War On Terror: The steady demise of key Taliban leaders belies the drumbeat of a Taliban resurgence. From the Battle of the Bulge to the Tet offensive, our defeated enemies have often gone out in a blaze of glory.
Last fall, an article in USA Today spoke of a "reborn Taliban" and a "Taliban comeback" that, rather than confronting U.S. and NATO forces head-on, had adopted the homicide bombing, beheadings and remote-controlled roadside bomb tactics of the Iraqi insurgency. That mantra has been repeated by others many times since.
"We're getting stronger in every province and in every district and every village," Qari Mohammed Yousef Ahmadi, Taliban spokesman for southern Afghanistan, told USA Today. "We don't have helicopters and jet fighters. But we're giving America and its allies a tough time with roadside bombs, suicide attacks and ambushes. Our Muslim brothers in Iraq are using the same tactics."
They also don't have a snowball's chance in Kandahar of prevailing as long as American and NATO determination remains firm. As in Iraq, they are trying to play the media fiddle. Interviews full of bravado and photos of car bombs been there, done that.
The tactics used by their Muslim brothers are demonstrably failing as Sunni and Shiite unite against al-Qaida in Iraq, and even Democrats admit the surge led by Gen. David Petraeus is working.
The life expectancy of Taliban leaders is short these days. Two months after the USA Today article appeared, a U.S. air strike killed Mullah Akhtar Mohammed Osmani, the Taliban's southern military commander, as he traveled in the southern province of Helmand. Osmani was one of the three top associates of Taliban leader Mullah Omar. As the Taliban's southern commander, he played a "central role in facilitating terrorist operations" such as roadside bombings, suicide attacks and ambushes against Afghan and international forces, according to U.S. military spokesman Col. Tom Collins.
Osmani had played a key role in some of the Taliban's most notorious excesses, including the destruction of the ancient Buddha statues at Bamiyan and the trial of Christian aid workers in 2001.
In May, the top Taliban military commander, Mullah Dadullah, died fighting Afghan and NATO military forces in the Girishk district of Helmland province. Dadullah was known as Afghanistan's al-Zarqawi, the former al-Qaida-in-Iraq leader who also is deceased. He was a member of the Taliban's 10-member leadership council and another close associate of Mullah Omar. Dadullah also was the Taliban's leading public figure. In frequent interviews in the Arab press, he would boast of training suicide bombers, executing suspected collaborators and beheading hostages. Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid rightly called him a "brutal and cruel commander."
We commented recently on the fate of Abdullah Mehsud, one of the innocents said to be wrongly incarcerated for 25 months at Guantanamo before his release He returned to his native South Waziristan, where he rebuilt and led an estimated 5,000 foot soldiers, part of the Taliban "resurgence."
Funny the MSM never mentions that.
The Pentagon identified him as the leader of the cross-border attacks that have prompted calls for hot-pursuit missions into the tribal areas of Pakistan. Mehsud recently committed suicide by grenade rather than be captured by Pakistani forces during a raid in the southern district of Zhob in Baluchistan province.
The "reborn Taliban" thesis fits in well with the Democratic argument that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the real war on terror in Afghanistan. After all, that's where Osama Bin Laden had his camps and planned 9/11. A resurgent Taliban would be proof our focus and Bush's strategy is wrong.
But, as in Iraq, the Taliban knows we can't lose the war, only our will. That strategy was tried in Iraq and failed. We and our Iraqi allies are the real resurgents.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
My theory, and I would retract in face of hard evidence, that the opposition is mostly from the opium industry, and that terror fodder are brainwashed in the Madrasa controlled phony refugee camps in Pakistan. In his 1999 book, "The Taliban Phenomenon: 1994-1997" Kamal Matinuddin disclosed that the Taliban took 15% of earnings from the opium trade. Under Karzai, Afghanistan has now become, for the first time in its history, a heroin producer country. And most of that is done in Helmond District. I first read of that in the Euro press, and doubted it. However, NATO night patrol pilots report that the heroin factories are visible at night, and they dot Helmond, the area where Karzai is most critical of NATO bombing. The Dems are going to jump on the fact that opium eradication - a major mission target - is not proceeding in Pashto areas. Hearts and minds of drug producers are for bullets.
#2
I've written elsewhere today that we may intentionally be trying to lure Pakistan's troublemakers out of Pakistan into Afghanistan to kill, precisely to stabilize Pakistan. We want them to keep fighting, because the more they are weakened, the more the central government of Pakistan can control their entire country.
If they were to quit the fight, then Pakistan would continue to be a far more dangerous place to the rest of the world, than if it were controlled by its government.
The Man Behind The De Palma Smear:
Billionaire Mark Cuban has decided to put all of his weight behind a campaign to smear US troops in Iraq as monsters. Cuban has decided that De Palmas film Redacted must be seen as the cornerstone of his and De Palmas self-declared anti-victory campaign against America and her troops fighing in Iraq. Cubans company Magnolia Pictures will be bringing this propganda campaign to a theater near you this winter.
According to a source close to Cuban, the decision for Magnolia to develop, finance and distribute the film was personally made by Çuban. Cuban has a full producer credit on the film, and DePalma shot it on HiDef video at Cubans request, in order for it to qualify as fodder for Cubans hi-def cable channel.
So far neither he or DePalma have explained how they can be bringing the truth of the Iraq war to the American people, as Louie DePalma has said, when neither of them have ever been to Iraq, filmed any of Redacted in Iraq, or spent one minute with any soldier in Iraq. Clearly they are only bringing you their imagined propagandists reality of Iraq. Both had the opportunity to go, both declined.
They have chosen the cowards path in a quest for legitimacy as spokesmen for the Iraq war, and as such both have failed in that quest. Indeed, they are left standing as laughingstocks. Their reach has exceeded their grasp. Cuban is a jet-set, armchair Iraq Truther who made sure not to have his private jet stop anywhere near Iraq. But he and DePalma are more than anxious to bring you the reality of the Iraq war. LMFAO.
#6
a reminder, then: don't mention nor encourage anyone to see this movie. Don't encourage anyone to purchase this when it makes its' quick skid to DVD. Root against the Dallas Mavericks at every opportunity. If you see Mark Cuban in person, call him an anti-american asshole. Is that clear?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2007 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If you see Mark Cuban in person, call him an anti-american asshole.
#10
if you've had better returns (gtr/1 yr/3 yr/5 yr?)than JAOSX (look it up?) then I'll admit you're right. If you don't, I'll put your advice where I put the rest. I have a lot of money in Janus, and I'm pretty happy
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2007 22:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Sorry, what's "my advice"? The link is to a Cuban blog wherein he claims that the market is for suckers, having made his riches due its existance. My "post" is a comment to his rant.
#12
My point was that the Stock Market CAN get people rich, if done smartly. Mr. Cuban can smoke my pole. If I have a chance to suborn his wealth, I'll take advantage of it. I found your advice of little use, but that's just me, making money....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2007 22:15 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm not disagreeing with you. But I didn't offer any "advice". Did you even read the link?
Trail Of Terror: We've wondered why the Council on American-Islamic Relations director has spurned Senate invitations to answer terror charges. Now we know.
For the first time, evidence in a major federal terror case puts CAIR's current executive director Nihad Awad at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI.
After the Associated Press last week reported the bombshell, CAIR denied claims of ties to Hamas. "That's one of those urban legends about CAIR," said Parvez Ahmed, CAIR's chairman. "It's fed by the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere."
In fact, the evidence was revealed by an FBI agent who testified at the terror-financing trial under way in Dallas. Her name is Lara Burns, and she's the lead investigator in the case against operators of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in America. CAIR, which she says received startup funding from HLF, is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, according to court exhibits.
President Bush froze HLF's funds after 9/11. It's now accused of being a Hamas front, and its leaders including one of CAIR's founding directors are on trial for allegedly funneling more than $12 million to aid Palestinian suicide-bombing operations.
Burns placed both Awad and his ethnic-Palestinian pal Omar Ahmed, who founded CAIR with Awad, at a Philly meeting last decade where she says Hamas leaders and supporters hatched a plot to disguise funds for Hamas suicide operations as charity for HLF.
According to FBI wiretaps, it was decided at the Hamas summit, which took place inside a Marriott hotel, that most of the funds collected by HLF in the future would be steered to Hamas.
Awad, like Ahmad, does not talk much about his pre-CAIR days.
But before 9/11, when Muslim groups received less scrutiny in America, he made his support for Hamas publicly known. At a March 22, 1994, symposium on the Middle East at Florida's Barry University, Awad said: "After I researched the situation inside and outside Palestine, I am in support of the Hamas movement."
Three months later, he and Ahmad founded CAIR. They promote the group as a grass-roots champion of Muslim civil rights, a "Muslim NAACP." But many of the things CAIR's leaders claim and what we later learn from the factual record don't square.
For instance, they've claimed that they get no foreign support and that their funding comes from local dues. In fact, the bulk of their support comes from two Arab countries tied to 9/11 Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
They've claimed that the size of the Muslim population in America is 7 million. In fact, it's closer to 2 million.
They've claimed that they're mainstream American patriots, when in fact they've told Muslim audiences that they want the Quran to replace the Constitution as the "highest authority in America."
They've also claimed that they don't support terrorism, even as three senior employees have been jailed in terror-related cases.
And now this. CAIR claims to be the voice of American Muslims. If so, it's been an especially loud one. But it has lost its credibility to speak honestly for any legitimate cause.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: CAIR
#1
Sorta reminds me of a certain Florida professor. Here's a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly thanks to that idiot, America-hater, and all-around commie POS Bill Berkowitz.
#2
All of the primary defendants in this case should be in custody to prevent flight. These are people who sought to destroy America's constitution and import violent jihad to our streets. Only the Saudi Royal family represents a more significant threat to America and Americans in general.
"I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said. "But were all just waiting for this administration to end. Things that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and theres no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. Thats really weird. Its also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran." Another way to view this: if/when Iran strikes, our military and administration would have been negligent if they hadn't planned and prepared in detail for that eventuality. There is nothing in this that indicates we are preparing for a first strike. Though we might be, if Iran continues towards their goal.
Posted by: KBK ||
09/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Here we go again. Ahmadinejad peddled himself as a bridge between tradition and modernity. Most Iranians are aware that they bought a bill of goods. While he has Basij (Islamic storm trooper) support, most urban - those who matter - Iranians despise him as an "Arabist." Under that goof, Basijis have been used as strike breakers for Ayatollah owned companies. Under the oligarchy, monopolists have no incentive to purchase new and safer equipment, because they have no competition. Workers are hurting, and they are aware that incompetent economic management forces Iran to pay billions to other Gulf states, to refine their oil.
Heavy bombing of Qom - as a strategic terror center - and the nuclear sites and the Khomeini Monument in Teheran, would cause professional military elements to topple the Ayatollahs, and install a secular regime. The notion of requisite door to door fighting by hundreds of thousands of US troops, is a joke. However, the Iranian government does have an effective missile counter force, that could cause havoc in the Gulf. But, even there, military professionals would prefer to look beyond conflict.
If there is a raid - and Bush might shut it down because of the Iraq situation - then it would best be done before the Winter cold. Of course, people were predicting attacks last year. Somebody, flip a coin.
#2
"Really weird" to not tell everyone in the Armed Forces what is going on here? Since when were XOs and the like involved in planning strikes on targets countries like Iran? It would be foolish to include them bacause as this tool XO has so aptly proven, the ship will leak like a sieve if they do. If this is true, they did the right things. The moonbats who make up KOS have hung themselves again. Or perhaps KOS has gone fishing for evidence supporting their theories.
#4
Well, nothing wrong with a discussion of orders is there? Get together, comb it over, discuss. Set up a rigorous debate, get the facts, run a few concepts up flagpoles prepare the Bucks for the Passing.
#5
Scroll down into the comments. KKKos himself is no prize, but many of his minions are out-and-out paranoid:
Guys... does he want to (32+ / 0-)
destroy this planet and go home to Jesus? I just can't believe he will really do this.
I think it's time for the military to NOT follow orders and save this country. I wish someone (even Gates) had the balls to stop him from doing this.
Knowing that Gates didn't even know about the additional $$$ they were asking for (was it $50 billion), I think that means that Dick has taken over.
by victoria2dc on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:33:31 PM PDT
No, he wants (40+ / 0-)
absolute US hegemony in the region and Iran is the only real impediment to that. Iran, Iraq, and Syria were the three nations that needed to be "Taken out", according to Bibi Netanyahu's "Clean Break" policy, and the PNAC group supported this.
by KibbutzAmiad on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:45:00 PM PDT
PNAC (39+ / 0-)
it's all in the plan
by lisastar on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:58:21 PM PDT
That's why I (41+ / 0-)
don't consider it a conspiracy - it has not been a secret. The PNAC people - many of them - appeared in Israel for years talking about this at conservative gatherings and fundraisers. They've put it in many documents and talked about it very openly. They believe that US hegemony is the only way to "secure the region" (e.g. the oil). How can we be conspiracy theorists when they come right out and say "This is what we plan to do"?
by KibbutzAmiad on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:17 PM PDT
yes (20+ / 0-)
have seen a number of articles on Haaertz.com with Israeli military sabre rattling re Iran, and promising to force US to do so. No surprises here.
by lisastar on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:11:06 PM PDT
How can Israel (2+ / 0-)
force the US to do anything?
by Danjuma on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:23:27 PM PDT
hmmm...AIPAC maybe? (15+ / 0-)
HRC Obama and Edwards have already been "hosted" and promised not to take anything off the table as far as war goes.
by lisastar on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:30:30 PM PDT
Indeed (14+ / 0-)
AIPAC and the fact that PNAC's founder, Richard Perle, as well as many of it's members were unabashedly pro-Israel.
by brave little park on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:40:03 PM PDT
Notice the little numbers in parentheses? Kos has a comments rating system; if you're a registered member reading a thread, you can give each comment a positive or negative rating, and those numbers are reported in the comment's subject heading.
Note that the blatantly paranoid, Israel-is-running-everything comments have a bunch of positives, and no negatives.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/02/2007 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And if the post has more negative votes than positive, is the poster voted off the island?
#7
McZ: I disagree with the assessment that the IR army will do anything. They have been too thouroghly purged and controlled for too long.
Ditto the Iranian people. They grumble, but once the ordinance starts falling they will rally against the infidel. This is demonstrated again and again by strategic bombing surveys.
It don't matter how mean the checkist is, if he's the one giving you a warm place to sleep and food after the neghbhorhood has been leveled by secondaries from the ammo dump strike. You are gonna apprecate and obey him. The IRG are too canny a bunch of politicians to not do this.
OTOH, if we can make it clear that we consider the people irrelevant by our demonstrated accuracy and restraint, they will be too busy rebuilding and sorting out who's in charge to worry abt us.
Posted by: N Guard ||
09/02/2007 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
'Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they cant build a nuke.'
this is not switzerland or brazil or even frickin indonesia getting the bomb (though i would suspect the aussies would have something to say about indo..antohter rant though)..we are talking abount a regime that's been calling for the destruction of america for over 30 years (and actively engaging in war by proxy against us)...do we leave it to chance they are just spewing rhetoric for local consumption? no leader can ignore this threat. Like it or not the mil will be engaged for many years --> We will be faced with conflict or surrender of our geo/mil position in the region to iran.
Posted by: dan ||
09/02/2007 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Any officer who openly questions a major military operation before it is ordered is one of two types.
He either has serious tactical questions about the character of the operation that he believes must be addressed, one way or another, in furtherance of the mission; OR, he is expressing an attitude that borders on insubordination.
If he is of the former group, he may be given a limited number of responses: an answer to his concerns; a referral of his question to a knowledgeable authority for answer; the denial of an answer on grounds of security; or, at worst, an order that he comply without question. In the last circumstance, he may legitimately submit his resignation.
However, in the latter case of borderline insubordination, they are not questioning a military decision, but a political decision.
For an officer to do this is grounds for immediate removal from any position of authority for such a mission, as much as if they questioned the legitimacy of military activity based on their religious beliefs.
An officer's hold on the privilege of a commission is tenuous at best. And while in peacetime it may seem more contractual in nature, the truth is that any question at all of his abilities or willingness to carry out his mission may result in immediate relief from duties and/or discharge.
#11
'Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they cant build a nuke.'
Once again, Ayn Rand's point remains:
"Tyrannies have no sovereign rights."
Western leaders need to make this explicitly clear. All tin pot dictators and theocratic despots are fair game for any free nation to topple at will. Scumbags like Mugabe, Assad and Kim force this world to tow anchor. They are a millstone around our collective necks and need to have their own stretched post haste.
Totally on the same page you are, Zenster. Only the false wisdom of "moral equivalence", that awards virtue apart from being earned, is what prevents the above from being followed, much less enacted upon.
#13
This KOS crap is the same bilge that they are peddlign about Bush doing Martial Law and establishing a dictatorship. Its the same "replace the commanders" stuff, the same "there are secrets but I cant say who what or where" and other trash like that.
1) We do not have sufficient casus belli for a full alpha-strike. Taking out warehouses and Quds commanders is a job for SpecOps. And proper border security obviates the need for this if we are truly serious about it. All a full aiurstrike does now is rally Iran hard to Ahmadi-nejad, cementing him into power, and pissed off the whole region against us, and causes all kinds of trouble internally in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2) such a strike would blow up ALL the work we have done in Iraq by allowing AlQ to play on nationalist and racist elements to cause huge civil unrest, riots, etc. Countrproductive and stupid.
3) Iran may fall on its own if we have the balls to do the covert work.
4) Israel is more likely to striek nuke sites with or without our being informed.
5) we simply do not have the ground troop strenght to deal with it at this time. Yes we are takling about an Air campaign, but we are also talking about a subsequent HUGE increase in guerilla activity in the whole region. Also talking about destabilizing oil supplies, shutting the gulf down for weeks, and a hell of an economic shock.
People calling for this are stupid stupid stupid! You're not thinking it through, not from a military standpoint, nor a political one, nor an economic one.
There are better ways to use the military advantages we have over there. ANd its not time (yet) for such a strike. If it were, do you think morons liek the Daily Kos nutbags would know it? That alone should tell you its BS.
#14
...Everybody keep your powder dry - there's more than a few indications coming out that this is another Scott Beauchamp at work.
Man, these people just do NOT get any smarter, do they?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/02/2007 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Those of us above age 40 remember all the stories about how Reagan had his old feeble finger on the button and one day he was simply going to push. I was in Europe at the time and you could have read the U.S. Obituary in five languages in a three month period after Reagan won a landslide election. All the while we were undercutting the Soviets at every turn. Will Bush push the button on Iran? Why should he? Iran has an ARMED internal struggle to deal with and it's just a matter of time before the Mullah wake up and find they are no longer in power. Sure it will be bloody but it will be Iranian blood and that will make their ultimate downfall that much sweeter. But hey let tehm think we are planning a strike and waste time/money trying to blunt that.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said. "But were all just waiting for this administration to end. Things that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and theres no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. Thats really weird. Its also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran."
