KABUL — British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said.
Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story.
Two military officials told The Associated Press that one British commando died during the early morning raid. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the death had not been officially announced.
The Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Farrell was unhurt.
Afghan officials over the weekend said about 70 people died when U.S. jets dropped two bombs on the tankers, igniting them in a massive explosion. There were reports that villagers who had come to collect fuel from the tankers were among the dead, and Farrell wanted to interview villagers.
The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.
So here we have a reporter for the New York Times, probably the most Anti-US publication that's actually based in the US, and he gets kidnapped while trying to work up another story that no doubt would have started out with something like "US air pirates murdered a bunch of poor villagers for no good reason when..."
Basically, he was there to to the Taliban's job for them--criticizing American troops and undermining their mission and morale. This is something that the Times did nonstop right up until the coronation of Barack Obama. But once their messiah took office, they had to choose a course of action--keep bashing a military that they hated, or quiet down on that since that military was now under Barack Obama and continued criticism of them would be criticism of him.
Apparently the decision was made. The Times has been pretty quiet as of late when it comes to bashing the military and trying to ferret out and publish classified information. But their people are still in the area, and when this one got grabbed by his fellow America-haters, British commandos found out where he was and dropped in to save him, tragically losing one of their own in the process--a true hero worth more than the entire New York Times staff put together.
Also killed was a native Afghani who was serving as a translator and who dreamed of a safe, stable Afghanistan, free of the Taliban. Farrell probably held him in utter contempt, but he too was a better man than Farrell. This man died trying to save his country; Farrell was only there to undermine his own.
Also ironic and hypocritical was the fact that the New York Times self-censored the kidnapping and refused to publish that "news", and also that they asked other publications not to publish it and the rest of the media complied. Now this is at total odds with their longstanding policy of printing every bit of information about the US war effort and agenda, even information that put our troops at risk and even when they had been asked specifically by the White House not to do so. But George Bush was President then, and the New York Times staff hated George Bush, so they did whatever they could to hurt the military and his policies, and if it meant that more US soldiers died...well that was just fine with the Times.
But now when it's one of their own...well they manage to orchestrate a total news blackout by virtue of the cooperation of complicit "competing" media outlets.
Kind of makes you wonder what else we never learn just because a few newspaper bigs decide that it's not in their interest for us to find out, eh?
The New York Times is garbage, unfit for fish-wrapping or birdcage-lining. It'll never be allowed in this house, and the day that it folds will be a day worthy of celebration by all Americans who love this country that it opposes. It's just a damned shame that two really good men had to die for that paper because one of it's Quisling reporters just had to chase down another anti-US story. Thank you for your efforts, Britain, and I'm sorry for your loss. However if there's any such thing as Karma, Stephen Farrell will get run over by a cab or choke on a hot dog immediately on his return to New York.
EDIT: Turns out that Farrell isn't an American--he's a British citizen. (Well that explains his anti-Americanism...he's clearly jealous). So the British Special Forces still traded a hero for a dirtbag, only it was one of their own dirtbags. And today, the New York Times is all mad because they were negotiating with the Taliban and because the soldiers blew the Taliban scum away, the New York Times now feels that it's standing with the Taliban has been harmed.
So I have a new idea. The next time that anyone gets kidnapped in Iraq or Afghanistan, we just call up the kidnappers and trade them Bill Keller, Editor of the Times, for whoever is being held. Then we call it a day and don't waste any more time or resources on rescue attempts. Maybe the Times would actually replace Keller with someone who appreciates his country enough to at least remember which side that he's supposed to be supporting. If it were the 1940's, Bill Keller would have been in federal prison for his seditious acts a long time ago.