Fritz Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I were told that the US military casualties in Iraq are being reported in ways that make them look smaller, namely - soldiers, who serve in the US army with the hope of getting citizenship aren't counted, and also soldiers who die later of their wounds in hospitals aren't counted too. Anybody care explain this?
Gregory Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I were told that the US military casualties in Iraq are being reported in ways that make them look smaller, namely - soldiers, who serve in the US army with the hope of getting citizenship aren't counted, and also soldiers who die later of their wounds in hospitals aren't counted too. Anybody care explain this?129330[/snapback] Second one may be true, first one strikes me as extremely unlikely. Ask your source to provide examples.
DKTanker Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I were told that the US military casualties in Iraq are being reported in ways that make them look smaller, namely - soldiers, who serve in the US army with the hope of getting citizenship aren't counted, and also soldiers who die later of their wounds in hospitals aren't counted too. Anybody care explain this?129330[/snapback] I don't think there is anything nefarious, its just the way casualties are counted. (though I've never heard the one about non-citizens not being counted, sounds like negative propaganda to me) BTW, the US also counts illness and accidents in their total casualty count. If the US was trying to minimize the count, don't you think they would start by not publicizing the number of illness and accident casualities?
UN-Interested Observer Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I don't think there is anything nefarious, its just the way casualties are counted. (though I've never heard the one about non-citizens not being counted, sounds like negative propaganda to me) BTW, the US also counts illness and accidents in their total casualty count. If the US was trying to minimize the count, don't you think they would start by not publicizing the number of illness and accident casualities?129435[/snapback] The stats rattled off on radio or TV use the term 'wounded' or 'killed'. Does disease count for wounded?
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I can explain this, it's not true. Go back to your source and tell him/her to get a clue. The DOD counts all deaths in theater and resulting from any activity in theater towards the total count. This includes accidents, illness and conflict. To think that anyone could even seriously consider that servicemembers who aren't citizens aren't counted is ludicrous. Clues should be handed out all over.
Paul G Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 I were told that the US military casualties in Iraq are being reported in ways that make them look smaller, namely - soldiers, who serve in the US army with the hope of getting citizenship aren't counted, and also soldiers who die later of their wounds in hospitals aren't counted too. Anybody care explain this?129330[/snapback] I second Adam's response. Where are you from and who told you that? Because obviously their aim is to disparage the US Military. Suffer their ingorence at your own risk. Soldiers who serve in the US Army are US SOLDIERS regardless of citizenship. Also there are plenty of soldiers who died of wounds in Germany on this listing... http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Paul G Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 The stats rattled off on radio or TV use the term 'wounded' or 'killed'. Does disease count for wounded?130079[/snapback] NO. Wounded means WIA (wounded in action). Death by illness or disease however is counted in total deaths. Remember that the term "casulties" includes dead and wounded.
Fritz Posted January 5, 2005 Author Posted January 5, 2005 I second Adam's response. Where are you from and who told you that? Because obviously their aim is to disparage the US Military. Suffer their ingorence at your own risk. Calm down. The "source" was some russian article cited by a guy who indeed "aims to disparage the US military". I'm not suffering anything, simply asked these questions to know how to answer such claims. Here it might sound ludicrous, but on more general boards there are always those who will listen to such BS and if the truth isn't put forward, they will just believe it. edit: thanks for the site, just what I need. It's sad that some would not shy from using people's tragedies to forward their agendas...
Paul G Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Calm down. The "source" was some russian article cited by a guy who indeed "aims to disparage the US military". I'm not suffering anything, simply asked these questions to know how to answer such claims. Here it might sound ludicrous, but on more general boards there are always those who will listen to such BS and if the truth isn't put forward, they will just believe it.edit: thanks for the site, just what I need. It's sad that some would not shy from using people's tragedies to forward their agendas...130371[/snapback] Thats fine, sometimes I just need to chill but this is obviously a VERY touchy subject with me.
DKTanker Posted January 5, 2005 Posted January 5, 2005 Here it might sound ludicrous, but on more general boards there are always those who will listen to such BS and if the truth isn't put forward, they will just believe it.130371[/snapback] You don't seriously believe they'll now let the facts get in the way of what they want to believe, do you? They listen and believe the BS because they want to, not because its the truth.
Koz Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 The Pentagon also claimed that a suicide bomber snuck into an American base 2 odd weeks ago( past i guess all the brilliant American guards?) who then promptly proceeded to climb on top of the mess tent before detonating his suicide pack. The same day i read my mail from Military.com and it reports the mortar strike on the same mess tent. Im sorry but i can't consider the pentagon a credible source when it fails so sadly at a cover up. I guess everyone is free to believe whatthey like but so far 21 000 American soldiers have been evaced to JUST landstuhl. We all know what sort of capability modern battlefield trauma unit's offer and i have to assume that they will only evac the excess or very serious cases such distances wich means there is ALOT more wounded/other than that 21 000 . The attacks on American forces are now up to 1800 a month and unless the ex republican guardsmen never learnt to aim one has to assume their hitting a least a couple hundred times a month.. If anyone can point out any obvious flaws with the logic ( or figures) feel free as most of what i read these days paints the picture much darker than i have here. Even those right wing think tanks are becoming strangely pessimistic! Stellar130492[/snapback] That attack on a US base was first thought to be a mortar attack, then was later found out to be a suicide bomber. There was no cover up, evidence was found that changed the conclusion. The guy was a worker on the base and had been working there for almost 3 months, he managed to seek in explosives because he was trusted.
PCallahan Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 They said it was a suicide bomber and i dont know when they decided to make their story more convicing by inventing a worker to act as said suicide bomber. Point remains; why would a "suicide bomber" climb on the roof of the mess tent? Jeff: Tin hats have been proven to be more helpfull than basic denial of problem/danger! Ever seen your Gf/wife close her eyes when you frighten her? It's just not a effective way of dealing with danger imo........ Stellar130513[/snapback] First, I don't see what you're basing your argument about the Mosul mess bombing on. Instead of presenting evidence or sources, you just automatically assume that the US military is lying. Second, with regard to casualties: You present many figures without any sources cited, figures that stand in stark contrast to those published by credible news sources. This does not help your credibility. Your assertion that there is a massive discrepancy between the US military reported casualty figures and those that have actually occurred doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the relationship between the US media and the US government. Basically, the media (particulary editors at big papers and TV News stations) live for the moment when they can show the federal government is lying. Faking the number of dead is an easy way to do it. The military releases the names of the dead, the families are generally interviewed by the local media, and the funerals are frequently public. In short, someone would notice if there were 250 funerals in a month the government said 75 soldiers had been killed. Reporters and editors absolutely live for that sort of thing -- it is the fast track to fame and fortune. That said, if you want to participate in this debate, please provide sources for your claims and we can argue their validity. Pat Callahan
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 OK Stellar, I'll play. 1. The report of a mortar attack was a mistake. Sometimes in an effort to appease the public, people make mistakes in the heat of the moment. Camp Marez, like most other FOBs in Iraq, is prone to mortar attacks. Therefore, in the heat of the moment, somebody assumed it was a mortar. However, instead of telling lies, as you suggest, the autorities chose to correct the story. Where you came up with this silliness about somneone climbing on the tent is beyond me. The blast effect blew a hole in the tent. Large explosions tend to do that. 2. Please provide some source for the 21,000 casualties evac'd to Landstuhl. Preferably an official source. Not some asshat on the internet. 3. Anyone who leaves theater prior to their scheduled time for ANY medical treatment is considered evac'd. (My friend who had gallbladder surgery was evac'd.) 4. Funny that some guy with 9 posts, who provides no personnel info on his profile, would come here and question a longstanding member of these fora. 5. A suggestion; go back to class, save the world somewhere else.
ThirteenFox Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 @Stellar - It was initially reported as a 122mm rocket hit, not a mortar. The indirect fire "leak" came from a reporter embedded with the 133rd Engineer Bn. out of Maine, which lost several soldiers in the attack. The pictures that made it to the web 30 minutes after the attack came from the same source. There was no official statement made by Task Force Olympia until a CID preliminary investigation was completed, which wasn't until the next day. I know this beyond any shadow of a doubt because my platoon spent 19 hours securing the scene and marking/recovering body parts. I didn't see anyone from military.com there helping us...
R011 Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 Anyone have a tin foil hat smiley?130494[/snapback] No but I do have a link as to where one can get one of these most styling lids: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html Please note though (from the site): BEWARE OF COMMERCIAL AFDBS: Since you should trust no one, always construct your AFDB yourself to avoid the risk of subversion and mental enslavement. Sometimes, AFDBs will be sold on places like eBay. Do not purchase these pre-made AFDBs, even if the seller seems trustworthy. They may contain backdoors, pinholes, integrated psychotronic circuitry or other methods that actually promote mind control.
Jeff Posted January 6, 2005 Posted January 6, 2005 They said it was a suicide bomber and i dont know when they decided to make their story more convicing by inventing a worker to act as said suicide bomber. Point remains; why would a "suicide bomber" climb on the roof of the mess tent? Jeff: Tin hats have been proven to be more helpfull than basic denial of problem/danger! Ever seen your Gf/wife close her eyes when you frighten her? It's just not a effective way of dealing with danger imo........ Ps Jeff: Is that your full and final response or do you want to take the time and avoid the numbers more elaborately? Stellar130513[/snapback] Well I had a pithy response all ready until I remembered what we were talking about and it kind of sucked all the pithiness right out of me. I will say however that I really don't know where to begin if you're starting from the conspiracy theory point of view you've made clear here. Let's face it, there really isn't anything anyone can say to you if reality gets so easily dismissed as an evil plot. I'll refrain from anything more out of respect for those who are the subject of this....discussion. Best of luck to you.
DKTanker Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 There's this word, can't think of at the moment, that describes motoring along in a boat with hook and line payed out behind.
R011 Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Posted by Stellar,Thu 6 Jan 2005 0323 i have to assume that they will only evac the excess or very serious cases such distances wich means there is ALOT more wounded/other than that 21 000 .Lets look at the sources you posted: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331...html?ESRC=eb.nl Most patients stay three or four days, Shaw said. That doesn't sound typical of very serious cases to me. //www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=728&issueID=54 Cornum said about 98 per cent of the injured coming into the hospital from Iraq are U.S. soldiers, but only about seven a week are actual combat injuries. The Coalition has been approximately twenty months in Iraq is about 600 days times seven per day is 4,200 wounded evacuated since the war began. This would assume that casualty rates have renmined constant all that time, which they have not. If you really believe that CNN and similar newspapers are still trying to catch the American government in a lie you have obviously not investigate that issue either. But then, as this shows, you're more than short of a clue or two. Go back to DU or whatever other fools' paradise fora you normally visit and leave this one to sane adults.
UN-Interested Observer Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Stellar, you seem a little inflexible. You ask for a lot, but don't seem to give much back to others. A more concilliatory tone may go a long way. That said, my father's friend had open=heart surgery performed one morning, and was released that afternoon. My father went to visit him, couldn't find his name on the board, got worried. After asking around it seems they needed the bed, and he was released. I would think 4 days in trauma hospital could signify significant inguries. As well, after every war the news-papers admit they were lieing constantly (embellishing), so it's logical to consider the same still happening. Whether it was a suicide bomber or a mortar seems trivial, to me. Lol, I doubt the Pentagon needs to manufacture stories to turn public opinion against Arabs. That a trusted worker had access to the mess hall, and chose to use a bomb is in itself a sign of short-sightedness (maybe a silver lining?). Not only does the (now dead) infiltrator no longer have access, he does minimal damage. Simply as an intel leak he would have been valuable, and with access to food supplies he could have wrecked havoc.
R011 Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 So lets see. By the Pentagon's reporting, there have been about ten thousand WIA. Landstuhl has reported just over twenty thousand sick, vicitims of accident, and wounded. The sources you yourself posted agree with this count. IOW, you have no evidence whatsoever to prove your slanderous allegation. You're free to believe whatever nonsense you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Wolfman Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Stellar, your view wouldn't be so ironic if the terrorists themselves hadn't posted a video showing them planning the attack, saying goodbye to the "martyr", as well as footage of the actual attack. In fact their website claimed the responsibility for the attack by a suicide bomber as soon as the story broke (at this time it was still assumed to have been a mortar or a rocket hit). If you care to view the video, search for it in the www.militaryphotos.net videos/photos forum.
Guest AdamMachell Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Stellar, you're playing the oldest argument in the book. I can't prove that the DOD isn't lying. Then again, you can't prove your supposed "sources". I trust the DOD not to lie about casualties. There are too many guys that would not stand idly by and lie to the public. As a soldier myself, I am one of those guys. There are many other's here like me that would do the same. That simple. I neither know you, or of you, and you appear, without any credentials, and ask us all to distrust the DOD becasue some guy, who I believe to be younger than 18 due to his posting style, told me some "facts" that he can't support. Sorry, that's not how we debate here on Tanknet. Provide some real FACTS to support your argumewnt and we can debate. Short of that, you will be treated with contempt.
Rocky Davis Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 I know no military man believes half the BS he gets from his superiors . . . Stellar130859[/snapback] It's obvious you've never served. Only somebody that never served, but fancies himself as somewhat of a "military expert" would make such a stupid statement.
Paul G Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm If your going to insist on treating me in such a disrespectfull way i hope you understand that im more than capable of returning the favour in a far more spirited and stylish way. Sane and naively ignorent in your case. Stellar130895[/snapback] The whole subject of "injured" "wounded" and "casualties" are murkey as they are not tracked as severely as deaths. Mainly because the degree and cause are so wide and diverse. Do you count soldiers treated for an infected in-grown toenail with one maimed in a IED attack? No number will ever be exact because the criteria is different. Military deaths however are different. I have done casualty notification duty, have you? I know the process, how you must drop everything when you get a mission, all else is secondary to notifying next of kin as soon as absolutely possible. News travels fast, and bad news travels at light speed. Soldiers call home on cell phones, embedded media askes questions, people talk. The process begins hours after the soldier is confirmed killed, and amost all formal notifications happen the same day. The reason for this is to notify the family BEFORE the press release goes out, which always does. So does the Military "cover up" deaths? Not a chance in hell, but hey you can belive what you want.
Recommended Posts