US accused of bombing Afghan wedding party, killing 37

[ItsRobsLife]

U.S. warplanes bombed a wedding party, killing 37 people, including 23 children and 10 women, Afghan authorities have claimed.


The bombing on Monday afternoon in the remote village of Wech Baghtu in the southern province of Kandahar destroyed an Afghan housing complex where women and children had gathered to celebrate.

The U.S. military said it was investigating the report but an American spokesman added that 'if innocent people were killed in this operation, we apologise and express our condolences'.



Body parts littered the wreckage and nearby farm animals lay dead.

A bombing run by fighter aircraft a short while later destroyed the compound and killed 37 people, including 23 children, ten women and four men, according to a local farmer whose daughter was to get married.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai referred to the incident at a news conference today held to congratulate Obama on his U.S. presidential election victory.
Karzai said he hopes the election will 'bring peace to Afghanistan, life to
Afghanistan and prosperity to the Afghan people and the rest of the world'.

He applauded America for its 'courage' in electing Obama.
But he also used the occasion to immediately press Obama to find a way to prevent civilians casualties in operations by foreign forces.


He then said air strikes had caused deaths in the Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar province.
'Our demand is that there will be no civilian casualties in Afghanistan. We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes,' Karzai said.

'This is my first demand of the new president of the United States - to put an end to civilian casualties.'

The alleged air strikes come only three months after the Afghan government found that a U.S. operation killed some 90 civilians in western Afghanistan. A U.S. report said 33 civilians died in that attack.
Another incident with a high number of civilian casualties could severely strain U.S.-Afghan relations.

US accused of bombing Afghan wedding party, killing 37 | Mail Online

[sabang]

Not again. Why do they bomb wedding parties? Very bad taste.

[Redrum]

If they shoot guns into the air at these gatherings (as is custom in backward lands such as this) the plane probably thought it was under attack.

And the kids would have grown up to be terrorists anyway, so fuck 'em.

[ItsRobsLife]

It's incredible isn't it. They bombed one back in 2002 I think.

Not that the timing for this could ever be good., but today of all days.

Very bad press for US forces again, a story that again highlights not only the negligence, but also the western media bias.

I heard this story this morning on the radio as 'minor' item and then it wasn't repeated for the rest of the day.

37 dead, 37!

That is incredible, if this had been the work of extremists against western civillians, it would be creating a worldwide shitstorm.

As it is I'm sure this is big news in the middle east and will lead to deeper indignation and no doubt further recruits to the jihad.

A very sad day for the victims, but also for American foreign relations.

[Butterfly]

they were all terrorists, well at least according to US intelligence

[raycarey]

again?

[raycarey]

i guess this one of the benefits of the all 'volunteer' military . anyway, so much for hearts and minds.

[Jesus Jones]

America killing innocent civilians, this has to be conspiracy surely with all the multi-billion dollar technology they have!

Is there really any wonder terrorists, and i use that word lightly are increasing when shit like this happens. If this was a full scale war then yes, innocent civilians get killed, but this is bollox.

If my family was wiped out by a foreign country, then i would certainly want revenge. I guess i would be a terrorist then.

[melvbot]

Kill a terrorist, spawn 3 more. Kill 37 people at a wedding and the seeds can be planted for the 100's. Terrible, its a war no-one can really win.

[AntRobertson]

In the documentary 'War Made Easy' they detail civilian casualties in conflicts since WW2.

What's interesting is that for all the massive amounts of money spent and talk of 'smart bombs' and the like proportionally speaking civilian deaths have been steadily increasing since WW2.

[Norton]

proportionally speaking civilian deaths have been steadily increasing since WW2.

Proportionally. Please explain?

[blackgang]

37 dead, 37!

Yes Sir, Now if they would figure a way to at least double that count then they would be on a par with the suicide bombers that are doing it every other day with much higher body counts.

Fuck em..

[AntRobertson]

proportionally speaking civilian deaths have been steadily increasing since WW2.

Proportionally. Please explain?

As a percentage/proportion of all deaths. For example (and these are just invented figures I'm using here): if there were 1,000,000 deaths in WW2 then 100,000 (10%) of those were civilians cf. Iraq with 40,000 deaths and 15,000 (37%) of those being civilians. And every war/conflict in-between shows the same trend.

So despite all the new technology, all the claims of 'precision bombs' and the hands-off, distancing, computer game-like targetting and firing, the killing has been more indiscriminate.

I can really recommend the documentary actually, 'War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death'. It's very interesting (based off of the eponymous Normon Solomon's book) and the point I'm referring to isn't actually the main focus.

[keda]

So despite all the new technology, all the claims of 'precision bombs' and the hands-off, distancing, computer game-like targetting and firing, the killing has been more indiscriminate.

Is that conclusive proof, or a selectively wishful agenda-friendly thought?

Could it also mean that terrorists are increasingly using human shields, or that more terrorists are classified as civilian because they're not wearing uniforms, or any of many other reasons for a proportional increase in the number of 'civilian' deaths? Could it? - or does it have to be the way you interpret things? Oops, my badi, how dare anyone have the temerity to challenge your fantasy of a trend towards indiscriminate killings!

Ftr, to you or any of the other bhb, muslims are killing more muslims than the Americans are, and when the US do kill innocents, in the true sense of that word, it may be poor intel or use of munitions but not intended, not like the commander ordered them to go find a batch of civvies to slaughter...otoh, when the (muslim) terrorists kill (muslim) innocents, also in the true sense of those words, it is very much intended.

Get used to that concept.

[AntRobertson]

So despite all the new technology, all the claims of 'precision bombs' and the hands-off, distancing, computer game-like targetting and firing, the killing has been more indiscriminate.

Is that conclusive proof, or a selectively wishful agenda-friendly thought?

Could it also mean that terrorists are increasingly using human shields, or that more terrorists are classified as civilian because they're not wearing uniforms, or any of many other reasons for a proportional increase in the number of 'civilian' deaths? Could it? - or does it have to be the way you interpret things? Oops, my badi, how dare anyone have the temerity to challenge your fantasy of a trend towards indiscriminate killings!

Ftr, to you or any of the other bhb, muslims are killing more muslims than the Americans are, and when the US do kill innocents, in the true sense of that word, it may be poor intel or use of munitions but not intended, not like the commander ordered them to go find a batch of civvies to slaughter...otoh, when the (muslim) terrorists kill (muslim) innocents, also in the true sense of those words, it is very much intended.

Get used to that concept.

Here's a thought keda, why don't you watch the film and do your own research as opposed to just going off on another rant and rave session and turning this into a personal attack on me. Use your brain for once.

I made it very clear what the source was and merely repeated it; you've used that to construct a strawman to baselessly attack.

[attaboy]

they were all terrorists, well at least according to US intelligence

Yep here we go again. Intelligence gained from an Afghani wishing to settle a grudge against a neighbor no doubt. Better the thousand year vendetta be on the USA than his own chicken-ass. I wouldn't be surprised if the Afghani didn't have an enterprise. Other Afghanis come to him with their grudge. They pay him some goats or something or rather and he goes with his 'intelligence' to the Americans. The Americans end up bombing the client's enemy.

I think once the draw down of troops in Iraq enables more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, more troops on the ground will mean less need to accomplish things by air. I hope this is how it goes.