BBC: Nato plane crashes in Afghanistan

[Eugene]

Last Updated: Saturday, 2 September 2006, 13:12 GMT 14:12 UK

Nato plane crashes in Afghanistan

A Nato aircraft has crashed in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar,
a Nato spokesman has said.

It was not immediately clear whether there were any casualties.

The crash was not the result of enemy fire and the plane which was supporting
a Nato mission in the area was not a fighter jet, Maj Scott Lundy said.

Nato forces are at the scene but there is no word on how many people were
on board. A large Canadian contingent is based in Kandahar province.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5308622.stm

[bemildred]

1. Dropping like flies lately. nt

[Spazito]

2. There is a major battle going on in that region involving Canadian

troops:

Canadian combat units, along with other NATO and Afghan forces, moved into the area about 30 kilometres of Kandahar.


"It's in an area where Canadian troops have taken casualties," said CTV's Matt McClure on Saturday from Kandahar, ". . . and where they've also been involved in heavy battles trying to take this territory early this year."

snip

The area was the scene of another major operation known as the Battle of Panjwaii at the start of the summer. Commanders then claimed to have broken the back of the insurgency there, but coalition troops withdrew and the Taliban took over again.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060813/cdn_offensive_060902/20060902?hub=TopStories

I will be watching the Canadian news headlines very closely. The longer it takes to identify the nationality of those in the report, I know it is more likely they are Canadians.

The change in mission from peacekeeping and reconstruction to combat is NOT supported by the majority of Canadians and each and every death reduces the support for this even further.

[pinto]

3. Ugh. fwiw, sounds like rescue craft were in the area, if survivors.

[cal04]

4. 14 U.K. troops die in Afghan plane crash

A NATO plane crashed Saturday in southern Afghanistan, killing 14 British troops, according to a spokesman and the British Ministry of Defense. The International Security Assistance Force said the plane had reported a technical problem before going down and hostile fire did not appear to be the cause.

The British Ministry of Defense said the dead included 12 Royal Air Force personnel, a Royal Marine and an army soldier.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060902/ap_on_re_as/afghan_plane_crash_6

[allemand]

5. Taliban: "We used a Stinger missile to shoot down the aircraft".

The British Ministry of Defense said the dead included 12 Royal Air Force personnel, a Royal Marine and an army soldier.

Lundy said "there was no indication of an enemy attack." He gave no other details, but an ISAF statement said the plane's crew reported a technical problem before going down. It also said that "enemy action has been discounted at this stage."

However, shortly after the crash, a purported spokesman for the Taliban, Abdul Khaliq, claimed responsibility. "We used a Stinger missile to shoot down the aircraft," he said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-02-nato-plane_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

[andypandy]

6. RAF Nimrod

it has been confirmed that the A/C was an RAF Nimrod MR2 from RAF Kinloss on Detatchment to OP HERRICK (NATO ISAF, Afghanistan)

14 dead, no survivors.

enemy action is a posibility - though unlikely given the A/C type and its likely flying altitude - but the chances of it being a Stinger are zero. they are all mueseum pieces now.

[Stella_Artois]

9. I tend to agree

The Taliban were quick to claim this, as to be expected. NATO was also quick to claim an accident.

The likelyhood of this aircraft being low enough to be hit by a stinger or any other type of manpad is very small. Thats one thing we can be sure of.

[Spazito]

7. The British troops have been hit hard lately....

in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't recall if the British public still support the Afghanistan mission, I know they don't support the Iraq mission.

[andypandy]

8. probably they do...

Afghanistan isn't affected by the Iraqi shennanigans, the reason for being there is obvious to a blind man in a fur coat, theres nothing to steal except flies and donkey shit and there has never been any real controversy over why UK forces went there in the first place.

the Afghan mission has wide public support even though the government has gone on record as saying that both the mission in A'stan has changed and the degree of opposition is radically different to that expected.

(the former defence secretary John Reid said before the main force built up in January 06 that he rather hoped that UK forces would be in Helmand for two years and might not fire a shot in anger)

its certainly true that British forces have suffered casualties, and the embedded press reports quite the heaviest fighting they've seen - much harder than in Iraq, even during the initial invasion - and a very senior British officer reported it as the hardest, most consistant fighting since Korea.

attacks on platoon houses (a building on the perifery of a village or small town where an infantry platoon and a little gang of R Sigs and R Engs operate in the classical 'Hearts and Minds' role) have often resulted in 1 or 2 UK casulaties and 50 to 80 verified Taliban/AQ casualties.

body counts are not what H&M is about, and in strategic terms every pitched battle is a failure of effort, but it does give some indication of whats happening.

[AZCat]

11. It would be ironic...

if the British truly thought there was nothing worth "stealing" in Afghanistan, because from what I hear it's having a bumper crop of opium. This, of course, is the very product that the U.K. was so eager to sell that they went to war with China over that right! What a crazy world, huh?

[leftchick]

10. 14 British soldiers killed in crash (Afghanistan)

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4773339e-b255-45a1-8e89-84941ccafde3&k=86470

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Fourteen British soldiers were killed in a plane crash as hundreds of Canadian and coalition soldiers launched a major offensive yesterday to drive Taliban insurgents from a stronghold west of here used as a staging ground for deadly ambushes and terror attacks in Kandahar.

A Canadian armoured vehicle struck a Soviet-era anti-tank mine and a rocket targeted Kandahar airfield late yesterday, but there were no Canadian casualties in the fighting, part of Operation Medusa, that began around daybreak.

Troops with the Royal Canadian Regiment met little resistance as they pushed up from the south through the Panjwaii district before stopping on the banks of the dry Arghandab River, looking north toward the Pashmul area -- a Taliban hotbed where hundreds of insurgents are believed to be entrenched in defensive positions.

The area, between the Panjwaii and Zhari districts, has been the site of fierce fighting over the past four months that has killed at least six Canadian soldiers and left dozens wounded. It has spiritual and symbolic significance to the Taliban and is considered key ground for exerting control on Highway 1, a vital economic artery, and Kandahar, the economic centre of southern Afghanistan and the country's second largest city.

[bemildred]

12. Spy plane crash probe after 14 die

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) -- Investigators on Sunday probed a reconnaissance plane crash that killed 14 British troops, the worst loss of life for the NATO-led security force in southern Afghanistan, as troops pressed on with an operation to clear the surrounding district of Taliban militants.

---

The plane crashed near Chalaghor village, about 20 kilometers (12 miles) west of the city of Kandahar. A witness there, Abdul Manan, said he saw a small fire at the back of the plane before it crashed about 100 meters (yards) from his home with a huge explosion that "shook the whole village."

CNN

[oblivious]

13. Pajhwok Afghan News says NATO confrmed enemy involvement.

But I can't find a single confirmation of this so I think they missed two key words: 'NOT involved' in the heading and 'NO involvement' in the first line and 'NO hostile action' in para 3. That would be consistent with all of the other reports.

However, this is the only report I could find that refers to NATO spokesman Knittig.

NATO says 'enemy action' involved in plane crash
KABUL, Sep 3 (Pajhwok Afghan News): The NATO forces on Sunday confirmed involvement of 'enemies' in downing the British aircraft in Kandahar on Saturday.

The Nimrod MR2 aircraft, with 14 British service members aboard, went down between Kandahar City and Zherai district. NATO spokesman in Kandahar Scott Lundy and the British Defence Ministry confirmed the crash but rejected hostile fire, saying mechanical fault caused the accident.

However, NATO military spokesman in Kabul Major Luke Knittig, while speaking at a news conference here on Sunday, said initial investigations revealed hostile action was involved in the crash.

The spokesman said the aircraft had arrived from the Middle East to Kandahar. However, he refrained from giving more details, saying further information would be released after completion of investigations.
http://www.pajhwak.com/viewstory.asp?lng=eng&id=23846