Thursday February 16, 2012

NATO strikes kill nine Afghan police

KABUL —

Nine policemen were killed in Afghanistan Sunday in NATO air strikes called in when police and troops clashed after mistaking each other for Taliban, authorities said.

The fighting erupted at about 1:30 am when Afghan and international soldiers moved into a district without informing police, who thought they were militants, the deputy governor of southwestern Farah province said.

“An engagement took place, each side thinking the other was the Taliban,” Mohammad Younus Rasouli said.

The troops called for air support and military attack aircraft arrived and bombed a police post, he said. “Nine police were killed and five wounded,” he said.

The U.S.-led coalition, helping the government fight Taliban and other extremists, said the combined Afghan and U.S. patrol had been acting in self-defense after coming under attack from a “non-uniformed hostile force.”

“The combined patrol signaled their status as coalition forces, but continued to receive fire,” it said in a statement.

“Coalition forces then returned small arms fire and engaged the enemy with precision close air support,” it said.

The coalition said it was trying to determine how many policemen had died.

Rasouli said the police chief of Farah’s Anar Dara district, on the border with Iran, was among the wounded and was in a serious condition.

The “friendly fire” incident came as U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama visited Afghanistan to assess international efforts against al-Qaida-linked extremist militants trying to overthrow the government.

There have been several such mistakes in Afghanistan’s complicated battleground, where many local and international security forces are involved in a growing fight against Taliban insurgents.

Earlier this month a British helicopter mistakenly opened fire on a group of British soldiers in Helmand province, injuring nine of them, three seriously, the defense ministry said.

In January nine Afghan policemen were killed in the central province of Ghazni by U.S.-led soldiers hunting militants, Afghan officials said.

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said meanwhile its soldiers had killed four Afghan civilians by accident late Saturday when mortar rounds landed off-target in the eastern province of Paktika near Pakistan.

“An ISAF unit on a fire mission accidentally killed four civilians, with an unconfirmed further three deaths,” it said in a statement.

One of the mortars landed on a house, Afghan authorities in the area said.

It was the latest in a series of incidents in which international soldiers have killed civilians, although more die in attacks by extremists including from the Taliban regime, removed from power in late 2001 in a U.S.-led invasion.

The coalition admitted last week that it had killed eight in an air strike targeting militants in Farah. Afghan officials said nine women and a boy had died.

The coalition and ISAF are also investigating official reports that 64 civilians were killed in two strikes in northeastern Afghanistan this month.

One hit a wedding party, killing 47 people including the bride, an investigation appointed by President Hamid Karzai found.

In other violence Sunday, three children were killed in the southern province of Helmand when a bomb blew up a minivan, provincial police chief Mohammad Hussien Andiwal said. Two children and two adults were wounded.

The Afghan police and defense ministry announced meanwhile that about 15 Taliban were killed in various incidents in southern Afghanistan.

Wire reports

  • 0

    Everton2

    We are fighting a difficult war against an insurgency that put women and children in the front line. These tactics create enormous difficulties for NATO forces. But the war must go on

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Why is it that the war must go on? Wouldn't it be better for a peace to break out?

  • 0

    rjd_jr

    Another airstrike, another incident of innocents killed. Really, you'd thunk they would come up with some better strategies that alienating the very people they help to presume. I'm sorry, but after over 7 years of fighting this 'war' in Afghanistan, civilian casualties inevitable cuz they hide behind women and children just ain't cutting it anymore. All these air strikes is doing is creating more animosities and antagonits against American/coalition forces. I'm sorry if that upsets people but it's the darned truth. As mentioned before, that attack that killed 9 U.S. soldiers was done with the full cooperation and participation of civilians that lived near the outpost. That speaks volumes.

    Either re evaluate or continue towards path of no return.

  • 0

    westurn

    "Why is it that the war must go on?"

    Because it's the Middle East and Islamic traditions require it ! Pick up your Koran, read it, and deal with it ! Thousands of years of war for the sake of Mohammed !

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Really, you'd think they would come up with some better strategies"

    Really, you'd think rjd jr would come up with some better strategies. War is hell. People get killed and maimed in wars. I hate wars.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    westurn,

    Pick up your world history books and read them. Human beings are written in a history of war and the wars are always conducted in someone's name.

    For example, our current war in Afghanistan was undertaken because our national security demanded it. Really? I don't think so.

    We find reasons to fight or we find ways not to. That was the second part of my question.

  • 0

    RepublicofTexas

    Because it's the Middle East and Islamic traditions require it ! Pick up your Koran, read it, and deal with it ! Thousands of years of war for the sake of Mohammed !

    Westurn,

    I think you are confusing Islamic fundamentalism with mainstream Islam. There is a difference. Islam itself does not believe in the killing of innocents, etc. In fact, at its founding Islam was a far more enlightened religion than Christianity in terms of women's rights and tolerance. It's the ignorance and bigotry of people like you that got us into a war without the people in charge understanding the differences between Shia and Sunni as well as the customs/culture of the Middle East.

  • 0

    Zen_Builder

    I am with sezwho2.

    Wars are NOT fought for reasons like X don't like us, X attacked us but for economic reasons. I.e. they got resource Y and I want it, etc.

    Yeah, the colonial powers didn't help by using a straight-edge to define Borders, etc.

    Empires grow because they need to expand to get more resources, etc But once they reach a certain size they start to collapse. It is build-in. Right now the USA is in the need for expansion phase, IMHO.

    Never mind that most of the US adversaries are pushed by a long degree to attack their home-land. How many missiles from N.Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc can hit the USA?

    How many of those nations can invade the USA physically, right now it is that isolation from other world-events that give the US powers. as much as did the military might of the roman, mongol empire, etc.

    Don't have to be military expansion can be economical, etc. The British goverment tried to control their colonies via the "Opium wars", etc.

    Just my view.

    P.S.: Dons asbestos suit.

  • 0

    westurn

    Wrong and right sezwho...

    "Human beings are written in a history of war and the wars are always conducted in someone's name."

    The history of war is very clear. Wars are fought for two reasons, economic and religious ! Whether it be in the name of Allah, Mohammad, or Christ. Or oil or territory or natural resources... those be the facts. So spare me your shaking fist and stammering rhetoric... yer embarrassing yerself, again !

  • 0

    westurn

    And Repoftexas:

    "I think you are confusing Islamic fundamentalism with mainstream Islam. There is a difference..."

    No there is no difference, especially when one sits back and allows the other to kill, maim, and slaughter in it's name with nary any opposition... which is what we witnessed immediately after 9/11. Not a single "en masse" protest in the streets of any Islamic nation ! No sirree... they all just sat on their thumbs in silent approval. And like millions of other Americans the message was received pretty loud and clear. Now you can deny this reality all you want republicoftexas, but you are in the minority here !

  • 0

    SezWho2

    westurn,

    The only one who has embarrassed himself here is yourself for failing to demonstrate the relevance of your comment.

    Wars are fought for a variety of reasons: economic, empire extension, nationalism, religion, ideology and so on. The point I am making is that every warrior has a reason for making war.

    Your claim is that war is inevitable because the Koran demands it. Personally, I find that simplistic, naive and not rooted in any particularly astute understanding of Islam. My claim is that if war is inevitable, it is inevitable because it is rooted in the human psyche--as the thousands of wars which comprise the backbone of history will verify.

    The Koran does not demand war. People do.

  • 0

    westurn

    "empire extension" ???

    Economic !

    "ideology"

    Religious !

    "nationalism"

    For example ???

    "Your claim is that war is inevitable because the Koran demands it. Personally, I find that simplistic, naive and not rooted in any particularly astute understanding of Islam"

    So enlighten us !

    "The Koran does not demand war. People do."

    So I will find no reference to conflict or battle in the Koran or any other religious book ??? And war is inevitable ???

    Now who is talking nonsense here ?

  • 0

    adaydream

    Right...

    Because it's the Middle East and Islamic traditions require it ! Pick up your Koran, read it, and deal with it ! Thousands of years of war for the sake of Mohammed!

    This makes sense to start wars and fight mindless battles and lose men and women because of something we read.

    Now if you had said that the Taliban attacked us and we retaliated because of an unjustified attack on us. We have to finish this war that was started by to penalize an aggressive act.

    But no we should fight because of something in a book. < :-)

  • 0

    RepublicofTexas

    No there is no difference, especially when one sits back and allows the other to kill, maim, and slaughter in it's name with nary any opposition

    Every religion has its fundamentalists, but not every religious person is a fundamentalist. Your comment proves you no nothing of Islam. It's unfortunate that b/c of people like you the US will most likely never have stable/friendly relations with the nations of the Middle East. Also there are many Muslims who are angry that terrorists and radicals have used the name of Islam to kill innocents. Most Muslims did not just sit back and enjoy watching the twin towers fall. The only reason so many Muslims have become antagonistic to the US is b/c bigots like you preach hatred toward all Islam. You my "friend" are in the minority.

  • 0

    adaydream

    What we have here is a failure to communicate.

    Then when the Afghan's screw up you get comments like: **We are fighting a difficult war against an insurgency that put women and children in the front line. ** when this was an accident between friendlies.

    This makes it sound as if you really didn't read the story. < :-)

  • 0

    Madverts

    Jeezus, they've got to get their acts together. How many times have we seen these headlines recently?

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    Tell me something how do police office mistake coalition troops for Taliban fighters? Why did the police continue to fire on the troops even when the troops told them who they were?

    Lack of communication? Yeah right, in that country you dont know who is your friend and who is your enemy.....

  • 0

    westurn

    adaydream wrote...

    "But no we should fight because of something in a book. < :-)"

    Seems yer starting to get it ! The Koran, The Bible, Hitlers Mein Kampf ! All pieces of literature exhalting the necessity for conflict that led hundreds of thousands of people to act violently against their fellow man !

  • 0

    westurn

    republicoftexas still in such a lather that the nonsensical continues to pour over the keyboard !

    "Every religion has its fundamentalists, but not every religious person is a fundamentalist."

    Wow, on the surface that appears pretty deep. But the reality is when fundamentalists cause destruction and chaos and your so-called nonfundamentalists sit back and do nothing ... well the signs of approval are deafening ! If muslims wants to control their religion then they better take up arms against these fundamentalists ! I have yet to see this !

  • 0

    skipthesong

    aday: "But no we should fight because of something in a book. " But many do and have done so for centuries and will continue for centuries to come...

    Denying that is naive. Least you not forget, within a certain book, killing of someone is not only tolerated it is actually encoueraged.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    westurn,

    Islam generally admonishes its followers to save lives and not to take them. Of course you will find references to war--as you will in the old testament law which Christ did not come to change. War is not the essence of Islam.

    I can't help you with the inevitability question. It seems to me that the inevitability of war based on the Koran is your position, not mine.

    Moderator: Stay on topic please.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Maybe if they used US military intellegence..........

    Sorry, I forgot.

    They have. < :-)

  • 0

    adaydream

    Western you state that: Seems yer starting to get it ! The Koran, The Bible, Hitlers Mein Kampf ! All pieces of literature exhalting the necessity for conflict that led hundreds of thousands of people to act violently against their fellow man !

    We should go to war because the Koran, the Bible, Hitler's Mein Kampf (not a religious teaching) exhalting the necessity for conflict

    I've never read the Koran, but I've read the Bible. You're saying that we should have wars all over because the Bible says there is a necessity for conflict.

    I think if thatr's what the Bible says I'll change religions. It tells of wars, it's tells of conflict, it also tells to turn the other cheek. Maybe you need to reread the Bible. There's a lot more than war in the Bible. < :-)

    Moderator: Back on topic please.

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

More in World

View all

View all