U.S. to investigate after 50 children among dozens killed in coalition air strikes in Afghanistan

Sunday 24th August, 07:00 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 65 Total Comments Show All

StealthBomber at 04:11 PM JST - 25th August

I agree with Sarge. The world knows how life was in Afghanistan before the liberation. Why would we liberate and rebuild a nation, then kill innocents?

We don`t do the killing innocents thing, and there is no proof that we do.
Madverts at 04:50 PM JST - 25th August

Are there any civillians left in Afghanistan?
SezWho2 at 10:17 PM JST - 25th August

StealthBomber,

I think there is ample proof that we take innocent lives. I've been given to understand that this happens in warfare and I think I could name incidents from about every major war--except the War of Disloyalty--where we have done so. We may be "better", but we're not different.
seansezso at 04:35 PM JST - 26th August

Stealth wrote:

Why would we liberate and rebuild a nation, then kill innocents?

Why would we liberate and rebuild a nation, and then kill anyone at all? Could it be that the country was, in fact, not completely liberated nor rebuilt? (I do not know what there was to rebuild honestly).

We have been trying to tell you that while the U.S. may not intentionally target civilians, they do kill civilians like it or not. It is not that great of a mental leap and I wish you would get a grip on it. Its a fact. Its a fact we have to deal with. You cannot just explain it away so easily to someone who has lost family to a U.S. bomb. Its going to take more understanding, sympathy and apology to do that. If Americans are unwilling, they should pull out of Afghanistan. This dilema is faced by all would-be-liberators, and if they refuse to face it, they will only be remembered as invaders.
undecidedbout08 at 04:43 PM JST - 26th August

We have been trying to tell you that while the U.S. may not intentionally target civilians, they do kill civilians like it or not.

Understood. But your message might be more readily acknowledged if it were balanced with certain other facts about death and mortality in these wars.

Do critics of the liberation of Afghanistan here have any idea how many lives have been saved by the US-led ouster of the Taliban?

The WHO, the World Bank and others publish such estimates.

Why are these numbers never cited here?
FromEurope at 07:14 PM JST - 26th August

http://www.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_12.html

89 Afghans killed, Karzai fires 2 officers

*Afghan President Hamid Karzai has dismissed 2 Afghan army officers after a US-led coalition air attack killed scores of civilians.

Karzai blamed Friday's casualties in the Shindand District of Herat Province on failed coordination between coalition forces and the Afghan army.

The Afghan Interior Ministry quoted local police as saying 76 civilians were killed, but the US military said 5 civilians and 30 Taliban fighters were killed.

The Afghan government later sent an investigation team. Karzai said on Sunday that at least 89 civilians were killed, mostly children and women.

The US military said the air attack was launched based on intelligence provided by the Afghan army, suggesting that the Afghan army is to blame.*

Does Afghan Army command the US Army ? The US dropped the bomb. They should have verified the information as they are the responsible of their own act. Not the Afghan Army.
FromEurope at 07:21 PM JST - 26th August

undecidedabout08

Unfortunately, the statictics and the estimates never saved the lives while the US bomb actually does kill the innocent civilians. (intentionally or not)
FromEurope at 07:26 PM JST - 26th August

BoldWar Veteran

You seem to think that if the small amount of innocents killed is OK... I don't think it's OK even if it's 1 or 2 innocent people killed by the bomb of any nationality.
undecidedbout08 at 08:08 PM JST - 26th August

Unfortunately, the statictics and the estimates never saved the lives while the US bomb actually does kill the innocent civilians.

Sorry, you must be yet another uninformed European. Taliban-ruled Afghanistan saw its infant mortality rates soar. Fundamentalist Islam has an irrational antipathy to modern medicine, probably because it was almost wholly developed by "infidels."

From an article in 2007 published in The Scotsman: Infant mortality in Afghanistan has fallen dramatically since the demise of the Taleban, according to a new study, with 40,000 fewer babies dying every year. Improvements in women's access to medical care since the Taleban were ousted from power five years ago was cited as the main reason for the death rate becoming significantly lower.

[...]

Benjamin Loevinsohn, a World Bank health specialist, said the survey results probably underestimated the improvement in infant mortality.

"It's a conservative estimate. This is the situation two and a half to three years ago ... It should be better than that now," Mr Loevinsohn said.

You seem intent on demonizing American supporters of a war to liberate Afghanistan. But it seems to me you haven't examined Europe's support for the war to keep Afghanistan in teh dark ages.

We know that most of the heroin in Europe is from Afghanistan.

How many innocent Afghan lives are taken by European voters who elect politicians tolerant of the huge drug problem on the continent and in the UK?
FromEurope at 08:24 PM JST - 26th August

undecidedabout08

As I said, your article and statistics don't save the innocents to be killed. You are just analysing the past. We all know that any historical facts could never preserve the war. The same thing can be said about this incident. You can make many statistics with the past records, this kind of incident will happen again, unfortunately, in Afghanistan, in Iraq or somewhere else.
FromEurope at 08:26 PM JST - 26th August

You are just analysing the past. We all know that any historical facts could never preserve the war.

Sorry, it should be "prevent"
undecidedbout08 at 08:29 PM JST - 26th August

this kind of incident will happen again,

And US intervention will again save more lives than it causes to be lost.

And Europe will stand on the sidelines, wring its hands, write a check or two, pledge assistance and remain the whiny, geriatric teenager it has been these last 60 years.
FromEurope at 08:46 PM JST - 26th August

You mean to save the people, it's OK to kill the other innocents?

And I think you stay in a very small point of view like "America" or " Europe". This kind of incident is a human tragedy. All you want to do is just make some excuse for the US bombing.

You should recognize that the US is responsible for this incident. Again, intentionally or not.
undecidedbout08 at 09:05 PM JST - 26th August

You mean to save the people, it's OK to kill the other innocents?

Of course not. You're being ridiculous. What's next from you ? Are you going to say we save infants' lives and provide free inoculations for all Iraqi children so we can shoot them when they grow older?
SezWho2 at 11:16 PM JST - 26th August

I think there might have been other ways to save an estimated 40,000 babies per year than to destroy a country to do so. The result is that Afghanistan still has miserable neo-natal death rates and the country is still not secure. The estimated 40,000 babies are born into actual undesirable conditions.

We did not go into Afghanistan to save babies or even to save more lives than we took. We went there to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven and to exact vengeance and after almost 7 years that job is only partially finished at best. It is not clear that it ever will or can be finished. The taliban are resurgent and they are not the only ones who want us out and who want to liberate Kabul.