[breakem]

Not to mention the great job we did of searching these guys and removing their weapons.

[LS]

Mistake, maybe. But the result is there are several hundred fanatics who had once vowed to kill Americans who won't have that opportunity now. Don't wait for me to shed a tear.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I hate to say it, but I think we have another Darwin Award nominee.

[Ronin]

AC130 Spectre attack helicopters flew overhead five times, hovering and firing at close range.

Blimey! A C-130 that hovers.

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

[TomGuy]

According to reports a couple of days ago, the riot began while journalists were interviewing prisoners. The prisoners took the opportunity to rush them and the guards, gaining the guards' weapons.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[dighton]

... their decision triggered a revolt that became the single bloodiest engagement since the Afghan war began.

IMO, inflammatory and unsupported by evidence.

[Rodney King]

Ridiculous to call it a blunder. For all one knows these guys were planning on revolting the whole time, and just decided to do it while they were arms length from an American.

[spunkets]

It's was a talibunny op. The N.Koreans did the same thing during the Korean War. It was planned and staged by the talibunny command for it's propaganda value. Whether they succeeded or not in the escape, they get the propaganda they're after. The outcome realized lets the leftists run with the propaganda ball too.

[RippleFire]

What happened to the eye witness account that said it was a Guardian reporter who was getting beaten up and the two CIA men intervened?

[Draco]

Glad the press knows so much about this it calls whatever happened (and I doubt we know even half) to incite this "uprising" that it was caused by a "CIA blunder." How about crazed suicidal malignant human dung, i.e., al-Queda?

[Revolting cat!]

An interesting story, not enough detail on how it really started. Note to self: don't judge based on incomplete, unreliable evidence. Buy yourself a beer if you succeed.

[headsonpikes]

Interesting. No tears here.

"Smoke 'em out; hunt 'em down; kill 'em all."

Remember?

[surfer]

You have no idea what your talking about...you are relying on the media's interpretation of the events. The CIA officially has recogonized only 78 losses since the company's inception, 1947. Pretty good record. They have a tough job to do...let's not play into the garbage media and their agenda!

[lelio]

Hmmm, we say that we're not going to take al-Q prisoners and we're stuck with some Taliban ones. Surprisingly they revolt and we have to kill them. Just makes you saying "hmmmm"

[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."

[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!!!