Kandahar's Governor Blasts the Canadian Military After Suicide Bombing

On the heels of the second suicide bombing in Afghanistan in two days, the death tolls from both attacks currently standing at 136, the notorious governor of Kandahar accused the Canadian military of ignoring 6 warnings that such an attack might happen in the area, concluding it had put Afghan civilians in danger.

The military's response was this:

...a military spokesman said the Canadian Forces make the decisions on where its soldiers will patrol.

"We regularly receive threat warnings and obviously we go where we want to, when we want to in our area of operation," said Lt.-Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky.

"We obviously take notice of these warnings but our aim is to operate freely within our area of operation despite those."

Shorter Babinsky: you're not the boss of me.

Fine. But at what cost?

NATO troops have repeatedly been slammed by Karzai over civilian deaths and in a country where our soldiers are supposed to be winning hearts and minds as part of the counter-insurgency tactics, that arrogant statement by Babinsky certainly won't help the mission. There's a difference between being in charge of military maneuvers and writing off Afghan intel efforts that another suicide bombing is being planned. 4 of our soldiers were also wounded as a result. Was it absolutely necessary that Canadian troops be in Spin Boldak on Monday to the point where the commanders decided to move through despite the warnings?

Meanwhile, our utterly clueless defence minister, Peter MacKay, said these bombings don't signal an "escalation" in violence. Well, when 136 people are killed in 2 days, I certainly don't know what else you can call it. Just how many more people have to die in record numbers before MacKay acknowledges reality?

Update: The death toll from today's bombing has reached 38, with 30 Afghans critically wounded.
 

How Not to Stop Killing Afghan Civilians

You have to wonder just who came up with the brilliant absolutely moronic idea that NATO should just drop smaller bombs on the Afghans to try and reduce civilian casualties.

Aid agencies say western forces have killed 230 civilians so far this year.

And those are the ones we actually know about.
 

The Nation Exposes 'The Other War': Civilian Killings by the US Military in Iraq

Via The Nation, this one is a must read. Be prepared. It's lengthy. Here's the intro:

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness

Chris Hedges & Laila Al-Arian

Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

Their stories, recorded and typed into thousands of pages of transcripts, reveal disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq. Dozens of those interviewed witnessed Iraqi civilians, including children, dying from American firepower. Some participated in such killings; others treated or investigated civilian casualties after the fact. Many also heard such stories, in detail, from members of their unit. The soldiers, sailors and marines emphasized that not all troops took part in indiscriminate killings. Many said that these acts were perpetrated by a minority. But they nevertheless described such acts as common and said they often go unreported--and almost always go unpunished.

Court cases, such as the ones surrounding the massacre in Haditha and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old in Mah­mudiya, and news stories in the Washington Post, Time, the London Independent and elsewhere based on Iraqi accounts have begun to hint at the wide extent of the attacks on civilians. Human rights groups have issued reports, such as Human Rights Watch's Hearts and Minds: Post-war Civilian Deaths in Baghdad Caused by U.S. Forces, packed with detailed incidents that suggest that the killing of Iraqi civilians by occupation forces is more common than has been acknowledged by military authorities.

This Nation investigation marks the first time so many on-the-record, named eyewitnesses from within the US military have been assembled in one place to openly corroborate these assertions.

I've done a lot of writing about civilian deaths in the wars that have raged on the last few years - always wondering what we didn't know about. Now, finally, at least some of this will be brought to light by the efforts of these courageous journalists and veterans. I think we all have a responsibility to closely examine what our countries' militaries are doing in our names and to hold those responsible accountable.

Excerpt:

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned," said Spc. Michael Harmon, 24, a medic from Brooklyn. He served a thirteen-month tour beginning in April 2003 with the 167th Armor Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, in Al-Rashidiya, a small town near Baghdad. "I go out to the scene and [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little 2-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs, and I look and she has a bullet through her leg.... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me, wasn't crying, wasn't anything, it just looked at me like--I know she couldn't speak. It might sound crazy, but she was like asking me why. You know, Why do I have a bullet in my leg?... I was just like, This is--this is it. This is ridiculous."

24 Hours in Iraq: A Huge Death Toll

Via antiwar.com:

161 Iraqis, 3 GIs, 2 Britons Killed; 257 Iraqis Wounded

And the death toll for US forces now sits at 3,600.

But just wait until September for Petraeus' rosy report about how well the surge is working, DC politicians. It's not like you ought to be horrified by what happens in Iraq every single day. It's just war, after all. Right?

In other violence, police said a family of seven sleeping on a Baghdad roof died when a mortar hit the building.

The dead reportedly included a couple and their four children, aged nine to 17, as well as a relative.

Many Iraqis choose to spend hot summer nights sleeping on the roof of their home because of frequent electricity failures.
BBC

At least during the current heat wave gripping the western US, no American will have to worry about their family being killed by a mortar attack.

And what is CNN covering at this hour? Healthy food choices. The world has gone insane.
 

Civilian Deaths in Kandahar: A Globe & Mail Reporter Gets it Wrong

This is what the Globe and Mail's reporter Graeme Smith wrote in his piece "How Taliban exploit civilian casualties" on Monday:

The number of civilian deaths inflicted by NATO and U.S. operations in Afghanistan has risen dramatically, with roughly 300 killed so far this year.

One of the major exceptions to this trend has been in Kandahar province, where Canadian commanders say they haven't heard any complaints of civilian casualties in 2007.

So, who's lying? The "Canadian commanders" or Smith?

Via wiki:

* February 17, 2007 An unarmed man acting in a suspicious manner was shot and killed by Canadian troops near the village of Senjaray 12 km west of Kandahar[21]

* February 17, 2007 NATO troops shot and killed a civilian who was running through convoy near Kandahar[22]

* February 18, 2007 Canadian troops mistakenly gunned down an Afghan National Police officer and a homeless beggar after their convoy was ambushed in Kandahar City late Sunday[23]

* February 27, 2007 Canadian troops fire at a Toyota car that failed to stop at a security cordon around a broken down Canadian vehicle in the Kandahar area. One occupant is killed, the other is wounded. No weapons or bombs were found.[24]

Maybe that article should get a new headline: How Graeme Smith Denies Civilian Casualties
 

They're Just More Dead Civilians

The stories about the unending deaths of Afghan civilians, mainly as the result of "air strikes" (which is just a PC way of saying bombings), eat away at me.

Note the latest news:

More than 100 people, nearly half of them Afghan civilians, were killed in Nato air strikes against the Taliban this weekend, an investigation by local officials in Helmand province has concluded.

This, on the heels of repeated outcries for NATO to be more damn responsible while NATO spokespuppets issue the standard, meaningless apologies. It's just insulting. And although Karzai is trying to wrest control of the situation, he is virtually powerless to do anything to stop the killings while NATO's chief just wants to pay off the families and move on. (And what's the big topic of the day at that conference about Afghanistan? How much judges get paid. Get real.)

He [Karzai] has repeatedly called on US, Nato and Taliban forces to do more to prevent civilian casualties, warning that "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such". And he has ordered foreign forces to co-ordinate military operations with the Afghan government. "From now on, they have to work the way we ask them to work in here."

Good luck with that. It's not going to happen.

And the military always uses the same excuse:

Major John Thomas, an Isaf spokesman told the Associated Press: "We don't mean to trivialise any of those who died but we want to make it clear that we believe the numbers are a dozen or less."

He blamed the Taliban for the civilian deaths, saying: "It's the enemy fighters who willingly fire when civilians are right next to them."

Now tell me, if London had decided to launch "air strikes" on Belfast to root out IRA terrorists, does anyone think this "human shield" line would have passed muster? Are you kidding me?

We are taught that "civilian casualties" are acceptable during war time but, while some may be absolutely unavoidable, when you have a situation like the one in Afghanistan where more ordinary people are being killed by the allied forces than by insurgents, isn't it time to rethink the military strategy - a strategy, by the way, which everyone has agreed will not even end the war there? Britain's government officials expect to be there for decades.

The US military is now also expanding attacks into Pakistan. How many more civilians will they kill there while their military pretends that fewer are dead than the real counts show?

Now, read this carefully:

Operations inside Pakistan might be carried out independently by the United States, probably with air power, by Pakistani forces acting alone or as joint offensives. In all cases, though, the US will pull the strings, for instance by providing the Pakistanis with information on targets to hit.

Musharraf has apparently already told his military commanders, the National Security Council and decision-makers in government of the development.

Officially, both NATO and Pakistan deny any agreement on hot-pursuit activities. Major John Thomas, spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, told Asia Times Online, "The ISAF would not strike any targets across the border. That is not part of our mission. We work with the Pakistani government closely on cross-border issues. The ISAF does not have a counter-terrorism mission that I know of."

NATO is supposed to be in charge of military operations in Afghanistan, yet US forces are still free to do whatever they want to? Is it any wonder the place is still such a mess? And if the ISAF's mission does not include counter-terrorism, what is it still doing in Afghanistan?

This statement is from NATO's web site:

NATO is contributing to the fight against terrorism through military operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the Mediterranean and by taking steps to protect its populations and territory against terrorist attacks.

And this:

ISAF’s key military tasks include assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority across the country, conducting stability and security operations in co-ordination with the Afghan national security forces; mentoring and supporting the Afghan national army; and supporting Afghan government programmes to disarm illegally armed groups.

No counter-terrorism mission for ISAF? You're kidding, right?

In addition to that, as far as NATO involvement in attacks inside Pakistan go:

Islamabad on June 25 urged NATO-led forces to exercise “restraint” while conducting operations against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan along its border, days after scores of civilians were killed in air strikes by coalition planes and helicopter gunships inside Pakistan.

NATO forces reportedly fired several missiles on June 22 at two villages, leaving at least 33 people dead and more than 70 wounded in North and South Waziristan.

“This incident underscores the need for better coordination, care and restraint by NATO forces, especially when they are operating close to the border,” foreign office spokeswoman Tasneem Aslam told reporters in Islamabad. “We have protested against this incident and we condemn the killing of civilians,” she added.

And I have to mention that the NATO leadership looked incredibly stupid after that:

NATO-led forces admitted June 25 that during an anti-insurgent operation near the shared border, their forces had mistakenly tracked rebels into Pakistani territory and killed up to 10 civilians.

“We regret two things: one that we mistakenly operated inside the Pakistani border, and secondly we regret the loss of civilians in our operation,” an International Security Assistance Force spokesman, Major John Thomas, said in Kabul.

Trained military personnel who don't know how to read maps or use a freaking compass or GPS system? Who are they trying to kid?

And meanwhile, on the Pakistan front, guess who's running the show for those operations?

Senior US officials, including John Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of state, recently visited Pakistan to spell out to opposition leaders that the US is still behind Musharraf, although it will support the participation of secular, democratic political parties in government.

This development occurred even as Washington voiced its dissatisfaction over Musharraf's performance with regard to the Taliban: it pointed to Pakistan's clear involvement in supporting the insurgency in Helmand province since last year.

Indeed, the US was even prepared to withdraw its support of Musharraf, who seized power in 1999, but after a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney to Pakistan, the general remains in favor. Cheney's office is believed to run the United States' Pakistan policy.

What Dick wants, Dick gets. I'll bet he's even counting on flowers and candy.

The reasons are probably twofold: the US needs Pakistan's support should it attack Iran (covert operations into Iran are reportedly already taking place from Pakistan), and the US is concerned over the revival of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan

I think we all know that reason number #1 is the prime motivator for Bushco's continued support of Musharraf - to the tune of $1 billion per year. And Pakistan does have nukes, after all. The US administration knows that Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place politically, so he needs to be propped up in order to survive. Yes, another one of those flourishing "democracies" where Bushco actually runs the place. They're like franchises.

And because Dick just hasn't been able to come up with enough credible evidence to launch his war on Iran now, the newest meme is that there are Iranian weapons in Afghanistan. Karzai denies that charge.

Karzai has said there is no proof the Iranian-marked weapons are provided by Tehran.

"Iran and Afghanistan have never been as friendly as they are today," he said earlier this month.

But a defence ministry general said the government had "evidence", including documents, to prove the weapons were coming into the country for the Taliban, with Tehran's knowledge.

The official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, would not give further details.

Of course he wouldn't. It's spin.

Ratchet up that rhetoric, boys:

"Iran is giving the option to the US that if it does not give Iran a green light on the nuclear issue and its role in the region, Iran can turn Afghanistan into a second Iraq or Vietnam for them," the general said.

Another military general who asked not to be named agreed, saying, "Iran is baring its teeth to the US at this stage" -- but is also capable of destabilising Afghanistan.

I guess since the "hey, there are Iranian-made weapons in Iraq" thing didn't quite cut it, Buscho now has to figure out other ways to convince the world that bombing Iran is an absolute, imminent necessity.

So meanwhile, as these warmongering fools try to stir up even more trouble, they are doing absolutely nothing to make sure that they stop killing innocent people who are obviously just getting in the way of the glorious day when they will win the war on terror - which, by definition, is impossible.

It's a geopolitical game played on the backs of innocents. War for war's sake. War for profiteering. War for oil. Why should they care about dead men, women and children?

It's infuriating and it needs to end. What the hell is my country doing over there?

Related: Wiki's count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001
 

Quote du Jour: IDF Forces Kill a 12 Year Old Palestinian Boy

Via Reuters:

A 12-year-old lay in the street, his arms twisted at odd angles, near a house in a Gaza City neighborhood where residents and medical workers said a shell fired by an Israeli tank exploded.

He was pronounced dead in a hospital along with two men, their bodies shredded by shrapnel. Residents said the men were civilians.

A military spokesman in Tel Aviv said a tank shell fired in Gaza City's Shejaia neighborhood was aimed at a gunman, and he had no information about a house being hit. [Oh, they just never do, do they? -catnip] Residents said tanks in the area later withdrew towards the Israeli frontier.

Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by an anti-tank missile during operations that Israel's deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, described as "preventive measures" [pre-emptive strike, anyone? -catnip] to foil rocket attacks from Gaza.

And Abbas, who is now being funded by not only the US and Egypt, but by the Israeli government as well, released this canned statement:

Commenting on the raid, Abbas told reporters: "We strongly condemn these criminal acts, either in Gaza or the West Bank. We are against violence in all its forms and also we are against launching rockets (at Israel)."

And what about the fact that the IDF just killed 12 of your people, Abbas, including a 12 year old boy? Or is that just too sensitive for you to comment about now?
 

Justifying Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan

It never ceases to amaze me that military spokespeople can spew talking points full of denial and actually believe that others are too dense to see right through them.

How else can you interpret a statement like this - knowing that 90 Afghan civilians were killed last week in botched air strikes and ground combat?

We think the procedures that we have in place are good -- they work," he [U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Votel, NATO's deputy commander in eastern Afghanistan] told reporters at the Pentagon by videolink from Bagram Air Base near Kabul.

No - they don't, obviously.

And he added that "NATO forces had intentionally fired into Pakistan in one recent incident said to have resulted in the killing of civilians."

Now, think of all of the times the US has scolded other countries militaries or insurgent groups for crossing a national border. Think of Israel's response to Hezbollah soldiers crossing over from Lebanon last year and the revenge war that sparked. Yet, the US military has absolutely no qualms about killing Pakistani civilians while insisting that their methods to avoid civilian casualties "work".

Pakistani officials say 10 civilians were killed in the strikes in North Waziristan, opposite Afghanistan's Paktika province. Pakistan publicly urges foreign forces not to carry out operations on its territory or using its airspace.

And note:

Pakistan has said that NATO has apologized for the strike and told Pakistani officials the firing was inadvertent.

Inadvertent? Bullshit.

Addressing an incident last week in the border area with Pakistan, Votel said the local NATO commander had taken action after identifying a sizable group of insurgents that had come across the frontier into Afghanistan.

"The commander on the ground determined that he needed to continue to address that threat until it was eliminated, and that included firing into areas that were in Pakistan," he said.

Every time they open their mouths, they lie.
 

More Children Killed by a US Airstrike in Aghanistan

If there's one phrase that should immediately be removed from the military vernacular when it comes to describing dead civilians in a war zone, it is the completely depersonalizing term "collateral damage". Hit an empty building by mistake? Fine. That's "collateral damage". Kill innocent civilians? Sorry. You don't get to diminish their lives by referring to them as "collateral" or "damage". And, to add further insult to fatal injuries, you don't get to pay off the families with a measly few thousand dollars and walk away with a clear conscience - if you even had one to begin with.

For too long now, the use of military bombings by the US forces in Afghanistan have cost so many lives that one wonders if they've ever heard of the cliche "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." Insanity seems to be the modus operandi of the US military strategy in Afghanistan. Just how many civilians will they kill before they figure out that their tactics are failing?

The lastest headline reads: 7 Children Killed in Airstrike in Afghanistan, but read the fine print:

More than 130 civilians have been killed in airstrikes and shootings in the past six months, according to Afghan authorities.

That toll may soon inflate dismally. Afghan officials said late Monday that more than 50 civilians may have died during fierce fighting over the past three days between NATO forces and the Taliban in the Chora district of the southern province of Uruzgan.

That's NATO - the coalition our Canadian forces are a part of. While Peter Mackay was busy throwing out the same worn out talking points in parliament on Monday about how schools and hospitals are being built, I don't recall him mentioning one word about civilian deaths. Of course he wouldn't and when and if this government does, it comes in the form of an appropriately quiet and sheepish statement of "regret" which is always followed by a "but" to explain just how our presence in Afghanistan is supposedly doing wonders. It's a completely unbalanced lie.

I'd like to see Mackay sit face to face with this man and try to spout off his happy stories, just to see what would happen:

“I have seen with my own eyes that women and children were badly hit by bombing,” said Mullah Ahmidullah Khan, head of Uruzgan’s provincial council. “The fighting is inside the villages, so that’s why the civilians are suffering casualties. I have met some families who have lost almost everyone.”

The US military meanwhile just blames al Qaeda for the children it killed.

Here's the deal people: if you're not 100% sure that there aren't any children or other civilians in your sights, you don't shoot and you sure as hell don't drop a bomb. According to the US spokesperson, they netted 7 "militants" in that air raid that killed those 7 children. Was the trade off worth it guys? You apparently seem to think so or you'd stop this madness. And if your government didn't send you enough damn troops to fight this war on the ground face to face, instead of from airplanes which you prefer to do now, maybe you should be talking to your bosses about that. Not that they fucking care. That's been obvious since the beginning of this so-called war.

So, you keep doing exactly what you're doing: creating generations of enemies while you're at it -- because that's all the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are accomplishing: dead and maimed people and new enemies. And, in case you haven't figured out what that means yet, let me spell it out for you: you're losing the "war on terror". You are terror.
 

Afghanistan: 21 Civilians Killed by Airstrike

Via Reuters:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - An air strike by Western forces killed 21 civilians, including women and children, in Afghanistan, a provincial governor said on Wednesday, the latest in a string of civilian casualties that has riled Afghans.

The incident, which brings to nearly 90 the number of civilian deaths blamed by Afghan officials on Western troops in the past two weeks, comes as President Hamid Karzai faces rising pressure to halt the bloodshed and find a way to start peace talks with Taliban insurgents.

90 dead.

Saying your sorry and dishing out a few thousand dollars to family members is not enough: "The U.S. commander for eastern Afghanistan, Army Colonel John Nicholson, apologized on Tuesday for the killing of 19 civilians by U.S. troops just over a month ago."

Johnson added:

"I stand before you today, deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people," US army spokesman Col John Nicholson told reporters in Washington by video conference from Afghanistan.

"The deaths and wounding of innocent Afghans at the hands of Americans is a stain on our honour and on the memory of the many Americans who have died defending Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

The US military's so-called "honour" was stained a long time ago and feeling ashamed does nothing to bring back those who died needlessly. As nice as it is that he is actually expressing some humanity and responsibility, the thousands of Afghanis who protested these civilian killings would appreciate some assurances that these types of miscalculations will not happen again.

This latest incident shows that they have yet to learn from their mistakes and, in fact, the military again immediately denied reports of dead civilians and claimed they were all members of the Taliban - women and children included.

The bloodshed has returned to levels not seen since the fall of the Taleban in 2001, and a quarter of more than 4,000 people killed last year were believed to have been civilians.

Correspondents say fewer civilians are killed by international forces than in suicide and other attacks by the Taleban.

Well, that's comforting, isn't it? Right.

The way to win those "hearts and minds" is to start by making damn sure you're not killing innocent people. The survivors tend to have very long memories.
 

What's wrong with this news story?

Via The Independent:

Nine civilians, including four children, were killed in Afghanistan when US planes dropped two 2,000lb bombs on their mud home. Their deaths came after at least eight civilians were killed by US Marines a day earlier.

It has been a disastrous two days for the Americans in Afghanistan. First US Marines trying to get to safety after being ambushed by a suicide bomber sprayed gunfire wildly across one of the busiest roads in the country, killing passers-by.

And now US planes have dropped two bombs on a family home, killing children aged between six months and five years.

And what about the disastrous time the Afghans have had what with their children, friends, neighbours, family members and colleagues being bombed, shot at and killed?

What's worse is that the US military is already claiming innocence for these so-called mistakes so none of the survivors will find any justice. These deaths will just be counted as collateral damage and the war will move right along.

It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village.

~Voltaire

Media Censorship by the US Military in Afghanistan

The heavy hand of the US military strikes again:

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghan journalists covering the aftermath of a suicide bomb attack and shooting in eastern Afghanistan Sunday said U.S. troops deleted their photos and video and warned them not to publish or air any images of U.S. troops or a car where three Afghans were shot to death.

Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road in Nangarhar province following a suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said militants also fired on American forces during the attack.

The U.S. military and Afghan officials said eight Afghans died and 34 were wounded in the violence. One Marine was also injured.

A freelance photographer working for The Associated Press and a cameraman working for AP Television News said a U.S. soldier deleted their photos and video showing a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The AP plans to lodge a protest with the American military.

The photographer, Rahmat Gul, said witnesses at the scene told him the three had been shot to death by U.S. forces fleeing the attack. The two AP freelancers arrived at the site about a half hour after the suicide bombing, Gul said.

"When I went near the four-wheel drive, I saw the Americans taking pictures of the same car, so I started taking pictures," Gul said. "Two soldiers with a translator came and said, 'Why are you taking pictures? You don't have permission.'"

It wasn't clear why the accredited journalists would need permission to take photos of a civilian car on a public highway.

more...

Who's going to take responsibility with this abuse of force and authority? And what are those US troops trying to hide?

As well, considering this:

Gul's new photos were also deleted, and the American, speaking through a translator, warned him that he did not want to see any AP photos published anywhere. The American also raised his fist in anger as if he were going to hit him, but he did not strike, Gul said.

I have to wonder if the hatred spread by those in the right-wing blogosphere towards the AP, which many like Michelle Malkin have labeled the "Associated With Terrorists Press" had anything to do with that particular soldier's disdain towards the media organization. I'd almost bet on it. And it won't surprise me one bit when I see them all slapping each other on the back in congratulations in order to take credit for what happened to this photographer either because that's the kind of slime they are.
 

Two Very Disturbing War Stories

One from Afghanistan. The other from Iraq.

Afghanistan:

Thousands of angry demonstrators took to the streets in Afghanistan yesterday after US forces were involved in a panicked shooting which left 16 civilians dead and 23 injured.

Local people as well as a number of Afghan officials accused the American marines of opening fire indiscriminately following a suicide bomb attack on their convoy in Nangarhar province.

With protests continuing to grow, and the police coming under attack from stone- throwing crowds, the US military maintained that the casualties were the victims of a "complex ambush" in which gunmen had carried out a synchronised attack following the blast in which a marine was injured.

But Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar district, where the deaths took place, insisted that they "treated every car and person along the highway as a potential attacker" as they attempted to speed away from the scene of the explosion.

Abdul Ghafour and Noor Agha Zwak, speaking on behalf of the Nangarhar police and government, and Zemeri Bashary, the Interior Ministry spokesman in Kabul, also claimed the deaths and injuries were due to American fire.

Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Monday, March 5 — Iraqi special forces and British troops stormed the offices of an Iraqi government intelligence agency in the southern city of Basra on Sunday, and British officials said they discovered about 30 prisoners, some showing signs of torture.
[...]
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a conservative Shiite, condemned the raid in Basra. He publicly said nothing about the evidence of torture.

“The prime minister has ordered an immediate investigation into the incident of breaking into the security compound in Basra and stressed the need to punish those who have carried out this illegal and irresponsible act,” said the full text of a statement issued late Sunday by his office.

It remained unclear why he sought to pursue the raiding force aggressively rather than the accusations of prisoner abuse. Efforts to reach officials in his office were unsuccessful.

The civilian deaths in Afghanistan will obviously be the subject of an investigation resulting in the usual conflicting reports.

The raid in Basra and al-Maliki's response to it however ought to be raising some serious red flags for those who have gushed about how cooperative and compliant he's been. This situation, coupled with his terse dismissal of an alleged rape perpetrated by Iraqi security officials in February, shows a man who is far too devoted to sectarian interests to be an effective leader of a country in grave turmoil at a time when bridges need to be built between the warring religious factions.

The discovery of prisoners in the Basra offices, which the British described as the headquarters of Iraq’s government intelligence agency, echoed other recent cases in which American or British forces stumbled onto a government-run detention center that held people showing signs of torture.

As recently as December, a combined force of British and Iraqi troops assaulted a police station in Basra and rescued 127 prisoners from fetid conditions. Some of the prisoners had been tortured.

The most significant recent case involved a secret Baghdad prison run by the Shiite-controlled Interior Ministry, known as Site 4 and discovered by American and Iraqi troops last year, where more than 1,400 prisoners were discovered and where some had been subjected to systematic abuse.

al-Maliki has promised a cabinet shuffle within the next couple of weeks in an attempt, he says, to root out corruption. That certainly remains to be seen, especially if he continues to come to the defence of forces that are torturing and raping people. I have a feeling he won't be around much longer - nor should he be - unless the US decides to continue to prop him up so they can get their oil deals sealed.

Related: Media Censorship by the US Military in Afghanistan following the suicide bombing.