Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+38
Tsavo Lion
Regular
Eugenio Argentina
Scorpius
auslander
Hannibal Barca
Rasisuki Nebia
jhelb
lyle6
limb
Backman
medo
Russian_Patriot_
SeigSoloyvov
littlerabbit
Sujoy
franco
Airbornewolf
George1
VARGR198
Kiko
miketheterrible
JohninMK
Mir
mnztr
Finty
Hole
GarryB
ALAMO
Isos
calripson
par far
PapaDragon
flamming_python
d_taddei2
Gomig-21
Cowboy's daughter
AlfaT8
42 posters

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Tolstoy
    Tolstoy

    Posts : 18
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2015-07-13

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Tolstoy Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:29 pm

    nomadski wrote:Good news for Afghans I hope . Trade should be allowed for all regions of Afghanistan , up to and including trade routes to Central Asia and China . Iran should continue with food aid to all regions and protect all communities in Afghan Ostans , as it protect own Iranian Ostans . Especially those regions subject to occupation and ethnic cleansing .

    https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2021/09/07/2567711/iran-resumes-steel-exports-to-neighboring-afghanistan
    Iran must have realized that Taliban has now defeated the Afghan Resistance and taken control of the entire country.
    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1513
    Join date : 2017-01-03

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  nomadski Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:39 pm

    America or others including Taliban , were " seen " as defeating all others and taken over entire country . The report itself rightly indicates the " inevitability " of some problems , given present situation . The question is what should be done , as situation gets worse . All other Afghan groups relied on the previous Administration for security , and did not prepare or arm themselves . Apart from Taliban , that was in opposition . It will not take too long , before the Northern alliance arms itself and launches counter offensive . For peace to exist , first all armed groups must withdraw to own regions . And if given a chance , then may form a working arrangement for a fair working government . Outsiders like Iran , should help the disengagement of forces on the ground . Stop local genocides or ethnic cleansing by either direct or indirect action . Help organise resistance groups in areas coming under heavy attack . I think this to be  the work of a parachute regiment , to drop food and supplies and possibly men in specific locations . Take the wind out of them .
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2080
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  AlfaT8 Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:39 am

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:06 pm

    The government of the EU is not inclusive and tolerant either.... and it was the US government that started the invasion of Afghanistan... how inclusive or tolerant was that?

    Afghanistan is no more obliged to be inclusive and tolerant than Saudi Arabia or Israel.

    Losers don't dictate terms.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1513
    Join date : 2017-01-03

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  nomadski Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:13 pm


    https://en.mehrnews.com/news/178590/President-Raeisi-to-travel-Tajikistan-to-attend-SCO-summit

    Good visit by Iran officials to Tajikistan for SCO meeting . A!so Iran directly in contact with ALL groups , very good . Seems like the leadership grasped importance of Northern Afghanistan and Tajikistan , a route strategic to Iran and China trade , in case of blockade by West . Policy on right track !

    Finty
    Finty

    Posts : 339
    Points : 345
    Join date : 2021-02-10
    Location : Great Britain

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Why Biden won’t be held accountable for Afghanistan

    Post  Finty Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:09 am

    Why Biden won’t be held accountable for Afghanistan

    https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/why-biden-wont-be-held-accountable-for-afghanistan/?mc_cid=fc2be15ac3&mc_eid=5455568640

    Why Biden won’t be held accountable for Afghanistan
    History shows US presidents have a well-worn menu of political survival tactics following such fatal catastrophes
    By DANIEL WILLIAMS
    AUGUST 30, 2021
    Print


    US President Joe Biden pauses as he delivers remarks on the terror attack at Hamid Karzai International Airport, and the US service members and Afghan victims killed and wounded, in the East Room of the White House, Washington, DC on August 26, 2021. Photo: AFP / Jim Watson
    When US soldiers die during a botched military mission, calls for accountability usually ring out among politicians and the public.

    In the wake of the deaths of 13 American soldiers in a terrorist bombing at Kabul airport, US President Joe Biden is facing such loud and intense criticism. Some political opponents even demand he either resign or be removed from office.

    Neither will happen. He has perfunctorily defended himself by taking responsibility for “all that’s happened of late,” but focused blame on others, including the Afghans themselves and his predecessor, Donald Trump.


    It is a risky defense. The Kabul carnage was exceptional – more than 130 Afghan would-be refugees were also blown up – but also followed upon an ill-planned and disorderly evacuation of diplomats, American citizens and Afghan civilians.

    But Biden is undoubtedly familiar with a well-worn menu of political survival tactics following such catastrophes. In his long Washington career – it spans almost a half-century – he has witnessed several successful campaigns to fight off critiques of military debacles.

    He need only to follow scripts laid out by three of his predecessors – Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W Bush.

    In the past half half-century, each oversaw spectacular mishaps. All the events had one thing in common: they occurred during missions originally designed to accomplish one thing, but then turned to some other, more ambitious undertaking.

    The habit became known as “mission creep.”


    In 1983, Reagan launched what he called a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, meant at first to escort the Palestine Liberation Organization out of the country after Israel’s 1982 invasion. He pulled the troops out in the fall of 1983, but returned 800 Marines quickly as the Lebanese civil war, already seven years old, reignited.



    Smoke rises from the US marines headquarters near Beirut International Airport after it was destroyed by a suicide bomber driving a truck on October 23, 1983. Photo: AFP / DOD
    Reagan’s mission creep
    Reagan called the force peacekeepers and pledged that “the American force will not engage in combat.”

    But peacekeeping works best when everyone in a conflict agrees to it. But all of Beirut’s civil war factions didn’t. Some considered the foreign troops as allies of Israel and their militias clashed with and sniped at US troops and other peacekeeping forces involved.

    US military rules of engagement limited the US response. American soldiers were told to keep no bullets in the chamber of their rifles.

    On October 23, a Shiite suicide bomber, probably trained by Iran, drove a truck filled with explosives into the Marine barracks. It was surrounded only by chain link fencing. None of the sentinels on guard got a shot off as the truck approached the building. The blast killed 241 servicemen.


    US public and political outrage ran high. After promising to keep his forces in Beirut, Reagan withdrew them less than four months later. He then took personal responsibility. The maneuver had the effect of shielding subordinates, and especially field commanders, from having to resign or even face military courts-martial.

    “If there is to be blame,” Reagan said, ”It properly rests here in this office and with this president. I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.”

    He acknowledged that commanders had underestimated the danger, but said they ”have already suffered quite enough.”

    Criticism faded.



    Then US President Bill Clinton answers questions on October 4, 1993, about the situation in Somalia. Photo: AFP / Denis Porpoy
    Clinton’s Somalia disaster
    In 1993, Clinton deftly responded to a smaller scale but nonetheless damning disaster in Somalia. It also involved mission creep.


    He had decided to supplement a United Nations famine relief operation into a project to sideline warlords fighting for power. He directed military commanders and diplomats to be “actively involved in nation-building, and in supporting the establishment of structures restoring essential public services based upon legitimately vested authorities.”

    One powerful warlord, Muhammed Farah Aidid, understood that this would derail his armed drive to take over Somalia. His militia began to harass UN peacekeeping forces, killing dozens of soldiers.

    In early October 1993, US troops went on a raid to capture him. One of Aidid’s militiamen shot down a US Black Hawk helicopter. The frantic US rescue effort left 19 Americans and hundreds of Somalis dead.

    Clinton quickly moved to deflect criticism by first undoing his nation-building venture – without ever acknowledging he ordered it up. “It is not our job to rebuild Somalia’s society or even to create a political process that can allow Somalia’s clans to live and work in peace,” he said in a speech after the firefight.

    He said food deliveries would continue, but that troops from other countries replace US forces. He scheduled the American withdrawal for March 31, 1994. “We must also leave on our terms,” he said.

    “I am convinced we will have lived up to the responsibilities of American leadership in the world.”

    Clinton’s Defense Secretary, Les Aspin, resigned and saved the president’s Somalia decisions from a possible spiral of repercussions. Aspin attributed his exit to personal issues, but it was common knowledge that he had turned down a request for tanks to help defend US troops.



    Somalis look at the wreckage of a US helicopter in a Mogadishu street on October 3, 1993, after it was shot down. Photo: AFP / Stringer
    No apologies from Bush
    George W Bush, who launched the Iraq invasion and oversaw almost the entire US occupation, never apologized for either, much less admitted mistakes. It can’t be said mission creep arrived stealthily. It was always implicit in the eight-year US oversight in Iraq.

    No single incident, as in Beirut or Somalia, sparked the end of American ground action in Iraq. Rather, the long build-up of American military casualties – 4,431 deaths – and the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on physical reconstruction and training the Iraqi army led to occupation fatigue.

    The frequent shift of enemies over time that prolonged combat contributed, too.

    At first, the enemies were supporters of Saddam Hussein. Then Sunni Muslims who chafed under the discriminatory sectarian rule of the Shiite Muslim-dominated government. Then al-Qaeda, and then anti-American Shiite militias, some of which were under the command of US nemesis Iran.

    Finally came Islamic State militants, who set up a caliphate in Central Iraq.

    In 2011, Bush signed a withdrawal agreement of US forces with the Iraqi government. He declared victory – an eight-year habit of his – by asserting the country was on its way to a glorious future.

    Iraq would become “a strong and capable democratic Iraq that will be a force of freedom and a force for peace in the heart of the Middle East,” he said.

    Bush expressed regret over only one aspect of the war and occupation: that US troops never uncovered a nuclear weapon program whose existence he used to justify the invasion. He blamed others: his own intelligence services had failed.

    Biden avoids responsibility for the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan by saying he was always against it. That’s not true. Only when, as vice president under Barack Obama, did he object when Obama wanted to add troops to fight the Taliban.

    But he must defend his planning and execution of the evacuation as the Taliban rolled to victory this spring and summer.

    His administration’s errors are numerous: the failure to notify allies of his withdrawal plans; setting a date for withdrawal of American troops no matter what the conditions; optimistic predictions of the Afghan army’s ability to maintain control of the country; withdrawal from the main US military headquarters at Bagram airbase; and the pullout of 2,500 soldiers only to have to dispatch 5,000 back to organize a civilian evacuation.



    US President Joe Biden alongside First Lady Jill Biden as they attend the dignified transfer of the remains of 13 fallen service members at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on August 29, 2021. Photo: AFP / EyePress News
    Not the American way
    Allied doubts about American leadership will linger.

    Exceptionally difficult to defend is acknowledging that hundreds of Americans and many more Afghan allies will be left behind when US troops withdraw for good on Tuesday. Reminders of that failure will come in the form of appeals from Afghan partners and possibly even US citizens for rescue.

    Private citizens embarking on makeshift rescue operations will highlight Biden’s reluctance to proactively save those left behind.

    But most controversial, given the airport massacre, was the need to depend on enemy Taliban forces to secure access to the airport where US troops were trying to organize evacuations. A suicide bomber, apparently able to pass through the Taliban cordon without being searched, was able to arrive face to face with Marines at the airport gate and detonate.

    For that, critics say Biden has blood on his hands.

    It might be easier for Biden to at least acknowledge individual culpability and let a head or two roll. But that’s not the American presidential way.
    Finty
    Finty

    Posts : 339
    Points : 345
    Join date : 2021-02-10
    Location : Great Britain

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Boris Johnson’s Global Britain is exposed as impotent and friendless by Afghanistan

    Post  Finty Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:13 am

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/22/boris-johnson-global-britain-exposed-impotent-friendless-afghanistan


    Boris Johnson’s Global Britain is exposed as impotent and friendless by Afghanistan
    Andrew Rawnsley
    Andrew Rawnsley
    We can no longer fool ourselves about a special relationship with the US and we have burnt our bridges in Europe
    boris johnson speaks to joe biden by telephone on 23 january 2021
    ‘Number 10 bragged that the prime minister was at the top of the list on the new American president’s call sheet.’ Photograph: Andrew Parsons/No10 Downing Street
    Sun 22 Aug 2021 09.30 BST

    1,697
    When a freshly elected Joe Biden had his first transatlantic phone conversation with Boris Johnson, Number 10 bragged that the prime minister was at the top of the list on the new American president’s call sheet. Downing Street flourished this as evidence that, whatever differences between the two men there might have been in the past, the “special relationship” was as warm and deep as ever.

    Now we know differently. When it came to the calls that mattered over Afghanistan, Mr Johnson’s capacity to influence Mr Biden was less than that of the president’s dog. The withdrawal of what remained of the Nato presence in Afghanistan was dictated by abrupt and unilateral decisions made in Washington. Ministers privately admit that not only did they fail to see a resurgent Taliban coming, they have been reduced to second-guessing what the United States will do next.

    Dominic Raab
    Too little, too late: why it was panic stations in Whitehall as Kabul fell
    Read more
    A callous and cynical Donald Trump struck a terrible cut-and-run deal with the Taliban. Mr Biden foolishly chose to carry on with it and in a fashion so calamitous that it has surrendered Afghanistan back to the murderous extremists that western forces went in to evict two decades ago. This wretched denouement has been seared into the world’s consciousness by images of frantic mothers throwing their babies over razor wire fences at Kabul airport and desperate souls clinging to the fuselage of departing US transport planes before losing grip and falling to their deaths. The UK and other Nato members had the power only to protest to the Americans after the tragic event.


    There has been much deserved mockery of the prime minister for going off on holiday even as the Taliban advanced on the gates of Kabul. The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, is taking heavier flak for being by his sun-lounger. It was definitely a dereliction of duty to be on the beach at such a grave moment, but behind that lies a much more brutal truth, one that many Britons, and the Conservative party in particular, find difficult to digest. It would have made little essential difference to the big picture if the two men had been chained to their desks. Even were Mr Johnson a figure with sufficient credentials in statesmanship to bend the president’s ear about the disastrous course he chose, the UK had scant moral or practical authority to call on because virtually all of our combat troops were withdrawn seven years ago.

    Britain’s powerlessness was the subtext to the hand-wringing speech that the prime minister gave to the emergency session of the Commons. He basically conceded that the ability to shape events in Afghanistan, or even to accurately forecast them, was beyond the UK government. Theresa May witheringly asked the man who supplanted her: “Where is Global Britain on the streets of Kabul?” There were moving words about the sacrifices made over the past 20 years and heated ones about betrayal, especially from MPs who served in Afghanistan as part of the Nato coalition assembled after the attacks on the Twin Towers. I have never heard so much fury so ferociously expressed by Conservative MPs about the behaviour of the US. Behind their hot anger was a cold fear: the foreboding sense of an impotent Britain friendless in a frightening world.

    Since 1945, there have been two dominant strands of British opinion about the complicated relationship with America. Most of the foreign policy establishment and nearly all prime ministers have adopted the Atlanticist view. This holds that Britain maximises its influence over the US and its heft in the world by gluing itself to whoever occupies the Oval Office. There have been some exceptions, such as Harold Wilson’s shrewd choice to stay out of the Vietnam war, but “hug them close” has been the rule. It was that impulse that drove Tony Blair to declare that he would “stand shoulder to shoulder” with America in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and later promise George W Bush that he would be “with you to the end” in Iraq. Britain’s investment of a lot of its own blood, treasure and reputation in American-led interventions is why the west’s humiliation in Afghanistan is felt so especially keenly among so many MPs.

    The other strand of opinion, which became particularly sharp after the Iraq debacle, is that the US is an unbearably dominant power that throws its weight around with reckless arrogance. This view has been especially vehement on the left. Almost none of those on the left who are bewailing what will befall Afghanistan under renewed Taliban rule were previously to be heard urging Washington to deploy more of its firepower there. While apparently opposed, the Atlanticist and the anti-American view have something fundamental in common: they assume US power and the will to wield it. A more introverted US will confound the foundational assumptions of both those who look to America for leadership of the free world and those who hold America responsible for all the planet’s ills.

    Jihadists will take encouragement from the Taliban takeover and there’s a clear risk of Afghanistan becoming a breeding ground for terror as it was when it harboured al-Qaida. Mr Biden has sown doubt about the bankability of US security guarantees to other allies and undercut his hopes of co-ordinating the democracies to take a united stand against the autocracies. China and Russia will be emboldened in their conviction that the west does not have the stamina or the resolve to successfully defend liberal values or come to the aid of people in jeopardy. When Chinese generals are war-gaming an invasion of Taiwan, they will be that bit much more likely to take the gamble that the US will not intervene to stop them. The Kremlin will be inclined to think that it can play more of its deadly games on its borders. The resurgence in Afghanistan of one of the world’s most viciously reactionary cults will encourage dictators and wannabe ones the world over to behave more badly to their neighbours or their own people, or both.

    Those who have wanted less America will discover that it can be alarming to get what you wished for. Those who have looked to America for global leadership will have to think hard about alternatives. Emmanuel Macron contends that Europe should recognise that it can no longer depend on the US to provide its security and protect its interests and must strive to achieve “strategic autonomy”. This idea stirred into life when Barack Obama pivoted towards Asia and gained more traction when the Trump presidency so undermined the presumption that America is a reliable ally. In theory, the European democracies are rich enough and populous enough to have the capacity to confront Russian adventurism and stand up to Chinese aggression. In practice, European leaders have failed to summon the will, make the tough choices or mobilise the resources.

    Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, says he tried to assemble a coalition of Nato states willing to carry on in Afghanistan. The French and the Germans weren’t interested and I’m highly sceptical that the British government was truly serious. Mr Johnson suggested they weren’t when he told MPs that it was an “illusion” to think that the mission could carry on without the Americans and expressed doubt that either voters or parliament would support dispatching large numbers of UK troops back to Afghanistan.

    If we are entering an era of American disengagement, the questions are acute for a Britain that chose to estrange itself from the liberal democracies in its neighbourhood at the same time as the US was becoming a less dependable partner. Some plausibly conjecture that the future is a new world disorder in which the great powers jostle for predominance and norms of international conduct are trampled underfoot. This will be a rough place for a country in the north-east Atlantic with lots of vital interests around the globe, but not the means to safeguard them by itself and no one it can count on as an all-weather friend. Cuts to defence spending have left Britain with its smallest armed forces since before the First World War. Our nation’s previous reputation as a superpower of “soft power” has been weakened by Brexit and the fading of its influence in Washington and further sapped by savage cuts to the aid budget. Britain hasn’t the clout to act by itself, but has diminished its ability to persuade others to act with it.

    “Very well, alone” did good service for Winston Churchill as a wartime rallying cry in 1940. British impotence in Afghanistan demonstrates that it is an utterly hopeless strategy for survival in the 21st century.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  GarryB Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:41 pm

    Why Biden won’t be held accountable for Afghanistan

    War in Afghanistan makes air power critical... the Americans in the 1980s knew that... that is the reason they supplied Red Eye and Stinger and Blowpipe missiles... of which only Stinger was any use. The result was a shift to artillery support which led to more civilian casualties of course but the west could care less.

    Without aircraft Afghanistan is impossible to control, the Soviets were beating the Muj but continued money and support from Saudi Arabia and the US meant they could endure and keep fighting... once the Soviets left of course there was no money for Afghanistan.

    Bidens biggest mistake was for him to withdraw the air support component three months before his deadline to leave... air support was why the Afghan government forces could win against the Taliban... if you give the girl scouts air support they probably could have done the job, but take that away and tell the enemy they are gone... I am surprised the Taliban waited as long as they did...

    When the Soviets withdrew the west was complaining that they weren't withdrawing... till they were gone... they had an example... they had a template... if they weren't such assholes to Russia they might have continued to use the transport corridor through Russia to withdraw through, but those bridges were burned a long time ago.

    It is sad to think what the west might have achieved if it had not squandered the good will and cooperation and interest in teamwork that was present at the start of this century... but they screwed everyone and ruined everything.

    A callous and cynical Donald Trump struck a terrible cut-and-run deal with the Taliban

    Hahaha... yeah, because another 2 trillion dollars and another 20 years and they will be just like us in the west and everything will be fine.

    Like him or loathe him, Donald Trump said he was going to bring back American troops from wars that are nothing to do with defending the US from danger and that is exactly what he did... eventually. Lots of pro war assholes in the US... and UK media it seems.

    20 years and 2 trillion dollars spent and the place looks like the middle ages... but some very rich people in the US have made a lot of extra money on the side.

    Biden screwed up the withdrawal by withdrawing air power first and not dealing with the stuff they were leaving behind.

    Most of the stuff they left behind would be of very little use in the US and the cost of filling planes up with that crap would not have made sense... it would be cheaper to write it off and just get the US MIC to make shiny brand new ones...

    With proper planning this could have been fine, but the end result was always going to be the Taliban in charge and womens rights return to the magic fairy land of Hollywood, no level of skill in withdrawing could change that.

    Sadly they seem to believe their own bullshit and this is what happens.

    Finty likes this post

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1513
    Join date : 2017-01-03

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  nomadski Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:43 pm

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuIlYK-b3PQ#



    https://en.mehrnews.com/news/178622/Four-killed-injured-in-a-bomb-blast-in-Afghanistan-Kunduz



    Afghanistan the graveyard of Afghans .Taliban spokesman acknowledged this killings , saying they had a right to defend against attacks . But they are the ones in other areas . How would they feel if others went into peshawar or pashtun area and killed Taliban , " in self defence " ?
    Sujoy
    Sujoy

    Posts : 1461
    Points : 1621
    Join date : 2012-04-03
    Location : India || भारत

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Sujoy Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:08 pm

    For those who still believe that Taliban will be pro Russia.


    Maximmmm
    Maximmmm

    Posts : 286
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-07-28
    Location : Switzerland

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Maximmmm Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:54 pm

    I find all the impotent cries about Taliban not being this or that emanating from the Anglo-saxons or the EU laughable.
    Woe to the vanquished. The taliban won after 20 years of "war", no ifs ands or buts about it, they get to do with the country whatever they want. If, to have an easier time establishing their government on the world stage they take some softer steps, that would be great, but bleeding hearts from the countries that spent this entire century so far breaking countries is a joke.

    flamming_python, PapaDragon and miketheterrible like this post

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16609
    Points : 17114
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  George1 Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:06 pm

    Taliban in Panjshir found containers of Soviet-style weapons belonging to Masud's forces
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11447
    Points : 11517
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:25 pm


    Looks like Masood and his bitches ain't got shit without advertising just like his daddy

    He is his daddy's boy after all



    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4518
    Points : 4510
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Hole Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:21 am

    According to an old speech of Obongo they prepared for 10 years to withdraw. Wow. Fantastic military. Rolling Eyes

    GarryB and Finty like this post

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1513
    Join date : 2017-01-03

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  nomadski Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:34 am

    Why is it that like the yetti or flying saucer , the " weapons " find footage is grainy and out of focus . All I could make out was probably the wooden stock of some bolt action rifles . Planks of wood . At least Saddam had gold plated Ak47........LOL .


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0L29pSgrc



    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHh3Aoqp2l0
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 9250
    Points : 9353
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  JohninMK Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:23 am

    Later ID's as Scud-B from 70s/80s

    Abu Drexy Khorasani (Drexy Baba)
    @RisboLensky
    ·
    14 Sep
    Missiles found in central #Panjshir during #IEA search ops. Big one. Looks like mid range stuff, similar to Tochka but military experts would know better #Afghanistan

    PapaDragon likes this post

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1513
    Join date : 2017-01-03

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  nomadski Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:41 am


    So these missiles have been sitting in the dirt for 40 years . So they were scrap metal . Even if functional , still useless against fast trucks moving between hills . The IEA attempt at psy ops , is transparent . Winter will prove a difficult time for them in the hills .

    miketheterrible likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30619
    Points : 31149
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  GarryB Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:15 am

    Just watched an interview with Oliver Stone on that Going Underground programme on RT and I found his opinions to be rather interesting and quite frankly unique amongst American commentators/experts.

    He basically said Biden did a good job... and that getting out of Afghanistan would be the hardest thing for a sitting American president to do because all the MIC and deep state would want to sabotage that so they can stay... they are not there by accident so someone is making money... they are certainly not there to save Afghans or for stability in the region, and it obviously has nothing to do with the war on drugs or the war on terror.

    He mentioned that when the French withdrew from Moscow they lost most of their army by the time they got to the borders of Poland.

    In comparison the US forces did not lose a lot of men in this withdrawal... sure they left a lot behind but over 20 years they are going to be working with an enormous number of locals and it is ridiculous to expect to be able to take them all with them.

    Look at how many former allies they have abandoned in previous wars... Vietnam, Korea etc etc.

    What he points out as being the most important thing is that Biden actually got them out... many other presidents would have sent more in or left some sort of permanent presence in the area for some cocked up reason they would never tell the truth about... like maintaining opium supply to the region because they make money from it or some such thing...

    I have a lot of respect for Oliver Stone... he is not afraid of speaking the truth and putting things in proper perspective.

    I don't really like Creepy Joe, but to his credit it was under his administration that they left and I suspect part of the military cockup and media nightmare was probably created in revenge because I don't think the Pentagon wanted to leave Afghanistan.

    Actually being isolated we see how quickly and easily the rebel opposition folded.... I honestly think that is a good thing and I think the US leaving Afghanistan will actually be good for Afghanistan in the short term and the longer term too.

    This interim government is not inclusive... but why should it be? And how could it be? The first governments the US imposed on Afghanistan didn't include any Taliban who seem to control the entire country now... I can't remember the last time one group controlled the entire country... when the British were there, when the Soviets were there, or when HATO was there, even when there was no foreign power there...

    Perhaps now they can focus on starting to fix things and develop a government they can move forward with... now it is up to them.
    Maximmmm
    Maximmmm

    Posts : 286
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-07-28
    Location : Switzerland

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Maximmmm Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:Just watched an interview with Oliver Stone on that Going Underground programme on RT and I found his opinions to be rather interesting and quite frankly unique amongst American commentators/experts.


    He's always been a unique guy. And in a way he's not wrong. I think where he gives too much credit is the execution. Yes it was going to be a disaster, yes the intelligence agencies probably knew it was going to happen. But even though biden did give that speech a few days into the fiasco, I think the emphasis was a bit wrong. Instead of pretending it wasn't going to be a Saigon or that the mission had failed (we accomplished what we came for and all that bs), he should have doubled-down on the anti-war stance. Yes he can't really give Obama shit, but he could have laid it all at Bush's, referenced the afghanistan papers and said that the establishment had been lying to the people for two decades and he would stop it no matter what it takes. And that's why the US troops that died on the airfield, were the first US troops to actually die for liberty there, because they were correcting a horrendous wrong that had been dealt to the american people.

    Or something like that, I dunno, I'm sure speech-writers could polish it up nice.

    Realizing that you're in a geopolitical f&*khole and that there is already a withdrawal in place from the previous administration and choosing to not oppose it is definitely a first for the US in the last 20 years, but hardly real courage.

    GarryB likes this post

    nomadski
    nomadski

    Posts : 1503
    Points : 1513
    Join date : 2017-01-03

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  nomadski Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:44 pm


    @GarryB

    "...This interim government is not inclusive... but why should it be? And how could it be? The first governments the US imposed on Afghanistan didn't include any Taliban who seem to control the entire country now... I can't remember the last time one group controlled the entire country... when the British were there, when the Soviets were there, or when HATO was there, even when there was no foreign power there..."


    Agree the Taliban Admin like previous US backed admin are not inclusive . The reason it should be inclusive is to do with stability . Without a working arrangement between tribes and formation of a loose tribal coalition ( most immediately possible ) or perhaps a Federation ( medium term ) and unitary state in the long term , there can be no stability . The Taliban have already indicated their readiness to possibly share power . They want to see first if they can monopolise power . But fully ready to back down . With a little push , they will .

    Russian_Patriot_
    Russian_Patriot_

    Posts : 1185
    Points : 1199
    Join date : 2021-06-08
    Location : Perm, Russia

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Russian_Patriot_ Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:31 am

    Taliban's Navy
    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Yg-dl210
    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Bufdkv10
    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Gxyatx10

    flamming_python, zepia and Mir like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7877
    Points : 7861
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Isos Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:21 am

    It's weired how they love those RPGs so much.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4518
    Points : 4510
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Hole Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:00 am

    Poor mens artillery. Second most successful weapon after the AK-47.

    GarryB likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7877
    Points : 7861
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Isos Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:01 am

    Hole wrote:Poor mens artillery. Second most successful weapon after the AK-47.

    My point is that you don't really need it when enjoying a dy off at the lake Laughing .

    Btw where is it ? It looks beautiful.

    flamming_python and miketheterrible like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11447
    Points : 11517
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  PapaDragon Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:28 am


    Smart man would take a swim instead of being cooked alive in full gear at high noon

    Sponsored content

    Taliban takeover of Afghanistan - Page 36 Empty Re: Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:32 pm