World

Showers (AM and PM) 12° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

'120 die' as US bombs village

Afghan outrage after strike targeting Taliban fighters hits women and children

By Patrick Cockburn in Kabul

Afghan villagers sift through the rubble of destroyed houses after the coalition air strikes in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, Afghanistan

AP

Afghan villagers sift through the rubble of destroyed houses after the coalition air strikes in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, Afghanistan

A misdirected US air strike has killed as many as 120 Afghans, including dozens of women and children. The attack is the deadliest such bombing involving civilian casualties so far in the eight years since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.

Families in two villages in Farah province in western Afghanistan were digging for bodies in the ruins of their mudbrick houses yesterday. "There were women and children who were killed," said Jessica Barry, a Red Cross spokeswoman. "It seemed they were trying to shelter in houses when they were hit." Survivors said the number of dead would almost certainly to rise as the search for bodies continued.

The killing of so many Afghan civilians by US aircraft is likely to infuriate Afghans and lead to an increase in support for the Taliban in the bombed area. President Hamid Karzai, who was meeting President Barack Obama in Washington yesterday, sent a joint US-Afghan delegation to investigate the incident. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, standing next to Mr Karzai, voiced her "deep regret".

US Marine Special Forces supporting the Afghan army apparently called in the air strike on Tuesday on two villages in Bala Baluk district after heavy fighting with the Taliban. Accounts by Afghans of high civilian casualties are often denied or dismissed by US officials. But a team from the Red Cross visited the scene of this attack. "There were bodies, graves, there were people burying bodies when we were there," said Ms Barry. She said a first aid worker for Afghanistan's Red Crescent died with 13 members of his family. "Dozens of dead bodies were seen in the two locations we went to." Rohul Amin, the provincial governor of Farah, told The Independent that "the dead numbered over 100". Villagers brought 30 bodies, including women and children, in a truck to Mr Amin in Farah City to prove it had happened.

The Afghan government has made increasingly angry denunciations of the US Air Force for using its massive firepower without regard for ordinary Afghans. Wedding parties have been a frequent target of US bombers in both Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably because they are mistaken for gatherings of militants.

The US air strike on Bala Baluk appears to have been deadlier for civilians than any similar event since the first US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001. The government has asked villagers not to bury the dead until investigators arrive today.

Previously the worst such incident was a US strike on Azizabad in August 2008 when the US originally claimed that no civilians were killed. Afghan and UN investigators concluded that 90 Afghans had been killed. A high-level American inquiry later admitted that 33 civilians had been killed. Opinion polls in Afghanistan show that backing for the Taliban soars in provinces affected after bombing or shelling kills innocent people.

The air strikes were preceded by two days of fighting between Afghan government forces supported by the US and dozens of Taliban fighters. Farah is a poor province whose people are mostly farmers and where the Taliban has been very active. The provincial police chief, Abdul Gaffar, said three police officers and 25 Taliban were killed in fighting near the village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district.

Local residents later told Afghan officials that they put their children, women and elderly men in walled compounds in the village of Gerani, which is three miles from the scene of the fighting and where they thought they would be safe. It was these compounds which were then attacked from the air and most of the people sheltering inside were killed.

Despite US denials or claims that a high death toll among civilians is Taliban propaganda, the US military should have very immediate access to eyewitnesses to air strikes. This is because the most severely injured are often taken to American medical facilities at US military bases. It is not known if this happened at Bala Baluk.

After the Azizabad killings last year, the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan were meant to have introduced more stringent rules to safeguard civilians from their strikes. The top US commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, issued a directive ordering commanders to consider not pursuing Taliban fighters into populated areas. The US also pledged to investigate bombing incidents alongside Afghan investigators.

Afghan air strikes: The toll mounts

552 Civilians killed in air strikes in 2008.

17 per cent Proportion of US drone attacks to hit targets since January 2006.

701 Killed in drone attacks in three years.

14 Al-Qa'ida leaders in that number.

4.5 million dollars The estimated cost of a single Predator drone.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]kw9751 wrote:
Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 11:56 pm (UTC)
Oh nevermind, they're not voters. Besides, they're no tibetans, burmese nor from dufour.
Government of The United States of America kills up to another 120 People.
[info]blastarrbxiii wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 02:31 am (UTC)
The evil of the World killing up to another 120 people.

Come Friday 8th May 2006 they'll tell us all about another 600,000+ Unemployed for the month of April.
At that rate every month they wont last till the end of the year.
Then they wont be bombing and killing Women and Children.
They will be finished.
Re: Government of The United States of America kills up to another 120 People.
[info]blastarrbxiii wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 02:49 am (UTC)
8th May 2009.

No we haven't missed it, just another days time.
Then a month after that, and a month after that.
Air Strikes
[info]botejuep wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 05:20 am (UTC)
When the American bombs the Taliban fighters (kiiling civilians in that process) the world top leaders are silent This is what exactly happening in Sri_lanka where the government is fighting against terrorists. Will the British government allow Taliban protestors to march on Parliment Square? Will the media get access to see the situation. Why Sri-Lanka'n government have to provide access to the conflict zone. - DOUBLE STANDARDS
Obomber
[info]findempire wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 05:41 am (UTC)
Obomber ups the civilian body count. Now that's "change you can believe in."
[info]andre_t wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 06:32 am (UTC)
another recruitment drive for the radials, well done

another proof that the US troops are completely inept to reach to their goal to beat the Taleban and follow just one parameter - minimise civilian loss
Engineered radicalisation
[info]sirajul wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
The bombing and killing of so many civilians is likely to anger commonmen and lead to an increase in support for the Taliban. It is perhaps an engineered radicalisation process. We saw this in Gaza, in Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
Afghan stats
[info]freedommonger wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:03 am (UTC)
How do you fight people who attack you from among and behind innocent civilians? Is this the tactic for anyone who wants to use force to win against any opponent however strong? I genuinely dont know. What is the answer?

If we were to leave, what would the stats be then? The Indy seems to have missed one

1500 - civilians killed by the Taliban since 2008

Unfortunately no reliable data seems to be available for the time the Taliban were in power

Why didnt the Indy mention that then? Not here in opinion or elsewhere in the "news" (spun opinion) sections either. I'm not saying the Indy are wrong that these innocent deaths are awful and must end, I'm just saying dear reader that you are being told a story by this "independent" paper.

Is it better to stop "our" forces" killing civilians accidentally while fighting the Taliban or to minimise future total civilian casualties by stopping the Taliban once again enslaving the Afghans?

I note that Afghan opinion polls remain, as a country, massively against the Taliban. Of course the Indy will, correctly, point out that in the rural poor areas Taliban support is much higher. But it wont dwell on the overall Afghan opinion, oh no. They might AFTER the west leaves because then it could be used to blame the US for the Talibans victory over them!

Independent? Isnt this a trades description act violation?
Re: Afghan stats
[info]findempire wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 09:48 am (UTC)
How's this for stats: 50000 dead in Kabul alone and the city razed to the ground in 1994-6 under the merciless bombardment of the CIA's favorite Jihadi warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Taliban for Dummies: Learning from American & Soviet mistakes in Afghanistan


"America's favorite -- Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- started shelling positions held by Ahmad Shah Massoud within Kabul. If you want to know more about the US relationship with Hekmatyar, read 'Charlie Wilson's War'. Hekmatyar was ostensibly the Prime Minister in the same government where Massoud was Minister of Defense -- and yet they started using artillery against each other within the city."

We will never be sure of the real numbers, but here are some important estimates: 50,000 civilians were killed within Kabul, with 12,000 incidences of abduction and rape each year between 1992 and 1996. 500,000 fled as refugees from Kabul.

From Carter to Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obomber, GOP or dem makes no difference: Afghans & Iraqis die like flies. 500000 dead Iraqi kids were "worth it" for Maddy Albright. The millions of dead Iraqis and Afghans since 2001 don't even get a passing mention nowadays.

By Nuremberg rules every single Yank president should be swinging from a noose, accompanied by Bliar & Broon.
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]goatbucket - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]goatbucket - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 12:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]goatbucket - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 02:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]goatbucket - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 03:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why were they attacked question - [info]corporeal4now - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:21 pm (UTC) Expand
PACK OF LIES - [info]leonard_merryl - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: PACK OF LIES - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 09:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]findempire - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]damnthestupid - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 12:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]damnthestupid - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]lkdamo - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 01:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]damnthestupid - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 02:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]goatbucket - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]goatbucket - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]damnthestupid - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]leonard_merryl - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Afghan stats - [info]freedommonger - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 09:15 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]tomlynne69 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
More murderous war crime perpetrated by the United States. Anyone with any dignity in Britain should be ashamed for this country joining in this disastrous campaign, as if we are nothing more than a puppet state of the US!
Tom MacKinnon, London
[info]goatbucket wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
As if?

Of course the U.K. is a puppet state of the U.S. Why do you think there are all those U.S. military bases there?

If you want to protest against U.S. actions, boycott them. Don't buy anything American.
Lives
[info]charlesfrith wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
One Afghan life is worth four American lives so that's 800 Americans in terms of publicity were this to happen in the US.
usa policy
[info]mikealpha457 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
the military industrial cabal that controls congress dose not want peace, they will keep the middle east pakistan afganistan destabilsed drag in india if they can just to keep the arms indutry at full swing. they look on in horror when the old sivie collapsed the peace dividend was not to their likeing, so along came 911 and when it looked like his poodle blair could loose the election 77 happend. look out said the police man mind the hole in the carriage floor thats where the bomb was.the damage done was from millitery explosives not home made bombs.
[info]ajwimble wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 11:33 am (UTC)
I find it understand why the US seems to keep repeating its mistakes. Regardless of the humanitarian implications it simply makes bad military sense. Every time Afgan civilians are killed by the US military it makes them appear more like an enemy than a liberator, and makes the effected population more likely to be sympathetic to the taliban, making the war harder to win.

In the short term sending in an air strike where there may be civilians may seen a better option than using griund troops with the associated risk of casualties, but if each incident like this strengthens the taliban the long term result is likely to lead to a longer and more intense conflict which will lead to more deaths on all sides, American as well as Afgan.
[info]duncanmcfarlane wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:51 am (UTC)
Well put aj - i'd go further though and ask why they think big military offensives of any kind will do anything but kill civilians and turn the population towards the extremists when fighting guerillas and terrorist groups.

These groups thrive on foreign forces killing civilians. We should fight them as little as possible, using the minimum force necessary and use foreign aid to provide jobs, healthcare and education to get the people to turn against them - and to divide the hardline ideological extremists from the factions willing to negotiate for a reasonable deal.
Hilary's 'deep regret'
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)
So, Hilary Clinton 'voiced her "deep regret"' did she?

Yesterday's New York Times tells a more, er, nuanced story.

One in which the Taliban was responsible for the civilian deaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?th&emc=th

I don't doubt the Taliban are capable of atrocities, but US air power has a long history of being somewhat lax as to who and where the enemy might be, as Lance Corporal Matty Hull found out to his cost:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2036080,00.html

In WWII there was saying:

"When the Luftwaffe comes over the Allies take cover; when the RAF comes over the Germans take cover, when the USAAF comes over we all take cover!"
Re: Hilary's 'deep regret'
[info]duncanmcfarlane wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:53 am (UTC)
The Taliban probably were partly responsible since some of the villagers said the Taliban came into their houses and refused to let them leave them.

That's the nature of guerilla and terrorist warfare though - if they all wore uniform and fought in the open they wouldnt stand a chance when they have no heavy weapons, aircraft or armour.

If we continue airstrikes and big military offensives we play straight into their hands.
US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs
[info]schweigen2009 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC)
The US was making sanctimonious statements with regard to the conflict in Sri Lanka, trying to get the government to stop its war on terrorism, while it unashamedly goes about its own with the use of aerial bombardments. One wonders if the Pentagon does not know what US foreign policy is, or is it a case of simple and naked double standards?
Re: US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs
[info]duncanmcfarlane wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:57 am (UTC)
Partly disagree here. The US may have been applying double standards, but that doesnt make what the Sri Lankan government forces are doing any more right than what the Tamil Tigers are doing. Sri Lankan forces have a long history of targeting civilians and raping Tamil women and girls.

Re: US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs - [info]schweigen2009 - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 04:50 am (UTC) Expand
Re: US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs - [info]duncanmcfarlane - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 05:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs - [info]schweigen2009 - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 07:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs - [info]duncanmcfarlane - Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 12:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: US should stay out of Sri Lanka's affairs - [info]schweigen2009 - Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 05:56 am (UTC) Expand
Obama on the crash course to unfriendliness.
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC)
Is that what we wanted to see in the new policies and changes? There is no stopping the killings.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

'120 die' as US bombs village
[info]bmjd74 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
Nato blood sucking soldiers and US toopers are the tools of the devils in the Wests. The killings of innocent civillians cannot be forgiven and must stop now . Wake up people of Afghans, let them come and u guys can kill them one by one, even if its gonna take years, until they run out of troopers to be sent to your back yard.
THE COWARDLY MEDIEVAL FASCIST ISLAMISTS USING WOMEN & CHILDREN AS HUMAN SHIELD!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:12 pm (UTC)
How come all these pro-Islamist fascist, racist and sexist medieval regimes are not condemning such cowardly act of these Islamist crimianl thugs of Taleban-Al-Qaeda using women and children as human shield? Such cowardly act needs to be despised and yet, these kind of actions will be defended by majority of Muslims - because for them, blinded by ever irrational hatred of non-Muslims, the "evil" side of the Islamists are never seen!
Re: THE COWARDLY MEDIEVAL FASCIST ISLAMISTS USING WOMEN & CHILDREN AS HUMAN SHIELD!
[info]copycat7 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:02 pm (UTC)
Johnboy is that you?

Ya all be good now ya here!. Say hi to Marysue for me!
War casualties
[info]lasvegasrich wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 04:10 pm (UTC)
I hope no one believes that the American military wants to kill civilians. It's a war zone, and the members of Taliban hide among the civilian population. Inevitably mistakes will be made, especially when American forces are fired on. NATO, including American forces, can either allow the Taliban to take control of Afghanistan, or fight them to allow a government responisve to the people to be in charge, When your fighting terrorists who don't hesitate to blend in to the civilian population, mistakes will be made. I wonder how many civiilians the Taliban has killed.
Re: War casualties
[info]duncanmcfarlane wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 01:01 am (UTC)
Maybe it doesnt aim at killing civilians (though it has fired on people who were obviously civilians in the offensives on Fallujah, just as it did in Vietnam and Korea) but it doesn't seem to care about the number of civilians killed.

The mistake made here, as in Iraq, is thinking that massive firepower can be used to defeat terrorists or guerillas - it can't - it kills more civilians than fighters and turns the population towards your enemies, then you lose.

The Taliban has certainly killed a lot of civilians, but we're trying to persuade Afghans and Pakistanis that we're on their side and the Taliban isnt - we can't do that by using methods that kill lots of civilians.
Re: War casualties - [info]goatbucket - Friday, 8 May 2009 at 03:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Imperial Rome reborn
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 04:27 pm (UTC)
As half a million people flee the Swat district from the fighting between the Taliban and the Pakistan military, one of St Obama's side-kicks tells he is happy with the unfolding disaster.

The sociopathy lurking close to the surface of US foregin policy echoes that of Imperial Rome: it doesn't matter how many people suffer, as long as WE get out way.
Gates Vs Talibans
[info]scotchpak wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC)
Who is more stupid? Gates or Talibans

How can the Taliban kill these people and transport them to the site of the US bombing is beyond me? Even Obama slick cant explain this.
CNN SAYS TALEBAN MURDERED THE WOMEN AND KIDS
[info]chosenworld wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC)
The CNN liar, Barbara Starr, yesterday suggested that the Taliban used hand grenades to slaughter womena nd kids so tha their bodies could be displayed and the Americans blamed.

She should have her mouth washed out with the strongest lye.
P. Cockburn and R. Fisk
[info]nycartist wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 05:17 pm (UTC)
I appreciate their work very much. This article is very helpful. A US blog that might interest some readers is new, by Jeremy Scahill called RebelReports http://rebelreports.com
NO ACCIDENT
[info]copycat7 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:11 pm (UTC)
Since when did the world forget it is American foreign policy to keep all nations aposed to American lead globalization in a constant state of chaos and war?. Divide and conquor is the oldest tactic in the book. We must face the fact that western leaders are terrorists by definition. Geopolotics rules foreign policy. Western foreign policy is to globalize the world into a one world government!. All those who stand apposed are "human right abusers" and "terrorists" and "undemocratic". Which part of "Our government are pragmatists" do people not understand?. People are so nieve!. Read: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project) by Noam Chomsky. The most important political book of the century.
Sorry strange from USA
[info]stickytruth2 wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:44 pm (UTC)
USA don't give a damn for anything or anyone, so easy to say sorry, they should not be there in the first place.
Only yesterday a top American general quoted, we will have to police the world, this was stated by the American over 50 years ago, just look at their record of policing the war, kill the women, children and old folks first, then their men will give up, odd to police the world?
USA needs to recruit Israeli front-men to lie
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 07:51 pm (UTC)

USA could learn lessons from the Israeli on how to deflect all blame for such massacres.
Deny everythng and blame on those who die for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
120? Is that the figure of 1999?
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 10:52 pm (UTC)
Building-up the troops in the Afghan will be the first global mistake that Obama will make.
Do they learn? This is turning out to be a personal issue. Is it not?
Emphasis on Al Qaeda at Three-Way Talks
President Obama said the U.S. was deeply committed to
helping Afghanistan and Pakistan defeat Al Qaeda and its
extremist allies and helping democracy flourish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07prexy.html?nl=pol&emc=pol
Iraqi Forces: Rebuilt and Stronger, but Still Stumbling
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
A recent series of attacks by insurgents have highlighted
shortcomings, large and small, despite billions of
dollars in American training and equipment, officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/world/middleeast/08security.html?8au&emc=au
G.M. Says Its Cash Reserves Are Dwindling
By NICK BUNKLEY
The automaker lost $6 billion in the quarter and ran
through $10.2 billion in cash, leaving it just enough
liquidity to stay in business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/business/08auto.html?8au&emc=au
What Happens to the American Dream in a Recession?
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Pollsters for The New York Times and CBS News set out to
answer that question. The results seemed somewhat
contradictory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08dreampoll.html?8au&emc=au
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date