Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS, NATO Attacks Killed 3,200 Afghan Civilians Since 2005: Study
KABUL - Up to 3,200 civilians have been killed in NATO and US action in Afghanistan since 2005 but compensation payouts have been far lower than in other global cases, according to research by a US professor.
![[Afghan men, allegedly killed in a US-led forces operation in Asmar district in the eastern province of Kunar. Up to 3,200 civilians have been killed in NATO and US action in Afghanistan since 2005 but compensation payouts have been far lower than in other global cases, according to research by a US professor. (AFP/File/Niamt Karab)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/afghandeaths1007.jpg "afghandeaths1007.jpg")
The use of air power is growing, raising risks for civilians, University of New Hampshire professor Marc W. Herold says in research released on the anniversary of the October 7, 2001 launch of the invasion of Afghanistan.
International troops arrived to topple the Taliban and have remained to fight an insurgency in which civilians are killed in military action and attacks, although the government and militaries involved do not release numbers.
Herold says other groups tracking the civilian cost of the war, such as Human Rights Watch, underestimate the tolls while international military and media attach low value to Afghan life in the accounting of events.
Herold, who runs the Afghan Victim Memorial Project, says his research shows between 2,699 and 3,273 civilians were killed in direct action by international forces in Afghanistan from 2005 to so far this year.
His figures, which he says are also underestimates because civilians are sometimes labelled militants by the military and unknown numbers of injured dying, are based on media and nongovernment organisation reports and other research.
"By relying upon aerial close air support attacks, US/NATO forces spare their pilots and ground troops but kill lots of innocent Afghan civilians.
"Air strikes are 4-10 times as deadly for Afghan civilians as are ground attacks," he says.
Herold says the US military gives families of its victims at most 2,500 dollars as a condolence payment -- not "compensation" which would admit wrong-doing.
Canadian per person condolence payments to Afghans since 2006 range from 1,100-9,000 dollars, he says.
This compares to 1.85 million paid for victims of the 1988 bombing of a flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, and 150,000 dollars per victim of a 1999 US bombing on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade that killed three Chinese and wounded 23 other people.
27 Comments so far
Show AllRingo is dead.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
No matter how many are killed by the US or NATO I would bet my house many more have been killed by other muslims.
Oh really? Since when did "other Muslims" obtain fighter jets and bombs to drop on them? "Shock and Awe" in Iraq and dropping bombs on Afghanistan is a hard act to follow. I don't see how they could possibly have killed more than the U.S. or NATO.
Has anyone noticed that the McCain Campaign is running a deftly edited segment of a speech given by Obama where Obama appears to be saying something about bombing Afghan civilians and then calling Obama "disgusting" for saying that?
Well folks, the CNN "Truth Squad" showed the speech segment both before and after editing today, showing that the slimy McCain Campaign cropped the speech to sound like something entirely different than Obama was saying... and yet on September 25th of THIS YEAR, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan told the Bush Administration and the World Press that the U.S. was risking our credibility by killing too many civilians with our bombings after flawed intelligence resulted in a family gathering of civilians being blown to bits... killing more than 90 civilians including 60 children.
That is what I call irony. As it turns out, the McCain Campaign has called Obama "disgusting" for APPEARING to be telling the truth!
What else is the US and NATO good for?
Folks you'll have to be "Christian" and forgive "Snoflake" er 'Wolf'----he was a lifer in the US Military, and has not received treatment for his case of "CRIS"-----"Cranial Rectal Insertion Syndrome" (cause he stands in long lines waiting for third world quality medical care at VA Facilities near you), and they can't seem to find where the head begins and the rectum ends.
And beside, he draws a pension from the US Military where it is acceptable to "kill em all and let god sort em out"--------especially when you are dropping one ton bombs from 55K feet, at night, in a sand storm, with a case of "CRIS"----
After all---one of those "heroes" who did the same thing in Vietnam--you know an American War Hero----is just one more mockery away from being Commander in Chief of thousands of "Snowflakes".
And a better use for your tax dollars could not exist.
God Bless America
Yep. The sad part is (among so many other things), that, they call it an all volunteer military--it is Guard and Reserve! They wre never intended for this crap! The stop-loss makes "volubteer" a joke!
Despite what snowdog might tell you, teh military has drastically reduced its standards on high school educaiton, convcted felons, IQ scores., etc . Mental illness (worse, when they get back). Does anyone remember the YouTube about the recruiter trying to tell a kid smoking pot how to get it out of his urine from stuff at a Head Shop?? It was a set up , and teh kid met him at the Head Shop with a camera.
There are more troops on frontlines on anti-psychotic drugs than ever before. This is also the first war that the poor (and some "middle class"--wait--I forget what that is...) have both fought and paid for.
Oh, forgot. I'm not a christian. Cause I really do forgive. I know christ did--but his followers keep warping his message.
"There are more troops on frontlines on anti-psychotic drugs than ever before."
Where did you find this information?
"This is also the first war that the poor (and some "middle class"--wait--I forget what that is...) have both fought and paid for."
I'm also not sure what you mean by this? I mean I don't remember seeing anyone in Viet Nam that was anything but Poor or Middle Class. GWB and the Dickie boy types gave it a pass. Am I not understanding the statement correctly?
What exactly is Naders position with regard to Afghanistan ... besides pulling the troops out. Ive searched all over but besides boilerplate i cant find specifics. Anyone ??
What else does the US need to do in Afghanistan, except butt out, mind it's own business, and allow Afghanis and it's neighbors solve their own probelms.
The ongoing Taliban/Kabul Government talks in Saudi Araba (ignored by the MSM) show they are fully capable of solving their problems themselves - in spite of their darker complection, non-"modern" dress, and beards.
votenader.org should have it. Or someone there can answer the questions.
Ahh Wolfie is back spewing his vomit all over the board. Whats the matter Wolfie ... daddy beat the shit out of you when you were young or something ? You need to get help ... compassion will follow shortly thereafter.
In fact, George W. Bush has been found guilty of war crimes for the use of depleted uranium in the bombing of Afghanistan. Dropping radioactive weapons on one of the poorest nations on earth is typical American morality.
From:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/GWBguiltyAWC.html
DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS DECRIED
Citizens find Bush guilty of Afghan war crimes
by Nao Shimoyachi
The Japan Times
14 March 2004
A citizens' tribunal Saturday in Tokyo found U.S. President George W. Bush guilty of war crimes for attacking civilians with indiscriminate weapons and other arms during the U.S.-led antiterrorism operations in Afghanistan in 2001.
The tribunal also issued recommendations for banning depleted uranium shells and other weapons that could indiscriminately harm people, compensating the victims in Afghanistan and reforming the United Nations in light of its failure to stop the U.S.-led operation there.
The tribunal participants spent two years examining Bush's role as the top commander in the war, making eight field trips to Afghanistan and holding nearly 20 public hearings.
"Bush said that military presence in Afghanistan is self-defense," said Robert Akroyd, a British lawyer who served as one of the five judges.
"But under international law," he said, "a defendant must pay great care to discriminate (between) legitimate objects and civilians" in claiming that one's act is self-defense, said Akroyd, former head of legal studies at Aston University in Britain.
Bush failed to do so with the U.S. military's use of "indiscriminate weapons such as the Daisy Cutter (a huge conventional bomb), cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells," he said.
Civilians and experts who have supported the tribunal movement agreed to work for creation of an international treaty that would prohibit the production, stockpile and use of depleted uranium rounds, like the Ottawa process that succeeded in 1997 in outlawing antipersonnel land mines.
Organizers said the tribunal on Afghanistan was the latest attempt to try a head of state by the efforts of citizens.
The history of citizens' tribunals dates back to the 1960s, when the British philosopher Bertrand Russell and others tried to examine the acts of the U.S. government during the Vietnam War.
Actual tribunal findings:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/ICTforAatT.html
The actual death toll in Afghanistan resulting from American foreign policy is now well OVER ONE KILLION AFGHAN LIVES !
Yeah...and 3 Million Iraqi's right?...geez
Try doing a little research that isn't off the Daily Kos and Huffpo
So you dispute the numbers, eh? And what, pray tell, is an acceptable number of civilian deaths? How about zero? Anything above zero is unacceptable (especially in light of the fact that both invasions were illegal). After all, your hero, GWB himself said "...taking an innocent life, even to save another life, is wrong..." I may be paraphrasing slightly, but that was the message. Do you remember when he said that? He was addressing the issue of stem cell research! And our government will barely even acknowledge civilian war dead. So, collateral damage to a discarded fetus is unacceptable, but hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens can be blown to pieces, shot, and gassed, but that's no big deal.
I think originally SnowWolf was just saying that the Professor might have a monetary or political interest in inflating the numbers because of his organization.
I don't believe for a minute he approves of or believes civilian casualties are good. In conflicts like this they happen. We all wish there were no casaulties.
>>I don't believe for a minute he approves of or believes civilian casualties are good. In conflicts like this they happen. We all wish there were no casaulties.
The logic here is inherently flawed.
If you already KNOW in every such conflict Civilian casualties will occur, then claiming in the next breath you wish they would not is irrational. Getting involved in said conflict was a CHOICE.
If one KNOWS dropping said bomb will kill innoccent people and one drops it anyways, then it a pre meditated and deliberate act. It shows clearly you are willing to kill civilians and children to achieve a Political end, just as terrorists will.
As to the inflating of the numbers because of a political or monetary self interest.
Pray tell what exactly are the official claims of casualties by the Government of the US other then ones of a political or financial self interest? The pentagon have been demonstrated to be bald faced liars over and over again. Their numbers and that of the US Governments are the ones that have no credibility.
Recently here in Vancouver a man was found guilty of 5 counts of second degree murder. He had burned down a townhouse in which a person he was trying to kill lived. His actions led to 4 children and a visiting woman being killed . The man he was targeting was the only one to escape.
The law deemed it murder because any "rational human being should know that setting the home ablaze would kill any person in it and not just the person he was attempting to kill."
I do not see why dropping a bomb that will kill any one within its blast radius is any different just because the people dropping the bomb put on a uniform and do it in the name of their Government.
I do not see how 'feeling bad" that it happened, makes one iota of difference when concluding said action was an act of murder.
Anymore then the arsonists feeling bad about what happened to that family he killed mitigates his crime.
PK
Deaths of and injuries to innocent civilians occur when thinking and planning about armed conflict are inadequate.
Food for thought in the article:
Transcendent warfare: New Army manual, research report are valuable
Joint Recon Study Group
http://jointreconstudygroup.blogspot.com
Oct. 6, 2008
Two new documents by and about the U.S. Army are sparking discussion and debate about various elements of the Army’s missions and future directions.
Both documents, a field manual and a research study report, expand perspectives about achieving short-term and long-term success in various kinds of missions.
Taken together, along with other comprehensive considerations, these views might be considered part of an “outside-the-box” and valuable concept sometimes referred to as “transcendent warfare.”
The new Stability Operations Field Manual, to be released today according to an Oct. 5 Washington Post article, emphasizes the role of “stability operations” in countries and regions that include fragile states and failed states.
Another new document is a report by the Rand Corporation based on a study they conducted for the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). The report is titled “Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning Through Post-Conflict.”
Article continues at: http://jointreconstudygroup.blogspot.com
typo: MILLION
The actual death toll in Afghanistan resulting from American foreign policy is now well OVER ONE KILLION AFGHAN LIVES !
We played a roll in bringing about the Russian invasion. And after the Muhajadeen had defeated the Russians for America as part of our cold war objectives, we abandon Afghanistan. The violence that followed took thousands more lives.
But when the Taliban rejected initial offers for A trans-Afghan pipeline by Unocal the stage was set for our 2001 invasion followed by a deadly occupation with no end in sight.
And because we cannot control the ground with foot soldiers we are attempting to bomb the Afghans/Pashtuns into submission. This tactic was used by British imperialists long ago and failed.
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1208-04.htm
The Deadly Pipeline War
US Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests
by Marjorie Cohn
“George W. Bush justifies his bombing of Afghanistan as a war against terror. A twin motive, however, is to make Afghanistan safe for United States oil interests.”
Thus, we invaded in 2001 taking more lives.
A brief little history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
"Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:
“We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”
And:
A collection of articles:
http://modkraft.dk/spip.php?page=tc-artikel&id_article=5517
The CIA’s intervention in Afghanistan (15 October 2001)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
"According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA’s intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan’s destruction as a nation."
Civilian deaths since 2001:
As many as 6,000 civilian may have died as a result of our bombing campaign in 2001 alone. And it is even more difficult to count resulting famine deaths.
http://www.counterpunch.org/szabo07202007.html
And:
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
The civilan deaths are a deliberate part of American military policy:
"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties - 3,000 - 3,400 (October 7, 2001 thru March 2002) civilian deaths - in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."
“When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."
"It's nightmarish to see that the U.S. is slowly desensitizing the public to the level of destruction taking place in Afghanistan. They have progressed from medium-sized missiles to Tomahawk and cruise missiles, to bunker-busting 2,000 lb bombs, then to [B-52] carpet-bombing using cluster bombs, and now the devastating daisy cutter bombs that annihilate everything in a 600-meter radius."75
However, the long term effects resulting from the use of hundreds of tons of depleted uranium used in bombing Afghanistan are very difficult to measure.
For one explanation and terribly graphic images of birth defects, the following is worth a look:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAU20060509&articleId=2412
“ Due to the use of massive amount of uranium munitions used by the US forces in the initial bombing and subsequently, massive amount of congenital deformities occur all over Afghanistan. The rate of various cancers has gone up significantly. Leukemia and esophageal cancers are very high among children. According to doctors at maternity and children hospitals in Kabul, the rate of various congenital deformities have increased by many folds since the US invasion. In fact, the magnitude of man made isotopes was established by the Uranium Medical Research Center after their investigators made to trips to Afghanistan and collected urine and soil samples. They established that the rate of man made isotopes was gone up 2000 times in some subjects located near the bombed areas.”
To: SnowWolf
Have you ever been to Afghanistan, how can you doubt these figures. The independent actually reoprted a much higher number than 3,200.
US neocons at their best killing innocent civilians. How can they be pro life, they are pro death.
Democrats not only voted to give Bush the power to attack and invade (Hillary among them), but also kept funding both illegal occupations (Obama among them). They have blood on their hands as well.
A google search on the good professor reveals he isn't just an uninterested academic...
I don't know if his figures are accurate or not ...but I will be interested to see how long this article lasts...
"SnowWolf,"
As usual rather than dealing with the substance of the matter (a ~50 pp. report with 144 footnotes), question is raised about the messanger. We call this ad hominem commentary. I welcome substantive criticisms, suggestions, etc. about the content of the analysis, its data and the like. But John Wayne-style shooting from the hip is not to be taken seriously. BTW the full report can be read on the website of the only independent and oldest Afghan women's movement, RAWA, at
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/10/06/the-imprecision-ofus-bombing-and-the-under-valuation-of-an-...
Sincerely,
Marc W. Herold, author of "The Matrix of Death"
The US doesn't care about "collateral damage".
The whole opoint of "shock and awe", is collateral damage.
Precisely. The "collateral damage" is an invention to give the cowards moral cover . And it works. They can keep killing children and make it appear a virtous act simply because they claim "They do not really mean it".
This allows them the support of the people back home. The good American can tell themself "we are not as bad as THEM. we don't mean it when we kill children with our bombs".
PK