NATO forces kill four civilians in Afghanistan

"Mubarez Mohammad Zadran, a spokesman for the provincial governor, told the German Press Agency DPA.

He said all the deceased were civilians, who were driving in a vehicle that failed to stop at military checkpoint. "We condemn the attack," he said.

However, NATO said in a statement that two of the dead people were "known insurgents" and the other two were their associates."

This one all but takes the cake! Nato now professed to know even better than the locals themselves that the people killed were "insurgents". And this is all they could show after adding an extra 30,000 troops -- killing more and more civilians.

"Yes, Iowe/Lowe/Whatever Your Alias...you have all the facts; you know all.

What if it were true that the vehicle failed to stop at the check point -- even after taking warning, then disabling shots?

Why should anyone believe what you say? What access to information do you possess that no other readers on this site have?
(Nenad, 20 April 2010 16:25) "

If you don't wanna believe, then don't. By all means continue to believe in your Nato, even though what Nato said was clearly disputed by the LOCAL government itself.

By all means be the ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. Just make sure you don't suffocate.

Nenad:
Only a fool would believe the official line from NATO. First priority of their PR department is to minimise, & if possible, totally sidestep, the fallout from any 'collateral damage' (read state sponsored manslaughter) that may occur as a result of their actions.

'Truth' is their last priority, & will only emerge grudgingly under media pressure if at all.

Educate yourself: http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/timeline.html

"Whatever happened to legitimate journalism? Was Iowe on hand to witness events at the check point?

(Nenad, 21 April 2010 16:25) "

And I suppose YOU were on hand there to witness the events? Give us all a break and get real!

For your info, Nato has just admitted that those killed were in fact civilians!

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/21/world/international-uk-afghanistan-nato-civilians.html

Are you now gonna claim that your own newspapers are lying because they were not there to witness the events???

Nenad:
As the saying goes, "yesterday's news is old news" & that's the driving principle behind NATO's press releases.

First they claim those killed were the enemy, & then some time down the track, after the 'incident' has become "yesterday's news", they admit to yet another 'tragic' mistake, followed by the usual promises to alter their rules of engagement.

Bottom line - nothing changes, and ordinary people continue to be slaughtered.

But you go right on waiting for the 'facts' to come in - just as NATO wants.

"This story was filed at 8:23am EST TODAY. I responded to your comment YESTERDAY. Furthermore, my point was that your commentary was not supported by FACT -- not that NATO was innocent. Had you presented such a link YESTERDAY, I would never have commented in the first place.
(Nenad, 21 April 2010 18:25) "

You chose to believe Nato's version as fact until they were shown to be guilty. And you call that objective, "legitimate journalism"? In fact, YOU were the one who's been biased and partial! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Yes, Iowe/Lowe/Whatever Your Alias...you have all the facts; you know all.

What if it were true that the vehicle failed to stop at the check point -- even after taking warning, then disabling shots?

Why should anyone believe what you say? What access to information do you possess that no other readers on this site have?

Whatever happened to legitimate journalism? Was Iowe on hand to witness events at the check point?

Peter, you're presumably Serb. How did you feel in the 1990s whenever the anti-Serb Western media would automatically blame Serbs for every mortar that fell on Sarajevo? By dint of the fact that Serb gunners ringed the city, I think you and I could agree that Serbs were guilty of at least SOME mortar attacks, but perhaps not ALL.

NATO is undoubtedly guilty of killing civilians in Afghanistan (and of trying to save face in the media), but they probably have killed some combatants, too.
Just because we're told that locals assert that these people weren't combatants does not automatically mean we should believe that. Iowe will readily believe it, because he/she clearly is anti-NATO and anti-American. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Iowe possesses FACTS.

I'm only interested in the truth of this case -- not in defending NATO. If, in fact, warning shots were fired (and we don't that to be true), why wouldn't these guys stop? While I can understand the extreme reluctance to trust NATO's story, the Afghans also have a reputation for corruption. Furthermore, loved ones of the victims would naturally be overwhelmed with grief and want vengeance against the people who pulled the trigger -- rightly or wrongly.

This story was filed at 8:23am EST TODAY. I responded to your comment YESTERDAY. Furthermore, my point was that your commentary was not supported by FACT -- not that NATO was innocent. Had you presented such a link YESTERDAY, I would never have commented in the first place.

Yes, Iowe/Lowe/Whatever Your Alias...you have all the facts; you know all.

What if it were true that the vehicle failed to stop at the check point -- even after taking warning, then disabling shots?

Why should anyone believe what you say? What access to information do you possess that no other readers on this site have?

Whatever happened to legitimate journalism? Was Iowe on hand to witness events at the check point?

Peter, you're presumably Serb. How did you feel in the 1990s whenever the anti-Serb Western media would automatically blame Serbs for every mortar that fell on Sarajevo? By dint of the fact that Serb gunners ringed the city, I think you and I could agree that Serbs were guilty of at least SOME mortar attacks, but perhaps not ALL.

NATO is undoubtedly guilty of killing civilians in Afghanistan (and of trying to save face in the media), but they probably have killed some combatants, too.
Just because we're told that locals assert that these people weren't combatants does not automatically mean we should believe that. Iowe will readily believe it, because he/she clearly is anti-NATO and anti-American. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Iowe possesses FACTS.

I'm only interested in the truth of this case -- not in defending NATO. If, in fact, warning shots were fired (and we don't that to be true), why wouldn't these guys stop? While I can understand the extreme reluctance to trust NATO's story, the Afghans also have a reputation for corruption. Furthermore, loved ones of the victims would naturally be overwhelmed with grief and want vengeance against the people who pulled the trigger -- rightly or wrongly.

This story was filed at 8:23am EST TODAY. I responded to your comment YESTERDAY. Furthermore, my point was that your commentary was not supported by FACT -- not that NATO was innocent. Had you presented such a link YESTERDAY, I would never have commented in the first place.

"Mubarez Mohammad Zadran, a spokesman for the provincial governor, told the German Press Agency DPA.

He said all the deceased were civilians, who were driving in a vehicle that failed to stop at military checkpoint. "We condemn the attack," he said.

However, NATO said in a statement that two of the dead people were "known insurgents" and the other two were their associates."

This one all but takes the cake! Nato now professed to know even better than the locals themselves that the people killed were "insurgents". And this is all they could show after adding an extra 30,000 troops -- killing more and more civilians.

"Yes, Iowe/Lowe/Whatever Your Alias...you have all the facts; you know all.

What if it were true that the vehicle failed to stop at the check point -- even after taking warning, then disabling shots?

Why should anyone believe what you say? What access to information do you possess that no other readers on this site have?
(Nenad, 20 April 2010 16:25) "

If you don't wanna believe, then don't. By all means continue to believe in your Nato, even though what Nato said was clearly disputed by the LOCAL government itself.

By all means be the ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. Just make sure you don't suffocate.

Nenad:
Only a fool would believe the official line from NATO. First priority of their PR department is to minimise, & if possible, totally sidestep, the fallout from any 'collateral damage' (read state sponsored manslaughter) that may occur as a result of their actions.

'Truth' is their last priority, & will only emerge grudgingly under media pressure if at all.

Educate yourself: http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/timeline.html

"Whatever happened to legitimate journalism? Was Iowe on hand to witness events at the check point?

(Nenad, 21 April 2010 16:25) "

And I suppose YOU were on hand there to witness the events? Give us all a break and get real!

For your info, Nato has just admitted that those killed were in fact civilians!

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/21/world/international-uk-afghanistan-nato-civilians.html

Are you now gonna claim that your own newspapers are lying because they were not there to witness the events???

"This story was filed at 8:23am EST TODAY. I responded to your comment YESTERDAY. Furthermore, my point was that your commentary was not supported by FACT -- not that NATO was innocent. Had you presented such a link YESTERDAY, I would never have commented in the first place.
(Nenad, 21 April 2010 18:25) "

You chose to believe Nato's version as fact until they were shown to be guilty. And you call that objective, "legitimate journalism"? In fact, YOU were the one who's been biased and partial! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Nenad:
As the saying goes, "yesterday's news is old news" & that's the driving principle behind NATO's press releases.

First they claim those killed were the enemy, & then some time down the track, after the 'incident' has become "yesterday's news", they admit to yet another 'tragic' mistake, followed by the usual promises to alter their rules of engagement.

Bottom line - nothing changes, and ordinary people continue to be slaughtered.

But you go right on waiting for the 'facts' to come in - just as NATO wants.