 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lonestar
So? How many civilians died in the Iran-Iraq war? How many in the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait? The Yemeni Civil war? Ultimately the numbers of Muslim civilians killed by other muslims are astronomically higher than that of what we've inflicted on them. And that's because of their disregard/active attempts to kill them, whilst we try to avoid that whenever possible. |
But do they see it that way? Thats the question.
Also, it's interesting...In the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq took about 6000 civilian casualties. Just an odd little fact.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001 time: 23:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TCO
You are for it...but you think 3 weeks was too long too wait? Or you are for it, but we shouldn't have had a couple tough days in November? Or you are for it but the i's weren't dotted? | In order to effectively secure Afghanistan and kill the Taliban, I believe a massive invasion and occupation is the key. In the initial stages, the US used the Northern Alliance forces as cannon fodder while CIA and Special Forces gave them support (arms, fire, air, money) and intel... it was enough to drive the Taliban from power, but not enough to hunt them down.
My point is, if you are going to do a job, do it right. I'd rather have a massive invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan than this half-assed attempt from Bush. I'd like to see a UN coalition doing the job.
The worst part is, we know where OBL is. He's in the region bordering Pakistan... but I suspect we cannot go in for two reasons.
1. Not enough troops in the US's arsenal... also... not enough domestic support for such a military operation.
2. To prevent an Islamic revolution and holy war. If we put hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground, there will be a jihad against US forces.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS
Then why would you put '124 taliban killed' in your thread title if you didn't believe it...
|
Ok, I did beleive it.
Fact - the local on the ground said 124 killed.
Fact - the US spokesperson did NOT deny that, merely said that we dont have a solid number yet, but at least 37.
Fact - BBC said 90, and THAT was 3 days earlier.
In fact I beleive that the figure will turn out to be far higher than 124.
This in contrast with the civilian casualty issue, where the US DENIED the higher counts. I wont go into that issue - thats not what THIS thread is about, but merely point out that the situation is not comparable.
The US military today tends to avoid enemy body counts, and is EXTREMELY cautious when they make them.
You want to know why? Because one of the scandals of the Viet Nam war was the tendency of the military to inflate body counts. Ever hear of a guy named William Westmoreland? I guarantee you every officer in the US army has. The US military has an "allergy" to the body counting business.
I presume the local Afghan official has no such allergy, and is probably giving his best estimate. I see no particular reason for him to exagerate - hes a local intel officer, and the credit for the victory will go to US and ANA forces, not to him. Indeed, it was this official who told the AP that 80% of the province's population support the Taliban - hardly sounds like a polyanna. The US officers OTOH, have plenty of reason to be cautious.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are simply not aware of the US army's issue with enemy body counts.
I hope this gives you a better idea of why I think the AP article is accurate and newsworthy.
Last edited by lord of the mark on 04-09-2003 at 20:30
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Oh please. You forgot you put Hitler in place, and helped him fanned the flames. |
It was the *****-ass appeasers. And the Germans who elected him. And the Germans who didn't have the balls for a rebellion.
If you think that the US and Hitler were equivalent, you have really gone off the deep end. Get ****ed.
Last edited by TCO on 05-09-2003 at 05:49
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3083626.stm
Note the BBC report a continuing offensive which isn't quite what LotM posted at the start of this thread about this story. Given that the BBC are in a bit of hot water for not checking stories out properly perhaps it is understandable that this one took a couple of days to get through.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|