Death toll rises after attack on church in east Congo church
Dieudonne Duranthabo, a civil society coordinator, said: 'The bodies of the victims are still at the scene of the tragedy, and volunteers are preparing how to bury them in a mass grave that we are preparing in a compound of the Catholic church.'
At least five other people were killed in an earlier attack on the nearby village of Machongani, where a search is ongoing.
'They took several people into the bush; we do not know their destination or their number,' Lossa Dhekana, a civil society leader in Ituri, told reporters.
Both attacks are believed to have been carried out by members of the Allied Democratic Force (ADF) armed with guns and machetes.
The military has confirmed at least 10 fatalities, while local media reports put the total death toll at more than 40.
Mr Duranthabo said attackers stormed the church in Komanda town at around 1am. Several houses and shops were also burnt.
Lt Jules Ngongo, a Congolese army spokesperson in Ituri province, confirmed 10 were killed in the church attack.
Video footage from the scene shared online appeared to show burning structures and bodies on the floor of the church. Those who were able to identify some of the victims wailed while others stood in shock.
A UN-backed radio station said 43 people were killed, citing security sources. It said the attackers came from a stronghold around seven miles from the centre of Komanda and fled before security forces could arrive.
Mr Duranthabo condemned the attack 'in a town where all the security officials are present'.
He added: 'We demand military intervention as soon as possible, since we are told the enemy is still near our town.'
Eastern Congo has suffered deadly attacks in recent years by armed groups, including the ADF and Rwanda-backed rebels.
The ADF, which has ties to the so-called Islamic State, operates in the borderland between Uganda and Congo and often targets civilians.
The group killed dozens of people in Ituri earlier this month in what a United Nations spokesperson described as a bloodbath.
The ADF was formed by disparate small groups in Uganda in the late 1990s following alleged discontent with President Yoweri Museveni.
In 2002, following military assaults by Ugandan forces, the group moved its activities to neighbouring Congo and has since been responsible for the killings of thousands of civilians. In 2019, it pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.
The Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC), which has long struggled against the rebel group, has been facing attacks since the renewed hostilities between the Rwanda-backed M23.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
PETER VAN ONSELEN: UN climate boss makes LUDICROUS claim about daily habit Aussies will be forced to give up because of warming - turning off the very people he needs to win over
When Simon Stiell, the UN's top climate official, warns Australians that unless we lift our game on emissions, fruit and veggies will become 'a once-a-year treat', you know he's jumped the shark. That kind of rhetoric may stir applause from activists who are already won over to the climate cause, but it risks turning off the very people who weigh up what practical action should look like. You don't have to be a climate change denier to fall into that category. Climate change is real, most people accept that. The science is sound, people know that too. The dangers posed by a warming planet are therefore not to be underestimated. But packaging the argument in short term apocalyptic headlines doesn't strengthen the cause, it weakens it. It sounds like activism, not expert analysis, and that distinction matters. When the debate becomes saturated with worst case scenarios and doom-laden predictions, most people dismiss those who deliver inflated rhetoric as lacking credibility. Stiell might believe he's spurring governments into action, but for mainstream voters, the ones who decide elections, this sort of messaging can feel more like an old fashioned guilt trip. It becomes counterproductive to the cause. Australia is preparing to update its 2035 emissions reduction target right when the Labor government has ambitions to co-host a global climate summit. And the UN's climate tsar seems to think fresh alarmism will spur Labor into more action. But that will not be the case if his sensationalising makes the government look like its plans are rooted in activism. Younger voters tend to be more inclined to listen to the alarmism, but the electorate is broader than one generation still finding their feet in life. The case for serious emissions reduction is strong, but it must be made with rigour. Suggesting fresh produce will become a luxury good - or that living standards are set to collapse without dramatic policy shifts in Australia - makes for a good headline but is poor public engagement. It risks framing climate policy as a punitive exercise rather than an economic and technological opportunity. It also ignores the reality that Australia is a very small emitter on the global stage even if our per capita emissions are too high. What we do, or don't do, matters little if the likes of China and India don't do much more than they currently are. There are plenty of nations in greater need of lectures than we are. Australians aren't oblivious to climate risks, but they are wary of poor policies, broken promises and emissions targets that are often costly and don't get met anyway. Voters want action that's credible, not utopian and dreamy. They also want costed plans, not alarmist lectures, especially in the context of rising energy prices and concerns about reliability. The Coalition is already highlighting the economic burden of the government's major emissions reduction policy - known as the safeguard mechanism - and other net zero policies. The public will want proper answers to a problem - not simplistic fear mongering. The credibility of climate action depends on public trust. That means being transparent about costs and benefits, about timelines, trade-offs and targets. It means avoiding exaggerated claims that can't be sustained if the short-term doesn't mirror the long-term projection. Just because opponents of climate action use fear and verbosity is no reason for advocates who claim to be on the side of science to dash their credibility by returning fire. If the government wants to be taken seriously at home and abroad, it should focus less on emotionally charged appeals and more on policy design that builds confidence. There's merit in the idea of setting ambitious targets with built-in flexibility, allowing for adjustments as new technology develops and economic conditions change. That's the kind of thinking that builds consensus and keeps momentum going. Those urging rapid decarbonisation, net zero within a decade, or 65 per cent emissions cuts by 2035 need to ground their calls in practical pathways. Without them, they risk pushing the conversation to the fringes. There's nothing wrong with urgency, but it should be channelled into persuading the undecided rather than trying to pressure them. If Stiell wants Australia to lead, avoid the junk threats. After all, science is already on his side.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
West should demand that Hamas must surrender… unilateral declarations recognising a state of Palestine won't defeat it
TWO things can be true at the same time: there is a real humanitarian crisis in Gaza but also that the West is being force-fed propaganda images of sick children who aren't starving but have underlying sicknesses. Both things benefit the terrorist organisation Hamas which has always been happy to sacrifice the Gazan people in its quest to destroy Israel. 2 2 The present food crisis is a result of Israel trying to stop Hamas using humanitarian aid to pay its fighters. The terrorist group creams off aid, sells it and keeps some for Hamas fighters. The war might have destroyed a large part of Gaza and killed up to 60,000 people (according to the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry) – around half of them Hamas (according to Israel) – but still Hamas refuses to admit defeat and give back the 50 Israeli hostages it still holds. So Israel tried to hit Hamas where it hurt, in the pocket, by using an American organisation called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) which gives out aid free at source. In response, Hamas has attacked and killed people on their way to GHF sites and provoked soldiers guarding the perimeter into gun battles leading to the death of civilians. They have robbed people on their way home and killed Palestinian GHF workers. The GHF is only working in a small part of Gaza and the UN was meant to continue feeding the rest but there was a standoff over how that food was delivered. Israel was demanding that the UN -backed organisation stopped using Hamas policemen to 'guard' the aid, the UN refused to use either Israel troops or GHF workers to protect it instead. So we ended up with people being hungry while 950 trucks of food and aid was inside Gaza and beginning to rot. Western fury means that those trucks and many others will now feed Gaza but the question remains over how to defeat Hamas. Just last week the group walked out of ceasefire talks as it gleefully saw governments turn on Israel. One thing is true: unilateral declarations recognising a state of Palestine won't do it.
Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
France calls on EU to pressure Israel to move on Palestinian two-state solution
Jean-Noel Barrot, the French foreign minister, told reporters at the United Nations that while there is international consensus that the time for a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now, world powers need to back up their words with actions. 'The European Commission, on behalf of the EU, has to express its expectations and show the means that we can incentivise the Israeli government to hear this appeal,' he said. Mr Barrot spoke on the first day of a high-level UN meeting on a two-state solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is being co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. The conference, which was postponed from June and downgraded to the ministerial level, is taking place in New York as international condemnation of Israel's handling of the war in Gaza reaches a fever pitch. Both Israel and its closest ally, the United States, refused to participate in the meeting, which Mr Barrot said is being attended by representatives of 125 countries, including 50 ministers. The aim of the conference, Mr Barrot said, is 'to reverse the trend of what is happening in the region – mainly the erasure of the two-state solution, which has been for a long time the only solution that can bring peace and security in the region.' He urged the European Commission to call on Israel to lift a financial blockade on two billion euros he says the Israeli government owes the Palestinian Authority; stop settlement building in the West Bank, which threatens the territorial integrity of a future Palestinian state; and end the 'militarised' food delivery system in Gaza by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has resulted in hundreds of killings. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the two-state solution on both nationalistic and security grounds. The US has echoed its sentiment and on Monday called the conference 'unproductive and ill-timed'. 'The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace,' State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement. 'Our focus remains on serious diplomacy: not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance.' Ahead of the meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise Palestine as a state at the annual gathering of world leaders at the UN General Assembly in September. The bold but mostly symbolic move is aimed at adding diplomatic pressure on Israel. France is now the biggest Western power and the only member of the Group of Seven major industrialised nations to recognise the state of Palestine, and the move could pave the way for other countries to do the same. More than 140 countries recognise a Palestinian state, including more than a dozen in Europe. At the conference opening, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa called for all countries who have not yet recognised Palestine as a state to do so 'without delay'. 'The path to peace begins by recognising the state of Palestine and preserving it from destruction,' he said. The other issue being discussed at the conference is normalisation between Israel and the Arab states in the region. Prince Faisal bin Farhan, the Saudi foreign minister, stressed that normalisation of relations with Israel 'can only come through the establishment of a Palestinian state'. With global anger rising over desperately hungry people in Gaza starting to die from starvation, US President Donald Trump on Monday called for increasing aid to Palestinians, a rare glimpse of daylight between him and Mr Netanyahu, who has said there is no starvation. Both Mr Barrot and Mr Farhan said on Monday that the US is an essential actor in the region and that it was the president in January who secured the only ceasefire in the 21-month war. 'I am firmly in the belief that Trump's engagement can be a catalyst for an end to the immediate crisis in Gaza and potentially a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the long term,' Mr Farhan said.
