Afgan Civilian Deaths

[M.Dancer]

Lt-Col Carl said accounts of civilian casualties after military engagements often turned out to be inflated or completely fabricated.

She gave recent examples, including village elders' accounts of more than 100 civilian deaths in western Afghanistan a few days ago.

Lt-Col Carl said it was now clear that no civilians had died there, saying that in fact foreign and Afghan forces had moved villagers to safety.

Gen Azimi from the defence ministry said the Taleban regularly forced villagers to phone media outlets with inflated figures, threatening to behead them if they did not do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6293356.stm

Well that's the Big Difference bewteen the Taliban and Taliban Jack Layton...while they both use death to score political points......Jack hasn't threatened anyone yet......

[jdobbin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6293356.stm

Well that's the Big Difference bewteen the Taliban and Taliban Jack Layton...while they both use death to score political points......Jack hasn't threatened anyone yet......

NATO gives large body count numbers themselves with little or no verification. They just say something like 60 Taliban dead.

Body counts were the bane of the Vietnam War in terms of accuracy.

[ScottSA]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6293356.stm

Well that's the Big Difference bewteen the Taliban and Taliban Jack Layton...while they both use death to score political points......Jack hasn't threatened anyone yet......

NATO gives large body count numbers themselves with little or no verification. They just say something like 60 Taliban dead.

Body counts were the bane of the Vietnam War in terms of accuracy.

Nato doesn't give bodycounts unless they are 100% verified, and even then they tend to avoid giving them.

[jdobbin]

Nato doesn't give bodycounts unless they are 100% verified, and even then they tend to avoid giving them.

I don't believe that and a lot of people don't believe that.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12039

While NATO's Taliban body count topped out at 1,500, reports from journalists on the ground indicate that this figure may be a gross exaggeration. Declan Walsh of the Guardian, reporting on mop-up operations in Panjwai, writes that "Afghan soldiers taking part in the drive only found 11 unburied bodies", according to one American officer who still maintained that some 200 Taliban were killed in that section of the battlefield (Guardian, Sept 25/06). Similar doubts are raised by Tim Albone of the Times of London, who accompanied Canadian soldiers on the front lines of Medusa. "As we walked in the searing heat from compound to dusty compound", writes Albone, "there were no bodies and no bloodstains -certainly no evidence of the 600 rebels Nato claimed to have killed." (The Times, Sept 14/06).

[ScottSA]

Nato doesn't give bodycounts unless they are 100% verified, and even then they tend to avoid giving them.

I don't believe that and a lot of people don't believe that.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12039

While NATO's Taliban body count topped out at 1,500, reports from journalists on the ground indicate that this figure may be a gross exaggeration. Declan Walsh of the Guardian, reporting on mop-up operations in Panjwai, writes that "Afghan soldiers taking part in the drive only found 11 unburied bodies", according to one American officer who still maintained that some 200 Taliban were killed in that section of the battlefield (Guardian, Sept 25/06). Similar doubts are raised by Tim Albone of the Times of London, who accompanied Canadian soldiers on the front lines of Medusa. "As we walked in the searing heat from compound to dusty compound", writes Albone, "there were no bodies and no bloodstains -certainly no evidence of the 600 rebels Nato claimed to have killed." (The Times, Sept 14/06).

Well, you and Tim Albone don't believe it anyway, but I don't think that speaks for anyone else.

[jdobbin]

Well, you and Tim Albone don't believe it anyway, but I don't think that speaks for anyone else.

So far I've never seen any independent confirmation of the numbers NATO is talking about.

[ScottSA]

Well, you and Tim Albone don't believe it anyway, but I don't think that speaks for anyone else.

So far I've never seen any independent confirmation of the numbers NATO is talking about.

No, and it'll be absolutely impossible to get any either, so you're safe in your beliefs. What are you expecting, a forensic audit (so to speak) after each battle by an independent accounting firm? Yeah, right.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70704/20070704/ Here's a great piece of spin...so typical. It starts out with "Time for a strategic re-think in Afghanistan?", spends the next 2 pages showing how everyone who knows anything thinks we should stay the course, moves on to the next section, entitled "NATO's Losing Battle", claiming that "Multiple deaths always bring the mission into question," then proceeds to dig up some obscure "analyst" who thinks we shouldn't be there as warfighters and should instead be there as a stabilizing force. The title and subtitle are misleading as hell, are in virtual opposition to what the articles actually say, and are there only to make news. The media isn't reporting what is happening with any degree of objectivity at all. They are, for reasons beknownst only to themselves but probably involving ratings, painting the mission as a writeoff even though to all appearances it is succeeding wildly in subduing the Taliban.

Edited July 12, 2007 by ScottSA

[jdobbin]

No, and it'll be absolutely impossible to get any either, so you're safe in your beliefs. What are you expecting, a forensic audit (so to speak) after each battle by an independent accounting firm? Yeah, right.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70704/20070704/ Here's a great piece of spin...so typical. It starts out with "Time for a strategic re-think in Afghanistan?", spends the next 2 pages showing how everyone who knows anything thinks we should stay the course, moves on to the next section, entitled "NATO's Losing Battle", claiming that "Multiple deaths always bring the mission into question," then proceeds to dig up some obscure "analyst" who thinks we shouldn't be there as warfighters and should instead be there as a stabilizing force. The title and subtitle are misleading as hell, are in virtual opposition to what the articles actually say, and are there only to make news. The media isn't reporting what is happening with any degree of objectivity at all. They are, for reasons beknownst only to themselves but probably involving ratings, painting the mission as a writeoff even though to all appearances it is succeeding wildly in subduing the Taliban.

I'd hardly call Sunil Ram obscure if that is who you are referring to.

He is a former Canadian soldier and professor at American Military University in the U.S. I've seen articles all from him and he has lectured all over Canada and the U.S.

Given that embedded journalists never see the bodies that NATO talks about, I wonder who is actually taking these head counts. The Times, CBC and Guardian reporters were all in the area where it was said there was 1500 Taliban killed. They didn't see that many and not could they find any soldier who had seen that many dead.

Edited July 12, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is one confirmed Taliban KIA....barbecued (after careful counting according to the Geneva Conventions, of course):

http://www.afghanmania.com/u_img/7/4/7/l_74.jpeg

[ScottSA]

Here is one confirmed Taliban KIA....barbecued (after careful counting according to the Geneva Conventions, of course):

http://www.afghanmania.com/u_img/7/4/7/l_74.jpeg

He's clearly faking it.

[bush_cheney2004]

He's clearly faking it.

Could be....but if not, he died with his boots...errr....sandals on.

[Xman]

You guys will enjoy this.

[jester]

And this is used to prove what..............

[Army Guy]

jdobbin:

While NATO's Taliban body count topped out at 1,500, reports from journalists on the ground indicate that this figure may be a gross exaggeration. Declan Walsh of the Guardian, reporting on mop-up operations in Panjwai, writes that "Afghan soldiers taking part in the drive only found 11 unburied bodies", according to one American officer who still maintained that some 200 Taliban were killed in that section of the battlefield (Guardian, Sept 25/06). Similar doubts are raised by Tim Albone of the Times of London, who accompanied Canadian soldiers on the front lines of Medusa. "As we walked in the searing heat from compound to dusty compound", writes Albone, "there were no bodies and no bloodstains -certainly no evidence of the 600 rebels Nato claimed to have killed." (The Times, Sept 14/06).

The media can report what ever it wants, and just because some key media types did not get to see the death and destruction that sells papers does not mean it did not happen. As a guy that was there and took part in the fighting i can say with conviction that there was plenty of death. Those sights and smell's still haunt many of those that took part, and we still re live that most night's. to imply there are a work of fiction is just wrong.

I will say that there was journalist there during the operation, but i personal did not see any of them, unless we went to the rear, and if tim wanted to see blood stains and bodies perhaps he should have followed our section thru our journey from compound to compound...

[ScottSA]

jdobbin:

While NATO's Taliban body count topped out at 1,500, reports from journalists on the ground indicate that this figure may be a gross exaggeration. (The Times, Sept 14/06).

The media can report what ever it wants, and just because some key media types did not get to see the death and destruction that sells papers does not mean it did not happen. As a guy that was there and took part in the fighting i can say with conviction that there was plenty of death. Those sights and smell's still haunt many of those that took part, and we still re live that most night's. to imply there are a work of fiction is just wrong.

I will say that there was journalist there during the operation, but i personal did not see any of them, unless we went to the rear, and if tim wanted to see blood stains and bodies perhaps he should have followed our section thru our journey from compound to compound...

So what you're saying is that reports from soldiers on the ground indicate that the presence of journalists within 1500 meters of flying bullets may be a gross exaggeration.

[jdobbin]

The media can report what ever it wants, and just because some key media types did not get to see the death and destruction that sells papers does not mean it did not happen. As a guy that was there and took part in the fighting i can say with conviction that there was plenty of death. Those sights and smell's still haunt many of those that took part, and we still re live that most night's. to imply there are a work of fiction is just wrong.

I will say that there was journalist there during the operation, but i personal did not see any of them, unless we went to the rear, and if tim wanted to see blood stains and bodies perhaps he should have followed our section thru our journey from compound to compound...

I don't doubt that there were deaths. I am saying that there has been some questioning of the overall numbers.

In the end it doesn't matter how many died if those people are replaced swiftly and the area that was cleaned up remains a threat to security.

I don't think the U.S. uses body count numbers in Iraq anymore to determine victory because it draws emphasis on their own bodycount of soldiers coming home.

Edited July 12, 2007 by jdobbin

[Xman]

And this is used to prove what..............

The proof is in the pudding.

[ScottSA]

And this is used to prove what..............

The proof is in the pudding.

What an inane post. Two birds in the bush are worth eight in the tree.

[Xman]

Exactly.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think the U.S. uses body count numbers in Iraq anymore to determine victory because it draws emphasis on their own bodycount of soldiers coming home.

Nope, but some Canadians have made body count a specialty when determining defeat in Afghanistan.

[AndrewL]

Lt-Col Carl said accounts of civilian casualties after military engagements often turned out to be inflated or completely fabricated.

She gave recent examples, including village elders' accounts of more than 100 civilian deaths in western Afghanistan a few days ago.

Lt-Col Carl said it was now clear that no civilians had died there, saying that in fact foreign and Afghan forces had moved villagers to safety.

Gen Azimi from the defence ministry said the Taleban regularly forced villagers to phone media outlets with inflated figures, threatening to behead them if they did not do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6293356.stm

Well that's the Big Difference bewteen the Taliban and Taliban Jack Layton...while they both use death to score political points......Jack hasn't threatened anyone yet......

All sides in war lie through their teeth. And all sides politicize the casualties.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

All sides in war lie through their teeth. And all sides politicize the casualties.

Andrew

We agree then, Taliban Jack Layton lies through his veneers.....

[AndrewL]

All sides in war lie through their teeth. And all sides politicize the casualties.

Andrew

We agree then, Taliban Jack Layton lies through his veneers.....

He is a politician who wants power. I have no idea how he could possibly think to achieve that if he was not a liar.

Andrew

[Army Guy]

ScottSA:

So what you're saying is that reports from soldiers on the ground indicate that the presence of journalists within 1500 meters of flying bullets may be a gross exaggeration.

Nope, just saying that we never seen any journalists at the pionty end, When a media type joins your section or plt everyone is made aware so there is no confusion as to whom there are, and there are provided an escort or tag along...to ensure we don't light him up by mistake...

Just how much factual reporting can you do from the rear anyways.

jdobbin:

I don't doubt that there were deaths. I am saying that there has been some questioning of the overall numbers.

All the reporter had to do was look at the extensive defensive network these guys dugout, miles of trenches, bunkers, reinforced mudhuts by the 100's, And then ask the question could a couple 100 guys build it, and why build it if you were not going to man it...

That first night we went in there most if not all the advancing companies came under heavy fire, along a couple of klicks of front, our lav plt recieve approx 100 RPG rounds in a few minutes, along with concentrated MG and small arms fire...it was total caus...the kind that is caused by more than a couple hundred bad guys and that was in our little area of the battle field...

For the next 15 or so days fighting was intense, and we used every wpn at our disposal, from small arms to airstrikes, you don't put that much fire power down and not kill anyone. The Bad guys gave as much as they could, destroying a few Lav's, wounding plenty of my comrads...but this battle was one sided once we got moving forward.

It may not of been the set piece battle everyone said it was , there was plenty of flaws, plenty of things that did go wrong, but at the end of over 15 days of continueous battle it was Canadian soldiers who had thrown the taliban out of town.

How many did we kill that depends on which media outlet you read, any where from 600 to 1500...Although i can't speak for acuate numbers or any other companies lines of attack, but i will say hundrds died in our area of operations...i don't know how many times we were slowed up by dozens of taliban held up in huge bunkers, or mud huts, after airstrikes were called in those bunkers or mudhuts simply cease to exist...

Talk to sniper crews who would spend days in one postion killing taliban trying to collect thier dead, talk to the Lav gunners who would snipe taliban across the river, with 25mm at ranges in excess of 1500 meters.

If there is one thing i certain off is that the taliban died in large numbers, there were bodies every if you could'nt see them you could definitly smell them roting in the heat.

In the end it doesn't matter how many died if those people are replaced swiftly and the area that was cleaned up remains a threat to security.

Don't let a small number of Taliban convince you the area is not secure, that battle did hurt the taliban and it will be some time before they replace that many soldiers, regardless of what anyone say's...

[jdobbin]

All the reporter had to do was look at the extensive defensive network these guys dugout, miles of trenches, bunkers, reinforced mudhuts by the 100's, And then ask the question could a couple 100 guys build it, and why build it if you were not going to man it...

That first night we went in there most if not all the advancing companies came under heavy fire, along a couple of klicks of front, our lav plt recieve approx 100 RPG rounds in a few minutes, along with concentrated MG and small arms fire...it was total caus...the kind that is caused by more than a couple hundred bad guys and that was in our little area of the battle field...

For the next 15 or so days fighting was intense, and we used every wpn at our disposal, from small arms to airstrikes, you don't put that much fire power down and not kill anyone. The Bad guys gave as much as they could, destroying a few Lav's, wounding plenty of my comrads...but this battle was one sided once we got moving forward.

It may not of been the set piece battle everyone said it was , there was plenty of flaws, plenty of things that did go wrong, but at the end of over 15 days of continueous battle it was Canadian soldiers who had thrown the taliban out of town.

How many did we kill that depends on which media outlet you read, any where from 600 to 1500...Although i can't speak for acuate numbers or any other companies lines of attack, but i will say hundrds died in our area of operations...i don't know how many times we were slowed up by dozens of taliban held up in huge bunkers, or mud huts, after airstrikes were called in those bunkers or mudhuts simply cease to exist...

Talk to sniper crews who would spend days in one postion killing taliban trying to collect thier dead, talk to the Lav gunners who would snipe taliban across the river, with 25mm at ranges in excess of 1500 meters.

If there is one thing i certain off is that the taliban died in large numbers, there were bodies every if you could'nt see them you could definitly smell them roting in the heat.

Don't let a small number of Taliban convince you the area is not secure, that battle did hurt the taliban and it will be some time before they replace that many soldiers, regardless of what anyone say's...

I certainly hope that you are correct that areas are being secured as you have said.

If the Taliban can't win in a straight fight, they could just wear Canada down with bombings and mines.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-15-voa15.cfm

An Afghan official says a roadside bomb has killed at least six security guards who were working for a private company.

The incident occurred in Paktia province, which borders Pakistan. Provincial Governor Akram Akhpalwak says the guards were traveling in a vehicle when the bomb detonated.

http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/sto...llnews&id=25893

A suicide bomber targeted a NATO patrol in a marketplace filled with children Tuesday, killing 13 elementary school students and at least four other people. The U.N. and NATO quickly condemned the attack for harming so many civilians.

The bomber struck around 9 a.m., when children usually arrive at a nearby primary school for a second shift of classes. Schools in Afghanistan often serve three rotations of students.

As American generals have pointed out in Iraq, this type of fighting can do more damage than a straight fight.