CIA blunder sparked Taleban revolt that became a mass suicide

thetimes.co.uk ^ | 11/28/2001 | OLIVER AUGUST

[archy]

The CIA officially has recogonized only 78 losses since the company's inception, 1947. Pretty good record

Of course the question is, how many of those were the fault of the CIA's own blundering...and how many others may have gone unnoticed or unreported. I know firsthand of the death of one CIA spook written off as an *accident* that was due to hostile action, and there've almost certainly been others.

A hundred? two hundred? five hundred, a thousand? I shouldn't be a bit surprised.

-archy-/-

[mad_as_he$$]

After a night of continuous bombardment by US gunships, the number of surviving Taleban was still further reduced, and by mid-morning the Northern Alliance had pushed the Taleban back into a large compound inside the PoW camp. One US special forces soldier called the bombing “fireworks you’ll never forget”. AC130 Spectre attack helicopters flew overhead five times, hovering and firing at close range.

Sounds like we have a new weapon an AC-130 helicopter - wow. where's the BS detector?

[grunt]

Gee...and was it only yesterday that they blamed this on the sight of a British journalist in the compound...oh, that was before the U.K. got the news....

[Slainte]

What an amazingly sloppy piece of writing. Based on the title, you'd believe that the CIA provoked an uprising of otherwise mild mannered zealots.

It would seem to me, if you are getting weaponry into the holding area, you are intending to use it. It would seem to me that if you explode a grenade the day before to kill some jailers, that shows your intent to use it. I think it's a pretty far stretch from there to say that the uprising was caused by the CIA, it would seem to me that the priosners chose that moment to start the fight.

But you sure wouldn't get that by scanning the headline.

[LiberalBassTurds]

Bullsh*t! Compare this to Alex Perry of Time Magazine's contemperaneous reporting from the Fort...

And then this morning some more journalists came. There was a guy from the Guardian in London and a woman called Claire from the New York Times. They were interviewing Taliban prisoners when the Taliban suddenly just pounced on them. They beat the British guy quite badly, but he was rescued and taken out of the fort. But that's when the Taliban grabbed guns off the Northen Alliance, overpowered them, killed at least twenty and the Northern Alliance lost control of the fort and had to withdraw from the fort.

This article is just one left-wing British rag covering for another. I can see the Guardian bleeding-heart now..."Mate, you know the Yanks are going to kill you right? They have participated with the NA in atrocities since the start. If I was you I would make a break for it now."

[surfer]

I disagree with the premise of this article and in fact if he did create a mass suicide then we should use that technique everywhere! Just a few less scumbags that we have to deal with. Yes I am quite aware of the "unofficial" toll but they are a necessary evil in this politically run world and those boys are out there many times with no backup and no recoginition and they usually have to do the crap that no one else would ever want to do...intelligence is a lonely world...

[archy]

Sheesh! After reading that I gave up on the rest. This was obviously written by some idiot taking notes from a cell phone call.

D'accord, and many good reports are strangled at birth by unknowledgable hack rewrite and editing jobs, to be certain. But it sounds like they got this part right:

Witnesses said it was quickly apparent that trained soldiers were taking part in the assault, as the ragged bursts of Alliance machine-gun fire were replaced by the steady single-shooting of marksmen.

[Slainte]

This is the press, they don't let the facts get in the way of spinning a good yarn.

[ohioman]

Where is the BARF ALERT! After reading the way this article blames the CIA officer for his own death, makes me wish I could punch the SOB who wrote this!

[McGavin999]

Ah, I see the media revision is happening already. One of the eyewitnesses has already reported that a male journalist is the one who was grabbed and beaten up, the female escaped. Michael was killed when he tried to save the journalist's backside. That was the only mistake Michael made. Obviously these people have less honor then the Taliban and Al Qaida. This is what he gets for trying to save one of them, pilloried in the press.

DISPICABLE!!!

[wtc911]

Read Guadalcanal Diary by Richard Tregaskis, the adult version. After the opening weeks of the battle the Marines took the time to kill every Jap twice. They learned to do this after being snookered by false surrenders and live soldiers hiding among the dead.

Just like the way caves were dealt with on Iwo in '45, this is another Pacific war lesson that we should not have to re-learn.

[dighton]

I hate to say it ...

If you're referring to Mike Spann, it's horribly disrespectful to one who gave his life for our country.

[ChadGore]

From the story: "AC130 Spectre attack helicopters flew overhead five times, hovering and firing at close range. "

The AC 130 is a huuuuuuuuge plane, not a helicopter.

[Dallas]

Both CIA operatives were dressed in Afghan robes, had grey beards and spoke Persian

Very telling....

[jwalsh07]

Mike was a former marine and father of three who has been serving his country for years. He killed at least 4 Al Quaeda vermin. Thats 4 who won't be bothering my grandkids.

God bless and speed him on his way.

[not-an-ostrich]

This article is totally different from the immediate post from an eyewitness. Again from a British newspaper.

[MistyCA]

Darwin award indeed! But I wonder what Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will say about the surrendered prisoners they thought they might be given custody of. Hmmmmm. I wonder also how many more Pakistan sympathyzers will be running across the border to join the fight! Few, I would think. I bet there are a lot of them trying to run back to Pakistan right now!

[HardStarboard]

>>>This was obviously written by some idiot taking notes from a cell phone <<<

Right on - and he lies too! Please read the paragraph below that I posted earlier on another thread.

"I read a transcript from a Time Mag reporter on the scene who clearly said the reporter that set the whole prison mele off was from the "Guardian"! Thats the most liberal paper in England - leave it to the liberals to screw things up. The Time report said that the prisoners reacted negatively (ie: setting off grenades) to the presence of his obviously "western" face. He had walked into a group of prisoners - an act that the Time guy said he had been warned against." (end previous post)

Now the UK (UcK) Times and the New York Times are in a conspiracy to revise the truth (and history) only 48 hours after the fact! Is that a new record for the liberal press - probably not!!

[Let's Roll]

Yeah, who's Michael? Isn't the CIA officer we lost named John? Do I detect a hint of self-serving in this "report"?

[Ronin]

Good point, and good catch!

The headline gave it away. Obviously, it can't be the fault of the liberal press, so it MUST be the fault of the CIA.