Talk:2021 Kabul airport attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Can we merge this article into Kabul airport attack?

Resolved

2021 Kabul airport attack Hazeledla (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

merged Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

Navy corpsman not navy medic. The US Army has medics. Navy corpsman serve with US Marines. 107.77.194.166 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Chris Rose 107.77.194.166 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. BSMRD (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Resolved

Change "IS following the fall of Kubul the day previous." to "IS following the fall of Kabul the day previous.". The difference was Kabul instead of Kubul. It seems to have been corrected now. CaFRB (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Maybe it's just me, but those look exactly the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see "Kubul" anywhere, so marking this as resolved and archiving. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Title

I'm not familiar with title naming conventions. It's confirmed that this is a suicide bombing. But should the title say "suicide attack" instead of bombing? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No, suicide bombing is fine. Hazeledla (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the second bombing necessitate modifying the title? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The attack includes shooting, so the title should be 2021 Kabul airport attack. Also, this isn't the only suicide bombing in Kabul this month, let alone this year. It should only be plural if it's multiple attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It is regarding multiple attacks, as confirmed by a second bombing. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 16:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Source that ISIL is "suspected"?

I don't see any mention of ISIS in the news articles. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I have re-added the ISIL-K suspicion as there exists a source now. Kellis7 16:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Republican Congressional reactions

@2602:306:BC74:6240:FDC4:E3B5:5C50:53F6

In order to avoid a edit war, I will bring it here for discussion. Should the reactions of Republican congressmen and women be included in the Reactions section?

"Republican members of the U.S. Congress criticized the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal of United States troops from the country, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who said Biden "must take decisive action to protect our troops".

^This is the section discussed Kellis7 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Fox is a borderline source though, —PaleoNeonate – 22:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. I'm much more concerned with CNN's reporting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.32.130 (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Flag salad, quotefarm "reactions" section

As you may know, many editors despise the use of flagicons with a list format of quotes in these reactions sections. The quotes are often little more than politicians giving lip service, and are often sourced to tweets or other primary sources. This reactions section should be trimmed or replaced with secondary analysis of the ramifications of the event. Abductive (reasoning) 21:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's a common problem... since it's somewhat related, I wonder if the whole ISIL statement quote is WP:DUE. —PaleoNeonate – 22:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

NRF reaction

It's not a verified twitter account but a well-known one, and I haven't seen it mentioned in any news sites (maybe some not in English?) but from the NRF's spokesperson Ali Maisam Nazary:

The NRF condemns the terrorist attacks on HKIA today. This incident reinforces our argument that Int. terrorism is stronger than before in Afg & another 9/11 is possible. Afg must not be abandoned at this time of need and the NRF’s efforts against terrorism must be supported.

Juxlos (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Another blast occurred after the bombing"

What does this mean? How is a "blast" different from a bombing? Why are the two events now split up in the intro? It's confusing for readers who arrive here from Wikipedia's main page, as the "In the news" section there describes this as two bombings, but the first thing people read in the article is that there was one bombing followed by one, presumably insignificant by secondary placement and almost zero additional information, "blast." Moncrief (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This wording is no longer in the article. Moncrief (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the article be renamed as 2021 Hamid Karzai International Airport attacks

Giving the terrorist attack occured in near Hamid Karzai International Airport and not other Kabul airports as this airport is only international airport serving Kabul, should it be renamed as 2021 Hamid Karzai International Airport attacks or Hamid Karzai International Airport attacks? At least the link can become a redirect to current name if the article doesn't renamed? 114.125.230.56 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Kabul airport already redirects to Hamid Karzai, for good reason. Change is unnecessarily specific and overly wordy. BSMRD (talk)

No, definitely not. Too wordy and unnecessary. Also, the airport is unlikely to have that name for long, considering who controls the country now and who Hamid Karzai is. (Edit: I see he's not as militantly anti-Taliban as I assumed, but I still doubt that will be the longterm official airport name after this month.) Moncrief (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No, because Kabul airport usually refers to this one & it makes no sense to lengthen the title. Jim Michael (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Taliban casualties

The Taliban now claims that they haven't suffered any casualties as reported by the BBC. We should add that to the victims section Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can consider the Taliban a reliable source -- especially not compared to the BBC. — Czello 07:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

But it was an unidentified Taliban official that claimed the 28 deaths in the first place. But now the groups official spokesperson says that they didn't suffer casualties Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

CBS deaths figures and second bomb

CBS appear to be reporting at least 170 dead, (inc the 13 US military), but all other sources are still saying 90 Afghan + 13 US = 103. I've restored the 103 figure as being the widest reported and with little obvious time-lag to explain the discrepancy. Also. according to BBC, Pentagon is now saying that there was NO second bomb, but I don't have time to sort that out. Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

BBC is now saying that local sources say as many as 170 dead - they also confirm the NON-existence of the second bomb near the hotel.

US or U.S.?

Just trying to see if there is a consensus before I make it consistent. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 16:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Read MOS:US before doing anything, please. Moncrief (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Move back to 2021 Kabul airport attack

The attack included shooting as well as bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's more succinct and a more obvious search term, as well. A vote should probably be taken. Moncrief (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief and Jim Michael: I've reverted the undiscussed move. I agree that an RM would be reasonable here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

1983 Beirut barracks bombings

For reference, see this article from firstpost.com and this article from washingtonexaminer.com. It draws comparisons because both were suicide bombings which killed US troops at an airport. That may be where the similarities end. If others want to remove the link from the See Also section I will not contest it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed it, we don't link Columbine at Sandy Hook. The connection is tangential at best, and the similarities are very surface level. BSMRD (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, better to maybe wait and only re-add if the attack is shown to be modeled after the 1983 attack.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump comments etc

Having noted that Donald Trump's comments were removed, I suggest that they should be reinstated. Trump was not just a former US president but also very much involved in the situation in Afghanistan. I'd also like to see some international responses like the former leader of the British Conservative Party who was very critical of Biden (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/27/bidens-colossal-mess-even-worse-thought/). Greenshed (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Two reactions, firstly much of the UK coverage has been about reaction to the withdrawal/collapse, rather than specifically this attack, I can't read the Telegraph (££) so don't know if that is the case. Second reaction is that there has also been substantial UK coverage from former PMs (IDS was never a PM, and has never been 'Foreign Minister', though he is ex-army) inc May and Blair - as well as current MPs of all parties, of Raab's/Johnson's/British failings in this episode. So if we go in the direction you are suggesting, the need for a POLITICAL reactions page to the withdrawal would arise fairly quickly. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Number KIA in Each Branch of Service

Since there has not been any official identification (against DOD policy until 24 hours after next of kin are notified), should the count be removed until then? Everything there is speculative besides the DOD confirmed "13." The Army has only confirmed a single death from its branch of service. The Marine Corps has confirmed eleven. Both facts are contrary to what's reported in the article. GuyHimGuy (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the count is confirmed through reliable sources.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources we are using speak of 12 Marines and one Navy medic (corpsman). The US Army obviously would not announce a death if it were not true, but the 'breakdown' is currently effectively unsourced. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but what should we do with the standing citations since they're wrong? GuyHimGuy (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, but the sources listed never confirmed any numbers. First of all, the first citation doesn't list the number of casualties from each branch of service, and I'm not seeing anything listing the number of soldiers killed in any of the articles (hence, the 2 vs 1 soldier discrepancy). Secondly, the editor who wrote the number of Marines KIA specifically cited quotes from the Department of Defense rather than facts reported by the news sources themselves. In other words, CNN is not reporting "10 Marines have died." They are relaying quotes from the DOD, which conflict with later statements. If we are considering these quotes to be reliable sources, we might as well consider the official press releases from the DOD reliable sources as well. Officially, the Department of Defense has confirmed the death of eleven Marines, one sailor, and a soldier (which I fixed a couple of hours ago). CNN, WSJ, and Al Jazeera have not confirmed anything here. GuyHimGuy (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. DOD has released names/branches of service. GuyHimGuy (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

US Military media here could be imported

Only if relevant: https://www.dvidshub.net/tags/video/afghanevacuation/page/1

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Are ISIS-KP and ISIL-KP two different entities?

The article refers to ISIS-KP and ISIL-KP in brief succession, as if they were different entities. And then the IS is also thrown into the mix. Are these three different organizations? If not, let us unify these references under one common style. catsmoke (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Being discussed above ISIS vs ISIL.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting reports in the article

"At least 182 people were killed, *including 28 members of the Taliban* and 13 members of the United States military."

"It was initially reported that 28 Taliban fighters had also been killed in the attack, but this was later denied by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid in an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty."

Which report is true? Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just based on my years of experience with initial reports on Wikipedia, I tend to think the latter are more trustworthy. They're from relatively far "after the dust settles", as the kids say. Of course, they're from the Taliban this time, too, a historic ideological adversary to many core Wikipedian groups, which complicates trust issues substantially. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

sentence smoothing

might the second sentence of the lead paragraph read better as

At least 185 people were killed in the attack,[3] including 13 members of the United States military,[12][4] the first American military casualties in Afghanistan since February 2020.[13] i.e. deleting the "who were"?Potholehotline (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC) if nobody objects i'll try to change that sentence tomorrow morning, that 'who were" is just downright otiosePotholehotline (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Connections of ISIL-KP with Taliban

According to BBC, [3], "there are strong links between Isis-K and the Haqqani network, which in turn is closely linked to the Taliban." "The man now in charge of security in Kabul is Khalil Haqqani", i.e. one of Taliban leaders who helped Isis-K to conduct previous terrorist attacks ("several major attacks between 2019 and 2021 involved collaboration between Isis-K, the Taliban's Haqqani network"). That should probably be noted on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. This is not explicitly stated in the source (I included only info that was explicitly stated), but it is significant because the initial USA operation in 2001 was launched to get rid of Al-Qaeda hosted by Taliban. And what is happening? Even before USA forces left, another terrorist organization (apparently collaborating with Taliban) already accomplished a terrorist attack on the USA forces, first time in a few years (their other recent attacks targeted Afghan people, not USA forces). My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It's the Taliban. Is there some significance to you always omitting the the? Moncrief (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Thank you for fixing this. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that the ISKP members being released is directly contradicted by this CNN article which says they escaped. BSMRD (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I usually read something like "Farooqi, last known as an emir in Is-K, as the group is known in Asia, was among 2,000 fighters released by the Taliban from prisons..." or "Thousands of prisoners who had been loyal to or were associates of Isis-Khorosan and other groups have been released" [4].My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[5] - whatever Taliban say is irrelevant/can not be trusted. They said they have "reformed" and already prohibited any music in the country. But yes, one can include their statements about it of course. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This really feels like WP:CHERRYPICKING to somehow incriminate the Taliban in these attacks. Near every source used on this page lays sole responsibility at the feet of ISKP, and mentions the antagonistic relationship between the Taliban and ISKP. I would recommend deleting the content you have added, unless more context is included definitively stating the Taliban were not responsible, instead of the current content which implies Taliban involvement unqualified. BSMRD (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many other recent RS (e.g. [6]) that describe collaboration of Haqqani network (this is now an integral part of the Taliban) and other terrorist organizations including this branch of ISIS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but that has no bearing on if the Taliban was connected to this attack (which they weren't), but mentioning it without qualification implies they were connected. BSMRD (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The source say: "The terror group behind the Kabul attacks has close ties to the Haqqani network [a part of Taliban]" and explains why. Is it important to notice on the page? Yes, because that is what sources do. How to phrase it may be debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Reuters says "A Taliban official told Reuters the group arrested an ISIS fighter at the airport a few days ago and under interrogation he told them about plans for attacks. In response, the Taliban said it postponed gatherings in public places and advised its top leaders not to gather. … … ISIS-K is a sworn enemy of the Taliban. But U.S. intelligence officials believe the movement used the instability that led to the collapse of Afghanistan's Western-backed government this month to strengthen its position and step up recruitment of disenfranchised Taliban members." So the first part of this is implying that the US intelligence warnings BEFORE the attack might have come from the Taliban itself. I agree with BSMRD that we should be very cautious about this. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would rather wait to see what else will happens in the airport and will be published. However, the source currently used in this para [7] say that USA provided a military support for the Taliban. Wow! Supporting the Afghan government and Taliban at the same time! This is straight from spy comedy Strike First Freddy. But perhaps this is not surprising, given that they also released thousands Taliban prisoners. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Not as bizarre as you might think. Enemies routinely come to agreements which are in their mutual interest. I have no idea whether that is what happened here though. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"A Taliban official told...". Yes, welcome to include it on the page. Should such claims by Taliban be trusted? Of course not, exactly as US command say. My very best wishes (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• As about being enemies with Taliban, yes, they could be enemies, but as the BBC article say, "several major attacks between 2019 and 2021 involved collaboration between IS-K, the Taliban's Haqqani network and other terror groups based in Pakistan". Can it be the same for this attack? That source does not say it, so not included. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes Please stop reintroducing content implying that the Taliban might have been connected to this attack. [8] [9] [10] [11] Several RS (including the BBC article you like to use mentioning the Haqqani Connection) explicitly call ISKP an enemy of the Taliban, and your removal of attribution and addition of WP:CHERRYPICKed sources to push your POV that the Taliban were involved is irresponsible and against WP:NPOV. This is a WP:FRINGE view that is not backed by reliable sources, and even if you do not explicitly add to the article "The Taliban did this" it is clear from the content you have introduced and how you have introduced it that is the conclusion you want readers to draw. BSMRD (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not? It was the following text (included after words by the US General with regard to the potential involvement of Taliban. (When asked how did it happen that the terrorists made it through checkpoints of the Taliban, General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), said: “As to whether or not they [the Taliban] let it happen, I don’t know...”.[36])):

ISIL-K reportedly has strong connections with the Haqqani network, which is a part of the Taliban movement and helped ISIL-K with conducting several major attacks between 2019 and 2021.[1][2] The man in charge of security in Kabul is currently Khalil Haqqani, the leader of Haqqani network[2]

That is exactly what the cited sources say, and they say it specifically with regard to this terrorist act. I only cite RS. This sourced info (and this is factual info , not a speculation or opinion) must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's SYNTH to extrapolate from a general observation about IS-K/Taliban relations, an implied conclusion about THIS incident. There are sources implying the opposite, so DUE would also come into play. Pincrete (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Because that is WP:CHERRYPICKING leaving out the rest of the quote in the same paragraph. "“As to whether or not they [the Taliban] let it happen, I don’t know,” he replied. “I don’t think there’s anything to convince me that they let it happen.”" is what the article actually says. Your version is not "exactly what the cited sources say", it is what the parts you like of the cited sources say. BSMRD (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Please se my reply here [12]. This is not WP:SYN. If something was left out, welcome to add it.My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible pro-Taliban edits

"Security concerns grew after hundreds of members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) escaped from jails at Bagram and Pul-e-Charkhi." The followig ISIS-K terrorists didn't escape at the first place - they were systematically released by the Taliban. Its high time to get facts straightened out. -Hatchens (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources are reporting contradictory accounts on that, and other matters - so it probably isn't partisan editing. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Pentagon tells me "both of them were taken over by the Taliban and emptied" (emphasis mine). That word doesn't suggest any of the Taliban's enemies among the general population escaped or were released at all, merely taken, transferred and/or killed. I haven't heard from a Taliban spokesman on this yet, though, could be a big misunderstanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I do believe that the following content should be included after words by the US General with regard to the potential involvement of Taliban. (When asked how did it happen that the terrorists made it through checkpoints of the Taliban, General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), said: “As to whether or not they [the Taliban] let it happen, I don’t know...”.[36])

ISIL-K reportedly has strong connections with the Haqqani network, which is a part of the Taliban movement and helped ISIL-K with conducting several major attacks between 2019 and 2021. The man in charge of security in Kabul is currently Khalil Haqqani, the leader of Haqqani network

Because otherwise it is not clear why journalists asked such question and because that is what RS say specifically about this terrorist act. My very best wishes (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Mvbw, most of the BBC article you link to seems to be about IS-K and Taliban/IS-K relations in general, rather than about this bombing - so it would probably be better on the ISK article, otherwise it looks an awful lot like trying to SYNTH something that no source has actually said. Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No, this BBC article starts from the following: An attack in Kabul which killed up to 170 people - including 13 US troops - has been claimed by a local branch of Islamic State (IS) and so on. So, it is indeed mostly about IS-K and Taliban/IS-K relations, but specifically as it relates to this attack. This is a conjunction made by this BBC article, and by another RS used for the in-line referencing. Therefore, this is nor WP:SYN by me, but something multiple RS say, specifically with relation to the subject of this page. One can easily find more such sources if needed. Speaking on the substance, these RS say that in addition to be "enemies" up to the killing each other, these terrorist factions also collaborated in a number of terrorist acts (which is common and makes a lot of sense from their perspective because they are targeting common enemy). What this BBC article and others say is nothing extraordinary and does not contradict claims by other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of additional RS, Here is one of them. It say:

A new type of threat has reportedly emerged in Afghanistan. Under the façade of negotiating peace, the Taliban’s military hardliners have allegedly set in motion tactical alliances with other non-Taliban groups as part of their double game to continue fighting and disrupting peace efforts. One such emerging relationship relates to recent reports about the growing ties between the Haqqani Network and ISIS-Khorasan, the terror group’s Afghan branch. The Haqqani hardliners are the Taliban’s lethal arm, who have long believed they have no military reason to stop fighting or sue for peace. A recent United Nations report emphasized the network’s evolving partnership with ISIS-K, noting that most ISIS-K-claimed attacks had some degree of “involvement, facilitation, or the provision of technical assistance by the Haqqani Network.”

So, it cites this by Reuters, and this report by UN, among others. According to UN report (in May 2020),

Member states have commented that most attacks claimed by ISIL-K demonstrated some degree of “involvement, facilitation, or the provision of technical assistance” by the Haqqani Network. Furthermore, they have stated that ISIL-K “lacked the capability to launch complex attacks in Kabul on its own” while taking responsibility for operations that had, in all likelihood, been carried out by the Haqqani Network. ...operations resulting in civilian casualties allow Taliban deniability whereas ISIL-K is willing to claim responsibility to demonstrate capability and relevance

My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This belongs on the ISIS-K page AT BEST. You cannot use a 2020 source to imply something about a 2021 event - fairly obviously! And you haven't yet come up with any text linking IS-K and Taliban iro this event. General BBC text about who IS-K are & what IS-K/Taliban relations have been simply doesn't cut the mustard. Neither does Reuters text sourced to unnamed Afghan officials about a different event - months ago! The Afghan officials couldn't possibly have an agenda in making these claims? Maybe we don't yet know the full picture, but what is being offered is pure SYNTH at present. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's why I used two other new sources that clearly make connection with the bombing. These older sources just explain more clearly that the ISIS-K-Haqqani Network collaboration is something very well known, as opposed to an extraordinary claim. The argument opposing to the inclusion was that the organizations are "enemies" and therefore could not collaborate. That argument is WP:SYN classic. Not only they could collaborate, but they in fact collaborated. Yes, it is remains unknown if they collaborated in this specific terrorist act, and that should be clearly stated. But by the same token, no one knows for sure and can not say that they did NOT collaborate here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

But by the same token, no one knows for sure and can not say that they did NOT collaborate here. Just as no one knows for sure that Elvis isn't alive! Except Elvis perhaps. Pincrete (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unlike with Elvis, this IS something we do not know. Yes, a number of political commentators personally believe this is not likely [13], which is far cry from knowing. But even they acknowledge that "Many analysts argue [in connection to this Kabul attack] that there is an alliance between ISIS-K and the Taliban’s Haqqani network", and tell further: "It’s a possibility, but...". So, why do you argue to exclude info about this alliance? If many analysts argue about it, why can't we include it? My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ISIS-K claimed responsibility?

I couldn’t find that claim in source 16. The article said the US intelligence community is operating under the assumption it was ISIS-K, but had no specific intelligence to support that. 142.117.34.192 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

In researching the claim, I found a Reuters article that supported the claim that the attack at the Kabul airport was by ISIS-K. See https://www.reuters.com/world/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-kabul-airport-attack-2021-08-26/ Jurisdicta (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL

We need to pick an acronym and stick with it. This has been getting edited back and forth since this article went up and it won't stop until we establish a consensus. Personally I am in favor of ISIS, as the sources covering this event are primarily American and that is what they use, however I don't really care as long as whatever is decided on is used throughout the article consistently. BSMRD (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's truly a hot mess right now. And suddenly it's "-KP" and not -K? Is that reflected in actual sources, or it just someone's aspirational wish of what the English-language acronym "should" be? Common media name was ISIS-K until yesterday. Wikipedia can't lead the charge on using aspirational names that aren't reflected in sources. Moncrief (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Stick with "ISIS-KP" because it's already in a direct quote from John Kirby, and we can't tweak that. Plus, Khorasan Province is not in Iraq or the Levant. The I and L strongly suggest otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not in Syria either TBF. Really "IS-K(P)" is the best name from a descriptive POV but very few RS use that. "Daesh-K(P)" would also be good but again, not popular among RS. BSMRD (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's in a state, I tell myself to sleep at night. But yeah, if not for that inconvenient quote, I'd love to stick with ISKP ISK (with any punctuation). Maybe it could be quietly, you know...truncated. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, the deed is done. Proceed as desirable. He said "ISIS-K", anyway, nothing about P, my bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Guardian uses ISKP, BBC uses IS-K. This is a relatively unknown group in the UK, so a suspect name/abbreviation are both still 'settling down. The 'target' article has just had a name change, so that doesn't help a lot. IS-K seems most commonly used at the moment and most easily understood. Pincrete (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Our very own Wikipedia article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province favours ISIL–KP or ISKP, so we should choose and stick with one of those. WWGB (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

'Our' article has removed and then re-added 'Province' to the title in the last 24 hours + the Iraq, Levant/Syria has been discussed as problematic. I think ISKP or IS-K appear to be most used at present. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We should use what our article calls it: ISIL-KP. Jim Michael (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"Plus, Khorasan Province is not in Iraq or the Levant." ISIS' activities have not been limited to the Levant for more than half a decade. The main article on the organization states that by 2015, they had territorial claims in "Libya, Egypt (Sinai Peninsula), Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and the North Caucasus" Dimadick (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

'Our' article has recently removed then re-added 'Province' + there has been some discussion as to whether 'IS' should not now be the the name for the parent group. I think we can decide what the abbreviation should be based on the most common use for THIS group. After all, neither Turkey, nor Greece, nor a few others are on the Atlantic, but it's still called NATO. Pincrete (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Number of airstrike targets

CNN and John Kirby both say the two people killed were "high-profile ISIS targets", explicitly ruling out Gianluigi02's idea of a single (or single "main") target. The third victim is less clear, only implied in CNN voice as "another" (suggesting another high-profile ISIS target, not just a "militant"). Does anyone know something I don't, maybe from a different source, that could help us agree on what to tell readers? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by two "high-profile ISIS targets", are you referring to the family of ten? unsigned post left by Newzild

Newzild, I think the text above relates to the FIRST airstrike, in Jalalabad, rather than the second one in Kabul itself. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, it was a simpler time. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No refs

According to BBC correspondent Secunder Kermani, eyewitnesses attributed at least some of the gunfire into the crowd and consequent deaths after the explosion to panic by US soldiers.[33][34] - THIS. One source is one tweet by an individual, and the other claimed source does not make this statement. Needs removing

I removed the article as it doesn't back up the statement, and put a "better source needed" tag on the sentence. If no one can come up with a better source in the next few days, I'll take it out. BSMRD (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

All right, decided to look for some sources on my own, beyond the original tweet I found:

• https://www.npr.org/2021/08/29/1032169482/updates-from-kabul-after-the-attack-at-the-airport - an interview by NPR with a reporter corroborating similar eyewitness reports as the tweet.
• https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-30/Did-U-S-troops-shoot-some-Afghans-during-Kabul-airport-attack--139g52wEqEE/index.html - a CGTN Opinion piece that mostly seems to be commentary on Kermani's tweet and an earlier RT piece.
• https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/26/world/afghanistan-taliban-biden-news/kabul-aiport-explosion - NYT article with more eyewitness reports of soldiers firing from the airport, though one witness notes they were "firing to disperse".
• https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/14000606000740/Civilians-Were-Allegedly-Sh-Killed-by-US-Frces-Dring-Kabl-Airpr - Fars News reporting on the tweet and some other details of the attack.
• Additionally, several coverages of the attack I looked at report shots fired without specifying who fired them.

The sourcing is weak (and naturally state enemies of the US were eager to jump on it), but I think between the NPR and NYT source, corroborated with the tweet, we have something worthy of note here. No more than a sentence however. Will rephrase and include those sources. BSMRD (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

‎BeŻet Found a Salon article covering the tweet, and that cited a NYT article talking about the Pentagon acknowledging the possibility. Added both to the article. BSMRD (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Who/what killed the 10 civilians?

BSMRD, I understand your feelings about "lead to the death of ..., but the truth is that most sources DON"T say the drone strike killed the civilians. The more complete account is that probably/possibly the drone strike set off explosives in the vehicle, which in turn killed the civilians. This may or not be morally equivalent, as blowing up a car-load of explosives in a civilian area is clearly pretty dangerous, but just on a factual level, the strike itself is not believed to have killed the civilians. I'm going to try to rephrase such that it becomes 'during the airstrike' rather than 'by the airstrike'.

If a drone strike blows up a car, it doesn't matter if the explosion from the strike or from the car killed someone, they were still killed by the strike. That's like saying if I shoot a bomb next to you and it explodes, I didn't kill you. I'm fine with your revision however, worded much better IMO. BSMRD (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Mmmmmm I'm a bit more ambiguous about that. Obviously the US knew the target could be carrying explosives, so at least some responsibility/culpability. I checked the sources after the edit which all appeared to either use passive voice, or to say that the civilians were killed following/after the airstrike, rather than by the airstrike. Anyway, we're both happy now. Pincrete (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So, it is offical U.S. policy when weaponeering for a target that we did not / do not account for secondary effects only primary in both our CDE and weaponeering solution. This is due to the unpredictability of secondaries to include often the inability accurately account for the presence of other explosives prior to the execution. So to say the US knew the target *could* be carrying explosives isn't really a useful metric because its just not factored into our calls. My personal opinion would be that if there were unpredicted civilian casualties from secondary effects they should be included as they were the result of the strike itself. FLJuJitsu (talk) 12:40, 02 Sept 2021

The 10 deaths ARE included, the only issue is how to describe what happened, specifically whether we say directly that the strike itself killed the 7/9/10 deaths (depending on which report you read). Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Gunshot vs. bomb deaths

I'm not an expert in the area of suicide bombings but don't recall ever reading about a single suicide bomber (excluding bombers using cars/trucks) killing more than 30 people with a bomb. NYT article did say bomb vest was about three times larger than average but that would still leave around 100 more victims dead due to something else. It seems reasonable to conclude majority of victims died due to gunfire. Yodabyte (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is pure conjecture - aka WP:OR. There is a distinct possibility that some deaths were caused by US soldiers' panic after the explosion. We just need the balance of reliable sources to say that explicitly and to state that in the body of the article before inserting it into the lead or infobox. Even if that is established, it's a bombing followed by a shooting (if panic was the cause) not a shooting and explosion. Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

CORRECTION: There is a distinct possibility that many/most of the deaths were caused by US soldiers panic and also ISIL-K gunfire after the explosion. According to the article "US officials said that ISIL-KP gunmen opened fire into the crowd after the explosion and US troops returned fire". Yodabyte (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That source is the 27th and it doesn't end quite like that in the original: ISIS gunmen then opened fire on the crowd. Three sources said U.S. troops returned fire soon after. So it isn't the 'US officials' saying 'US troops returned fire', rather 3 unspecified sources.

Later reports seem to have forgotten this claim, which anyway would be a bit strange - bomb then gunmen who were where when the bomb went off? The 28th and 29th sources appear to have dropped the IS-K gunmen element, but acknowledge the US 'panic' as a possibility, from NPR: "I don't want to make allegations that aren't substantiated because it's not clear to me. But we have talked to a few people and they seem to indicate at this point that it was - you know, the shooting was mostly from the Americans, right? I mean, there are sort of disparate reports of someone else shooting as well - you know, like, one of the people with ISIS shooting and then blowing themselves up. But really, that's not clear. I mean, what we have heard from other Afghans is that, in the panic of the attack, the American soldiers started shooting. Other sources drop even the possibility of any IS-K shooting. I agree that our present text may be incomplete or partially out of date, but the initial IS-K gunmen claim appears to be largely dropped after initial reports. Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Many Islamist attacks consist of a suicide bombing followed seconds/minutes later by shooting. The damage, injuries & chaos make it easier for gunmen working with the bomber to attack the target. The gunmen are far enough from the bomb to not be hit by the blast - they charge in just after the explosion, as planned. From the sources, I can't be sure that happened in this case, but it happened in many insurgent attacks, including the 2013 Farah attack and the Sahafi Hotel attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There are still no sources saying this happened - after the first day's accounts - when it was still being claimed that there had been two bombs and around 70-80 dead.Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

My guess (and it's just a guess at this point) is that the 70-80 number were the victims killed due to the single suicide explosive (initially thought to be two bombs) and the remaining 100+ were killed due to gunfire. Not sure why they are keeping this secret still more than one week later. Yodabyte (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

One blast ...but the video shows up to three

Having seen the explosion in the video showed on TV, i wonder how really it is said that the blast was caused by ONE attacker. To me it seems actually impossible.

So i would dare to ask to the other wikipedians 3 questions:

1- The images clearly shows TWO twins explosions, and another one smaller just 2-3 seconds later. How this could be done with a SINGLE kamikaze? Someone has read anything apart the military/ISIS versions to explain this?

2-The blast seemed really huge for being just a simple 'vest bomb'. No 'explosive belt' could do such a blast because there must be atleast dozen of HE lbs to archieve such huge result. A normal explosive belt is definitively too small to do this effect.

3- where were the US soldiers killed, precisely? In the canal together with civilians? No way, this is definitively too strange to be fair.

I think the article should struggle to address better those 3 aspect, the action seems to me really too strange as it is explained. If someone knows better those argument, it would be quite welcomed. 62.11.0.119 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want made. If you're requesting changes, cite your WP:RS and be more specific about what changes you're requesting. Moncrief (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Names and photos of victims

Marine Corps Sgt Nicole Gee (standing at left), one of 13 US service personnel killed, photographed six days before the attack.[2]

An editor - properly IMO - recently removed the names of the 13 US victims. We still have a verified photo of one of the US victims - a heartbreaking photo of a female marine cradling what appears to be an Afghan child, (it is clearer in the BBC validation of the photo). Should names or such photos be included?

The photo has been released by US DoD, but my instincts tell me that neither names nor identifiable photos should be included unless they impart some tangible information or other good reason. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The photo is nothing more than emotional imagery. It was taken prior to the attack, and hence is not directly relevant to the subject of the article. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My feeling. Unless someone comes up with a good reason to keep overnight, I'm going to remove the picture. Pincrete (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think ideally we should avoid names and pictures of victims. They weren't the specific targets of the attack (there wasn't a target beyond "anyone at the airport gate"), and RS treat them as a collective, with their names only included for comprehensiveness. No encyclopedic reason for WP to identify them further than "12 Marines and a Navy Corpsman". BSMRD (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with BSMRD the names should not be published if it was not widely reported. However, given the nature of the attack, the widely reported publication of the names, the impact that the attack has had on public opinion and how the United States is responding post attack (actively conducting air strikes on targets) and the political ramifications, I believe there is a case to be made to include the names. I believe that if the names are included in the article, that the photo should remain. If they are not, there is no reason to include the photo. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm normally all for naming the reported dead, not for any sentimental reason, only a basic First W. But when they constitute less than a tenth of the total, something in me hesitates. And when the total is over a hundred, even something in potential future me screams nope. So I'm not going to say do it or don't. I'm just going to let you all know I seriously considered this, and slowly back away from the table. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. While the US media has been primarily focused on the details of the US military deaths (for reasons that make sense within that specific media context), we do have to keep in mind this was an attack in which well over 90% of the victims were Afghans. It could be understood as undue -- in the context of a neutral, global encyclopedia -- to list only the names of the Americans who died. Moncrief (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Remains of US Marines aboard a military transport plane at Hamid Karzai International Airport, 27 August 2021

In a similar vein to this conversation, how do editors feel about this photo which has been added to the "Victims" section? Personally ambivalent about it, but part of me is wary of inclusion per WP:GLOBAL. BSMRD (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding it next to pictures of the Afghan victims’ funerals. Otherwise, the indirect implication is that Wikipedia focuses on the American (technically combatant) deaths over over 10x the Afghan civilian deaths. Juxlos (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I find acceptable the 'ramp' photo, but wouldn't cry if it weren't there. What I think is wholly unacceptable are photos identifying individuals, whether Afghan or US (or British). Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have public domain/properly licensed images of the Afghan victims' funerals, i agree with posting their images as well, as to not have the American victims outweigh the value of the 100+ afghans that lost their lives. RopeTricks (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghan victims

Should the Afghan youtuber, Najma Sadeqi, be mentioned in the chapter of victims ? Source : https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/30/tech/najma-sadeqi-afghanistan-youtube-cmd-intl/index.html Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not by herself, but dependent on whether we agree to name all reported victims, yes or no. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes please add the names and the ages of the afghan innocent victims Ptipti (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Names of the innocent victims

Several children were among those killed following a US drone strike in Kabul: at top from left: Farzad, age 9, Faisal, age 10, Zemaray, age 40, Zamir, age 20 Bottom, from left: Naseer, age 30, Binyamen, age 3, Armin, age 4, Sumaya, age 2. Ptipti (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The names of the victims are not important to the article as they aren't notable and contribute nothing in improving it. We are not an obituary and an encyclopaedia isn't supposed to list victim names. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

should there be a standalone article for the subsequent drone strike?

i see the material regarding the drone strike on ten civilians is integrated into this article. unless i am mistaken, policy suggests that ten fatalities qualifies for its own article. the issue was touched on in archive 1 but dismissed or ignored after sept 2 2021. given that these ten people had nothing to do with the suicide attack at Karzi airport it seems unfair to include it here. if this suggestion is indeed in line with policy, what would be a good title for such an article? tia 74.46.254.44 (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, NO! The volume of available info about the strike ITSELF (not biographical info about the victims) would be what justified a separate article - frankly I don't see that being likely unless there were a major inquiry, which seems improbable. The number of dead is - in itself - irrelevant. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

gross. but acceptable. thanks. 74.46.254.44 (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation issues

I checked but apart from missing an ending ">" besides the closing ref code "</ref>", there's no problem User:HadesTTW. That could be easily fixed by simply adding ">" at the end of the broken source. Why do you keep changing the citation format to "cite web" instead of "cite news" when there's no point and the latter is designed for news sites in specific and changing which part of the citation goes where, as well at the same time? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I only noticed that it was formatted incorrectly and so I used the automated citation tool to fix the citation. Apologies if this caused any issues. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Abdur Rahman al-logri (suicide bomber) into 2021 Kabul airport attack

Not enough information about the bomber for a stand-alone article. DTM (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:BLP1E (though in this case he's recently deceased) exists for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also agree, for reasons already given above. Little likelihood of significant amounts of further info justifying an article. Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree: There isn't much information on him. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Not much information on the guy and there probably won't be more (not enough for a standalone article), known for only one event. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Again, WP:BLP1E applies to the recently deceased too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and performed the merge, personally I don't think we really need to name the guy but since that's effectively the only info on his article that wasn't already here, it wouldn't be much of a merge without it.BSMRD (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the info about the 29 August drone strike in the section US airstrikes be split into a separate page called August 29, 2021 Kabul drone strike. The content of the current page has become too much about that particular drone strike (more than a third of the article by my estimate, 7 out of 20 paragraphs, which includes the lede but excluding small single sentence paras.) rather than the bombing. And there's sufficient information to create a new article with how the strike happened, the military's wrong claims being investigated, reactions to the strike, the military's own investigation. Even the Congress is going to establish multiple investigative committees to investigate it [14].

The strike is certainly notable on its own. Not just in the news but in the real word itself as politicians, human rights organisations, the White House, Congress, have come out about it. Besides the civilian ire which has also affected Biden's ratings. The article naming proposal might not seem suitable to some, so you are free to suggest your own name. Info about the strike can be retained here in brief. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose My judgement would be that AT PRESENT, it makes more sense to keep the drone strike within this attack article - to which the strike was after all an intended response. If coverage continues/increases that could change. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The drone strike has had massive coverage and fallout. Probably nearly as much if not more than the attack. There's no sense in keeping these two together. While the attack did motivate the US to start conducting drone strikes against ISIS, that's the only connection. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support as the strike has received significant media coverage, from across the political spectrum. We have articles on much smaller violent attacks, along with much less political fallout from this- I'm surprised there aren't is an article already. There would be enough sources to make an article on it even before it was confirmed that zero ISIS members were killed in the attack. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 14:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

:support, as seen above. someone did try to write one about a month ago but it was declined: Draft:2021 drone strike against ISIS-K. i would've titled it 2021at Kabul drone strike and the year might be superfluous if there is no other Kabul drone strike article on Wikipedia. 74.46.254.44 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

after thinking about it, as a tertiary source, the event can only be included here if the totally unbiased media gives it significant coverage. they don't seem to be doing so, so i've changed my mind but (fwiw) i don't think it's worth opposing. if it is written, it will be written. :) 74.46.254.44 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The drone strike was a direct response to the article subject, so keeping it here is appropriate. Secondly, per WP:Splitting, the modest character count of this article (11,644) is not enough to consider a separate article at this time. However, in the future if the drone strike ever does expand to an article length subject, I would recommend simply calling it 2021 Kabul drone strike. I understand the reason for the clunky proposed title is the existence of another August 2021 drone strike in Kabul, but realise that the first one was not as notable, and hardly anyone would be looking for it anyway. Havradim (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)