At Least 80 Die in NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan

[NeoConsSuck]

Source: NY Times.com

KABUL, Afghanistan — A NATO airstrike early Friday killed at least 80 people, many of them civilians, in a once-calm region of northern Afghanistan that has recently slipped under control of insurgents, Afghan officials said.

Hours after the airstrike, NATO officials in the Afghan capital acknowledged that a coalition aircraft had attacked and destroyed two fuel tankers in the tiny village of Omar Kheil, 15 miles south of Kunduz.

The officials said the airstrike had targeted insurgents, but Afghan leaders said the attack killed many civilians who were siphoning fuel from the trucks.

“Eighty to ninety people were killed,” said the district governor of Ali Abad, Haji Habibullah. “Some of them were civilians and some of them were Taliban fighters.”


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&hp

---

Maybe we should stick to bombing wedding parties. Less 'collateral' damage.

[WCGreen]

1. this total disregard for innocent human beings is totally fucked...

[ShortnFiery]

2. More Vietnam-i-zation of Afghanistan: What's OLD is NEW again?

:nuke:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article647188.eceDoes this statement sound familiar? "We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan"

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0919-02.htm
But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan," think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats' nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it.

Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan -- a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately 2 million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and has buried some of its opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed. The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.

Now for the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. The trouble is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only members of the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans; they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs.

[tocqueville]

3. the NYT report isn't accurate

1) there was a firefight between the Bundeswehr and the Talibans
2) the Germans called in air support after checking that no civilians were involved
3) the local authorities are starting to minimize the number of "civilian" casualties
4) the Bundeswehr says that no civilians were killed

Two Germain infantry squads are at the scene and can not confirm any civilian casualties. The Bundeswehr has said again that there is no sign of civilian casualties.

http://bazonline.ch/ausland/asien-und-ozeanien/90-Tote-NatoAngriff-sorgt-fuer-Verwirrung/story/19722830 (video)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/afghanistan.airstrike/index.html

NATO provided no casualty figures, but said the strike was carried out after "it was determined that there were only insurgents in the area," said Christine Sidenstricker of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, also known as ISAF.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/afghanistan.airstrike/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto


"A large number of insurgents were killed or injured," she said. "We've received reports that civilians were also injured or killed."

Afghan officials also were investigating the allegations, according to Sidenstricker. »

The fuel trucks were commandeered late Thursday in Kunduz province and were then spotted several hours later on the banks of the Kunduz River, ISAF said.

The hijacked vehicles became stuck in the Chardara area of the Ali Abaad district while trying to cross the river, according to Sayeedi.
advertisement

Militants had commandeered the trucks, which were carrying fuel for NATO forces, he said. People tried to empty fuel from the tankers when they couldn't go any farther.

With the trucks stuck on the riverbank, a military attack was called in. "After an assessment, it was determined that there were only insurgents in the area" and "the local ISAF commander ordered an airstrike, which destroyed the fuel trucks," Sidenstricker said.

[Wilms]

4. Are you sure the NYT got it wrong?

There's conflicting reports. Sure.

And the guys doing the bombing claim they followed the rules and didn't hurt innocents. OK. Got that. Pretty standard thing to say before admission/apology, etc. No?

[Eugene]

5. New headline at link: NATO Plans Inquiry After Afghan Strike Kills Scores

Source: New York Times

NATO Plans Inquiry After Afghan Strike Kills Scores

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and ABDUL WAHEED WAFA
Published: September 4, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — A NATO airstrike before dawn on Friday killed 80 people or more, at least some of them civilians, in a once-calm region of northern Afghanistan that has recently slipped under control of insurgents, Afghan officials said.

-snip-

According to new rules of engagement, NATO airstrikes will in most cases be allowed only to prevent American and other coalition troops from being overrun by enemy fighters. Even in the case of active firefights with Taliban forces, airstrikes will be limited if the combat is taking place in populated areas, Gen. McChrystal said.

From initial accounts of Friday’s airstrike from NATO and Afghan officials, it was unclear whether this strike had met those conditions. NATO promised a full investigation, and Afghan officials expressed anger over the incident.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=2&hp

[ShortnFiery]

6. Winning the hearts and minds?!?

So come on patriotic American. Jump on the bandwagon and get on THE TEAM for the big win! :crazy:



Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?

Private Joker: Our side, sir.

Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?

Private Joker: Yes, sir.

Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

Private Joker: Yes, sir.

Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.

Private Joker: Aye-aye, sir.

[oct2010]

7. two tankers loaded with jet fuel destroyed. What civilian death toll would have been achieved if

NATO let the taliban take the fuel after they beheaded the drivers and lived to brag about it ?
They thought they were well shielded and would have put to modified use in the coming weeks given enough time to drain the tanks imo. They could have transferred it to more innocent looking,disguised containers that killed many at the loss of only a few suicide bombers,
but I think that point is now moot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4042710
they only have to get lucky once

[excess_3]

8. (sting operation) if your Taliban friends calls you, and says 'free fuel',

don't go there.

how dumb can people be?

[bemildred]

9. Tools get used. nt

[pinto]

10. LA Times has a piece this AM with a bit more info / background.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-violence5-2009sep05,0,166919.story