Iraq death toll 9.000 US Soldiers?

[Daz]

http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10554

Could it be?

My opinion is that its true. I mean, when at war, you have to hide your casualties to keep morale high. Thats in every manual. It would be naive to presume the US Army is not doing it...

[Ecthy]

Was not every single casualty reported in the news? Aren't those soldiers in contact with their families? All you need to do is add official casualties, so the real death toll shouldn't differ too much from the official one.

[Az]

indymedia.org = rubbish

[VetLegion]

Or one could look at demographic statistics of the US and look for bumps.

[Ecthy]

er.. no

[Daz]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Was not every single casualty reported in the news? Aren't those soldiers in contact with their families? All you need to do is add official casualties, so the real death toll shouldn't differ too much from the official one.

Yea, but what about soldiers that have been wounded, and died later. Or the MIA soldiers. Or, or, or.

I mean, there a hundred ways to avoid the truth here. Did you ever hear "soldier, woundend 2 weeks ago, died today....". I guess not...

[Sandman]

Seems unlikely...

[Ecthy]

MIA = casualtsy. Wounded and dead = Casualty. In any case it's public and the family informed. What's your point?

[Daz]

Hey, I was not counting. I just said there has to be room for manipulation, and it would be naive to presume the army is not "misinterpreting the facts".

And yes, if you mean comparing a "casualties list" with a "dead list", that could be interesting.

[Ecthy]

Stop being paranoid of your government and get laid.

[VetLegion]

What? Did he mention Sanader? Read more carefully Echty.

[Daz]

I'll consider myself "assimilated... the Borg way" the second I stop being paranoid of ANY government...

[MOBIUS]

Basically any soldier dying as a direct result of hostile action is a military casualty - be it on the scene or even months afterwards...

If you follow the way CNN tallies its casualty list it appears to only count those killed in situ, and not subsequently as far as I can tell...

Anyway, almost 2,000 is bad enough in my books whatever the real story behind all this...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Az
indymedia.org = rubbish

In what way?

Are you directly refuting this report?

[Pekka]

in my honest opinion, I do believe the number to be greater, just for the fact that there's no way in hell they fiddle with that official death toll number after someone previously wounded has died in hospital of where ever, in treatment or waiting for one.

Anyone, who thinks the military reports figures honestly and directly to the press ALL the time should go to reality check.

HOWEVER, I do not believe the figures are THAT much higher in reality. SO.. 9000??? I don't think so.... I mean, I don't think it changes the figures noticably.

That's just the reality of it, what's more important is to exaggarate enemy casualties. For example, if you have a firefight, and you count 10 bodies, 10 adults, 2 is who you wanted, 8 got caught on fire by EITHER side, you go with 10 enemies killed. Period. Or suspected enemy, might have been enemy, IS enemy. You don't go all that trouble to identify everyone, and if **** hits the fan you just make one some kind of small time leader too, so it's cool.

I'm not saying coalition troops are doing this methodically. I'm saying, in war, this is done.

But as far as US casualties being THAT much higher, no, I don't believe it.