Kabul: Second Drone Strike Brings Conflicting Reports

Kabul: Second Drone Strike Brings Conflicting Reports

Kabul: Second Drone Strike Brings Conflicting Reports

On Sunday, CENTCOM (United States Central Command) announced that another drone strike in Kabul had resulted in the elimination of an “imminent threat” to the airport.

As reports of a potential attack by ISIS-K on the airport had made the rounds over the weekend (and after the first drone strike last Friday), the goal of the military was obviously to take out whatever threats they could learn about.

The strike in a crowded neighborhood northwest of the airport set off “significant secondary explosions,” which indicated a “substantial amount of explosive material” inside the vehicle, Capt. Bill Urban, spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said in a statement. While the target was initially described as a vehicle-born improvised explosive device (IED), an official clarified that the explosives may have been worn by one or more bombers inside, rather than planted on the vehicle itself.”

The U.S. military acted to intervene and prevent another event like the one that occurred Thursday when a suicide bomb killed 13 U.S. service members and 170 Afghan citizens.”

“U.S. military forces conducted a self-defense unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul, eliminating an imminent ISIS-K threat to Hamad Karzai International Airport,” Urban said. “We are confident we successfully hit the target.”

Urban added that the military is assessing the possibility of civilian casualties.”

And then the reports began to come in from major media sources. The Taliban, it seems, was claiming that there were civilian casualties. CNN reported that nine members of one family had been killed in a building next to the target vehicle. The AP reported the same thing, but introduced the possibility that the “secondary explosions,” not the drone strike itself, may have caused the civilian casualties. Regardless, the possibility of civilians having died caused a lot of questions – and a certain amount of panic – by CENTCOM, who issued a statement late on Sunday night.

We are aware of reports of civilian casualties following our strike on a vehicle in Kabul today.”

We are still assessing the results of this strike, which we know disrupted an imminent ISIS-K threat to the airport. We know that there were substantial and powerful subsequent explosions resulting from the destruction of the vehicle, indicating a large amount of explosive material inside that may have caused additional casualties. It is unclear what may have happened, and we are investigating further.”

We would be deeply saddened by any potential loss of innocent life.”

The reaction by CENTCOM raised a few eyebrows. What on earth is going on here, and why do we not know what is going on?

There are quite a few questions that need to be answered about what is going on in Kabul right now, and how this target was chosen for a drone strike. First of all, who gave CENTCOM this information on where to find an ISIS-K threat that had a car loaded and ready with explosives? Do we still have any eyes and ears on the ground that trust us, given the circumstances? OR, did the Taliban tell CENTCOM who to hit? And for the love of God, WHY would we trust them when they say, “hey, drone THAT car”???

I have no problem believing that ISIS-K would have zero issue using children as human shields. However, there are highly speculative rumors on the ground that the target that was hit was not an ISIS-K member at all, but an Afghan ally and his family.

If this is true, and the Taliban (because who else could it be?) got the United States to do its own dirty work and take out one of our own former interpreters (after planting rumors of a second imminent ISIS-K attack?), because we know THEY HAVE BIOMETRIC DATA AND LISTS OF OUR ALLIES, then God help us all.

Also, we know the press is using local sources on the ground to get information while they still can. How much do they really trust these sources, knowing that if they are discovered giving information unflattering to the Taliban, their lives are forfeit? The Taliban isn’t exactly being shy about the pressure they are putting on the local media that is left.
The bottom line is that we might never know what actually happened after the drone strike in Kabul on Sunday. Neither the military or the press have enough reliable information on the ground to independently confirm anything. And if it was – again, this is complete speculation – a colossal set-up by the Taliban, do you really think the Pentagon will admit it? Unless, of course, the Taliban decide to brag about it later.

We now have less than 48 hours before the withdrawl is “finished.” After that, we should all be worried about what horrors will follow.

Featured image via Pixabay, cropped and modified, Pixabay license

Written by

  • ROP says:

    ” drone strike in Kabul had resulted in the elimination of an “imminent threat” to the airport.”

    At least that is what we are told. Does anybody believe these imbiciles now ?

    They screw up big time and now come up with a drone strike to say ” see we did something” or did they?
    Like Clinton blowing up an aspirin factory to try and cover up his affairs.

  • Mark says:

    I am on the same page with ROP.

    Until the Biden regime finds a way of proving they really didn’t bomb a pick-up full of children, I will hold back my praise for anyone but those filling the boots on the ground.

    Of course, Biden could fix a lot of my trust in the government if he and his whole crew were to just resign.

  • Ted says:

    “Wedding party? Oh, because of the storm of flower petals and colorful dress. Well, use the drone to blow the petal and cloth scraps out of the frame, screen shot, then we can call them ‘bombers on the way to the airport’. Get on that spin! You know, like we did with that goatherd ‘planner’–chase flock and daughter away with the drone before the screen shot”

  • AF JAG retired says:

    Remember the fog of war. Don’t allow your desire to criticize the administration to discount the difficulty of these decisions. Operators must decide based on the imperfect information available at the time, including the possibility, almost never a certainty, of civilian deaths. Here the mission was to prevent possible repetition of an attack that killed almost 200 people. Preventing that possibility could outweigh the possibility of collateral injuries. Certainty is almost never available to military commanders.

  • […] civilians were killed yesterday in a drone strike, but the Pentagon doesn’t want to answer questions about that either. Keep in mind, it’s absolutely right […]

  • […] do we even have on-the-ground intelligence there anymore? After all, we did such a bang-up job in that second drone strike, […]

  • […] stop with Joe Biden? If so, what can he possibly do or say to make this any better? After weeks of speculation, and an extensive investigation by the New York Times, the Biden administration finally confirmed […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner