Hundreds of Taliban prisoners freed after attack on Afghan jail

[JSt0rm]

Do you think we would be dong better in afghan if we weren't in Iraq? I fear we will lose both because of the epic blunders.
----------------------------------------


http://www.independent.co.uk/n...fghan-jail-847015.html


By Jerome Starkey in Kabul
Saturday, 14 June 2008


AP

Two suicide bombers drove a lorry packed with explosive into the prison gates

Taliban militants blew open one of Afghanistan's biggest prisons last night, setting free more than 400 insurgents and 700 criminals.

A suicide bomber drove a lorry packed full of explosives into the main gates of Kandahar prison, while teams of militants attacked the building with Kalashnikov rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

A Taliban spokesman said 30 insurgents on motorcycles and two suicide bombers were involved in the attack. Officials said almost all of the 1,150 prisoners escaped in the gun battle that ensued, including more than 400 Taliban.

Witnesses said that Taliban gunmen stormed into the jail, shooting guards as they raced to free their fellow militants.

The brother of President Hamid Karzai, Walid Karzai, said a second wave of suicide bombers then ran into the prison and blew down two of the compound's mud walls. Mr Karzai, who is the head of the provincial council, said: "All the prisoners escaped. There is no one left." The first blast, from a water tanker filled with explosives, destroyed the main gate, killing all of the guards nearby.

The prison's governor, Abdul Qadir, said: "They used a truck to blow the gate open and all of the guards have been killed and are under rubble."

A spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force said: "There was a suicide vehicle-borne IED [improvised explosive device]. Isaf are assisting the Afghan National Police to cordon off the area. Obviously prisoners have escaped. We have reports of numbers but we are yet to confirm them."

Dozens of people are thought to have been killed and injured in the attack, which started at 9.30pm and continued into the night. Afghan troops and local police, backed by Nato troops, rushed to the scene, but they were too late to stem the exodus. A witness said: "There was nothing left. The building was destroyed. Everyone ran away." A local shopkeeper said the prisoners fled into the fruit groves that surround the jail under cover of darkness.

Kandahar is the country's second-biggest city and the jail housed criminals from all over the south. Canada has a few hundred troops stationed inside the city. There is also an American special forces base nearby, but most of the international troops are based at Kandahar Airfield, outside the city.

The attack comes as President Karzai visits Paris to appeal for more money from international donors to rebuild his shattered country. It also comes days after a massive drugs bust by British and Afghan commandos in Kandahar, which destroyed more than 236 tonnes of cannabis.

Analysts said that the jail break might have been bankrolled by the drug smugglers in revenge for the recent raid. But a spokesman for the Taliban said that militants had been planning the assault for the past two months "to release our Taliban friends". He added: "Today we succeeded." The escaped prisoners "are safe in town and they are going to their homes".

A spokesman for the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force said that it was aware of the attack, but that it had no details.

The country's prisons have been heavily criticised for the lawlessness inside their own walls. British officials in Kabul have warned that the capital's main jail risks being overrun by its inmates. There have been a series of riots where guards have lost control of entire wings for days at a time

* The Ministry of Defence confirmed last night that Britain was to deploy a few hundred extra troops to Afghanistan. The MoD also released the names of two British soldiers killed on Thursday in southern Afghanistan. L/Cpl James Bateman, 29, of Staines, Middlesex, and Pte Jeff Doherty, 20, of Southam, Warwickshire, were killed on a patrol in Helmand province.

 

[Red Dawn]

Man how bad did we fuck up by taking our eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan by getting bogged down in the unnecessary war in Iraq?

 

[Butterbean]

Just something else for the Democrats to celebrate.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just something else for me to celebrate.

:disgust:

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just something else for the Democrats to celebrate.

Are you serious?

:thumbsdown:

Back into the sewers with you!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just something else for the Democrats to celebrate.

Are you serious?

:thumbsdown:

No he's heinous

 

[tweaker2]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Man how bad did we fuck up by taking our eye off of the real war on terror in Afghanistan by getting bogged down in the unnecessary war in Iraq?

I understand that the question you posed is a statement, the gist of which i agree with. However, i'd like to support your contention by answering your question anyway:

Sadly to say, for the answer to your question, you can ask every person who lost a family member or loved one from the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Bush and Cheney exploited the deaths and grief of these victims to pursue their own agenda in Iraq.

To this very day, justice has not been served upon the leader of these acts of terror, and has apparently been relegated to the back burner of Bush and Cheney's list of things to accomplish before leaving office.

In one single act, Bush, Cheney and the business interests they are obligated to supremely insulted, disgraced and marginalized the deaths and subsequent grief of those thousands of victims both living and deceased when they decided it was more important to fulfill their personal agendas over those of the nation they were elected to lead.

At a critical moment in the nation's history, these two political opportunists favored the interests of their extremely wealthy buddies over the pursuit of justice for those that suffered at the hands of OBL. We all know that famous quote Bush made when asked about the status of hunting down OBL. It spoke volumes about what interests Bush and Cheney were/are serving.

So, how badly did our top leaders screw up from their horrific decision to "get the oil" as McCain has inadvertently confirmed instead of pursuing justice for those that still rightly demand it?

As i've stated earlier, just ask the victims of 9/11. Then ask the families of all those troops who were KIA'd, wounded and maimed under the guise of "fighting the war on terror" in Iraq of all places.

 

[Lemon law]

Its still a human tragedy and a wake up call on the anarchy. Even if taliban supporters rejoice at the liberation of 400 hundred of their own, its also had the side effect of releasing 700 criminals who are again free to visit their criminal ways on the Afghani people. And who knows how many are involved in promoting the opium trade or in the total intimidation of innocent Afghani civilians.

Worse yet it sets up a possible precedent of a war lord thug and taliban alliance that threatens to leave Nato troops in great danger as they become odd man out.

Even as a critic of the conduct of the Afghani occupation, there is no joy to be taken from what amounts to a lose lose lose situation.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yet you and others seem to think that the Taliban should be left alone.

It is not our war - our comflict is with AQ.

We shold not go after the Taliban and attempt to exterminate them where ever they hide.

This is what happens when you allow them freedom of movement and to not take the conflict to them. They take the conflict to you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Yet you and others seem to think that the Taliban should be left alone.

It is not our war - our comflict is with AQ.

We shold not go after the Taliban and attempt to exterminate them where ever they hide.

This is what happens when you allow them freedom of movement and to not take the conflict to them. They take the conflict to you.

Can you give examples of who thinks this? This would be the first time I think I've ever heard of someone saying we shouldn't fight the Taliban.

 

[extra]

I haven't seen anyone on this forum say the Taliban should have been left alone. Can you point to some examples of that lol. Most of the left-leaning people here seem upset that we diverted resources to Iraq. From what I've seen (and I agree with) from both the left and right-leaning people here we should have committed large resources to absolutely crushing the taliban and then setting up good infrastructure and government there in Afghanistan.

Instead we went in, lost focus, and got bogged down fighting somewhere that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and the people who attacked us.

It woulda been like in WW2 when we got attacked by Japan if we were like damn them for attacking us, Mexico is evil and must be stopped! And then invaded and occupied Mexico. How much sense would that make? None. Same thing, though ;\.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Yet you and others seem to think that the Taliban should be left alone.

It is not our war - our comflict is with AQ.

We shold not go after the Taliban and attempt to exterminate them where ever they hide.

This is what happens when you allow them freedom of movement and to not take the conflict to them. They take the conflict to you.

Can you give examples of who thinks this? This would be the first time I think I've ever heard of someone saying we shouldn't fight the Taliban.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On balance, I think on this limited point, Common Courtesy, who has been active on some of these threads, is more correct than eskimospy who seems to be a jonney come lately to an ongoing forum debate he seems not up to speed on.

But truth be told, I am somewhat the very rascal who is somewhat saying we should not be fighting the taliban. But that must be qualified with many ******************* asterics that go right over the head of many.

On one hand, some of the doctrines the taliban advocates are totally incompatible with a modern world. Chief among them is the total subjection of women as a chattel species. The taliban also preaches an anti Western message against Western meddling in the affairs of Afghanistan. And if that ain't enough to piss the pope, its certainly enough to somewhat doom any Western style military occupation.

The first big *asteric fallacy is in assuming we are dealing with a modern world when we even mention Afghanistan. And sadly, by any measure, the taliban is somewhat 100% correct in blaming Western interests and their meddling for all their current miseries. And while the taliban is almost 100% incompatible with a modern world, its sadly more compatible with the current Afghani reality which can be best described as incredibly primitive at best and definitely not modern. And since the only benefits Western technology has brought to Afghanistan is higher technology ways to enslave and oppress the Afghani people, the larger message of the taliban has proved to be an easy sell because the alternative has proved to be tragically ever so much worse.

The second big* assumption is that the taliban is 100% evil. If we listen to palehorse and JOS they would have us believe that the taliban is 100% composed of closet rapists whose only agenda is rape and political power. When in fact much of the taliban political power was achieved from the very sons of the Afghani people who were sent away to safety and educated in Pakistani madrassas. And with the somewhat easy indoctrination of youth they were sold a glorious myth of an Afghanistan that never was. And when they returned to a post soviet invasion Afghanistan dominated by war lord thugs, they asserted that uplifting message of thou shalt not steal and sent the war lord oppressors packing. And also stopped the cultivation of opium. So in that sense, the taliban doctrine and Western interests are 100% in agreement and its a mixed bag in terms of being 100% evil. But more importantly,
the thou shalt not steal doctrine was starting to set Afghanistan onto a road where it could become a modern nation. And sadly, the Nato led occupation has set Afghanistan back some 20-30 years.

And the current question is do we exterminate the good with the bad in the taliban, or do we try to retain the baby while we throw out the bathwater. We are trying the former course and flopping badly, and certainly biting off way more than we can chew given the resources we are willing to allocate.

The real question still boils down to that original *asteric contention that many of the taliban ideas are incompatible with a modern world. My contention is and remains, as
the taliban sees the POSITIVE benefits of a modern world, they will self reject much of what we find currently objectionable with their doctrine while retaining much of what we can agree on.

The alternate idea is that we can be successful in exterminating an idea.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Yet you and others seem to think that the Taliban should be left alone.

It is not our war - our comflict is with AQ.

We shold not go after the Taliban and attempt to exterminate them where ever they hide.

This is what happens when you allow them freedom of movement and to not take the conflict to them. They take the conflict to you.

Can you give examples of who thinks this? This would be the first time I think I've ever heard of someone saying we shouldn't fight the Taliban.

Everybody (who listens to hannity and rush) knows that the Taliban and AQ were in Iraq.. and that they had remote control planes able to distribute chemical weapons over manhattan on just 30 minutes notice

Disclaimer: I was all for reformation of Afghanistan and extermination of the Taliban.. just not the wasted war in Iraq

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Just something else for the Democrats to celebrate.

Yes, just like when Blackhawk down hurt Clinton politically, you celebrated it and wanted it to happen. That's how un-American you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

**cut**

I don't think they are 100% evil, that's the cartoon supervillainy that people try to ascribe to our enemies all the time. I also understand that their ideology appeals to a significant segment of Afghan society. I don't really see why this matters though.

They are an element that actively protected criminals who were complicit in the murder of 3,000 odd Americans. There seems to be no indication to me that they would hesitate for a moment to make the same choice again. That's not really going to fly for us from a foreign policy standpoint.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Lemon law

**cut**

I don't think they are 100% evil, that's the cartoon supervillainy that people try to ascribe to our enemies all the time. I also understand that their ideology appeals to a significant segment of Afghan society. I don't really see why this matters though.

They are an element that actively protected criminals who were complicit in the murder of 3,000 odd Americans. There seems to be no indication to me that they would hesitate for a moment to make the same choice again. That's not really going to fly for us from a foreign policy standpoint.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I somewhat understand its not going to fly from our immediate foreign policy standpoint, but wishing pigs had wings would be nice also. But pigs sprouting wings will not happen either no matter how hard we wish.

We have to somewhat understand that Al-Quida and the taliban are two separate entities, one is a international entity dedicated to spreading international terrorism and the taliban is a limited national movement. Both owe their birth to the Reagan era experiment of arming terrorists to tweak the nose of the Russian bear and the events that occurred thereafter.

The real question is and remains, is the continuing agenda of the taliban to spread international terrorism and did the taliban MEMBERS buy into the Al-Quida agenda to attack America? I for one think the answer is no and no. But from the taliban leadership position and regional culture, we cannot minimize the deep debt certain pre 911 actions by Al-Quida
placed the the leadership under.

But in terms of a wishing pigs would fly metric, the one lesson we can now learn is that after six years of effort, we are further from exterminating the taliban than we were six years ago. And while I do not advocate a if you can't lick em join them, maybe its well past time to start to advocate a if you can't lick them co opt them. Its now become the official Pakistani policy, its what Karzia advocates, and many other foreign policy experts also advocate the same. Its only athema to basic GWB&co types who are long on
ineffectual and expensive effort and totally short on results. In many ways, the agenda of the taliban, the Agenda of Pakistan, and the agenda of the Western powers are not all that incompatible.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think AQ and the Taliban are forever joined at the hip (primary thanks to the Pakistan ISI). I wouldn't give the Taliban an inch - unless they gave up OBL, gave up their militancy and joined the Afghan political process (locally and nationally).

Bush-41 got us into Mogadishu. I give credit to him and Slick Willie for trying to make the best of a terrible situation. Credit is also due to the Pakistanis (who lost more guys than we did several months earlier in Mogadishu).

And just because we don't hear much about it these days, Somalia continues to be one of the 'tips of the spear' against Islamic extremists (much more so than Iraq) ...

 

[Zebo]

Do you think we would be dong better in afghan if we weren't in Iraq? I fear we will lose both because of the epic blunders.

No I think we can't win until we start fighting. Why was there a prison in the first place? Why do taliban funerals go unmolested? Why are Mosques (armories) off limits? Why did we shun and disarm the NA who were killing Taliban/AQ in droves.

I've already come to the conclusion these wars are more about profiteering than actually winning. Two 'wars' means more profit.

 

[Lemon law]

While I can somewhat agree with some of the points heyheybooboo made in the above thread, I very much disagree with---I think AQ and the Taliban are forever joined at the hip (primary thanks to the Pakistan ISI). I wouldn't give the Taliban an inch - unless they gave up OBL, gave up their militancy and joined the Afghan political process (locally and nationally).

The Pakistani national interests and the taliban may be somewhat joined at the hip and an excellent case can be made for that. But even then, Pakistan may not care much about its tribal areas, but in the greater part of Pakistan that has embraced modernity, taliban type ideals have almost no appeal and the taliban is smart enough not to try to impose it on modern Pakistan by military actions.

But just like Iraq where AL-Quida has worn out its welcome with its Sunni hosts, the taliban can almost 100% blame Al-Quida for most of their problems. By Muslim tradition the taliban were somewhat honor bound to defend Ossama Bin Laden who somewhat shamelessly used their hospitality to attack an America not even on their radar screen. They have discharged their obligations and have to now realize Al-Quida is incompatible with their agenda. More importantly, Pakistan has no use for Al-Quida either. And as proof of that, demonstrates it to the world by arresting MORE AL-QUIDA OPERATIVES THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.

Some countries mount their soapbox and denounce Al-Quida, but Pakistan is the country that best demonstrates it. As for Pakistan and taliban, they already decided it better to co opt the taliban than make large parts of their country into a shooting gallery. Pakistan already has a heaping plate of internal and external political problems somewhat independent of either Al-Quida or the taliban, and they are quite understandably working on their problems. And we have no real right to expect them to drop anything to work
on someone else's problem, especially when our approach is almost mutually exclusive with their national interests.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I've already come to the conclusion these wars are more about profiteering than actually winning. Two 'wars' means more profit.

Michael Scheuer describes every conflict since 1960 as a series of "half-fought wars"...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Zebo
I've already come to the conclusion these wars are more about profiteering than actually winning. Two 'wars' means more profit.

Michael Scheuer describes every conflict since 1960 as a series of "half-fought wars"...

Where did he say that..some article - his book? Very smart man.


I would go back to when Truman fired MacArthur in Korea is when we started pussy footing and thus losing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Zebo
I've already come to the conclusion these wars are more about profiteering than actually winning. Two 'wars' means more profit.

Michael Scheuer describes every conflict since 1960 as a series of "half-fought wars"...

Where did he say that..some article - his book? Very smart man.


I would go back to when Truman fired MacArthur in Korea is when we started pussy footing and thus losing.

Some of the many reasons Truman fired MacArthur were that he was engaging in destructive foreign policy maneuvers outside of the President's okay and being massively insubordinate in doing so, and he wanted to nuke China.

These are very good reasons to fire a commander.