Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (42024)	12/22/2001 4:42:06 PM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

False and incorrect hogwash numbers game here, if the intent is to raise negative public sentiment on this anti-terrorism campaign and particularly on the Afghanistan operation front. We need to look deeper than numbers game, and determine the meaning of that number. Without a doubt the number may rise higher as the Talebans and civilians reside in same masjids (temples) communities to hide and store their armaments and when the Talebans are swimming among the civilians. The 4,000 number is very small toll considering the extent of the operation in several major cities. It is also a very minute number in comparison to the human suffering toll perpetrated on Afghans by Talebans. The 4,000 or 10,000 whatever number is a small sacrifice for Afghans to rid themselves of Talebans and for the prospect of the future. Needless to say, whatever the final numbers will be, there is no quantification of the quality of the casualty: Taleban supporters, Taleban officers, Taleban members, Pashtuns, Arabs, foreign jihadis, totally innocent bystanders, etc, etc.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (42024)	12/23/2001 3:52:50 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 50167

Now, for the first time, a systematic independent study has been carried out into civilian casualties in Afghanistan by Marc Herold, a US economics professor at the University of New Hampshire. isn't it strange that he can be so sure about his numbers when, with all our resources here at home, the number of fatalities at the WTC disaster has steadly fallen from 6000+ to 5,000, then 4,000, then just a couple of days ago to less than 3,000. There is a lot confusion here what with double and triple listings, errors in names and such -- imagine how chaotic it must be in Afghanistan. I frankly, am very skeptical of his estimates and consider him to be grandstanding in one way or another. --fl

To: Skywatcher who wrote (42024)	12/23/2001 10:02:16 AM
From: J. P.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Too many smug and self satisfied liberal intellectuals are shrouded in their ivory tower cacoons. This is a shooting war, HELLO! As illustrated by the attempted bombing of the Paris to Miami flight yesterday, Western non-combatants risk the same fate as the Afghan casualties every time they board a commercial aircraft. Not to mention any other destructive attacks the terrorists may have on the drawing board.

To: Skywatcher who wrote (42024)	12/26/2001 7:39:24 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

While I'm skeptical (he's an econ perfesser!) of his numbers, if 10K soldiers died and less than 4K civilians, that is not a bad ratio. Since WW1, generally more civilians than military die in conflicts. No, I don't like civilian deaths. But considering that the Taliban purposefully chose to hide in populated areas because they believed we'd be reluctant to bomb there, his numbers reflect a surprising degree of bombing accuracy, well above what was achieved as recently as the Gulf war.... IF his numbers are close to accurate.