Wedding Party Massacre: U.S. Airstrike Kills 47 Afghan Civilians (39 Of Them Were Women/Children)

[jpeyton]

This wouldn't be the first time. The US military has a knack for bombing Afghan wedding parties, ending the lives of scores of civilians in the process. I can't imagine the grief those Afghanis are going through, losing their wives, daughters and sons on a day of celebration.

Text

US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'

A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.

Reports at the time said that 20 people were killed in the airstrike in Nangarhar province. The US military said they were militants.

But local people said the dead were wedding party guests.

Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.

President Hamid Karzai has said that no civilian casualty is acceptable.

Demand for trial

Mr Karzai set up a nine-man commission to look into Sunday's incident.

The commission is headed by Senate deputy speaker, Burhanullah Shinwari whose constituency is in Nangarhar province. He told the BBC: ''Our investigation found out that 47 civilians (were killed) by the American bombing and nine others injured.

"There are 39 women and children" among those killed, he said. The eight other people who died were "between the ages of 14 and 18".

A spokeswoman for the US coalition, Lt Rumi Nielson-Green told the AFP news agency that the force was also investigating the incident and regretted any loss of civilian life. "We never target non-combatants. We do go to great length to avoid civilian casualties," she said.

At the time the US said that those killed were militants involved in previous mortar attacks on a Nato base.

The incident happened in the remote district of Deh Bala, close to the Afghan border.

Mirwais Yasini, deputy speaker for the lower house of parliament, also has his constituency in Nangarhar. ''We are very sad about the killings in Deh Bala. People should be compensated," he told the BBC.

"These operations widen the gap between the people and the government."

He said that those who passed on intelligence to the US military ahead of the air strike should be tried, "as well as those who carried out the bombing".

Mr Yasini demanded that "all operations should be conducted in full co-operation with our security forces in the future".

'Ashamed'

Correspondents say most civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused by Taleban fighters and other militants opposed to President Karzai and US and Nato-led forces. On Monday a suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41 people, most of them civilians.

However, foreign troops have also often killed civilians, leading to an erosion of support for their presence in Afghanistan.

Last year a US army spokesman said he was "deeply ashamed" after US marines killed 19 civilians near Jalalabad in Nangarhar province.

Only a few months earlier, a Nato spokesman said that civilian casualties were the main issue for the Nato-led force to resolve.

"I believe the single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on is killing innocent civilians," Brig Richard Nugee said.

President Karzai has been scathing in his criticism over the deaths of Afghan civilians, even summoning foreign commanders in May, 2007 to tell them "that the patience of the Afghan people is wearing thin with the continued killing of innocent civilians".

Two days ago, the Red Cross said that at least 250 Afghan civilians had been killed or wounded in insurgent attacks or military action in the previous six days. It called on all parties to the conflict to avoid civilian casualties.

 

[dphantom]

Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

 

[Robor]

Not much to say here...

 

[Red Dawn]

I wonder what the problem is. Obviously bad Intel but I wonder if it's on purpose by alleged Afghan Allies who really aren't?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

I think he's simply protesting against the war(s). We aren't responsible for the Indian embassy deaths.

Anyway, it's story after story like this that make me question whether to try and raise a child in this world. Seems to get more fvcked up by the day... :-/

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

He likes to pick and chose his targets thru very biased glasses.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

I think he's simply protesting against the war(s). We aren't responsible for the Indian embassy deaths.

Anyway, it's story after story like this that make me question whether to try and raise a child in this world. Seems to get more fvcked up by the day... :-/

Just don't raise them in Iraq and Afghanistan and you should be fine.

 

[Taejin]

well that's going to be one large setback.

 

[ayabe]

Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!

 

[Skitzer]

"Correspondents say most civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused by Taleban fighters and other militants opposed to President Karzai and US and Nato-led forces. On Monday a suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41 people, most of them civilians."

Were you going to comment on this also? It was in your article ....... or does it not count and get in the way of your hatred for anything American Military.

 

[hellokeith]

All US soldiers should be handed over to the Hague for mandatory investigation, trial, and sentencing before being allowed to return to the US. Only then would Jpeyton get the justice he demands.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

Is this some new elementary school logic that I'm failing to grasp? For every civilian killed by a murderer, our troops get a freebie? Is that the low standard we're holding ourselves to?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
"Correspondents say most civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused by Taleban fighters and other militants opposed to President Karzai and US and Nato-led forces. On Monday a suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41 people, most of them civilians."

Were you going to comment on this also? It was in your article ....... or does it not count and get in the way of your hatred for anything American Military.

If you search you'll see there is already a thread on that topic.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder what the problem is. Obviously bad Intel but I wonder if it's on purpose by alleged Afghan Allies who really aren't?

Might not be a bad idea to wait for the military investigation to conclude.

At the time, they were fairly confident they had fired upon legitimate targets.

Fern

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

He likes to pick and chose his targets thru very biased glasses.

NOPE

This is what happens when you choose bombs for justice - Let war murders BE TERMED COLLATERAL DAMAGE

Or let Israelis destroy the home of and those adjacent to that where a suicide bomber ever may have lived

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
"Correspondents say most civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused by Taleban fighters and other militants opposed to President Karzai and US and Nato-led forces. On Monday a suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41 people, most of them civilians."

Were you going to comment on this also? It was in your article ....... or does it not count and get in the way of your hatred for anything American Military.

Are you going to keep using Terrorists as the standard to which you excuse the actions of our armed forces?

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

What kind of a statement is that? Are you arguing that the war should be about an eye for an eye?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder what the problem is. Obviously bad Intel but I wonder if it's on purpose by alleged Afghan Allies who really aren't?

i do have to wonder how this happens.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder what the problem is. Obviously bad Intel but I wonder if it's on purpose by alleged Afghan Allies who really aren't?

Might not be a bad idea to wait for the military investigation to conclude.

At the time, they were fairly confident they had fired upon legitimate targets.

Fern

Wouldn't be the first time that the US was accused of attacking a wedding party that wasn't.

 

[lupi]

Yes!

It's been awhile since we've had a JP "US Soldiers are murderers" thread.

 

[dphantom]

Isn't it interesting that in the article according to the investigation, everyone killed was a woman or a child 18 or younger. Not one single adult male??? Yet this was a wedding party.

I have seen these stories efore including in Iraq where teh investigiation concludes all killed were members of a wedding party/funeral/whaterver.

I make no excuses for the deliberate killing of civilians by our military, but accidents happen in war. And I suspect this was not a wedding party necessarily. If anyone actually read our ROE for the military, you would wonder how in the hell any soldier can even fire his/her weapon without getting in trouble.

 

[Jhhnn]

I really don't like the way airstrikes are often employed in Afghanistan, on the basis of "intelligence" alone. It leads inevitably to incidents like this.

Much better to use them as backup when troops are actually taking fire- at least there's a reasonable certainty as to the validity of the target...

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Why didn't you bold the line about the 41 killed at the Indian embassy by terrorists? Or are you just an America hater?

It appears that YOU are the America hater as you put an equal sign between the terrorists and the US armed forces. So you must be a Taliban supporter.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Skitzer
"Correspondents say most civilian deaths in Afghanistan are caused by Taleban fighters and other militants opposed to President Karzai and US and Nato-led forces. On Monday a suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41 people, most of them civilians."

Were you going to comment on this also? It was in your article ....... or does it not count and get in the way of your hatred for anything American Military.

Are you going to keep using Terrorists as the standard to which you excuse the actions of our armed forces?

I don't excuse anything horrible our armed forces do ........ but I don't gloss over how we are not the only ones killing unarmed civilians like jpeyton does.
I also believe we should withhold comments and criticism of our fighting troops until all the facts have been revealed. Remember Murthas stupid and totally wrong comments? And he is supposed to be a leader we look up to? Rush to judgment and look like a fool!

 

[Lemon law]

My understanding of the incident is as follows. There were a group of Nato troops, lets designate them group A, chasing a number of taliban fighters B, and then there was wedding party C totally unaware of groups A or B. Then there was some sort of US air Assets flying around, call them group D, and they were vectored to the vicinity and able to drop bombs while at least being somewhat aware of the activities of groups A&B.

And even if the group of taliban fighters in group B ran into group C to seek cover or if it was just chance happenstance, airgroup D, saw a mass of non US people and dropped bombs on group C. In war, its simply called collateral damage, but this is no longer a war, its an occupation. And worse yet, hardly a rare incident.

Now lets put this in perspective, lets assume its happening in the USA, we are chasing some Al-Quida types and before we can intercept them, they run inside some Walmart
full of innocent US citizens. And one of those innocent shoppers is a relative of yours.

How the hell would you feel if they called in a massive US airstrike that killed every man, woman, and child in that Walmart. Yes it would get the terrorists, that is good, but it would cause collateral damage and that is bad.

Well I can tell pretty well tell you any idiot who ordered such an airstrike in the USA would be charged with murder if he was not lynched before, why should it be any different in Afghanistan?