How many died in Afghanistan?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-11 12:09am

I'm in a debate at another forum, and I was wondering if anyone knew off hand how many Afghani deaths there were during "Enduring Freedom" or whatever it was.

All help appreciated, thanks.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-11 02:02am

I don't know about military deaths, but civvie deaths were 1,000-1,300 in Enduring Freedom (which is correct), according to counts down by the LA Times, Reuters, and the Project for Defense Alternatives.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-11 02:06am

Thanks so much, the guy I'm arguing with claimed 280,000. I assumed he was exaggerating.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-10-11 02:47am

Gandalf wrote:Thanks so much, the guy I'm arguing with claimed 280,000. I assumed he was exaggerating.

Even a group of students protesting the bombings, who added up EVERY SINGLE PERSON that the Taliban claimed had died as a result of the bombings in order to derive a wildly overstated figure, "only" claimed that there were 4,800 civilian deaths in the entire operation. The guy isn't just exaggerating. He's full of shit.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-10-11 02:47am

Gandalf wrote:Thanks so much, the guy I'm arguing with claimed 280,000. I assumed he was exaggerating.

Afghanistan was pretty low intensity. That many people to be killed would require some significant fighting that could not be covered.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-11 02:49am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Thanks so much, the guy I'm arguing with claimed 280,000. I assumed he was exaggerating.
Even a group of students protesting the bombings, who added up EVERY SINGLE PERSON that the Taliban claimed had died as a result of the bombings in order to derive a wildly overstated figure, "only" claimed that there were 4,800 civilian deaths in the entire operation. The guy isn't just exaggerating. He's full of shit.

I think that number actually came from a UNH professor, who pretty much blindly accepted Taliban accounts in his calculations.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-10-11 02:52am

Durran Korr wrote: I think that number actually came from a UNH professor, who pretty much blindly accepted Taliban accounts in his calculations.

It almost certainly came from both sources, seeing as how the original source material was EVERY SINGLE frickin' Taliban claim of civilian casualties.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-11 02:54am

As for the 280,000 figure, there were certainly people who were claiming before we went into Afghanistan that the number of civilian casualties would exceed 300,000. And then there's the brutal Afghan winter...

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-10-11 03:06am

Gandalf wrote:I'm in a debate at another forum, and I was wondering if anyone knew off hand how many Afghani deaths there were during "Enduring Freedom" or whatever it was.

What exactly was "Enduring Freedom"??

During the recent bombings of Afghanistan I suppose that at least 10,000 civilians died - but to me the figure of 300.000 seems like a gross exaggeration.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-11 03:13am

What exactly was "Enduring Freedom"??

That was the title given to the operation in Afghanistan after it became clear that "Infinite Justice" was insanely stupid.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-11 03:25am

Durran Korr wrote:
What exactly was "Enduring Freedom"??
That was the title given to the operation in Afghanistan after it became clear that "Infinite Justice" was insanely stupid.

I would have liked "Bloody Vengeance"

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-10-11 03:36am

Here is the argument in the entirity, I'm Darth Manveru.

Darth Manveru wrote:
KrazyKarl wrote:My reason has something to do with the constant Cock measuring competitions that he has had since september 11 2001
really since he came into office
I mean about 2000 people died in the World Trade Centre
about 280000 people died in the attack on afghanistan
and if anyone tells me they were all Taliban, they are as stupid as bush's supporters
sure ppls like skinner say "It doesn't matter they are going to hell n e way" but a quater of a million people is inexcusable
Get your facts straight.
Approx 3600 died in the WTC.
All estimates I've read put the toll for Afghanistan at less that 20,000.

then there is the "WOMD" debacle in Afghanistan
sure Saddam was an arsehole
sure, they probably should have got rid of him
but a) Bush completely undermined the UN
b) They lied about there reasons
a) The UN is essentially useless anyway.
b) But doesn't that make it a noble lie? Vaguely analogous to stealing food for a starving people. And have you heard any of the reports of crap that went on under Saddam, he should have been dealt with a LONG time ago.

So that is the surface of my beef
i am ok with howard being his lapdog though cos we need 2 buy a "Beware of Dog" sign to ward off attacks ourselves
The US are our dog that probably won't exist when the time comes, but wat can we do
What does that mean?

Darth Manveru wrote:
KrazyKarl wrote:where did u hear that
i have heard numerous reports putting it that high
and as for WTC wow compared 2 wat i was saying for the Afgahnistan deaths it is a drop in the ocean
Where are you getting your figures?
Are you saying that if someone launches one of the most devastating attacks ever against you, and then hide in a country they already don't like (for good reason), they're not justified in attacking?

as for the noble lie, why didn't he just say saddam hussein is horrible, lets get rid of him so we are responsible
You need a bit more than just that to go in after someone nowadays. Remember all the crap Clinton got for resuming bombing Iraq back in '97.

as for the howard thingi
when one of our northern neighbours decides that we are not a good ally (ie Indonesia) they are going to be less likely to attack us if we are buddies with dubya and his army
but chances are they wouldn't save us n e way
Why would they openly attack us? we're a first world nation with ties with everyone. Severing diplomatic ties is one thing, attacking is entirely another.

Darth Manveru wrote:
KrazyKarl wrote:that is my entire point u idiot
Insults are poor substitutes for decent arguments.

we have 2 maintain the ties
But you also state the US wouldn't come to our aid. What are you on about?

lets just aggree to disaggree
i think dubya is an idiot
u don't
I never said he wasn't an idiot, I said his actions are justifiable. Removing regimes that have lots of civilian deaths is something I would encourage.

Sorry for the long post, but it was my first victory,and I am proud. He conceded over MSN.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-10-11 11:41am

Anyone who can't take the time to type 'you' or 'two' doesn't deserve alot of credit in a debate like this.

"wat r r ppls talking about u 1d10ts?!"

"What are you people talking about, you idiots?!"

Which one do you take seriously? Example A or B?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-11 01:20pm

Considering how many people were needlessly dying every year due to the civil war and the Taliban's nazi state, I don't think the numbers we killed due to ACCIDENT is that much worse.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-10-11 01:21pm

And to add, how many Afgans did we save when we bombed the civilians with food?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-11 01:29pm

280,000 dead? Ask him how many atom bombs we used.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-11 01:58pm

Durran Korr wrote:
What exactly was "Enduring Freedom"??
That was the title given to the operation in Afghanistan after it became clear that "Infinite Justice" was insanely stupid.

So "Infinite Justice" was renamed "Enduring Freedom"? They weren't two different operations?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-11 02:05pm

The only way 280,000 is likely to be anywhere close to accurate is if you counted all dead since 1989, though 1979 might be more like it.

lance · Post by **lance** » 2003-10-11 07:16pm

What if it was just people who died during operation freedom? Not realy caring how they died? Like all the people who died of old age and disease?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-11 07:32pm

lance wrote:What if it was just people who died during operation freedom? Not realy caring how they died? Like all the people who died of old age and disease?

The number would still be far too high.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-11 07:39pm

Personally, I think 'Operation Enduring Freedom' was scraping the bottom of the barrel, and 'Iraqi Freedom' just sucked. Whatever happened the likes of 'Desert Storm' and 'Desert Saber'?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-10-11 09:23pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Personally, I think 'Operation Enduring Freedom' was scraping the bottom of the barrel, and 'Iraqi Freedom' just sucked. Whatever happened the likes of 'Desert Storm' and 'Desert Saber'?

Operation Enduring Freedom was originally called "Operation Infinite Justice" but they renamed it when some whiney idiots protested that it sounded offensive.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-10-11 10:00pm

'Infinite Justice' is much, much cooler than 'Enduring Freedom'. I want our next war to be called 'Operation Avenging Wrath of God'

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-10-11 10:13pm

Infinite Justice sounds like some mega super button mashing special attack by Captain America in some sidescrolling fighting game.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-10-11 10:25pm

Personally, I think it should have been "Operation Clawhammer to Face" myself, but that's just me.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How many died in Afghanistan?

How many died in Afghanistan?

Re: How many died in Afghanistan?