The Taliban’s secretive war against IS – BBC News

… Afghanistan is now more peaceful, following the end of the Taliban’s insurgency. In Jalalabad, however, their forces are facing an near-daily
stream of targeted attacks. IS, known locally as “Daesh,” is using some of the same hit-and-run tactics that the Taliban so successfully
employed against the previous government, including roadside bombs and stealthy assassinations. IS accuses the Taliban of being “apostates” for not being sufficiently hardline; the Taliban dismiss IS as heretical extremists. …

Taliban says it captured key entrance to Panjshir valley, local resistance denies it, as both claim heavy losses on other side — RT World News

The Taliban claims its fighters seized a key position at the
entrance to the Panjshir valley – the only Afghan province still out of
the group’s control. The local resistance denies the Taliban has made
any advances.
The Taliban launched a
major operation to take the Panjshir valley on Thursday, after the
negotiations with the local resistance movement failed, according to
spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. He said the Taliban fighters entered the
province and captured eleven “important” positions along the
main road leading to the eastern province of Badakhshan. Among them was
the town of Shattal in the Parwan province, at the southwestern entrance
to the valley.

Representatives of the National Resistance Front
(NRF) denied the Taliban made any advances into the valley, however, and
claimed they were still in full control of all the passes leading into
Panjshir. The Taliban’s “multiple” attempts to enter the area were thwarted, the militia claimed.

Also on
Mujahideen v Taliban:
Battle for strategic valley looms as anti-Taliban warlord & remnants
of Afghan military refuse to surrender

“They did not succeed in their offensive and they did not advance even a kilometer,” NRF spokesman Fahim Dashti said.

Both sides claimed to have inflicted heavy losses on their enemies, but the claims were impossible to verify independently.

Taliban’s Mujahid said the fighting started after talks with the
Panjshir militia failed. According to reports, the Taliban was ready to
accept any governor the local militias would appoint but demanded that
the flag of the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ be raised over the
valley – something the NRF refused to do.

Also on
7 Taliban fighters killed in clashes with Panjshir valley resistance, as challenges remain for new rulers after US exit

According to Amrullah Saleh, who now styles himself as the acting
president of Afghanistan, the flags of the Islamic Republic – the
former, US-backed government – are still flying in Panjshir.

was the deputy to Ashraf Ghani, the NATO-backed president who fled the
country on August 14 as the Taliban approached Kabul, triggering the mad
scramble of the US-organized airlift.

The standoff between the
Taliban and the Panjshir resistance has been shaping up since then. On
August 31, Reuters reported that at least eight Taliban fighters were
killed as they tried to move on the NRF positions. The Taliban did not
comment on the losses at that time, as the group apparently was still
seeking a negotiated solution to the conflict with the militias.

week it was reported that local militias in the northern Baghlan
province had evicted Taliban members from three districts, only for one
to be recaptured soon after. The Taliban now claims to have recaptured
all three.

Also on
US used secret CIA base outside Kabul to evacuate Americans, 1,000 Afghan commandos & their families – media

(AFGHANISTAN) Massacre Report: Fighters massacred nine ethnic Hazara men after taking control of Ghazni province last month, Amnesty International said today #AceNewsDesk report | Ace News Services

#AceNewsReport – Aug.21: On-the-ground researchers spoke to eyewitnesses who gave harrowing accounts of the killings, which took place between 4-6 July in the village of Mundarakht, Malistan district. Six of the men were shot and three were tortured to death, including one man who was strangled with his own scarf and had his arm muscles sliced off.

#AceDailyNews says Afghanistan: #Taliban responsible for brutal massacre of Hazara men according to new Amnesty International investigation

The brutal killings likely represent a tiny fraction of the total death toll inflicted by the Taliban to date, as the group have cut mobile phone service in many of the areas they have recently captured, controlling which photographs and videos are then shared from these regions.

The cold-blooded brutality of these killings is a reminder of the Taliban’s past record, and a horrifying indicator of what Taliban rule may bring,

Agnés Callamard

Afghanistan: Pakistan fences off from Afghan refugees – BBC News

… Amid increasing violence across the border in recent years, Pakistan has

been fencing itself off from Afghanistan. All border crossings are now heavily manned, making it impossible for Afghan refugees to enter without government consent.

The speech that shamed America: Its contemptible dishonesty would have made Donald Trump blush | The Wentworth Report

Comment by tonytran2015: (

The speech that shamed America: Its contemptible dishonesty would have made Donald Trump blush. By Andrew Neil.

It was the most contemptible speech by a U.S. president in modern times — a speech that shames America and leaves its global reputation in the dirt. …

His abject surrender to the Taliban was dressed up as political reality and common sense. His scuttle from Kabul, still ongoing, was depicted as geopolitical wisdom and a refocusing of U.S. priorities.

Any mistakes or problems were the fault of others, from Trump to the Afghan army.

But make no mistake: the person overwhelmingly responsible for the appalling scenes currently unfolding on our TV screens is the man sitting in the Oval Office.

The fall of Kabul and the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan is the most humiliating foreign policy disaster for America since the end of World War II.

It combines the cack-handedness of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, when President Kennedy’s attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro with a CIA-backed invasion force of Cuban rebels ended in farce and global embarrassment; and the devastating blow to U.S. prestige worldwide that followed the fall of Saigon in 1975, from which it took America a generation to recover. …

So dishonest:

Perhaps the most egregious bit of Biden’s speech was the way he framed the choice before him: either America cut and run (of course, he didn’t use these words but that’s what’s happening); or there had to be yet another massive U.S. military build-up which could see America in Afghanistan for another 20 years.

Biden put it that way because he knows there is no appetite among U.S. voters for further, deeper involvement.

‘How many more generations of daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?’ he asked, knowing full well that the answer would be a resounding: ‘None!’

But his binary choice was as deceptive as it was cynical.

There was a third way — largely a continuation of an enhanced status quo.

For some time now, a small number of U.S. troops — around 2,500 — and their allies have worked with the Afghan military to contain the Taliban, with some success. The Afghans have done most of the fighting and there hasn’t been a U.S. casualty on the battlefield for 18 months. That’s right, not a single American body bag out of Afghanistan since February 2020. …

He claimed America could not occupy Afghanistan for ever. But the U.S. did not occupy Afghanistan. It merely had a small but vital military presence there. It no more occupied Afghanistan than it does South Korea or Japan or Italy or Spain, countries where it also has an important military presence. …

The Afghan military has borne the brunt of the action, suffering 45,000 fatalities in recent years (66,000 since 2001). It was unbecoming of President Biden to demean a foreign army which has incurred such a death toll in defence of its country while carrying out U.S. policy. …

So hypocritical — or did he just wise up and change his mind?

He claimed the U.S. was in Afghanistan only on a counter-terrorist mission, not for nation-building, implying he had no time for that. Yet, in 2001, as the U.S. intervention was under way, he attacked Republican resistance to nation-building and looked forward to a ‘relatively stable government in Afghanistan . . . which represents the ethnic make-up of the country and provides the foundation for future reconstruction of that country’. In other words, nation-building.

Two years later, he said: ‘The alternative to nation-building is chaos, a chaos that churns out bloodthirsty warlords, drug-traffickers and terrorists.’

The fact is, the counter-terrorism strategy of the U.S. and its allies has been a success. Afghanistan has not been a base for international terrorism for 20 years. And, in the process, some very worthwhile building of a civil society has been achieved. In 2001, before the Taliban fell and Al-Qaeda fled, there were one million pupils in Afghanistan, every one of them male. Today there are 9.5 million — and 40 per cent are female. …

In 2010, he told Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan, that the U.S. had to leave, regardless of the consequences for women.

Holbrooke records in his diary that, when confronted with America’s obligations to ordinary Afghans, he replied: ‘F*** that. We don’t have to worry about that. We did it in Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger got away with it.’

The big differences between the Fall of Saigon and the Fall of Kabul.

The big differences between the Fall of Saigon and the Fall of Kabul.

by tonytran2015 (Melbourne, Australia).

Click here for a full, up to date ORIGINAL ARTICLE and to help fighting the stealing of readers’ traffic.


#fabricated history, #history,
There are big differences between the Fall of Saigon and the Fall of Kabul.
1/- During the Vietnam War although there was a non-committed faction of the Vietnamese population in South Vietnam there was also a fiercely anti-communist faction. This fiercely anti-communist faction comes mostly from the 500,000 people who had moved to the South during the temporary partition of the country by the Geneva Accords of 1954.
2/- Former Israel Agricultural Minister Moshe Dayan went to South Vietnam to inspect(?) American war progress in 1966.There is a question mark on the real purpose of that trip.

Toward the end of his stay in Vietnam, Dayan was convinced that the war – which would certainly last much longer – was lost.

He figured that the American army had the power to destroy the Vietcong, but that it could never eradicate support and admiration for North
Vietnam’s struggle for independence

3/- After the Arab-Israel War in 1967 (with the attack by Israel on USS Liberty), it was more advantageous for Israel to get the US out of Vietnam so that all US military assistance could be funneled to Israel. There were then concerted efforts by US Main Stream Media to discredit any military success in South Vietnam and the anti-Vietnam War movements were also stirred up in USA.
4/- There was a concerted effort by US Main Stream Media to mis-report and make fake news on every battle in South Vietnam.
5/- The Paris Peace Accord 1973 signed by Henry Kissinger was to cut and run from the Vietnam War (that suited the above objectives very well) and to help Nixon to bring back American Prisoners of War.

Kissinger wanted to move quickly so that US troops could be withdrawn and American prisoners of
war released. And perhaps the US Administration also intended to get out in a hurry, to ‘cut and run’.
They could get out. We had to stay in South Vietnam.

You have complained that South Vietnam’s collapse in 1975 was attributable mainly to the fact that North
Vietnamese troops were allowed to remain in the South even after the Paris Peace Agreement had been
signed. You claim that you tolerated their presence only while the agreement was being negotiated and that they ought to have withdrawn once the negotiations were concluded.
But Kissinger claims …
It is a most unmannerly lie on Kissinger’s part to say that I agreed to North Vietnamese troops remaining in the South. If I had agreed from the beginning, as Kissinger claims, I would not have objected so strongly when he showed me the draft agreement, which included nothing about the withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops.
That was the most important point that I was fighting for, throughout the peace negotiations. Right to the very end, I asked Kissinger to demand that Hanoi withdraw its troops and made it clear to him that there would be no agreement unless it did so. After days of heated discussion, Kissinger finally confessed to me: ‘Mr President, it cannot be done. If it could be done, I would have done it. The question was raised three years ago, but Russia would not have it.’
I then realised that the American Administration had yielded to Russian demands, and that was my greatest disappointment.

6/- Henry Kissinger reduced the budget for South Vietnam drastically. In the last address to South Vietnam (1975), former President Nguyen Van Thieu said that Henry Kissinger talked to him like a fish seller in a fish market.

“The Americans have asked us to do an impossible thing…
You have asked us to do something you failed to do, with half a million
powerful troops and skilled commanders, and with nearly $300 billion in
expenditure over six long years.

If I do not say that you were defeated by the communists in Vietnam, I
must modestly say that you did not win either. But you found an
honourable way out. And at present, when our army lacks weapons,
ammunition, helicopters, aircraft and B-52s (bombers), you ask us to do an impossible thing, like filling up the ocean with stones…

Likewise, you have let our soldiers die under the hail of shells. This is an inhumane act by an inhumane ally. Refusing to aid an ally and
abandoning it is an inhumane act…

The United States is proud of being an invincible defender of the
just cause and the ideal of freedom in the world… Are US statements
worthy? Are US commitments still valid?

Some $300 million is not a big sum to you. Compared to the amount of money you spent here in ten years, this sum is sufficient for only ten
days of fighting. And with this sum, you ask me to score a victory or to
check communist aggression, a task which you failed to fulfil in six
years, with all US forces, and with such an amount of money. This is

7/- Henry Kissinger and US President Nixon visited China in 1974. Two weeks after that China attacked and occupied the Paracel Islands of South Vietnam. US refused to help South Vietnam bringing the attack to the UN Security Council. It is quite reasonable to SUSPECT that STRATEGICALLY the US preferred to see the future of the Paracel Islands to be in the hands of a supposedly US-friendly China to in the hand of North Vietnam who was more aligned with the Soviet Union. (This solves the riddle of the South China Sea).
8/– South Vietnamese units mostly fought valiantly with reduced ammunition against a North Vietnamese Force which was fully supported by the Soviet Union and China.
9/- South Vietnam Armed Force was starved of ammunition even before February 1975. There were heavy rationing of small ammunition and of artillery shells. The last ship carrying ammunition leaving USA to supply South Vietnam in February 1975 was order by a US Congress Woman to change its destination to bring the weapons to Israel instead.

Even the promised to South Vietnamese of 1 by 1 replacement of ammunition spent had not materialised.

In a scathing attack on the US, he suggested US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger had tricked him into
signing the Paris peace agreement two years ago, promising military aid
which then failed to materialise.

“At the time of the peace agreement the
United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis,” he
said. “But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American’s
word reliable these days?”

10/- South Vietnamese President Thieu was pressured to resign by the US in order to keep US support for South Vietnam.
11/- There was no incident of whole sale desertion or surrender or abandoning heavy weapons by units of South Vietnamese Armed Force. To the fall of Saigon, there were only one or two fighter pilots (one is Mr Nguyen Thanh Trung, lately a Director of Vietnam Airline for some period) changing side to join North Vietnam.
12/- USA could have taken action against violation of Paris Peace Accord of 1973 but decided not to.

Nixon promised to come to the aid of South Vietnam if the communists
violated the terms of the peace treaty, and Thieu agreed to sign.
Unfortunately for Thieu and the South Vietnamese, Nixon was forced from
office by the Watergate scandal in August 1974, and no U.S. aid came
when the North Vietnamese launched a general offensive in March 1975.

13/- There were no DECENT INTERVAL (for Kissinger) in the Fall of Saigon but there appear to be a VERY GENEROUS DECENT INTERVAL ready to be granted in Kabul. The US only needs to ask for it (Vietnam War – A Decent Interval / Who Lost Vietnam??).


It will take time to discover the real events in Kabul but the real events in Vietnam were different from what had been described by US Main Stream Media in that period of 1975. We should be careful in drawing parallel between the two events.
The differences between the real events and their description by American Media explain the distrust of and the bitterness against US government and US media by former members of Vietnamese Armed Force.

There are two quotes that should be remembered from the Fall of Saigon:

But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American’s word reliable these days?

Nguyen Van Thieu


The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.

Nguyen Van Thieu



We Are All Terrorists | Andelino’s Weblog

Homeland Security released a warning. NBC News distilled the release into bullet points to hammer home exactly who America’s enemies are – We ARE.

You are a “Potential Terror Threat” if you:

  • Oppose government mandates requiring you to take an experimental drug or wear a mask
  • Question the inconsistencies proven to exist, by forensic audit, in the 2020 election
  • Celebrate religious holidays

The illegitimate” Biden’s administration has decided that people like You aren’t just political opponents, now, you are terrorists!!!

…It’s a damned certainty that he’s not providing any leadership.

And how reassuring to American citizens is this Biden caused disaster, when we’re depending on intelligence and good judgment at the presidential level to deal with Iran, Russia, North Korea, China and the blatant lie of climate change? I hope that the fools who voted for Biden are beginning to see the danger that his presence in the Oval Office presents to America and our way of life, because old senile Joey is not ready to take charge of anything, and is not even able to think about difficult issues, let alone make any decisions about them.

The entire, current executive branch of government under Joey Biden should resign en masse and leave our suffering nation in peace. All Joey has accomplished in eight months in the White House is an overrun southwest border, unemployment, inflation, another lockdown in the offing, more masking, more charges of racism at whites, a debt that can never be repaid, suspect deals with Iran, ignoring the pleas of Cubans for liberty and freedom, a melt-down in the Middle East and now the liberation of Afghanistan.

Biden defends ‘messy’ US pullout from Afghanistan – BBC News

…”If anything, the developments of the past week reinforce that ending US military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision,” said Mr


“American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war
that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.”