sda2.jpg

April 30, 2007

Taliban Jack

Call your office;

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 26 — Infant mortality has dropped by 18 percent in Afghanistan, one of the first real signs of recovery for the country five years after the fall of the Taliban regime, health officials said Thursday.

Afghanistan faces many challenges, its health minister said yesterday, but he noted “clear signs of health sector recovery and progress.”

“Despite many challenges, there are clear signs of health sector recovery and progress throughout the country,” Dr. Muhammad Amin Fatimi, the health minister, told journalists here.

The number of children who die before their first birthday has dropped to 135 per 1,000 in 2006 from 165 per 1,000 live births in 2001, according to a countrywide survey by Johns Hopkins University, he said.

That represents a drop of 18 percent, and means that 40,000 to 50,000 fewer infants are dying now than in the Taliban era, Dr. Fatimi said. “Thanks be to God they are celebrating, laughing and smiling,” he said. “These infants are the future builders of our country.”


More good news of a different sort.
Dropping to 200ft, it swooped close to the motorcyclists - and the two men could not believe their luck: some of the passengers were holding the parts of a long-barrelled heavy machine-gun.

Six of the bikes slewed to a stop, their passengers leaping off and aiming their weapons at the helicopter in what appeared to be a well-practised drill, while the others took off across country. The Apache banked away to begin its attack run.


Don't think of them as Black Hawks - think of them as flying neonatal units!

Update Uh oh. I don't think this is the "spring offensive" the Taliban had in mind.

Update 2 More good news! The US Supreme Court rejects Khadr case.


Posted by Kate at April 30, 2007 12:01 AM
TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5194

Comments

One can only hope the bikes weren't damaged.

Posted by: ural at April 30, 2007 12:20 AM

Survival of children isnt a NDP priorty, that mortality went down may be a future call for abortions to a dipper. The population will get out of control. and control of every aspect of others lives is the fodder to the dipper horse.

Posted by: cal2 at April 30, 2007 12:24 AM

flying neo-natal units!Now THAT made me laugh out loud..Love your turn of a phrase Kate.

Posted by: Sammy at April 30, 2007 12:41 AM

If only they could trade in the bikes for "Sopwith Camels", the response wouldn't seem so disproportionate.

Posted by: tertius at April 30, 2007 12:55 AM

Oh Kate, Kate, Kate. Mother mother mother, please please please...don't...don't do this. Don't do this. Lay down your life with your child...but don't do this....

Three points:

1. These so-called "surviving" children would rather be dead than see a Stephen Harper government or a Republican presidency. Your disregard for their political preference is quite frankly the height of western arrogance.

2. The article you chose to link to says "Afghanistan still fares worse than Chad and Somalia in infant mortality" -- well, what's the point? That Niger and the Sudan are a bad influence on Chad? What would that have to do with Afghanistan?

3. The phrase "flying neonatal units" might be apt, and funny, but it's also violatingly apt, and violatingly funny, so it's no longer apt, or funny, but a mere violation.

So why would you cross that line, Kate? So frequently? Right? See what I mean? If you think it's funny? And it harms someone else's cause? Alright? Okay? Are we even on the same page?

Posted by: Libby Raoul at April 30, 2007 3:15 AM

I am not surprised by Libby's outburst. His/her cynical reaction to any good news or improvement in living conditions in Afghanistan is the typical lefties view. No good news in Afghanistan is worth mentioning because there is a Conservative government in power and not a Liberal government. I bet you if a Liberal Prime Minister was in power in Canada, Libby's reaction would be completely different.

The drop in infant mortality from 165 per 1000 (live births) to 135 per 1000 (live births) is still significant, even if it is worst than Chad and Somalia. Carry on lefties, carry on.

Posted by: Tony at April 30, 2007 3:51 AM

Air Power is important in preventing any type of massing.

The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for a number of reasons, one of which was their inability to defend against Stinger missiles. This ended up devestating Soviet Black Hawk equivalents.

If this prevents the Taliban frm launching their Spring offensive then perhaps this means more time for the population to do more productive things.

Lets hope this isnt a one time incicdent, is there a graph of attacjs year over year anywhere?

Posted by: Stephen at April 30, 2007 4:36 AM

Afghanistan - Scores of Taliban said killed by US-led Afghan force
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825779/posts

"Backed by air support,..."

Will MSM inform Taliban Jack? Will MSM inform the public with a front page, above the fold spread? Will CBC/CTV lead with this:

Today, our forces killed 65 of the enemy; backed by air support, ...

Taliban Jack's head exploded, again, on hearing of this victory. ...-

Posted by: maz2 at April 30, 2007 6:02 AM

Update.

Re-write headline:

136, count 'em, 136, Muslim Islamist terrorist/murderers killed by victorious NATO forces.
More, faster.
...-

136 suspected Taliban militants killed in Afghanistan
(Irish Independent via google news)

Posted by: maz2 at April 30, 2007 6:42 AM

Did the CBC or Toronto Star report any of this???,

Posted by: stephen Reeves at April 30, 2007 6:43 AM

The Left has conveniently forgot who first sent the troops into Afghanistan, it is now a Harper/Bush war.

Posted by: stephen Reeves at April 30, 2007 6:46 AM

Taliban MayDion/STOPIGGY/Hezbollah Coderre are reading a blog? Which blog? SDA and others.

Liberals are taliban sympathizers. Their words/actions say/show it.

The Liberals are disloyal to Canada. The Liberals are rooting for defeat-retreat.

Blogs rattle/unnerve the taliban Liberals.

Down with the taliban; down with the taliban cut'n'run Liberals.

...-

Liberals Ridicule Charge They're On Side Of Taliban


Serving notice yesterday that their campaign to force Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to resign will continue, the Liberal opposition rejected Conservative claims their criticism is disloyal to Canadian soldiers ...-
(national newswatch)

Posted by: maz2 at April 30, 2007 6:56 AM

Harper has to stand and tell the silly, desperate fools he is not going to fire his Minister, case closed.
Then he has to stand and call their bluff at the first opportunity for a confidence vote at the first opportunity.

This will be a good week to make a few good chess moves. The Liberals are drunk ecstasy and falling all over themselves with another Trudeau in the fold.

Maybe not all Liberals. Dion may not be happy or neo Libs like Rae, they might feel threatened.
The Liberals are all about optics, flash and dash over substance. Justin is just the ticket!

Posted by: Liz J at April 30, 2007 8:32 AM

"If only they could trade in the bikes for "Sopwith Camels", the response wouldn't seem so disproportionate."

I realize Canada has this wierd and dangerous fetish with proportionate response enshirned in Canadian law. Where if you shoot a attacker for attacking you with a knife at 4AM in your hallway that's "disproportionate" and you go to jail.

Out in the real world, when someone pulls a knife on you, the proper reponse is not to proportionately pull a slightly bigger knife. It's to drop the entire piano on him, and then shoot them if they twitch.

Then call 911.


Posted by: fred at April 30, 2007 8:36 AM

Taliban Jack? How about Mullah Dion and the Al Quaeda and Mail, who have tried to scandalize allegations of Taliban abuse in order to undermine the mission in Afghanistan and try to score political points against Harper?

I think it's disgraceful.

There used to be a time when Canadians watched fellow Canadians' backs when it came to the security and stature of this nation.

But I guess the "new Canada' doesn't accept that kind of honour. They'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to the Taliban, wouldn't they?

Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at April 30, 2007 9:07 AM

"136, count 'em, 136, Muslim Islamist terrorist/murderers killed by victorious NATO forces. "

jeez . . . goona be party tonight . . lub the 72 virgins for each of 'em in muslim heaven . . . the boys is coming in looking for their just rewards.

Posted by: Fred at April 30, 2007 9:10 AM

The only thing I find disappointing about this story is that we (NATO) didn't kill enough of the bastards.

Posted by: Ross at April 30, 2007 9:11 AM

"Did the CBC or Toronto Star report any of this???," (stephen Reeves, 6:43 AM)

Couldn't tell you for sure, but The Globe & Mail morning headline is:
"Tories at odds with NATO on torture".
Holy crap! If the G&M says so, it's simply GOT to be true!

Posted by: Joe B. at April 30, 2007 9:11 AM

a few points

1. the leftoids are all atwitter because they know that the Canadian troops are, soldier for soldier, the most efficient killing machines in theatre in Afghanistan. the old school, spit and polish, drill em hard methodologies(please alby, no air force blather)are paying off big time.....along with the Brits(the system by which our military is based) and the Aussies, some serious ass kicking is happening....it drives the moonbats wild

2. O'Connor, while an excellent soldier, is not exactly your post-card politico....he is a good man, but a little rough around the edges....maybe time for a change

GO ARMY! KICK TALIBAN BUTT!

Posted by: kingstonlad at April 30, 2007 9:16 AM

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Dutch troops as well.....

Posted by: kingstonlad at April 30, 2007 9:31 AM

Att: taliban MayDion-Jack-NDP!

Da poof is da proof. Smell the sulphurous-carbon fumes of the vaporized taliban.
...-


US aircrews show Taliban no mercy

By Gethin Chamberlain in Kandahar, Sunday Telegraph

# In pictures: Fighting from the air
# Video: Targeting the Taliban

Caught in the middle of the Helmand river, the fleeing Taliban were paddling their boat back to shore for dear life.

Smoke from the ambush they had just sprung on American special forces still hung in the air, but their attention was fixed on the two helicopter gunships that had appeared above them as their leader, the tallest man in the group, struggled to pull what appeared to be a burqa over his head.

An Apache gunship, US aircrews show Taliban no mercy
Strike force: An Apache gunship on patrol in Afghanistan

As the boat reached the shore, Captain Larry Staley tilted the nose of the lead Apache gunship downwards into a dive. One of the men turned to face the helicopter and sank to his knees. Capt Staley's gunner pressed the trigger and the man disappeared in a cloud of smoke and dust. ...-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml

Meanwhile, AdScam Liberal Chretien says: Da pooooof is da proof! Oui. ...-


Chrétien Defends Liberals' Long-Gun Registry

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien says he was shocked to discover how easy it was for the student-killer at Virginia Tech to obtain guns under U.S. law (national newswatch)

Posted by: maz2 at April 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Here is your chance to vote for one of 2 definitions of "Taliban Jack" in the Urban Dicitionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Taliban+Jack

I much prefer definition #2. (Click below for direct link)

Posted by: Mark R at April 30, 2007 9:46 AM

Gotta love those Black Hawks....more fomidable a weapon in that terrain than tanks and much faster to engage and destroy enemy positions...they can also patrol areas it would take a garrision on foot and in vehicles to do.

Why are there not more in the Afghan theater...I would think that air superiority would be the perfect compliment to light armored ground forces.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 30, 2007 9:49 AM

It saddens me that we just don't hear this kind of good news here.

You get all this blather about how everyone "supports the troops" but you never hear about what a great job they're doing.

I think the Canadian Government should start issuing press releases and let people like Rutherford or Adler, and other people who are supportive of the military, report on this. Canadians need to hear EVERYTHING that's going on over there, not just what Taliban Jack spits out.

Posted by: Reid at April 30, 2007 10:11 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if OUR guys had some attack helicopters to back them up? Hell, wouldn't it be nice if they even had some ancient Hawker Typhoons from WWII to back them up?

Not surprised the NDP don't care much about infant mortality rates. They aren't much for measuring outcomes of policy. Reason being most of them can't count to twenty with their shoes on. If they could, they'd be Conservatives, because NDP policies allways seem to end up making things worse.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 30, 2007 10:14 AM

Wouldn't it be nice if OUR guys had some attack helicopters to back them up? Hell, wouldn't it be nice if they even had some ancient Hawker Typhoons from WWII to back them up?

Not surprised the NDP don't care much about infant mortality rates. They aren't much for measuring outcomes of policy. Reason being most of them can't count to twenty with their shoes on. If they could, they'd be Conservatives, because NDP policies allways seem to end up making things worse.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 30, 2007 10:15 AM

Hawker Tyhpoons:

A constant source of amazement to me, every army engaged against forces needs a good slowish ground pounding support aircraft. And basically no one has one. (Ok, there's the A-10, but the USAF only has that by accident)

The american army uses Helo's because of the "Treaty of Key West" or however it's refered to, prevents the army from flying aircraft (more or less)

What's everyone else's excuse to not have a some modern A-10 (lite) equivalent? They'd be cheap to build (for an aircraft) and really useful, and aircraft are cheaper than helicopters to operate by and large.

Posted by: Fred at April 30, 2007 10:33 AM

Fred, it amazes me too. We could build aircraft like that right here in good ol' Ontario by the buttload. Nothing fancy, just a flying truck with STOL and rough field capability. Fixed wing aircraft cost a fraction of what helicopters do in fuel and maintenance.

The excuse I keep hearing is shoulder fired AA missiles, but helicopters are if anything more vulnerable to them. Ask the Russians about that.

Posted by: The Phantom at April 30, 2007 10:47 AM

40k more kids a year is a nightmare to the eco-watermelons. These are the same people who think that the world's population needs to decrease dramatically.

This is bad news for the left.

Posted by: Warwick at April 30, 2007 11:27 AM

Ian Robinson of the Calgary Sun has a good article on the NDP view.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Robinson_Ian/2007/04/29/4138971-sun.html

Posted by: tomax7 at April 30, 2007 11:32 AM

...hope the Blackhawks didn't use disproportional force...

;-)

Posted by: tomax7 at April 30, 2007 11:35 AM

On one level I dont care whether it is promoted and publicized....As long as there are fewer bad guys able to fight and they have less ground to operate on then the Forces can keep it to themselves.

Although Tomax is kidding that on its own is a worry, that someone will say that they shouldnt be doing that, I mean it hardly seems fair that we have these weapons and these poor guys were struggling in a boat......trust me that complaint will come up.....

Posted by: Stephen at April 30, 2007 11:56 AM

Fred: I believe the venerable A-1D Skyraider would serve this purpose very well. Designed at the end of WW2 & used in Korea & Vietnam, it proved to be invaluable for slow, close-air support. Piston powered, heavily armed and armoured, & very long loiter times. Too bad it last saw action in S.E. Asia. Slap a modern turbine engine into it & some rudimentary ECM gear & presto!

Posted by: Nasty at April 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Fred,

I still love the warthog. Best plane ever built for messing up the day of your enemy's ground forces.

That think can be shot half to pieces and still wreck your day and it'll still return home safely.

It's 30mm cannon produces so great a kickback it can counter the warthog's two jet engines (fire too long a burst and your plane stops dead in the air. Bad idea...) That's before you fire the missiles.

The A-10's were slated for retirement until they proved themselves in the first gulf war.

The Yanks attack helis aren't anywhere near as useful cause they're easier to shoot down so the army is afraid to send them out most times for fear of losses.

Posted by: Warwick at April 30, 2007 1:37 PM

Fred, re: how about a modern little turboprop, loaded to the **** , for close air support? But right now, not 2009.

Posted by: Shamrock at April 30, 2007 1:41 PM

Even the Globe has the grace to report some good news (pity on A12 and not the front page):

"Small loans, big dreams
A microfinance agency run by an expatriate is helping Afghan women achieve financial stability"
www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070430/AFGHAN30/International/international/international/3/3/14/

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at April 30, 2007 1:57 PM

Just a minor point: the "flying natal units" noted are AH-64D Apaches, vice UH-60 Black Hawks.

Cheers

Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at April 30, 2007 6:04 PM

With all due reverence to the views of several people here, while a Black Hawk or Apache can do a lot of damage, every good fighter knows that it the right combination of punches that get the job done. Tanks and grunts are a good one, two combination. Both compliment and protect the other. Air support and feet on the ground is also more effective when done together. As much as this old pigeon loves to see the shock & awe of air power, it doesn't mean a thing if there isn't anything on the ground left over to make sure the job is done. Only time air power doesn't need a hand from the tracks and boot treads is when "Operation Glass Parking Lot" makes things glow.

I am a Canadian and I approve this pro-military speech.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at April 30, 2007 8:36 PM

"Afghan village leaders are telling followers “that Taliban extremists can no longer be referred to as Muslims, due to their ruthless actions,”"

Taliban’s Influence Waning in Southern Afghanistan
NATO General Says

WASHINGTON, April 30, 2007 – Ongoing NATO military and reconstruction operations are helping erode Taliban militants’ power in southern Afghanistan, a senior Dutch officer said today.

The behavior of the Afghan people is perhaps the most convincing indicator of the Taliban’s waning influence in southern Afghanistan, Royal Netherlands Army Maj. Gen. Ton van Loon told Pentagon reporters during a satellite-carried news conference.

“We experience success every time (International Security Assistance Force) troops stand back after securing an area and witness local elders extend their authority,” said van Loon, the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Regional Command South. His command boasts 11,500 troops, including 2,000 Dutch forces.

That success is evident “when religious scholars and elders feel safe enough to freely express their disdain for Taliban militants,” the general said.

Afghan village leaders are telling followers “that Taliban extremists can no longer be referred to as Muslims, due to their ruthless actions,” van Loon said....-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826252/posts


STOPIGGY, MayDion, Taliban Jack, et al: socialists "On Side Of Taliban".

Liberals Ridicule Charge They're On Side Of Taliban

Serving notice yesterday that their campaign to force Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to resign will continue, the Liberal opposition rejected Conservative claims their criticism is disloyal to Canadian soldiers.

Posted by: maz2 at April 30, 2007 8:43 PM

I've heard that there's a nice calm sunny spot right in the middle of a hurricane.

Posted by: Crabgrass at May 1, 2007 1:39 PM
Site
Meter