Jump to content


Photo

Us Iraq Casualties Counting Method


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic

#1 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 0209 AM

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?
  • 0

#2 Gregory

Gregory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 1133 AM

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?

View Post


Second one may be true, first one strikes me as extremely unlikely. Ask your source to provide examples.
  • 0

#3 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,811 posts

Posted 03 January 2005 - 1216 PM

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?

View Post


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?
  • 0

#4 UN-Interested Observer

UN-Interested Observer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 433 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 0058 AM

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?

View Post


The stats rattled off on radio or TV use the term 'wounded' or 'killed'. Does disease count for wounded?
  • 0

#5 Guest_AdamMachell_*

Guest_AdamMachell_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2005 - 0110 AM

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.
  • 0

#6 Paul G

Paul G

    Masshole

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,670 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 1427 PM

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?

View Post



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. :angry:

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.militaryc...alor/honor.html
  • 0

#7 Paul G

Paul G

    Masshole

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,670 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 1441 PM

The stats rattled off on radio or TV use the term 'wounded' or 'killed'. Does disease count for wounded?

View Post


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.
  • 0

#8 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 1539 PM

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...
  • 0

#9 Paul G

Paul G

    Masshole

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,670 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 1625 PM

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...

View Post


Thats fine, sometimes I just need to chill B) but this is obviously a VERY touchy subject with me.
  • 0

#10 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,811 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 1658 PM

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.

View Post


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.
  • 0

#11 Stellar

Stellar

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2223 PM

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!

Stellar
  • 0

#12 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,501 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2227 PM

Anyone have a tin foil hat smiley?
  • 0

#13 Koz

Koz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2259 PM

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!

Stellar

View Post


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.
  • 0

#14 Stellar

Stellar

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2315 PM

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.

View Post



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........

:D

Ps Jeff: Is that your full and final response or do you want to take the time and avoid the numbers more elaborately?

Stellar
  • 0

#15 PCallahan

PCallahan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,345 posts

Posted 06 January 2005 - 0925 AM

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........

:D

Stellar

View Post


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
  • 0

#16 Guest_AdamMachell_*

Guest_AdamMachell_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2005 - 1119 AM

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.
  • 0

#17 ThirteenFox

ThirteenFox

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 248 posts

Posted 06 January 2005 - 1140 AM

@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...
  • 0

#18 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,788 posts

Posted 06 January 2005 - 1319 PM

Anyone have a tin foil hat smiley?

View Post


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.
  • 0

#19 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,501 posts

Posted 06 January 2005 - 1405 PM

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........

:D

Ps Jeff: Is that your full and final response or do you want to take the time and avoid the numbers more elaborately?

Stellar

View Post


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.
  • 0

#20 Stellar

Stellar

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 06 January 2005 - 1743 PM

PCallahan,Thu 6 Jan 2005 1425

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. 

What sort of evidence do you require? What will convince you? You saw the pictures and you know there have been 30 mortar and rocket attacks on that camp in the last 12 months( in wich one person rushing for a bunker outside the mess hall died) yet you disregard all that knowledge and believe what you want after very "reliable" ( AP included )news sources felt that they had enough information to go public. Why are you so ready to believe that so many casualties in Iraq are due to suicide bombers when that is the easiest way for the Pentagon to dodge a great deal of responsibility? Im just surprised how easily stories can be changed to shift blame and responsibility, while apparently maintaining credibility with most here, and make the enemy look evil, devious and suicidal....

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.


Well i assumed that those here knew the numbers and could do check mine if they had non.... Since i was obviously mistaken here is a few pages you can read and i hope that they are "credible" enough in your discerning eyes.

http://www.military....html?ESRC=eb.nl

http://ap.tbo.com/ap...GBHSS2TE1E.html

http://www.usmedicin...=728&issueID=54

http://www.editorand...t_id=1000727180

http://www.democracy...4/04/02/1516232

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.

Well im not really trying to say that but are instead questioning what percentage of the 21 000 men flown to Germany were wounded or what the reason were for the trip. How many are wounded in Iraq and not sent elsewhere?

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. 


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. This is a massive discussion in itself wich can be dealt with elsewhere if you have any interest in learning why i have believe what i do about the mess hall attack. For the current topic's sake it might be best to agree to disagree...

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.

Faking the number of dead could possibly happen as most major us editors have allready agreed not to broadcast images of the casket's of American dead coming home. The leap from there to simple not investigating how many are really dying may not be as huge as you think as these directors have allready decided to give up their indepence when it comes to reporting much related to the war on "terror".


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.


Someone will surely notice but will the editor/director of a major news outlet choose to air the story? Im not questioning wether America have independant investigators but are instead pointing out how irrelevant that is when they get absolutely no air time....

That said, if you want to participate in this debate, please provide sources for your claims and we can argue their validity.

Pat Callahan

View Post


Oh im active on many forums and i full well know what constitures a "debate". First you need people who disagree on some issues and then you need them both to find information on topic or at least use some common sense ( wich can be so remarkably uncommon). The fact that im allready being shouted down without anyone contributing any sources of their own goes a long way in showing that there is no great difference of opinion on matters related to media bias in this "debate".

Im surprised that everyone has jumped on me so fast as i really have nothing to gain by lying here and im simply pointing out that there is good reason for discussion here!

Stellar
  • 0