RE: U.S. killing "not error," Reuters cameraman's brother says

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:                   "Jose G. Perez" <jgperez@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> I think the version of the Reuters cameraman's death told by his
> brother, that he was deliberately killed because he was able to film
> U.S. soldiers digging mass graves to hide U.S. casualties, is not
> credible. I don't mean that I doubt the brother's sincerity in relaying
> this version, but I don't think the story itself is credible.
>
> While it may be possible for the U.S. to disguise some casualties as
> "accidents," and thereby classify them as non-combat (and the rate of
> fatal accidents by U.S. troops in Iraq was extraordinary, especially in
> the first few weeks following the proclamation of victory, before the
> U.S. pretty much admitted it was in for an ongoing guerrilla war), the
> idea that even a few casualties could be kept secret that way is outside
> the realm of the possible for U.S. forces.
>
> These GI's have family and friends back home, in their units, and in
> other units they may have served in or alongside. There are several web
> pages dedicated to listing each and every dead soldier (CNN has one with
> pictures, where friends or families or the Pentagon has provided them).
> It is easy to verify who is or is not listed as killed. It would not be
> possible to cover up the sudden disappearance of a soldier, never mind a
> significant enough number to make a difference to the politics of the
> situation.
>
   You're probably right. When I read this, the first thing that came
to mind was the likelihood that the soldiers were covering up a
slaughter of iraqi civilians or something of that sort. Yet, this is not
discount the fact that U.S. government does cover-up its
casualties, which is shown by the countless number of sick gulf
war vets dying or who have died from ingesting dupleted uranium
particles. As you say,  it would lot more difficult to hide war time
casualties.