Article

2008-02-28 Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-02-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11125 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 "US-based private intelligence company Stratfor says the Taliban are fighting an "effective and intensive" insurgency that would be difficult to beat."

Humm... They wouldn't happen to know Alan Greenspan, by any chance, would they?

Posted by MB 2008-02-28 03:16|| 2008-02-28 03:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Why would it be surprising if the Talibs were able to mount such an insurgency? We know that the salafist groups withdrew much of their manpower, money and arms from Iraq last year in response to the surge and to new opposition by Iraqi tribes.

Those assets didn't go home to Mama - they went looking for another place in which to defeat the kufir. And where better than in Afghan, where the Euros were doing their best to signal "take the money, take the country, just don't hurt me" ??

Posted by lotp 2008-02-28 07:01|| 2008-02-28 07:01|| Front Page Top

#3 It's hard to tell news.com.au and the dailytimes.com.pk apart.

Posted by ed 2008-02-28 08:24|| 2008-02-28 08:24|| Front Page Top

#4 What a ridiculous hit-piece. The 81mm mortar is not a "big gun" by any reasonable standard. It is a man-portable infantry weapon. The Australian army has 155mm howitzers, which would reasonably be "big guns" in the current context. I initially thought this might be what the headline referred to.

The exaggeration of a particular weapon's significance is a familiar trope in the Oz-left media, as when they attached great significance to the replacement of B-52s with B-1s in a routine Iraq support rotation. Here, the obvious objective is to portray the allies as so hard-pressed that they are resorting to massive and unprecedented weapons in their desperation to hold the line.
Btw, the Taliban are known to use 120mm mortars and 122mm rockets, both significantly more powerful than the 81mm.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-02-28 11:38|| 2008-02-28 11:38|| Front Page Top

#5 I prefer an aluminum overcast, with heavy, scattered Rockeye to big guns, my self.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-02-28 14:30|| 2008-02-28 14:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Now, THIS is a big gun, you defeatist wankers:

(280mm "Atomic Annie" firing on the Nevada test range, 1953)

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-02-28 15:58|| 2008-02-28 15:58|| Front Page Top

#7 AC: Good on ya!

Posted by Thorgrim the Obnoxious 2008-02-28 18:40|| 2008-02-28 18:40|| Front Page Top

22:26 Abdominal Snowman
22:17 Rambler in California
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:09 Barbara Skolaut
22:08 Barbara Skolaut
21:58 darrylq
21:50 Mark E.
21:43 KBK
21:42 phil_b
21:33 phil_b
21:33 g(r)omgoru
21:23 OldSpook
21:21 Omung Squank9908
21:20 OldSpook
21:18 JosephMendiola
21:11 phil_b
21:03 darrylq
21:03 Beldar Thrating4013
20:56 phil_b
20:55 3dc
20:42 tu3031
20:31 Frank G
20:30 tu3031
20:25 legolas