September 13, 2011

"Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday..."

"... pelting the heavily guarded compounds with rockets in an attack that raised new questions about the security of Afghanistan’s capital and the Westerners working there."

54 comments:

traditionalguy said...

The day has come to advance to the rear and get the hell out of a place where the enemy has all of the terrain advantages.

Wishing cannot change the Climate and it cannot change the Afghan mountains either.

LTC John said...

Pelted with rockets? They threw them?

Now, I've had plenty of 107mm, 122mm and even 240mm rockets fired at me, or launched at someplace close to me, but I have never had someone throw one at me...

And holed up in a partially constructed building half a mile away and shooting - ha! Hitting something with an AK at over 100 meters is not in many folks skill sets.

EDH said...

Actually, despite the NYT's breathless "Tet-nostalgic" reporting, if this is all the enemy's got the day after the 10th annivesary of 9-11, in Afghanistan, I feel mildly encouraged.

At least 10 explosions — apparently from rockets launched by militants — and waves of automatic weapons fire were reported amid the drone of sirens and English-language warnings telling Americans inside the embassy to take cover.

Sediq Sediqi, spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said that two attackers had been killed, as had one policeman. At about 4 p.m. local time, three attackers were believed to be still fighting. Kerri Hannan, a spokeswoman for the American Embassy, said that no embassy personnel had been hurt.

rhhardin said...

The attack is aimed at the American press.

The military damage is zero.

The press will not resist. Everybody gets his cut.

rhhardin said...

We're keeping the bad guys from organizing by keeping them watching their backs.

The bad guys don't like that.

Their easiest way out is to supply stories for the press to print.

We'll stay there unless the locals can keep the bad guys disorganized on their own. Nation building has only that point. Otherwise we stay.

Nobody wants to explain that strategy.

As long as the bad guys are disorganized, they can't do serious damage to the US.

It's called US interests.

TWM said...

"As long as the bad guys are disorganized, they can't do serious damage to the US.

It's called US interests."

Agreed. The best defense is a good offense. We revert back to terrorism as a solely law enforcement issue and we lose.

LarsPorsena said...

"Insurgents launched a complex assault against the American Embassy and the nearby NATO headquarters on Tuesday...""

This is the umpteenth time they done this. Why is it news?
The Tet nostalgia in the MSM is palpable.

traditionalguy said...

The Taliban are ignorant tribal warriors defending their turf. They are not AlQaeda any more than Yemen and Somalia are AlQaeda when a base is set up there with Saudi Money.

The question is whether we are pinning them down or they are pinning us down.

The mobile war by Helos was proven not to be suited to Afghanistan when the USSR went in with the best Helos in the world.

The solitary road through each mountain valley is salted with new IEDs every night.

That leaves us with special forces raids for a war of attrition that wins nothing when we win it.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Thanks to the malign neglect of GodZero, who once agreed with Pelosi Galore that A-stan was "the real War on Terror", our guys (and girls) are in more danger than they should be.

And I hear those talks with the Taliban Zero wanted have flopped.

traditionalguy said...

The day has come to advance to the rear and get the hell out of a place where the enemy has all of the terrain advantages.

Wishing cannot change the Climate and it cannot change the Afghan mountains either.


Oh, for God's sake, we were doing fine until Little Barry decided he knew better than people like McChrystal what to do there.

Get a President with some sense who gives a damn about this country and it will be turned around.

This nonsense about the climate and the terrain could have been applied to Montana or Arizona in the 1870s.

Clyde said...

We should declare victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan and leave, and let both countries know that if they should ever attack us in the future, we will come back, level the place, not rebuild it and leave again. Nation building in the Middle East is a fool's errand, an endless sink of American treasure and lives and not worth the effort.

SPImmortal said...

"We should declare victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan and leave, and let both countries know that if they should ever attack us in the future, we will come back, level the place, not rebuild it and leave again. Nation building in the Middle East is a fool's errand, an endless sink of American treasure and lives and not worth the effort."

Afghanistan is an important base from which to hit terrorist interests in Pakistan, which we could not reach otherwise.

That is one benefit of nation building in Afghanistan.

franglo said...

Republicans who want to get out of the wars now: Thanks for calling me a traitor. Love, me from 2003.

Leland said...

I'm sure Obama's heavy use of drone attacks will protect them... Well... maybe not so sure. Meh, it's just an embassy, no one in diplomatic circles get worked up anymore when embassy's are attacked. It's no longer considered an act of war. It's just something that happens to countries who deserve it.

traditionalguy said...

How many roadside memorials in the Afghan mountains are enough is the real question.

The Rolling Thunder guys are on their third Harley after 10 years of helping families lay sacrifices on the alter of American politics.

Afghan freedom is not something the Afghans want.

cubanbob said...

We should take a page from the Romans and drop neutron bombs on Pakistan and Afghanistan until there isn't a blade of grass alive left. Repeat as necessary on other Muslim countries as often as needed until the message is learnt. What the hell, if you are going to do the time might as well commit the crime.

edutcher said...

franglo said...

Republicans who want to get out of the wars now: Thanks for calling me a traitor. Love, me from 2003.

He was then, he is now.

And tg didn't state his party affiliation.

Chuck66 said...

In modern society, you can no longer do the Civil War, WW2 thing.....totally destroy the country, no matter how many civilians you kill in the process. Nor would I want out country to carpet bomb Afghanistan cities.

Unfortunatly the PC way to fight a war is not very effective against a population that doesn't really want to be liberated from fascist control.

Robert Cook said...

"We should declare victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan and leave, and let both countries know that if they should ever attack us in the future...."

They never attacked us to begin with. We have invaded their countries.

Who are the bad guys here?

Robert Cook said...

"We should take a page from the Romans and drop neutron bombs on Pakistan and Afghanistan until there isn't a blade of grass alive left...."

The Romans had neurton bombs? Who knew? No wonder they were able to conquer the Picts.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

"We should declare victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan and leave, and let both countries know that if they should ever attack us in the future...."

They never attacked us to begin with. We have invaded their countries.

Who are the bad guys here?


For Cook, it's always the US.

Surprise!!!!!

PS Last I looked, the Afghan government in 2001 was giving shelter, aid, and comfort to AQ in 2001.

And there's plenty of evidence Saddam aided in the planning of 9/11.

Salman Pak, f'rinstance.

Scott M said...

You really need to brush up on your Gibbon, Cook. The Romans had neutron bombs, they just couldn't make any more of them. Their collapse occurred AFTER the last bombs were used.

In 9 A.D., Publius Quinctilius Varus was the first provincial governor to go campaigning without any Roman neutron weapons and we all know what happened to him and his three legions.

franglo said...

there's plenty of evidence Saddam aided in the planning of 9/11

BWAAAAHH HA HA HA HA.

Pathetic.

Robert Cook said...

"Last I looked, the Afghan government in 2001 was giving shelter, aid, and comfort to AQ in 2001.

"And there's plenty of evidence Saddam aided in the planning of 9/11."


Point 1: this doesn't mean the Afghanistan government--such as it is, such as it was--had anything to do with 9/11. It certainly does not mean Afghanistan attacked us, and the Afghanis whom we are killing now and in the past ten years are certainly blameless for anything other than defending their land and homes against Western invaders.

Point 2: There is no evidence Hussein aided in the planning of 9/11, your fever dreams to the contrary.

traditionalguy said...

As a lifetime Georgian I have been a Zell Miller Dem and a Bush Repub, as Zell became in 2004.

But I went to a college that taught me to think. That was before the 1960's political radicals drove thinking out.

I saw the useless racism of the Klan evaporate when MLK's demonstrations exposed it.

I know what a lifetime of bitterness can do to men, and I know what Salvation can do to change men's hearts.

But nothing in Afghanistan has been worth being there since the initial campaign against the Taliban as an example of what we do to organized murderers.

That was done and over and done with 8 years ago, with and a token force still based there to surround Iran.

It took Obama to trick the Conservatives by ramping up a grand campaign there to destroy the same Military that had won Iraq by sending it next into the equivalent of Peleliu and than withdraw it with no victory possible.

John Lynch said...

Tired of hearing about how "complex," "sophisticated," "brazen," and "daring," our enemies are.

They are cowards and terrorists who murder innocents.

antiphone said...

It took Obama to trick the Conservatives...

Poor little Conservatives, always being tricked by those sneaky leftards.

edutcher said...

franglo said...

there's plenty of evidence Saddam aided in the planning of 9/11

BWAAAAHH HA HA HA HA.

Pathetic.


If anybody knows pathetic, franglo should - he lives it every day.

Robert Cook said...

"Last I looked, the Afghan government in 2001 was giving shelter, aid, and comfort to AQ in 2001.

"And there's plenty of evidence Saddam aided in the planning of 9/11."


Point 1: this doesn't mean the Afghanistan government--such as it is, such as it was--had anything to do with 9/11. It certainly does not mean Afghanistan attacked us, and the Afghanis whom we are killing now and in the past ten years are certainly blameless for anything other than defending their land and homes against Western invaders.

Point 2: There is no evidence Hussein aided in the planning of 9/11, your fever dreams to the contrary.


Point 1 is absolute nonsense and Cook knows it. The Taliban was in charge and they supported the attacks by AQ, therefore they made war on us. As for the blamelessness of certain Afghans, not "Afghanis", they support the reinstallation of the Taliban, and last I looked, most Afghans don't want the Taliban back in their lives.

Point 2 is refuted by Czech Intelligence which reported that Saddam's chief of intel escorted several of the 9/11 hijackers to the planning meetings and that Salman Pak, with a complete jetliner fuselage, was used to train the hijackers.

Franglo can cackle like an idiot all he wants, but those are assertions that have yet to be discredited, aside from Cook's and franglo's wishful thinking.

traditionalguy said...

Antiphone...Obama has tricked nearly everyone for three years by saying one thing they want to hear and then sending them down a road to sure failure.

Conservatives want to support the US Military, and Obama used that to jiu jitsu throw them to the floor using their their own movement.

How is green house gas prohibition doing these days? Obama has fooled the libs big time.

All Obama wants is a slush fund to wash cash through supposedly for useless wind mills and solar panels.

antiphone said...

Point 2 is refuted by Czech Intelligence which reported that Saddam's chief of intel escorted several of the 9/11 hijackers to the planning meetings...

How about a link to the source of this?

antiphone said...

Conservatives want to support the US Military, and Obama used that to jiu jitsu throw them to the floor using their their own movement.

Bullshit, Conservatives are responsible for the positions they take. Show me where there has been opposition to the "surge" in Afghanistan from Conservatives.

Cedarford said...

EDH said...
Actually, despite the NYT's breathless "Tet-nostalgic" reporting, if this is all the enemy's got the day after the 10th annivesary of 9-11, in Afghanistan, I feel mildly encouraged.
=====================
I don't know what you are encouraged about. The noble Afghan Freedom Lovers that Dubya tried nation-building for scattered away from the embassy when the 1st rockets were fired. Many Taliban reside in Kabul, and our paypad puppet ruler, Karzai, and his opium smuggling henchmen have already cut a deal - "We know who you are in Kabul but we won't go after you if you don't go after us. Bother the infidels instead."

And outside Kabul, Bush's noble Afghan Freedom Lovers cede control of most villages to the Taliban at night. The US taxpayer funded noble Afghan Freedom Loving military and police take the money and bunker in their compounds and watch from the sidelines as Taliban kill the invading infidels and infidels hunt Taliban.

Neocon Nation-building Adventures - An epic failure.

Cedarford said...

edutcher - Give it up. You are embarassing yourself with conspiratoricist drivel down there at the level of the Birthers and Truthers.

Robert Cook said...

Edutcher...some authoritative cites, please?

Nothing from the Heritage Foundation, thank you.

The Drill SGT said...

LTC John said...
And holed up in a partially constructed building half a mile away and shooting - ha! Hitting something with an AK at over 100 meters is not in many folks skill sets.


I think they transposed the thoughts. The reporter meant to say:

They were in a hole and attempted to hose down a large building several hundred yards away :)

traditionalguy said...

Antiphone...You are talking to one.

The surge at best was a doubling down to show good faith when the announced withdrawal date comes right before the 2012 election.

That was Axelrod using all politics and no military parameters.

That was a cruel thing for Obama to do to the men giving their lives for their country.

But blame it on Conservatives if you want to. I blame it on the media that could not tell the truth if it was handed to them on a platter after their worshipful Kenyan King rose to his throne.

antiphone said...

I blame it on the media that could not tell the truth if it was handed to them on a platter after their worshipful Kenyan King rose to his throne.

How convenient.

The Drill SGT said...

Robert Cook said...
The Romans had neurton bombs? Who knew?


I think that was a reference to the Roman approach to warfare. It was said that a Roman citizen could walk from one end of the empire to the other safe in the knowledge that if harm were to come to him, the wrath of the Legions would descend on the area...

"Carthago delenda est"

after the third Punic war the city was sacked, then systematically burned for 15 days. The survivors were forced to level the structures, "so that no two stones stood together. The sick and aged were killed and the rest were sold into slavery.

Thus ended the Carthaginian problem.
The Roman Neutron Bomb.
And Some say, violence never solves anything :)

edutcher said...

Cedarford said...

edutcher - Give it up. You are embarassing yourself with conspiratoricist drivel down there at the level of the Birthers and Truthers.

Look who's talking.

Robert Cook said...

Edutcher...some authoritative cites, please?

Nothing from the Heritage Foundation, thank you.


Oh, we only want sources vetted by Kos?

In any case, there's this, and this, and,
this.

The Czechs and UPI, which first published the story, stick by it.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook said...
'The Romans had neurton bombs? Who knew?'

"I think that was a reference to the Roman approach to warfare."


Yes, I was just being droll.

Roger J. said...

Looks to me like the taliban have studied the US reaction to the tet offensive by the VC/NVA in Viet Nam--the taliban may be uneducated, but it doesnt appear they are stupid. If Walter Chronkite appears on CBS, its all over. Of course, Astan is now Mr Obama's war, so I do not expect much commentary from the talking heads.

Fred4Pres said...

Well Obama can scratch Afghanistan off his list as unwinable. No need to do a surge, this will leave more money for Obamacare and his jobs bill.

MikeinAppalachia said...

@Cook-
I've read The 11:13 post by Clyde, which i think you were initially replying to, and cannot find where he said that the Afgans or Iraq attacked us in the past.
Why your comment at 11:54?

Robert Cook said...

Edutcher said:

"The Czechs and UPI, which first published the story, stick by it."

The alleged Mohammed Atta connection to an agent of Hussein's has long been discredited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta's
_alleged_Prague_connection

and:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13
/international/europe/13INQU.html

and:

http://www.slate.com/id/2070410/


(BTW: I asked you not to cite The Heritage Foundation and you went one better: you cited the Weekly World News of online "news" sites: the Free Republic.)

As for Sabah Khodadah, I don't know who he is, but his interview on the Frontline page, aside from being merely his unsupported assertions, seems self-contradictory. Early in the interview, he talks about there being a strict separation between the two groups--the Iraqis and the non-Iraqis--he alleges were trained at this terrorist training camp, and he says he didn't know who they were or where they were from. He draws inferences about them based on their appearances, but this seems the extent of his knowledge about them, by his own admission. Later, however, he starts to claim knowledge of them and their goals without demonstrating where and when he gained this knowledge. With regard to his allegations about their being trained to hijack airlines, he says, "... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it. All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests."

He is merely reciting what he's heard or read in the media, or hearsay from his commanders, even where earlier admitting the non-Iraqis were not talked about.

Later, regarding the 9/11 attacks, he says, "I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened."

Well, his assurances aside, where's the proof? Is there corroborating documentation anywhere that any members of Al Qaeda--that any of those who actually were on the 9/11 planes--were ever in Iraq or at this alleged camp or received the training alleged here?

Robert Cook said...

Mike in Appalachia said:

"@Cook-
I've read The 11:13 post by Clyde, which i think you were initially replying to, and cannot find where he said that the Afgans or Iraq attacked us in the past.
Why your comment at 11:54?"


Because his statement that we should declare victory and leave and "let both countries know that if they should ever attack us in the future, we will come back..." conveys the subtle insinuation they had attacked us in the past, and that's why we're there fighting them now.

He doesn't state that explicitly, and perhaps he didn't mean to imply it, but his statement nevertheless does leave that impression.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Who are the bad guys here?..."

Islamic terrorists. The folks you seem to think are fighting the good fight.

The Taliban who were the de facto government of Afghanistan provided aid and shelter to the organization that launched the attacks on 9/11. Not only did they refuse to turn over bin Laden, they actively defended him. If we are the bad guys for going after them then you're an ignorant fool or a terrorist sympathizer.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Point 1: this doesn't mean the Afghanistan government--such as it is, such as it was--had anything to do with 9/11. It certainly does not mean Afghanistan attacked us,..."

Look up 'aid and abet'

So they shelter and provide sustenance to a terrorist organization that launches a massive attack on us and you seriously argue they had nothing to do with it?

Pathetic

Robert Cook said...

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

We might have had success in convincing the Taliban to turn over bin Laden if we had been more attuned to what they required. In short, if we had used "diplomacy."

Why have cadres of diplomats around the world if we're going to insist on my way or the highway?

Moreover, Afghanistan is not a highly centralized government or nation-state as we know it, so whatever the Taliban may have chosen to do with regard to bin Laden and AQ, we cannot assume the mass of Afghans were complicit or even aware of the arrangements. Certainly, once bin Laden escaped us at Tora Bora and fled the country, we had no further basis to continue our war there.

So, who are we killing now in Afghanistan? Holdovers from the Taliban who were in place in 2001, or Afghans who are angry that we have invaded and occupied their country, in which many non-combatants have been killed?

Robert Cook said...

"'... Who are the bad guys here?...'

"Islamic terrorists. The folks you seem to think are fighting the good fight."


How do you know the people we're killing are islamic terrorists?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Why have cadres of diplomats around the world if we're going to insist on my way or the highway?..."

That was a clear cut case. We asked, they refused.

"...Moreover, Afghanistan is not a highly centralized government or nation-state as we know it, so whatever the Taliban may have chosen to do with regard to bin Laden and AQ, we cannot assume the mass of Afghans were complicit or even aware of the arrangements...."

The Taliban controlled 90% of the country. Doesn't matter what the masses knew or were complicit with. Their leaders made the decision to harbor terrorists that attacked us.


"...Certainly, once bin Laden escaped us at Tora Bora and fled the country, we had no further basis to continue our war there..."

We certainly did. All the Taliban had to do was give him up. They refused. They chose poorly.

I don't expect to convince you when your sympathies clearly lie with those who wish destruction on our country, I'm simply stating the facts.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... How do you know the people we're killing are islamic terrorists?.."

Those are the scruffyy guys with AK 47s screaming Allah Akbar all the time. Next question.

Robert Cook said...

"Those are the scruffyy guys with AK 47s screaming Allah Akbar all the time. Next question."

Okay...how do you know these are the people we're killing? Or, better, how do you know these are the only people we're killing? How do you know these are even a majority of the people we're killing?

And how do you know what they ones you've described are yelling about? They might be yelling Death to those who killed my children and my wife and my parents!"

Would you think it justified or any less criminal if, because some radical political element in our country who had gained control of the government, (the Bush Administration, let's say), killed innocent men and women and children in another country far away that you have no involvement and less interest in, if forces from that faraway land were to fire weapons into your town, killing your neighbors, your loved ones and friends and family?

By your reasoning, they would have every right to do this, because we, (the, uh, collective "we") killed their loved ones.

And so the self-justifying circle jerk of violence and murder continues.

Fact is, you just want us to kill people, and as long as you comfort yourself that we're the "good guys" and they're the "bad guys" you sleep well and are satisfied.

Talk about the horror of the banality of evil.

Hoosier Daddy said...

". Fact is, you just want us to kill people, and as long as you comfort yourself that we're the "good guys" and they're the "bad guys" you sleep well and are satisfied.."

Fact is, a bunch of Islamic terrorists murdered 3000 of my countrymen for no other purpose then their hatred of the 'infidel'. Fact is, all you do is excuse and defend the very people who perpetrated those acts and have no other purpose in life but to slaughter anyone who doesn't subscribe to their cult.

Your hatred of this country is quite evident so your choice of allies isn't a suprise. Fact is murder, torture and fanaticism isn't a problem for you when its done by 'innocent' Taliban and al queda bretheren.

Evil indeed.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... By your reasoning, they would have every right to do this, because we, (the, uh, collective "we") killed their loved ones..."

By my reasoning, their leaders the Taliban provided aid and shelter to the very people who murdered 3000 of my countrymen and refused to turn over the bin laden and his lieutenants.

We didn't attack Afghanistan, they facilitated an attack against us. We had every right to retaliate and remove the Taliban Fen power. Might want to revisit the chain of events to get up to speed and be able to intelligently engage in this concept called reality.