U.S. probe finds more civilians died in Afghan attack

Bush & Co. ought to be sent to the Hague. But then Holland is probably too afraid of the Americans to dare demand anything.

And Amnesty International will be scared to death of losing Yankee funding. Not that the latter have much if any money these days!

Yet more prevarication & outright lying from the US in an attempt to dilute the impact of this war crime. First they said there were no civilian casualties. Then after reports started to emerge from the village, it was 5 to 7. And now they claim it is 33.

Unfortunately for the US military, the UN's mission in Afghanistan has already carried out a separate investigation in which they confirmed the worst claims made by the relatives of the deceased - that 90 people died of which 15 were women & 60 were children.

Sixty more kids butchered by the mighty US army which hasn't even got the guts to take full responsibility, but instead uses every PR trick it possibly can to minimise the impact of this 'instance of collateral damage' - much as they did earlier in Iraq, & before that in Serbia.

And whenever the 'masters of warfare' get caught red-handed (both figuratively & literally), it is always the poor smucks at the bottom of the 'food chain' that are blamed - never the people truly responsible.

Even Human Rights Watch says that 'under-reporting' of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is now 'out of control'.

This, quite simply, has.. to.. stop.

"ONLY five to seven civilians" - I have impression, it's ONLY five to seven to much. Put who is involved in such humanitarian activities in must humanitarian jail.

bush served 8 years in the office, for these 8 I would give him an other 25, with forced labor in GULAG.

So how is this US attack any different than Racak or the attack against Adem Jashari?

Mathew, the difference is that the U.S. holds other nations to a different standard than it holds itself. If Racak was not okay for America, then it needs to explain why its continued presence in Afganistan employs the destruction of civilians.

To me it stands to reason that it is unaceptable for a modern army to cause civilian deaths through a risk reward calculation that ignores the sanctity of human life.

"ONLY five to seven civilians" - I have impression, it's ONLY five to seven to much. Put who is involved in such humanitarian activities in must humanitarian jail.

bush served 8 years in the office, for these 8 I would give him an other 25, with forced labor in GULAG.

Bush & Co. ought to be sent to the Hague. But then Holland is probably too afraid of the Americans to dare demand anything.

And Amnesty International will be scared to death of losing Yankee funding. Not that the latter have much if any money these days!

Yet more prevarication & outright lying from the US in an attempt to dilute the impact of this war crime. First they said there were no civilian casualties. Then after reports started to emerge from the village, it was 5 to 7. And now they claim it is 33.

Unfortunately for the US military, the UN's mission in Afghanistan has already carried out a separate investigation in which they confirmed the worst claims made by the relatives of the deceased - that 90 people died of which 15 were women & 60 were children.

Sixty more kids butchered by the mighty US army which hasn't even got the guts to take full responsibility, but instead uses every PR trick it possibly can to minimise the impact of this 'instance of collateral damage' - much as they did earlier in Iraq, & before that in Serbia.

And whenever the 'masters of warfare' get caught red-handed (both figuratively & literally), it is always the poor smucks at the bottom of the 'food chain' that are blamed - never the people truly responsible.

Even Human Rights Watch says that 'under-reporting' of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is now 'out of control'.

This, quite simply, has.. to.. stop.

So how is this US attack any different than Racak or the attack against Adem Jashari?

Mathew, the difference is that the U.S. holds other nations to a different standard than it holds itself. If Racak was not okay for America, then it needs to explain why its continued presence in Afganistan employs the destruction of civilians.

To me it stands to reason that it is unaceptable for a modern army to cause civilian deaths through a risk reward calculation that ignores the sanctity of human life.