U.S. air strikes kill 14 construction workers: Afghan officials

[Praxius]

Yet another Air Strike gone wrong:

U.S. air strikes kill 14 construction workers: Afghan officials

U.S.-led coalition troops killed 14 road construction workers in air strikes in eastern Afghanistan because of mistaken intelligence reports, Afghan officials said Wednesday. The coalition said it is looking into the incident but did not immediately comment. The engineers and labourers had been building a road for the U.S. military in mountainous Nuristan province and were sleeping in two tents in the remote area when they were killed Monday night, said Sayed Noorullah Jalili, director of the Kabul-based road construction company Amerifa. There were no survivors, he said. "All of our poor workers have been killed," Jalili said. "I don't think the Americans were targeting our people. I'm sure it's the enemy of the Afghans who gave the Americans this wrong information." Jalili said earlier 22 company workers were killed but later reports indicated the death toll was 14. He did not say why the preliminary figures were incorrect. The report could not be independently verified because the area is difficult to reach. The company has requested the U.S. military investigate the source of its information, Jalili said. Nuristan governor Tamim Nuristani said the coalition conducted air strikes after receiving reports "the enemy" was in the area and hit the road construction workers as they were sleeping. Afghan officials often refer to the Taliban and other militants as "the enemy." Earlier this year, foreign troops came under scathing criticism for conducting air strikes based on poor intelligence and causing a number of civilian casualties. Afghan President Hamid Karzai pleaded repeatedly with NATO and coalition troops to co-operate closely with their Afghan counterparts to prevent civilian deaths and the number of such incidents dropped significantly in the last few months. This has been the deadliest year yet since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 and it is estimated more than 6,000 people — a record number — have been killed in militant attacks and military operations.

I'm begining to think these air strikes are becoming more useless compared to the benifits.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius I'm begining to think these air strikes are becoming more useless compared to the benifits.

So what do you suggest as an alternative to air strikes? Sending troops to remote locations and putting them further in to harms way?

NATO's International Security Assistance Force said its warplanes conducted airstrikes against Taliban fighters in the area on Monday night, and that a militant leader was targeted. "ISAF was engaged in Nurgaram and Du Ab (districts), and in those places we used airstrikes against (Taliban)," ISAF spokesman Brig. Gen. Carlos Branco told a news conference. "The situation is not clear at all at this stage. We are carrying out the investigation and trying to get a clear picture." Maj. Charles Anthony, another ISAF spokesman, said two bombs were dropped and there was a "strong indication that we got a Taliban leader during the course of the operation." But Afghan officials said bombs hit two tents housing Afghan engineers and laborers contracted by the U.S. military to build a road, killing 14 workers. They blamed faulty intelligence for the mistake. Afghan officials say airstrikes killed 14 road construction workers - Yahoo! Singapore News

It sounds like no one knows exactly what happened up there, but they are investigating..

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval It sounds like no one knows exactly what happened up there, but they are investigating..

LOL!! Similar to our cops "investigating" themselves and finding themselves innocent of any wrongdoing. Does anyone really have any doubts as to how this "investigation" is going to turn out??

[brien]

So what do you suggest as an alternative to air strikes? Sending troops to remote locations and putting them further in to harms way?

How about them not being there at all? Let someone else do whatever it is they do over there. Otherwise, perhaps it doesn't really need to be done at all.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval So what do you suggest as an alternative to air strikes? Sending troops to remote locations and putting them further in to harms way?

Overall this is the only option for Canadian forces. We will call in US air strikes when required, but there are troops on the ground, with visual contact of the targets, rather then someone reporting a couple of tents suspected of being terrorists, blowing them up and hoping for the best.

This is just a part of a longer string of incidences, involving in paticular, US Air Strikes and who was targeted, that I have been posting in here since I basically came to the forums.... when you add them all up over time.... that's a lot of failed Air Strikes on the enemy and a lot of air strikes on civilians or friendly forces.

Putting troops in harms way? That's their job.... nobody said war was easy, but if you're gonna be in a war, do things right, don't do what's easiest.... as this easy tactic has now produced yet another headache for NATO forces in Afghanistan as innocent have been killed, yet again, by the US Air Force.

If they can not get their information accuratly and can not learn to verify that intelligence, then ground the air force until it is apparent they are required for assistance to a known and currently active military force against ally troops.

Our forces do not specifically rely on the Air Force for our missions, as our troops and land equipment moves into the battle, does what is needed and then it's done. In most, our casualties and injuries are a Zero, as the majority of our casualties were related to IED's and random rocket attacks.

But the basics of this, is that if it was a couple of tents on a highway, I think a small force could have headed that way to investigate to confirm the target as being valid, rather then this half-assed incident of sending in an air strike on what seems to be "Intelligence which appeared to be true at the time" ~ How many times has this excuse been used by US Forces/Government for justifying their actions?

AKA: "We just guessed."

And by not just my report, but your report as well, there are knowns....

• It was known they were hired by the US Military to work on Construction.
• Noorullah Jalili, director of the Kabul-based road construction company Amerifa, reported the incident, and I believe he would know if a few of his workers were working in that location and that they never returned or reported back.... so logically he would know they are now dead.
• You would think the US Military, whom hired these people to work on the highway, would have known previously that they were indeed working in that area.... they hired them ffs.... how would they not know they were there? Too Busy??

As each month goes by, I see at least one or two air strikes gone wrong in which either killed civilians or allies.... and with each report, it stengthens my opinion that the US Military Intelligence in Afghanistan is blaitently incompetent and is only making the mission harder and harder.

Do a quick search for in regards to this topic and I believe you may see a trend. Out of all the NATO Forces in Afghanistan, the US has a staggering and outragous civilian/friendly fire death count compared to any of the other forces, including my own country's forces, whom have been doing the majority of the fighting since we arrived.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

It appears yet again that US military and intellegence are not compatible words

[Dieval]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel It appears yet again that US military and intellegence are not compatible words

First off, it was the ISAF - (International Security Assistance Force) that made the strike and recieved the intel. Their take on things is quite a bit different from the "news" report...

KABUL, Afghanistan – Acting on credible intelligence from several sources, International Security Assistance Forces conducted an air strike using precision munitions killing a number of insurgents in the Nurgaram District of Nuristan Province on Nov. 26. The intelligence indicated that an insurgent leader and his forces were preparing for attacks on Afghan National Security Forces and ISAF elements operating in the area. Allegations have been made that construction workers were killed in the air strike. Afghan government officials, ANP and ISAF forces are conducting a joint investigation at this time. ISAF News Release #2007-722 Precision air strike targets Taliban leader in Nuristan

Again, it's not as cut and dry as people would like to believe. People are still investigating what happened.

[Dieval]

Let me just preface everything that you said with

Quote by: article KABUL, Afghanistan – Acting on credible intelligence from several sources, International Security Assistance Forces conducted an air strike using precision munitions killing a number of insurgents in the Nurgaram District of Nuristan Province on Nov. 26. ISAF News Release #2007-722 Precision air strike targets Taliban leader in Nuristan

Quote by: Praxius Overall this is the only option for Canadian forces. We will call in US air strikes when required, but there are troops on the ground, with visual contact of the targets, rather then someone reporting a couple of tents suspected of being terrorists, blowing them up and hoping for the best.

The bold is complete speculation on your part. You made completely unsubstantiated claims to fit your anti-US views. There was credible evidence, there were troops in the area and it wasn't a "US" air strike. (see above post).

Quote by: Praxius This is just a part of a longer string of incidences, involving in paticular, US Air Strikes and who was targeted, that I have been posting in here since I basically came to the forums.... when you add them all up over time.... that's a lot of failed Air Strikes on the enemy and a lot of air strikes on civilians or friendly forces.

And, don't forget, a lot more live NATO troops.

Quote by: Praxius Putting troops in harms way? That's their job.... nobody said war was easy, but if you're gonna be in a war, do things right, don't do what's easiest.... as this easy tactic has now produced yet another headache for NATO forces in Afghanistan as innocent have been killed, yet again, by the US Air Force.

The militarys job is not to be put in to harms way needlessly. And, yet again, you blame the US air force, when it was

International Security Assistance Forces conducted an air strike. ISAF News Release #2007-722 Precision air strike targets Taliban leader in Nuristan

Quote by: Praxius If they can not get their information accuratly and can not learn to verify that intelligence, then ground the air force until it is apparent they are required for assistance to a known and currently active military force against ally troops.

Again, speculation on your part. They had "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE".

Quote by: Praxius Our forces do not specifically rely on the Air Force for our missions, as our troops and land equipment moves into the battle, does what is needed and then it's done. In most, our casualties and injuries are a Zero, as the majority of our casualties were related to IED's and random rocket attacks.

Our? You mean Canadian military?

Quote by: Praxius But the basics of this, is that if it was a couple of tents on a highway, I think a small force could have headed that way to investigate to confirm the target as being valid, rather then this half-assed incident of sending in an air strike on what seems to be "Intelligence which appeared to be true at the time" ~ How many times has this excuse been used by US Forces/Government for justifying their actions? AKA: "We just guessed." And by not just my report, but your report as well, there are knowns.... • It was known they were hired by the US Military to work on Construction. • Noorullah Jalili, director of the Kabul-based road construction company Amerifa, reported the incident, and I believe he would know if a few of his workers were working in that location and that they never returned or reported back.... so logically he would know they are now dead. • You would think the US Military, whom hired these people to work on the highway, would have known previously that they were indeed working in that area.... they hired them ffs.... how would they not know they were there? Too Busy??

Again, I love how the news agency's fail to mention there was "CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" pointing to the taliban in the area preparing to stage an attack, which most likely would have killed even more people.

Quote by: Praxius As each month goes by, I see at least one or two air strikes gone wrong in which either killed civilians or allies.... and with each report, it stengthens my opinion that the US Military Intelligence in Afghanistan is blaitently incompetent and is only making the mission harder and harder.

Again, incorrectly blaming the US for everything.

[Praxius]

Instead of responding to all that, I'll point out a key point you mentioned... that there were numerous credible sources to claim these were valid targets.....

Tell me something.... what the hell happened to the factual sources that they were hired to be working there in the first place?

Did someone just forget?

My report says "U.S.-led coalition troops " ~ Your report says "ISAF" Which military in the NATO chain have the aircraft to conduct an air strike?

And when U.S.-led coalition is stated here, it means that other forces were indeed a part of the situation, but US LED! Therefore, who led the intelligence? Who sent the aircraft for the air strike? WHO LED THE DECISION MAKING?

When we get reports here, depending on who is commanding the forces in question, they state whether it is US-led, Canadian-led, Afghan Army-Led, etc.

And when I say "Our Forces" I indeed mean my country's forces.... if I am referring to all of us under the NATO flag, I shall state so.

Oh, and I am not blaming the US for everything... open your eyes.... I am blaming you guys for what you are directly responsible for, just as I blame my RCMP officers in our country for tasering someone to death without provocation, or if/when our forces accidentally or intentionally shoot civilians.

Our media reports state what countries were involved in a paticular situation.... when the Dutch are involved, the Dutch are mentioned.... when Germans are involved, so are they..... the fact that you may find more reports here in the forums as well as in the regular news regarding US forces in these kind of situations..... that should tell you something.... that should show you a pattern..... something as simple as connecting the dots so to speak..... it's quite obvious.

[Dieval]

You blame the US for everything. We have an international force there which called in the air strike. I'm sure there are US soldiers taking part in this but you SOLELY blamed the US for what happened, disregarding the NATO forces that actually executed it.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Dieval The militarys job is not to be put in to harms way needlessly.

According to whose standard of "needless", exactly?

The families of slain soldiers may think they died needlessly, but that doesn't mean the State thinks so.

- Rob

[Dieval]

Quote by: Autolykos According to whose standard of "needless", exactly? The families of slain soldiers may think they died needlessly, but that doesn't mean the State thinks so. - Rob

Please read what I was talking about. It would be sending troops in to do battle, such as what Prax suggested, when a plane can take out the intended target without needless harm to our troops..

[Charlatan]

So what about acting on evidence, we have two different reports. They could have been insurgents or they could not have been, but if they were enemies who were going to bomb a base and they weren't correctly incriminated, but killed, would that be justice? Would it be justice if they were correctly incriminated but didn't have any munitions? What if they were just spies and suspected of carrying weapons, is killing a spy correct if they do not have guns? Of course the evidence might point out that the right thing was done, as people have died and nobody is going to take the flack for killing harmless people for very long, so a cover up might take place, or people might own up, nothing is for certain. Sending an airstrike is one way of saying that you are dead certain that no more investigating needs to take place, that these people are dangerous, and that they are a high priority. How come did American intelliegence come to know of the location once it was reached, why not before? How did they come to know at the right time? Were they waiting for them? Did they intercept a radio transmission of the time and place?

What can America do in future to avoid such things? Was this the wrong thing to occur? There is a dangerous atmosphere, a cold war so to speak, and they reacted with force upon intelligence they recieved. Would Afghanistanian spies carry American secrets? No, so it couln't be to American detriment. Could Afghanistan spies carry Afghan secrets? yes, so it would be in American intrest to keep them alive. Would the people be missed and explanations be required? Yes, so after the math was calculated the airstrike was launched against the suspects.

I am led to believe that rebels were hiding amoungst the construction workers, that they mingled together, or that the construction workers were actually insurgents turned contruction workers too, which would make a great disguise and alibi. With this in mind is it supposable that all terrorists lead a double life? What is a terrorist but a guy or woman with a cause that goes against the grain? They can have jobs too. This means that terrorists can get in anywhere and are a part of everyday society using cover as they try to upset things, but is it right to assume people are terrorists just because you have intel saying they are? How much intel do you need? What is intel?

Intel is information about someone. Do you have their birth certificate? Drivers licence? Do you have their marriage papers? How do you know it is all true or not arranged? Is this where your hunch begins? Is it right then to say that police and intel act on a hunch right from the beginning, as soon as they see someone when they work with espoinage? Well they better, and they better be good at it too. So the only intel you can trust is personal traits that you can see on the person and such, logically, as everything else can be falsified, right? I mean If some people shiver when they are talking about something they are likely scared of that subject, and that is your information about them. Now if you tell someone else they only know what you tell them, and act on a hunch to tell if it is true coming from you, so, intel is all acting on a hunch, logically, and that is what our police and intel do every day.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Charlatan So what about acting on evidence, we have two different reports. They could have been insurgents or they could not have been, but if they were enemies who were going to bomb a base and they weren't correctly incriminated, but killed, would that be justice? Would it be justice if they were correctly incriminated but didn't have any munitions? What if they were just spies and suspected of carrying weapons, is killing a spy correct if they do not have guns? Of course the evidence might point out that the right thing was done, as people have died and nobody is going to take the flack for killing harmless people for very long, so a cover up might take place, or people might own up, nothing is for certain. Sending an airstrike is one way of saying that you are dead certain that no more investigating needs to take place, that these people are dangerous, and that they are a high priority. How come did American intelliegence come to know of the location once it was reached, why not before? How did they come to know at the right time? Were they waiting for them? Did they intercept a radio transmission of the time and place? What can America do in future to avoid such things? Was this the wrong thing to occur? There is a dangerous atmosphere, a cold war so to speak, and they reacted with force upon intelligence they recieved. Would Afghanistanian spies carry American secrets? No, so it couln't be to American detriment. Could Afghanistan spies carry Afghan secrets? yes, so it would be in American intrest to keep them alive. Would the people be missed and explanations be required? Yes, so after the math was calculated the airstrike was launched against the suspects. I am led to believe that rebels were hiding amoungst the construction workers, that they mingled together, or that the construction workers were actually insurgents turned contruction workers too, which would make a great disguise and alibi. With this in mind is it supposable that all terrorists lead a double life? What is a terrorist but a guy or woman with a cause that goes against the grain? They can have jobs too. This means that terrorists can get in anywhere and are a part of everyday society using cover as they try to upset things, but is it right to assume people are terrorists just because you have intel saying they are? How much intel do you need? What is intel? Intel is information about someone. Do you have their birth certificate? Drivers licence? Do you have their marriage papers? How do you know it is all true or not arranged? Is this where your hunch begins? Is it right then to say that police and intel act on a hunch right from the beginning, as soon as they see someone when they work with espoinage? Well they better, and they better be good at it too. So the only intel you can trust is personal traits that you can see on the person and such, logically, as everything else can be falsified, right? I mean If some people shiver when they are talking about something they are likely scared of that subject, and that is your information about them. Now if you tell someone else they only know what you tell them, and act on a hunch to tell if it is true coming from you, so, intel is all acting on a hunch, logically, and that is what our police and intel do every day.

There are lots and lots of if's in your statements...it would be nice to know EXACTLY what happened and what caused the people to die, but it seems as though the details are still being sorted out, as I stated earlier.

Also, you should replace "American" with "ISAF - (International Security Assistance Force)", as they were the ones that had the intel and called in the air strike. I'm not saying that US soldeirs weren't involved, but to point the finger solely at them is incorrect.

[another day]

Quote by: Dieval So what do you suggest as an alternative to air strikes? Sending troops to remote locations and putting them further in to harms way? It sounds like no one knows exactly what happened up there, but they are investigating..

Oh or maybe even STOP WAGING WAR all together! What a novel concept.

[Dieval]

Quote by: another day Oh or maybe even STOP WAGING WAR all together! What a novel concept.

...and then there's the real world... How about a real alternative to the situation we were talking about...

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval You blame the US for everything.

Either proove this statement or shut up... because you got nothing but your own acusations and personal comments. I'm not going to clarify this any further, because it is pointless... you want to think I blame the US for everything.... go ahead, cuz I couldn't care less.

We have an international force there which called in the air strike. I'm sure there are US soldiers taking part in this but you SOLELY blamed the US for what happened, disregarding the NATO forces that actually executed it.

Ah... so when something goes well, you'll jump on the ban wagon and say your forces did it and be all proud of it.... but when something bad occurs.... it's the collective of NATO.... nice way to cover your ass.

Any and all reports I have posted here in regards to civilian casualties, you will notice I pointed out which countries were involved.... the UK, Australia, Canada, the US.... when Canadians were responsible for civilian casualties, I posted it was Canadian troops, not just NATO to cover our asses....

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius Either proove this statement or shut up...

Read your posts in this thread. They clearly blame the US for everything. Your own article says clearly "coalition conducted air strikes". Does that mean everything was SOLELY carried out by US troops? No, it doesn't.

[Zeebadee]

Oh yeah, it was probably that Latvian F-16 that dropped the bomb on the workers.

[brien]

...and then there's the real world... How about a real alternative to the situation we were talking about

How about a complete and total withdrawal of all American troops.

Oh, oh wait, imperialist warmongers are so rabid in their agenda, they couldn't even consider such a scenario which is perhaps why some people don't give this idea any credibility. Freekin knuckleheads