-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Support Our Troops!
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
- Status
O
OCC
Guest
Joseph
Yanks 1
Rebels 0 with a
implies that they are cheering for the Yanks.
Yanks 1
Rebels 0 with a
O
OCC
Guest
Ok wait...I noticed the "halftime".
sorry guys
sorry guys
prophecynut
New Member
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1622.htm
The Bush Butcher’s Bill: Officially, 72 US Military Deaths in Iraq from 2 through 25 May, 2005 – Official Total of 1,735 US Dead to date (and rising)
U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.
by Brian Harring, Domestic Intelligence Reporter
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 educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ 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. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers , rapes, courts martial and so on – Brian Harring
Haven’t we had enough of this?
prophecynut
New Member
http://www.todaysalternativenews.com/index.php?event=link,150&values%5B0%5D=&values%5B1%5D=2392
Because I cannot publish the DoD pdf file in this country (no one has said anything about it being published outside the country) I am working up a specific overview for posting and my lawyer has made the following suggestion for me. I think it’s good and it certainly is legal.
I have a copy of the official DoD casualty list. I am alphabetizing it with the reported date of death following. TBR will post this list in sections and when this is circulated widely by veteran groups and other concerned sites, if people who do not see their loved one’s names, are requested to inform their Congressman, their local paper, us and other concerned people as soon as possible.
The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages) are shipped home, to Dover AFB. You ought to realize that President Bush personally ordered that no pictures be taken of the coffined and flag-draped dead under any circumstances. He claims that this is to comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep the huge number of arriving bodies secret. Any civilian, or military personnel, taking pictures will be jailed at once and prosecuted. Bush has never attended any kind of a memorial service for his dead soldiers and never will. He is terrified some parent might curse him in front of the press or, worse, attack him. As Bush is a coward and in denial, this is not a surprise.
Because I cannot publish the DoD pdf file in this country (no one has said anything about it being published outside the country) I am working up a specific overview for posting and my lawyer has made the following suggestion for me. I think it’s good and it certainly is legal.
I have a copy of the official DoD casualty list. I am alphabetizing it with the reported date of death following. TBR will post this list in sections and when this is circulated widely by veteran groups and other concerned sites, if people who do not see their loved one’s names, are requested to inform their Congressman, their local paper, us and other concerned people as soon as possible.
The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages) are shipped home, to Dover AFB. You ought to realize that President Bush personally ordered that no pictures be taken of the coffined and flag-draped dead under any circumstances. He claims that this is to comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep the huge number of arriving bodies secret. Any civilian, or military personnel, taking pictures will be jailed at once and prosecuted. Bush has never attended any kind of a memorial service for his dead soldiers and never will. He is terrified some parent might curse him in front of the press or, worse, attack him. As Bush is a coward and in denial, this is not a surprise.
O
OCC
Guest
"He claims that this is to comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep the huge number of arriving bodies secret."
I agree.
"Bush has never attended any kind of a memorial service for his dead soldiers and never will. He is terrified some parent might curse him in front of the press or, worse, attack him"
I don't know the validity of this claim but if it's true...that is rather sad eh?
I agree.
"Bush has never attended any kind of a memorial service for his dead soldiers and never will. He is terrified some parent might curse him in front of the press or, worse, attack him"
I don't know the validity of this claim but if it's true...that is rather sad eh?
prophecynut
New Member
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Moser"
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: The US war with Iran has already begun
> http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12776&hd=0&size=1&l=x
>
> The US war with Iran has already begun
> Scott Ritter, Aljazeera.net
>
>
> Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are
> starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush
> not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the
> ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that
> country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.
>
> On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have
> not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become
> necessary."
>
> We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by
> late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders
> authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside
> Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September
> 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force,
> began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the
> so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.
>
> These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command
> and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US
> Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance,
> and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq,
> prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.
>
> President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which
> authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch
> clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein
> from power.
>
> The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002,
> if not earlier.
>
> This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia
> or political investigation into the events of the past.
>
> It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration
> which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding
> US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush
> administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful"
> resolution to the Iranian question.
>
> But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful
> removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power
> in Tehran.
>
> As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the
> American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the
> merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the
> Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq
> and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread
> of "democracy" to the Iranian people.
>
"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle
> code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes
> American foreign policy today for militarism and war.
> By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans
> should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the
> next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by
> the Bush administration.
>
> But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be
> lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt
> conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United
> States and Iran.
>
> As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current
> insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But
> this is a fool's dream.
>
> The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak,
> American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless
> drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
>
> The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of
> itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the
> intelligence-gathering phase.
>
> President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him
> in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror
> and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
>
> The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by
> the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by
> Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working
> exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
>
> It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a
> terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive
> assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of
> Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to
> carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration
> condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
>
> Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's
> terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter
> hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war
> on terror.
>
> But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the
> only action ongoing against Iran.
>
> To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a
> base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a
> major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
>
> Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have
> escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations
> understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's
> role in the upcoming war with Iran.
>
> The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were
> long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle
> for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary
> operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with
> Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran
> for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising
> indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
>
> But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American
> military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a
> much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
>
> In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day
> presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
>
> No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold
> War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf
> cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able
> to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but
> the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
>
> A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running
> along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
>
> US military planners have already begun war games calling for the
> deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
>
> Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and
> ground power in Azerbaijan.
>
> Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and
> control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward
> deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the
> build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared
> to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
>
> America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing
> tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning
> behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is
> finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
>
> Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's
> heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime
> that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an
> illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little
> regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
>
> Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to
> the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration
> of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
>
> We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will
> show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar
> formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had
> already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme
> of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
>
> Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and
> author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence
> Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
>
> The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily
> reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
From: "Steve Moser"
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: The US war with Iran has already begun
> http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12776&hd=0&size=1&l=x
>
> The US war with Iran has already begun
> Scott Ritter, Aljazeera.net
>
>
> Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are
> starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush
> not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the
> ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that
> country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.
>
> On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have
> not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become
> necessary."
>
> We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by
> late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders
> authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside
> Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September
> 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force,
> began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the
> so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.
>
> These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command
> and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US
> Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance,
> and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq,
> prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.
>
> President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which
> authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch
> clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein
> from power.
>
> The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002,
> if not earlier.
>
> This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia
> or political investigation into the events of the past.
>
> It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration
> which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding
> US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush
> administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful"
> resolution to the Iranian question.
>
> But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful
> removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power
> in Tehran.
>
> As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the
> American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the
> merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the
> Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq
> and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread
> of "democracy" to the Iranian people.
>
"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle
> code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes
> American foreign policy today for militarism and war.
> By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans
> should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the
> next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by
> the Bush administration.
>
> But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be
> lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt
> conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United
> States and Iran.
>
> As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current
> insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But
> this is a fool's dream.
>
> The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak,
> American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless
> drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
>
> The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of
> itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the
> intelligence-gathering phase.
>
> President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him
> in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror
> and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
>
> The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by
> the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by
> Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working
> exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
>
> It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a
> terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive
> assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of
> Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to
> carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration
> condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
>
> Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's
> terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter
> hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war
> on terror.
>
> But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the
> only action ongoing against Iran.
>
> To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a
> base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a
> major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
>
> Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have
> escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations
> understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's
> role in the upcoming war with Iran.
>
> The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were
> long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle
> for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary
> operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with
> Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran
> for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising
> indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
>
> But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American
> military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a
> much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
>
> In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day
> presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
>
> No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold
> War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf
> cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able
> to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but
> the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
>
> A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running
> along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
>
> US military planners have already begun war games calling for the
> deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
>
> Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and
> ground power in Azerbaijan.
>
> Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and
> control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward
> deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the
> build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared
> to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
>
> America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing
> tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning
> behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is
> finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
>
> Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's
> heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime
> that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an
> illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little
> regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
>
> Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to
> the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration
> of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
>
> We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will
> show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar
> formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had
> already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme
> of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
>
> Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and
> author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence
> Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
>
> The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily
> reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
O
OCC
Guest
What is the reason for not showing flag draped caskets return to America? I don't think that's right.
As for the issue of whether Bush has attended any memorial service it would be sad it it is true. I don't know if it is. It is hard to believe that a PRESIDENT would NOT go to any memorial service.
As for the issue of whether Bush has attended any memorial service it would be sad it it is true. I don't know if it is. It is hard to believe that a PRESIDENT would NOT go to any memorial service.
prophecynut
New Member
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, said on 'Good Morning America' the day before the Iraq war started, The New York Times, 01-13-03
- Barbara Bush, said on 'Good Morning America' the day before the Iraq war started, The New York Times, 01-13-03
prophecynut
New Member
http://www.todaysalternativenews.com/index.php?event=link,150&values[0]=&values[1]=2334
04/10/2005
US "Smuggles" Wounded Troops Home Under Cover of Darkness
Andrew Buncombe in Washington, DC
10 April 2005
The Pentagon has been accused of smuggling wounded soldiers into the US under cover of darkness to avoid bad publicity about the number of troops being injured and maimed in Iraq. The media have also been prevented from photographing wounded soldiers when they arrive at hospital.
Records show that flights from military bases in Germany arrive in the US only at night. Officials say this is purely the result of flight-scheduling pressures and is not a deliberate tactic to minimise detrimental publicity. They also say that by leaving Europe later in the day soldiers are given a better chance to sleep well the night before.
But many campaigners believe otherwise. Just as the Bush administration has banned the media from taking photographs of the coffins of American troops killed in Iraq as they arrive in the US, opponents say it is now trying to cover up the number of wounded.
"The American public has very limited information about the real impact of this war," said Ellen Taylor, a spokeswoman for Code Pink, a peace group that has been protesting outside the Walter Reed military hospital in Washington, where the bulk of the wounded are taken. "I think that a lot of information about this war is being kept from the public. That is what we are protesting about."
It is not even clear how many troops have been injured since the start of President Bush's "war on terror". The Pentagon says that around 12,000 troops have been evacuated from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, though because officials only list as casualties those soldiers directly hurt by bombs or bullets, the actual total of injured and wounded is believed to be closer to 25,000. Walter Reed says it has treated 4,000 troops injured in Iraq.
"Night-time arrivals are beneficial to the patient as they allow for a regular night of sleep and then for doctors in Europe to make the final determination on their ability to make the long flight, move patients from Landstuhl regional medical centre to Ramstein air base and board the plane," said a hospital spokeswoman, Lyn Kurkal. "There is no attempt by Walter Reed to hide the number of patients we receive. On the contrary, since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Walter Reed public affairs has issued a weekly press release that includes the number of medically evacuated patients received that week."
And a spokesman for the Air Mobility Command said: There are no policies that direct anything about night arrivals or avoiding public contact. Neither public relations nor public perception play a role in flight schedules."
The flights from Germany on a C-141 Starlifter aircraft can take up to 10 hours. But, given the six-hour time difference between the US and Germany, the wounded soldiers could leave at noon from Ramstein and still arrive at Andrews Air Force base near Washington by 4pm.
Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Operation Truth, a group set up for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, said: "[A cover-up] would fit in with everything else they have done. It would be part of an effort to keep the cost of this war away from the American public. It is not surprising, but it is depressing. It should piss people off."
At the beginning of 2003, Mr Bush issued a presidential order that the media should be banned from photographing the return of troops' coffins when they are flown into the US, usually at Dover air base in Delaware. Parents of dead soldiers have also often been banned from meeting the coffins. Controversy raged last year when the Pentagon released a series of photographs following a Freedom of Information Act filing, but later withdrew them.
But officials have also banned the media from taking pictures of the wounded being delivered to either Walter Reed or the National Naval Medical Centre in nearby Bethesda. Ms Kurkal told The Independent on Sunday: "We no longer allow such photos for patient-privacy reasons." However, a reporter from the online journal Salon was recently able to enter Walter Reed and photograph wounded troops without revealing their identities.
Nancy Lessin of Military Families Speak Out, a group made up of relatives of US troops, said: "The entire Bush administration has been trying to keep the cost of this away from the public. The whole issue of casualties and the toll has been very much hidden."
10 April 2005 07:51
04/10/2005
US "Smuggles" Wounded Troops Home Under Cover of Darkness
Andrew Buncombe in Washington, DC
10 April 2005
The Pentagon has been accused of smuggling wounded soldiers into the US under cover of darkness to avoid bad publicity about the number of troops being injured and maimed in Iraq. The media have also been prevented from photographing wounded soldiers when they arrive at hospital.
Records show that flights from military bases in Germany arrive in the US only at night. Officials say this is purely the result of flight-scheduling pressures and is not a deliberate tactic to minimise detrimental publicity. They also say that by leaving Europe later in the day soldiers are given a better chance to sleep well the night before.
But many campaigners believe otherwise. Just as the Bush administration has banned the media from taking photographs of the coffins of American troops killed in Iraq as they arrive in the US, opponents say it is now trying to cover up the number of wounded.
"The American public has very limited information about the real impact of this war," said Ellen Taylor, a spokeswoman for Code Pink, a peace group that has been protesting outside the Walter Reed military hospital in Washington, where the bulk of the wounded are taken. "I think that a lot of information about this war is being kept from the public. That is what we are protesting about."
It is not even clear how many troops have been injured since the start of President Bush's "war on terror". The Pentagon says that around 12,000 troops have been evacuated from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, though because officials only list as casualties those soldiers directly hurt by bombs or bullets, the actual total of injured and wounded is believed to be closer to 25,000. Walter Reed says it has treated 4,000 troops injured in Iraq.
"Night-time arrivals are beneficial to the patient as they allow for a regular night of sleep and then for doctors in Europe to make the final determination on their ability to make the long flight, move patients from Landstuhl regional medical centre to Ramstein air base and board the plane," said a hospital spokeswoman, Lyn Kurkal. "There is no attempt by Walter Reed to hide the number of patients we receive. On the contrary, since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Walter Reed public affairs has issued a weekly press release that includes the number of medically evacuated patients received that week."
And a spokesman for the Air Mobility Command said: There are no policies that direct anything about night arrivals or avoiding public contact. Neither public relations nor public perception play a role in flight schedules."
The flights from Germany on a C-141 Starlifter aircraft can take up to 10 hours. But, given the six-hour time difference between the US and Germany, the wounded soldiers could leave at noon from Ramstein and still arrive at Andrews Air Force base near Washington by 4pm.
Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Operation Truth, a group set up for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, said: "[A cover-up] would fit in with everything else they have done. It would be part of an effort to keep the cost of this war away from the American public. It is not surprising, but it is depressing. It should piss people off."
At the beginning of 2003, Mr Bush issued a presidential order that the media should be banned from photographing the return of troops' coffins when they are flown into the US, usually at Dover air base in Delaware. Parents of dead soldiers have also often been banned from meeting the coffins. Controversy raged last year when the Pentagon released a series of photographs following a Freedom of Information Act filing, but later withdrew them.
But officials have also banned the media from taking pictures of the wounded being delivered to either Walter Reed or the National Naval Medical Centre in nearby Bethesda. Ms Kurkal told The Independent on Sunday: "We no longer allow such photos for patient-privacy reasons." However, a reporter from the online journal Salon was recently able to enter Walter Reed and photograph wounded troops without revealing their identities.
Nancy Lessin of Military Families Speak Out, a group made up of relatives of US troops, said: "The entire Bush administration has been trying to keep the cost of this away from the public. The whole issue of casualties and the toll has been very much hidden."
10 April 2005 07:51
KenH
Well-Known Member
"Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005..."
- SOURCE
Well, since we didn't bomb Iran in June 2005 we can now write off Scott Ritter as an unreliable source. I am not surprised.
- SOURCE
Well, since we didn't bomb Iran in June 2005 we can now write off Scott Ritter as an unreliable source. I am not surprised.
O
OCC
Guest
Originally posted by KenH:
"Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005..."
- SOURCE
Well, since we didn't bomb Iran in June 2005 we can now write off Scott Ritter as an unreliable source. I am not surprised.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Gee Ken since we have the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization working for us now we can save our ordinance for when the President decides to makes the war official, however that is done now, I dunno maybe he just has to have a staffer leak the news to the press.Originally posted by KenH:
"Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia's Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005..."
- SOURCE
Well, since we didn't bomb Iran in June 2005 we can now write off Scott Ritter as an unreliable source. I am not surprised.
Until then they can do our bombing for us. It's good to have friends eh?
O
OCC
Guest
LOL I was trying to be humourous. I am not on Bush's side or Ritter's side.
I would think the responsible thing any concerned citizen would do would be to try and verify the Ritter story to see if there is some truth there. I, for one, don't like certain people in power thinking I'm a sheeple. But then, I've never been known for having a herd mentality.
- Status