ForumsWEPRAttacks in Afghanistan

94 20570
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

This
article states that Taliban attacked on various locations in Afghanistan and killed 11 soldiers bearing 39 causalities of their own (Ofcourse official figures of both sides cannot be trusted as each side will exaggerate opponent causalities we will have to wait for Taliban figures and then an approximate figure b/w both extremes can be found)
In my opinion it is beginning of the end in Afghanistan and there will be more attacks coming. What is your opinion?

  • 94 Replies
HighBro
offline
HighBro
2 posts
Nomad

I don't think they will, part of NATO being there is to train the Afghan police and armies to deal with the threat from the Taliban and other extremist groups. There have been a few attacks and missions recently that the Afghan army has taken part in successfully and it is only a matter of time now until NATO is confident enough in the new Afghan army to pull out.


YA GOOD SHOUT
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

if you leave while they get more atively then it's just waiting for a 2nd. 9/11 and then we get all the BS all over again.
but if you want that to happen then be my guest, i dont care about it tbh.


Why would they attack us after we pulled out? It would be like escaping a bear attack, but once you get out go back and poke the bear with a stick again. There would be no point. Besides the fact they are insane.

the taliban are saying that all the time. i remember a attack like 2 or 3 year ago where they said they did it but then the real guy said he had nothing to do whit taliban.
so i don't except taliban does all what they say they do.


Like I said.

they are guerrilla troops. but this doesn't equal that they are random losers we can't shoot straight.
they use tactics and local terain to their advantage. and attack in little groups so it never becomes a full war. in a full war they are defeated in a few days but this way they are almost beating the usa.


When one of your guys' best strategy is to "Put these explosives around your waste and run", that is not something you train troops years to be able to accomplish. They are just random farmers and tradesmen and everyday people.

Guerrilla strategy against a larger opponent will allow you to win- assuming that you aggravate them enough to get them to stop but not enough to get them to attack you again. For example, the Tet offense was a horrible failure militarily, considering how much damage it did to their own army compared to our forces, but America got tired and left. Doing something like another 9/11 would, instead of making us pull troops out (Which we are already doing. Really, all they have to do is sit down and have tea or something if they want us out...) cause us to send in full force again. It would be a strategic blunder, a horrible plan.

Guerrilla warfare only works when:
1. The more powerful nation is not strongly invested in a war.
2. There is somewhere to hide. This makes places like Vietnam good for this kind of fighting, having a ton of jungles, but makes the middle of a desert a bad place. Which brings us to...
3. The Guerrilla fighters have some public support. Especially in the middle of the desert, it makes more since to pretend to be an ordinary citizen. But if everyone blabs to the U.S for a few dollars on every terrorist, it goes down easily.

And plenty more.

if they used suicide vests then then 28 of them missed all there targets. thats prety bad xD
and the taliban never try's to take over something. their tactic is to hide-hit-die/run, or long distence bombs.


It was supposed to be. What did you think would happen if 28 people tried running at a group of people who are shooting at them? Most of them got shot down.

Wait. Long distance bombs? When in hell did the Taliban get a hold of long distance bombs? We better go tell the U.S, because last I checked the Taliban's range in weaponry was "As far as you can throw it"

i think once U.S. troops pull out of the middle east the taliban will go crazy


Considering how active they are now that we are pulling out, it is possible.

I don't think they will, part of NATO being there is to train the Afghan police and armies to deal with the threat from the Taliban and other extremist groups. There have been a few attacks and missions recently that the Afghan army has taken part in successfully and it is only a matter of time now until NATO is confident enough in the new Afghan army to pull out.


They have been attempting to train the Afghan police and armies for years, it would be nice to believe that it would work, and they are probably more invested in it then the U.S is, but they still have their work cut out for them.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

They didn't used explosive vests, it a "Fidaeen attack"
i.e fight until you die or run out of ammo or there is no longer any opposition left.These attacks go back to early days of Islam.


Missed this.

A good amount of them just shot, however there where a few with explosive vests (According to your source)
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

the guy in france a few weeks ago was holding out for 2 and a half days.
it doesn't mean he had a good fight.

French police had to care about other citizens so they used least possible force contrary to military actions in Afghanistan.
And stop nagging about war
That is why nazis easily invaded you.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

French police had to care about other citizens so they used least possible force contrary to military actions in Afghanistan.
And stop nagging about war
That is why nazis easily invaded you.


I don't see what French involvement in Afghanistan has to do with the attack...

But part of the reason it took so long is that the Afghan military was getting civilians to safety. Which I suppose is similar to the France situation? It is also probably a factor to the low casualties to civilians...
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

But part of the reason it took so long is that the Afghan military was getting civilians to safety. Which I suppose is similar to the France situation? It is also probably a factor to the low casualties to civilians...

And taliban tried to evade civilian causalities
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

And taliban tried to evade civilian causalities


If they tried that then they are even more incompetent than I thought, considering they killed about as many of their targets (Soldiers and policemen) as they did civilians. How do you manage that?
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

If they tried that then they are even more incompetent than I thought, considering they killed about as many of their targets (Soldiers and policemen) as they did civilians. How do you manage that?

All the civilian causalities can not be pinned on taliban
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

All the civilian causalities can not be pinned on taliban


And why not? A majority of them where using not bombs, it is not like the guns decide who to attack. While the Taliban does need to keep public opinion up for it's guerrilla strategies to work, they didn't go out of their ways to avoid civilian deaths. They DID, for example, allow fifteen workers to escape unharmed, but later the same people fired on a nearby building filled with civilians. Even if they only killed five, they managed to injure at least two dozen people, thus needed up shooting a ton of people.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

And why not? A majority of them where using not bombs, it is not like the guns decide who to attack. While the Taliban does need to keep public opinion up for it's guerrilla strategies to work, they didn't go out of their ways to avoid civilian deaths. They DID, for example, allow fifteen workers to escape unharmed, but later the same people fired on a nearby building filled with civilians. Even if they only killed five, they managed to injure at least two dozen people, thus needed up shooting a ton of people.

Collateral damage So what?
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

And why not? A majority of them where using not bombs,

????????????????
Still Causalities cannot be completely pinned on Talibans.
In a fire fight blind bullets do kill people.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Collateral damage So what?


...Really? The Taliban can just go and shoot thirty people and you just shrug your shoulders and say "So what"?

May I ask your opinion on the Taliban?

????????????????
Still Causalities cannot be completely pinned on Talibans.
In a fire fight blind bullets do kill people.


The government had tried it's best to get civilians out of the fighting areas, civilians didn't want to be in the combat areas, and the Taliban didn't feel like killing people at the moment and let some civilians go. It isn't like both sides are putting on blindfolds, spinning around, and firing blankly into streets. It isn't like the Afghan military is using civilians as bullet shield or shooting in their vicinity. This is the Taliban shooting civilians in cold blood, often purposely if I read it correctly, while still killing soldiers and policemen.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

So you are implying that Taliban kill innocents just for ****s an giggles?

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

So you are implying that Taliban kill innocents just for ****s an giggles?


Of course not. If they did that, I am sure America would have won the war a long time ago. They are not demons, they are human. And as humans, they strive toward their goals. Their goals did involve killing civilians, as your source states:

...But they later killed a man and tried to kill a number of other civilians taking shelter in a nearby apartment, according to police officers guarding the building on Monday.

They didn't go out of their way to kill civilians that they liked, like the laborers in the building that they where in...while shooting at another group of civilians. They didn't exactly go out of their way to save civilians.

So are you implying that it is OK for the Taliban to kill civilians under any circumstances?
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,826 posts
Nomad

So are you implying that it is OK for the Taliban to kill civilians under any circumstances?

No i am not implying that but this claim seems to be exaggerated
ever heared of strafing run?
Showing 16-30 of 94