Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/25/2001 11:12:00 AM EDT
More here: [url]www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm[/url] Violations of international humanitarian law committed by United Front factions include: Late 1999 - early 2000: Internally displaced persons who fled from villages in and around Sangcharak district recounted summary executions, burning of houses, and widespread looting during the four months that the area was held by the United Front. Several of the executions were reportedly carried out in front of members of the victims' families. Those targeted in the attacks were largely ethnic Pashtuns and, in some cases, Tajiks. September 20-21, 1998: Several volleys of rockets were fired at the northern part of Kabul, with one hitting a crowded night market. Estimates of the number of people killed ranged from seventy-six to 180. The attacks were generally believed to have been carried out by Massoud's forces, who were then stationed about twenty-five miles north of Kabul. A spokesperson for United Front commander Ahmad Shah Massoud denied targeting civilians. In a September 23, 1998, press statement, the International Committee of the Red Cross described the attacks as indiscriminate and the deadliest that the city had seen in three years. Late May 1997: Some 3,000 captured Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Junbish forces under the command of Gen. Abdul Malik Pahlawan. The killings followed Malik's withdrawal from a brief alliance with the Taliban and the capture of the Taliban forces who were trapped in the city. Some of the Taliban troops were taken to the desert and shot, while others were thrown down wells and then blown up with grenades. January 5, 1997: Junbish planes dropped cluster munitions on residential areas of Kabul. Several civilians were killed and others wounded in the indiscriminate air raid, which also involved the use of conventional bombs. March 1995: Forces of the faction operating under Commander Massoud, the Jamiat-i Islami, were responsible for rape and looting after they captured Kabul's predominantly Hazara neighborhood of Karte Seh from other factions. [b]According to the U.S. State Department's 1996 report on human rights practices in 1995, "Massood's troops went on a rampage, systematically looting whole streets and raping women."[/b] On the night of February 11, 1993 Jamiat-i Islami forces and those of another faction, Abdul Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i Islami, conducted a raid in West Kabul, killing and "disappearing" ethnic Hazara civilians, and committing widespread rape. Estimates of those killed range from about seventy to more than one hundred. In addition, the parties that constitute the United Front have committed other serious violations of internationally recognized human rights. In the years before the Taliban took control of most of Afghanistan, these parties had divided much of the country among themselves while battling for control of Kabul. In 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 were killed in Kabul, most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks. One-third of the city was reduced to rubble, and much of the remainder sustained serious damage. There was virtually no rule of law in any of the areas under the factions' control. In Kabul, Jamiat-i Islami, Ittihad, and Hizb-i Wahdat forces all engaged in rape, summary executions, arbitrary arrest, torture, and "disappearances." In Bamiyan, Hizb-i Wahdat commanders routinely tortured detainees for extortion purposes.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:14:31 AM EDT
[url]www.commondreams.org/views01/1123-05.htm[/url] Published on Friday, November 23, 2001 Bush's Definition of Terrorism Fits Northern Alliance Like a Glove; TV Interviewers Don't Notice by Dennis Hans Mark well the sequence. On the morning of November 10, President George W. Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly and spoke words that warmed the hearts of human rights activists the world over: "For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid and it will be paid.... [Nations that support terror] are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice... We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences.... The Afghan people do not deserve their present rulers.... I make this promise to all the victims of that regime: The Taliban's days of harboring terrorists, and dealing in heroin, and brutalizing women are drawing to a close." That evening, during a joint press conference with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bush described the Northern Alliance as "our friends." ("We will encourage our friends to head south across the Shumali Plains, but not into the city of Kabul itself.") [b]Moments later, Musharraf branded Bush's "friends" terrorists: "Why I have been recommending that Kabul should not be occupied by the Northern Alliance basically is because of the past experience that we've had when the various ethnic groups were ahold of Kabul after the Soviets left. There was total atrocities, killings and mayhem within the city. And I think if the Northern Alliance enters Afghanistan -- enters Kabul -- we'll see the same kind of atrocities being perpetuated against the people there...."[/b] A reporter followed up by asking Bush if he agreed with Musharraf's assessment of the Alliance. Bush replied, "Only, only, I said one question. Now you're going with three." No other reporter put the question to Bush. Now that is a disciplined press corps. In the morning, President Bush takes a strong stand against those who terrorize the innocent and brands governments that support such terrorists "equally guilty of murder and equally accountable." In the evening he hails as "our friends" an alliance that has terrorized the innocent (and, by the way, dealt heroin) both as a government (1992-96) and as an opposition force. For a sampling of Northern Alliance atrocities, see the October 2001 "Background" report from Human Rights Watch. Since 1992, the various Alliance factions have killed tens of thousands of civilians every bit as innocent as America's 9-11 victims; their rap sheets includes rape, torture, summary executions and "disappearances." "To date," states HRW, "not a single Afghan commander has been held accountable for violations of international humanitarian law." (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm)
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:15:29 AM EDT
(continued) Saturday night is followed by Sunday morning, so it was just a matter of time before a Bush administration official would have to explain why the president would describe forces that fit his own definition of terrorists as "our friends," why he was backing them, and what he intended to do to bring his own administration to justice for supporting Alliance terrorists. Secretary of State Colin Powell looked cool November 11 in the Meet the Press hot seat. His inquisitor, Tim Russert, can be relentless when the topic is a stained blue dress, but he simply is intellectually and emotionally incapable of raising moral questions about U.S. foreign policy. He missed the obvious disconnect between Bush's words and policy. Thus, Powell never had to say, "I endorse what the president said at the U.N., and as soon as we crush al-Qaida, whether it's next year or next decade, we'll base our foreign policy on his words." He never had to relinquish any moral high ground for a more pragmatic (and defensible) realpolitik position. On ABC, Slammin' Sam Donaldson did indeed hold National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's feet to the fire on state sponsorship of terrorism. Outflanking the Bush administration on the right, Donaldson put on the screen the State Department's list of states that sponsor terror (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan) and asked why we aren't taking it to those governments like we're taking it to the Taliban. Note that Donaldson, in theory, represents ABC's "liberal" wing. For two decades he's been cast as a counterweight to George Will, the staunch conservative of "This Week." Donaldson could have asked why Cuba was on the terror-sponsor list. He could have asked why Colombia was not, given that its army collaborates with and protects a right- wing death-squad federation on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. He could have quoted from Bush's U.N. speech and the Human Rights Watch report on the Northern Alliance -- or cited the massive U.S. aid to the terror-facilitating Colombian army - - and asked why the U.S. wasn't on the terror-sponsor list. To ask any of those questions, Donaldson wouldn't necessarily have to be a liberal. He could just as well be a moderate or conservative, many of whom disapprove of selective morality and alliances with cutthroats. But he would have to be informed. Like most everyone else posing questions on Sunday morning, Donaldson is bright, articulate and ignorant. All are prerequisites: Smarts and a way with words lend an air of credibility; ignorance ensures the avoidance of embarrassing questions about "principles" that seem to be honored more often in the breach.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 11:16:00 AM EDT
(continued) To gain a coveted seat as a network foreign-policy interviewer, you must be incapable of thinking outside the parameters of bogus State Department lists. Your knowledge must be sufficiently superficial that you cannot recognize an evasive answer or demolish a dishonest one. Mix in an abiding faith in the fundamental decency of U.S. foreign policy and you could be the next Russert, Donaldson or Jim Lehrer. Dennis Hans is a freelance writer whose essays have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, National Post (Canada) and online at TomPaine.com, Slate and The Black World Today (tbwt.com), among other outlets. He has taught courses in mass communications and American foreign policy at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, and can be reached at HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:09:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 12:05:57 PM EDT by DaMan]
Imbroglio, does this mean that our new found Northern Alliance heroes aren't the "heroic freedom fighter" we were told they were? Does this mean that they would turn on us at the first opportunity? I'm shocked! [:0] I am going to take down my poster of my new hero General Abdul Rashid Dostum! And I thought he was such a swell guy! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:24:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 12:22:09 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
In my opinion, since they are our friends I would be more than willing to trust them with the wives and daughters of those in the U.S. who support the NA as heroes. The NA in reality is more like a south american drug running military dictatorship. Yet people still cheer them on.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:29:31 PM EDT
Ummm...perhaps I've missed something. Why do they have to be heroes and squeaky clean boyscouts to be our allies? I recall us allying ourselves with some pretty nasty characters in WW2 because it suited our purposes. I think SOME people have simply forgotten that the aim of this war isn't to make Afghanistan a Disneyland, it's to take out Al Quaida BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:47:34 PM EDT
Gee and I thought you all were so gung ho about the war on drugs. [url]www.msnbc.com/news/662443.asp[/url] THE PASHTO-speaking farmer expects to triple what he had made from the winter wheat he had planted the last three seasons. With the Taliban no longer around to enforce a three-year ban on poppy-growing, hundreds of farmers near the eastern city of Jalalabad — their appetite for profit sharpened by years of drought and hardship — have resumed planting what they call “narcotic.” “We don’t have much water, so with narcotic we make more money to offset the problem of the drought,” Haidar said. “If you water twice a year, narcotic will do very well, but with wheat, you have to water nine times.” SEEDS HIDDEN NO MORE Miles of flat fields surround Jalalabad, with barren desert mountains visible in the distance. Hundreds of miles of irrigation canals funnel runoff from mountain springs and creeks onto the fields, but after three years without rain, water is precious. The 75-year-old Haidar, who lives in a mud house, has rented his 750 acres from a wealthy Afghan for the past half-century. Before the Taliban ban, he grew poppies almost exclusively. During the past three years, he switched to wheat rather than risk imprisonment. But Haidar had stashed a bag of poppy seeds — and brought them out when the Taliban fled Jalalabad this month, in time for planting season. Now he has sown 250 acres of poppies, which he said will yield 650 pounds of opium. “It will be just enough to live,” Haidar said. “I have a family of 10, so I work just to live, eat and for clothes.” Afghanistan was once the world’s largest opium producer, enough to supply 75 percent of the world’s heroin, according to the U.N. Drug Control Program. Farmers produced 3,611 tons from the 1999 planting. But after a ruthless Taliban crackdown, the crop in 2000 dropped to 204 tons, the agency said in July. Most of the opium is exported and is rarely used locally. SENT TO PAKISTAN Mujahed, a 42-year-old farmer who uses only one name, said buyers give him an advance so that he can buy fertilizer and survive until the crop comes in. They return during the annual harvest to buy his seed pods and take the opium to Pakistan, where, he says, “they make the stuff that is very bad.” “But we don’t know about the advantages or disadvantages for other people,” Mujahed said. “I don’t know what they do with it. ... For me, there are a lot of advantages over wheat.” The U.N. drug program spent years working with the Taliban and aid agencies to discourage poppy growing and encourage wheat production. But farmers outside Jalalabad said they never saw any of the aid money that was funneled through the Taliban. “The Westerners, when they want to help us, they should put the aid in our hands, not give it to the leaders,” Mujahed said, adding that he would stop growing poppies if given an alternative. But Kasim, a 65-year-old white bearded farmer, was less sympathetic. “Our life is really very difficult, because we can’t grow wheat and still survive,” he said. “We need to grow narcotic, even if it is not fair to the rest of the world.”
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:48:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Ummm...perhaps I've missed something. Why do they have to be heroes and squeaky clean boyscouts to be our allies? I recall us allying ourselves with some pretty nasty characters in WW2 because it suited our purposes. I think SOME people have simply forgotten that the aim of this war isn't to make Afghanistan a Disneyland, it's to take out Al Quaida BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
View Quote
Rik, I'm not into "nation building"! If the various factions in Afgahnistan want to go at each others throats for the next hundred years, I could care less! Russia and Iran have been the Northern Alliance's main arms suppliers in recent years and both have reaffirmed their support for the NA since 09-11-01. I fear that the US is about to make the same mistake by furnishing these thugs with advanced weaponry. They WILL turn on us! Mark my words! It's not a question of IF, it is a question of WHEN! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:56:00 PM EDT
We're pitting them against each other. Wake up, whiner. Complain, complain, complain. Blah, blah, blah...... Always TRYING to find failure, hoping for it. It's getting boring.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 12:56:50 PM EDT
[b]Maybe the Taliban don't like flowers?[/b]
Before the Taliban ban, he grew poppies almost exclusively. During the past three years, he switched to wheat rather than risk imprisonment. But Haidar had stashed a bag of poppy seeds — and brought them out when the Taliban fled Jalalabad this month, in time for planting season.
View Quote
Should we expect the price of poppy flowers to drop?
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:02:28 PM EDT
All of this is a function of trying to avoid ground troop casualities. We get these proxies to do our dirty ground fighting for us, and we bring in our troops to act as police once all the real danger is gone. Northern Alliance doesn't seem much different from the Albanian KLA, does it? Albanians control the distribution of heroin in Western Europe, and that's obviously what funded their efforts against the Serbs. Then, our one-time 'friends' start a new war of aggression against Macedonia this year.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:03:42 PM EDT
Ibroglio, heroin production in Afghanistan doesn't worry me as far as product coming into the US. 90% of the heroin produced in Afghanistan is consumed in Europe. Most of our heroin comes from Colombia. BUT, heroin production in Afghanistan brings in A LOT of hard currency. Hard currency buys lots of weapons and political influence. I don't want the NA scum to have either! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:10:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: I fear that the US is about to make the same mistake by furnishing these thugs with advanced weaponry.
View Quote
I was not aware we'd provided them with any advanced weaponry. I certainly hope we don't, and I don't think we will. AFAIK, we've only given them ammo so far.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:11:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: We're pitting them against each other. Wake up, whiner. Complain, complain, complain. Blah, blah, blah...... Always TRYING to find failure, hoping for it. It's getting boring.
View Quote
You're kinda' like the kid who got a pile of horse crap as a Christmas present. "Oh, boy!" he exclaimed. "There's got to be a pony around here somewhere"! [:P] DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:17:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By DaMan: I fear that the US is about to make the same mistake by furnishing these thugs with advanced weaponry.
View Quote
I was not aware we'd provided them with any advanced weaponry. I certainly hope we don't, and I don't think we will. AFAIK, we've only given them ammo so far.
View Quote
Guess they didn't feel you had "the need to know", Mr. Rik! Did they inform you when they were giving stingers to the Taliban? [:P] Daman
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:20:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Guess they didn't feel you had "the need to know", Mr. Rik!
View Quote
But you did have the "need to know?" I don't think so. You know just as much about this as I do, no more.
Did they inform you when they were giving stingers to the Taliban?
View Quote
They never gave the TALIBAN Stingers. They gave the MUJAHADEEN Stingers. The Taliban didn't exist at the time. But maybe you didn't have the "need to know" that...
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:31:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 1:25:36 PM EDT by DaMan]
Rik, OH EXCUSE ME! They weren't the Taliban back when they got the stingers.... they were the "Mujahadeen" ...... who then became the "Taliban"! [:P] DaMan Edited because Rikki loves word games!
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 1:49:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Rik, OH EXCUSE ME! They weren't the Taliban back when they got the stingers.... they were the "Mujahadeen" ...... who then became the "Taliban"!
View Quote
No, little boy, the Mujahadeen did NOT become the Taliban. SOME members of the Mujahadeen allied with a hell of a lot of foreigners brought in by Pakistani intelligence stole power and became the Taliban. The Mujahadeen also included elements of what is now the Northern Alliance and the Pashtun tribes in the south.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:03:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:10:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By DaMan: Rik, OH EXCUSE ME! They weren't the Taliban back when they got the stingers.... they were the "Mujahadeen" ...... who then became the "Taliban"!
View Quote
No, little boy, the Mujahadeen did NOT become the Taliban. SOME members of the Mujahadeen allied with a hell of a lot of foreigners brought in by Pakistani intelligence stole power and became the Taliban. The Mujahadeen also included elements of what is now the Northern Alliance and the Pashtun tribes in the south.
View Quote
You're funny, Rik! [:P] Glad to see you recoginize the NA as being NA fuggs! The stingers were delivered before there was a "Northern Alliance". They went to the Mujahadeen who joined the Taliban. Don't you just love Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum? He's a sweety! DaMan Sorry! Just thought that humorous! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:15:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Sorry! Just thought that humorous!
View Quote
Don't be sorry, I find your incoherent ramblings infinitely humorous.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:17:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:33:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By DaMan: Sorry! Just thought that humorous!
View Quote
Don't be sorry, I find your incoherent ramblings infinitely humorous.
View Quote
Oh, my God! Laughed my a$$ off! Guess you couldn't understand that the stingers we sent to Afghanistan ended up in the hands of the Taliban? [:P] DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:38:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 2:31:41 PM EDT by DzlBenz]
Given the muslim propensity for firing weapons into the air to celebrate, well, anything, and that the Mujahideen knocked down a sizeable number of Mi-8, 17 and 24 helicopters between, say, 1985 and the Soviet retreat, how many Stingers might the Taliban/UF/NA/Afghan-thug-of-the-month have access to by now? Are the batteries such that the weapons are still servicable? Edited because I left something important out.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:41:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Guess you couldn't understand that the stingers we sent to Afghanistan ended up in the hands of the Taliban?
View Quote
What I understand is that Stingers have a limited shelf life and exactly NONE have been used to any effect against us in this war.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:45:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DzlBenz: Given the muslim propensity for firing weapons into the air to celebrate, well, anything, and that the Mujahideen knocked down a sizeable number of Mi-8, 17 and 24 helicopters between, say, 1985 and the Soviet retreat, how many Stingers might the Taliban/UF/NA/Afghan-thug-of-the-month have access to by now? Are the batteries such that the weapons are still servicable? Edited because I left something important out.
View Quote
About 300! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:46:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:47:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 2:42:57 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
He he, Worry about the NA? Dude, their biggest fear is that the US will switch sides and ally with Pakistan which wants them DEAD. They have seen what we can do and do not want to be on the recieving end... And just where are those evil Stingers now?? The large scale fighting is almost over, and none have shown up. The Taliban is disappearing fast, who is going to be around to shoot them?
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:50:33 PM EDT
300, eh. I think Jane's estimated it could be as high as 500, since the actual number of units transferred is in question. Add to this mix the close relationship that the Taliban have had with Pakistan - a country very adept at reverse-engineering just about everything they can get their hands on. So then the question becomes: are the Stingers (and whatever else they've got left) more valuable to an "army" on the run as weapons, or as currency?
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:51:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2001 3:11:04 PM EDT by DaMan]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By DaMan: Guess you couldn't understand that the stingers we sent to Afghanistan ended up in the hands of the Taliban?
View Quote
What I understand is that Stingers have a limited shelf life and exactly NONE have been used to any effect against us in this war.
View Quote
Rik, you were a "soldier" weren't you? Would you shoot a stinger at a high performance Air Craft? DaMan Edited 'cause I wanted to hear how "soldier RIK" would react to a "stinger'!
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 2:56:47 PM EDT
Then why havent they popped one off at a C130 or Stallion or Blackhawk. All these SpecOps guys are getting in and around Afganistan some how, they should have LOTS of opportunities to hit slow movers.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:00:21 PM EDT
DzlBenz !!! YOU ARE QUOTING JANE's !! That's an actual authoritative source and no real facts are ever allowed in these discussions. No one will still say the "Tali" is composed of great bunches of Arabians but it is. NA - "Continue to kill Tali" - we'll worry about the dope crop in the spring.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:03:55 PM EDT
To my recollection, most of the Stinger activity against the Soviets occurred _after_ the Soviets were operating routinely from bases within Afghanistan. This may be coincident with the arrival of the Stingers, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it's one thing to target fairly un-sophisticated Mi-8s carrying replacement troops from one known position to another known position during the daytime, and trying to pick off an MH-60 coming from who-knows-where going to who-knows-where at night. While being carpet bombed. Again. I guesss what I'm getting at is that the US operations may soon develop into a type that is more prone to providing Stinger targets to the enemy. I hope not.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:05:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: DzlBenz !!! YOU ARE QUOTING JANE's !! That's an actual authoritative source and no real facts are ever allowed in these discussions.
View Quote
Heh. Good one. Well, paraphrasing at best. That make you feel better?
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:07:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:15:16 PM EDT
Dsl B. Paraphrasing allows me to feel much better. I've got this plan to get "Hollywood" Celebs. to do a televised benefit for getting the Northern/United/Alliance/Front irrigation pumps for next year's dope crop - with good old American help the crop can be bigger and better than ever. Guess the "Golden Crescent" has stopped growing poppies as they never get a mention. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:22:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: Not for nothin', but it seems to me that our air tactics have been designed to minimize out aricrafts' exposure to potential Stinger fire.
View Quote
You've got it,Dude! REASON? DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:28:05 PM EDT
Just occurred to my dumb a** that in the intervening years lots of improvements have been made to our "counter measures" suite. Those old "Stingers" may no longer be effective against our aircraft.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:33:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: Just occurred to my dumb a** that in the intervening years lots of improvements have been made to our "counter measures" suite. Those old "Stingers" may no longer be effective against our aircraft.
View Quote
Fighter aircraft? Or commercial aircraft? DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:35:37 PM EDT
I was primarily thinking of helicopters and fighters. Don't have a clue about non-military aircraft.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:40:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:42:04 PM EDT
About the only countermeasure against a Stinger would be a flare. Now considering that this think has an effective range of just a couple of miles, an effective altitude of about 8000 feet, and a supersonic velocity, one would have to employ countermeasures at the instant the thing was fired. Imagine holding an armour plate at your side, and the very instant a bullet is fired at you from any random direction a couple of hundred yards way, you've got to raise the plate and deflect the bullet. Add the level of difficulty that the Stinger is not ballistic; it's going to follow you around until it either hits you or runs out of propellant. A truly effective weapon, for what it is meant to do. Good thing we only give them to our allies. Oh, wait.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 3:45:26 PM EDT
Counter-measures: Flares yes but I was also thinking of the greatly reduced "IR" signature.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 6:09:10 PM EDT
Old Rik, ain't much fun! Spouts his crap and runs! raf, don't mean to sound "patronizing" .....but when I run into one who doesn't know what he's talking about, that's the kindest route I can take! Stingers don't work real well against high performance AC. But they work just fine against helicopters at moderate to close range or COMMERCIAL (PASSENGER) AC out to maximum range! Batteries run down???!!! Hahahahahah! Batteries are REALLY hard to replace! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 6:47:04 PM EDT
This is all very shocking. I'm disappointed that the United States didn't ally itself with the Afghan Green party. They could have held a protest march through downtown Kabul and just shamed the Taliban out of power. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 6:50:37 PM EDT
Unless I'm mistaken, THE WAR IS JUST ABOUT OVER. The Taliban are running out of real estate, & with Marines pouring into the Khandahar area as I type this, they're running out of options fast. if the devious & diabolical tali's are preparing their dreaded masterstroke counterattack with short range manpack missles, (all of which I'm sure have been meticulously maintained during the 10 years they've been lying around in Afghanistan), I figure they have all of about a week tops to pull it off.
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 6:57:19 PM EDT
Oh, guys..... that is a forward staging area for Apache helicopers south of Kandahar! Not a Marine assault on the city! Yes, the end of the Taliban is close at hand..... but not yet! And you may not like what follows them! DaMan
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 7:06:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 8:05:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DaMan: Old Rik, ain't much fun! Spouts his crap and runs!
View Quote
Runs? I figured I had humiliated you quite enough for one day. Do you enjoy humiliation that much?
Link Posted: 11/25/2001 8:25:14 PM EDT
UNfortunately, Afghanistan's history is one of tribal conflict and temorary "rule" by foreign invaders. The Taliban will merely leak out of the country back to whatever Arab nation they came from last, or will change hats to join the UF/NA/Whatever. Don't think for a minute that the news coming out of that part of the world indicates any of the following. 1) A victory in the "War on Terrorism" 2) A victory over Osama bin Laden 3) A victory over oppression of native Afghans 4) A victory for "democracy and peace" I'm very afraid that what it really means is a diversion of a great deal of our nation's resources (oh, yeah, and the Canadian navy) and placement in harm's way of a great number of our all-volunteer armed forces. Further, it represents a switching of our allegiances in the region from one band of theives to another. We're by no means done in Afghanistan. Within a year, I expect the US to be fully engaged in USAID projects in Pakistan, India and perhaps (well, almost certainly, really) Afghanistan. We will be rebuilding, or in many cases building for the very first time, moder infrastructure in these places that only mere weeks ago were on the US State Departments shit list. Now they're our buddies. Whoo boy. Let the games begin. Right. Like some 89-year-old "king" is going to give up his cushy western-sponsored life in Europe to return to rule these jokers.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top