Article

2008-08-26 Afghanistan

Strike 'killed 60 young Afghans' says UN

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2008-08-26 08:24|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 That's "60 young Afghans" as in 60 males, ages 15-21.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2008-08-26 10:18|| 2008-08-26 10:18|| Front Page Top

#2 You don't suppose that the attack was against a Taliban madrassa training these children to be gunmen and suicide bombers? It would be a good place to hold a meeting of Taliban leaders, now wouldn't it. No help, I suppose in identifying any of the adult men.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-08-26 10:20|| 2008-08-26 10:20|| Front Page Top

#3 Considering that to have killed that many children around here you have had to hit a school in session, you are probably right. Also, look at who they interviewed: locals and then TOOK THEIR WORD for who was killed. No gravesites visited.

The UN is pathetic when it comes to reporting.

Anybody want to bet the investigator sent is named Abdul Mohammed?

Posted by Jame Retief 2008-08-26 11:55|| 2008-08-26 11:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Jame...Nah. 60 young adults. A few Older muslim men. Sounds more like an islamic NAMBLA meeting.

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2008-08-26 11:59|| 2008-08-26 11:59|| Front Page Top

#5 nambla - pretty popular in those parts I hear ...

Posted by Legolas 2008-08-26 12:15|| 2008-08-26 12:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, this is starting to stink badly. The long knives are out to sully the reputation of the US and NATO forces. I don't buy the story on its face, but who knows, shit happens in war. Of course not a peep about the talibunnies hiding behind women and children, and it is that that has my BS meter pegged.

Note that we've heard nothing from the US forces. Clearly they are doing their own investigation.

But in the end, if Karzai wants to put the clamps on us, then I say we bug out of that hellhole. It offers no strategic importance other than to be an irritant to Pakistan. And if they want to go all talibunnie again, we just carpet bomb from afar. My sympathy meter is not moving.

Posted by remoteman 2008-08-26 12:49|| 2008-08-26 12:49|| Front Page Top

#7 Everyone is a civilian in Afghanistan especially after they have been killed.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2008-08-26 13:21|| 2008-08-26 13:21|| Front Page Top

#8 Hmmmmm...who's wake was it?

Posted by tu3031 2008-08-26 14:54|| 2008-08-26 14:54|| Front Page Top

#9 Sounds more like an islamic NAMBLA meeting

Could have been a NAMGLA meeting. Did they find any goats?

Posted by gorb 2008-08-26 17:29|| 2008-08-26 17:29|| Front Page Top

#10 gorb, buddy...it's NAMGSLA. YOU FORGOT THE SHEEP!

Posted by anymouse">anymouse 2008-08-26 20:20|| 2008-08-26 20:20|| Front Page Top

#11 This was the statement our side made; unusually early and precise.

The U.S. military disputes the civilian casualty figures and says troops called for airstrikes after a group of wanted militants fired on a joint patrol of coalition and Afghan forces.

"joint patrol" - we had boots on the ground with the Afghan Army unit.

"wanted militants" - the joint patrol was looking for someone specific - this was not a random mission.

"fired on" - the joint patrol did not initiate the action; they were probably getting too close to the wanted militant for his comfort.

U.S. coalition spokesman, First Lieutenant Nathan Perry, told VOA the troops were able to search the compound following the battle to confirm the casualty figures. He says five civilians, who were believed to be related to the militants, were among the 30 people killed in the strike.

Whether it was five or 65 civilian casualties I am confident they were connected with the militants in some close way. And I figure it was closer to five, since I know our guys can count - even if they have to count the feet and assume they can divide by two for the number killed.

"There was already a battlefield assessment of this operation," said the spokesman. "We want to point out that this was an Afghan army operation. Coalition troops were in support of the Afghan operation. And after the operation, those troops on the ground were able to do a battlefield assessment. Not only did they confirm that they killed 25 militants, they also confirmed the main target that they were in pursuit of."

Pretty unequivocal: our guys were there, they confirmed the number of dead and they confirmed they got the target they were after. Now, WHO was this target and why have his allies gone to such lengths to discredit the operation that got him?

Ordinarily I would be willing to accept that we called in air support when attacked from fortified positions and flattened the 7-8 houses claimed, along with the 90 Talifriends or hostages in them. Too bad, so sad. But I would not expect an official spokesman to clearly state that WE counted 25 bad militants and 5 bad civilians killed, and state it BEFORE the Afghan claims of 90 innocent civilians killed, if it was not essentially correct. There is a lot of smoke being blown around this event. Our enemy has found a tactic that works - claim we killed a bunch of innocents (even if we didn't, or if we did because they weren't so innocent, or were being used as human shields, or even were killed by the 'bunnies.) Seems like the whole world is willing to buy that propaganda from them.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-08-26 23:07|| 2008-08-26 23:07|| Front Page Top

23:57 Maggie Thromomble8551
23:55 3dc
23:48 OldSpook
23:38 Gabby Cussworth
23:33 Jolutch Mussolini7800
23:32 Spike Uniter
23:30 Pappy
23:23 European Conservative
23:15 Zhang Fei
23:10 Alaska Paul in Tok, AK
23:07 SteveS
23:07 Glenmore
23:06 OldSpook
23:03 OldSpook
22:57 Troll Watch
22:57 Spike Uniter
22:53 Mark Espinola
22:41 Pappy
22:32 DMFD
22:28 European Conservative
22:25 Alaska Paul in Tok, AK
22:17 Alaska Paul in Tok, AK
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:10 Woozle Unusosing8053