90 feared dead in NATO air-strike in Kunduz northern Afghanistan

NATO killed villagers along with the insurgents.I simply cannot understand how this strategy will ever bring peace to this land?

This will breed hatred and animosity, and Taliban dont have to do anything but portray west as enemy and whole lot of taliban will be ready to sacrifice there life.

Any logic cannot justify killing, irrespective of by whom for whom. You are going to attend funeral of soldier, but what about those found in mass grave in western Pakistan.

Russia was there in last decade, and tried to control the tribes, but result known to all. The factors behind the clash is long debated topic.

The issue is why so much interest in Afghanistan? Is it so much geoplitically important that  countries prefer to waste there soldiers there in deserts. It is not simple philanthropy or peace motive, that is killing thousands, WHAT IS THAT?

This flies in  the face of General McChristal's and Obamas strategy in Afghanistan, restricting use of air power to save civilian lifes.  This incident also shows that the Taliban are gaining the  upper hand.  Recent attacks in Kabul and now the stolen tankers in Kunduz show that the Taliban are extending their operations outside of Southern Afghanistan (Khandahar and Hellmand Province). 

According to CBC Newsworld morning news there are conflicting stories on this.  NATO is not talking or at least giving information.  While most locals say this is the result of an airstrike, the Governor apparently says it was the result of RPGs.  If it is RPGs, of course, it would be a Taliban attack.  More to follow.

According to the German video the airstrike was ordered by the German Army

To properly frame this comment, I wrote an article yesterday where I made clear my view that wars are supposed to be ugly, and that we shouldn't be involved with them with unless we have a declaration of war by Congress. And here's what happens...

We are discussing how horrible it is that civilians died in a military air strike. Okay it was a NATO strike, but Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal assumed command of U.S. and other Western forces in Afghanistan in mid-June, so regardless of who did it, we're involved directly. However, I propose that this should be a non-issue IF this was a war declared by Congress for several reasons.

First and foremost our role in Afghanistan would be over. We would have toppled the Taliban and left the mess of cleaning up the aftermath of war to the UN. If they refused to do it, then we could just shrug our shoulders and eject them from New York and the funds we bring to the table, and just ignore the place. After a war is won, if it is done right, the conquered nation isn't likely to invoke a round two and bring further calamity upon themselves.

The next reason is that with a formal declaration of war, we are at war with a nation. And although you don't target civilians, it's not your problem if civilians are in the vicinity of military targets. If the Taliban uses human shields, then I'm sorry but that isn't our problem. Eventually people would not want to be near them, or they would just suffer the consequences.

I can't help but notice that every article on this is blaming NATO and General McChrystal, no word about Obama or any reasonable degree of scrutiny. The press is too busy protecting Obama, and not busy enough just doing what reporters are supposed to do... report the news and ask tough questions.

Very sad news.

The total number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001 is estimated at 31,000. 

lorac, here's what happened...

Insurgents using a smuggling route for foreign fighters and weaponry entering Iraq were the targets of a May 19 strike near the Iraq-Syrian border.

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Multinational Force Iraq, was asked about reports that the strike killed dozens of Iraqis at a wedding party.

Foreign fighters and weapons smugglers seeking to enter Iraq, Kimmitt said, frequent the area that was attacked. Available military intelligence, he pointed out, "was sufficient for us to believe to conduct that operation."

"We believe that we operated within the rules of engagement," noted Kimmitt, who was accompanied at the briefing by Dan Senor, chief spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The attack, Kimmitt said, targeted about 35 men and some women gathered near four-wheel-drive vehicles far from any town. Afterward, he said, U.S. ground forces found weapons, Iraqi and Syrian money, and a satellite radio.

U.S. authorities, the general said, "are satisfied at this point that the intelligence that led us there was validated by what we found on the ground -- and it was not that there was a wedding party going on."

Kimmitt told reporters that U.S. officials would conduct an investigation of the incident. "We may find out new information that we don't have currently," he said.

Still, the general said, he remains convinced that the operation was valid. The U.S. attack, he pointed out, occurred "in the middle of the barren desert" in the early morning "which is kind of an odd time to be having a wedding."

It was 2:45am to be exact. But I realize that all too many Americans blame us and believe terrorists first. Typically the same folks who now wont connect the word "Obama" with the failures in Afghanistan.

Because ... "which is kind of an odd time to be having a wedding", they must be terrorists and killing them is justified ... ?! So wedding has to be in American time, otherwise its not a valid wedding, eh?

Without having accurate information how can u act and drop missiles in a wedding?!

Thanks for your comments akmal.