Skip to comments.
U.S. , SAS's unreported casualties
UPI ^
| Sunday, 18 November 2001 11:30 (ET)
| RICHARD SALE, UPI Terrorism Analyst
Posted on 11/18/2001 7:55:39 AM PST by grahm_crackers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: grahm_crackers
The Pentagon is not reporting battle casualties suffered by U.S. Special Forces fighting near the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar and some other one-time Taliban strong points, administration sources speculated. "Some fatalities could be involved," an administration source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Speculation wrapped around innuendo and topped with rumors. What makes any of this news?
To: SamAdams76
There were less military deaths during the Gulf War than there were during peace time. Most military deaths are due to normal every day automobile accidents.
22
posted on
11/18/2001 8:23:17 AM PST
by
blam
To: grahm_crackers
" A large body of 200 Rangers, plus helicopters and AC-130 gunships were sent in to back up the Delta force. The raid, whose execution was described by a senior Pentagon official, as "flawless in execution" was to be the start of new, fast-paced hit-and-run ground strategy that would alter the course of the war, said Pentagon officials at the time. " Am I the only one who thinks that this raid was just a diversion to get the Taliban to spread out their military and pull units back from the Northern Alliance? And now UPI's trying to promote it as evidence of military incompetence? God I hope people remember UPI did this!
23
posted on
11/18/2001 8:28:15 AM PST
by
elfman2
To: grahm_crackers
If the Delta Force is said officially not to exist, how could we ever expect it to admit casualties? People who do not exist by definition do not take casualties.
Officially, that is.
24
posted on
11/18/2001 8:30:05 AM PST
by
longleaf
To: mountaineer
This is a Clinton holdover running his mouth....watch this get picked up in the next couple of days by the media and used to hammer the President..
This is treasonous..
25
posted on
11/18/2001 8:31:39 AM PST
by
Dog
To: grahm_crackers
What do you wanna bet that the anonymous State Department sources are the Clintoon-oid holdovers still availing themselves of their previous complicit media outlets to undercut Bush?
To: grahm_crackers
administration sources speculated.
Speculated!"Speculated" is a guess with a Masters Degree in mis-direction, a Doctorate in deception, and a Bachelors in BS.
As an old Newsie, I can tell you how this story came about. A politically appointed GS-12 from the Department of Agriculture or some other war-critical agency (NOT) were sitting around, drinking Manhattans at L&N Seafood, the Palms, Tarra Thai or some other DC hotspot, when one remarked to another that a friend told a friend who told a friend that some GI got a hangnail and it wasn't reported..... and all the rest came from that.
No confirmation, no on the record reporting, no editor fact-checking!!!
As an old newsie.....I am ashamed of this story!!!!
To: Dane
Wow Mr. Sale, there is nothing like putting words into Rumsfeld's mouth. You noticed that too? Good, I'm glad I wasn't alone in that. Juszt think of the news articles you could write if you never had to quote, but could write general equivelancies.
To: grahm_crackers
Rumsfeld: I have already said that there are plenty of ways of avoiding being in that position. And I -- all I can say is -- I suppose you never say never, but all I can say is I cannot imagine a situation where we would be so unskillful that we would be in a position that we would have to do that to protect lives. And my fervent hope is that we will be able to manage our affairs in a way that that will never happen. And I am 69 years old, and I don't believe it's ever happened that I've lied to the press, and I don't intend to start now.
29
posted on
11/18/2001 8:38:27 AM PST
by
kcvl
To: grahm_crackers
If we have lost the number being reported, my heart goes out to those who gave their lives. And I scorn the press for asking the wrong questions so they can blow it back at the Pentagon and create dissent where national gratitude should be the order of the day.
I have known media reporters. In my experience, they are a ragged, un-American, ill-informed, unpricipled, and unscrupulous lot.
30
posted on
11/18/2001 8:38:56 AM PST
by
NetValue
To: mountaineer
After all, it either is or is not what he said.It is not what he said. I remember that press conference, and while I don't recall his exact words well enough to quote them here, they were definitely not anything at all like "this is the last time I'm telling you the truth", in either form or content.
To: grahm_crackers
The answer to your question is, no, I cannot imagine a situation. I don't recall that I've ever lied to the press, I don't intend to, and it seems to me that there will not be reason for it. There are dozens of ways to avoid having to put yourself in a position where you're lying. And I don't do it. And Torie won't do it. And Admiral Quigley won't do it.
32
posted on
11/18/2001 8:41:24 AM PST
by
kcvl
To: grahm_crackers
Great. Are you telling me we have _another_ President who lies to the American people?
To: grahm_crackers
"an administration source said, speaking on condition of anonymity" Definitely needs to ferreted out and eliminated.
To: grahm_crackers
Well, I remember the reports of losing a sailor on the Kitty Hawk, I think, and of course, losing two in the helicoptor accident.
Now it's obvious that the government has to account for troops that don't come home - to their units, their families, etc. etc. or there's a media upheaval about the situation. So while there's a possibiblity that the reporting will be done in some way later, I'm not buying the story at this time.
35
posted on
11/18/2001 8:52:15 AM PST
by
bond7
To: shrinkermd
It is hard to believe the Administration would conceal KIA'S
I believe they should conceal KIA's, at least until after the Afghan campaign is over. The reason--most reporters have proved to be siding with, or at least giving aid and comfort to, our enemies.
Why give them accurate information when it is not necessary to do so?
The families should be notified just before releasing it to the press (since under those circumstances it would leak anyway). Perhaps this should be done in conjunction with some sort of ceremony honoring war dead.
36
posted on
11/18/2001 8:53:13 AM PST
by
cgbg
Comment #37 Removed by Moderator
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: SamAdams76
I remember at least a half-dozen casualties during my training exercises outside 29 Palms during the mid-1980s. I see that we were on the same base at roughly the same time. I joined for 4 years in August 81 and was based out of Pendleton. I took part in two exercises out at 29 Palms. One was with a mobile COC that General Cheatem was experimenting with. It was to test out using two flatbed tractor-trailers that were backed up end to end. Canvass was then strung over the flatbeds and about a dozen trucks representing G1 - G4 were backed up to it. We could then walk around them like offices. It had never been done before and was pretty slick for a Division HQ. It could be disassembled, moved and reassembled in a day.
On my second trip I was part of the TECG that helped plan and manage a large live fire operation. We had a dozen very high level observers form both Israel and several Arab nations on the final day. That was also a first, and we couldnt report it for obvious reasons.
I dont remember more than one or two deaths being commonplace for such an exercise, but a half dozen wouldn't surprise me on occasion. I think the problem with this particular story though is that it's spreading rumors of domestic deceit by the Bush administration without evidence, not that the casualty figures are unrealistic.
39
posted on
11/18/2001 8:56:44 AM PST
by
elfman2
To: MindBender26
spec·u·late (sp
k
y
-l
t
)
v. spec·u·lat·ed, spec·u·lat·ing, spec·u·lates v. intr.
- To meditate on a subject; reflect.
- To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. See Synonyms at think.
- To engage in the buying or selling of a commodity with an element of risk on the chance of profit.
v. tr.
- To assume to be true without conclusive evidence: speculated that high cholesterol was a contributing factor to the patient's health problems.
Im not even a newsie and im embarrased
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson