Enduring freedom

September 20, 2003 2:53 AM

Eight women and children killed by US bombing in Afghanistan. Nothing on CNN or BBC so far. An MSNBC/AP report describes the victims as "tribesmen", others described them only as "gypsies".
posted by Eloquence (19 comments total)

I do not imply that the US forces are deliberately killing civilians, of course. However, to prevent mistakes and to warn against the horrors of war, such deaths need to be publicized. It appears, however, that reports of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly degraded in priority.

In addition, it seems possible that the underreporting of this story so far has to do with the fact that the victims were women and children; this is not only important because of the emotional impact of that fact, but also because it indicates that they were not Taliban fighters, whereas it is almost certain that the US military would label male victims Taliban fighters or "terrorists" whenever they can, thereby reducing criticism.
posted by Eloquence at 3:00 AM on September 20, 2003

I don't see how these deaths are being degraded in priority; civilian Afghan/Iraqi deaths have never been a priority in the Western media.
posted by Blue Stone at 4:58 AM on September 20, 2003

They're called surgical strikes because once they're done you need loads of surgeons.
posted by elpapacito at 5:58 AM on September 20, 2003

Your post has sent me on a quest to find the most recent civilian death toll; it's trickier to google than it would seem. Anybody got an accurate analysis?
posted by DenOfSizer at 6:00 AM on September 20, 2003

Afghanistan? Isn't that next to Bolivia? What's the US doing there?
posted by troutfishing at 6:26 AM on September 20, 2003

By coincidence I was just reading Salam Pax's online BBC interview:

"'Salam Pax':
What I meant when I said "not as bad as expected" - they did not go and carpet bomb whole civilian areas. Yes, of course, the number of troops - anything that looked like a military place - they just totally erased it. But what I meant with this is that we were expecting civilian areas to get much more damage and this didn't happen during the air raids, especially in Baghdad - - other cities, yes, other cities they had lots of casualties.

A friend of my mine was working with this NGO trying to find out about civilian casualties because of bombing, because of troop movements in cities and when they were being offered financial support by USAID, they specifically - USAID - told them, we will not give you any money unless you stop looking for civilian casualties. So yes, of course they will never tell you what happened - you will have to depend on independent sources to tell you the number of civilians that were killed. As to the troops - no one will know. "
posted by Blue Stone at 7:01 AM on September 20, 2003

Maybe it's Sweeps Week, or perhaps the new fall television shows are starting.
posted by mischief at 7:47 AM on September 20, 2003

Or maybe because it is a single sourced account less than eight hours old, on a day when the big story on the east coast is hurricane damage that has hammered DC, all the star reporters are either off today, or trying to get the downed trees off of their driveways, and the Pentagon has yet to comment or indeed confirm that they actually bombed anything? Maybe?

Also, a related note yesterday's accounts in the British media of "at least eight" or "dozens" of dead US soldiers turned out to be wrong (three killed). So maybe we shouldn't jump all over these guys for first confirming a story before running it.
posted by ednopantz at 9:11 AM on September 20, 2003

It's on BBC now.
posted by Akuinnen at 9:17 AM on September 20, 2003

On MSNBC too.
posted by Akuinnen at 9:20 AM on September 20, 2003

Afghanistan? How many times do we have to win that war?
posted by kirkaracha at 9:26 AM on September 20, 2003

Akuinnen: The BBC article does not mention the fact that the killed "tribespeople" were women and children. It is also not among the top stories listed in the first column of the website.
posted by Eloquence at 10:02 AM on September 20, 2003

Move along now, nothing to see here.
posted by Blue Stone at 10:19 AM on September 20, 2003

Also, a related note yesterday's accounts in the British media of "at least eight" or "dozens" of dead US soldiers turned out to be wrong (three killed). So maybe we shouldn't jump all over these guys for first confirming a story before running it.

.. so despite the press's tendency to jump all over stories, with the "at least eight" / "dozens" stories, it must be that this story not being reported widely is a case of them "first confirming a story".

I'm confused.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:21 AM on September 20, 2003

at least eight
nitpick: the guardian reported 'up to eight'.
posted by carfilhiot at 12:11 PM on September 20, 2003

nitpick noted, I thought the BBC ran the "at least," but I can't confirm it since online journalism doesn't believe in running corrections.

I would also note that with something like a third of the DC area without power, I suspect that the PR guys at the Pentagon aren't exactly jumping to organize a press conference.

The point was that we should applaud careful reporting and not prematurely condemn people for failing to shout unconfirmed news from the rooftops. I pity anyone who has to get the truth about a story like this. Everyone involved has to lie about what happened.
posted by ednopantz at 1:45 PM on September 20, 2003

Eesh! I somehow lost two words.

Everyone involved has a reason to lie about what happened.
posted by ednopantz at 1:46 PM on September 20, 2003

ednopantz: You are very naive if you believe that the press will now "confirm" the story and then report it with the attention it deserves.
posted by Eloquence at 8:18 PM on September 20, 2003

ednopantz: You are very naive if you believe that the press will now "confirm" the story and then report it with the attention it deserves.

But that's what we have you for Eloquense. We applaud you for digging this up and bringing it to our attention... exposing the truth. Fuck the elite media, fuck 'em right in the ass man. Oh an ednopantz... don't even try to find another way of looking at this. Eloquence has made it clear that you're naive and (s)he's got all the answers. How can you not see that?
posted by Witty at 7:23 AM on September 21, 2003