See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Officials: 9 US troops killed in Afghanistan
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080713/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
Published: Jul 13, 2008
Author: JASON STRAZIUSO
Post Date: 2008-07-13 14:41:12 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 277
Comments: 23
Officials: 9 US troops killed in Afghanistan By JASON STRAZIUSO Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago KABUL, Afghanistan - A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote U.S. base killed nine American soldiers and wounded 15 Sunday in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years, officials said. The attack on the U.S. outpost came the same day a suicide bomber targeting a police patrol killed 24 people, while U.S. coalition and Afghan soldiers killed 40 militants elsewhere in the south. The militant assault on the American troops began around 4:30 a.m. in a dangerous region close to the Pakistan border and lasted throughout the day. Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat in the mountainous northeastern province of Kunar, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement. Nine U.S. troops were killed in the attack, a Western official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the troops' nationalities. NATO confirmed nine of its soldiers had been killed and 15 wounded. Four Afghan soldiers also were wounded, NATO said. "Although no final assessment has been made, it is believed insurgents suffered heavy casualties during several hours of fighting," NATO said in a statement. Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, the top U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan, said she could not comment because the fight was ongoing. The attack appeared to be the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since June 2005, when 16 American troops were killed — also in Kunar province — when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade. Those troops were on their way to rescue a four-man team of Navy SEALs caught in a militant ambush. Three SEALs were killed, the fourth was rescued days later by a farmer. Sunday's attack came during a period of rising violence in Afghanistan. Monthly death tolls of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan surpassed U.S. military deaths in Iraq in May and June. Last Monday, a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 58 people in the deadliest attack in the Afghan capital since 2001. In two other incidents this month, an Afghan government commission found that U.S. aircraft killed 47 civilians during a bombing run in Nangarhar province, while a separate incident in Nuristan province is alleged by an Afghan officials to have killed 22 civilians. The high casualty tolls have prompted the International Committee of the Red Cross this week to ask all sides to show restraint and avoid civilian casualties. But violence continued around the country on Sunday. A suicide bomber on a motorcycle blew himself up next to a police patrol Sunday in the southern province of Uruzgan, killing 24 people. The bomb attack on a police patrol at a busy intersection of the Deh Rawood district killed five police officers and 19 civilians, wounding more than 30 others, said Juma Gul Himat, Uruzgan's police chief. Most of those killed and wounded were shopkeepers and young boys selling goods in the street, he said. Elsewhere, Taliban militants executed two women in central Afghanistan late Saturday after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a U.S. base. The women, dressed in blue burqas, were shot and killed just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan, said Sayed Ismal, a spokesman for Ghazni's governor. He called the two "innocent local people." Taliban fighters told Associated Press Television News the two women were executed for allegedly running a prostitution ring catering to U.S. soldiers and other foreign contractors at a U.S. base in Ghazni city. 1st Lt. Nathan Perry, a U.S. military spokesman, said he had not heard allegations "anything close to that nature." Meanwhile, at least 40 militants were killed following an attack on Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces in Helmand province, the coalition said in a statement. The militants attacked the combined forces near Sangin on Saturday from "multiple concealed and fortified positions," the coalition said. Thirty "enemy boats" and several small bridges have been destroyed on the Helmand River during two days of fighting, it said. A soldier with NATO's International Security Assistance Force died in a roadside blast in Helmand province Sunday, a statement said. The soldier's nationality was not released and it wasn't clear if the death was connected to the two-day battle. More than 2,300 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency related violence this year, according to an Associated Press tally of official figures. In the country's north, a soldier serving with ISAF died of wounds caused by an explosion Saturday, the military alliance said in a statement. The statement did not give any further details of the explosion. The soldier's nationality was not been disclosed. There are nearly 53,000 troops from 40 nations serving the ISAF in Afghanistan.
Poster Comment: Obama, McCain split over Afghan strategy ; Debate shifting troops from Iraq From: The Boston Globe Date: July 6, 2008 Author: Bryan Bender -Snip If elected, Obama says, he would immediately withdraw thousands of ground troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to help undermanned US forces defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," Obama said in a speech last week. "It is time to go after the Al Qaeda leadership where it actually exists." -Snip The Illinois senator, whose opposition to the Iraq war is a campaign centerpiece, has concluded that the US presence there has fanned Islamic terrorism and diverted scarce military resources from taking on new terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda operatives trained for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. -Snip "Afghanistan should have been our fight," said retired Air Force General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, national cochairman of Obama's campaign. -Snip
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
Just what we need in Afghan, more girls with high rank sitting behind desks by day and gracing the club bar by night. Meanwhile the Private Grunts are stuck out in no mans land being killed. Stupid damned government, military and feminists. Voters want more war and they will have it.
I was just watching the Military channel and they were discussing "Non-Kinetic Operations" in Afghanistan. I have to agree, between the tiny little woman Marines and this fully PC'd military, these kids haven't a snowballs chance in hell in beating these hardened goat herders. Not that we belong there, but frankly that's another story. If there was an economy for these middle class kids, they would never be in the service to begin with. This attack is shades of bad things ahead. As Iraq cools, this place is popping. And lets not forget this is where we supplied bin Laden and his Mujahedeen. Talk about US getting our lumps where the Soviets met their Waterloo. Good grief, get them home. PS: Will the OPILES feel as strongly about ending this mess as we all do Iraq???
When the draft starts, the O'Piles will have to make a stand with Americans, or justify the draft and more killing. Those that left here are so in love with Israel that they WILL go for more killing as long as it is not them nor Israelis.
The PILES have already made their intentions known. If Obama supports war in Afghanistan against a mythical al Qaeda, they will support Him and his war.
And with a draft, guess who will be the ones making sure their young ones do NOT go? The bitter small town riffraff will all be invited.
Are you serious? I thought that thus far Obama was appealing to his supporters[for the most part until he took a 180 degree turn and lost 12% points in polls immediately thereafter] as an anti-war candidate. Do you really believe that Kossacks and DU'ers would continue to support Obama through thick and thin if he staked out a definitive pro-war footing?
frauds
Absolutely. Leftist politics requires first a power grab, followed by strict conformity. They Os will rationalize (or ignore) an Obama war w/Afghanistan against an enemy many once called a manufactured component of the CIA. Shameless knee padders.
This is news to me. I know many who support Obama who are also against the war in Afghanistan. They support the person most likely to end it and disagree with expressed sentiment to keep it going. We all see politicians with few exceptions move to the center knowing that is where they need to be to get elected then be their real selves in office ideologically. Many hope President Obama will be the one to most quickly end both wars. With the choices we have, there is not much else to do. The wars are exactly why I would support Ron Paul over Barack Obama as Dr. No's stand is clear, and dependable; even if I disagree with much of his agenda. Again there, I would trust he would make healthy the system pf checks and balances Bush and others have damaged or destroyed, and they would act as a brake to Paul's most harebrained pet projects. You are posturing here contrary to reality solely to serve your agenda to gut the Obama candidacy like a fish, and it won't work. People want change so bad they are willing to see through little games like the tried and true one you play now. This just won't work this year. Sorry about your bad luck. ;-)
Obama's position on Afghanistan (and bombing Pakistan for that matter) aren't a recent move to the center. They're long held beliefs. I can do the research, but you're more than capable. He will war with Afghanistan, a nation who has done nothing to US, and expend our military in a hunt for bin Laden, a man who doesn't exist beyond a hologram. AFA the dogmatic left being a rigid political orthodox, it is. Same w/the hard right. The adherents of both are lock-step lemmings, incapable of independent thought, therefore rendering themselves blind to fact. To support Obama as a candidate of peace and change is to not have done your homework.
I've not only done my homework, the sort of war going on there was something I received not a little bit of training concerning. Low intensity and asymmetrical conflict is very much the purview of Special Forces. I have also read areas studies and histories on the history of war and conflict in that country. Obama is receptive to the people leading the U.S. away from continuing that conflict. McCain is not, Bush is not. You may not like my pragmatic approach to choosing a candidate to support, but so it goes. You vote or don't vote for your reasons and beliefs, and I will do so in regards to my voting franchise.
Nonsense. Mike you have bias, pragmatism has NOTHING to do with it.
Nonsense. Pragmatism has a role in every single presidential beauty contest I have witnessed or participated in since voting for John Kennedy in a straw poll I had in first grade.
Mike, known you toooo long. You have not a pragmatic bone in your body. You are biased from head to toe. I respect your opinions and views but dont table dress it with pragmatism. Wont wash.
Even when I do what all good pragmatists do and support Ron Paul because of his anti-war sentiments despite my disagreements with him on many planks of his personal presidential platform? You are dependent on painting me biased, that's all. Your spin has little do with reality and allot to do with protecting the foundation of your 'white guilt' fallacy.
Mike paints Mike biased. Everyone sees what you write. No one has to determine anything. Mike there is no way an intelligent person can any longer support and vote for any person that is owned and operated by the system. Obama already is morphing into a Bush clone and even dems and pundits are upset, but not Mike.
Obama moving toward the center is simply no surprise. I expected it, and the pundits all are saying they expected it too. I also may support Obama to beat McCain, but I also have no illusions about the system. I won't be jumping for joy if he wins, nor mourning if he loses. I lost my rose colored sunglasses decades ago.
Zionists have controlled the foreign policy of the U.S. since the JFK assassination, and they are not about to relinquish control. They will continue to call the shots regardless of who wins the White House. I'd venture to say the Zionists have more power in America today than the Bolsheviks had on the eve of th Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Obama would have already been taken out if he were a genuine reformer
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Obummer is not MOVING anywhere. That is just political pap put out by the pundits.
Only RP would have done anything about the CF in the ME: the rest of the stooges have been vetted by the NWO to follow orders and shut-up.
When anyone is biased towards Obama, facts and logic are of no concern. They see what they want to see. They say and write anything for justification.
Choose who you want, Mike, but lets agree that Obama is a hawk on war with Afghanistan. This is one position where he hasn't wavered. Please tell me what that nation did to us, and why is he fascinated with capturing bin Laden, a man who might or might not exist?
We have been reduced to bread and tellie, and are surely circling the drain as a nation. The Indians and Chinese will pick our bones clean when our Constitutional Republic finally, and completely implodes.
Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, the top U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan, said she could not comment because the fight was ongoing.
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
#3. To: Jethro Tull (#2)
PS: Will the OPILES feel as strongly about ending this mess as we all do Iraq???
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
When the draft starts, the O'Piles will have to make a stand with Americans, or justify the draft and more killing.
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
#6. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
The PILES have already made their intentions known. If Obama supports war in Afghanistan against a mythical al Qaeda, they will support Him and his war.
#7. To: Cynicom (#5)
#8. To: scrapper2 (#6)
Do you really believe that Kossacks and DU'ers would continue to support Obama through thick and thin if he staked out a definitive pro-war footing?
#9. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
"Leftist politics requires first a power grab, followed by strict conformity. They Os will rationalize (or ignore) an Obama war w/Afghanistan against an enemy many once called a manufactured component of the CIA. Shameless knee padders."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
#11. To: Jethro Tull (#10)
"To support Obama as a candidate of peace and change is to not have done your homework."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#12. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
Obama is receptive to the people leading the U.S. away from continuing that conflict. McCain is not, Bush is not.
#13. To: Cynicom (#12)
"Mike you have bias, pragmatism has NOTHING to do with it."
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#14. To: Ferret Mike, jethro tull (#13)
Nonsense. Pragmatism has a role in every single presidential beauty contest
#15. To: Cynicom (#14)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#15)
You are dependent on painting me biased, that's all. Your spin has little do with reality and allot to do with protecting the foundation of your 'white guilt' fallacy.
#17. To: Cynicom (#16)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
.
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
Obama moving toward the center is simply no surprise.
#20. To: Ferret Mike. the thread (#15)
#21. To: lodwick (#20)
Only RP would have done anything about the CF in the ME:
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#23. To: Cynicom, all (#21)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest