Taliban attack Afghan jail free hundreds

[silver 2039]

KANDAHAR: At least 15 security guards were killed during a Taliban attack on a prison in southern Afghanistan that freed hundreds of militant inmates, a senior local lawmaker said on Saturday. ( Watch )

"We've discovered the bodies of 15 security guards who were killed in the attack. The casualties might be more," Ahmad Wali Karzai, the head of Kandahar provincial council and brother of President Hamid Karzai said.

He said "several hundred prisoners including Taliban" escaped in Friday's attack on the main prison in Kandahar, without being able to give a precise figure.

Abdul Qasim Hashimzai, the deputy justice minister, earlier said that most of the 1,000 inmates including several hundred Taliban prisoners had escaped.

The minister said a massive hunt was underway in Kandahar and areas around the troubled city.

A reporter based in the southern city said large numbers of security forces including those of the US-trained Afghan national army had been deployed to search vehicles.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Afghan_jail_raid_Hundreds_freed/articleshow/3128695.cms

Everyone always forgets about Afghanistan. The Taliban is still going strong it would seem.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

I don't think they are still going strong, but still resisting the Western encroachment into their lands by small skirmishes. They are only war-resistence bands that consist of small lose organized fighting force that are only capable of attacking in weak and remote areas.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I don't think they are still going strong, but still resisting the Western encroachment into their lands by small skirmishes. They are only war-resistence bands that consist of small lose organized fighting force that are only capable of attacking in weak and remote areas.

Ironicly, an extremely large majority of Afganistan is more than happy with " western enroachment " and the extremely rapid economic growth and freedom it brings. Why they just passed the hat around and got 17 billion in aid promissed to them in Paris.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

Ironicly, an extremely large majority of Afganistan is more than happy with " western enroachment " and the extremely rapid economic growth and freedom it brings. Why they just passed the hat around and got 17 billion in aid promissed to them in Paris.

I fail to see the irony. Incidently should be the word.

 

[Shekwan]

I don't think they are still going strong, but still resisting the Western encroachment into their lands by small skirmishes. They are only war-resistence bands that consist of small lose organized fighting force that are only capable of attacking in weak and remote areas.

Didn't the same thing defeat the Soviets not so long ago?

 

[Kozmos]

To be fair, the US provided them with Stinger Missiles otherwise they would continue to get heli-raped.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

Didn't the same thing defeat the Soviets not so long ago?

Different time. Different reasons. Different occupiers. Different puppet government. Totally different, no?

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I don't think they are still going strong, but still resisting the Western encroachment into their lands by small skirmishes. They are only war-resistence bands that consist of small lose organized fighting force that are only capable of attacking in weak and remote areas.

Different time. Different reasons. Different occupiers. Different puppet government. Totally different, no?

This is the problem with the absence of informed facts, analysis and punditry, when the facts are disregarded and this false supposition that the Taliban are a "resistence" group righteously fighting the "western encroachment" in Afghanistan. An opinion not based on any measure of veracity or factual reality and substance.

Bronx is entirely correct, the Taliban you appear to cheerlead is not welcome and is hated and despised in their own country of Afghanistan which you claim they fight on behalf of, where nearly 90% support destroying them and almost as many support the US and the always alleged but never proven by any measure of factual substance or intelectual debate, puppet President Hamid Karzai.

Please, research the facts.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/290.php?nid=&id=&pnt=290&lb=bras

"Nine out of ten Afghans (90%) rate President Karzai positively. Attitudes toward the foreign troops in Afghanistan are also positive: 75 percent have a favorable view of US forces and 77 percent describe NATO forces as effective. "

"Afghans’ views of President Karzai are positive, with 55 percent giving him a “very favorable” rating. But this view has dropped 13 points, from 68 percent in 2005. These trends are also consistent with the ABC/BBC poll which found that 68 percent rated Karzai’s performance as “excellent” or “good,” down from 80 percent a year before."

"Both the United States and the U.S. military have a generally positive image in Afghanistan, despite the deterioration over the past year. Three out of four Afghans (75%) rate U.S. Military forces positively overall, but the proportion with “very favorable” opinions has dropped 11 points (39% to 28%) from last year. The percentage with “somewhat favorable” opinions has remained steady at 47 percent.

Attitudes toward the United States are even warmer, with 81 percent regarding it favorably, including 30 percent who see it very favorably. Again, the “very favorable” rating has slipped, falling 10 points from 2005 to 2006 (40% to 30%). The somewhat favorable rating, however, has risen 10 points so that the overall percentage favorable to the United States has remained the same.

Respondents were asked also whether they regarded NATO forces in Afghanistan (known as the International Security Assistance Force or ISAF) as effective. Seventy-seven percent call them effective, including 32 percent who rate the ISAF as “very effective.” But the proportion considering the ISAF “very effective” has fallen 14 points (46% to 32%) from last year while that of those rating the forces “somewhat effective” has risen 9 points (36% to 45%). Twenty-two percent think the NATO forces are not effective, up 7 points from 2005."

"Despite these problems, there is no indication that the Taliban are winning popular support. A near unanimous 92 percent of Afghans view the Taliban unfavorably, a slight increase from 88 percent in 2005."

Now, I admit this source is a bit old, it was written in December of 2006 but I was unable to find any more recent findings so it will have to do. One would, after all have to doubt the Taliban are gaining popularity.

that is all

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

This is the problem with the absence of informed facts, analysis and punditry, when the facts are disregarded and this false supposition that the Taliban are a "resistence" group righteously fighting the "western encroachment" in Afghanistan. An opinion not based on any measure of veracity or factual reality and substance.

I did not say "righteously."

It was an opinion of mine. I am favoring on the viewpoint that they are small resistance bands that does not represent all of the people of Afganistan. Does that make it crystal clear for you?

Bronx is entirely correct, the Taliban you appear to cheerlead is not welcome and is hated and despised in their own country of Afghanistan which you claim they fight on behalf of, where nearly 90% support destroying them and almost as many support the US and the always alleged but never proven by any measure of factual substance or intelectual debate, puppet President Hamid Karzai.

I did not "cheerlead" the Taliban. Tell me where in the context that I did so.

Please, research the facts.

Please, read in the manner of not inferring on what you desire to be my facts. They are not facts at all. They are merely comments based on the facts of certain incidents that has taken place in a particular area.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/290.php?nid=&id=&pnt=290&lb=bras

Not going to look at it. Sorry.

"Nine out of ten Afghans (90%) rate President Karzai positively. Attitudes toward the foreign troops in Afghanistan are also positive: 75 percent have a favorable view of US forces and 77 percent describe NATO forces as effective. "

"Afghans’ views of President Karzai are positive, with 55 percent giving him a “very favorable” rating. But this view has dropped 13 points, from 68 percent in 2005. These trends are also consistent with the ABC/BBC poll which found that 68 percent rated Karzai’s performance as “excellent” or “good,” down from 80 percent a year before."

I don't rest my judgment on polls from corporate media. SO the argument has no merit for me to take it in consideration.

"Both the United States and the U.S. military have a generally positive image in Afghanistan, despite the deterioration over the past year. Three out of four Afghans (75%) rate U.S. Military forces positively overall, but the proportion with “very favorable” opinions has dropped 11 points (39% to 28%) from last year. The percentage with “somewhat favorable” opinions has remained steady at 47 percent.

Empty. It goes through one of my ears and out of the other. Nothing.

Attitudes toward the United States are even warmer, with 81 percent regarding it favorably, including 30 percent who see it very favorably. Again, the “very favorable” rating has slipped, falling 10 points from 2005 to 2006 (40% to 30%). The somewhat favorable rating, however, has risen 10 points so that the overall percentage favorable to the United States has remained the same.

Again with the positive polls. I am laughing right now.

I guess statistical representation of public opinion to me is something of a hyperreal one that only purpose is to assure popular opinion to be something of a force to reckon with. Of course can that be true? I guess in a hyperreal sense of way, it can.

Respondents were asked also whether they regarded NATO forces in Afghanistan (known as the International Security Assistance Force or ISAF) as effective. Seventy-seven percent call them effective, including 32 percent who rate the ISAF as “very effective.” But the proportion considering the ISAF “very effective” has fallen 14 points (46% to 32%) from last year while that of those rating the forces “somewhat effective” has risen 9 points (36% to 45%). Twenty-two percent think the NATO forces are not effective, up 7 points from 2005."

So numbers fluctuate? Well, well, well, it almost sound objective and real to me. Man, you're on the path to show me the errors of my way!!!

"Despite these problems, there is no indication that the Taliban are winning popular support. A near unanimous 92 percent of Afghans view the Taliban unfavorably, a slight increase from 88 percent in 2005."

Now, I admit this source is a bit old, it was written in December of 2006 but I was unable to find any more recent findings so it will have to do. One would, after all have to doubt the Taliban are gaining popularity.

that is all

That is all, huh?

Ever read the book called "Candide?" I am convinced you have not.

 

[aelf]

The Taliban finds its support among Pashtuns, and the majority of Afghanistan is Pashtun, isn't it?

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

The Taliban finds its support among Pashtuns, and the majority of Afghanistan is Pashtun, isn't it?

Shhh....He hasn't done that report and research. It is way too specific, and besides - his public opinion polls trump all other analysis.

 

[Defiant47]

Solution: kill, don't jail

 

[aelf]

Well, the Taleban does have an economic trump card. Afghans rely a lot on poppy production for their livelihood, which the official government cannot (at least on the surface) tolerate, while the Taleban is happy to let them do so.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

I did not say "righteously."

It was an opinion of mine. I am favoring on the viewpoint that they are small resistance bands that does not represent all of the people of Afganistan. Does that make it crystal clear for you?

I did not "cheerlead" the Taliban. Tell me where in the context that I did so.

Please, read in the manner of not inferring on what you desire to be my facts. They are not facts at all. They are merely comments based on the facts of certain incidents that has taken place in a particular area.

Sorry, but with such typically empty rhetorical buzzwords as "resistence", "Western encroachment" and "puppet" you post led me to assume you were a Taliban supporter or at least sympathetic to their aims and goals. I would have thought you copy/pasted that from the Taliban website if those words were not so unoriginal and overused mantra of anti-Americans everwhere.

Not going to look at it. Sorry.

Yet you did, in fact look at it, at least the parts I quoted and offered a hollow rebuke of blindness to what was said.

I don't rest my judgment on polls from corporate media. SO the argument has no merit for me to take it in consideration.

Great. Do we have a devotee of the Daily kos.com or moveon.org or how about alternet or any of the supposed "alternative media"?

Empty. It goes through one of my ears and out of the other. Nothing.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, in your argument thusfar you have portrayed yourself as having not a fact to support your statements which you did not make and your opinions as unsupported yet unmoved and unabated by the facts.

Ever read the book called "Candide?" I am convinced you have not.

What bearing or impact of contexual fact would this have upon this discussion?

 

[El_Machinae]

Freeing people from a jail is a pretty sound strategy, if the goal is to continue to bleed the enemy. I'm sorry that it worked. Hopefully the aid will start to help Afghanistan turn around. It's such a tough place to live.

 

[El_Machinae]

Fox, I think you're tilting at windmills here. I know you're looking for a good debate, but Beaver certainly isn't cheering the Taliban. I think you're reading in too much.

 

[EdwardTking]

Sadly I think that Afghanistan is the sort of place where you tell the opinion
pollster what you think he wants to hear, if you know what is good for you.

And I dare say the Taleban gets 90%+ rating too when they conduct their polls.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Its nice to know they kill people who don't deserve to die and give freebies to those who should have died.

 

[FriendlyFire]

We have a long long way to go as a resurrgent south is grabbing headlines once again. Not to mention the elephant in the room but the drug trade and government corruption is one hell of an side issue. Still rather then debating the popularity of the Taliban we need to do something about there growing power.

As of 2007, the insurgency, in the form of a Taliban guerrilla war, continues. However, the Pashtun tribal group, with over 40 million members, has a long history of resistance to occupation forces in the region so the Taliban themselves may comprise only a part of the insurgency

Some commentators viewed Islamabad's shift from war to diplomacy as implicit recognition of the growing power of the resurgent Taliban relative to American influence, with the US distracted by the threat of looming crises in Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

 

[FriendlyFire]

We have a long long way to go as a resurrgent south is grabbing headlines once again. Not to mention the elephant in the room but the drug trade and government corruption is one hell of an side issue. Still rather then debating the popularity of the Taliban we need to do something about there growing power.

As of 2007, the insurgency, in the form of a Taliban guerrilla war, continues. However, the Pashtun tribal group, with over 40 million members, has a long history of resistance to occupation forces in the region so the Taliban themselves may comprise only a part of the insurgency

Some commentators viewed Islamabad's shift from war to diplomacy as implicit recognition of the growing power of the resurgent Taliban relative to American influence, with the US distracted by the threat of looming crises in Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban