My heart just sank..

[wtf]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1130577,00.html

[NewHampster]

1. I think it is really beginning

damn

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Just today?

OMG...

[rumguy]

3. wait, wait, wait, wtf is this?

[NewHampster]

4. there's been major warfare all day

Marines went into Falujja with Bayonets

[rumguy]

5. 130 soldiers dead? I find that hard to believe...

[NewHampster]

I don't know about the numbers but look here

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4667742/

[Kahuna]

15. Yes. It's called fuzzy math. 130 dead to avenge 4. 700 plus..

dead to avenge one (bush 4) :puke:

[hippiegranny]

6. what is sky news?

is this credible?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. I hear they're not crdeible. Who knows?

[jadedcherub]

9. no..

not very, i've heard sky news is sketchy. there was a CNN confirmed report of 12 dead, I'm thinking that's probably a typo, 130 for 13...

[lectrobyte]

12. that's probably on both sides -- I've seen reports that say...

100 Iraquis and a dozen U.S. Soldiers. Still too many, on either side.

[rucky]

10. Murdoch-owned global satellite news network

more credible than FOX, and wouldn't report something this negative unless there were no way around it.

[Teddy_Salad]

7. CNN

I was watching CNN a short while ago and could not believe what they had scrolling along the bottom of the screen.

"Fewer than 12 US troops killed in Iraq".

They'll obviously have to update it to.....

"Fewer than 150 US troops killed in Iraq."

[Gothic Sponge]

11. Sad!

I don't think we will ever get the real truth about how many actual troops have been killed. Maybe years later after the war we will know.

[mindfulNJ]

13. Maybe they're reporting 130 dead

so we are relieved when its revised to "only" 13.:eyes:

[Kahuna]

14. What? I'm watching CNN. But I haven't seen these numbers..

reported. Wonder why. :eyes:

[Catherine Vincent]

16. Okay, at 7:29pm cst they are saying it's 12.

Well I guess that's better but unfortunately not for the 12.

p.s. I love that cartoon pic of bush and cheney.