Afghanistan

[angelburst29]

As it turns out, five out of six hospitals allegedly hit by Russian airstrikes in Syria do not even exist in the said areas.

The sixth hospital does exist, but it remains intact as of October 31, as can be seen from the Russian satellite images provided by the Defence Ministry, RIA Novosti reports. If you follow the link, you can see these images as compared to the earlier ones and also the fake image provided by Radio Liberty (the alleged ruins).

I've come across "Radio Liberty" in the past and discovered they are entangled with CIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a state-run U.S. broadcasting organization -RFE was founded as an anti-communist news source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, as part of a large-scale Psychological Operation during the Cold War. RL was founded two years later and the two organizations merged in 1976. RFE/RL received funds from the Central Intelligence Agency until 1972.[5] During RFE's earliest years of existence, the CIA and U.S. Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation between them and RFE staff.[6]

RFE/RL was headquartered at Englischer Garten in Munich, Germany, from 1949 to 1995. In 1995; the headquarters were moved to Prague in the Czech Republic. European operations have been significantly reduced since the end of the Cold War. In addition to the headquarters, the service maintains 20 local bureaus in countries throughout their broadcast region, as well as a corporate office in Washington, D.C. RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages[7] to 21 countries[8] including Armenia, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.[9]

 

[angelburst29]

U.S. Military have a history of attacks on medical and humanitarian facilities. Although the article dates incidences since 1991, same can be found as far back as Vietnam.

US Is Still Stonewalling an Independent Review of Why It Bombed a Hospital
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33482-us-is-still-stonewalling-an-independent-review-of-why-it-bombed-a-hospital

After a series of different explanations and excuses - four separate accounts of the incident over the first four days, by The Guardian's count - the United States still hasn't provided a concrete explanation as to why and how the hospital was targeted, killing 22 doctors and patients. The attack was the worst on any Doctors Without Borders hospital in its 44 years of operating.

But it wasn't all that different from other recent US attacks on civilian infrastructure. Since as far back as 1991, the US has been "accidentally" blowing up medical and humanitarian facilities in a range of places, resulting in high civilian casualties and other "collateral damage."

To name but a few, in 1991 the US targeted an air raid shelter in Baghdad, killing 408 Iraqi civilians. (A US general claimed the shelter was "an active command-and-control center.") In 1998 the Clinton administration attacked the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which the US claimed was associated with the bin Laden network and was "involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons." As a result, according to The Intercept, "tens of thousands of people have suffered and died" from "treatable diseases" in the country since then. In 2001, the US attacked the complex that housed the International Committee of the Red Cross in Kabul - not once but twice, destroying storage warehouses that held food and supplies for refugees.

The incident in Kunduz, unfortunately, just adds to the list.

 

[angelburst29]

MSF still asking for an independent probe by an international fact finding commission.

MSF says some Afghan hospital staff were gunned down by US planes
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6682123/2015/11/05/msf-releases-grim-new-details-afghan-hospital-bombing (Plus PDF)

Medical charity MSF Thursday released grim new details from a catastrophic US bombing of an Afghan hospital, saying staff had been decapitated and lost their limbs with some gunned down from the air.

The review described patients burning in their beds, medical staff that were decapitated and lost their limbs, and others who were shot from the air as they fled the burning hospital.

Read the full MSF report here.

Three separate investigations — led by the US, NATO and Afghan officials — are looking into the strike, but MSF has labelled the incident a war crime and demanded an independent probe by an international fact-finding commission.

 

[angelburst29]

Amazing - the Pentagon, after admitting guilt - is waging options, if Condolence payments should be made to those killed, that are considered "Taliban?" Technically, other than Doctor's and Staff - the rest were all patients.

Pentagon faces question: Should it make condolence payments for Taliban killed in hospital bombing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/11/05/pentagon-faces-question-should-it-make-condolence-payments-for-taliban-killed-in-hospital-bombing/

As the U.S. military continues to investigate the airstrikes it launched on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, the Pentagon faces a thorny question: Will it make condolence payments for the Taliban fighters who were killed there while recuperating from battlefield injuries?

The U.S. military has two investigations that are ongoing. One of them is carried out by what is known as a Combined Civilian Casualty Assessment Team (CCAT), and will determine how many civilians were killed and who they were. The second investigation, led by a senior Army officer not involved in the airstrikes, will determine how the incident occurred and whether anyone should be held accountable.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, told reporters on Thursday that military officials are working closely with MSF to identify who the victims killed and wounded were “so we can conclude our investigations and proceed with follow-on actions, to include condolence payments.” Learning the identities of the victims is key to both investigations underway, he added.

Davis, when asked if that meant members of the Taliban or their families may receive condolence payments, said that he did not want to speculate.

The military has made condolence payments following operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries for years, but rarely in such a high-profile case. A 2009 report posted on the Web site of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., states that condolence payments can be authorized from a fund known as the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), with a sliding scale of money available depending on what happened.

A battalion commander-level officer in the military can provide up to $2,500 per person for deaths caused by the U.S. military, according to the document. But larger payments can be made with the approval of a general.

“In extraordinary circumstances, a unit can pay up to $10K per person or damaged property, but it must be approved by the first U.S. General Officer in the chain of command,” the CERP report states. “This authority cannot be delegated.”

Condolence payments, the report adds, are not an admission of guilty by the U.S. government.

“Condolence payments are symbolic gestures and are not paid to compensate someone for a loss,” the report said.

Davis declined to say on Thursday how large the condolence payments for the Kunduz bombing will be.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

the official MSF report on the kunduz atack can be read here

http://kunduz.msf.org/pdf/20151030_kunduz_review_EN.pdf

 

[angelburst29]

The lies - only get deeper and more convoluted.

US Blames Afghanistan Hospital Massacre On "Malfunctioning Sensors," "Human Error" (2 video's)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-26/us-blames-afghanistan-hospital-massacre-malfunctioning-sensors-human-error

11/26/2015 - Early last month, Green Berets battling to beat back a Taliban advance in Kunduz, Afghanistan, apparently decided that in order to rid an MSF hospital of some “insurgents” who were apparently hanging out inside, they needed to call in an AC-130 gunship. The aircraft made five passes on the way to engaging the building for an hour, eventually killing dozens as tends to happen when advanced air assault technology squares off against unarmed people lying on gurneys.

Subsequent reports would reveal that the US fired on fleeing doctors and others who were running away from the building. Here are two short videos which should give you an idea of what kind of hell patients and staff must have gone through on October 3:

There were competing accounts as to what led to the incident, but at least initially, the military claimed US SpecOps were taking fire from the hospital.

On Wednesday, the US walked back that story. Speaking at a news conference, U.S. Army Gen. John Campbell said the crew of the AC-130 mistook the hospital for a government compound that the Taliban was allegedly using as a prison. "This tragedy was the direct result of avoidable human error," Campbell said.

But it wasn't just "human error," Washington is also blaming - get this - "malfunctioning sensors."

AP, who've been all over this story pretty much from the beginning, has obtained a summary of one of several investigations into the incident. "Witnesses differed in their versions of how and why the strike was authorized," the report says. It also indicates that the SpecOps commander who called in the strike "had been given the coordinates of the hospital two days before but said he didn't recall seeing them."

AP continues: "Investigators found that the aircrew continued the attack despite observing no hostile activity from the hospital, operated by the international group Doctors Without Borders. It found no evidence that armed Taliban were operating from there."

According to Campbell, the AC-130 crew's "targeting sensors malfunctioned" and so, they did what anyone would do in that situation, they decided to eyeball it. Back to AP:

Gen. John Campbell, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said the airstrike was supposed to have been directed at a nearby facility being used as a Taliban command center but the warplane fired at the wrong building.

After the plane's targeting sensors malfunctioned, he said, the crew relied on a physical description to home in on the target.

As absurd as that most certainly is, it's made even more ridiculous when you consider that "no Americans on the ground were in position to see the hospital." Of course even if they were, this isn't some modern metropolis we're talking about here where the buildings are easily distinguishable by their unique architecture. As you can see from the folllowing images and Google map of Kunduz, it would be easy to make a mistake if one were going by "a physical description of the building":

AP goes on to detail the report's account of the incident: "The AC-130 was sent on short notice after a report of 'troops in contact' [and] as a result, the aircrew did not get a pre-flight briefing and was not given a list of protected facilities on a 'no strike' list that should have included the hospital."

The story then goes full-computer-glitch-retard:

During the flight, Campbell said, the aircraft's electronic systems malfunctioned, preventing it from transmitting video or sending or receiving email. That meant the Air Force controller on the ground was hampered in aiding the targeting.

The AC-130 crew was given the coordinates for an Afghan intelligence building about 450 yards from the hospital, where Afghan forces were said to be in danger. But because the plane had moved to avoid a missile, its targeting sensors were off, and they pointed the crew to an open field.

The crew then relied on a physical description relayed by the commander to find what it thought was the right target.

So, let's see if we can sort that out. The AC-130 was called in but was unable to get good on-the-ground intelligence because their e-mail was down (so we suppose that means that under normal circumstances, soldiers e-mail planes with instructions). Next, the plane dodged a "missile", which threw its targeting sensors off and so according to The Pentagon, this AC-130 was flying blind with faulty targeting sensors into a warzone. Next, the crew did its best to remember what the ground forces (and now the US says it was actually Afghan troops that called in the strike) said about the building's physical appearance on the way to finding "what they thought was the right target."

But it gets worse:

When its computer eventually found the correct coordinates, Campbell said, the crew ignored them because it was "fixated on the physical description of the facility."

So basically: "to hell with what the computer says, that nondescript building is a terrorist hideout if we've ever seen one."

Immediately before firing, the aircrew relayed the coordinates of the hospital, to its headquarters, where officers knew it to be on the no-strike list, Campbell said. But nobody realized the mistake in time.

Does that mean the logistics team didn't even bother to check the coordinates agains the no-strike list? It certainly appears so. And finally:

The plane fired 211 shells over 29 minutes before commanders understood the mistake, according to the military report. Doctors Without Borders contacted coalition military personnel during the attack to say its facility was "being 'bombed' from the air."

It took 17 minutes for special forces commanders to order a halt. By then the attack was over.

All in all, just another day in America's highly successful war on Islamic extremists and dangerous militants. It's worth noting that if Russia had "accidentally" done this in Syria, the Western media would have made it a front page spectacle and the outcry from the US and its allies would have been loud and long.

One can only hope that going forward, US aircrews will think twice before relying solely on "physical descriptions" of targets before vaporizing nearly three dozen people. We close with a quote from Doctor's Without Borders:

"The frightening catalog of errors outlined today illustrates gross negligence on the part of U.S. forces and violations of the rules of war."

 

[angelburst29]

This is the second Saudi airstrike on a MSF hospital in Yemen.

MSF Says Saudi-Led Airstrikes Hit Second Medical Facility in Yemen
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940912000583

Thurs. Dec. 3, 2015 - TEHRAN (FNA)- Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) announced that one of its mobile clinics operating in the embattled city of Taiz was hit by Saudi Arabia-led airstrikes.

The organization said it could not provide further details at the moment as all of its staff had evacuated the site before the strikes in al-Khashabeh village on Wednesday.

Two people have been wounded so far and two more are in critical conditions, the statement said.

This is the second time an MSF facility has been hit by Saudi Airstrikes in Yemen after an MSF hospital was hit in the Northern Sa'ada governorate in October.

Saudi Arabia has been striking Yemen for 253 days now to restore power to fugitive president Mansour Hadi, a close ally of Riyadh. The Saudi-led aggression has so far killed at least 7,116 Yemenis, including hundreds of women and children.

Hadi stepped down in January and refused to reconsider the decision despite calls by Ansarullah revolutionaries of the Houthi movement.

Despite Riyadh’s claims that it is bombing the positions of the Ansarullah fighters, Saudi warplanes are flattening residential areas and civilian infrastructures.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Third hospital of MSF hit within three months - second one in Yemen. A pattern?

RT: 5 killed in missile strike on Medicins Sans Frontieres clinic in Yemen

https://www.rt.com/news/328425-yemen-msf-clinic-attack/

 

[angelburst29]

U.S. Military Readies Punishments for Botched Afghan Airstrike
_http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/15/exclusive-u-s-military-readies-punishments-for-botched-afghan-airstrike/

January 15, 2016 - The Pentagon is preparing to punish specific members of the U.S. special operations forces and others involved in a bungled airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, that left 42 civilians dead. But the move, which has not previously been reported, could also spark new questions about the military’s ability to police itself.

Gen. John Campbell, who commands U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has forwarded an exhaustive 3,000-page investigation into the incident to the U.S. Central Command along with his recommendations for disciplinary action against the troops involved in the airstrike. Officials there and at the U.S. Special Operations Command are now weighing who to punish — and how.

Staffers at the Tampa, Fla.-based Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will likely need “about two to three weeks” to redact the Kunduz report for potential public release, said one defense official who is not authorized to speak for attribution. The official said that no decisions have been made about when and if it might be made public.

One congressional staffer told Foreign Policy that the U.S. Army Green Beret team on the ground on the night of the attack has come under particular scrutiny from investigators for their role in calling in the strike by an AC-130 gunship, which lasted about 30 minutes.

In addition to the 42 killed, including 14 of the aid group’s staffers, several dozen others were wounded. The organization — also known as MSF, after its French name, Médecins Sans Frontières– has called the attack a “war crime.”

Also likely in the crosshairs of investigators is Army Lt. Col. Jason Johnston, the commander of the military’s special operations task force in Afghanistan. Given the strict rules of engagement in Afghanistan, it’s likely that his superior, Army Maj. Gen. Sean Swindell, who oversees all U.S. and NATO special operations forces in the country, and Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott West, the overall commander of the air war in Afghanistan, are also likely to have drawn the attention of the investigators.

If the only military personnel reprimanded are enlisted soldiers or junior officers, it will further infuriate MSF, which has already made clear that it didn’t believe the Pentagon could be trusted adequately investigate itself. The aid group has called for an independent investigation.

A spokesman for the U.S. military command in Afghanistan, Col. Michael Lawhorn, would not comment on the specifics of the report or those involved, but said that any legal process would potentially “have different decisions for different individuals.”

The bungled strike came after several days of intense fighting between Afghan troops and Taliban fighters in the wake of a major Taliban offensive in the city. The American special operations forces had also been involved in heavy ground fighting for several days, and on the night of the tragedy occupied a position several hundred meters away from the hospital, where they couldn’t see the building itself. The aircrew of the AC-130 also relied almost entirely on a physical description of the building while ignoring the correct grid coordinates they had been supplied, leading them to strike the hospital, which matched a physical description of their real target nearby.

Announcing some of the preliminary results of the investigation on Nov. 25, Campbell said that those “most closely associated” with the incident had been suspended from their duties. He added that the strike “was a direct result of avoidable human error compounded by process and equipment failures.”

Campbell’s spokesman, Brig. Gen. Wilson Shoffner, said the investigation found that the “actions of the aircrew and the special operations forces were not appropriate to the threats that they faced.” Members of the crew of the gunship also failed to “follow the rules of engagement” in launching the prolonged attack.

At one point during the air assault, the aircrew sent the coordinates of the building they were hitting to headquarters at Bagram Airfield, but the staff there also failed to realize the location matched the MSF hospital, which was clearly listed as a “no-strike” location.

 

[Jeremy F Kreuz]

Airstrikes on MSF-Supported Hospital in Syria Kill 3, Injure 6 - Statement

At least three people were killed and six wounded in airstrikes on a Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF)-supported hospital in the Daraa province in southwestern Syria, the MSF said on Tuesday.

A man propels his wheelchair on February 13, 2014 in a devastated street in the Syrian eastern town of Deir Ezzor
© AFP 2016/ AHMAD ABOUD
Horrifying Statistics: Over Million People Living in Besieged Areas in Syria
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — According to MSF, 13 health facilities in Syria have been hit since the start of 2016.

"The strike on Tafas field hospital, some 12 km [7.5 miles] from the Jordanian border, took place on the night of 5 February," the MSF said in a statement.

The MSF cited a staff member as saying that the hospital is the latest medical facility to be hit in an escalating series of airstrikes in southern Syria over the past two months. "I was on my way to the hospital to help admit people who had been injured by the airstrikes," says one staff member.

"This latest incident further weakens Syria’s already exhausted health care system, and prevents more people from accessing desperately needed medical care," the statement said.

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160209/1034467946/airstrikes-msf-hospital-syria.html

 

[Ant22]

I’ve noticed that Afghanistan doesn’t have its own thread here despite being quite a hot political topic in the news as well as being a strategic location the US clearly has no intention to let go of.

Prompted by last night's SOTT radio show very accurately titled Afghanistan: Where Empires Go To Die I thought I'd create one.

As the saying goes, if you don't know what's it all about, it's most likely all about money:

From RT: "How many more lives sacrificed for profits for the military-industrial complex?": https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/400962-trump-afghanistan-social-security/

After all these years of American involvement in Afghanistan, Moscow has now raised concerns that despite the US "war on terror" ISIS forces are continuously growing in strength in Afghanistan, thus putting Russia's security at risk. Pakistan, which according to the article cited below has been made a scapegoat for the US failures in Afghanistan, refers to Russia as a stabilising force for the region.

Bearing in mind the outcome of the Russian intervention in Syria, there may now be a light at the end of the tunnel for Afghanistan.

‘US doesn’t want Afghanistan war to end – it's cash cow for Pentagon, contractors’: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/400760-us-afghanistan-war-pentagon/

The US is alarmed Pakistan decided Russia has the best chance of being a stabilizing force for a peaceful outcome in Afghanistan: the US doesn’t want to end the war which is a cash cow, says Brian Becker from the anti-war ANSWER coalition.
During Donald Trump’s speech on Monday, where he presented the new Afghanistan strategy, the US leader criticized Pakistan by calling it a “haven” for terrorists.

“Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target US service members and officials,” Trump said.

The US president threatened to change America’s stance on Pakistan if it’s “continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.”

Pakistan hit back at Donald Trump's claim responding that the country is being singled out as a “scapegoat” for US failures.

"They should not make Pakistan a scapegoat for their failures in Afghanistan," Pakistani Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif said on Tuesday in an interview with Geo TV, as cited by Reuters. He added that its “commitment to the war against terrorism is unmatched and unshaken."

RT talked about Donald Trump's strategy in Afghanistan and his accusations against Pakistan with Brian Becker from the anti-war ANSWER coalition.

In his view, the reason President Trump “announced animosity toward Pakistan… is that Pakistan has been reaching out to Russia in the last few months and drawing Russia in, and asking Russia to be the primary stabilizing force in a possible peaceful outcome in Afghanistan."

“The US has become alarmed that Pakistan, even though Pakistan-Russian relations had been historically strained, has shifted. The Pakistanis have now decided it is Russia, not the US, that has the best hope as an international player bringing others to the table and possibly bringing together a government of national unity in Afghanistan, which of course will be the only way this war could end. The Pentagon doesn’t want to end the war. They are perfectly happy with the stalemate as it is. It is a cash cow for the Pentagon and for the US contractors,” Becker said.

Becker agrees the US is scapegoating Pakistan.

“There is no question that there has been a porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is no question the Pakistani intelligence agencies have had a long-standing relationship with the Taliban who they considered to be a proxy among the many warlord factions fighting in Afghanistan,” he said.

What has changed, Becker added, “is the peace overture from Pakistan to Russia asking Russia to help create a regional and an internal - inside Afghanistan - possible…architecture for new peace negotiations.”

Washington doesn’t want “Russia meddling in Afghanistan,” Becker said, adding that it has already spent “a couple of trillion dollars” on the war and lost over 2,000 troops.

“It is a big cash cow; there are many Pentagon bases in Afghanistan. These are long term projects on the part of the Pentagon. They don’t want Russia to come in. They don’t want peace to break out in Afghanistan.”

In his speech on Afghanistan this week, Trump also ruled out “a hasty withdrawal” and said there are no limits on troop numbers.

As to whether President Trump has a chance of succeeding where his predecessors have failed, Becker referred to past experience.

“When Richard Nixon, for instance, became president in 1969, he and Henry Kissinger knew the Vietnam War cannot be won by the US but they didn’t want to take responsibility for having been defeated. So they kept dragging the war on and on. So, part of the definition of success here for Trump likewise is to not take responsibility for the exit of US forces from Afghanistan which would be conceding defeat,” he explained.

“The second motivation in terms of what success means is that this is very successful for the Pentagon because they have established permanent military bases in one sovereign country, in Afghanistan, and yes most of the bleeding is done by the Afghans, maybe 100,000 of them died even though most of them have never heard anything about the World Trade Center and had nothing to do with 9/11,” Becker concluded.

Back in 2016 Moscow said that the increase of ISIS presence in Afghanistan is a threat to Russia and requested 'real action' from the US . The US obviously didn't deliver on the expectation and earlier this month Russia warned of deploying military force in Afghanistan. At this stage this is only a warning and as indicated below, Russia is unlikely until Daesh attacks the borders of six Central Asian states and Russia:


What's Behind Russia's Warning of 'Resorting to Military Force' in Afghanistan?: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201708121056412734-russia-afghanistan-military/

Despite efforts by the Afghan government and the US, Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) and the Taliban continue to gain ground in the country, threatening to import terrorism to the Central Asian states. Speaking to Sputnik, Afghan military analyst Atiqullah Amarkhel shared his views on whether Russia will intervene to tackle the terror threat.
Zamir Kabulov, a high rank career diplomat and Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan, has recently remarked that if the Afghan government and Washington are unable to counter the threat posed by Daesh's (ISIS/ISL) spread, Russia will resort to military force, Sputnik Afghanistan reported.

The Russian diplomat cited the fact that Daesh continues to strengthen its positions in Afghanistan, which triggers serious concerns in Moscow about the possibility of the spread of instability to the countries of Central Asia near Russia's borders.

Kabulov also referred to recent reports regarding the alleged delivery of weapons to Daesh extremists by unidentified helicopters.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, in at least three provinces in the north of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan an unidentified aircraft was spotted dropping boxes for Daesh militants. Kabulov noted that the issue was raised by Russian diplomats at a UN Security Council meeting.

The parliament of Afghanistan echoed the envoy's concerns. Some deputies even went so far as to suggest that the unidentified aircraft may be connected to the United States.
What then did Kabulov mean by referring to Russia's deployment of military force? Does it mean that Moscow is ready to bring in the military to Afghanistan in order to defeat Daesh?

According to an Afghan military analyst, retired Air Force General Atiqullah Amarkhel, the Russian official's statement is more of a "warning" over the potential escalation of the situation in Afghanistan, than a promise to use military force.

"It is a political issue and [Kabulov's] words are a diplomatic warning," Amarkhel explained, stressing that it is highly unlikely that Russia will intervene to fight Daesh in Afghanistan.

"The Russian Federation will not take military measures until Daesh attacks the borders of six Central Asian states and Russia," the general pointed out. "The reason for Russia's concern over the growing influence of Daesh in Afghanistan, especially in the country's north, is the threat of the deterioration of the situation in Central Asia."
"Will Russia tolerate the presence of the Taliban and Daesh in Central Asia, which Russia considers to be in its sphere of interest? Unlikely. Moscow views the presence of any terrorist groups in Central Asia as a threat to its security," Amarkhel remarked.

Thus, to tackle the problem the Russian Defense Ministry announced in June that it was going to reinforce its military bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan with modern weapons in order to prevent the import of terrorism from Afghanistan into Central Asia.

"We are alarmed by the growing presence in Afghanistan of Daesh militants whose number now exceeds 3,500. The terrorist group's ongoing effort to establish an Islamic caliphate poses a serious threat to the security of Afghanistan and its neighbors," Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said at a June meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the Kazakh capital Astana.

The Russian defense minister emphasized that the Russian military bases in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are "guarantors of regional stability."
"Together with our allies we are boosting their combat capability which, in turn, ensures the security of [their capitals] Dushanbe and Bishkek," Shoigu stressed.

Citing political analysts, Amarkhel noted that Russia's military involvement in Afghanistan would created new challenges for Moscow. He referred to the fact that Russia is currently engaged in an aerial operation in Syria aimed at protecting the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad.

Moscow has repeatedly voiced its willingness to provide political and technical-military assistance to Kabul, at the same time denying the possibility of the involvement of the Russian Armed Forces in any military actions on the ground in Afghanistan.

Speaking to Sputnik, General Amarkhel called attention to the fact that although the government of Afghanistan and its allies are trying to defeat Daesh, the organization is only getting stronger.

With the Taliban controlling most of Afghanistan's rural areas and Daesh consolidating its positions in the war-torn country the situation is steadily deteriorating.

"The war in Afghanistan is being expanded, in addition to the Taliban and Daesh, new terrorist groups have emerged [in the country]. Let's see how the situation will unfold," the general said.

"The relationship between Russia and the US is deteriorating day by day, so the US can use various groups of Islamists to increase pressure on the Russian Federation in order to worsen the situation in the Central Asian states, therefore, Russia is closely monitoring the situation," Amarkhel assumed.

Interestingly enough, the picture of the previous Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (the Soviet-Afghan War 1979-1989) is not exactly what the mainstream media wants everyone to believe.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Andre Vltchek's article:

https://www.sott.net/article/358581-Andre-Vltchek-On-the-road-in-Afghanistan-Lies-legends-and-myths

“Almost all poor Afghan people would never say anything bad about Russians. But the government people are with the West, as well as those Afghan elites who are now living abroad: those who are buying real estate in London and Dubai, while selling their own country…those who are paid to ‘create public opinion.’”

“Before and during the Soviet era, there were Soviet doctors here, and also Soviet teachers. Now show me one doctor or teacher from the USA or UK based in the Afghan countryside! Russians were everywhere, and I still even remember some names: Lyudmila Nikolayevna… Show me one Western doctor or nurse based here now. Before, Russian doctors and nurses were working all over the country, and their salaries were so low… They spent half on their own living expenses, and the other half they distributed amongst our poor… Now look what the Americans and Europeans are doing: they all came here to make money!”

“Before Bagram I served at the Leatherneck US Base, in Helmand Province. When the Americans were leaving, they even used to pull out concrete from the ground. They joked: “When we came here, there was nothing, and there will be nothing after we leave…” They prohibited us from giving food to local children. What we couldn’t consume, we had to destroy, but never give to local people. I still don’t understand, why? Those who come from the US or Western Europe are showing so much spite for the Afghan people!”

“What was the main difference between the Russians and Westerners during their engagement in Afghanistan?”
“The Russian people came predominately to serve, to help Afghanistan. The relationship between Russians and Afghans was always great. There was real friendship and people were interacting, even having parties together, visiting each other.”

I didn’t push him further; didn’t ask what was happening now. It was just too obvious. “Enormous walls and high voltage wires,” would be the answer. Drone zeppelins, weapons everywhere and an absolute lack of trust… and the shameless division between the few super rich and the great majority of the desperately poor… the most depressed country on the Asian continent.
Later I asked my comrade Arif, whether all this was really true?

“Of course!” He shouted, passionately. “100% true. The Russians built roads, they built homes for our people, and they treated Afghans so well, like their brothers. The Americans never did anything for Afghanistan, almost nothing. They only care about their own benefits.”

“If there would be a referendum right now, on a simple question: ‘do you want Afghanistan to be with Russia or with the United States, the great majority would vote for Russia, never for the US or Europe. And you know why? I’m Afghan: when my country is good, then I’m happy. If my country is doing bad, then I suffer! Most people here, unless they are brainwashed or corrupted by the Westerners, know perfectly well what Russia did for this country. And they know how the West injured our land.”

Before we parted, Mr. Wahed Tooryalai grabbed my hand. I knew he wanted to say something essential. I waited for him to formulate it. Then it came, in rusty but still excellent Russian:

“Sometimes I feel so hurt, so angry. Why did Gorbachev abandon us? Why? We were doing just fine. Why did he leave us? If he hadn’t betrayed us, life in Afghanistan would be great. I wouldn’t have to be a UN driver… I used to be the deputy director of an enormous bread factory, with 300 people working there: we were building our beloved country, feeding it. I hope Putin will not leave us.”

Then he looked at me, straight into my eyes, and suddenly I got goose bumps as he spoke, and my glasses got foggy:

“Please tell Mr. Putin: do hold our hand, as I’m now holding yours. Tell him what you saw in my country; tell him that we Afghans, or at least many of us, are still straight, strong and honest people. All this will end, and we will send the Americans and Europeans packing. It will happen very soon. Then please come and stand by us, by true Afghan patriots! We are here, ready and waiting. Come back, please.”

Heck, if I was wearing glasses they'd definitely would have gotten foggy too upon reading the last paragraph.

 

[Esprit]

Russia probably wants to avoid further conflicts being already involved in Syria. It's a very tough decision to go to help another country, even when asked as it seems to be the case, and this is probably what the western military wants to happen. Get Russia involved in a though war hoping to see it financially collapse and/or find a false flag reason to start a war against them.

At the same time Russia does'nt seem to want to wait for the problems to grow right next to it's door. But when do you exactly decide to attack the menace at it's root ?
You go to war when you know you have a chance to win but the menace seems to be much stronger.
It's all looking not so good either you let the cancer slowly infect the world or take a stand like Duterte who fears for his life by saying no to US and that could lead to catastrophic destruction.
I think the only way would be for all anti US to unite, and at one point, even neutrals will have to do something to avoid invasion.

But of course all of this means WW3. What other option do the world have with psycho drivens forces wrecking the world appart ? They just wont stop, the talking and good information is good up to one point until the cancer knocks at your door...

Trump's menace over Pakistan sounds just like their looking for the next place to invade, or at least keep their options open for when they'll need the next Vietnam.
What can we conclude of Trump trying to be in good term with Russia and possibly pushing the chaos further into Eurasia territory ? His hands are tied by the establishment ? He's just doing like all other liars before him ?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Ant]Bearing in mind the outcome of the Russian intervention in Syria, there may now be a light at the end of the tunnel for Afghanistan.[/quote]

Great thread! There are some signs that Russia might intervene in the future! And that's something to look forward to!

From what I gathered and understand:

Afghanistan is ideally positioned to disrupt Eurasian integration. Here is were the Arc of Crisis and the Jihadi plague of Brzezinski started. (To destablize the Eurasian continent) It would be symbolic, if it ends here.

From the looks of it, it’s my impression that Russia is trying to find ways to intervene. I believe that this can only happen if the Afghan government will make an official request at the UN. I don’t know how realistic that is, since it begs the question how tightly the US controls the Afghan government. I’m guessing the US is not taking any chances. Allthough, Afghan officials have been very vocal about the desire for Russian intervention.

I geuss another option for Russia is to just intervene. But that’s not the new world Putin is trying to build. Cooperation between nations and respecting each other sovereignty is the real New World Order. (That’s also why the Russian president always refers to the core foundations of the UN, it seems he wants to create a real UN and not the phony one we have now) If Putin wants his revolution to work. (Which is basically putting an end to Imperialism) I geuss he knows that the end does not justify the means. (You can’t set an example if you discard your own rules, otherwise his revolution might fail) I think it’s all up to the Afghan government to let the world and the UN know that they want Russian help.

Fingers crossed that it will happen soon!


[quote author= Article: Andre-Vltchek-On-the-road-in-Afghanistan-Lies-legends-and-myths]“If there would be a referendum right now, on a simple question: ‘do you want Afghanistan to be with Russia or with the United States, the great majority would vote for Russia, never for the US or Europe. And you know why? I’m Afghan: when my country is good, then I’m happy. If my country is doing bad, then I suffer! Most people here, unless they are brainwashed or corrupted by the Westerners, know perfectly well what Russia did for this country. And they know how the West injured our land.”[/quote]

Ok excellent, perhaps the Afghan people can hold rallies by the millions requesting for Russian help. Someone needs to organise it. The Afghan government would need to react on that. Though the US will certainly false flag those rallies with terror attacks to discourage people from attenting those. :(


I think that economically wise Afghanistan could be build up in no time. Afghanistan holds a enormous amount of rare earths and minerals. Only thing that hinders big investments is the ongoing war. And I’m guessing China and Russia are willing to invest in Afghanistan just so to stabilize the region in service of China's one Road, one Belt initiave. And ofcourse, it’s a win-win situation.

From what I understand Afghanistan was the first country where the plague of Brzezinsk started, it will be symbolic if it ends here, and with it a new world can truly emerge.

 

[angelburst29]

I’ve noticed that Afghanistan doesn’t have its own thread here despite being quite a hot political topic in the news as well as being a strategic location the US clearly has no intention to let go of.

Great idea, Ant22!

The Afghanistan President and it's government body want the U.S. and it's "excess baggage" out of their Country ... like yesterday ... already!

Afghanistan Wants Russia, Not US to Help Restore Peace in Country - Ambassador
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201708261056814201-afghanistan-us-russia-peace/

"We wanted the US troops and troops of other Western countries, which have close relations with Afghanistan, to leave Afghanistan long ago," Kochai stressed. "We have now very powerful troops. They fight against terrorism, against Taliban, against Daesh. We can do this."

The UK Stop the War Coalition criticized the reported intention of the UK government to deploy special forces unit to Afghanistan.

Stop the War Coalition Condemns UK Forces Alleged Deployment in Afghanistan
https://sputniknews.com/world/201708291056895774-stop-war-coalition-sas-afghanistan/

The UK Stop the War Coalition (STWC) criticized the reported intention of the government to send a special forces unit to Afghanistan, a spokesperson for the group told Sputnik on Tuesday.

On Sunday, The Sunday Times reported, citing senior sources in the UK government, that the country's Prime Minister Theresa May was prepared to approve an increase in operations against the terrorists in Afghanistan and the Special Air Service (SAS) would reportedly play a key role in such operations.

"In the sixteen years since the country [of Afghanistan] was invaded, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions have become refugees and there is no end to the conflict in sight… We therefore condemn any British troops being sent to Afghanistan," the spokesperson said.

Earlier in August, US President Donald Trump announced his country's new strategy in Afghanistan. Among other changes, the president vowed to continue US support for the Afghan authorities in their fight against Islamic extremists and to expand authorities for US troops to target terrorists in Afghanistan.

Former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, Bhadrakumar Melkulangara, underscored the need for a peaceful, rather than military, solution to the crisis in Afghanistan, while London is reportedly mulling covert operations in the country.

UK Mulls More Special Ops in Afghanistan, but the Road to Peace Lies Elsewhere
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201708291056882245-afghanistan-conflict-solutions/

Mr. Melkulangara said that now that all Western attempts to defeat the Taliban have failed, the conflicting sides should start looking for a negotiated end to the 16-year-old conflict.

“What have the US and Britain really achieved by fighting this war for 16 years? I believe that what we need are inter-Afghan negotiations to end the conflict now that the Western powers have completely failed even to explain what they are going to do,” Bhadrakumar Melkulangara wondered.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom is contemplating waging more covert operations in Afghanistan that will target jihadists groups, The Sunday Times reported.

“In his speech on Washington’s new Afghan strategy, President Trump said that special operations were needed [to fight Daesh terrorists] and I believe that, in a sense, they could be quite effective,” Bhadrakumar Melkulangara said.

He added that the British would clearly fall in line with Washington’s new strategy.

“However, I think that it would be extremely relevant for the British to explain how Daesh figures in the US strategy in the light of the experience of Iraq and Syria. This is what the region is mostly concerned about and there is total silence about this,” Melkulangara pointed out.

The British move comes amid concerns that Afghanistan could be lost to the Taliban if the US troops pull out.

When asked how justified these concerns really are, Bhadrakumar Melkulangara said that it was essentially a propagandistic stunt.

“The Americans want to show that they are irreplaceable, that they have done a marvelous job and that they should continue doing this. Trump didn’t say why the US military bases in Afghanistan should stay on.”

When queried about how the UK special operations could help improve the situation in Afghanistan, Bhadrakumar Melkulangara said that with the 120,000-strong US military contingent still in place in Afghanistan, the several hundred troops London is going to send there will only be playing a secondary role assisting US military and CIA operations.

Regarding widespread fears that British special operations in Afghanistan could result in human rights abuses by Special Air Service (SAS) commandos, Bhadrakumar Melkulangara said that “this is going to be an extremely violent period.” He also mentioned the likelihood of military contractors coming in. “This is exactly what former Afghan President Hamid Karzai had in mind when he said that there is a very dangerous situation arising because once again we’ll see landing parties, bombings, etc.,” Melkulangara warned.

He added that there would be no lasting peace in Afghanistan unless some of the Taliban’s demands are met and that the terms and conditions of the Taliban’s integration is something everyone should now focus on.

“The thesis that the Taliban would eventually be degraded and brought to the negotiating table is an old tale we have heard under President Barack Obama. The problem is, however, that the Taliban adamantly insists that there must be an end to the country’s foreign occupation.”

Bhadrakumar Melkulangara added that US military bases are the main stumbling block on the way to a peaceful resolution of the Afghan conflict because, with the exception of those in Afghanistan who have vested interests in the continued Western presence in the country, the majority of the Afghan people want the US military bases to leave.

“I think that regional powers should speak up and insist that there is no military solution to this conflict,” he concluded.

The UK is expected to deploy Special Air Service and Special Boat Service operatives to assess what kinds of troops are needed for a new Afghan deployment.

The intentions to introduce special operations in Afghanistan come as UK intelligence agencies warn that the Central Asian country could be lost to the Taliban if the US were to withdraw its troops.

According to The Sunday Times, intelligence agencies have played a crucial role in convincing President Trump to increase the military presence in Afghanistan. There are 500 British troops currently stationed in the country.

The ongoing war has cost UK taxpayers over 40 billion pounds. Nearly 500 military personnel have died in the conflict.

According to NATO Resolute Support Mission Afghanistan, no US troops were hit by the recent explosion in the Afghan capital that occurred close to US embassy.

No US Troops Injured in Kabul Blast - US Military Spokesman
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201708291056880625-kabul-explosion-us-troops/

"There were no US troops injured in the explosion in Kabul today," Lt. Damien E. Horvath, Press Desk Chief of NATO Resolute Support Mission Afghanistan, said in an emailed statement.

Earlier media reports indicated that a blast occurred around 10 a.m. local time in the diplomatic quarter of Kabul, at a bank located close to the US embassy. A suicide bomber is suspected of having carried out the attack.

The Afghan Health Ministry told Sputnik earlier in the day that four people were killed and eight others were injured in the blast.

Afghan officials began investigating reports of an air force strike in Herat province late on Monday that authorities said killed at least 13 civilians as well as some Taliban militants.

Afghan Officials Investigate Civilian Deaths in Airstrike
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960607001686

Civilian casualties caused by US air strikes in Afghanistan have long been a source of friction been the government and foreign forces, but over the past two years, the reformed Afghan air force has been conducting more of its own strikes, Daily Star reported.

Defence Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri said Afghan aircraft had conducted a strike on a Taliban target in the Western province and had killed 18 insurgents and said officials were investigating reports civilians had also been killed.

"There are reports of civilian casualties, so the minister has appointed a team to investigate," he said.

A spokesman for the NATO-led international support mission in Kabul referred questions to the defence ministry.

"Our understanding that this was an Afghan Air Force strike," he said in an emailed statement.

Farhad Jilani, a spokesman for the Herat provincial governor, said 13 civilians had been killed and seven wounded in the air strike in Shindand district.

"There was a command and control center of the Taliban where some Taliban had gathered," he said.

Both the US and Afghan air forces conduct strikes against the Taliban and other insurgent targets and the incident underlined the risks posed as they have stepped up the pace of strikes in recent months.

The government of President Ashraf Ghani and its Western backers have announced a drive to boost the power of the fledgling Afghan air force as part of a four-year strategic plan to strengthen security forces.

The United Nations said in a report last month civilian deaths and injuries from air strikes had spiked 43 percent in the first half of the year, with 95 people killed and 137 wounded.

The Taliban insurgents executed two important leaders of the ISIL-Khorasan group in Nangarhar province, media reports said.

Taliban Execute Two Important ISIL Leaders in Afghanistan's Nangarhar Province
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960607001373

According to reports, the two local ISIL leaders were initially arrested by the Taliban insurgents and were executed on charges of killing civilians and Taliban fighters, Khaama Press reported.

The provincial government in Nangarhar also confirmed the execution of the two ISIL leaders.

A statement by the media department of Nangarhar government said the two ISIL leaders were executed in the restive Bati Kot district.

The statement further added one of the slain ISIL leaders was identified as Qadir who was in charge of a group of fifty militants and was arrested from Bati Kot district where he was executed shortly after his apprehension.

The other ISIL leader detained and executed by the Taliban insurgents has been identified as commander Nasir who was arrested from Momand Dara area.

 

[angelburst29]

The Madness, Terrorist Organization NATO And It's Warplanes Bomb Zerkoh District Afghanistan Slaughtering Innocent Women And Children
http://nrt24.ru/en/news/madness-terrorist-organization-nato-and-its-warplanes-bomb-zerkoh-district-afghanistan

At least 16 civilians, including a number of women and children, were killed and many others wounded Monday in western Afghanistan, when NATO warplanes carried out a flurry of airstrikes in Herat Province’s Zerkoh District, aiming to hit a “Taliban base.”

The raid started with strikes on the Taliban base, but quickly got out of hand when survivors of that strike started fleeing in all directions, and the NATO planes responded by bombing civilian homes in the same neighborhood, assuming the Taliban had taken refuge there.

Provincial officials say a number of Taliban fighters were killed in the strike, 16 to 18 depending on the source,but all seem to agree that the attack also resulted in substantial numbers of civilian deaths. Though the Defense Ministry had initially credited the Afghan Air Force with the strike, they later admitted it was a NATO operation.

NATO, for its part, has been unusually silent on the operation, having made no statements confirming or denying the incident, nor their requisite claim that they’d heard reports of civilian deaths and intend to investigate.