Bombings that hit wrong targets in Afghanistan

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Following is a list of non-military installations allegedly bombed, apparently in error, by U.S. forces since they launched attacks on Afghanistan on Oct. 7.

Some incidents have been confirmed, while no independent confirmation was available for others. The U.S.-led forces say they are targeting Taliban military installations and camps and facilities of Saudi born militant Osama bin Laden.

- - - -

OCTOBER 22

HERAT - The Taliban said United States bombed a 100-bed hospital in the western city of Herat, killing more than 100. The United Nations said Tuesday it had learned that a military hospital in a military compound had been destroyed in Herat on Monday but it had no information on casualties. A U.S. defense official said in Washington that U.S. forces might have accidentally hit a home for the elderly in Herat Monday.

OCTOBER 17

KANDAHAR - Taliban Information Ministry official Abdul Hanan Himat said a U.S. bomb hit a truck packed with Afghans trying to flee air raids on the town of Chunai near the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

He said all those in the truck had been killed but gave no casualty figure. No independent verification was possible.

OCTOBER 16

KABUL - U.S. bombs hit warehouses operated by the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul, destroying tents, tarpaulins, blankets and other aid supplies intended for internally displaced Afghans.

ICRC said it was clearly a civilian facility, marked with a large red cross on the roof. An ICRC Afghan employee was injured.

The Pentagon said a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet jet dropped 1,000-pound bombs that inadvertently hit one or more ICRC warehouses. U.S. forces had targeted a series of warehouses believed to be used by the Taliban to store military equipment, the Pentagon statement said.

"Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses. U.S. forces did not know that the ICRC was using one or more of the warehouses," the statement said.

OCTOBER 13

KABUL - A U.S. Navy F/A-18 attack aircraft missed a Taliban military target at Kabul airport and its 2,000-pound "smart" bomb blasted civilian houses a mile from the Afghan capital, the Pentagon said.

A U.S. defense official said the satellite-guided bomb had missed because of human error, in that incorrect coordinates had been entered into a targeting system.

The Pentagon cited reports of as many as four dead and eight injured. A Reuters reporter said at least one man was killed and four injured.

OCTOBER 11

JALALABAD - The Taliban say U.S. bombs flattened Khorum village, near the eastern city of Jalalabad. Villagers said at least 160 people were killed in the pre-dawn bombing.

International journalists invited to visit the village saw evidence of widespread devastation and more than a dozen fresh graves but it was impossible to confirm the death toll or what had caused the damage.

Rumsfeld did not deny the area had been targeted, but described the alleged death toll as "ridiculous" and said the remote mountainous area was riddled with tunnels containing munitions.

OCTOBER 9

KABUL - A U.S. bomb struck a U.N.-funded demining office in Kabul, killing four people and slightly wounding one. The attack destroyed the four-story building.

"People need to distinguish between combatants and those innocent civilians who do not bear arms," U.N. Afghanistan coordinator for humanitarian aid Mike Sackett said after the incident.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed regret for the deaths of the four Afghans, but said he did not know if they had been killed by U.S. weapons and added that some civilian casualties were inevitable.

14:14 10-23-01

my advise: Surrender Dorothy.

As long as our enemy is able to move freely within civilian populations, civilians will find themselves getting caught in the cross-fire.

So, chumba, why aren't you on the front line?

we all are. Particularly those of us who are proud to call ourselves New Yorkers.

You're a fascist I'm a fascist he's a fascist she's a fascist, wouldn't you like to be a fascist too?

Especially racist, nationalist, warmongering haters like this New Yorker!!!!

Death to all killers.

Death to all haters.

I have no tolerance for the intolerant.

We must end government oppression.

And at the same time -- we must eliminate private accumulation of wealth.

So we must give the government power to confiscate all private wealth.

Then we won't be oppressed!

Just like Bin Laden, Chumba has a simple explanation why we shouldn't worry about civilians.

Chumba says, "As long as our enemy is able to move freely within civilian populations, civilians will find themselves getting caught in the cross-fire."

Bun Laden says that civilians as taxpayers are supporting the US military in all its oppression of Muslims.

Bush promised to punish everyone supporting Bin Laden, so he, too, was using the same logic.

There's one easy way to avoid becoming anything like Bin Laden: Use a criminal justice approach instead of a military one.

Yes, it might seem a bit too late for that. (A common ploy, once scoundrel patriots have gotten us involved in foolish, immoral actions.) But really, it's never too late. The Taliban have already offered to turn over Bin Laden once since the bombing began. They can be counted on to repeat this offer, or something similar, particularly if we send back-channel messages to them encouraging them to do so.

The question is, what do WE want to do? Do we WANT justice? Or do we want holy rertribution, just like Bin Laden?

In the end, we can NEVER control what others do. At best we can influence them. But we CAN control what we ourselves do, and what we become. Let us not become monsters. No one else can force this upon us. It is our choice, and our choice alone.

In issues of morality -- intent matters.

Bin Laden INTENDS to kill US civilians.

He INTENDS to put Afghans in harms way to protect his hide so that he can kill MORE US civilians.

The US does not intend to kill any civilians.

Big difference.

And relying on the notion of "criminal justice" will merely result in more US civilian casualties. Its an inadequate response.

No more half measures -- take the bastards out. It is us or them.

when you know that the consequences of your actions are that civilians will be killed then you have shown that it is your intent to kill civilians. The only way an intent argument with regards to morality can be made is if you didn't know what the outcomes of your actions would be. At this point a red cross facility has been hit, UN workers have been killed and who knows how many civilians. It is clear that US bombs are killing many civilians and will lead to far more deaths from starvation this winter. That means that they intend to kill civilians. By your argument the attacks on the World Trade Center could be justified by saying "we only intended to destroy the buildings, the people just happened to be inside of them, its not our fault they died because we didn't intend to kill them". Should that be the standard of justice we apply to the people who launched the attacks on New York. I don't think so. So why would that be the standard we apply to ourselves?

Chumba writes: "In issues of morality -- intent matters. / Bin Laden INTENDS to kill US civilians…. / The US does not intend to kill any civilians. / Big difference."

(1) Actually, as anyone who watches "Law and Order" would know, when you take an action that can foreseeably result in someone death, that's murder two. If you do it while committing a crime, it's murder one. The bombing itself is a crime under international law. So it's murder one, just like Bin Laden.

(2) Matters of morality are spectacularly unimportant to the people who are killed. That's one reason not to make too much of morality. Slavey was very moral in it's own frame of reference, too. The ACTUAL impact on the peole who suffer always seems to get lost. Aristotle was a master at this sort of deception. So the question becomes, "How moral is your use of 'morality'"?

(3) But I wasn't talking about morality. You changed the argument. I was talking about logic. Both you and Bin Laden use a similar LOGIC. I'm sure that Bin Laden has his own morality, in which he is moral and you are not. Like I said, the two of you think the same way.

Chumba continues: "And relying on the notion of 'criminal justice' will merely result in more US civilian casualties. Its an inadequate response."

This is what every lynch mob says. You and Bin Laden would both fit right in.