Afghanistan insurgency surges

117 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2010-06-04 20:39

Fidel

The point is that some of those frothing at the mouth over "Taliban Jack" at every turn in this thread tend to believe at least a little of what Uncle Sam and our stooges in Ottawa are telling them about this phony-balogna "war" in Afghanistan. Don't be so naive. They are lying to you.

Try listening to what Afghans have to say for a change. Afterall, it is their country. Afghans might know a thing or two about what's been happening in Afghanistan over the last 30 years. I know they are foreigners who don't all spreken ze Americano, like our stooges and vicious toadies in Ottawa do so well. But they've been there, lived it, and have the T-shirts to prove it.

Fri, 2010-06-04 20:41

#103

Jingles

[i]That's[/i] your point? Jesus murphy, everyone know they're lying. We don't need you to tell us that. The difference is that we know Taliban Jack is lying too. You don't seem to think so.

You keep going on and on about a "phony war". Ya. We know. It's all staged. But Canada is part of the Crusader army, and you can't seem to make up your mind if that's good or bad.

You really have to stop framing things through the lens of partisan hackery.

Fri, 2010-06-04 20:54

#104

Polunatic2

Quote:
So from now on if anyone wants to know what Afghans think and have to say about a phony colder war on that side of the world, google it.

I'm fine following the lead of Afghan MP Malalai Joya. The Afghan people are not of one mind when it comes to their future.

Fri, 2010-06-04 20:56

#105

Fidel

So what are you blathering on about? You haven't said a single coherent thing in this thread. "Blah-blah, Taliban Jack and the Indian Act" I'm sorry, Jingles, but the Indian Act was down to our two dirty old line parties, too. NDP had nothing to do with Canadian apartheid rule in Ottawa.

And whenever you do get a clue, we can be sure you'll let us know. In the mean time, try listening to what "the brown people" have to say about Yanqui meddling in their own country over the last 30 years and running.

It's a bullshit war.

Fri, 2010-06-04 23:32

#106

Jingles

You spend more time trying to deflect attention from the NDP than anything else.

It's funny you trying to lecture me on listening to what the occupied want, when you're the one calling for "peace talks" which would necessarily mean legitimizing the occupation. You don't ask the burglar to dinner to discuss what he's gonna steal.

When [i]your[/i] dirty old line party grows a spine and comes out against the occupation, let me know. You can cry about the liberals and conservatives all you want, but without any party voicing opposition to colonialism and imperialism, they have free reign.

Sat, 2010-06-05 00:41

#107

NDPP

What is Obama Doing at Bagram?

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/06/04/what-is-obama-doing-at-bagra...

"Reporting from Kabul, James Bays claimed, 'The Afghans wouldn't want to take control of these detainees when [the prison] came under Afghan control, and that's why America is talking to some of the governments where these prisoners come from to see if they will take these prisoners.'

This explanation may well contain a kernel of truth, but it also conveniently overlooks the fact that disposing of the prisoners will enable the US government to avoid having to explain why it seized the men in the first place and what was done to them in secret CIA prisons before they even arrived at Bagram.."

The Canadian detainee issue is of course related. There is a vested interest in all parties colluding to avoid exposing Canada to war crimes involving the POW transfer/torture issue - not only to the Afghans but likely to the Americans as well..not to mention the obvious 'biggie' of the waging of aggressive war there contrary to international law in the first place..

Sat, 2010-06-05 00:45

#108

Fidel

Jingles wrote:
It's funny you trying to lecture me on listening to what the occupied want, when you're the one calling for "peace talks" which would necessarily mean legitimizing the occupation.

Yes, what would Afghans know?

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ibU9qoJ1LY&feature=player_embedded]Afghan jirga calls for peace commission to end war[/url] Video

[url=http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100531/FOREIGN/70... community leaders want insurgents in peace council[/url]

[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvWEqwq3CrRvaQCmt21Mfo... peace conference starts[/url]

Malalai Joya wrote:
"They insult us with this word 'peace,'" she said. "They want only to make unity with these bloody criminal warlords and with the Taliban and the terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

The NDP doesn't vote with the other wing of the Liberal Party in phony minority government over 80 times. Liberals are the same Uncle Sam ass-kissing vicious toadies that the Conservatives are. Except the Conservatives aren't quite as ssssstupid.

It's a bullshit war.

Sat, 2010-06-05 01:09

#109

Fidel

Jingles wrote:

When [i]your[/i] dirty old line party grows a spine and comes out against the occupation, let me know.

Did you [url=http://archive.ndp.ca/troops]sign the NDP's petition to bring the troops home?[/url]

[url=http://archive.ndp.ca/page/4117]Wrong mission for Canada: Layton calls for troop withdrawal[/url] 2006

Jack Layton wrote:
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadas-next-steps-in-afghanistan]We missed the opportunity[/url] for more rigorous diplomacy over the past seven[EIGHT] years in Afghanistan. We must now act with determination to achieve lasting stability and peace in the region.

Without a focused framework and diplomatic muscle, the great efforts and sacrifices made to date will go less rewarded.

We missed the opportunity to be viewed by the rest of the world as a real country with real leadership using diplomacy toward ending this phony war in Afghanistan.

Why have our two old line party leaders allowed themselves to be led half-way around the world by their nose hairs? WHY?

Because Liberal and Tory stooges are mere vicious toadies, lap poodles for Uncle Sam who know only to follow orders from Warshington. Trust and obey, it's the only way they understand.

End the bullshit Yanqui war for a resource grab in Afghanistan. End the bullshit war that has the USSA supporting both sides of the US-backed theocracy in feudal Afghanistan, the Pro-Mooj Karzai regime and the Taliban.

Sat, 2010-06-05 01:21

#110

Frmrsldr

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Here is the most common rocket fired by the Taliban... it's spin stabilized area fire weapon and losses accuracy the farther out you shoot it.

The reason behind the lack of information is more to not show the Taliban how effective their indirect fire aim is with those rockets than to hide the number of casualties from our counties populations. The rockets we are talking about are indirect area fire weapons which are not that accurate; especially the way the Taliban fire them. Their mortar fire isn't that much better due to a number of reasons I'm sure you don't want me to bore you with. What this all means is those firing the rockets can't see what they hit so they need another way to find out how effective their aim points are; so they use casualty reports provided no less by their target. (Kind'a smart if you ask me.)

So, yes, the Taliban are clever enough to use casualties' reports to adjust their aim points for those rockets. I'd imagine it kind of goes like this: we shoot at these area coordinates and we don't hear about many real casualties... we shoot at these area coordinates and we hear 10 guys got hurt so there must be something there; let's keep firing there.

I'm not for us being in Afghanistan (with our regular armies), it's a waste, but I'm also not up for helping the Taliban neither.

That's bullshit for four reasons:

1. We publish the incidents where soldiers are killed. If they were killed by rocket or mortar attack, then what the hell's the difference if we publish the number of wounded?

2. Rockets and mortars are inaccurate weapons. The insurgents usually use them against bases. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many casualties they produce. The purpose is psychological and propagandistic. The message is: "We can hit you where you think you are most secure at any time and there isn't a thing you can do about it."

3. We have many Afghans working on our base(s) who are family, friends and members of the insurgents/insurgent groups (of which we have no fucking idea about). After a rocket or mortar attack, they inform the insurgents of the accuracy and effectiveness of their strike(s).

4. If the insurgents were to learn the best firing positions, then we would be able to get a 'fix' on them, thus rendering those positions deadly and therefore, useless to the insurgents.

Sat, 2010-06-05 01:46

#111

Fidel

Polunatic2 wrote:
Here's a solution. If we were to withdraw our troops, there would be no further casualties to report.

Jack Layton hasn't mentioned Afghanistan much in some time. According to the rabid anti-NDP rhetoric, this can only be interpreted as the NDP now supports the US-led Military occupation.

Come to think of it, neither the ReformaTories or the Fiberals have mentioned massive corporate tax cuts or rubber-stamping any new US takeovers of Canadian companies or valuable public assets in the last few months.

If the rabid anti-NDP rhetoric is anything to go by, then this can only mean that Tory and Fiberal Parties are now socialists and have reversed their positions on corporate tax giveaways and selling us down the Mississippi. Poor Canada. Apparently the only exercise some of us get is jumping to whacky conclusions.

Sat, 2010-06-05 01:49

#112

Webgear

Rockets and mortars are inaccurate weapons? If they are inaccurate weapons how can they produce a psychological effect?

Considering a majority of attacks occur after the Afghans have left the base, how can they judge the effectiveness of inaccurate attacks?

Sat, 2010-06-05 02:25

#113

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Rockets and mortars are inaccurate weapons? If they are inaccurate weapons how can they produce a psychological effect?

C'mon Webgear, you're smarter than that. They're a weapon. Weapons have the potential to kill. That alone instills fear. Fear is psychological. The Germans installed sirens on their Stuka (dive bombers) in World War II. A siren, of itself, is not (normally considered) a weapon. A siren cannot (normally) kill or injure. Yet it was a psychological weapon. Why? When you pair a stimulus (in this case, a siren) with another stimulus (Stukas dropping bombs and strafing) with a resulting consequence - people being scared, running, dropping to the ground, dying, being injured, it doesn't take too many repeated occurences before one associates the sound of that siren with fear and a sense of helplessness. The body of science that studies this is behavioral psychology. It's what the military intelligence psy ops spooks used in Vietnam and are using in Afghanistan.

Webgear wrote:

Considering a majority of attacks occur after the Afghans have left the base,...

Were that the case, then the U.S./NATO/ISAF troops could use the sudden departure of all the Afghans on their bases at once as an alarm to warn them of an impending attack, dontcha think?

Sat, 2010-06-05 02:39

#114

Webgear

At what time do most rocket and mortar attacks occur? When are Afghan workers on the base? How are rockets launched in Kandahar Province? What is the range of a 107mm rocket? How many rocket/mortar attacks occur per month? How do Afghans aim their rockets? When was the last effective rocket attack on Kandahar Airfield?

Do you have anytime/experiences in Kandahar Province? Because it appears to me you do not know what you are talking about. Not that there is nothing wrong with that however maybe you should educate yourself before speaking about subjects you are not familiar with.

Sat, 2010-06-05 03:17

#115

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

At what time do most rocket and mortar attacks occur? When are Afghan workers on the base? How are rockets launched in Kandahar Province? What is the range of a 107mm rocket? How many rocket/mortar attacks occur per month? How do Afghans aim their rockets? When was the last effective rocket attack on Kandahar Airfield?

Rocket attacks occur at any time. If they occurred at predictable times, then U.S./NATO/ISAF forces would counter them more effectively. Rockets are launched in Kandahar province the same way they are launched anywhere else. The range of a 107mm rocket can be found on the internet, but it's not essential information: one can get a fix on the insurgents' firing position if one knows the trajectory of the rocket and the direction it came from and/or saw the initial smoke and dust from the position it was fired. The number of rocket/mortar attacks per month can be found searching the internet, if one has a profound desire for such information. Afghans fire their rockets the same as anybody else: "Point and shoot." You don't need to be a 'rocket scientist' to fire a rocket, especially if the rockets are simple/simpler than Katyusha type rockets (correct me if I'm wrong on the technology.) Depends what you mean by "effective"? In terms of casualties and damage? Militarily? Psychologically/propagandistically? Psy/propaganda, the last effective rocket attack on Kandahar Airfield was just the other day.

Webgear wrote:

Do you have anytime/experiences in Kandahar Province? Because it appears to me you do not know what you are talking about. Not that there is nothing wrong with that however maybe you should educate yourself before speaking about subjects you are not familiar with.

Nice try Webgear. Your attempt to intimidate and silence me by raising unimportant and irrelevant military techno babble questions failed and makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about - especially when it comes to logical/intellectual discourse. You know that ol' sayin': "Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter, boss!"

Sat, 2010-06-05 04:07

#116

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Here is the most common rocket fired by the Taliban... it's spin stabilized area fire weapon and losses accuracy the farther out you shoot it.

The reason behind the lack of information is more to not show the Taliban how effective their indirect fire aim is with those rockets than to hide the number of casualties from our counties populations. The rockets we are talking about are indirect area fire weapons which are not that accurate; especially the way the Taliban fire them. Their mortar fire isn't that much better due to a number of reasons I'm sure you don't want me to bore you with. What this all means is those firing the rockets can't see what they hit so they need another way to find out how effective their aim points are; so they use casualty reports provided no less by their target. (Kind'a smart if you ask me.)

So, yes, the Taliban are clever enough to use casualties' reports to adjust their aim points for those rockets. I'd imagine it kind of goes like this: we shoot at these area coordinates and we don't hear about many real casualties... we shoot at these area coordinates and we hear 10 guys got hurt so there must be something there; let's keep firing there.

I'm not for us being in Afghanistan (with our regular armies), it's a waste, but I'm also not up for helping the Taliban neither.

That's bullshit for four reasons:

1. We publish the incidents where soldiers are killed. If they were killed by rocket or mortar attack, then what the hell's the difference if we publish the number of wounded?

2. Rockets and mortars are inaccurate weapons. The insurgents usually use them against bases. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many casualties they produce. The purpose is psychological and propagandistic. The message is: "We can hit you where you think you are most secure at any time and there isn't a thing you can do about it."

3. We have many Afghans working on our base(s) who are family, friends and members of the insurgents/insurgent groups (of which we have no fucking idea about). After a rocket or mortar attack, they inform the insurgents of the accuracy and effectiveness of their strike(s).

4. If the insurgents were to learn the best firing positions, then we would be able to get a 'fix' on them, thus rendering those positions deadly and therefore, useless to the insurgents.

That's your opinion and you bring up some good points. Still one of the reasons for the vague casualty reports at times is for exactly the reason I said. In the end Canada and the USA cannot hide casualties. The dead and wounded have to return home and families have to be notified that still makes the news, national or local; it's still news and people will know about it.

Or are you saying there have been unreported Canadian dead over in Afghanistan that are just left there for their families to wonder why they never returned? That's bullshit as well (and you know it).

I don't want us over there anymore than you do but I have a conundrum I suspect you don't have to deal with; cheering on the Taliban is just too creepy for me.

Edit: Webgear I respect Fmrsldr for his opinion, sometimes he's a bit over the top for me but still he's been there in harm's way and I can respect that. Allot of launchers are found with timers on them... they set 'em up, leave and the rocket(s) fires after some time passes. This avoids the counter fire. The only way to really get the team is to catch them setting up... and that happenes from time to time (see YOUTUBE). As Fmrsldr implied the key is to keep them moving around; that reduces the accuracy so they can't concentrate on one target area that well from one spot.

Sat, 2010-06-05 06:47

#117

Maysie

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked