Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. aircraft were fired upon in days before attack on village, officials say
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service via COMTEX ^ | Jul 02, 2002 | Drew Brown and Malcolm Garcia

Posted on 07/02/2002 4:37:20 PM PDT by grimalkin

Jul 02, 2002 (Knight Ridder Newspapers - Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service via COMTEX) -- BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan - U.S. aircraft had been fired upon by anti-aircraft artillery several times in the days preceding a U.S. attack on a cluster of villages in central Afghanistan in which dozens of people were reported killed, defense officials said Tuesday.

The officials also said that cannon fire from an AC-130 gunship, not an errant bomb from a B-52 bomber, may have struck what Afghan officials described as a wedding party in the village of Deh Rawood, about 175 miles southwest of Kabul.

As many as 40 people died in the attack early Monday, Afghan officials in the capital said. The officials accused U.S. pilots of mistaking celebratory fire from the party for anti-aircraft fire directed at them.

U.S. military officials would confirm only that four children from the village had been flown to Kandahar air base and treated for injuries. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cautioned that it was too early to tell exactly what happened.

"These incidents, when they occur, take some time to sort out," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference Tuesday.

The White House issued a statement in which President Bush expressed "his deep condolences for the loss of innocent life."

"In the meantime, we are consulting with Afghan authorities on the humanitarian needs of the people in the area," the statement said.

A fact-finding team composed of U.S. and Afghan officials left Kabul for the Uruzgan province early Tuesday, said Col. Roger King, a spokesman at Bagram air base, north of the Afghan capital.

At Mir Wais Hospital in Kandahar, they saw 19 people who claimed they were injured in the attack, said Cmdr. Frank Merriman, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.

Rumsfeld said it may take several days before their investigation is complete.

In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai demanded Tuesday that U.S. and coalition forces "take all necessary measures to ensure that military activities to capture terrorist groups do not harm Afghan civilians."

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 300 to 400 Afghan ground forces and a small group of U.S. and coalition soldiers were in the vicinity of the village on a surveillance mission when a U.S. AC-130 gunship covering them came under fire.

"There had been anti-aircraft fire from that location several times over the previous couple of days," Pace said.

"The report we have is that it was anti-aircraft artillery fire from the ground to the air that precipitated the AC-130 fire," he continued.

No American or Afghan ground forces were involved in the attack, Pace said.

The AC-130 then attacked six sites in the area from which it received fire. The locations were spread out over several miles, Pace said.

In a separate operation, a B-52 bomber in the area dropped seven precision guided bombs on a cave complex. Six hit their targets, Pace said. The seventh fell about 3,000 yards short of its target but in an uninhabited area.

Defense officials on Monday had theorized that the errant bomb caused the casualties.

Rumsfeld said civilian deaths are regrettable but unavoidable in war.

"It is going to happen. It always has, and I'm afraid it always will," he said.

Uruzgan province, where the attack took place, is the birthplace of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who some Afghan officials have said may be hiding in the area.

Pace would not comment on reports that American and Afghan ground forces in the area were hunting for Omar or other Taliban or al-Qaida figures.

In an apparent expression of the popular outrage that has resulted from the incident, a group of six U.S. soldiers was fired upon Tuesday after visiting victims of the attack in the Kandahar hospital.

One soldier was shot in the foot, Merriman said. The identity of the attackers was unknown.

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)

King, the military's spokesman at Bagram, said there was no indication that the village of Deh Rawood was a base for Taliban or al-Qaida. Nor could he say whether a wedding was under way.

"If it was a wedding, it was not celebratory fire," said King. "Celebratory fire is random, not fired at a target. Our people were tracking them, and they engaged them."

---

(Garcia reported from Bagram; Brown reported from Washington.)

---

By Drew Brown and Malcolm Garcia Knight Ridder Newspapers


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ac130; afghanistan; b52; southasialist; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 07/02/2002 4:37:20 PM PDT by grimalkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: grimalkin
I'm sorry, I still don't buy this claim that it was a "wedding party." Accidents can happen, but I think our folks have pretty good intel.

I may be wrong but this whole thing stinks. Propaganda like this is easy to drum up when you're talking about an area as remote as this.

3 posted on 07/02/2002 4:57:58 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grimalkin
Reminds me of the movie "Rules of Engagement." Anyone see that?

Samuel L Jackson plays a Marine Colonel who does a rescue operation at an American Embassy in Yemen. The marines end up killing a bunch of Yemeni civilians. And Jackson's character ends up going on trail. The marines claimed that the Yemeni civilians were firing at them. The Yemeni people claim that it was a cold-blooded slaughtering. And in the last moment they found a security tape that proved that the Yemeni civilians had all pulled out guns and were firing at the US soldiers. I remember coming out of that movie a few years ago, thinking "That sure wasn't PC. It sure made all the arabs look real bad." Now that I learn more about all those Islamic nations I think the writers of that story were on to something. I just don't trust Islam. I mean, I just keep seeing this guy, Arafat, get away with murder time and again, and every time Israel slaps him on the wrist he cries "Masacre!"

4 posted on 07/02/2002 5:01:17 PM PDT by Sally II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I agree. It seems to me that if it really were a wedding party, they would have video footage of people celebrating and then a bomb falling on them. People may be dirt poor in Afghanistan, but Osama bin Laden proved that they do have video cameras there.
5 posted on 07/02/2002 5:05:45 PM PDT by Sally II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nohorse
"George Jr. just might have a LBJ-type albatross hangin' around his neck at re-election time."

That would be al Qaeda's hope. We'll see who buys into the "wedding celebration" story. I'll admit I'm not familiar with their customs but a wedding party using anti-aircraft weapons at 0200 does seem a little far-fetched.
6 posted on 07/02/2002 5:06:42 PM PDT by Ben Hecks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grimalkin
"As many as 40 people died in the attack early Monday, Afghan officials in the capital said. The officials accused U.S. pilots of mistaking celebratory fire from the party for anti-aircraft fire directed at them."

How quiet are American combat aircraft? Is it possible that people might figure that if there's aircraft flying overhead, they shouldn't shoot off guns?
7 posted on 07/02/2002 5:08:44 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Sally II
Well, I don't know about video cameras. ObL is a wealthy Saudi with a multimillion-dollar criminal enterprise at his disposal.

These were supposedly just a bunch of hick villagers.

But still, it would be too easy to drum this up, including photos, etc.

9 posted on 07/02/2002 5:13:19 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grimalkin
bttt
10 posted on 07/02/2002 5:17:59 PM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nohorse
Not too happy with the President are you? Or is it just the U.S. armed forces? Both, maybe? Well, no matter- if the casualties were friendlies killed by mistake, I'm sure the servicemen involved will appreciate your sarcasm; if they were skating on the edge and caught some return fire, I'm sure Al Qaida appreciates your patriotism.

Either way, you're off to a good start (or return) here.

11 posted on 07/02/2002 5:18:06 PM PDT by niteowl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Propaganda like this is easy to drum up when you're talking about an area as remote as this.

Exactly. The "fog of war" is easy for elements hostile to our forces to use against us.

12 posted on 07/02/2002 5:24:30 PM PDT by grimalkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *southasia_list; *war_list
.
13 posted on 07/02/2002 5:27:09 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nohorse
What part of: "This will be a long war" do you not understand?

We're chasing cockroches in the sand...and quite frankly I think we're doing a hell of a good job both tracking and stomping them.

Patience is not only a virture in this war, it's our most important weapon.
14 posted on 07/02/2002 5:40:33 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sally II
Sally II - This may come as a shock to you... But "Rules of Engagement" was a TRUE STORY..

The film followed the actual story very closely --- and it all happened on CLINTON'S WATCH.

There was a massive attempt to cover up and hang the Marine Officer that commanded the operation.....then the "hidden" film was discovered.... At least one Clinton staffer was fired and charged with a crime -- I believe, and others simply resigned.... The outcome of investigations is played across the screen at the end of film.....

I'll bet you didn't read much about that in the papers!

Clinton was a dispicable slime ball, the full extent of which may not be known for several years.... He was absolutely an "enabler" of Arab Terrorists --- because he always showed his weakness and lack of courage. His weakness can be shown to have resulted in the needless death of thousands already. How many more to clean up his messes?
Semper Fi

15 posted on 07/02/2002 5:40:40 PM PDT by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
..propaganda like this is easy to drum up when you're talking about an area as remote as this....

Yeah, that awesome Afghani villager propaganda machine is hard to beat, Ilbay.

16 posted on 07/02/2002 6:46:04 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
You obviously haven't read or heard any of the soldiers talking about how the locals lie about every bombing. Remember the "UN storage bombing"? A lie. "The Afghan caravan bombing"? A lie.

Not a single one of these "atrosities" has proved to be true. The first reports of this episode said 250 wedding party goers were killed. A lie.

I didn't think you were one of those guys who believed every report that rolls off the news wires. It pays to wait a few days, like with ...Jenin.

17 posted on 07/02/2002 9:24:39 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Wow! I didn't know Rules of Engagement was based on a true story. I remember that the end of the film told what became of some of the key people. (But then again so did the end of Unbreakable, and I know that wasn't a true story.) I just remember coming out of that movie not sure if it was true or not. And I guess I figured that the content was SO controversial that I would have heard something about it. So, yeah, you're right, I didn't read much at all about that story in the papers! Do you know of any websites that have more information about that story?

And I totally agree with you about Clinton. It just amazes me how much he's gotten away with. And how blindly loyal the Democrats are to him. The Dems tried to jump all over Bush to try to connect him with the Enron scandal (I know some libs who STILL think he's involved with some Enron conspiracy) yet these same people wouldn't bat an eyelash if Clinton murdered their best friend. They don't care that he was Arafat's best buddy. They don't care that he had close ties to the Chinese and gave them government secrets. And they've all forgotten about how his relatives all tried to cash in on his last week in office pardons.

18 posted on 07/02/2002 9:37:40 PM PDT by Sally II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nohorse
nohorse - member since June 30th, 2002

Go away, liberal troll.

19 posted on 07/02/2002 9:43:25 PM PDT by Henchster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Henchster
Go away, liberal troll.

Hey, there's no need to call names. Troll would have sufficed.

20 posted on 07/02/2002 9:57:34 PM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson