Taliban's Terror Tactics Reconquer Afghanistan

Well, now there are 72 more "martyrs" for this yahoo to crow about (how many virgins does heaven need for that - 5184?). All their bravado can be strewn about with the bodies of their comrades. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060821.wxafghan21/BNStory/Afghanistan/home">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060821.wxafghan21/BNStory/Afghanistan/home</a><br />
<br />
In the paraphrased and immortal words of Eric Cartman... "Screw you guys, you're going home... in body bags". <br />
<br />
Oh, and note there are no civilian casualties for you to bemoan - so no "creation of new insurgents", just lots of dead existing ones.

History has demonstrated conclusively that you cannot fight an idea with bullets for very long.

The so-called NATO occupation of Afghanistan is all about securing an oil and gas pipeline through the country, therefore the installed puppet government does not have a leg to stand on, and that's why it requires NATO to prop it up. The Afghan people must know what's in store for them if they sit back idle and let the theft of their county continue.

Following the Soviet invasion example (and Vietnam too), the resistence has steadily been getting stronger, not weaker, despite success after success reported by the occupying force.

The Soviets faced the same situation years ago, and they also managed to kill many more Afghan resistence fighters than the resistence was able to kill Soviets. In the end, and after 10 years, the Soviets realized that they were accomplishing nothing of value.

Politically, I doubt many Americans support the Afghan war knowing that the reason for being there has nothing to do with the so-called "War on Terror". Eventually, they'll stop supporting it. Without the US backing the war up, the Canadian government will instantly pull its troops out of Afghanistan.

If enough Canadians come to realize the true reason for being in Afghanistan, or if the body bag pile gets too high, the Canadian people will force the government to pull out.

Really? Aren't both sides fighting for their idea with bullets? I'd hardly say the Taliban are without their soldiers and guns. So it's really about which idea is going to win the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of the people of Afghanistan.

As for your correlation between the 80's and today... the Soviets had 2 major factors working against them:

1.) The resistance to the Soviets was financed by the US through Pakistan. The Taliban don't have the same financial backing - thus they trade bodies for bombs.

2.) The Soviets tried to install a puppet government, but didn't do anything to assist with the set up of a regional fighting force made of Afghans. It was abandoned very soon after the initial invasion and replaced with hundreds of thousands of Russians. In the present case, the NA overthrew the Taliban with NATO/UN help... the Afghans provided the bulk of the boots on the ground, and still do to this day. There are less than 15,000 US soldiers there, and less than 10K from the rest of NATO. The Afghans are fighting alongside NATO, not just in the trenches of the Taliban. Unlike Iraq or Vietnam, the vast majority of the troops come from the country we are fighting in.

Yes. both sides are fighting with bullets, however one side is using professional soldiers to do the fighting. NATO is spending billions on a war without any ideology behind it other than pure greed. The professional soldiers doing the fighting are fighting without a true cause other than military doctrine, while on the other side, the Afghans are fighting for their country. <br><br> As the occupation drags out over the next 5 to 10 years, moral on the NATO side among the troops will drop significantly because there's no perceived value worth fighting for (other than money and military doctrine which ranks low after so many years of defying death). <br><br> As for financing, keep in mind that the propaganda of the day tells us that only the "Taliban" are fighting NATO, however there are other factions opposing the NATO occupation, and financing will eventually start flowing through from various channels. As we've seen, the recent escalation of fighting probably has to do with the resistence getting better organized and funded. One can assume that, like with the Soviet invasion, the resistence will keep on growing, and it will aquire funding in various ways. <br><br> The only way the resistence can be stopped, is not through bullets, but as you have sugested, through inclusion of the Afghan people in running their own affiars. However, paying destitute Afghans to fight in a puppet military is not the same thing as having them sign up for their own country. <br><br> I am highly skeptical that the invasion forces will allow a fully autonomous Afghanistan, since the whole point of the invasion was to aquire control over the countries strategic location. I doubt the Afghan people will submit to such a thing. If a real independent Afghan government surfaces, I expect that it will want NATO out of the country so that it can run its own affairs. <br><br> For example in Iraq, there are reports that the puppet government, while under pressure to gain support among the Iraqi people, has started opposing the US occupation, and there are hints that the US may try and install a dictatorship in its place. <br><br> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2320091,00.html">Bush's final gamble: giving Iraq a dictator?</a>

The storyline at the end of your link has gone by the wayside. Perhaps you can brief us as to the subject matter. Thanks!

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

boflaade:<br />
<br />
Try the Star link instead:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156111824574&call_pageid=968332188492">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156111824574&call_pageid=968332188492</a><br />
<br />
The Princess Pats and the Afghan army (the one on our side), were setting up a new deployment to reinforce a town. The Afghans and Canadians set up a trap... long and short of it, 72 Taliban dead. Afghan troops suffered 4 dead. No Canadian injuries. No civilian injuries or dead.

I watched Battle of Algiers again last night. NATO and the U.S. will lose the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The West's imperialist strategies are based on the French strategies portrayed so well in that movie. The U.S. is a war criminal nation, and Harper is their accomplice.

---
Michael

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29449-2320091,00.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29449-2320091,00.html</a><p>---<br>"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."<br />
- Justice Louis Brandeis

A fine trap indeed.

"The Taliban have kept the soldiers' bodies because they have asked for 10 rocket-propelled grenades in return for each corpse,"

I think we should return the favour. 10 AK-47's or 1 rocket launcher for each Taliban corpse. Fair trade?

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

This part says a lot: <br><br> <i>Canada has roughly 2,200 soldiers working under the NATO umbrella in the Kandahar region. Twenty-six Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since Canada deployed to Afghanistan in early 2002. Of those, 19 have died during the past six months.</i> <br><br> What's happening, is that the violence against the occupation is on the rise, meanwhile the occupation forces issue claims of victory from a battle perspective, when in fact they are losing the war. In Vietnam, almost every major battle was won by the US forces, but they still lost the war because they could not win over the people. The same thing is happening in Iraq.

People just don't get it, it's not a war. It is an operation to get rid of a bunch of dickheads. That killed their own people, for not believeing in their way. They killed lil girls for wanting to go to school, or teaches that taught english, math, etc. They killed doctors, for helping.<br />
I have been there now twice, and have heard the horror stories. <br />
Of a lil girl being stoned for just kissing a boy she liked. Boys killed because they don't want to fight. Women raped because the have no husband. <br />
Lil Girls being sold to old men, because their family has no money.I can go on and on. They had no clean water, no real schools, no hospitals. Now they do. It's no movie it's real.<br />
If you would like to get a view of Afghanistan during the taliban rule. Watch Osama : <a href="http://www.osamamovie.com/">http://www.osamamovie.com/</a><br />
So all you uninformed people, should go there and see. But you won't, and all you can say is. I don't have to go, I know whats going on there. I watch CBC, CTV, I read the paper, I view the web. Well people, wake the F$#%up. The world is not Timmies, smoking dope, watching TV, and wearing your Tin hat, because you think the goverment will read your mind. <br />
It's a world where evil people, do evil things. And we as Canadians have to find and kill if need be these evil people.<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>27 yrs in the military, 9 tours and one more almost complete..

6 months ago we left the security of Kabul and went to Kandahar to spread security. We went where the Taliban were, so additional casualties were expected.

The Brits have similar numbers of troops in Afghanistan, and have suffered similar casualties, but most of theirs were at the beginning - during the invasion itself. They have recently taken over command of the NATO battle group and are dispersing to more volatile regions - so we can expect them to start taking larger numbers of casualties in the near future as well.

If the Afghan government and foreign reconstruction teams cannot do their work due to Taliban attacks, there is no way to win the hearts and minds of the more remote Afghan citizenry.

And unlike Iraq and Vietnam, the vast majority of the soldiers fighting in this conflict are native Afghans.

I say we give them 10 regular grenades. But we keep the pins.

I like that word "reconstruction", which implies that there was destruction. The Afghan people know that their country has been destroyed by foreign invaders. The reconstruction is a joke, and most of us who study foreign policy know this (the Soviets before NATO did the same thing), and certainly the Afghan people know this. Assuming that the "reconstruction" ever goes ahead and completes, there will be an expect high return on the investemnt. If the Afghan people allow the so-called reconstruction to proceed, they will be forced into slavery for the rest of their lives as pay back.

Tell me, why did NATO spend billions (and is still spending) on bombing Afghanistan in the first place?