US-led raid kills 16 Afghan civilians

[MostafaM]

Matthew Hoh


Matt Hoh, a former Marine speaks about the return of the Taliban.

History tells a different story. The conflict is very complex, multi-dimensional and goes back three decades. In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets.
So we create a government that rewards one side and excludes the other. So there are cracks in the political order we created. This gets much worse in 2005 or 2006, when we decided extend the government’s power into southern and eastern Pashtun areas. At the same time, various elements of the Taliban and other insurgent factions had strengthened and returned into parts of Afghanistan.The push went badly, since villagers rebelled, turning to the Taliban to get rid of the outsiders. And so the cycle began. We add more troops, which strengthens the Taliban and weakens support for the government. Suicide attacks, IEDs, military and civilian dead or wounded—all rise commensuratelywith eachincrease in foreign troop or Afghan government presence. We misunderstand many ofthecauses of support for the Taliban. They didn’t wear sandwich boards or hand out pamphlets to win people. They are the Pashtuns. Most don’t want to rule the country. They just want to get rid of the occupiers.

I don´t think that Mr. Hoh can speak on behalf of all Pashtuns.
He may right about the areas where he was deployed.
And in general, yes, Pashtuns oppose foreign presence.

But for Pashtuns with a brain EVERY foreign presence is not acceptable.

For Arab-and-Paki-huggers like you, the "Ummah" theory would turn Afghanistant into a pariah state that it was with training facilities for every jihadi group from Chechens to Lashkar-e Taiba and even Indonesian islamists.

Believe me, there are many Pashtuns who do not want that.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Your point about sout Vietname even proves what I said: they had their harbours within the people. The highly mobile Taliban squads on their motorbikes cross the border, stay some nights in the open and fight on known terrain without having the backing of the people like during the fight against the USSR.

That was the reason why the Red Army carpet bombed large areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan to depopulate them so that the resistance couldn´t find refuge there.

Todays insurgency is far away from being the people´s army.

The can get every weapon they want. There MOBILITY hinders them to use heavy weaponry and guerilla warfare is NOT about confronting a regular army with a smaller regular army but with mobile forces with light weaponry in pin-point attacks.

The use of suicide bombers clearly shows the inability to use guerilla tactics in areas where security is tight AND the people are not welcoming them as liberators. I am sure that a suicide bomber who attacks soft targets is not as heroic as the mujahedin were in the 80s in the eyes of the common people.

Infiltrating an army and police that has shortages of cadets and needs people to fulfull fighting capabilities will always get infiltrated by the enemy. Thats not a valuable arguement here.

It doesnt since your argument was about suicide tactics; and also the geographic locale of North Vietnamese and epicenter of combat operations was different.

I never said that suicide bombers were heroic; nor am I supporting them; I'm merely saying that they exist for various reasons, one of them is limited weaponry, another is Wahhabist brainwashing.


The Mujahideen also could not use heavy artillery and had to use guerilla tactics as well; the difference is the "Wahhabi" propagation to convince people to suicide bomb wasn't there and also they weren't effective heavy weapons like stinger missiles; which was much later.

Your example of why the Soviets Carpet Bombed Afghanistan actually proves the Mujahideen used similar guerilla tactics; because they were similarly very mobile and not a coordinated army. THis doesn't mean that there is no support for them. I will say there is much LESS support; but to say there isn't significiant support (at least 30% of Pashtun areas) is false.

Infiltrating an army is a valuable argument; it means they have people helping them from within. In fact that argument pretty much makes your entire argument invalid. If the locals were not supporting them; this would NOT be possible.

[MostafaM]

Now about the Durrand line that you keep going on about.

Logically speaking, why should someone recognize this false line? What would Sun Tzu say?

Please use common sense. All Afghans can cross that line as they do not recognize it.

so what exactly are you trying to say.

Not accepting something is one thing.

Not trying to change the current political status quo by factually eliminating that border, keeping 30 Million Pashtuns under the influence sphere of Punjabis and Arabs as strategic tools is another.

You oppose one occupation and sideline the other ones.

Your biase goes against the interests of the Pashtun/Afghan people.

[unknownprince]

Here is a US report on the high Taliban support in Afghanistan. So that rejects your assumption that they have no support.

US report shows Taliban support in Afghanistan, blames Karzai | America-Canada | World Bulletin

Note that they don't allude to themselves, and as usual, blame Karzai. People are opposed to the US

[unknownprince]

I don´t think that Mr. Hoh can speak on behalf of all Pashtuns.
He may right about the areas where he was deployed.
And in general, yes, Pashtuns oppose foreign presence.

But for Pashtuns with a brain EVERY foreign presence is not acceptable.

For Arab-and-Paki-huggers like you, the "Ummah" theory would turn Afghanistant into a pariah state that it was with training facilities for every jihadi group from Chechens to Lashkar-e Taiba and even Indonesian islamists.

Believe me, there are many Pashtuns who do not want that.

You clearly are being slapped around by everyone here, and you keep exposing yourself the more you speak. Here you are proven wrong, yet again. I can post more reports showing increasing Taliban support in Afghanistan.

This is a US report which reveals high support for the Taliban.US report shows Taliban support in Afghanistan, blames Karzai | America-Canada | World Bulletin

The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain. Popular support for Karzai's government is strong in only 29 of those districts, it concludes.


Here, you want more. Read this, indulge yourself.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/taliban-getting-stronger-as-us-public-support-for-afghanistan-war-collapses.html

[MostafaM]

It doesnt since your argument was about suicide tactics; and also the geographic locale of North Vietnamese and epicenter of combat operations was different.

I never said that suicide bombers were heroic; nor am I supporting them; I'm merely saying that they exist for various reasons, one of them is limited weaponry, another is Wahhabist brainwashing.


The Mujahideen also could not use heavy artillery and had to use guerilla tactics as well; the difference is the "Wahhabi" propagation to convince people to suicide bomb wasn't there and also they weren't effective heavy weapons like stinger missiles; which was much later.

Your example of why the Soviets Carpet Bombed Afghanistan actually proves the Mujahideen used similar guerilla tactics; because they were similarly very mobile and not a coordinated army. THis doesn't mean that there is no support for them. I will say there is much LESS support; but to say there isn't significiant support (at least 30% of Pashtun areas) is false.

Infiltrating an army is a valuable argument; it means they have people helping them from within. In fact that argument pretty much makes your entire argument invalid. If the locals were not supporting them; this would NOT be possible.

The epicenter of combat changed permanently during the Vietnamese war southwards towards Hanoi. That´s a fact.

It´s not ideology or weaponry but tactic that a general uses to encounter the enemy. Suicide bombers are nothing new....I highly doubt that Tamil Tigers were Wahhabis when they blew themselves up in Senghalese check-points. Ideology is a tool to convince the individual, but strategic thinking is the main reason to resort to such attacks.

There may be moral support for them and I didn´t say that they do not have any support but in general they are not connected to the local population nor do they help them willingly.
I guess we reached an agreement in this point.

Infiltration is mostly done by single persons because bringing a ring into security sensitive positions is more dangerous. No Taliban infiltrator needs help to get into the army. He just has to sign up at the recrutation offices.
I don´t get your point here.

[MostafaM]

You clearly are being slapped around by everyone here, and you keep exposing yourself the more you speak. Here you are proven wrong, yet again. I can post more reports showing increasing Taliban support in Afghanistan.

This is a US report which reveals high support for the Taliban.US report shows Taliban support in Afghanistan, blames Karzai | America-Canada | World Bulletin

The report concludes that Afghan people support or are sympathetic to the insurgency in 92 of 121 districts identified by the U.S. military as key terrain. Popular support for Karzai's government is strong in only 29 of those districts, it concludes.


Here, you want more. Read this, indulge yourself.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/tali...collapses.html

I am expressing my point of view here. I do not need to "expose" myself because I clearly say what I think and I argue with you people here on a logical basis....atleast from my side.

I didn´t feel any "slap" so far but if it makes you feel manlier you may think that.

The handbook of guerilla warfare states that there are two main reasons to fight from within civilian areas:

1. find refuge between the ordinary people and make them sympathetic to your cause.

2. direct enemy fire on civilians so that they may fill the ranks of the guerilla movement because of personal grieve and losses.

The Taliban fighters field manuals contain alot of Mao, Che Guevara and Zapata. You may try to "slap sense into yourself" by hitting some books because interpretation of information is not an easy task. You need intellect for that.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Are you out of your mind?
Are you familiar with Pashtunwali?
Do you really think that Pashtun heritage is in accordance with Islam?

But first thanks that you stated that Pashto is a pre-islamic language and has strong connections to regional languages. Languages are spoken by people and if those people lived there prior to Islam, then yes, Pashto as culture and heritage is pre-islamic.

Morgenstiernes dictionary doesn´t state that.

I didn't say Pashto is a pre-Islamic language ...I said SOGHDIAN is a pre-Islamic language.

So I don't know why you're thanking me for something I never stated? Maybe you're just getting upset that you're less informed or read about this topic than I am. Either way unless you can make a direct quote for me making this claim; then you haven't established where I confirm Pashto to be Pre-Islamic.

Just because it has "strong conenctions" doesn't mean Pashtun culture was "their culture"; it means Pashtuns may have had ancestors which had that culture; but this wasn't Pashtun culture; it was Soghdian, Avestan or whatever else. So if you want to go to Pre-Islamic roots, you may have to abandon Pashto and adopt Avestan or Soghdian.



read it for yourself

http://books.google.com/books?id=T6j...tierne&f=false

See here Morgenstierne confirms that Pactyan is not related to Pashto at all.

Even Muslim Arabs don't have a culture "fully in accordance" to Islam; so that is not moot point. The fact is Pashtuns culturally identify with Islam and it is intrinsically infused in the society.

The point is that evidence of people named "Pashtuns" is unsupported in history prior to the predominance of Islam.

You may not like it; but that is what the evidence indicates.

[MostafaM]

I didn't say Pashto is a pre-Islamic language ...I said SOGHDIAN is a pre-Islamic language.

So I don't know why you're thanking me for something I never stated? Maybe you're just getting upset that you're less informed or read about this topic than I am. Either way unless you can make a direct quote for me making this claim; then you haven't established where I confirm Pashto to be Pre-Islamic.

Just because it has "strong conenctions" doesn't mean Pashtun culture was "their culture"; it means Pashtuns may have had ancestors which had that culture; but this wasn't Pashtun culture; it was Soghdian, Avestan or whatever else. So if you want to go to Pre-Islamic roots, you may have to abandon Pashto and adopt Avestan or Soghdian.



read it for yourself



See here Morgenstierne confirms that Pactyan is not related to Pashto at all.

Even Muslim Arabs don't have a culture "fully in accordance" to Islam; so that is not moot point. The fact is Pashtuns culturally identify with Islam and it is intrinsically infused in the society.

The point is that evidence of people named "Pashtuns" is unsupported in history prior to the predominance of Islam.

You may not like it; but that is what the evidence indicates.

I don´t have any problems with someone who has more knowledge in a field than I have. My ego is not connected to such nonsense.

The question is how you can bring Eastern-Arian languages into a connection with a religion of a people who spoke a semitic language?

Why does Pashto or being Pashtun start for you with the arrival of Islam? Can you clarify that first?

The Soghdians etc. had all a similar culture and heritage. That´s why they are regarded as "Aryan people" or noble people who were very hospitable to guets and foreigners.

Morgenstierne´s theory is one theory and I do not support it because the geographic area of modern Ghor that is considered as the birth place of Pashto language and Pashtun culture and Pactycia resemble very much.

[ScimitarXEdge]

The epicenter of combat changed permanently during the Vietnamese war southwards towards Hanoi. That´s a fact.

It´s not ideology or weaponry but tactic that a general uses to encounter the enemy. Suicide bombers are nothing new....I highly doubt that Tamil Tigers were Wahhabis when they blew themselves up in Senghalese check-points. Ideology is a tool to convince the individual, but strategic thinking is the main reason to resort to such attacks.

There may be moral support for them and I didn´t say that they do not have any support but in general they are not connected to the local population nor do they help them willingly.
I guess we reached an agreement in this point.

Infiltration is mostly done by single persons because bringing a ring into security sensitive positions is more dangerous. No Taliban infiltrator needs help to get into the army. He just has to sign up at the recrutation offices.
I don´t get your point here.

Well obviously Tamil Tigers aren't Wahhabis; neither were VietKong; but Wahhabists are what motivated Suicide Bombings in Afghanistan in recent times, this is undeniable. So yes; suicide bombing in Afghanistan upsurged due to Wahhabist influences.

Infiltration isn't done by single persons; if it was then there would have been only isolated incidences; these incidences of infiltration are FREQUENT, we hear about stuff like this happening almost every month. Even on Panjshir of all places a soldier killed NATO officers. This would require significant planning for these kinds of frequencies; Their increasing frequences show increasing support.

In general? How do you define general; I would say they have a significant enough support of local population that they have continued to fight for the last 10 years. If that were not true they would have died out by now. Even with foreign funding. I would say anywhere between 30%-40% of the local population support or are at least sympathetic to them. That's pretty significant local support.

Now if you say they don't help them "willingly" then you can argue that people don't support the Afghan Government willingly either, but only do so because they dont want Americans killing them. So this argument loses wind if we go by Reductio Ad-Absurdum.

[unknownprince]

I am expressing my point of view here. I do not need to "expose" myself because I clearly say what I think and I argue with you people here on a logical basis....atleast from my side.

I didn´t feel any "slap" so far but if it makes you feel manlier you may think that.

The handbook of guerilla warfare states that there are two main reasons to fight from within civilian areas:

1. find refuge between the ordinary people and make them sympathetic to your cause.

2. direct enemy fire on civilians so that they may fill the ranks of the guerilla movement because of personal grieve and losses.

The Taliban fighters field manuals contain alot of Mao, Che Guevara and Zapata. You may try to "slap sense into yourself" by hitting some books because interpretation of information is not an easy task. You need intellect for that.

Stop changing the topic. you didn't address the fact that you were proven wrong. You said the Taliban do not have support. The US report I showed you (I know thats credible for you now) proves that they do have significant and growing support. There are a number of studies and reports that demonstrate this.

Leave all the other crap aside.

[MostafaM]

Well obviously Tamil Tigers aren't Wahhabis; neither were VietKong; but Wahhabists are what motivated Suicide Bombings in Afghanistan in recent times, this is undeniable. So yes; suicide bombing in Afghanistan upsurged due to Wahhabist influences.

Infiltration isn't done by single persons; if it was then there would have been only isolated incidences; these incidences of infiltration are FREQUENT, we hear about stuff like this happening almost every month. Even on Panjshir of all places a soldier killed NATO officers. This would require significant planning for these kinds of frequencies; Their increasing frequences show increasing support.

In general? How do you define general; I would say they have a significant enough support of local population that they have continued to fight for the last 10 years. If that were not true they would have died out by now. Even with foreign funding. I would say anywhere between 30%-40% of the local population support or are at least sympathetic to them. That's pretty significant local support.

Now if you say they don't help them "willingly" then you can argue that people don't support the Afghan Government willingly either, but only do so because they dont want Americans killing them. So this argument loses wind if we go by Reductio Ad-Absurdum.

You avoid the topic again.
A suicide bombing is a military operation and you persistently sideline the aim of the think-thanks and their strategic aim who recruite suicide bombers. I was talking about that and NOT the ideology.

The incident in Panjsher was done by a Panjsheri bodyguard of the second man in NDS. We shouldn´t resort to propaganda and count a personal attack of a hot-headed Panjsheri mercinary with US soldiers as a suicide attack.

The frequency can have another explanation, too: the more infiltrators you send, the more will make it to enter service. I do not say that it´s not possible that they may have help from inside but it´s highly unlikely.

Read my comments again:
the fact that they have their sanctuaries in Pakistan and the fact that they move on a daily basis into enemy held territory on motorbikes, strike or plant IEDs and get back, clearifies that they cannot operate freely out of the civilian population and cannot direct enemy fire on to civilian areas enough to make the whole nation turn against the enemy.

I can only suggest you read the common handbooks of guerilla warefare by Guevara or Mao. The Taliban do.

Your last point is valid.
But stresses once again how the ordinary people are caught up in a proxy war between two foreign funded entities that goes against their interests.

[MostafaM]

Stop changing the topic. you didn't address the fact that you were proven wrong. You said the Taliban do not have support. The US report I showed you (I know thats credible for you now) proves that they do have significant and growing support. There are a number of studies and reports that demonstrate this.

Leave all the other crap aside.

I know you lack the intelligence to talk here logically.

I cannot leave "crap aside" because that crap is important to the understanding of how guerilla movements operate.

If that´s to heavy for you, you are free to leave the debate here.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I don´t have any problems with someone who has more knowledge in a field than I have. My ego is not connected to such nonsense.

The question is how you can bring Eastern-Arian languages into a connection with a religion of a people who spoke a semitic language?

Why does Pashto or being Pashtun start for you with the arrival of Islam? Can you clarify that first?

The Soghdians etc. had all a similar culture and heritage. That´s why they are regarded as "Aryan people" or noble people who were very hospitable to guets and foreigners.

Morgenstierne´s theory is one theory and I do not support it because the geographic area of modern Ghor that is considered as the birth place of Pashto language and Pashtun culture and Pactycia resemble very much.

This is also false; "Aryans" are vast and vary greatly in culture; Bactrians for example had no concept of Tribe from previous Aryan-cultures; also Soghdians did not have tribal social structure; so they could not possibly have had Pashtunwali. proto-Avestan speakers did have tribal structure (as indicated by Zardusht's tribal name "Spitama"); but Avestan had dissolved as a spoken language millenia ago. So Pashtuns did not inherit tribal identity from Soghdians nor Avestan speaking peoples. The closest people to Pashtuns are Kurdish and Balouch; but even these people are very different from Soghdians.

And just because you don't support the theory is inconsequential; What solid research or evidence do you have in support of your theory? It seems you're just grasping for Pactyans, when it could be very well a false cognate.

Ghor may have been the birthplace of Pashto; but this doesn't mean Pactyans who were FAR FURTHER North, more towards Uzbakistan; were the same as Pashtuns. Even if we date Pashto back to Ghor; that is only 9-10 centuries; and Islam had started becoming predominant around this time.

The reason Pashto seems to coincide with Islam are numerous; but I'll just highlight the important ones.

A.) No mention of Pashtuns prior to Islam becoming predominant in the area. And when I say Pashtuns I don't mean "Pactyans" or something which vaguely phonetically sounds like Pashtun; I mean the word Pashtuns or any possible known reference to Pashtuns like tribal names and so on.

B.) Pashto literature has no actual written examples prior to Islamic Periods in Afghanistan. This cannot be explained by saying Pashtuns have oral tradition. Soghdians and Bactrians had written language from ancient times; if Pashto culture is derived from these cultures directly, and NOT laterally, Pashto too should have confirmed ancient examples.

C. Certain Pashtun tribal confederacies, such as the Ghilzai seemed emerged in coincidence with other Migrating Populations; like Ghilzai seem to coincide with Migration of Khaladj Turks. The Historical records show a strong correspondence of Turkic movement after Islam and the Ghilzai.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You avoid the topic again.
A suicide bombing is a military operation and you persistently sideline the aim of the think-thanks and their strategic aim who recruite suicide bombers. I was talking about that and NOT the ideology.

The incident in Panjsher was done by a Panjsheri bodyguard of the second man in NDS. We shouldn´t resort to propaganda and count a personal attack of a hot-headed Panjsheri mercinary with US soldiers as a suicide attack.

The frequency can have another explanation, too: the more infiltrators you send, the more will make it to enter service. I do not say that it´s not possible that they may have help from inside but it´s highly unlikely.

Read my comments again:
the fact that they have their sanctuaries in Pakistan and the fact that they move on a daily basis into enemy held territory on motorbikes, strike or plant IEDs and get back, clearifies that they cannot operate freely out of the civilian population and cannot direct enemy fire on to civilian areas enough to make the whole nation turn against the enemy.

I can only suggest you read the common handbooks of guerilla warefare by Guevara or Mao. The Taliban do.

Your last point is valid.
But stresses once again how the ordinary people are caught up in a proxy war that goes against their interests.

I never said it was a suicide attack; it was an insurgent attack for sure. As this was not merely a hotheaded Panjshiri. But someone against intervention of what they perceived as an occupier.

Suicide bombing maybe a military tactic; but it's usage is not an indication of lack of liocal support. THAT was your argument; that argument has been diffused as being incongruent.

Guevera and Mao; may have written books about guerilla warfare; but their books are not some sort of Biblical rule book or something. So this again is moot point.

The examples you give demonstrate HOW they can move freely within the population; In fact that is EXACTLY WHY they move freely in the population, they are able to plant these things pretty much undetected because the locals how ever many there are are giving them that leverage.

In fact using your example with the Russians; the general population also did not engage in fighting until much later on when the tides were significantly in favor of the Mujahideen. So reasoning was not sufficient in demonstrating local support isn't significant.

The fact people have sanctuaries in Pakistan is somewhat misleading because to the locals on the ground "those areas of pakistan are theirs by heritage". So they see those areas as extensions of their historical homeland anyways. Only people who have been educated abroad or influenced by those facilities view those boundary distinctions as immutable.

We can agree, taliban or America all go against the peoples interests; but One goes against others interests a bit "more" than the other; I think you can guess which one by the fact this war has gone on for 10 years.