New York times is leading on their reporter being freed, aide killed. Then happens to mention report that a 'commando' has been killed. However, they, like the BBC it appears, may be waiting for official verification as currently the reports of a KIA appear to be coming from unofficial sources.
There are some pretty full on comments posted on the sky website, it's good to see that someone has a sense of perspective in all of this. This guy wasn't deliberately walking into trouble, he was trying to cover a relevant story, but to call his rescue the only bit of good news is bollox!
There are bits of good news going on in Afghanistan every day, but since they don't involve us blazing away with every weapon we have or killing civvies, the press aren't that interested, so the good news doesn't get home except via blueys and the odd phonecall.
I'm all for the press covering the war, warts and all, but they have to accept such risks when they don the blue body armour.
Go along with most of the above. Poor exchange, if a journo goes into a danger-zone then he should accept that nice things do not always happen.
Having said that then I think the attempt had to be made, though I would certainly draw a line depending on risks involved.
RIP soldier. You gave your life so that another could live.
The thing that annoys me is that this cretin probably thought lightning would never strike twice in the same place, so his chances of getting nabbed again are next to zero. Wrong, feckwit.
What I really wonder is was he going to Kunduz to see what the situation was on the ground so that he could do an impartial piece of news reporting or another press hatchet job on the military along the lines of "Another military clusterfeck - innocent Talibs caught in the crossfire" tosh.