siege over in afghanistan, 124 taliban killed, BBC ignores

[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.

[Nubclear]

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.

[Lonestar]

Iran took signifigantly more.

[Sava]

Originally posted by TCO
So you find Osama and the US morally equivalent? Are you also against the Afghan war, Sava-girl?

You shouldn't come to such ignorant solutions...


I'm simply pointing out that we kill more of them than they kill us... I wasn't against the Afghan war, but as with Ramo, I've seen the results, and regret the incompetence of the Bush Administration to get the job done. Terrorism isn't going to be defeated by war... peace and prosperity is what fights terrorism.

But, I find Bush and his war-profiteering administration almost as morally bankrupt as OBL and his followers.

[TCO]

So you are for it?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lonestar
So? How many civilians died in the Iran-Iraq war?

and how many on both sides died from US support?

How many in the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait?

again... US supplied weapons and money

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.

Sure, they are killing each other... but at the end of the day, they remember who gave them the weapons.

[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?

[Sava]

Originally posted by TCO
So you are for it?

I'm neither for it or against it... I'm for killing the Taliban and Al Qaeda... but do I support Bush's quagmire?? No... I support the removal of Saddam, but do I support Bush's war? No... The problem is, he's just like Clinton. Sure, he's doing more than launching cruise missiles at empty tents, but he's not making the commitment to finish the job. He's using the wars as political capital.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Iran took signifigantly more.

Yep.

But, my point is that the Iraqi deathtoll from the Iranian-Iraqi war: 6000.

From the US who was extremly careful not to kill civilians: 6000.

Edit: Cleared up a surprisingly high Iraqi deathtoll

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Sava
and how many on both sides died from US support?

I'd like to point out Saddam attack Iran Without the USA saying "Go git 'em Tiger". With the Islamic Revolution and the Embassy Hostage crisis still in American minds, what would You have done if you were President at the time?

again... US supplied weapons and money

Weapons? Only major American military weapons I can think of are some Hueys we sold them. Whoop-de-fooking do.

Money? Well...we certainly bought oil from them. The Gulf states poured money and resources into Iraq, more than we did. Remember, Iraq was trying to default on the cash it owed Kuwait.

Sure, they are killing each other... but at the end of the day, they remember who gave them the weapons.

Uh, SUV drivers?

What a second....I'm a SUV Driver!

[Sava]

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.

[Sava]

Money? Well...we certainly bought oil from them. The Gulf states poured money and resources into Iraq, more than we did. Remember, Iraq was trying to default on the cash it owed Kuwait.

Kuwait was also extracting oil from Iraqi deposits. It's not as Kuwait was this innocent little nation... a dictator runs the country for ****'s sake! Saddam's invasion was wrong... but he was certainly provoked, and not just doing it because he was evil.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava
and Bush was willing to let them be if they gave up bin Laden... the Northern Alliance ain't no picnic either...

that was BS, we all knew they wouldn't have gave him up. We had to give them an ultimatum as kind of an excuse for attacking and destroying their country.

Of course Bush would have had egg on his face if they actually did.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
somehow the Beeb south asia page DID manage to make room for this:

"An Indian court rules that film star, Salman Khan, will not face homicide charges over a fatal car accident"

I dont think either CNN, WaPo, or the NYT covered this important case.

Possibly because in certain parts of the U.K., visiting Bollywood stars cause road blocks when they visit- Southall, Bradford, Manchester, Leicester, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/ente.../bollywood.uk/

[Oerdin]

US supplied weapons and money

Sava: You are misinformed. Most of Iraqs weapons came from the former USSR and Iraq was a Soviet client state.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sava
and Bush was willing to let them be if they gave up bin Laden... the Northern Alliance ain't no picnic either...

So what would have him do? Blow up the whole country? The Soviets already tried that.

[Ted Striker]

Also don't know if this was mentioned, but the story I read said the Coalition force that whooped ***** Taliban azz was made up of 30 countries.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If I must choice between a really disgusting evil and a sort of bad evil guess which I will take?

Shoot both evils and take their shoes!

Originally posted by Sava

at the end of the day, they remember who gave them the weapons.

Then they should also attack Nigeria or whatever country the iron in the tanks that run over them was mined in.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by TCO
Yes. but our actions are in response to his. Fighting Hitler is different than being Hitler.

Oh please. You forgot you put Hitler in place, and helped him fanned the flames.

[lord of the mark]

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.

[lord of the mark]

In fact i can put a decidedly negative spin on the 124 number.

News reports had indicated the presence of at least 600 taliban in the vicinity. Given reports of no more than a handful of captured, where are the rest??? If only 124 were killed, and only a couple of dozen captured, did we let at least 400 (and probably more) get away?? That we mean our military DID NOT learn the lessons of Tora Bora. THAT would be a significant setback.

We should be hearing soon about Taliban casualties greater than 124, or someone will have a lot to answer for.

[TCO]

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.

[Nubclear]

Saddam is worse than Hitler!!!!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by TCO


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.

word

[lord of the mark]

Here's the story - note they now mention the 124 figure, and also quote US sources saying 70 to 100. And the rest are being pursued.

"US troops and aircraft backed by 1,000 Afghan soldiers say they have attacked Taleban fighters in the Daychopan district of Zabul province, 300 kilometres (190 miles) southwest of Kabul.

A US military spokesman said between 70 and 100 enemy personnel had been killed since the start of the campaign.

The push has coincided with Pakistani military helicopters tightening security on their side of the border in what the Pakistani military says are routine exercises.

US military spokesman Colonel Rodney Davis said at Bagram airbase in Kabul that Operation Mountain Viper was continuing but that resistance in the past 24 hours had been "relatively light".

Afghan military and intelligence officials said 124 enemy fighters had died in the campaign along with five government soldiers and a US soldier who was killed in a fall.


Zabul intelligence director Khalil Hotak told the AFP news agency that coalition forces were now in charge of Daychopan and that there were no enemy forces in the area.

Coalition troops were pursuing fleeing Taleban from Daychopan into Mizan district, said the main Afghan commander in the area, Haji Saifullah Khan. "

[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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

Youre correct. The local afghans said the siege was over, the US spokesman said the battle continues. This may be miscommunication, or perhaps a different cultural approach to war - the afghans for hundreds of years have perfected a style of hit and run fighting.