around saying there are thousands of hidden deaths, that really there are SIX THOUSAND or SEVEN THOUSAND troops dead ARE IN FACT TRIVIALIZING the ACTUAL count of 1670 dead troops.

It clearly implies that 1660 dead troops is nothing...REALLY there are THOUSANDS MORE that are dead.

It clearly makes the uninformed think there are actually 6000 or 7000 or whatever this week's bullshit rumor number is. So when they then learn that in fact the number is 1660, it's "oh well, gee that's not so bad then, I thought it was 6000 dead."

What is INSULTING is people going around spreading total bullshit about how 1660 dead soldiers is nothing, it's REALLY X many THOUSANDS dead...and not one single name can they come up with of a "hidden death", not one person can they name that has said a dead soldier wasn't counted. Out of this mysterious "THOUSANDS" of dead troops, with the thousands of people who would have to be in on such a cover-up, of the thousands of family & friends and neighbors etc, NOT ONE NAME can the rumor-mongers name.

And it's damned insulting to trivialize the number of dead troops, 1660, by falsely claiming it's "THOUSANDS" more than that.

And that's my OPINION, nothing whatsoever to do with "PR".

[Moderator]

295. Locking

This has turned into a flame-war