[B]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.[/B]
[release]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.
With overall numbers up, correspondents say Afghans feel less secure than ever.
According to the [I]UN report[/I] (*Link below*), the number of children killed or wounded rose 55% in the first six months of 2010 compared to the same period last year, with 176 children killed and 389 injured.
Most of the casualties were caused by insurgent attacks and roadside bombings, it said.
The report said that 386 - or 12% - of the Afghan casualties were due to US, Nato or other pro-government forces.
Insurgents blamed
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.
The Taliban have also issued their own "code of conduct", telling fighters to avoid killing civilians.
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 their own attempt to avoid alienating the civilian population, the Taliban issued their "code of conduct" which also forbids their fighters from seizing weapons and money.
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.[/release]
[url=http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Documents/Aug102010_HUMAN%20RIGHTS%20MID-YEAR%20REPORT_ENG%20FINAL.pdf]UN Report[/url]
[editline]05:26PM[/editline]
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10922405]Source[/url]
[quote]
Shortly afterwards, a Nato airstrike killed up to 25 Afghans travelling to a funeral in Nangarhar province.
[/quote]
:irony:
[QUOTE=Hoffa1337;23956864]:irony:[/QUOTE]
I've heard a few stories of that happening, normally happens when they're going to a funeral of someone "important"
[QUOTE=Snapzies;23957480]I've heard a few stories of that happening, normally happens when they're going to a funeral of someone "important"[/QUOTE]
Yeah even though there is one target(even if there was one) they would still airstrike the place not bothering about the civilians.
Also how are we supposed to believe all of these reports when
'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.'
You make the Army sound like a collection of heartless murderers.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;23959402]You make the Army sound like a collection of heartless murderers.[/QUOTE]
Emotional murderers doesn't sound quite right either.
Still, civilian casualties is the main reason a modern countries lose wars. It kills the public support for a war.
not surprised
[QUOTE=JDK721;23960554]not surprised[/QUOTE]
[del]Why is he an idiot?[/del]
You bastard you edited your post
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;23960583][del]Why is he an idiot?[/del]
You bastard you edited your post[/QUOTE]
I read it wrong at first
he's right
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.