April 25, 2011

At least 476 "political prisoners" escaped — through a long tunnel — from prison in Kandahar...

The NYT reports
In a deft propaganda ploy, the Taliban gave a gripping description of the prison break in a statement they sent out to the news media ahead of any comment from the security authorities who were just in the process of discovering the tunnel.

Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said in the statement: “We have planned and worked on this for five months, and the tunnel is 360 meters long”...

“Our mujahedeen worked in a very careful way” so as not to be discovered, Mr. Mujahid said. The tunnel wound under security check posts outside the prison and under a main highway.

At 11 p.m. Sunday, three Taliban prisoners, who he said were the only ones who knew, “Went from cell to cell waking people and guiding each of them to the tunnel. More Taliban were on hand as the prisoners emerged from the dirt and dust of the tunnel to guide the dazed prisoners to waiting vehicles. Also on hand were Taliban fighters and suicide bombers in case the security forces woke up and there was a fight.

“Luckily we did not have to use them,” Mr. Mujahid said. “The security forces did not know until sunrise.”
"Gripping description" indeed. Doesn't it make any rational person suspect that the security forces were in on it?

60 comments:

Scott M said...

The Mexicans are sending the Taliban instructors now?

TWM said...

"The Mexicans are sending the Taliban instructors now?"

Best comment right out of the gate!

And of course the security forces were in on it. It's that part of the world.

Ron said...

watch, all these political prisoners will be doing the "Thriller" dance just to be on YouTube...

WoW Lawbringer said...

Alternatively, it makes me wonder if we've had more success in reducing corruption and Taliban insertion that I thought. After all, if the guards were really in on it, they might have simply opened the cells -- no need for this "Great Escape" nonsense.

TWM said...

"After all, if the guards were really in on it, they might have simply opened the cells -- no need for this "Great Escape" nonsense."

Interesting point, but then again, they'd have to leave with the prisoners . . . something they may not have wanted to do. And the Taliban may not have wanted them to do either - better to have men on the inside after all.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Were three tunnels involved, was Charles Bronson involved in anyway?

Ut said...

The most telling thing about this New York Times article is that the words "Barack" or "Obama" appear nowhere in the story.

Imagine for a moment that hundreds of terrorists escaped a prison being run by George W. Bush.

Do you think Bush's name would be in that story?

yashu said...

"After all, if the guards were really in on it, they might have simply opened the cells -- no need for this "Great Escape" nonsense."

A brilliantly planned & executed escape has much greater propaganda value.

MJ21 said...

I knew nothing good could come from Hogan's Heros being released on DVD world-wide . . .

MJ21 said...

I knew nothing good could come from Hogan's Heros being released on DVD world-wide . . .

The Drill SGT said...

The use of "Political Prisoners" was very interesting.

Ut said...

"The use of "Political Prisoners" was very interesting."

Until you notice who wrote the story ... Taimoor Shah.

When the enemy is writing the news articles ... of course everyone at the prison would be a "political prisoner."

WoW Lawbringer said...

"A brilliantly planned & executed escape has much greater propaganda value."

But which is better for propaganda?
a) Under the noses of the lazy American dogs, we dug a massive tunnel and 500 of us escaped!
b) Under the noses of the lazy American dogs, we infiltrated their guards and 500 of us escaped!

It may just be me, but it seems b) would be just as effective and require less work. Given that they didn't just open the cells, I'm guessing that if they did have outside help from the prison's employees, it was limited. A small silver lining perhaps, but a real one nonetheless.

WV: holoserf. The activist name for the holograms that work on the holodeck.

Ut said...

"It was the second time there has been a major prison break at the Sarposa prison, the largest and most substantial prison in southern Afghanistan. The prison houses Taliban who were captured in Zabul, Oruzgan and Kandahar, including some senior Taliban figures as well as many lower level Taliban, according to security officers working with the prison. On June 13, 2008, the Taliban orchestrated the freeing of 1,200 prisoners, of whom 350 were Taliban members, in an attack that killed 15 guards.

So ... after the first prison break, no efforts were undertaken by the Obama Administration to strengthen security at the prison.

After a while, doesn't it become pretty obvious that Barack Obama is dangerous to America?

PatCA said...

Maybe now they will make a new propaganda video. I'm pretty tired of the guys in black ninja outfits on the parallel bars.

edutcher said...

476 at once?

A bunch of college-educated RAF officers could only manage 76.

The guards may have been in on it, but, until proven otherwise, never rule out colossal incompetence.

Was the camp commander named Klink?

E.M. Davis said...

Posted this in the Ghadaffi thread, but it applies here as well

Can't we just bomb the shit out of somebody and finally get something over with?

There's war, and now there's this other thing we currently do that we call "war."

vbspurs said...

There's war, and now there's this other thing we currently do that we call "war."

That war that we practised in World War II, which brought flat-out hell from the skies, by all nations, unto their enemies...that's not possible anymore.

In our modern-day war, we need to make sure that 100% of all civilians survive a bombing run, that 100% of all pilots and military personnel come back safe-and-sound, and that 100% of our aims have an humanitarian goal.

There is no such thing as war, anymore, EM. It's dead.

vbspurs said...

(This is why we lose or tie...ugh)

George said...

"Can't we just bomb the shit out of somebody and finally get something over with?"

Yep, time for the old school "Rubble doesn't make trouble" gambit.

Carol_Herman said...

The quality of the drugs made from poppy have also increased.

Nothing like giving these creeps 8-lane-highways at American taxpayer expense.

What can happen, ahead?

Let's see. Iran is reporting a new virus ... which they are calling "stars." (Isn't it nice that Iran chose Microsoft?)

"Stars" started innocently enough. Looked like super-duper executive files. Now, running rampant.

So? What if? Iran LOSES? Plenty of Persians are very unhappy with the bullshit worship of thugs, ya know?

If Iran goes down the toilet because of the "internals." And, then the same thing happens to Assad, in Syria. Guess what?

Guess what could collapse?

No, it doesn't change Obama's hatred for Israel.

But America is fighting an old fashioned war. And, "somebody or other" may have figured out how to survive for another hundred years.

Q-Daffy? The russians stepped in to "help" him. This guarantees he won't be assassinated. And, NATO? You expect that they're run by savvy generals? I laugh in your face.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
That war that we practised in World War II, which brought flat-out hell from the skies, by all nations, unto their enemies...that's not possible anymore.

In our modern-day war, we need to make sure that 100% of all civilians survive a bombing run, that 100% of all pilots and military personnel come back safe-and-sound, and that 100% of our aims have an humanitarian goal.

There is no such thing as war, anymore, EM. It's dead.


Uh no….after the Thirty Years War warfare was EXTREMELY limited…Napoleon saw its strictures and costs loosened…then there was the Long Peace 1814-1914 and the bloodletting and the second blood-letting of the WWII…the Human Race hasn’t found anything it cares about enough to do what was done in 1789/1914/1939, it will again.

What many Americans think of as “war” is aberrant…The US Army “fought” the Indians from 1865 (?) to 1900, did it look like WWII? The Brit’s fought innumerable “wars” overseas that looked NOTHING like WWII. These weren’t wars? They didn’t end in “victory?” You people might want to revise your definition of “war” or read Clausewitz. And you might also be thankful of the long peace or the violent peace post-1945, UNLESS you think the sufferings of the world were a good thing 1939-45. The “victors” suffered 30 million dead…..no thanks, I’ll take our “inconclusive” Non-wars, by which I take it, many mean we aren’t fire-bombing cities to ashes and starving millions to death.

Scott M said...

UNLESS you think the sufferings of the world were a good thing 1939-45.

I'm of the "violence certainly CAN solve things" camp. That suffering alleviated the world from further suffering either Nazis or Imperial Japan. So, yeah.

Skyler said...

I think I'll start watching Hogan's Heroes to better learn how to defend the base I'm on.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Clearly there were no Taliban/prisoners that suffered from 'claustrophobia' to wreck the mission.

Off to the Russian front with the camp principals...

edutcher said...

Joe said...
(The Crypto Jew)

Uh no….after the Thirty Years War warfare was EXTREMELY limited…Napoleon saw its strictures and costs loosened…then there was the Long Peace 1814-1914 and the bloodletting and the second blood-letting of the WWII…the Human Race hasn’t found anything it cares about enough to do what was done in 1789/1914/1939, it will again.

Excellent point. We're in a period like that after Waterloo. Wait until there's another global market crash (us, the Red Chinese, or the Euros taking everybody with them) and a scramble for resources.

You also have the pernicious forces of PC at work.

What many Americans think of as “war” is aberrant…The US Army “fought” the Indians from 1865 (?) to 1900, did it look like WWII? The Brit’s fought innumerable “wars” overseas that looked NOTHING like WWII.

Not to pick, but the US Army was in an almost constant state of warfare against the Indians from the founding of the Legion of the United States in 1791 until 1877 and sporadic engagements until WWI.

Her Majesty's forces faced a similar challenge in the Empire from the First Burma War (1826) through WWI, also.

Scott M said...

I think I'll start watching Hogan's Heroes to better learn how to defend the base I'm on.

You'll need to hollow out a tree and practice up on making out with hot, blond double-agents. Oh, don't forget to brush up on your use of reverse-psychology.

Phil 3:14 said...

This same technological know-how allowed the Taliban in their brief reign to dramatically improve the infrastructure of Afghanistan by improving roads, building bridges and establishing fresh water systems throughout the small rural villages....

OK, that didn't quite happen.

but once they'd gotten through making sure every man had a beard and every woman stayed home and after they'd finished all of their public executions for adultery they were going to get right on it!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
UNLESS you think the sufferings of the world were a good thing 1939-45.

I'm of the "violence certainly CAN solve things" camp. That suffering alleviated the world from further suffering either Nazis or Imperial Japan. So, yeah.


They weren’t GOOD they were NECESSARY….I didn’t enjoy and neither did my Life Partner, the major surgery the Partner underwent, we simply acknowledge the pain had to be endured…

I do not argue killing 600,000 German civilians was GOOD, I simply argue it was PREFERABLE to an alternative history wherein we do NOT bomb Germany in order to “spare” them…in sparing them we sacrifice millions of Jews, Slavs, and West Europeans, but please don’t tell me it was “good.”

War is a function of the ends, and means, and the cost benefit analysis of societies involved…tell me how would we make “war” as some have described, on Libya to “liberate” it? Should we burn out Tripoli? Is the end of Kaddafi’s reign worth several hundred thousand Libyan civilians, dead?

Original Mike said...

"I'm of the "violence certainly CAN solve things" camp. That suffering alleviated the world from further suffering either Nazis or Imperial Japan. So, yeah."

Off all the mindless slogans touted by the left, "War is not the Answer" is probably the one that gets the biggest eyeroll from me.

Independent of the question? Really?

(And to those who respond "Yes. Independent of the question", well, you can't fix stupid.)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


The “Wargasm” SOUNDS good, as long as you’re the one doing the unrestrained war, I guess…EXACTLY how are we supposed to make war like WWII and make that work for us? We need to devote 50% of our GNP to war-making? We need to declare a total blockade of our enemies and proceed to reduce their cities to rubble? I’m just kind of puzzled how making war like that, against people who aren’t the Nazi’s or the Imperial Japanese is a “good” thing?

What we really mean by this, is that UNLESS we’re willing to exert this effort, THEN no war is worth fighting….Is that what you really mean?

By example, in law enforcement, UNLESS we are only going to authorized a police effort that involves Lethal Force and/or Capital Punishment, we will not investigate crime…really? Are there any instances where less force might be useful and smaller wrongs righted? “I’m sorry Mr. and Mrs. Smith, we wouldn’t authorize a Police Officer to use Lethal Force in the investigation, and the punishment is not Death, so we don’t investigate Burglaries. Call us if one of you is Murdered, though.”

vbspurs said...

Afghanistan is a dump. It was a dump in Alexander the Great's time, it was a dump when the Khyber pass stymied the British Army, it was a dump when Soviets poured their life blood into it, it's a dump today, despite the billions upon billions the US has pumped into it, before and after 2001.

And yet this dump has been strategically important for thousands of years and that's why we keep going back. What can one do?

vbspurs said...

Joe, there is a famous story about a Romanian king (Stefan cel Mare) who returned home defeated, with his bedraggled army behind him. His mother opened the window of her castle bedroom, and yelled below at him when he asked her why she didn't let him into the castle:

"I do not recognise you, for no son of mine would return home defeated in war. You have a right to make to make your nation a nation of graves! You have no right to leave it a nation of slaves."

Granted, this took place before the war ennui that the Thirty Year's War produced forever afterwards in European hearts.

Still, whadda woman.

PS: Stefan went back, won the battle, thereto the war, and liberated Romania for a few glorious years, from the yoke of Ottoman domination. Ruthless doesn't mean wrong. It just means ruthless.

Cheers,
Victoria

edutcher said...

vbspurs said...

Afghanistan is a dump. It was a dump in Alexander the Great's time, it was a dump when the Khyber pass stymied the British Army, it was a dump when Soviets poured their life blood into it, it's a dump today, despite the billions upon billions the US has pumped into it, before and after 2001.

And yet this dump has been strategically important for thousands of years and that's why we keep going back. What can one do?


Nicely put, mum. And a very effective rebuttal to the cut-and-run crowd, whether on the Right or the Left.

Even if there were no oil, that area would still be vital because it's on the way from here to there.

PS Some might find this piece illuminating.

PPS There's also Victor Davis Hanson's piece (not easy to find for some reason) on the Afghanistan myth

Ut said...

"I think I'll start watching Hogan's Heroes to better learn how to defend the base I'm on."

In Germany, we were only fighting the incompetent Nazis.

Today's GI must - in addition to the terrorists - fight his fucking commander in chief who allowed, by design, this to happen.

Is it not clear that Obama is trying to lose the war?

Those 476 Taliban are going to kill a LOT of American soldiers and it's Hussein bin Obama's Goddamned fault.

Fucking traitor.

E.M. Davis said...

The question remains: When does your ROE negate your strategy/objective?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Those 476 Taliban are going to kill a LOT of American soldiers and it's Hussein bin Obama's Goddamned fault.

Really, because I think it was an Afghan NATIONAL Prison, so isn’t it Hamid Karzai’s “G*dd@mned fault?” I find it odd to be defending the current POTUS, but not EVERYTHING that happens, bad, is his fault…..

Ut said...

"When does your ROE negate your strategy/objective?"

Same day Obama joined the other side.

Scott M said...

Same day Obama joined the other side.

I tend away from the typical conspiracy nut theories, but it does seem oddly indefensible, from a PR point of view if nothing else, that the President made a special message for Ramadan and every significant Muslim holiday since, but completely skipped Easter.

Ut said...

"Really, because I think it was an Afghan NATIONAL Prison, so isn’t it Hamid Karzai’s “G*dd@mned fault?” I find it odd to be defending the current POTUS, but not EVERYTHING that happens, bad, is his fault….."

Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. These are military prisons that he is responsible for.

Every aspect of the conduct of our war in Afghanistan is Barack Obama's responsibility. Every. Single. Aspect.

Period.

If these prisons are manned by untrustworthy Afghans, that is ONLY BECAUSE Barack Obama and his military advisers allow that to occur. It only occurs by their acquiescence.

There have been TWO prison breaks from this prison. Not one. Two. The Obama Administration cannot claim they were caught unaware. They did NOTHING about the 1,200 prisoners who broke free the first time.

This second prison break is absolutely Barack Obama's fault as much as the first. He is the man we employ to run our war.

The fucking buck stops with him whether he likes it or not.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I tend away from the typical conspiracy nut theories, but it does seem oddly indefensible, from a PR point of view if nothing else, that the President made a special message for Ramadan and every significant Muslim holiday since, but completely skipped Easter..

Why Obama is a Liberal, a Progressive…to them ANY culture, other than Western, is more authentic and deserving of praise. I cannot remember the fancy word an Englishmen came up with, but it described a reflexive suspicion and opposition to one’s own culture….Obama typifies it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. These are military prisons that he is responsible for.

Every aspect of the conduct of our war in Afghanistan is Barack Obama's responsibility. Every. Single. Aspect.

Period.


It’s good to see UT does not spoil his/her thinking with moderation….McCain caused the Forrestal fire and Obama caused the break-out….I think I’ll put you in the “J” Category of commenters and just ignore you from now on….I figure you’re a troll or an idiot…

Scott M said...

Why Obama is a Liberal, a Progressive…to them ANY culture, other than Western, is more authentic and deserving of praise.

David Byrne, former frontman for Talking Heads and wearer of large suits (lol, if that doesn't me...) described it almost 20 years ago as change for change's sake and an almost maniacal need for "new" because the "old" was boring. I heard him restate this last year after his latest solo album came out.

He's not a political animal, but he couldn't understand why so many of his contemporaries were so gripped by this phenomena.

Ut said...

"It’s good to see UT does not spoil his/her thinking with moderation….McCain caused the Forrestal fire and Obama caused the break-out….I think I’ll put you in the “J” Category of commenters and just ignore you from now on….I figure you’re a troll or an idiot…"

Notice one thing about this comment ... there's not even one statement of fact in this reply. It's all name-calling.

I posit that The United States of America is an occupying force in Afghanistan.

We own it.

We invaded the country. Obama put 30,000 MORE troops there to conduct our occupation of that land.

How is this military prison NOT Barack Obama's responsibility, dude?

Quit name-calling and respond with some intelligence-based counter argument.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
How is this military prison NOT Barack Obama's responsibility, dude?

What about Private Ragbag’s inadequate High n’Tight, he’s with 1st squad, 1st platoon, Alpha Company, 67th Armour Battalion, 4th Stryker Combat Brigade I blame Obama…and then there’s Lance/Corporal Snuffy, 3rd Platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines he hasn’t performed an adequate PCMS check on his M-249 in a month! I BLAME OBAMA

Joel C Anatoli said...

lol.. so what really happened to the prisoners?

MadisonMan said...

For some reason, the phrase at least 476 bugs me. Why the precision?

E.M. Davis said...

What about Private Ragbag’s inadequate High n’Tight, he’s with 1st squad, 1st platoon, Alpha Company, 67th Armour Battalion, 4th Stryker Combat Brigade I blame Obama…and then there’s Lance/Corporal Snuffy, 3rd Platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines he hasn’t performed an adequate PCMS check on his M-249 in a month!

You can't honestly postulate that these trivial things are on par with a prison break which may further endanger the lives of men and women in combat.

E.M. Davis said...

"When does your ROE negate your strategy/objective?"

Same day Obama joined the other side.


For the record, the overly-sensitive ROE rules were in effect under Bush as well.

Scott M said...

For the record, the overly-sensitive ROE rules were in effect under Bush as well.

My take is that we've been overly ROE-sensitive since 'Nam. Just sayin'.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

You can't honestly postulate that these trivial things are on par with a prison break which may further endanger the lives of men and women in combat.


Well these "facts" such as they are, are no more Obama's fault than the secuity of the Kandahar Jail is his fault.

opfor311 said...

Is it true that they hid the tunnel behind a poster of Raquel Welsh in a Chaldor?


wv: pyrist : Will no one rid me of this troublesome pyrist?

msm55skm said...

Explains why the Sylvester Stallone movie Victory has been laying the last week or so. Field prep. Now, where is their Frank Sinatra?

E.M. Davis said...

My take is that we've been overly ROE-sensitive since 'Nam. Just sayin'.

Agreed. Save for Grenada ; )

E.M. Davis said...

Well these "facts" such as they are, are no more Obama's fault than the secuity of the Kandahar Jail is his fault.

Remind me again, who is CinC?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Remind me again, who is CinC?

Was Bush responsible for Abu Ghraib?

Steve Koch said...

476 escapees is a lot of escapees. The staff was certainly in on it. My guess is that they "escaped" out a gate rather than through the tunnel. Think how long it would take 476 guys to crawl through a long tunnel. Honest guards certainly would have noticed that a bunch of prisoners were missing way before 476 guys escaped.

Scott M said...

Was Bush responsible for Abu Ghraib?

Ultimately, yes. What about chain of command don't you understand? There's a difference between "fault" and "responsibility". If my kid sends a baseball through someone's window accidentally, it's not my fault, but it is my responsibility. I'm wholly in charge of my kid. The president is wholly in charge, and thus ultimately responsible, for the military.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Ultimately, yes. What about chain of command don't you understand? There's a difference between "fault" and "responsibility". If my kid sends a baseball through someone's window accidentally, it's not my fault, but it is my responsibility. I'm wholly in charge of my kid. The president is wholly in charge, and thus ultimately responsible, for the military.

Really, so Bush was at fault for Abu Ghraib and Obama for a jail break…where does it end? Are they responsible for tire inflation and PMCS checks, oil changes, and bore-sighting? Are they responsible for radio maintenance and radar calibration? Or jus the things the NYT wants to talk about? Is Obama responsible for improper Federal prosecutions? Failure to properly Mirandize? Faulty search warrants or failure of the search team to hit the right house? And if the failures are at the State Police/Prosecutor level, but involve a Federal task force component, as this was an AFGHAN JAIL, is he also responsible for those failures, too? Lights in Federal buildings, is Obama responsible for changing them and seeing the parking lots are clean and the lines painted? Was FDR responsible for Pvt. Slovik’s poor training and court-martial?

You’re going to have to delineate the POTUS’ responsibilities a bit more for me here people. Because it looks to me like an AFGHAN Jail, under the control of AFGHANS is hardly the President’s responsibility. Looks to me like the POTUS is responsible for a whole lot more things than I thought….IF we “lose” in Afghanistan, I’ll blame Obama, his war, his watch, his glory/shame….but I don’t hold the POTUS responsible for EVERY action and failure to act, in the theatre. It’s foolish to do so. Obama appoints Petreaus, and component commanders. When they fail, HE fails…but when a platoon leader fails or an Afghan fails, neither Petreaus nor the POTUS are responsible…..

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com