Another Media cover up? 300 US soldiers die?

The casualty list is bunk. I did a buddyfinder on thirty of these guys, and not only are they alive, the casualty list on that libertyforum link doesn't even list their correct branch of service. For example, pretty much all of the people that the casualty list said were 82nd Airborne are actually Marines.

Further, notice the amount of 82nd AB casualties on that list. Not only would the 82nd not be guarding an ammo dump for an extended period of time, I'm fairly certain they're not even in the area.

Not saying that there were no casualties at the dump, but I am saying that the casualty list is BS.

How come everyone thinks the people were sleeping in tents right on the ammo dump and hundreds of people died.

A rocket hits the ammo dump. Stuff starts exploding. No one is using a tank round as a bed in the ammo dump, so they are not blown up. Buildings can be sand bagged and are usually a safe distance away for the troops.

In fact I really can't think of an Army base say even Iran where they billet the troops on top of armaments.

The armaments don't all explode at once either. So people can get to a safe distance. The picture shown is the afer math. Seems confined to an area. Some people probably got injured and a few could have died. I don't know.

But saying 300 died is kind of loopy logic, and provides for great entertainment.

Like I said I have a good source in this area, and I trust him. Doesn't mean you have to believe him. But 300 dead is a joke.

At least I posted a video of a Chinese Killing Tibetans.(a thing called proof.) And guess what not one post to say China is evil. You all like to take a small piece of fact, and form propaganda with it. It is fun to read though.

Yep the USA has its troops sleeping exactly on top of Ammo Dumps....... Not in buildings a bit away. And the whole ammo dump blew up at once. Stupid Americn soldiers walked right into the ammo explosion killing 300. uhhhhhhhhh huhhhhh.

Deltaboy, In times of conflict both sides use propaganda against each other, irrespective of how many soldiers that were killed or wounded the American press would not want to tell the public that the Insurgents as people like to call them, can inflict serious damage to the said occupying forces. They would play it all down, the last thing your going to do is demoralise your own forces by telling them the truth.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Deltaboy, In times of conflict both sides use propaganda against each other, irrespective of how many soldiers that were killed or wounded the American press would not want to tell the public that the Insurgents as people like to call them, can inflict serious damage to the said occupying forces. They would play it all down, the last thing your going to do is demoralise your own forces by telling them the truth.

Hey thats a great view... if there are thousands of troops at the base, you think the word be spread out already on the incident? Where is the truth? The truth that the whole base is destroyed based on what the "resistance" said? Or the truth that there were no casualties based on what the U.S. military says? How can you demoralise the troops based on the propaganda of the insurgents who say they destroyed the Falcon base? The image Souljah posted doesn't even show the whole based being destroyed, just a small corner area with all those containers.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Shoot the Messanger! We can't attack the message that makes Bush look bad so shoot the Messanger! Bang Bang!

[edit on 23-10-2006 by deltaboy]

Ok, not what he said, but what he is doing, typical republican action. Hell, God could say something that makes Bush look bad and all you would hear is "Shoot the Messanger!"

Hoorah or whatever you are, who the heck are you??? Since when did you become me?

Originally posted by Astygia
The casualty list is bunk. I did a buddyfinder on thirty of these guys, and not only are they alive, the casualty list on that libertyforum link doesn't even list their correct branch of service. For example, pretty much all of the people that the casualty list said were 82nd Airborne are actually Marines.

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?

Deltaboy I think you know what I mean and you are just being padantic, what is it that you want to believe, that there were no casulties regardless of numbers claimed and by whom. Are you just arguing for arguing sake, a war is going on in Iraq people on both sides are being killed, many innocent civillians are being killed and all you seem to be concerned about is if a news report is true or not. The only truth we can be assured of is that large numbers of people are loosing their lives who should not be.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Deltaboy I think you know what I mean and you are just being padantic, what is it that you want to believe, that there were no casulties regardless of numbers claimed and by whom. Are you just arguing for arguing sake, a war is going on in Iraq people on both sides are being killed, many innocent civillians are being killed and all you seem to be concerned about is if a news report is true or not. The only truth we can be assured of is that large numbers of people are loosing their lives who should not be.

You are describing me as pedantic?? Excuse me...but we are here to learn about the details of this incident and you are making a statement about war where both sides are losing lives? What is the point of this topic in the first place again if you care to explain? To tell that American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq? Thats understandable. If there is a story about where a thousand soldiers got killed by the insurgents in just one day, doesn't that make you want to question that report or we just say "yeah Americans got killed, aww well."?

Some of you guys are not thinking this through logically, the entire camp does not consist of 5,000 soldiers crammed in to a small warehouse full of shipping containers. Look at the buildings in the far background and start putting two and two together. If this particular building was set on fire and there were a few guards around they would not stand there and wait for the ammo to blow up, they would leave and alert whomever and on one would be allowed near the site. This building is isolated from the main housing area that is why there were no casualties.

Originally posted by Astygia
The casualty list is bunk. I did a buddyfinder on thirty of these guys, and not only are they alive, the casualty list on that libertyforum link doesn't even list their correct branch of service. For example, pretty much all of the people that the casualty list said were 82nd Airborne are actually Marines.

Thanks. That pretty well sums it up for me. Pure propoganda and nothing more. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Some of you guys are not thinking this through logically, the entire camp does not consist of 5,000 soldiers crammed in to a small warehouse full of shipping containers. Look at the buildings in the far background and start putting two and two together. If this particular building was set on fire and there were a few guards around they would not stand there and wait for the ammo to blow up, they would leave and alert whomever and on one would be allowed near the site. This building is isolated from the main housing area that is why there were no casualties.

Like I said at the end of page 2... Some people simply do not or will not or choose not to look at facts, think in a logical manor and disregard truth, as long as it fits the agenda they push.

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]

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.

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.

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.

If you look at the picture, you will notice a pretty thick wall surrounding the ammo dump. Except in a couple of places it is still intact. The outer wall closest to the camera is entirely entact. Most of this blast seems to have been contained by the walls, and there for any fragments and direct blast at ground level was contained by said walls. The blasts therefore seems to be more up, then out.

And since no one tends to hangout in ammo dumps, it is very possible noone was killed or seriouslly hurt.

Not only that, but the thread title says "media cover up". Anyone think the media would (even if they could) cover this up. This is a big story, and factors into the election coverage as well.

As far as the info from the Arab site, yeah sure I beleive them.

That was one huge blast in the news video, by that time most people should have been safe in their bunkers so i don't think 300 people were killed but that is just my opinion and i could be wrong. I don't think our military is dumb enough to have troops sleeping right next to tactical nukes and other explosives.

Deltaboy, Lets say the story is accurate, does that make any difference to you, I assume you are pro war in Iraq. What is it your concerned about the accuracy of the story or the numbers of lives lost. No one will get the truth of this story because its in the best interest for both sides to lie about such things. Have 3k soldiers lost there lives in Iraq, is that an accurate figure or have more lost their lives but the people in control of this war dont want to tell the folks back home just how bad things really are. Just like Vietnam, the people were not told the truth were they and its a pity that like minded people like you are not campaining to get the troops out rather than debating the colour of smoke and who did what.

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.