How do the media whores define "combat"?

[karlschneider]

M$NBC reporting the 49th soldier dying in combat since Bunnypants announced Mi$$ion accompli$hed. I can't figure out how having a grenade dropped into your vehicle from a bridge is any more "combat" than crashing the vehicle and dying is.
:wtf:

[LuLu550]

1. combat deaths

That has been bugging me, too. How about we start an e-mail campaign demanding the total number of US dead in Iraq?
LuLu

[alcuno]

4. Welcome to DU, LuLu550 - Here's a list....

The networks are obviously low-balling the numbers because they differentiate between a soldier who dies in a vehicle accident from one who dies because a grenade is thrown into his vehicle. Go to this website and you can link to the chronological list of the war dead. They update as soon as info is available so it's probably a couple of days behind.

http://www.pigstye.net/iraq/

[Abe Linkman]

2. Please explain

Are you trying to say that MSNBC is artificially inflating the number of combat casualties? If so, why, in your opinion, would MSNBC want to do that?

[karlschneider]

3. Huh? I think they are DEflating the numbers, probably under pressure

from the motherfuckers in the White House...
:eyes:

[damnraddem]

5. I think that idea is that other deaths, e.g. traffic deaths, should also .

be counted.

I agree that those deaths are contingent on troops being in a war zone. However, having a grenade dropped into your vehicle does seem qualitatively different from running a red light, even if both lead to one's death.

[karlschneider]

6. Sure, I see the distinction without a difference...but dead is dead and

it seems to me it takes two (or more) to combat.
There is absolutely no doubt that the BFEE wants the numbers to be
reported as low as possible.
:grr:

[LuLu550]

7. More deaths ARE combat related

It is my understanding that more of these deaths ARE combat related and are being passed off as "accidents." Guys are killed when their vehicles run off the road and over turn AFTER BEING HIT ON PURPOSE by Irquis.
Jessica Lynch returned a hero, but most of her injuries were related to her vehicle overturning. Others were killed in that ambush, a number of them due to the accident, not combat wounds...but they were all UNDER FIRE when it happened. There are some reports that families are disputing "accidental death" classification of their sons and daughters.
LuLu

[JaneQPublic]

8. The definition of "non-combat" deaths includes friendly fire

Yes, Central Command and the media have taken to reporting only non-combat deaths. But according to a recent MSNBC article, "NON-COMBAT is defined as accidents, U.S. or British fire killing or wounding their own troops, and other incidents unrelated to fighting":

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters07-26-082358.asp?reg=MIDEAST

So, when they report only "combat deaths, they're leaving out those killed by friendly fire, such as the Navy fighter pilot who got shot down by a U.S. Patriot missile. Hardly seems fair to leave them out.

Apparently, a lot of people have been catching on this little trick, according to this article in "Editor and Publisher":

http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1942670

"Some have argued that the military leadership has tried to keep the number of U.S. casualties low by labeling many combat-related deaths in the field as non-combat. (Less than half of the American military deaths in Iraq since May 1 have, officially, come in combat.)

When asked to explain what the exact policy is to determine whether a death is related to combat or non-combat causes, U.S. Army spokesman Peter Christake, based at the Pentagon, said a combat death is any death related to direct fire from the enemy, indirect fire, or artillery, even if the person died of something other than the actual enemy weaponry."

Can anyone recall: Did they make the combat/non-combat distinction when reporting the body count of the Vietnam War?

[JaneQPublic]

9. Yellow Times: ''U.S. media misleading public on Iraq casualties''

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1496&mode=thread&order=0

Media outlets have been spinning the information on U.S. casualties in a most curious way. Instead of regularly updating viewers and listeners concerning the number of killed and injured U.S. servicemen and women since the beginning of the war in Iraq, an insidious and disingenuous distinction is being emphasized more than ever: that of the "combat deaths" and the "non-combat deaths." Phrases like "hostile fire," "friendly fire," and "in-action deaths" are now commonplace in Washington's and the media's handbook of propaganda and euphemisms.

News agencies are constantly making the above distinction, reporting the number of U.S. soldiers killed by "hostile fire" as well as those killed in other ways but only keeping a running tabulation of those who have lost their lives in combat. Updates are almost unheard of regarding the number of casualties resulting from non-fatal injuries.

As of July 21st, 233 U.S. soldiers have died and over 1000 have been injured since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Yet the media focuses only on those killed by "hostile fire" as if those killed in other ways or those simply injured are less important. An Internet search will reveal a thousand stories about the numbers killed by "hostile fire" to every one that offers the complete details.

MORE...

[Mountainman]

10. I think that combat deaths are "do to enemy action"

When you are in the military and in a war zone they differentiate between accidental death and death do to enemy action. A death do to enemy action is cause for a medal to be given. Accidental death does not warrant a medal.

They should report all deaths and tell what they are do from.

[Redleg]

11. As something they don't have to endure...

I sort of borrowed that from John Kerrey.

[farmbo]

12. Traffic deaths are combat deaths...our Humvees are being targeted

... by insurgents in murderous games of "chicken". The all too familar pattern has the GIs cruising on patrol when a civilian vehicle heads right for them. The driver instinctively swerves and the Humvee does what all high profile SUVs do; it rolls over causing serious injury or death to its occupants.

The Pentagon knows this is a pattern, but still classifies the deaths as "non-combat", leaving the grieving relatives to speculate on how their sons' driving skills had deteriorated since joining the military.

[wuushew]

13. That is not true

The military Humvee has a very low center of gravity in relation to its hight thanks to its very wide stance. I hate SUV's in general but the current humvee are about a thousand times safer than the old jeeps used in Vietnam