Looks like more than 2047 deaths to me

Found this PDF while looking at the list of death American female GI's.

17 pages of deaths ending 10/29/2005

over 22,000 Amputated, Mentally Ill, Severely Injured.

hours, weeks, or months, later from their injuries.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

Go to this site. Each of these people died after being evacuated from Iraq, and they are all included in the 2047 count.

Satisfied?

Now, you go ahead and provide one name of a soldier who died after leaving Iraq from injuries sustained in Iraq, and who is not included in the 2047 officially recognized. Go ahead. Just one name.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Any man who isn't a sociopath must eventually reconcile his actions with his moral code and conscience.

Many can't, leaving them walking dead or suicides. We're seeing them now. If Viet Nam taught us anything it's that war is the gift that just keeps on taking, and taking, and taking.

I put the Iraq casualty rate at 600,000+ including 11 years of sanctions. Oh forgive me, I was talking humans, not Americans.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Saddam and the BFEE are business partners. Thery're haveing a disagreement.

200,000 people have died. SOP for the Bushies.

However, post-deployment suicides have NEVER been counted as war casualties for any war, EVER. To say that the Pentagon is hiding anything by not counting these in the official death numbers is ridiculous, since they would only be following well-established standards for wht constitutes a war death. Should this be changed? Should post-deployment suicides be counted? Perhaps. It depends on what we think about causality and mental health. But that's really besides the point given the current standards for defining a war death.

I can't believe how small the font is. It's smaller than what you find on a medical bottle. I can't even read the print. This is what the Pentagon thinks of our died military. Sick. I can't even count the names it's so small.

they die "In Country"...:cry: :banghead:

The DoD and icasualties.org both do, AFAIK.

Or do you have some evidence to the contrary?

Those who die after leaving Iraq are counted. Here's the data that debunks your bullshit claim:

http://icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx

Now, can I please see any data supporting your bullshit claim?

Everything is counted, and you have no evidence otherwise. There are plenty of deaths by "accident" (such as car accidents), and there are also plenty of deaths by "non-hostile gunshot wound," some of which are clearly suicides. As a matter of FACT (and I know the notion of providing FACTS must seem foreign to you), just two days ago the DoD reported a death by vehicle accident, which is included in the count.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=11-2005

Just go to icasualties.org and check the Fatality Details page. It is clear that your point is completely debunked. You made a claim, and I showed clear evidence that your claim is wrong. Saying that the list is "short" gets you nowhere, since you can't even provide ONE instance of somebody who died of wounds sustained in the theater of operations who was subsequently moved and NOT counted. In short, you're just plain ole making shit up now, having been definitively proven wrong.

Now, some have noted that they are not counting suicides of soldiers who have returned home. They are not. But they never have. No count of war casualties has ever included post-deployment suicides. Whether these should be counted is another manner. No list of war casualties has ever included post-deployment accidents either, although statistics show that soldiers returning from a war zone tend to be more reckless on the roads. These are social issues, to be sure, but they are not relevant to the count of casualties, unless you want to change the whole system that has been in place.

to continue this war. We do not want a plan for "stability". We do not want to "win" against those who struggle against US occupation. We want our troops home now, not next year, not in a few years. NOW.

I wonder if we will ever find out the truth?

If it is so clear, you should be able to demonstrate it to me with evidence fairly easily. Please provide evidence - any evidence at all - for your supposedly "obvious" claim.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

your a troll. Enough said. Later.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

up to 10/29. There were 86...

This seems accurate. :shrug:

17 pages seems like a lot, but so is 2047. :(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which in it's self a slap to the GI's who gave their lives for this lie.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Up the point why the fucking small fonts.

I counted about 80 GI's listed as dying in a place other than Iraq, Kuwait or Quator.

Still seems why too low.

They indicate the official deaths announced, which is currently at 2047. Under what fraudulent pretext do you claim more?

You don't even know what you're citing, much less talking about!

Ridiculous. The dead giveaway was that you used icasualties as a source, when they clearly state that the total US deaths are now 2047! Yet you use them as a source stating that there are MORE than 2047! Could your argument be more absurd? I don't think it would be possible.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

ever worked in an office?

I do agree however, that each name should be 72font. :(

They should be posted in big signs outside of the WH and Congress.

There are 122 names on the first page.

that would make 2074 as of 10/29/2005. The count up to todays date is only 2047. So I would be right, that it looked like more than 2047.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They lied about WMD, what makes you think they are telling the truth about the death count of American GI's. I for one do not believe the DOD reports. All died and wounded for a lie.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

route. A measly and pathetic argumentative strategy.

But, since you asked. I don't believe the DoD either. I also don't believe that the DoD COULD hide US deaths, because there are simply too many eyes on the situation. Numerous places on line have detailed counts of the dead. Numerous news organizations have put up lists, including pictures, of the dead - and purported it to be ALL the dead. So the question for you is simple: HOW could the DoD hide even ten additional deaths from this massive distributed surveillance engine?

The fact is that you can't even provide the name of one dead soldier not counted. You can't come up with any evidence at all to support your claim. Now, in such cases, reasonable people would examine the merit of their claim. Not you. Any child would question their belief lacking any evidence. Not you. Get back to me when you have even the slightest shred of evidence for your belief. Until that time, it cannot be taken seriously by reasonable people (that is, people who demand evidence before they believe something).

can't or won't report the news, that is a fact. They've lied about everything else. Sorry, I just don't believe that this is an accurate accounting. It's way to high, yet not IMO the true count.

Everybody has one.

You don't, on the other hand, have anything resembling a reasonable argument, and your opinion is therefore not to be taken seriously by reasonable people.

I sorry you feel this way. The DOD have lied numerous times before why should you believe what they say. I know they lie which is what I don't believe the count.

It's that simple. And why shouldn't I post here? Whenever I see ignorant or fraudulent claims made on these boards, I think it is EVERYBODY'S responsibility to knock them down. It makes the board better and more informative. Why you insist on posting this nonsense without any evidence, however, is a mystery to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Does anyone know? I'd say 2-3 times a week on average...as some weeks are busier than others.

I put them both on ignore.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you would have known we have been over this several times already.


An Open mind is a very good thing. Everytime you click Ignore your "box" gets smaller. imho

Peace

But I don't suffer fools gladly. They seem way to hostile for my taste. No honest interaction, just blame the massager.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Shouldn't carry the message unless he is sure it's true.

You have no evidence. It's as simple as that. In fact, the evidence you do post (both your PDF list and icasualties.org) both support the opposite contention: that the death count is accurate at 2047! The only one blaming the messenger here is you. You've stated repeatedly that you have zero evidence for your claim. The only reason you can even believe it is because you "don't believe the DoD." That's the very definition of blaming the messenger. Lacking any evidence (and you've consistently refused to post any at all), you simply decry the messenger of the other position and pretend that that counts as reasonable argument. It's a sad display.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to another forum. These guys, and I think many are military, don't believe the DOD either.

http://www.sftt.us/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4006

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Kindred spirits, then?

:eyes:

pretty much just for politely disagreeing with this guy. I didn't see a great deal of nastiness in any of the deleted messages before they were removed. I contend that there's an agenda at work here.