soldier killed in rescue of journalist who deliberately went into taliban controlled area

[Snorbitz]

here

I feel that this journalist, Farrell should not have deliberately ventured into Taliban controlled area, presumably to get a scoop, triggering a rescue attempt in which a soldier, Corporal John Harrison and Farrell's interpreter, Sultan Munadi, were killed.

There's something fishy with this story because the people on the ground say the captors only wanted money for his release and had no intention of harming him and negotiations were going very well, so why go in?

But with that aside, I agree, I would have left him there he put a lot of people at risk and caused the death of 'many' (civillians included apparently) by his actions.

I would be bitter if I were the family of the soldier. rip.

If it had been my call I would have left him too.
the military out there are in a difficult situation out there as it is ,without saving reporters who CHOOSE to put themseleves at a stupid risk.

so sad

Difficult. I feel huge sympathy for those killed in the mission, of course and respect for their bravery. But we rely on journalists taking huge risks of this sort so that we can get some of the knowledge we need. Was he going to the area where a NATO strike killed so many? That strike and the initial claim that mostly insurgents rather than taliban were killed -- needs scrutiny.

mostly insurgents rather than taliban civilians ...

What a selfish man.
Condolences to the soldier and interpreters families

when in a war zone the army are the emergancy services.

should the fire brigade refuse to rescue children who get strapped in derilict buildings?
should the coast guard not save people who go sailing when ill prepared?
should hospitals refuse to treat people who injure themselves by misadventure?

yes this journalist should have been more carefull, but at the same time we only find out the deep dark secrets of what really goes on wehn a journalist takes a risk. be that in a war zone meeting with insurgents or by sneaking files out of a government office etc.

It is tragic that the soldier and interpretor were killed and indeed i think there is more to this story than meets the eye (with the suggestion that there were succesfull negotiations in place) but i don't feel that a journalist should be allowed to die simply because "he bought it on homself"

If he had been going to the area of the NATO strike that would have been an important thing to report, true Redworm. I just feel he must have been going at his own risk, but journalists must also take it into account that it is not just his own life they are risking. However, if he had been trying to investigate the civilians killed in the NATO strike I agree that kind of information is very important.

'not just their own life' Gah.

And also it must be very difficult for interpreters. They must need the money, and they must take risks they would rather not take because the journalists offer them money.

The "interpreter" who was killed was actually an experienced Afghan journalist. They were working as a team. He wasn't just doing it for the money.
I agree that Farrell was taking a risk, but if journalists don't take risks then we never get to find out what's really happening. He is an extremely experienced reporter and knew the risks he was taking, as did his Afghan colleague and they were investigating an important story.
Should the rescue operation have been mounted? Well that's a different issue and a debatable one.

I think I am guilty of taking the article I linked to at face value and not knowing enough of the background. Nice of them to call Sultan Munadi an interpreter when they were actually working jointly - colonialist. Do you know what story they were investigating LGP? Was it the Nato strike?

Some more about Sultan Munadi

Yes, they were reporting on the Nato airstrikes.

Thanks for that article LGP. It seems Munadi had been a key player in getting information out of Afghanistan for a while now, and a well respected journalist. He must have had incredible courage.

It is a difficult one. I wonder why they went in for the rescue operation, if the reports that they were close to finalising negotiations were true? David Miliband says an inquiry is not necessary....

They were?

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. They attempted to rescue him after being taken only 4 days earlier? - I've never heard of this happening before. I believe that there was an earlier attempt to rescue him, it didn't happen so they went in a 2nd time.

My thoughts are with the families of the very brave men who went in and with the families of the innocent people who were killed

So why did they do it?

This desparately sad story about the aftermath of the Nato airstrike shows how vital it is that brave journalists do take risks in pursuit of the facts in a warzone.

We mustn't ever come to rely on governments and military to tell us the truth. They would have had not incentive to revise their claim that only insurgents died, if they weren't being scrutinised by the press.

I think perhaps Miliband has said an inquiry not necessary because he didn't want to increase coverage for the Nato airstrike story.
Very depressing. I am still confused as to why they went in for a military rescue, when apparently they were close to successful negotiations.
Awful story