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.

 

Bush : How Many Troops Died : 3660 or 40,000 +

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Al-Rashedeen Army presents :: Code of Silence


Code of Silence

A film produced by Al-Rashedeen Army

This work is some of Al-Rashedeen Army's recorded operations in Iraq, made by them like a film to show a few facts that the White House Liers are trying to hide from good old Americans.

The film is 53.44 minutes with english commentary (and Arabic subtitles), begins with an innocent question: "How can you do it?..."

Links :
High quality (540 MB):
ia311525.us.archive.org...
Medium quality (70MB):
www.hanein.org...




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity how is Bush able to hide 40,000 casualties from the American people , not to mention the 40,000 families of the supposed dead American soldiers?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
By not filming coffins coming home?
and its not as if all the families are together counting each other while crying?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Ridiculous suggestion, seriously. Any Bush hater would tell you the same thing aswell.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
So a government that cant cover up Pat Tillman, Abu Ghraib, 9/11, WMD,
Haditha etc. Is good enough to keep 40,000 casualties out of the Media and out of view of the American people. 40,000 soldiers with dependents living on military bases and now collecting benefits for the rest of thier lives plus a substantial SGLI payout is being hidden.

Thats just a non starter



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
your right,
simply because we disagree with Bush means everythign we say is ridiculous.

I do not SAY the government hides figures to the extent of 40,000
Im saying that its not as hard as you think to cover up numbers.

The bush admin refuses to allow media to photograph or document coffins coming home.
So who's to know ACCEPT the government how many coffins come home?
Why do troops on the ground say that there's FAR MORE fatalities than being reported?
Its not as if relatives in Florida call soliders relatives in Seattle asking how many people got a telegram this week is it.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Cover up?

Well, Tillman hasnt been achnowledged yet.
the 911 'official' story is still portrayed as 'honest and official'
Im actually arguing with someone right now who STILL believes in the WMD lies
And Haditha was never a cover-up, iraqi's dobbed them in with evidence.

The governmetn doesnt need to achnowledge anything... all they have to do, is say the right lines to the camera, and it will never be questioned.

Its that simple.

So long as they say the right words in reply to questions, they have no responsbility to even entertain the accusations.

Again, im not saying I agree with a coverup of official numbers, but you cannot rule it out simply because of previous conflicts of truth.

They managed to get away with 911 and Iraq...so why couldnt they with this?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
What the hell are you talking about? Are they hiding the death toll by 10 men? Maybe they are, a lot of armies have done in the past. But from 3,000 to 40,000, get the hell out of here.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
If the death toll for the US forces in Iraq was 40,000 the US media would be irrelevant the foriegn media outlets BBC Reuters etc would be all over the story. I have to question why people would believe such an obvious propaganda film.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The 40,000 number is ridiculous. Agit, your assertion that troops on the ground say the number is higher is silly. How would troops on the ground be able to track the number of deaths outside their camps? They wouldn’t.




Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im actually arguing with someone right now who STILL believes in the WMD lies


There were WMDs. I saw them, personally. My NBC NCO was sent home from radiation poisoning after guarding an Iraqi weapons depot with suspicious barrels in the back.

Our little cards that measured the dosage of radiological contamination were taken away from us when they started to show dangerous levels and we were sent on our ways (they said we weren’t using them right, but there was no way to use them but to clip them to our shirts and have them read later.)

There were WMDs and anyone who thinks different is not paying attention.

And not all of them were relics from the 1980s. We found some pretty high tech artillery shells that tested positive for nerve agent, new manufacture.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
well in reply I find it hard to believe anyone who says
'' I saw them personally ''

You must be the only person, because no else says Iraq had anything.
The UN, the inspectors, foreign governments even your own government.

And Again, im not saying THEY ARE hiding the figures ffs.
Cant people read?

Im saying they DO have the ability, and to ignore just because you think its impossible is a flawed theory.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I agree, I mean, most estimates put the Iraqi death toll close to 600 000, but since the US refuses to post civilian death statistics, agaist the Geneva Convetions of course, it isnt something you hear on the news at all, so of course its not impossible for the death toll to be higher.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
well in reply I find it hard to believe anyone who says
'' I saw them personally ''



I have seen some of the news sources you think are credible, so your judgment doesn’t really squeeze out any tears.


You must be the only person, because no else says Iraq had anything.


Actually, there are many soldiers who saw first hand Iraqi WMDs, and many of them are talking about online, in fact right here on good old ATS.

Like I said, anyone who is paying attention would know that.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Here you go. Read up, get your learn on.


Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq last summer, he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists.

In an interview with Insight and in an article he wrote for the online magazine AmericanThinker.com, Hanson examines reports from U.S. combat units and public information confirming that many of Iraq's CW stockpiles have indeed been found. Until now, however, journalists have devoted scant attention to this evidence, in part because it contradicts the story line they have been putting forward since the U.S.-led inspections began after the war.



External source


And found by a Cavalry Scout, no less!



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
The 3000 number is the number of troops who have actually died in Iraq, however, this does not include all of the troops that have died from wounds once they where flown out of Iraq. That is how the number has been adjusted to make it look better. It's basically an accounting loop hole that they are getting away with. I could make a bunch of merchandise and it would look good on my Income Statement , but eventually the merchandise would get outdated and I'd have to write it off which could make a profit from one year turn into a negative. However, with that said, the number is not 40,000, but, it is probably somewhere in the ballpark of 7,500 to 10,000 dead.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Sorry cavs, he didnt find them

Hanson examines reports from U.S. combat units


Ill say it bluntly, anyone who claims to of found stockpiles of CW and BW or Nuclear weapons is lying.




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I believe the accuracy (more or less) of the count of AMERICAN troops killed in Iraq. If it was significantly more then some Democrat would use it to their advantage so they could get into the White House next year! Nobody is as skilled at finding weakness or "dark secrets" a politician in power has as someone from the opposing party here in the USA! Surely in our mainstream liberal media--if there were ANYTHING close to a real story here--they would have found it. Everyone knows how bad CNN, NY Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, the AP would like a Democrat in charge for the next presidential term! This is just more anti-Bush tripe brought to you by your average Bush hater!
There is less death in Iraq NOW than there was before the ousting of Saddam Hussein. When he was in power, he was responsible for at least 5000 deaths of his own people per month. Another point. Our military is too well equipped and skilled to be suffering such heavy losses at the hands of ill-equipped Muslim factions--even WITH Iran's direct intervention. Presently, Iran is only providing roadside bombs. Hell, they can't even repair their F-14 Tomcat fleet--provided by AMERICAN INGENUITY and KNOW-HOW!!



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Sorry cavs, he didnt find them

Hanson examines reports from U.S. combat units


Ill say it bluntly, anyone who claims to of found stockpiles of CW and BW or Nuclear weapons is lying.



I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "lying". I do tend to believe they didn't find much simply because the Iraqis weren't smart enough to develop these on their own. Besides, everyone knows that the convoys of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria-Jordan before the ousting of Saddam WERE NOT carrying the Iraqi's exports of dates, camel dung, sand, or gold! History has shown that despite the Arab World's differences with one another, they'll cooperate underhandedly if they think they can kill more "infidels" later on!



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   

There is less death in Iraq NOW than there was before the ousting of Saddam Hussein. When he was in power, he was responsible for at least 5000 deaths of his own people per month. Another point.


Care to back that up?
I mean, saddam killing 165 people per day in 2002 should have some sort of proof to back it up.

I find it very hard to believe in the early 2000's saddam was killing 5000 per month.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

There is less death in Iraq NOW than there was before the ousting of Saddam Hussein. When he was in power, he was responsible for at least 5000 deaths of his own people per month. Another point.


Care to back that up?
I mean, saddam killing 165 people per day in 2002 should have some sort of proof to back it up.

I find it very hard to believe in the early 2000's saddam was killing 5000 per month.



www.fas.org...

freedomspeace.blogspot.com...

www.cnn.com...

www.factsofisrael.com...

These links mostly deal with the genocide against the Kurds and as you can see (quick! close your eyes!), the number he killed or ORDERED killed over a time period-AVERAGED OUT- was equal to or greater than 5000 per month. I'm not saying every day he killed 165 people. This is only taking into account the Kurds; remember, he regularly had political opponents killed, waged a war against Iran, invaded Kuwait (unprovoked no less--this war he brought to his people with a COALITION of nations, not just America, administering the "spanking"), and fathered those two brutal sons (Uday and Qusay?) who had even more of his own people killed.

Go through the links, do the math. You'll see that as far back as 1993, 5000 per month is a CONSERVATIVE number.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join