quote:

---

CBC: Villagers arriving at a hospital in Kandahar City for treatment said as many as 50 civilians had been killed and dozens more wounded in the attack.

---

Air strikes on Afghan village kills dozens

This is the same area that Canadian Capt. Nichola Goddard was killed, the Panjwayi district of Kandahar. "I can confirm there's been an air strike by coalition forces against a known Taliban stronghold in the village of Azizi," said Capt. Marcus Eaves, press officer (propagandist) for the British Army in Afghanistan.

Supplemental:

quote:

---

Seattle Post Intelligencer: It was not possible for reporters to reach Azizi because police and foreign troops had blocked off the area, which is about 30 miles southwest of Kandahar.

---

Further,

quote:

---

More than a dozen villagers, many of them wounded, fled the area to the main southern city of Kandahar early Monday. At the city's Mirwaise Hospital, one man with blood smeared over his clothes and turban, said insurgents had been hiding in an Islamic religious school in the village after fierce fighting in recent days.

"Helicopters bombed the madrassa and some of the Taliban ran from there and into people's homes. Then those homes were bombed," said Haji Ikhlaf, 40. "I saw 35 to 40 dead Taliban and around 50 dead or wounded civilians."

Another survivor from the village, Zurmina Bibi, who was cradling her wounded 8-month-old baby, said about 10 people were killed in her home, including three or four children. "There were dead people everywhere," she said, crying.

---

I can't see this as "winning hearts and minds". But then again, if the "coalition" forces kill more Afghani civilians then there are less of them to "help" anyway.

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I have yet to hear a truly plausible reason why Canadians are there...

---

To rebuild villages after U.S. bombing raids.

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

To rebuild villages after U.S. bombing raids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by greyflannel:
Guernica.

---

quote:

---

Don't be so cynical. The fascists killed innocent people for bad reasons. We're doing it for their own good. Believe me, it hurts us more than it hurts them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

unionist, what happened to you last night? Did someone steal your brain and replace it with Iggy's?

---

Iggy is misunderstood. He actually adores people from developing countries, even those who don't appreciate fine wines and have never been to Harvard. That's why he treats them to torture and armed invasion. It's an S&M kinda love.

[EDITED to avoid misunderstanding. Still ironic, though.]

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Iggy is misunderstood. He actually adores inferior races, even those who don't appreciate fine wines and have never been to Harvard. That's why he treats them to torture and armed invasion. It's an S&M kinda love.

---

Aw I get it. So he is like the Marquis de Sade only with full clothing and no leather hood mask, and with better taste in wine.

And Harper couldn't wait to cuddle up to G.W. Bush who, it is believed by many of his own citizens, should face trial as a war crimonal.

That's because Canadians were busy elsewhere, at the village of Tolokan:

quote:

---

Fighting that began last Wednesday has been raging in the Panjwai district, about 15 miles west of the city of Kandahar. In Sunday night's operation, coalition forces, led by Canadian troops on the ground and supported by American planes, mounted their second operation in a week against a large Taliban presence in and near Panjwai, a military statement said.

"The purpose of this operation was to detain individuals suspected of terrorist and anti-Afghanistan activities," said the statement, issued from Kabul. "These individuals were active members of the Taliban network and have conducted attacks against coalition and Afghan forces as well as civilians."

The coalition encountered organized resistance and called in additional ground and air support, another statement said.

Planes started bombing close to midnight Sunday and continued for four or five hours into Monday, said residents of Tolokan.

Mohammed Rafiq, a 23-year-old farmer, said the bombs had caused enormous destruction. "I don't have anything left," he said.

Another farmer, Azizullah, 30, said three members of his family had been killed. "I was at home when the Taliban came to our village last night," he said. "After some time, U.S. planes came and bombed the Taliban and they bombed us, too."

When he went out in the morning to go to the hospital, he said, he saw dozens of dead Taliban fighters on the ground, apparently killed in the aerial bombardment. Sixteen villagers were also killed and 15 were wounded, he and other villagers said. Fifteen wounded people were in the hospital, including an 8-month-old baby, doctors confirmed.

Another villager, Taj Muhammad, said two of his brothers had been killed, and others in his family were wounded. He said that when the bombing started, the Taliban were desperately trying to take shelter and were not trying to fight.

---

quote:

---

Does anyone know what happens to the bodies of the dead "Taliban"? I suspect the family is not allowed to come in and collect their sons.

---

Your question should be directed toward the authors of these atrocities, Bush and Harper.

You probably won't get an answer since they would have, no doubt, considered the victims a bunch of insignificant ragheads.

I would gladly use soap made from that pair of war criminals - or those that drop the bombs.

50 Taliban dead, good start. More wounded and captured. Good news.

Now, if the Taliban were functioning like a regular army (ie a centralised responsible command structure) coalition forces would be able to notify said army's hq as to the where about's of the dead IAW the Conventions. As it stands now, to prevent the spread of disease, they would be buried, the graves plainly marked.

I am not going to weep for scumbags and murderers, which is an apt description for the Taliban. I fact, the more of them that give up the life, or die fighting, the better.

FACT: Taliban harboured known terrorists, including OBL.

FACT: The Taliban provided financial support and a recruiting base.

FACT: The Taliban get back into power, and all you will be weeping that we did not do enough in the months to follow.

I am done here. The infantile remarks, and the silly clinging to supposition, bullshit and blatent lies I have seen in the past couple of months, couple with the unfettered open hatred displayed by some leaves me feeling nothing but hostility and contempt for this board and the majority that post here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
Enjoy life. It is what the soldiers over seas are trying to secure for you.

---

Oh, fuck you. Go and play with your GI Joe dolls and leave the grownups alone.

My life is under no threat at all from afghan tribesmen, and never was, no matter how many you kill or how tough you think you are when you do it.

If you and the soldiers in our army want to jerk off to 'saving the world' fantasies, I can't stop you, but there's no way in hell I'm going to encourage you to do so.

We're over in some dark corner of asia backing the drug dealers against the fundamentalists, for the greater glory of Exxon. This ain't saving the universe.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]

quote:

---

Reason: Any civilian casualties are a tragedy.

---

Actually, it's a violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention, The Hague Conventions with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1899 and 1907, and avoiding killing civilians is considered a moral and legal duty. So ...it's more like a crime since it is preventable and not a tragedy, which is typically an unavoidable calamity.

quote:

---

50 Taliban dead, good start.

---

Celebrating death. Uh huh. So I guess those who take the antagonistic view are perfectly entitled to celebrate the death of US and Canadian troops?

quote:

---

Now, if the Taliban were functioning like a regular army ...

---

This is a variation on the theme, "Why don't they stand still so we can kill more of them?"

quote:

---

FACT: Taliban harboured known terrorists, including OBL.

---

FACT: The USA couldn't be bothered to provide evidence at the time of their bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan of OBL's connection to 9-11. Evidence was irrelevant.

quote:

---

FACT: The Taliban get back into power, and all you will be weeping that we did not do enough in the months to follow.

---

Afghan public opinion considers the war lords and drug lords that are part of Karzai's puppet regime as worse than the Taliban. Worse.

quote:

---

I am done here. ... Enjoy life. It is what the soldiers over seas are trying to secure for you.

---

That's hilarious. The soldiers overseas are carrying out the mission assigned to them by their political masters. What's being secured is, among other things, Unocal's oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Oh yea. Poppy production is way up as well. That will be good for the legal and illegal trade in opiates. Business, after all, is business. And of course, more money for the military means less money for things like....child care, health care, social programs for Canadians, and genuine development assistance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann: Canada should inform the US that in the event of any further such attacks causing large numbers of civilian casualties, Canada will begin planning an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann: The position taken by many on this board, and many on the left in general, that war is always wrong, is simply childish and escapist fantasy in my view and indicates that the left is a long way from being prepared to take the reins of government.

---

Canadians, whether "leftist" or not, have witnessed the criminal invasion and bombing of Iraq based on fraudulent claims of WMDs. The invasion and bombing of Afghanistan took place in circumstances where the USA was unwilling to provide any evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. The only reason the USA can get away with these acts of international brigandage is that there is no counterweight, right now, in world affairs. That will not last forever, despite the feverish and apocalyptic visions of US imperialism and its hangers on.

Recent terrorist attacks (Spain, Britain) were the result of locally-originated actions. That's important to underline. We're creating our own terrorists, and not just in Oklahoma City.

By playing the role that Canada is, with the "mission creep" where counter-insurgency trumps development, we are making enemies where none were. Afghanistan cannot be liberated by foreign powers any more now than when the Russians took a secular approach and were faced with an army of Jihad Joes - financed courtesy of the USA and Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

Enjoy life. It is what the soldiers over seas are trying to secure for you.

---

What the hell does this mean? Can anyone explain how exactly carpet bombing Afghan villagers secures my life?

quote:

---

Brett Mann: ... your position is that all foreign troops could leave Afghanistan ...

---

I'm firstly concerned with what can be done by the Government of Canada. What is realistic? - as you and some others seem so fond of saying.

Afghanistan is a horrible mess as a result of many things, one of which is the role of outside powers in the internal affairs of that country. Pulling Canadian troops out, in an orderly way, and rejecting the counter-insurgency approach is a start. It may very well have an effect on the role of other countries. I'm not going to presume too much.

quote:

---

What a curious position.

---

We're a middle power. We can't presume to solve, on our own, the global problems of our time. But we should not make things worse. Many of us believe that Canadian troops in Afghanistan is making things worse. That's it.

quote:

---

...letting the Pashtuns run their own show there. This might work...

---

An article over at the Communist Party of India site [CPI(M) - apparently, there is more than one CP.] calls Afghanistan "neither a state nor a nation".

Afghanistan: neither a state nor a nation.

quote:

---

The real problem is that Afghanistan contains only tiny minorities of the ethnic groups which constitute its population. Thus, the 7 million Pashtuns in the country are outnumbered by the 12 million Pashtuns in Pakistan, the 3.5 million Tajiks in Afghanistan are outnumbered by the 6 million Tajiks in Tajikistan. The 1.3 million Uzbeks are just a fraction of the 23 million Uzbeks in Uzbekistan. There are 600,000 Turkmens in Afghanistan – but 3.52 million in Turkmenistan. So why should the Afghan Pashtuns and Tajiks and Uzbeks and Turkmens regard Afghanistan as their country? Their "country" is the bit of land in Afghanistan upon which they live.

---

There's more....

quote:

---

Pashtuns have ruled Afghanistan for all but three brief periods of the 20th century.

It’s easy to see why. The Uzbeks never had loya jirgas. The Tajiks are an urban, non-tribal group. How can they obtain equal or proportionate weight in such a meeting when they do not have tribal leaders? Will the Tajiks have one representative for the Pashtuns’ eight or more?

Nor can history be excluded. The Shia Muslim Hazaras – who may or may not owe their origins to Genghis Khan’s invading hordes – were the victims of savage repression at the hands of Pashtun forces under the "Iron Emir", King Abdur Rahman, in 1880. Abdur Rahman, it should be added, repressed his own Pashtun people as well. He had been invited to rule Afghanistan by – you guessed it – the British government.

---

Imperialism has a long history in Afghanistan - going back before it was imperialism. What's a little country like Canada to do? I say that we should not do harm; it's a philosophy that's been good enough for healers and doctors since the time of Hippocrates.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Karzai Orders Probe Into U.S. Airstrike

At Azizi, where a religious school and mud-brick homes were hit by the airstrike, angry villagers buried their dead. One villager, Haji Ikhlaf, told The Associated Press that 26 civilians had been buried by early Tuesday - higher than the official toll.

"We've buried women. We've buried children,'' Ikhlaf, 40, said by cell phone from the area, which has been closed off to reporters by local security forces. "They are killing us. We are so angry.''

Villagers also dug graves of slain Taliban rebels, he said.

---

To the first point I would have to say I don't know, but I think maybe. To the second, I think Canadian troops are the best trained in the world for this mission. To the third, I think bringing something like stability and peace and freedom (as seen from and Afghan perspective) is an eminently worthy goal, as is destroying al Qaeda, and to the extent they are allied to al Qaeda, the Taliban.

quote:

---

Brigadier-General David Fraser, the Canadian who commands the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, was "consulted and informed" about the attack, but the decision was made by "higher headquarters," Major Lundy said. He refused to identify the higher authorities who approved the bombing.

There were strong hints that the assault was a special-forces operation, which would normally be kept secret. The forces hit unexpectedly stiff resistance from about 200 Taliban in the village. When they got into trouble around midnight on Sunday, they called in U.S. aircraft to attack the village. - Globe and Mail

---

According to CBC radio news there are two levels of command above Gen. Fraser, who is supposed to be in charge. Nobody is saying who those levels are, or which of them ordered the bombing. All they are saying is that Gen. Fraser was notified in advance as a "courtesy", in order to avoid killing any (more) Canadians by mistake.

Brett Mann no doubt believes the bombings were ordered by the United Nations, which he claims has "sanctioned" the "Coalition" mission in southern Afghanistan.

Personally, I think the Pentagon had more to do with this attack.

It seems Gen. Fraser isn't really in charge of very much after all; "coalition" is a euphemism for "USA".

quote:

---

At Azizi, where a religious school and mud-brick homes were hit by the air strike, angry villagers buried their dead. One villager, Haji Ikhlaf, told The Associated Press that 26 civilians had been buried by early Tuesday, a number higher than the official toll.

"We've buried women. We've buried children," Ikhlaf, 40, said by cellphone from the area, which has been closed off to reporters by local security forces. "They are killing us. We are so angry."

Villagers also dug graves of slain Taliban rebels, he said.

U.S. commander Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry told the AP on Monday that the military was "looking into" reports of civilian deaths. Other coalition officials said they were confident they had hit a Taliban compound. - Toronto Star

---

quote:

---

Despite earlier reports of a coalition investigation into the deaths, [Maj. Lundy] said nobody from the coalition is in the village to investigate the civilian deaths.

He also suggested that some of the injured civilians might have been Taliban fighters, although he acknowledged he had no evidence of it. - Globe and Mail

---

quote:

---

Even though no Canadian soldiers were involved in the assault, to villagers, all western soldiers are considered the same and many feel they must share the blame.

The day after the battle, the intensive care unit in Kandahar's main hospital held seven civilians who had been severely wounded by American fire.

From his hospital bed, a father of eight said Canadian troops will share the blame for the onslaught that put him, his wife and two of his children in hospital.

"We cannot tell the difference between Canadian and American soldiers," said Fida Mohammad, who is being treated for metal shrapnel in one knee. "They are all Americans to us. They have been very cruel to us." - Canwest Global

---

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I have supported our military presence in Afghanistan and continue to do so. But not at any price, and not under any circumstances. Canada should inform the US that in the event of any further such attacks causing large numbers of civilian casualties, Canada will begin planning an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops.

---

Who knows what commander of what coalition force called in the air strike? Supposedly our troops were not there, but earlier in the day they had been.

quote:

---

The engagement began late Sunday night when a group of coalition soldiers moved against a group of Taliban leaders who were meeting to plan logistics. The plan was to capture them, said Lundy, but the soldiers ran into unexpectedly heavy resistance.

"A firefight ensued. About 20 Taliban were killed in that initial exchange," Lundy said.

The surviving insurgents then dispersed into nearby compounds and homes to continue the battle from residential rooftops and window wells.

"Coalition forces were under pressure and taking a lot of fire," said Lundy. "It was very intense."

The commander on the ground called for air strikes. Rockets and bombs were delivered by helicopters and A-10 Warthog airplanes.
CBC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
......And I would point out that it is not Canada on its own acting here, but Canada as a part of a larger UN sanctioned force. Nothing unilateral about it.

---

Nope, we're still under Operation Enduring Freedom. No UN, no NATO mandate. If it matters.

quote:

---

The deadliest fighting in four years came ahead of preparations for the U.S.-led coalition to hand over security operations in southern Afghanistan to NATO by July.
Globe&Mail

---

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

As NATO approaches full deployment of its "Stage 3" expansion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) into southern Afghanistan, casualties among NATO troops -- most recently Canadians -- are increasing.
....
Although NATO's survival may depend on its Afghan report card, member states may be challenged in grading the alliance's performance because most of them know little about Afghanistan or have not had enough preparation in military and cultural intelligence for the country to accurately assess the performance.

Who's The Enemy?

The lack of understanding of Afghanistan as a country and the dangers looming within and across its borders complicate NATO's assessment of its enemy. To date, NATO has been either unable or unwilling to define the enemy or characterize the alliance's mission.

General Jones is correct to assert that the enemy in Afghanistan is not only the Taliban, but is NATO prepared to actively confront druglords and warlords and those who claim to champion part or some of the ideologies of the Taliban -- an elusive enemy: the neo-Taliban?
....
Speaking in February, Jones discussed the problems NATO forces face. "The situation in Afghanistan, in my view, in terms of threats, is multifaceted. I'm not so much concerned about a return of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda as much as I am about the success of the war on drugs -- which is accounting for about 50 percent of the gross domestic product of that country. To me, that is a much more serious problem. It has its own threats with regard to violence."
Source: Radio Free Europe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
And M. Spector, unless you're being sarcastic, stop assuming what I believe.

---

You seem to still harbour fantasies about Canada some day having the freedom to operate in Afghanistan without being under the thumb of the Pentagon. Even if that fantasy came true (which it never will) I don't trust this government to direct its forces any differently than the Pentagon would in any event.

Today on CBC Wild Rose Country (a call in show like Cross Country Check Up), Arthur Kent was the guest. He's reported from Afghanistan for 26 years (he says) and repeatedly made the claim that our position in Afghanistan is supported by the UN and NATO. He blurred what the troops are doing in Kandahar with what went on in Kabul and insisted Afghans are hugely supportive of foreign intervention.

He rarely outright lied, but insisted on blurring things so much that you'd think our troops were received as the second coming of Mohammad. The audience was largely enraged judging by the calls -- not one person called in to thank or embellish his views; every single caller argued with him(1). They are a very informed bunch of listeners on Wild Rose.

Kent (the scud stud) is currently touring with a movie he made, Afghanistan: Peacemaking in Progress.

But this is the entangled situation we are in. To do the right thing, we may have to also do what the US (Bush regime) would like, even though it makes us sick. Canadians will often find that their interests geo-politically coincide with those of America, and we on the left have to get smarter and faster at figuring out our own best postions, and then sticking by them. A reflexive anti-US posture just won't cut it anymore. The world is becoming too complex and too dangerous. (not that I'm accusing you of this, just saying..)

edited to add: there's nothing wrong in principle with being anti-American, as America now stands. It's just that this has to be a well-planned long-range project, and we have to deal with short term problems on their own merits, on a closely-examined case-by-case basis.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

The Canadians, Dutch, British, Australian, Danish, Romanian, and Estonian forces, along with an unexplained smattering of US personnel, form the "multinational brigade" currently commanded by Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser.

This is only one of 6 "brigade-sized units" in the so-called Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The other five brigades are presumably US forces; the US has more than 8 times as many ground troops in Afghanistan as Canada has, plus warplanes and "Special Forces".

OEF is under command of US Maj-Gen. Benjamin Freakley (love the name) in Bagram air base near Kabul; he is Fraser's boss.

Canada used to be part of ISAF, which is run by NATO, but we switched last year to OEF. Later this summer the whole multinational brigade of OEF is scheduled to switch back to ISAF/NATO command, under a British general, thereby effectively doubling the size of ISAF to 14,000.

The multinational brigade will continue to operate in southern Afghanistan as they are doing now. In fact, it is not clear whether the Canadians will be doing anything different from what they are doing now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
In any case, clearly the British and Dutch have given at least moral support to this mission, and in the case of the British, soon will or already have stationed troops.

---

There will be little change to the Canadian mandate when ISAF takes over in late July or early August. The mission will be the same as it was in Kabul as it is now in Kandahar.

There is a few thousand US soldiers under the ISAF chain of command at this time, mostly located in and around Kabul and the northeast and northwest parts of the country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

There will be little change to the Canadian mandate when ISAF takes over in late July or early August. The mission will be the same as it was in Kabul as it is now in Kandahar.

---

quote:

---

Webgear: There is a few thousand US soldiers under the ISAF chain of command at this time, mostly located in and around Kabul and the northeast and northwest parts of the country.

---

quote:

---

In Afghanistan, Bush said U.S. forces would decline from 19,000 to 16,500 this year. He said this was possible because of NATO plans to increase its force level from 9,000 to 15,000.

---

I've read figures elsewhere that suggest the numbers are closer to 30,000 US troops. In any case, there are a lot more than "a few thousand" US troops in Afghanistan.

I would not say “seek and destroy” projects such as those currently in Kandahar. I would say that ISAF targeted people and groups that were a threat to ISAF and the GOA as a force protection measure.

Such as this former topic.

Kabul Raid

From what I have been reading, most of the 2500 troops being removed from Afghanistan are non combat troops (mechanics, flight crews, cooks), I only know of one infantry battalion being removed (600 combat soldiers) and that is the battalion is located Kandahar.

The 30,000 number is the total number of western troops in Afghanistan.

Of these 30,000 I would guess that there are about 3000-500 actually combat troops and the rest are service and support types. It takes about 10 support troops to keep one combat soldier on the front line.

flounce1 (flouns)
n.
A strip of decorative, usually gathered or pleated material attached by one edge, as on a garment or curtain.

quote:

---

flounce2 (flouns)
intr.v., flounced, flounc·ing, flounc·es.

To move in a lively or bouncy manner: The children flounced around the room in their costumes.
To move with exaggerated or affected motions: flounced petulantly out of the house.
To move clumsily; flounder

---

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: eau ]

quote:

---

Flounce is a term used on Internet discussion forums or chat rooms, usually used to describe a type of post made on the forum.

Typically a flounce is where a user feels that he has had enough of a certain forum and, rather than simply leaving, decides to post a long post detailing their reasons for leaving, usually in a new thread so as to get the maximum number of replies. These posts could contain insults directed at fellow members of the forum or at its administrators, and the users' grievances with them. They can range from the calm and reasoned to the emotional and hysterical, garnering comment and concern respectively. The main part of a flounce, however, is that the user, rather than staying away, is back within a few days to a few weeks, often expecting that the mood regarding him will be exactly the same as it was when he left.

In some cases, the flouncer spams the forum, or (if in a position to do so) closes it entirely, or disables a certain feature of it.

The word flounce is intended to evoke the image of a child having a tantrum and flapping its arms about while screaming for attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
I would not say “seek and destroy” projects such as those currently in Kandahar. I would say that ISAF targeted people and groups that were a threat to ISAF and the GOA as a force protection measure.

Such as this former topic.

Kabul Raid

Now I take this point of view as a tactical issue, not as a policy issue. To me there is little difference between now and then however on a political view they could be written differently in a legal text.

---

Hmm. Interesting trip down memory lane at that link.

However, I think the incident described (careful surveillance and planning by CF to storm a "compound" and take the residents by surprise with only one shot fired...) in Kabul.... Well, it's a world away from calling in an air strike on a school and on people's homes, knowing full well that those places are occupied by civilians.

“But they are both offensive tactics, and perhaps that is what you mean to emphasize.”

Yes, that was my intent.

On a personal note: I was there, I was a bit surprised when I saw the thread.

Edited: The reporter was mistaken about a few details about the raid.

[ 28 May 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Yes, that was my intent.

---

Point taken.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
On a personal note: I was there, I was a bit surprised when I saw the thread.

Edited: The reporter was mistaken about a few details about the raid.

---

Oh c'mon! You know you can't just tweak our interests and run away -- what did the reporter get wrong?

The journalists were both embedded with CF or they could roam around the city for a story. The reporters had a lot of freedom of movement and were able to do whatever they wanted and when they wanted.

They never missed a good meal such as steak night or pizza night, and when the first cold beer arrived to the camp, they of course should up that night.

At least seven people have been killed in the Afghan capital Kabul after a traffic accident involving a US military convoy sparked mass rioting.
Hundreds of anti-US protesters clashed with Afghan security forces for more than two hours in the worst rioting since the fall of the Taleban in 2001.