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 fighters, some disguised as American soldiers, attack two U.S. bases

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Taliban fighters, some disguised as American soldiers, attack two U.S. bases


www.washingtonpost.com

KABUL - Insurgents disguised as American soldiers attacked two U.S. bases in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday morning and managed to breach the perimeter of one of them before being repelled, according to NATO and Afghan officials.

The assault began at about 4 a.m., when dozens of Taliban fighters, some wearing U.S. military uniforms, launched simultaneous attacks on Forward Operating Base Salerno, in Khost province, and nearby Forward Operating Base Chapman, where a suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees in December.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk
english.aljazeera.net
edition.cnn.com
www.bbc.co.uk




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The attacks appeared to have been orchestrated by the Haqqani network, which apparently is one of the most lethal Taliban factions, led by commander Sirajuddin Haqqani.

Police say 50 militants raided two military facilities in Khost province, with coalition forces killing 13 of the attackers.

The fighters launched the first attack on the Forward Operating Base Salerno in Khost province near the southeastern border with Pakistan before moving on to occupy the nearby Camp Chapman

Camp Chapman is apparently the same place where seven CIA agents were killed by a suicide bomber inside the base last December .

Quite daring and clever using fighters dressed in U.S. military uniforms to attack the bases - but they didn't get far anyway, must have been some suicide mission of some sort perhaps?

Would this mean that we could see more similar suicide attacks like this one in the future, or will they soon realise that attacking the bases is more or less futile and just an unnecessary way to waste potentional good fighters in great numbers, and go more with attacking patrols instead.

I mean there is a lot of difference in strategy and tactics to really search up your enemies at their bases & fortifications than say, attack them when they are more vulnerable in open or in more mountainous terrain out on patrol?

Or will it be a combination of both tactics to keep the psychological pressure on the ISAF troops from time to time to make them feel less safe?

Are they getting more offensive in their strategy?


www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
What I find ironic about this story is that the lame stream media must now admit in print that people do commit FALSE FLAG ATTACKS during war.

For example, 9/11 was carried out by "insurgents" wearing Arab "uniforms" (i.e. shouting Allah Akbar)

As for their apparent failure, a similar thing happened to a Blackwater base in Iraq where the ambush failed simply because they were outgunned (not even outnumbered).



[edit on 28-8-2010 by filosophia]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
not sure why no one is responding to this, I was going to post this but you beat me to it. I hope it picks up in time, this is some big news, it'll most likely involve a retaliation by the NATO forces.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Thanks for the reply man!

Yeah, fortunately they didn't get far into the base this time - but it was a quite daring operation I must say.

This sounds like a more sophisticated operation - perhaps some "Special Forces Commando Unit" of the Talibans


Where do they get the uniforms from - from dead soldiers on the battlefield? or can you buy them on the black market in Kabul?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Chevalerous
 


You can buy old uniforms easy. Go down to the surplus stores on 41-A. Then all you would have to do it send em over through the mail.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Funny how the Taliban just aren't aware of the part they play in supporting US election agendas. They always seem to pop into action in the run up to an election and then the MSM just has to give it so much coverage for national security reasons - and so this raises fear just before the elections, and just as support for the war is waning, and just as pressue for a 9/11 investigation is mounting. You'd almost think it was orchestrated.....

I mean, the Taliban must be really, really stupid not to realise they are helping the US government so much with their timely propaganda....and yes, it does sound as though they must have been 'special ops Taliban', really clever guys. They'll probably release a video soon as well.

Just sayin'.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by wcitizen]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Hi Antonia!

Yes of course, some could be from surplus stores or maybe even from Iraq perhaps? and then posted by mail or brought by courier into Pakistan for the Talibans!

I'm kinda slow today
I didn't think about that possibility, thanks!



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Yea same thing happened in May at Bagram and Kandahar. Brave little bastards but they all got worked!!!!

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Reign02]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Chevalerous
 




Would this mean that we could see more similar suicide attacks like this one in the future, or will they soon realise that attacking the bases is more or less futile and just an unnecessary way to waste potentional good fighters in great numbers?


Even though it was a waste of manpower with no real military value on the propaganda front it holds some weight. As mentioned before we will probably see some heavily edited Youtube or other video outlet video showing some sort of "Great Victory" on the Taliban's part.

When in reality all they did was get a bunch of their own people killed and heightened NATOs forces awareness and attention for potential future attacks.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
What I find ironic about this story is that the lame stream media must now admit in print that people do commit FALSE FLAG ATTACKS during war.

For example, 9/11 was carried out by "insurgents" wearing Arab "uniforms" (i.e. shouting Allah Akbar)

As for their apparent failure, a similar thing happened to a Blackwater base in Iraq where the ambush failed simply because they were outgunned (not even outnumbered).



[edit on 28-8-2010 by filosophia]


What false flag attack downrange?? Not even 3 months ago they attacked Kandahar and Bagram launching RPGs and shoot small arms at the personnel in the towers guarding the base. That most certainly was not a false flag and neither is this. And the insurgents are ALWAYS outnumbered when attacking a base downrange. You should stop writing this crap because you don't know what you are talking about..... Several years ago over 500 US ARMY uniforms went missing at a base downrange... That is why they had our uniforms... Do you not know that local nationals DO work on the bases?? You statement speaks of how much you know about being in a deployed location....



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
So??...

British forces dressed like Arab women and shot civilians.

FACT.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Considering that the taliban was created by the US, who is to say it wasn't Us troops...or at least a us controlled op...
As in here take these uniforms and....
Like the "taliban" that GWB said ambushed Pat Tillman..who of course turned out to be Us soldiers,
fact.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Chevalerous
 




Would this mean that we could see more similar suicide attacks like this one in the future, or will they soon realise that attacking the bases is more or less futile and just an unnecessary way to waste potentional good fighters in great numbers?


Even though it was a waste of manpower with no real military value on the propaganda front it holds some weight. As mentioned before we will probably see some heavily edited Youtube or other video outlet video showing some sort of "Great Victory" on the Taliban's part.

When in reality all they did was get a bunch of their own people killed and heightened NATOs forces awareness and attention for potential future attacks.




Yes sure, the propaganda value of this and similar attacks could maybe be used as recruitment tools in the Islamic and arab world to get new young jihadists to come to Afghanistan, no doubt about that.

I read the articles again and the uniformed guys were cutting the fence to let the other uniformed suicide bombers through - so they probably had some guy filming the whole thing, in case their mission had been a success that is.

New jihadist recruits are probably now flowing in from all over in a steady flow, just like the late 1970's to replace the fallen fighters for the jihadists.

I am very curious on how they will stop this development!



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
I am very curious on how they will stop this development!



They wont even try in my opinion.
There is nothing to stop. The Taliban will try everything outside of direct confrontation. They just don't have the support of the bulk of the population like the mujaheddin in the 80s had against the Soviets. Contrary to internet Pop culture views.

The majority of Afghans for now prefer not to have the Taliban back in power. People tend to forget that it was the Afghanistan Northern alliance with US air support that kicked them out in the first place.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yeah! It's different that's true!

But Jihadists will still come in a steady flow to Afghanistan to replace fallen Jihadists.

Even if many don't want the pesky Taliban, many still don't want to have ISAF soldiers there at all.

But for many of them is like picking between pest and cholera!

Bu good that you're an optimist though! - I have heard much more pessimistic outlooks and scenarios from European Nato ISAF soldiers who were very pessimistic.

They said that for every Innocent Afghan that is killed by the coalition you create 5-10 new enemies from regular moderate Afghans who are joining Jihad with the Talibans for personal motives of revenge.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
They said that for every Innocent Afghan that is killed by the coalition you create 5-10 new enemies from regular moderate Afghans who are joining Jihad with the Talibans for personal motives of revenge.


Well if that's true and I'm not saying it's not but then by the same logic the Taliban have a growing opposition on their hands for their actions as well. Since a large percentage of the Taliban are not even Afghans I can understand the resentment many Afghans have towards them.

UN Report says Taliban responsible for 76% of All Civilian Casualties

Here is an interesting read.
Afghanistan civilian deaths up 31% this year, says United Nations

Report says child victims have risen by 55% as Taliban target more Afghans, while deaths caused by foreign troops fall

The Taliban's increasing use of homemade bombs and political assassinations has caused the number of civilians killed or injured in fighting in Afghanistan to rise by nearly a third this year (31%), the United Nations said today.


[edit on 28-8-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
I read the articles again and the uniformed guys were cutting the fence to let the other uniformed suicide bombers through - so they probably had some guy filming the whole thing, in case their mission had been a success that is.


Yeah, but it wasn't a success.

"Coalition forces had the two insurgents under surveillance and when they cut the fence a quick reaction force was dispatched to the location where they were killed immediately "

What would be funny if it were female soldiers that wasted them.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
They've been playing too many computer games, obviously.
More fuel for the anti-game brigade



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
There are unfortunately so much propaganda and twisted numbers out there, so it's difficult to know what numbers to trust really - heck I used to believe in the UN since I was one early tour in Bosnia as a peace keeping soldier during the Balkan war - but today with what we know about the NWO/UN aganda I am not so damn sure anymore.

That's why Wikileaks gains so much support, because they show how twisted these numbers really are - and how they have been hiding them.


Well, this is quite interesting in context what I said earlier:

Civilian Casualties Create New Enemies, Study Confirms


A team of four economists — Stanford’s Luke N. Condra and Joseph H. Felter, the London School of Economics’ Radha K. Iyengar, and Princeton’s Jacob N. Shapiro — used the International Security Assistance Force’s own civilian-casualty data to reach their conclusions, breaking it down by district to examine further violence in the area in which civilians died.



But in their study, the researchers found that there’s a greater spike in violence after ISAF-caused civilian deaths than after insurgent-caused ones. “An incident which results in 10 civilian casualties will generate about 1 additional IED attack in the following 2 months,” the researchers write. “The effect for insurgents is much weaker and not jointly significant.”



In other words, even if the insurgents possess a “total disregard for human life and the Afghan people,” as an ISAF press release reacting to this weekend’s insurgent bombings in Herat put it, Afghans effectively would rather be killed by other Afghans than foreigners.



That’s not all. The researchers found that ISAF-caused civilian casualties corollate with long-term radicalization in Afghanistan.



This confirms the intuition that civilian casualties by ISAF forces predict greater violence through a long-run effect.” That’s consistent with intuitions that civilian casualties “are affecting future violence through increased recruitment into insurgent groups,”




Interestingly, the researchers found the opposite to be the case in Iraq: U.S.-caused civilian casualties are more likely to cause short-term retaliatory spikes than they are violence over the long term. (Yet.)




The relationship between civilian casualties and the creation of new enemies is no mere academic debate. As the paper notes, there can be “strategic military returns” for U.S. troops who incur greater risk to themselves in order to prevent civilian casualties if that stops Afghans from taking up arms against the U.S. in revenge.



This recent article from Rolling Stones is also interesting - and here's McChrystal saying something very similar to what I heard from our European ISAF soldiers:


Despite the tragedies and miscues, McChrystal has issued some of the strictest directives to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. military has ever encountered in a war zone. It's "insurgent math," as he calls it – for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies.



Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled.



Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile



Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm.

www.rollingstone.com...


But it's always nice to see that you're an optimist when so many believe the opposite.


While I was very much against the war in Iraq - Afghanistan is a more difficult animal for me, I hate seeing all the innocent civilian losses - but on the other hand I don't want the evil Talibans to win this crap either.

I want that the young Afghan girls can have the possibility to go to school (which they love so much) so they can contribute to build up Afghanistan again eventually, some time in the future - so the Taliban need to be taken out from that equation for that to happen.

So can they come up with some new bright idea to exterminate the threat from all Talibans, with absolutely minimal losses for the Afghan civilian population - they would probably have my support to do so.

And then turn over the country to some form of International control without any interference from corrupted American big oil corporations who want their pipeline from the Caspian basin while screwing the Afghans people.

Every deal that will be made after this is over should be in favor to the Afghan people without any corruption from Cheney and his friends for me to be happy!

Mutual joint ventures with the Afghan people YES! - PNAC Neocon-Mafia tactics and corruption from their corrupt Corporations NO!


[edit on 28-8-2010 by Chevalerous]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join