KABUL, Afghanistan, June 18, 2007
100 Killed In 3 Days In Afghanistan
Afghan Officials Say Casualties Include Civilians, Police, Militants; 7 Kids Killed By U.S. Air Strike
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Deadly Bomb Attack In Kabul
A bomb attack on a bus full of police instructors in Kabul left 35 people dead. Afghanistan's president blamed Iran for the recent surge in violence. Mark Phillips has more details.
-
-
Photo
An Afghan doctor checks the wounds of a man at a hospital after a bomb blast in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, June 17, 2007. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)
-
Photo
Afghan police investigation team inspect the police bus after a bomb blast in Kabul, Afghanistan on Sunday, June 17, 2007. (AP Photo/Musadqe Sadeq)
-
Photo
A weekend of violence: An Afghan security man carries his heavy machine gun as he walks at the site of a suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan on Saturday, June 16, 2007. A suicide car bomber attacked a NATO convoy in Afghanistan's capital city of Kabul on Saturday, killing at least four civilians, Afghan officials said. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)
-
-
Fast Facts
Afghanistan
Learn about the people, economy and history.
-
Interactive
The NATO Alliance
Learn about the history of the defense group, check out the 26 NATO members.
-
Interactive
Rebuilding Afghanistan
Learn about the nation's geography, history and people and find out what is being done to rebuild.
Lt. Col. Maria Carl, a spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said there is "definitely a large engagement that has been going on there," for the last three days. She could not confirm casualty figures.
Because of the continued fighting in Uruzgan province, precise casualty numbers were hard to come by.
Mullah Ahmidullah Khan, the head of Uruzgan's provincial council, said clashes in Chora district had killed 60 civilians, 70 suspected Taliban militants and 16 Afghan police.
An official close to the Uruzgan governor, who asked not to be identified because he was talking about preliminary estimates, said 70 to 75 civilians had been killed or wounded, while more than 100 Taliban and more than 35 police had been killed.
Earlier Monday, the coalition put out a statement saying seven children had been killed in a U.S.-led coalition air strike targeting suspected al Qaeda militants in eastern Afghanistan. That strike came hours after the deadliest insurgent attack since the Taliban fell in 2001.
Police said Monday they had detained a suspect in connection with the deadly suicide bombing that destroyed a bus full of police instructors at Kabul's busiest transportation hub, killing 35 people and wounding 52.
In an operation backed by Afghan troops, jets on Sunday targeted a compound that also contained a mosque and a madrassa, or Islamic school, in the Zarghun Shah district of Paktika province. Early reports indicated seven children at the madrassa and "several militants" were killed, and two militants detained, the statement said.
Coalition troops had "surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building," said Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman. He accused the militants of not letting the children leave the compound that was targeted.
"If we knew that there were children inside the building, there was no way that that air strike would have occurred," said Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch, another coalition spokesman.
The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said it has sent a team with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to investigate the incident.
Afghan officials have recently said that civilian deaths are the main concern of Afghans, and President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly called for foreign troops to do more to prevent civilian casualties.
Meanwhile, police detained a suspect in the Kabul bus bombing after he was caught filming the aftermath of the deadly suicide blast, said Ali Shah Paktiawal, Kabul police director of criminal investigation.
The suspect, whose name and nationality were not disclosed, had pictures of the slain Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah in his phone, as well as text messages from a foreign country, Paktiawal said.
Sunday's enormous blast didn't leave much of the bus and it didn't leave much left of the notion that the renewed Taliban insurgency is being contained in Afghanistan, reports CBS News foreign correspondent Mark Phillips.
The attack wasn't only deadly, it made several points: the Taliban attacks are becoming bolder, more frequent and are spreading across the country, adds Phillips.
The bombing raised the specter of an increase in Iraq-style bombings with heavy casualties. It was at least the fourth attack against a bus carrying Afghan police or army soldiers in Kabul in the last year. The bomb sheared off the bus' metal sidings and roof, leaving a charred frame.
"Never in my life have I heard such a sound," said Ali Jawad, a 48-year-old who was selling phone cards nearby. "A big fireball followed. I saw blood and a decapitated man thrown out of the bus."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 CommentsHello it was a school for Gods sake, why would they NOT think kids were there.
Well, let's see.... maybe it was over the weekend when kids AREN'T in school, and/or maybe it was AFTER school hours. Did you think about that?
The plain truth is we should not have gone in there on the basis of Bush's lies in the first place.
When Taguba says he alerted Rumsfeld's office several times to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, the Rumpot says he wasn't aware.
Who ya gonna believe, proven liars, or the investigator who tried to bring the truth to light?
Long past time to arrest Mr. Bush, Mr Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Powell, Ms. Rice, and all others complicit in these crimes, to stand trial for treason, malfeasance, lying to congress, and the resulting deaths of all innocents on both sides.
If we let them pass, we might be the next victims, as some future despot uses the same scenario, tactics, and precedents to launch a "final solution" to the "race problem"...
It is also time to find out who were the real masterminds behind 9/11, it's starting to smell more and more like an "inside jab"...
LOL
More u.s. terrorism.
Could it be that they targeted the police to send a message against oppression and control? Not all Afghans are in favor of permanent military bases and foreign interference from NATO.
Yes, you missed it,
"Coalition troops had "surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building," said Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman."
The next sentence,
He accused the militants of not letting the children leave the compound that was targeted."
About as "human shield" as it gets, yes?
So which is it, Belcher? How would they know it was "targeted", do you tell them beforehand?
Posted by brianbwb at 08:01 AM : Jun 18, 2007
Ditto to that comment!
Answer just one question for yourself.....How was it possible to get the Patriot Act written, voted on, and law in such a short time span? Preplanning perhaps?
The TRUTH will never be known as this Administration uses the "I don't recall" philosophy that once done, all should be forgiven and forgotten.
Housecleaning of all Elected Officials who currently support this war and any who voted for it.
In case you don't know a madrassah is a public school, supported by the government, that includes religious material in the curriculum. Madrassahs don't "teach hate" as you and others wish to believe, any more than a private school run by Christians in the US does.
You are a victim of brainwashing, the chicken hawks have succeeded in getting you to believe their agitprop.
Obviously you have never seen a madrassah, or else you would know that you have been lied to. If you have, then you are participating in deliberate misrepresentation.
You are followed.
When you run back to your home, where your family and children live, and take your instruments of death with you, into your home, do you expect that nobody will be hurt when you resist the law when it comes to arrest you?
Why do you put innocent childrens lives between you are the law? Why do you put your children between you, and the bullets that will surely be aimed at you because you resist arrest with deadly violence?
Why do you sacrifice the children to the fire? The political games you play, to make the police look like criminals, it does not work any more.
We are on to you, you are the lowest criminal element there is. You hide behind your own children, knowing that they will die, hoping that when they do, you will be vindicated.
You are no shining light in a dark place, you are the darkness that does not know the light.
I take it you would have us believe that children are forcibly removed from their homes and kept prisoner overnight, so they wouldn't be seen entering, as they were already there, and that the families of these children would not actively protest such anti Islamic behavior?
Come on, dude, I know children who can lie better than that.
I take it you would have us believe that children are forcibly removed from their homes and kept prisoner overnight, so they wouldn't be seen entering, as they were already there, and that the families of these children would not actively protest such anti Islamic behavior?
Come on, dude, I know children who can lie better than that.
Let's impeach Bush and Chaney and bring all the children home. Of course then, we have President Pelosi.
Posted by pwrslm at 08:36 AM : Jun 18, 2007
Ecellent post pwrslm. Could not have said it better myself.
You don't ask why the 35 people killed and injured in your scenario were killed in the first place, do you?
You sound like the early American settlers who would kill the "Indians" to possess their land, and when the "Indians" make a reprisal, you accuse them of attacking you, and then call for revenge, conveniently forgetting that you started the cycle of death.
If the Afghanis are a bunch of murderous thugs, this is not our problem, they must deal with it themselves, the US injected our children there, on basis of Bush's lies, we shot first.
And none of that 9/11 crapola, the so-called perpetrators were all Saudis, (if you believe the reports put out by Bush) not Afghanis, but your hero Bush isn't bombing their kids, is he?
Would you rather the press kept hidden the reasons your children are dying in some foreign country,
or the fact that our "president" lied through his teeth to cause it to happen?
Oh yeah, they probably aren't your kids...
Posted by brianbwb at 08:57 AM : Jun 18, 2007
(CBS/AP) The deadliest insurgent attack since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 destroyed a bus full of police instructors at Kabul's busiest transportation hub on Sunday, killing 35 people and wounding 52, officials said.
They can kill children but we cannot? Was the entrance the Predator had under survielance the 'only' one? Could the chiodren have been brought in another door?
sssshhheeeeeeessshhh!!!!! War is hell!! especially for chidren.
You ask, "They can kill children but we cannot?"
Don't want to miss out on the fun, huh?
Again, if they kill their own children, this is their own problem to deal with, not ours, and at any rate, was not even one of the reasons Bush lied about to send our military there. If they come to your town and kill your children, then you have every right to revenge, but right now who is in whose town, killing who, and why?
You ask, "Could the children have been brought in another door?"
You make one of my points perfectly, if the idiots doing surveillance don't know to cover all entrances, and exits to determine the facts on a matter serious enough to launch deadly military force, then they shouldn't even be in uniform.
I suppose you will say next that the children could have been smuggled in underground...
Posted by brianbwb at 09:07 AM : Jun 18, 2007
I don't care how we got there or why. That is for a debate between the political winners and losers. If I am there (Afghanistan) and someone shoots at me and my troop I will shoot back. If that someone holds a child in front of him/her and machineguns my friends while hiding behind the child I 'will' shoot I will shoot at the head of the adult if possible but what ever happens is his/her fault, not mine. 'I' have a right to defend myself from harm or death. Let the courts settle it later. Also 'after' the shooter is dead, I will cry like a baby and carry the scars in my soul for the rest of 'my' life.
President Pelosi could very well turn out to be, for all intents and purposes, the same puppet as Bush, but at least we establish that Bush and his cronies are not above the law.
Maybe then Ms. Pelosi and others would bear that in mind...
Posted by brianbwb at 09:34 AM : Jun 18, 2007
Yes, thank you for adding that, now I don't have to I also want you to go into each building and search out all civilians and usher them out of the targeted building before we "Blow the h**l out of it! I will give you 15 minutes to clear the kids out.
sshheeeeesshh!!!
Part of our problem is that too many think like you, and don't care how we got there, or why.
If you theoretical son or daughter caught a bullet in the head over there fighting because of lies by the "president", I hope you would demand more than just for "the courts to settle it", especially when the courts are packed with the friends of the liar that sent your loved one there in the first place (thank Gonzo).
It doesn't escape notice that simply getting our people out of there immediately, because they have no business being there is not an option for you.
Also the fact that we are bombing anyone there for no reason at all is lost on you.
As far as can be surmised by your posts, we are just over there killing because we are over there killing, and when they resist, we should kill even more, and as you yourself state, you don't even care why.
Such thinking is officially termed sociopathic, get some help...
Come on, dude, I know children who can lie better than that.
Posted by brianbwb at 08:57 AM : Jun 18, 2007
The only people that tell the truth, wear turbans, RIGHT'?
I guess that if he is an American and his mouth is open, then "He is lying" 'RIGHT'?
I would like to know which "lies" the president told for us to be over in Afghanistan.
Especially if his name is Bush.
As for Belcher, he simply doesn't want to admit that he messed up big time, the big brave soldier is afraid of the consequences.
Lying is not the exclusive trait of any one culture, or ethnicity, nor is the cowardice that makes people hide behind them, or the self delusion that rationalizes senseless murder.
This blogsite is limited to 1500 characters, it would take at least a book to list them all, but just one; since all the so-called hijackers had Saudi passports, (which also may have been a lie, how could all have survived the flames for them to know) why go bomb Afghanistan? You say because Bin Laden (himself a Saudi) was there?
If they know at all where Bin Laden is, or was, why couldn't they capture him? They found Saddam in a hole under a house in the desert, but Bin Laden goes on TV more often than the Undertaker, but they still can't "find" him.
Also the fact that we are bombing anyone there for no reason at all is lost on you.
Such thinking is officially termed sociopathic, get some help...
Posted by brianbwb at 09:58 AM : Jun 18, 2007
They're coming to take me away! hee hee, ho ho hah hah! (apologies to Dr Demento).
I want our troops out of there more than you can know but I am not one to cut my own throat to appease any crowd that simply doesn't get the big picture. (And 'NO" I am not a bush_baby either).
I have people over there also that I love very much and they are telling me about the mess that we are in. Not one of them wants to leave the job half done.
Posted by brianbwb at 10:16 AM : Jun 18, 2007
My cousin tells me that the passports were registered 'as' the hijackers got on the Planes.
I asked him the same question in 2001.
9-11 = Al-qaida operation.
Afghanistan = Al-qaida held country.
Therefore, attack the people responsible for 9-11 which were in Afghanistan. There is absolutely no question from anybody about that, is there?
Are you seriously saying that we should bomb a country based on the country they came from? And by the way, the passports didn't have to be found, to know who had them and where they were from. They kinda keep records of those things, which is the reason people are required to have them. duh.
The biggest lie being told over there is that these people are being called "insurgents" and not "terrorists".
Many people's passports were registered that day, but only Saudis were "the hijackers"?
There were no Irish, or Brits, Americans, Iraqis, or even Afghanis on board?
Of all the Saudis who were accused, how many are definitely "hijackers", or do we assume that all Saudi passports definitely belonged to hijackers?
The only "evidence" we have is what Bush put out there, and we all know now Bush's word cannot be trusted.
Why did Bush pull the funding of the investigation just as the investigators were beginning to "follow the money"?
At one time your intuition led you to ask that question, was such an easy answer really enough to eliminate your doubts?
You say,"Not one of them wants to leave the job half done."
Now comes the big question, what "job"?
What is the goal, to kill everyone who doesn't like our being there killing them? To install a puppet government that will let Bush and his former oil consultant, now president Karzai operate his oil pipeline without resistance?
Just what is the goal of being there, when we supposedly went in to "take out" Bin Laden, who, it seems wasn't and now isn't even there?
Now comes the big question, what "job"?
Posted by brianbwb at 10:41 AM : Jun 18, 2007
The only job they are trying to do now is stabilize the country enough to prevent a bloodbath (remember Vietnam, Cambodia)?
They would leave tomorrow if some 'one' was in control and had a workable plan for the country.
(Should'a left Saddam in charge)
Coalition Says Suspected Al Qaeda Militants Targeted In Strike
-With all the updated intelligence, Nato (US) still look like amateur. Just wondering who is more performing into botching operations: Nato or Talibans?
Posted by brianbwb at 10:41 AM : Jun 18, 2007
Remember "Pol "Pot"?
Kill tally: One to three million (or between a quarter and a third of the country's population)
And not only did we put him in, but then denied the atrocities until the evidence was overwhelming
you ask "Are you seriously saying that we should bomb a country based on the country they came from?"
I answer, since they all died during their "deed" there was then no need to bomb anyone. How could the be in Afghanistan, when they died in NY and Wash DC?
You forgot one, Al Qaeda=CIA proxy for Afghanistan against Russia.
Duh...
Duh...
Posted by brianbwb at 11:10 AM : Jun 18, 2007
Another reason they hate us. We didn't help them after Russia left. That put us at the top of Bin Ladens list. (That plus the fact we weren't Muslim and likely not to be either).
Afghanistan = Al-qaida held country."
Neither of these statements are in whole true.
9-11 could not have happened with out our protectors complicity.
-What stopped the missile batteries protecting the Pentagon from firing? -Where was the Air Force, NORAD that could have protected the Twin Towers?
The Taliban asked for proof that Al-qaida was guilty but Mr. Bush was not having any of that. He attacked with out any.
The Taliban are not synonymous with Al-qaida.
As witnessed subsequent to the demise of the Soviet Union, the fall of Soeharto, the lynching of Saddam, and many other such occurrences, whenever a strong hand is lifted from power, the vacuum will cause blood to be shed as new aspirants try to gain control, it cannot be avoided or controlled, and as long as we are there interfering we simply elongate the process, as "our boy" may not be the strongest, or even desired, especially if seen as a puppet of the invaders, those who can will simply make "small" moves while waiting for us to go, then make their "big" move.
This is why the goal you cite is impossible, it would require our presence for a decade, and even then the result would not be "stable" as the cultures there have been known since ancient times to hold long grudges.
Besides, other than the oil, and the opportunity for war profiteers like Halliburton and Bechtel to soak the US taxpayers for billions, I don't believe for a minute that Bush, or those who advocate slaughter for no reason, care one bit about the people there.
Remember we vilified Saddam for gassing Kurds, but say nothing about Turkey invading Iraq to finish the job.
Posted by brianbwb at 11:05 AM : Jun 18, 2007
1973 - In an attempt to prop-up the Lon Nol government, halt the Khmer Rouge assault and destroy North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia, the Nixon administration secretly intensifies the bombing of the country, without government authorisation, and despite having signed a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese on 27 January.
1974 - In March, the Khmer Rouge capture the old capital of Odongk, north of Phnom Penh. In a foretaste of what is to come, the city is destroyed, its 20,000 inhabitants are dispersed into the countryside, and teachers and public servants are executed.
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html
Please show me how we put him in.
-What stopped the missile batteries protecting the Pentagon from firing
Posted by drudge2 at 11:24 AM : Jun 18, 2007"
The Plane came in at ground level and could not be seen by the Radar. (From my cousin that works there.)
"Where was the Air Force, NORAD that could have protected the Twin Towers?
Posted by drudge2 at 11:24 AM : Jun 18, 2007"
9/11 caught us un prepared. You should have tried to fly the next day though.
You write, "That put us at the top of Bin Ladens list."
Speculation, based on circumstance. Logical, but here is another circumstance, allow me to speculate based on these facts;
Usama Bin Laden is a member of the Bin Laden family, one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, and partners with the Bush family in several ventures under the Carlysle Group of companies. This is why Bush grounded all flights that day, EXCEPT the flights taking other members of the Bin Laden family out of the country, before anyone could question them for info regarding Usama.
This part is not speculation, the following is.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are tools at the beck and call of Bush, to give us our "bad guy", which we cannot catch or kill, who shows whenever Bush needs to scare us into accepting his stepping on "that Godd**ned piece of paper". He knows too many of the CIA's secrets to be allowed to just "quit" the CIA. We are good at killing people, after all.
If he really hated Bush, he would say that he works for Bush, even if not true, the turmoil would be to his advantage, but if true, Bush would hang. So far Zilch.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 Comments