At least 100 ex-Afghan special forces still on the run from Taliban death squads
At least 56 Afghan Special Forces commandos have been hunted down, captured and killed by Taliban revenge units since the fall of Kabul, it has been claimed. And a further 102 of the western-trained elite troops remain on the run, often moving from house to house, as they flee a terrible end at the hands of Taliban death squads.
Many of those killed suffered enormously at the hands of their cruel captors who inflicted torture on them for days before executing them and those still free are taunted. It is impossible to know how many are being targeted as a result of the massive MoD data breach in which almost 20,000 files of Afghans wanted to flee were leaked.
It also emerged today that details of as many as 100 UK special forces and MI6 spies were mentioned in a data breach along with almost 20,000 names of Afghans associated with UK forces and diplomatic missions - further escalating the cover-up scandal. Their names were of people who vouched for applicants trying to flee Afghanistan to the UK because they they feared their work with UK forces and civilian or diplomatic missions would cost them their lives once the Taliban found out.
A former British military source, who mentored many of the commandos dubbed 'Triples' because of the name of their special units, told the Daily Mirror: 'The precise number of those captured or executed by the Taliban remains uncertain, though anecdotal evidence suggests the figure is tragically high. Since the fall of Kabul we have lost 56 individuals, predominantly former members of the Triple Unit and the Afghan National Directorate of Security.
'Their deaths, whilst heart-breaking, are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of retribution. I have been closely engaged in these issues and speak regularly with those who remain deeply involved in supporting those still in danger."
The 'Triples' were three Special Forces units called 222, 333 and 444- all of them highly-targeted by the Taliban. The horror facing many remaining Afghan operatives emerged as political figures scrambled to deny they had mismanaged the nightmare 2021 fall of Kabul.
It was worsened with the catastrophic and accidental leak of 18,500 names of Afghans, many military, who needed to flee Afghanistan for the UK. The list of names was accidentally sent out by a UK military official, the Taliban became aware of it and it triggered them to step up the hunt.
Meanwhile thousands of Afghans endangered by the leak have been smuggled to the UK under the Afghan Relocation Route system set up when the leak emerged. The Mirror source revealed how many fleeing Afghan Special Forces and members of other western-trained units were ghosted to safety from Kabul as the capital fell in 2021.
Their 'Triple' units were codenamed 'CRU 222' or Crisis Response Unit 222 - a counter-terror fighting unit supported by the British special forces, 'CF 333 - or Commando Force 333, counter-terror and targeting of top Taliban 'high value targets supported by the US Green Berets, and ATF 444 - the Afghan Territorial Force 444 whose role was to do all of the above but in Helmand and Kandahar Provices.
They were called "the Triples" because they used three numbers in their title. There were plans underway to expans the "Triples" special forces with five or six more units dubbed 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 but the fall of Kabul stopped that in its tracks.
As the Taliban death units closed in on them they were were helped to the Panjshir Valley, where they were looked after by the National Resistance Front. Others crossed into Pakistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, but many remain stranded in Afghanistan.
The Mirror source added: 'The danger they face is ongoing. Death threats are routinely delivered by phone to family members and many who were captured were subjected to prolonged torture before execution, some murdered outright without warning or process.
'The cruelty has been systematic and calculated and continues to this day with the personnel we speak with when safe to do so.' In 2021 a scheme to relocate Afghans who helped the British military during the war was launched and called the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
But in February 2022 an unnamed British official accidentally emailed details of 18,714 Afghans who applied to be relocated to the UK. He had thought he was emailing 150 rows of information, but it actually contained around 33,000.
Roughly a year later the MoD discovered the breach and also in 2023 officials realise the Taliban may have obtained a 'kill list of thousands.' Then defence secretary Ben Wallace applied for a court order after the MoD reeived two inquiries about the breach from journalists.
And soon after a High Court granted a super-injunction gagging order until a hearing scheduled for 1 December, preventing the reporting of the breach.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Why is it still acceptable to abuse men with long hair?
It was a hairy situation. At a drab corporate dinner in a posh hotel basement, one of my fellow diners grew increasingly prickly. My publication had committed some slight against him – perhaps passing him over for one of our phoney awards, more likely misspelling his name. Unassuaged by my non-apologies, the fur was beginning to fly, though with as much ferocity as Bagpuss might muster. As my assailant stared at my luscious locks cascading onto my chest, he decided things must get personal. He leant across the table and yelled: 'And get your hair cut!' The advice wasn't without merit; I'm perennially in need of a trim. But the incident spoke to something darker in the soul of British men, borne of frustration, drink, and perhaps subconscious lust. It is one of the last acceptable prejudices in modern Britain: barnets. The topic is an unlikely point of agreement between white contrarian hipsters and racial justice activists. Earlier this year, a group of the latter launched a petition to end 'hair discrimination' against people sporting afros, braids or dreadlocks, a phenomenon that has 'destroyed' some of those affected, as social entrepreneur Salha Kaitesi recently told the BBC. Whether facing unwanted contact, comments or professional chastisement, those with traditional black hairstyles argue they should be left alone. 'By discriminating against us, you're literally just saying we shouldn't belong or we shouldn't be who we are,' Kaitesi said. It's a new spin on a fashionable cause, at least. And as befits the vogue for legal boilerplating, her campaign calls for the Equality Act to be rewritten to make explicit mention of hair discrimination. This is despite the fact that the legislation already covers hairstyles worn because of cultural, family and social customs. The politics of hair is nothing new. Even two decades ago, my own all-boys secondary school carved out generous exemptions for bewhiskered pupils. While the official policy was not far off short back and sides with a clean shave, South Asian classmates were sufficiently numerous to make a mockery of having any standard at all. Such liberalism has crept into working life, as a stroll around any office would show you. Even the City of London, that bastion of stuffy privilege, now hosts a vivid array of barnets. The easing of dress codes has coincided with laxer rules about hair, perhaps encouraged by growing diversity in the workplace. Keep it kempt and you can often get away with anything. Or at least you can most of the time. For while the socially-astute conformists will know to avoid a brush with race relations law, white men with long hair are still fair game for follicular abuse. To paraphrase famous baldy Gregg Wallace, 'men of a certain age' are frequently forthright in expressing their distaste, as if traditional British mores haven't been suffering an unbroken series of catastrophic defeats since the 1960s. In that decade, lengthier styles on men were indicative of everything from mere idleness to the worst seditions: communism, anarchism and sexual deviancy. Long-haired men at the time report being refused service at pubs, subjected to a non-consensual trim, or in grimmer cases even beaten up. The correlation between barber abstinence and disobedience is true, of course. As Graham Nash once put it, long hair 'was a flag, it was a symbol of rebellion, of a new way of thinking, of a tantalising of your parents, a finger in the face of convention'. As well as symbolising good music taste and access to decent drugs, it was most of all a threat to the establishment. Perhaps then the man who heckled my flowing locks outside a Redhill pub some years ago was continuing in that tradition of defending the beliefs of every right-thinking person. Something similar may well be true of the Millwall fans who called out to their Lord and Saviour on seeing a friend of mine the other side of a security barrier – though in fairness, he does rather look like Jesus. But I suspect at its heart the verbal attacks on the long-hairs owe most to sexual jealousy from the baldies. Certainly many women cannot resist a floppy fringe after a few drinks, if only for the shampoo recommendations. It is hardly nit-picking to argue that men and women of all colours and creeds should be allowed to wear their hair how they like, if only to prop up one of the few AI-proof industries Britain has left and maintain a steady supply of hirsute tribute acts as rock pioneers die off. The government must act to end this disgraceful prejudice – at least once it's fixed the economy.
South Wales Guardian
5 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Salmond may have leaked sexual misconduct inquiry details, claims Sturgeon
In an excerpt of her new memoir, Frankly, published by The Times, Ms Sturgeon insisted she was not the one who had leaked the outcome of the Scottish government investigation into her predecessor as first minister to the press. She said: 'It crossed my mind many times that it might have been Alex himself or someone acting on his behalf. 'To those with no experience of the dark arts of media manipulation, I know this will sound preposterous. However, in many ways it would have been classic Alex. 'I had known him to make these kinds of calculations in the past. If there is damaging information certain to emerge about you and there is nothing you can do to stop it, get it out in a way that gives you the best chance of controlling the narrative.' Mr Salmond, who died last year, was investigated by the Scottish government in 2018 after two women made allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The findings of that investigation were leaked to The Daily Record on the day before they were due to be published, prompting Mr Salmond to launch a judicial review of the handling of the inquiry. The Scottish government initially defended the judicial review, before dropping its defence. But a separate police investigation resulted in a criminal trial in 2020 in which Mr Salmond was cleared of all 14 charges, being found not guilty on 12 counts while prosecutors withdrew another charge and one was found not proven. The next year Mr Salmond, who had been Scottish first minister between 2007 and 2014 as leader of the SNP, founded the pro-independence Alba Party. In her memoir, Ms Sturgeon said Mr Salmond had informed her that he was being investigated in April 2018 and initially appeared to be 'upset and mortified' before he 'became cold'. Claiming he 'effectively admitted the substance of one of the complaints, but claimed that it had been a 'misunderstanding'', Ms Sturgeon said it had been 'evident' that Mr Salmond 'wanted me to intervene' to stop or divert the investigation. She added that her refusal to do so turned him against her and 'made the break-up of one of the most successful partnerships in modern British politics all but inevitable'. Ms Sturgeon also accused Mr Salmond of attempting to 'cast himself as the victim' and being 'prepared to traumatise, time and again, the women at the centre of it all'. She said: 'A conspiracy against Alex would have needed a number of women deciding to concoct false allegations, without any obvious motive for doing so. 'It would then have required criminal collusion between them, senior ministers and civil servants, the police and the Crown. 'That is what he was alleging. The 'conspiracy' was a fabrication, the invention of a man who wasn't prepared to reflect honestly on his own conduct.' In other extracts, published on Friday, Ms Sturgeon discussed her arrest in 2023, describing it as 'mental torture', her miscarriage in 2010 and her sexuality. Nicola Sturgeon served as Scottish first minister between 2014 and 2023. Her memoir, Frankly, will be published on Thursday.
Powys County Times
6 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Shabana Mahmood vows to send foreign criminals ‘packing' when they are jailed
Foreign criminals will be sent 'packing', deported immediately when they receive a custodial sentence, the Justice Secretary has pledged. Shabana Mahmood has proposed a law change, which could save taxpayers an average £54,000 per year, per prison place. The changes would apply to prisoners serving fixed-term 'determinate' sentences, and authorities would retain their power not to deport a criminal but instead keep them in custody, for example, if the offender was planning further crimes against the UK's interests or national security. 'Our message is clear,' Ms Mahmood said. 'If you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing.' She also said: 'Deportations are up under this Government, and with this new law they will happen earlier than ever before.' Almost 5,200 foreign national offenders have been deported since July 2024, a 14% increase on the 12 months prior, according to the Government. The Justice Secretary's announcement follows a tweak in the law in June, expected to come into force in September, so prisoners face deportation 30% into their prison sentence rather than the current 50%. The Government will need Parliament to greenlight its proposal to bring this down to 0%. According to a Labour source, the previous Conservative government relied on prison transfer agreements with other countries to deport foreign national offenders, in deals which allow inmates to serve their custodial sentence in their 'home' country. This saw 945 prisoners sent to jails abroad between 2010 and 2023, equal to less than one-and-a-half criminals per week. Foreign national offenders make up around 12% of the prison population. Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'In Starmer's topsy turvy world investors are fleeing the country in their droves while record numbers of violent and sexual offenders from abroad are put up in our prisons. It's a farce. 'Yet again Starmer has refused to confront our broken human rights laws. 'He needs to grow a backbone and change them so we can actually deport these individuals. 'The safety of the British public is infinitely more important than the 'rights' of sick foreign criminals. 'If countries won't take back their nationals, Starmer should suspend visas and foreign aid. His soft-touch approach isn't working.'
