NATO strike kills at least 21 in error / LJWorld.com

Afghanistan — NATO jets mistakenly killed at least 21 people in central Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Monday, the deadliest attack on civilians in six months. The strike prompted a sharp rebuke from the Afghan government as it struggles to win public backing for a major military offensive against the Taliban in south.

Also Monday, a suicide bomber detonated explosives at a community meeting in eastern Afghanistan, killing 15 civilians including a prominent tribal leader widely criticized for failing to prevent Osama bin Laden’s escape at Tora Bora after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The civilian deaths occurred as 15,000 NATO, U.S. and Afghan soldiers were in their 10th day of fighting insurgents in the southern town of Marjah in Helmand province. The mission is to rout the Taliban, set up a local government and rush in aid to win public support.

vertigo 3 years, 2 months ago

I didn't know Obama was the head of NATO.

See, Tom, the difference between this and W's watch that under W it was U.S. forces. This was a NATO attack. Obama doesn't run NATO. Is Obama responsible if some German forces bomb a civilian house? How about if is any of these other NATO countries in Afghanistan, is Obama resonsible for what the troops from these countries do? Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom

All the above are operating in Afghanistan under the NATO banner. So please tell me, Tom, why Obama is responsible if someone from these 41 other countries makes a mistake?

I doubt you'll have a reasonable answer. I expect some diatribe about the liberal media, yada, yada... feel free to surprise me though and come up with an intelligent response as to why you think Obama is responsible for something a military unit from the Czech republic does in error.

AreUNorml 3 years, 2 months ago

The term NATO should be used with consideration. we're still the most populous military in Afghanistan. The reason this story says NATO & not U.S. is precisely because this is Obama's administration and not W's. Had Bush still been at the helm, i suspect the headline would have read 'Bush personally kills and eats 21 Afghanis'.

jaywalker 3 years, 2 months ago

"why Obama is responsible if someone from these 41 other countries makes a mistake? "

Not that I agree, Jesse, but when it was W in office the retort would be "because it's His war!"

yankeevet 3 years, 2 months ago

Friendly Fire; it happens; unfortunately................

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 2 months ago

The "left" doesn't like it any better now than when it was done under Bush's watch, Tom.

But you're one sick puppy to be so giddy over the bombing of women and their babies.

And to be fair to Bush, Afghanistan was never "his" war. He came into office with one major goal, and that was to invade and occupy Iraq. 9/11 gave him the perfect opportunity to become a "war president," but Afghanistan was never anything more than an unwanted distraction from the war he really wanted.

Agnostick 3 years, 2 months ago

I wonder if anyone has checked these weapons for CTS components...

Someday, barry, you and your buds can return a real war criminal to the White House so you don't have to suffer through the current "poser."

Neither is any religious tome thick enough to cover etc.

"But you're one sick puppy to be so giddy over the bombing of women and their babies."

The "sick puppy" is you, bozo, for taking a page out of porch's playbook with the above accusation. Only a jackass like yourself could extrapolate that kind of sludge from Tom's post.

You're so cute when you're indignant, jaywalker. You do drama-queen well.

"Giddy over the bombing of women and babies?" Meh. Probably not.

Giddy over the opportunity to hate bomb yet another thread with the same irrelevant partisan hackery spewed in the other 12,000+ posts? Absolutely!

Sounds like a proposal, bozo. Flattered, but no thanks.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Archive for Tuesday, February 23, 2010