It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How many foreign troops killed in Afghanistan (lies and more lies)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
While Wikipedia claims foreign invaders have lost 1,912 lives since the occupation, this number I suspect is another lie, obviously they are gonna lie and tone down everything, it is natural.

What you won't hear in Western news Agency is the account of official Afghan news Agency Bakhtar News.

They claim that the death toll of foreign troops is 4,413.

That number matches the Iraq war death toll which is 4,732.

Who is lying here? Why are they lying? Who has mistaken, who has agenda>?

Legitimate questions to ask

ATS will answer it.

oz

[edit on 9-8-2010 by oozyism]




posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

''Who is lying here?" Both sides.
"Why are they lying?" Because they have an agenda.
"Who has mistaken?" No one.
"Who has agenda?" Both sides.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I did some research a long time ago
comparing the reported casualties of
a conflict in the papers vs. what the
final number in the history books is.
From that I developed this simple
rule, multiply all your own reported
casualties by ten, and divide enemy
deaths reported by ten. On average
this will be closer to accurate, though
it still remains open to questioning.


David Grouchy



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Doesn't matter who is lying - people killed during warfare are PEOPLE, NOT NUMBERS!

War is wrong and stupid and does not benefit mankind.

Murder is wrong - WAR IS MURDER!



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
These are not numbers you need to lie about. Nobody would think any different if the number was 2000 or 4000. So I don't think there is a hidden agenda behind either number. It just depends on how you count.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
These are not numbers you need to lie about. Nobody would think any different if the number was 2000 or 4000. So I don't think there is a hidden agenda behind either number. It just depends on how you count.


I disagree

These are numbers which effects the American mentality in regards to the war.

Think about it

Think about history if you don't want to think about today. Similar situation has occurred in the past also, we have a tendency to forget and not learn due to agenda.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
That 1991 number looks like the same number (or close) from iCasualties, which I believe only reports what the DoD tells them. I don't think they count all (if any) PMCs in their "official" numbers. And that means PMCs from a lot of different countries. I'm sure many more died in Iraq too than they are reporting.

www.salon.com...



[edit on 8/9/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
Like ~Lucidity says. Part of the agenda is to report the smallest number possible to the American public, so as to keep rebellion against war at a minimum.

Therefore, the numbers easily accessible are used. Left out are CIA(except that rather publicized attack by an "informant") and Mercenaries (see previous note) and highly classified special ops and non-military DOD, and State Department, and probably NATO forces who were recruited from non-NATO countries (actually quite a few).

Consider also the regulars who live long enough to evac out to Germany, then aren't counted as Afghan occupation casualties.

All in all, lots of people lost and just swept under the carpet numberwise for propaganda (PR) purposes.

I would guess that Bakhtar News would report any they hear about, which would be most, just not the highly secret (CIA, DIA, NSA, special Ops). Those numbers would be rather low any way I would think.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by pthena]



new topics




 
2

log in

join