8 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan
Story Highlights
Eight U.S. troops killed in attack on two outposts in Afghanistan
Coalition forces say they were able to repel attack from militants
Two members of Afghan National Security Force were killed in fighting
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/04/afghanistan.troops.killed/index.html
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Eight U.S. service members and two members of the Afghan National Security Force were killed Saturday in a battle with militants in eastern Afghanistan, officials said.
It was the largest number of Americans killed by hostile action in a single day since July 13, 2008, according to CNN records.
Tribal militants attacked two security outposts in the Nuristan province, said the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
The militants launched their attack from a local mosque and a nearby village, the international alliance said.
Coalition forces repelled the attack, inflicting "heavy enemy casualties," the alliance said without offering details.
All eight service members killed were Americans, the U.S. military said.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
BREAKING CNN NEWS: 8 US SERVICEMEN KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
More troops to Afghanistan NOW! Why is Obama dragging his feet? Leave the warfighting to the warriors and get the politicians out of it!
How extactly did they get killed? Roadside bombs? Snipers? AK-47? US Servicemen should be wearing Dragon Armor Vest to prevent those kinds of ammunition.
US Army complete disregard for their own safety hasn't been taken noticed.
Bock: Thanks for writing. Nobody is saying how they were killed, but here ia another story on the attack: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/200910455437690861.html
Anonymous: Lincoln, Truman and Bush 43 all "dragged their feet" when their field commanders demanded more troops. What has to be determined is what is the mission. There is no such thing as "winning" in Afghanistan because it is divided into scores of Taliban tribal groups without one central command authority. Who would sign the "armistice?" What good would it be?
In my opinion, the fact that cnn.com called this incident a "battle" and not a skirmish, as it was, represents exactly what's gone wrong in the way the general populace views war. This may be difficult to understand, but there's a very important distinction here. It was a minor skirmish, or in other words, very, very, very bad. It gets MUCH worse than this. Think about it - there really is a *very* important distinction that's not being noticed here.
This may be difficult to understand - but in my opinion, there's a *VERY* important distinction that's being missed here, which illustrates very well what I feel is something that's gone wrong in the way the general populace views war. cnn.com called this a "battle." This was not a battle. This was a minor skirmish. In other words, it was very, very, VERY bad. It gets MUCH worse than that. The fact that that's not being perceived, i.m.o., is a bad trend. I feel that there really is a VERY important distinction that needs to be understood here. Think about it. It WASN'T a battle!
GhostTracker: Thanks for your interesting comment. One persons skirmish is another persons battle. It is all in the semantics of how you want to describe what took place in Afghanistan.
Post a Comment