Reuters Cameraman Killed For Filming U.S. Graves: Brother

[donsu]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-08/19/article08.shtml


AL-KHALIL, West Bank, August 19 (IslamOnline.net) - The brother of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana said he was deliberately murdered for discovering mass graves of U.S. troops killed in Iraqi resistance attacks.

-snip-

"Mazen told me by phone few days before his death that he discovered a mass grave dug by U.S. troops to conceal the bodies of their fellow comrades killed in Iraqi resistance attacks," Nazmi said.

"He also told me that he found U.S. troops covered in plastic bags in remote desert areas and he filmed them for a TV program. We are pretty sure that the American forces had killed Mazen knowingly to prevent him from airing his finding."
-snip-
-------------------------------

[lcordero]

1. I think that it is entirely possible that the body count is false

[GreenArrow]

2. Treat it skeptically

but there was a very brief Sky News report a week or two ago about six large explosions at a US base in Baghdad. One report, then nothing further.

Six large explosisons that could be seen, felt and heard a long distance away, and then nothing. There were a couple of threads on it here.

[graham67]

3. I don't believe this story at all....

I do believe that the # of casualties is underreported but I don't believe for a minute that dead US servicemen and women would be buried in mass graves in Iraq. Their families would ask too many questions.

[caribmon]

5. Take your thumb

Click on anything other than Fox and call us in the morning. Of course US troops can do no wrong!

[graham67]

7. Fox?

Where did that crack come from?

I never said the troops can do no wrong. I just don't believe this story. Even though communication from service members in Iraq to the US is very poor, there's no way that many troops could just "disappear" without serious questions being raised by their families.

[lcordero]

6. I do believe and this is why

soldiers have had very limited contact with their families. Mail and internet access is almost impossible to get. From news reports, this entire operation is a logistical nightmare. It is very possible that casualties are grossly underreported.
It may also be possible that the units that were delayed from coming home were decimated.

[DealsGapRider]

4. Sorry

I don't believe this. Does anyone really believe that families of US service members would sit quietly while their loved ones were buried in the desert somewhere? No way. They'd demand to know what became of the body.

I don't think the number of US dead in the war and post-war period is being under-reported. There's just no way you could keep that sort of thing secret.

The thing that is being under-reported is the number of wounded. There are thousands, some of whom are greviously injured.

[pansypoo53219]

8. it wouldn't surprise me if they were covering up

cause if a base was attached with massive casualties, Bush would be fuucking toast. and his poll #s must be increased at all costs.

[papau]

9. The mass graves are of Iraqis we killed - 10000 to 45000 - see

prior DU thread or Guardian

They are being reburied - 40 to 50 a day - but no photos.

We do not admit anything more than a 100 or so US Combat Deaths since the end of the war was declared om May 1st - very important to push the low number in the US Media - Keeps Bush poll numbers high - and the US Media has no problem with "partial truth" reports.

[wellstone_democrat]

10. NOPE, here is why...

communication is poor but, there is plenty getting back to the US from individuals and even news services (Euro mainly). Large casualty incidents would be talked about and word WOULD seep out.

Do you think the gov wants us to know about the water shortages, etc.? A neighbor whose church has a number of soldier parishioners has told me angrily that the men they hear from have been ordered not to complain about such things---they do it anyway. Do you REALLY think they would not talk about deadly base explosions in their complaints to family and friends? I don't, no one I served with would keep that quiet.

BTW, I DO think that all casualty rates related to US forces are under-reported in every way possible. The "mass graves" though are, I would bet, Iraqi dead.

[Gordon25]

11. Remember MIA?

I don't know if I buy the mass grave for US troop allegation, but it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. The story of the individual body bags out in the desert is far easier to believe.

As to the fact that there is no way it could happen because families would raise too much of a stink: don't be too certain. In Vietnam US servicemen's deaths would often become statistically catagorized as MIA (Missing in Action) in the interest of public relations. On days when casualties were low, some of the MIA's would be "confirmed KIA" (Killed in Action). Sometimes the bodies were simply kept at Graves Registration Unit at the company or battalion level, and the deaths were just not reported up the lines for weeks or longer, until a time of few casualties, where they could be added in without hurting anybody's career possibilities. Any queries from family members in the interim were met with answers ranging from "temporary duty in the field with another unit," to "present whereabouts and duties classified."

As to whether the military is under reporting casualties; both deaths and wounds; the answer is an unequivocal yes. All Branches of the Armed Services have their own Public Relations operations which function 24/7 during combat. Their job is to make the service branch look good no matter what. Managing the reporting of body count is part of that job. I was part of the Marine Corps' operation in Vietnam.

Somewhere here in DU in the past two weeks I ran across a link that led to a story about a GI in a mechanized column that was ambushed outside Tikrit, I think. The military authorities reported the incident and said "there were no major casualties." Forty-eight hours later this GI's wife and mother in law were informed he was in a hospital in Germany having had both legs blown off in that ambush. Outraged, the mother in law called the Pentagon and asked how they could report no major casualties from an incident in which someone lost both legs. The answer was that amputations are not listed as major casualties because the numbers of major casualties listed, if that were the case, would make the president look bad and hurt the war effort.

In Vietnam a similar policy was followed, but the public justification was that "amputations are not considered serious casualties because, once med-evaced, the injuries seldom lead to death."

Unless you consider the fact that more Vietnam vets have committed suicide since the end of the war, than were killed during it; a high percentage of them being amputees with ptsd.

Sorry for the rant. Old wounds, newly and unnecessarily reopened, tend to piss a body off.

Gordon25