A family says 10 of its members were killed in a US drone strike in Kabul

[BeyondGeography]

Source: NY Times

Hours after a U.S. military drone strike in Kabul on Sunday, Defense Department officials said that it had blown up a vehicle laden with explosives, eliminating a threat to Kabul’s airport from the Islamic State Khorasan group.

But at a family home in Kabul on Monday, survivors and neighbors said the strike had killed 10 people, including seven children, an aid worker for an American charity organization and a contractor with the U.S. military. Zemari Ahmadi, who worked for the charity organization Nutrition and Education International, was on his way home from work after dropping off colleagues on Sunday evening, according to relatives and colleagues interviewed in Kabul.

As he pulled into the narrow street where he lived with his three brothers and their families, the children, seeing his white Toyota Corolla, ran outside to greet him. Some clambered aboard in the street, others gathered around as he pulled the car into the courtyard of their home. It was then that they say the drone struck.

…On Monday, Capt. Bill Urban, the spokesman, reaffirmed an earlier statement that the military hit a valid target, an explosives-laden vehicle. He also repeated that the military was investigating claims of civilian casualties. Mr. Ahmadi was a technical engineer for the local office of Nutrition and Education International, an American nonprofit based in Pasadena, Calif. His neighbors and relatives insisted that the engineer and his family members, many of whom had worked for the Afghan security forces, had no connection to any terrorist group.

They provided documents related to his long employment with the American charity, as well as Mr. Naser’s application for a Special Immigrant Visa, based on his service as a guard at Camp Lawton, in Herat.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/30/world/afghanistan-news/a-family-says-10-of-its-members-were-killed-in-a-us-drone-strike-in-kabul

[Midnight Writer]

1. So how many civilians would have been killed had the vehicle reached its destination?

[secondwind]

5. The vehicle reached its destination. His home. No?

[BeyondGeography]

7. The sooner it's over the better

Yes.

[PortTack]

3. Military contractor reports...and they are so truthful

[secondwind]

4. So, this person was the target. Sorry fella.

The children are collateral damage, sadly.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. This may sound cruel snd heartless, but any time a military force...

is sent in, "collateral damage" is to be expected. That, and just plain old fuckups. It's part of the cost of war.

[George II]

16. There is way too much detail about an incident that would have killed anyone within hundreds....

....of feet.

[George II]

15. It wasn't a fuck up. Unfortunately terrorists hide out in civilian neighborhoods in the hopes....

....that we wouldn't strike there. They hoped wrong.

It's a horrible thing, but this was on those who allowed terrorists to load up a vehicle with hundreds of pounds of explosives, probably destined to the airport later in the day to kill 100 or more.

[FBaggins]

29. They also sometimes make up stories for public consumption

You would be shocked to see how often one of our drone strikes takes out a wedding party or a funeral.

[jaxexpat]

8. The story is innuendo.

Can we have no clear statement of events?

Military lying about the success of missions? Who'd believe such a thing is possible?

NY Times printing unclear, rumor based, hinting at what can't be known? Confusing muddy, sensationalized opinion as news? Too often true. (I think the editor's on "GOOD" meds.)

[aeromanKC]

9. Over 160 Afghan civilians and 13 American soldiers were killed last week without US intervention.

Just saying.

[George II]

14. Right. I guess the NY Times forgot that already. They've moved on from bashing Biden last week....

...for "allowing" 160-170 civilians to be killed, to 9 or 10 killed in this incident.

I won't read the article, did they mention that terrorists were killed in the attack, too? Terrorists who were so cowardly that they hid in a civilian neighborhood.

[IronLionZion]

11. WaPo and NYT are reporting it

and they tend to be reputable sources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/30/afghanistan-kabul-taliban-live-updates/

It's tragic if it's true. The sooner the US gets everyone out and leaves for good, the better it is for everyone else too.

[Jon King]

26. They are only repeating the reports, not confirming it on their own.

WAPo and NYT are simply repeating the other supposed 'reports'.

[Lulu KC]

28. Didn't they get their people out last week?

I think I saw a story fly by about that in the NYT. I have stopped looking at WaPo. Unbelievably poor coverage in the last week, and headlines that don't reflect the content of the actual story. Very disappointing.

[George II]

12. The drone attack prevented that vehicle from going near the airport and possibly killing....

...many more civilians. That was the intent of that vehicle.

Sad that some civilians were killed too (the actual number may only be 9, but whatever), but it prevented the deaths of maybe hundreds. Remember, 170 civilians were killed by a similar vehicle last week.

That's what these gutless terrorists do - they hide out in populated neighborhoods hoping that we won't strike them. In this case they were wrong. And although some civilians were killed, I'm glad we did it, it saved many more in the long run.

Sad that the NY Times dwells on this and seemingly totally forgot already how many were killed last week.

[Bayard]

13. Skeptical

What would a U.S. military contractor be doing anywhere around this car? IF a family was killed, I am well and truly sorry. But until real facts are presented, I'm pretty dubious.

[Beastly Boy]

18. NY Times is not reporting on the drone strike in Kabul.

NY Times is reporting on some possible eyewitness accounts of the drone strike in Kabul.

These accounts at times conflict with other accounts of the same event from other sources which include alleged accounts from other eyewitnesses.

Too early to jump to conclusions based on these accounts, or on the NY Times report itself.

[keopeli]

19. The US didn't kill those civilians. That was Isis-K. They brought explosives into their neighborhood

with violent intent. The US prevented it from being any worse.

Of course, I feel bad for those who died or were hurt. But ISIS-K had already determined to kill as many as possible. Why blame the US for keeping deaths to a minimum?

And why do US News outlets (NYT, Wash Post) have to couch their article as the US killing a bunch of civilians? I'm so tired of this. Why is our media so determined to hurt their own government when they know exactly what happened? To me, the article's author is very unpatriotic, characterizing our efforts to minimize death and prevent future attacks as carelessly killing innocent children. There are much better ways to communicate what has really happened.

[ashredux]

20. Monday morning quarterbacking of every operation done by the military is insane

[Turbineguy]

21. There are also instance of

bomb factories exploding with innocent loss of life.

This sort of thing is good for terrorist propaganda.

[samnsara]

22. war sucks

[cilla4progress]

23. Can't live with US military presence...

can't live without it.

SMDH.

End(less) war...

[Mr.Bill]

24. Surprised they didn't say it was a wedding.

That's their usual story.

[Jon King]

27. Yeah, the kids running gleefully to the car is the 1st sign of a made up story.

Amazing how the children just happened to see the car, come running joyfully up to it, then "the drone struck".

Almost as good as the wedding story that it usually is. What a load of BS.

[oasis]

39. Kids just run to him like he was the ice cream man. I ain't buying it.

[LymphocyteLover]

31. how many of those stories were there during the Obama years?

[Jon King]

25. Amazing how CNN has 'reports' of civilians killed minutes after every strike.

After the first drone strike, which took place on a 3 wheeler in the middle of nowhere, the Petagon says no known civilian casualties. Literally minutes later CNN supposedly says 'civilians were killed according to reports'.

Same thing after this strike, CNN magically had reporting that civilians were killed like 5 minutes after the strike.

[PSPS]

30. I guess what's left of "the family" won't let suicide bombs be made in their neighborhood now.

[LymphocyteLover]

32. Story is confusing-- are they saying they struck the wrong target or the guy they killed was the

right guy who was a terrorist who happened to also work for a charity and who had kids come up to him as he drove up?

[Beastly Boy]

33. That's the reality of life in Afghanistan - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The Taliban and Al Quaeda are bitter enemies. In this context, helping Americans against the Taliban doesn't rule out any affiliation with Al Quaeda against Americans once Americans no longer wage war with the Taliban.

Sick as it is by our standards, it would make sense to an Afghan.

[LymphocyteLover]

34. Yes, but the story was still unclear

I saw the WaPo seemed to be saying this guy was not the target but was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Beastly Boy]

35. I just threw in one more possible interpretation into the mix, which makes the story even less clear

I have no reason to believe that anything in my post comes close to being factual, just that it is possible, however inconceivable it may appear to our American sensibilities.

I too question every aspect of the story, where it came from and how it was being reported by any number of sources, including the Pentagon, WaPo and alleged eyewitnesses. It just doesn't add up.

[LymphocyteLover]

36. Ok, I see that but sorry, I don't see how what you said explains the story

[Beastly Boy]

37. It doesn't explain the story. It only addresses your question.

Your question contains an either/or proposition:

Story is confusing-- are they saying they struck the wrong target or the guy they killed was the
right guy who was a terrorist who happened to also work for a charity and who had kids come up to him as he drove up?

Both are equally plausible.despite the latter seeming to be more fantastic than the former.

But the confusion in the story goes beyond either/or. The story contains a whole bunch of unverified and conflicting narratives that leave several other possibilities open: the drone may have struck two targets, one containing terrorists and the other containing the wrong guy. Or they may have struck the right guy and he triggered a second explosion that lead to collateral damage. Or the eyewitnesses mentioned in the story are not completely truthful in their recollection of events. Or that the Pentagon is not completely truthful in their report. But I eluded to these possibilities earlier in the thread, and only focused on your question here.

[LymphocyteLover]

38. thanks