Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel attacked by gunmen and suicide bombers. 10 people killed.

Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel attacked by gunmen and suicide bombers. 10 people killed.

www.bbc.co.uk

At least 10 people are reported to have been killed after a top hotel in the Afghan capital, Kabul, came under attack by gunmen and suicide bombers.

Kabul's police chief told the BBC that security forces were exchanging fire with up to six assailants who had got inside the Intercontinental Hotel.

A security official said three suicide bombers had blown themselves up - at the hotel's front gate, on the second floor, and at the back of the hotel.

The Taliban said it was responsible.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Middle East Issues

Ithink this is what happens when you draw down coalition forces one by one, i believe things like this started to increase a lot of terror attacks. As long we have Pakistan, then this war in Afghanistan will never be ending to come. Afghanistan is unstable now with all the suicide bombers with their backwards ideology.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

this is a false flag rouse by the american military to justify its pressence in afghanistan.

reply to post by Meekbot2000


No it isn't. 9/11 provoked the USA by flying their planes into the buildings with 1000s people killed so america was within the rights to go into Afghanistan. BTW, all that "Proof" you are talking about has been debunked by every engineering expert out there. www.popularmechanics.com...

reply to post by Paulioetc15


American officials blame an asymmetrical terrorist organization hours after the events of 9/11, and then weeks later they invade, occupy and rebuild Afghanistan to their standards (including deploying many bases to support future war efforts in the region). It's about as justifiable as invading Iraq, who also had nothing to do with 9/11.

Please explain why Afghanistan was a justifiable target. I thought all of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and took flight training in the US? I thought the so-called mastermind was caught in Pakistan years ago?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Even though those hijackers, they went into Afghanistan to train to become terrorists by Al-Qaeda. After all, Al-qaeda trained them to be there. Anyone can go to Afghanistan regardless of nationality to become terrorism. Beside Al-Qaeda even admit responsibility for 9/11.

BTW i starting a thread that has nothing to do with this discussion we having now.

You can expect this kind of violence to escalate as US forces plan to withdraw.

There are forces on ALL sides who do not want this to end, EVER! and will stop at nothing to keep us involved there militarily and in many other ways.

Just the beginning of a new and perhaps much more dangerous wave of violence in Afghanistan.

A wave that will not only assure the continuation of US involvement, but also perhaps an increase in numbers and equipment.

In 2008.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Paulioetc15

First a disclaimer. I in no way endorse, nor agree with the actions of the creeps who did this. Just wanted to make that clear as crystal.

I cannot understand this. A group of heavily armed men, equipped with suicide jackets, rifles, grenades, and I am assuming side arms (simply because you dont wear cufflinks unless you bought a shirt out with you as well), storm a heavily defended hotel, get past the security while fighting a running battle with them, and manage, with all that fire power, and explosive potential, to kill just ten people?

I can only think of two scenarios, at this point that can account for such a low body count in such an instance. They are as follows:

i) The training camps these lackwits are going to have some serious curriculum break down issues. The reasons I have for saying this are many fold, and I will try to make them clear without over much confusion.
I have never been to any kind of boot camp and of course I have no desire to go to a terror camp, but I think the motivation for training a person to kill and die for a cause so fundamental as that which drives those who did this must be pretty easy to ascertain.

The clue is in the name of thier designation as international criminals. Terrorists intend to cause fear, and chaos, and leave devastation in thier wake. Therefore there must be certain methodologies that apply to such a mission statement. In order to carry out the mission statement, and succeed in spreading terror, it seems to me that training in the effective use of firearms and explosives would be a must.

While accepting that this terror attack probably caused those who live in the vicinity, and of course those caught up in it, a massive amount of terror, I cannot help but veiw the body count as a failiure. With a pistol full of ammunition, a rifle with a mag between thirty and fifty rounds, a belt of grenades, and suicide vests, the attack , by rights, should have been more deadly , and nothing puts the willies up a society like a big bodycount.

If these fools had been trained effectively to cause max damage and thereby cause maximum fear, then more people would be in bits and pieces, shot to ribbons, blown to smithereens, and the like.
To be honest , if I was asked by some scumbag, to cause the most possible chaos, I would have bought that building down around the ears of the guests and patrons of the venue, and HUNDREDS would have been dead or injured, the skyline would have been ruined, and lives of everyone connected with the building would have been changed forever. The event would have had permanance. The advantage of proper training would allow this scenario to come to fruit.

With half baked training, you get men who cant shoot worth a damn (as evidenced by the fact that a group of men with between approximately sixty five and seventy rounds each lets say, split between pistols and rifles) and fail with all that ammo to maximise its potential, and men who although carrying explosives strapped to thier chests, would rather commit suicide with them,than actualy cause the maximum fear, by causing the maximum deaths and infrastructural scarring.


ii) The Taliban are getting desperate and are churning out the most utterly incapable bunch of morons that ever turned up to a training camp. How can a bunch of guys, given training and weapons , ammo and explosives, fail to cause the deaths of at least a hundred people? They would have had better sucess attacking travel infrastructure, or by using herding tactics to bottleneck the guests of the hotel, and letting off thier suicide vests whilst among the stampeding throng.

This seems like the most amateurish nonsense attack, given the size of the target, the fact that the area was what could be reasonably called a target rich environment, and the arms that were said to be carried by the attackers. It just doesnt make sense to send that many resources into a situation, and have such a meagre result.

That concludes my analysis. I would like to take this oppertunity to reinforce my disclaimer from the beginning of this post. I in no way endorse the attack on the hotel, or the activity of fundamentalist groups of any nature. However the sheer pointlessness of this raid, and the lack of what I would call an effective result, are worthy of comment and investigation in my opinion.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

First a disclaimer. I in no way endorse, nor agree with the actions of the creeps who did this. Just wanted to make that clear as crystal.

I cannot understand this. A group of heavily armed men, equipped with suicide jackets, rifles, grenades, and I am assuming side arms (simply because you dont wear cufflinks unless you bought a shirt out with you as well), storm a heavily defended hotel, get past the security while fighting a running battle with them, and manage, with all that fire power, and explosive potential, to kill just ten people?

I can only think of two scenarios, at this point that can account for such a low body count in such an instance. They are as follows:

i) The training camps these lackwits are going to have some serious curriculum break down issues. The reasons I have for saying this are many fold, and I will try to make them clear without over much confusion.
I have never been to any kind of boot camp and of course I have no desire to go to a terror camp, but I think the motivation for training a person to kill and die for a cause so fundamental as that which drives those who did this must be pretty easy to ascertain.

The clue is in the name of thier designation as international criminals. Terrorists intend to cause fear, and chaos, and leave devastation in thier wake. Therefore there must be certain methodologies that apply to such a mission statement. In order to carry out the mission statement, and succeed in spreading terror, it seems to me that training in the effective use of firearms and explosives would be a must.

While accepting that this terror attack probably caused those who live in the vicinity, and of course those caught up in it, a massive amount of terror, I cannot help but veiw the body count as a failiure. With a pistol full of ammunition, a rifle with a mag between thirty and fifty rounds, a belt of grenades, and suicide vests, the attack , by rights, should have been more deadly , and nothing puts the willies up a society like a big bodycount.

If these fools had been trained effectively to cause max damage and thereby cause maximum fear, then more people would be in bits and pieces, shot to ribbons, blown to smithereens, and the like.
To be honest , if I was asked by some scumbag, to cause the most possible chaos, I would have bought that building down around the ears of the guests and patrons of the venue, and HUNDREDS would have been dead or injured, the skyline would have been ruined, and lives of everyone connected with the building would have been changed forever. The event would have had permanance. The advantage of proper training would allow this scenario to come to fruit.

With half baked training, you get men who cant shoot worth a damn (as evidenced by the fact that a group of men with between approximately sixty five and seventy rounds each lets say, split between pistols and rifles) and fail with all that ammo to maximise its potential, and men who although carrying explosives strapped to thier chests, would rather commit suicide with them,than actualy cause the maximum fear, by causing the maximum deaths and infrastructural scarring.


ii) The Taliban are getting desperate and are churning out the most utterly incapable bunch of morons that ever turned up to a training camp. How can a bunch of guys, given training and weapons , ammo and explosives, fail to cause the deaths of at least a hundred people? They would have had better sucess attacking travel infrastructure, or by using herding tactics to bottleneck the guests of the hotel, and letting off thier suicide vests whilst among the stampeding throng.

This seems like the most amateurish nonsense attack, given the size of the target, the fact that the area was what could be reasonably called a target rich environment, and the arms that were said to be carried by the attackers. It just doesnt make sense to send that many resources into a situation, and have such a meagre result.

That concludes my analysis. I would like to take this oppertunity to reinforce my disclaimer from the beginning of this post. I in no way endorse the attack on the hotel, or the activity of fundamentalist groups of any nature. However the sheer pointlessness of this raid, and the lack of what I would call an effective result, are worthy of comment and investigation in my opinion.

edit on 28-6-2011 by TrueBrit because: Grammatical error. So sorry.

I kinda agree with you on the statements. They did this just to install a lot of fear into the population and the heart of the Afghan people. I have nothing much to say with your statements but good points. Yes they need to be an investigation into this and you are right that Taliban are desperate because many coalition forces always win when in comes to a firefight so they responded by placing IEDs in roads, blowing up markets, and hide among civilian populations when they were NATO forces goes by. After NATO bombed them accidentally, then the Taliban used it an an excuse that NATO is killing civilians on purpose so they could recruit them. Something that the anti-war media ignored.

reply to post by Paulioetc15


I do not see the media in the UK as anti war normaly speaking. I do not know what it is like in the US right now (if you have an example of what you are reffering to then I would greatly appreciate fresh perspecitve on that) to hear the way the US media looks at the war.

CNN are already asking if it's really time for the USA to pull troops out given the apparent lack of security in Kabul.

I wonder if this is a false flag attack designed to try and convince the US public that it's not time to withdraw troops just yet.

I'm wondering if Obama will go on TV soon and announce that due to high profile attacks in Afghanistan, that his withdrawal of troops will be on hold until the security situation improves.

False flag by special groups that have interest in extending the war for profit?

The media are also reporting that this was supposedly one of the most secure sites in the country, certainly in Kabul, and that there was very limited perimiter security around the hotel at the time of the attack.

The MSM expects us to believe that SIX Taliban fighters managed to take out a high security hotel in the center of a high security city? If this is the case, it doesn't say much for the most powerful military in the world that the US military can be overpowered by six fighters with RPGs.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Well there are some media here that are anti-war and they sometime stalk about the problems in the war. I remember i think CNN some weeks did a poll about the public poll about Afghanistan and most of us here opposed it. Then CNN talks about how bad the war is.

Theres something very strange about this attack.
I'd like to know who was in the hotel.. I'm guessing CIA, Merc's etc.
I have no doubt it was the taliban or pakistan.. but it seems they didnt go for the usual military attacks, they went for a very sensitive target.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


What?

Allah must be so proud.
When will the stupid human learn?
Kill and kill yourself all in the name of god, ya…sooooooo ya..
Don’t educate the monkeys.
Man I’m sure tired of hearing about the stupidity of religious nuts.

reply to post by Paulioetc15


I dig what the man is saying here. I remember the news said that some pretty important people were among those present when it all kicked off, but oddly I cannot recall, nor locate any names of individuals or international organisations which might have had a presence there, even though Im sure one or another international group was said to have been having a meeting there.