Search results

No, the real reason we stayed was Bagram's strategic position threatening the Russian and CCP interiors, it was about an hour's flight time from areas that usually were hard to reach quickly for US aircraft. B-52's at Bagram wasn't just a message to the Taliban or ISIS.

https://apnews.com/article/taliban-isis-abbey-gate-afghanistan-bombing-9a9cb492bb1352a615af8815e715b17a AP is claiming that the Taliban have killed the ISIS 'mastermind' behind the suicide bombing during the evac. Weird to see the Taliban avenging fallen US soldiers. We forced the Taliban...

There would not have needed to have been any shot if the arrest had happened instead, is the point.

0:33; 'The asset cannot be compromised'. 1:36 'We asked him if we could shoot.', 1:38 'I don't know.', 1:57 'Plain and simple, we were ignored.', 2:00 'No one was held accountable for our safety.', 2:55 'I opened my eyes to Marines, dead or unconscious, lying around me.', 3:23 'Almost...

Except that's not what the sniper said Zach, they said they had been told the suicide bomber was not arrested to protect an asset, and that they could not take a shot. It was not said "no, because fire fight might ensue", it was "i don't know why you cannot fire, let check up the chain", and...

The guy said he was told they had not arrested the suicide bomber 'in order to protect an asset'. So whatever asset the sniper was told about was deemed more valuable than the lives of the US military personnel and civies gathered near the gate.

So turns out the suicide bomber who killed our troops during the pull out could have been stopped by a sniper, but the sniper was denied permission to fire, and ended up losing his left leg and right arm to the blast. Our troops didn't have to die that day, nor did those civies, and who ever...

The 9/11 victims fund deserves it's share of it, because the Taliban let Osama train and facilitate the hijackers there. The litigation needs to be fast tracked, now that the Taliban are once again formally in control of A-stan.

Aka, A-stan was a giant proving ground/testing exercise/money laundering scam to move taxpayer funds into mil-indust stock and pensions with a fig leaf of 'building Democracy' to cover for PR purposes.

Or in other words the 'nation building' years in A-stan were a complete and utter waste of time, money, and lives. A-stan should have been a punitive expedition, but those don't feed DoD, Raytheon, Lockhart, or Boeing stock prices or pension funds.

The difference between peossibe airspace and non-permissive airspace is night and day for COIN, which is why the US gave the Taliban and co Stingers during the Soviet invasion. As for the current situation...I'm not holding my breath for the Taliban to actually resist the CCP, even if they...

Not really; before US involvement the Afghans barely had any AA to use against Hinds and other soviet aircraft. Without our Stingers and such, USSR would have just ground A-stan down with air power, as they cared a lot less about collateral damage than we claim to.

You seem to be forgetting the reason for that was US weapons, particularly Stingers and the like. Without the US getting involved, the USSR probably would have taken A-stan.

My understanding is that the order for that strike was locally authorized, not dictated by DC. Edit: In fact I'm pretty sure DC had to pay out a settlement of some sort because of that strike. I'll try to find the article. Edit 2: Here we go...

I have no idea what leak, but I know the drone strike in question, the one that killed no enemies, only innocents, in our bumbled withdrawal from A-stan. Also, just because our allies are callous, doesn't mean we should be. Unless of course the point is to create more insurgents/enemies to...

I may not like Omar, but she's got a point here.

It doesn't fucking matter. A general kicking anyone off a flight, just so they can cram more trinkets into it, is not acceptable.