Sublime Opinions of the Masses (give or take a few)
https://acompletewasteofspace.com/
The operative word/phrase "civilian deaths caused by US or Allies"....I wanted to talk to him a bit more before posting..he and family..gone for about ten days to visit his side of family...upon his return, will be most happy to post that thread....though, I did post one of his opinions...No reason for US to be in A'stan, other than to use it for a base to attack Iran. That does make "expensive" sense to me....callmeslick wrote:Pud, I still don't know why you would deny that civilian deaths are indeed that high. Still waiting for updates regarding the thoughts of returned family member. Assuming, of course, he survived your dinner.....
Total of Civilians killed as a result of U.S-led military actions
(Total of available estimates, lower - upper)
* direct deaths: at least 5,791 - 9,060
* indirect deaths in initial invasion: 3,200 - 20,000
* direct & indirect deaths: 8,991 - 28,583
* The Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that in a 3-month period between October 7, 2001 and January 1, 2002, at least 1,000-1,300 civilians were directly killed by the U.S.-led aerial bombing campaign,[7] and that by mid-January 2002, at least 3,200 more Afghans had died of "starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones", as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes.[8]
* The Los Angeles Times found that in a 5-month period from October 7, 2001 to February 28, 2002, there were between 1,067 and 1,201 civilian deaths from the bombing campaign reported in U.S., British, and Pakistani newspapers and international wire services.[9]
* A 2002 analysis by The Guardian estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial U.S. airstrikes and ground invasion.[10]
* Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated that in the 20-month period between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003, at least 3,100 to 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S.-led forces.[11]
* 2001-2003 direct deaths: at least 3,100 to 3,600
* 2001-2003 indirect deaths: at least 3,200 - 20,000
* 2001-2003 direct & indirect deaths: 6,300 - 23,600
2005:
Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 408-478 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions.
2006:
* Human Rights Watch estimated at least 230 Afghan civilians were killed by US or NATO attacks in 2006: 116 by airstrikes and 114 by ground fire.[14]
* Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 653-769 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions.
2007:
* Human Rights Watch estimated at least 434 Afghan civilians were killed by US or NATO attacks in 2007: 321 by airstrikes and 113 by ground fire. Another 57 civilians were killed in crossfire, and 192 died under unclear circumstances.[14]
* The UN Assistance Mission Afghanistan (UNAMA) estimated that 629 Afghan civilians were killed by international and Afghan forces in 2007, accounting for 41% of the civilian casualties.[16][17]
* Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 1,010-1,297 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions.[12]
2008:
* The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) estimated that around 800 civilians were killed by U.S.-led military forces in 2008.[19]
* The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that 828 Afghan civilians had been killed by international-led military forces in 2008, accounting for 39% of the civilian deaths. Air-strikes accounted for the largest proportion of this number, 64%, with 552 civilians killed as a result of U.S./NATO airstrikes.[20][21]
* According to Afghanistan's ambassador to Australia, Amanullah Jayhoon, 1,000 Afghan civilians were killed by coalition forces in 2008.[23]
* The Afghanistan Rights Monitor(ARM) estimated that over 1,620 civilians were killed by U.S.-led military forces in 2008, including 680 killed in airstrikes. ARM also estimated that military operations by US-led NATO and coalition forces caused at least 2,800 injuries and displaced 80,000 people from their homes.[19][22]
* Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 864-1,017 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO foreign forces in 2008.[24]
2009:
* The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed 596 Afghan civilian deaths as having been caused by international-led military forces in 2009, representing about a quarter of the 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths it recorded as having been caused by the war in 2009.[26][27]
* Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire estimated at least 922-1,073 Afghan civilians were directly killed by U.S./NATO actions in 2009.
2010:
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed 223 Afghan civilian deaths as having been caused by international-led military forces in the first half of 2010, representing 18% of the total for that period.
Pudfark wrote:nuf wrote:
Who other than you sez, we are killing thousands of civilians? Please to show the "body" count and source.
I'll bet, you don't know, that most all of the "Drone" attacks are filmed by the "Drone"..before, during and after...
I'll bet, you don't know, that multiple times, on film, the Bad Guys have removed their dead, gone to the local village,
killed a dozen or more civilians, hauled their bodies back to the "attack site" to replace the original dead guys and
stated that the US attacked civilians....I have that on good trusted authority...That documentation exists and is used often with the "locals"....
Old Pudfark sez: " The same old diatribe...When is enough, e-nuf? "
fatman wrote: It might feel good winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan population but when they live and die along tribal lines i dont see it being won, And Ruggie is on the right track, hold up in a country over there and let the hadji fundies come and die much better option of them coming west and giving us subway attacks etc
Pudfark wrote:Respectfully, reporters don't win wars or conflicts....the past 50 years or so, suggests this.
The article showed numbers from very different kinds of sources combined, you are free to show "better" sources which combine sources from institutions like the United Nations, NGOs and scientists which show other numbers.Pudfark wrote: Wiki ain't much of a "source"...as anybody can post anything there....verifiable or not...and frequently they do.
The time line you displayed (accurate or inaccurate) is over the last 10 years...my comments are about the use of
drones and their ability to factually record the events before, during and after....so look at the figures you posted
and see how the "numbers" have dramatically shrunk....
No Reporters = No Spin, No Misinformation and No Propaganda.
The western casualties in Afghanistan were the highest ever 2010 and on the rise every year since 2001. The success/fail in this mission can not be determined by drones but (if at all) by the whole integrated strategy. Of course you can put no boots on the ground and grill some taliban/farmers/civiliens but all that does is cost money, piss of the afghans, many other countries and many in the west. Plus it would show how incapable the US/NATO are at fighting wars. Cowards that are so afraid of losses that they only send in robots. Afghanistan brought another force down it seems.Drones = No casualties sustained by our forces...They are a substantially cheaper way to kill the enemy.
To be blunt, there is nothing scientific about this strategy...it's common sense and affordable.
It seems to be working....IED's are not very effective on drones.....
actually, without reporters, you can be assured of nothing BUT spin and propaganda.Pudfark wrote:No Reporters = No Spin, No Misinformation and No Propaganda.
fair enough, but doesn't really get to the root of the problem, which IS the 'hearts and minds' thing.Drones = No casualties sustained by our forces...They are a substantially cheaper way to kill the enemy.
To be blunt, there is nothing scientific about this strategy...it's common sense and affordable.
It seems to be working....IED's are not very effective on drones.....
Don't know about "millions" but they had significant casualties and we gave up the fight thereby losing the undeclared "war/police action".Millions of Vietnames were killed and the US still lost.
I really wouldnt take what they say in general at face value most of the crap out there these days is so slanted its not funny. In fact the only reporter i wouldnt bother checking up on in Yon and only because so far he tells it like it isnuf wrote:Reporters are an important part in conflicts as they serve the pourpose to inform the public -