This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Camp Chapman attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it would be easier to make sense of the casualty section if it were done as a list. For example:
Eight people, among them at least six CIA officers, including the chief of the base, were killed and six others seriously wounded in the attack. [1] [2] [3]
Citing the sensitivity of their mission, the CIA has not released the names of those killed in the attack, many of whom were seasoned hands in the agency's counterterrorism operations. [8] [9] [10] All officers were working as undercover agents. [4]
The operatives stationed at the base were responsible for intelligence collection on insurgents' networks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the selection of al-Qaeda and Taliban target for drone aircraft strikes, and were also plotting missions to kill the networks' top leaders. [11] [8] CIA bases on the Afghan-Pakistan border gather intelligence in both countries and are in contact with local operatives. [12] According to a former intelligence official, two of the officers killed in the attack were contractors for Xe, a private security company formerly known as Blackwater. The CIA considers contractors to be officers. [13] The Wall Street Journal reports that only one private security contractor has been killed. [1] As a result of the attack, the base was rendered inoperative until the CIA sends in a new team of officers. [3]
Initially, eight U.S. citizens were believed to have died in the attack, and a U.S. defence official said that all of the dead would be civilians, not U.S. or NATO troops. [13] [14] Hours after the attack on the base, the official number of intelligence operatives killed in the bombing was revised, and instead of eight deaths, the CIA acknowledged only seven. The eight person killed turned out to be the officer of the Jordanian intelligence service. The death offered a rare glimpse of a U.S.-Jordanian partnership that is rarely acknowledged publicly, yet seen by U.S. officials as highly important for their counterterrorism strategy. [15]
ABC Driven
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CBS Setback
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Details
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Washington Post Airstrikes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT Mazzetti
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT Rubin and Mazzetti
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
All sources, except for one, state seven CIA officers died, the sources also state one Afghan security guard and one Jordanian military officer died. That is a total of nine. If you realy want to avoid OR, but this in fact isn't realy OR but whatever, for the number nine here you go [1]. The source says eight Americans and one Afghan, that one American was later identified to actualy be the Jordanian. I can find a few more that stated nine. Here are more up to date sources than your source that state seven and not six CIA officers died, your source for six is dated January 2, here is this one also dated January 2 stating seven died [2], and one more dated January 3 (so more up to date than yours) stating again that seven died [3]. Also, here is one more dated TODAY that says seven died [4]. In addition one of these ref identifies the eight American previously reported as the Jordanian. If you even want to separate the American perimeter guard and state he was not a CIA officer that would be wrong since the CIA consideres contractors working for them as their employess thus officers too. There is a ref on this already in the article. Nine died not eight, seven officers died not six, seven Americans died not six. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
All current reliable sources say eight have been killed, but they DO NOT say that one was an Afghan, one was a Jordanian and six would be CIA. Since you blasted at me with that OR rule I guess you could say that your statement so six would be CIA is more of an OR violation than my edit. In fact the sources say eight have been killed including SEVEN CIA officers. You are purposly distorting the facts. Can you prove to me that the three sources I provided to you, and I can provide you with a lot more, that state state seven died are using outofdate information. Again, by the way, those sources are dated January 2, 3 and 4. Yours is January 2. I will leave you with one thought to think about. Qoute I write to mark a sad occasion in the history of the CIA and our country. Yesterday, seven Americans in Afghanistan gave their lives in service to their country. Michelle and I have their families, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers. President Obama's message to the men and women of the CIA. Here is the source [5]. You mean to say that the president of the USA himself got it wrong and said seven instead of six? Wow. You cann't have a more valid source than that huh? Are you going to say now that the president got it wrong are you just going to ignore me and say - Jezz the US president's speechwriters must have had out-of-date information. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
|
The Washington Post has changed its wording from "CIA officials" to "CIA operatives". [6] Other sources say four officials and three contractors died. I'll way for some time to see if further information emerges. If this is not the case, I'll make the respective changes to the article, i.e. eight [not nine] killed by the attacker, four CIA officers, three CIA contractors, and a Jordanian intelligence official. Cs32en 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC) ...FOX says seven CIA officers [...] four officers and three contract security guards [...] [7] ;-) Cs32en 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The three contract guards were most likely the two Xe guys and the Afghan chief of security. The Afghan was most likely an American of Afghan origin. Ok...now we have confirmed the three security guys, as for the four officials they were the two women, Harold Brown, and one more unidentified. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) One more thing, I didn't just simple remove the reference, there was no reference to begin with. You can check this by checking the edit history of the article before my last edit and will see that reference number 28 linked to NOTHING. I checked now more thoroughly what the problem was, it seems that I renamed that reference by some mistake so it linked to nothing. So I apologise on my part. Now back to our problem. I am willing to reduce from Eight or nine the number of dead in the article, if we include the Afghan security chief as one of the seven CIA operatives, which do include four officials and three guards, by the way all according to your references. :) UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) By the way Cs32en, the Fox source states clearly, seven bodies returned to the US, not six, hehe. ;) UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
7 CIA operatives and 1 Jordanian operative: [9]
If you still don't trust me or the sources that SEVEN and not six American CIA guys died than I qoute CIA spokesman George Little who today said (by the way my source is your source :)) [12] Earlier today, CIA Director Leon Panetta, other agency and national security officials, and friends and family members attended a private, dignified event at Dover Air Force Base to honor and welcome home the seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty last week in Khost, Afghanistan Is the CIA lying now even at their memorial ceremony that seven but in reality six died? Hmmm.... I rest my case and it was a tough case, jury you can withdraw to delibirate. Wow. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well since the fox source states that three guards among the seven CIA were killed along with the Jordanian, but without the mention of the Afghan guard I deduced that the Afghan was an American CIA guard of Afghan origin. He along with the two Xe guards make a total of three guards. The perimeter guard mentioned in that source was probably one of the two Xe guys. Si I supstituted him with An unidentified official. As for the four officials, two were women, one was Harold Brown, and one still needs to be identified, in any case it's clear now that eight people died in the attack: seven CIA guys (including an American of Afghan origin) and one Jordanian. And if you still have doubts that it was seven American CIA agents I again point out that the US president states in an open letter to the CIA that seven Americans died, and the CIA spokesmen today said they had a memorial at the airport for the arival of seven killed CIA agents. I see Publics has already made the necessary corrections, I will also do some more too tomorow. And please Cs32en, stop fighting this. Both the US president and a CIA spokesmen stated that seven American CIA guys died. Even if the US president had wrong information since his statement was a day after the attack, you mean to tell me the CIA spokesmen also had the wrong information today, a week after the attack? It's over Cs32en. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 01:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Some things in the article are woozily. Why should the attack be a sign for al-Qaedas not-weakness? Didn't attack the Taliban??? Edroeh ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC):Of course it should be: Didn't the Taliban attack??? Edroeh ( talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The name of one of those killed can now be found on the internet. There appears to be little information about the person on the web, however. Cs32en 06:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw it, Dane Paresi. He was a security contractor just like Arghawan and Jeremi Wise. So that means that Scott Roberson was not a contractor even though he was a security guy. Roberson must have been a full-time security officer for the agency. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I noted in the table that the two of the three contractors were Xe, maybe we should note what branches the others belonged to, since Brown's speciality was military intelligence he would have been probably National Clandestine Service and since Roberson was a security officer he would have been probably Special Activities Division. Any thoughts on this?
A source described by The Times as a former CIA bin Laden hunter reportedly said the CIA obtained one electronic intercept of a Pakistani army officer tipping the Haqqanis off to a raid and another in which a member of the Pakistani intelligence service says the "Haqqanis are our guys."
That would result in: "UPI reported that, according to The Times, a former CIA bin Laden hunter was said to have asserted that the CIA had obtained an electronic intercept from an unnamed Pakistani officer tipping the Haqqanis off..." All based on reliable sources, of course... ;-) Any takers? Cs32en 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the somewhat obscure statements from FBI officials ("still determining the components of the explosive", "shrapnel", "significant explosion", "entered by car"), is it possible that the explosives were attached to the car, rather than to the attacker. People involved may have acted under duress, and may have hoped to be able to escape the blast. Additional information (preferably from reliable sources) is welcome! Cs32en 11:17, 7 January 2010(UTC)
The "triple agent" hypothesis seems increasingly dubious. If al-Balawi went to Afghanistan under the cover of treating wounded insurgents, that would not be useful cover for an al-Qaeda agent. So the CIA would have concluded that either he stopped working with al-Qaeda, or that al-Qaeda was aware or suspicious of his CIA contacts and removed him from the front line. In both cases, al-Balawi would have ceased to be a triple agent (in the first case, because he would no longer have been a double agent in the eyes of the CIA, in the second case, because the CIA would have believed that he was compromised, thus they would certainly have searched him). It's more likely that he was pressured into cooperating with the Jordanian agency and, at one point, decided to turn against the Jordanian agency and the CIA. That would make him either a "simple" agent who turned against the CIA, or, in case he was recruited as an agent by al-Qaeda or Haqqani after turning against the CIA, a double agent. Any further information on this in reliable sources? Cs32en 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
A completely different version of events is being put forward by senior intelligence analyst Christopher Story on his website worldreports.org [14]. According to Story the dead operatives are synonymous with the perpetrators of the killing of eight schoolchildren shortly preceding the Camp Champman attack [15], an incident which caused an uproar in Afghanistan and the Afghan Security Council to demand that the US hand over the perpetrators. According to Story, that attack (killing the schoolchildren) was implemented to derail the ongoing unwinding by international law enforcement personnel of 'Operation Stillpoint' which, again according to Story, is a financial fraud which has been perpetrated by three US presidents for more than a decade (on the scale of $47 Trillion), As no mainstream media has so far covered this alleged story I can only inform other editors that if true, Operation Stillpoint is undoubtedly the largest financial fraud in history. Extensive details are however presented on worldreports.org. __ meco ( talk) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In the Jordanian reaction section, it seems like it is being stressed that al-Balawi was a GID contact and an informant, not a double agent. And there's no CIA claim to counter that. The sources quoted in that section use phrasing similar to 'suicide bomber was not a double agent after all', indicating that it's not just a Jordanian reaction, but a "new" development of facts.
AFAIK, the CIA said nothing to counter that; so its only the Jordanians' word vs. Taliban's word. It seems more logical to credit the legitimate governmental organization's word over that of an organization that actually might NEED to twist facts to appear more heroic. What do you think? -- Eshcorp ( talk) 09:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud is responsible according to this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/middleeast/10balawi.html?hp article. This article suggests that the Haqquani Network was involved. They have a video with the bomber and Mehsud the leader of the group. Please revise this article and remove all mentions of the Haqquani network who had nothing to do with this attack according to the new information. Any body else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.133.184 ( talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We should seriously think of removing the politician's and bureaucrat's "oh, this is a sad day" comments. Gut most of the reactions section. This article should be about the attack, not some lame political press release comments. Later, when more information comes in, we should include the actual retaliation done and how many Taliban heads were cut off. JB50000 ( talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Reconstructing the CIA bombing
Also Leon Panetta made a statement about the attack. CIA director defends agency against criticism Geo8rge ( talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Phiont, I have not written that the security director would have been killed by the attacker, but that he was killed in the attack. In fact, if the attack would not have taken place, he would not have been killed. So it's quite logical to count the security director among those who have been killed in the attack. Please let me know what you think about this. ( Phiont's edit) Cs32en 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the security director of Camp Chapman, who died as a result of the attack on the base, be referred to as a victim of the the attack, and is the wording "[he] was killed in the attack" correct to describe the circumstances? Cs32en Talk to me 07:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the security director of Camp Chapman, who died as a result of the attack on the base, be referred to as a casualty of the the attack, and is the wording "[he] was killed in the attack" correct to describe the circumstances? (A user who claims that the wording should not be used has again stated his opposition, after the first RfC had been closed.) Cs32en Talk to me 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The previous RfC got a response from 2 uninvolved editors. They both agreed. That's as close to a consensus as you get on Wikipedia. Give me a good reason to not close this superfluous RfC. - Atmoz ( talk) 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph, as the assessments made by officials are not conclusions drawn from an investigation. The information may be added to the article somewhere else, however.
Jordanian and U.S. officials concluded that he must have been "a committed extremist" who had never intended to cooperate with them. CIA and GID officials had been too eager by the prospect of a strike against al-Qaeda's leaders. [1]
- ^ Finn, Peter; Warrick, Joby (January 18, 2010). "In Afghanistan attack, CIA fell victim to series of miscalculations about informant". Washington Post. Retrieved January 18, 2010.
Cs32en Talk to me 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the opening paragraphs after finding that two paragraphs were hidden by an open (ref) tag. Here is the third, which I've removed because it isn't relevant enough for the opening.
The U.S. requested that Pakistan arrest and extradite an insurgency leader, and intensified drone attacks in the northern area of Pakistan. The U.S. military also issued new security guidance to its bases in Afghanistan. The CIA and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the attack. U.S. President Barack Obama praised the CIA officers who died in the bombing, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack. All seven of the operatives killed in the attack were memorialized with a star on the agency's Memorial Wall at its headquarters. [1]
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The Haqqani network was originally suspect of involvement in the attack, but they were not a part of it, nor has it been shown they even knew about it beforehand. I am parking the section here if some information or sources can be used elsewhere. A background section should remain, however, the Haqqani network and US-Pakistani relations do not need sections themselves. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The drone attacks carried out by the U.S. military in Pakistan rely on local informants, who can cross the border into Pakistan in a way CIA officers cannot. [2] CIA officers at the base were involved in the coordination, targeting and surveillance of drone strikes aimed at the Taliban. [3] At the time of the attack, they were conducting an aggressive campaign against the Haqqani network, a radical group run by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, and were aiming at the Tehrik-i-Taliban group in particular. [4] [5] [6] [7]
The Haqqani network, one of the CIA's most important assets during Operation Cyclone in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, [2] [8] operates on both sides of the porous border shared by Afghanistan and Pakistan and is believed to have close ties to al-Qaeda. [9] Jalaluddin Haqqani is widely believed to maintain ties with Pakistan's security and intelligence establishment as well. [10] The Haqqani family has migrated from Khost Province to North Waziristan after the Soviet invasion in 1979. It has focused on attacking U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting Pakistan. [8]
Members of the Haqqani network have occasionally cooperated with the Pakistani Taliban in the past. "At times they send suicide attackers to our area, and we give them shelter and find targets for them," a former commander of the group said. [11] The network has carried out numerous attacks with growing sophistication in Khost Province, where the attack on the CIA facility took place. [12]
Afghanistan's government suspected that the attack was a revenge attack organized by the network. [7] A Pentagon consultant, an ex-Afghan official who has worked at the base with the CIA, and a counterterror official of the CIA expressed similar views, and one U.S. military official stated that the U.S. had indications pointing in that direction. [9] [5] [13] Pakistani officials played down the likelihood that the Haqqani network organized the attack, and cautioned against jumping to conclusions. [7] Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University, said that these suspicions would arise because "the United States government has really taken upon itself [...] to degrade the Haqqani network", while Pakistan has "demurred, if not outright refused, to take action against" it. [14]
The attack came at a time when disputes over civilian casualties between the U.S. and Afghanistan, and over counterterrorism strategies between the U.S. and Pakistan, were increasing. [15] Confirmation that the Haqqani network was responsible for the bombing could put additional strains on relations between the U.S. and Pakistan, which has rejected U.S. calls to deny safe havens to the network. [7] Pakistan's security officials have warned against an escalation of the U.S. drone attacks in the country. A senior Pakistani security official urged the United States to coordinate its response to the suicide attack with the Pakistani government, in order to avoid "unnecessary and further friction" to the alliance of both countries, while a U.S. State Department official said that the U.S. counterterrorist efforts "are coordinated with foreign governments, including with Pakistan, as needed." [10]
The United States and Pakistan differ over which Islamist fighters to target. [16] Pakistan sees Haqqani, who had long-standing links with its military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, as likely to be a valuable asset in Afghanistan if U.S. troops leave, as Islamabad anticipates, before the country is stabilised. [12]
_________________________________________________
There was considerable confusion after the attack about the motivations of the attacker and the source of its support. [17] [18] It was not clear whether conflicting claims of responsibility indicated that Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, and al-Qaeda were working independently from each other. [18] U.S. officials said that their investigators have yet to determine which of the groups organized the attack. [19]
A video released in the days after the attack featured the purported bomber stating that he was carrying out the attack in response to the death of Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban leader who was killed by a U.S. drone in August earlier that year. [20] The CIA launched more than 50 drone attacks in 2009, compared to more than 30 in 2008, according to an ABC News tally. The CIA officials based at Forward Operating Base Chapman were at the center of the drone campaign, according to intelligence officials, and they were looking for informants to help them find senior al-Qaeda and Haqqani leaders. [18]
I've taken out early sources reporting erroneous claims and revised the text where it was needed. Would be glad to have someone review the changes or contribute to further improvements. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Cs32en Talk to me 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
References
ABC Driven
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Helped
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT Mazzetti
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Figaro
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Strategy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Blamed
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYDN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Pakistan Daily Blowback
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NPR Strikes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ABC Responsibility
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Al-Jazeera Lax
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The bombing cannot be seen as suggesting "that al-Qaeda might not be as weakened as previously thought". One suicide attack doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Royalcourtier ( talk) 00:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camp Chapman attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Camp Chapman attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think it would be easier to make sense of the casualty section if it were done as a list. For example:
Eight people, among them at least six CIA officers, including the chief of the base, were killed and six others seriously wounded in the attack. [1] [2] [3]
Citing the sensitivity of their mission, the CIA has not released the names of those killed in the attack, many of whom were seasoned hands in the agency's counterterrorism operations. [8] [9] [10] All officers were working as undercover agents. [4]
The operatives stationed at the base were responsible for intelligence collection on insurgents' networks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the selection of al-Qaeda and Taliban target for drone aircraft strikes, and were also plotting missions to kill the networks' top leaders. [11] [8] CIA bases on the Afghan-Pakistan border gather intelligence in both countries and are in contact with local operatives. [12] According to a former intelligence official, two of the officers killed in the attack were contractors for Xe, a private security company formerly known as Blackwater. The CIA considers contractors to be officers. [13] The Wall Street Journal reports that only one private security contractor has been killed. [1] As a result of the attack, the base was rendered inoperative until the CIA sends in a new team of officers. [3]
Initially, eight U.S. citizens were believed to have died in the attack, and a U.S. defence official said that all of the dead would be civilians, not U.S. or NATO troops. [13] [14] Hours after the attack on the base, the official number of intelligence operatives killed in the bombing was revised, and instead of eight deaths, the CIA acknowledged only seven. The eight person killed turned out to be the officer of the Jordanian intelligence service. The death offered a rare glimpse of a U.S.-Jordanian partnership that is rarely acknowledged publicly, yet seen by U.S. officials as highly important for their counterterrorism strategy. [15]
ABC Driven
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CBS Setback
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Details
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Washington Post Airstrikes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT Mazzetti
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT Rubin and Mazzetti
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
All sources, except for one, state seven CIA officers died, the sources also state one Afghan security guard and one Jordanian military officer died. That is a total of nine. If you realy want to avoid OR, but this in fact isn't realy OR but whatever, for the number nine here you go [1]. The source says eight Americans and one Afghan, that one American was later identified to actualy be the Jordanian. I can find a few more that stated nine. Here are more up to date sources than your source that state seven and not six CIA officers died, your source for six is dated January 2, here is this one also dated January 2 stating seven died [2], and one more dated January 3 (so more up to date than yours) stating again that seven died [3]. Also, here is one more dated TODAY that says seven died [4]. In addition one of these ref identifies the eight American previously reported as the Jordanian. If you even want to separate the American perimeter guard and state he was not a CIA officer that would be wrong since the CIA consideres contractors working for them as their employess thus officers too. There is a ref on this already in the article. Nine died not eight, seven officers died not six, seven Americans died not six. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
All current reliable sources say eight have been killed, but they DO NOT say that one was an Afghan, one was a Jordanian and six would be CIA. Since you blasted at me with that OR rule I guess you could say that your statement so six would be CIA is more of an OR violation than my edit. In fact the sources say eight have been killed including SEVEN CIA officers. You are purposly distorting the facts. Can you prove to me that the three sources I provided to you, and I can provide you with a lot more, that state state seven died are using outofdate information. Again, by the way, those sources are dated January 2, 3 and 4. Yours is January 2. I will leave you with one thought to think about. Qoute I write to mark a sad occasion in the history of the CIA and our country. Yesterday, seven Americans in Afghanistan gave their lives in service to their country. Michelle and I have their families, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers. President Obama's message to the men and women of the CIA. Here is the source [5]. You mean to say that the president of the USA himself got it wrong and said seven instead of six? Wow. You cann't have a more valid source than that huh? Are you going to say now that the president got it wrong are you just going to ignore me and say - Jezz the US president's speechwriters must have had out-of-date information. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
|
The Washington Post has changed its wording from "CIA officials" to "CIA operatives". [6] Other sources say four officials and three contractors died. I'll way for some time to see if further information emerges. If this is not the case, I'll make the respective changes to the article, i.e. eight [not nine] killed by the attacker, four CIA officers, three CIA contractors, and a Jordanian intelligence official. Cs32en 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC) ...FOX says seven CIA officers [...] four officers and three contract security guards [...] [7] ;-) Cs32en 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The three contract guards were most likely the two Xe guys and the Afghan chief of security. The Afghan was most likely an American of Afghan origin. Ok...now we have confirmed the three security guys, as for the four officials they were the two women, Harold Brown, and one more unidentified. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC) One more thing, I didn't just simple remove the reference, there was no reference to begin with. You can check this by checking the edit history of the article before my last edit and will see that reference number 28 linked to NOTHING. I checked now more thoroughly what the problem was, it seems that I renamed that reference by some mistake so it linked to nothing. So I apologise on my part. Now back to our problem. I am willing to reduce from Eight or nine the number of dead in the article, if we include the Afghan security chief as one of the seven CIA operatives, which do include four officials and three guards, by the way all according to your references. :) UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) By the way Cs32en, the Fox source states clearly, seven bodies returned to the US, not six, hehe. ;) UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
7 CIA operatives and 1 Jordanian operative: [9]
If you still don't trust me or the sources that SEVEN and not six American CIA guys died than I qoute CIA spokesman George Little who today said (by the way my source is your source :)) [12] Earlier today, CIA Director Leon Panetta, other agency and national security officials, and friends and family members attended a private, dignified event at Dover Air Force Base to honor and welcome home the seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty last week in Khost, Afghanistan Is the CIA lying now even at their memorial ceremony that seven but in reality six died? Hmmm.... I rest my case and it was a tough case, jury you can withdraw to delibirate. Wow. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well since the fox source states that three guards among the seven CIA were killed along with the Jordanian, but without the mention of the Afghan guard I deduced that the Afghan was an American CIA guard of Afghan origin. He along with the two Xe guards make a total of three guards. The perimeter guard mentioned in that source was probably one of the two Xe guys. Si I supstituted him with An unidentified official. As for the four officials, two were women, one was Harold Brown, and one still needs to be identified, in any case it's clear now that eight people died in the attack: seven CIA guys (including an American of Afghan origin) and one Jordanian. And if you still have doubts that it was seven American CIA agents I again point out that the US president states in an open letter to the CIA that seven Americans died, and the CIA spokesmen today said they had a memorial at the airport for the arival of seven killed CIA agents. I see Publics has already made the necessary corrections, I will also do some more too tomorow. And please Cs32en, stop fighting this. Both the US president and a CIA spokesmen stated that seven American CIA guys died. Even if the US president had wrong information since his statement was a day after the attack, you mean to tell me the CIA spokesmen also had the wrong information today, a week after the attack? It's over Cs32en. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 01:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Some things in the article are woozily. Why should the attack be a sign for al-Qaedas not-weakness? Didn't attack the Taliban??? Edroeh ( talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC):Of course it should be: Didn't the Taliban attack??? Edroeh ( talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The name of one of those killed can now be found on the internet. There appears to be little information about the person on the web, however. Cs32en 06:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw it, Dane Paresi. He was a security contractor just like Arghawan and Jeremi Wise. So that means that Scott Roberson was not a contractor even though he was a security guy. Roberson must have been a full-time security officer for the agency. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I noted in the table that the two of the three contractors were Xe, maybe we should note what branches the others belonged to, since Brown's speciality was military intelligence he would have been probably National Clandestine Service and since Roberson was a security officer he would have been probably Special Activities Division. Any thoughts on this?
A source described by The Times as a former CIA bin Laden hunter reportedly said the CIA obtained one electronic intercept of a Pakistani army officer tipping the Haqqanis off to a raid and another in which a member of the Pakistani intelligence service says the "Haqqanis are our guys."
That would result in: "UPI reported that, according to The Times, a former CIA bin Laden hunter was said to have asserted that the CIA had obtained an electronic intercept from an unnamed Pakistani officer tipping the Haqqanis off..." All based on reliable sources, of course... ;-) Any takers? Cs32en 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the somewhat obscure statements from FBI officials ("still determining the components of the explosive", "shrapnel", "significant explosion", "entered by car"), is it possible that the explosives were attached to the car, rather than to the attacker. People involved may have acted under duress, and may have hoped to be able to escape the blast. Additional information (preferably from reliable sources) is welcome! Cs32en 11:17, 7 January 2010(UTC)
The "triple agent" hypothesis seems increasingly dubious. If al-Balawi went to Afghanistan under the cover of treating wounded insurgents, that would not be useful cover for an al-Qaeda agent. So the CIA would have concluded that either he stopped working with al-Qaeda, or that al-Qaeda was aware or suspicious of his CIA contacts and removed him from the front line. In both cases, al-Balawi would have ceased to be a triple agent (in the first case, because he would no longer have been a double agent in the eyes of the CIA, in the second case, because the CIA would have believed that he was compromised, thus they would certainly have searched him). It's more likely that he was pressured into cooperating with the Jordanian agency and, at one point, decided to turn against the Jordanian agency and the CIA. That would make him either a "simple" agent who turned against the CIA, or, in case he was recruited as an agent by al-Qaeda or Haqqani after turning against the CIA, a double agent. Any further information on this in reliable sources? Cs32en 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
A completely different version of events is being put forward by senior intelligence analyst Christopher Story on his website worldreports.org [14]. According to Story the dead operatives are synonymous with the perpetrators of the killing of eight schoolchildren shortly preceding the Camp Champman attack [15], an incident which caused an uproar in Afghanistan and the Afghan Security Council to demand that the US hand over the perpetrators. According to Story, that attack (killing the schoolchildren) was implemented to derail the ongoing unwinding by international law enforcement personnel of 'Operation Stillpoint' which, again according to Story, is a financial fraud which has been perpetrated by three US presidents for more than a decade (on the scale of $47 Trillion), As no mainstream media has so far covered this alleged story I can only inform other editors that if true, Operation Stillpoint is undoubtedly the largest financial fraud in history. Extensive details are however presented on worldreports.org. __ meco ( talk) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In the Jordanian reaction section, it seems like it is being stressed that al-Balawi was a GID contact and an informant, not a double agent. And there's no CIA claim to counter that. The sources quoted in that section use phrasing similar to 'suicide bomber was not a double agent after all', indicating that it's not just a Jordanian reaction, but a "new" development of facts.
AFAIK, the CIA said nothing to counter that; so its only the Jordanians' word vs. Taliban's word. It seems more logical to credit the legitimate governmental organization's word over that of an organization that actually might NEED to twist facts to appear more heroic. What do you think? -- Eshcorp ( talk) 09:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud is responsible according to this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/middleeast/10balawi.html?hp article. This article suggests that the Haqquani Network was involved. They have a video with the bomber and Mehsud the leader of the group. Please revise this article and remove all mentions of the Haqquani network who had nothing to do with this attack according to the new information. Any body else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.133.184 ( talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We should seriously think of removing the politician's and bureaucrat's "oh, this is a sad day" comments. Gut most of the reactions section. This article should be about the attack, not some lame political press release comments. Later, when more information comes in, we should include the actual retaliation done and how many Taliban heads were cut off. JB50000 ( talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Reconstructing the CIA bombing
Also Leon Panetta made a statement about the attack. CIA director defends agency against criticism Geo8rge ( talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Phiont, I have not written that the security director would have been killed by the attacker, but that he was killed in the attack. In fact, if the attack would not have taken place, he would not have been killed. So it's quite logical to count the security director among those who have been killed in the attack. Please let me know what you think about this. ( Phiont's edit) Cs32en 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the security director of Camp Chapman, who died as a result of the attack on the base, be referred to as a victim of the the attack, and is the wording "[he] was killed in the attack" correct to describe the circumstances? Cs32en Talk to me 07:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the security director of Camp Chapman, who died as a result of the attack on the base, be referred to as a casualty of the the attack, and is the wording "[he] was killed in the attack" correct to describe the circumstances? (A user who claims that the wording should not be used has again stated his opposition, after the first RfC had been closed.) Cs32en Talk to me 14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The previous RfC got a response from 2 uninvolved editors. They both agreed. That's as close to a consensus as you get on Wikipedia. Give me a good reason to not close this superfluous RfC. - Atmoz ( talk) 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph, as the assessments made by officials are not conclusions drawn from an investigation. The information may be added to the article somewhere else, however.
Jordanian and U.S. officials concluded that he must have been "a committed extremist" who had never intended to cooperate with them. CIA and GID officials had been too eager by the prospect of a strike against al-Qaeda's leaders. [1]
- ^ Finn, Peter; Warrick, Joby (January 18, 2010). "In Afghanistan attack, CIA fell victim to series of miscalculations about informant". Washington Post. Retrieved January 18, 2010.
Cs32en Talk to me 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the opening paragraphs after finding that two paragraphs were hidden by an open (ref) tag. Here is the third, which I've removed because it isn't relevant enough for the opening.
The U.S. requested that Pakistan arrest and extradite an insurgency leader, and intensified drone attacks in the northern area of Pakistan. The U.S. military also issued new security guidance to its bases in Afghanistan. The CIA and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the attack. U.S. President Barack Obama praised the CIA officers who died in the bombing, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack. All seven of the operatives killed in the attack were memorialized with a star on the agency's Memorial Wall at its headquarters. [1]
Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The Haqqani network was originally suspect of involvement in the attack, but they were not a part of it, nor has it been shown they even knew about it beforehand. I am parking the section here if some information or sources can be used elsewhere. A background section should remain, however, the Haqqani network and US-Pakistani relations do not need sections themselves. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The drone attacks carried out by the U.S. military in Pakistan rely on local informants, who can cross the border into Pakistan in a way CIA officers cannot. [2] CIA officers at the base were involved in the coordination, targeting and surveillance of drone strikes aimed at the Taliban. [3] At the time of the attack, they were conducting an aggressive campaign against the Haqqani network, a radical group run by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, and were aiming at the Tehrik-i-Taliban group in particular. [4] [5] [6] [7]
The Haqqani network, one of the CIA's most important assets during Operation Cyclone in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, [2] [8] operates on both sides of the porous border shared by Afghanistan and Pakistan and is believed to have close ties to al-Qaeda. [9] Jalaluddin Haqqani is widely believed to maintain ties with Pakistan's security and intelligence establishment as well. [10] The Haqqani family has migrated from Khost Province to North Waziristan after the Soviet invasion in 1979. It has focused on attacking U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting Pakistan. [8]
Members of the Haqqani network have occasionally cooperated with the Pakistani Taliban in the past. "At times they send suicide attackers to our area, and we give them shelter and find targets for them," a former commander of the group said. [11] The network has carried out numerous attacks with growing sophistication in Khost Province, where the attack on the CIA facility took place. [12]
Afghanistan's government suspected that the attack was a revenge attack organized by the network. [7] A Pentagon consultant, an ex-Afghan official who has worked at the base with the CIA, and a counterterror official of the CIA expressed similar views, and one U.S. military official stated that the U.S. had indications pointing in that direction. [9] [5] [13] Pakistani officials played down the likelihood that the Haqqani network organized the attack, and cautioned against jumping to conclusions. [7] Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University, said that these suspicions would arise because "the United States government has really taken upon itself [...] to degrade the Haqqani network", while Pakistan has "demurred, if not outright refused, to take action against" it. [14]
The attack came at a time when disputes over civilian casualties between the U.S. and Afghanistan, and over counterterrorism strategies between the U.S. and Pakistan, were increasing. [15] Confirmation that the Haqqani network was responsible for the bombing could put additional strains on relations between the U.S. and Pakistan, which has rejected U.S. calls to deny safe havens to the network. [7] Pakistan's security officials have warned against an escalation of the U.S. drone attacks in the country. A senior Pakistani security official urged the United States to coordinate its response to the suicide attack with the Pakistani government, in order to avoid "unnecessary and further friction" to the alliance of both countries, while a U.S. State Department official said that the U.S. counterterrorist efforts "are coordinated with foreign governments, including with Pakistan, as needed." [10]
The United States and Pakistan differ over which Islamist fighters to target. [16] Pakistan sees Haqqani, who had long-standing links with its military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, as likely to be a valuable asset in Afghanistan if U.S. troops leave, as Islamabad anticipates, before the country is stabilised. [12]
_________________________________________________
There was considerable confusion after the attack about the motivations of the attacker and the source of its support. [17] [18] It was not clear whether conflicting claims of responsibility indicated that Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, and al-Qaeda were working independently from each other. [18] U.S. officials said that their investigators have yet to determine which of the groups organized the attack. [19]
A video released in the days after the attack featured the purported bomber stating that he was carrying out the attack in response to the death of Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban leader who was killed by a U.S. drone in August earlier that year. [20] The CIA launched more than 50 drone attacks in 2009, compared to more than 30 in 2008, according to an ABC News tally. The CIA officials based at Forward Operating Base Chapman were at the center of the drone campaign, according to intelligence officials, and they were looking for informants to help them find senior al-Qaeda and Haqqani leaders. [18]
I've taken out early sources reporting erroneous claims and revised the text where it was needed. Would be glad to have someone review the changes or contribute to further improvements. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Cs32en Talk to me 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
References
ABC Driven
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Helped
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT Mazzetti
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Figaro
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Strategy
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WSJ Blamed
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYDN
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Pakistan Daily Blowback
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NPR Strikes
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ABC Responsibility
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Al-Jazeera Lax
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The bombing cannot be seen as suggesting "that al-Qaeda might not be as weakened as previously thought". One suicide attack doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Royalcourtier ( talk) 00:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Camp Chapman attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)