Afghanistan

Afghan Woman’s Choice: Marry Rapist Or Stay In Jail

December 2, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

This story is both outrageous and terribly sad.

Three weeks ago I wrote here about Gulnaz, a 19-year-old Afghan woman who was raped by her cousin’s husband, then charged with adultery and finally sentenced to 12 years in prison. Her baby girl, born following the rape, is serving her sentence with her.

The European Union commissioned Development Pictures to produce a documentary highlighting women’s rights issues in Afghanistan, but subsequently suppressed it for political reasons. The documentary tells Gulnaz’s story.

Gulnaz To Be Freed, But Must Marry Her Rapist

Now comes the news that Gulnaz is set to be freed, but only after agreeing to marry the man who raped her.

You read that right: President Hamid Karzai ordered Gulnaz to be released on condition that she agreed to become the second wife of her rapist – a prospect that supporters say she had dreaded.

The Afghan President got involved in the case of Gulnaz when the decision not to broadcast the film led to a storm of publicity, including a Care2 petition with over 90,000 signatures.

So first the 19-year-old is raped and becomes pregnant. This makes her guilty of adultery under Afghan law, and she is sentenced to 12 years in jail. As a final indignity, she can leave jail only by marrying her rapist. But it gets worse.

“He Had Filthy Clothes On…He Shut Me Up By Putting His Hands On My Mouth”

From CNN:

Even two years later, Gulnaz remembers the smell and state of her rapist’s clothes when he came into the house when her mother left for a brief visit to the hospital.

“He had filthy clothes on as he does metal and construction work. When my mother went out, he came into my house and he closed doors and windows. I started screaming, but he shut me up by putting his hands on my mouth,” she said.

After the attack, she hid what happened as long as she could. But soon she began vomiting in the mornings and showing signs of pregnancy. It was her attacker’s child.

In Afghanistan, this brought her not sympathy, but prosecution. Aged just 19, she was found guilty by the courts of sex outside of marriage — adultery — and sentenced to twelve years in jail.

The only way around the dishonor of rape, or adultery in the eyes of Afghans, is to marry her attacker. This will, in the eyes of some, give her child a family and restore her honor. In order that she may stay with her child, Gulnaz is willing to do this.

Gulnaz Faced A Stark Choice

Gulnaz had a stark choice to make. Women in her situation are often killed for the shame their ordeal has brought the community. She is at risk, some say, from her attacker’s family. And her case is common to many women in Afghanistan.

Under Afghan law, Gulnaz has been judged an adulterer. Despite the ongoing dispute over her story, her predicament has not changed. She faced the hideous choice of 12 years in jail or marriage to her rapist and the risk of death.

Source: https://www.care2.com/causes/afghan-womans-choice-marry-rapist-or-stay-in-jail.html

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Rights, Women Tagged With: Adultery, Death, Raped

Nato Base Blast:1 Dead, Up To 70 Injured In Afghanistan

December 2, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

A suicide bomber attack at the NATO coalition base in the Afghan Logar province has left at least 1 person dead and up to 70 injured.

The attacker used an explosive-laden truck to set off a powerful explosion just outside the entrance to the base on Friday morning, local authorities reported.

The majority of those wounded are civilians, Logar’s health director, Mohammad Zarif Nayebkhail told AFP. Seven of the wounded are Afghan security guards from the base. Atiqullah Ludin, the local governor, said the deceased victim was an Afghan carpenter.

“The suicide attacker wanted to ram his explosive-laden vehicle into the coalition forces base, but he was stopped at the gate and detonated the truck outside the base,” said local Deputy Police Chief Mohammad Abed.

The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the terrorist act.

In September, 77 US troops were wounded in a truck bombing which targeted a NATO base in Wardak province, which borders Logar. US officials blamed the attack on the Haqqani network, an Afghan Taliban faction, which Washington says has strong ties with Pakistan.

There are currently 140,000 international troops in Afghanistan. The number is set to decrease by the end of 2014, but a substantial presence is expected to remain in an effort to train Afghan security forces.

Source: https://rt.com/news/nato-base-70-injured-843

Filed Under: Afghanistan, NATO Tagged With: Suicide Bomber, Taliban

Vietnam-Style Exit: Russia Could Deliver Death Blow To NATO in Af-Pak War Theater

December 1, 2011 By T Kelly 1 Comment

Russia could deliver death blow to Nato, say analysts

ISLAMABAD: With the Russian threat to cut land routes for supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan, the Afghan battleground may turn into a cold death trap for NATO, defence analysts believe. They say that Pakistan should utilise the opportunity for a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan by pulling it out of the American war.

Russia has threatened to cut off NATO supply routes to Afghanistan if the alliance doesn’t compromise on its missile defence plans. “If NATO doesn’t give a serious response, we have to address matters in relations in other areas,” Russian news services reported. Russia’s cooperation on Afghanistan may be an area for review, the news services reported.

Pakistan has already cut NATO supply routes after the Mohmand Agency attack by NATO troops that killed twenty-six Pakistani soldiers. Lt General (retd) Hameed Gul, while talking to The News, said that Russia would utilise every option to take revenge on the Americans and the time has come for the Russians to do this. He said that Russia wants to join hands with Pakistan and Pakistan should re-consider its policy towards Russia. “Americans and NATO troops have been strangled in Afghanistan and the time has come for Pakistan to avail itself of the opportunity that it missed on 9/11 to regain respect and sovereignty”, Gul said.

He mentioned that Americans will have to leave Afghanistan and will ask for concessions and Pakistan should negotiate with them on their exit. If Russia cuts its supply routes then the route will be from Georgia to Baku and then to Azerbaijan, which means NATO will never get the supplies, said Gul.

“Now NATO troops will have to exit Vietnam-style, and that too by using Pakistan’s airspace because Iran will never let the USA use its airspace”, the retired General said. He mentioned that the war against terror that was started with our own people will come to an end at once and there will be peace in no time once the Americans leave Afghanistan. He said that Indian interests in Afghanistan were growing but India will get nothing from Afghanistan.

Maria Sultan, defence analyst, while talking to this correspondent said that if the Russians also cut the supply line of NATO then it will turn out to be a cold death for NATO troops. “They will literally be strangled in Afghanistan with 90,000 troops, and as they admit that they have reserves for three months, which actually means they have reserves for two months, then NATO will have to airlift the troops and during the airlift only 15 to 20 percent can get out alive out of the 90,000 troops”, Maria said.

She mentioned that in Afghanistan everything comes from outside and the insurgency this year has been very high as 700 [NATO] causalities have been reported. Therefore, after the Russian decision, Afghanistan will turn into a reverse Kargil for NATO. “They will have weapons but no bullets to fire; and if Pakistan shuts the air corridors to NATO then it would be a cold death for them and America will have to renegotiate with Pakistan”, she said.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27964

Filed Under: Afghanistan, NATO, Pakistan, Politicians, Russia, USA

War On Drugs Revealed As A Total Hoax

December 1, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

Afghanistan is, by far, the largest grower and exporter of opium in the world today, cultivating a 92 percent market share of the global opium trade.

But what may shock many is the fact that the US military has been specifically tasked with guarding Afghan poppy fields, from which opium is derived, in order to protect this multibillion dollar industry that enriches Wall Street, the CIA, MI6, and various other groups that profit big time from this illicit drug trade scheme.

Prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was hardly even a world player in growing poppy, which is used to produce both illegal heroin and pharmaceutical-grade morphine. In fact, the Taliban had been actively destroying poppy fields as part of an effort to rid the country of this harmful plant, as was reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on February 16, 2001, in a piece entitled Nation’s opium production virtually wiped out.

But after 9/11, the US military-industrial complex quickly invaded Afghanistan and began facilitating the reinstatement of the country’s poppy industry. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP), opium cultivation increased by 657 percent in 2002 after the US military invaded the country under the direction of then-President George W. Bush.

CIA responsible for reinstating opium industry in Afghanistan after 9/11

More recently, The New York Times (NYT) reported that the brother of current Afghan President Hamid Karzai had actually been on the payroll of the CIA for at least eight years prior to this information going public in 2009. Ahmed Wali Karzai was a crucial player in reinstating the country’s opium drug trade, known as Golden Crescent, and the CIA had been financing the endeavor behind the scenes.

“The Golden Crescent drug trade, launched by the CIA in the early 1980s, continues to be protected by US intelligence, in liaison with NATO occupation forces and the British military,” wrote Prof. Michel Chossudovsky in a 2007 report, before it was revealed that Ahmed Wali Karzai was on the CIA payroll. “The proceeds of this lucrative multibillion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan” (https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/A…).

But the mainstream media has been peddling a different story to the American public. FOX News, for instance, aired a propaganda piece back in 2010 claiming that military personnel are having to protect the Afghan poppy fields, rather than destroy them, in order to keep the locals happy and to avoid a potential “security risk” — and FOX News reporter Geraldo Rivera can be heard blatantly lying about poppy farmers being financially supported by the Taliban, rather than the CIA and other foreign interests.

So while tens of thousands of Americans continue to be harmed or killed every year by overdoses from drugs originating from this illicit opium trade, and while cultivation of innocuous crops like marijuana and hemp remains illegal in the US, the American military is actively guarding the very poppy fields in Afghanistan that fuel the global drug trade. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

Source: https://flipthepyramid.com/index.php/entry/war-on-drugs-revealed-as-total-hoax

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Banks, Corporations, Corruption, Drugs, Economy, Imperialism, Marijuana, Military Industrial Complex, Money, Propaganda, USA Tagged With: CIA, Opium

The Senate Just Voted Against The Afghanistan War. Here’s The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

December 1, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

The Senate just voted against the Afghanistan war. Here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly.

THE GOOD

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday voted by voice vote to pass an amendment that concludes thus:

“Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—1) the President of the United States should expedite the transition of the responsibility for military and security operations to the Government of Afghanistan;2) the President shall devise a plan based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic missions in the region, and appropriate members of the cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for expediting the drawdown of U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security authority to Afghan authorities prior to December 2014; and3) and not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Resolution, the President shall transmit to Congress a plan with a timetable and completion date for the accelerated transition of all military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan.”

This would be an extremely weak demand from a peace group, but coming from that seat of militaristic corruption, the U.S. Senate, it stands a good chance of actually being acted on by President Obama, and acted on in a meaningful way, such as withdrawing in 2012 rather than by November 2014 instead of December 2014. It is also vague enough that it can be built on with something stronger in the coming months without any contradiction.This amendment came from Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, where Portland has seen a strong Occupy movement. Of course, the whole country has seen a burst of activism. The amendment had bipartisan support. And its rhetorical value, which is most of its value, cannot be undone by a conference committee or a veto.

THE BAD

Three more years of a campaign of mass murder is not an acceptable policy. The Senate has merely asked for something better than the current plan. And the emphasis is on “merely asked.” The Senate is funding the war in the same bill in which it is asking its executive to do its job. The constitutional role of Congress is to make decisions and enforce them with the power of the purse.

Here the Senate is asking the President to decide what to do, but to decide something not quite as bad as his current plan. There is no indication that if the President refuses, funding for a longer war will be cut off. Congress recently stated its opposition to a war in Libya while funding it. Individual senators and House members swore they opposed the War on Iraq while funding it for several years. The President himself did that when he was a senator.

There is also no indication of whether a new president, should we have one, would be bound by the current president’s plan. Also missing is any requirement that all U.S. forces depart, as opposed to, say, remaining as “trainers”. What would help would be a pivot from this bill to a better one in the House. The Senate has now opposed endless war in Afghanistan. In the House there is a bill with 64 cosponsors that would end the war by ceasing to fund it. That bill, HR 780, would be a serious step forward. And it need only pass the House if those who vote for it follow through by voting against all war funding.

THE UGLY

The Merkley amendment is not helped by the assorted whereas clauses that precede the concluding resolution:

“Whereas, after al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, the United States rightly sought to bring to justice those who attacked us, to eliminate al Qaeda’s safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan, and to remove the terrorist-allied Taliban government;”

Really? This is your antiwar statement? The majority of people in the United States tell pollsters they disagree with this, and they have good reason. “Bringing justice” by bombing people is not just. Overturning foreign governments by force, even horrible ones, is not benefitting the world.

“Whereas, the Afghanistan War is now the longest in American history; “Whereas, United States’ troops, intelligence personnel and diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved these objectives, culminating in the death of Osama bin Laden;”

Really? Skillfully? Ten years to extrajudicially murder one man, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, many thousands of innocent lives, a further devastated nation, and increased hostility toward our own? I’d hate to have seen that done less skillfully.

“Whereas, national security experts, including Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, have noted that al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has been greatly diminished;“Whereas, over the past ten years the United States’ mission has evolved to include a prolonged nation-building effort, including the creation of a strong central government, a national police force and army, and effective civic institutions;”

You’re joking, right?

“Whereas, such nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are undermined by corruption, high illiteracy, and a historic aversion to a strong central government;”

Is that a retraction?

“Whereas, members of the United States military have served in Afghanistan valiantly and with honor, and many have sacrificed their lives and health in service to their country;”

Honor? Invading someone else’s country? Kicking in doors? Imprisoning? Murdering? Cutting off fingers as trophies? Where is the honor in this?

“Whereas, the United States is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Afghanistan at a time when at home there is high unemployment, a flood of foreclosures, a record deficit, and a debt that is over $15 trillion and growing;”

There are the same problems and much worse in Afghanistan. The question isn’t where you spend the money, but on what you spend the money.

“Whereas, the United States has now accomplished its original objectives in Afghanistan;”

The pipeline is up and running? The bases are permanent? The natural resources have been exhausted? The nuclear weapons are positioned? The campaign funders have satisfied their need for profits? The troops have begun moving into Iran?

“Whereas, the continued concentration of American and NATO military forces in one region, when terrorist forces are located in many parts of the world, is not an efficient use of resources; “Whereas, the battle against terrorism is best served by using our troops and resources in a counter-terrorism strategy against terrorist forces wherever they may locate and train;”

Are you f—ing serious? The best defense against terrorism isn’t ceasing to kill people and occupy their countries? The best approach is to use troops to provoke yet more hostility but to do so in multiple places?

“Whereas, the United States will continue to support the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and counterterrorism presence in the region;”

What about withdrawal and reparations?

Source: https://www.washingtonsblog.com

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Corporations, Corruption, Crime, Health, Imperialism, Military Industrial Complex, Money, Politicians, Politics, Propaganda, Terrorism, USA, Weapons

NATO Claims Pakistan Attack Was Not ‘Unprovoked’

November 29, 2011 By T Kelly 1 Comment

Afghanistan officials claimed Sunday that Afghan and NATO forces were retaliating for gunfire from two Pakistani army bases when they called in airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, adding a layer of complexity to an episode that has further strained Pakistan’s ties with the United States.

The account challenged Pakistan’s claim that the strikes were unprovoked.

The attack Saturday near the Afghan-Pakistani border aroused popular anger in Pakistan and added tension to the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, which has been under pressure since the secret US raid inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden in May.

Pakistan has closed its western border to trucks delivering supplies to coalition troops in Afghanistan, demanded that the US abandon an air base inside Pakistan and said it will review its cooperation with the US and NATO.

A complete breakdown in the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is considered unlikely. Pakistan relies on billions of dollars in American aid, and the US needs Pakistan to push Afghan insurgents to participate in peace talks.

Afghanistan’s assertions about the attack muddy the efforts to determine what happened. The Afghan officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said it was unclear who fired on Afghan and NATO forces, which were conducting a joint operation before dawn Saturday.

They said the fire came from the direction of the two Pakistani army posts along the border that were later hit in the airstrikes.

NATO has said it is investigating, but it has not questioned the Pakistani claim that 24 soldiers were killed. All airstrikes are approved at a higher command level than the troops on the ground.

Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered his deepest condolences and said the coalition was committed to working with Pakistan to “avoid such tragedies in the future.”

“We have a joint interest in the fight against cross-border terrorism and in ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a safe-haven for terrorists,” Rasmussen said in Brussels.

NATO officials have complained that insurgents fire from across the poorly defined frontier, often from positions close to Pakistani soldiers, who have been accused of tolerating or supporting them.

The US plans its own investigation. Two US senators called Sunday for harder line on Pakistan.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Pakistan must understand that American aid depends on Pakistani cooperation. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Pakistan’s moves to punish coalition forces for the airstrikes are more evidence that the US should get its troops out of the region.

On Sunday, Pakistani soldiers received the coffins of the victims from army helicopters and prayed over them. The coffins were draped with the green and white Pakistani flag.

The dead included an army major and another senior officer. The chief of the Pakistani army and regional political leaders attended the funerals.

“The attack was unprovoked and indiscriminate,” said army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas. “There was no reason for it. Map references of all our border posts have been passed to NATO a number of times.”

There were several protests around Pakistan, including in Karachi, where about 500 Islamists rallied outside the US Consulate.

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation in a strategically vital part of the world, grew more difficult after the covert raid that killed bin Laden in May.

Pakistani leaders were outraged that they were not told beforehand. Also, the US has been frustrated by Pakistan’s refusal to target militants using its territory to stage attacks on American and other NATO troops in Afghanistan.

A year ago, a US helicopter attack killed two Pakistani soldiers posted on the border, and a joint investigation by the two nations found that Pakistani troops had fired first at the US helicopters.

The investigation found that the shots were probably meant as warnings after the choppers passed into Pakistani airspace.

After that incident, Pakistan closed one of the two border crossings for US supplies for 10 days. There was no indication of how long it would keep the border closed this time.

On Sunday, about 300 trucks carrying supplies to US-led forces in Afghanistan were backed up at the Torkham border crossing in the northwest Khyber tribal area, the one closed last year, as well as at Chaman, in the southwestern Baluchistan province.

Militants inside Pakistan periodically attack the slow-moving convoys, and torched 150 trucks last year as they waited for days to enter Afghanistan.

“We are worried,” said Saeed Khan, a driver waiting at the border terminal in Torkham and speaking by phone. “This area is always vulnerable to attacks. Sometimes rockets are lobbed at us. Sometimes we are targeted by bombs.”

Some drivers said paramilitary troops had been deployed to protect their convoys since the closures, but others were left without any additional protection. Even those who did receive troops did not feel safe.

“If there is an attack, what can five or six troops do?” said Niamatullah Khan, a fuel truck driver who was parked with 35 other vehicles at a restaurant about 125 miles, or 200 kilometers, from Chaman.

NATO uses routes through Pakistan for almost half of its shipments of non-lethal supplies for its troops in Afghanistan, including fuel, food and clothes. Critical supplies like ammunition are airlifted directly to Afghan air bases.

NATO has built a stockpile of military and other supplies that could keep operations running at their current level for several months even with the two crossings closed, said a NATO official closely involved with the Afghan war, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

NATO once shipped about 80 per cent of its non-lethal supplies through Pakistan. It has reduced that proportion by going through Central Asia. It could send more that way, but that would make NATO heavily dependent on Russia at a time when ties with Moscow are increasingly strained.

Pakistan also gave the US 15 days to vacate Shamsi Air Base in Baluchistan. The US uses it to service drone aircraft targeting al-Qaida and Taleban militants in Pakistan’s tribal region when weather problems or mechanical trouble keeps the drones from returning to their bases in Afghanistan, US and Pakistani officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

The drone strikes are very unpopular in Pakistan, and Pakistani military and civilian leaders say publicly that the US carries them out without their permission. But privately, they allow them to go on, and even help with targeting for some of them.

Source:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10769434

Filed Under: Afghanistan, NATO, Pakistan

Nato ‘Ignored Plea To Stop Attacks’

November 28, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

The Nato air strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers went on for almost two hours and continued even after Pakistani commanders had pleaded with coalition forces to stop, the army has claimed.

Nato has apologised for the deaths in Saturday’s incident and promised a full investigation.

The coalition has yet to give its side of the story, but unnamed Afghan officials have said that a joint Afghan-Nato force on the Afghan side of the border received incoming fire from the direction of the Pakistani posts, and called in air strikes.

Ties between Pakistan and the United States were already deteriorating before the deadly attack and have sunk to new lows since, delivering a major setback to American hopes of enlisting Islamabad’s help in negotiating an end to the 10-year old Afghan war.

Army spokesman major general Athar Abbas said the Pakistani troops at two border posts were the victims of unprovoked aggression.

He said the attack lasted almost two hours and commanders had contacted Nato counterparts while it was going on, asking “they get this fire to cease, but somehow it continued”.

The strikes have added to popular anger in Pakistan against the US-led coalition presence in Afghanistan. Many in the army, parliament, general population and media already believe that the US and Nato are hostile to Pakistan and that the Afghan Taliban are not the enemy.

Pakistani army accounts of the incident have strengthened this narrative, showing the level of mistrust between Islamabad and the coalition forces.

Maj Gen Abbas dismissed Afghanistan’s claims that the joint Afghan-Nato troops were fired upon first.

“At this point, Nato and Afghanistan are trying to wriggle out of the situation by offering excuses,” he said. “Where are their casualties?”

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9967870

Filed Under: Afghanistan, NATO, Pakistan

NATO Braces For Reprisals After Deadly Air Strike On Pakistan Border Post

November 28, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

Concerns the ISI intelligence agency could use its suspected influence over insurgent groups to launch reprisal attacks

NATO forces in Afghanistan are bracing for possible reprisals from Pakistani-backed insurgents following the coalition air strike along the border that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Senior officers from the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), were scrambling to resume contacts with their Pakistani counterparts in the hopes of setting up a joint investigation into the incident.

But Pakistani officers severed communications and Islamabad cut Isaf’s two supply routes running through Pakistan.

It also gave the US two weeks to vacate the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, which has been used to launch American drone aircraft.

One Isaf source voiced concern that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, could go much further and use its suspected influence over insurgent groups in the tribal areas along the Afghan border to launch reprisal attacks on Nato. “This will come back at us, and at a time and a place of their [the ISI's] choosing,” the source predicted. In September the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said the ISI was using insurgent groups such as the Haqqani network to wage a “proxy war” in Afghanistan.

The incident, and the subsequent breakdown in relations with Pakistan, is a particular blow to the Isaf commander, US general John Allen, who sees the insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan as one of the keys to the Afghan conflict and who had been in Pakistan the day before the border incident for talks with the Pakistani army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, to discuss border co-operation.

In an interview in Kabul on Sunday, Allen refused to discuss details of the incident, saying it was under investigation. But he said: “We don’t know where all of this will end up with Pakistan. We have been good friends with them for a long, long time, and this is a tragedy.”

Isaf officers say the strike on Pakistani border positions took place when a joint force of Afghan and Isaf special forces carrying out a counterinsurgency operation in southern Kunar province came under fire and called in “close air support” from Nato aircraft. The air strikes hit two Pakistani border posts in the Mohmand tribal area on Saturday.

Pakistan’s military refused to accept that its checkposts had been hit by accident, insisting that Isaf knew the location of the posts, on a mountaintop at Salala, next to the Afghan border.

Major General Athar Abbas, chief spokesman for the Pakistan military, told the Guardian on Sunday that he did not believe Isaf or Afghan forces had received fire from the Pakistani side. “I cannot rule out the possibility that this was a deliberate attack by Isaf,” said Abbas. “If Isaf was receiving fire, then they must tell us what their losses were.”

Pakistani officials said the posts hit are 300 metres into Pakistani territory, but Isaf officers say the border in that area is disputed.

Abbas said, however, that the firing lasted for over an hour, while Isaf made “no attempt” to contact the Pakistani side using an established border co-ordination system to report that they had come under fire. He said that the map references of the posts were previously passed to Isaf.

“This was a totally unprovoked attack. There are no safe havens or hideouts left there [for militants] in Mohmand,” he said.

“This was a visible, well-made post, on top of ridges, made of concrete. Militants don’t operate from mountaintops, from concrete structures.”

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/27/nato-reprisals-pakistan-air-strike

Filed Under: Afghanistan, NATO, Pakistan, Rights, USA

Pakistan: US Must Vacate Suspected Drone Base

November 27, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

ISLAMABAD — The Pakistani government has demanded the U.S. vacate an air base within 15 days that the CIA is suspected of using for unmanned drones.

The government issued the demand Saturday after NATO helicopters and jet fighters allegedly attacked two Pakistan army posts along the Afghan border, killing 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Islamabad outlined the demand in a statement it sent to reporters following an emergency defense committee meeting chaired by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Shamsi Air Base is located in southwestern Baluchistan province.

The U.S. is suspected of using the facility in the past to launch armed drones and observation aircraft to keep pressure on Taliban and al-Qaida militants in Pakistan’s tribal region.

Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/26/pakistan-drone-base_n_1114177.html

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA, Weapons

Taliban; Behind the Masks - Full Video (part1)

November 27, 2011 By T Kelly Leave a Comment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkk5HMwCCQE&feature=related

Though they would eventually kidnap him, the Taliban granted journalist Paul Refsdal unprecedented access. This exclusive documentary shows us a side of the Taliban that we have never seen before.

Filed Under: Afghanistan, Propaganda Tagged With: Journalist Interview, Taliban