Drawn_Sword_of_God
FULL MEMBER
the war in afghanistan is called the war on terror, not the war of OBL. The presence of Taliban in afghanistan is very strong and they are still standing strong. The battle was won but the war is lost
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dude they got their @sses kicked.
They came to kill laden and they did it....
Everything in the article is right and I agree with the two articles.
Nato has to leave Afghanistan soon, or they will become bankrupt.
the war in afghanistan is called the war on terror, not the war of OBL. The presence of Taliban in afghanistan is very strong and they are still standing strong. The battle was won but the war is lost
U.S. Committed to Losing Afghan War - Never before has a country actively tried to lose a war - Sunday 25 September 2011, by Matthew Nasuti
The Taliban continue to be funded by opium and U.S. tax dollars and can operate relatively freely from safe havens in Pakistan. Their numbers have now reportedly risen to over 40,000. Based on current conditions they can continue to wage this war indefinitely, while U.S. and NATO efforts wind down due to exhaustion.
Pakistan "Haqqani Network": Latest Orchestrated Threat to US - Wednesday, 28 September 2011, 1:55 pm - Article: Paul Craig Roberts
Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war--Pakistan. President Obama’s claim that he had Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden exterminated deflated the threat from that long-serving bogyman. A terror organization that left its leader, unarmed and undefended, a sitting duck for assassination no longer seemed formidable. Time for a new, more threatening, bogyman, the pursuit of which will keep the “war on terror” going.
Now America’s “worst enemy” is the Haqqanis. Moreover, unlike Al Qaeda, which was never tied to a country, the Haqqani Network, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a “veritable arm” of the Pakistani government’s intelligence service, ISI. Washington claims that the ISI ordered its Haggani Network to attack the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 13 along with the US military base in Wadak province.
Define real terrorist please. Cause I would like to provoke you by saying that the Taliban are freedom fighters in Pakistan doing all those bombings in the name of FREEDOM! The Pakistani govt. are the real terrorists.
Behind closed doors
Unnamed U.S. officials told ABC News that the United States had held a meeting in recent months, reportedly set up by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), with the Pakistan-based militant group the Haqqani Network (ABC - U.S., Pakistan Struggle With Haqqani Insurgents, Each Other - ABC News). The de facto leader of the group, Sirajuddin Haqqani, confirmed the meeting on Monday, telling the BBC Pashto service that the United States had approached him about joining the Afghan government (AP -- http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/10/03/world/europe/AP-EU-Britain-Haqqani.html?ref=world).
Eleven days ago, the United States' top military official seemed to sum up Washington's current relationship with Pakistan when he accused the country's premiere intelligence service of supporting insurgents who attacked the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
But what Admiral Mike Mullen did not say is that the U.S. had secretly met with a member of that same insurgent group -- known as the Haqqani network -- as part of efforts to find a political end to the war in Afghanistan, and that the institution that helped set up the meeting was the same intelligence agency he had condemned: the Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, or I.S.I.
The meeting, according to two current U.S. officials and a former U.S. official, was held in the months before the Sept. 13 attack on the U.S. embassy and NATO's military headquarters, which U.S. officials have blamed on the Haqqani network. In his congressional testimony Sept. 22, Mullen called the Haqqanis a "veritable arm" of the I.S.I., but failed to mention that the I.S.I. facilitated the meeting between the U.S. and Ibrahim Haqqani, a son of founder Jalaluddin Haqqani and a major player in the group, according to a senior U.S. official.
The meeting suggests there is much more to the recent spat between Islamabad and Washington while the violence in Afghanistan has increased as U.S. troops have begun to withdraw. At stake, U.S. officials said, is how they will try to reduce the violence in Afghanistan and to what extent Pakistan will be allowed a say.
From Pakistan's point of view, military and intelligence officials have long argued that their connections with the Haqqani network -- going back decades in the Pakistani tribal areas and in Afghanistan -- can facilitate the only way to end the war: through political negotiation. But for U.S. officials, even as the debate in Washington continues over the best way to wind down the war, there was a high-level decision after the embassy attack to name and shame the I.S.I. for supporting the Haqqanis, hoping it would work where no previous pressure or incentives placed on Pakistan had worked, according to a senior Western official.
The very public criticism of the I.S.I. was also a sign of American military frustration.
The U.S. was also enraged by what seemed to be either apathy or connivance in the single most violent attack of the war as far as injuries to U.S. soldiers. Three days before the embassy bombing, a truck bomb blew up outside an American base outside Kabul, injuring 77 soldiers. Just days before that, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, had made his first visit to Pakistan's military headquarters. During the visit, according to a separate senior U.S. official, he asked Chief of the Army Staff Gen. Pervez Ashfaq Kayani to try to stop a truck bomb that the U.S. believed was about to target U.S. soldiers. Kayani offered to help, the official said, but the bomb blew up anyway. Allen's request was first reported by The Guardian.
The fact that the U.S. and Pakistani intelligence service set up the meeting with Haqqani and discussed how to stop a Haqqani attack suggests a much more nuanced -- and very often, confounding -- relationship with Pakistan's intelligence service than Adm. Mullen and other military officials have publicly admitted in the last two weeks.
The Pakistanis, in turn, have tried to portray themselves as the victims of a smear campaign headed by Mullen. As Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari wrote in the Washington Post Friday, "While we are accused of harboring extremism, the United States is engaged in outreach and negotiations with the very same groups."
Complicating matters is the deteriorating relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghan officials have jumped on American criticism of Pakistan to threaten to cut off bilateral attempts to make peace. President Hamid Karzai, responding to massive pressure from political parties that have long opposed the Taliban, has slightly changed his tune on Pakistan in the last two weeks.
Up until the assassination of former President Burhannudin Rabbani on Sept. 20, Karzai was the most vocal Afghan proponent of a strong bilateral relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As early as one year ago, a senior advisor told ABC News that Pakistan could "help deliver a peace that the U.S. can't."
But since Rabbani's death, Karzai has criticized the Pakistani government for not helping the peace process. In a nationally televised speech tonight, he repeated that criticism and named the many Afghan officials believed to have been targeted by Pakistan-based militants. Still, he said he hoped the two "brotherly" countries could work together.
U.S. officials are trying to encourage the bilateral relationship and reschedule a tripartite meeting about Afghan reconciliation that was scheduled for Oct. 8, but has been indefinitely postponed by Karzai. U.S. diplomatic officials argue that without a robust dialogue between all three countries, there is little chance that the violence in Afghanistan will reduce.
But still, they admit they have little to show for efforts to find a political settlement to the war.
Asked whether the meeting with Ibrahim Haqqani meeting produced any results, a U.S. official responded with a one-word answer: "no."
Their aim of stopping terrorists from attacking US and disbanding terror groups succeeded .
They won
France mulling pulling out of Afghanistan
lol. NATO got there kicked by a bucnh of boys with few weapons. NATO with all air power and gadget could not fight with these boys.
Afghanistan is no longer HQ for terrorism ? HAHAHA. Most of Afghanistan more than 50% is under controll of Taliban. NATO cant freely move every were.
And also remeber USA is still in Afghanistan and will be with few 1000 soldiers. They will never leave Afghanistan.
the war in afghanistan is called the war on terror, not the war of OBL. The presence of Taliban in afghanistan is very strong and they are still standing strong. The battle was won but the war is lost