News_Editor Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 NATO airstrike in northern Afghanistan 'kills eight children' 2012-02-11 14:10:00 GMT+7 (ICT) MAHMUD-I-RAQI, AFGHANISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- An airstrike carried out by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on Wednesday has killed at least eight children, provincial officials said on Friday. An investigation has been launched. The incident happened on Wednesday when ISAF reportedly carried out an airstrike in the village of Geyawa in Nejrab district, which is located in Kapisa province. The provincial governor said eight children were killed, but gave no other details. "We can confirm there was a situation," an ISAF spokesperson said. "The matter is currently being assessed by a joint assessment team to determine the facts. There is no timeline for the completion of the assessment but once completed, we may release more information as appropriate." The ISAF spokesperson refused to clarify what it meant by a situation, or whether ISAF had indeed carried out an airstrike in Geyawa village on Wednesday. "During the process of assessing the situation, we cannot add anything further to statement we have provided," the spokesperson said. Afghan President Hamid Karzai strongly condemned the incident and his office said he has assigned a delegation to investigate the bombing. "President Karzai contacted the provincial governor and inquired more on the incident and telephoned the mourning families and expressed his deepest sympathies and condolences," his office said in a statement. -- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-02-11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 NATO stands for The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They kill children in Afghanistan (that is in Southern Asia) and it was not for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty2009 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) i like the the line "President Karzai contacted the provincial governor and inquired more on the incident and telephoned the mourning families and expressed his deepest sympathies and condolences," his office said in a statement. i wonder how many of these poor sods have a telephone, but i guess they died for a good reason? Edited February 11, 2012 by Rusty2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 i like the the line "President Karzai contacted the provincial governor and inquired more on the incident and telephoned the mourning families and expressed his deepest sympathies and condolences," his office said in a statement. i wonder how many of these poor sods have a telephone, but i guess they died for a good reason? President Karzai is only President of Afghanistan courtesy of the USA, he will mouth his platitudes about this tragedy, but he wont rock the boat too much for fear of alienating his sponsers. On a related note, this comes at a very inopportune time for the West considering some of the lurid, sometimes hysterical coverage of events in Syria. It is very difficult to maintain the moral high ground after this sort of occurance, which seems to be happening on an increasingly regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 They kill children in Afghanistan (that is in Southern Asia) and it was not for the first time. No, they target armed militants/terrorists, and sometimes accidents/mistakes happen. They are not in Afghanistan in order to massacre children. As for geography - I believe the NATO charter covers that, under "attacks vs. members". The North Atlantic part reffers to where member states are located, not where foes are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 i like the the line "President Karzai contacted the provincial governor and inquired more on the incident and telephoned the mourning families and expressed his deepest sympathies and condolences," his office said in a statement. i wonder how many of these poor sods have a telephone, but i guess they died for a good reason? President Karzai is only President of Afghanistan courtesy of the USA, he will mouth his platitudes about this tragedy, but he wont rock the boat too much for fear of alienating his sponsers. On a related note, this comes at a very inopportune time for the West considering some of the lurid, sometimes hysterical coverage of events in Syria. It is very difficult to maintain the moral high ground after this sort of occurance, which seems to be happening on an increasingly regular basis. Yes it is indeed difficult to maintain the moral high ground if you accidentally kill 8 civilians as oppose to 7000 killed deliberately targeted by tanks and planes, but then again such equivalence could itself be construed as hysterical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulmercke Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 QUOTE:"An airstrike carried out by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on Wednesday has killed at least eight children, provincial officials said on Friday." Let's hope ISAF commanders sleep well in their beds tonight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 They kill children in Afghanistan (that is in Southern Asia) and it was not for the first time. No, they target armed militants/terrorists, and sometimes accidents/mistakes happen. They are not in Afghanistan in order to massacre children. As for geography - I believe the NATO charter covers that, under "attacks vs. members". The North Atlantic part reffers to where member states are located, not where foes are. Did you read the headline: NATO airstrike in northern Afghanistan 'kills eight children' Last month we had war crimes and child rape cases. Committed by NATO soldiers. That is what they do in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geriatrickid Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Did you read the headline: NATO airstrike in northern Afghanistan 'kills eight children' Last month we had war crimes and child rape cases. Committed by NATO soldiers. That is what they do in Afghanistan. And the actual article states; The provincial governor said eight children were killed, but gave no other details. Until the details are established one doesn't know if eight children were killed or the circumstances of the death. For all anyone knows, they could have been armed combatants, or human shields or 8 goats. Your response is based upon a headline that makes an unsubstantiated allegation. Good show. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 They kill children in Afghanistan (that is in Southern Asia) and it was not for the first time. No, they target armed militants/terrorists, and sometimes accidents/mistakes happen. They are not in Afghanistan in order to massacre children. As for geography - I believe the NATO charter covers that, under "attacks vs. members". The North Atlantic part reffers to where member states are located, not where foes are. Did you read the headline: NATO airstrike in northern Afghanistan 'kills eight children' Last month we had war crimes and child rape cases. Committed by NATO soldiers. That is what they do in Afghanistan. Most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are not killed by NATO forces. When accidents and mistakes are made, in case of wrongdoing, soldiers usually pay the price. That doesn't work quite the same way on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are not killed by NATO forces. When accidents and mistakes are made, in case of wrongdoing, soldiers usually pay the price. That doesn't work quite the same way on both sides. Read the headline. That isn't a isolated "accident" or "mistake". In case of wrongdoing soldiers pay the price? Like Frank Wuterich paid the price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are not killed by NATO forces. When accidents and mistakes are made, in case of wrongdoing, soldiers usually pay the price. That doesn't work quite the same way on both sides. Read the headline. That isn't a isolated "accident" or "mistake". In case of wrongdoing soldiers pay the price? Like Frank Wuterich paid the price? Read the headline, guess you need to read GK's post on that. Sums it nicely. I didn't use the word isolated. This is war, and in war bad things happen. Not always on purpose. It's telling that you can actually cite the name of a specific soldier and get details about the case. How many times does that happen, at all, with other armies? (leaving aside militants/terrorists, which are apparently absolved of this). The fact that one side isn't squeaky clean, does not make it all bad nor makes it's opponent moral superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The fact that one side isn't squeaky clean, does not make it all bad nor makes it's opponent moral superiority. That isn't here about other armies. Children are innocent. NATO soldiers killed them, in Afghanistan, in Southern Asia far away from the Northern Atlantic. GK's post sums what up? An apologists turn on it? The same people who show here up as apologists probably insist that Iran runs a nuclear weapon program, despite the lack of any evidence for it. Just to find another reason for another war. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 QUOTE:"An airstrike carried out by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on Wednesday has killed at least eight children, provincial officials said on Friday." Let's hope ISAF commanders sleep well in their beds tonight. No worry, its nothing what these commanders aren't used to it. totally normal for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 By "ISAF" does that mean it was not an American plane carrying out the airstrike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gopnarak Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 By "ISAF" does that mean it was not an American plane carrying out the airstrike? It probably means that they don't want tell you that it was an American plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 By "ISAF" does that mean it was not an American plane carrying out the airstrike? It probably means that they don't want tell you that it was an American plane. Never bothered them before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 i like the the line "President Karzai contacted the provincial governor and inquired more on the incident and telephoned the mourning families and expressed his deepest sympathies and condolences," his office said in a statement. i wonder how many of these poor sods have a telephone, but i guess they died for a good reason? President Karzai is only President of Afghanistan courtesy of the USA, he will mouth his platitudes about this tragedy, but he wont rock the boat too much for fear of alienating his sponsers. On a related note, this comes at a very inopportune time for the West considering some of the lurid, sometimes hysterical coverage of events in Syria. It is very difficult to maintain the moral high ground after this sort of occurance, which seems to be happening on an increasingly regular basis. Yes it is indeed difficult to maintain the moral high ground if you accidentally kill 8 civilians as oppose to 7000 killed deliberately targeted by tanks and planes, but then again such equivalence could itself be construed as hysterical. What do you mean by equivalence, a favourite refrain of yours. Somehow it is ok for NATO to kill children on a regular basis, but that is ok because it is an accident? Do you think the parents of these children will accept your spurious argument because Nato are the good guys? These are innocent children, blown to smithereens by trigger happy top guns. Do you have children? Maybe you think because it is not brown skinned Arabs doing the killing it is ok. Winning the hearts and minds eh, no wonder the West is held in such disdain by the rest of the world. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 i like the the line "President Karzai contacted the provincial governor and inquired more on the incident and telephoned the mourning families and expressed his deepest sympathies and condolences," his office said in a statement. i wonder how many of these poor sods have a telephone, but i guess they died for a good reason? President Karzai is only President of Afghanistan courtesy of the USA, he will mouth his platitudes about this tragedy, but he wont rock the boat too much for fear of alienating his sponsers. On a related note, this comes at a very inopportune time for the West considering some of the lurid, sometimes hysterical coverage of events in Syria. It is very difficult to maintain the moral high ground after this sort of occurance, which seems to be happening on an increasingly regular basis. Yes it is indeed difficult to maintain the moral high ground if you accidentally kill 8 civilians as oppose to 7000 killed deliberately targeted by tanks and planes, but then again such equivalence could itself be construed as hysterical. What do you mean by equivalence, a favourite refrain of yours. Somehow it is ok for NATO to kill children on a regular basis, but that is ok because it is an accident? Do you think the parents of these children will accept your spurious argument because Nato are the good guys? These are innocent children, blown to smithereens by trigger happy top guns. Do you have children? Maybe you think because it is not brown skinned Arabs doing the killing it is ok. Winning the hearts and minds eh, no wonder the West is held in such disdain by the rest of the world. Brown skinned Arabs? Afghans aren't Arabs. They also have a culture of doing horrible things to children in that part of the world so while this is certainly a tragedy (in Western eyes anyway) they don't feel the same way about someone dropping bombs on their kids as we would in the West if someone did it to us. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 What do you mean by equivalence, a favourite refrain of yours. He means that there is no moral equivalence between terrorists who purposely target children to slaughter and a legitmate military force that makes mistakes in the fog of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) The fact that one side isn't squeaky clean, does not make it all bad nor makes it's opponent moral superiority. That isn't here about other armies. Children are innocent. NATO soldiers killed them, in Afghanistan, in Southern Asia far away from the Northern Atlantic. GK's post sums what up? An apologists turn on it? The same people who show here up as apologists probably insist that Iran runs a nuclear weapon program, despite the lack of any evidence for it. Just to find another reason for another war. That innocents are hurt during war is a regrettable, but perhaps unavoidable fact. It still doesn't make butchering civilians the purpose of NATO presence in Afghanistan. Once again, North Atlantic refers to the location of most member countries. Their charter does not limit their actions to that area, This isn't about other armies? So who are NATO fighting there? There's no other side, then? Happens there is. Happens that other side kills more civilians than NATO. Happens they are the ones using civilians as a shield on a regular basis. Happens they're unaccountable for their actions. Next time there's a Taliban inquiry into alleged killing of civilians by their own forces, do let us know. What was said in GK's post is exactly what's on the OP - until investigation and details are out, still too early to know what exactly went down. Edited February 12, 2012 by Scott formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 By "ISAF" does that mean it was not an American plane carrying out the airstrike? It probably means that they don't want tell you that it was an American plane. This happened in Kapisa province, so more likely that it was French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johna Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 What do you mean by equivalence, a favourite refrain of yours. He means that there is no moral equivalence between terrorists who purposely target children to slaughter and a legitmate military force that makes mistakes in the fog of war. It’s the coalition forces that are the terrorists in this war 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 If you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Maybe you think because it is not brown skinned Arabs doing the killing it is ok. Typical slanderous mudslinging in lieu of a reasoned argument I see. Actually your 'brown skinned' Arabs are themselves extremely racist when it comes to black skinned Africans, indeed contrary to what you might think more slaves from Africa went East than went west. Returning to killing being 'ok' or not the key factor is intent, namely whether the deaths were a regrettable accident or whether they were deliberate as in strapping explosives to a brainwashed child. P.S I note we are still awaiting confirmation as to exactly what happened, though that never stops the kangaroo court convening, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 What do you mean by equivalence, a favourite refrain of yours. He means that there is no moral equivalence between terrorists who purposely target children to slaughter and a legitmate military force that makes mistakes in the fog of war. It’s the coalition forces that are the terrorists in this war Of course they are: http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=9955 http://unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1741&ctl=Details&mid=1882&ItemID=14443 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Continued antagonistic troll remarks that serve only to bait other members will earn posters a suspension. One post deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Not an official version yet, but includes more details: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/world/asia/afghans-say-informant-misled-nato-leading-to-airstrike-on-children.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now