Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/28/2001 2:08:36 AM EDT
Maybe, maybe not. See following story. [size=4]U.S. refused executed Afghan rebel's call for air strikes[/size=4] By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES American military forces turned down requests from Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq for air-strike support against Taliban militia, which then captured and executed him, U.S. government officials said yesterday. The U.S. Central Command told Mr. Haq, a veteran fighter against the occupying Soviet army during the 1980s, that it could not provide air cover for him inside Afghanistan near Jalalabad because of worries about injuring civilians in any bombing strikes against pursuing Taliban forces, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The command, which is in charge of military operations in Afghanistan, told representatives of Mr. Haq it would intervene to support the anti-Taliban leader only if he was being chased by armored vehicles, the officials said. The Taliban forces that captured him Thursday in an area between Jalalabad and Kabul traveled by non-armored vehicles, the officials said. He was reportedly executed yesterday after a short trial in Kabul, according to news reports from the region. The Pentagon's deputy director of operations, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, told reporters yesterday that he had no information on any U.S. forces knowing about or aiding Mr. Haq. "I have no reports that the Central Command in any way was aware of this, much less responded to it," Adm. Stufflebeem said. * * * Adm. Stufflebeem also said he had no information about a news report from Kabul that a U.S. helicopter was in the area when Mr. Haq was captured. According to other U.S. officials, Mr. Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan on Sunday and traveled to Jalalabad. Lightly armed and traveling with only a few security guards, Mr. Haq had asked through intermediaries in the United States for the American military to conduct air strikes on roads between the town of Isaroq and Jalalabad. The requests were turned down. Later he fled on horseback and was encircled and later captured near the town of Sorodi, the officials said. Officials said he was working to create a southern front against the Taliban by rallying local tribesmen against the extremist Taliban regime. Mr. Haq also was trying to prompt defections among the Taliban militia. * * * Mr. Haq was a member of the majority Pashtun tribe and officials said it was hoped he would play a role in a future post-Taliban government. By contrast most of the Northern Alliance anti-Taliban forces are Uzbeks and Taijiks, ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. [b]One U.S. official said Mr. Haq was not a major opposition figure and that his loss was not a setback.[/b] Another official also questioned the utility of the U.S. government backing Mr. Haq since he recently urged Taliban leaders not to defect and said he would negotiate an end to U.S. bombing raids. "That had a real negative impact on our operations," this official said. * * * Adm. Stufflebeem said he did not know what effect Mr. Haq's death would have on U.S. efforts to oust the Taliban militia from power. * * * No, Adm. Stufflebeem, the [b]question[/b] is what effect will Mr. Haq's death have on others who may wish to aid US? [url]http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011027-90194129.htm[/url] Eric The(WithFriendsLikeUS,WhoNeedsTalibans?)Hun[>­]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 2:12:58 AM EDT
I am the only one that is beginning to believe we are going to screw this up so very badly[IMG]http://www.theunholytrinity.org/cracks_smileys/contrib/aahmed/sad.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 2:17:43 AM EDT
Wierd, I guess we all hear different things. What I heard on the radio was that the only force the US had present was a UAV armed with Hellfire missiles which tried to intervene but was unsuccessfull. With the US media reporting things it's not suprising that we are getting conflicting stories about what's happening in Afghanistan. Alex
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 2:19:34 AM EDT
your not the only one. IMO this is very delicate situation, things could go very wrong very fast. the taliban assassinated the northern alliance leader 3 days after the US attack, i think the NA placed a lot more importance on Haq's role than the US did. too bad
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 5:33:19 AM EDT
I don't know what the truth of the matter is, but, like Geo. W. Bush Jr. says, its going to be a "long war," especially when you fight it with one hand tied behind your back.
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 6:49:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2001 6:45:15 AM EDT by SouthernShark]
There is no doubt about it, we are screwing this war up. We have let the Washington bureaucracy take over the war effort. We now have a bureaucracy fighting a mad man terrorist. I don't give us much of a chance of victory. It became obvious to me a long time ago that flying over and dropping a bomb on some broke down building wasn't going to work. Yet that seems to be our entire strategy. Let's see we have blown up the same Red Cross building three times now. Maybe if we blow it up one more time we will get Osama. -SS
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 7:27:57 AM EDT
At this rate, Vietnam will be minor in comparison to the screwups we're gonna get to see. Way to kill off the Allies guys.
WithFriendsLikeUS,WhoNeedsTalibans?
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 7:43:29 AM EDT
I think the mistake that both people here and the press are making is that the Northern Alliance is necessarily our ally. Yes, they oppose the Taliban, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are nice guys that we want to have in power. Maybe we want them AND the Taliban wrecked?
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:26:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: I think the mistake that both people here and the press are making is that the Northern Alliance is necessarily our ally. Yes, they oppose the Taliban, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are nice guys that we want to have in power. Maybe we want them AND the Taliban wrecked?
View Quote
Would we really prefer anarchy to either the Taliban or the Northern Alliance? A state of anarchy is what gave rise to the Taliban in the first place.
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:29:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By alexanderredhook: Wierd, I guess we all hear different things. What I heard on the radio was that the only force the US had present was a UAV armed with Hellfire missiles which tried to intervene but was unsuccessfull. Alex
View Quote
Alex, where did you hear that information? DaMan
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:31:01 PM EDT
BTW, here's a link to a proposal to end the ethnic warfare in Afghanistan by partitioning it: [url]http://www.ishipress.com/solution.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:39:47 PM EDT
Hey Eric The Hun, can you shoot me an e-mail. I need to ask you a question.
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:46:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan:
Originally Posted By alexanderredhook: Wierd, I guess we all hear different things. What I heard on the radio was that the only force the US had present was a UAV armed with Hellfire missiles which tried to intervene but was unsuccessfull. Alex
View Quote
Alex, where did you hear that information? DaMan
View Quote
I heard it on 560 AM{the local station that carries Rush}. I also read an article today saying that it was a CIA operated UAV that attacked a convoy several hours later but the Taliban still captured Haq. Alex
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:51:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: I think the mistake that both people here and the press are making is that the Northern Alliance is necessarily our ally. Yes, they oppose the Taliban, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are nice guys that we want to have in power. Maybe we want them AND the Taliban wrecked?
View Quote
HOLY SMOKES! I agree with somethig from Rikwriter for a change! But ONCE AGAIN, he's got MOST of his facts mixed up! True....the Northern Alliance are Mujahadeen sheetbirds composed mostly of Uzbeks and Tajiks who could NEVER establish a peaceful settlement with the majority Pashtun (Taliban) of Afghanistan! BUT, if you you think they will wipe each other out..... that's just wishfull thinking! The CIA's insertion of Haq was NOT to support the Northern Alliance! It was to create a "southern front", to encourage Taliban defections (with $), and to support the former king (Zahir Shah). This operation was FUGGED UP COMPLETELY! You expect Taliban defections.... NOW???!! DaMan
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:53:42 PM EDT
Post from alexanderredhook -
I also read an article today saying that it was a CIA operated UAV that attacked a convoy several hours later but the Taliban still captured Haq.
View Quote
Damn shame, isn't it! I mean if these folks were your attorneys you'd fire them and take them to the Bar Association! If all you've got to do all day is to stay 'frosty' and nail the bad guys, you shouldn't screw up so royally! Eric The(AndWithTheWholeWorldWatching,NoLess)Hun[>­]:)]
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 4:55:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: BTW, here's a link to a proposal to end the ethnic warfare in Afghanistan by partitioning it: [url]http://www.ishipress.com/solution.htm[/url]
View Quote
Good 'ol Sam Sloan. He's a card. But his writings are long. He proposes breaking them up into several countries? Why not give them a Republic like the US of A based not on states, but Ethnicity. Have voters register as Pastun or Tajik or what ever and elect their own Reps. @ houses, like us. One with 2 reps from each Ethnic group, and one house with proportional representation. If you really think we might screw this up, you're wrong. We already have screwed this up! I don't know what was wrong with the way we fought WW2, but since then we've fought like we are afraid to hurt anybody for fear they will hurt us back! Look how we handled the Chinese in Korea, the N. Vietnamese, and worse, Saddam Hussein! There is no earthly reason why we shouldn't now be occupying Iraq and setting up a provisional Gov't just like we did for our now great allies, Japan & Germany.
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 5:05:18 PM EDT
Garmentless, for once we are in complete agreement! We need to defeat, overwhelmingly, our enemies. Then, occupy them until we are convinced they can govern themselves in a civilized manner. It is sad but civilians die during wars! 25 million or so in WWII I seem to remember reading. How many in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Too many, I am sure, but that was war and a necessary evil to fight that war to a clear conclusion. And FIGHT we did! Will never understand why we can no longer do what the GREATEST GENERATION did so very well, win the fu****g war!
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 5:21:06 PM EDT
DaMan, Are you the same person that ended your posts with "regards!" or was that a different person?
Link Posted: 10/28/2001 6:07:52 PM EDT
He proposes breaking them up into several countries? Why not give them a Republic like the US of A based not on states, but Ethnicity. Have voters register as Pastun or Tajik or what ever and elect their own Reps. @ houses, like us. One with 2 reps from each Ethnic group, and one house with proportional representation.
View Quote
Actually, the proposal is to annex the different ethnic areas to the adjacent countries. Pakistan would get most of the south and east, Iran would get a bit of the west, et cetera. Turning Afghanistan into a republic would be extremely difficult even if we had 100,000 troops there... which we don't.
Top Top