13 U.S. troops killed in Kabul

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
13 U.S. troops killed in Kabul

Unionist

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15504922]BBC news:[/url]

Quote:

A suicide bomber has attacked a bus carrying foreign troops in the Afghan capital Kabul killing 13 US soldiers.

A Nato spokesman said the attacker detonated a car filled with explosives.

The attack, in the Darulaman area, west of Kabul, also killed three Afghan civilians and a police officer.

The Taliban has admitted carrying out the attack - one of the worst ground attacks against foreign troops since the beginning of the war. Such attacks are rare in heavily-guarded Kabul.

Separately, three Australian soldiers were killed by a man in Afghan army uniform. Nato said the gunman was also killed in that attack in the south of the country.

Unionist

Whoops, sorry, that should have read [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/29/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-... U.S. and 1 Canadian troops[/url]. They're hard to tell apart these days.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

Whoops, sorry, that should have read [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/29/afghanistan-taliban-kabul-... U.S. and 1 Canadian troops[/url]. They're hard to tell apart these days.

That will be one of the troops who are still there embedded in the US forces even after we withdrew from an active combat role. So does this fit with the NDP's demand that the military mission end by a specific date? Or will it be like the myth that Canadians troops didn't serve in the Iraq war?

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

It would depend on your definition of the word "troops"... the literal meaning would be any soldier in uniform where as the military meaning is more towards representing combat units and their support elements that are large enough to protract combat power on the ground. I think the later definition is usually what is meant in geo-political talk but like anything you can pick the one that best fits your agenda.

 

As for this attack; aside from the obvious impact on a hand full of American, Afghan and Canadian families it changes nothing.   

 

Unionist

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

It would depend on your definition of the word "troops"... the literal meaning would be any soldier in uniform where as the military meaning is more towards representing combat units and their support elements that are large enough to protract combat power on the ground. I think the later definition is usually what is meant in geo-political talk but like anything you can pick the one that best fits your agenda.

You should express your rather obscure terminological concerns to the CBC. They're the ones who described them as "troops", including the Canadian:

CBC wrote:
The blast killed a total of five NATO troops, eight civilian contractors for the NATO mission and four Afghans. U.S. officials had initially said all 13 NATO personnel were American soldiers.

I guess I can divine from that paragraph what the CBC's "agenda" is? Who knew? Oh, and "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers don't apply to our so-called "trainers" in uniform embedded with the Afghan armed forces? We'll need longer bumper stickers, with footnotes and hyperlinks.

Quote:
As for this attack; aside from the obvious impact on a hand full of American, Afghan and Canadian families it changes nothing.

I agree. Nothing much will change until the foreign troops, non-troops, quasi-troops, and pseudo-troops are driven, bleeding, howling, and weeping, from the soil of Afghanistan, like all their imperial predecessors of times gone by. Too bad they don't simply hoist the white flag and surrender with honour. I guess it'll have to be more death and destruction.

 

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

Like I said feel free to use the definition as you wish (as does the CBC)...

 

mmphosis

Afghanistan blast targets ISAF convoy (english.aljazeera.net)

Quote:

"Initial reports indicate that 13 International Security Assistance Force service members died following an improvised explosive device attack in Kabul earlier today," the force said in a statement.

One of those killed was a Canadian solder, while the rest are understood to be US troops and US contractors.

I am pretty sure aljazeera originally stated 13 US troops.  I guess the story was revised.

Unionist

mmphosis wrote:

I am pretty sure aljazeera originally stated 13 US troops.  I guess the story was revised.

The U.S. revised its story. It believes all dead heroes are theirs. From my CBC link above:

Quote:
The blast killed a total of five NATO troops, eight civilian contractors for the NATO mission and four Afghans. U.S. officials had initially said all 13 NATO personnel were American soldiers.

So one (1) Canadian soldier, four (4) U.S. soldiers, etc.

Perhaps some moderator could correct the thread title. That's what I get for listening to U.S. liars, even for a moment, in the MSM. The title should read: "Thirteen brave heroes and four usually-unreported Afghans callously killed in Kabul."

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Well you can always scratch it up to wishful thinking...Wink