It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Military Outlet : Number of Wounded US Soldiers twice as high as admitted

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   
As of Tuesday, 20,802 troops have been treated at Landstuhl from injuries received in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

www.estripes.com...

According to the pentagon, only 8500 troops have been wounded in Iraq. If the wounded troops toll is twice as high than admitted by the administration, what about the death toll ?

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]




posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Do u ever stop with this anti US propaganda, i have just read some of your posts and feel they are designed only to cause controversey. Please stop it.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3

Do u ever stop with this anti US propaganda, i have just read some of your posts and feel they are designed only to cause controversey. Please stop it.


Don't be so harsh.


He has a good story and a valid point.
The source is respectable and authorised,


From Stars and Stripes
Stars and Stripes is a Department of Defense-authorized daily newspaper distributed overseas for the U.S. military community. Editorially independent of interference from outside its editorial chain of command, it provides commercially available U.S.and world news and objective staff-produced stories relevant to the military community in a balanced, fair, and accurate manner.

Source


and the the "official" number of casualties is 8458.

This is a big difference as far as numbers go
and suggests that the military is trying to cover up the true number of wounded. Wouldn't be surprised if that story disappears all of a sudden.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Do u ever stop with this anti US propaganda, i have just read some of your posts and feel they are designed only to cause controversey. Please stop it.


Since when is the truth not in the best US's interest ?

And since when is controversy bad for democracy ?

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Do u ever stop with this anti US propaganda, i have just read some of your posts and feel they are designed only to cause controversey. Please stop it.


How in any way is that Anti-US propaganda


I think that this information is something that everyone has thought of as a strong possibility.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Since when is the truth not in the best US's interest ?


maybe because its very hard for them to take in the truth?

and since the entire Iraq war was based on lies
and one lie always leads to more lies



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If Mokuhadzushi was a weatherman, he would only forecast rain and thunderstorms......



[edit on 25-11-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I saw something like this on 60 Minutes I think it was. The Pentagon is not counting people who were hurt in non combat situations. For example one solider was hurt while on patrol when his vehicle tipped over down an embackment. Even though he was on patrol they do not count it because it wasen't a result of hostile activity. Another solider lost a leg it a colision between two US military vehicles, don't count it because of the same reasons. The soliders thought it was a disgrace.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Wask]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I ahve to say the source is a good one and this would be the first post of his that has some truth to it.

I wonder what the official line on this one will be?

Keep in mind this 20k figure is for both Afghanistan and Iraq.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
No theres more like 2500 dead U.S. soilders and 18,000+ wounded joevialls.altermedia.info...

[edit on 25-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 25-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
When assessing these numbers you also have to keep in mind that only heavily wounded personnel is transported to Landstuhl. Official numbers are something like 9000 in Iraq and 500 in Afghanistan (I don't know if it's the figures for heavily wounded or just wounded).



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
No theres more like 2500 dead U.S. soilders and 18,000+ wounded joevialls.altermedia.info...


Look there is NO way the US Governement could hide 1200 deaths, it just could not happen.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
zzzz

[edit on 25-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Don'yt be stupid they convinced you that Saddahm was a threat, they convinced you that 19 highjackers came to the U.S. they try hard to tell people Bush jr's 1997 meetting with the TALIBAN was nothing wrong well they can convice you U.S. only has 1200+ deaths and not 2500+



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I agree with Tiger. Actual numbers about the real US death toll (not to mention the numerous other lies) during the first Iraq war was also very slow to drip in.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Look there is NO way the US Governement could hide 1200 deaths, it just could not happen.


If a soldier gets shot in Iraq and is flown somewhere else for surgery, and dies there, it is not counted as a combat death.

Isn't that hiding?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Every country does it, it is the basis war propaganda.

Faking the death toll is easy. You just notify one hundred families that they have lost their sons, and post the official death toll at thirty. Easy. You also state the enemy death toll at seven hundred. Who is to know ?

Anyone that actually believe what they see or read in the media about any of this must be pretty naive.

As they say, "truth is the first casualty of war ", and it is perfectly true.

Those that are dead are dead. It is the maimed and crippled that I worry about.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
If a soldier gets shot in Iraq and is flown somewhere else for surgery, and dies there, it is not counted as a combat death.

Isn't that hiding?


It would be hiding if it actually happened that way. Read the list at www.antiwar.com and you will see it doesn't happen that way.

If I were to attempt to defend the numbers, I would say that to the military there is a difference between non-combat injuries, combat injuries, and being wounding in combat. All three happen in Iraq. Two happen during military operations. One is the result of being hit by enemy weapons.

For example, if a soldier slips and breaks an ankle while going to eat, it is a non-combat injury. If a solider slips and breaks an ankle while in combat in Fallujah, it is a combat injury. If a soldier is shot in the ankle, he has been wounded in combat. All three would be treated in Landstuhl and lumped into the number of soldiers from Iraq treated for injuries.

So, it is only natural that the number of injured treated do not match the offical number of wounded.


Now if I were not to defend the numbers I would say that I know with certainty that a US Army Ranger was next to a truck when it was hit by an RPG in Afghanistan late Oct 2001 and was listed as a injury as a result of a training accident.

So, I would recommend taking the official numbers with a grain of salt.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
See ATSNN : www.atsnn.com...




top topics



 
0

log in

join