US increases Afghan civilian toll

Scott Free
US increases Afghan civilian toll

A US military inquiry has found that an air strike on militants in western Afghanistan on 22 August killed many more civilians than first acknowledged.

US Central Command said 33 civilians, not seven, had died in the village of Azizabad in Herat province.
While voicing regret, it said US forces had followed rules of engagement.

Afghan officials and the United Nations feared at the time that up to 90 people had died in the strike on Azizabad, including 60 children.

Video footage, apparently of the aftermath of the raid, showed some 40 dead bodies lined up under sheets and blankets inside a mosque.

The majority of the dead captured on the video were children, babies and toddlers, some burned so badly they were barely recognisable.

US forces had originally said seven civilians were killed in a "successful" US raid targeting a Taleban commander in Azizabad.

Announcing the findings of US Central Command's inquiry, Lt Gen Martin Dempsey said that US forces had acted on credible intelligence, in self-defence and in line with rules of engagement.

The US forces had called for air support during the operation with Afghan troops, after they were fired upon from a suspected Taleban compound.

Lt Gen Dempsey said that 22 insurgents had also been killed in the attack.
"We are deeply saddened at the loss of innocent life in Azizabad," he added.

"We go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan in all our operations, but as we have seen all too often, this ruthless enemy routinely surround themselves with innocents."

BBC - includes the video (external - login to view)

I think the implication from the BBC is that the US is still lying.
The rules of engagement obviously permit civilian murder.
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

The rules of engagement obviously permit civilian murder.

Don't tell David Frum, it will ruin his high.
Scott Free
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

The rules of engagement obviously permit civilian murder.

Oh absolutely!

That was the whole point of the US surge in Iraq. The added troops weren't enough to turn the tide but the underlining genocide was. Instead of selecting insurgence to kill they just move in and wipe out whole neighbourhoods.

I'm a little surprised they would do the same thing with the international community watching but when your the worlds hegimon I suppose you can get away with it - so long as the rest of the world doesn't grow a pair.
That's one of my old signitures Scott, I think it says it all eh.
Scott Free
It does.
The Matrix of Death. A New Dossier on the (Im)Precision of U.S Bombing and the (Under)Valuation of an Afghan Life (external - login to view)
Prof. Marc Herold (external - login to view)
The overarching theme of this dossier is to carefully document the very low value put on the lives of common Afghans by U.S. military and political elites (along with their many handmaidens in the corporate media). Highlights include:
*Exposing three common subterfuges used to rationalize the killing of Afghan civilians;
*Pointing out that Afghan civilians killed by U.S/NATO forcesí direct action since January 1, 2006 now outnumber those who perished in the original U.S. bombing and invasion during the first three months (2001) of the U.S. Afghan war. The overall human toll is far greater than just those killed by direct U.S/NATO actions as it includes all those who died later from injuries, the internally displaced who died in camps, etc.;
* Documenting that close air support (CAS) bombing is more deadly to Afghan civilians than was the strategic bombing of Laos and Cambodia;
*Revealing that CAS air strikes now account for about 80 % of all Afghan civilians who perish at the hands of the U.S. and NATO...
(external - login to view) continua / continued [47790] (external - login to view) [ 08-oct-2008 04:54 ECT ]
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

The rules of engagement obviously permit civilian murder.

Only if it is done by the USA under Republican rule.

But fear not! For soon Bush's defenders will say, BLAME OBAMA!!
Obama should be blamed early and often, he's scum chum.
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Obama should be blamed early and often, he's scum chum.

Who would you vote for 'beav', or, who would your choice for president be. Someones got
to do the job, the oval office can't be left vacant.
Ralph Nadar?

Similar Threads

NATO apologizes for Afghan civilian deaths
by CBC News | Oct 28th, 2006
no new posts