US 'Tried to Hide' Bomb Blunder (BOTULISM BARF-O-RAMA ALERT!!)

BBC Online ^ | July 29, 2002 | Kylie Morris

[wimpycat]

The Afghan Government has warned against any cover-up in the investigation into a US airstrike which killed nearly 50 people at a wedding party at the start of July.

The warning came amid reports that a preliminary United Nations investigation into the bombing had found that US officials removed vital evidence from the site after the incident.

The UN probe is said to have found that US troops cleaned the area - removing shrapnel, bullets and traces of blood.

According to The Times newspaper, the UN report says there was no corroboration of the US claim that the aircraft that launched the attack had first been targeted from the ground.

Weeks or hours?

The Afghan Government says that 48 civilians died and more than 100 others were injured when US planes bombed targets in central Uruzgan Province on 1 July.

The Pentagon insists it chooses targets carefully

The American side said it needed several weeks to collect evidence and make a full report.

But locals say US officials arrived just hours after the raid, taking photographs and filming the scene and the bodies.

The UN investigation is also reported to have found that women at the bomb site had their hands tied.

Inquiry continues

A spokesman for Afghanistan's foreign ministry says it is premature to judge whether or not there has been a cover-up, as investigations are still ongoing, but warned there should be no cover-up from any side.

He said the Afghan Government is continuing to look into the matter, and says it is taking the allegations that women's hands were forcibly tied very seriously.

A spokesman for the United Nations in Afghanistan stressed the UN report is only preliminary and neither fully documented nor sufficiently substantiated.

But he added that an in-depth investigation would be completed to ensure that such a tragedy did not happen again, and that the protection of civilian lives becomes a primary concern in the fight against terror.

The American embassy in Kabul had no comment on the report.

[wimpycat]

This BBC article contains more information than the Agence France-Presse article, stressing that the UN itself is saying that the UN report is prelimary, not fully documented, and not sufficiently substantiated.

[RonF]

All I want to know is, what happened? How many people were actually killed? How many of them (if any) were civilians, and how many of them (if any) were hostiles? Was there small-arms fire from the location? Was there anti-aircraft fire from the location? Did we use unreliable information from a local with an axe to grind? Did we screw up, or not? And I don't want to hear it from the U.N., or the BBC, or anyone else, I want to hear an honest answer from the U.S. Military.

[RonF]

"The UN investigation is also reported to have found that women at the bomb site had their hands tied."

What the hell does this mean?

[AmericanCompatriot]

When can we just tell the U.N. to f*&CK off and get on with our worldy engagements. I'm so sick of our tax dollars paying for this "disgusting" institution which cares nothing for people and only for global domination and a "one-world" order under the guise of the rich and aristocratic "social-communist" class.

[AmericanInTokyo]

But tell me what you really think! ;-)

[hflynn]

When can we just tell the U.N. to f*&CK off . . . .

When we rebuild the World Trade Center Towers, close down the current United Nations facility in midtown New York and move the UN to the top 30 floors of each building of the new World Trade Center.

[Sal]

Pretty weird. Are they trying to say that we tied up some women and herded them into a group and then bombed them? How credible is that?

The only other alternatives I can come up with right now is that it's all a lie or somebody else tied them up. Why would somebody else tie them up? Maybe to herd them into a group under a US plane that somebody fired on?

My only question on that is why the UN would admit that the women had their hands tied since that implicates IMO someone other than US. Maybe the UN goobers didn't figure that part out until AFTER they reported it.

[Sloth]

The UN probe is said to have found that US troops cleaned the area - removing shrapnel, bullets and traces of blood.

Wonder how those got there!

[cpdiii]

If true it means that civilians were probably tied and restrained in an area from which anti-aircraft fiere was coming from. If true this was a deliberate attempt by the taliban and or Al Queda to cause civilian casulties to creat and incident

[GVnana]

found that women at the bomb site had their hands tied.

So who wanted them dead and what-the-hell kinda wedding was this anyway?

[Guillermo]

Why would they purposefully bomb a wedding? Just for kicks?

I doubt it.

But, if we used Muslim Logic, we could simply just say "Were you there? Did you see them remove evidence?"

[cpdiii]

fiere = fire

[weegee]

My take on the "tied hands" thing is that someone is using the UN as a voicepiece to say that the survivors of the attack had their hands tied. But not all of the survivors, just the women. Maybe it is an archaic coded way of implying that our troops raped their women after the "bombing".

None of the "details" in any of the stories about this event have amounted to much. Lies and inuendo seem to be doing well for their propaganda campaign though...

[RonF]

Maybe having a bunch of tied up women around is part of the local marriage customs. The local equivalent of when I go to a Polish wedding and the women come up to the bride after the ceremony and tie an apron around her waist.

[Stultis]

I want the straight dope, in the end, from the U.S./Afghan investigation. But what I want to know in the mean time is what the U.N. and The Slimes (U.K.) are trying to hide by not offering specific information about the composition of this "U.N. Team". How do we know it's not made up completely of local Talitubby supporters?

[wimpycat]

And I don't want to hear it from the U.N., or the BBC, or anyone else, I want to hear an honest answer from the U.S. Military.

And you'll get it--you certainly won't get it from people (like the UN and BBC) who use Taliban-sympathizing peasants as a credible source of information.

[Adrastus]

I can see you missed the part that said they were pregnant women and there were babies in burlap sacks and baby ducks that showed evidence of being stomped as well as ...........What a load of crap. These people are so bent it's absurd. Has the UN ever reported anything favorable that the US was envolved in? To do so would be to admit their own uselessness.

BTW, I think it'd be a great idea to put the UN on the top floors of the rebuilt towers.

May they be urinated on from a great height.

[b4its2late]

The mere fact that when this all happened, they were reporting 400 dead and something like a thousand wounded, or whatever, made it suspect to me from the start. And the fact that these "news" organizations are still at it, makes me even more sure that this is probably a set up and a bunch of pure, unadulterated Barbara Streisand......

[Timesink]

All I want to know is, what happened? How many people were actually killed?

To be honest, I don't even care enough to want answers to these questions. War sucks. Sometimes in war soldiers screw up (and I'm not yet prepared to assume what they did here was an actual screwup). That's life. The fact that if things were the other way around, and the Muslims would be dancing in the streets if one of their missiles "went astray" and took out an American elementary school, makes me especially unconcerned about any collateral damage.

[Sal]

Yes, that would make sense in terms of a propaganda attempt. A stunningly unconvincing attempt IMO, but probably good enough for the audience they seek.