U.S. , SAS's unreported casualties

UPI ^ | Sunday, 18 November 2001 11:30 (ET) | RICHARD SALE, UPI Terrorism Analyst

[newsperson999]

i think they are a lot more US troops on the ground then they are saying....one report said that there are 30,000 NA troops now...well there were only 10-15K (if that) a month ago....
AFGHAN WAR WIRES..CLICK

[Dane]

At the end of his explanation, Rumsfeld looked at the reporters and according to Pike, Rumsfled stated the equivalent of: "This is the last time I'm telling you the truth."

Wow Mr. Sale, there is nothing like putting words into Rumsfeld's mouth. How about actually reporting what he said.

[Ratatoskr]

You know, if real, live active duty American military men "speaking on condition of anonymity" are choosing this moment to tell journalists what lying, incompetent monkies we are, I want every one of those traitors before a military tribunal.

But somehow I don't think it's happening.

[shrinkermd]

This keeps surfacing. I believe it started in a British newspaper. No the subtle defence of Hirsch again. It is hard to believe the Administration would conceal KIA'S.

[mountaineer]

Rumsfled stated the equivalent of: "This is the last time I'm telling you the truth."

The equivalent? Why can't this writer tell us what Rumsfeld really said, instead of interpreting it? After all, it either is or is not what he said. If it's not what he said, don't use quotation marks. Shoddy reporting.

[SamAdams76]

If you put as many soldiers who are currently over in Afghanistan on a training mission in the Mojave desert in California, you would still have some casualties. I remember at least a half-dozen casualties during my training exercises outside 29 Palms during the mid-1980s. One Marine was killed when his jeep flipped over. Another Marine was killed in a generator accident. Another one was somehow run over by a tank. Let's face it, the military is a dangerous business. Even in peacetime. Even if it turns out that we had 40-50 Special Forces casualties already, it is still astonishingly low for all that we have been able to accomplish.

[winodog]

Gov.org lies about anything and everything under the sun, so why should'nt they lie about this.

This is the one area I dont mind being lied to about if it will help the war effort.

I know most people dont believe any US soldiers died in that raid but I do.I pray that God puts a hedge of angels around our brave men and we dont lose many if any at all.

Hmmmmmm I wonder if angels die when they go into battle against each other?

[Republic of Texas]

When this article referenced the tired and already refuted Hirsch article, it lost all credibility.

[grahm_crackers]

GWB told us to expect casualties. Can't figure out why they would hide it if true. We're big boys, tell us the truth. Surely they would tell the families, who would then tell the press. Tough to hide 30/40 dead.

[LJLucido]

estimates reported that between 25 to 40 Americans had been killed so far in clashes

About that many NY cops were killed responding to the WTC attacks. About 10 times that many NY firefighters were killed in the initial rescue operation. Yes, fighting a war is dangerous. People can get hurt. But we do it anyway because we have to.

To coin an overused phrase, if we don't defeat the terrorists, then the terrorists will have won.

[M. Thatcher]

Previously discussed and disassembled here.

[oxi-nato]

in an age of poll numbers, ofcourse we will only be spoon fed a one sided conflict by the pentagon!

that is why i cannot 100% trust the pentagon anymore, especially after the kosovo conflict!

those of us like myself who ignores reports that come from the pentagon and taliban sources, etc... and seek the truth are in a better position to make a judgement about this conflict.

the pentagon will fabricate, cover-up and deny as usual, just look at the kosovo conflict. the pentagon needs to come clean from kosovo before i will ever accept their conclusions again!!!

[Dane]

Shoddy reporting.

More like outright fraud, IMHO.

[SubMareener]

But, no casualties is not impossible.

But Rumsfeld said that no Americans had been killed in such operations, a remark one State Dept. official called: "Crazy."

"The rationale in denying the losses is that you don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy," this source said.

Obviously, there are still a lot of Communists and their fellow travelers in the State Department giving aid and comfort to the enemy! McCarthy was right!

[mdittmar]

administration sources speculated.

an administration source said, speaking on condition of anonymity

A U.S. government official said

one U.S. intelligence official said

One U.S. intelligence official told UPI

according to one administration official. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said:

Another U.S. government official said

When a DIA official was queried

one U.S. intelligence official said.

according to U.S. intelligence officials.

A U.S. government source confirmed this

Hell,I could write this,so and so said...

[rmvh]

[elhombrelibre]

Personally, I think the report is just plain bull shit. At this point, we know we're going to win; they know they are going to lose, saying the truth about KIAs is no big deal.

[walden]

Yeah, I have a real problem with these "anonymous" officials crap. Casualty reports will be made in due time. You stop to honor and grieve your dead when the battle is over, not while it is raging. Make no mistake, the U.S. press is NOT on our side in this war, or any war. They were absolutely instrumental in the U.S. decision to abandon South Vietnam, and as far as I am concerned, there is far more blood on the hands of our press after WWII than there is on the hands of our military.

[elfman2]

Sounds a lot like what some "noting to lose" internet news web sites said during Kosovo. UPI didn't pick those claims up and run with them like this, but that's fine. If UPI want's to stake it's credibility on the validity of this, then more power to them.

Oh, but wait! They've written the story so that they're not responsible… They're simply quoting "administration sources speculating on condition of anonymity". < sarcasm> No problem with that! Why should someone be responsible for such an outrageous anti-administration claim of domestic deceit? No need for extraordinarily evidence to support extraordinary claims here. No sign of malicious intent from UPI here! </sarcasm>