Six More Afghan Children Killed by US Bombs; US Blames Victims

[BurtWorm]

On top of the nine killed last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Afghan-Children-Killed.html?hp

Six Afghan Children Killed in U.S. Attack
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 10, 2003

Filed at 3:30 a.m. ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Six children were killed during an assault by U.S. forces on a compound in eastern Afghanistan, a U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday, the second time in a week that civilians have died in action against Taliban and al-Qaida suspects.

The children died during an attack on Friday against a complex near the eastern city of Gardez where a renegade Afghan commander, Mullah Jalani, was believed to have stocked weapons, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty.

...

``We try very hard not to kill anyone. We would prefer to capture the terrorists rather than kill them,'' Hilferty said. ``But in this incident, if noncombatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist we are not completely responsible for the consequences.''


...

[MinnFats]

1. they must not have welcomed them as liberators....

....

and Rumsfeld gives a RINGING endorsement of this type of action. (officially, however, he does not approve of killing children.)

[La_Serpiente]

2. "They hated our freedoms"

What a bunch of bullshit. I've never heard such disgusting language from the US Government.

I say Court-Marshall the soldier.

[Gore1FL]

3. Link??

thanks

[BurtWorm]

4. Added

Thanks for reminding me!

[Gore1FL]

5. nevermind -- here it is

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V9113.AP-Afghan-Children.html

[Divernan]

6. First of all, you got a link for this?

The material quoted only refers to an assault on a compound by U.S. forces, so I don't know if it was an air strike followed by ground troops or not, but that seems to be the pattern.

Second, it's ridiculous to claim that "noncombatants" surrounded themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, etc. because if the "noncombatants" had control as to where the weapons/munitions were placed, they would not be "noncombatants" would they? Basically, this Lt. Col. is saying the children who were killed were responsible for and in control of the stocking of weapons.

It's a complex and difficult aspect of this kind of warfare. Could the military have surrounded the compound and ordered an evacuation before shelling it? That kind of action takes a lot more troops than sending a plane in to bomb - and under Rumsfeld and his preference for high-tech, low manpower warfare, it's probably not an option for the military there.

It's a horrifying thing to happen, and the soldiers who saw the murdered children, as well as any pilots or others who bombed or shelled the compound will be psychologically scarred by this experience for life, and/or invest a lifetime of energy into maintaining denial of what they've done. We've all seen it with the Vietnam vets, haven't we? I sure have.

[Nihil]

10. Maybe

While I agree that the soldiers on the ground who saw the murdered
children would be psychologically scarred by this, I doubt the pilots
would be affected. As far as the latter are concerned, it was just a
mission: get to map ref A, point weapons at map ref B, fire & forget
then fly home - mission accomplished ...

Keeping combatants remote from the target is an advantage to the
commanders when the results are as unpleasant as this - it allows the
efficient, detached operation to continue with none of the messy,
moral soul-searching that sometimes afflicts ground troops.

Nihil

[teryang]

15. excellent comments

The fact that they will not specify the details concerning the nature of the assualt, as you pointed out, also leads me to believe that the attack may have been disproportionate.

This is how the baby killer moniker gets generated. I think it should be ROE to give non-combatants, at least women and children, an opportunity to evacuate.

[laura888]

7. ``I can't guarantee that we will not injure more civilians''

ummmm.... is there a war in afghanistan?

how does the government define what we're doing over there?

[AnnitaR]

8. "we are not completely responsible for the consequences.''

I cannot begin to describe how much this angers me!!

How the hell will we ever recover from what that EVIL little man in our White House has done?

:mad:

[DrWeird]

9. At least we're hearing about it now.

That much is news.

[izzie]

11. I think this comes under' Bush as the Uniter Plan.'

Kill lots of children and those who are not US haters now, will be ,or they will be terrotist.

[Killarney]

12. This is why the war on terrorism doesn't work

because for every child that is killed by the U.S., hundreds more terrorists are created.

Imagine this scenario:
Imagine that a small group of extremist Americans did something horrible in another country. We bombed a building and killed many of their civilians. This other country says, "ok America, I know this was just a small extremist group and not your whole country. So we are not at war with your whole country, we are just at war with this extremist American group. So, we are going to come to America and hunt down and find the people in this extremist group." And then, during their search for the people from this small extremist group, they kill thousands of our civilians. They drop bombs on playgrounds and kill American children and then say, "sorry, we were looking for the extremist, we didn't mean to kill the children."

What would happen? Would we say, "oh, ok, keep looking then, don't worry about the dead children." NO WAY. We would fight back and that small extremist group of Americans would say, "see? we were right about them! Join our cause!" And that small extremist group would now be HUGE.

This is what is happening now. Every time an innocent civilian is killed, more join Al Queda. Every time a child is killed, hundreds join the terrorist ranks.

[izzie]

13. Yes you are right. This whole mess is blowback

Look if they just hate our way of life Denmark, Holland . Canada would all be on their list. Problem is these counties are not invading every country they do not like. Why can't they see that? This mass killing and anyone is the way, to bad, does not work. Never has. The reason must be found for why they are doing it.This is madness and I think Karl and George are going a little nuts. He is so worried about 2004.It is like they can not make one right move as they are getting really crazy. Now we will copy that other great Middle East Country that is so peace full. Run over homes and people with your tanks. That will stop all this killing. Right??????:shrug:

[Polemonium]

14. Why are we hearing about this now?

Inocent civilians, including children have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time now. And why just the focus on Afganistan? Has some of the press found some heart, or grown a spine? Or is this a way to justify civilian casualties in general, I mean far more Americans supported the action in Afganistan and if it's a tragic necessity there it must be one in Iraq too. Either way it makes me want to cry or :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. We can expect a lot more of this.

And, the standard, "We regret the unfortunate deaths of civilians.."
followed by, "Our soldiers are doing a very difficult job..."

I believe the script was written in 1967.

[reachout]

17. The slaughter of the innocents

It's a story people might want to remember this Christmas.