Afghan Wedding Bombed After Shots Fired

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

Wednesday July 3, 06:13 PM

Anger mounts as Afghan deaths probed
By Denise Duclaux and Saeed Ali Achakzai

BAGRAM/KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - An Afghan wedding party looked like a slaughterhouse after being attacked by U.S. warplanes this week, survivors say.

"I saw bodies flying like straws," said Haleema, an old woman brought to hospital in Kandahar. "I had to jump over six bodies to escape."

U.S. military investigators arrived in the remote village in central Afghanistan on Wednesday to determine what had happened. Accompanied by two Afghan government ministers, several tribal elders and an embassy staffer, they spent two hours at the site.

Anger over the incident grew among Afghans, a factor which could complicate the task of the U.S. military as it tracks down al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives hiding in the countryside.

The Afghan government says wedding guests near the village of Deh Rawud were firing into the air -- a tradition at Pashtun weddings -- when they were mistakenly bombed by U.S. forces.

SCENES OF HORROR

Locals said they had buried at least 30 people after the attack, but feared many more were still lying under the rubble.

"A piece of iron sliced the woman's neck in front of me," said Naseema, a 15-year-old girl, told Reuters in hospital in the city of Kandahar where she had been brought for treatment. "In a split second her head was not on her body."

Another woman, who declined to give her name, said: "It was like an abattoir. There was blood everywhere. There was smoke and dirt all around, and people were running helter skelter. It was a doomsday scene."

The bride and groom were thought to have died in the raid, but the groom showed up on Wednesday to meet investigators who arrived to look into the incident, according to a pool report filed by U.S. forces magazine Stars and Stripes.

The groom, identified as Malick, told a reporter that he and his fiancee were due to be married the following day, and had been in a different village when the planes struck.

He said he came back to find 25 members of his family dead, including his father and several brothers and sisters.

INVESTIGATORS SCEPTICAL

The U.S. investigators, travelling in a 20-vehicle convoy, took five hours to cover the 60-km (36-mile) journey from the provincial capital of Tarin Kowt through twisting mountain roads.

"There should be more blood," the American investigators repeatedly said as they toured the village, according to the Stars and Stripes report. "Where are the bodies?," they asked, after only being shown parts of a skull and an ear.

Villagers said they had buried the bodies -- Muslims traditionally bury their dead as quickly as possible.

They took investigators to a building with a large hole in the roof which had suffered a direct hit. Inside, blood stains and a small pair of children's sandals were visible.

Colonel Kass Saleh, the head of the American investigative team, scraped blood samples into bottles and took away shell casings which villagers said came from the planes.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

Here's the rest of the article cont'd. and my opinion at the bottom.

U.S. EXPLANATIONS

Information about the incident on Sunday night and Monday morning has trickled out slowly from the U.S. military, with partial and slightly contradictory accounts emerging from the Pentagon and Bagram air base, the coalition's staging post for its operations in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military has not accepted blame for what appeared to be the worst "friendly fire" incident of its campaign in Afghanistan and which occurred during a search in the area for fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.

At Bagram, Colonel Roger King said a U.S. ground patrol had called in air support after feeling threatened by automatic weapons fire.

The planes, he said, met sustained and hostile fire from several locations around the village, including anti-aircraft fire, that was not consistent with a wedding party.

"The easiest and best way to avoid civilian casualties is to avoid firing at coalition forces in the proximity of innocent civilians," King told reporters on Wednesday.

In Washington, Marine Corps General Peter Pace said an AC-130 gunship attacked what the crew thought was anti-aircraft fire from the ground. The gunship, which rakes targets with 105 mm cannon and machine-guns, had then attacked seven targets.

There was also a pre-planned U.S. attack in the area that night, with B-52 bombers dropping seven 2,000-lb bombs on a cave and tunnel complex as well as on a nearby anti-aircraft position, which had fired on coalition planes in the past.

One of those bombs went astray but ground spotters reported it fell on an uninhabited hillside.

"The pre-planned target was out of the village, on a ridgeline in another location," King said.

MORE CAUTION

The Afghan government called for more careful targeting by U.S. forces, and closer coordination with local authorities, as anger rose among Afghans.

"The mistakes are too much," said 18-year-old Fateh Shah in Kabul. "This is not acceptable and has to be stopped, otherwise the feelings of Afghans will be provoked against all foreigners, let alone the Americans."

The incident could complicate the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan by alienating local people.

A three-vehicle convoy of U.S. civil affairs and medical personnel was fired on as it returned from a hospital in the southern city of Kandahar on Tuesday evening, after visiting 19 wounded people brought there after the attack.

Kandahar was the stronghold and spiritual home of the ousted Taliban regime, while its leader Mullah Omar was born near Deh Rawud in Uruzgan province just to the north.

U.S. President George W. Bush offered his condolences and said investigators were working to find out what had happened.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but what were these people thinking? Where were their brains? Do they not realize that you do not fire a weapon during a war? Even if it is a "custom" during a wedding. And then, to top it off, they're trying to pin blame on the US! I think not. Those Afghan's should be held accountable for their actions, and not place blame where it doesn't belong.

[Semi-Charmed.Life]

These are the kind of incidents that make me doubt the intentions of the US in their 'War against Terror'.

How could the Americans be so stupid? They are the ones with the advantage of having such great technology. Surely, they would have detected the difference between an attack and civilian activity!
Also, this isn't the first American 'mistake' during their war. I mean, how many more lives do they have to take before they're done? I doubt they will ever round up all Al-Quada members not to mention Osama bin Laden.

This may be off topic but if the US is fighting a 'War against Terror' why are they only targeting countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. I know for a fact that terrorism exists in many other countries.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

How could the Americans be so stupid? They are the ones with the advantage of having such great technology. Surely, they would have detected the difference between an attack and a civilian activity!

Excuse me? How could we be so stupid? We are in the middle of a war and thought that there was enemy fire. If it was enemy fire, were our people supposed to dink around and wait and see if they were fired at again? Good word, it is just common sense, you do not fire a weapon into the air during war time.

Also, this isn't the first American 'mistake' during their war. I mean, how many more lives do they have to take before they're done? I doubt they will every round up all Al-Quada members not to mention Osama bin Laden.

No, I doubt we will, either. But we have to try and get as many as we can. I'm sorry, but sh*t happens during war time. Not everything can be calculated and angled perfectly every single time, casualties will be had, just like in every other war every other country has fought in.

This may be off topic but if the US is fighting a 'War against Terror' why are they only targeting countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. I know for a fact that terrorism exists in many other countries.

Erm, you want the US to be everywhere at once then, right? Not gonna happen. You have to start somewhere, and we are starting with Afghanistan and Iraq because they are the biggest threats to the US.

[It's~A~Nova]

I doubt they will ever round up all Al-Quada members not to mention Osama bin Laden.

Of course we'll never be able to get all the Al-Quada but, like Hey:Girl:Now said, we have to try and get as many as we can.

This may be off topic but if the US is fighting a 'War against Terror' why are they only targeting countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. I know for a fact that terrorism exists in many other countries.

There is terrorism in many other countries true, but right now Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. seem to be the immediate dangers.

[pettyluv]

You know what, like has been said, shit happens in war. And if these people were firing guns in the air, it seems to me that those are the people who are stupid. Keep in mind that this area of Afghanistan is one of the most sympathetic to the Tailban and Al Queda.

Also, if you guys want to discuss the War on Terror, try not to get too off topic here and do it in the War on Terror thread.

[Toxic-Avenger]

Yes, I'm sorry all those people died in the attack.

But what the hell were they thinking? You don't fire guns into the air when you have fighter jets cruising above and a huge military presence around. How were the gunship pilots supposed to know there was a wedding going on instead of people opening fire on low flying aircraft. Now our military should have been a little more careful, but I don't know what I would have done had I been in that situation, since hindsight is always 20/20.

[HairsprayQueen]

<<<< "I saw bodies flying like straws," said Haleema, an old woman brought to hospital in Kandahar. "I had to jump over six bodies to escape." >>>>


That's kind of freaky. But it's really sad.



Ok,I now read the rest. That's soo sad. All those poeple being killed at a wedding!? but I guess it could be an easy mistake.

[julinka]

we are starting with Afghanistan and Iraq because they are the biggest threats to the US.

Not really. There are pleanty of other less glamourous targets that are currently in much better positions to harbor and support terrorism...

I haven't read much about the details of the incident, but it occurs to me that regular gunfire isn't necessarily a threat to an aircraft unless they were flying exceptionally low.

It was probably an honest mistake. Efforts should be made to avoid similar mistakes, and the families should be compensated for their loss.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

Not really. There are pleanty of other less glamourous targets that are currently in much better positions to harbor and support terrorism...

To my knowledge, Saddam has always been a major enemy of the US. It's about time we had a president who had the balls (pardon my French) to go after the guy.

I haven't read much about the details of the incident, but it occurs to me that regular gunfire isn't necessarily a threat to an aircraft unless they were flying exceptionally low.

I wouldn't doubt it if they were low. But yes, opening fire can be a threat to something that is airborn.

It was probably an honest mistake.

The shooting or the bombing?

Efforts should be made to avoid similar mistakes

Agreed. But on both parties.

and the families should be compensated for their loss.

Disagreed. It's like compensating someone for their burn treatments at a hospital after they ironed their clothes while having them on. If people used some common sense once in awhile and took responsibility for their actions, none of this would have happened (meaning you don't shoot weapons into the air or anywhere when you are essentially at war).

[Semi-Charmed.Life]

<<We are in the middle of a war and thought that there was enemy fire.>>

If the Americans were more cautious, these petty accidents could have easily been avoided. I also agree that both sides should have been more cautious.

<<Good word, it is just common sense, you do not fire a weapon into the air during war time.>>

And you do not just randomly bomb areas without being sure of what you're bombing! It seems to me as if though these bombings are doing more harm than good.


<<Not everything can be calculated and angled perfectly every single time>>

That just proves how careless the Americans have been during this war. Yes, we understand that many lives were lost on September 11th but that does not give you the right to just end lives as abruptly as you have been doing during this 'War against Terror'. It's just sickening.

<<Erm, you want the US to be everywhere at once then, right?>>

No one is asking the US to be everywhere at once. Don't forget that the US isn't the only country 'fighting terror' in this war. If they were really fighting terror, they would have made more of an effort to fight terror in other countries.

<<the families should be compensated for their loss.>>

Although this sounds like a good idea, it really isn't realistic. If these families were compensated, it would be only fair that other families affected by the war be compensated.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

If the Americans were more cautious, these petty accidents could have easily been avoided. I also agree that both sides should have been more cautious.

How are you supposed to be cautious when you are being fired at from the ground? Somehow I think people watch too many tv shows, the type where police officers shoot the gun out of a criminals hand. It cannot always be done (and in that example, pretty much never). And if they feel they are in dange(the pilots), they have every right to return fire, or in this case, bombing. These are not some rinky dink high schoolers flying a plane! These are trained professionals who are taught what to do and how to react.

And you do not just randomly bomb areas without being sure of what you're bombing! It seems to me as if though these bombings are doing more harm than good.

They were sure (as far as they could tell from whatever altitude they were). And they bombed. People expect these guys to know everything from a high altitude, and they don't. It's just that simple. If they feel they were at danger, then they were justified.

That just proves how careless the Americans have been during this war.

That doesn't indicate carelessness. Sh*t will happen, that's what makes war war. Civilian casulaties will be had, no matter the precautions or technology. People are living in a dream world if they think that there will be no civilian casualties.

No one is asking the US to be everywhere at once. Don't forget that the US isn't the only country 'fighting terror' in this war. If they were really fighting terror, they would have made more of an effort to fight terror in other countries.

You just did ask for the US to be everywhere at once! And I quote: "They would have made more of an effort to fight terror in other countries". Sept. 11th only happened about 10 months ago, and you want us to be in numerous countries! So yes, we are starting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries that are the most dangerous to us, at this moment. And if Bush or (heaven forbid) someone else be elected in 2004 doesn't take care of our interests in terrorism, then you can say we didn't care about terrorism in general, but now, I think it is too early to say.

[julinka]

Saddam has always been a major enemy of the US

But he's not the biggest, baddest terrorist threat out there right now, just the best soundbyte. And taking him out isn't going to do much to neutralize the threat from that quarter. We don't have a good record with ousting dictators ya know?

opening fire can be a threat to something that is airborn.
Opening fire with what? I can't find a good link about the physics of different weapons, but there's a big difference between the threat posed by someone shooting a rifle into the air and someone using anti-aircraft weapons. I would hope that the investigation looks into which happened and whether the pilots were adequately trained to guage the threat or just panicked when they saw gunfire. If you have a credible source that shows that ordinary gunfire is a danger to a plane even at low altitude I'd like to see it...

People expect these guys to know everything from a high altitude

I thought it was low altitude? Otherwise bombing back doesn't make any sense unless they were firing off something *huge*.

we are starting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries that are the most dangerous to us

Why do you think they are the two most dangerous? I would agree on the need to neutralize the Afgani threat (although that's only going to be long-term if we help them rebuild -- there was a good reason the Taliban was in power instead of the warlords we've been supporting). Iraq though? There are other less glamorous targets that I hope to hell they're looking at.

[.Hunting:High:and:Low.]

Opening fire with what? I can't find a good link about the physics of different weapons, but there's a big difference between the threat posed by someone shooting a rifle into the air and someone using anti-aircraft weapons. I would hope that the investigation looks into which happened and whether the pilots were adequately trained to guage the threat or just panicked when they saw gunfire. If you have a credible source that shows that ordinary gunfire is a danger to a plane even at low altitude I'd like to see it...

The fact is, the pilots obviously heard or saw that they were being fired upon. I can't find a good link dealing with the physics of a gun shot, but the maximum height can be pretty high, and can be a threat is they are at low altitude (I wrote 'high' earlier, sorry, typo, brain moving faster than the fingers). Here's a link that I found which is about basic gun safety: www.cjtc.state.wa.us/CJTC/prodev/fac/part12.html#SECT2

And here is a section of it:

"It is not recommended that you fire warning shots into the air. You are not able to predict where a bullet you fire into the air will come down, thus such a shot is random and you have not aimed it at anything. A random warning shot violates the basic safety rules.
Many law enforcement agencies prohibit warning shots because of the danger to bystanders. The law does not specifically prohibit warning shots, therfore your good judgement and the physical environment in which you work govern the use of a warning shot. Should you decide to fire a warning shot, you must be prepared to justify your action. You must be able to show that it did not violate any of the four basic safety rules, most specifically "Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy," and "Be sure of your target and what is behind and beyond your target." Your employer should have a policy on warning shots."

People can see low flying planes, it is up to them to not shoot at them.

I thought it was low altitude? Otherwise bombing back doesn't make any sense unless they were firing off something *huge*.

Sorry, low altitude, typo. That makes it worse. If it was low altitude, the wedding party could most likely see the plane, which just obviously makes it their fault.

[Gabbie]

The Afgans were def. the stupid ones in this case, no doubt about it. I don't care what they do at weddings you don't have to be that bright to see that during a war you shouldn't be shooting off guns NO MATTER WHAT. It doesn't take that mucht to figure it out. We are in a war here, we aren't just flying around to see whats going on down there for the fun of it. People shoot we aren't just going to sit around on our asses to see what happened, we react. Yeah I feel bad, but not that bad because it shouldn't have been down in the first place. Its just common sense that you don't go shooting things in a war, our planes are going to think its an attack and they are going to react no matter what, they aren't going to be like "well there is a slight chance that was a wedding, maybe we shouldn't do anything about it" I don't think so!