Another Media cover up? 300 US soldiers die?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 23-10-2006 @ 07:10 PM by Astygia
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
That is the exact kind of info that will clear all this up
but could you help us out with a link or something as proof?


Of course.

I didn't save the results, and I'm not going to do the same guys over again, but I'll do a few and post links to the buddyfinder so this can be researched.

Here's a few examples, pulled at random (not even the first thirty I disproved) throughout the "casualty list" at libertyforum.org. The top name is the supposed casualty, the bottom are the actual person.

Spc (E-4) Cletus Anderson, 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th ID
Cletus Anderson is actually an E-1 in the Air Force and still alive.

Pfc (E-3) Arthur Cahill, 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, 82nd AA
Arthur Cahill is an E-3 (Senior Airman) in the Air Force and still alive

Pfc (E-3) Lawrence Donahue, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd AA
The only Lawrence Donahues in the Army as E-4s; the others are in the Navy. All are alive.

Edgar Elliott , Central Intelligence Agency
This is worth mentioning because spooks don't confirm or deny their casualties, and field spooks don't carry ID. Somebody's dreaming here.

Pfc (E-3) Daniel Innis, 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division
Daniel Innis is an Army E-1, and alive.

I could go on, but I'm going to guess that if any of the soldiers I didn't look at are actually dead, they died in circumstances unrelated to the ammo dump incident and their names were fished by other means.

Also, keep in mind that soldiers don't carry an ID saying what unit they belong to. We have a unit patch, and it's up to military logistics to sort out who you belonged to. So when taking casualty reports like this, if it doesn't come from American or Coalition military sources, it is far from reliable.

Military Personnel Locator
Liberty Forum Casualty List

EDIT: My pleasure Blaine. Good to find living soldiers where people say are only corpses.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Astygia]


reply posted on 23-10-2006 @ 07:55 PM by darksided
To add more to it...

Brian Harring is a fraud. There are actually tons of sites that have covered his hoax stuff in the past, including the fact that the real Brian Harring is actually a 26 year old Linux programmer with Gentoo, and that Walter Storch aka Peter Stahl aka Gregory Douglas, whom Brian Harring has reported to of met in person at one time, often uses his name as an alias on TBRNews.org

Your quoting a website with a history of making stuff up, and as savy fact checkers in this thread have pointed out, his facts don't add up.

BTW, if you want the unofficial yet most complete listing of US military casualties then go to cryptome. Cryptome is a bookmark for every spook in the world for a reason.


reply posted on 23-10-2006 @ 09:29 PM by SmallMindsBigIdeas
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here's the official story, claiming no casualties:
BBC News


The fire, which set off a series of blasts and explosions at the base, caused no casualties or injuries.


No casualties OR injuries... Interesting. Was no one guarding this base?

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]


The below qoute was also taken from your BBC link. The base was hit by a mortar round, it started a fire in a munitions area ... everyone was able to retreat to bomb shelters where they were able to survive as the fire spread through the munitions storage and set off several explosions. There is our explanation why no injuries ... sounds like good training and proper resources (ie bomb shelters) in place at a munition storage facility in a hostile war zone.

The US military spokesman said that all troops and workers on the base had been safely evacuated to bomb shelters to protect them from the blasts.


Most of the articles that quoted "heavy" US losses and cited possible coverups were from the Free Arab Press. Perhaps they have a little bias? Maybe they want to rally the insurgents and show they made a dent with their attack? I don't think the BBC is particulary pro-American so can't see why they would help coverup something like this.



reply posted on 23-10-2006 @ 09:44 PM by TrappedSoul
Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Here's a screenshot from the
Baghdad news vid:



This was at 3:22 into the footage. Check out the white streak to the top of the screen, that's a shot going off. There are quite a few there, straight up into the sky. I think I saw a smallish mushroom cloud towards the end.

The white streak to the top of the screen is not a shot going of it's just a camera anomaly, if it's bright enogh light you'll get streaks like that.


reply posted on 24-10-2006 @ 04:41 AM by magicmushroom
Right lets see if we can assertain what really happened, I'm no expert in these matters so here goes.

1) How many personnel would be stationed at an munitions dump in normal circumstances.

2) I dont know what type of munitions were there but lets say its the full range of weapons. It could be clearley seen that muntions were exploding well beyond the confines of the camp.

3) The exploding munitions may have been blown out to say 500-1000 metres. That would mean that personnel not that close to the centre of the conflagration could have been killed or injured by flying shrapnell.

4) There would be a good chance that more men would have been brought in initially to fight the fires and personnel on the site.

5) As the fire spread more munitions ignited possible causing more death and injury.

6) The insurgents claimed 300 dead, how would they actually know. Isnt it plausible that the camp would have been under surveilance for some time prior to the attack and they would of been aware of say busy periods as opposed to quiter periods. Would they not have timed their attack to inflict the maximum casulties.

7) The dead and injured would have to be cared for, isnt it probable that civilians/Iraqi forces connected with the military would become aware of the numbers of dead and injured.

8) If the number stated is say at least realistic how would the force commanders deal with the situation. Such an event is not just bad news for the troops but its the last thing the politicians would want to hear.

9) The insurgents (freedom Fighters) would want to hit a high value target to maximise propaganda and to generate more support for their cause. On the basis of this I think its highly probable that many men did loose there lives in this attack.

10) Its time to get the troops out , the deaths of more soldiers will not achieve anthing, coventional forces never win in these types of conflicts.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Main Stream Media Taking It To Far!!
  Posted 16 days ago with 22 member flags
Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico
  Posted 11 days ago with 10 member flags
A few questions for those of you who hate the Confederate flag
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
Why Do You Insist On Doing This?
  Posted 4 days ago with 9 member flags
Getting off of oil.
  Posted 13 days ago with 7 member flags
***Overwhelming Debt? Here Are A Few Steps To Help!!***
  Posted 4 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 15 hours ago, 110 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 11 hours ago, 96 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 9 hours ago, 62 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 50 replies