So, the WTC death tally was less than "very minimal"?

Post #28,479 by mmoffitt 2/15/02 9:44:02 AM 2/15/02 9:47:05 AM Reply	So, the WTC death tally was less than "very minimal"? [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1740000/1740538.stm\|http://news.bbc.co..../1740538.stm] The number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs has surpassed the death toll of the 11 September attacks, according to a study by an American academic. Nearly 3,800 Afghans died between 7 October and 7 December, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said in a research report. Professor Herold has been gathering data on civilian casualties since 7 October by culling information from news agencies, major newspapers and first hand accounts. His report, which places the death toll at 3,767, lists the number of casualties, location, type of weapon and source of information. "In fact the figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate," Professor Herold said in a radio interview. ----- More Afghan civilians killed by us than Americans killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11. If the number of Afghan civilians was "very minimal", then why all the fuss about the WTC dead? My kid is ill-informed? That is particularly funny coming from you! bcnu, Mikem Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 15, 2002, 09:46:14 AM EST Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 15, 2002, 09:47:05 AM EST Expand All History
Post #28,490 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 10:48:53 AM Reply	If the total for Afghanistan is as accurate as original estimates of WTC death toll, it's bound to shrink the same way. When you use the word "minimal", you probably mean "smallest possible". Clearly, it was possible to kill fewer people in WTC by striking an hour earlier. Did we do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties? No, but we did a whole lot more than anybody else have ever done.
Post #28,494 by Brandioch 2/15/02 11:02:31 AM Reply	Again, WTF? Did we do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties? No, but we did a whole lot more than anybody else have ever done. And you base this statement upon........................? Again, my suggestion was to cordon off their country and put a bounty on ObL. Instead, we've killed more of their innocents than they killed of our innocents AND we still don't have ObL. Yay us!
Post #28,496 by mmoffitt 2/15/02 11:20:41 AM Reply	Well said.
Post #28,501 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 11:41:55 AM Reply	Based on... reports of our outraged pilots who vere forbidden to strike when they had 75% probablity of hitting bin Laden or Omar - too many civilians around. Based on the crowds of Afghans gathering around every bomb crater - people who are afraid for their lives don't behave that way. Based on the fact that we reported every fuck up so far, and Pentagon apologized for most (we being Western press in general, not just suck-ups at CNN). As for cordonning the country - that is utter bullshit. Did not work in Checnia - why should it work in Afghanistan? Who'll be doing the cordonning? Where, in tribal lands of Pakistan? In Usbekistan? That startegy could have worked in Palestine (oh how I wish they'd do it! But the settlements have to go first.), but not in Afghanistan.
Post #28,519 by Brandioch 2/15/02 1:18:47 PM Reply	Something doesn't add up. reports of our outraged pilots who vere forbidden to strike when they had 75% probablity of hitting bin Laden or Omar - too many civilians around. But we've killed civilians in this "war". It seems that we've killed a lot of civilians. And I don't recall ever hearing that we knew WHERE ObL was. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...................... I'm having trouble believing that we would NOT toast a cave or building or town if we were 75% sure that ObL was there. Based on the crowds of Afghans gathering around every bomb crater - people who are afraid for their lives don't behave that way. After the bombs stop, they gather to see the wreckage. After the bombs stop, they aren't in fear. As for cordonning the country - that is utter bullshit. Whatever. Did not work in Checnia - why should it work in Afghanistan? Remind me again, who was the bounty on in Checnia? Who'll be doing the cordonning? That would the our military. Where, in tribal lands of Pakistan? In Usbekistan? Along every border of Afghanistan. No one crosses the border. We have the technology. The reason we didn't do it like this is because it wouldn't give the immediate "results" that bombing them did. On the other hand, it would have resulted in fewer deaths, near zero innocent deaths and it would have given us ObL.
Post #28,520 by marlowe 2/15/02 1:28:14 PM Reply	No, it adds up. Check your facts and your logic. On all of your, um, points, objections, whatever they were meant to be. You do have a tendency to speak in snippy little non sequiturs. But at least you're more grammatical than Ashton. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #28,525 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 1:52:16 PM Reply	War's target... was Taleban. ObL would be a nice side effect, but the prime directive was to remove Afghanistan as his base. So we bombed Taleban's army, which was hiding behind civilians rather effectively. But not effectively enough. Between Northern Aliance and US, we managed to topple a governement. If less than 4000 dead (according to some huy's estimates) is too much to pay for a change of governement - what kind of standard do you have in mind? Soviets did a lot worse. Could you tell me who did better? And, before you tell me that we should not have tried - different discussion, sir. That was As to people gathering around craters - I come from Sanct Petersburg, the city that survived real bombardment in WW2. People do not gather around destroyed building unless they know it was a chance hit, not likely to be repeated. The story about denied permission to bomb was all over the place, including here. Can't find a link, though. WRT "cordonning" - this will end just like our discussion on "communism". Only somebody who knows nothing of that part of the world can suggest such tactics. I've been to a semetery where some Russian officers from last attempt were buried. Not pretty. And the number of civilians killed was in millions. No, stationing an occupation ("cordonnig", my ass) army in that part of the world will never accomplish anything.
Post #28,548 by Brandioch 2/15/02 5:05:14 PM Reply	Hmmmm, I must have been tuned to the wrong war. The "War on Terrorism" that >I< recall started with us demanding that the Taliban turn over ObL. But they wanted to see our "proof". So we invaded their country to get him ourselves. The ORIGINAL target was ObL and his network. At least, that's the war >I< remember.
Post #28,550 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 5:38:27 PM Reply	"Original" being the key word. When they refused to surrender ObL, they became a target. targets.push(Taleban), you see?
Post #28,552 by Brandioch 2/15/02 6:10:08 PM Reply	And that makes sense to you? Terrorists fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon. We say ObL is behind it. We focus on ObL. We find an obstacle to our "getting" ObL. The new focus becomes the obstacle. ObL becomes "a nice side effect". Allow me to quote from your earlier post: War's target... was Taleban. ObL would be a nice side effect,..... I'm sure you can understand my confusion as to what the "objective" of the "war" is. Particularly when, as you say, it changes depending upon whom we think is opposing us. ....but the prime directive was to remove Afghanistan as his base.
Post #28,569 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 8:32:07 PM Reply	Taleban was not just an "obstacle". They actively cooperated with ObL. They used his expertise (e.g., in killing the head of Northern Aliance). And he had resources of Afghanistan at his disposal. Those resources are small compared to US. But it really, really helps to have a country (no matter how poor or unrecognized) where every "policemen" is your friend. So, the first step toward neutralization of ObL became obvious. Remove the only governement that openly supports him. That's what we've done.It was a necessary first step. And for the duration of that step, ObL became a side target. Now that we think we are done (whether we really are is a different question), we can restore bin Laden's status of primary goal. Except that now we have no clue how to get him - not even first step. Well, time will tell.
Post #28,575 by Brandioch 2/15/02 9:33:56 PM Reply	Well, that was going to be my point. Except that now we have no clue how to get him - not even first step. It's called "focus", Grasshopper. So, we have the evil mastermind still out there. He still has his international network of terrorist cells. Not to mention the "Axis of Evil". Sorry, I just have images of all the James Bond movies where Jimmy goes chasing after the retreating goons so he can arrest every one of them while the guy with the world destroying weapon saunters over to his waiting jet and leaves the island.
Post #28,590 by wharris2 2/15/02 11:59:29 PM Reply	Maybe we'll be lucky Rumor was that binLaden was in the throes of (what was it, kidney or liver?) disease. Of course there are LOTS of rumors about everything. Dangit, I've got hiccups again. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
Post #28,634 by gtall 2/16/02 7:50:26 AM Reply	What IS your point, Grasshopper? That the U.S. should have left bin Laden his base of operations because it couldn't nail him without killing civilians? Or is your point that we didn't get him because we "weren't focused"? What was your grand scheme to get the guy, presuming you do indeed want to get him? And if you never really wanted to go to Afghanistan to take away his base of operations, what number of Americans are you willing to sacrifice in the next terrorist incident? How many Afghanis are you willing to sacriface to the Pashtun -led Taliban? Why don't you explain to us how many Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. you are willing to have tortured and killed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda because there might be civilian casualities if the U.S. tried to stop it? Gerard Allwein
Post #28,691 by Brandioch 2/16/02 8:52:30 PM Reply	You've missed the moral high ground. What was your grand scheme to get the guy, presuming you do indeed want to get him? I think I've been over that enough times. And if you never really wanted to go to Afghanistan to take away his base of operations, what number of Americans are you willing to sacrifice in the next terrorist incident? Well, you see, >MY< goal was to STOP the terrorist attacks by not creating NEW terrorists. And that requires that >WE< do not kill innocent civilians. How many Afghanis are you willing to sacriface to the Pashtun -led Taliban? As many as it takes for THEM to decide to change. Remember, >WE< were supporting the Taliban before. Which gets back to my points about us not fucking with their politics. Sometimes, you do have to let them sort themselves out. Why don't you explain to us how many Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. you are willing to have tortured and killed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda because there might be civilian casualities if the U.S. tried to stop it? Again, as many of them as they are willing to accept. This isn't about us. This is about them. The only reason we were involved is that we want the oil. Which is also the reason that we switched from targeting ObL to replacing the government in Afghanistan. And don't try telling me that we're there to help the Afghan people. Where were we last year? Do you think they didn't stone women last year? Or the year before? Or the year before that? We aren't there to "save" any Afghans (or Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc). We knew about how they were treating their people years ago. We did nothing. Don't try to claim moral high ground now. You just look stupid.
Post #28,725 by gtall 2/17/02 7:03:30 AM Reply	Re: You've missed the moral high ground. The only reason we were involved is that we want the oil. So, Afghanistan is a major oil producer? And don't try telling me that we're there to help the Afghan people. Where were we last year? Do you think they didn't stone women last year? Totally beside the point, fact remains we removed a pimple on the ass of the world. We knew about how they were treating their people years ago. We did nothing. Yes, the U.S. was busy listening to moral authorities like you. Hopefully the U.S. has gotten over it. Gerard Allwein
Post #28,736 by Brandioch 2/17/02 1:19:34 PM Reply	sigh www.google.com +bush +oil +afghanistan +pipeline Totally beside the point, fact remains we removed a pimple on the ass of the world. Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Yes, we did something to help some people. But >WHY< we did it is the issue. Remember, we were >SUPPORTING< the Taliban before. And we didn't give a FUCK about the Afghan people before the attacks. We're in it for the oil. That is the >WHOLE< point. Yes, the U.S. was busy listening to moral authorities like you. Hopefully the U.S. has gotten over it. Really? So we've reduced our dependance upon their oil? Ohhhh, I don't think we have. Was that the best insult you could come up with? Maybe I should give you more time? I really love the way you ill-educated fascists try to elude responsibility. Remember what I've posted before. Step#1: Reduce our oil imports from that region by 1/20'th each year for 20 years. Once we've done that, you and your fascist buddies can make all the claims you want.
Post #28,522 by marlowe 2/15/02 1:36:54 PM Reply	I could almost replace you with a script. Input: "The sky is blue with white fluffy things in it." Output: "And you base this statement upon....? Instead, the sky is tartan plaid with pink polka dots. And we still haven't got bin Laden. Yay sky!" Input: "The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776." Output: "And you base this statement upon....? Instead the Declaration of Independence was fabricated in 1952 to justify American imperialism in North Dakota. And we still haven't got bin Laden. Yay Declaration of Independence!" [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #28,542 by Brandioch 2/15/02 4:11:13 PM Reply	And I could replace you with a jar of mayonaise. The ORIGINAL statement was: Did we do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties? No, but we did a whole lot more than anybody else have ever done. Now, if >YOU< have anything to support that claim, please provide it. If not, at least some people like mayonaise.
Post #28,563 by boxley 2/15/02 7:49:33 PM Reply	save it till yer 21 Mike Doogan "Then there's figure skating and ice dancing and snowboarding. The winners are all chosen by judges. That's not sports. That's politics. And curling? If curling is a sport, pork rinds are a health food."
Post #28,540 by neelk 2/15/02 3:51:58 PM Reply	Marc Herold's numbers are wrong He got the numbers by adding up the numbers listed in the newspapers, including Taliban press releases, multiple reports of the same event, and so on. The 3800 dead figure is just plain wrong. The Associated Press reports that the number of casualties was between 500 and 600, which are one-eighth to one-sixth of Herold's numbers. Even Human Rights Watch thinks that the actual number of casualties was probably between 1000 and 1300, about a quarter or a third of the Herold's number. Given that HRW in turn has an institutional bias to inflate the numbers, I'd say their numbers represent a solid upper bound on the number of civilian casualties in the Afghan War. I'm dubious that the casualty totals have much to do with whether or not one supports or opposes the Afghan War, but we might as well use the correct numbers while descending into flames. :)
Post #28,633 by gtall 2/16/02 7:42:19 AM Reply	What are Taliban numbers? A professor culls news reports and other odd bits of information and calls it "research"? He's academically dishonest at the least. How about some statistics on how many people the Taliban have killed after gaining power? If we had yearly statistics on that, we could project how many they were likely to kill in the future. I'll bet their henchmen, Al Qaeda, didn't keep records. Gerard Allwein
Post #28,641 by mhuber 2/16/02 10:09:14 AM Reply	I suspect that during the active bombardment, we disrupted more executions than we killed civilians. From the reports that came out when the Taliban was a matter of sovereignty and only civil rights freaks and feminists thought they were a problem, I have little doubt that at the end of 2002, more Afghans will be alive than would have been without the war. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.

Welcome to IWETHEY!