3,767 dead :( (small edit)

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0
advocate... eventhough I don't support your views... that was a damn damn damn potent and excellent argument... it's a damn shame that there aren't more like you (instead we have nitwits like Texmaster-the-redneck-idiot-goon and me) who can prove the opposing point so effecitvely w/o serious personal assults (I really should learn from you)...

I mean I don't agree with you but you really made me thing... kudos to you... you get a 10.

Nonetheless there is still no real excuse for the amount of civilian losses. The US has much more sophisticated weaponry than the terrorists. This weaponry has a sole purpose to keep destructioon localized to the target.

The fact that you have ~3800 civilians deaths is really inexcusable.

We're a country that is alot better than that... we can bloody do just about anything... and there should be no reason that so many civilians should have died.
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0


<< You're an idiot. The Taliban is (really was now) supported by the Pashtun tribe which comprised roughly 40% of the Afghan population. The original post was a nice illustration of how our media has been more interested in promoting high spirits in the US rather than acutal news. This should be worrisome to anyone with a brain.

The rest of your posts show your proclivity for wanting to shout people down instead of actually discussing issues. What a waste. Hey, maybe you could work for the media.
>>



Bloody hell... no YOU'RE an idiot... there is no "Pashtun tribe" moron. The Pashtun or the Pathan are an ethnicity... there are MANY pathan tribes and many are in conflict with one another. 40% (I think it might be more) of the people of Afghanistan are Pathan... the others are Hazars, Uzbeks and Tazkiz (sp?).

The current intermediate PM is a pathan that was friendly to the NA, not the Taliban.

Please... check yourself before you look stupid calling someone else stupid.
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0

here is the article that BBC put up about this.

--------------


Afghanistan's civilian deaths mount


American bombs have reportedly killed thousands of civilians

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.

"The figure I came up with is a very, very conservative estimate." - Professor Marc Herold

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. "I think that a much more realistic figure would be around 5,000. You know for Afghanistan, 3,700 to 5,000 is a really substantial number."

Afghan officials want the bombing to stop

The figure is well in excess of the estimated 2,998 people killed in the 11 September attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. Professor Herold said his calculations are based only on deaths reported in the mainstream media, so would not include those in remote areas of Afghanistan. It also omits those killed indirectly, when air strikes cut off their access to hospitals, food or electricity. Also exempt are bomb victims who later died of their injuries.

When there were different casualty figures from the same incident, in 90% of cases Professor Herold chose a lower figure. US military professionals told the Financial Times that the quality of this sort of information must necessarily be mixed.

Latest deaths

US forces were reported to have killed 106 Afghan civilians when they dropped bombs on the village of Qalaye Naizi, in eastern Afghanistan. Military authorities denied having mistakenly bombed a village, and said the warplanes had targeted a compound used by al-Qaeda.

"We have lost too many innocent lives already." - Afghan government official

On 27 December, US bombers were said to have killed 40 civilians in Ghazni, south-west of Kabul. And last month, American warplanes hit a convoy transporting tribal elders to the inauguration of the Afghanistan government in Kabul. About 65 people were killed.

Other reported incidents include:

11 October: Two US jets were said to have bombed the mountain village of Karam. The death toll was estimated at between 100 and 160.
13 October: Bombs fell on the Qila Meer Abas neighbourhood, two kilometres south of Kabul airport. Four civilians were reportedly killed
18 October: Some 47 civilians were said to have been killed when a central market place, Sarai Shamali, near Kandahar, was bombed.
23 October: More than 90 civilians were reportedly killed when low-flying US gun ships fired on the farming villages of Bori Chokar and Chowkar-karez, north of Kandahar.
31 October: An F-18 was said to have bombed a Red Crescent clinic in a pre-dawn raid, killing between 15 and 25 people.
10 November: Villages in the Khakrez district were reportedly bombed, killing more than 150 civilians

link
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
irrigating,
Sorry about your loss

I´m also sorry to inform you that the more civilians that are killed in Afghanistan the more likely there is of another terrorist attack in the US. Thats just how revange works.
 

Bigdude

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,087
0
0


<< irrigating,
Sorry about your loss

I´m also sorry to inform you that the more civilians that are killed in Afghanistan the more likely there is of another terrorist attack in the US. Thats just how revange works.
>>



Not if we kill them all!!
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< advocate... eventhough I don't support your views... that was a damn damn damn potent and excellent argument... it's a damn shame that there aren't more like you (instead we have nitwits like Texmaster-the-redneck-idiot-goon and me) who can prove the opposing point so effecitvely w/o serious personal assults (I really should learn from you)... >>



And you should read more carfully little buddy. My arguement was very sound. Yes I tack on emotion when someone posts an article without a shred of proof. If that offends your widdle feelings, too bad. LOL



<< I mean I don't agree with you but you really made me thing... kudos to you... you get a 10. >>




Advocate is a good guy.



<< Nonetheless there is still no real excuse for the amount of civilian losses. The US has much more sophisticated weaponry than the terrorists. This weaponry has a sole purpose to keep destructioon localized to the target. >>




NAme one other war that had LESS civilian casualties you simpleton.

Just ONE.



<< The fact that you have ~3800 civilians deaths is really inexcusable. >>



LOL You have successfully entered into MORON status.

#1 This artcle ADMITS its an ESTIMATE nothing more

#2 The article quotes Pakestini newspapers that got their numbers from the Taliban!

Now you believe the Taliban?

Boy you really are showing your ignorance.



<< We're a country that is alot better than that... we can bloody do just about anything... and there should be no reason that so many civilians should have died. >>



Jesus. Read the article you MORON. Don't just accept it because you believe in its politics.
 

Bigdude

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,087
0
0


<< Bigdude,
you realy mean that?:Q
>>



Absolutely!!!!!!!!! We need to make an example of these people!!!!!
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<<

<< Bigdude,
you realy mean that?:Q
>>



Absolutely!!!!!!!!! We need to make an example of these people!!!!!
>>



now I need those eyeroll smilies
I hope you grow up someday
 

Bigdude

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,087
0
0
Czar, you have the Luxury of free speech because other people before you wern't Pacifists!
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0


<< Czar, you have the Luxury of free speech because other people before you wern't Pacifists! >>


And you have the luxury of free speech because other people before you fought people who werent pacifists.
 

xyyz

Diamond Member
Sep 3, 2000
4,331
0
0


<< And you should read more carfully little buddy. My arguement was very sound. Yes I tack on emotion when someone posts an article without a shred of proof. If that offends your widdle feelings, too bad. LOL >>



dood you're an oaf... when I think of you yapping... I think of a donkey baying... and this to me is funny not offensive. . It seems that you get off offending people... since you make an issue about this. I'm sorry if your life has no impact on those around you... that you need to exert your pathetic excuse for machismo over the net. However, to stroke your ego a bit... i'm sure you've offended some due to your mere existance.



<<

<< Nonetheless there is still no real excuse for the amount of civilian losses. The US has much more sophisticated weaponry than the terrorists. This weaponry has a sole purpose to keep destructioon localized to the target. >>

>>



NAme one other war that had LESS civilian casualties you simpleton.

Just ONE.[/i] >>



You are a cheezy F- aren't you? This is not the point. You aren't even offering a rebuttal to what I said. Maybe, you should go pop another beer and leave the discussion to those of us that can think properly. I don't think your thoughts are fully evolved yet.

I am saying that considering how advanced we are... there is no reason for casualties to reach these numbers.

We're of two different schools of thought. You are of the inbred-redneck flavor. You feel that might is right and that we should, figuretively speaking, "nuke 'em." You think of the US as a giant who should step on everyone that bugs us.

I am of another persuasion. I feel that we are the most advanced, open one of the most progressive and overall best nation ever created on the face of this nation. Since no other nation can match us, I feel we have a responsiblity not to abuse our position of power.

You don't care that people outside the US hate the US. It's people like you that make others hate us. You're answer to everything is a bat to the back of the head. According to you we need to keep this "tough guy" apperance so that everyone fears us. Unfortunately, this causes others to conspire against us.

I on the other hand do. I feel that this country should be an example, that other nations would follow our lead without resistance.

So, your question is really meaningless.



<<

<< The fact that you have ~3800 civilians deaths is really inexcusable. >>

>>





<< LOL You have successfully entered into MORON status.

#1 This artcle ADMITS its an ESTIMATE nothing more
>>



"Of course, Herold's total is only an estimate. But what is impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those killed in the past 10 days; nor those who have died from cold and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were forced to become refugees by the bombardment. It does not include military deaths (estimated by some analysts, partly on the basis of previous experience of the effects of carpet-bombing, to be upwards of 10,000), or those prisoners who were slaughtered in Mazar-i-Sharif, Qala-i-Janghi, Kandahar airport and elsewhere. "

There's my answer to you... if you read this and the BBC article... it will tell you that Herold's estimate is a CONSERVATIVE estimate... do you know what conservative means?



<< #2 The article quotes Pakestini newspapers that got their numbers from the Taliban! >>



Yeah and? So this nullifies all the other reports?



<< Now you believe the Taliban? >>



No, I marvel on how stupid you are.

Boy you really are showing your ignorance.[/i] >>



I don't even know how to reply to this... you do show your pathos over and over and over again. First of all, I was using the BBC article as my source. I am unfamiliar with those other publications... but I know BBC well... apparently you don't. Which doesn't suprise me consider you sit in your diapidated car which has every external body part of a different color... with the hood primered... which is raised on your lawn with cinder blocks... chugging down the "cheap" beer or the homemade moonshine.

Well, a little education for you. The BBC is probably one of the world's foremost news reporting agencies. So if they publish something, you best lend some creedence to it.

I suggest you go back and read the article I posted. Then I'll give you a chance to offer another more educated rebuttal.

It appears you didn't read the guradian's article. Because in it, it says the following:

"Based on corroborated reports from aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV stations, newspapers and news agencies around the world, "

Now, we know that you're stupid... so I'll say this V-E-R-Y, V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-LY.... the following words are NOT synonmymous with "Taliban" : aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV stations, newpapers, and news agencies around the world." Had you stayed in school past the 4th grade you might know this.



<< Jesus. Read the article you MORON. Don't just accept it because you believe in its politics. >>



I have... have you? If you know how to read... please show me excerpts supporting your silly argument.



and bigdude...



<< Not if we kill them all!! >>



you can't be serious.... you think that every afghani is part of the taliban and that they all had a hand in what happend durring Sept 11th?
 

Softballslug

Senior member
Feb 22, 2000
397
0
0
Lets put the blame where it lies with the Taliban.

We gave them plenty of opportunity to turn over @#@#-nuts, but did they? NO!
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
AP: Hundreds lost, not thousands

Although estimates have placed the civilian dead in the thousands, a review by The Associated Press suggests the toll may be in the mid-hundreds, a figure reached by examining hospital records, visiting bomb sites and interviewing eyewitnesses and officials.

:Q :Q :Q :Q
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0


<< AP: Hundreds lost, not thousands

Although estimates have placed the civilian dead in the thousands, a review by The Associated Press suggests the toll may be in the mid-hundreds, a figure reached by examining hospital records, visiting bomb sites and interviewing eyewitnesses and officials.

:Q :Q :Q :Q
>>



Gee what a shocker.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Gee what a shocker.


Yes indeed. Should come as quite a shock to all those with the "Blame America First" agenda.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |