it, mr. ahmadi was an afghan civilian who worked for a humanitarian association that focused on malnutrition. they said there was a subsequent explosion that proved this was used for imminent strike. any word on that intelligence? there was a propane tank near the wheel in the courtyard, that was the secondary strike. they have movements of some of the video of the car in the courtyard before the strike and showed potentially explosives moved in and out of the car. we know those were water bottles he was bringing water home to his family because their water was cut off after the taliban took over kabul.
carry out this deadly strike? so what we got from u.s. government sources, one of our national security reporters did a the lot of good reporting. what we heard from sources is that essentially they were looking at what they call islamic state safe house in kabul. how they identified that safe house we don t know. they tracked that sedan for eight hours and tracked all over kabul. they said they had communication s between the safe house and sedan that they thought was suspicious and that, you know, ordered the sedan to make stops around kabul, meet with a motorcyclist, et cetera. what we got from the colleagues of this man on the ground when we interviewed all five men in the car with him that day is that this was actually a normal day. he was running errands for his
of strategic value that would threaten us or threaten afghanistan s neighbors. having said that, i m not the expert on this and i defer to the colleagues at the pentagon. do you believe that america should in any way capitulate to terrorists? absolutely not. do you believe, sir, that allowing the taliban to run perimeter of hkia with american troops on the inside relying on the taliban to keep the taliban out and american citizens on the outside relying on the taliban to get in that that is capitulating terrorists? the realality is the afghan government chanced. the taliban took over kabul. that was the reality we dealt with. the judgment of all of us starting with our military commanders, including people on the ground is that our job was
joins us now live from kabul. arwa the experience of those journalists as we just saw there seems to be more evidence of what that taliban police chief says explicitly that when it comes to enforcing their vurersn of the law, nothing has changed in 20 years. and all of this came as quite contradictory if we go back to what the taliban spokesperson was saying after they had initially taken over kabul. saying that girls and women would be allowed to go to school. that journalists would be allowed to work within the framework. which then, of course, led to questions about exactly which framework are they referring to given it is a very widely open to different forms of interpretation with the taliban choosing to interpret and implement it in the strictest way possible. keeping in mind, though, that even a taliban that is perhaps slightly more lenient than it was 20 years ago, still would be
contradictory messages. remember, when the taliban first took over kabul, they were saying women would be allowed in education, they would have the right to work. now you re hearing from the police chief in mazar-e sharif saying that no, the laws are going to be exactly the same as they were 20 years ago where basically women did not enjoy any of those rights. neither did young girls, effectively denied an education, a future and any ability to be productive members of society, denied the right to basically dream of bettering themselves, bettering their country. and, you know, at the same time, if one were to be in afghanistan right now, the other reality is that you can t get out. afghans are effectively trapped in afghanistan at this stage. those who managed to get out are very much the lucky ones. and when it comes to the taliban s rule, even if we do get a taliban that is less strict than the one of 20 years ago, this is still going to make