NationStates Jolt Archive

The link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0OBEARMECMGYXQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg129.xml)

American forces in Afghanistan claim they have blocked the Taliban's planned spring offensive by overriding British deals with the insurgents and launching an aggressive air and land campaign.
"That has changed now. It was a case of having friendly guys there, and we needed to go out and take care of them. You can only lose so many guys before you say, 'This is ridiculous, we are going to do something about it'."
Yesterday, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, a spokesman for British forces in Helmand, accepted that the Americans might have been concerned that British troops had been left isolated. He said he did not know who took the final decision on the change of tactics, but said British commanders had agreed that the time had come to mount more aggressive operations.

This one's for Call to Power 100%. I've worked with Lt. Anthony a lot by virtue of our adjacent AO's. He is a good man and I'll trust what he says.

Yeah...

And how many more people were killed by ending the ceasefire?

Yeah...

And how many more people were killed by ending the ceasefire?

In Afghanistan, the lines between enemy and civilian are much clearer than Iraq. The taleban rarely fights from villages and thus we rarely need to attack them there. If it was the opposite then the British approach would have been better. A stricter ROE is necessary. However the Taleban has it's own territory in the mountains and is easy to strike w/o targeting civilians.

In Afghanistan, the lines between enemy and civilian are much clearer than Iraq. The taleban rarely fights from villages and thus we rarely need to attack them there. If it was the opposite then the British approach would have been better. A stricter ROE is necessary. However the Taleban has it's own territory in the mountains and is easy to strike w/o targeting civilians.

If only we had cared more about combatting the Taliban when we knew they were holding Bin LAden back in the summer of 2001. I mean, we surely weren't doing anything like giving them $53 million for favorable relations relating to oil contracts were we? That would be horrific right?

If only we had cared more about combatting the Taliban when we knew they were holding Bin LAden back in the summer of 2001. I mean, we surely weren't doing anything like giving them $53 million for favorable relations relating to oil contracts were we? That would be horrific right?

So now you're for preemptive strikes? Very inconsistent.

So now you're for preemptive strikes? Very inconsistent.

By that point, there had been a finding of fact that they were responsible for the Cole bombing. It would have hardly been pre-emptive. But Bush was more concerned with the brush in Crawford, or don't you remember all this stuff? How convenient to have such a crappy memory.

oh a thread for me how sweet lets see

The British Army denies that it was forced to abandon its previous approach by the Americans

um...yeah

I also find it very amusing how the US violates cease-fires then goes about somehow boasting this to the papers

By that point, there had been a finding of fact that they were responsible for the Cole bombing. It would have hardly been pre-emptive. But Bush was more concerned with the brush in Crawford, or don't you remember all this stuff? How convenient to have such a crappy memory.

Under what President did that happen? Enough said.

um...yeah

I also find it very amusing how the US violates cease-fires then goes about somehow boasting this to the papers

The cease fire was evidently being violated by the Taleban. And to the British denying it: Yesterday, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, a spokesman for British forces in Helmand, accepted that the Americans might have been concerned that British troops had been left isolated. He said he did not know who took the final decision on the change of tactics, but said British commanders had agreed that the time had come to mount more aggressive operations.

The cease fire was evidently being violated by the Taleban.

what an intelligence officer saying that support was difficult means the taleban had been violating a cease-fire?

I'd should probably point out that the last siege by the taleban was 2006 I do believe other than that taleban activity has been low, at least by enemy troops operating in close proximity

And to the British denying it: Yesterday, Lt Col Charlie Mayo, a spokesman for British forces in Helmand, accepted that the Americans might have been concerned that British troops had been left isolated. He said he did not know who took the final decision on the change of tactics, but said British commanders had agreed that the time had come to mount more aggressive operations.

so what happened was American commanders decided they knew better, yes offensive operations where being thought out but Britain has had 80-odd years in Afghanistan I don't think American commanders can preach that they now best yet

Under what President did that happen? Enough said.
Under which President did the CIA make the finding of fact about al Qaeda's bombing of the Cole?

George W. Bush. You're exactly right. Enough said.

what an intelligence officer saying that support was difficult means the taleban had been violating a cease-fire?

I'd should probably point out that the last siege by the taleban was 2006 I do believe other than that taleban activity has been low, at least by enemy troops operating in close proximity
haha, You're kidding right? We get mortared or take a few pot shots at least every other day. Almost every patrol has contact. And you want to tell me that the Taleban wasn't violated cease-fire. Yes, I just came home wounded from the area that the article is about.


so what happened was American commanders decided they knew better, yes offensive operations where being thought out but Britain has had 80-odd years in Afghanistan I don't think American commanders can preach that they now best yet

And in this case it appears that American commanders did know better. The attacks were nearly altogether stopped.

Under which President did the CIA make the finding of fact about al Qaeda's bombing of the Cole?

George W. Bush. You're exactly right. Enough said.

Read “Against All Enemies, Inside America’s War on Terror” by Richard Clark. Very insightful on the whole issue. He talks about how there was a shit load of evidence that they did it but that they just wouldn't act on it.

haha, You're kidding right? We get mortared or take a few pot shots at least every other day.

:eek: your in the British army, yes this distinction is important civilians have less of a bother with British troops mostly due to our avoidance of just sending armored convoys through every now and again

the telegraph![/B]]The British force in Afghanistan has been boosted to 7,700 troops, although only a small proportion are involved in frontline fighting.

sounds like the cease-fire was working to me

And in this case it appears that American commanders did know better. The attacks were nearly altogether stopped.

source from the future!?

If Your Dear Leader had actually listened to people and stuck with completing the transition of Afghanistan into a true representative democracy instead of rushing off to invade Iraq just to prove to Daddy he has a bigger dick, then the Taliban would have been extinct years ago.

Instead we're going to brag about how we stopped the Taliban by violating an ally's ceasefire deal?

Face it. Thanks to Dubya's need to win a dick-waving contest Afghanistan is going to turn into a new server for World of Jihadcraft.

:eek: your in the British army, yes this distinction is important civilians have less of a bother with British troops mostly due to our avoidance of just sending armored convoys through every now and again
No, I am in the US Marine Corps. You are completely unacquainted w/ U.S. doctrine. We conduct multiple day long missions just as your Royal Marines do. The Brits would just ignore the Taleban even though the locals want us to take them out.


sounds like the cease-fire was working to me
It wasn't at all. The Taleban used it to regroup and stage operations in our AO.


source?
The article and do you want a personal corresondance? I'll pm you it w/ a bit left out for OPSEC if you want.

So now you're for preemptive strikes? Very inconsistent.

As far as I can remember the Taliban were harboring a known terrorist who was on the FBI top 10 list as well as there being a previous authorization by WJC to "kill Bin Laden." The responsibility for the USS Cole was finally determined and there was enough evidence authorizing the use of force in this case. Evidence that was corroborated and irrefutable, unlike the twisting that was done for Iraq. Was Bin Laden in Iraq? Is that what you are telling me? I'm for killing the leader of a worldwide terrorist organization that has been proven to kill Americans. I'm not for a useless mission to take out a "friendly" dictator thereby compounding the problem we already fact. That only an idiot would do.

Under what President did that happen? Enough said.

Sir, you better cool your jets. You have now shown yourself to be blindly loyal to the man which is why you get so angry when others criticise. Can you tell us the date that information was learned? How close was it to innaguration? You want to hand off a knee jerk war to someone else? Hell, we already see how well he handles war with time to plan.

As far as I can remember the Taliban were harboring a known terrorist who was on the FBI top 10 list as well as there being a previous authorization by WJC to "kill Bin Laden." The responsibility for the USS Cole was finally determined and there was enough evidence authorizing the use of force in this case. Evidence that was corroborated and irrefutable, unlike the twisting that was done for Iraq. Was Bin Laden in Iraq? Is that what you are telling me? I'm for killing the leader of a worldwide terrorist organization that has been proven to kill Americans. I'm not for a useless mission to take out a "friendly" dictator thereby compounding the problem we already fact. That only an idiot would do.

We're not discussing OIF as we both agree that it was not a good idea and the public justifications were not valid. You are saying that we should have gone to war with an entire country over one man who allegedly did something. In 20/20 of course that would have been right but at the time I'm not so sure. If we wanted to get rid of Bin Laden we could have preformed a more surgical strike. Hardly fighting the Taleban.

Read “Against All Enemies, Inside America’s War on Terror” by Richard Clark. Very insightful on the whole issue. He talks about how there was a shit load of evidence that they did it but that they just wouldn't act on it.

REad "The Price of Loyalty" By Paul O'Neill, and any of the "Bush at War" series by Bob Woodward. Then read "1000 years for Revenge" and when finished with that you can review the ecidence that the finding of fact didn't happen until just before inaguration. Care to chellenge me on that fact?

Edit: time for bed, 0500 comes early. Goodnight Sir.

Sir, you better cool your jets. You have now shown yourself to be blindly loyal to the man which is why you get so angry when others criticise. Can you tell us the date that information was learned? How close was it to innaguration? You want to hand off a knee jerk war to someone else? Hell, we already see how well he handles war with time to plan.

I'm not angry at all. All I'm saying is that Clinton did not act. He could have devoted more of the CIA to finding out who it was. He could have acted on what many suspected. He could have taken a risk. But instead thousands of people died. And again, this is just in response to the needless attack against Bush. Just spreading the blame a bit.

REad "The Price of Loyalty" By Paul O'Neill, and any of the "Bush at War" series by Bob Woodward. Then read "1000 years for Revenge" and when finished with that you can review the ecidence that the finding of fact didn't happen until just before inaguration. Care to chellenge me on that fact?

Edit: time for bed, 0500 comes early. Goodnight Sir.

Yes i do care to challenge. When something is officially made a fact in the intelligence community it has already been known for quite some time. It is my assumption that this is the same. There were most likely reports that it was him earlier.

No, I am in the US Marine Corps. You are completely unacquainted w/ U.S. doctrine. We conduct multiple day long missions just as your Royal Marines do. The Brits would just ignore the Taleban even though the locals want us to take them out.

um...actually its not just the RMC who perform walks through villages and towns interacting with the locals British commanders realized this in Ireland and so to have only the USMC copying this is worrying

It wasn't at all. The Taleban used it to regroup and stage operations in our AO.

so you accept that the cease-fire was working well and that the tribal leaders in American zones don't have any power at all

The article and do you want a personal corresondance? I'll pm you it w/ a bit left out for OPSEC if you want.

well:

1) the article is presumably fresh as such it would be impossible to know the affect without the use of a time machine

2) I pray that your not actually offering me (an anonymous internet chap) information that might put you or others in danger thats just stupid

In Afghanistan, the lines between enemy and civilian are much clearer than Iraq. The taleban rarely fights from villages and thus we rarely need to attack them there. If it was the opposite then the British approach would have been better. A stricter ROE is necessary. However the Taleban has it's own territory in the mountains and is easy to strike w/o targeting civilians.

I repeat, "How many people were killed by ending the ceasefire?"

um...actually its not just the RMC who perform walks through villages and towns interacting with the locals British commanders realized this in Ireland and so to have only the USMC copying this is worrying
Who says that we're the only ones copying it? And who says that every British unit follows it?


so you accept that the cease-fire was working well and that the tribal leaders in American zones don't have any power at all
Where did you read that? They were using it to regroup and stage attacks. And then once regrouped and up to strength they began to revamp attacks against Brits and they did nothing about it.


well:

1) the article is presumably fresh as such it would be impossible to know the affect without the use of a time machine
The article is fresh but the events aren't.
2) I pray that your not actually offering me (an anonymous internet chap) information that might put you or others in danger thats just stupid
I said OPSEC censored.

I repeat, "How many people were killed by ending the ceasefire?"

Dozens of Taleban. Much less NATO forces. Less civilians seeing as the Taleban weren't given free run at them.

Dozens of Taleban. Much less NATO forces. Less civilians seeing as the Taleban weren't given free run at them.

So, in other words, people died unnecessarily?

Who says that we're the only ones copying it? And who says that every British unit follows it?

well:

1) American troops are always seen in a Humvee and its claimed to be one of the reasons why the British have had more success in operations

2) its a massive part of British military mentality this was drilled in during operations in Ireland and as such is only abandoned when all hell is breaking loose

Where did you read that? They were using it to regroup and stage attacks. And then once regrouped and up to strength they began to revamp attacks against Brits and they did nothing about it.

no what happened was both groups had an agreed cease fire and Britain was using the time to build up Afghan supporters, yes the taleban was probably using this time also but British command saw it necessary (and no wonder considering we aren't looking to stay in Afghanistan forever)

The article is fresh but the events aren't.

and you can only offer anecdotal evidence, thus nobody knows the consequences of this yet

I'm not for a useless mission to take out a "friendly" dictator
You're not serious, are you?

Boxhillnorth;12598081']You're not serious, are you?

Saddam was America's bitch don't forget that

Read “Against All Enemies, Inside America’s War on Terror” by Richard Clark. Very insightful on the whole issue. He talks about how there was a shit load of evidence that they did it but that they just wouldn't act on it.

I've read it. I own it. And here's another source that quotes Clarke's book on the issue (http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html).
It's true that the intelligence agencies wouldn't certify that bin Laden was responsible for the suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Clinton told the 9/11 Commission, according to its report, that he was frustrated "he couldn't get a definitive enough answer to do something about the Cole attack" (p. 193). Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger concurred, telling the panel that the intelligence agencies had strong suspicions, but reached "no conclusion" by the time Clinton left office that the ship bombing was definitively the work of bin Laden. In late December 2000, with only days left before Clinton had to vacate the White House, slides from a CIA briefing to a small group of key officials said it was the agency's "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda "supported the attack" but had "no definitive answer" to the question of who directed it and how (p. 195). (Clarke told the panel that he thought the agencies were 'holding back,'" p. 195)

So which President actually got the finding of fact on who was responsible for the Cole attack? George W. Bush. And who failed to act on that knowledge? George W. Bush.

You were right--Enough has been said, and it's time for you to acknowledge the ineptitude of your president.

So, in other words, people died unnecessarily?

Can you read?

I've read it. I own it. And here's another source that quotes Clarke's book on the issue (http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html).


So which President actually got the finding of fact on who was responsible for the Cole attack? George W. Bush. And who failed to act on that knowledge? George W. Bush.

You were right--Enough has been said, and it's time for you to acknowledge the ineptitude of your president.

In the intelligence world you almost never have "definitive" answers. If you have a strong suspicion then given the opportunity you fire a cruise missile.

In the intelligence world you almost never have "definitive" answers. If you have a strong suspicion then given the opportunity you fire a cruise missile.

You're in the intelligence services aswell? I'm very impressed I have to say.

1) American troops are always seen in a Humvee and its claimed to be one of the reasons why the British have had more success in operations
You can make any claim that you want if you ignore reality. We conduct FOOT patrols every day. We use hmmvs for convoy protection, QRF's and if the neighborhood is such that overwhelming firepower will be necessary.
2) its a massive part of British military mentality this was drilled in during operations in Ireland and as such is only abandoned when all hell is breaking loose
However, the vast majority of UK officers didn't serve in Ireland.


no what happened was both groups had an agreed cease fire and Britain was using the time to build up Afghan supporters, yes the taleban was probably using this time also but British command saw it necessary (and no wonder considering we aren't looking to stay in Afghanistan forever)
And that cease fire was not being obeyed however the British officers were content with the situation of having UK troops and Afghani civilians killed while doing nothing about it. Another problem was that they just didn't have the firepower necessary to take the fight to them. They needed our support.


and you can only offer anecdotal evidence, thus nobody knows the consequences of this yet
You don't want to see the proof that I have.

You're in the intelligence services aswell? I'm very impressed I have to say.

I have a secondary MOS in ground intel. Not civilian intel.

Can you read?

So yes.

I have a secondary MOS in ground intel. Not civilian intel.

One favour please, less of the acronyms, my brain doesn't like working them out.

And from the source, Clinton got a preliminary judgement just as he was leaving office. So whatever blame you attach to him for inaction, you have to attach it multiple times over to Bush for 7 years of inaction.

Edit: Going to bed now, someone else'll have to take over.

So yes.

Obviously not. Unless you mourn the loss of Taleban as unncessary. But then they would kill you in a heart beat give the opportunity.

Obviously not. Unless you mourn the loss of Taleban as unncessary. But then they would kill you in a heart beat give the opportunity.

You said it yourself. Soldiers died as well as Taliban. And we violated a ceasefire.

One favour please, less of the acronyms, my brain doesn't like working them out.

And from the source, Clinton got a preliminary judgement just as he was leaving office. So whatever blame you attach to him for inaction, you have to attach it multiple times over to Bush for 7 years of inaction.

Edit: Going to bed now, someone else'll have to take over.

No problem about the acronyms. And it was shown that Clinton had the chance to pull the trigger on a cruise missile against Bin Laden.

You said it yourself. Soldiers died as well as Taliban. And we violated a ceasefire.

No, I said that UK personnel were being killed by mortars and ambushes while they did nothing to retaliate. Strength speaks volumes in that part of the world. In Ireland it is a little different. The Taleban had broken the ceasefire and UK forces were in denial and trying to get them to stop.

No problem about the acronyms. And it was shown that Clinton had the chance to pull the trigger on a cruise missile against Bin Laden.

So could Bush. It's not hard to cruise missile something until you hit what you're aiming for, given how many we have.

So could Bush. It's not hard to cruise missile something until you hit what you're aiming for, given how many we have.

Ah, but we don't know where he is. I'm sure if we did he would be dead.

Ah, but we don't know where he is. I'm sure if we did he would be dead.

We know exactly where he is. Somewhere in the middle east.

You can make any claim that you want if you ignore reality. We conduct FOOT patrols every day. We use hmmvs for convoy protection, QRF's and if the neighborhood is such that overwhelming firepower will be necessary.

1 However, the vast majority of UK officers didn't serve in Ireland.



2 And that cease fire was not being obeyed however the British officers were content with the situation of having UK troops and Afghani civilians killed while doing nothing about it. Another problem was that they just didn't have the firepower necessary to take the fight to them. They needed our support.



You don't want to see the proof that I have.

1 - The vast majority of British Infantry commanders with 10 or more years service HAVE served at least one tour in Northern Ireland. It was standard procedure. The troops in Afghanistan are mostly Royal Marines who did not serve tours in Northern Ireland, but the commanders have taken on board the army's experiences in the province.

2 - To suggest that British officers were CONTENT to have British casualties is, quite frankly, a fucking insult. If the situation were reversed and I had made such a comment you would be screaming "anti-american" at me. I suggest you apolgise. They have been doing a quite successful job of winning hearts and minds against the taliban. That is their prime objective, and the best way to win the war against the taliban. I would suggest that they neither need or want the support of an armed force that has shown itself to be trigger happy and whose prime objective is "kill the enemy" without taking on board the intricacies of native support or interaction, as proved by their conduct in Iraq. What they want and need is the support of a government who see fit to pour men and finance into the bottomless pit that is Iraq whilst starving those in Afghanistan of resources.

We know exactly where he is. Somewhere in the middle east.

You used exactly and somewhere to describe one thing. There is something wrong with that. Besides, he is most likely dead.

1 - The vast majority of British Infantry commanders with 10 or more years service HAVE served at least one tour in Northern Ireland. It was standard procedure. The troops in Afghanistan are mostly Royal Marines who did not serve tours in Northern Ireland, but the commanders have taken on board the army's experiences in the province.
10 years is at least a major but most likely an LTC and an off chance of a Col. And as I stated earlier, the fight in Ireland and Afghanistan is much different. The culture is different and therefore under the definition of 4GW given by William Lind the entire war is fundamentally different.
2 - To suggest that British officers were CONTENT to have British casualties is, quite frankly, a fucking insult. If the situation were reversed and I had made such a comment you would be screaming "anti-american" at me. I suggest you apolgise. They have been doing a quite successful job of winning hearts and minds against the taliban. That is their prime objective, and the best way to win the war against the taliban. I would suggest that they neither need or want the support of an armed force that has shown itself to be trigger happy and whose prime objective is "kill the enemy" without taking on board the intricacies of native support or interaction, as proved by their conduct in Iraq. What they want and need is the support of a government who see fit to pour men and finance into the bottomless pit that is Iraq whilst starving those in Afghanistan of resources.
Maybe not content but there sure as hell weren't doing anything about it. In addition, they were giving safe haven to Taleban to attack into other areas. You can't win this war w/o defeating the Taleban. The afghanis want first and foremost security and the Taleban take that away. They were following a model more similar to Ireland where allowing the enemy to turn the public against it was more viable and where kindness was seen as a good thing and not weakness.

10 years is at least a major but most likely an LTC and an off chance of a Col. And as I stated earlier, the fight in Ireland and Afghanistan is much different. The culture is different and therefore under the definition of 4GW given by William Lind the entire war is fundamentally different.

Maybe not content but there sure as hell weren't doing anything about it. In addition, they were giving safe haven to Taleban to attack into other areas. You can't win this war w/o defeating the Taleban. The afghanis want first and foremost security and the Taleban take that away. They were following a model more similar to Ireland where allowing the enemy to turn the public against it was more viable and where kindness was seen as a good thing and not weakness.

To suggest the Afghans see kindness as weakness is not only naive it is stupid. You are completely wrong, the best way to win an insurgency is to turn the population against the insugents. Sure it takes time and effort, but less people get killed than using the "blow them all away" method.

To suggest the Afghans see kindness as weakness is not only naive it is stupid. You are completely wrong, the best way to win an insurgency is to turn the population against the insugents. Sure it takes time and effort, but less people get killed than using the "blow them all away" method.

If you capture a Taleban member and don't have all the evidence that is necessary so you release him, it is weakness. If you allow the Taleban to attack from their city w/o retaliation, it is weakness. The methods of COIN that you are talking about are much more suited to Iraq and your Ireland. The afghanis are already against the Taleban but it doesn't affect their operations. They also are dissatisfied with us and will always be b/c we are foreigners.

If you capture a Taleban member and don't have all the evidence that is necessary so you release him, it is weakness.

No it is called due process and justice. Without that you have Gitmo. They are the ideals you are supposed to be fighting for, remember?

If you are a serving officer (and I am seriously beginning to doubt that) then I fear for the US armed forces as you seem to be nothing but a mouthpiece for Bush policy and the right wing. I seriously suggest you learn to think for yourself instead of just taking at face value what you are told by your superiors.

No it is called due process and justice. Without that you have Gitmo. They are the ideals you are supposed to be fighting for, remember?

If you are a serving officer (and I am seriously beginning to doubt that) then I fear for the US armed forces as you seem to be nothing but a mouthpiece for Bush policy and the right wing. I seriously suggest you learn to think for yourself instead of just taking at face value what you are told by your superiors.

Did I say that those were my views? No, that are how Afghanis view things. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. You also failed to respond to the rest of my post. How convenient.

In the intelligence world you almost never have "definitive" answers. If you have a strong suspicion then given the opportunity you fire a cruise missile.

Sir, I've never seen you spin quite like this. I think you should just concede the point that Nazz made that the person who was given the "definitive" answer as to who was responsible was George W. Bush. You must also recognize that GWB did nothing as a result of that for 9 months before 9/11/01. Also, to a point I made yesterday...There's a difference between surgical strikes, preemptive war, and giving "aid and comfort" ($53 million) to the enemy. Bush knew that the Taliban was giving Bin Laden safe haven and not only did he not attack, he gave them money in hopes of securing a deal for oil pipelines. That was the point I was trying to make yesterday and I allowed you to divert my attention. Do you see the distinction I am making. It's not attack or not, it's attack or give millions of dollars to.

No problem about the acronyms. And it was shown that Clinton had the chance to pull the trigger on a cruise missile against Bin Laden.

Sir, here's where you show your bias once again. A careful resding of the 9/11 report would show you that on, p. 53 I think but you can look it up, "there is no reason to believe this event occurred." That was a direct quote from the 9/11 report regarding your "Clinton could have killed Osama" rhetoric that keeps being repeated by right wing ideologues with the full knowlege they are wrong. I searched and found this claim front and center on reputable sources like newsmax.com (HA!) I would expect more from you Sir. This myth has been discredited time and time again and I suggest an intelligent man such as yourself should discontinue using it as ammo. Anyone help me out with the exact pasage from the 9/11 report? I believe it's on my computer at work and I'll try to find it tomorrow if I have time. I do have to work at some point in the day you know? :eek:

Sir, I've never seen you spin quite like this. I think you should just concede the point that Nazz made that the person who was given the "definitive" answer as to who was responsible was George W. Bush. You must also recognize that GWB did nothing as a result of that for 9 months before 9/11/01. Also, to a point I made yesterday...There's a difference between surgical strikes, preemptive war, and giving "aid and comfort" ($53 million) to the enemy. Bush knew that the Taliban was giving Bin Laden safe haven and not only did he not attack, he gave them money in hopes of securing a deal for oil pipelines. That was the point I was trying to make yesterday and I allowed you to divert my attention. Do you see the distinction I am making. It's not attack or not, it's attack or give millions of dollars to.

It is clear that Nazz is right that the responsibility near completely lies on the Bush admin's shoulders. However there are still points to be made for the other side that require a few seconds of thought to counter. That and I like debating even when I know that I'm wrong. To add further to the position that I'm defending, Clinton did know that the '93 bombings of the WTC was funded by Al-Qaeda. He should have acted on that. I'm about to make a point that I am not made up about but bear with me. Bush had a decision to make, launch an attack on an enemy that will cost hundreds of American lives and billions of dollars over an attack that didn't even occur under his watch or boost our economy while taking a bit of a risk. He went with the latter which with hindsight was a bad call but at that point in time maybe it wasn't

Sir, here's where you show your bias once again. A careful resding of the 9/11 report would show you that on, p. 53 I think but you can look it up, "there is no reason to believe this event occurred." That was a direct quote from the 9/11 report regarding your "Clinton could have killed Osama" rhetoric that keeps being repeated by right wing ideologues with the full knowlege they are wrong. I searched and found this claim front and center on reputable sources like newsmax.com (HA!) I would expect more from you Sir. This myth has been discredited time and time again and I suggest an intelligent man such as yourself should discontinue using it as ammo. Anyone help me out with the exact pasage from the 9/11 report? I believe it's on my computer at work and I'll try to find it tomorrow if I have time. I do have to work at some point in the day you know? :eek:
That's news to me. Thanks for the info. Let me know if you get a link.

In Bush's defense, he didn't know that Bin Laden would do this. Last time America went after warlords and terorists, we got bodies dragged through the streets. [somila] after that IIRC, the public wanted out, and we didn't venture after warlords/terrorists again.

In Bush's defense, he didn't know that Bin Laden would do this. Last time America went after warlords and terorists, we got bodies dragged through the streets. [somila] after that IIRC, the public wanted out, and we didn't venture after warlords/terrorists again.

Complete Bullshit.

George Tenet said he briefed Condi Rice and Dear Leader that Bin Ladin was planning something big, and days before 9-11 that there was significant terrorist activity in the continental U.S.

Did I say that those were my views? No, that are how Afghanis view things. A little reading comprehension goes a long way. You also failed to respond to the rest of my post. How convenient.

No you didn't say that, so the assumption is that they are your views, and unless we have any Afghans here to back up those claims they are totally baseless. And I have already stated my opinion on the rest of your post. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.

And you made that post after I logged off. Way to respond.

However, the vast majority of UK officers didn't serve in Ireland.

Well I would not expect the Navy or RAF to serve in a landwar. For the Army many officers would have served at least a tour.



And that cease fire was not being obeyed however the British officers were content with the situation of having UK troops and Afghani civilians killed while doing nothing about it. Another problem was that they just didn't have the firepower necessary to take the fight to them. They needed our support.

That is possibly one of the most repulsive things I have read here. I am stunned that you think the field commanders were happy to see their men killed. That is utterly disgusting.

It also tells me that you know absolutely fuck all about what is and has gone on in Afghanistan. Its like the post you made stating that once US/Coalition forces are out of Iraq the country will stop fighting as the Iraqi's will have no one to fight against.

As a self proported intelligence officer you are a shining example of why US intelligence gathering is a joke.

You don't want to see the proof that I have.

You have nothing.

Yeah...

And how many more people were killed by ending the ceasefire?

Who cares? They were all meanies.

Well I would not expect the Navy or RAF to serve in a landwar. For the Army many officers would have served at least a tour.
And as I said they would all be major and above so not exactly interating with the population. Also Ireland and Afghanistan are two very different places. To quote William Lind: the struggle in Northern Ireland had cost the United Kingdom three thousand casualties in dead alone. Of the three thousand, about seventeen hundred were civilians….of the remaining, a thousand were British soldiers. No more than three hundred were terrorists, a ratio of three to one. Speaking very softly, he said: And that is why we are still there.

That is possibly one of the most repulsive things I have read here. I am stunned that you think the field commanders were happy to see their men killed. That is utterly disgusting.

It also tells me that you know absolutely fuck all about what is and has gone on in Afghanistan. Its like the post you made stating that once US/Coalition forces are out of Iraq the country will stop fighting as the Iraqi's will have no one to fight against.

As a self proported intelligence officer you are a shining example of why US intelligence gathering is a joke.

When did I ever post that? That sounds like the exact thing that I've argued against in several posts. You need to do your homework. Read the quote above. It explains it quite well.

No you didn't say that, so the assumption is that they are your views, and unless we have any Afghans here to back up those claims they are totally baseless. And I have already stated my opinion on the rest of your post. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.

And you made that post after I logged off. Way to respond.
I was responding to this comment made by you: "To suggest the Afghans see kindness as weakness is not only naive it is stupid."

What you didn't respond to:The methods of COIN that you are talking about are much more suited to Iraq and your Ireland. The afghanis are already against the Taleban but it doesn't affect their operations.

And are you blaming me for you logging off? That is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard.

The methods of COIN that you are talking about are much more suited to Iraq and your Ireland. The afghanis are already against the Taleban but it doesn't affect their operations.

The fact is that the Taleban were welcomed with joy the first time they 'won' Afghanistan.

The reason is that people simply get 'sick of war' and welcome anyone who brings a little peace to their lives. The problem for America is that, much like Vietnam, they subject civilians to constant searches, bombings and more. That's 'in the name of peace' for sure, but it simply isn't seen that way.

All people want is a little peace to conduct their lives.

I know that America means well, but it simply hasn't seen that people don't actually want Liberty, Freedom of Speech or whatever, they just want a bit of goddamn peace.

If America worked to provide that to Afghanis, Iraqis etc, they'd be well on the way to 'winning' the war.

EDIT: It's something that grates with me. Either you're going into a country to conquer, in which case repress people all you like to cow them into submission, or you're going to 'liberate' in which case every single effort should be going into treating anyone, whether you suspect them of complicity or not, with great care and compassion.

And as I said they would all be major and above so not exactly interating with the population. Also Ireland and Afghanistan are two very different places. To quote William Lind: the struggle in Northern Ireland had cost the United Kingdom three thousand casualties in dead alone. Of the three thousand, about seventeen hundred were civilians….of the remaining, a thousand were British soldiers. No more than three hundred were terrorists, a ratio of three to one. Speaking very softly, he said: And that is why we are still there.

They would all be major and above....ok...please....source of this please.

Not interacting with the local populous - once more...source

regarding comparing Ireland and Afghanistan is a red herring.

When did I ever post that? That sounds like the exact thing that I've argued against in several posts. You need to do your homework. Read the quote above. It explains it quite well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12581872&postcount=1

If we suddenly leave Iraq, there are a lot of fighters with no fight.

I really doubt you have ever been to Afghanistan let alone been in the military.

this remind me of those who claim that Osama bin laden is paranoid,

well he's not, he got all satelits looking for him and the US army:sniper:

I really doubt you have ever been to Afghanistan let alone been in the military.

qft. People like this learn a few military acronyms and throw them around to pose. Its sad really.

qft. People like this learn a few military acronyms and throw them around to pose. Its sad really.

Even more so when you have family members and family friends who actually have been out there.

Its beyond sad...its actually insulting. I understand that there is a bit of a do regarding people pretending to the be veterans...

this remind me of those who claim that Osama bin laden is paranoid,

well he's not, he got all satelits looking for him and the US army:sniper:
....................................................................eh?

....................................................................eh?

Yeah....makes no sense to me either....

They would all be major and above....ok...please....source of this please.
B/c you make at least Major in 10 years. Unless you are so poor at your job that you fail every promotion board. But then thats not the kind of officers that we're talking about.
Not interacting with the local populous - once more...source
Unless they're all about the glory they will be in battalion HQ where they should be.
regarding comparing Ireland and Afghanistan is a red herring.
Umm, no it's not.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12581872&postcount=1

If we suddenly leave Iraq, there are a lot of fighters with no fight.
You can make it seem like anyone said anything if you take it out of context. If they win in Iraq and take control then there will be a lot of fighters w/o a fight and you may see them cross Iran into Afghanistan.

B/c you make at least Major in 10 years. Unless you are so poor at your job that you fail every promotion board. But then thats not the kind of officers that we're talking about.

Unless they're all about the glory they will be in battalion HQ where they should be.

Umm, no it's not.


You can make it seem like anyone said anything if you take it out of context. If they win in Iraq and take control then there will be a lot of fighters w/o a fight and you may see them cross Iran into Afghanistan.

So you are not able to provide any source. Are you an expert on the British Army and Navy? I guess no.

You stated - 10 years is at least a major but most likely an LTC and an off chance of a Col. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12600557&postcount=48)

Anyway from the MOD. Thats Ministry of Defense to you.

http://www.dasasurveys.mod.uk/php/dp/images/110a.gif

Ten years gets you a Major. No where near a Lt Col let alone a Colonel.

Now. What is the purpose of a infantry Major in the British Army? Please...I am all ears...

Regarding Ireland/Afghanistan....

You said - And as I stated earlier, the fight in Ireland and Afghanistan is much different. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12600557&postcount=48)

Yet you just contradicted that. Now what is it?

Regarding Iraq...I provided the context as well. Sorry but you are a sub par troll.

snip

If that chart includes Reserves then that explains it pretty well. Promotion rates are much slower in them. And I don't see how I contradicted myself. I said the exact same thing b/c you made me repeat it.

If that chart includes Reserves then that explains it pretty well. Promotion rates are much slower in them. And I don't see how I contradicted myself. I said the exact same thing b/c you made me repeat it.

British Army. Not TA.

Now...what is the purpose of a infantry major?

You really haven't a clue do you?

Regarding your contradictions...you are right. You don't see where you contradicted yourself. I wonder why that is?

British Army. Not TA.

Now...what is the purpose of a infantry major?

You really haven't a clue do you?

Regarding your contradictions...you are right. You don't see where you contradicted yourself. I wonder why that is?

I didn't contradict myself at all. My message that Ireland and Afghanistan are completely different was constant throughout. And in the U.S. military, infantry majors are most often in staff positions in Brigades and in some cases in Battalions.

That's news to me. Thanks for the info. Let me know if you get a link.

The first link I found

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14707869/)

Among the scenes that the Clinton team said are fictional:

* Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."

Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.

I'll search harder later, but I'm up to my ears in work Sir. This excerpt says enough to prove the point. I'll find the actually 9/11 commission link in the future.

I didn't contradict myself at all. My message that Ireland and Afghanistan are completely different was constant throughout. And in the U.S. military, infantry majors are most often in staff positions in Brigades and in some cases in Battalions.

What is the role of a infantry Major in the British Army?

You are trying to make yourself out to be an expert in the British Army yet you obviously know fuck all.

Contradictions...please...you stated that when the US leaves Iraq they will have no one to fight. Unless its escaped your attention the 'Iraqis' are fighting each other. You have heard about the daily bombings and the like yes? No? Well you did say you worked in Intelligence. A contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.

The fact is, these kind of 'Vietnam - seek and destroy' operations that the US seems so intent on will never work in this kind of war. Victory relies upon winning the hearts and minds of the populace, and not driving them to the Taliban. Defeating the Taliban does not entail using missiles, bombs and bullets, if it did it wouldn't have taken longer than WWII. The strength of the Taliban, much like the nationalist sectarian insurgency in Iraq, is in the passions and ideologies of those it's inspires and recruits, not in any established military infrastructure.

It relies upon people becoming so inflamed and angered by the US/Coalition occupation that they will join the Taliban/insurgency. Now it's a common mistake to link every single islamic terrorist group in the world to some centralised massive conspiracy with osama bin laden in a secret high-tech bunker giving orders to the various groups around the world which then put theit tentacle like grip outwards. The US and the neocons obviously have their own partisan political agenda in doing this, it always feels better when your fighting such an enemy, the neocons tried to do the same thing in the Cold War, saying that every 'terrorist'(freedom fighter) group is all linked to a massive communist conspiracy in Moscow to take over the world.

The politics of fear, conservatives have nothing to offer the population of hope so they turn to fearmongering, of course both times the CIA and other observers told them it wasn't true then as it is now, but the neocons knew it wasn't, they just wanted to create a phantom enemy. Conflicts like Afghanistan need to taken to their basic level, local, these are all just local issues, theres a misconception to think of an international conspiracy than to think of people fighting over a patch of dirt.

What is the role of a infantry Major in the British Army?
The same as the U.S. military. Staff level positions.


Contradictions...please...you stated that when the US leaves Iraq they will have no one to fight. Unless its escaped your attention the 'Iraqis' are fighting each other. You have heard about the daily bombings and the like yes? No? Well you did say you worked in Intelligence. A contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.

If you read the rest of the thread you'd find that I stated that once they win in Iraq they will have nobody to fight. And after a bloody fight i believe that somebody will win.

Remember people, if the US leaves Iraq the 'enemy (the one created by the neocons)' will follow the troops home to America in the baggage area of the planes.

The same as the U.S. military. Staff level positions.

So they would not be company commanders then? Coz in the British Army majors are company commanders and are involved in the day to day operational management of their unit. They are not desk jockeys.


If you read the rest of the thread you'd find that I stated that once they win in Iraq they will have nobody to fight. And after a bloody fight i believe that somebody will win.

Oh so you changed your mind during the evolution of that thread? Good for you. There might yet be hope...but I ain't counting my chickens till they've hatched.

So they would not be company commanders then? Coz in the British Army majors are company commanders and are involved in the day to day operational management of their unit. They are not desk jockeys.
You learn something new everyday.:)



Oh so you changed your mind during the evolution of that thread? Good for you. There might yet be hope...but I ain't counting my chickens till they've hatched.
It's not that I changed my mind, I just didn't fully explain myself before.

I'll search harder later, but I'm up to my ears in work Sir.

Why do you call him Sir?

Whether anyone's a marine or not, it seems a little naive to call someone 'Sir' on the basis of an NSG claim.

Otherwise, you can call me Your Majesty, given I am King of America.

Why do you call him Sir?

Whether anyone's a marine or not, it seems a little naive to call someone 'Sir' on the basis of an NSG claim.

Otherwise, you can call me Your Majesty, given I am King of America.

No he isn't. I am Emperor of America and Protector Of Mexico, Sir Joshua Norton the Second. This man is a usurper!

Remember people, if the US leaves Iraq the 'enemy (the one created by the neocons)' will follow the troops home to America in the baggage area of the planes.

If the terrorists can fit so many into such a tight space, that means they must have been trained by circus clowns!

We must shut down Ringling Brothers' Barnum & Bailey Circus!! They're training the terrorists to follow our troops home inside the baggage areas!!

Remember people, if the US leaves Iraq the 'enemy (the one created by the neocons)' will follow the troops home to America in the baggage area of the planes.
Best thing to do, then, is to limit the amount of carry-on luggage allowed by US troops.
"Sorry sir, only one insurgent per passenger allowed onboard"