Anniversary of the initial strikes in the War on Terror

[NcDeuce]

October 7th, 2001

The US military with assistance from Great Britain launched an attack on Afghanistan to wipe out terrorist strongholds. The attack came 26 days after the terrorist attack on the USA on September 11. The attack began about 8:45 PM local (1615 GMT, 12:15 PM EDT) and targeted the Taliban's air defense installations, defense ministry, airport-based command centers, airfields, electrical grids and other energy production facilities. The attack included about 15 land-based bombers, and 25 strike aircraft; and US and British ships and submarines fired about 50 Tomahawk missiles against terrorist targets.

After the attack began, Arab television played a video of bin Laden, which was made after September 11th. He wagged his forefinger, the sign of belligerency, and voiced his support for other Arabs like Iraq and the Palestinians. He called for a war between Islam and the West.

http://www.september11news.com/Oct7NYPost.gif

http://www.september11news.com/Oct7WashPost.jpg

http://www.september11news.com/Oct7MiamiHerald.jpg

http://www.september11news.com/Oct7Scotsman.gif

http://www.september11news.com/Oct7SJMercuryNews.jpg

http://www.september11news.com/Oct7CNNBreakingNewsKabul.jpg

Show your pride with patriotic shirts at http://specialforces.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SFG&Product_Code=A01107T&Category_Code=128

[Oxley]

I remember that night, i was up watching CNN or Foxnews, can't remember which one... and they had the small Nightvision camera on a city and kept playing it all night as a reporter was talking to some Northern Alliance fellas.

[usa320]

Indeed, i remember as well- i had been sitting around for like 3 days watching news waiting for it to happen, then it happened, and it was over in less time than i had spent waiting for it to start.

rofl

gay talibans.

[Kriz]

Funny tough, that now only allied forces remain in Kabul and that in the rest of Afghanistan anarchy and tribal wars are still wide spread. In some provinces the Taliban are even back in control.

We wil not falter, my ass :roll:

[Seoulstriker]

Funny tough, that now only allied forces remain in Kabul and that in the rest of Afghanistan anarchy and tribal wars are still wide spread. In some provinces the Taliban are even back in control.

We wil not falter, my ass :roll:


**** you, man. what's your point?

[NcDeuce]

Funny tough, that now only allied forces remain in Kabul and that in the rest of Afghanistan anarchy and tribal wars are still wide spread. In some provinces the Taliban are even back in control.

We wil not falter, my ass

1. Where is the data to back up your claim?
2. Are you currently in Afghanistan or Pakistan?
3. Are you trying to say we went into Afghanistan to settle insignificant tribal wars?
4. What are you smoking?

[pinkeye]

i don't think the taliban control anything, but it is quite evident that afghanistan is still a heck of way from being stabilised and cleansed of unsavoury characters. kabul is about the only place where there is some semblance of law and order, and that's saying a lot. however, afghanistan was always going to be a difficult place to secure for numerous reasons, although the u.s. should have deployed more resources to the effort. bin laden and his idiot trolls were initially the main threat, but then saddam apparently stole his thunder and iraq became the focus of american efforts despite the fact that afghanistan was still a basketcase. i guess bin laden's 15 minutes of fame were up. who's next now that saddam is no longer part of the daily news cycles? assad?

[Gordon]

Here's an interesting article regarding this conversation, only written five days ago to.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2118840

More troops, please

Oct 10th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda


Two years after America’s attack on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Afghanistan’s provinces are still a mess. NATO aims to send peacekeepers outside Kabul, but it will have to send large numbers to make any difference

http://www.economist.com/images/GA/2003w41/AFG1.jpg

ARE events in Afghanistan going well, or badly? Two years after America began its post-September 11th bombing raids, optimists have plenty to point to. Countless al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have been killed or captured—though not, so far as is known, al-Qaeda’s head, Osama bin Laden, or the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Omar. Afghanistan has a functioning interim government headed by an internationally respected president, Hamid Karzai. In Kabul, the booming capital of around 3m people, many women have shed their once-required burqas and go around without fear.

In the provinces, however, the story is rather different. Attacks on humanitarian workers have increased to one a day on average, according to an official at CARE, an aid agency. The central government has little control and, outside the capital, factional fighting has worsened. An especially violent clash occurred this week. At least 60 Afghan fighters were killed in the north when forces led by an ethnic Uzbek clashed with rival forces commanded by an ethnic Tajik; a ceasefire was agreed on Thursday. Moreover, the ravaged Taliban and al-Qaeda forces appear to be regrouping, especially near or across the border with Pakistan. On Tuesday, Zalmay Khalilzad, America’s special envoy to Afghanistan, warned of possible “spectacular attacks” against the reconstruction efforts.

Stabilising remote parts of Afghanistan was never going to be easy. But it has not helped that the international peacekeeping force has essentially ceded the territory to local warlords. The 5,500-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) patrols only Kabul. America has thousands more troops throughout Afghanistan. They have tried to stabilise the south, but spend much of their time hunting down al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants and neglecting locals’ day-to-day security needs. Afghanistan, the United Nations and Japan recently signed an agreement to demobilise 100,000 of the warlords’ fighters in the provinces—a classic case of wishful thinking.

America is well aware of the problem. As in Iraq, it has leaned on the locals to do their bit. Much of the recently-proposed $1.2 billion in extra spending on Afghanistan would go towards helping Mr Karzai’s government boost security outside Kabul, according to the New York Times. A new, multi-ethnic Afghan army is being trained—though at a noticeably slower pace than its counterpart in Iraq.

Ideally, ISAF would step in to the breach. This week the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which leads ISAF, approved in principle the extension of its peacekeeping forces outside the capital. Germany, which is eager to mend its fractured relations with America, has eagerly backed the proposal (which Mr Karzai has long begged for). It wants to send 450 German peacekeepers to Kunduz, a region in the north, to help with reconstruction efforts. Expanding NATO’s reach outside Kabul would require the UN Security Council’s approval; Germany has already drafted a resolution, which may be passed this month.

All well and good. However, a few hundred peacekeepers in a single province will have little effect. NATO leaders say Germany’s move may pave the way for other small military units (New Zealand, America and Britain already have similar forces operating, though not under NATO). But lots more troops are needed.

The political will seems to be there. At a NATO meeting in Colorado this week, America’s defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said: “We’ve always favoured an expansion outside of Kabul.” His words were echoed by NATO’s secretary-general, George Robertson. The trouble is a lack of manpower and money. America has around 140,000 overstretched troops in Iraq and cannot spare many more for Afghanistan. This week it eagerly snapped up an offer from Serbia and Montenegro to contribute up to 1,000 troops to “Operation Enduring Freedom”, a Taliban-hunting operation that is separate from ISAF. Rounding up more troops from other NATO countries is made harder by their commitments in the Balkans and Africa.

Of course, security is not the only worry for Afghanistan. The coming year will be a crucial one politically: a draft constitution will be considered by an assembly in December (two months late), and presidential elections are planned for next year. Mr Karzai has said he intends to run. He may well win, but the politicking will re-expose the country’s ethnic divisions. And America must again become closely involved. Preoccupied with Iraq, it has put Afghanistan on a back burner in the past year. But, if for no other, more selfless reason, President George Bush will want to point to Afghanistan as a success story as America’s presidential elections approach.

[One]

Celebrating the death of others is not funny. Imagine bin laden celebrating on 9/11.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Ya its been a good 2 years in afgahnistan and they are now just starting to partol outside of kabul. The "warlords" mainly control everything outside of kabul, its pretty much next to anarchy. The taliban have made attacks against local police stations and local police lately. Mind you the police dont normally have cars and are poorly trained/funded. Many of these "policemen" dont have radios or any means of communication except for word of mouth. The opium trade has once again sky rocketed in afghanistan. opium obviously is worth alot more then growing food crops, so most farmers have taken to growing opium instead of food. Some forced by taliban and or possibly local warlords, lets all face it get used to hearing about afghanistan alot over the next 10-20 years.

[Gordon]

I agree. About the opium trade, as you said the profits from growing opium are so much larger than growing anything else that unless the government was to introduce some huge, and obviously totally unrealistic, subsidies or grants to farmers growing opium (and the warlords too) then this is always going to be a huge problem.

[Jack Mehoff]

Celebrating the death of others is not funny. Imagine bin laden celebrating on 9/11.

It's ok to celebrate death of scumbags who murdered 3000 innocent people. Those scumbags are subhuman anyway. Why? Normal human being don't fly commercial airplanes into crowded buildings to target and murdered as many people as they can.

Imagine bin laden celebrating on 9/11

Did he? I bet he was so happy and he humped 5 camels on that night in 9/11 rofl

[Jack Mehoff]

Funny tough, that now only allied forces remain in Kabul and that in the rest of Afghanistan anarchy and tribal wars are still wide spread. In some provinces the Taliban are even back in control.

We wil not falter, my ass :roll:

Please stop giving personal opinions out of your ass and start giving us some reliable SOURCE.

[NcDeuce]

Funny tough, that now only allied forces remain in Kabul and that in the rest of Afghanistan anarchy and tribal wars are still wide spread. In some provinces the Taliban are even back in control.

We wil not falter, my ass :roll: