Afghanistan NEWS FLASH.

[chris jones]

Today:Afghan Militants Hit Gen. Martin Dempsey's Plane, later saying it was Taliban who was responsible.
By ANTHONY CASTELLANO | Good Morning America – 2 hours 57 minutes ago
Big news, huh? 
No, this is the real news not heard on MSM.236.000 casualty's and 4 trillion $ GONE, ten years folks and ongoing.
On October 21, 2011, President Barack Obama (muppet)announced that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011 and he had earlier announced substantial troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, concluding in a UN speech:  “The tide of war is receding.”  Hundreds of billions of dollars, however, will continue to be allocated for or because of the wars.  So, too, will the human costs of these conflicts reverberate for years to come in the United States and the war zones.  There is no turning the page on the wars, and there is even more need as a result to understand what those wars consequences are and will be.
Afghanistan invasions have allways failed, Alexander the great and on to Russia, retreated. They will fight to the death, this is their nation, their people and historical they will never surrender. Now that the allied troops have slaughter their family's, demanded submission, the commitment of Afghans has gone off the carts.
 Do our illustrious elites and supercorps want this war to end, Uh UH, wars are big money and a power implosion for these guys.
 USA domestically will suffer, deteriorate, they speak of economy and disregard the true enemy, THE WARS, money, blood and domestic domination. 

[ymous]

Top US general's aircraft hit by rocket-fire in Afghanistan
By NBC News's Atia Abawi and wire reports
Updated at 6:40 a.m. ET: An aircraft used by U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey was damaged by rocket-fire at an airbase outside Kabul, Afghanistan, NATO said on Tuesday. The general was not on board at the time and no one was injured.
NATO's mission in Afghanistan confirmed that the plane had been damaged by incoming fire, saying it had been hit by "shrapnel from an indirect fire round."
The aircraft was only being used temporarily by Dempsey and his staff.
A new plane was brought in for Dempsey and he and his crew departed later in the morning.
"(Dempsey) was nowhere near the aircraft. We think it was a lucky shot," NATO senior spokesman Col. Thomas Collins told Reuters.
Sporadic attacks also occur at NATO's other main airbase in Afghanistan, Kandahar Airfield, in the volatile south, although they rarely cause deaths or major damage.
Before leaving Afghanistan, Dempsey met his Afghan counterpart, General Sher Mohammad Karimi, who raised the issue of insider attacks by rogue forces that have killed 10 American troops in the past two weeks.
"In the past, it's been us pushing on them to make sure they do more," he said on Monday. "This time, without prompting, when I met General Karimi, he started with a conversation about insider attacks -- and, importantly, insider attacks not just against us, but insider attacks against the Afghans, too."
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13389385-top-us-generals-aircraft-hit-by-rocket-fire-in-afghanistan?lite
250 comments:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13389385-top-us-generals-aircraft-hit-by-rocket-fire-in-afghanistan#comments

What's leading Afghan troops to turn on coalition forces?
By Atia Abawi, NBC News
Who or what is to blame?
One group that would seem like the obvious culprit is the Taliban. They have claimed to infiltrate the Afghan National Security Forces, consisting of both the military and police, to help kill NATO troops from the inside.
NATO does not deny some of the attacks have been from Taliban insurgency infiltration – but they attribute the trend to more than that.
“The main reasons for those green on blue incidents are personal grievances, stress situations and what we call battle fatigue,” Katz said.
He attributes about 10 percent of the insider attacks to Taliban infiltration, and blames the remaining 90 percent on individual motives.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13319055-whats-leading-afghan-troops-to-turn-on-coalition-forces?lite
243 comments:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/16/13319055-whats-leading-afghan-troops-to-turn-on-coalition-forces#comments

[jerryweaver]

Was the Rocket attack  in Afghan on Gen. Dempseys plane a mossad false flag?

http://www.crescent-online.net/2012/09/attack-on-gen-dempseys-plane-3231-articles.html

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/04/dempseys-dissent/


Dempsey’s Dissent
Joint Chiefs chairman stands up for America — because Obama won't

by Justin Raimondo, September 05, 2012
Print This | Share This
The President of the United States may not have the cojones to stand up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs does — and he’s doing it!

When Gen. Martin Dempsey told British reporters he did not want the US to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran, the boys in Tel Aviv were crushed. For weeks Netanyahu & Co. had been telling anyone who would listen that the US would have no choice but to be sucked into a devastating regional war in the event of an Israeli first strike on Tehran: their tone was almost gleeful. In the absence of a direct response from the White House, it looked like the Israelis had us over a barrel: the American giant, it seemed, was helpless in the face of the Israeli pygmy’s deft manipulations. Then came Dempsey, whose comments put the kibosh on Israel’s blackmail threats — and threw Netanyahu’s government into a panic:

“Dempsey’s stark comments made clear to the world that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was isolated and that if he opted for war, he would jeopardize all-important ties with the Jewish state’s closest ally.

“’Israeli leaders cannot do anything in the face of a very explicit ‘no’ from the U.S. president. So they are exploring what space they have left to operate,’ said Giora Eiland, who served as national security adviser from 2003 to 2006. ‘Dempsey’s announcement changed something. Before, Netanyahu said the United States might not like (an attack), but they will accept it the day after. However, such a public, bold statement meant the situation had to be reassessed.’”