What's new

Afghan civilian toll rises due to insurgent attacks: UN

Thomas

PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
0
Afghan civilian toll rises due to insurgent attacks: UN
10 August 2010 Last updated at 05:00 ET
BBC News - Afghan civilian toll rises due to insurgent attacks: UN


The number of civilians killed or injured in Afghanistan has jumped 31%, despite a fall in the number of casualties caused by Nato-led forces.

More than 1,200 civilians were killed in the first six months of 2010 and another 1,997 civilians were injured, the latest UN six-monthly report shows.

The Taliban and other insurgents were responsible for 76% of the casualties, up from 53% last year.

These are the worst civilian figures in the past nine years of the conflict.

Public executions

According to the UN report, 176 children were killed and 389 injured in the first six months of 2010, up 55% compared with the same period last year.

Most of the casualties were caused by larger and more sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used by insurgents throughout the country.

The report noted that the number of civilians executed by insurgents also rose by 95%, especially in the southern part of the country, and included the public executions of children.

Staffan de Mistura, the top UN envoy in Afghanistan, called the report "a wake-up call" for the Taliban.

"If they want to be part of a future Afghanistan, they cannot do so over the bodies of so many civilians," he said of the insurgents.

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Unama) called on the Taliban to end their use of IEDs and suicide attacks, and to stop the execution and abduction of citizens.

In an attempt to avoid alienating the civilian population, the Taliban has already issued a "code of conduct" which forbids their fighters from seizing weapons and money.

Aerial strikes

The number of casualties caused by international and Afghan forces fell 30% during the same period to 12% or 386 civilian casualties, the UN figures show.

The decline was driven by a 64% fall in deaths and injuries caused by aerial attacks, which remain the deadliest tactic used by the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), the UN said.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly warned Western powers that civilian deaths caused by Nato attacks help to fuel the insurgency.

The US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, said earlier this month: "Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause."

Shortly afterwards, a Nato airstrike killed up to 25 Afghans travelling to a funeral in Nangarhar province.

In 2009, former Nato commander Gen Stanley McChrystal issued instructions severely limiting the circumstances in which troops could call in an airstrike or fire into buildings.

His successor, Gen Petraeus, has vowed to carry on with the policy.

In July, the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks leaked a swathe of documents relating to the Afghan war, which suggested that many civilian casualties were going unreported.

A UN report in January showed that civilian casualties in the Afghan conflict had risen by 14% in 2009 compared with 2008.

It said the "vast majority" of the more than 2,400 deaths had been caused by Taliban attacks.
 
.
@Thomas;

Scapegoat Alert!

No one here believes Americans anymore. America lost war but it lost its credibility before that. Who is there to verify these claims? Only a key-board and wishful mind was used to compile this report.
 
.

Just have a look at the cruelty of American Soldiers in Afghanistan and re-think will these people care for the "collateral damage" ? Its not even funny to imagine what Americans think and how they expect they should be seen. You lost your image before you lost this war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Well whatever US does we all know US one starts a war fight brutally but the fact is Taliban are responsible for all civilians deaths in Afghanistan.They should have not given refugee to AQ and Osama Bin Laden and then they even refused to give him to Americans instead wanted him to try there.What arrogance and because of this US invaded Afghanistan (It's a completely justified position under International LAW).These talibans will definitely go to hell for butchering Afghans.
 
.
@Thomas;

Scapegoat Alert!

No one here believes Americans anymore. America lost war but it lost its credibility before that. Who is there to verify these claims? Only a key-board and wishful mind was used to compile this report.

It is a UN report not American. And you really should rethink your Taliban sympathies considering how barbaric they are to the Afghan and Pakistani people.

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/Aug102010_HUMAN%20RIGHTS%20MID-YEAR%20REPORT_ENG%20FINAL.pdf
 
.
.
Well whatever US does we all know US one starts a war fight brutally but the fact is Taliban are responsible for all civilians deaths in Afghanistan.They should have not given refugee to AQ and Osama Bin Laden and then they even refused to give him to Americans instead wanted him to try there.What arrogance and because of this US invaded Afghanistan (It's a completely justified position under International LAW).These talibans will definitely go to hell for butchering Afghans.

Patriot,

Let don't deviate from the facts.

1 - Taliban are responsible for American/NATO deaths but they are Afghans and they share their blood with them. Your bracketing of "Taliban are responsible for all civilians deaths" is unrealistic. If true, you are giving a clean chit to Americans as "not guilty for any civilian death".

2 - Regarding Osama Bin Ladin, America has yet to prove him responsible for the 9/11. Every single allegation on him is allegation. Invading two countries on the basis of Allegation is senseless. Second, Taliban asked America to show them proof of Osama's involvement which America failed to produce. Then Taliban also agreed to hand-over Osama bin Ladin to some 3rd country where he could have been Trailed. Why do we forget all these apects? Taliban wanted a fair trial of Bin-Ladin and when American arrogance failed to accept their logical demands it raged and retaliated as mad bull.

3 - If baseless allegations are justified position to attack a country, kill hundred thousands of its citizens in the name of peace and freedom, you better re-think what kind of "international law" it is and if you should really support it. My education and sensibility doesn't make me buy this as just principle.

I have no soft-corner for Taliban but its a flimsy argument that since Taliban were inhuman, Americans had legitimacy to be equally if not more inhuman and cruel. A cruel Taliban and a Cruel American Soldier are both guilty and deserve same treatment.
 
Last edited:
.
.
It is rather annoying how heaps of people on this forum think it's only the U.S in Afghanistan and that everything that comes out of Afghanistan is from the U.S

Xdrive,

lets divide the share then. How much will you put in American basket? 50%? 40%? how is even 2% justifiable? Would you let Australian police to safe-guard 98% of Australians but be cruel to those 2%? We all know Americans soldiers are dying scores and loosing miles every month to Taliban. In such situation, does your rational conclusion indicates Americans would rather care for the collateral/civil damage, a lot more than they were doing in the past when they had relatively better grip of Afghanistan? Common buddy illogical argument doesn't make you win, even if given twice.

If you allege Taliban to be responsible for 70% civilian deaths, and since they are inhuman in your books, what does that leave US with 30% killings? half Taliban?
 
.
1 - Taliban are responsible for American/NATO deaths but they are Afghans and they share their blood with them. Your bracketing of "Taliban are responsible for all civilians deaths" is unrealistic

Share blood with Afghans? The Taliban have been more cruel than anybody towards Afghans.

The Taliban are starting to get Karma for all their wrong doings,,they deserve this brutal deaths and torture.
 
.
Xdrive,

lets divide the share then. How much will you put in American basket? 50%? 40%? how is even 2% justifiable. Would you let Australian police to safe-guard 98% of Australians but be cruel to those 2%?

If you allege Taliban to be responsible for 70% civilian deaths, and since they are inhuman in your books, what does that leave US with 30% killings? half Taliban?

All the deaths of civilians are the talibans fault, even the ones killed by Coalition forces.

You see, coalition forces wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for the taliban.

Anyway, Coalition forces don't kill civilians on purpose. The taliban put them in harms way and they get hit in the crossfire.
 
.
Share blood with Afghans? The Taliban have been more cruel than anybody towards Afghans.

The Taliban are starting to get Karma for all their wrong doings,,they deserve this brutal deaths and torture.

If your point it invading forces are friendly to the countrymen far more than the defending forces of the same country than I cannot change this assumption with reason. Taliban could be bad but they are Afghans and they cannot be in power and rule 83% of Afghan territory without any backing from the public. If Taliban are bad, they are backed by same "bad" Afghan public.

Also killing those Afghans has produce 100 times more of these people. Re-enforcing the failure is only going to bring bigger failure. If Afghans are bad, council them, talk to them, bring international mediators from Muslim world who Taliban listen to. If correcting these bad Taliban was the real objective, I don't see reason why Obama is sending more money and troops to the country. Washing blood with blood won't work. Think who's wrong here.
 
.
All the deaths of civilians are the talibans fault, even the ones killed by Coalition forces.

You see, coalition forces wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for the taliban.

Anyway, Coalition forces don't kill civilians on purpose. The taliban put them in harms way and they get hit in the crossfire.

For the sake of agrument even if I accept what you are saying, that will make Collation Forces the biggest stupid force of all times. They are killing (even if put in front by Taliban) but offending more and more Afghans in result and feeding up their adversary more and more. Its not Rocket Science my friend. When you know you are strangthening your enemy, you stop doing the act the moment you realize it.

The ground reality says more than 83% of Afghan land is dominated or controlled by Taliban. The moment America invaded, that territory was between 15-20% at most. You have lost more than 60% land to them since then. Whats the gain here? who are Collation Forces Fighting to support? Their Adversary? No matter which way you turn, you end up finding collation forces at the loosing end. Does that give some of us a "wakeup call" ?
 
.
1 - Taliban are responsible for American/NATO deaths but they are Afghans and they share their blood with them. Your bracketing of "Taliban are responsible for all civilians deaths" is unrealistic. If true, you are giving a clean chit to Americans as "not guilty for any civilian death".

And TTP is also having blood with people of Pakistan, TTP is right to kill pakistanis, do you agree with me? Please tell me about the death of civilians being killed by the fire power of PA, who is at fault? PA or the TTP?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom