You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Afghan anger after Nato airstrike kills nine in family compound
2007-03-06
A Nato airstrike killed nine members of a family in Afghanistan when their mudbrick home was hit by two huge bombs. It was the second time in less than 24 hours that coalition forces were blamed for the deaths of civilians.

The incident appeared likely to increase tension between Nato and Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, who accused international troops yesterday of not doing enough to avoid civilian casualties and of damaging public support for his administration The airstrike took place on Sunday night after militants fired on a Nato base in Kapisa, just north of Kabul. Coalition forces retaliated and hit a civilian compound, killing five adults and four children, aged between 6 months and 5 years.

A US military statement confirmed that two 2,000lb bombs landed on the compound. The Nato base at Kapisa is staffed by US forces. Lieutenant-Colonel David Accetta, a coalition spokesman, said: “Coalition forces observed two men with AK47s leaving the scene of the rocket attack and entering the compound. These men knowingly endangered civilians by retreating into a populated area while conducting attacks against coalition forces.”

After seeing the men entering the compound American forces called in the airstrike. It is unclear how many insurgents, if any, were killed in the blast, but Zemarai Bashray, an Interior Ministry spokesman, told The Times that nine civilians were killed and that the Government had sent a delegation to the area to investigate the incident further.
Posted by:Fred

#6  if you live with rats you're going to get bitten.
Posted by: anonymous   2007-03-06 17:18  

#5  Lets face it. We are not tough enough socially, culturally or politically to even explain collateral damage or why it is necessary that civilians get killed in times of armed conflict. We are held back by Judeo-Christian guilt and fatalism unmatched except by maybe buddhists. The religion of Allan has no such reservation as they control the social/cultural/political manifestations of its people. This is why the struggle will be long, tedious, disappointing and probably break even as we let the lawyers and chaplins set strategy and tactics.
Posted by: Jack is Back   2007-03-06 14:26  

#4  Tensions on the increase.... in a combat zone.
This is horrible, anyone got 'ema TUMS?
Posted by: Shipman   2007-03-06 13:17  

#3  These men knowingly endangered civilians by retreating into a populated area while conducting attacks against coalition forces.

Too bad, so sad...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-03-06 12:36  

#2  Exactly, Jackal. I tried to get MNF-I types to incorporate extremely harsh and specific language about war crimes such as this in every utterance made WRT to similar incidents (including the times journalists got hit), of course to no avail. From the WH on down, the US has never attempted to educate or shape discussion, much less correct systematic distortion by the media. Easily the most important failure since 9/11.
Posted by: Verlaine   2007-03-06 12:24  

#1  They have to proclaim this more openly: shielding yourself with civilians is a war crime and any resulting casualties are your fault, not ours.
Posted by: Jackal   2007-03-06 06:59  

00:00