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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (14825)	9/23/2002 1:58:27 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Before I get to the laughable level of credibility of these "sources," let's take an initial, superficial look at your "evidence." One is titled: US raids 'killed 800 Afghan civilians' a second begins, What causes the documented* high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths[.]* "Documented"? Where? Just saying that something is "documented" doesn't vouch for its' existence alone. A third says, Nearly 3,800 Afghans died between 7 October and 7 December, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said* in a research report.* So who is this guy? "Evidence" is a professor tallying numbers from a newspaper? Still another says, "As many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the US intervention. They too belong in any tally of the dead." Twenty-thousand may have lost their lives. So might have one-hundred thousand. So might have fifty. Even disregarding the fact that this estimate of dead is six times what the other - unverified - claims are, how are they defining "indirect consequence[s]"? Starvation? Fleeing across minefields? It seems obvious that they're not suggesting that these are combat casualties. It also says, After October 7, the University of New Hampshire conservatively estimates that 5,000 Afghan civilians lost their lives in the bombing. Who's to say whether their estimate is conservative? The professor claimed that his number was conservative, but he apparently is getting his numbers from the media, who are habitually conservative. What do you imagine happens to conservative estimates of conservative estimates...? Moreover, are there any verifying, cross-referencing sources? Those sources are your basis for saying that the U.S. "killed 5,000"? (BTW: The "Institute for Mass Communications"!?!) people-link.org ROFL!!!! LPS5