See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 37123
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-399) not displayed.
.
.
.
#400. To: Hayek Fan, scrapper2, ..., kiwi, bluedogtxn, ALL (#353)
There is much more to my reason for not believing Steven Jones than his not being a metallurgist. Why try to misstate my views, Hayek? Ex-Professor Jones claims some expertise in the subjects of structures, demolition, steel, fire, concrete, impact, seismology and macro-world physics. Yet, ex-professor Jones spent his entire 30 year career studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Not once in that career did he publish a paper that had anything remotely to do with any of the topics needed to speak authoratively on the WTC. Furthermore, Professor Jones has been dishonest about a number of subjects. To give you just one example, in speaking about the molten material seen flowing out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed, he said "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." This is untrue. If you watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11, you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from the window. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds in the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds. You'll also see it from 57 seconds to a 67 seconds. And from 74 to 75 seconds, material can be seen pouring from the corner of the tower and that material is very clearly silver, not orange. So Steven Jones is demonstrably lying. Why would you trust such a liar, Hayek? For the same reason you trust Les Roberts? No, Hayek, you know full well that I've posted over a dozen different sources on this thread alone that say Les Robert's studies are not what you and he claim. Why don't you try arguing what the blog actually says? Why don't you TRY to address the points I raised in post 123? Is the basis of your belief so thin you can't do that? Don't hide. Do you wish to claim the following points are untrue? Yes or no? By the way I've added a few based on what I discovered during the course of this thread. 1) The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate (and there are half a dozen others). Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figures are outlandish. 2. The report and peer reviewers ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimate derived by other organizations (such as the UN and WHO) in much larger studies. The UN and WHO came up with rates of 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkin's rate of 5-5.5 per 1000. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had endorsed as accurate previously. And this pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less. 3. According to the report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid there should be death certificates available for 92 percent of the 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by anti-Bush, anti-war media sources have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. What they found were numbers closer to those other, much lower estimates. To take the Johns Hopkins study seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle . And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample got 92 percent by pure chance. 4. The author of the article and the studies has publically stated he disliked Bush and the war, released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP, and admitted that those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. 5. The Lancet not only failed in its *peer* review to question why the pre-war mortality rates used in the study were so vastly different than numbers from previous, larger studies that they had previously blessed, they also reported on their own website that the deaths were comprised solely of civilians when the study made no such claim. And they admitted that the peer review process was greatly abbreviated so that the results could be published in time to influence the election. 6. When interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. That is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of them. And Les Roberts did the same thing in another interview . 7. In the interview URLed above, Garfield stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." 200 a month, in one of the biggest and most violent regions in the country. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 were dying each month in the country since the war began. 8. Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts study interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Robert's or Garfield address that disparity? And the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Robert's study? 9. There is NO physical evidence to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. 10. Dahr Jamail is an example of the above. He is viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents. Look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq, which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. 11. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. 12. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses. Some of the families probably fled, but many are probably dead. Of those families sticking around in Fallujah, a quarter lost a family member in the few months leading up to the interview." 13. The UN Development program found that the 2004 John Hopkin's study was off by about a factor of 4. Here's the UN report: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf. It says that the UN found after the first year that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level), which is approximately 1/4th the number of excess deaths the Les Robert's study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet *peer* reviewers? 14. "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" (http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066) 15. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and killed only 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years, as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities which completely flattened entire cities? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths? Who do you think you are fooling, Hayek?
Yes it does. Look on page 54 of the report. You'll find a section with the headline "War-related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000". It states that "the ILCS data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000." Now 24,000 is about 1/4th the 98,000 estimated by Roberts during the same period.
Ping to #401. ROTFLOL!
I don't see it. And how would an out of context quote from a report on another subject be relevant? This report wasn't done at the same time as the Lancet study, it wasn't done for the same purpose and wasn't done in the same manner. In addition, I am almost certain it deosn't even address the Lancet study. As I said above, you are trying to twist a non-applicable source to your purpose. It's as clever as the fake link scheme that you tried before this. But what does it prove? I mean about the argument in general - not about you. If you have any doubts here, read the table of contents of this tomb you have posted without any further reference. The focus is on something entirely different from the Lancet study. Now, unlike you I don't get disablity for being a kook. Hence, I have to focus on my work.
.
You honestly think that NO OUTLET in our media would show photos and video if they had proof the war had killed MORE THAN TEN TIMES the number that the Bush administration had said? You honestly believe that? You sure you live in the US? ROTFLOL! And by the way, how do you explain the foreign media completely failing to publish such proof if it exists? You think the French wouldn't if they had the proof? You think al-Jazerra wouldn't? And they have sources inside Iraq. Dahr Jamail is a good example. Are you saying he is controlled? ROTFLOL!
But the John Hopkins report specifically said that most Iraq deaths are NOT due to air power. My goodness. Those numbers are STAGGERING. One can see why Les Roberts thinks we've killed as many people in the last 2 years as we did during the CARPET BOMBING of Germany's cities in WW2. ROTFLOL! What you forgot to mention is that the John Hopkins reports only attributes a portion of the overall excess deaths to coalition military actions.
Did the John Hopkins report mention your side is getting its ass kicked?
Yes it does. Look on page 54 of the report. I don't see it. It doesn't say what you claim it does. But I suppose you already know that.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Isn't it interesting, the number of FD4UM members who choose to bozo themselves rather than read verifiable facts? Now as far as I know, there is no such "ban region" nor do I intend to leave just because some members of FD4UM are afraid to face facts. I shall continue to post sourced facts on various threads to show that what some here are presenting as reliable truth is far from it. This thread is a good example. I posted well over a dozen sources pointing out major flaws in a study that would have you believe the Iraq war has killed twice as many people as carpet bombing of German cities killed in WW2. NOT ONE of the posters on this thread has even dared take on the facts I listed in post #123. Instead, they are bozoing themselves right and left. And to think that at one time they dared me to come over here and debate them. But it takes two to debate and so far I haven't even found one willing to do that. ROTFLOL!
Wow! I guessed your bozo number right on. I guess I flushed you out. But I haven't seen you post any facts yet. Mostly you've just blathered out some pretty strange opinions and then posted links that were not what you said they were to support them. That or some really wacky blogs that it looks like you wrote yourself. You did post one article from the UN however, but you didn't give us the specific quote or tell us why it was at all on point.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
People told you that your unsupported kooky opinion was BS. What can they do past that point?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Here you go: dead American corporate cannon fodder. "Bring 'em on" TD>
Do you how big Germany in WW2 was compared to California? Roughly 180,000 square miles. Compared to California's 164,000. So the strategic bombing of Germany took place in a country about the same size as California or Iraq. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of strategic bombing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II The allies dropped close to 3 million TONS of explosives on German targets during the war. With little or no concern for German civilian casualties. British bomber planes attacked Hamburg, Germany, creating a firestorm over nine square miles, reaching 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, killing 40,000. This is what Hamburg looked like after the 1943 bombing: This is what Dresden looked like during and after it's bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II "The bombing created a firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500°C (2700°F). ... snip ... A Dresden police report written shortly after the attacks stated that the old town and the inner eastern suburbs had been engulfed in a single fire which had destroyed almost 12,000 dwellings including residential barracks. The report also said that the raid had destroyed "24 banks; 26 insurance buildings; 31 stores and retail houses; 6470 shops; 640 warehouses; 256 market halls; 31 large hotels; 26 public houses; 63 administrative buildings; 3 theatres; 18 cinemas; 11 churches; 60 chapels; 50 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics; 39 schools; 5 consulates; 1 zoological garden; 1 waterworks, 1 railway facility; 19 postal facilities; 4 tram facilities; 19 ships and barges. The report also mentioned that the Wehrmacht's main command post in the Tauschenberg Palace, 19 military hospitals and a number of less significant military facilities were destroyed. Almost 200 factories were damaged, 136 seriously (including several of the Zeiss Ikon precision optical engineering works), 28 with medium to serious damage, and 35 with light damage. "British assessments ... concluded that 23 percent of the city’s industrial buildings were seriously damaged and that 56 per cent of the non-industrial buildings (exclusive of dwellings) had been heavily damaged. Of the total number of dwelling units in the city proper, 78,000 were regarded as demolished, 27,700 temporarily uninhabitable but ultimately repairable, and 64,500 readily repairable from minor damage. This later assessment indicated that 80 per cent of the city’s housing units had undergone some degree of damage and that 50 per cent of the dwellings had been demolished or seriously damaged." Over 1000 British bombers attacked Cologne, Germany, devastating 600 acres, including hundreds of factories, and leaving 45,000 homeless. You starting to get the picture? You guys are claiming that the above killed far fewer people than what we've done in Iraq, mostly with gunfire. SO WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS? WHERE IS THE VIDEO? WHERE ARE THE BODIES?
And we dropped more on Vietnam and environs than total used during WWII by allies and axis combined. Does that make it right?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes. ROTFLOL!
You are one sick son of a bitch if you have that audacity to hang something like that on a stranger.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
No one said they were. But the number caused by air strikes, cited at the time of the survey, and likely has increased since then, is still a substantial number. Furthermore air power destroys infrastructure which then causes other deaths. It's clear they are using the Hydra rockets extensively. They don't give numbers for those. And that's why a single contract for them was $900 million. Also they refuse to quantify the number of cannon rounds and smaller caliber ammunition used. That's also substantial. Furthermore Balad Air Base is said to be as busy as O'Hare Airport in Chicago. Are we to believe that all those planes stacked up 10 levels high never kill anything? ROTFLOL yourself. Last but not least, when asked how the Air Force would take sufficient measures to protect civilians, their spokesman said "Not in a manner that you would be happy with." So there is clearly a reckless disregard for life, which creates an environment in which these numbers can occur. Now are Russia and Colombia more violent than Iraq? Because that's what the people denying the survey are stating.
If you don't see it on page 54, look on page 55 or page 53. Don't be lazy. It's there. Right at the top of the page on the left column. "War-Related deaths - between 18,000 and 29,000. In Orange type. What I quoted was not out of context. And what the report concluded is entirely relevant. It was published shortly after the first John Hopkins' (the one claiming 100,000 deaths) study. The second John Hopkins' study (the one claiming 655,000 deaths) claims the results of the first study were found to be valid. Regardless of purpose, the study estimated war related deaths and it was in fact done in much the same manner ... through interviews, clustering, etc. The report states "The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey." And the study was based on much larger sample than the John's Hopkins' study. You are wrong. The study mentions the Lancet study on the same page. Right below the Table 39 it states "Another source (Roberts et al. 2004) estimates the number to be 98,000, with a confidence interval of 8000 to 194,000." You just can't face the possibility that the Les Roberts' study was bogus, can you. Why that would shatter your whole world-view. ROTFLOL!
You are doing the accuseing BAC, and accusseing Diana of something YOU said not her. She never said OR implied US soliders did any of the burying. No honest person reading her comment could assume that. "have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?" So now you are calling it a genocide??? BAC???? Which is it, just an acceptable number of collateral damage or a genocide??? BAC?? Or does it depend on how you are trying to emote the matter at hand??
How nice of you to admit that the truth doesn't matter. Just victory for your agenda. I suppose that would make your side no different than Bush.
You make me laugh, nazi clown.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Ping to #418.
Actually, it does. Depending on how you read the page numbers, it is either on Page 53, 54 or 55. And you could have easily used the search feature of whatever application you used to open the pdf to find the quote. That's what I did. But I guess that's perhaps a skill you don't have. You are too use to being spoon fed.
Oh boy it's time for the BeAChooser Show!
Yes, that would be the American agenda, not this neocon, Zionist-driven swill you assclowns have swallowed whole. Got it, putz?
You have any idea of the payload of the B-17 compared to the payload of an F-18 or a Spectre AC-130? Of course you don't.
The source where I think you got that list of US casualties, http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx also lists Iraqi civilian deaths reported from April 28, 2005 to now as being less than 25,000. But during same period, Les Roberts and his John Hopkins team are saying that over 370,000 excess deaths occurred. You don't see a problem in that?
Go back and read my whole post and you will see how foolish you are being by putting words in my mouth.
Not the issue. The issue is whether the John Hopkins study is bogus or not. And by the way, most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities. And unlike the modern precision guided bombs, the ones dropped on Germany were dumb. That's why they carpet bombed. Cities. Yet you folks want us to believe that more Iraqis have died with the Coalition going out of its way to spare civilians than died in Germany. I think most visitors to this forum might see a flaw in that logic. And most will probably be amazed to see you folks still defending that flaw in the face of what I've posted on this thread.
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this practice. To which you reply: It appears that you are accusing the US military of doing that. It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing. For which there is absolutely no physical evidence of them dying. So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
illed in the war. That was the second time I’d read of the military censoring a casualty-related site. http://Memoryhole.org, the site that first showed photos of flag-draped coffins being shipped back from Iraq, said in June that one of its readers had a similar experience. GIs trying to visit that site were greeted with: Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Extreme;Politics/Religion" The Armed Forces takes great care to ensure whenever there is a casualty the family receives the information first. Non-DoD sites reporting casualty figures can lead to inaccurate information being distributed. [Note: I've put Capt. Karns’ full response is the previous post.] P.S. To its credit, the military has started to do the job it once left to http://icasualties.org: It now posts daily casualty tallies. In case it's not already clear, there are other sites blocked besides casualty count sites. Karns goes into more detail in another email: "Certain sites are blocked if access is not required to perform the individuals official duties. Components may be more strict if they deem it appropriate." When I asked what qualifies as an appropriate site, he said, "If it’s tied in to be able to have a greater understanding of world events and it’s a legitimate news source than chances are service-members will have a chance of seeing it." Of course, as I mentioned, http://icasualties.org and CNN rely on the Pentagon's own announcements. In fact, http://icasualties.org does such a thorough job that active duty officers have written in praising it. TrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pentagon Acknowledges Blocking Casualty Sites: » Free Press in Iraq from Political Animal FREE PRESS IN IRAQ....Should soldiers in Iraq have access to websites that list the number of casualties suffered in the war so far? The Pentagon doesn't think so and blocks access to all such sites. Eric Umansky has the details.... [Read More] » Pentagon learns from the CCP from The Peking Duck » Fighting for Freedom from Snow World » September 18: Today's Reason to Not Elect George W. Bush from Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog » Military censors http://icasualties.org, CNN casualty page from Infothought Tracked on September 20, 2004 at 01:55 AM » Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites from vowe dot net Eric Umansky reports:Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that compiles casualty figures for Americans Iraq, as well as CNN33;s page on servicemembers killed in t... [Read More] » Ask About That from Ask About That » Time>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">Time is not on my side from Uranus sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
HAH!
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
So you admit 600,000 bodies are missing. What did they do with these bodies then, you must know since you know exactly how many are missing!
Hippies make them drop bombs on jungle, I suppose...? Holy frijoles you are one stupid clod.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
He obviously knows all about it and what happened to those 600,000 bodies, he's busted!
your argument in 412 is brilliant BAC. You've won this one. The US & UK bombed germany during WW2 and therefore - the Johns Hopkins study showing that 650,000 Iraqis died since the invasion who otherwise would not have died without the invasion is false. Why didn't I think of that? My awe for your reasoning powers is fully restored after you stumbled on the 911 thread a few days ago.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
And what might that be, bedwetter?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
Yes, I see the problem. The ratio of dead INVADERS to innocent Iraqi civilians should be reversed.
Comments (440 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest What boggles my mind is that in the WTC debate, BAC refuses to accept any information from a person with a doctorate in physics because he isn't a metallurgist.
BAC accepts as gospel information from a blogger who appears to have no training whatsoever in epidemiology, and who's expertise appears to be that he collects old mathematics textbooks.
#401. To: Minerva, ALL (#376)
"It's a study by the UN Development program which found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4."
It doesn't say that.
#402. To: ... (#401)
#403. To: BeAChooser (#401)
(Edited)
#404. To: Zipporah, ALL (#381)
Yes it does raise a red flag.. that being that our media is controlled by none other than those who rule us.
#405. To: AGAviator, ALL (#382)
The Pentagon's Secret Air War Over Iraq
In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles."
"rocket and cannon fire could account for most coalition-attributed civilian deaths."
#406. To: BeAChooser (#405)
#407. To: BeAChooser (#401)
It doesn't say that.
#408. To: Minerva, christine, ALL (#383)
How is the bozo count doing Mr. Advocate?
Getting close to the 50+ ban region yet?
#409. To: BeAChooser (#408)
Isn't it interesting, the number of FD4UM members who choose to bozo themselves rather than read verifiable facts?
#410. To: BeAChooser (#408)
But it takes two to debate and so far I haven't even found one willing to do that.
#411. To: BeAChooser (#408)
Verifiable facts? You want some verifiable facts?
Period Date US UK Other* Total 5 02/19/07 5 0 0 5 5 02/18/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/17/07 4 0 0 4 5 02/16/07 1 0 0 1 5 02/14/07 5 0 0 5 5 02/13/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/12/07 0 0 0 0 5 02/11/07 3 0 0 3 5 02/10/07 1 0 0 1 5 02/09/07 4 1 0 5 5 02/08/07 3 0 0 3 5 02/07/07 11 0 1 12 5 02/06/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/05/07 1 1 0 2 5 02/04/07 2 0 0 2 5 02/03/07 1 0 0 1 5 02/02/07 6 0 0 6 5 02/01/07 7 0 0 7 5 01/31/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/30/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/29/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/28/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/27/07 5 0 0 5 5 01/26/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/25/07 4 0 0 4 5 01/24/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/23/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/22/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/21/07 3 1 0 4 5 01/20/07 25 0 0 25 5 01/19/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/18/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/17/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/16/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/15/07 5 0 0 5 5 01/14/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/13/07 1 1 0 2 5 01/09/07 3 0 0 3 5 01/07/07 5 1 0 6 5 01/06/07 2 0 0 2 5 01/05/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/04/07 1 0 0 1 5 01/01/07 1 0 0 1 5 12/31/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/28/06 6 1 0 7 5 12/27/06 6 0 2 8 5 12/26/06 3 0 0 3 5 12/25/06 7 0 0 7 5 12/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/23/06 7 0 0 7 5 12/22/06 1 0 0 1 5 12/21/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/20/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/19/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 12/16/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/15/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/14/06 3 0 0 3 5 12/12/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/11/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/10/06 5 0 0 5 5 12/09/06 1 0 0 1 5 12/07/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/06/06 12 0 0 12 5 12/05/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/04/06 8 0 0 8 5 12/03/06 7 0 0 7 5 12/02/06 4 0 0 4 5 12/01/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/29/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/28/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/27/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/26/06 4 0 0 4 5 11/25/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/24/06 2 1 0 3 5 11/23/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/22/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/21/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/19/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 11/15/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/14/06 7 0 0 7 5 11/13/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/12/06 2 4 0 6 5 11/11/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/10/06 0 0 2 2 5 11/09/06 5 0 0 5 5 11/07/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/06/06 3 1 0 4 5 11/05/06 2 0 0 2 5 11/04/06 3 0 0 3 5 11/02/06 8 0 0 8 5 11/01/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/31/06 2 0 0 2 5 10/30/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/29/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/27/06 1 1 0 2 5 10/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/25/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/23/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/22/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/21/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/20/06 1 0 1 2 5 10/19/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/18/06 4 0 0 4 5 10/17/06 11 0 0 11 5 10/15/06 7 0 0 7 5 10/14/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/13/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/12/06 1 0 0 1 5 10/11/06 3 0 0 3 5 10/09/06 4 0 0 4 5 10/08/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/07/06 5 0 0 5 5 10/06/06 3 0 1 4 5 10/04/06 6 0 0 6 5 10/03/06 2 0 0 2 5 10/02/06 8 1 0 9 5 10/01/06 6 0 0 6 5 09/30/06 4 0 0 4 5 09/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/28/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/27/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/26/06 4 0 0 4 5 09/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/23/06 4 0 1 5 5 09/21/06 1 0 1 2 5 09/20/06 5 0 0 5 5 09/19/06 4 0 0 4 5 09/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/17/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/15/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/14/06 7 0 0 7 5 09/13/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/12/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/11/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/09/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/08/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/07/06 3 1 0 4 5 09/06/06 2 0 0 2 5 09/04/06 6 2 0 8 5 09/03/06 9 0 0 9 5 09/02/06 1 0 0 1 5 09/01/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/31/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/28/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/27/06 12 0 0 12 5 08/26/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/24/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/23/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/22/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/20/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/19/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/16/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/12/06 3 0 0 3 5 08/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/09/06 5 0 0 5 5 08/06/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/05/06 1 0 0 1 5 08/04/06 3 0 0 3 5 08/03/06 2 0 0 2 5 08/02/06 4 0 0 4 5 08/01/06 1 1 0 2 5 07/31/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/29/06 4 0 0 4 5 07/27/06 4 0 1 5 5 07/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/24/06 3 0 0 3 5 07/22/06 3 0 0 3 5 07/21/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/20/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/19/06 0 0 1 1 5 07/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/17/06 4 0 0 4 5 07/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/15/06 2 1 0 3 5 07/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/13/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/12/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/09/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/08/06 3 0 0 3 5 07/03/06 1 0 0 1 5 07/02/06 2 0 0 2 5 07/01/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/29/06 5 0 0 5 5 06/28/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/27/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/26/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/25/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/24/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/23/06 5 0 0 5 5 06/22/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/21/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/20/06 4 0 0 4 5 06/17/06 2 0 0 2 5 06/16/06 4 0 0 4 5 06/15/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 06/09/06 5 0 0 5 5 06/08/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/07/06 3 0 0 3 5 06/06/06 6 0 1 7 5 06/05/06 3 0 1 4 5 06/03/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/31/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/29/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/28/06 0 2 0 2 5 05/27/06 3 0 0 3 5 05/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/25/06 3 0 0 3 5 05/23/06 3 0 0 3 5 05/22/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/18/06 5 0 0 5 5 05/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/15/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/14/06 7 0 0 7 5 05/13/06 2 2 0 4 5 05/12/06 2 0 0 2 5 05/11/06 7 0 0 7 5 05/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/09/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/08/06 1 0 0 1 5 05/07/06 1 0 1 2 5 05/06/06 5 5 0 10 5 05/05/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/04/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/03/06 4 0 0 4 5 05/01/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/29/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/28/06 5 0 0 5 5 04/27/06 3 0 4 7 5 04/26/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/25/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/23/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/22/06 6 0 0 6 5 04/21/06 0 0 1 1 5 04/20/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/19/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/18/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/16/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/15/06 5 1 0 6 5 04/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/13/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/12/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/11/06 4 0 0 4 5 04/10/06 2 0 0 2 5 04/09/06 3 0 0 3 5 04/08/06 4 0 0 4 5 04/07/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/06/06 4 0 0 4 5 04/04/06 1 0 0 1 5 04/02/06 13 0 0 13 5 04/01/06 4 0 0 4 5 03/31/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/30/06 2 0 0 2 5 03/28/06 3 0 0 3 5 03/25/06 1 0 1 2 5 03/23/06 2 0 1 3 5 03/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 03/16/06 3 0 0 3 5 03/15/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/13/06 3 0 0 3 5 03/12/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/11/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/08/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/07/06 2 0 0 2 5 03/06/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/05/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/03/06 1 0 0 1 5 03/01/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/28/06 0 2 0 2 5 02/27/06 1 0 0 1 5 02/26/06 4 0 0 4 5 02/25/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/24/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/22/06 7 0 0 7 5 02/21/06 1 0 0 1 5 02/20/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/18/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/17/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/14/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/12/06 3 0 0 3 5 02/09/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/07/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/06/06 5 0 0 5 5 02/05/06 4 0 0 4 5 02/04/06 1 0 0 1 5 02/03/06 2 0 0 2 5 02/02/06 3 1 0 4 5 02/01/06 5 0 0 5 5 01/31/06 0 1 0 1 5 01/30/06 0 1 0 1 5 01/28/06 3 0 0 3 5 01/27/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/25/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/24/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/23/06 5 0 0 5 5 01/22/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/20/06 6 0 0 6 5 01/17/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/16/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/15/06 2 0 0 2 5 01/14/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/13/06 4 0 0 4 5 01/10/06 1 0 0 1 5 01/07/06 18 0 0 18 5 01/05/06 11 0 0 11 5 01/01/06 2 0 0 2 5 12/31/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/30/05 3 0 0 3 5 12/29/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/28/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/27/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/26/05 4 0 0 4 5 12/25/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/24/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/23/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/22/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/20/05 2 0 0 2 5 12/19/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/18/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/16/05 1 0 0 1 5 12/15/05 2 0 0 2 Total 992 34 21 1047
#412. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#384)
Lord, 650,000 Iraqi deaths maybe a lowball figure in light of what the military has used in that nation,roughly the physical size of California.
"Official German statistics place total casualties from air attack -- including German civilians, foreigners, and members of the armed forces in cities that were being attacked -- at 250,253 killed for the period from January 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945, and 305,455 wounded badly enough to require hospitalization, during the period from October 1, 1943, to January 31, 1945. A careful examination of these data, together with checks against the records of individual cities that were attacked, indicates that they are too low. A revised estimate prepared by the Survey (which is also a minimum) places total casualties for the entire period of the war at 305,000 killed and 780,000 wounded."
#413. To: BeAChooser (#412)
The allies dropped close to 3 million TONS of explosives on German targets during the war. With little or no concern for German civilian casualties.
#414. To: Diana, ALL (#395)
In fact quite often they are killed and their bodies are quietly buried in mass graves where they aren't discovered until some time later.
#415. To: Diana, ALL (#396)
It doesn't work on me though
#416. To: BeAChooser (#415)
But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
#417. To: BeAChooser (#405)
(Edited)
But the John Hopkins report specifically said that most Iraq deaths are NOT due to air power.
In statistics provided to Tomdispatch, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006
My goodness. Those numbers are STAGGERING.
#418. To: ..., ALL (#403)
I don't see it.
And how would an out of context quote from a report on another subject
This report wasn't done at the same time as the Lancet study,
it wasn't done for the same purpose and wasn't done in the same manner.
In addition, I am almost certain it deosn't even address the Lancet study.
#419. To: BeAChooser (#414)
(Edited)
So how many US soldiers are you accusing of this atrocity, Diana? A thousand? Ten thousand? Surely by now ALL the soldiers in Iraq are aware this is going on. Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
#420. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#406)
Did the John Hopkins report mention your side is getting it's ass kicked?
#421. To: BeAChooser (#420)
your side
#422. To: Minerva, ALL (#407)
I don't see it. It doesn't say what you claim it does.
#423. To: Minerva, ALL (#409)
You did post one article from the UN however, but you didn't give us the specific quote or tell us why it was at all on point.
#424. To: BeAChooser (#408)
#425. To: BeAChooser (#420)
Just victory for your agenda.
#426. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#412)
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report developed some estimates of deaths as a result of strategic bombing:
#427. To: Jethro Tull, ALL (#411)
Here you go: dead American corporate cannon fodder.
#428. To: BeAChooser (#414)
Do you accuse all our soldiers who are in Iraq and have served in Iraq of this genocide and coverup, Diana? Is that really your position?
#429. To: Dakmar, ALL (#413)
And we dropped more on Vietnam and environs than total used during WWII by allies and axis combined.
Does that make it right?
#430. To: BeAChooser (#414)
Perhaps you haven't heard, but often in wartime when people are killed, their deaths are not always documented by photograpshs, film, video or even by death certificates.
#431. To: BeAChooser (#427)
Access Denied (content_filter_denied)
I assumed this wasn’t policy, but rather an overzealous sys-admin with too much time on his hands. I was wrong. An Army spokesman has now explained to me that it is indeed the Army’s intention to block service-members from viewing non-Pentagon casualty sites. (Other services apparently have similar policies and do use filtering software.) Captain Chris Karns, a spokesman with Centcom, explained: If a web site is not an official DoD web site or if it is not required to perform official government functions it can be blocked. In this case, it is important to ensure consistency and accuracy when dealing with causalities.
Karns’ concerns are understandable—and irrelevant: http://Icasualties.org and CNN compile their figures from the Pentagon’s own press releases. Nor are names attached to them—unless it’s a link to a previously published article. And even if the problem did exist, isn’t the purported solution just a wee heavy-handed?
UPDATE
Since most people seem to be accessing this post directly, here's some further detail from other posts: TrackBack
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1137856
Interesting. It seems the Pentagon blocks US soldiers in Iraq from accessing Web sites that list US casualties in our glorious war. Why? What are they worried about? Bush says freedom and democracy are spreading like wildfire. What's a few... [Read More]
Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites Our soldiers fight for freedom, but the Defense Department doesn't trust them with it. Nice example to set for the Iraqis. Next thing you know, they'll put Baghdad Bob back on the air, telling everyone [Read More]
Today's shrill critic of George W. Bush is Eric Umansky: Eric Umansky: Pentagon Acknowledges Censoring Casualty Sites: Last week, I received an email from a marine in Iraq who said his network was blocking him from visiting http://icasualties.org, a site that... [Read More]
In war, truth is the first casuality [Read More]
Ask About That [Read More]
Talk is going on about... [Read>http://www.ericumansky.com/2004/09/pentagon_acknow.html">[Read More] Comments
#432. To: BeAChooser (#429)
Not the issue.
#433. To: BeAChooser (#430)
It would take quite a few people to gather up and bury the roughly 600,000 bodies that are missing.
#434. To: BeAChooser (#429)
most of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were dropped on jungle. Most of the bombs dropped in Germany were dropped on cities
#435. To: Dakmar, Diana, ALL (#416)
"But I thought you clearly heard them telling you that MISSILES could deliver WMD from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes."
You are one sick son of a bitch if you have that audacity to hang something like that on a stranger.
Diana - Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies.
BeAChooser - Prove that claim (BAC - Iraq having the capability of launching missiles to the US in 45 minutes) was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't.
Diana - Are you serious?
Diana - Are you saying that was never said right before the war? Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
#436. To: tom007, BeAChooser (#419)
So now you are calling it a genocide??? BAC????
#437. To: BeAChooser (#412)
#438. To: BeAChooser (#435)
You are only further proving my point about FD4UM posters.
#439. To: BeAChooser (#427)
You don't see a problem in that?
.
.
.
DoD's daily casualty tallies are nothing new. They have had them available for months now. For example, http://GlobalSecurity.org keeps an archive of them going back to November 2003.
Posted by: anonymous | September 18, 2004 at 07:22 PM
Hi; Perhaps of interest:
I compile this weekly datasheet on military fatalities. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/DeRooij_Iraq-Coalition-Toll.htm
About two weeks ago my access to DefenseLink was blocked, and now I must use another account to view that website...
Kind rgds
Paul
Posted by: Paul de Rooij | September 20, 2004 at 11:50 AM
Please note that there are 43 casualties from South Carolina listed on our website, which is more than the 29 listed on http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx website. We are searching info. to learn if there are more SC citizens that have died from wounds in hospitals.