Current Hotspot : Afghanistan

mmc

same argument as yours...so what is your proof then...

Debmey

Since we don't see him and there is no reason for him to be in afghanistan and there is no reason to beleiev it, the burden of proof is obviously on you that Osama is criss crossing the border.

mmc

same for you bro..you also have the burden of proof to show that he is NOT criss-crossing the border..anyway unlike you, i have shown proof that American INTEL believes he is doing so, what have you shown so far other than spouting of allegations without any back-up, not even form you white master's intel.....debs my advice to you, do not try to be a lawyer, you stink at it, even as a barrack room lawyer..

ef/x

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Thursday, September 28, 2006 ? Last updated 3:01 p.m. PT

Foreign command to direct U.S. troops

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

   
PORTOROZ, Slovenia -- A plan approved Thursday to extend NATO's military control across all of Afghanistan would put as many as 12,000 American troops under foreign battlefield command, a number that U.S. officials said could be the most since World War II.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hailed the change as a "bold step forward."

The move is expected to take place in the next few weeks, NATO spokesman James Appathurai said.

The largest number of U.S. troops ever under the control of foreign battlefield commanders was about 300,000 during World War I, said military officials traveling with Rumsfeld to the NATO meeting.

It was not clear how many troops were under foreign command during World War II. A U.S. officer, Gen. James L. Jones, is in charge of the overall NATO force, but the new arrangement would put the U.S. troops under foreign commanders on the battlefield.

The ministers also agreed to provide substantial amounts of military equipment for the Afghan army.

"There were in rough numbers thousands of weapons offered up, and I believe probably millions of rounds of ammunition," Rumsfeld told reporters.

Rumsfeld said at a press conference that some countries had stepped forward in response to appeals from NATO commanders for as many as 2,500 more troops to join the operation against the Taliban in the south. But he said more were still needed. He declined to say which countries had made offers.

NATO-led troops took command of the southern portion of Afghanistan just two months ago and have been struggling to stem the escalating violence there. This plan would extend their control to the eastern section, which U.S. troops now command.

Plans all along have been for NATO to take over the military in all regions of the country. NATO's takeover of the eastern section had been expected to happen later this fall, switching at least 10,000 American troops from U.S. command to alliance control - specifically that of British Lt. Gen. David Richards. Currently about 2,000 U.S. troops are serving under NATO commanders in other portions of Afghanistan.

In opening remarks, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer indicated that commitments for troops and equipment for Afghanistan would be a main goal of the meeting.

According to a senior U.S. official, Afghanistan had compiled a list of needed equipment, from helicopters and vehicles to armor and guns, and officials will set up a program to coordinate the donations. This information was passed on to the 26 NATO defense ministers at the meeting.

NATO countries recently have been slow to meet needs for more coalition forces for the alliance in Afghanistan, where violence has surged. Jones, who also heads the U.S. European Command, asked other nations this month for about 2,500 troops and other equipment, and said last week that some had come through.

Currently there are about 20,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan and an additional 21,000 from the United States.

Under the expected equipment deal, allies will be able to coordinate and donate supplies to the Afghan National Army. The official could not estimate how much equipment was included on Afghanistan's wish list.

---

Associated Press Writer Paul Ames in Portoroz contributed to this report.

---

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_Rumsfeld_NATO.html

ef/x

Taliban to ABC News: OBL Alive and Safe
September 27, 2006 11:53 AM

Rahimullah Yusufzai Reports:

In a surprise phone call to the home of an ABC News producer in Pakistan, the top Taliban military commander, Mulla Dadullah Akhund, said Osama bin Laden is alive and that there is no truth to the rumors of his death from typhoid.

"Sheikh Osama is all right. He is safe," Dadullah told ABC News' Rahimullah Yusufzai. Dadullah would not disclose the location from where he was calling.

In the past, Dadullah has issued statements to the effect that bin Laden and Taliban leader Mulla Mohammad Omar are alive and leading the resistance against U.S.-led foreign forces in Afghanistan.

When pressed for evidence to show that bin Laden is alive, Dadullah hinted that there is a possibility of a tape being sent to media organizations to prove that the al Qaeda head isn't dead. Dadullah, however, declined to say as to when this tape would be made available.

The last time bin Laden released an audiotape was in late July. In it, he eulogized the sacrifices of al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and described him as a martyr.

That audiotape was the fifth issued by bin Laden in 2006. His last videotape was released in October 2004 a few days before the presidential elections in the U.S.

The renewed interest in bin Laden's fate was triggered by the report in a French regional newspaper that the al Qaeda leader died after suffering from a serious bout of typhoid in Pakistan on Aug. 23. That report grew out of a rumor passed at an embassy party in Islamabad by a Saudi diplomat attache, according to intelligence sources in France and Pakistan.

It isn't clear whether Taliban commanders, such as Dadullah, have access to bin Laden or to his deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, and other important al Qaeda figures. There have been reports that al Qaeda and Taliban members have forged closer ties with each other since the collapse of the Taliban government in Afghanistan in December 2001. However, there is no evidence that bin Laden, Zawahiri and Mulla Omar could be hiding together in one place.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/taliban_to_abc_.html

Debmey

Rather than proving me wrong, you proved me right. The article above did not say that either Zawahiri or Osama was criss crossing the border. It mere speculated that they can cross the border.

"We believe that he held to a pretty narrow range of within 15 kilometers of the border," said Vines, who now commands the XVIII Airborne Corps, "so that if the Pakistanis, for whatever reason, chose to do something to him, he could cross into Afghanistan and vice versa."

See, its didn't say Osama was actually criss crossing at all. I know what I am talking about dummies, i am trained in cross examination and I am very careful with words and arguments.

Debmey

So why are these taliban terrorists hitting soft targets such as markets and schools if they are winning? Please explain.

mmc

Originally posted by Debmey at 29-9-2006 10:46 AM
Rather than proving me wrong, you proved me right. The article above did not say that either Zawahiri or Osama was criss crossing the border. It mere speculated that they can cross the border.

& ...

so where's your proof dummy...and btw we are not being cross examined here, you are because it was you who made the allegation, so the burden of proof is now entirely yours as we have provided our proof to counter your allegation, is the reason you don't know this is because you slept through or missed the class when this was being taughts..debs, debs, always claiming the sky but proving otherwise..

huskers

apa gunanye berdebat dgn mamat dubok nih. buang karanjer. buat apa nak jatuh kan darjat kite serendah darjat die. hv a nice weekend

mmc

why don't you explain why they should not my learned one...the PKM did the same thing in singapore, so was they wrong? Its called terrorism and it has no bearing on whether they are winning or losing, but when they are winning it just make it easier to terrorise the people to not cooperate with the authorities who are now bunkered down in their strongholds but do not control anything anywhere else, but i forget, you are not expert on this right...luckily the yanks don't have anyone with the stature of briggs, but i guess this will fly under your radar anyway by your whining for proof..

mmc

jerat bro, jerat

mmc

Originally posted by Debmey at 29-9-2006 10:46 AM
See, its didn't say Osama was actually criss crossing at all. I know what I am talking about dummies, i am trained in cross examination and I am very careful with words and arguments. ..

btw debs, these are the xamining techniques you've been subjected to but guess you didn't pick it up coz you failed the subject eh...that's what you get for missing classes..

Challenging the Opinion's Underlying Premise(s)

The expert's report should reveal the facts or premises that the expert adopted in order to express her opinion. A cross examination directed at displacing or discrediting some of these facts or premises will obviously undermine the opinion itself. In this instance, your theory of the case is that there is insufficient or unreliable evidence to establish the facts or premises. On cross examination, you will seek to have the expert identify the sources from which she assumed the underlying facts or premises. Don't forget that you need not destroy the expert in order to succeed on this point. You need only raise doubt as the manner in which the expert assumed the facts or premises. By doing so you will have set the stage to lead subsequent evidence to rebut the facts or premises.

It is proper to put hypotheticals to the expert. Consider asking a line of questions where you have the expert assume that the fact(s) or premise(s) does not exist and whether, in that context, her opinion would still be the same.

In cases where the facts may not be challenged, consider whether the expert's conclusion
drawn from those facts is the only conclusion that can be reached. If the expert is not prepared to agree with such a proposition, you may still score points by showing that she is being inflexible in her stated position. Done and Deb's fell for it

Bias

Apart from having the witness appear inflexible as suggested above, you should attempt to expose any real or apparent bias of the expert. It is sometimes worth exploring fees charged and testimony given in other cases. Done and Deb's fell for it

Capitalise on Uncertainty or Ambivalence

These straightforward points will go a long way in balancing what first appeared to be an uneven playing field of counsel just versed in the technology at issue versus the adverse expert witness who may have made a career out of providing technical evidence. As you become comfortable in determining what you should explore and how to do it, you will find that you are better tuned into the witness' answers and better able to spot and capitalize on any uncertainty or ambivalence in her testimony. Your cross examination will move from simply shooting questions in the dark to confidently taking on the spotlight in what is a most challenging part of advocacy.  Done and Deb's fell for it

Debmey

Yes sir, you guys failed. You threw all these cheap ambivalence to distract but I stuck to the topic and you don't have a reply. I even get to expose your lies. Looks like I nailed you all. Its actually so simple, you fellas don't even pose a problem to me.


cheers

mmc

arrgh...denial is bliss eh debs!...cheers to you too!

and Jizzz... Klong! Klong!  with the nod to SM Acehand....

huskers

perghhh...debat perdana pun tak sehebat ini. syabas tuan-tuan semua.

ef/x

British troops in secret truce with the Taliban
Michael Smith

  
BRITISH troops battling the Taliban are to withdraw from one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan after agreeing a secret deal with the local people.

Over the past two months British soldiers have come under sustained attack defending a remote mud-walled government outpost in the town of Musa Qala in southern Afghanistan. Eight have been killed there.

It has now been agreed the troops will quietly pull out of Musa Qala in return for the Taliban doing the same. The compound is one of four district government offices in the Helmand province that are being guarded by British troops.

Although soldiers on the ground may welcome the agreement, it is likely to raise new questions about troop deployment. Last month Sir Richard Dannatt, the new head of the British Army, warned that soldiers in Afghanistan were fighting at the limit of their capacity and could only ?ust? cope with the demands.

When British troops were first sent to Afghanistan it was hoped they would help kick-start the country? reconstruction. But under pressure from President Hamid Karzai they were forced to defend Afghan government ?istrict centres? at Musa Qala, Sangin, Nowzad and Kajaki.

The move ? opposed by Lieutenant-General David Richards, the Nato commander in Afghanistan ? turned the four remote British bases into what Richards called ?agnets? for the Taliban. All 16 of the British soldiers killed in action in southern Afghanistan have died at Musa Qala, Sangin or Nowzad.

The soldiers risk sniper fire and full-scale assaults from experienced Taliban fighters who can then blend into the local population after each attack.

The peace deal in Musa Qala was first mooted by representatives of the town? 2,000-strong population. About 400 people living in the immediate area of the district centre compound have been forced to evacuate their homes, most of which have been destroyed in the fighting.

Brigadier Ed Butler, the commander of the British taskforce, flew into Musa Qala 18 days ago, guarded only by his military police close-protection team, to attend a shura, or council of town elders, to negotiate a withdrawal.

Butler was taken in a convoy to the shura in the desert southeast of Musa Qala where the carefully formulated proposals were made. The British commander said that he was prepared to back a ?essation of fighting? if they could guarantee that the Taliban would also leave.

The deal ? and the avoidance of the word ceasefire ? allows both sides to disengage without losing face, an important aspect in the Afghan psyche. Polls suggest that 70% of the population are waiting to see whether Nato or the Taliban emerge as the dominant force before they decide which to back.

Fighting in Afghanistan traditionally takes place in the summer and there are concerns that the Taliban could simply use the ?essation of fighting? to regroup and attack again next year. But there are clear signs of the commitment of the people of Musa Qala to the deal, with one Talib who stood out against it reportedly lynched by angry locals.

?here is always a risk,? one officer said. ?ut if it works, it will provide a good template for the rest of Helmand. The people of Sangin are already saying they want a similar deal.?

There is frustration among many British troops that they have been unable to help on reconstruction projects because they have been involved in intense fighting. An e-mail from one officer published this weekend said: ?e are not having an effect on the average Afghan.

?t the moment we are no better than the Taliban in their eyes, as all they can see is us moving into an area, blowing things up and leaving, which is very sad.?

The Ministry of Defence announced this weekend that 10 British soldiers had been seriously injured in fighting in the last few days of August, bringing the total number of troops seriously injured in the country this year to 23.

A total of 29 British servicemen have lost their lives in southern Afghanistan in the past two months, including 14 who died when their Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft crashed on September 2.

A new poll published last week revealed a lack of public confidence over the deployment of troops in Afghanistan. According to the BBC poll, 53% of people opposed the use of British troops in the region.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2383232,00.html

ef/x

Nato's Afghanistan troop dilemma
  By Ahmed Rashid  


Guest journalist and writer Ahmed Rashid reflects in his latest column for the BBC News website on Nato's dilemma over troop expansion in Afghanistan.

Nato's very public announcement on 8 December that it will send an additional 6,000 troops to Taleban-infested southern Afghanistan next spring and Washington's more cryptic remarks that it wants to withdraw 4,000 troops from the same region at the same time are being read very differently by all those affected.

Most Afghans and many diplomats in the capital, Kabul, see it as the start of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, no matter how profusely Washington's spin machine insists that "the US will never abandon the Afghans".

Senior aides to President Hamid Karzai say any US withdrawal, no matter how it is camouflaged, will be disastrous for people's morale and remind them of the US withdrawal from Afghan affairs after the Soviet pullout in 1989.

The Taleban and al-Qaeda would like to see a political and military vacuum develop as US troops begin to depart.

For the first time, the Taleban have begun to target Nato peace-keeping forces in Kabul and Kandahar with suicide attacks.

It is a deliberate strategic move to try to frighten off European countries from becoming part of future Nato forces in Afghanistan.


Shifting burden

Afghanistan's six neighbours, all of whom are still clandestinely backing various warlord proxies inside the country, are likely to see the shift in forces as a weakening of Western resolve and an opportunity to push forward their proxies - just in case the Kabul government shows signs of weakness.


It is sad but true that despite the deployment of 9,000 troops, Nato has still not developed a positive image of itself amongst Afghans outside Kabul


The administration of President George W Bush sees it as an opportunity to redeem popularity at home by bringing the boys home from a foreign war, even though the militants are far from defeated.

Shifting the burden to the Europeans is also a chance for the US State Department to try to recharge the Atlantic alliance after all the unilateral and isolationist moves undertaken by the first Bush administration.

For those idealistic and ambitious European countries who want to see Nato develop as the most powerful global alliance, which can take on the problems of the world and help solve them without necessarily depending on the Americans, Afghanistan presents a golden opportunity to test Nato's resolve.

Meanwhile smaller European countries who are appalled at human rights violations and the treatment of prisoners by the Bush administration, see the Nato deployment as a result of excessive bullying by a US administration that wants them to take on an ever larger share of what is still a US-led war on terrorism.

The Nato deployment, announced with much fanfare in Brussels after a meeting of the 26 foreign ministers of Nato countries, came after months of agonising and countries refusing to take part in the new deployment.

"When the expansion takes place next year, it will mean Nato is operating in three-quarters of Afghanistan," said Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

At present, while the 19,000 strong US-led coalition is responsible for waging war on the Taleban, the estimated 9,000 strong Nato contingent is carrying out peace-keeping duties in Kabul.

Nato forces have taken over from some American-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) - with Germany deploying in the north-east, Britain in the north and Italy and Spain taking over in the west.

In late November, senior White House officials in Washington confirmed to me that the administration would be withdrawing some 4,000 troops from southern Afghanistan next spring, once a Nato-led force was in place.

US officials refuse to use the term withdrawal, insisting it is merely a troops "adjustment" or "rotation".

In the past few months, Washington has leaned hard on Nato to come up with a commitment so it can start planning its troop withdrawal.


Security concerns

However Nato has still not answered the critical questions, which will be paramount in the minds of Afghans next spring as well as those remaining US forces.

Are Nato troops really prepared to move beyond peace-keeping duties and take on a combat role in a region which is the hotbed of Taleban activity?

Is Nato going to be more than just the proverbial cleaner who arrives after the battle to clear up the mess and keep the peace in a failed state?

It is sad but true that despite the deployment of 9,000 troops, Nato has still not developed a positive image of itself amongst Afghans outside Kabul.

Every single deployment of Nato troops or aircraft since 2003 has led to months of wrangling between European capitals and Nato's high command, played out very publicly in the press.

Even in their peace-keeping role, each Nato country's forces have a list of what they will do and not do - national caveats - that has paralysed Nato commanders in Kabul.

Spanish troops based in the west will rarely leave their compound.

German troops in the north will allow no other Nato troops to fly in their helicopters.

Every nation has a different concept of running a PRT which makes any kind of unified reconstruction programme in the provinces next to impossible.

Moreover Nato troops seem far more concerned about their own security than the security of the Afghans they are supposed to be protecting.


Welcome presence

Yet what everyone tends to forget is that, unlike in Iraq and despite widespread mistakes made by American forces resulting in the deaths of many innocent civilians, the majority of Afghans still consider Western forces as a guarantor that the international community will continue to provide security and help fund reconstruction of the country.

In other words Western forces are still welcome - as long as they are really useful and are willing to both fight and help in reconstruction.

Take this present deployment.

For the past six months Britain has had tremendous difficulties in getting support from other Nato countries to join it in deploying to six provinces in the south and take over the American base in Kandahar.

Britain and Canada are committed to deploy an estimated 4,000 troops, but they needed another 2,000 more - specifically soldiers who will perform a peace-keeping role in the shape of PRTs, but also would not hesitate to fight if called upon to do so.

Major European countries such as France, Spain and Germany have refused to take part in operations that could involve fighting the Taleban.

The Netherlands, which had promised 1,000 troops, hesitated for months before agreeing to the deployment, while it took weeks of cajoling to get Denmark and Sweden to come up with a few hundred extra troops.

Even within the British government there has been a hot debate.

Some 3,000 British troops will deploy in the south, including 2,000 in Helmand province alone.

While 1,000 troops will deploy as a massive PRT to do reconstruction and help in opium eradication, the other 1,000 will deploy as a combat force ready to take on the Taleban.


Drugs

Helmand is the heart of Taleban resistance and opium production, but like the US army the British military is balking at demands from the British Foreign Office and Prime Minister Tony Blair to help stem the virulent narcotics trade, which is helping fund terrorist operations.

It is still not clear what mandate British troops will have to deal with interdicting drugs convoys, making arrests or getting involved with eradication of the poppy crop on the ground.

However there is no point in the British having a mandate in dealing with the drugs trade, if other Nato troops refuse to do the same job.

Even the Americans, who have been pushing Britain to get involved in dealing with drugs, do not allow their troops to get involved in either interdiction or eradication.

So why should Britain stick its neck out and do something that neither the Americans nor other Nato countries are willing to do?

Making war and building peace in Afghanistan will be a long process and any weakness shown by the Western alliance in its commitment will only bolster the enemy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4526150.stm

Originally posted by Debmey at 29-9-2006 03:32 PM
Yes sir, you guys failed. You threw all these cheap ambivalence to distract but I stuck to the topic and you don't have a reply. I even get to expose your lies. Looks like I nailed you all. Its act ...

Q: What do you call a loser, who've lost numerous times, who've been proven to have lost every time and is so scared of losing that he still claims to be a big ass hero??  

A: A racist kiasu.

Ha! Ha!

ef/x

Afghanistan: Tactics and techniques

International forces in Afghanistan are facing mounting security problems. The Taleban - ousted from Kabul in the 2001 US-led invasion - have regrouped over the last couple of years, and are now a resurgent force in the south and east of the country.
Although there are no reliable estimates of their current manpower, Taleban tactics are nothing new.

Their fighters follow exactly the same principles of low-level guerrilla warfare as the mujahideen fighters who inflicted heavy losses on the Soviet army which occupied Afghanistan from 1979-89.

Leading defence analyst Colonel Christopher Langton from the International Institute for Strategic Studies told the BBC News website: "It's a well-practised Afghan way of operating. There has been no change in tactics since 2001. A far as they're concerned, it works.

"They're limited by the type of equipment they have. It's been a long time since they operated any tanks or armoured vehicles.

The Taleban are increasingly employing bolder, more violent tactics and they're operating in larger units
Ayesha Khan
Afghanistan analyst, Chatham House  

"They don't have any aircraft, they may have some anti-aircraft missiles. But they have an abundant supply of small arms and light weapons and ammunition."

Speed, surprise, mobility and flexibility are integral factors in such 'asymmetric' campaigns; where a smaller, irregular force faces a far larger, better-armed one. The history of such encounters often shows that the smaller, local force will fare better.

Favoured guerrilla methods include ambush, sabotage, roadside bombings and assassination.

Afghanistan analyst Ayesha Khan from the UK-based Chatham House organisation said: "In the past six months the Taleban have certainly grown in confidence and momentum.

"They're increasingly employing bolder, more violent tactics such as suicide bombing and roadside bombs which we've seen in Iraq, and they're operating in larger units. "

MOBILITY

Taleban fighters often operate as a 'pick-up truck cavalry' force of adapted four-wheel drive vehicles such as the Toyota Hi-Lux. Nicknamed Ahu (the deer) these trucks are renowned for their sturdy design and reliability, and offer good manoeuvrability across harsh terrain.

They can carry up to ten guerrillas armed with heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, who fight either from the back of the moving truck, or dismount and adopt ground positions.

Colonel Langton told the BBC: "The Toyota is not just a mainstay, they exist in large quantities across the country. They're a vehicle of convenience - they don't have to ride horses, camels or walk. And they go anywhere."


Snatch Land Rover

Defences: Armour to protect against explosions and ballistics; roadside bomb detectors
Strengths: Quick land transport for up to six troops
Weaknesses: Questions over level of protection offered
Cost: Approximately ?50,000   

Toyota Hi Lux

Defences: Some carry RPG launchers, heavy machine guns
Strengths: Hard-wearing, fast, reliable off-road transport for up to 10 Taleban fighters
Weaknesses: No armour, variable levels of mechanical support
Cost: Approximately $10,000 in local terms  


Such a force can be quickly mustered into a surprise attack and equally quickly dispersed afterwards.

In isolation, Taleban vehicles often display no outward sign of their military purpose allowing them to blend into everyday scenery in towns and villages.

Motorbikes and push-bikes are also favoured as relatively quick, cheap and easy means of travelling distances over rough ground.


MANPOWER

Fighting units of Taleban consist mainly of Afghans, though according to recent reports numbers of Arab and Uzbek fighters may also be involved. Groups of fighters are usually organised along local/tribal lines and led by a senior, experienced commander.

Such units are sometimes amalgamated to form bigger contingents for more large-scale operations.


British 'Para'

Main weapons: Standard issue SA-80 rifle, L1A1 12.7 mm Heavy Machine gun, 81mm Mortar
Strengths: Highly-trained, well-supported professional soldier with modern equipment. Air support available
Weaknesses: May struggle to adapt to fighting in the harsh Afghan environment. Poor local intelligence cited as factor in recent attacks   

Taleban fighter

Main weapons: Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle, Rocket-Propelled Grenades, Stinger missiles
Strengths: Tenacious, well-supplied guerrilla force highly adapted to local climate and geography
Weaknesses: Vulnerable to air attack. Few heavy weapons. Factional nature can mean shifting loyalties. Poor weapons-handling skills  


Afghan fighters are renowned for their tenacity and ability to fight in high-temperatures and often at high-altitude.

Colonel Langton said: "If they have a weakness, it's that they're a very much traditional organisation and by looking at their fighting and cultural traditions, you can see some things that are predictable.

"They're not easy to combat though because their low-level fighting skills are highly developed."

KEY WEAPON

The weapons used by the opposing forces in Afghanistan are the products of two very different eras.

The SA80, mainstay of British forces for around 20 years, has been dogged by problems involving its design and reliability but reports of battlefield problems have diminished since a multi-million pound re-fit.

By contrast the AK-47 has been in service in one form or another since the 1950s and, although the weapon of choice in many standing armies, has become a symbol of guerrilla struggle thanks to its reputation for ruggedness and simplicity of use.


SA80

Developed: 1970s/ 1980s
Calibre: 5.56mm
Magazine capacity: 30
Loaded weight: 5kg (11lbs)
Range: 500m (1,641ft)   

AK-47

First made: 1947
Calibre: 7.62mm
Magazine capacity: 30
Loaded weight: 3.6kg (7.9lbs)
Range: 300m (984ft)  



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/- ... th_asia/5147832.stm

Published: 2006/07/11 17:34:16 GMT

? BBC MMVI

[ Last edited by  ef/x at 30-10-2006 06:17 PM ]

ef/x

Travelling with the Taleban
The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.


There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban.

I remember it as their secret weapon when I travelled with them in the mid-1990s, as they swept aside rival mujahideen to take most of the country.

Piled into the back of open Toyota trucks, their vehicle of choice, and carrying no possessions other than their weapons, they can move nimbly.

The bare arid landscape of northern Helmand suits them well.

After one hair-raising race across the desert last week, patrolling the large area where they can move at will, they screamed to a stop at a river bank.


Hardy

It was sunset, and time to pray before breaking the Ramadan fast they had kept since sunrise.

Before praying, they washed in a dank-looking pool at the side of the almost-dry river bed.

Afghanistan has been in the grip of a severe drought for several years, but the lack of clean water does not seem to concern these hardy men.


We rose up and saved almost the whole country from the evils of corruption and corrupt commanders... that's why people are supporting the Taleban again now
Mohammed Anif
Taleban spokesman


They clean their teeth with sharpened sticks taken from trees, and sleep with only the thinnest shawls to cover them.

They have surprised the British by the ferocity of their fighting and their willingness to take casualties.

Their belief in the imminence of paradise means that few exhibit fear.

When we stopped for the night, they would break into groups to eat in different houses in a village.

They demand and get food and shelter from places where they stop, but it is impossible to say how enthusiastic the villagers really are.


Power base

These remote villages, scattered across the huge expanse of the northern Helmand desert, are very poor, and made poorer by the drought.


The food we shared was just a bowl of rice, a vegetable stew made only of okra, and flat roughly-ground country bread.

The failure of aid policies to make a difference in southern Afghanistan and increasing corruption in the government and the national army, are spreading the power base of the Taleban.

The trucking companies, who backed them first in 1994 when they emerged to clear illegal checkpoints on the roads, are now backing them again.

This time the checkpoints are manned by Afghan government soldiers, who demand money at gunpoint from every driver.

The failure of the international community to stop this makes the military task of the British-led Nato force in the south much harder.

The Taleban official spokesman, Mohammed Anif, explained: "When the Islamic movement of the Taleban started in the first place, the main reason was because of concern among people about corruption.

"People were fed up with having to bribe governors, and other authorities.

"We rose up and saved almost the whole country from the evils of corruption and corrupt commanders. That's why people are supporting the Taleban again now."


Civilian casualties

The intensifying conflict itself also plays into their hands. It is hard for Nato to promote its mission as humanitarian given the inevitable civilian casualties of conflict.

The Taleban deny British claims that hundreds of their soldiers have been killed.


They say that since they wear only the loose long cotton shirts and trousers - shalwar kameez - of any local villager, then the British cannot easily tell them apart.

In a village damaged by a British attack on the night of 7 October, some people were too angry to talk to me because I was British.

One merely pointed to the torn and bloody women's clothing left in the ruins of the house and said bitterly, "Are these the kind of houses they have come to build - the kind where clothing is cut to pieces?".

Nato sources describe this village as being heavily defended by the Taleban, who fired on their forces throughout the operation.

British soldiers landed in helicopters, arrested a suspect and flew away.

But they left six dead in one family, including three young girls, and partially demolished the mosque.

Thousands of people have fled the fighting, many seeking refuge in Kandahar city, where they are putting severe pressure on the ability of the UN's World Food Programme to help.

They fear for the homes and farms they have left behind, and while not active Taleban supporters, it is clear that most blame Nato more for the worsening violence.


Folk memory

One man, Nazar Mohammed, now squatting with his family in a building site in Kandahar, said the Taleban have most to gain in the continuing conflict.


"It's very obvious. Right now we see foreigners with tanks driving through our vineyards. They destroy people's orchards.

"They break through the walls and just drive across. When they take up positions in the village like this, nobody can cooperate with them."

There is one other factor that increases Taleban morale.

Few have any education beyond years spent in the madrassas, the fundamentalist religious schools in Pakistan that have produced an endless supply of Taleban for more than a decade.

But all know the story of Afghanistan's past victories over the British.

Engraved in their collective folk memory of Afghanistan's warrior history are tales of the defeat of the British in 1842 and 1880 along with the defeat of the Russians in the 1980s.

The Taleban disappeared to the mountains after their defeat in 2001, and found it hard to recruit.

Five years on they are back, and regrouping against an old enemy.

David Loyn's TV report on Afghanistan can be seen on Newsnight on Wednesday at 2230 (BBC Two).


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/- ... th_asia/6081594.stm

Published: 2006/10/24 23:11:53 GMT

BBC MMVI