NATO strike kills nine in northeast Afghanistan

[News_Editor]

NATO strike kills nine in northeast Afghanistan

2011-03-02 03:49:57 GMT+7 (ICT)

ASADABAD, AFGHANISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- Nine insurgents were killed Tuesday during an air raid by coalition forces in Darah-Ye Pech district of Kunar Province in northeast Afghanistan, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) reported.

The military statement said that coalition forces returned fire after two rocket attacks, which slightly wounded one local contractor at Forward Operating Base Blessing.

Residents, however, claimed that the individuals killed during the air strike were nine children. The dead were children, aged between 10 and 15, who were collecting firewood in the remote valley, resident Gul Nabi told Pajhwok Afghan News.

ISAF said that it had launched a probe into the civilian casualty claims.

"We'll investigate these allegations quickly and thoroughly with a joint and combined incident assessment team including members from the Ministries of Defence and Interior," ISAF spokesman Colonel Charles Toplikar said.

Meanwhile, the district police chief, Mohammad Rahman Bashardost, said that exact casualty figures will be known after a delegation dispatched to the scene returns, Pajhwok Afghan News reported.

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-03-02

[BKKarim]

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

How many of these 'similar strikes' were never reported?

Everyone calling now Gaddafi the mad man, but how insane is that ongoing war in Afghanistan? Who will bring these murder to justice?

[koheesti]

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

How many of these 'similar strikes' were never reported?

Everyone calling now Gaddafi the mad man, but how insane is that ongoing war in Afghanistan? Who will bring these murder to justice?

That's what they are there trying to do - bring the murderers to justice.

[BKKarim]

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

How many of these 'similar strikes' were never reported?

Everyone calling now Gaddafi the mad man, but how insane is that ongoing war in Afghanistan? Who will bring these murder to justice?

That's what they are there trying to do - bring the murderers to justice.

With killing children, women, civilians and calling their victims 'suspects'?

All what they do is create profit for the war industry. Business not justice is their agenda.

[EnSvenskTiger]

General Petraeus said hes sorry but Karzai is not happy with that and demands that USA stops killing children.

+700 children last year and this year how many bleed to death on the war industrial altar?

Tiger

[beechguy]

General Petraeus said hes sorry but Karzai is not happy with that and demands that USA stops killing children.

+700 children last year and this year how many bleed to death on the war industrial altar?

Tiger

If you guys are so concerned about civilian casualties, how come I don't see any remarks about the Taliban intentionally targeting civilians? Anyway, the mistakes don't help matters and the ISAF has reduced it's number of civilian casualties by a good percentage, however the insurgents have increased theirs.

[chuckd]

Let me first say even one civilian casualty is not good so the US haters won't say I condone killing civilians.

Now let me put a little perspective on the ongoing efforts by the ISAF to limit the problem.

_______________________________________________________

More Civilians Killed Last Year in One Mexican Border Town Than All Afghanistan

Friday, February 25, 2011

By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - More civilians were killed last year in Ciudad Juarez, the Mexican city across the border from El Paso, Texas, than were killed in all of Afghanistan.

There were 3,111 civilians murdered in the city of Juarez in 2010 and 2,421 in the entire country of Afghanistan.

On a per capita basis, a civilian was 30 times more likely to be murdered last year in Juarez, where there are 1,328,017 inhabitants according to Mexico’s 2010 census, than in Afghanistan, where there are 29,121,286 people according to the CIA World Factbook.

The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan was compiled by the Congressional Research Service and published in a CRS report released on Feb. 3. The number of civilians killed in Juarez was compiled by Molly Molloy, a research librarian at New Mexico State University who maintains a count of murders Juarez and published it on the Frontera List Web site.

Read more here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/more-civilians-killed-last-year-juarez-a

[koheesti]

Let me first say even one civilian casualty is not good so the US haters won't say I condone killing civilians.

Now let me put a little perspective on the ongoing efforts by the ISAF to limit the problem.

_______________________________________________________

More Civilians Killed Last Year in One Mexican Border Town Than All Afghanistan

Friday, February 25, 2011

By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) - More civilians were killed last year in Ciudad Juarez, the Mexican city across the border from El Paso, Texas, than were killed in all of Afghanistan.

There were 3,111 civilians murdered in the city of Juarez in 2010 and 2,421 in the entire country of Afghanistan.

That is just unreal.

[beechguy]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

Edited March 7, 2011 by beechguy

[hammered]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

Whoever is killing them deserves condemnation. So now the taleban, al qaeda, and nato militaries are all up to the same practice of civilian slaughter, should all be condemned and should all face war crimes prosecution.

[geriatrickid]

The ISAF personnel, particularly from the frontline forces of the USA, UK and Canada have put their own lives at risk to avoid civilian casualties. They deserve alot of credit for their conservative rules of engagement. It is very easy to sit in the comfort of one's home and to call the unfortunate civilian deaths during legitimate operations, murder. However, in a country where suicide bombers come in the form of civilians, where IEDS are everywhere, where snipers are waiting to kill ISAF personnel, where Afghanistan Army personnel are unreliable and likely to shoot ISAF personnel in the back, civilian casualties are to be expected.

To those saying the ISAF forces should leave, then talk to Karzai and the Afghanistan army. The ISAF would be delighted to pull out. Every soldier that gets shot at, would like to leave. The families of the delpoyed personnel want the troops home, and the treasuries of the countries paying for the reconstruction could use the money. Unfortunately, if the personnel leave, people are going to have to accept that the Taliban will take over, that women will be enslaved and that Afghanistan will go back to being a haven for terrorists.

Personally, I'd just drop a few bombs sufficient to return Afghanistan to prestone age times. However, such a simple measure would result in mass casualties and the anhilation of of a tract of land. It would be morally wrong. Countries that serve as havens from which to launch attacks usually get wiped off the face of the earth. That's the alternative to the current international effort to build schools and hospitals.

[Wallaby]

Don't they frequently use drones to drop bombs which have killed innocents?

[beechguy]

Don't they frequently use drones to drop bombs which have killed innocents?

No, they use IED's and other bombs where they definitely know there are innocent people, and intentionally target them. Perhaps you should do a little reading and pay attention.

[beechguy]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

Whoever is killing them deserves condemnation. So now the taleban, al qaeda, and nato militaries are all up to the same practice of civilian slaughter, should all be condemned and should all face war crimes prosecution.

There is a difference, the ISAF has been extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties, the insurgents make it their strategy to intentionly kill civilians.

[Wallaby]

Don't they frequently use drones to drop bombs which have killed innocents?

No, they use IED's and other bombs where they definitely know there are innocent people, and intentionally target them. Perhaps you should do a little reading and pay attention.

Thanks beechguy, I didn't have to do much reading, just googled it and this is the first thing I found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20drones.html

Well look at that, drones being used.

[beechguy]

Don't they frequently use drones to drop bombs which have killed innocents?

No, they use IED's and other bombs where they definitely know there are innocent people, and intentionally target them. Perhaps you should do a little reading and pay attention.

Thanks beechguy, I didn't have to do much reading, just googled it and this is the first thing I found.

http://www.nytimes.c...a/20drones.html

Well look at that, drones being used.

Excuse me for the confusion, I was referring to the Taliban/ al Qaeda attacks on innocent civilians. No mistaken identity there when they specifically target a market, or a school bus full of school children with IED's, they don't need drones. Again, where is that condemnation of them being responsible for as much 65-76% of civilian casualties?

[Wallaby]

I'm happy to condemn the taliban etc. In an odd way I don't think Geriatrickid is far off the mark. If you did level the lot it may cause a lot less problems in the long term. Sad as that sounds.

[koheesti]

There is a difference, the ISAF has been extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties, the insurgents make it their strategy to intentionly kill civilians.

I wonder why some refuse to acknowledge this very obvious difference? I could name a few posters here who rather than admit the above would gnaw off their own arms and begin on their legs if they could reach.

[BKKarim]

There is a difference, the ISAF has been extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties, the insurgents make it their strategy to intentionly kill civilians.

I wonder why some refuse to acknowledge this very obvious difference? I could name a few posters here who rather than admit the above would gnaw off their own arms and begin on their legs if they could reach.

Yes both kill civilians. One side in the process of occupation and aggression the other side in the process of defense and resistance against the occupation forces. That is the difference.

Some come up with excuses for civilian casualties with something like 'shit' happens during war. But i think for those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

Anyway to point at the other and come up with the kill people too or lastt week in mexcio much more people died and so on. that are not really valid excuses.

Edited March 7, 2011 by BKKarim

[bonobo]

Don't they frequently use drones to drop bombs which have killed innocents?

No, they use IED's and other bombs where they definitely know there are innocent people, and intentionally target them. Perhaps you should do a little reading and pay attention.

Thanks beechguy, I didn't have to do much reading, just googled it and this is the first thing I found.

http://www.nytimes.c...a/20drones.html

Well look at that, drones being used.

What does it matter if it was a drone or a manned airplane?

Any civilian death is a shame, but the difference is that NATO forces do not intentionally target civilians while the Taliban does.

In my own case, although in Iraq and not Afghanistan, I came under direct fire in Baghdad from an insurgent firing through civilians to target us. I ordered my Marines to hold their fire because of those same civilians.

And last week, a Marine SgtMaj was given a medal for pretty much the same thing. Not wanting to endanger civilians when attacked in Afghanitstan, he told his Marines to hold their fire. I have never seen that same consideration be given by the "other side."

[chuckd]

Don't they frequently use drones to drop bombs which have killed innocents?

No, they use IED's and other bombs where they definitely know there are innocent people, and intentionally target them. Perhaps you should do a little reading and pay attention.

Thanks beechguy, I didn't have to do much reading, just googled it and this is the first thing I found.

http://www.nytimes.c...a/20drones.html

Well look at that, drones being used.

What does it matter if it was a drone or a manned airplane?

Any civilian death is a shame, but the difference is that NATO forces do not intentionally target civilians while the Taliban does.

In my own case, although in Iraq and not Afghanistan, I came under direct fire in Baghdad from an insurgent firing through civilians to target us. I ordered my Marines to hold their fire because of those same civilians.

And last week, a Marine SgtMaj was given a medal for pretty much the same thing. Not wanting to endanger civilians when attacked in Afghanitstan, he told his Marines to hold their fire. I have never seen that same consideration be given by the "other side."

Good post. :jap:

[BKKarim]

What does it matter if it was a drone or a manned airplane?

Any civilian death is a shame, but the difference is that NATO forces do not intentionally target civilians while the Taliban does.

In my own case, although in Iraq and not Afghanistan, I came under direct fire in Baghdad from an insurgent firing through civilians to target us. I ordered my Marines to hold their fire because of those same civilians.

And last week, a Marine SgtMaj was given a medal for pretty much the same thing. Not wanting to endanger civilians when attacked in Afghanitstan, he told his Marines to hold their fire. I have never seen that same consideration be given by the "other side."

This news here tell a different story.

How someone wanna know if their drone attack really killed only suspects but not some children instead?

Investigation on the ground by Afghani authorities tell an other story than that what NATO propaganda want make to believe the world.

Drone or manned airplane - the NATO troops kills civilians, children, women. That is a fact. And that is to condemn and has to be brought to justice and not getting medals for it.

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

[beechguy]

What does it matter if it was a drone or a manned airplane?

Any civilian death is a shame, but the difference is that NATO forces do not intentionally target civilians while the Taliban does.

In my own case, although in Iraq and not Afghanistan, I came under direct fire in Baghdad from an insurgent firing through civilians to target us. I ordered my Marines to hold their fire because of those same civilians.

And last week, a Marine SgtMaj was given a medal for pretty much the same thing. Not wanting to endanger civilians when attacked in Afghanitstan, he told his Marines to hold their fire. I have never seen that same consideration be given by the "other side."

This news here tell a different story.

How someone wanna know if their drone attack really killed only suspects but not some children instead?

Investigation on the ground by Afghani authorities tell an other story than that what NATO propaganda want make to believe the world.

Drone or manned airplane - the NATO troops kills civilians, children, women. That is a fact. And that is to condemn and has to be brought to justice and not getting medals for it.

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

So it's a problem if the NATO strikes accidentally hit civilians, but quite alright for the Taliban to intentionally atttack a market or school bus full of children? How's is deliberately attacking a market place, or a school bus defending their(Taliban) country?

Edited March 7, 2011 by beechguy

[Lancelot]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

And you never will because its only "cool" to bash America. The Talaban et all are really nice guys

[BKKarim]

What does it matter if it was a drone or a manned airplane?

Any civilian death is a shame, but the difference is that NATO forces do not intentionally target civilians while the Taliban does.

In my own case, although in Iraq and not Afghanistan, I came under direct fire in Baghdad from an insurgent firing through civilians to target us. I ordered my Marines to hold their fire because of those same civilians.

And last week, a Marine SgtMaj was given a medal for pretty much the same thing. Not wanting to endanger civilians when attacked in Afghanitstan, he told his Marines to hold their fire. I have never seen that same consideration be given by the "other side."

This news here tell a different story.

How someone wanna know if their drone attack really killed only suspects but not some children instead?

Investigation on the ground by Afghani authorities tell an other story than that what NATO propaganda want make to believe the world.

Drone or manned airplane - the NATO troops kills civilians, children, women. That is a fact. And that is to condemn and has to be brought to justice and not getting medals for it.

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

So it's a problem if the NATO strikes accidentally hit civilians, but quite alright for the Taliban to intentionally atttack a market or school bus full of children? How's is deliberately attacking a market place, or a school bus defending their(Taliban) country?

I repeat:

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

For those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

[beechguy]

What does it matter if it was a drone or a manned airplane?

Any civilian death is a shame, but the difference is that NATO forces do not intentionally target civilians while the Taliban does.

In my own case, although in Iraq and not Afghanistan, I came under direct fire in Baghdad from an insurgent firing through civilians to target us. I ordered my Marines to hold their fire because of those same civilians.

And last week, a Marine SgtMaj was given a medal for pretty much the same thing. Not wanting to endanger civilians when attacked in Afghanitstan, he told his Marines to hold their fire. I have never seen that same consideration be given by the "other side."

This news here tell a different story.

How someone wanna know if their drone attack really killed only suspects but not some children instead?

Investigation on the ground by Afghani authorities tell an other story than that what NATO propaganda want make to believe the world.

Drone or manned airplane - the NATO troops kills civilians, children, women. That is a fact. And that is to condemn and has to be brought to justice and not getting medals for it.

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

So it's a problem if the NATO strikes accidentally hit civilians, but quite alright for the Taliban to intentionally atttack a market or school bus full of children? How's is deliberately attacking a market place, or a school bus defending their(Taliban) country?

I repeat:

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

For those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

And one more time, what is the excuse for the Taliban? And it's fine with you if they intentionally attack a bus load of children?

Edited March 7, 2011 by beechguy

[BKKarim]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

And you never will because its only "cool" to bash America. The Talaban et all are really nice guys

Sorry this is not about that the Taliban are nice guys. Its about NATO forces killing lots of civilians with some air strikes.

And some people with no respect to human life argue its not a problem because it was just accidentally as always. According to them the real intention of air raids, carpet bombings and the usage of depleted uranium weapons is to build schools and hospitals and help poor women. But i doubt that.

[BKKarim]

I repeat:

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

For those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

And one more time, what is the excuse for the Taliban? And it's fine with you if they intentionally attack a bus load of children?

who excuses the killing of children here?

from the OP:

Residents, however, claimed that the individuals killed during the air strike were nine children. The dead were children, aged between 10 and 15, who were collecting firewood in the remote valley, resident Gul Nabi told Pajhwok Afghan News.

...

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

The strategy to call it accidents or unintentionally is not an excuse. period.

[beechguy]

I repeat:

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

For those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

And one more time, what is the excuse for the Taliban? And it's fine with you if they intentionally attack a bus load of children?

who excuses the killing of children here?

from the OP:

Residents, however, claimed that the individuals killed during the air strike were nine children. The dead were children, aged between 10 and 15, who were collecting firewood in the remote valley, resident Gul Nabi told Pajhwok Afghan News.

...

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

The strategy to call it accidents or unintentionally is not an excuse. period.

Well my point is, if you are so concerned about civilian casualties why haven't we seen you make a negative remark about the Taliban in this, or any other thread for that matter?

[BKKarim]

Well my point is, if you are so concerned about civilian casualties why haven't we seen you make a negative remark about the Taliban in this, or any other thread for that matter?

Maybe you didn't notice. this topic is about NATO troops killing children. And there is no excuse for it.