FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Afghan Militants Lack Supplies

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


ocalhoun
New York Times
Quote:

June 12, 2009

Pg. 8



Afghan Militants Lack Supplies



By Reuters



A leader of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan says militants are short of food, weapons and other supplies needed to fight foreign forces there, a Web site linked to the group said. “The main reason for the weakness in operations is insufficient supplies. Many mujahedeen sit and wait and cannot fight for lack of supplies,” the statement, attributed to Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, Qaeda’s operational leader in Afghanistan, said.


Perhaps it is true that for every terrorist you kill, they recruit two more, but perhaps this is a way they can be stopped. Focus on taking out their supplies and supply sources. If the forces in Afghanistan realize this opportunity and take advantage of it, they might be able to cripple or kill Al Qaeda much more quickly.
Solon_Poledourus
I saw this on the news last night. al Qaeda is broke. I think they quoted one member as saying they would like to send people out to fulfill missions, but lack the funding. I think that's hilarious.

Also, isn't cutting off the supply trains one of the oldest military tactics ever? I wonder why this hasn't had more focus in this war.
Roald
I join Solon in my answer, it's funny to know that the war on terror maybe is going to be won with an economical battle.
But isn't is that they relied heavily on the incomes from drugs?
Solon_Poledourus
Roald wrote:
I join Solon in my answer, it's funny to know that the war on terror maybe is going to be won with an economical battle.
But isn't is that they relied heavily on the incomes from drugs?
Actually, if al-Qaeda is anything like the Taliban, then no. Under Taliban rule of Afghanistan, opium production dropped severely, after we kicked the Taliban out it immediately rose again. Most groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda are very anti-drug, even when it comes to taking profit from it. Those dumbass anti-drug commercials we used to have saying "if you buy a bag of weed, your helping the terrorists" was nothing more than propaganda.
Roald
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Roald wrote:
I join Solon in my answer, it's funny to know that the war on terror maybe is going to be won with an economical battle.
But isn't is that they relied heavily on the incomes from drugs?
Actually, if al-Qaeda is anything like the Taliban, then no. Under Taliban rule of Afghanistan, opium production dropped severely, after we kicked the Taliban out it immediately rose again. Most groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda are very anti-drug, even when it comes to taking profit from it. Those dumbass anti-drug commercials we used to have saying "if you buy a bag of weed, your helping the terrorists" was nothing more than propaganda.
I don't live in the USA, so I'm unknowing of any sort of propaganda used, but I've once read about so I associated things with each other. But where does the income from al-Qaeda come from? I know Bin Laden is rich, but we don't hear as much from him as we did and one man surely can't fund a whole terrorism organisation that's able to train pilots and such?
deanhills
Roald wrote:
But where does the income from al-Qaeda come from? I know Bin Laden is rich, but we don't hear as much from him as we did and one man surely can't fund a whole terrorism organisation that's able to train pilots and such?
Good question. I'm a little cynical here. I don't believe anything I read about this. Why was the information released and why are we told about it? If the information was "leaked" from El Queda perhaps they are trying to get more funding from Iran and other supporters of militants in the Middle East? At the same time this could also be a tactic to get the US "relaxed" in its planning and getting support from Congress for funding for military operations in Afghanistan. Congress may argue for less funding rather than more being made to believe by this kind of intelligence that El Qaeda is not in good shape.
Solon_Poledourus
To venture a guess, I'd say that al Qaeda is funded the same way a cult is; they leech it out of their new recruits, take donations from sympathizers, etc. Of course, groups like these also have the advantage of being armed, so they can rob the innocent townsfolk in rural areas. They probably have a hand in the slave trade, as well as arms deals. Funny how they can be so anti-drug on ideological grounds and then sell their own kids to fund a war in the name of a "peaceful religion".

And people think I'm f*cked up...
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
To venture a guess, I'd say that al Qaeda is funded the same way a cult is; they leech it out of their new recruits, take donations from sympathizers, etc. Of course, groups like these also have the advantage of being armed, so they can rob the innocent townsfolk in rural areas. They probably have a hand in the slave trade, as well as arms deals. Funny how they can be so anti-drug on ideological grounds and then sell their own kids to fund a war in the name of a "peaceful religion".

And people think I'm f*cked up...
My common sense says they have lots of funding, I don't believe a word of what they want us to believe. Just the fact that they want us to believe that to me is a warning bell not to believe it. Especially if it also comes from their own executive.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
My common sense says they have lots of funding, I don't believe a word of what they want us to believe. Just the fact that they want us to believe that to me is a warning bell not to believe it. Especially if it also comes from their own executive.
I think they have unreliable funding. I don't think they have weekly paychecks coming in, but they do have something. Is it enough to slap together a "poor mans nuke"? I sure hope not, but if we underestimate them, we may just find out the hard way.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
My common sense says they have lots of funding, I don't believe a word of what they want us to believe. Just the fact that they want us to believe that to me is a warning bell not to believe it. Especially if it also comes from their own executive.
I think they have unreliable funding. I don't think they have weekly paychecks coming in, but they do have something. Is it enough to slap together a "poor mans nuke"? I sure hope not, but if we underestimate them, we may just find out the hard way.
They have religion on their side and extreme faith. That always attracts anything they need to have, including nuclear gadgets and money. I agree that income is probably not regular, but I do believe there is lots of it. Can't be many people who would say "no" to them Shocked
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
They have religion on their side and extreme faith. That always attracts anything they need to have, including nuclear gadgets and money. I agree that income is probably not regular, but I do believe there is lots of it. Can't be many people who would say "no" to them
In addition, the people that say "yes" to them usually give everything they have. That's why I compare them to a cult. They both operate the same way. To me, the only difference between al Qaeda and Jonestown are chestbombs and kool-aid.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
They have religion on their side and extreme faith. That always attracts anything they need to have, including nuclear gadgets and money. I agree that income is probably not regular, but I do believe there is lots of it. Can't be many people who would say "no" to them
In addition, the people that say "yes" to them usually give everything they have. That's why I compare them to a cult. They both operate the same way. To me, the only difference between al Qaeda and Jonestown are chestbombs and kool-aid.
Maybe they have a fanaticism that goes completely beyond reason. Intense and deep. That does set them apart as well as their propensity for violence of the worst kind. There is very little reverence for life.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Maybe they have a fanaticism that goes completely beyond reason. Intense and deep. That does set them apart as well as their propensity for violence of the worst kind. There is very little reverence for life.
The problem is that they don't seem to see "life" the way you and I do. This is one of the dangers of religious fanaticism. When you sell people on the idea that this life sucks, and the next life is infinitely better, you can get them to do almost anything. And when you tell your followers that they are guaranteed a "special privilege" in that afterlife, if they commit certain violent acts, then peoples sense of "right and wrong" become very blurred. The ends tend to justify the means in the worst possible way.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Maybe they have a fanaticism that goes completely beyond reason. Intense and deep. That does set them apart as well as their propensity for violence of the worst kind. There is very little reverence for life.
The problem is that they don't seem to see "life" the way you and I do. This is one of the dangers of religious fanaticism. When you sell people on the idea that this life sucks, and the next life is infinitely better, you can get them to do almost anything. And when you tell your followers that they are guaranteed a "special privilege" in that afterlife, if they commit certain violent acts, then peoples sense of "right and wrong" become very blurred. The ends tend to justify the means in the worst possible way.
Probably makes an impression especially on those who are very poor, have suffered a lot, etc. such as in the backwaters of Pakistan. Ripe for the plucking ... Evil or Very Mad
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Probably makes an impression especially on those who are very poor, have suffered a lot, etc. such as in the backwaters of Pakistan. Ripe for the plucking ...
Backwaters of Bakersfield too... intellectual and emotional predators know no borders. They are con men of the worst kind, and they will go anywhere they think they can find a sucker.

Do any of those poor kids wonder why the higher-ups in al Qaeda never strap a bomb to their chest for the cause? If it's so noble, shouldn't the leaders be leading by example?
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Do any of those poor kids wonder why the higher-ups in al Qaeda never strap a bomb to their chest for the cause? If it's so noble, shouldn't the leaders be leading by example?
Probably a thing of blind faith for them. All they can think about is going to paradise.
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Roald wrote:
I join Solon in my answer, it's funny to know that the war on terror maybe is going to be won with an economical battle.
But isn't is that they relied heavily on the incomes from drugs?
Actually, if al-Qaeda is anything like the Taliban, then no. Under Taliban rule of Afghanistan, opium production dropped severely, after we kicked the Taliban out it immediately rose again. Most groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda are very anti-drug, even when it comes to taking profit from it. Those dumbass anti-drug commercials we used to have saying "if you buy a bag of weed, your helping the terrorists" was nothing more than propaganda.

Pretty sure their main income is derived from opium... They don't grow it, but they make money from smuggling it.

Solon_Poledourus wrote:

Also, isn't cutting off the supply trains one of the oldest military tactics ever? I wonder why this hasn't had more focus in this war.

Perhaps it has, and now it's starting to work...
Moonspider
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Probably makes an impression especially on those who are very poor, have suffered a lot, etc. such as in the backwaters of Pakistan. Ripe for the plucking ...
Backwaters of Bakersfield too... intellectual and emotional predators know no borders. They are con men of the worst kind, and they will go anywhere they think they can find a sucker.

Do any of those poor kids wonder why the higher-ups in al Qaeda never strap a bomb to their chest for the cause? If it's so noble, shouldn't the leaders be leading by example?


It would be hard to maintain leadership if the leaders kept killing themselves. Wink

R,
M
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
Pretty sure their main income is derived from opium... They don't grow it, but they make money from smuggling it.
As bad as the Taliban was, at least they didn't profit from opium.
Quote:
Perhaps it has, and now it's starting to work...
I imagine their supply routes are ever changing and hard to track as well.
Moonspider wrote:
It would be hard to maintain leadership if the leaders kept killing themselves.
It was worth a try.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
As bad as the Taliban was, at least they didn't profit from opium.

How do you know this? As far as I know they did profit from this greatly. For starters they control the supply routes, and I am pretty sure that they must be getting huge pay offs as well.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
As bad as the Taliban was, at least they didn't profit from opium.

How do you know this? As far as I know they did profit from this greatly. For starters they control the supply routes, and I am pretty sure that they must be getting huge pay offs as well.


I think we need to differentiate between the pre-invasion Taliban, and the people we're fighting now.
Pre-invasion I bet they did ruthlessly suppress opium growing and trade. But, everything I've heard lately says that getting rid of opium there is key to taking them out, because they profit from opium trade.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
As bad as the Taliban was, at least they didn't profit from opium.

How do you know this? As far as I know they did profit from this greatly. For starters they control the supply routes, and I am pretty sure that they must be getting huge pay offs as well.


I think we need to differentiate between the pre-invasion Taliban, and the people we're fighting now.
Pre-invasion I bet they did ruthlessly suppress opium growing and trade. But, everything I've heard lately says that getting rid of opium there is key to taking them out, because they profit from opium trade.
Agreed, do you think this is doable however? There seems to be so many civilians involved, and it seems to be feeding quite a large number of people from Afghanistan in absence of other sources of employment. The people are really poor. But I have to agree with you. If one removes the opium trade, it has to be better for everyone. I just can't see it happening. As soon as they close it in one place, they will open it again in another. The drug trade is just that much in demand. Evil or Very Mad
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
How do you know this? As far as I know they did profit from this greatly. For starters they control the supply routes, and I am pretty sure that they must be getting huge pay offs as well.


Quote:
Afghanistan briefly witnessed one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns when Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that growing poppies is un-Islamic. Some historians say the Taliban allege cynically cut production to increase the values of their own stockpiles, although never verified, the effect in the fields was dramatic: a year's crop was almost entirely wiped out and production was down to zero.
From Wiki.

ocalhoun wrote:
I think we need to differentiate between the pre-invasion Taliban, and the people we're fighting now.
Pre-invasion I bet they did ruthlessly suppress opium growing and trade. But, everything I've heard lately says that getting rid of opium there is key to taking them out, because they profit from opium trade.
The difference is that the people we are dealing with now are not that same Taliban. Many of the same higher ups might be in place, but it's a political campaign against the West now. Before, it was all about making Afghanistan more Islamic, which is anti-drug to an extreme. Now they are sacrificing their religious and moral beliefs in order to wage a war.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
How do you know this? As far as I know they did profit from this greatly. For starters they control the supply routes, and I am pretty sure that they must be getting huge pay offs as well.


Quote:
Afghanistan briefly witnessed one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns when Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that growing poppies is un-Islamic. Some historians say the Taliban allege cynically cut production to increase the values of their own stockpiles, although never verified, the effect in the fields was dramatic: a year's crop was almost entirely wiped out and production was down to zero.
From Wiki.
The enclosed PDF document sees it differently. I see it differently too, as it would make sense if Taliban are needing funds, that since opium is of the most lucrative industries in Afghanistan, that their income would need to be sourced from this trade. The enclosed document is dated 2001, but I believe it is still prevalent today:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6210.pdf
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:


ocalhoun wrote:
I think we need to differentiate between the pre-invasion Taliban, and the people we're fighting now.
Pre-invasion I bet they did ruthlessly suppress opium growing and trade. But, everything I've heard lately says that getting rid of opium there is key to taking them out, because they profit from opium trade.
The difference is that the people we are dealing with now are not that same Taliban. Many of the same higher ups might be in place, but it's a political campaign against the West now. Before, it was all about making Afghanistan more Islamic, which is anti-drug to an extreme. Now they are sacrificing their religious and moral beliefs in order to wage a war.

That's precisely what's going on.
Solon_Poledourus
The fact is that opium production was banned during the leadership of Mullah Omar. It was still exported, but production dropped drastically during his rule, as it was considered un-Islamic. Sadly, the rest of his Taliban saw opium as the best way to fund their organization.

This is from the UNODC(United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime).
Quote:
In 2007, Afghanistan cultivated 193,000 hectares of opium poppies, an
increase of 17% over last year. The amount of Afghan land used for opium is now
larger than the corresponding total for coca cultivation in Latin America (Colombia,
Peru and Bolivia combined).
Favourable weather conditions produced opium yields (42.5 kg per hectare)
higher than last year (37.0 kg/ha). As a result, in 2007 Afghanistan produced an
extraordinary 8,200 tons of opium (34% more than in 2006), becoming practically the
exclusive supplier of the world’s deadliest drug (93% of the global opiates market).
Leaving aside 19th century China, that had a population at that time 15 times larger
than today’s Afghanistan, no other country in the world has ever produced narcotics
on such a deadly scale.
That is much more than they produced under Taliban rule. Even considering that the Taliban controls fewer territories now than they did in their heyday of 1996-99.

The good news is that opium is currently falling off at a good rate in territories where the Taliban has little or no control. So maybe the converting of territories from pro to anti Taliban will become a good trend for the Afghan people.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:


The good news is that opium is currently falling off at a good rate in territories where the Taliban has little or no control. So maybe the converting of territories from pro to anti Taliban will become a good trend for the Afghan people.
The bottomline here would be jobs, infrastructure and education of the people. As long as Afghanistan remains in the dark ages, and there is opium to trade in, opium will still be harvested in Afghanistan. It's an enormous country, and very difficult to control from Kabul.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
The bottomline here would be jobs, infrastructure and education of the people. As long as Afghanistan remains in the dark ages, and there is opium to trade in, opium will still be harvested in Afghanistan. It's an enormous country, and very difficult to control from Kabul.
And as long as opium is big business, corruption of public officials will be just as big.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The bottomline here would be jobs, infrastructure and education of the people. As long as Afghanistan remains in the dark ages, and there is opium to trade in, opium will still be harvested in Afghanistan. It's an enormous country, and very difficult to control from Kabul.
And as long as opium is big business, corruption of public officials will be just as big.
Totally agreed. Laughing Everyone will be corrupted.
Related topics

Donald Rumsfeld Resigned
Tony Blair
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Justification for War in Iraq
[official] xbox 360
And so it begins???
War on Terror?
Support Danish
Another religions
Triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay
What is more important, education or war?
The Supreme court rules
To Kill an American
HELP with installing 300 GB HDD
The Middle East Conflict
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.