Skip to comments.
First American Casualty at Mazar-i Sharif
MSNBC
| 11/25/01
| Self
Posted on 11/25/2001 7:39:07 AM PST by Mahone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
1
posted on
11/25/2001 7:39:07 AM PST
by
Mahone
To: Mahone
Now thankfully, they are saying on MSNBC that there has NOT been an American casualty. Thank you, Lord.
2
posted on
11/25/2001 7:42:45 AM PST
by
Mahone
To: Mahone
Good job MSNBC, way to check your sources before broadcasting false stories.
3
posted on
11/25/2001 7:43:41 AM PST
by
Mr.Clark
To: Mahone
I don't understand why we are bothering with prisoners.
4
posted on
11/25/2001 7:44:05 AM PST
by
LarryM
To: LarryM
Yeah, I didn't see any prisoners walking out of the WTC- I don't want to see a damn one walking out of Afghanistan.
5
posted on
11/25/2001 7:46:34 AM PST
by
Oschisms
To: Mahone
Pentagon is denying the story.....No US Casualty!
6
posted on
11/25/2001 7:46:52 AM PST
by
Dog
To: LarryM
these prisoners may well be our downfall.
To: Mahone
Thank God it turned out not to be true. But if it was true that an American soldier was killed by Taliban POW's, I sure hope that the whole lot of them would be immediately dispatched to meet their "72 virgins." That would be a no-brainer.
To: Mahone
We should not be taking any of the sand goblins prisoner.
They have no regard for the basic rules of warfare, and therefore forfeit their right to surrender.
9
posted on
11/25/2001 7:47:40 AM PST
by
Mulder
To: Mahone
CNN was reporting this earlier. A CNN correspondent on the ground in Mazar-el-Sharif said that there were 2 American Special Ops guys caught in the "fort" where the Taliban prisoners were revolting. The reporter thought one had been killed because they had not had radio contact with him for several hours. The other they did not know about. Air strikes were called in. The reporter said he thought the revolt had been quelled--but a bunch of Taliban were killed, along with some NA troops--and the one American.
Hope the MSNBC report about there not being a casualty is accurate!
10
posted on
11/25/2001 7:52:29 AM PST
by
milagro
To: Mulder
I heard the Time reporter on the scene talking on CNN or FOX and he seemed pretty certain that one was killed, the other still in danger. He said that there were 7 air strikes on the rioting prisoners, hundreds killed in the firefight that preceded the bombing, all within hundreds of yards from where he was. Go figure!
To: Rustynailww
these prisoners may well be our downfall.
Some reports are that we are thinking of shipping/housing them in Guam. Can you imagine this cause being added to the anti WTO/Free Mumia movement? UGH
To: Mahone
And the filthy scumbags at MSNBC - aren't dwelling on the over 5000 who died at the WTC! Slimy liberals at MSNBC have such short memories!
13
posted on
11/25/2001 8:06:44 AM PST
by
ChaseR
To: SamAdams76
My sources say the an AC-130 and some F/A-18's sent hundreds to their virgins. By the way I bleive that US ground sources are responsible for over 2000 Towe-a-ban and AQ deaths. We just aren't hearing about that.
To: Mahone
off bold
15
posted on
11/25/2001 8:07:29 AM PST
by
ChaseR
To: VA Advogado
shipping/housing them in Guam. How about Johnston Island instead?
To: VA Advogado
Yeah, why send 'em to Guam? The citizens of an isolated island in SPAC, Tuvalu, are going to abandon it because it is uninhabitable (they claim b/c of rising sea levels due to global warming; skeptics say it's b/c the Tuvalese have despoiled it). I think this sounds like the perfect place for the "foreign" fighters--lots of sand, completely isolated, desolate. And what about Pitcairn Island (where the Bounty mutineers went)? Almost uninhabited, middle of nowhere.
To: Mahone
Body bag thirst at MSNBC. Unrepentant sobs.
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: Mahone
One thing to keep in mind..
The Media (and about 95% of the public, largely due to media and Hollywood idiocy) mistakenly think casualty = dead.
IN MILITARY USAGE CASUALTIES INCLUDE DEAD, MISSING, AND WOUNDED
It pretty much means anyone who can't fight. Someone with a non-fatal flesh wound in the arm would be described as a "casualty" by someone in the military. I have little doubt that confusion over this will arise over and over again, as it did in the Gulf War.
20
posted on
11/25/2001 8:21:04 AM PST
by
John H K
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 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