Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

AfghanTeen Kills 4 Occupation Soldiers

Expand Messages
  • World View
    4 British Soldiers Killed By Taliban Mujahideen Youth http://www.geocities.com/islamichelp/ Gordon Brown cowardly carried out a secret visit into Afghanistan s
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 13, 2008
      4 British Soldiers Killed By Taliban Mujahideen Youth

      Gordon Brown cowardly carried out a secret visit into Afghanistan's
      violent Helmand province Saturday as four British occupation troops
      were killed in a series of Taliban Mujahideen attacks one of which the
      British prime minister recognised was carried out by a brave 13-year
      Mujahideen youth.

      Three British occupation troops were killed in the Mujahideen attack
      in Sangin on Friday as the troops were conducting a "routine operation
      against Islamic forces," according to UK defense officials. The weaker
      British soldier died instantly and the two others died of the wounds
      afflicted by the Mujahideen.

      Another marine died of injuries he sustained in an explosion Friday in
      the eastern Sangin area of the province, officials said. He had been
      taking part in a routine occupation patrol and died on the way to a
      military hospital.

      A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousef, denied the group had used a child in
      that or any other attack. He said the Taliban have enough of their own
      fighters readily trained and eager to sacrifice their lives for the
      sake of Allah, against the Western forces occupying their country.
      He also gave a differing account of the explosions.

      Yousef said that Abdul Basid, 26, was martyred in the Char Khak area
      of Sangin and killed eight Canadian occupation soldiers who were on
      foot patrol helping the British occupation forces. He said the
      soldiers who wer e killed were not British.

      In the other attack in Sangin, Yousef said the Taliban used a powerful
      improvised explosive and killed five British soldiers at a bazaar.

      During his cowardly unannounced trip, Brown shook hands with
      occupaying men and women in camouflage uniforms at Camp Bastion in

      After talks with Afghan puppet President Hamid Karzai in Kabul, Brown
      also announced he had agreed that a British civilian task force would
      continue to occupy Afghanistan.

      He added that Britain's 8,100 troops in Afghanistan were playing a
      vital role in halting the spread of political Islam.


      Taleban tax: allied supply convoys pay their enemies for safe passage
      Tom Coghlan
      December 12, 2008

      The West is indirectly funding the insurgency in Afghanistan thanks
      to a system of payoffs to Taleban commanders who charge protection
      money to allow convoys of military supplies to reach Nato bases in
      the south of the country.

      Contracts to supply British bases and those of other Western forces
      with fuel, supplies and equipment are held by multinational

      However, the business of moving supplies from the Pakistani port of
      Karachi to British, US and other military contingents in the country
      is largely subcontracted to local trucking companies. These must run
      the gauntlet of the increasingly dangerous roads south of Kabul in
      convoys protected by hired gunmen from Afghan security companies.

      The Times has learnt that it is in the outsourcing of convoys that
      payoffs amounting to millions of pounds, including money from British
      taxpayers, are given to the Taleban.

      The controversial payments were confirmed by several fuel importers,
      trucking and security company owners. None wanted to be identified
      because of the risk to their business and their lives. "We estimate
      that approximately 25 per cent of the money we pay for security to
      get the fuel in goes into the pockets of the Taleban," said one fuel

      Another boss, whose company is subcontracted to supply to Western
      military bases, said that as much as a quarter of the value of a
      lorry's cargo went in paying Taleban commanders.

      The scale of the supplies needed to keep the Nato military operation
      going is vast. The main British base at Camp Bastion in Helmand
      province alone requires more than a million litres of diesel and
      aviation fuel a week. There are more than 70,000 foreign soldiers in
      the country for whom food and equipment must be imported, mostly by
      road. The US is planning to send at least 20,000 more troops into
      Afghanistan next year.

      Other than flying in supplies, the only overland route is through
      Pakistan and Taleban-controlled areas of Afghanistan.

      A security company owner explained that a vast array of security
      companies competed for the trade along the main route south of Kabul,
      some of it commercial traffic and some supplying Western bases,
      usually charging about $1,000 (£665) a lorry. Convoys are typically
      of 40-50 lorries but sometimes up to 100.

      Asked whether his company paid money to Taleban commanders not to
      attack them, he said: "Everyone is hungry, everyone needs to eat.
      They are attacking the convoys because they have no jobs. They easily
      take money not to attack." He said that until about 14 months ago,
      security companies had been able to protect convoys without paying.
      But since then, the attacks had become too severe not to pay groups
      controlling the route. Attacks on the Kandahar road have been an
      almost daily occurrence this year. On June 24 a 50-truck convoy of
      supplies was destroyed. Seven drivers were beheaded by the roadside.
      The situation now was so extreme that a rival company, working south
      of the city of Ghazni, had Taleban fighters to escort their convoys.

      "I won't name the company, but they are from the Panjshir Valley [in
      north Afghanistan]. But they have a very good relation with the
      Taleban. The Taleban come and move with the convoy. They sit in the
      front vehicle of the convoy to ensure security," said the company

      The Taleban are not the only ones making money from the trade;
      warlords, thieves, policemen and government officials are also taking
      a cut.

      A transport company owner who runs convoys south on the notoriously
      dangerous Kabul to Kandahar highway said: "We pay taxes to both
      thieves and the Taleban to get our trucks through Ghazni province and
      there are several ways of paying. This goes to a very high level in
      the Afghan Government.

      "Mostly the [Afghan] security companies have middlemen to negotiate
      the passage of the convoys, so they don't get attacked. They pay on a
      convoy by convoy basis to let the convoy pass at a certain time. They
      have to pay each of the Taleban commanders who control each part of
      the road. When you hear of an attack it is usually because a new
      small [Taleban] group has arrived on the road."

      Lieutenant-Commander James Gater, a spokesman for Nato forces in
      Afghanistan, said that the transport of Nato supplies was contracted
      to commercial firms and how they got them into the country was their

      "I can confirm that we use two European-headquartered companies to
      supply food and fuel, though for contractual reasons it is not
      prudent for us to name them. They provide their own security as part
      of that contract. Such companies are free to subcontract to
      whomsoever they wish.

      "We are aware they do prefer to subcontract from the countries in
      which they are operating. In Pakistan they prefer to use Pakistani
      trucking companies, in Afghanistan they prefer Afghan trucking
      companies. That is a commercial decision for them."

      A representative for the Swiss-based Supreme Global Solutions
      confirmed that the company held supply contracts with the military in

      However, last night the company denied paying protection money. "We
      categorically reject any suggestion that we now, or have ever, paid
      money to any individual for the safe passage of our convoys.
      Furthermore, we do not permit our subcontractors to do so on our
      behalf," it said.


      British diplomat paints bleak view of Afghan war
      By James Cogan

      With insurgent activity rising and casualties at an all-time high,
      the representatives of the US and NATO occupation of Afghanistan are
      growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospect of establishing a
      stable client-state. This year has already registered the largest
      annual number of US and NATO casualties—236 dead and over 1,000
      wounded so far—since the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

      The sharpest expression of the demoralisation in Washington and
      European capitals was the assessment made last month by the British
      ambassador to Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, to the French
      deputy ambassador, Francois Fitou. A memorandum by Fitou, relating a
      discussion he held with Cowper-Coles on September 2, was leaked in
      full to the French publication Le Canard enchaîné.

      Cowper Coles, according to Fitou's memo, did not mince words about
      the position that confronts the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
      Their very presence, he reportedly said, "is part of the problem, not
      the solution".

      As the seventh anniversary of the US-led invasion of the country
      approaches, the British ambassador commented:

      "The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the
      [Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai] has lost all trust...
      The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime that would
      collapse without them. In doing so, they are slowing down and
      complicating an eventual exit from the crisis."

      All that could be hoped for, Cowper-Coles allegedly advised, was that
      the replacement of Karzai's regime with an "acceptable dictator"
      would allow NATO forces—which currently include some 8,000 British
      and close to 3,000 French troops—to withdraw in five to 10 years.

      "This," the diplomat was cited as saying, "is the only realistic
      outlook... and we must prepare public opinion [in the US and Europe]
      to accept it".

      The British government claimed that Cowper-Coles's conversation with
      Fitou had been "exaggerated" and the views expressed in the memo did
      not represent its attitude. The possibility has been raised in the
      British media that the leak was in fact part of a campaign by
      sections of the French establishment for its government to abandon
      its participation in the US-led occupation. Two countries with
      frontline troops have already announced a timetable for their pull-
      out. The Netherlands is scheduled to withdraw its force of close to
      2,000 from the volatile province of Uruzgan by August 2010. Canada,
      which has lost close to 100 dead, has said it will withdraw its 2,500
      troops from Kandahar province by the end of 2011.

      Whatever the veracity and motives of Le Canard's leak, both its
      publication and Cowper-Coles's alleged reference to the installation
      of an "acceptable dictator" dovetail with an ever more open
      discussion in both Europe and the United States over how to salvage
      the situation in Afghanistan. One option being increasingly discussed
      is to do a deal with the main leaders of the anti-occupation
      insurgency and incorporate them into the Afghan government.

      Intelligence reports by leading US and European think tanks have
      assessed that the insurgency has three major components: the
      supporters of the former Islamist Taliban regime of Mullah Mohammed
      Omar, which was overthrown by the US invasion in October 2001; the
      ethnic Pashtun tribal force loyal to warlord Jaluluddin Haqqani,
      which has controlled significant areas of southern Afghanistan since
      the end of the Soviet occupation in 1988; and the Hezb-e-Islami
      movement of former Afghan prime minister and warlord Gulbuddin
      Hekmatyar, which is believed to have re-established influence across
      the ethnic Pashtun regions of eastern Afghanistan.

      The driving force of the insurgency is the legitimate and deeply-felt
      sentiment among ordinary Afghans that the US-led occupation is the
      latest attempt by a colonial power to subjugate the country for its
      own economic and strategic purposes. Karzai's government is viewed as
      nothing more than Washington's puppet. This sentiment is not confined
      to Afghanistan. The Taliban, Haqqani movement and Hezb-e-Islami all
      have support over the porous border in the Federally Administrated
      Tribal Agencies (FATA) of Pakistan, where the population has
      centuries-old relations and ties with the Afghan Pashtun tribes.

      Moreover, there is broad sympathy throughout Pakistan and the Muslim
      world with the war against the US-led occupation. Since 2001, the
      Afghan insurgency has had little difficulty raising finances and
      recruits in Pakistan. US intelligence also alleges that significant
      numbers of Islamist militants from across Central Asia and the Middle
      East are fighting in Afghanistan. The entrenched character of the
      insurgency; the failure of years of military operations on both sides
      of the Afghan-Pakistan border to end it; and the dwindling support
      within NATO for the war are driving the calls for a political
      settlement. No doubt as in Iraq, the aim is to divide anti-occupation
      forces by making a deal with some insurgent leaders.

      On September 30, Hamid Karzai revealed that for the past two years he
      has been requesting the Saudi Arabian monarchy to assist in arranging
      peace talks with Mullah Omar. Omar is on the US government's most
      wanted list for providing sanctuary to the Al Qaeda network of Osama
      bin Laden. Karzai nevertheless guaranteed him safety inside
      Afghanistan and called on him to "come back to your country and work
      for your people's happiness"—an implicit offer of a share of
      political power. Given the complete dependence of Karzai's government
      on the US military, it is highly unlikely such an offer was made
      without Washington's knowledge and consent.

      The US commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, pointedly
      refused to distance himself from Karzai's remarks when directly
      questioned by journalists the following day. He said only that
      opening up negotiations with Omar was a "political decision that will
      ultimately be made by the political leadership". [Mullah Omar has
      since declared his unwillingness to talk with the US occupiers. -WVNS]

      In more than a hint that the US was prepared to consider the return
      of Taliban-backed factions into the Afghan government, McKiernan
      stated: "Ultimately, the solution in Afghanistan is going to be a
      political solution, not a military one."

      In a further sign that such a policy is being considered, the Bush
      administration is reportedly consulting with Seth Jones, a leading
      analyst for the Rand Corporation, over a "new strategy" in
      Afghanistan. Rand recently published a major report, which argued
      that the most effective way historically to end guerilla wars was
      through a political compromise that gave political power and position
      to the insurgent organisations. The British commander in Afghanistan,
      Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, made an explicit overture to the
      Taliban in an interview with yesterday's Sunday Times.

      "We're not going to win this war," he said. "If the Taliban were
      prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a
      political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that
      concludes insurgencies like this. That shouldn't make people

      All the governments that have troops deployed in Afghanistan are well
      aware that any moves toward rehabilitating the Taliban would shatter
      the ideological justifications they have given for not only the war,
      but also the attacks they have made on civil liberties and democratic
      rights over the past seven years. Quotes could be found from
      virtually every senior political leader—especially in the US and
      Britain—in which they declared that Islamist organisations like the
      Taliban were not only "evil" but the greatest threat to the security
      of so-called Western democratic values.

      However, under conditions of a rapidly deteriorating global economy
      and growing social tensions, the continuation of the Afghan war will
      require more troops, more money and its extension over the border
      into Pakistan. In the corridors of powers in both Washington and the
      capitals of Europe, a sentiment has begun to emerge that a political
      means has to be found to stem the rising costs, and stabilise the



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.