Yeah, nothing shady going on there. It's just a mere coincidence that the first targets were the border crossings with Iran and Pakistan.
Even the bbc reported that straight away as “capture lucrative border crossings”.
You need tax for an army
Yeah, nothing shady going on there. It's just a mere coincidence that the first targets were the border crossings with Iran and Pakistan.
Saw earlier that the Afghans had called in B-52 strikes, but where did they fly in from? Are the Pakistanis allowing them to overfly their territory, because I can't see that going down too well with their Taliban allies.
US putting AC-130s and various drones into use to support Afghan forces but on the other hand plenty of evidence the US simply left a lot of supplies that the Taliban have now captured...
Ultimately drones won't have quite the same overflight issues but still gonna be interesting how the US will continue to operate air assets in the region in the longer run.
Funny how people think this can still be resolved politically with a bit of a push while the Taliban are carrying out atrocities, etc.
Never understood the logic of attempting to reason with them etc, they were always going to go full retard as soon as NATO pulled the plug.
Can't reason with stupid, even more so with religion in the mix as well.
Apparently the old warlords who used to run the place pre Taliban are putting up fierce resistance, more so than the ANA
The taliban don't have anything which can shoot down a modern military aircraft. It's easy pickings if the US wants it.
ANA are absolutely useless as a fighting force. They have had all the training yet, once in combat, they ignore said training and still spray bullets in the general direction of the enemy and then pray that Allah guides them to the target, I **** you not. Even the Taliban, and those ***** are properly devout nutjobs, have mainly stopped that practice now.
They seem to be flying from Qatar currently, assumedly over Pakistan.
Interesting to see how many BA flights, etc. overfly Afghanistan - would not want to be on one of those if they had a problem and were forced to land in a the wrong parts and/or the Taliban acquired the capabilities to shoot them down :s though at 30-40,000 feet they should have around 100 miles gliding range to reach somewhere better even with complete engine failure assuming it wasn't something catastrophic enough to force them down earlier while still survivable.
Yea because they just got mowed down like lemmings when they faced NATO forces on the ground.
Many of them are high on drugs most of the time also, they have no idea what's going on.
A civilian airliner isn’t gliding anywhere from any weapon that can reach their altitude
Was linked to my post before that - concerning if the passengers planes that are still flying over Afghanistan had some kind of issue that forced them down rather than being shot down - would not be fun if one minute you were on the way to Singapore the next crash landing in Taliban occupied territory (with a good likelihood you'll end up strung from a road gantry) :s
Eh you’re dead anyway tbh in anything but a airport landing realistically.
Unless Afghanistan has a particularly hard flat and clear terrain?
Doesn't necessarily mean a crash is going to be fatal/have no survivors - there are parts of Afghanistan with large field like areas though none of it is ideal for bringing a passenger plane down but a hard landing isn't necessarily fatal.
It pretty much always is though
for anything BA is flying that is hard landings usually happen in airports not random places
Perfect reason to fly over it then. It's better to go down there than over an ocean.There are loads of parts in Afghanistan with large open areas you can bring a plane down, some risk of digging in on touch down with the dry loose packed soil/sand but a lot of areas that are survivable - C130s, etc. have done it from time to time.