• Brand New Afghan Policeman Kills Two U.S. Troops Minutes After He's Handed His Official Weapon At Hi
    58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Marbalo;37305786]The US has a massive history of funding terrorist organizations that happen to be fighting over mutual interests, the Taliban is not one of those organizations.[/QUOTE] Actually that's exactly what the US did with the taliban United States [B]The United States supported the Taliban through its allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia between 1994 and 1996 because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-Western.[/B][263] Washington furthermore hoped that the Taliban would support development planned by the U.S.-based oil company Unocal.[264] For example, it made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995, and expelled thousands of girls from schools;[265] the Taliban began killing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras), and restricting the rights of women.[174] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban. The next year, the American-based oil company Unocal withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia.[266] One day before the capture of Mazar, bin Laden affiliates bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, killing 224 and wounding 4,500, mostly Africans. The U.S. responded by launching cruise missiles on suspected terrorist camps in Afghanistan, killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton.[267] Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in protest over the refusal to turn over bin Laden, and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.[268] In mid-October the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to ban commercial aircraft flights to and from Afghanistan, and freeze its bank accounts worldwide.[269] Adjusting its counterinsurgency strategy, in October 2009, the U.S announced plans to pay Taliban fighters to switch sides.[270] On November 26, 2009, in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, President Hamid Karzai said there is an "urgent need" for negotiations with the Taliban, and made it clear that the Obama administration had opposed such talks. There was no formal American response.[271][272] In early December 2009, the Taliban offered to give the U.S. "legal guarantees" that they would not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries. There was no formal American response.[145] On December 6, U.S officials indicated that they have not ruled out talks with the Taliban.[273] Several days later it was reported that Gates saw potential for reconciliation with the Taliban, but not with Al-Qaeda. Furthermore, he said that reconciliation would politically end the insurgency and the war. But he said reconciliation must be on the Afghan government's terms, and that the Taliban must be subject to the sovereignty of the government.[274] [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#United_States[/url]
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;37303867]Did I read that wrong or did it say that he had only joined the police force 5 days prior? Shouldn't they at least give these people a thorough screening before handing them a gun?[/QUOTE] I think it's truly difficult to give potential Afghan police recruits the same kinds of screenings and security checks that we give police officers in the West. One method that is used to screen potential candidates is to have village elders vouch for them which isn't a particularly reliable method as we're starting to see now.
[QUOTE=BorisJ;37302302]I think it's time we remove all of our troops. We have no business there.[/QUOTE] But the US does have business there, particularly in geo-political security terms.
[QUOTE=G3rman;37305551]Much of what remains of that organization has ventured off into the terrorist organizations we know today, they are connected.[/QUOTE] No they aren't connected. Mujahideen was basically a name for anti-soviet warfighters. People who took up arms against the russians. You could have two completely unrelated tribes of men fighting under the Mujahideen banner. If we want to get really literal, it means virtually anyone involved in a struggle, it's almost identical in meaning to the word Jihad. When the Russians left the country it descended into full blown chaos because you had bands of warriors roaming the country doing whatever they pleased, there was very little uniform governance beside local leaders/elders residing over their tribe's people. There was no longer a common goal to unite against. The formation of the Taliban as a political and military body did not happen until well after the Russians had left the country, some years later iirc. It was sparked by an incident where a group of fighters had kidnapped some local girls and raped them. "he most often-repeated story and the Taliban's own story of how Mullah Omar first mobilized his followers is that in the spring of 1994, neighbors in Singesar told him that the local governor had abducted two teenage girls, shaved their heads, and taken them to a camp where they were raped. 30 Taliban (with only 16 rifles) freed the girls, and hanged the governor from the barrel of a tank." It's said this is the incident that sparked the creation of the Taliban as a political and military entity, of course a lot more is involved, but It was after this that Mullah Omar decided to enforce a very strict interpretation of Sharia law, and anyone not wanting to follow those principles would be killed. Mujahideen is not related to Taliban. There are mujahideen in the taliban yes, but there are also mujahideen in anti-taliban groups, there is also mujahideen in Al Qaeda. It's no more related than say an ex-soldier taking up with a criminal organization.
Nuke it from orbit and be done with the place.
[QUOTE=G3rman;37305551]Much of what remains of that organization has ventured off into the terrorist organizations we know today, they are connected.[/QUOTE] G3rman confirmed for not knowing shit about the mujahideen.
They're arming US troops 24/7. They apparently now have to carry a weapon that is loaded at all times. They have to be ready to defend themselves at all cost..fucking terrible. [url]http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-17/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-taliban_1_green-on-blue-attacks-afghan-security-forces-afghan-government[/url]
[QUOTE=MR-X;37308634]They're arming US troops 24/7. They apparently now have to carry a weapon that is loaded at all times. They have to be ready to defend themselves at all cost..fucking terrible. [url]http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-17/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-taliban_1_green-on-blue-attacks-afghan-security-forces-afghan-government[/url][/QUOTE] This should have been done a long time ago.
[QUOTE=MR-X;37308634]They're arming US troops 24/7. They apparently now have to carry a weapon that is loaded at all times. They have to be ready to defend themselves at all cost..fucking terrible. [url]http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-17/asia/world_asia_afghanistan-taliban_1_green-on-blue-attacks-afghan-security-forces-afghan-government[/url][/QUOTE] I'm surprised they haven't already. I would think they would at least carry their sidearms with them.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37308703]I would think they would at least carry their sidearms with them.[/QUOTE] Actually only officers, medics, and a few other troops carry a sidearm with them.
Well, I only have a primary armament issued to me. The pilots get sidearms, rarely anyone else except for those assigned a machine gun. Even then, they are not issued them commonly.
I think tankers may get them as well in case they need to use them for self-defense. Point is nobody should walking around a FOB without a weapon anymore, even during leisure time.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37304375]This is why when I get there, I am not going to trust anybody but NATO personnel.[/QUOTE] Because that will surely make everything better... [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=cccritical;37304548]didn't realize the taliban were a direct & intentional product of the US government, please elaborate[/QUOTE] To be fair the US facilitated the start of the civil war by just leaving the country a mess after they supported the Afghani people against the soviets. It was only natural that the most powerful factions gained dominance. The most powerful faction were the taliban who were largely comprised of former mujahideen or at the very least influenced by them. The Northern Alliance on the other hand are slightly better than the Taliban, but they didn't enjoy media coverage because they were supported by the US.
[QUOTE=Earthen;37309842] To be fair the US facilitated the start of the civil war by just leaving the country a mess after they supported the Afghani people against the soviets. It was only natural that the most powerful factions gained dominance. The most powerful faction were the taliban who were largely comprised of former mujahideen or at the very least influenced by them. The Northern Alliance on the other hand are slightly better than the Taliban, but they didn't enjoy media coverage because they were supported by the US.[/QUOTE] Oh for god's sake I've just been over this. Mujahideen are not Taliban, nor did they become the Taliban. Mujahideen isn't even an entity, it was just a name for a number of like minded individuals fighting off the Russian invaders. Again to use my previous example, saying Mujahideen became the Taliban is like saying ex-soldiers became <x> criminal enterprise. You're talking about a vast group of individuals, some with zero relation to eachother, who went on very different paths post-war. The US didn't facilitate shit, it was in the interest of the US (and British government - who were also present in Afghanistan - if we want to play this blame game) to arm and equip the Afghanis and support their efforts against Russia, because it was potentially disastrous if Russia gained control of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has always been tribal, that's why the country descended into chaos, or rather: back into. The Taliban were not the most powerful faction, shit they weren't even a "faction" until well after the Soviets had fucked off back home. I know this is FP and you guys love to blame the US govt for just about everything but this is one case where they aren't responsible for shit. Giving Afghanis surface-to-air missiles =/= facilitating civil warfare.
Ok fuck this, pull back IMMEDIATELY. Like tomorrow. Pull the fuck out.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37305045]I have a challenge for you SKEEA, you go one post without reminding everyone you're in the military.[/QUOTE] cant see the issue with posting about the military in a thread about the military. you need to seriously step off, he's probably nervous about being deployed (I know I'd be) and needs to let it out some how. This kind of news doesn't make a new guy feel any safer out there.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;37314762]cant see the issue with posting about the military in a thread about the military. you need to seriously step off, he's probably nervous about being deployed (I know I'd be) and needs to let it out some how. This kind of news doesn't make a new guy feel any safer out there.[/QUOTE] Well that typically happens when you volunteer to go to a warzone.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37315001]Well that typically happens when you volunteer to go to a warzone.[/QUOTE] Sorry, not every soldier who volunteers is a stone cold hardass that cant wait to get deployed overseas
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37305045]I have a challenge for you SKEEA, you go one post without reminding everyone you're in the military.[/QUOTE] I challenge you to not post please. Your derailing the thread already into a shit storm. If you want to go argue with him, please go message him.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;37315400]Sorry, not every soldier who volunteers is a stone cold hardass that cant wait to get deployed overseas[/QUOTE] What the hell is with you people in every time someone says anything even remotely neutral or negative about the military you start making these insane strawman arguments. I did not say every soldier is a "stone cold hardass that cant wait to get deployed overseas"
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37315936]What the hell is with you people in every time someone says anything even remotely neutral or negative about the military you start making these insane strawman arguments. I did not say every soldier is a "stone cold hardass that cant wait to get deployed overseas"[/QUOTE] Yeah? What's with you making personal attacks on SKEEA? You have your opinion on the military, that's fine and dandy. I have no problem. But you are just calling out one member that has nothing to do with the thread.
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;37316038]Yeah? What's with you making personal attacks on SKEEA? You have your opinion on the military, that's fine and dandy. I have no problem. But you are just calling out one member that has nothing to do with the thread.[/QUOTE] Am I off limits from saying anything to him?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37316112]Am I off limits from saying anything to him?[/QUOTE] Not off limits but it's kind of common sense to you know, NOT act like a cunt.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37310643]Oh for god's sake I've just been over this. Mujahideen are not Taliban, nor did they become the Taliban. Mujahideen isn't even an entity, it was just a name for a number of like minded individuals fighting off the Russian invaders. Again to use my previous example, saying Mujahideen became the Taliban is like saying ex-soldiers became <x> criminal enterprise. You're talking about a vast group of individuals, some with zero relation to eachother, who went on very different paths post-war. The US didn't facilitate shit, it was in the interest of the US (and British government - who were also present in Afghanistan - if we want to play this blame game) to arm and equip the Afghanis and support their efforts against Russia, because it was potentially disastrous if Russia gained control of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has always been tribal, that's why the country descended into chaos, or rather: back into. The Taliban were not the most powerful faction, shit they weren't even a "faction" until well after the Soviets had fucked off back home. I know this is FP and you guys love to blame the US govt for just about everything but this is one case where they aren't responsible for shit. Giving Afghanis surface-to-air missiles =/= facilitating civil warfare.[/QUOTE] You are entirely correct. The US didn't fund the foriegn muj, like Osama, we gave money to the ISI who then distributed out the cash to a number of Afghan muj groups as they saw fit. Research [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone"]Operation Cyclone[/URL]. [QUOTE] His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Let me clarify my original post in the thread. When I get over there, I will be extra cautious around the ANA and ANP. I will not make buddies with any of them. That is how they get close to you or your superiors in order to carry out these attacks. I am not trusting anyone that has the capacity to harm me or my battle buddies. I am just there to fix my particular helicopter, nothing more. My mission does not encompass trying to win hearts and minds, my mission is to get our Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines out of there.
Shit it happened again: [QUOTE=CBS News](CBS/AP) KABUL, Afghanistan - The NATO military coalition in Afghanistan says a man in an Afghan police uniform has shot and killed an international service member in southern Afghanistan. It was the latest in a string of attacks by apparent Afghan forces against their NATO allies. Capt. Dan Einert, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, told CBS News correspondent Kitty Logan that the shooter was killed. The international military alliance says in a statement the attack happened Sunday but does not give further details. The statement says NATO and Afghan officials are investigating.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57496064/afghan-uniformed-gunman-kills-nato-service-member/[/url]
Fuck sake man, it's just turned into a shitty situation where you're fucked if you leave and you're fucked if you stay, can't exactly just leave now after flattening the country but if we stay people are just gonna keep dying.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.