It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Taliban's terror tactics reconquer Afghanistan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   



Taliban's terror tactics reconquer Afghanistan

"If we die, we are martyrs - if we live, we are victors," say the Taliban in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. They have taken control of the area in less than two weeks. For, with ever accelerating speed, the Taliban are reconquering south-west Afghanistan from the government, American and Nato forces sent to fight them.

More...



:shk:

I suppose this is not the result of Bush and his administration's excellent sense of "strategery".






posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I suppose this is not the result of Bush and his administration's excellent sense of "strategery".


NATO is in command of operations in southern Afghanistan.

www.afnorth.nato.int..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> NATO discusses the fighting in the Panjwayi district.

Kandahar is about 50mi. from the northern boarder of Pakistan and the Panjwayi region is frequently in flux from the bleeding over of militants from the uncontrolled regions throughout northern Pakistan.

mg



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
NATO is in command of operations in southern Afghanistan.


And you think their gain happened as a result of NATO???



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
And you think their gain happened as a result of NATO???


There have been quite a few intense days of conflict in the region, NATO is (as reported in multiple news sources) on top and in control....so there is no gain, period.

But if NATO were to loose control...are you saying it would still be Bush's fault?...ge over it...

NATO has been involoved since 2003.

mg



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
So after the Nine Eleven Event the current administration smacks the UN in the face, goes it alone into Afghan - which our leader can’t find on a map - and invade the country without a declaration of war, rampage over there hunting for our new nemesis, OBL. We hire some old time war lords to do our grunt work for us, then get distracted by our own claims of victory and worse, out government beginning to believe its own propaganda.

Then we strike out for the near Middle East and pre-empt strike another country on a false goose chase looking for that which is not there. That one does not go well at all. We get stretched so thin we have to cut back on the guard mount at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Geez. We finally snooker the NATO into tackling the mess we left behind in Afghan and now it’s suggested that if the NATO forces “go down” it is their fault and not ours?

This is the same shift the burden philosophy that underlies the irresponsible budget deficits. Let somebody else pay for our fun. Hmm.

We have created one heck of a mess around the world following the Nine Eleven Event. Which was mishandled from Day 1. We are being “whipsawed” by the bad guys into certain defeat and national bankruptcy. It is a sad day.

To vote for an auto forum
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 8/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
So after the Nine Eleven Event the current administration smacks the UN in the face, goes it alone into Afghan - which our leader can’t find on a map - and invade the country without a declaration of war, rampage over there hunting for our new nemesis, OBL.

The US has not made a formal declaration of war since 1941. The US went in to Afghanistan with British forces...not so alone. No? The UN never made any formal objections to the war in Afghanistan. I see no relevance in your above staments to the topic:

Originally posted by loam
Taliban's terror tactics reconquer Afghanistan

Which is not only misleading…it is false.


Originally posted by donwhite
Then we strike out for the near Middle East and pre-empt strike another country on a false goose chase looking for that which is not there. That one does not go well at all. We get stretched so thin we have to cut back on the guard mount at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Geez.

WMD was not the only reason the US invaded Iraq, albeit it is the only reason people conveniently regurgitate (no...not oil either).


Originally posted by donwhite
We finally snooker the NATO into tackling the mess we left behind in Afghan and now it’s suggested that if the NATO forces “go down” it is their fault and not ours?

NATO was involved since day one…remember George invoked the treaty? C’mon quit with the spin crap.


Originally posted by donwhite
We have created one heck of a mess around the world following the Nine Eleven Event. Which was mishandled from Day 1. We are being “whipsawed” by the bad guys into certain defeat and national bankruptcy.


The mess was already there. We are being lead to defeat from within…not outside forces and the US is far from bankruptcy (despite the hidden desires of most)….however both the debt and deficit spending alludes most in understanding...


mg



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
All I can say over & over again! NATO is evil cause they belong to the United Nations.
But my main point is that if the Soviet Union in it's hey day of military power could not take out & conquer Afghanistan, then how they hell can a rag tag army of Nato "peace keepers" do the job with sub standard equipment and a command structure that relays "intel" through a series of officers whose actual loyalty maybe that of conflict for religious beliefs & past atrocities commited by various Gov'ts in the name of "peace".
I'm saying this cause for some reason Nato troops are on Canadian money instead of Canadian troops. Canadians have been sent all over the world as Nato peace keepers and all ways with substandard faulty out dated equipment compiled with orders "don't shoot back" and in some cases the troops weren't allowed to even have ammunition.
The Soviet Union had to answer to no one, Most Nato members have the press tattletailing on them.
Afghanistan is not going to be conquered ever. Alexander the Great only gained a temporary lasting control of the region trhough intermarriage and a powerfull tribal chiefs daughter.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
All I can say over & over again! NATO is evil cause they belong to the United Nations.

While members of NATO are also members of the UN…NATO operates under the political guide of the North Atlantic Counsel (NAC) and NATO forces in Afghanistan are NOT under UN command. The ISAF responsibilities are those of the JSF.


Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
But my main point is that if the Soviet Union in it's hey day of military power could not take out & conquer Afghanistan, then how they hell can a rag tag army of Nato "peace keepers" do the job with sub standard equipment and a command structure that relays "intel" through a series of officers whose actual loyalty maybe that of conflict for religious beliefs & past atrocities commited by various Gov'ts in the name of "peace".

The soviets would have completely conquered the country; however with the addition of many levels of US support to the locals with money, training and general arms supply all caused the Soviet control to grind to a halt…along with the loss of her political will at home.

NATO forces in Afghanistan are far from “rag-tag” and your description of the NATO forces Afghanistan chain of command is far from correct.

The rest of the comments that follow the above quoted material must have been made because of some confusion between NATO and UN Peacekeepers…two totally different animals. 35+nations are currently operating in Afghanistan under NATO command…and yes, Canada has some of her troops there, but certainly not the majority.


Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Afghanistan is not going to be conquered ever

Afghanistan has been ‘conquered’…the current NATO goal is to eventually relinquish the full security of the country back to the Afghanis…something Alexander would never do…big difference.

Quick question, given your name are you Nepalese?

mg



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Nope, not nepalese, Batoche was a battle fought in Saskatchewan Canada between the Metis, & Aboriginals versus Britain/Canada headed by once traitor now politically redefined as hero "Louis Reil", who was hanged in Regina, Sask for treason to the "crown" but will soon appear on the "crowns money/coins".

Afghanistan has not been conquered, only the capital city.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   


posted by missed_gear

The US has not made a formal declaration of war since 1941. The US went in to Afghanistan with British forces . . No? The UN never made any formal objections to the war in Afghanistan. I see no relevance in your above staments to the topic:

The mess was already there. We are being lead to defeat from within . . not outside forces . . the US is far from bankruptcy (despite the hidden desires of most) . . however both the debt and deficit spending alludes most in understanding . . "



That's what Sen. Joe McCarthy said. And some have said Jane Fonda won the war in Vietnam despie our 550,000 soldiers. Hmm?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
My apologies for the lapse in time…


Originally posted by donwhite
That's what Sen. Joe McCarthy said.


About what?...Commies under the bed. “Tail-gunner” could not exist today, different day, class and era….however a really good call….but even loosely associated parallels fall by the wayside… Albeit, the “idea” of this association possibly roots itself at a cursory glance….reality today is at the other end of the recognizable spectrum.


Originally posted by donwhite
And some have said Jane Fonda won the war in Vietnam despie our 550,000 soldiers. Hmm?


(You left out Kerry) but…you have just made two great cases in and of how exactly, almost to a fine edge, propaganda/press affects goals in representative government (some good...some bad, in this case both bad). Also how this (small point I was originally attempting to make to my err; rather unclearly) translates into power acquisitions and bases by those that do not lead, will never lead, could not lead etc.. and would rather point fingers.. Both examples as placed by quoted material don, are/were short-term “show boaters” for personal gain…both gambled and lost….but what a cost!

mg



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   


posted by missed_gear

You left out Kerry but you have just made two great cases in and of how exactly, almost to a fine edge, propaganda - press affects goals in representative government some good, some bad, in this case both bad. [Edited by Don W]


Unintentionally, but you’re right, nevertheless. But my examples did not work well in what I was trying to demonstrate. My reference to McCarthy was meant to convey the idea that today, the administration blames almost any act that opposes the existing government, wherever it takes place, on al Qaeda. This is just not the case. But it is easy to say and hard to disprove. And simple! Lord, how we do love the simple. It beats thinking anytime.

Which is also the same lesson I was trying to teach with the Jane Fonda reference. Although it was fair to criticize her, and she has apologized for her youthful exuberance, it is patently wrong to say that picture cost the US the war in Vietnam. It is equally a stretch-to-the- breaking point that the picture caused an more US casualties. Any administration wants to wrap itself and worse, its policies in the flag. To try to make anyone who is critical seem to be anti-patriotic. As if only those who adhere to the “party line” are wrothly citizens of the Republic.



Both examples as placed by quoted material don, are - were short-term “show boaters” for personal gain . . both gambled and lost . . but what a cost! - mg . .


Right.

We are in a mess in Iraq. We opened up a can of worms just waiting to be opened. We eliminated the only kind of person who could hold Iraq in one piece. A tyrant. Who is to say in the end it - Iraq - ought to be one piece?

Well, to answer my own question. Before we destroyed Iraq’s harsh government, it was only Iraq that could counter-balance Iran. Now Iran stands alone. We must get over our own problem - our excessive hubris expecting everyone to do it our way before we will talk - and talk with Syria and Iran and Turkey and Jordan and Israel and the Palestinians if we want out of this hornets’ nest in one piece. It’s their neighborhood. They have lived there 5,000 years. All the power in W-DC will not change that.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join