US lying about Army casualties in Afghanistan?

The Gopher

Officially only 2 troops have been killed in nearly 3 months of fighting.But every week we hear of soldiers dying in"accidents"with machinery,air crashes etc.But does any1 suspect that the US is lying about the fugures and pretending war dead died by accident?Think about it
In all the dozens of special forces missions not a single troop has apparently died.Dosent this seem like an over successful track record?
There must be 20-30 troops who died in "accidendts".Considering that there is maybe only 5000-10,000 troops in the area isnt this a high figure for accidendts?
Well,do you think its a smokescreen?If there hadnt been journalists and video footage at Mazar when that CIA man died does any1 else think he would have been reported to have been killed in an aircrash or tank accident?I suspect so.

Sand

A lot of accidents occur in workplace, especially physically intensive workplaces.

Fidelis

Try getting insured on an aircraft carrier

Gopher, no offence intended, but you'd want to be fairly naive to believe everything the U.S. declares. Personally, I'm more worried at what they don't tell us...

[edit]the U.S. has of course admitted the deaths of the soldiers who died in the latest accidents, the KC-130 in Pakistan carrying 7 marines, the three Green Berets who were killed in Afghanistan when a U.S. bomb missed its Taliban target north of Kandahar, a fatal fork lift accident, a fireman apprentice fell off the Kitty Hawk and a Black Hawk crashed killing 2 marines[/edit]

paddymee

Mulder wrote:

Well,do you think its a smokescreen?If there hadnt been journalists and video footage at Mazar when that CIA man died does any1 else think he would have been reported to have been killed in an aircrash or tank accident?I suspect so.

Why bother even even reporting that any died? Purge the families of the deceased and no one will be any the wiser.

What about the Green Beret that was killed in the ambush a few days ago? I don't think there were reporters there, were there?

Jaysus, I thought "the auld ememy" was England. See things have changed.

Digi_Tilmitt

(edited)

bonkey

Originally posted by Fidelis
the three Green Berets who were killed in Afghanistan when a U.S. bomb missed its Taliban target north of Kandahar,

Actually, I believe that one was attributed to the incorrect co-ordinates having been entered by someone. The bomb apparently fell exactly where it was told to.

In terms of UIS casualties...I dont think the US is hiding much. After one of the first specal ops missions got involved in a firefight which resulted in heavy casualties, the missions were almost exclusively non-engagement based, until the very end when it was relatively safe to send in the US troops again.

What I find most disturbing is that I have heard figures on US deaths and injuries, approximate figures on Taliban/Al Qaeda deaths and captures, and absolutely nothing on NA deaths, injuries, and captures.

The US have admitted time and time again that the reason their casualties have been so low is because they "liaised" so well with the local forces, and that it made more sense for the locals to do the groundwork, and its what the locals wanted. So, these guys stepped in where the US soldiers didnt. But how many of them died?

If one US soldier's death is a tragedy worthy of huge national coverage, as is any significant Al Qaeda / Taliban killings/capturings, why do we hear nothing about any of the Northern Alliance costs and gains? Why are they the forgotten soldiers???

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

This seems true of all the proxy wars our government (all republican governments I might add) engaged in actively. No one ever heard tell of the South Vietnamese casualties in the Vietnam war, nor the South Koreans who bravely laid down their lives that the UN expeditionary force might get out with their reputation barely intact. Or of the Iraqi casualties in the Iran/Iraq war. I'm not entirely sure why the press has this particular blindspot, but it seems to do the truth little justice in history.

Occy

Victor

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Or of the Iraqi casualties in the Iran/Iraq war. I'm not entirely sure why the press has this particular blindspot, but it seems to do the truth little justice in history.

No exact figure is available for reasons such as non-identified refugees, soldiers going AWOL, destruction of records, etc. I think a figure was estimated at 500,000 - 1,000,000 military and civilian personnel were killed during the war on the Iraqi side. Also there is the matter of concurrent excesses against the Kurdish and other minorities, do these get counted?

Two kids from my brother's class in school (aged c. 10 - yes, correct) returned to fight during the war. Kids are great for clearing mines under barbed wire.

---

An estimated 265,000 Iraqis dies during and immediatly after the Gulf War.

Sand

Hmm You might say the South Koreans laid down their lives for the UN forces, but it might be more realistic to say they (The SK) laid down their lives for their country, which was invaded, and because of which UN forces came to lay down *their*(The UN) lives to defend South Korea and end the communist threat.

As for Iraq and South Vietnam, people are more concerned over *their* own casualties, not somebody elses. They dont relate to them, and it doenst concern them terribly- why should the media give the market something it doesnt care about?

About proxy wars and republican governments, Is it that Clinton was really Republican or that Kosovo wasnt a proxy war?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
As for Iraq and South Vietnam, people are more concerned over *their* own casualties, not somebody elses. They dont relate to them, and it doenst concern them terribly- why should the media give the market something it doesnt care about?

Balance, impartiality, thoroughness, humanity? ..... isn't that what journalists hope for?

So why should we concern ourselves with the casualties of the WTC attacks? They don't really concern us that much. Let us only think of the irish people who died.

Sand

Ah but given everyone has some sort of family over in the US we do relate, to a certain extent anyway.

As for journalists the first 3 I agree with, but sadly media has degraded itself to become a propaganda machine, choosing which stories to run and which to ignore and how to run them. I dont consider it an acceptable state of affairs, but until they get the first 3 right (their job) why should they even bother with the 4th (Their opinion)?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
but until they get the first 3 right (their job) why should they even bother with the 4th (Their opinion)?

Eh, sorry, you misunderstand me. Remember the emaciated bodies in German concentration camps, starving children in Ethiopia, the peace keepers that weren't allowed leave the Bosnian 'safe-zones', Robert Fisk reporting during 'Operation Grapes of Wrath' the instant when the second plane hit the WTC (and when you realise this is not a movie and several hundred people died in those 2 seconds). That humanity.

Sand

Reporters are there to give us the facts so we can form our own opinions.

Youve not really defined humanity for me tbh- Reading what youve posted you either mean events of great importance that are historical in nature, or you mean the emotive gut reaction to those events - which is opinion, and not something I need reporters for, especially in the cases you mention.

Hobbes

I think the current score is US about 3,000'ish, Taliban 10,000+, Afgan citizens 4,000+

So that's around 4 killed for every 1 US person and 1 of those is an innocent person.

American

Originally posted by The Gopher

There must be 20-30 troops who died in "accidendts".

I haven't got a figure that high even counting the anthrax deaths in the U.S. Where did you get your figures? Can you name the accidents and the people who died? I'd appreciate it because I try to remember them in my prayers.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
Hmm You might say the South Koreans laid down their lives for the UN forces, but it might be more realistic to say they (The SK) laid down their lives for their country, which was invaded, and because of which UN forces came to lay down *their*(The UN) lives to defend South Korea and end the communist threat.

As for Iraq and South Vietnam, people are more concerned over *their* own casualties, not somebody elses. They dont relate to them, and it doenst concern them terribly- why should the media give the market something it doesnt care about?

About proxy wars and republican governments, Is it that Clinton was really Republican or that Kosovo wasnt a proxy war?

Addressing these in order:

1) South Koreans had little or no sense of national identity at the time, the nation was partitioned with no sense for national sensibilities, so it is difficult to see how the South Koreans would have found the will to defend their territory without outside intervention. In fact, they were pushed back to a tiny spit of land near the ocean before the UN (mainly US) expeditionary force landed to help them. In other words, they died because the US wanted a non-communist government on the Korean peninsula.

2) The media has a journalistic duty to report in a *balanced* and sensible fashion. Otherwise why even have a privatized media? You might as well have a nationalized broadcast station shouting the school song. As for 'our own casualties' that might be relevant for propaganda reasons concerning enemy casualties...but historically (WWII, WWI etc) the British and American press reported their Allies' casualties very well and respectfully. Why should this be any different for a proxy war?

3) No, Kosovo was a mission to restore the peace, not a proxy war between two superpowers. I mean, *you* might consider Milosevic's government a superpower, but there isn't much support for that point of view :P

Occy

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
As for Iraq and South Vietnam, people are more concerned over *their* own casualties, not somebody elses. They dont relate to them, and it doenst concern them terribly- why should the media give the market something it doesnt care about?

They should do it so they are believable as a news source and that people (primarily ABC1 adults) will come back and watch that news programme and see the ad.s during the break. Thats why. Bottom dollar. If I want the movies, I'll put on a movie channel.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
As for Iraq and South Vietnam, people are more concerned over *their* own casualties, not somebody elses. They dont relate to them, and it doenst concern them terribly- why should the media give the market something it doesnt care about?

Actually, none of them are "my" casualties. Yet, I can find pretty exact figures about the US casualties from any major conflict, and only sketchy information about foreign deaths.

Yes, obviously the US has mroe accurate information on its own lives, but in the case which I brought up originally (Afghanistan), the Northern Alliance fighters are highly organised. Any army will keep reasonably accurate figures of its deaths, if only to know how many are still alive.

The NA (or "Taliban opposition") must know its death tolls. And yet, when the US military tell us how clean and successful a war this has been, they do not seem to supply any figures on "Allied losses", only ever on "our losses". I find this very distasteful. Even if it is a media decision, it is sad to think that the world's largest media teams are more concerned with showing their own people how wonderful their nation is, then actually providing credit where its due to the Afghani allies who have given so much.

jc

Sand

Bob national identity is formed from situations like wars where there are clearly defined "us" and "thems". As for the South Koreans it again might be more accurate to say they died because North Korea and their Communist backers wanted a communist government on the pennisula. Given the wonderful state of North Korea its fair to say that it might not have been in the best interests of the South Koreans.

Bonkey (Just using the quote to set the scene bonkey:) )

If one US soldier's death is a tragedy worthy of huge national coverage, as is any significant Al Qaeda / Taliban killings/capturings, why do we hear nothing about any of the Northern Alliance costs and gains? Why are they the forgotten soldiers???

Bob

This seems true of all the proxy wars our government (all republican governments I might add) engaged in actively.

3) No, Kosovo was a mission to restore the peace, not a proxy war between two superpowers. I mean, *you* might consider Milosevic's government a superpower, but there isn't much support for that point of view :P

Wont find much support for believing Afghanistan was a superpower either, but you seem to include it among the so called proxy wars.

Bonkey
And again people in general dont honestly care about the Afghan fighters casualties, they were at war already (and losing miserably before US aid arrived). One should remember the US wasnt there to help the NA gain power, but rather to eliminate terrorism from Afghanistan. As such the NA casualties dont interest them. From the US milatarys point of view it was a remarkably swift victory at little cost. Assuming however that the NA suffered 2000 casualties in the war what would that matter to you? I.E why are you so concerned to know?