Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wiseguy

Taliban Displays Its Reach With Attacks

Recommended Posts

Taliban displays its reach with attacks

 

Taliban soldiers ambushed French troops, killing 10, and targeted a U.S. base with an unnerving new tactic: successive blasts.

 

By M. KARIM FAIEZ and LAURA KING, Los Angeles Times

 

Last update: August 19, 2008 - 9:09 PM

 

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - In the worst loss of life in a single incident in at least three years for Western troops in Afghanistan, Taliban soldiers ambushed and killed 10 French soldiers and wounded 21 in a sustained assault a short distance from the capital.

 

Separately, militants made an hours-long attempt to overrun a major U.S. base in southeastern Afghanistan, employing an unnerving new tactic: at least a half-dozen suicide bombers blowing themselves up in succession.

 

Taken together, the attacks demonstrated the growing reach of the Taliban and other Islamic militants in Afghanistan, where this year is fast becoming the most lethal for combatants and civilians alike since the fall of the Taliban to U.S.-led forces in 2001.

 

The ambush of the French reconnaissance force in Kabul Province took place late Monday and continued into Tuesday. NATO's International Security Assistance Force said about 100 insurgents took part.

 

Attacks involving large numbers of militants mark a tactical departure for the insurgents, who generally have made smaller hit-and-run attacks that allow them to melt away when NATO troops use their superior firepower.

 

The high toll among the French forces occurred despite NATO rushing in reinforcements, including close air support and mobile medical units.

 

NATO is not invincible at all. Congratulation for Taliban for defending Afghanistan against the brutal Western Superpowers that are illegally occupying Afghanistan, terrorizing and massacring innocent Muslims, attacking and destroying civilian targets and introducing immoral way of life to Muslims to destroy the morality of Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

... a "large number" of insurgents were killed in the battle...

 

Forgot that part, chief.

 

 

'at least a half-dozen suicide bombers blowing themselves up in succession'

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... a "large number" of insurgents were killed in the battle...

 

How many were killed? Your source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'source' is the article you posted. It's the part you 'forgot' to include.

 

And we know that at least six idiots blew themselves up. That couldn't be all. I'm sure the terrorist attackers were stacked up like cord wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'source' is the article you posted. It's the part you 'forgot' to include.

 

And we know that at least six idiots blew themselves up. That couldn't be all. I'm sure the terrorist attackers were stacked up like cord wood.

 

How can you say (I quote your words) a "large number" of insurgents were killed in the battle when you don't even know what you are talking about? The fact is you have proven that you have no facts to support your baseless claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Separately, militants made an hours-long attempt to overrun a major U.S. base in southeastern Afghanistan,

 

But they failed... as they have time and time again.

 

employing an unnerving new tactic: at least a half-dozen suicide bombers blowing themselves up in succession.

 

The good thing about suicide bombers for relatively weak insurgencies is that they are innumerable and you don't have to be good fighters to do it. Maybe that's why the Taliban uses the tactic so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ of Vespucci,

 

Taliban is liberating Afghanistan by fighting against NATO that is illegally occupying Afghanistan and terrorizing Afghan people. Taliban is an Afghan organization and Taliban soldiers are Afghan citizens and many Afghan people are joining Taliban. On the contrary, NATO and its soldiers do not belong to Afghanistan and they are the brutal invaders in the eyes of Afghan people so Afghan people have their right to attack and destroy NATO forces and drive them out of Afghanistan. Only Afghan people can determine the future and governance of Afghanistan. Afghan people fight and die for their fatherland while NATO soldiers are dying for defending their loots. In other word, NATO soldiers are just a band of brutal robbers.

 

Taliban is controlling a large part of Afghanistan while the US puppets are hiding in Afghan cities like the stinking rats. I firmly believe that if the US regime and its allies leave Afghanistan for good, the US puppet regime in Afghanistan will collapse within a week and the US puppets will flee Afghanistan and follow their masters to USA and Europe. We still remember what happened when the US puppet South Vietnamese regime collapsed in 1975.

 

I think you Russ of Vespucci would welcome a band of robbers to rob you of your home and and you may even conspire with the robbers to terrorize your family. I think Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Bush and Sharon would love you very much because they need a traitor like you to support their regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaikum

 

 

Yes, the Taliban had established a goverment, currency, and put the law of Allah back to Afghanistan but then America wanted it "liberated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W/salam brother Al-mumineen ,

 

Insha Allah (God willing) , Muslims will liberate Afghanistan , Iraq, Somalia etc from the brutal barbaric oppressive Western invaders and hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone remember what percentage of the electorate voted in the Afghan elections? I think it was pretty high. You'd have to assume that the number of voters reflects the number of Afghanis who accept democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone remember what percentage of the electorate voted in the Afghan elections? I think it was pretty high. You'd have to assume that the number of voters reflects the number of Afghanis who accept democracy.

 

The CIA always rigs the upcoming elections in favor of the US puppets so that they can serve the interest of the US regime.

 

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

 

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

 

Italy 1948— The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.

 

Australia 1975— The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might or might not rig the reults, but that wasn't the point I was making. Regardless of who they voted for, the number of Afghanis voting reflects, surely, the level of acceptance of democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might or might not rig the reults, but that wasn't the point I was making. Regardless of who they voted for, the number of Afghanis voting reflects, surely, the level of acceptance of democracy.

 

The fact is CIA always rig election to ensure the US puppets win the election so that they can serve the interest of the US regime.

 

Afghanistan is, we spent several hundred million dollars in Afghanistan. We've spent somewhat less than that, but close, in Nicaragua....

 

[When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they send the CIA in, with its resources and activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

 

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly textbook-ish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market, where children can't go to school, where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside their homes, where government administration and programs grind to a complete halt, where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people, where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt. If you ask the state department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say it's to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

 

Source: THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA by John Stockwell who is the highest-ranking CIA official ever to leave the agency and go public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you Russ of Vespucci would welcome a band of robbers to rob you of your home and and you may even conspire with the robbers to terrorize your family. I think Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Bush and Sharon would love you very much because they need a traitor like you to support their regime.

 

The Taliban are the Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini of this situation. If the US gov't were as bad to us as the Taliban and the Nazis, and the world came together to stop it, I would greet them as liberators.

Edited by Russ of Vespuccia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone remember what percentage of the electorate voted in the Afghan elections? I think it was pretty high. You'd have to assume that the number of voters reflects the number of Afghanis who accept democracy.

 

This ummah has has made such a big turn that, that does not shock me.. If they want to sell their religion for worldly things then Inshallah they will die!! This ummah has no need for the munafiq.

 

The clash of cultures is the primary reason of why this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you say (I quote your words) a "large number" of insurgents were killed in the battle when you don't even know what you are talking about? The fact is you have proven that you have no facts to support your baseless claim.

 

Here is the WHOLE article, with the sentence YOU DECEPTIVELY left out highlighted in red. That is tantamount to lying. YOU ARE A LIAR, ###### !! And YOU don't know what you're talking about. Now go and 'report' this post like a coward, because that's what you are. A COWARDLY LIAR.

 

 

 

Militants' new reach and power are demonstrated in attacks on U.S. and French troops.

By M. Karim Faiez and Laura King, Special to The Times

August 20, 2008

 

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN -- In the worst loss of life for Western troops in ground combat with Taliban forces in Afghanistan, insurgents ambushed and killed 10 French soldiers and wounded 21 in a sustained assault outside the capital, military officials said Tuesday.

 

Separately, militants made an hours-long attempt to overrun a major U.S. base in southeastern Afghanistan, employing an unnerving new tactic: multiple suicide bombers, three of whom blew themselves up in succession and three others who were shot by the base's defenders, according to a military official.

 

 

Taken together, the attacks against the French and American forces were a graphic demonstration of the growing reach and power of the Taliban and other Islamic militants in Afghanistan, where this year is fast becoming the most lethal for combatants and civilians alike since the fall of the Taliban to U.S.-led forces in 2001.

 

The pattern of militant strikes against Western troops over the course of the summer "fighting season" points to increased capacity and bolder ambition on the part of the insurgents, at a time when Afghanistan's central government, led by President Hamid Karzai, is facing a rising tide of popular discontent.

 

The attack on the French forces, in a rugged mountainous area about 30 miles east of Kabul, also heightened the sense of insecurity close to the capital. Last week, three Western female aid workers were shot to death in a Taliban ambush in Logar province, only about an hour's drive south of Kabul.

 

 

The initial ambush on a patrol of elite French reconnaissance forces in the Sarobi district of Kabul province took place late Monday and the fighting continued into Tuesday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement. It said about 100 insurgents took part.

 

Operations involving large numbers of militants are a tactical departure for the insurgents, who generally have eschewed large-scale frontal assaults in favor of smaller hit-and-run attacks that allow them to melt away when NATO troops use their greatly superior firepower.

 

The high toll among the French forces occurred despite the quick deployment of reinforcements, including close air support and mobile medical units. Western military officials said a "large number" of insurgents were killed in the battle, but declined to provide a more specific figure.

 

In France, the loss of so many elite troops at one time dominated headlines and galvanized politicians.

 

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Defense Minister Herve Morin immediately boarded a plane for Afghanistan. Sarkozy attended a memorial service this morning and visited the wounded, then meet with military commanders and Karzai, according to a statement from the presidential palace.

 

French forces, who first came to Afghanistan in 2002, had until now suffered relatively light casualties, compared with U.S., British and Canadian troops, who are deployed in the most dangerous areas, in the south and east.

 

Since the U.S.-led invasion, 934 coalition troops have lost their lives, 578 of them American, according to the website icasualties(contact admin if its a beneficial link). So far this year, 185 coalition troops (103 American) have died.

 

France has lost a total of 22 troops, Britain 116 and Canada 90. Several other nations have lost troops, including 25 from Germany and 23 from Spain.

 

The French losses represented the largest number of Western troop fatalities in a single incident in Afghanistan in more than three years. The only larger clusters of foreign military fatalities since the conflict began have involved downed aircraft.

 

The Taliban leadership, which generally has a sophisticated grasp of the domestic political situation in nations that provide troops to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force, has sometimes specifically targeted troops from countries in which they believe there is significant opposition to the Afghanistan mission.

 

Sarkozy drew domestic criticism from both the left and far right for his decision to send 700 additional French troops soon to Afghanistan, bringing the French contingent to more than 2,500.

 

Adding an emotionally difficult dimension to military authorities' account of the battle, the Associated Press quoted an Afghan official who spoke on condition of anonymity as saying four of the French soldiers were taken prisoner by the insurgents and then killed. But French officials later said nearly all the deaths were thought to have occurred in the first few moments of the ambush.

 

The area where the fighting took place is known to be a stronghold of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a veteran Taliban- allied commander with a reputation for brutality. He is believed to be based in Pakistan's tribal areas.

 

The attack against the U.S. base in the city of Khowst, near the Pakistan border, was described by military officials as involving a team of suicide bombers who stormed the gates of the base, a large and well-fortified logistical hub known as Camp Salerno.

 

The same base had been targeted a day earlier by a suicide car bomber. The vehicle blew up at the outer entrance to the base, killing 12 Afghan workers waiting to enter.

 

In its intensity and degree of coordination, Tuesday's assault in Khowst was reminiscent of an attack last month by insurgents against a U.S. base on the border of the eastern provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. Nine U.S. troops were killed in that confrontation, and the outpost was nearly overrun.

 

In Tuesday's fighting at Khowst, NATO brought in air power, including fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships, to help troops inside defend the base.

 

It was thought to be the first time such a large number of suicide bombers had taken part in a single assault. News agencies quoted a Taliban commander as saying more suicide bombers than the half-dozen who died had been at the ready, but withdrew to a safe house when it became clear they could not penetrate the base's perimeter defenses.

 

laura.king[at]latimes(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

 

Special correspondent Faiez reported from Kabul and Times staff writer King from Islamabad, Pakistan. Staff writer Maria De Cristofaro in Rome and special correspondent Audrey Bastide in Paris contributed to this report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

######, you still don't get my point (and Al Munimeen I don't get yours) - the CIA might or might not have rigged the result of the Afghan election, but the percentage of eligble people who actually voted (regardless of who they voted for) is a reflection of the acceptance of democracy in general and the post-Taliban political situation in particular. From emeory quite a large pedentage of the electorate voted, so quite a large percentage of Afghanis have accepted democracy and the post-Taliban reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
######, you still don't get my point (and Al Munimeen I don't get yours)

 

Al-Mumineen's point is that democracy is unislamic, which is a real shame...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (but await his clarification) that he's also saying that if Afghanis voted, then they deserve to be killed by suicide bombers. so if the majority of the electorate voted, the majority of Afghanis deserve to die. So much for self-determination.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Taliban are the Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini of this situation. If the US gov't were as bad to us as the Taliban and the Nazis, and the world came together to stop it, I would greet them as liberators.

 

I really pity your blatant ignorance. Afghanistan belongs to Afghan people not the Americans invaders nor the US puppets so the American invaders and their puppets are the international terrorists. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, Bush, Stalin, Sharon etc love traitors like you Russ of Vespuccia to support their brutal regimes.

 

I am still waiting for your so-called 'evidence'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really pity your blatant ignorance. Afghanistan belongs to Afghan people not the Americans invaders nor the US puppets so the American invaders and their puppets are the international terrorists. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, Bush, Stalin, Sharon etc love traitors like you Russ of Vespuccia to support their brutal regimes.

 

I am still waiting for your so-called 'evidence'.

 

 

 

 

Why did you, not-so ###### 'report' my post that TOTALLY DISCREDITS YOU and shows how DECEITFUL you are ? You are a fearful, little man when people prove you wrong and deceitful. And that happens A LOT. Now go ahead, hit the 'report' button on this post, scared little man. TAKE THE DECEITFUL, COWARDLY WAY OUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did you, not-so ###### 'report' my post that TOTALLY DISCREDITS YOU and shows how DECEITFUL you are ? You are a fearful, little man when people prove you wrong and deceitful. And that happens A LOT. Now go ahead, hit the 'report' button on this post, scared little man. TAKE THE DECEITFUL, COWARDLY WAY OUT.

 

Your insult reflect your corrupt mind and personality. You are so desperate that you insult and slander me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you'd follow the thread you'd see that I was talking about Al-Munameed's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your insult reflect your corrupt mind and personality. You are so desperate that you insult and slander me.

 

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU CAN'T ANSWER ME BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG !!! YOU WERE CAUGHT IN A LIE !!! YOU DIDN'T THINK I'D LOOK UP THE WHOLE ARTICLE !!! YOU ARE A LIAR WHO WAS CAUGHT LIKE A LYING RAT IN A TRAP !!! :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al-Mumineen's point is that democracy is unislamic, which is a real shame...

close enough but not exactly what i was saying. I meant that today in the modern world people are dropping their religion (or what i call selling their religion) if it benifits them. Like if there is no sharia, they can get drunk, hang out with girls, have sex with woman they never ment etc... They sold their religion for this.. (not saying that the pakistans who dont want the sharia are kuffars, unless they are with the paki goverment).

 

The Sharia is better then the goverment in america.. In america we have the right to take up arms agiants the goverment if they get curropted. But the goverment controlls who carrys a gun!!! and in some places people are denyed that right but yet americans walk heedlesly unaware or just dont care.

 

If you go and make a militia agianst the goverment do you really think they are going to allow you to form?? or do the same thing like the brits did when america took arms agianst them?

 

But in Islam a kalipha went to the people and encouraged people to raise a sword agianst him if he does somthing wrong.. Imagine the american president saying that?? We all now that will never happen.

 

And what about religious freedom?

 

America does not have religous freedom.. To have religious freedom is to be able to fully practice your religion. But their are some conflicts with Islam and the laws of america so thus we do not have religious freedom..

 

Does the law of Allah have religous freedom???

 

Yes it does. It does not work the same way as it does in america, becuase their will be conflicts. The way it works is that the nation of-lets say christians would be able to put their own system of LAW seperate from that of the sharia.

 

What does the Islamic law (sharia) say infront of curropt leaders??

 

This was answered slightly above

 

Like in a democracy people can take a politician out of his position, but in america it is very hard to veto them.

 

Like we said before the people have the power to take curropt rulers out of power. So lets say a politician got curropt then the people including the soilders who take him as a leader can disobey and take him out of power.. If you do that in america you will be a "threat to national security" and court marshalled..

 

Imagin how munch that will help you with Mr.Bush!!! No Iraq war!!

 

But you are not going to see the secret service take bush into custody for his crimes anytime soon as then they will be "a threat to national security".

 

How is an Islamic goverment formed?

 

Well thier is a calipaha which you can say is Mr.President, then their are sultans (governors) who is the leader of the region by both military and religious.

 

Governers and calipha can be put into power in any way. By votes, or by imams (religous leaders) or anything else as long as the muslim nations give alligance to him he is the calipha of that nation (which normally would be all the muslim nation). The one that are pick to be the calipha are usually muslims who are strong in their religion.

 

What about luxurious of being in politics??

 

in america you see the places of politics to be the areas were wealth and luxurious come to mind. But in Islam this is not how it is. you can not take the money of the muslims and buy yourself a 1,000 meal.. Well kind of thinking about yes you can. But only if the muslims nation is okay with it.. The people control how munch money the calipha gets but the calipha can go lower if he wishes....But being the calipha being picked becuase of his religious commentment would usually never live under that luxurious way... Infact the the caliphas after Prophet Muhammad (saws) found a door to be to luxiourious for himself and any other sultans..

 

 

 

I know you are wondering then what about all those palaces that the sultans lived in?? Well once the imams(religous leaders) get curropt the nation will usaully go in with them becuase they are the ones teaching the religion. Thus the people will go with them. thus being able to re establish a calipha that is not curropt will be harder..

 

the constitution is made with the knowledge that the goverment will get curropt. And thus it made the whole check and balance thingy and the ability to be able to veto..

 

at the end when the goverment gets curropted to a certian point it seems like mission impossible to straighten it out. And check and balance will not fix that neither if vetoing a few people. That will need a miracle to fix. Usually by the goverment falling then going back up is the only way to do it.

 

woosh.... That was a long responce.. i didnt expect that long of a responce did ya???

 

I now the quality of this post is low but i dont care you get the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×