未在直播

冲突 · 跨境空袭

巴基斯坦声称没有平民伤亡。联合国称阿富汗遭袭，儿童丧生。

UNAMA评估称，库纳尔省和赫尔曼德省至少有10名平民死亡，其中大多数是儿童。巴基斯坦声称打击的是武装人员目标且没有造成附带损害，并表示行动将继续。

播出 文字 阅读需 8 分钟92 个来源

新闻追踪第 5 天

1 篇报道51 家媒体92 个来源

  • 暂无标注日期的事件
  1. 第 1 次更新巴基斯坦声称没有平民伤亡。联合国称阿富汗遭袭，儿童丧生。当前位置

译自英文原文。

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

巴基斯坦称，其在阿富汗境内实施的空袭没有造成附带损害。联合国特派团的评估却讲述了不同的情况：2026年10月1日凌晨，库纳尔省和赫尔曼德省至少有10名平民丧生，其中大多数是儿童，另有9人受伤。尽管如此，巴基斯坦仍宣布，其行动将“全速”继续。平民伤亡经过独立评估；所谓精准打击的保证则没有。 23 61

巴基斯坦信息与广播部承认在阿富汗境内实施空袭，并声称最初打死22名武装人员。这一数字仍未经独立核实。联合国阿富汗援助团（UNAMA）确认两个省份均有平民伤亡，但其伤亡声明本身并未点名实施袭击的国家。巴基斯坦的承认与联合国的评估共同表明，这不只是两国政府之间的分歧：巴基斯坦称没有造成任何平民伤亡的袭击，实际上导致平民死亡。 61 23

关键事实

  1. 至少10人平民死亡；大多数是儿童 23
  2. 9空袭中受伤的人数 23

关于袭击对当地造成何种影响，最清晰的叙述来自库纳尔省。遭轰炸村庄的一名30岁居民穆罕默德·哈希姆告诉美联社，袭击发生在凌晨3点左右。他从废墟中救出一名受伤妇女，随后发现两名男子和四名儿童的尸体。他的讲述描述了一次救援和遗体搜寻，并非对两个省份全部伤亡情况的完整统计。 1

这六具遗体并非应当加到UNAMA最低死亡人数之上的额外死者。相关报道谈的是同一批袭击，目前没有逐一核对受害者的资料。法新社的另一篇报道提到，一名同名农民在楚甘山谷描述了一名被埋在废墟下的妇女，以及一名男子和四名遇难儿童。这些说法相近但并不完全相同；不应将其合并成一句引语，也不能据此凭空增加另一项总数。 1 79

另一名居民伊德里斯·汗称，遇难者是平民，其中包括妇女和儿童。在该报道中，凌晨3点左右的时间是当地官员提供的，并非汗本人所说。库纳尔袭击的大致时间也不应被当作赫尔曼德省和库纳尔省每次袭击的时间戳。 71

房屋与不断变化的伤亡人数

塔利班发言人扎比乌拉·穆贾希德指出，受影响地点是库纳尔省舒尔坦区的楚甘和赫尔曼德省格尔姆塞尔区的萨法尔。这些地名也写作Chawgam或Chogam、Shaltan和Garmsir。楚甘和萨法尔是各自区内的地点，并非独立的行政区。穆贾希德称，两个省共有三所平民住宅被毁；目前没有经过独立核实的逐栋统计。 50 11

各方对地点的报道并不一致。AtlasPress在10月1日的报道中将萨法尔列为格雷什克地区，而Khaama Press当天的报道则称其位于格尔姆塞尔。TOLOnews也报道了穆贾希德明确指出的地点，即萨法尔位于格尔姆塞尔。目前尚无精确的空袭坐标、被击中建筑的完整清单，也不清楚各处住宅的伤亡分布。 8 10 50

伤亡评估在当天也有所变化。穆贾希德最初报告称，9名平民死亡，其中包括妇女和儿童，另有11人受伤。路透社于10月1日报道了阿富汗政府此前公布的这一数据。UNAMA后来评估，平民死亡人数至少为10人，另有9人受伤。此前的说法并非目前的独立评估，但两者之间的差异尚未得到解释。 11 23

没有找到任何有记录的正式更正，能够说明这一差异究竟源于核实、分类、来自不同地点的信息，还是其他原因。将后来公布的死亡人数与较早公布的受伤人数合并计算，会得出任何一项评估都不支持的总数。在10月1日的报道中，没有发现UNAMA后来经过核实的官方数据修订。 4 23

穆贾希德谴责这些袭击是“违反所有公认原则的侵略和犯罪”。这是阿富汗当局的政治谴责，并非司法机关对刑事责任的认定。独立评估确认的死亡事实本身就成立，无须将这一指控说成裁决。 50

声称打击精准，未能证明平民受到保护

巴基斯坦称，袭击是基于情报、针对两个地点的武装人员营地和藏身处实施的选择性打击。该国信息部声称，武器和弹药已被摧毁，并使用“Fitna al Khwarij”和“Fitna al Hindustan”指称所谓目标；这是巴基斯坦对与TTP有关联和与BLA有关联团体使用的称谓。这些袭击中目标的组织关联、武装人员死亡人数、武器损失以及打击精准度，均未得到独立证实。 61 22

已采取最大限度的预防措施，并确保不会造成任何附带损害。

巴基斯坦信息与广播部 61

声称采取了预防措施，与证明这些措施保护了平民，并不是一回事。联合国的评估与该部关于没有造成附带损害的保证相矛盾。不过，这并不能证明没有武装人员死亡。同样，声称武装人员死亡，也不能抹去平民丧生的事实。

至少10名平民死亡与巴基斯坦声称打死22名武装人员，不能相加成为经核实的总死亡人数。目前没有对所有死者进行独立核对的统计，也不清楚所称的不同类别是否存在重叠、每个地点是否都有武装人员，或选择这些目标的依据是什么。缺少这份统计，既妨碍我们了解此次袭击，也影响对下一次袭击所提理由的评估。 1 61

Amu TV、德新社和自由欧洲电台／自由电台称，10月1日是约10天内第三轮公开报道的巴基斯坦在阿富汗境内实施的空袭。此前，9月21日曾有报道称，库纳尔省和帕克蒂卡省遭到空袭；之后9月的一轮袭击发生在坎大哈省、帕克蒂亚省和霍斯特省。这是公开报道的袭击序列，并非对所有行动的完整官方统计。所谓此前约三个月相对平静，指的是9月下旬恢复袭击之前的时期，而不是截至10月1日结束的一段暂停期。 4 14 29 6

更广泛的平民伤亡已经相当严重。UNAMA表示，截至2026年日历年目前为止，该机构记录到阿富汗因跨境武装暴力造成的平民死亡和受伤人数超过1,100人。这是死亡与受伤人数合计，并非超过1,100人死亡，也不是阿富汗所有暴力事件的伤亡统计。10月1日的死伤是否已计入其中尚未说明；在这一门槛数字上再加19人，会凭空制造该机构并未公布的精确度。 23

UNAMA呼吁缓和局势、开展对话、尊重国际法并防止更多平民伤亡。与此同时，巴基斯坦宣布将继续行动，却没有说明下一次行动的日期、目标名单或行动结束日期。危险不仅在于伤亡统计尚未厘清，还在于后续袭击可能继续进行，而巴基斯坦仍坚持其保护平民的保证，但此次袭击有记录在案的后果与这项保证相矛盾。 23 61

本报道的消息来源

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

播出原貌 12 行
  1. Pakistani airstrikes killed children in civilian homes. At least ten civilians are dead and nine people injured, contradicting the assurance of no collateral damage, while Pakistan’s campaign is set to continue. What is established about who died, and what remains unknown before any further attacks?
  2. Pakistan acknowledged conducting aerial strikes inside Afghanistan. The attacks hit Kunar and Helmand overnight into the early hours of October first, twenty twenty-six. The independent civilian casualty assessment identifies both provinces but does not itself name the attacking country. Its minimum death toll is not a final count of everyone killed.
  3. In Kunar, thirty-year-old Mohammad Hashim pulled an injured woman from rubble, then found the bodies of two men and four children. The strike was around three in the morning. That approximate timing applies to this Kunar strike, not necessarily every attack across both provinces.
  4. Those six bodies must not be added to the minimum of ten civilian deaths. They concern the same attacks, and no complete victim-by-victim accounting is available. A separate description involving a farmer with the same name refers to a woman beneath rubble and a man with four children killed. Those close but different descriptions cannot be merged into one exact quotation or used to establish another total. Another resident, Idris Khan, described civilian victims, including women and children. The roughly three o’clock timing attached to that description came from a local official, not Khan. None of these descriptions inventories all casualties in both provinces.
  5. The affected areas lie in two separate provinces. The resolved Afghan official locations are Chugam, within Shultan district in Kunar, and Safar, within Garmser district in Helmand. Chugam is also written Chawgam or Chogam; Shultan appears as Shaltan, and Garmser as Garmsir. Chugam and Safar are areas, not separate districts. A conflicting location description placed Safar in Gereshk; the resolved official description places it in Garmser. Exact strike coordinates, every building hit and a house-by-house distribution of casualties remain unavailable.
  6. The civilian count changed from nine killed and eleven injured to at least ten killed and nine injured. The earlier Afghan-government figures preceded the independent assessment. The accompanying destruction claim covers three civilian homes across Kunar and Helmand, without an independently verified house-by-house breakdown. No explanation establishes whether the difference in casualties reflects verification, classification, information from different locations or something else. There is no documented formal correction explaining it, and no verified later official revision in the October first material. Taking the higher death count and the earlier injury count would create a combination neither assessment establishes. The Afghan condemnation of the strikes as aggression and a crime is a political position, not a judicial determination of criminal responsibility.
  7. The independently assessed civilian deaths and injuries contradict the assurance that no collateral damage occurred. Pakistan’s operation was presented as intelligence-based, selective strikes on militant camps and hideouts at two locations, with an initial claim of twenty-two militants killed and large quantities of weapons and ammunition destroyed. Those alleged militant deaths, weapons losses and claims of precision have not been independently established. Saying precautions were taken is different from demonstrating that they protected civilians.
  8. The alleged targets carried the labels Fitna al Khwarij and Fitna al Hindustan, terms Pakistan uses for TTP-linked and BLA-linked groups. Those affiliations have not been independently established for these strikes. The operation forms part of Ghazab lil Haq under the vision called Azm e Istehkam. Its stated justification is protecting Pakistani citizens from threats emanating from Afghanistan, alongside a characterization of Afghanistan as a hub of terrorism. Those are the operation’s arguments, not established descriptions of the people killed in the homes.
  9. Ten civilian deaths and twenty-two claimed militant deaths cannot be added into a verified combined toll. There is no independently reconciled accounting of everyone killed, whether the claimed categories overlap, whether militants were present at each location, or what evidence supported selecting those targets. Civilian casualties do not prove that no militants died. A militant death claim does not erase the civilians killed.
  10. Three rounds of air attacks inside Afghanistan have been publicly described in about ten days. The September twenty-first round identified Kunar and Paktika; a later September round identified Kandahar, Paktia and Khost. October first brought strikes in Kunar and Helmand. That sequence is not a comprehensive official count of every operation. Roughly three months of relative calm refers to the period before attacks resumed in late September, not a pause ending with these October strikes.
  11. More than eleven hundred civilian deaths and injuries have been documented in Afghanistan from cross-border armed violence so far in twenty twenty-six. That is a combined measure of people killed and injured, not eleven hundred deaths, and not a tally of every form of violence in Afghanistan. The threshold appeared before October first and again alongside this strike assessment. Whether the current ten deaths and nine injuries are already included is unspecified. Adding nineteen to that threshold would manufacture precision the published accounting does not provide.
  12. Pakistan has announced that the campaign will continue at full pace. The civilian deaths are independently established; the claimed militant toll and targeting evidence remain unverified, and the complete casualty accounting is unresolved. That answers what can be established now, but not who else died or what further operations will do to civilians. The demands for de-escalation, dialogue, respect for international law and prevention of further civilian harm stand alongside a continuation announcement that specifies no date for another operation, no target list and no campaign end date.

来源

92 个来源51 家媒体2 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。