Talk:Camp Chapman attack

I think it would be easier to make sense of the casualty section if it were done as a list. For example:
I think it would be easier to make sense of the casualty section if it were done as a list. For example:

Eight people, among them at least six CIA officers, including the chief of the base, were killed and six others seriously wounded in the attack.
 * CIA station chief described as a mother of three and had a history in counterterrorism dating back to the agency's Alec Station, which was created to monitor Osama bin Laden years before the September 11 attacks.
 * A female CIA officer
 * Arghawan, the base's security chief who was an Afghani.
 * An American perimeter security guard
 * Al Shareef Ali bin Zeid, a member of the Jordanian spy agency Dairat al-Mukhabarat al-Ammah
 * Harold Brown, 37, a resident of Washington, D.C.
 * Scott Roberson, 39 of Ohio, a CIA security officer, according to his sister,
 * Jeremy Wise, 35 a former U.S. Navy SEAL and security contractor.

Citing the sensitivity of their mission, the CIA has not released the names of those killed in the attack, many of whom were seasoned hands in the agency's counterterrorism operations. All officers were working as undercover agents.

The operatives stationed at the base were responsible for intelligence collection on insurgents' networks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, including the selection of al-Qaeda and Taliban target for drone aircraft strikes, and were also plotting missions to kill the networks' top leaders. CIA bases on the Afghan-Pakistan border gather intelligence in both countries and are in contact with local operatives. According to a former intelligence official, two of the officers killed in the attack were contractors for Xe, a private security company formerly known as Blackwater. The CIA considers contractors to be officers. The Wall Street Journal reports that only one private security contractor has been killed. As a result of the attack, the base was rendered inoperative until the CIA sends in a new team of officers.

Initially, eight U.S. citizens were believed to have died in the attack, and a U.S. defence official said that all of the dead would be civilians, not U.S. or NATO troops. Hours after the attack on the base, the official number of intelligence operatives killed in the bombing was revised, and instead of eight deaths, the CIA acknowledged only seven. The eight person killed turned out to be the officer of the Jordanian intelligence service. The death offered a rare glimpse of a U.S.-Jordanian partnership that is rarely acknowledged publicly, yet seen by U.S. officials as highly important for their counterterrorism strategy.


 * I think the individuals get lost in the the prose paragraphs. I think it would be easier to edit as details emerge.Geo8rge (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion! I've already thought about inserting a list in the article, but I decided to wait until more information is available. In particular, it is important that we do not duplicate individuals, e.g. the perimeter security guard may well be one of those whose names are now known, and the eight person may not be identified in any way as of today. Cs32en  14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User:UrukHaiLoR
All sources, except for one, state seven CIA officers died, the sources also state one Afghan security guard and one Jordanian military officer died. That is a total of nine. If you realy want to avoid OR, but this in fact isn't realy OR but whatever, for the number nine here you go. The source says eight Americans and one Afghan, that one American was later identified to actualy be the Jordanian. I can find a few more that stated nine. Here are more up to date sources than your source that state seven and not six CIA officers died, your source for six is dated January 2, here is this one also dated January 2 stating seven died, and one more dated January 3 (so more up to date than yours) stating again that seven died. Also, here is one more dated TODAY that says seven died. In addition one of these ref identifies the eight American previously reported as the Jordanian. If you even want to separate the American perimeter guard and state he was not a CIA officer that would be wrong since the CIA consideres contractors working for them as their employess thus officers too. There is a ref on this already in the article. Nine died not eight, seven officers died not six, seven Americans died not six.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All current reliable sources say eight have been killed. One was an Afghan, one was a Jordanian, so six would be CIA. The number of sources is not very relevant, as most sources, even the most reliable, often use outdated press agency reports or even take information from other newspapers or even from the internet. The ABC report is an independently researched article, and the information it gives is very plausible. Furthermore, by placing the footnote next to the number "six", the article clearly indicates that this is information that is based on a particular source. Cs32en  17:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All current reliable sources say eight have been killed, but they DO NOT say that one was an Afghan, one was a Jordanian and six would be CIA. Since you blasted at me with that OR rule I guess you could say that your statement so six would be CIA is more of an OR violation than my edit. In fact the sources say eight have been killed including SEVEN CIA officers. You are purposly distorting the facts. Can you prove to me that the three sources I provided to you, and I can provide you with a lot more, that state state seven died are using outofdate information. Again, by the way, those sources are dated January 2, 3 and 4. Yours is January 2. I will leave you with one thought to think about. Qoute ''I write to mark a sad occasion in the history of the CIA and our country. Yesterday, seven Americans in Afghanistan gave their lives in service to their country. Michelle and I have their families, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers.'' President Obama's message to the men and women of the CIA. Here is the source. You mean to say that the president of the USA himself got it wrong and said seven instead of six? Wow. You cann't have a more valid source than that huh? Are you going to say now that the president got it wrong are you just going to ignore me and say - Jezz the US president's speechwriters must have had out-of-date information.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This source is from December 31, 2009. Note that I did not remove the information about "seven CIA officers" from the text, but just added the information from ABC. Note that the Times of India, January 3, 2010, even says "at least five" stars will be placed on the CIA's Memorial Wall. With regard to Wikipedias policy on original research, a statement on an article's talk page is different from an edit to an article. Cs32en  18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Contractors
The Washington Post has changed its wording from "CIA officials" to "CIA operatives". Other sources say four officials and three contractors died. I'll way for some time to see if further information emerges. If this is not the case, I'll make the respective changes to the article, i.e. eight [not nine] killed by the attacker, four CIA officers, three CIA contractors, and a Jordanian intelligence official. Cs32en 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...FOX says seven CIA officers [...] four officers and three contract security guards [...] ;-)   Cs32en  20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The three contract guards were most likely the two Xe guys and the Afghan chief of security. The Afghan was most likely an American of Afghan origin. Ok...now we have confirmed the three security guys, as for the four officials they were the two women, Harold Brown, and one more unidentified.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I didn't just simple remove the reference, there was no reference to begin with. You can check this by checking the edit history of the article before my last edit and will see that reference number 28 linked to NOTHING. I checked now more thoroughly what the problem was, it seems that I renamed that reference by some mistake so it linked to nothing. So I apologise on my part. Now back to our problem. I am willing to reduce from Eight or nine the number of dead in the article, if we include the Afghan security chief as one of the seven CIA operatives, which do include four officials and three guards, by the way all according to your references. :)UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way Cs32en, the Fox source states clearly, seven bodies returned to the US, not six, hehe. ;)UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That seven "flag-draped coffins" were handed to the families does not tell us anything about how many of the dead were offiers. See the section below for further discussion on this issue.  Cs32en  13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised list of casualties based on new references provided by our friend Cs32en, thank you :)
7 CIA operatives and 1 Jordanian operative:
 * 4 CIA officials:
 * CIA station chief described as a mother of three and had a history in counterterrorism dating back to the agency's Alec Station, which was created to monitor Osama bin Laden years before the September 11 attacks.
 * A female CIA officer
 * Harold Brown, 37, a resident of Washington, D.C.
 * An unidentified official
 * 3 CIA guards:
 * Arghawan, the base's security chief who was most likely an American of Afghan origin
 * Scott Roberson, 39, of Ohio, a CIA security officer, according to his sister
 * Jeremy Wise, 35, a former U.S. Navy SEAL and security contractor.
 * Jordanian operative:
 * Al Shareef Ali bin Zeid, a member of the Jordanian spy agency Dairat al-Mukhabarat al-Ammah

If you still don't trust me or the sources that SEVEN and not six American CIA guys died than I qoute CIA spokesman George Little who today said (by the way my source is your source :)) Earlier today, CIA Director Leon Panetta, other agency and national security officials, and friends and family members attended a private, dignified event at Dover Air Force Base to honor and welcome home the seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty last week in Khost, Afghanistan Is the CIA lying now even at their memorial ceremony that seven but in reality six died? Hmmm....

I rest my case and it was a tough case, jury you can withdraw to delibirate. Wow.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The arraignment of the info looks good to me. The story is still developing, and I believe there were seriously wounded also. What happened to the "An American perimeter security guard"? It is also possible that the CIA is spreading disinformation as to numbers and who was killed.

Well since the fox source states that three guards among the seven CIA were killed along with the Jordanian, but without the mention of the Afghan guard I deduced that the Afghan was an American CIA guard of Afghan origin. He along with the two Xe guards make a total of three guards. The perimeter guard mentioned in that source was probably one of the two Xe guys. Si I supstituted him with An unidentified official. As for the four officials, two were women, one was Harold Brown, and one still needs to be identified, in any case it's clear now that eight people died in the attack: seven CIA guys (including an American of Afghan origin) and one Jordanian. And if you still have doubts that it was seven American CIA agents I again point out that the US president states in an open letter to the CIA that seven Americans died, and the CIA spokesmen today said they had a memorial at the airport for the arival of seven killed CIA agents. I see Publics has already made the necessary corrections, I will also do some more too tomorow. And please Cs32en, stop fighting this. Both the US president and a CIA spokesmen stated that seven American CIA guys died. Even if the US president had wrong information since his statement was a day after the attack, you mean to tell me the CIA spokesmen also had the wrong information today, a week after the attack? It's over Cs32en.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that you have managed to cool down in the meantime. The issue was never about whether seven "CIA guys" were killed, but whether seven CIA officers were killed. It now looks very much that not seven, not even six, but four CIA officials were killed in the attack. Cs32en  13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I very much doubt that the corpse of the Afghan security director was transferred to the U.S., and the headlines and reports related to this appear to be examples of sloppy journalism. Do you have any reliable information that the Afghan was a U.S. citizen? If he were, he would probably have a first name as well as a family name. It might well be that nine people were killed, seven bodies returned to the U.S., Arghawan, and the Jordanian officer. But we have no reliable source for nine dead, and we haven't got a source for Arghawan being an American. We just need to leave it there, at the moment. Cs32en  13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The CIA regards contractors as officers. This has been sourced and proven. Also, the president of the US said seven Americans were killed, and the spokesman for the CIA stated that they held a memorial for the arival of the seven agents, qoute Earlier today, CIA Director Leon Panetta, other agency and national security officials, and friends and family members attended a private, dignified event at Dover Air Force Base to honor and welcome home the seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty last week in Khost, Afghanistan. If the bases security chief was only a simple Afghan as you say why is there no mention of him in any media, and why were there SEVEN bodies at Dover airport yesterday? IF the bases security chief was even killed he was obviously an American of Afghan origin since there were seven bodies on the plane taht arrived at Dover yesterday, the CIA and the US president said seven CIA officers, seven Americans died. Why is his body being buried in the US if he was only an Afghan? Hmmm? Stop fighting this man. Jeez.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the last time do not separate contractor from official, wheater contractor or official all seven were CIA officers or operatives and all seven were at Dover airport yesterday thus proving the Afghan was most likely an American of Afghan origin. You are out of arguments Cs32en, anything you say from this point is simple POV-pushing.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Taliban or al-Qaeda?
Some things in the article are woozily. Why should the attack be a sign for al-Qaedas not-weakness? Didn't attack the Taliban??? Edroeh (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC):Of course it should be: Didn't the Taliban attack??? Edroeh (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry that some parts of the article look confused. An official said the attack looked like Al Qaeda. Others opine that the attack coudn't have been carried out without the help of the Haqqani network. All other statements, as of this moment, seem to derive from these assessments. Whether they are right or wrong, commentators and CIA people have talked about Al Qaeda in connection with the event, and their comments seem to be notable. If you have any new sources, or anything that I have overlooked, please let me know! Cs32en  03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Undisclosed names
The name of one of those killed can now be found on the internet. There appears to be little information about the person on the web, however. Cs32en 06:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it, Dane Paresi. He was a security contractor just like Arghawan and Jeremi Wise. So that means that Scott Roberson was not a contractor even though he was a security guy. Roberson must have been a full-time security officer for the agency.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This one was easy to find. However, I had already included the information about Dane Paresi when I wrote the sentences above. Cs32en  14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I noted in the table that the two of the three contractors were Xe, maybe we should note what branches the others belonged to, since Brown's speciality was military intelligence he would have been probably National Clandestine Service and since Roberson was a security officer he would have been probably Special Activities Division. Any thoughts on this?

UPI reported that, according to The Times, a former CIA bin Laden hunter was said to have asserted...
A source described by The Times as a former CIA bin Laden hunter reportedly said the CIA obtained one electronic intercept of a Pakistani army officer tipping the Haqqanis off to a raid and another in which a member of the Pakistani intelligence service says the "Haqqanis are our guys."

That would result in: "UPI reported that, according to The Times, a former CIA bin Laden hunter was said to have asserted that the CIA had obtained an electronic intercept from an unnamed Pakistani officer tipping the Haqqanis off..." All based on reliable sources, of course... ;-) Any takers? Cs32en  21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ...umm, not really unnamed  Cs32en  17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Suicide vest or car attack?
Given the somewhat obscure statements from FBI officials ("still determining the components of the explosive", "shrapnel", "significant explosion", "entered by car"), is it possible that the explosives were attached to the car, rather than to the attacker. People involved may have acted under duress, and may have hoped to be able to escape the blast. Additional information (preferably from reliable sources) is welcome! Cs32en 11:17, 7 January 2010(UTC)
 * I have not seen a source suggesting a car was involved at the time of the explosion.Geo8rge (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we can exclude the possibility that the car was used in the bombing itself (other than to bring the attacker on the base) now. Cs32en  16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Triple agent" hypothesis seems increasingly dubious
The "triple agent" hypothesis seems increasingly dubious. If al-Balawi went to Afghanistan under the cover of treating wounded insurgents, that would not be useful cover for an al-Qaeda agent. So the CIA would have concluded that either he stopped working with al-Qaeda, or that al-Qaeda was aware or suspicious of his CIA contacts and removed him from the front line. In both cases, al-Balawi would have ceased to be a triple agent (in the first case, because he would no longer have been a double agent in the eyes of the CIA, in the second case, because the CIA would have believed that he was compromised, thus they would certainly have searched him). It's more likely that he was pressured into cooperating with the Jordanian agency and, at one point, decided to turn against the Jordanian agency and the CIA. That would make him either a "simple" agent who turned against the CIA, or, in case he was recruited as an agent by al-Qaeda or Haqqani after turning against the CIA, a double agent. Any further information on this in reliable sources? Cs32en 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Up until this attack I had never seen the term triple agent, I think it first appeared in the British press, so it could be a common British term. While I understand your points a main stream source disputing triple agent would be needed. Triple agent seems to fit as double agent does not, and from the point of view of the CIA he was a triple agent as they did not know otherwise. If you have a source disputing triple agent then post it for discussion, but right now the main stream media seems to accept triple agent.Geo8rge (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Assassinations ordered by Washington"
A completely different version of events is being put forward by senior intelligence analyst Christopher Story on his website worldreports.org. According to Story the dead operatives are synonymous with the perpetrators of the killing of eight schoolchildren shortly preceding the Camp Champman attack, an incident which caused an uproar in Afghanistan and the Afghan Security Council to demand that the US hand over the perpetrators. According to Story, that attack (killing the schoolchildren) was implemented to derail the ongoing unwinding by international law enforcement personnel of 'Operation Stillpoint' which, again according to Story, is a financial fraud which has been perpetrated by three US presidents for more than a decade (on the scale of $47 Trillion), As no mainstream media has so far covered this alleged story I can only inform other editors that if true, Operation Stillpoint is undoubtedly the largest financial fraud in history. Extensive details are however presented on worldreports.org. __meco (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A better source than a blog would be needed. I think the suicide bombing preparation took more time than that, the decision to attack the base seems to be founded in opportunity, it would have gone off irrespective of other activity in the world. They had an opportunity that would not be there in the future and they took advantage of it. Geo8rge (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. If/when this story breaks in the mainstream it will explode violently. We should wait for that. __meco (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole double agent thing... outdated?
In the Jordanian reaction section, it seems like it is being stressed that al-Balawi was a GID contact and an informant, not a double agent. And there's no CIA claim to counter that. The sources quoted in that section use phrasing similar to 'suicide bomber was not a double agent after all', indicating that it's not just a Jordanian reaction, but a "new" development of facts.

AFAIK, the CIA said nothing to counter that; so its only the Jordanians' word vs. Taliban's word. It seems more logical to credit the legitimate governmental organization's word over that of an organization that actually might NEED to twist facts to appear more heroic. What do you think? --Eshcorp (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The British press is using the term triple agent. Recent wall street journal:The Meaning of al Qaeda's Double Agent. I do not agree that al-Balawi was an informat which implies more informal relationship than someone who is meeting with the CIA #2(the unidentified woman agent). I imagine that persons involved with US gov Intelligence monitor this wp page, perhaps they can let the press know about the correct terminology, or issue an official CIA statement about what happened.Geo8rge (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These are two separate issue that have not yet been fully clarified. (1) Was al-Balawi an agent, or was he an informant? (2) Was Balawa a double agent, or was he a triple agent? We will have to wait for more information in reliable sources to emerge, or a convergence of the reports and the language used in reliable sources. Cs32en  16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New information on responsibility, this article is now outdated!
Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud is responsible according to this http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/world/middleeast/10balawi.html?hp article. This article suggests that the Haqquani Network was involved. They have a video with the bomber and Mehsud the leader of the group. Please revise this article and remove all mentions of the Haqquani network who had nothing to do with this attack according to the new information. Any body else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.133.184 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll work on the issue later on. There are also sources that say that Mehsud and Haqqani would have cooperated in the preparation of the attack. If you have well-sourced information, you can always add content to the article. Please indicate the source of the information, e.g. the newspaper article. Further information on how sources are being used on Wikipedia in on Verifiability and Reliable sources. In this case, it's certainly best to read multiple sources (more than 3), as the information on some aspects of the event differs substantially. Cs32en  07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove window dressing
We should seriously think of removing the politician's and bureaucrat's "oh, this is a sad day" comments. Gut most of the reactions section. This article should be about the attack, not some lame political press release comments. Later, when more information comes in, we should include the actual retaliation done and how many Taliban heads were cut off. JB50000 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Times has published a rather detailed account of the attack. Unfortunately, the text in written in a very journalistic, i.e. not encyclopedic language, so major rewording is necessary, in my view. But this is a great source for further expansion of the article. As for the comments, I think they represent the sometimes quite varied opinions about the event, so I don't think a major change is needed there. But adding or removing statements, to better reflect the gist of the ongoing public discussion, might be useful.  Cs32en  07:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Schematic of the attack.
Reconstructing the CIA bombing

Also Leon Panetta made a statement about the attack. CIA director defends agency against criticismGeo8rge (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Both references/links are included in the article. Cs32en  16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Security director at the base
Phiont, I have not written that the security director would have been killed by the attacker, but that he was killed in the attack. In fact, if the attack would not have taken place, he would not have been killed. So it's quite logical to count the security director among those who have been killed in the attack. Please let me know what you think about this. (Phiont's edit) Cs32en  19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good question, isn't it, especially for those with an interest in chaos theory. Could the hypothetical death of a child run over by an ambulance rushing to Camp Chapman also have been attributed to the attack? How about the heart attack death of the child's father on hearing of his little one's demise? Indeed, where does one draw the line? When the lead section of an article on a bomb attack lists casualties without going into detail about how each got hurt/killed then the reader will most likely disregard chaos theory and automatically assume that each was struck down by the bomb blast, shrapnel, or at very least flying and falling debris. Adding someone to that list who was gunned down in a friendly fire incident subsequent to the bombing without mention of that circumstance therefore results in a misunderstanding. I feel the best way to avoid such misunderstanding is either to include some context that will distinguish such peripheral casualties from those victims actually struck down by the bomb or leave such indirect deaths out of the lead section entirely.--Phiont (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it wasn't a "subsequent incident", but that it was part of the incident that started with the bomb blast. Those actions that happened immediately during and after the blast reflect reactions on an individual basis, not tactical, strategic, or political decisions. That is what distinguished the death of the security director, a death which would not have occured if there would have been no attack, from, e.g. the U.S. drone strikes that took place in the days after the attack, which are sometimes interpreted as retaliation for the bombing. Maybe some other editors will comment on the issue, or a request for comment might help us to find a consensus on this part of the article. Cs32en  23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To delve briefly into your counter-example, if the security director had been immediately killed by a US soldier commanding a drone instead of holding a pistol would you still have attributed his death to the suicide bombing, even though it would have resulted from so-called "tactical, strategic, or political decisions" however erroneous? Of course not. I'm only trying to reduce the potential for misunderstanding when readers of the lead section see a list of attack casualties without knowing that one of them was actually caused by subsequent friendly fire. And if you don't consider the friendly fire incident to be subsequent to the "attack" then how long after the bomber disintegrated did his attack continue? --Phiont (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between the shooting of the security director and the (hypothetical) drone attack would be that the shooting was (a) an immediate reaction and (b) intended to reduce the impact of the attack, i.e. defensive. In war-related incidents, offensive action on the part of one side, and defensive action on the part of the other side occur, and both are part of the incident. An offensive action by the party that has been attacked would not usually be considered part of the incident, unless you have an "incident" that would be called "War in Afghanistan", which would cover multiple smaller incidents.
 * Most important is probably how reliable sources describe the death of the security director:
 * ABC: "Arghawan also died in the attack."
 * Times of India: "there was a suicide blast that killed eight people, including Arghawan"
 * Cs32en 08:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On 3 Jan., the Times of India said the blast killed Arghawan. On 10 Jan., the Times of London said Arghawan "survived the initial blast." One of those two versions is clearly unreliable. Please explain why you have chosen to discard the Times of London version in favour of the Times of India version published a week earlier? The ABC link you posted as an example of a reliable source appears to be even older. --Phiont (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that not all the reports in reliable sources are correct. The Times, however, does not refer to "the attack" but to "Balawi". The article reads: "According to the guard, it was then that Balawi detonated his bomb, killing eight and injuring six." I don't think the specific circumstances of Arghawan's death are important enough for the lead. But if we want to include them in the lead section, we would have to write "eight people were killed by the bomb". Cs32en  15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Death of the security director
Should the security director of Camp Chapman, who died as a result of the attack on the base, be referred to as a victim of the the attack, and is the wording "[he] was killed in the attack" correct to describe the circumstances? Cs32en  Talk to me  07:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to RfC by uninvolved editor: The word "victim" in this case would be POV. He was a casualty. Alternatively, he was killed/died in the attack. -Atmoz (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice! I have used the word "casualty" in the entire article myself, and I would actually prefer that word to "victim". The dispute, however, is about whether it is appropriate to write that "he died in the attack". According to reports, he initially survived the bombing and was shot by an employee or soldier stationed at the base who would have mistaken him for an accomplice. I see the "defensive fire" as part of the attack, just as there is fire from both sides in a military battle, and therefore think that it is appropriate to say that "he died in the attack". Cs32en   Talk to me  22:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an analogy, would you consider the firefighters that rushed into the buildings on 9/11 to be casualties of the attacks? Or would they simply dead due to an on-the-job accident? I would definitely consider them to be casualties of the attacks. As I consider the death of the camp security director to be a casualty of the attack and not due to an on-the-job accident. -Atmoz (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested that the Security Director died in an "on-the-job accident." He was certainly killed in an attack, however the attacker was a US soldier and not the suicide bomber.--Phiont (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Check out the featured article Oklahoma City Bombing. The death toll includes a rescue worker who was killed by falling debris. I suppose you might say the security director was killed "during" the attack if that would be more satisfactory to all parties. Quixotess (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 and Oklahoma City attack analogies are not appropriate because the Security Director was not killed by collapsing buildings or falling debris or anything else directly attributable to the attack of the suicide bomber. However mistakenly, the Security Director was attacked and killed by a US soldier, not the suicide bomber. The article's lead section defines the Camp Chapman Attack solely as a suicide bombing, alone, and exclusive of any military response no matter how immediate. As long as the US soldier's subsequent attack against the Security Director is not mentioned in the lead section, perhaps as an ill fated response to the Camp Chapman Attack, then listing the Security Director among the casualties of the suicide bombing is misleading.--Phiont (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rather baffled by the fact that your only contributions to the encyclopedia in the last few months have been to make edits to this particular article and to its talk page. When talking about people that perish in a military attack, that usually includes those that are being killed by the actions on the part of the party that defends itself against the attack. An attack is not just the initial action. In addition, the wording is not "was killed by the bomb", but "was killed in the attack". Cs32en   Talk to me  20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the Camp Chapman Attack should be defined in the lead section as a "military attack" consisting of more than just the suicide bombing. In fact, section one also fails to describe the attack as anything more than a suicide bombing, so for now I'm removing the security director from that casualty list, too.--Phiont (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Phiont, you have claimed that there would be no consensus for describing the security director as a casualty of the attack. Do you consider that the other editors who have commented on this question agree with you, or would you concede that they do not agree with the position that you have taken? Cs32en   Talk to me  14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we have not yet arrived at a consensus for describing the security director as a casualty of the attack as long as the article defines the Camp Chapman Attack solely as a suicide bombing. As you know, the security director survived the bombing and was mistakenly gunned down afterwards by a soldier.--Phiont (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the security director of Camp Chapman, who died as a result of the attack on the base, be referred to as a casualty of the the attack, and is the wording "[he] was killed in the attack" correct to describe the circumstances? (A user who claims that the wording should not be used has again stated his opposition, after the first RfC had been closed.) Cs32en   Talk to me  14:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cs32en, please note that I responded to the first RfC eleven days before it closed and not after as you have stated here. --Phiont (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Phiont, of course you stated your opinion on the RfC while is has been open. That's not the issue. The issue is that, as far as I can tell, the two outside editors who participated in the RfC disagreed with your position, so that I have eventually changed the text according to the apparent consensus on the talk page. You have then restored your preferred version of the text, and restarted the discussion on the issue (i.e. after the RfC had been closed). Can you answer my question on your take on the comments made by the other editors? Cs32en   Talk to me  17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that it was you who reverted to your version 20 days before the first RfC closed. I undid that edit and stated my position on the first RfC, 10 days before that RfC closed. No editor responded to my position before that RfC closed. And now it is you, not I, who has restarted the discussion on the issue 7 days after the first RfC closed. (I apologise for stating all this to any reader conscientious enough to check your version of events against the edit history.)--Phiont (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed the text a week after the last comment by an uninvolved editor, based on the consensus that had emerged in the RfC. Unfortunately, a new discussion seems to be necessary, as you have reverted the text to your preferred version. Cs32en   Talk to me  22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous RfC got a response from 2 uninvolved editors. They both agreed. That's as close to a consensus as you get on Wikipedia. Give me a good reason to not close this superfluous RfC. -Atmoz (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain during the first RfC, if the security director had been killed by collapsing buildings, fire, falling debris or anything else directly attributable to the attack of the suicide bomber then the 9/11 and Oklahoma City bombing analogies offered by you and Quixotess would be appropriate. However, that's not what happened. The security director survived the bombing. A short time after the bombing, he was shot and killed by a soldier. Furthermore, if the main article defined and described the Camp Chapman Attack as a "military battle," that began with the bombing and ended with the friendly fire attack against the security director then the word attack would perhaps gain enough overall scope to allow the security director to be listed as a casualty of the Camp Chapman Attack. However, that's not the case either. The Camp Chapman Attack is currently only described as a suicide bombing. Therefore, anyone reading that the security director was a casualty of the attack as described will wrongly conclude that he died in the bombing. Perhaps this wasn't entirely clear to the uninvolved editors the first time they offered their opinions, so I'd be grateful if we could discuss this a bit further.--Phiont (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cs32en, silence is a form of consensus. Unilaterally reverting to your preferred version after 11 weeks of shunning my plea for further discussion is not consensus. --Phiont (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already consensus here on the talk page, and I don't know why I should discuss this issue further with you if you don't want to or are unable to acknowledge the existing consensus. You may want to explain why you have set up an account for the only purpose of engaging in the dispute about the security director at Camp Chapman. Also, as you have noticed the change to the article within a few hours, is it a reasonable assumption that you have watchlisted this article on a different account that you are using for other purposes? Cs32en   Talk to me  12:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cs32en, on 17 January you proposed, "I don't think the specific circumstances of Arghawan's death are important enough for the lead. But if we want to include them in the lead section, we would have to write 'eight people were killed by the bomb'." I agree. Including even the briefest statement on how Arghawan died in the lead section would lend enough scope to the term "attack" to justify including Arghawan among the casualties of the "attack." This way the attack incident would be immediately understood to include a bombing and shooting instead of just a bombing. How would you feel about this?--Phiont (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The shot on the security director was a direct result of the bombing, it is a subordinate action. It's not as if the bombing would have been followed by a firefight or shooting that could be construed as a distinct phase of the event. Cs32en   Talk to me  17:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but if the bombing and shooting are not to be regarded as distinct events or even distinct phases of the same event then shouldn't the shooting also be mentioned in the lead section's description of that single cohesive event for the benefit of readers who quite understandably would not assume that the term bombing also implies a shooting? --Phiont (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We could add that information in the introduction of the section "Execution of the attack". I don't think it's relevant enough to be included in the lead section of the whole article. Cs32en   Talk to me  19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Details of the Sec Dir's death have been added to the Execution section. Also, the reader is now informed that the suicide attack was a bombing a bit earlier than the last line of the lead section. My only outstanding concern is that the victims are now listed in 4 or 5 different places. Specifically, the Casuaties section might read better beginning with an overall body count followed by subsections naming US casualties and Non-US casualties. For instance, I'm not sure that "CIA employees and contractors" and "Non-US Casualties" are as mutually exclusive as the current subsection breaks suggest. --Phiont (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the changes you have made later on. Thank you for changing to a more constructive approach. Cs32en   Talk to me  15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Section "U.S. reaction" - "Investigations"
I removed the following paragraph, as the assessments made by officials are not conclusions drawn from an investigation. The information may be added to the article somewhere else, however.

Cs32en  Talk to me  01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating opening paragraphs
I've updated the opening paragraphs after finding that two paragraphs were hidden by an open (ref) tag. Here is the third, which I've removed because it isn't relevant enough for the opening.

"The U.S. requested that Pakistan arrest and extradite an insurgency leader, and intensified drone attacks in the northern area of Pakistan. The U.S. military also issued new security guidance to its bases in Afghanistan. The CIA and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the attack. U.S. President Barack Obama praised the CIA officers who died in the bombing, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack. All seven of the operatives killed in the attack were memorialized with a star on the agency's Memorial Wall at its headquarters."

Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Parking "Haqqani Network" section and subsection
The Haqqani network was originally suspect of involvement in the attack, but they were not a part of it, nor has it been shown they even knew about it beforehand. I am parking the section here if some information or sources can be used elsewhere. A background section should remain, however, the Haqqani network and US-Pakistani relations do not need sections themselves. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Haqqani network
The drone attacks carried out by the U.S. military in Pakistan rely on local informants, who can cross the border into Pakistan in a way CIA officers cannot. CIA officers at the base were involved in the coordination, targeting and surveillance of drone strikes aimed at the Taliban. At the time of the attack, they were conducting an aggressive campaign against the Haqqani network, a radical group run by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Sirajuddin Haqqani, and were aiming at the Tehrik-i-Taliban group in particular.

The Haqqani network, one of the CIA's most important assets during Operation Cyclone in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, operates on both sides of the porous border shared by Afghanistan and Pakistan and is believed to have close ties to al-Qaeda. Jalaluddin Haqqani is widely believed to maintain ties with Pakistan's security and intelligence establishment as well. The Haqqani family has migrated from Khost Province to North Waziristan after the Soviet invasion in 1979. It has focused on attacking U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting Pakistan.

Members of the Haqqani network have occasionally cooperated with the Pakistani Taliban in the past. "At times they send suicide attackers to our area, and we give them shelter and find targets for them," a former commander of the group said. The network has carried out numerous attacks with growing sophistication in Khost Province, where the attack on the CIA facility took place.

U.S.-Pakistan relations
Afghanistan's government suspected that the attack was a revenge attack organized by the network. A Pentagon consultant, an ex-Afghan official who has worked at the base with the CIA, and a counterterror official of the CIA expressed similar views, and one U.S. military official stated that the U.S. had indications pointing in that direction. Pakistani officials played down the likelihood that the Haqqani network organized the attack, and cautioned against jumping to conclusions. Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University, said that these suspicions would arise because "the United States government has really taken upon itself [...] to degrade the Haqqani network", while Pakistan has "demurred, if not outright refused, to take action against" it.

The attack came at a time when disputes over civilian casualties between the U.S. and Afghanistan, and over counterterrorism strategies between the U.S. and Pakistan, were increasing. Confirmation that the Haqqani network was responsible for the bombing could put additional strains on relations between the U.S. and Pakistan, which has rejected U.S. calls to deny safe havens to the network. Pakistan's security officials have warned against an escalation of the U.S. drone attacks in the country. A senior Pakistani security official urged the United States to coordinate its response to the suicide attack with the Pakistani government, in order to avoid "unnecessary and further friction" to the alliance of both countries, while a U.S. State Department official said that the U.S. counterterrorist efforts "are coordinated with foreign governments, including with Pakistan, as needed."

The United States and Pakistan differ over which Islamist fighters to target. Pakistan sees Haqqani, who had long-standing links with its military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, as likely to be a valuable asset in Afghanistan if U.S. troops leave, as Islamabad anticipates, before the country is stabilised.

_________________________________________________

Parked text from opening of Responsibility section
There was considerable confusion after the attack about the motivations of the attacker and the source of its support. It was not clear whether conflicting claims of responsibility indicated that Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, and al-Qaeda were working independently from each other. U.S. officials said that their investigators have yet to determine which of the groups organized the attack.

A video released in the days after the attack featured the purported bomber stating that he was carrying out the attack in response to the death of Baitullah Mehsud, the Pakistani Taliban leader who was killed by a U.S. drone in August earlier that year. The CIA launched more than 50 drone attacks in 2009, compared to more than 30 in 2008, according to an ABC News tally. The CIA officials based at Forward Operating Base Chapman were at the center of the drone campaign, according to intelligence officials, and they were looking for informants to help them find senior al-Qaeda and Haqqani leaders.

Done with initial review 2013
I've taken out early sources reporting erroneous claims and revised the text where it was needed. Would be glad to have someone review the changes or contribute to further improvements. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The book by Joby Warrick appears to be quite useful to streamline the article. Most of the text was written when information was extremely sketchy and at times unreliable. I would have two suggestions:
 * Check where Joby Warrick quotes sources other than those in the article. It may be that this source (or, for that matter, other source that appeared in the meantime) may rely on a subset of the sources, while not including other sources. Then, we may still need to include different versions or use (maybe retain) wording that remains intentionally vague.
 * While the previous version may have contained too much context, I feel that the current version contains too little context. I haven't looked at how much of the content may have found its way to other articles.

Cs32en  Talk to me  20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Still working on it. I'll try to add more context. Mnnlaxer (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of strength of al-Qaeda
The bombing cannot be seen as suggesting "that al-Qaeda might not be as weakened as previously thought". One suicide attack doesn't indicate anything of the sort.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camp Chapman attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726234505/http://www.daily.pk/cias-pearl-harbor-blowback-stings-cias-afghan-outpost-was-it-a-drug-hit-13834/ to http://www.daily.pk/cias-pearl-harbor-blowback-stings-cias-afghan-outpost-was-it-a-drug-hit-13834/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)