Afghanistan - Still losing the war, Part 9

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
M. Spector M. Spector's picture


Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]Take an educated guess?[/b]

I'd prefer to rely on empirical evidence.

Jerry West


That does not sound like an immediate withdrawal, sort of sounds like a slow and steady pull out.


It sounds like an abdication of authority.

The Prime Minister says "out of Afghanistan now", and the military says "Yes Sir". End of story.
The Military answers to the civilian government, not the other way around. Layton had better get his shit squared away.

It sounds like a rational plan.

From the statement there is no indication of how long the pullout process would take, and whether it amounts to immediate or not may depend on one's definition of immediate.

Any Prime Minister, President, King or other leader who does not discuss plans with her/his commanders prior to committing to them is a fool, and moving 2000 plus troops and their equipment safely from an active combat zone safely requires considerable planning.

Jerry West


GENEVA — One of the most experienced Western envoys in Afghanistan said Sunday that conditions there had become the worst since 2001....

[url=]Link to Article in the NYT[/url]


The following article undercuts the 2 main propaganda deceptions of the US-Canada-NATO military occupation of Afghanistan.

First, it cuts through the rhetoric about fighting some international ideology of "islamofascism" with a "war on terror" in Afghanistan "so we don't have to fight them over here".

The second big lie exposed is that we are killing and dying for some notion of "the Afghani people".


[b]New breed of Taliban replaces old guard Money and a hatred of foreigners are motivating a new generation of Afghan fighters. [/b]
By Alex Thomson
The Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:24AM BST 17 Sep 2008
And that is the second, timeless motive. Talk to them about fighting the British and they don't do "war on terror". Instead, they left the compound to visit a nearby graveyard, a resting place for Afghans who fought against the British over a century ago. Haji said: "People want to defend their independence, Islam and Afghan national pride. That's why they come and support the Taliban."

They were nonplussed that President Karzai says it is "un-Afghan" to attack Nato troops. And they have no lack of support.

During the visit, the fighters talked more like old-time Mujahideen, discussing the Russian invaders, than the unsmiling students of Mullah Omar.

By night they liked nothing more than a drop (or three) of whisky - though did not drink in front of a camera.
In all of this, an urgent lesson for Nato: these local, Afghan fighters enjoy real support. It is simply wrong to say it is just coercion and terror. Just like the Mujahideen did. Indeed, on this evidence the so-called Taliban might be changing into something far more like the Mujahideen than the madrassa-produced Pakistani Taliban.

Have Nato allowed themselves to become the new Russians? Many an Afghan would say yes.

[url= Telegraph--UK[/url]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture


The Bush administration is pushing for sweeping changes to the military command structure in Afghanistan, so that [b]the head of international forces would report directly to US Central Command instead of Nato.[/b]

The changes would have huge repercussions for Nato, whose officials have stated that Afghanistan is a "defining moment" for the organisation's ability to conduct large-scale operations abroad.

[url= Independent[/url] has learnt that the proposal to streamline the complex chain of command, enabling US General David McKiernan [b]to be answerable to superiors at Centcom in Tampa, Florida, rather than Nato,[/b] is before Robert Gates, the American Defence Secretary....

Any move to make the Afghan war an American-run operation would be controversial in some Nato countries. [b]There is already public disquiet in countries such as[/b] Italy, Germany and [b]Canada[/b] over the conflict.

Jerry West


This summer, foreign troop deaths have exceeded those of U.S. forces in Iraq. 'We feel that things are going very, very well for us,' one Taliban fighter says.

By Laura King, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 18, 2008

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- A summer of heavy fighting during which Western military leaders had hoped to seize the initiative from Islamic militants has instead revealed an insurgency capable of employing complex new tactics and fighting across a broad swath of Afghanistan.

Over the last three months, insurgents have exacted the most punishing casualty tolls on Western forces since the Afghan war began nearly seven years ago. Numbers of foreign troops killed have exceeded U.S. military deaths in Iraq....

[url=,0,3279023.story... in Afghanistan Show Strength[/url]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Canadian soldiers involved in the [url= deaths of two Afghan children near Kandahar in July[/url] did nothing wrong and followed proper procedures in the incident, a military police investigation has found.

The children were travelling in a vehicle in Panjwaii district that approached a Canadian patrol and ignored repeated warnings to stop, a statement from the Canadian military said.

One round from a 25mm cannon was fired into the vehicle, killing the two youngsters.

The military statement said soldiers in the convoy "followed proper escalation of force procedures and acted within the rules of engagement" for the Canadian mission.

- [url=]CB...

[ 18 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

martin dufresne

Interesting piece from Alain Gresh in the latest issue of Le Monde diplomatique, arguably France's most credible Left newspaper:[url= l'armйe franзaise doit se retirer de l'Afghanistan[/url]
Reading how Gresh takes apart President Sarkozy's justifications for collaborating in this war of agression is definitely worth brushing up on your French...


Le Parlement et le Sйnat franзais doivent dйbattre, le lundi 22 septembre, de la situation en Afghanistan. Ils auront а se prononcer par un vote nominatif sur l’engagement de la France dans une guerre qui risque d’кtre longue et coыteuse. Il aurait йtй important que les chambres puissent examiner les arguments avancйs et en mesurer la pertinence. Mais le temps de parole a йtй limitй et le dйbat sera clos en une demi-journйe. Est-ce ainsi que l’on dйbat de l’engagement de la France dans une guerre qui fera encore de nombreuses victimes, d’abord en Afghanistan mais aussi dans les rangs de l’armйe ?

Lors de son allocution devant les ambassadeurs franзais, а la fin aoыt (et aprиs la mort de dix soldats), le prйsident Nicolas Sarkozy avait expliquй les raisons de la prйsence franзaise. Il reprenait les arguments dйjа dйveloppйs lors de l’annonce de sa dйcision d’envoyer des troupes supplйmentaires en Afghanistan (sommet de l’OTAN, Bucarest, avril 2008).

Nous pouvons les rйsumer ainsi :

- La France participe а une action collective approuvйe par l’ONU ; elle doit кtre aux cфtйs de ses alliйs de l’OTAN ;

- nous devons aider le peuple afghan dont le sort s’est amйliorй а йviter le retour d’un rйgime barbare ;

- nous luttons lа-bas contre le terrorisme international, pour protйger les Franзais de la menace directe du terrorisme.

Examinons un а un chacun de ces arguments :

- La prйsence militaire йtrangиre en Afghanistan a deux composantes : la force internationale d’assistance а la sйcuritй, ou International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), opиre en Afghanistan sous l’йgide de l’OTAN (environ 50 000 hommes de 37 pays) ; elle est mandatйe par les Nations unies ; et des forces pour l’essentiel amйricaines (18 000 sur un total de 36 000 soldats amйricains) dйployйes dans le cadre de l’opйration Libertй immuable, dont l’йtat-major est sur la base de Bagram, et qui en rйfиrent directement au Central Command amйricain. Au total, les Etats-Unis fournissent environ 75% des troupes йtrangиres prйsentes dans ce pays.

De quel poids, dans ces conditions, pиse la prйsence franзaise ? Quand le prйsident Bush dйcide, en 2003, d’envahir l’Irak et de diminuer le nombre de soldats amйricains en Afghanistan, qui consulte-t-il ? Quand il donne le feu vert aux forces terrestres amйricaines pour mener des incursions au Pakistan, en informe-t-il la France ? Quand les bombardiers de l’opйration Libertй immuable ou de l’ISAF mиnent des raids qui font des dizaines de morts civils, consultent-ils la France ? Qui peut croire un instant que la stratйgie de Washington dйpend, mкme dans une mesure limitйe, des avis de la France ?

L’armйe franзaise doit se retirer parce que la France ne peut peser sur le cours des йvйnements. Et que le mandat de l’ONU pour l’ISAF n’a, en rйalitй, aucune signification concrиte, les Etats-Unis dйcidant seuls...

- La situation du peuple afghan, depuis des dйcennies, est terrible. Il a vйcu, depuis la fin des annйes 1970, la guerre soviйtique, les affrontements entre les diffйrentes fractions de moudjahidin aprиs la chute du rйgime communiste, la prise de pouvoir des talibans en 1996 ; et enfin la guerre menйe par les Etats-Unis aprиs le 11-Septembe, guerre qui se poursuit et s’intensifie.

La fin du rйgime des talibans a йtй incontestablement positive, mкme si la population les avait bien accueillis а leur arrivйe au pouvoir : ils avaient mis un terme а l’anarchie et а l’insйcuritй provoquйe par les combats entre les diffйrentes organisations de moudjahidin.

Nicolas Sarkozy explique : « Mesurons les progrиs accomplis : des institutions dйmocratiques avec de nouvelles йlections en 2009/2010 ; la scolarisation de prиs de 6 millions d’enfants contre 800 000 en 2001 ; un systиme de santй qui a permis de rйduire la mortalitй infantile d’un quart : ce sont 40 000 enfants sauvйs chaque annйe ; dans tous les domaines, un progrиs sans prйcйdent de l’йgalitй entre hommes et femmes ; des infrastructures restaurйes ; 4 000 kilomиtres de routes construites… Qui croira que tout ceci aurait йtй possible sans notre prйsence militaire ? »

Ces chiffres sont tirйs d’un rapport publiй а l’occasion de la confйrence internationale de soutien а l’Afghanistan (Paris, 12 juin), Report on the Implementation of the Afghanistan Compact by the joint coordination and monitoring board (JCMB) co-chairs.

Ils appellent une remarque gйnйrale sur leur fiabilitй. A-t-on vraiment les donnйes sur ce qui se passe dans un pays qui, pour l’essentiel, йchappe а l’autoritй centrale ? Qui peut croire un instant que le pourcentage de femmes recevant des soins prйnataux est de 73% ? Si la mortalitй infantile a diminuй d’une maniиre qui a permis de sauver 40 000 vies humaines par an, comment expliquer que les chiffres de l’OMS disent que le taux de mortalitй des enfants avant cinq ans est restй stationnaire entre 2000 et 2005 ?

Parlons du droit des femmes. « Un progrиs sans prйcйdent de l’йgalitй entre hommes et femmes » ? Si on compare quelle situation а quelle situation ? Quelle йpoque ? Dans quels lieux ? Rappelons que l’йpoque oщ les femmes ont disposй du plus de droits, а Kaboul au moins, a йtй la pйriode communiste. L’Occident n’a-t-il pourtant pas prйfйrй aider les moudjahidins ? De son cфtй, George Marchais, secrйtaire gйnйral du PC, justifiait l’intervention soviйtique en Afghanistan au nom de la lutte contre « le droit de cuissage ».

Il est incontestable que, du point de vue juridique, la situation des femmes afghanes est meilleure aujourd’hui que sous les talibans. Au moins, elles ne sont pas exclues des йcoles. Mais ce gouvernement soutenu par l’OTAN garde en prison des femmes « coupables » d’avoir йtй violйes.

Un rapport de la commission afghane indйpendante des droits de la personne rapporte que le nombre de femmes qui tentent de mettre fin а leurs jours en s’immolant est en augmentation rapide (« Afghanistan : Self-immolation on the rise among women ») : au moins 184 cas en 2007 contre 106 en 2006, et le nombre devrait augmenter encore en 2008.

Un autre rapport du ministиre des affaires fйminines, « Women in Afghanistan : Deprived of basic necessities », explique que le niveau de la violence contre les femmes en Afghanistan est le plus йlevй du monde. Et que 57% des filles sont mariйes avant l’вge lйgal.

On pourrait multiplier les exemples... Tirons-en trois leзons :

1) Dans un pays en guerre, les femmes sont une cible particuliиrement vulnйrable. Jamais la guerre n’a apportй des droits supplйmentaires aux femmes ;

2) Malgrй les lois adoptйes sous pression internationale, le gouvernement rйel est aux mains de chefs de guerre qui ont peu de respect pour les droits des femmes, parfois aussi peu que les talibans ;

3) Faire йvoluer une sociйtй ne dйpend pas seulement des lois. La sociйtй afghane est particuliиrement conservatrice. Faire avancer les droits des femmes ne peut se faire de l’йtranger.(...)

[ 18 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

From a discussion board on Russia, a comparison between the development of the Afghan military in the Soviet era versus the development of the Afghan military in the NATO era shows some interesting data ...


Kabulov (Russia's top diplomat in Kabul is Zamir Kabulov) is right, NATO did very little to build up Afghan military forces. Just a little example: during the Soviet engagement there Afghanistan boasted a powerful air force. All pilots were Afghanis. At its best times it was manned by about 7,000 Afghanis and 5,000 foreign instructors and included:

3 Interceptor squadrons (around 40 MiG-21)
4 Fighter-bomber squadrons (around 50 MiG-17)
3 Bomber squadrons (around 20 Il-28)
Transports (around 15 An-26)
Helicopters (around 30 Mi-24, Mi-8, and Mi-4)

In 1988 the first Afghani, an Afghan Air Force pilot, participated in the Soviet space mission. Of course, that flight was a part of a propaganda campaign. But at least it was something.

What did NATO do? I keep seeing bearded militiamen in colorful clothes on CNN when they report on Afghan military. And that's it???

More from Kabulov:


“If the things were going on as it is, it will be first and foremost a complete defeat, military and political and when this will happen is only a question of time,” Zamir Kabulov concluded. In view of this, Kabulov urged NATO to change its tactics and strategy in Afghanistan. “The NATO military presence (in Afghanistan) could be increased further but the move will not solve the problem. Afghanistan’s human resources combined with those in Pakistan, especially in tribal zones where Taliban operates freely now are many times more than the capabilities of NATO countries joined together,” the Russian ambassador said.

He believes that the only solution for NATO is the formation of really efficient Afghan army and police, which is achievable. “The US treasury has to spend on an American soldier more money than an Afghan company. This correlation should be changed and money should be directed to Afghanistan. This is affordable for Americans and NATO,” Zamir Kabulov said.

[url=]Kabulov urges NATO to change its tactics.[/url]

His advice is falling upon deaf ears.

[ 19 September 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Australian troops shoot dead Afghan Governor.

[url='s not going to "win hearts and minds" !!!!!!!![/url]

[url=]Afghan Governor killed in shootout involving Australian troops.[/url]


Australian troops from NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) may have accidentally shot dead an Afghan district governor on September 17, the Bahtar news agency said on Friday.

The agency said that Rozi Khan, the governor of the Chora district in southern Afghanistan's province of Uruzgan, was killed during a shootout involving Australian troops in the region. The firefight happened near the Australian Defense Force (ADF) base.

Rozi Khan was also a former police chief. I guess this killing by the Auz military isn't going to help develop the Afghan police either?

And it's 5,6,7,8,
what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me
I don't give a damn
next stop is Viet Nam ...

[ 19 September 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


LOL, good post Beltov.

But do the math:

There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. That makes 34 corrupt, murdering, thieving, traitorous governors kept in power solely thanks to foreign "help".

One governor killed by friendly fire is only 2.9%.

I'd call that an acceptable margin of collateral damage, compared to the overall benefit.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

There ought to be a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley. I had to read your post a couple of times before I was able to figure it out. Damn I'm dumb. Or tired.


Sorry 'bout that, Beltov. Believe it or not, I was actually looking around for a fitting emoticon to tack on, but then just posted as is.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]His advice is falling upon deaf ears.[/b]

And thank the FSM for that!

The last thing we need is a powerful and efficient Afghan army, air force, and police under the direction of the puppet Karzai government.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

My point was that NATO is failing miserably in its stated goals. OTOH, NATO is wildly successful in killing Afghan civilians, blowing wedding parties and blushing brides into body parts, restoring Afghanistan to its "rightful" place as the biggest exporter of opiates and/or heroin on Planet Earth, and so on. Let freedom reign! NOT.


[url=]C... heroes murder another Afghan civilian[/url]


A male passenger in an Afghan vehicle died after Canadian soldiers fired on a civilian truck that was driving toward their military convoy Thursday evening.

The soldiers were travelling through Kandahar City at about 8:30 p.m. when the transport truck loaded with fruit approached their convoy, said military officials.

Soldiers in the convoy, fearing a suicide attack, tried repeatedly to get the driver to turn away before eventually firing a warning shot, said officials.

"Neither the warning signals nor the warning shot were heeded," said military spokesman Lt. Alain Blondin.

The soldiers then fired two additional shots from the turret cannon on a light-armoured vehicle, stopping the truck, and a subsequent investigation revealed one of the occupants was killed.

[b]The soldiers had followed proper escalation of force procedures, said Blondin.[/b]

"Not guilty", says the spokesperson for the murderers.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url= military blog on "escalation of force" procedures[/url]


[url= soldiers unprepared for Taliban ambush: report [/url]

[i]The French did not have enough bullets, radios and other equipment, the report said. The troops were forced to abandon a counterattack when the weapons on their vehicles ran out of ammunition only 90 minutes into a battle that stretched over two days.

One French platoon had only a single radio and it was quickly disabled, leaving them unable to call for help.

Chillingly, in an indication that the French troopers may have been at the mercy of their attackers, the dead soldiers from that platoon “showed signs of being killed at close range,” the report said.[/i]

[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]


Who knew that Canada had it's own Christopher Hitchens? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]



While praising the performance of U.S. and French troops under the onslaught, the report singled out the Afghan soldiers for criticism.

Of course you gotta praise the NATO troops. Never, ever criticize the performance of the godly troops. Kevlar body armour makes soldiers immune to criticism.


“The ANA performed very poorly,” the report said. “The ANA force spent much of the time lounging on the battlefield. When they finally dispersed, most left their military equipment [including] weapons ID cards, and other items for the enemy.”

My word, it's so hard to find good help these days. If they aren't stealing your silverwear, they're abandoning your Crusader occupation forces to slaughter by their countrymen. You just can't trust your hired people anymore.



Originally posted by Jingles:
My word, it's so hard to find good help these days. If they aren't stealing your silverwear, they're abandoning your Crusader occupation forces to slaughter by their countrymen. You just can't trust your hired people anymore.[/b]

That is the truth.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Or at least, the [b]ironic version[/b] of the truth.


A small point, except maybe it's not that small, from the blog "Torch" linked to above by M Spector...


Doug Beazley of the Sun Media group noted these signs last year, but wasn't optimistic about their use:

On the back of their armoured RG 31 vehicle hung a sign painted in bright red Arabic characters. "What does it mean?" I asked.

"It says 'Keep back 50 feet from vehicle,'" said Adams. "Which is kinda stupid, 'cause from 50 feet back you can't read the sign.

"And if you get close enough to read it, chances are we're already shooting at you."

The signs are in Arabic. It's also noted later in the piece that most Afghans speak either Pashto or Dari, with a handful of other languages being less common.

Arabic is not a language spoken in the country. Anyone who seriously studies the Koran will have some exposure to the language, but that's like expecting me to be able to be conversant in Latin because I used to be an alter boy.



I am pretty sure that Doug Beazley is wrong in saying those signs are in Arabic.

(Another journalist that does not know what he/she is talking about, maybe a topic for another thread)

I am about 90% sure that those signs are in written in Pasthun.


M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I must admit it does look like Pashto.

But then, like half of the men in Afghanistan, I am illiterate in Pashto.


That is why the ISAF also does education, shuras and radio programs.



Originally posted by oldgoat:
[b]The signs are in Arabic. [/b]

They're in Arabic [i]characters[/i]. Many Muslim countries used, or still use, Arabic script for their languages, even though the language may have no common origin whatsoever with Arabic. Examples: Ottoman Turkish, Urdu (Pakistan), and of course the various Afghan languages.

So Beazley isn't wrong.


Saudi influence in Afghanistan? No way? [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]



Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Saudi influence in Afghanistan?[/b]

The only Saudi influence in Afghanistan is via their close ally - the United States.

As for Al Qaeda, when was the last year anyone heard that name in connection with the Afghan insurgency? There used to be a "babbler" who insisted that the Canadian "mission" was against Al Qaeda, but he's mercifully no longer around.

Jerry West


Taliban win over locals at the gates of Kabul

While clashes in remote Helmand dominate the headlines, another battle is being waged by the insurgents on Kabul's doorstep. There, the Taliban are winning support by building a parallel administration, which is more effective, more popular and more brutal than the government's....

[url=]Link to Article[/url]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture


Most of [Wardak] province's 800,000 inhabitants, mainly peasants, go to the insurgents for rough but often effective justice.

"I can't blame them," Ishaqzai [a government judge in Wardak] said. "A court case in the government system takes five years and many bribes. The Taliban will settle it in an afternoon."

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]


This article was linked to and discussed here [url= August 24[/url]. Still an important article, though.

Why don't you spend all your time here like we do, Jerry? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Seriously though, your knowledge of the subject is always helpful.



Originally posted by unionist:

The only Saudi influence in Afghanistan is via their close ally - the United States[/b]

Yes-yes! [url=]The Talibanization of Pakistan & Afghanistan[/url]


I think we deliberately got rid of the moderate elements which could have been powerful during the Soviet invasion. We removed them from the scene, and I think the CIA also went along in that. I think there were many right-wing activists in the United States who encouraged Pakistan to go that way. But what happened in the process was that as our youth went into Afghanistan to get training, they became a certain kind of Muslims. In Afghanistan, the predominant school of thought is what is called Deobandi, which is a puritanical kind of Islam. And the Barelvis, who are a majority in Pakistan, could not go there because there was no tolerance for Lower Church in Afghanistan. And that started the conflict.

Afghanistan is unlucky in the sense that the "Taliban Islam" they got was not really their Islam. Now that Karzai is in power, he has suspended all the Taliban laws, saying, "They are not our laws at all." [b]Which meant that this new thinking, extremist Islamic thinking, went from Pakistani seminaries, seminaries of High Church, Deobandi brand, which could not be implemented in Pakistan, but found fertile ground in Kabul and Kandahar.[/b] Now that Pakistanis complain of "Talibanization," they should realize that the new stringent laws against women and against the minorities actually went from our seminaries.

And unemployed Islamic Gladios were transplanted from Afghanistan to the Balkans for the CIA-British campaign to destablize 1990's Bosnia-Yugoslavia.


Obama has sworn to cross the Pakistani border in the hunt for "terrorists". He is in for a rude awakening:

[url= raids on Taleban and al-Qaeda targets in Pakistani territory have caused outrage in Pakistan.[/url]


And that has added to the loathing that some people there have long felt for the way that the US conducts itself on the world stage, as Owen Bennett-Jones discovers.

"I would rather live in the dark ages under the Taleban than be subservient to any foreign power."

The unexpected comment comes from an urbane, sophisticated and, I had always thought, Westernised Pashtun lawyer.

He wears none of the badges of Islamic piety - a beard, for example - and he normally sports a navy blazer not the local shalwar kameez.

He is a former minister with the Pakistan People's Party, the most liberal in Pakistan. ...

"I can deal with Taleban, they are my own people. They come from here. I know them.

"I will be able to get around them. But the Americans never. No way."


Indeed. I can think of few things which would unite a people, who's disunitedness is legendary, than being attacked by US forces. There would not only be the tough and resilient people who live in the area of the Durand line, but the Pakistani military. It should be noted that this is a very tough, professional and kick-ass little army.

It's been observed that US forces are indefeatable in standard warefare, though they can't handle occupations and insurgencies. Given how over extended and exhausted they are, they could actually have their asses handed to them in straight-up warfare in Pakistan.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture


Just one year ago, the Taliban insurgency was a furtive, loosely organized guerrilla force that carried out hit-and-run ambushes, burned empty schools, left warning letters at night and concentrated attacks in the southern rural regions of its ethnic and religious heartland.

Today it is a larger, better armed and more confident militia, capable of mounting sustained military assaults. Its forces operate in virtually every province and control many districts in areas ringing the capital. Its fighters have bombed embassies and prisons, nearly assassinated the president, executed foreign aid workers and hanged or beheaded dozens of Afghans.

The new Taliban movement has created a parallel government structure that includes defense and finance councils and appoints judges and officials in some areas. It offers cash to recruits and presents letters of introduction to local leaders. It operates Web sites and a 24-hour propaganda apparatus that spins every military incident faster than Afghan and Western officials can manage.

"This is not the Taliban of Emirate times. It is a new, updated generation," said Waheed Mojda, a former foreign ministry aide under the Taliban Islamic Emirate, which ruled most of the country from 1996 to 2001. "They are more educated, and they don't punish people for having CDs or cassettes," he said. "The old Taliban wanted to bring sharia, security and unity to Afghanistan. The new Taliban has much broader goals -- to drive foreign forces out of the country and the Muslim world."

In late 2001, U.S. forces made common cause with ethnic groups in Afghanistan's north to overthrow the Taliban, in response to Osama bin Laden's use of the country as a base. Hamid Karzai was tapped as president by the United States and other powers, then elected to the job. In the early years, much of the deeply conservative Muslim country was largely peaceful and secure.

[b]Over the past two years, the Taliban's revival has been fueled by fast-growing popular dissatisfaction with Karzai's government, which has failed to bring services and security to much of the country. Deepening public resentment against civilian deaths caused by U.S. and NATO alliance airstrikes is another factor.[/b]

No one here believes that the insurgents, estimated at 10,000 to 15,000 fighters, are currently capable of seizing the capital of Kabul or toppling the government, which is backed by more than 130,000 international troops. But a series of spectacular urban attacks in recent months, notably the bombing of the Indian Embassy and an armed assault on a parade reviewing stand where Karzai sat, have turned Kabul into a maze of bunkers and barricades that drive officialdom ever farther from the public.

[url= Post, Sept. 20[/url]



Just one year ago, the Taliban insurgency was a furtive, loosely organized guerrilla force that carried out hit-and-run ambushes, burned empty schools, left warning letters at night and concentrated attacks in the southern rural regions of its ethnic and religious heartland.

Today it is a larger, better armed and more confident militia, capable of mounting sustained military assaults. Its forces operate in virtually every province and control many districts in areas ringing the capital. Its fighters have bombed embassies and prisons, nearly assassinated the president, executed foreign aid workers and hanged or beheaded dozens of Afghans.

I disagree, the Taliban were operating in 300 man groups in as early of spring of 2006 and were assassinating officials and other people that disagree with them.

Taliban groups have never been a loosely organized guerrilla force, they are very structure.

Their tactics and weapons have not changed since 1980s nor have their objectives.


The new Taliban has much broader goals -- to drive foreign forces out of the country and the Muslim world."

Does this almost sound like an international organization?


[url=]An Afghan Woman Who Stands Up to the Warlords[/url] August


Afghanistan lives in the fear of the US-sponsored war lords. These hated warlords are not scared by the Taliban-monster raising its head in the south. Ironically, they live in the fear of an unarmed girl in her late twenties: Malalai Joya. To silence Joya’s defiant voice, war lords dominating national parliament, suspended Joy’s membership for three years in 2007. Earlier, at almost every parliamentary session she attended, she had her hair pulled or physically attacked and called names (‘whore’). ‘They even threatened me in the parliament with rape’, she says. But she neither toned down her criticism of war lords (‘they must be tried’) nor US occupation (‘war on terror’ is a mockery). Understandably, she’s been declared the ‘bravest woman in Afghanistan’ and even compared with Aung Sun Suu Kyi . . .

[b]Why is the USA letting all this happen?[/b]

[b]Joya:[/b] The USA wants the things as they are. The status quo. [b]A bleeding, suffering Afghanistan is a good excuse to prolong its stay. Now they are even embracing the Taliban.[/b] Recently, in Musa Qila, a Taliban commander Mulla Salam was appointed as governor by Karzai. The USA has no problem with the Taliban so long as it’s ‘our Taliban’.

Must keep colonies suppressed, poverty-stricken and in chaos. Desperately poor people easier to rule over than healthy and well educated. Old ideas.

[ 20 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


[url=]Pakistan troops repel U.S. raid[/url]


Pakistani troops have fired at two US helicopters forcing them back into Afghanistan, local Pakistani intelligence officials say.

The helicopters flew into the tribal North Waziristan region from Afghanistan's Khost province at around midnight, the reports say.

Last week Pakistani troops fired into the air to prevent US ground troops crossing the border further south.

martin dufresne

I think it quite possible that this weekend's bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was the work not of "Islamists" but of the U.S. government wanting to instil the fear of the Talibans in the population and to detabilize a new government hostile to a U.S. invasion. It's happened before. It would explain the abrupt, unexplained, last-minute cancellation of a dinner meeting the new Pakistan president was supposed to have there.

remind remind's picture


Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I think it quite possible that this weekend's bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was the work not of "Islamists" but of the U.S. government wanting to instil the fear of the Talibans in the population and to detabilize a new government hostile to a U.S. invasion. It's happened before. It would explain the abrupt, unexplained, last-minute cancellation of a dinner meeting the new Pakistan president was supposed to have there.[/b]

A "gladio" operation? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Moreover, having the Czechoslovakian Ambassador die in the bombing is also a geo-political move which brings Czechoslovakians aligned firmly on the USA's side.

[ 22 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


There's no such place as Czechoslovakia. Which I suppose makes them a fitting ally for the U.S.

remind remind's picture

hmm, I thought I heard that the Czechoslovakian ambassador was killed? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Sound check overheard:


Check. Czech. Slovak.

martin dufresne

It was Ivo Zdarek, the ambassador from the Czech Republic, who was living at the Marriott.

remind remind's picture

Oops, pardon me Czech Republic then. [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]


[url=]Insurgents abduct [b][i]140 labourers[/i][/b] in south-west Afghanistan[/url]

Methinks the insurgency is growing stronger...


That is strange, they normally just execute them.

remind remind's picture

Hmmm, and the truth leaked out...perhaps he did not realize what he was saying


"But I'm realistic about politics here in Europe.[b] My view is that governments here in Europe understand the importance of Afghanistan.[/b] They just aren't able to do certain kinds of things, and we understand that."




Originally posted by remind:
[b] A "gladio" operation? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

I never considered it. But apparently both you and Peter Chamberlin did, while Michael Hayden and his predecessors have for a long time.

[url=]CIA provoking war in Pakistan[/url]


Michael Hayden said the clandestine agency is using Predator missile attacks to “tickle” enemy groups, to provoke a reaction.
“We use military operations to excite the enemy, prompting him to respond.”
The agency director was jokingly referring to the policy of committing multiple mass-murders of innocent citizens of Pakistan, as a tactic for provoking retaliation by their relatives. This immoral terrorist act is considered to be a legitimate military strategy by the demented CIA mind. It sees no wrong in committing criminal acts, to cause others to commit further criminal acts, as a rationale for starting a divisive world war for resources, under the guise of “self-defense.” The idea that committing acts of war, to cause a greater war is not a war crime itself, is a product of a deranged psychopathic mind. This psychopathic mind personified by the CIA is the scourge of mankind.

Murder Inc. aren't above doing anything along these lines. No morals no scruples no conscience, just fill out an application and welcome to the company.


Topic locked