It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Twelve Thousand Soldiers Dead?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 01:53 PM

12,000 US Dead, 25,000
Badly Wounded In Iraq?
By GNNews

Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially.

The actual death toll is in excess of 10,000. (See the official records at the end of this piece.) Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded (and a published total of 25,000 wounded overall,), this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 2,000+ now being officially published.

When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities.

If this is true, I suspect it's not, but if it is,what does it entail for America? Should America just become isolationist and stop manipulating the world's progress? I don't know about you, but it seems to me that America is not quite as strong militarily as we have been led to believe.

If we are not as powerful as we are led to believe, it could spell problems for us. China is an ever looming adversary and we shouldn't forget the threats from our own continent....Brazil,Venezuela and others....We could be a smashed bug soon...

[edit on 6-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 05:53 PM
I don't ordinarily frequent this forum, so I just now found this particular thread. I believe very little that comes from rense, but this time I truly do agree.

I have spent a considerable amount of time with soldiers returning from Iraq and they do all claim that the death toll is much higher than what is being reported. I also spoke to a set of parents who had burried their son over a year ago - but thier son is officially listed as "wounded in Iraq" - not killed in action.

Here's how it happens according to the soldiers and parents I spoke to:

There is a military hospital located 50 yards outside of the border of Iraq. If you are injured in Iraq but are still alive, you may be taken to that hospital. If you die after clearing Iraqi air space, you were not killed in Iraq, you were merely wounded there.

Soldiers who are stable enough may be flown to hospitals in Germany. If you die on an operating table in Germany, you didn't die "in Iraq" - you didn't die "in action."

In either of these cases, the US government does not have to count the dead soldier in the official number that they spout on the news. As long as the news person says, "2,708 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq" then technically they can say they are telling the truth. Those words "in Iraq" are the disclaimer, so to speak.

According to some returning soldiers, there are a great number of soldiers on the "wounded" list that are really dead. None of the soldiers I have spoken with has any idea just how many "wounded" soldiers we have had to burry, but I wholeheartedly believe that we are being lied to so that this war won't look so bad.

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Here's how it happens according to the soldiers and parents I spoke to:

There is a military hospital located 50 yards outside of the border of Iraq. If you are injured in Iraq but are still alive, you may be taken to that hospital.

Making claims like this with no substantive facts or details backing them up it only pouring fuel on a fire. What country is this Military Hospital in? Where is it's general location? It should be easy to verify these things as there must be 1000's of dead soldiers going through there as you seem to claim. Surely there must be quite a staff there just incase one of the soldiers doesn't die like they are supposed to. Again, it must be near a decent size airfield to be moving that many caskets.

Giving a general location we should be able to Google earth to see what is there in the way of support systems. Almost 10,000 extras families having their loved one gone surely must register somewhere. How many families have claimed to have a deceased soldier who was in Iraq but is claimed to have died elsewhere?

Sorry to be asking so many questions, but your claims require solid backing up with verifiable facts to even be considered.

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 07:15 PM
I began at Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas. I spoke with dozens of soldiers there. All I have is what they have told me, no direct information - no personal experience of the situation myself. Later I became active with Veterans for Peace and several other organizations. They make the same claims. What they have to say is quite compelling.

Especially compelling were the grieving parents who had buried their "wounded" son. I looked at the paper work concerning this soldier and compared it with the list of those killed in Iraq. His name wasn't on the list. This part I saw with my own eyes. I did see his name on the wounded list.

I can understand you wanting the location of the hospital. I don't know it, but I can make some phone calls and find out. I never claimed that thousands went through it. In fact I said that I have no knowledge of the numbers. However, if it only happened once, it is still wrong. If it happened many times, we are being misled.

I'll see how much info I can get and I'll post it as soon as possible. I am moving this weekend but should be back on ATS by the middle of next week.

edit to add this:

MARK BENJAMIN, UPI: Well, with respect to the wounded, the Pentagon does report a number that it says is the number of soldiers that are wounded in the war. I think we're running around 7,000 or 8,000 in Iraq. But what that number does not include is the number of soldiers who are wounded or ill, or injured in operations that are not directly due to the bullets and bombs of the insurgents. So, for example, as of mid-September, if you take actually Afghanistan and Iraq together, there were 17,000 soldiers who were injured or ill enough to be put on airplanes and flown out of theater, and none of those casualties, and I call them casualties because they fit the Pentagon's definition of casualties, none of those casualties appear on any public casualty lists.

under-reported casualties

This link isn't really what we are talking about, but it leads into it in a big way.

[edit on 9/29/06 by wellwhatnow]

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 07:32 PM
Why on earth should it be difficult to believe this of a government that lies about its reasons for going to war, that keeps no official record of the number of civilians killed, that is PROVEN, only last month, to have lied about the civilian death toll in Iraq - (see this article, not the best one I've seen, either)?

It's hardly unexpected that they should be massaging the statistics using any trick they can. To believe otherwise displays a touching but entirely misplaced faith in the US government.

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:04 PM
Thank you for the reply and your direct knowledge of the event. If you can find the location of the hospital that would lend some to your story. Does anyone have a list a total military deaths, for if the claim in the original article you quoted is anywhere close to being true, again there must be a record of it. That is a four fold increase, not simple "massaging".

Can you provide some more widespread parental/spousal stories of of servicemen/women serving in Iraq and Afganistan with the moving out of theater story you describe. I do not doubt that some wounded troops die outside of Iraq from injuries sustained there. To imply that it is an administration plan/policy to hide deaths as you imply, much of the military must be going along with it and I do not see evidence of that.

posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:56 AM
Im just another poster with a "story" to tell with no proof for you pavil but here goes.

Last year i sat next to a soldier on a flight from back east to LAX. I keep a copy of my CT folder on my laptop and was perusing some Iraq photos. She broke out her laptop and showed me some of her own. Very graphic indeed. She stated she was a mechanic that traveled with a medical unit and when not fixing the equipment, helped out with the unit. She also stated the numbers of dead they show on the news is grossly understated. What they say are killed monthly she said she had seen weekly. Alot of the Med Corp are not happy with the numbers being shown but have been told on many occasions to not talk about what goes on over there. She also got very uneasy when i tried to buy her a drink for her heroics over there. She did not feel like a hero at all, just doing a job that she didnt agree with. But she followed her orders is all.

I have no proof for you pavil but thought i would share my story to back up what WWN is talkin about. Go do some legwork at your local bases and talk to these soldiers returning and families of the listed. Im sure they would be happy to tell you what WWN has heard from them. Then you can cross reference the lists yourself for personal undeniable proof. I have no clue of a hospital for you to "googlemap" but i wouldnt put it past the current regime to pull that just so they can say "we never lied, they werent in iraq"

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 12:15 AM
Allow me to add im in the army the death toll is no where near 10,000 its only about 3200 or so anyone who thinks were not as powerfull as we say just doesnt know let me see you go over there and start to take a patrol and out of a crowd of civilians gun fire rings out and you cant shoot because of all the civilians and if you do shoot you get put on trial and talked about by your own country men and women here is one let a kid with a bomb walk towards your unit and you yell stop a few times and he just keeps walking what do you do you can die or you can kill its a bad sitiation but the number of dead isnt that high put it along side the number of terrorist we kill and it seems even lower.

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 01:27 AM
What scares me most about what you just wrote is that it was all one sentence. I am sure some of the situations you encounter require adrenaline, but take a breath and think about what you just said.

Define terrorist, it is a broad term.

Good thread Speaker of Truth.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:17 AM
Sorry I get kind of mad when it comes to this sort of things because of people I know who I may never see again. Im now at sentence two. By terroist im meaning the people we are fighting the ones blowing up stuff we are trying to give them. I guess the way your looking at it is anyone can really be a terroist cant disagree. But yeah I agree this is a good thread and if there really are 10,000 or more dead then I have indeed been blinded in some odd way.

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:33 PM
What a crock of manure. 10,000 dead? Give me a break. What kind of drug induced moron dreamed this up.

And using Camp Casey as a source of information? Good grief...

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:53 AM
There's using the ol' noggin.' Just yell "hogwash" at the top of your lungs and anything you want becomes instantly true. To say the mainstream media is any more verifiable than secondhand accounts and alternative media means you need to ease up on this...

Remember, lies can come from everywhere. Both mainstream and alternative media have their agendas. MSM is loyal to the state, and alternative media is loyal to money and/or "being noticed." If the government has ways of "doctoring" their numbers then I'm sure CNN just plays alongs and does what they're told. The alternative would be to do some real investigating and be shut out of all future press conferences and harassed by an assortment of alphabet soup agencies (I hear the IRS is especially nasty). On the other hand, alternative media may inflate their numbers to sound more shocking.

So I'm going to go with a nice round number of 7500 US military personel dead. It's low enough so that it's fairly easy to confuse with 3200. Think about it, at a glance, can you tell the difference between 3200 hundred marbles and 7500 marbles?

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:08 AM
a hippie obviously wrote that. when it comes to protesting a war people are totally ignorant to, they'll come up with an explanation that is ignorant tenfold to shovel their political horse manure agenda into peoples mouths to feel important, like they actually have a cause. theyre grasping at straws and first you have all of the philosophical ponytails crying because its all about oil, and now you have this about the casualties being above 10,000. if it was that high there would be a public outrage because of all the families involved. this is just another case of ignoring the good the US is doing over there and focusing, if not completely overblowing the negative aspects of the war to brainwash people. if you have all these people believing loose change then whats to stop them from believing something like this

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:16 PM

There's using the ol' noggin.' Just yell "hogwash" at the top of your lungs and anything you want becomes instantly true. To say the mainstream media is any more verifiable than secondhand accounts and alternative media means you need to ease up on this...

Throwing the BS flag is always appropriate. Even 7500 dead is BS. Worldwide, the US military lost approximately 1,100 members last year, that includes the ones that die in training accidents, car accidents, illness, suicide et cetera...

If you honestly think that the military could hide that many deaths, you need to sue your high school for failing you miserably.

posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 01:20 AM
3,205 as of March 14 2007. I think someone just really hates war and the idea of america fighting one and decided to throw a number out there.

I like that school comment lol.

posted on Mar, 26 2007 @ 03:00 PM
Yeah, it's only 3,205 dead (HAW HAW).

In a largely invisible cost of the war in Iraq, nearly 800 civilians working under contract to the Pentagon have been killed and more than 3,300 injured doing jobs normally handled by the U.S. military, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.

The U.S. has outsourced so many war and reconstruction duties that there are almost as many contractors – 120,000 – as there are U.S. troops – 135,000 – in the war zone.

The insurgents in Iraq make little if any distinction between the contractors and U.S. troops.

Febrary 24, 2007

Associated Press
Hector Patino, seen in this photo held by his mother, Flora, was killed while driving a truck for a Halliburton unit in Baghdad's Green Zone.
Exactly how many of those employees doing the Pentagon's work are Americans is uncertain. But the casualty figures make it clear that the Defense Department's count of more than 3,100 U.S. military dead does not tell the whole story.

“It's another unseen expense of the war,” said Thomas Houle, a retired Air Force reservist whose brother-in-law died while driving a truck in Iraq. “It's almost disrespectful that it doesn't get the kind of publicity or respect that a soldier would.”

Graphic: Number of deaths in Iraq

Employees of defense contractors such as Halliburton, Blackwater and Wackenhut cook meals, do laundry, repair infrastructure, translate documents, analyze intelligence, guard prisoners, protect military convoys, deliver water in the heavily fortified Green Zone and stand sentry duty at buildings – often highly dangerous duties almost identical to those performed by many U.S. troops.

In January, four contractors for Blackwater were killed when their helicopter was downed by gunfire in Baghdad. In 2004, two Americans and a British engineer were kidnapped and decapitated. That same year, in a horrific incident in Fallujah, a cheering mob ambushed four Blackwater contractors who were escorting Army supply trucks. Their SUVs were ambushed and set on fire, then their burnt bodies were dragged through the streets and two corpses were strung up from a bridge.

Their gruesome deaths were widely reported, but usually when contractors are killed or wounded, the casualties are – in a sense – off the books.

The Defense Department issues a press release whenever a soldier or Marine dies. The AP obtained figures on many of the civilian deaths and injuries from the Labor Department, which tracks workers' compensation claims, after repeated efforts, including a Freedom of Information Act request.

Now take a look at the number of wounded. The real number is more than 52,000. And that number (52,000+) is defined as our guy's who had to be airlifted away from site for medical treatment. How can that be? The Pentagon says it's only 23,000? or whatever. Well, that's because they don't count you unless you were hit by a bullet or a bomb actually went off under your vehicle while you were partrolling around, waiting to get picked off.

If you were not hit by the bomb but your vehicle was following and crashed and you had to be airlifted away, you weren't injured in the war. You were merely in a car accident according to the Pentagon. That's why the Pentagon says war wounded is only 23,000? or whatever.

There's a lot of pathetic liars out there.

posted on Mar, 27 2007 @ 12:11 AM
I was talking about soliders not people who knew the risk and decided to go over there anyway without any sort of training. They wanted to help our country in anyway they could and decided to do so by building schools and hospitals.

posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 03:19 PM
Lets look at this from simply a common sense point of view. In the first persian gulf war we had in excess of 500,000 troops in Iraq/Kuwait region. Now days, we have 160,000, with what some 20,000 in Afghanistan, and we removed around half the troops from Korea, yet there seems to be a shortage of troops. Those recent numbers come to less than 200,000. Yet we had more then 500,000 in the first persian gulf war in Iraq, plus the 37,000 we had stationed in Korea.

Realizing the current numbers game one could come to the conclusion that the death toll and the injured and unable to resume combat duties toll is extremely higher then what they release to the press. As an example it was reported during the first 6 months of the campaign in Iraq, that when talking to the general in charge of shipping the wounded to Germany then back home, who hadn't yet been given the keep quiet memo on casualties, that when asked the question is the number of 20,000 wounded combined for Iraq and Afganistan for the first 6 months of the Iraq campaign a legitamate number, the General replied, yes, give or take 2 thousand. So in 6 months of combat about 20,000 were wounded and shipped back according to this general. You can only imagine what that toll is like now after 4 years.

Our troop strength numbers just don't add up to only 2000 something dead and 10,000 wounded. It just doesn't add up, its common sense.

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:53 PM
D_MAson we did not take troops out of korea we sent troops there.
We do nat have a shortage of troops the ARMY alone counting reserves and guard number over 1 million and that doesnt count the Marines and reserve Marines so that shortage crap is BS. Injury can mean alot shot in the leg trench foot anything that makes you unable to fight.

new topics

top topics


log in