Drone STRIKE ON Reported Terror Suspect May Have KILLED An Afghan Working For U.S. Aid Group

President Joe Biden’s catastrophic withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan last month had very little good news that the administration could point to. A new report now challenges the government’s claim of a successful drone strike against a suspected terrorist as the withdrawal neared its end. It appears that the victim of the drone strike was not an actual terror threat to the U.S.

The New York Times reported that the drone attack officially killed an ISIS terrorist carrying a car bomb in an attack on American troops killing a man with no connection to ISIS who was taking water to his family.

The paper stated that it reviewed video evidence and interviewed multiple friends and family members of the driver who was killed and now doubts the official version of what occurred. The military announced that the drone strike successfully took out a target in response to an imminent threat of a suicide bomb attack.

The report identified the driver who was killed as Zemari Ahmadi, who had a lengthy history of working for a U.S. aid organization. It also states that the available evidence indicates he traveled that day to transport fellow workers to their work locations. The video obtained for the report shows that he had loaded water containers to carry home to his family.

The official military account stated that the drone strike killed three civilians, but the Times report says that ten civilians died in the attack. Those killed included seven children, including Ahmadi’s children, who had run to his car to meet him as he arrived home.

The White House has not commented on the disputes of the official account.

Fox News confirmed through two sources inside the military that CENTCOM is confident that the attack was against a person intending to carry out a terrorist attack and was based on good intelligence.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has stated that the explosion of Ahmadi’s car confirms that it contained explosives. The report by the Times disputes that a secondary explosion occurred. The paper said that visual inspections of the scene “found no evidence of a second, more powerful explosion.”