NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently not (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14743124/).

KABUL, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber rammed a Toyota sedan into a U.S. military convoy Friday morning on a busy Kabul street, triggering a blast that killed 14 Afghan civilians and two U.S. soldiers, officials here said. At least 17 other people, including a U.S. soldier, were injured.

The attack, carried out on the same block as the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy, was the latest of half a dozen bombings that in recent months have brought what was an almost exclusively rural insurgency onto the streets of the Afghan capital.

Friday's bombing came as Taliban militiamen are battling NATO troops in southern Afghanistan with unexpected aggressiveness and occupying rural districts there.

It was bad enough that Pakistan pulled out of Waziristan and basically told the Taliban that they could do what they liked, and that they wouldn't arrest Bin Laden as long as he was peaceful toward them (and since they're not in the region anymore, that's an easy one). But Kabul was supposed to be the safe zone, the land controlled by Hamid Karzai and NATO, the heart of the new Afghanistan.

Great work, all you Bushies. Hope you're proud.

Apparently not (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14743124/).

It was bad enough that Pakistan pulled out of Waziristan and basically told the Taliban that they could do what they liked, and that they wouldn't arrest Bin Laden as long as he was peaceful toward them (and since they're not in the region anymore, that's an easy one). But Kabul was supposed to be the safe zone, the land controlled by Hamid Karzai and NATO, the heart of the new Afghanistan.

Great work, all you Bushies. Hope you're proud.

Actually, yes, I'm proud. A lot better than the condition it was in before we went there. Unless you approve of women being shot in the head at soccer matches because they listen to music.

And since the US is not in command in Afghanistan (we gave that over to NATO, and it's largely a German and Canadian operation now), maybe you should ask them why it's going downhill.

I would bet it's because the remnants of the Taliban want to test the newcomers, to see if they have any balls.

Mission Accomplished!

Hey, on the surface things are going much better in Afghanistan then in Iraq so I'm surprised Bush isn't making that country more part of his little speeches. Even if they are still ruinously poor and the opium production has nearly doubled but hey you can't have everything right?

Hey, on the surface things are going much better in Afghanistan then in Iraq so I'm surprised Bush isn't making that country more part of his little speeches. Even if they are still ruinously poor and the opium production has nearly doubled but hey you can't have everything right?
Talk about how times have changed--the Taliban were the ones keeping opium production down before 2001. Now they're encouraging the growers.

Talk about how times have changed--the Taliban were the ones keeping opium production down before 2001. Now they're encouraging the growers.

That's probably because the US has been pretty successful in shutting down the Taliban's external sources of funding. Which used to be primarily the Saudi government, and charities in the US.

And since the US is not in command in Afghanistan (we gave that over to NATO, and it's largely a German and Canadian operation now), maybe you should ask them why it's going downhill.


...because they were handed a half done job that was quickly turning sour regardless due to petty warlord squabbling, fracturing of regional support away from the Kabul government, the failure to eliminate the Taliban when they were scattered, on the run and at their weakest despite having a big 'ally' next door....?

Any of that maybe.

Hey, on the surface things are going much better in Afghanistan then in Iraq so I'm surprised Bush isn't making that country more part of his little speeches. Even if they are still ruinously poor and the opium production has nearly doubled but hey you can't have everything right?


Yes, I support the war in Afghanistan whole-heartedly, if we hadn't gone to Iraq it would be going much better. We need more troops to control the opium(which would be doing a great service not only to the afghans, but all humanity).

Actually, yes, I'm proud. A lot better than the condition it was in before we went there. Unless you approve of women being shot in the head at soccer matches because they listen to music.

And since the US is not in command in Afghanistan (we gave that over to NATO, and it's largely a German and Canadian operation now), maybe you should ask them why it's going downhill.

I would bet it's because the remnants of the Taliban want to test the newcomers, to see if they have any balls.

That's not the point. I don't thionk most people have a problem with what we did in Afghanistan. The point is that we are so distracted by Iraq that we are about to let Afghanistan turn back into what it was. It was looking promising and could be a success, but instead we just dropped the ball and went to Iraq.

...because they were handed a half done job that was quickly turning sour regardless due to petty warlord squabbling, fracturing of regional support away from the Kabul government, the failure to eliminate the Taliban when they were scattered, on the run and at their weakest despite having a big 'ally' next door....?

Any of that maybe.

When the "Taliban" comprise virtually every living person in some regions of Afghanistan, eliminating them means genocide.

While that's fine with me, are you saying that we should have done that?

Because that's the only thing that would work.

When the "Taliban" comprise virtually every living person in some regions of Afghanistan, eliminating them means genocide.

No it doesn't, and you know it doesn't.

As a political, religious and military entity they were scattered to the winds after the invasion- but the job was never finished because some people got distracted with Iraq and began to short change their own operations in Afghanistan (the one recent war that had the whole world behind the U.S).

The fear for Afghan's was the Taliban were coming back. When the country's power went back into regional warlords and powermongers- it left the perfect vacuum for the Taliban to exist. Discontent, poverty, disenfranchisment and the lack of 'loyal' ally Pakistan to crack down on the extremists in it's border areas all served to allow the qaugmire Afghanistan has become today.

When the "Taliban" comprise virtually every living person in some regions of Afghanistan, eliminating them means genocide.

While that's fine with me, are you saying that we should have done that?

Because that's the only thing that would work.

Source please...Do you mean the actual group of fighters, or the fighters and the non-combatants that live under their rule/ are supportive of them..

Apparently not (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14743124/).



It was bad enough that Pakistan pulled out of Waziristan and basically told the Taliban that they could do what they liked, and that they wouldn't arrest Bin Laden as long as he was peaceful toward them (and since they're not in the region anymore, that's an easy one). But Kabul was supposed to be the safe zone, the land controlled by Hamid Karzai and NATO, the heart of the new Afghanistan.

Great work, all you Bushies. Hope you're proud.

I'm no Bushie, but I approved of attacking Afghanistan. Hell, they used their Al Qaeda foreign legion to attack us, they had it coming. Personally I just wish that we had concentrated more of our money and resources on maintaining security and encouraging education and economic development in Afghanistan. If people had factories to run they wouldn't need to grow opium and fight the Afghan government agents who occasionally try to eradicate a poppy patch or two for PR purposes.

No it doesn't, and you know it doesn't.

As a political, religious and military entity they were scattered to the winds after the invasion- but the job was never finished because some people got distracted with Iraq and began to short change their own operations in Afghanistan (the one recent war that had the whole world behind the U.S).

The fear for Afghan's was the Taliban were coming back. When the country's power went back into regional warlords and powermongers- it left the perfect vacuum for the Taliban to exist. Discontent, poverty, disenfranchisment and the lack of 'loyal' ally Pakistan to crack down on the extremists in it's border areas all served to allow the qaugmire Afghanistan has become today.
The area around Kandahar was nearly 100% Taliban.

The area around Kandahar was nearly 100% Taliban.

Do you also count the non-combatants under taliban rule?

The area around Kandahar was nearly 100% Taliban.

Are the 'Red States' in America all 100% Bush supporters? Area- yes.
Population- no.

There's a difference.

That main issue people have is that everyone thought ousting the Taliban was a good idea and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. They blew their best shot at creating a stable unified state...and instead went on a jaunt in Iraq.

I'm no Bushie, but I approved of attacking Afghanistan. Hell, they used their Al Qaeda foreign legion to attack us, they had it coming. Personally I just wish that we had concentrated more of our money and resources on maintaining security and encouraging education and economic development in Afghanistan. If people had factories to run they wouldn't need to grow opium and fight the Afghan government agents who occasionally try to eradicate a poppy patch or two for PR purposes.

So did I. In fact, the aid we gave to the Northern Alliance might have been the most popular in the history of the US. There was more dissent about getting into WWII. But we half-assed the job. No, Bush half-assed the job, like he's done with practically every other job he's had, and this is the consequence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login


Fantasic article about Afghanistan. You have to register to see it, but registration is free and they do't sell your email addy or send you spam.

It starts:


An Afghan Symbol for Change, Then Failure

On a July morning, Taliban gunmen shot dead the province’s most powerful cleric as he walked to the main city mosque to lead morning prayers. Five months later, they executed a teacher at a nearby village school as students watched. The following month, they walked into another mosque and gunned down an Afghan engineer working for a foreign aid group, shooting him in the back as he pressed his forehead to the ground and supplicated to God.

This spring and summer, the slow and methodical siege of this southern provincial capital intensified. The Taliban and their allies set up road checkpoints, burned 20 trucks and slowed the flow of supplies to reconstruction projects. All told, in surrounding Helmand Province, five teachers, one judge and scores of police officers have been killed. Dozens of schools and courts have been shuttered, according to Afghan officials.

“Our government is weak,” said Fowzea Olomi, a local women’s rights advocate whose driver was shot dead in May and who fears she is next. “Anarchy has come.”

When the Taliban fell nearly five years ago, Lashkar Gah seemed like fertile ground for the United States-led effort to stabilize the country. For 30 years during the cold war, Americans carried out the largest development project in Afghanistan’s history here, building a modern capital with suburban-style tract homes, a giant hydroelectric dam and 300 miles of canals that made 250,000 acres of desert bloom. Afghans called this city “Little America.”

Today, Little America is the epicenter of a Taliban resurgence and an explosion in drug cultivation that has claimed the lives of 106 American and NATO soldiers this year and doubled American casualty rates countrywide. Across Afghanistan, roadside bomb attacks are up by 30 percent; suicide bombings have doubled. Statistically it is now nearly as dangerous to serve as an American soldier in Afghanistan as it is in Iraq.

Comes with a great slide show:

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/04/world/05afghan_bed.jpg
An off-duty Afghan policeman rested on an outdoor bunk bed recently. American and local officials say training has been difficult because of high rates of illiteracy and corruption.

Do you also count the non-combatants under taliban rule?

I would. In the Kandahar area the Taliban were seen as heros and role models. What can you do with folks who view the oppressive Taliban as heros and role models? Win their hearts and minds? Nope, too slow, to expensive, too risky and too likely to fail.

*agrees with The Nazz, even on the original support for invading Afghanistan*

DK, there was a program I heard somewhere...I believe it was NPR, but I might be wrong (actually, I think it was the BBC news) that stated the statistic that 90% of the people in Afghanistan are supportive of the NATO effort. Or something like that.

So did I. In fact, the aid we gave to the Northern Alliance might have been the most popular in the history of the US. There was more dissent about getting into WWII. But we half-assed the job. No, Bush half-assed the job, like he's done with practically every other job he's had, and this is the consequence.

Never forget, when placing blame for our war failures, to mention the man with the plan! :)

http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepony/Rumsfeld60105b.jpg

I would. In the Kandahar area the Taliban were seen as heros and role models. What can you do with folks who view the oppressive Taliban as heros and role models? Win their hearts and minds? Nope, too slow, to expensive, too risky and too likely to fail.

and what about the ones that are wholly against the taliban but can't do a damn thing about it??

and what about the ones that are wholly against the taliban but can't do a damn thing about it??

Send a couple of angels to find out if there is even one virtuous man, lead him out of the land of Kandahar, burn it to shit and turn anyone who looks back into a pillar of salt.

Or just accept that there are innocent casualties in war.

Send a couple of angels to find out if there is even one virtuous man, lead him out of the land of Kandahar, burn it to shit and turn anyone who looks back into a pillar of salt.

Or just accept that there are innocent casualties in war.

War? I thought we were talking about genocide.

War? I thought we were talking about genocide.
If you consider destroying one city to be genocide then call it genocide. No skin off my ass.

If you consider destroying one city to be genocide then call it genocide. No skin off my ass.

Hey, that's a good point - you're neither involved with the killing, nor risking getting killed. Why should you give two fucks if other people are getting slaughtered? I mean, if it makes you feel a little safer. That's the important thing.

Hey, that's a good point - you're neither involved with the killing, nor risking getting killed. Why should you give two fucks if other people are getting slaughtered? I mean, if it makes you feel a little safer. That's the important thing.
True. I value the lives of Americans more than the lives of Taliban supporters and other Afghanis who's nation aided and defended the people who attacked mine.

Sure, there's increasing violence. Most of the world is sitting on its ass while US troops are embroiled in Afghanistan. If the rest of the world pitched in militarily and stopped letting the US do all the work, the situation might improve. And the situation has improved since 2001. The GDP per capita in Afghanistan has more than doubled since then. Any region that is not controlled by the Taliban is better off now that it was before. It's a limited success.

Begoner21;11660632']Sure, there's increasing violence. Most of the world is sitting on its ass while US troops are embroiled in Afghanistan. If the rest of the world pitched in militarily and stopped letting the US do all the work, the situation might improve. And the situation has improved since 2001. The GDP per capita in Afghanistan has more than doubled since then. Any region that is not controlled by the Taliban is better off now that it was before. It's a limited success.

Dude, there is a NATO force in Afghanistan. We're not there alone.

Does anyone else seem to think its oddly conveniant that an occupied Iraq and Afganistan corner Iran?....Hmmm.....

So did I. In fact, the aid we gave to the Northern Alliance might have been the most popular in the history of the US. There was more dissent about getting into WWII. But we half-assed the job. No, Bush half-assed the job, like he's done with practically every other job he's had, and this is the consequence.

Actually, he did not half-ass the job. We carried out the most brilliant act of irregular warfare in modern history. We reacted in the quickest way possible with an extremely small force and used locals to defeat an enemy that defeated the USSR in the height of their power. So what if we didn't kill every last taliban fighter. It would be impossible to do this b/c of local culture of giving shelter to any shelter and because of the sheer size of the nation.

Does anyone else seem to think its oddly conveniant that an occupied Iraq and Afganistan corner Iran?....Hmmm.....

no.

Does anyone else seem to think its oddly conveniant that an occupied Iraq and Afganistan corner Iran?....Hmmm.....

Yeah. Bush's dumb decision to go to war in Iraq put even more of our soldiers within range of Iranian arms. It's not strategy, it's coincidence caused by incompetence. If we need to hit Iran we're better off doing it with air power and missiles rather than putting our soldiers at risk by invading the place.

Actually, he did not half-ass the job. We carried out the most brilliant act of irregular warfare in modern history. We reacted in the quickest way possible with an extremely small force and used locals to defeat an enemy that defeated the USSR in the height of their power. So what if we didn't kill every last taliban fighter. It would be impossible to do this b/c of local culture of giving shelter to any shelter and because of the sheer size of the nation.

The US didn't even make a serious effort to kill every last Taliban, or more importantly, Al Quaeda fighter. Why did we use an extremely small force when our goal was to eradicate a group of Al Qaeda terrorists who could blend into the countryside and escape across the border? Seems to me that calls for a big force that can block off escape routs and cover more ground in search of the enemy who attacked us on our own soil.

The US didn't even make a serious effort to kill every last Taliban, or more importantly, Al Quaeda fighter. Why did we use an extremely small force when our goal was to eradicate a group of Al Qaeda terrorists who could blend into the countryside and escape across the border? Seems to me that calls for a big force that can block off escape routs and cover more ground in search of the enemy who attacked us on our own soil.

Because that takes way too much time. It was a much faster method to have special operations forces and air power to aide the afghani's liberate themselves. This is not only faster but provides for a much better post-war situation. The population feels not humiliated but has a new sense of nationalism.

Because that takes way too much time. It was a much faster method to have special operations forces and air power to aide the afghani's liberate themselves. This is not only faster but provides for a much better post-war situation. The population feels not humiliated but has a new sense of nationalism.

And so they've decided to direct that nationalism into useful things like insurgency apparently... :(

Because that takes way too much time. It was a much faster method to have special operations forces and air power to aide the afghani's liberate themselves. This is not only faster but provides for a much better post-war situation. The population feels not humiliated but has a new sense of nationalism.

And then just bail.

And so they've decided to direct that nationalism into useful things like insurgency apparently... :(

It's not nationalists carrying out the insurgency. It is former taliban, alqaeda and poor farmers who need money.

True. I value the lives of Americans more than the lives of ... Afghanis who's nation aided and defended the people who attacked mine.

I guess they just picked the wrong country to be born in. Oh well, right? See it's not that you seem to value American lives more, it's that you seem not to value non-American lives at all. It's eerily like the attitude of terrorists. It makes me think that if you and I indeed had been born in their country, you'd be one of the ones strapping bombs to your chest, while I'd be one of the innocents who gets killed because of your dumbassery.

Because that takes way too much time. It was a much faster method to have special operations forces and air power to aide the afghani's liberate themselves. This is not only faster but provides for a much better post-war situation. The population feels not humiliated but has a new sense of nationalism.

And those responsible for killing our people here in the USA get to go to Pakistan where our military won't touch them. Mission accomplished?

I am kind of leaning towards that major oil pipeline in Afghanistan as being a major reason for the war there.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

http://www.tactical-link.com/afghan_oil.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/14/national/w142914S66.DTL

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9CEB6D2F-DFFF-4448-9B34-A76C0EBA92BB.htm

Im starting to see a major connection between Bush saying terror and human rights violations, then we invade, get some oil, and things go shitty.

Dude, there is a NATO force in Afghanistan. We're not there alone.

Proportionally, however, they are not committing nearly as many troops to the endeavor as America.

I guess they just picked the wrong country to be born in. Oh well, right? See it's not that you seem to value American lives more, it's that you seem not to value non-American lives at all. It's eerily like the attitude of terrorists. It makes me think that if you and I indeed had been born in their country, you'd be one of the ones strapping bombs to your chest, while I'd be one of the innocents who gets killed because of your dumbassery.

That's simply not true. I value the lives of people who aren't American, but like I said, in my estimation the lives of my countrymen are more valuable than the lives of people who's nation attacked us.

Had we both been born in Afghanistan I would not have become a terrorist. Why attack America? If I were an Afghan citizen I'd remember that America helped my nation fight off the Soviets.

Also you're talking to me all wrong. You're using the wrong tone.

That's simply not true. I value the lives of people who aren't American, but like I said, in my estimation the lives of my countrymen are more valuable than the lives of people who's nation attacked us.

Had we both been born in Afghanistan I would not have become a terrorist. Why attack America? If I were an Afghan citizen I'd remember that America helped my nation fight off the Soviets.

Also you're talking to me all wrong. You're using the wrong tone.

not if you were completely uneducated.

And those responsible for killing our people here in the USA get to go to Pakistan where our military won't touch them. Mission accomplished?

Actually, we'll go after them all day w/ drones.

Actually, we'll go after them all day w/ drones.

Wouldn't that be like invading Pakistan as well?

That's simply not true. I value the lives of people who aren't American, but like I said, in my estimation the lives of my countrymen are more valuable than the lives of people who's nation attacked us.

And that kind of attitude is exactly how some people honestly believe that 3000 dead Americans at Pearl Harbor = 100,000 dead in an atomic blast or two. But the problem I have with that is the value estimation is clearly wrong. Foreigners are NOT worth 1/10th Americans each, no matter what their government does.

Had we both been born in Afghanistan I would not have become a terrorist. Why attack America? If I were an Afghan citizen I'd remember that America helped my nation fight off the Soviets.

Well, it was speculating, but the way you seem to value or not value lives depending on country of origin makes me think you wouldn't really have qualms about supporting terrorism, particularly as it would really be the only way of fighting available.


Also you're talking to me all wrong. You're using the wrong tone.

lol I'm sorry.

Yes, I support the war in Afghanistan whole-heartedly, if we hadn't gone to Iraq it would be going much better. We need more troops to control the opium(which would be doing a great service not only to the afghans, but all humanity).

Thing is that the Afghans have no other way to make a living with any other crop. The place is one of the poorest in the world, take away their main income source and they may feel that the U.S. is really a bad thing after all...

Actually, we'll go after them all day w/ drones.

How many have we been able to kill in Pakistan?

How many have we been able to kill in Pakistan?

I couldn't really give u an accurate body count, but probabley in the hundreds.

And that kind of attitude is exactly how some people honestly believe that 3000 dead Americans at Pearl Harbor = 100,000 dead in an atomic blast or two.




That analogy makes no sense at all. Nuclear weapons were not used w/ the forethought of getting revenge for Pearl Harbor. It was for winning the goddamn war. In a real war, a good commander doesn't use resources to take revenge, he uses them to win the war. In todays "war on terror" our very exsistence is not imminently threatened.

I couldn't really give u an accurate body count, but probabley in the hundreds.

Really? Any sources on it? I'd think airstrikes into Pakistani territory, a nation we're supposedly allies with, would make the news rather frequently. And you can't make the excuse that the "liberal" media don't talk about it because if they were really unfairly liberal they'd play up the idea that we're bombing people in a nation that is supposed to be an ally of ours.

That analogy makes no sense at all. Nuclear weapons were not used w/ the forethought of getting revenge for Pearl Harbor. It was for winning the goddamn war. In a real war, a good commander doesn't use resources to take revenge, he uses them to win the war. In todays "war on terror" our very exsistence is not imminently threatened. True. Also using nukes was calculated to bring the war to an end without an invasion of the home islands of Japan, which would have likely cost many more lives of Japanese and Americans.

Wouldn't that be like invading Pakistan as well?

I'm fairly sure that under international law that for there to be an invasion, humans have to be in enemy territory, not equipment. It's a loophole but who gives a shit.

I'm fairly sure that under international law that for there to be an invasion, humans have to be in enemy territory, not equipment. It's a loophole but who gives a shit.


Ok,well at the least it can be considered an act of war, sending military craft into a sovereign nation, attacking, and killing potential citizens of that nation.
How would you like it if canada sent drone into america to kill X group of criminals? it wouldn't go over to well, would it?

Ok,well at the least it can be considered an act of war, sending military craft into a sovereign nation, attacking, and killing potential citizens of that nation.
How would you like it if canada sent drone into america to kill X group of criminals? it wouldn't go over to well, would it?

No it wouldn't. But then again we handle our criminals ourselves.

And since the US is not in command in Afghanistan (we gave that over to NATO, and it's largely a German and Canadian operation now), maybe you should ask them why it's going downhill.
Well, British and Canadian mainly. The Germans have a fair few soldiers there, but they're all doing peacekeeping and reconstruction work, they don't deal with the politics (and get all flustered when people ask them about the fact that their allies are fighting the hardest battles since Korea just a few hundred kilometres to the South).

The New Zealand sector is relativly quiet.http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

I think what pisses me off the most about this whole damn thing is the sheer hypocrisy of it all.

The Taliban?

No opium, running water or even food to them!

The Northern Alliance?

Yeah, go on, farm that opium, you need the cash - and have some aid, too!



And what does the Afghan government do?

Urmm... have they actually done... anything at all since their election? And I mean "at all"?

Those who think that US did a good job b4 handing it over to NATO, please explain the Kunduz airlift to me.:cool:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/dailyUpdate.html
Canadian defense minister: 'Impossible to defeat Taliban militarily'
NATO wants reinforcements for increasingly difficult Afghan campaign.
By Tom Regan| csmonitor.com

Canadian Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor, speaking in an interview Thursday, said that it is "impossible to defeat the Taliban militarily." The Toronto Star reports that Mr. O'Connor's remarks were confirmed by Chief of the Defense Staff Gen. Rick Hillier in Ottawa. The Star also reports that the comments are "are certain to stun Canadians who are increasingly concerned about the rising number of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan." Thirty-two Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan since Canada joined the NATO mission there in 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1868481,00.html
16 die in Kabul suicide bombing as Nato rows over sending more troops

· Alliance's top commander disappointed by response
· Germany and France under pressure at meeting

A full-scale row threatened to erupt in Nato last night with alliance commanders demanding more soldiers and aircraft to defeat the Taliban and their supporters.

In what Britain and the US regard as an unprecedented test for the alliance, Germany and France came under intense pressure to provide more forces as Nato defence chiefs met behind closed doors in Warsaw to discuss the escalating violence in southern Afghanistan.

As Nato members pointed the finger at each other, Kabul's deadliest suicide bombing in years ripped through a US military convoy yesterday, killing 14 Afghans and two soldiers - days before the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Defence sources came close yesterday to accusing some European allies of reneging on their promises to provide adequate forces in what is the alliance's first joint combat mission in its 57-year history.

Nato's supreme commander, General James Jones of the US, has said he wants up to 2,500 extra troops and expressed disappointment at the lack of commitment from some Nato countries. They are needed to back up the 18,000 Nato troops already in Afghanistan. Commanders on the ground want reinforcements to step up attacks on the Taliban and their insurgent allies before winter sets in and the enemy retreats to the mountains.

An alliance official said there was a big gap between the military capability - engineers and helicopters as well as infantry - that had been promised and what had been delivered.

"There are rows of top quality helicopters in Europe," said one senior defence source, who made it clear he was referring to machines lying idle, in Germany and France in particular.

A senior defence official said: "If it goes wrong it opens up the question, what is the alliance for? We are playing for extraordinary high stakes here."

France and Turkey recently agreed to small increases in the number of troops deployed in Kabul but did not send a single helicopter, according to a Nato commander. Turkey's top military commander said yesterday his country would not contribute any combat troops to southern Afghanistan. Germany is reluctant to deploy any troops to help out the British, Canadian and Dutch contingents.

Although British commanders say they can cope, they make it clear they want help to ease the pressure on their troops facing Taliban resistance that Nato admits was seriously underestimated.

At least 29 people were injured in the Kabul suicide bombing, which was close to the heavily protected new US embassy. Witnesses saw a heavy-set young man plough an explosives-laden car into a US military vehicle, triggering an explosion that sheared through the vehicle and scattered body parts and scraps of clothes over a wide area. Nearby trees caught fire and a thick plume of smoke trailed into the sky. The attack, the largest of its kind in Kabul, underscored a worrying similarity with the conflict in Iraq. More than 63 people, mostly Afghan civilians, have died in suicide bombings in the past five weeks.

Brigadier Ed Butler, commander of British forces in the south, said the fighting was "extraordinarily intense".

He told ITV: "The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis."

The Taliban mounted numerous attacks across Afghanistan yesterday, indicating a possible surge in violence to coincide with September 11.

Police found four bombs at schools in northern Kabul, defusing two and detonating the others. About 70 Taliban attacked a district headquarters in Wardak province, south of the capital, the police said, starting a battle in which eight rebels were killed. An explosion in the western city of Herat wounded four Italian soldiers, while a suicide bomber in Kandahar detonated his payload prematurely, killing only himself.

West of Kandahar Nato air strikes and artillery bombardment of Taliban positions continued in Panjwayi district, where a week ago Nato launched Operation Medusa, a counterinsurgency drive the alliance claims has killed more than 270 Taliban fighters.

A total of 22 military personnel have died in Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of the month.



With Pakistani withdrawal and handing over Waziristan to taliban, you can expect the talibs to celebrate this victory with more attacks with renewed vigour.

NATO kills talibs by the dozens, but there are millions where they come from. The solution is quite clear. Get more personnel and seal the border or better still, CROSS the border and take the fight into the newly formed taliban state of Waziristan or you might as well withdraw wholly and leave the country to taliban. The current strategy is not working.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bygH7Dba4Kc

Some decent footage of what's going on. But it illustrates how pointless it is at the moment. They're not getting anywhere.

I'm thinking that a dual approach is needed. Guns alone aren't going to solve it, but no guns won't either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bygH7Dba4Kc

Some decent footage of what's going on. But it illustrates how pointless it is at the moment. They're not getting anywhere.

I'm thinking that a dual approach is needed. Guns alone aren't going to solve it, but no guns won't either.

Like I said above, it really does not matter how many talib foot soldiers you kill. Dozens, even hundreds....it DOES NOT matter. Because there literally are MILLIONS where the talibs come from.

As long as taliban leadership is intact inside Pakistan and they have freedom to operate from there, the NATO is fucked. They have opium money to sustain their arms needs and millions of Pushtuns and Punjabis to recruit from, train, arm and send them across the border. It is only a matter of time before the talibs get advanced shit and inflict more casualties on NATO.

I swear to god people from Spiegel Online lurk NSG...
Fundamentalists Rise Again in Afghanistan (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,436046,00.html)

I have absolutely no idea, to be honest, how this can be turned around. Really hitting the Taliban hard would not only require a lot more troops and money, but also to take the fight into Pakistan.

And at the same time, fighting all these battles would be pointless if the Afghans themselves aren't committed to turn the place into a more liberal state, maybe like Turkey or Lebanon (without Hezbollah and Israelis, of course).

More and more people are catching on...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=705696

Why 'victory' in first phase of war on terror unravelled

By Patrick Cockburn
09 September 2006

It is the war that was meant to have ended for good. Just under five years ago the Taliban fled Kabul without firing a shot. But yesterday the Islamic militants showed they were back with a vengeance when a massive suicide bomb blew up beside an American convoy in the city killing 18 Afghans and two US soldiers. Fighting between the Taliban and Nato forces is raging across the south of the country.

The victory won by President George Bush in 2001 after the 11 September al-Qa'ida attacks on America has evaporated. "The fighting is extraordinarily intense. The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis," the commander of British forces in Afghanistan, Brig Ed Butler said this week. Taliban units have taken over swaths of country around Kandahar and are increasingly active in and around the capital.

Nato defence chiefs meeting in Poland yesterday asked for a further 2,000 to 2,500 men to supplement the 18,500 Nato troops already in Afghanistan. Nato commander James L Jones called for reinforcements saying the next few weeks could be "decisive".

The suicide bomb near the US embassy was the largest to explode in Kabul since the overthrow of the Taliban. The bomber drove a Corolla packed with explosives which he detonated beside a US Humvee, tearing the vehicle apart. A spiral of brown smoke rose high into the sky from the blazing wreckage. The explosion was powerful enough to gouge a 6ft-deep crater in the road.

US troops stood guard over the bodies of two of their soldiers, one lying slumped in the gutter and the other covered by a plastic sheet. Near by were the remains of other bodies, Muslim prayer caps, floppy khaki coloured military caps and shoes. Some of the dead were street cleaners and seven were said to be foreigners.

Among the dead was the body of an elderly woman who had been sitting with her grand-daughter outside the apartment building where they both lived.

The victory by the US and its local allies after 9/11 was deceptively easy. Pounded by US bombers flying so high they could not be seen and often heavily bribed by emissaries of the CIA the warlords fighting with the Taliban changed sides or went home.

As the Taliban broke up in December 2001 I drove from Kabul to Kandahar and was amazed by how few people had been killed. Everywhere deals were being done between the old and the new regime so the Taliban could retire gracefully to their villages or across the border into Pakistan.

It was all too easy. Many of the local warlords stayed in business. There was little change in who held power on the ground. I visited one warlord south of Kabul who was so averse to giving his allegiance to Hamid Karzai, soon to be elected President, that he only recognised the authority of the UN and raised its blue flag over his village.

President Bush believed the victory was total and the Taliban had gone forever. By the spring of 2002 his administration was already planning to invade Iraq.

The White House and Downing Street exaggerated its own achievements in Afghanistan. The US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld said that what had happened in Afghanistan was "a breathtaking accomplishment", even as US forces devoted their time to a vain pursuit of al-Qa'ida and Osama bin Laden.

But it took some time before the fragility of the regime became apparent. The Taliban had been deeply unpopular. Many Afghans believed it had been foisted on them by Pakistani military intelligence backed by Saudi money. In a country where there were land mines everywhere but few bridges and roads there was also a desperate desire for peace and development.

But President Karzai never controlled the four fifths of the country outside Kabul. One third of the MPs in the new parliament elected last year were warlords and drug smugglers. Aid was inadequate. For farmers in the southern provinces growing opium poppies was the only cash crop that could pay off their debts. Meanwhile the Taliban were raising fresh men. From a few hundred last year they claimed to have 12,000 men under arms in the south this year.

The most striking feature of the 4,000-strong British force dispatched to southern Afghanistan is its small size. Even the armies that Britain dispatched to Afghanistan, usually with disastrous results, in the 19th century were larger in number. There are hardly enough soldiers to defend themselves, still less to start an ambitious "hearts and minds" campaign.

In July 2002, 1,000 British peacekeepers were withdrawn as Britain handed over control of the international peacekeeping force to Turkey, leaving just 300 British peacekeepers.

The same month, 1,700 soldiers from the Royal Marines 45 Commando were sent home having largely failed to find al Qa'ida leaders in joint missions with US forces. Britain ignored entreaties from President Karzai for more troops. The military build-up for the Iraq invasion was already being planned.

Four years on, Nato troops are fighting for their lives in Afghanistan in battles which left hundreds of Taliban dead this week alone. The Taliban use tactics found so effective by guerrillas in Iraq. Suicide bombers driving vehicles packed with explosives, as happened yesterday in Kabul, are a horribly effective way of destabilising a government. It forces foreign forces to retreat into fortified bases.

The roadside bomb, which has inflicted half of American casualties in Iraq, is a simple but fierce some weapon against a vehicle-borne army.

The British Government was warned what might happen. Generals admitted privately that in Afghanistan and in Iraq British soldiers could end up penned into their encampments unable to move outside its fortifications. It is nevertheless strange that the Government, having become entangled in a messy guerrilla war in Iraq, should make exactly the same mistake in Afghanistan.

Apparently not (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14743124/).



It was bad enough that Pakistan pulled out of Waziristan and basically told the Taliban that they could do what they liked, and that they wouldn't arrest Bin Laden as long as he was peaceful toward them (and since they're not in the region anymore, that's an easy one). But Kabul was supposed to be the safe zone, the land controlled by Hamid Karzai and NATO, the heart of the new Afghanistan.

Great work, all you Bushies. Hope you're proud.

So a terror attack automatically makes an area unsafe? In that case, NYC is unsafe, Oklahoma City is unsafe, as is London because terror attacks have occured there.

You sir, really need to stop blaming everything on the current administration because the area has been neglected for several administrations.

Actually, yes, I'm proud. A lot better than the condition it was in before we went there. Unless you approve of women being shot in the head at soccer matches because they listen to music.

And since the US is not in command in Afghanistan (we gave that over to NATO, and it's largely a German and Canadian operation now), maybe you should ask them why it's going downhill.

I would bet it's because the remnants of the Taliban want to test the newcomers, to see if they have any balls.

Well said.

Yeah. Bush's dumb decision to go to war in Iraq put even more of our soldiers within range of Iranian arms. It's not strategy, it's coincidence caused by incompetence. If we need to hit Iran we're better off doing it with air power and missiles rather than putting our soldiers at risk by invading the place.

So we either have an incompetent person as president (wouldn't be the first one either I might add) or perhaps someone who is smarter than all of us. (which would not be all that difficult)

[url]

NATO kills talibs by the dozens, butthere are millions where they come from. The solution is quite clear. Get more personnel and seal the border or better still, CROSS the border and take the fight into the newly formed taliban state of Waziristan or you might as well withdraw wholly and leave the country to taliban. The current strategy is not working.

Get personnel from Iraq maybe...?

That's simply not true. I value the lives of people who aren't American, but like I said, in my estimation the lives of my countrymen are more valuable than the lives of people who's nation attacked us.



Between force feeding them pork and desecrating their bodies, presumably.

So we either have an incompetent person as president (wouldn't be the first one either I might add) or perhaps someone who is smarter than all of us. (which would not be all that difficult)
*Hand up*, "I know the answer, it's incompetent. Do I get a candy?"

Begoner21;11660632']Sure, there's increasing violence. Most of the world is sitting on its ass while US troops are embroiled in Afghanistan. If the rest of the world pitched in militarily and stopped letting the US do all the work, the situation might improve. And the situation has improved since 2001. The GDP per capita in Afghanistan has more than doubled since then. Any region that is not controlled by the Taliban is better off now that it was before. It's a limited success.
Are you simply blind to the facts or willfully ignorant? And since when is success measured primarily in GDP?
Begoner21;11660804']Proportionally, however, they are not committing nearly as many troops to the endeavor as America.

I believe that you, like many others, seem to get things mixed up when it comes to Afghanistan.

First of all, there are two (2!) military operations in the country.

One is ISAF, International Security Assistance Force, to which Great Britain contributes approximately 5700 soldiers, Germany another 3000, and the rest is split up between the other 34 NATO and non-NATO contributers, totalling in about 18,500 ISAF soldiers. Before July 2006, Germany had the majority of troops deployed under ISAF.
And if you'd care to check their mission profile, it is not about fighting terrorists in the "global war on terror".

The other one is OEF, Operation Enduring Freedom, which, interestingly enough, doesn't really apply to neither Art. 51, nor Art. 39 of the UN-Charta, but it was considered to be consistent with international law, and therefore deemed okay, and since the attack against the U.S. was considered to come "from the outside", Art. 5 NATO did apply.

Now, that operation is split in three parts, one of which is taking place in Afghanistan. And that one is under U.S. leadership.

If the U.S. hadn't got sidetracked by the adventure in Iraq, which clearly is not part of the war against terror (or it used to be until the U.S. and coalition troops posed as targets and let terrorists from all over flock to Iraq to make it their new battlefield), the results of OEF in Afghanistan would surely look very different from what it is now.

I can't find any convincing sources as to how many U.S. troops were deployed in Afghanistan before in comparison to after the attack on Iraq, but I take a wild guess here and say that the troop numbers were reduced to meet the needs in Iraq.

And people are surprised by the resurfacing of the Taliban? Please! Those baddies got willfully neglected by the current president. Same goes for Mr. Evil, Osama bin Laden.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

So there.

So a terror attack automatically makes an area unsafe? In that case, NYC is unsafe, Oklahoma City is unsafe, as is London because terror attacks have occured there.
Your analogies are extremely poor to say the least.

You sir, really need to stop blaming everything on the current administration because the area has been neglected for several administrations.
It is easy to blame the current administration. They have underestimated Afghanistan just like they underestimated Iraq. Running away from Afghanistan to fight a non-threat in Iraq was absolutely the biggest mistake of all.

I guess Saddam was a bigger prize than Bin Laden? :rolleyes:

And at the same time, fighting all these battles would be pointless if the Afghans themselves aren't committed to turn the place into a more liberal state.
This is absolutely the key element. Democracy cannot be forced down these peoples throats. It becomes increasingly clear that most of them are willing to die to perserve their way of life. Their resolve is far greater than the US was willing to give them credit for.

This is absolutely the key element. Democracy cannot be forced down these peoples throats. It becomes increasingly clear that most of them are willing to die to perserve their way of life. Their resolve is far greater than the US was willing to give them credit for.
Besides, democracies in general do not necessarily follow the Western world's take on the subject.

Being democratically elected doesn't mean anything concerning the populations' rights and the countries' laws.

Sometimes, the people just elect whoever they think fit to do the job - and sometimes, those people turn out to be, well, let's just say some who got elected have had a funny little mustache but got into power legally... only to cause major mayhem later on.

Besides, democracies in general do not necessarily follow the Western world's take on the subject.

Being democratically elected doesn't mean anything concerning the populations' rights and the countries' laws.

Sometimes, the people just elect whoever they think fit to do the job - and sometimes, those people turn out to be, well, let's just say some who got elected have had a funny little mustache but got into power legally... only to cause major mayhem later on.
Absolutely. I am sure that BushCo was none too pleased with the "democratic" government that was elected in Iraq, and the drafting of a constitution that basically reflects Islam.

I'm finding this whole thread about "troops in Afghanistan are useless" pretty damed offensive.

Maybe I should point out that I am a Canadian soldier, and that over thirty of my comrades have died out there. And that I have a few close friends currently out there risking their lives trying to pacify the southern areas of the country.

Yes, we first went there with a security force, but now, Canada isleading the NATO presence out there. Believe it or not, we're makinga difference out there. The more the people see that the Taliban can't hide from the NATO forces, the less they willbe likely to help them out.

And the Taliban remnants have tried us out. But while they found what makes us tick, they also found out something else. When we tick, we just get more pissed off and we look for them and fight them even harder. Hell, they're even targetting Canadians more and more often, and much harder. If they're doing this, it's because they have to know that we can make life really difficult for them. That means we're scaring them. And that means we can deal with them, and we are dealing with them. You're asking me if this is going downhill? I think not. We're making progress out there. Maybe to the uneducated armchair general who thinks himself an expert on military matters because he reads the news it looks like that. But the moment you have the perspective of someone who's on the verge of going over there, who knows people who were there and are there and who is keenly aware of the situation out there, it's something else completely.

And don't tell me that things are going south just because the US have largely withdrawn from Afghanistan. The US military is not God's gift to armed conflict, believe it or not. I think that Iraq is the perfect example of that. As for proportional represnetation, not every military can field several hundred thousand men at any given time. The 2200-odd men that Canada has on the ground are doing a job that far exceeds that of their mere numbers. Hell, during my own shipboard deployment to the Middle-East, the British Commodore and the American Rear-Admiral at CENTCOM were fighting for operational command of one Canadian frigate.

Also, the people around Kandahar are actually glad to see the Canadians out there. Most are NOT Taliban supporters, and if many were cooperating with them, it was at gunpoint. Now, if someone threatened to mutilate you, then rape and murder your wife and children in front of you unless you cooperated, I'm pretty damned sure you'd bit the bullet and aid them, wouldn't you? I thought as much.

And there is no way that Afghanistan will be transformed in a Western-style democracy, at least in the short-term. They've been hanging on to their way of life for over 5000 years, and they are the only country that has withstood invasion since Alexander The Great. Make no mistake, we might be able to take care of the fundamentalists and help Afghanistan stand on its own two feet, but they'll never be like us in the West.

Absolutely. I am sure that BushCo was none too pleased with the "democratic" government that was elected in Iraq, and the drafting of a constitution that basically reflects Islam.
I agree. Spreading democracy is all nice and good. But once the people have democratically elected, other's simply have to accept that. Unless something else gives a reason - within reason, that is.
Yes, we first went there with a security force, but now, Canada is leading the NATO presence out there.
ISAF or OEF?
Make no mistake, we might be able to take care of the fundamentalists and help Afghanistan stand on its own two feet, but they'll never be like us in the West.
And that should never be a goal of that mission. To render it possible for the Afghan people to simply be what they want to be would be enough, right?

I need to ask, though, and I'd appreciate your personal take (experience, hear-say, whatever) on the increasing attacks.

Are those attacks out of desperation, testing the foreign troops' resolve, overconfidence, show of strength, the re-emergence of the Taliban? Thanks.

ISAF or OEF?

ISAF. Operation Enduring Freedom turned over southern Afganistan to the NATO-led ISAF on 31 July 2006

And that should never be a goal of that mission. To render it possible for the Afghan people to simply be what they want to be would be enough, right?

Most Afghans justwant to have a place to live, food on their table, and to not have to fear some religious zealot kicking theirdoor down and demand coperation under the threat of their weapons. We'll never make Afghanistan a Western-like country. There are just too many differences there. However, for Afghanistan to be able to stand on their own, we need to take the Taliban remains out of the picture, likewise with the warlords.

I need to ask, though, and I'd appreciate your personal take (experience, hear-say, whatever) on the increasing attacks.

Are those attacks out of desperation, testing the foreign troops' resolve, overconfidence, show of strength, the re-emergence of the Taliban? Thanks.

They've already tested us out, and they've seen that we're not going to run away scared. We'll stick around and get the job done. At this point, I'm thinking it's their attempt at counterattacking that's failing miserably, so desperation is more like it. They know we can fight, they know we will fight. And if anything, we're taking a lot more of them than they're taking of ours, and that they know too/

I'm finding this whole thread about "troops in Afghanistan are useless" pretty damed offensive.

Who said that now?

And the Taliban remnants have tried us out. But while they found what makes us tick, they also found out something else. When we tick, we just get more pissed off and we look for them and fight them even harder. Hell, they're even targetting Canadians more and more often, and much harder. If they're doing this, it's because they have to know that we can make life really difficult for them. That means we're scaring them.

Looks like it is the Canadians who are getting scared, instead of Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani etc..

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/09/ndp-afghanistan.html?print


NDP backs Layton's call to pull troops from Afghanistan
Last Updated Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:38:56 EDT
CBC News

Members of the federal New Democratic Party on Saturday overwhelmingly endorsed party leader Jack Layton's call to pull Canadian troops from Afghanistan.


And don't tell me that things are going south just because the US have largely withdrawn from Afghanistan. The US military is not God's gift to armed conflict, believe it or not. I think that Iraq is the perfect example of that. As for proportional represnetation, not every military can field several hundred thousand men at any given time. The 2200-odd men that Canada has on the ground are doing a job that far exceeds that of their mere numbers. Hell, during my own shipboard deployment to the Middle-East, the British Commodore and the American Rear-Admiral at CENTCOM were fighting for operational command of one Canadian frigate.


I agree that the Canadian and Brit forces there are doing a great job of what they can do. Nobody (certainly not me) is faulting the individual soldiers of NATO deployed there.

I am criticising the American policy and the subsequent NATO member's policy there. There is a difference.

Individually every NATO soldier can kill dozens of talibs in a great show of military valour and strength and courage and all those nice things, but in the end it STILL does fuck all to prevent taliban being in de-facto contorl of many southern provinces.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/10/afghanistan.fighting/index.html
Suicide bomb kills Afghan governor

(CNN) -- A suicide bomber killed the governor of Afghanistan's southeastern Paktia province on Sunday afternoon as he was leaving his office, an Interior Ministry spokesman said.

Gov. Abdul Hakim Taniwal's bodyguard and his secretary were also killed when the suicide bomber detonated explosives strapped to his body while standing next to the governor's car.

The blast also wounded three police officers near Taniwal's office in Gardez, the provincial capital, the spokesman said.

The attack follows a dramatic rise in Taliban-led militants violence in Afghanistan this year, including suicide bombings.

On Friday, a bomber in a car rammed into a U.S. military convoy near the U.S. Embassy, killing 16 people in one of the deadliest suicide attacks since the fall of the hardline Islamic regime in late 2001. (Full story)

A purported Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for Friday's attack. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the assassination of the Paktia governor, The Associated Press said.

Meanwhile, NATO-led troops said they have killed 94 insurgents in southern Afghanistan during action in 24-hours of fighting as part of a major military operation.

The clashes came as Operation Medusa, during a NATO offensive against Taliban rebels in Kandahar province, entered its eighth day.

The operation is being spearheaded by Canadian International Security Assistance Force troops backed by Afghan soldiers.

ISAF troops disrupted militant re-supply routes around Panjwayi and Zhari districts, quashed an attack mitigated against troops using air support and small-arms fire and "steadily and incrementally (eroded) the insurgent's ability to continue to fight," a statement said.

Sunday's fighting comes a day after more than 40 insurgents and two coalition soldiers were killed in action.

The nationalities of the soldiers -- both members of Combined Joint Task Force Phoenix -- were not released. CJTF-Phoenix is primarily made up of U.S. military personnel.

One of the soldiers killed was mistakenly reported as an ISAF soldier, but the NATO force issued a news release on Sunday that identified the casualty as a member of an embedded training team working with Afghan soldiers in support of Operation Medusa in Panjwayi.

The other coalition soldier -- also part of an embedded training team -- was killed while supporting Afghan soldiers in the southeastern Zabul province.

More than 330 insurgents and at least five Canadian soldiers have been killed in Medusa so far, according to NATO.


So NATO has killed, say 500 talibs. That can be replenished in a DAY by the taliban. Have you heard of the term "Jihad factory". There is a well established asembly line of indoctrinating mosque/madrassa -> recruiting jihadi agent -> training camp -> border crossing jihadi groups. The recruiters get money from drug trafficking and Arab sheiks and money goes to the jihadi's family if he becomes a shaheed ("martyr").

It is a fricking BUSINESS there. A self contained, well established business. Killing dozens or hundreds of talibs in Afghanistan does nothing to stop the jihad factory. Eventually when NATO countries tire out and there are popular calls for withdrawal (like the Canadian one above), NATOs areas of operation will shrink and shrink and taliban will become the de-facto ruler of all of southern Afg where the pushtuns are in majority.

ISAF. Operation Enduring Freedom turned over southern Afganistan to the NATO-led ISAF on 31 July 2006
Okay - so there's no longer two military missions in Afghanistan, but only one now? How did that escape me? Mmh... :(

Most Afghans justwant to have a place to live, food on their table, and to not have to fear some religious zealot kicking theirdoor down and demand coperation under the threat of their weapons. We'll never make Afghanistan a Western-like country. There are just too many differences there. However, for Afghanistan to be able to stand on their own, we need to take the Taliban remains out of the picture, likewise with the warlords.
True, pretty much like everybody else. And Afghanistan shouldn't be a Western-like country, for it ain't ;)
Now, what to do with the warlords is the tough part in the equasion, I take it?

They've already tested us out, and they've seen that we're not going to run away scared. We'll stick around and get the job done. At this point, I'm thinking it's their attempt at counterattacking that's failing miserably, so desperation is more like it. They know we can fight, they know we will fight. And if anything, we're taking a lot more of them than they're taking of ours, and that they know too/
Okay, thank you for that assessment. :)

*Hand up*, "I know the answer, it's incompetent. Do I get a candy?"

No since it appears people have always contradicted the statement I made. They say he rigged things but yet in the same breath say he is an idiot.

Get personnel from Iraq maybe...?

And leave Iraq to the sunni terrorists / Iranian intrigues ?:p

Your analogies are extremely poor to say the least.

Actually it is not a poor analogy to make CH. The post I responded to says that Kabul is not a safe place because of a terror attack. Our cities (most notably Philadelphia) are unsafe because of the rampant crime inside said cities.

To go back to my analogy, terror attacks did occur in said cities that I named. By using his example of an unsafe or unsecured city because of a terror attack, OKC, NYC, and DC are unsafe cities because a terror attack or attacks have occured there.

It is easy to blame the current administration.

To easy.

They have underestimated Afghanistan just like they underestimated Iraq.

Same mistake that the USSR made.

Running away from Afghanistan to fight a non-threat in Iraq was absolutely the biggest mistake of all.

Running away? Last time I checked, we still have troops there. If we "ran away" there would be zero troops.

I guess Saddam was a bigger prize than Bin Laden? :rolleyes:

Lets focus on Afghanistan here please and not Iraq. This is about Afghanistan and not Iraq.

This is absolutely the key element. Democracy cannot be forced down these peoples throats. It becomes increasingly clear that most of them are willing to die to perserve their way of life. Their resolve is far greater than the US was willing to give them credit for.

I disagree with this contention that somehow Afghans don't like democracy. How do you know? Did they not turn up in sizeable numbers for the presidential elections?

When the state cannot give security it is quite natural and common for the people to look elsewhere, especially when the taliban has resorted to targetted killings of pro-Karzai mullah and tribal elders. The vast majority of the people just want to LIVE, in any which way they can. If Karzai cannot protect them, then they will look for the taliban, since they have no choice.

It is easy for us, brought up in democracy all of our life in relative peace and prosperity, to think "why don't the ordinary people go against the taliban". In regions such as Afg, it is still medieval rules and people will side with the victor to avoid personal persecution even though they know that the victor will not be good for the society as a whole.

I'm finding this whole thread about "troops in Afghanistan are useless" pretty damed offensive.

Maybe I should point out that I am a Canadian soldier, and that over thirty of my comrades have died out there. And that I have a few close friends currently out there risking their lives trying to pacify the southern areas of the country.

Yes, we first went there with a security force, but now, Canada isleading the NATO presence out there. Believe it or not, we're makinga difference out there. The more the people see that the Taliban can't hide from the NATO forces, the less they willbe likely to help them out.

And the Taliban remnants have tried us out. But while they found what makes us tick, they also found out something else. When we tick, we just get more pissed off and we look for them and fight them even harder. Hell, they're even targetting Canadians more and more often, and much harder. If they're doing this, it's because they have to know that we can make life really difficult for them. That means we're scaring them. And that means we can deal with them, and we are dealing with them. You're asking me if this is going downhill? I think not. We're making progress out there. Maybe to the uneducated armchair general who thinks himself an expert on military matters because he reads the news it looks like that. But the moment you have the perspective of someone who's on the verge of going over there, who knows people who were there and are there and who is keenly aware of the situation out there, it's something else completely.

And don't tell me that things are going south just because the US have largely withdrawn from Afghanistan. The US military is not God's gift to armed conflict, believe it or not. I think that Iraq is the perfect example of that. As for proportional represnetation, not every military can field several hundred thousand men at any given time. The 2200-odd men that Canada has on the ground are doing a job that far exceeds that of their mere numbers. Hell, during my own shipboard deployment to the Middle-East, the British Commodore and the American Rear-Admiral at CENTCOM were fighting for operational command of one Canadian frigate.

Also, the people around Kandahar are actually glad to see the Canadians out there. Most are NOT Taliban supporters, and if many were cooperating with them, it was at gunpoint. Now, if someone threatened to mutilate you, then rape and murder your wife and children in front of you unless you cooperated, I'm pretty damned sure you'd bit the bullet and aid them, wouldn't you? I thought as much.

And there is no way that Afghanistan will be transformed in a Western-style democracy, at least in the short-term. They've been hanging on to their way of life for over 5000 years, and they are the only country that has withstood invasion since Alexander The Great. Make no mistake, we might be able to take care of the fundamentalists and help Afghanistan stand on its own two feet, but they'll never be like us in the West.

I could not have said it better myself. I hope your friends come home safely.

Running away? Last time I checked, we still have troops there. If we "ran away" there would be zero troops.

There are many areas in southern Afg where the NATO does not go. This is called "withdrawing" a euphemism for "running away".

Taliban IS the de-facto govt in many provinces. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Lets focus on Afghanistan here please and not Iraq. This is about Afghanistan and not Iraq.

No, it has everything to do with Iraq. Instead of running off on a merry adventure ready to be greeted with open arms and flowers in Iraq, they should have stayed and finished job in Afghanistan.

Instead, they took their eye off the ball and now look at the mess. You cannot talk about today's problems without talking about the impact of troops being sidelined in Iraq instead.

No, it has everything to do with Iraq. Instead of running off on a merry adventure ready to be greeted with open arms and flowers in Iraq, they should have stayed and finished job in Afghanistan.

Oh we are in afghanistan and we are not leaving there till it is finished. So yes, let us focus on Afghanistan here.

This happened in July.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2258088,00.html
Sixth British soldier killed as Taleban lay siege to base

A BRITISH paratrooper was killed yesterday as his unit struggled to lift what amounted to a siege of their base in the heart of Taleban country in southern Afghanistan.

He was the sixth soldier to die in just over three weeks in the Sangin Valley, Helmand province. The fighting raged for hours and was so fierce that reinforcements from 3 Para, arriving by Chinook helicopter, had to be turned back because of intense gunfire.

Apache attack helicopters were called in to suppress the attack. Daily patrols in the town of Sangin have entailed regular ambushes and gunfights for members of the 200-strong unit from the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment battle group. The platoon house, a fortified building in the centre of town, is vulnerable because of its position.

The soldier was part of a patrol that came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles. Sangin, by the fertile Helmand river, is made up of mud-walled compounds, poppy fields and orchards, ideal cover for ambushes. The last two soldiers to die before yesterday were killed in an assault on their platoon house. Because of their isolation, the British troops at Sangin have first call on the roving quick-reaction force.

A military source described the whole area as “Taleban central” and said all the British bases were coming under daily attack. Apart from the six Apaches, the 3,300-strong British battle group in Helmand has only six Chinook helicopters and four Lynxes between them to cover a province four times the size of Wales.

And this one reminds me of the Battle of Saragarhi.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2259756_1,00.html
Eight British soldiers battle with 1,200 Taleban at 'Camp Incoming'
By Tim Albone
Our correspondent joins the training squad who are under fire daily at their outpost

THE view from the tiny British outpost above the town of Tangye in northern Helmand province was picture perfect.

A river snaked its way through a gorge, the sun shimmered off the water and beyond the town of mud-brick houses lay the blue waters of the Kajaki reservoir.

But the illusion of calm was shattered by gunfire at 9.00am yesterday. “It’s a bit early for playtime,” quipped Sergeant-Major Karl Brennan, 35, a barrel-chested Yorkshireman, as he and his seven collegues rushed to the perimeter wall.

Through their gunsights they could see Taleban fighters attacking the last town in the district still loyal to the Kabul Goverment — a town whose nearby hydro-electric dam provides most of southern Afghanistan’s power.

One group of Taleban fighters was battling pro-government militiamen on the edge of Tangye. A second group, hidden behind a rocky outcrop, was using mortars and machineguns to attack an Afghan police compound on a hill overlooking our own position. The police were retaliating with an old Russian anti-tank gun.

“If we lose that hill we are in big trouble,” said Captain Chris Woodward, 28. “They would have a direct view on our camp.”

The eight British soldiers — and 30 paratroopers camped near by — were soon drawn into the fight, opening up with mortars, Javelins and rounds from a 7.62 machinegun.

The battle raged for three hours. Bullets flew. A Taleban fighter was knocked over by a mortar blast and could be seen staggering away. A mud wall was knocked down, sending dirt billowing skywards.

The fighting ended only when the British summoned air power and the Taleban melted away, leaving behind at least two dead fighters.

Shortly after dark last night they attacked again — this time targeting our outpost directly with mortars and machinegun fire. The Afghan police guarding the outer perimeter vanished and the British fired 400 rounds to drive the enemy away.

For the eight British soldiers assigned to Tangye to train a contingent of 17 Afghan soldiers such attacks are now commonplace.

They moved in five weeks ago, shortly after two French soldiers were killed a few hundred yards from the outpost. Since then there have been only seven days on which the tiny Operational, Mentoring and Liaison Team has not seen action. As many as 1,200 Taleban fighters are thought to be hiding in the surrounding hills.

“We call it ‘Camp Incoming’ because we get so many mortars and rounds coming in,” said Sergeant-Major Brennan with a chuckle.

“It is my third tour in Afghanistan and I have never seen anything like this,” said Sergeant Mooney. “It’s a mega-hot spot,” added Lance Corporal Andy Reid, 26, a medic.

At first the outpost — an old compound for the dam workers — was scarcely protected at all. The soldiers had to fill the broken walls with oil barrels, rocks and even an old oven. They had only 90 Afghan police, being trained by two former US Special Forces officers, and a local militia of about 100 to call on for protection.


This is what is happening. NATO forces holed up in fortifications and seldom venturing out in the open for patrolling for fear of ambushes. Taliban holding de-facto territory control and sending men to attack the bases. Even with a kill ratio of 1:20, the taliban can sustain their campaign because of their huge recruiting base. The question is, can NATO sustain their campaign ?

No, it has everything to do with Iraq. Instead of running off on a merry adventure ready to be greeted with open arms and flowers in Iraq, they should have stayed and finished job in Afghanistan.

Instead, they took their eye off the ball and now look at the mess. You cannot talk about today's problems without talking about the impact of troops being sidelined in Iraq instead.

Indeed. Trying to help Afghanistan stay in some semi-stable condition would have been a huge undertaking in itself.

Here's what the NATO is facing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/11/wafghan11.xml
Afghan fighting is the Army's most intense for 50 years
(Filed: 11/08/2006)

British troops in Afghanistan are engaged in some of the most intense and prolonged fighting seen by the Army for half a century, a senior commander said yesterday.

Lt Gen David Richards, the British commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, said some UK troops would now be withdrawn from parts of the lawless Helmand province to be replaced by soldiers from the Afghan army.

"This sort of thing hasn't really happened so consistently, I don't think, since the Korean War or the Second World War," he told the BBC World Service. "It happened for periods in the Falklands, obviously, and it happened for short periods in the Gulf on both occasions. But this is persistent, low-level, dirty fighting."

His comments came as a senior British source said that between 40,000 and 50,000 Nato forces would be needed to control Taliban fighters in Helmand. The number far exceeds the 4,500 UK troops currently in the region and their Nato counterparts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3ZJAC3HBOGM5DQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/06/nafg06.xml
Commanders fear that the number of "high tempo" operations being launched against the Taliban is "unsustainable" unless the 3,600-strong task force is reinforced with an extra 1,000-strong infantry battle group.

Since May, British troops in Helmand province have fought 25 major battles in which they killed an estimated 700 Taliban.

Commanders say the mission has so far been "fantastically successful", but they believe that the relentless number of back-to-back operations being fought in harsh terrain in temperatures of up to 50C is beginning to take its toll.

"The men are knackered - they are on the brink of exhaustion," said one senior officer. "They are under considerable duress and have suffered great hardship."

That's the men on the ground saying. Let's see what the men in the office say

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/09/01/2003325726
UK ministry says Afghan war peril was understated

THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Friday, Sep 01, 2006,Page 5

Britons were probably not aware of the daunting problems ahead when the UK government sent additional troops to Afghanistan this year, the British Ministry of Defense conceded on Wednesday.

"The difficulty was perhaps not communicated properly," a senior defense official told journalists.

At the time, the British government gave the impression that the 3,000 troops would mainly help Afghan authorities to extend their control and support development work.

John Reid, then UK defense secretary, went so far as to say he hoped the British forces would leave "without firing a single shot."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Z0LHDF0DSSHANQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/07/20/wafg20.xml
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, was accused yesterday of "staggering complacency" after saying the Taliban posed no long-term threat to Afghanistan.

He must have taken the cue from Rumsfeld who said

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/03/afghan-violence/
Asked about the situation today, Rumsfeld admitted there was a resurgence of the Taliban, admitted Taliban fighters were “occupying safe havens” in Pakistan and other places, and admitted that violence has increased recently. Then he blamed it all on the weather:

Does the violence tend to be up during the summer, in the spring, summer and fall months? Yes it does. And it tends to decline during the winter period. Does that represent failed policy? I don’t know. I would say not:confused: :rolleyes: .

If you cannot guess by now, I am thoroughly disgusted with the policymakers of US and NATO in Afghanistan.

BS all around.

The NDP here is a party that believes that the military shouldn't be used as a military, but as a heavily armed police force and as a bunch of people who only dig Toronto out of snowbanks and deal with the forest fires in the west. Not our job. The public at home wants the military to be more involved in actual operations, but the moment that one soldier dies, they want to recall all of us from everywhere around the world. Soldiers die, it's a sad truth, but it's the way things go.

And make no mistakes, Canadians still send patrols out on a daily basis, patrols that get under fire, return fire, and come home without casualties of their own. And we're neck-deep in a parto f Afghanistan that the whole might of the Soviet army couldn't pacify, and we're sending theTaliban home packing. Yes, they can replenish their ranks quickly, but within 2 months, the mountain passes to surrounding countries, except maybe Iran, will be impassable because of the weather. That means less reinforcements coming through, cut supply lines and nowhere to run if the heat gets turned on. As for eroding Taliban control, every victory does it. The locals do know who we're fighting, and as they see more and more of the Taliban falling against us, they will eventually realize that their former tormentors aren't all that all-poerful, and they will start turning towards the central government. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes a while.

As for the areas where NATO doesn't go, it's not because there are no FOBs and outposts out there now that there won't be any in six months. Overextending patrols when you're not secure enough right next door is a sure-fire recipe for a massacre. Give it time. People always seem to expect instant results to military action. Well, wake up and smell the coffee: it doesn't happen overnight.

and we're sending theTaliban home packing.
Yes, they can replenish their ranks quickly, but within 2 months, the mountain passes to surrounding countries, except maybe Iran, will be impassable because of the weather. That means less reinforcements coming through, cut supply lines and nowhere to run if the heat gets turned on. As for eroding Taliban control, every victory does it. The locals do know who we're fighting, and as they see more and more of the Taliban falling against us, they will eventually realize that their former tormentors aren't all that all-poerful, and they will start turning towards the central government. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes a while.

The reverse is what is happening. More and more Afghans are turning to the taliban since Karzai/NATO cannot protect them.

You still don't get it, do you?

EVERY YEAR, we have killed THOUSANDS of Pakistani-Kashmiri jihadis in Kashmir for 15 YEARS now. 50,000 dead (ours, theirs and civvies put together) and We STILL have not found an end to it. Your bravado amuses me.

You can win every battle with the taliban but you still can lose the war. The casualty count means nothing to an enemy who has so much in reserve and an enemy who thinks getting martyred is the best thing to happen to him.

You can win every battle with the taliban but you still can lose the war. The casualty count means nothing to an enemy who has so much in reserve and an enemy who thinks getting martyred is the best thing to happen to him.

Hence the technical hypothesis that unless you kill every man, woman, and child living there, you won't be rid of them.

Hence the technical hypothesis that unless you kill every man, woman, and child living there, you won't be rid of them.Or you can provide the people the Taliban recruit from with benefits the Taliban can't, and so win their allegiance. That's a little cheaper, usually, and a lot less bloody. Trouble is, it takes longer, and it takes leadership that looks at the people as something other than a source of fossil fuels or a public relations move.

Same mistake that the USSR made.
Same mistake everyone makes.

They've been invaded many a time and have always fought off their attackers.

Same mistake everyone makes.

They've been invaded many a time and have always fought off their attackers.

Yep.

Hence the technical hypothesis that unless you kill every man, woman, and child living there, you won't be rid of them.

Also the "technical hypothesis" that you address the core of the problem, rather than acting in an ignorant, short-sighted unnessecary right wing American way.

Actually, yes, I'm proud. A lot better than the condition it was in before we went there. Unless you approve of women being shot in the head at soccer matches because they listen to music.

I'm confused. Do you support human rights now?

When the "Taliban" comprise virtually every living person in some regions of Afghanistan, eliminating them means genocide.

While that's fine with me, are you saying that we should have done that?

Because that's the only thing that would work.
And DK destroys the thread...

I would. In the Kandahar area the Taliban were seen as heros and role models. What can you do with folks who view the oppressive Taliban as heros and role models? Win their hearts and minds? Nope, too slow, to expensive, too risky and too likely to fail.
It's better than the alternative. Kill everyone in a particular area and the moderate Afghans will see the US as monsters worse than the Taliban.

Yep.

Except for Alexander the great, who gained the allegiance of individual tribes and used them for his own goals...

Except for Alexander the great, who gained the allegiance of individual tribes and used them for his own goals...
Yeah. But Big Alex was different.

Or you can provide the people the Taliban recruit from with benefits the Taliban can't, and so win their allegiance. That's a little cheaper, usually, and a lot less bloody. Trouble is, it takes longer, and it takes leadership that looks at the people as something other than a source of fossil fuels or a public relations move.

With that method, you also have to fight the actual Taliban for the next 100 years or so. They'll be putting IEDs by the side of the road while you build schools and set up businesses.

You have noticed, haven't you, that we've been building schools and infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq?

Fat lot of good it's doing. I could be done with all of it in 20 minutes.

With that method, you also have to fight the actual Taliban for the next 100 years or so. They'll be putting IEDs by the side of the road while you build schools and set up businesses.

You have noticed, haven't you, that we've been building schools and infrastructure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq?

Fat lot of good it's doing. I could be done with all of it in 20 minutes.

We've half-assed it, as always seems to happen when it comes to rebuilding places that don't involve Europe or Japan. A Marshall plan for Afghanistan right after the Taliban fell, complete with a large enough multinational force to provide real security would have had a much better chance of success than what we did, which wasn't much. And after the 9/11 attacks, we'd have had a lot easier time raising support from our allies than we did later for the Iraq adventure.

I know, I know--it's so much easier to just nuke the little brown folks out of existence and be done with it, but go spread your megalomania elsewhere, why don't you?

We've half-assed it, as always seems to happen when it comes to rebuilding places that don't involve Europe or Japan. A Marshall plan for Afghanistan right after the Taliban fell, complete with a large enough multinational force to provide real security would have had a much better chance of success than what we did, which wasn't much. And after the 9/11 attacks, we'd have had a lot easier time raising support from our allies than we did later for the Iraq adventure.

I know, I know--it's so much easier to just nuke the little brown folks out of existence and be done with it, but go spread your megalomania elsewhere, why don't you?
Europe and Japan had something to build on that the Afghans did not.

Europe and Japan were not tribal collections of fundamentally illiterate people. So, when you put money and education in place, they know what to do with it.

Kind of hard to get the point of Western civilization across to an unreceptive audience. Hell, the Japanese, during the Meiji Period, wanted to be Western so badly they did it themselves. Because they knew that if they didn't succeed at being Western, they would constantly have their asses handed to them.

Speaking as a brown folk, I find your assumption that I make these statements based on color ridiculous in the extreme.

I don't get it Aryavartha. I mean, what the hell do I know? I'm a soldier on the bloody deployment list with friends who are both serving out there and ahve just returned. So I guess I know a whole lot of sweet FA about what's going on over there.

Taliban are on the rocks, and they damned well know it. Granted, we don't nearly have enough troops on the ground to be everywhere at once in a country where the rule of law is a suggestion at best.

The Indian-Pakistan disupte in Kashmir is a wholly different animal from the Taliban insurgency. In the case of Kashmir, it's a fight for disputed real estate. Afghanistan is a group that's been deposed trying to either get back in control. And I'm not seeing a whole hell of a lot of hearts-and-minds operations being done out in Kashmir either, as opposed to Afghanistan. But then again, I'm just a dumb, uninformed soldier. What do I know?

Nazz, maybe this would have won their hearts and minds...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/ronaldmchummerA.jpg

We've half-assed it, as always seems to happen when it comes to rebuilding places that don't involve Europe or Japan. A Marshall plan for Afghanistan right after the Taliban fell, complete with a large enough multinational force to provide real security would have had a much better chance of success than what we did, which wasn't much. And after the 9/11 attacks, we'd have had a lot easier time raising support from our allies than we did later for the Iraq adventure.

I know, I know--it's so much easier to just nuke the little brown folks out of existence and be done with it, but go spread your megalomania elsewhere, why don't you?
Meglaomania indeed!! Here is what DK stated in regards to the Middle East (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11616845&postcount=77)in another thread. The truth is out in the open?:

I am also thinking that a lot of the US foreign policy would be radically different if we weren't driving so many cars.

If we weren't importing foreign oil, we wouldn't give a crap what happened in the Middle East, and Venezuela would be a permanently impoverished backwater with no exports.

There wouldn't have been fighting in Angola. Nigeria. Iraq. Iran. Kuwait.

And, if we hadn't been involved in any Middle East stuff, it's likely that there wouldn't have been a 9-11.

I don't get it Aryavartha. I mean, what the hell do I know? I'm a soldier on the bloody deployment list with friends who are both serving out there and ahve just returned. So I guess I know a whole lot of sweet FA about what's going on over there.

And I have a lot of friends (Afghans and Indians) who live there currently, from various spheres of life - soldier, banker, road consruction engineer, son of tribal elder etc. Your point being?


Taliban are on the rocks, and they damned well know it.

Is that why they are gaining more and more territory progressively where they are the de-facto rulers?

The Indian-Pakistan disupte in Kashmir is a wholly different animal from the Taliban insurgency.

Thanks for missing the point.

The analogy is in cross-border terrorism. In both the cases the leadership of insurgency is safe across the border and has financial wherewithal to sustain itself and has access to a large reserve of willing volunteers.

But then, what do I know, I must be some dumb, uninformed civilian right? ;)

Actually, yes, I'm proud. A lot better than the condition it was in before we went there. Unless you approve of women being shot in the head at soccer matches because they listen to music.
It is interesting how you want to come to the defence of the poor Afghani women, since you obviously don't approve of them being shot in the head, yet......

Hence the technical hypothesis that unless you kill every man, woman, and child living there, you won't be rid of them.
You don't mind frying them all, as well as their children, and their husbands.

I wonder what goes through the mind of Muslims when they read your lust for blood messages? I am sure that your messages would be great posting material for terrorist recruitment centres???

I wonder what goes through the mind of Muslims when they read your lust for blood messages?
Gauthier made a thread to find out that recently.

No since it appears people have always contradicted the statement I made.
Whether or not people always contradict any particular statement of your's doesnt necessitate that Bush is competent.
They say he rigged things but yet in the same breath say he is an idiot.
It never ceases to amaze me how chatty 'they' are. 'They' apparently will say anything...in this case they could be correct. It might not take more than having a dopey smile, a rich politically involved daddy, and more slipperness than teflon to outsmart the US democratic process, but it does take more than that to be a competent President.

It is interesting how you want to come to the defence of the poor Afghani women, since you obviously don't approve of them being shot in the head, yet......

You don't mind frying them all, as well as their children, and their husbands.

I wonder what goes through the mind of Muslims when they read your lust for blood messages? I am sure that your messages would be great posting material
for terrorist recruitment centres???

It's interesting how you wouldn't mind the Taliban never being deposed, and having them kill each other, other Afghans, and US citizens ad infinitum, with no end.

I don't need to say a word to have the recruitment centers work - it's very unlikely they ever read anything we write. They're in the madrassas, getting their heads filled with hatred of everything Western - even if you keep your mouth shut.

It's fallacious to believe that if we were to talk nice to them, there would be fewer recruits. As long as Pakistan runs madrassas - as long as Saudi Arabia funds them - as long as the UK government allows them to be run privately (or to be funded by the UK government as has been discovered) - there will be hundreds of thousands of terrorists.

I wonder what goes through the mind of Muslims when they read your lust for blood messages? I am sure that your messages would be great posting material for terrorist recruitment centres???

Rather, NOT fighting back is a recruitment poster for terrorists. Its like the schoolyard. If you dont punch the school bully back be prepared for a long life of getting your lunch money stolen. I listened to the rebroadcasts of the towers falling today and im angry all over again. Fuck them. Let as many come as those schools can POSSIBLY make and blow the living hell out of them. If it makes more then lets step up bullet production till they either run out of recruits or relent. Keep them on the run. There is a reason we havnt been hit in 5 years. Its cause the terrorists are too busy hiding and worrying about thier own ass to be setting up attacks. When they DO try to set up attacks we bust the plan and send the terrorists to jail. See the last UK bust and tell me it isnt working. Pussyfooting around as to not offend and to be worried about making new terrorists is the ulitimate in disasterous appeasement and there can be none of that. Terrorism vs the US MUST be presued as agressivly as humanly possible. If it means torture, if it means we invade a few countries,whatever it takes, i dont care, if it makes a few more of them then we keep shooting till they get the point that its not a healthy political position for thier long term existence, fuck em and too bad for them.

Osama just yesterday sent out a message that said the next targets of his forces would be Israel and the Gulf States. Guess what country was missing from that list. The USA. I wonder why.

It was bad enough that Pakistan pulled out of Waziristan and basically told the Taliban that they could do what they liked, and that they wouldn't arrest Bin Laden as long as he was peaceful toward them (and since they're not in the region anymore, that's an easy one).

With friends like Musharaff, who needs enemies? :mad:

If there are a BILLION Muslims in the world and only ten percent are RADICAL ISLAMIST..thats a hundred million man ARMY.

Pakistan cant afford to piss too many radical Islamist off . No Islamic country can..unless it likes car bombs and suicide bombers on its trains .

With friends like Musharaff, who needs enemies? :mad:

Although I would be the first to say that, in addition to invading Afghanistan, invading Pakistan (instead of Iraq) would have been a great idea, would you have gone along with an invasion of Pakistan?

Oh, and they had a few nuclear weapons - would you really mind if a US battle group was nuked at sea, or a US division nuked in an assembly area?

Couldn't take Pakistan without some casualties, you know, unless we were willing to nuke the whole place.

Although I would be the first to say that, in addition to invading Afghanistan, invading Pakistan (instead of Iraq) would have been a great idea, would you have gone along with an invasion of Pakistan?

Oh, and they had a few nuclear weapons - would you really mind if a US battle group was nuked at sea, or a US division nuked in an assembly area?

Couldn't take Pakistan without some casualties, you know, unless we were willing to nuke the whole place.

You speak as if we have unlimited resources for policing the world and that our boys are mere cannon fodder.

Oh, and need I remind you that your hero, Bush, is a good friend of Musharaff? ;)

You speak as if we have unlimited resources for policing the world and that our boys are mere cannon fodder.

Oh, and need I remind you that your hero, Bush, is a good friend of Musharaff? ;)

You're the one who said we should have done something about Musharaf.

We do have an effectively unlimited supply of thermonuclear weapons. Takes no "boys" at all.

Sitting in a Trident submarine 3000km from Pakistan is hardly putting them at risk.

Although I would be the first to say that, in addition to invading Afghanistan, invading Pakistan (instead of Iraq) would have been a great idea, would you have gone along with an invasion of Pakistan?

Oh, and they had a few nuclear weapons - would you really mind if a US battle group was nuked at sea, or a US division nuked in an assembly area?

Couldn't take Pakistan without some casualties, you know, unless we were willing to nuke the whole place.

A battle group at sea can move at over tweny knots..I dont think Pakistan has a missle that can do the job. AND yes I know about the blast radius,,but if your at war you manuver tacticaly...even at sea grunt :D

cant see the US ever invading ...maybe an excursion ..a recon by force..but no invasion.

Hey wait until Pakistan gets a new government ...you will be begging to get this one back.

Although I would be the first to say that, in addition to invading Afghanistan, invading Pakistan (instead of Iraq) would have been a great idea, would you have gone along with an invasion of Pakistan?

Oh, and they had a few nuclear weapons - would you really mind if a US battle group was nuked at sea, or a US division nuked in an assembly area?

Couldn't take Pakistan without some casualties, you know, unless we were willing to nuke the whole place.

On the flip side of that, would Pakistan risk getting turned into glass?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801614_pf.html
The Taliban, Regrouped And Rearmed

By Peter Bergen
Sunday, September 10, 2006; B01

KABUL, Afghanistan

The interpreter's hand-held radio crackled with the sound of intercepted Taliban transmissions, and he signaled the infantry patrol to wait while he translated. At 7 a.m. one morning late in the summer, peasants were already out scything wheat, with their children tending fields of pink and white poppies that would soon add to Afghanistan's record-setting opium and heroin supplies. We were 9,000 feet up, in the hamlet of Larzab, in a remote part of Zabul province -- the heart of Talibanland.

Our interpreter, Mohammed, estimated that the Taliban fighters were less than half a mile away. We walked through the fields for 20 more minutes before stopping next to a small hill. The chatter revealed that the Taliban were "watching us and waiting for us to get closer," Maj. Ralph Paredes explained to me as his men radioed to their base the likely coordinates of the hidden fighters. Soldiers back at the base -- a mud-walled compound without electricity or water -- fired mortar rounds over our heads to a hill several hundred meters from our position, where the Taliban might be hiding. We never learned whether they found their target.

Just one more patrol, and one more skirmish, in Afghanistan's war -- a conflict in which the fighting and ferocity are regaining strength with each passing month. Indeed, the U.S. military and NATO are now battling the Taliban on a scale not witnessed since 2001, when the war here began, and are increasingly fighting them in remote areas such as Larzab where the Taliban once roamed freely.

When I traveled in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, the Taliban threat had receded into little more than a nuisance. But now the movement has regrouped and rearmed. Bolstered by a compliant Pakistani government, hefty cash inflow from the drug trade and a population disillusioned by battered infrastructure and lackluster reconstruction efforts, the Taliban is back -- as is Afghanistan's once forgotten war.

In the past three months alone, coalition forces have killed more than 1,000 Taliban fighters, according to Col. Tom Collins, a U.S. military spokesman, while the religious militia has killed dozens of coalition troops and hundreds of Afghan civilians, spreading a climate of fear throughout the country. And suicide attacks in Afghanistan have risen from single digits two years ago to more than 40 already this year. Most of the victims are civilians -- including more than a dozen bystanders who were killed here Friday when a bomb-laden car struck a convoy of armored U.S. vehicles just 200 yards from the U.S. Embassy; the attack also killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded a third. Half an hour after the blast, I watched as firefighters hosed down the streets, which were littered with shards of blackened metal and singed body parts.

I recently traveled to Afghanistan for three weeks, meeting with government officials, embedding with U.S. soldiers from the 2-4 Infantry and interviewing senior American military officers. I found that while the Taliban may not constitute a major strategic threat to President Hamid Karzai's government, they have become a serious tactical challenge for U.S. and NATO troops, as the war here intensifies. And their threat is only amplified by their ubiquity and invisibility.

"In this place, they are everywhere," explained Mohammed, our interpreter. "They are sitting here as a farmer. Then they are Taliban."

When I visited Zabul province in July, Lt. Col. Frank Sturek was in charge of U.S. military operations there. Sturek, from Aberdeen, Md., earned his insurgent-fighting stripes in Mosul, Iraq, under the tutelage of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. When I spoke to Sturek, he had recently lost two of his men in firefights with the Taliban. In a nighttime interview conducted by flashlight in the mud compound, Sturek described a two-hour struggle on July 19 against about 120 Taliban who were armed with mortars, recoil-less rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. Judging from newly dug graves, Sturek estimated 35 to 40 Taliban had been killed.

Despite their numerous casualties, the Taliban are much more willing than Iraqi insurgents to engage in pitched battles, Sturek said. "These guys will mix it up," he said, "and they use a lot more direct fire." In the five months he had been in Afghanistan, he noted, none of the Taliban fighters his men had fought had ever surrendered.

Echoing all other U.S. officers I interviewed in Afghanistan, Sturek emphasized that the Taliban threat required a political solution, not a military one, and that expanding the U.S. presence and reconstruction efforts into remote areas would win the long-term conflict. "You can win every firefight you want, but the battle is in these villages," he said. "This is where you change the minds of the people -- or at least create a doubt that the Taliban are not preaching the right message."

A political solution is also the mantra of the U.S. commanding officer in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, an intense, intellectual soldier who speaks Mandarin and is on his second tour in the country. Over coffee in his Kabul office, he said that the situation in Afghanistan still looks reasonably optimistic. "I tell everyone don't look at the snapshot," he said. "Look at the movie called Afghanistan."

For Eikenberry, that movie features the democratically elected president and parliament, as well as millions of boys and girls who are newly in school. Indeed, in the most recent poll of Afghan public opinion, released by ABC News in December 2005, 77 percent of Afghans said their country is headed in the right direction.

Of course, a similar poll today might find fewer Afghans with this point of view, given rising dissatisfaction with the Karzai government and growing anti-American sentiment revealed in riots that shook Kabul in May. Eikenberry acknowledges that "the strength and coherence of the Taliban movement is greater than it was a year ago," citing tribal and land disputes and trafficking in narcotics as reasons for the resurgence. He also draws a clear link between reconstruction and violence: "Wherever the roads end, that's where the Taliban starts."

An amnesty program formally begun in 2005 by the Karzai government offers one promising approach to containing the Taliban threat. In Qalat, the provincial capital of Zabul, I witnessed U.S. forces release Mullah Abdul Ali Akundzada, who was accused of sheltering Taliban members and had been arrested near the site where a makeshift bomb had detonated. In a deal brokered by the Karzai government and the U.S. military, Akundzada was handed over to a group of about 30 religious and tribal leaders, who publicly pledged that the released mullah would support the government. In an honor-based society such as Afghanistan, this program is working well. According to Afghan and U.S. officials, only a handful of the more than 1,000 Taliban fighters taking advantage of the amnesty have gone back to fighting the government and coalition forces.

Yet even as the amnesty program shows promise, Afghanistan's ballooning drug trade has succeeded in expanding the Taliban ranks. It is no coincidence that opium and heroin production, which now makes up about half of the Afghan economy, spiked at the same time that the Taliban staged a comeback. A U.S. military official told me that charities and individual donations from the Middle East are also boosting the Taliban's coffers. These twin revenue streams -- drug money and contributions -- allow the Taliban to pay their fighters as much as $100 a month, which compares favorably to the $70 salary of an Afghan police officer. Whatever the source, the Taliban can draw upon significant resources, at least by Afghan standards. One U.S. military raid on a Taliban safe house this year recovered $900,000 in cash.

The Taliban's growing presence in central Afghanistan's Ghazni province -- outside the group's traditional strongholds in the south and east -- is another benchmark of its strength. Nearly half the districts in Ghazni are now under significant Taliban influence, a U.S. military official said. The Taliban units operating there aim to control access to Kabul 100 miles to the north, just one more sign that Taliban forces increasingly move across the country with ease.

But the key to the resurgent Taliban can be summarized in one word: Pakistan. The Pakistani government has proved unwilling or incapable (or both) of clamping down on the religious militia, even though the headquarters of the Taliban and its key allies are in Pakistan. According to a U.S. military official, not one senior Taliban leader has been arrested or killed in Pakistan since 2001 -- nor have any of the top leaders of the militias headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, who are fighting U.S. forces alongside the Taliban.

Amir Haqqani, the leader of the Taliban in Zabul province, "never comes across the border" from Pakistan into Afghanistan, Sturek told me. The Taliban's most important leadership council, the Quetta Shura, is based in the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan province; the Peshawar Shura is headquartered in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province. In addition, Hekmatyar operates in the tribal areas of Dir and Bajur; Haqqani is based in Waziristan; and al-Qaeda has a presence in Waziristan and Chitral -- all Pakistani regions that border Afghanistan.

Finally, the peace deal announced this month between the Pakistani government and pro-Taliban militants along the Afghan border raises more concerns that such groups will operate more freely on and across the border. A U.S. military official in Afghanistan told me he is "extremely worried" about the pact, through which Pakistan agrees to withdraw army units from the region and will turn over checkpoints to local tribes that are effectively Taliban. And with military force against the Taliban highly unpopular among residents in the border region, the upcoming Pakistani presidential election in 2007 means that even less action will be taken in the months ahead.

Mullah Dadullah, a key Taliban commander, gave two interviews to al-Jazeera in the past year in which he made several illuminating observations about the scale and nature of the insurgency. Dadullah put Taliban forces at about 12,000 fighters -- considerably greater than a U.S. military source's estimate of 7,000 to 10,000, but a number that could have some validity given the numerous part-time Taliban farmer/fighters. Dadullah also stressed the Taliban's "close links" to al-Qaeda. "Our cooperation is ideal," he said, adding that Osama bin Laden is issuing orders to the Taliban. Indeed, a senior U.S. military intelligence official told me that "trying to separate Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan serves no purpose. It's like picking gray hairs out of your head."

Dadullah also noted that "we have 'give and take' with the mujaheddin in Iraq." Considering the rising number of suicide attacks in Afghanistan and the increased use of makeshift bombs, Taliban forces appear to have learned from the Iraqi insurgents. A videotape posted on the Internet by al-Qaeda in May shows how critical Iraqi techniques have become to the Afghan insurgency: The tape shows an Arab suicide bomber in Afghanistan prepping a car bomb, and driving it into an American convoy.

Just as suicide bombings in Iraq had an enormous strategic impact -- from pushing the United Nations out of the country to helping spark a civil war -- such attacks may also plunge Afghanistan into chaos. Already, suicide attacks have made much of southern Afghanistan a no-go area for foreigners and for any reconstruction efforts. According to Hekmat Karzai, head of an independent terrorism research center in Kabul, these attacks "have really instilled fear in the heart of the population." Luckily, for the moment, the suicide attackers in Afghanistan have not been nearly as deadly as those in Iraq. As one U.S. military official explained to me, almost all of the Taliban's suicide bombers are "Pashtun country guys from Pakistan," with little effective training.

The Afghan population remains generally pro-American, and its appetite for more conflict is low after more than two decades of war. However, the risks of a slide into Iraq-style chaos remain. Averting it would require Washington to end the Afghan drug trade and compel Pakistan to crack down on the Taliban warriors' havens. These are both tall orders, but Washington could gain real leverage in the area of reconstruction. So far, it has appropriated only $9 billion for Afghan reconstruction, as compared with $34 billion for Iraq, even though Afghanistan is larger, more populous and has greater infrastructure needs. And of the appropriated amount, only $2.5 billion, a State Department official told me, has been spent.

In the absence of greater U.S. investments in roads, power and water resources, the Taliban will surely prosper and continue to gain adherents. Unless they take decisive action now, U.S. policymakers may be looking back in a few years, asking themselves why they lost Afghanistan despite the promise the country showed after the fall of the Taliban regime.

On the flip side of that, would Pakistan risk getting turned into glass?

I think that you would probably have to take out known nuclear storage sites in advance, and make a thermonuclear example of Waziristan.

The rest would probably surrender. If necessary, you could make a second example of Karachi in broad daylight.

I'm sorry if this question sounds a bit offensive and personal DK but when you're cooking.. say you're frying a steak or something do you get an erection?

Another suicide bomber attack

http://english.people.com.cn/200609/11/eng20060911_301726.html
Explosion at funeral ceremony leaves 4 dead in Afghanistan

Four persons were killed as a suicide bomber detonated a bomb at the funeral ceremony of a provincial governor in southeast Afghanistan Monday.

From the earlier article
suicide attacks in Afghanistan have risen from single digits two years ago to more than 40 already this year.

And since the US is not in command in Afghanistan (we gave that over to NATO, and it's largely a German and Canadian operation now), maybe you should ask them why it's going downhill.


Or maybe we should ask the U.S. why they failed to provide adequate resources for the reconsruction effort, and instead poured their resources into the misadventure in Iraq, thereby dooming the Afghanistan mission to failure.

Or maybe we should ask the U.S. why they failed to provide adequate resources for the reconsruction effort, and instead poured their resources into the misadventure in Iraq, thereby dooming the Afghanistan mission to failure.

You can just ask them why they allowed the Kunduz airlift...

Anderson Cooper of CNN, in Afghanistan.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/11/acd.01.html
COOPER: We should also point out that a lot of the -- the young men in the 10th Mountain Division who are here say they joined the Army after 9/11. What they saw on that day, they will never forget. And it really motivates them, as they go out on missions every day here.

And I can't stress enough, while there's a lot of debate about the war in Iraq, and whether that is or should be a central front in the war on terror, there's little debate about what is happening here now, literally all around us on the ground. This is ground zero for the war on terror here in Afghanistan.

As we have said, the enemy is -- is multi -- there's many different kinds of enemy out there. There's Taliban. There's al Qaeda, and there's simple criminals out there as well.

Another big problem, and one of the reasons that we have come here, is that Pakistan has signed a cease-fire deal with Taliban militants on the Pakistan side of the border. Now, intelligence sources say that, essentially, what that means is that the Pakistan soldiers have given up checkpoints, handed over checkpoints to Taliban militants, gone back to their barracks.

And critics will say, this is going to allow Taliban militants, this is going to allow al Qaeda fighters to simply to cross, increasingly cross, over the border. And they worry there's going to be a big uptick in the fighting here. They are already seeing an uptick over the last month or so.

..
CNN's Nic Robertson has been in -- in Pakistan, traveling in some very dangerous remote areas to get a look about what the Pakistan military says they are doing to try to combat al Qaeda fighters and combat the Taliban. He filed this report from Quetta, Pakistan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Watch as this man threatens our cameraman. He and his friends don't want to be filmed. It's un-Islamic, they say. Off camera, they describe themselves as Afghan Taliban. But these streets they brazenly stroll are not in Afghanistan. This is Quetta, a major Pakistani city, close to the Afghan border. Exactly what's happening here is explained to me by Pakistani journalist Amir Mir.

AMIR MIR, PAKISTANI JOURNALIST: Pakistan is essentially for the Taliban. Almost the entire leadership of Taliban is hiding in Quetta.

ROBERTSON (on camera): In Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, American intelligence officials say the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, is also living in Quetta. In London, senior British government officials say they are angry Pakistan has not rounded up the Taliban leadership, who they say are planning and plotting and getting stronger from the safety of Pakistan.

(voice-over): Tensions are mounting. The British and American death toll at the hands of the Taliban is rocketing. Talking to Pakistani officials, I realize nothing incenses them more than insinuations they turn a blind eye to the very men who kill their coalition partners across the border.
..
COOPER: Joined right now by CNN's Nic Robertson, also CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen, who is also the author of the book "The Osama bin Laden I Know," an oral history of Osama bin Laden. Peter also actually met Osama bin Laden back in the late '90s.

Nic, I mean, you were traveling in Pakistan. How is it possible that this cease-fire will actually work to benefit the war on terror, I mean, to actually benefit troops fighting on the ground here?

ROBERTSON: It's only going to work if the Pakistani troops on the border just a few miles away actually have support of the local communities.

And it was very difficult for us to gauge that when we were there. It will only work in that context, because the local communities are really the policemen all around. They're the ones that are going to turn in the bad guys. The bad guys live among them. Some of them are the bad guys. That's the only way it's going to work.

So, the -- whatever the Pakistan military is doing, as long as those fighters can get across the border with weapons, then these troops right here are going to be in danger.

COOPER: Peter, the Taliban, no doubt about it, has had a resurgence. They're on the rise. They're not yet militarily perhaps threatening the government of Hamid Karzai.

How is possible that the Taliban has come back five years after 9/11?

PETER BERGEN, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: I think a combination of factors -- obviously, profiting from the drug trade, a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the Karzai government, certain amount of dissatisfaction with reconstruction efforts.

COOPER: The drug trade here, the poppy harvest this past year is up 49 percent over the last year.

BERGEN: Yes.

COOPER: So, there's billions of dollars being made.

BERGEN: Ninety-two percent of the world's heroin comes from here. So, it's...

COOPER: Unbelievable.

BERGEN: And, finally, I think, you know, safe refuge in Pakistan just across the border from where we're standing. I mean, that's where the top Taliban leadership is. According to multiple U.S. military officials, that's where they're regrouping and rearming.

COOPER: It's interesting, Nic. I mean, we have all talked to intelligence sources, to U.S. military officials. They're very loathe publicly to criticize Pakistan, for obvious political reasons.

ROBERTSON: They need the support of Pakistan in this.

And if they criticize Pakistan, then President Musharraf, president of Pakistan, is going to be in a very difficult position with his people. The notion that, if the United States criticizes him, then that will allow the Islamists in his country to perhaps get more support, perhaps remove him. And, if they come to power, then forget the kind of cooperation you're getting right now. So, it's -- it's perhaps the lesser of two evils, if you will.

COOPER: Privately, though, Peter, what are you hearing from intelligence sources, from U.S. military officials?

BERGEN: Well, they -- I mean, privately, they say Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, is living in Quetta, a major city in Pakistan.

COOPER: Which is incredible. I mean, this is a man who has a bounty on his head, who -- it's incredible that he could be living in a major city like Quetta.

BERGEN: And they say the main leadership of the Taliban is in Quetta. And the secondary leadership is in Peshawar, another major Pakistani city. So, I think...

COOPER: And running -- running operations from the Pakistan cities here in eastern Afghanistan.

BERGEN: Some of these leaders never come into Afghanistan. They just stay in Pakistan.

I mean, the -- the guy who runs Zabul Province, which is a major province in the south, for the Taliban lives in Pakistan, according to U.S. military sources, never crosses the border.

You're the one who said we should have done something about Musharaf.

Did I? Where?

Not being sarcastic, I honestly don't remember. If you can show me, you get another cookie.

Rather, NOT fighting back is a recruitment poster for terrorists. Its like the schoolyard. If you dont punch the school bully back be prepared for a long life of getting your lunch money stolen. I listened to the rebroadcasts of the towers falling today and im angry all over again. Fuck them. Let as many come as those schools can POSSIBLY make and blow the living hell out of them. If it makes more then lets step up bullet production till they either run out of recruits or relent. Keep them on the run. There is a reason we havnt been hit in 5 years. Its cause the terrorists are too busy hiding and worrying about thier own ass to be setting up attacks. When they DO try to set up attacks we bust the plan and send the terrorists to jail. See the last UK bust and tell me it isnt working. Pussyfooting around as to not offend and to be worried about making new terrorists is the ulitimate in disasterous appeasement and there can be none of that. Terrorism vs the US MUST be presued as agressivly as humanly possible. If it means torture, if it means we invade a few countries,whatever it takes, i dont care, if it makes a few more of them then we keep shooting till they get the point that its not a healthy political position for thier long term existence, fuck em and too bad for them.
Quite an agenda you have there. Perhaps you will push yourself away from the computer, stop "Pussyfooting around", and go bag yourself a few of these terrorists? Or will you continue to take out your aggression on the keyboard? Hmmmm?

Osama just yesterday sent out a message that said the next targets of his forces would be Israel and the Gulf States. Guess what country was missing from that list. The USA. I wonder why.
Did Osama tell the US that 9/11 was going to happen? Do you really think that he is afraid of the US?

Do you think that other attacks are not being planned?

Another Terrorist Attack Coming Soon? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/05/terror/main1683852.shtml)

I certainly don't want to see any more attacks, but don't allow your ego to get in the way of the real possibility?

It's interesting how you wouldn't mind the Taliban never being deposed, and having them kill each other, other Afghans, and US citizens ad infinitum, with no end.
The very last thing you should be doing, is trying to put words in my mouth.

I don't need to say a word to have the recruitment centers work - it's very unlikely they ever read anything we write. They're in the madrassas, getting their heads filled with hatred of everything Western - even if you keep your mouth shut.
Have you ever stopped to think what fuels their hatred? I am sure that if they could read your genocide drenched posts that it would be a great tool for recruitment. Honestly, what feeds their hatred? Did 9/11 feed American hatred? Of course it did. Does the killing of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan by US forces feed their hatred? Of course it does. How about destruction of their mosques and destruction of their homes and infastructure? How about violent violations of their human rights? When they go to the mosques, I am sure that it is too confirm all that they see and hear in their part of the world?

Meanwhile, you come here to these forums (your mosque) to spread your own brand of hatred and gather recruits?

It's fallacious to believe that if we were to talk nice to them, there would be fewer recruits. As long as Pakistan runs madrassas - as long as Saudi Arabia funds them - as long as the UK government allows them to be run privately (or to be funded by the UK government as has been discovered) - there will be hundreds of thousands of terrorists.
You know, that as a kid growing up in the 50's and 60's, I didn't hear too much about this terrorist problem in the Middle East. I did hear about the IRA, but I didn't hear about the Muslim problem. Why is that?

Quite an agenda you have there. Perhaps you will push yourself away from the computer, stop "Pussyfooting around", and go bag yourself a few of these terrorists? Or will you continue to take out your aggression on the keyboard? Hmmmm?


Sorry i thought i was talking about what i thought foreign policy should be, not what i choose to do for my occupation. Could you please send me a list of jobs that would be patriotic enough for your tastes? Or would you be more interested in addressing the issue instead of attacking my motives. Thank you.

Sorry i thought i was talking about what i thought foreign policy should be, not what i choose to do for my occupation. Could you please send me a list of jobs that would be patriotic enough for your tastes? Or would you be more interested in addressing the issue instead of attacking my motives. Thank you.
Well, you did kinda personalize what actions should be taken by saying "we" this and "I" that, as if somehow you were actually going to do something about it yourself. You did start off with the "schoolyard bully" analogy? I gather that you lost your lunch money or did you have a bodyguard?

I am not too sure that the military that fight the war for you would exactly agree with your following sentiment?:

Fuck them. Let as many come as those schools can POSSIBLY make and blow the living hell out of them. If it makes more then lets step up bullet production till they either run out of recruits or relent. Keep them on the run.
They (the insurgents) don't seem to be running out of recruits and more Americans continue to die. I think they have their hands full as it is, especially when it has been determined that the "brains" behind these operations didn't send in enough troops in the first place.