It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Taliban storm strategic Afghan city

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:43 AM

Taliban storm strategic Afghan city

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Taliban militants attacked a municipal building in the city of Khost in eastern Afghanistan Tuesday, fighting pitched battles with U.S. forces and taking hostages, U.S. and local officials said.

A U.S. military spokesman said the city -- a hotbed of Taliban activity near the Pakistan border -- is not considered secure as reports of running battles, kidnappings and fatalities surface.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 10:43 AM
Well apparently this was a pretty heated battle. They are still held up and have hostages mostly students and City officials. I dont think this will end well for them or the Taliban.

It goes on to state.

The U.S. military spokesman said U.S. troops killed several militants but had to fall back.

He said a U.S. quick reaction force, backed by helicopters, from a nearby base was called to join ground troops entering the city.

The spokesman said additional suicide bombers then entered government buildings, killing an unknown number of additional Afghans.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:11 AM
Do you think the Taliban are trying to send a message to the Afghans that the US military isn't able to protect them? I think if the Afghans start believing this to be true, they may stop cooperating with the US forces.

The fact that this thread has received limited response reminds me of Fields of Dreams.

If you build it, they will come.

I say to you

If you make a thread, they will eventually come.

Don't give up. Your spitting out some good info.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:16 AM
I have nothing. lol.
sorry guys, but I think that this is a big enough event to where I just need to shut my mouth and do some more extensive research into this before saying anything that I am going to regret saying later.
Good find

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by jam321

Lets see how this plays out.

I'm curious what the new guy has to say and better yet what changes he will make. In the meantime this kind of stuff will continue. Afghanistan is truly the wild wild west so to speak.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:20 AM
Afghanistan has always been a "no man's land" of sorts. The Taliban are clearly sending a message and an open invitation to battle to the US. If we respond in a half assed manner we will get clobbered.

We like to tip toe around in that region for some reason and that type of response will only serve to get American soldiers killed. We must unleash the full might of our military or this "problem" will never go away.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:40 AM
A very effective tactic by the Taliban i think...

A "normal" Afghanistan engagement goes like: -

- Taliban sit and wait.
- Ambush
- US,UK,Nato,everyone else there fight back
- Above calls in Air Support
- Taliban runs when hearing air support or fight and die from Air Support

New Tactic goes like: -

- Taliban invade area (City)
- US,UK,Nato,everyone else there fights back
- Above calls in air support
- Air Support denied by Commanders due to civilians
Air Support comes in and cant drop bombs or fire guns due to civillans
- Above ordered by Command to fight pitched firefights in the streets and told to avoid civilian casualties.

Taking the air support will/would be a killer (literally) for the guys on the ground in Afghanistan...

Thats my take on it anyway... Terry Taliban already owns most of the country as it is. (which you conveniently arent told by the media)

[edit on 12-5-2009 by r3dman]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by r3dman

Even better, air support doesn't fire, but Taliban suicide bombers blow up the buildings anyway and broadcast it worldwide while blaming the US. They get to instill fear in the people nearby, and hate in the rest of the country and world.

It is really a no-win for US in these situations, no matter how we react, civilians will die, and we will be blamed. Therefore, I say go ahead with the strikes and win the battle, and move forward.

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:19 PM
These developments do not suprise me.

The Soviets encountered the same problems in keeping their puppet regime in Kabul in power.

You can heavily fortify a weak central government and secure it a base of operations but the fiercely independent tribesmen of Afghanistan typically never agree on anything for long except that they don't like to be goverened by foreigners.

Frankly there is no telling how long the Taliban would have stayed in power if we had not gotten involved over there to begin with. There were in fact tribes aligned against them actively engaged in violently fighting them.

Afghanistan has always been wild in that fashion and my own personal oppinion is that when foreign armies do attempt to occupy the country tribes that normally would be fighting or positioning to fight one another simply unite long enough to get rid of the invaders by making the occupation long costly and punishing since no regime in Kabul whether foreign installed or a natural evolution of Afghan's peculiar brand of violent tribal politics ever allows anyone to maintain a majority that truly can be imposed on a people who in fact would rather die than give up their independence.

In that last regard they are a people who are very much like Americans though that is one of the very few things culturally we do share.

They prefer a primitive and often natural life similar to the tribes of places like Borneo and the remote wild parts of Asia and the South Pacific and South America, they just happen to be a lot better armed and like most tribes extremely adept at using their own terrain both offensively and defensively in battle.

Morality, religion and the politics of 9-11 aside, this approach didn't work for the Soviets who adopted similiar tactics we employed in trying to prop up South Vietnam to cover a vast expanse of rural and rugged terrain with rapid air deployments of troops and the heavy augmentation of air power to cover them.

Ultimately though when you lack the numbers to hold the terrain you just end up paying for the same real estate again and again as the more numerous political factions opposed to occupation simply retake the positions once we have abandoned them for logistical reasons to entrench themselves once more.

History often repeats itself, it only changes itself though in the books written on it, not though what is likely to happen to those who fail to learn its lessons or are deprived of them.

[edit on 12/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

new topics


log in