Deaths of Troops in Iraq Hidden By "Combat" v. NonCombat" Nonsense

[Justice]

On August 3, 2003 around noon, an AP article entitled "Troops Report Second Day Without US Deaths" was posted on boston.com.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/215/world/U_S_military_reports_second_st:.shtml

First of all, it is premature to "celebrate" any days without combat deaths. This article is full of "facts" and reads like a press release - as if the reporter just took Central Command's word for everything without checking the facts out. It is apparently just a desperate attempt at saying things are not as bad as they really are in Iraq. It is cruel to play with emotions of the troop's family and friends who literally check the news first thing each morning when they awake to see if casualties occurred during the night.

This apparently completely fabricated article is particularly outrageous in light of the truth. See this article, published on August 2, 2003 on nytimes.com entitled "Americans Killed Near Baghdad" reporting on the deaths of THREE American soldiers on August 1 and August 2. The article also reports that FOUR American soldiers were wounded. Since when is being blown up by a bomb not a COMBAT death? The nuancing of combat vs. noncombat deaths has gotten so bad that soldiers are dying, yet the American public is feed articles that suggest no one died?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/international/worldspecial/03BAGH.html?ex=1060862559&ei=1&en=d099345ef9aa9020

Just because the administration says something is a FACT, it doesn't make it the TRUTH. These two articles are only the latest example of this unfortunate yet persistent behavior. One would hope that by now the media would have caught on and started listening to people like KAREN KWIATKOWSKI, a retired Air Force lelieutenant colonel most recently at the Pentagon, and GREG THIELMAN, former director of the strategic, proliferation, and military affairs division at Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department and of course, Joe Wilson.

[stewert]

1. Bingo........

Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq

Any way you look at it, the news is bad enough. According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S.
soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2.
This, of course, is a tragedy for the men killed and their families, and a problem for the White House.

But actually the numbers are much worse -- and rarely reported by the media.

According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85.
This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are
no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be
alive if they were still back in the States.

Nevertheless, the media continues to report the much lower figure of 33 as if those are the only deaths that
count.

A Web site called Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx) is tracking the
deaths, by whatever cause, of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, based on official Pentagon and CENTCOM press
releases and Army Times and CNN casualty trackers. Their current count is 85 since May 2.

Looking at the entire war, there was much fanfare Thursday over the fact that the latest U.S. combat death this
week pushed the official total to 148 -- finally topping the 147 figure for Gulf War 1. However, according to the
Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, the total number of all U.S. deaths, combat and otherwise, in Iraq is actually 224.

Full Story:

http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=
1935586

[gottaB]

2. kick

:kick:

[alcuno]

3. I've been trying to watch them carefully because of all the slight of hand

going on. There are people who are keeping track of the deaths as well as all related articles.

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

[bryant69]

4. Counter argument

What if someone says, "Well yeah, but non-combat deaths, those are basically accidents, aren't they? Accidental deaths are, statistically, going to claim the lives of a certain number of people no matter where they are, and if you include a large enough sample, like the thousands of soldiers in Iraq, you are going to see accidental deaths. But those deaths, statistically, would have happened if they had been home, wouldn't they? I mean it might have been different people, but odds are a certain number of that soldiers would have died no matter where they are?"

I'm curious because I have a very utilitarian friend, and my guess is he would make exactly this argument to suggest that the total number dead isn't relevant, but only the combat deaths.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SoCalDem]

5. List of dead by the dates they died

http://armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-warkilled.php

[catmandu57]

6. I've said it before, 'll say it again

Dead is dead, it doesn't matte if a soldier is killed by a rpg, a bullet, a land mine, or if the hummer they were in rolled over and killed them.
They're dead because geo. w. mcchimp lied to start a war, after stealing the american government, after running the economy into the ground, after encircling himself with other incompetents, dead is dead, and the reason rests solely with our chimp in command.