# 200 Civilians Dead?-Taliban Deceit?



## Yard Ape (11 Oct 2001)

does anybody else suspect shades of Bosnia "bomb our people and blame the other side?"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2001)

Goes without saying, especially when they won‘t let independant press in to confirm or report. The Taliban are not afraid of slaughtering some of their own to achieve their goals. They will all have a special place in heaven, oh wait, not the women, being second class, or the kids either, I guess. Well, probably the men, hmmm, nope not them either, as they had no choice about being martyrs and likely didn‘t go screaming "death to the infidels!!"


----------



## TOW2B (11 Oct 2001)

Of course the majority of those killed were innocent civilians who happened to be doing maintenance on the Taliban‘s ancient fleet of T-55s at the time...or better yet innocent orphaned little children who were on the way to see the old folks in the mullah retirement home...or better yet a school trip out to pick wildflowers for Osama and his merry little gang!!! You gotta love it when these tin pot dictators think they can pass the same propaganda that they force feed to the folks at home on the world.


----------



## enfield (14 Oct 2001)

This thought..rather, thoughts, just occured to me.

We (ie, the West) are currently waging the NICEST war - and I hesitate to use the word "war" - in history. We do not target non-military targets (something not given to Germany or Japan), we rarely miss, we even stop bombing them on their holy days so as not to offend them. We drop as much food as we explosves - perhaps more. As we bomb them, we send many millions of dollars worth of aid to their borders. 
Now, I bring this up - and don‘t like to call it a war - because this is a vacation compared iwth what the Afghanis have been doing to themselves for the past decade. Never in human history has anyone been so nice, and so non-offensive.
The media has so far failed to bring this up, at least not in its entirety. 
Secondly, why is this called a "massive military buildup". From what I‘ve been reading the US has been using less than two dozen aircraft. My god, one aircraft carrier casually sailing by could have done what‘s been done so far - hell, the Canadian Air Force could have pulled this off!

Now, why are the peaceniks out en masse??? We are neither killing nor offending them, and we‘re feeding them. If somehow there are thousands of people in this world, who, despite having unprecedented access to news, facts, and information can still be so mal-informed as to find fault with this endeavour, this culture has problems. Let me advance this hypothesis (pieces of which have been already put forward in editorials):
Current liberal thinking - polictical correctness - does not allow for the existence of good and evil. Since we are all naturally good people, anyone who does bad things - murderers, drug users, drop-outs, genocidal terrorists - thus has to be a victim of various outside influences (bad parents, American foreign policy).

While this theory has long been questioned and bashed (thank-you Dennis leary) it still remains strong - hence, in response to the worst act of terrorism in history we are worried about offending someone. I would say that we have reached a crosroads - when this is said and done, political correctness will either have died a hard death, or someone stronger will have taken our place.  There is a time an dplace for raional discussion, and there is a time and place for Imperialist gunboat diplomacy.


----------



## RCA (14 Oct 2001)

When all is said and done, dropping bombs on sovereign nations (as well as flying airliners into buildings) are acts of war.  There are potential for casualties on both sides as well as responses. (Anthrax?)

But does anyone get the impression we are being spoon feed the news. (shades of the Gulf War). Anything coming out of the Talaban is suspect (no live feed as might be secret messages - I call this ingenuous censorship) while there is no way our side can shade the truth. 20 planes when you have 3 x carriers in the region. And the dropping of food is not so much as humanitarian as good PR. As one commentator stated - " bombs and snacks". Besides who uses a 1 tonne bomb on a helicopter? More there then meets the eye. 

As for a kinder gentler war, I don‘t think so, just shrewd diplomacy. If the Muslim people of the east perceive this a war against their religion, watch out. It will make 11 Sept look just like Pearl Harbour. Just the starting gun for worst to follow


----------



## enfield (14 Oct 2001)

Of course we‘re being spoon-fed for what we‘re seeing. But, I wouldn‘t call it propoganda. After this is over, and to a certain extent while it‘s going on, the Government has to account for what it has done. Some things are being witheld for security, political, or whatever other reasons. The management of information is part of war, and the PR war is essential - and Blair has already said that we‘re losing the PR battle. 
Not playing those taped hate-mongering videos - the "live from the cave specials" - is a wise precaution. Why should we spread their propoganda? It‘s not censorship since they aren‘t saying anything new, useful, or factual. 
It is the Taliban that has forced the media to leave Afghanistan, except for that small group it let in and puts on a little song and dance for.  It is because of this PR battle that the allies are being so nice. Right now, as Mark Steyn pointed out, the US treats Muslims better than Damascus or Cairo. 

The food is a PR stunt, and is meant to show the intentions of the US and UK. Besides, 37000 people WILL eat because of that, so it‘s not all that empty. The people are starving because of the Taliban, not the US. I believe that the US and Uk are not intentionally targeting civilians, an dar etaking all reasonable precautions to avoid accidents - this is good enough for me. If a few "civilians" die, then so be it. As long as its not intentional, I see no crime or foul.


----------



## GPMG (15 Oct 2001)

While I agree that bin Ladin‘s speeches are a waste of air, and tell us nothing new or factual; I have to disagree on the point that it doesn‘t qualify as censorship. I believe that opinions can tell us just as much as facts sometimes, especially regarding an enemy‘s motivations and possible MO. Censoring bin Laden‘s opinions might seem to be a wise move PR wise, but I think that if we let him speak, he will shoot himself in the foot far better than we could do on our own. 

Those who are sympathetic to him WILL hear the speeches in one way or another, through other international news networks or on the internet. But for the majority of reasonable people in North America, it will only strengthen their believe that it is necessary to get rid of this piece of garbage. 

As to the issue of civilians, I firmly believe that every effort is being made to avoid causing casualties among them. Most of us here are soldiers, or were at one time. We all know that professional soldiers, like those in the US or UK militaries do not go out and kill people for kicks. If anything, Allied pilots have shown incredible restraint; often flying back home with bombs still on their wings rather than drop them on targets that may have civilian presence. 

I personally do not buy the Taliban‘s propaganda about civilian body counts. Since when has the Taliban ever differentiated between innocent civilians and combatants? I would not put it past them to mortar their own people and blame it on Allied bombs. You simply can‘t tell with the lmited pictures coming out of the country. What little I have seen seems to show pinpoint damage... a few small huts flattened. A 500-2000lb bomb will do much more than that. That is just my take on things, perhaps those with more knowledge can shed some light.


----------

