Safe Mode: On
Commando Raid frees held NYT Reporter in the Ghan.

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A New York Times reporter who was kidnapped last week was freed by commandos Wednesday.
New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell was abducted Saturday while covering a NATO airstrike in Afghanistan.

New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell was abducted Saturday while covering a NATO airstrike in Afghanistan.

Stephen Farrell was rescued in a pre-dawn raid conducted by NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the British Foreign Office said.

Farrell, along with a driver and translator, were kidnapped Saturday while covering a NATO airstrike on Taliban forces in the northern Kunduz province that killed at least 90 people.

The British Foreign Office would confirm only that one hostage had been rescued.

Neither CNN nor the Times had previously reported Farrell's kidnapping for security reasons.

"We feared that media attention would ra


Added: Sep-9-2009 Occurred On: Sep-9-2009
By: Ghanboy
In:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East
Tags: sas, hostage rescue, sbs, afghanistan, special forces, raid, taliban
Location: Kunduz, Kondoz, Afghanistan (load item map)
Views: 9964 | Comments: 57 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 3 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 1 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Lives wasted or put at risk for a journalist who would trash the military in a second for a headline. The Times and their reporters are liberal garbage.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (6) | Report

    • Difficult to deny the sad irony but you don't get to choose the mission.

      Hardly a good trade, a member of the Regiment for a New York Times reporter.

      Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

      (4) | Report

  • Nice work lads.

    Definitely sounds like our mates in the SAS & SBS.

    Hope they dished out some heavy retribution.

    From what I hear from the Aussies, very few, if any, are ever left to tell the tale !

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (5) | Report

  • great work by our brave troops but the scumbag that one of them died to save was no doubt only there so he could write shit about them,if I had my way they should have just left him to the mercy of his Taliban pals

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (5) | Report

  • Pedophiles: 0
    Brits: 1

    Allah won't be pleased.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (5) | Report

  • Comment of user 'boomer2180' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • The BBC came out saying "why didnt they use a more diplomatic approach"

    Well after a while the Taliban would have used the age old diplomatic trick of starving and then beheading him

    Fucking wanky BBC!

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (5) | Report

  • I have just listened to some disgusting journos on TV asking 'why did the soldiers intervene' as according to them the scum who were holding this clown were going to release him,no doubt they are going to try and turn this on it's head and make the deaths the troops fault,words fail me

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (4) | Report

  • This Farrell fellow has been kidnapped TWICE? (Once in Iraq and once in Afgan!) And survived! A person can only be so fortunate. Personally i think that'd be a wake up call to find another line of work since i like my head right where it is...

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (4) | Report

  • At least two individuals were killed trying to free this new york crimes reporter. The crimes will not cover that. Just their liberal view on how bad the bombing is suppose to be. He should have been left there.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (3) | Report

  • if it was a washington post guy, i would have let him stay with the muj until they took a little off the top if you get my drift

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (3) | Report

  • NY Times? Shit, shouldve left his dumb ass with the haji's.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

  • British troops on patrol came across the compound where the hostages were being held -the Brit commander sent back a message to the US base asking if they wanted them to go in -the answer came back yes -so they went in -unfortunately a Brit trooper and the Afghan interpretor were killed.
    The Journalist shares British/Irish passport but works for the New York Times.US Commander McChrystal as personnally commended the British soldiers for their "outstanding professionalism and bravery"

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

  • The Taliban scrambled along a wall crawling like cockroaches when they realised what was coming.

    The time that had been agreed in negotiations to release them had passed so the SBS went and got the Fukwit reporter.

    He has a translator and a highly trained soldiers death on his selfish fukin bloodstained hands.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • A UK soldier died in the rescue operation.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8246514.stm

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6160214/British-commando-killed-in-raid-to-free-journalist-in-Afghanistan.html

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Gen. Stanley McChrystal has got to go!!! He is responsible for far too many US and UK troop deaths.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (-1) | Report

  • So they left the driver behind? Guess only journalist are worth rescuing so they can write more propaganda shit.

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (-3) | Report

  • My ass 'commando raid'.

    More like the Afghans decided to release him after their demands were met.

    :)

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (-11) | Report

    • Im a big fan of you!! A rare user in LL that always come with intelligent comments full of truth!


      Its obvious that this guy was released in some area near these commandos. This history probably was very distorted in "favor" of these military incompetents.

      And its probably that this kidnappe was maded by the own NATO soldiers by orders..... These NATO have striked the fuel tanks without caring of who was there, being probably that all the Talibans was distant long time ago, they More..

      Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

      (-10) | Report

    • Muslims can't accept defeat which means that ultimately they will never be victorious. They will always be 3rd world people with 3rd world ideas, 3rd world morals, a 3rd world religion, 3rd world military accomplishments and 3rd world economic development. In defeat there is a tremendous opportunity to learn...but the defeat has to be accepted.

      Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

      (6) | Report

    • Lol !!! - if Muslims are that 'defeatist', then why haven't you got full control of Afghanistan ?

      or Iraq ?

      or Lebanon ?

      or Pakistan ?

      These are the places that you want the most, yet you're getting your asses kicked left, right and center.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH !!!

      Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

      (-8) | Report

    • How do you define "full control"? For as long as the Americans can hold on to just one piece of airstrip to launch Predators they will be killing hundreds of Islamists every year. We are happy with that, it's better than the 1990s when America was doing nothing...

      America doesn't want Afghanistan's land per se because it's useless and the people who live there are also useless, without any education and without any economic value. If Ford opened a new auto plant there would be no work More..

      Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

      (3) | Report

    • Funny, people were using the same argument with Vietnam (and look what happened there).

      BWAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!

      Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

      (-6) | Report

  • Commando ? hahahhaa the Taliban decided to release him..

    Posted Sep-9-2009 By 

    (-11) | Report