World

6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

British troops at mercy of Taliban surge

Average of 12 attacks a day by insurgents in Helmand, new figures show

By Kim Sengupta, Defence Correspondent

Troops of 3rd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland and soldiers from the Afghan National Army in the Upper Sangin Valley, Helmand province

PA

Troops of 3rd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland and soldiers from the Afghan National Army in the Upper Sangin Valley, Helmand province

British troops fighting the Taliban are facing three times as many attacks as any other Nato force in Afghanistan amid spiralling violence across the country which has seen insurgent bombings and shootings rise by 73 per cent.

Official Nato figures reveal that fatalities among the international force, including British, have risen by 78 per cent while the targeting of officials serving the beleaguered Afghan government has increased by 64 per cent.

The details of the ferocity of the conflict emerged as Nato ministers meeting in the Netherlands acknowledged that the tide must be turned in the conflict. The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates stressed the urgent need to "shift the momentum", saying "the patience of the American people and Congress would wear pretty thin... if in a year or so it appears we are in a stalemate and we're taking even more casualties".

General David Petraeus, the US commander in charge of Afghan operations, pointed out that violence reached an all-time high last week. He bluntly said that there was no question that security had deteriorated over the past two years and that "there are still tough times ahead" as the country prepares for national elections in August.

The figures from the International Security and Assistance Force chart the level of violence between January and March this year compared with the same period last year. It shows that the use of improvised explosive devices – bombs and mines – rose by 87 per cent, causing 60 per cent of casualties.

Senior military sources said the main reason for the sharp rise in violence was that the Taliban had continued their missions through winter, traditionally the time for a break in fighting. Insurgent attacks have continued since and British forces suffered 12 deaths in May, the second highest month for British fatalities in the conflict.

Helmand, the centre of British operations, has experienced almost 12 insurgent attacks a day. Kandahar, the spiritual birthplace of the Taliban, and the scene of fierce clashes in the past, had the second highest number of attacks, at four a day.

Afghan and Western officials say that Helmand has become of symbolic importance to Islamist groups because of large swaths of rural areas where they have sought to set up alternative governments and also because it produces 44 per cent of the country's supply of opium, a lucrative source of funding for the insurgency.

About 12,000 US troops are arriving in Helmand as part of the 30,000 reinforcements sent by President Obama in preparation for a "surge" of troop numbers in the summer. The Taliban leadership, based in Pakistan, is said to be apprehensive about the forthcoming operations by US and British forces and, according to some accounts, is attempting to mount its own pre-emptive "surge". At the same time, say defence and diplomatic sources, there are signs that at a local level some Taliban fighters are showing a willingness to take part in talks and involve themselves in the governance process.

Defence sources say that strides have been made in countering roadside blasts with better safety procedures, leading to the detection of more than 50 per cent of bombs and mines before they detonate. The figures also show that the number of civilians killed has fallen by 39 per cent. The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, has said civilian deaths resulting from Nato air strikes, including the most recent in which 10 adults and five children died in Ghor province in western Afghanistan, had been the main source of friction between him and his Western sponsors.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The Talibs are "surging" all over, not just in Helmand
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 01:06 am (UTC)
The Brits have been the first to taste defeat, as they have in Basra. Now it's Obama's new gung-ho chief of assassinations McChrystal's turn, while in Pakistan, the US puppet Zardari bogs his army down in a fatal quagmire in the tribal areas while tearing the fragile cohesion of his country to bits with civilian massacres and a refugee crisis of historically unprecedented proportions.

Obama has a bitter summer ahead, with both his hope-based Obamanomics and his insane AfPak policy heading down IED-paved roads. During this summer's fighting the Talibs will grind both Obama's new special-ops general and the Pakistani army into the ground, blowing his AfPak dreams to kingdom come.

Roadside Bombs: An Iraqi Tactic on the Upsurge in Afghanistan


Time magazine, Wed Jun 10

The highway that runs between Kabul and the southeastern city of Kandahar is the most brutal evidence of the Taliban's IED offensive. The road is a showcase U.S.-funded project, meant to connect two of the country's most vital commercial centers. But today it is an automotive graveyard, littered with burned-out carcasses of vehicles and disrupted by crumbled bridges. One infamous stretch is lined with the wreckage of 40 transport trucks, the remains of a 90-minute enemy ambush dubbed the "jingle-truck massacre."

The latest NATO figures show that the use of roadside bombs is up 80% so far this year, making them the primary killer of U.S. and international troops. In 2008, 172 troops died from a record 3,276 IEDs, a 45% jump from the year before, according to the Joint IED Defeat Organization, a Pentagon agency. This trend is expected to worsen in the months ahead

The attacks are increasing all over the country. Last week a bomb-and-shoot ambush left three soldiers dead near the main U.S. base in Bagram, about an hour's drive north of Kabul, the third such strike in the area in less than a week.

Along with the frequency of road attacks, military officers say the power of the bombs employed has gone "way up." Twenty-pound charges have been replaced by oil drums packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives, set off by trip wires and pressure plates, that are capable of reducing up-armored humvees to pieces.




Re: The Talibs are "surging" all over, not just in Helmand
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
The Yanks have been training the so-called "Afghan army," made up of the Northern Alliance narco-warlord-rapist scum to whom they handed over the country, for 8 years but all that the bums have been doing is selling their Yank-supplied gear to the Taliban, robbing and extorting civilians, and rounding up the local virgins (male and female) to be raped by their warlords.

Here are those warlords whom the Yanks call "Afghanistan's democracy." They are the people The Yanks are wasting blood and fortune to defend, with their increasing lame but faithful British Sancho Panza at their side:

Afghan drugs barons flaunt their wealth and power


The kingpins are wealthy as they are indiscreet, the apex of a $2.7bn (£1.5bn) trade that has dominated the Afghan economy, poisoned its politics and employs one in 10 of the workforce. The smugglers . . . operate with the sophistication of a criminal jet-set. Some live in fortified rural mansions, defended by anti-aircraft guns and gangs of heavily armed clansmen.

Allegations of drug links have persistently dogged some of Afghanistan's most powerful figures, including several governors, ministers and the president's brother, Walid Karzai. At least 17 of the 249 newly elected parliamentarians are smugglers, said analyst Andrew Wilder.

But the most serious charges hover over General Muhammad Daud, the deputy interior minister for counter narcotics. A senior drugs official said he was "99% sure" that Gen Daud had a stake in the trade he was supposed to be dismantling.


Meanwhile, the Taliban that the CIA got the Pakistanis to train has kicked Yank & Brit ass out of 75% of Afghanistan. The man who trained them says that they are unbeatable:

The Taliban will 'never be defeated'


'Colonel Imam', the Pakistani agent who trained Mullah Omar and the warlords to fight the Soviets, says the US must negotiate with its enemies

The Times, June 7, 2009

THE Pakistani intelligence agent who trained Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, to fight has warned that Nato forces will never overpower their enemies in Afghanistan and should talk to them rather than sacrifice more lives.

"You can never win the war in Afghanistan,"said so-called "Colonel Imam", who ran a training programme for the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union?s occupation from 1979 to 1989, then helped to form the Taliban.

"I have worked with these people since the 1970s and I tell you they will never be defeated. Anyone who has come here has got stuck. The more you kill, the more they will expand."

A tall, bearded figure, whose real name is Amir Sultan Tarar, he trained at Fort Bragg, the US army base where America?s special forces are stationed.

During the late 1970s and 1980s he controlled CIA-funded training camps for 95,000 Afghans and often accompanied his students on missions.

After the Soviet defeat and the collapse of communism, he was invited to the White House by the first President George Bush . . .
Re: The Talibs are "surging" all over, not just in Helmand
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 07:07 pm (UTC)
"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

What the blue blazes are they supposed to do, other than put up a stiff fight against an invader?
Re: The Talibs are "surging" all over, not just in Helmand
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:19 pm (UTC)
Especially one that excludes the majority Pashtuns from power and turns the country over to narco-trafficking bandit rapist warlords.
Why are we fighting Uncle Sam's wars?
[info]seraskier wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 02:59 am (UTC)
Can even ONE Zanu Labour scum politician tell us what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan?

Because I'd say we are there for one reason only - to suck up to yankee-doodledom.
Lod Haw Haw
[info]riksavage wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 05:37 am (UTC)
With headlines like: "British troops at mercy of Taliban surge" who needs enemies? I would have loved to have read Kim's headlines for the D-Day landings (had been alive then): "Allies at the mercy of the German counter attack"

We should start calling you Lord Haw Haw, then again I think findempire has beaten you to it!
Re: Lod Haw Haw
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)
That's a very good point. These lefties just CANNOT HELP flagellating and denigrating themselves at the smallest excuse. It is almost a perverted form of treachery.
Re: Lod Haw Haw
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 11:09 am (UTC)
Wrong example. Think of Gallipoli. Lord Kitchener and First Sea Lord Fisher vehemently opposed the rabid Turk-hater Churchill's insane plan. Today it's British commanders in Afghanistan who tell us that the war is unwinnable, to the rabidly Muslim-hating Yanks' deaf ears (and yours too, apparently):

We can't defeat Taleban, says Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith


The Times, October 6, 2008

The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan says he believes the Taleban will never be defeated.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, whose troops have suffered severe casualties after six months of tough fighting, will hand over to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines this month.

He told The Times that in his opinion, a military victory over the Taleban was "neither feasible nor supportable".

Top soldier quits as blundering campaign turns into 'pointless' war


The Times, September 10, 2006

THE former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as "a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency".

"Having a big old fight is pointless and just making things worse," said Captain Leo Docherty, of the Scots Guards, who became so disillusioned that he quit the army last month.
Why Are British Troops In Afganistan
[info]mike4626 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 05:39 am (UTC)
can anyone post a sensible explanation as to why British troops are fighting the so called Taliban. I seem to recall the Russians were fighting the same war several years ago but their 'enemy' had a different name and were financed by the USA
Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]richardm20 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 05:42 am (UTC)

It really is time to take the gloves off and deal with these animals. They cannot be allowed to gain control over Afghanistan again or else they will, YET AGAIN, launch murderous attacks against civilisation, exactly like they did on 9/11 (by the way does anyone still remember that?!!). Last year, a drone strike was called off because a group of Taliban were praying and it was Ramadam. This act by the military powers and the Government was utterly disgraceful. How wonder how many of these 'men' went on to murder British troops? They should have all been put down when we had the opportunity.

Lets move these animals close - much, much closer - to Allah. And seeing that they love death more than we do life that really should not be a problem for them. A British soldiers life is worth more than any Taliban - or groups of Taliban (as admitted of the Taliban THEMSELVES every time they make the aforementioned statement about how much they love death). SO let's get serious. No one can pretant that this was will be over soon and that should be all the more reason to STOP pussy footing around.

Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]seraskier wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 05:57 am (UTC)
You need to eat less raw meat.

There isn't a scrap of evidence that Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. Nothing. You are just retailing racist lies to justify your FAILING yankee-doodle war.

Get your stinking assholes out of Afghanistan, crook.
Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
Don't talk rubbish. Bib Laden publicly admitted it and he was based in Afghanistan. The US requested his extradition ad Afghanistan under the Taliban refused. When the US and allies attacked the Taliban government (itself an illegitimate one that practised many war crimes) most countries in the world, even many Islamic ones, accepted this as just.

Whether we should still be there and whether we have achievable goals is another matter.

Most people in Afghanistan have no desire to see the barbarian Taliban back, with their executions of children and gays and anyone else who crosses them, their destruction of human rights and the barbarism of the way they treat women.

Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]seraskier wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:05 am (UTC)
Bin Laden was never there. This was just a ruse for invading Afghanistan - dreamed-up by crooks, and believed... as we see in your case... by the naive and bloodthirsty.

Try looking in Saudi Arabia for your 9/11 killers... after all, that's where all the 9/11 hijackers were from. Fool.
Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]dnmurphy wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:36 am (UTC)
Sounds like you are an apologist for Bin Laden and his Islamofascists.

There is tons of evidence Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, and the Taliban regime admitted it at the time, they just refused to hand him over. Bin Laden either directly admitted doing it or allowed people to think he did, so of course he was going to get attacked.

Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)
Say hello to Elvis for us.
Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)

Incorrect.
Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]scu1pture wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:41 am (UTC)
"...YET AGAIN, launch murderous attacks against civilisation, exactly like they did on 9/11 (by the way does anyone still remember that?!!)..."

maybe you know something that the rest of the world does not know.
there was *not* a single afghan ever involved in 9/11.

afghanistan had never attacked *any* western country nor ever threatened to do so, before they were attacked - unprovoked.

infact afghanistan was the darling of the USA when it was fighting the russians.
heck, the taliban were even honoured in the greatest blockbuster film at the time..
at the end of RAMBO first blood,
before the credits roll, it gives the message..
"to the freedom fighters of afghanistan.."

you can hardly contain your blatant islamophobia,
when you talk about taking 'the gloves off' to deal with the animals/cavemen..

some would wonder if the real animal/cavemen are those islamophobic bigots that infest these forums spewing their vile hatred.



`

Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]infangthief wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.

"I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act."

Osama Bin Laden.

Now Cheney on the other hand...
You're a muppet
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC)

USA and UK are already using the most advanced technology and weapons available.
Do you think there are having a picnic over there?
Whats all the crap about "taking the gloves off"?
Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these caveMEN
[info]findempire wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
Show me where its says Osama did 9/11.

These Dark-Age Islamists coward neo-Nazis need to be defeated!
[info]nooraza wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 06:53 am (UTC)
NATO must not give up, like Richard is saying. For the sake of modern civilisation. We cannot thank NATO enough, including US & British soldiers, who will liberate the world and humanity again from fascism, this time from the new Nazis of the 21st. century, the barbarian Islamists! And the Al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden - the new HITLER!
Re: These Dark-Age Islamists coward neo-Nazis need to be defeated!
[info]alimabrouk wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:07 am (UTC)
Nooraza, try North Korea, coward! You invaded Iraq over a pack of lies. Superpower that could not beat a bunch of cavemen 8 years on, loosers!
alimabrouk, why Islamists like you like to abuse critics personally?
[info]nooraza wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
Hey, your uncivilized foul language, to attack me PERSONALLY, is typical of coward Islamist bully! Can't you deabtae intelligently and rationally like civilized beings? You attack me personally again, I will contact Metropolitan Police!
Re: These Dark-Age Islamists coward neo-Nazis need to be defeated!
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:05 am (UTC)
The Superpower (the USA) could kill every Taliban in existence within a few months if it REALLY wanted. But the West is BETTER than that! We possess the technology but do not use it. We do not purposefully kill innocent people unlike the Stone-age Taliban which use women and children to protect themselves. If you want to talk about cowardice - the Taliban are a PERFECT example.
Superpower West could not beat a bunch of cavemen 8 years on now.
[info]alimabrouk wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 07:43 am (UTC)
Superpower West could not beat a bunch of cavemen 8 years on now.
Keep your eyes open. If you go to sleep, sleep with spectacles. You may see HIM? WHO? OSAMA WHO ELSE
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 07:56 am (UTC)
How to make a drama out of the Iraq crisis
Audiences have turned their backs on films about Iraq, but a new BBC series on the aftermath of the war might buck the trend, says James Rampton, by avoiding the soapbox and easy sentimentality
Keep your eyes open. If you go to sleep, sleep with spectacles. You may see HIM? WHO? OSAMA WHO ELSE YOUR DAD?
Osama Bin Laden Is In Pakistan: CIA Chief
The CIA director has said he believes al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. US intelligence chief Leon Panetta was asked by reporters whether he was sure that Bin Laden was in Pakistan.
Mr Panetta replied: "The last information we had, that's still the case."
The US spy agency hopes to close in on him as Pakistan's military cracks down on the tribal area where he is thought to be hiding.
Bin Laden, who has eluded a US manhunt since the terror attacks on September 11, 2001, has issued audio and videotapes over the years demonstrating he is still alive.
Mr Panetta said finding bin Laden is "one of our major priorities."
He added: "One of our hopes is that the Pakistanis move in militarily, combined with our operations, we may be able to have a better chance" to find him.
Make Tony Blaire the co-actor, Brown the Music director, Campbell the soup maker, Jane the broom, Cameron the jungleman, James Purnell, resigned from the Government the seats arranger of the producers. Ed Balls the tight ropewalker and fireman. All other the street stunts and the cars burning, jumping and stage breakers and eggs throwers. The film will be a hit in 2020 when we will not be here
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Taliban or insurgents (mujahadeen)
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC)

Are they fighting against the taliban or insurgents (mujahadeen)? The afghans are split into two. There are the Northern Alliance (in power at the moment, gift for helping the USA in 2001) and there is the rest of the sunni in the mid to southern Afghanistan.

I am not sure what the proporting of taliban to insurgents (mujahadeen) there are? I suspect that the mujhadeen have formed alliance with the taliban to fight against the invaders.

Remember, the taliban and mujahadeen have been drawn into a war that was actually against al-qaeda (if we are to believe the CIA). Seems they have left and now the western invaders are fighting against the wrong enemy.
breaking news
[info]scu1pture wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)
Another "British soldier killed in Afghanistan".
How sad for everyone,

except for blair, who pushed the british troops into afghanistan at the behest of the warmongering bush.

the result?
british soldiers returning in bodybags.
blair sunning it up in the middle east,
earning pots of money,
looking for a cushy number in the EU when he has topped up his tan enough.

well, blair may not be brave ..but he certainly is clever.


afganistan was a patsy
[info]714area wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
as an american i am disgusted and ashamed for trusting bush as i (we) did. bush was gung ho on iraq before even getting to afganistan. he used afganistan as an excuse for a path for iraq. we were going there if we liked it or not. cheney, rumsfeld, that wolf motherf*cker and all the top brass had (and still probably do) a lot to gain of war. with their government contract they should have been just cutting themselves blank checks on us citizens expense. even worse the poor civilians of afganistan were guilty by assosiation with the taliban. when we had our head on straight we did good against Al-Q-iban and they left leaving their citizens at everyones mercy. they die because we want someone???? i swear if Ahmad Shah Massoud was alive he would have had that country in shape by know. he would have kicked us out to the curb, projrects would be getting finished and every enemy, infadel, insurgant, chech, name it... i still truely think when he died afganistan lost a great hero.

i would truely like to think we are more focussed know with obama. afganistan and Al-Q-iban are our main focus there. we cleaned house pretty good after 9/11 i know we can do it again. we wont have the help ofAhmad Shah Massoud which is huge. not to mention the new LT COL. GENERAL (or what evr he is) McCrystal is a person i really would not mind seeing him go home in a body bag. after his actions trying to covering up Pat Tillman's death like he did. so disrespectful for a true american hero. unfortuneatly i can not hope the worst for him because , naw i hope he catches a bullet that lying sack of shit.

my respects to the british soldier and his family...
Killing Field
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 12:26 pm (UTC)
Thanks to the US again, we have yet another killing field.
The Taleban, especially, but among many others, who wish to settle a score with American Imperialism, welcome the influx of westerners to kill.
The US crimes are cumulative, covering Central America, South America, Far East and currently the Middle East. 9/11 was the culmination of anger from members of Saudi Arabian origins.
Britain's involvement in these illegal, mercenary Corporate wars is treasonable, as no British soldier in Afghanistan is defending his/her homeland--and those who sent them there have invited retaliation to take place throughout Europe.
America's greatest export is violence for profit and they are using NATO to drum up support from Europe to moisten the killing field for Global Corporations to fatten on.
Still counting Daily NOS GO UP LIKE TAX
[info]famulla wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 08:54 am (UTC)
AM i right? Gordon Brown?s Communications Minister, who was made a peer after a brief period in Number 10, is to leave the Government,
London I say.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Why are we fighting Uncle Sam's wars?
[info]famulla wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 02:47 am (UTC)
MR TONY BLAIRE WE THE READERS OF THIS PAPERS DEMAND TO KNOW about THE WMD AND WHY YOU TOOK THE SMALL STUDENTS WHO ARE STILL DOING A LEVELS TO WAR. WE WILL TAKE YOU TO COURT AS SOON AS SOON AS WE CATCH YOU IF BROWN ALLOWS US AFTER THE NEW CONSTITUTION AS WE HAVE NONE AT THE MOMENT
AND I THANK YOU SIR I AM YOUR SUBJECT AND OBJEST ADJECTIVE AND PORONOUN, ADVERB AND COMMA AND PERIOD NOT THE LADIES THE STOP I MEAN
Firozali A.Mulla here I fear none as it is truth the sting
I had heard that English were going crazy after the mortgages failure. Do you have to prove this?
[info]famulla wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)
Re: Let's get serious in dealing with these cavemen, On the Taliban.
Re: ALL The best for the recovery -- not. I for one am waiting to p.ss on the grave of quisling no.1 on the Maggie being in the hospital
Was she wearing a helmet?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG! On North Korea.
I had heard that English were going crazy after the mortgages failure. Do you have to prove this?
USA In the meantime talks sense.
Pound-Foolish Lesson for Congress
Taxpayers must hope that the new rules requiring members of the House to submit expenses electronically will soon apply to the Senate.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
MUSLIMS DO NOT, DO NOT HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH OSAMA
[info]famulla wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:21 pm (UTC)
Let us talk. What is USA The outcome from the English rule? The English settled there and Canada and Australia. Can you call the American English, The Canadian English? The Australian English, All who were once in the colonial rule English? They will lynch you one by one if you call them, ?You are English" They hate the word English. Try this is Paris too. Therefore, not all Muslims are related to Osama. Keep the Muslims out of these. Some may be I have no list of these.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date