Top Tailban commander killed in Afghanastan

[Lemon law]

From Yahoo news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_...lled;_ylt=Aj66KGxyV3hWvBMAS4EcdI_MWM0F

Supposedly this marks 2/3 of the top Tailban command killed in the past six months.

With this one legged commander dying in the process of bringing the long delayed Afghan spring offensive. The question is---will this be a turning point in the Afghan war or just a temporary Tailban setback?

 

[dahunan]

They probably laugh when we think it will hurt their offensive..

Recently we killed some topdog in Iraq.. and what happened.. sht got worse

 

[BarneyFife]

Don't they kill the top commander/high level officer every month?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Don't they kill the top commander/high level officer every month?

Every time you kill the ?top? leader someone else comes along and becomes the new ?top? leader. So you have an endless supply of ?top? leaders?

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Don't they kill the top commander/high level officer every month?

Every time you kill the ?top? leader someone else comes along and becomes the new ?top? leader. So you have an endless supply of ?top? leaders?

In Iraq, yes. In Afghanistan this is a good deal.. The Taliban is a (was) is a structured force unlike most of the groups in Iraq.. Afghanistan can be won if this continues and we keep helping the people, unlike Iraq.

 

[jpeyton]

We invaded in full back in 2001.

And we're still fighting the Taliban?

Pathetic.

 

[Narmer]

Yay for democracy:roll:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We invaded in full back in 2001.

And we're still fighting the Taliban?

Pathetic.

When the Taliban is being assisted by locals and Pakistanis in areas taht we can not go effectively (or at all), it wouild be understandable.

Do you expect that they will just walk out in the open and say here I am, come fight me.

 

[dahunan]

How many troops are in Iraq compared to Afghanistan?

 

[Starbuck1975]

We invaded in full back in 2001. And we're still fighting the Taliban? Pathetic.

We defeated the Taliban, and are now keeping them in check. There has not been the rise of an insurgency in Afghanistan largely because we handled that occupation quite well, largely because we leveraged the anti-Taliban forces already in Afghanistan to lead the charge and maintain the peace.

That we continue to identify, target and eliminate Taliban leaders is a good thing. For the Taliban to launch any offensive, they will have to do so with conventional forces, and come out into the open...eliminating their leadership structure kind of places a huge obstacle in the path of those ambitions.

As others have pointed out, our mission would be complete in Afghanistan if our forces had the authority to pursue the Taliban remnants hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan. But so long as they remain there, they are isolated and essentially contained.

 

[tomywishbone]

I feel safer already.:roll: Idiots.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I feel safer already. Idiots.

Well that clearly ends the discussion. Not sure I can counter such a thought provoking and thorough analysis. :laugh:

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's too bad they couldn't capture him alive and squeeze him for information before killing him.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We invaded in full back in 2001. And we're still fighting the Taliban? Pathetic.

We defeated the Taliban, and are now keeping them in check. There has not been the rise of an insurgency in Afghanistan largely because we handled that occupation quite well, largely because we leveraged the anti-Taliban forces already in Afghanistan to lead the charge and maintain the peace.

That we continue to identify, target and eliminate Taliban leaders is a good thing. For the Taliban to launch any offensive, they will have to do so with conventional forces, and come out into the open...eliminating their leadership structure kind of places a huge obstacle in the path of those ambitions.

As others have pointed out, our mission would be complete in Afghanistan if our forces had the authority to pursue the Taliban remnants hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan. But so long as they remain there, they are isolated and essentially contained.

Welcome to 2003.

The Taliban are resurgent, and have taken back large areas in the southwest and they are making strides into Pakistan.
You really should do a little research...it's not going so well for NATO, unfortunately.

Here's one for starters...lots more on Google.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Don't they kill the top commander/high level officer every month?

Every time you kill the ?top? leader someone else comes along and becomes the new ?top? leader. So you have an endless supply of ?top? leaders?

Yes, but they have less experience, knowledge, connections and are less effective.

Fern

 

[Starbuck1975]

Welcome to 2003. The Taliban are resurgent, and have taken back large areas in the southwest and they are making strides into Pakistan. You really should do a little research...it's not going so well for NATO, unfortunately.

Nothing in the article you posted, or the myriad of recent articles on Afghanistan, suggest a resurgence of the Taliban. Hell, even the article you linked suggests a concern for recent Taliban activities, but nothing in that article spells doom and gloom for NATO.

What we have scene is that Taliban insurgents are starting to utilize tactics learned and utilized in Iraq...but the Taliban still remain isolated to the south and in the remote mountain regions of Pakistan.

NATO and American forces have the capital city...they control a majority of Afghanistan...the Taliban do not maintain popular support...for the Taliban to regain control, they will have to launch an offensive...one that will die a quick death once they set foot outside of their safe havens.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Welcome to 2003. The Taliban are resurgent, and have taken back large areas in the southwest and they are making strides into Pakistan. You really should do a little research...it's not going so well for NATO, unfortunately.

Nothing in the article you posted, or the myriad of recent articles on Afghanistan, suggest a resurgence of the Taliban. Hell, even the article you linked suggests a concern for recent Taliban activities, but nothing in that article spells doom and gloom for NATO.

What we have scene is that Taliban insurgents are starting to utilize tactics learned and utilized in Iraq...but the Taliban still remain isolated to the south and in the remote mountain regions of Pakistan.

NATO and American forces have the capital city...they control a majority of Afghanistan...the Taliban do not maintain popular support...for the Taliban to regain control, they will have to launch an offensive...one that will die a quick death once they set foot outside of their safe havens.

Fine, don't bother to research it...all is well; mission accomplished...move along.

Did you bother to Google "resurgent taliban 2007" to locate your "myriad of recent articles"?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Did you bother to Google "resurgent taliban 2007" to locate your "myriad of recent articles"?

I simply assumed that you provided the most compelling article to support your argument...which it did not.

I did perform a search for articles on the Taliban, and short of the attempt on Cheney, there wasn't a whole lot of information that supported your assessment.

Also, since you disagree with my perception of the situation in Afghanistan, the burden of proof is on you to provide data that proves otherwise.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We invaded in full back in 2001. And we're still fighting the Taliban? Pathetic.

We defeated the Taliban, and are now keeping them in check. There has not been the rise of an insurgency in Afghanistan largely because we handled that occupation quite well, largely because we leveraged the anti-Taliban forces already in Afghanistan to lead the charge and maintain the peace.

That we continue to identify, target and eliminate Taliban leaders is a good thing. For the Taliban to launch any offensive, they will have to do so with conventional forces, and come out into the open...eliminating their leadership structure kind of places a huge obstacle in the path of those ambitions.

As others have pointed out, our mission would be complete in Afghanistan if our forces had the authority to pursue the Taliban remnants hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan. But so long as they remain there, they are isolated and essentially contained.

People need to realize that we are not fighting a nationalist entity that can formally surrender. The taliban, or remnants of it, will likely always be causing trouble in Afghanistan. We will be able to claim victory when we stand up a government that can maintain security with very little help from us.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Did you bother to Google "resurgent taliban 2007" to locate your "myriad of recent articles"?

I simply assumed that you provided the most compelling article to support your argument...which it did not.

I did perform a search for articles on the Taliban, and short of the attempt on Cheney, there wasn't a whole lot of information that supported your assessment.

Also, since you disagree with my perception of the situation in Afghanistan, the burden of proof is on you to provide data that proves otherwise.

I can only lead you to the water......

I said "The Taliban are resurgent, and have taken back large areas in the southwest and they are making strides into Pakistan."

Every one of those points is the subject, if not the headline of several recent articles from both U.S. and worldwide news sources.

Maybe I just used the wrong Google?
:roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Last time I checked Karzi is still the defacto mayor of Kabul and little else. The Taliban may not control the countryside but either do US troops. The Thugs and warlords are in firm control
with any sort of trade or commerce now again impossible. Most in Pakistan and most of the local inhabitants are not exactly happy with the US occupation. Like it or not, parts of the Taliban provided a needed counterbalance to anarchy and thuggery. Until something can replace that, the US occupation is doomed because we brought back what the Taliban eliminated--namely the thuggery and anarchy the USA allied itself to eliminate the Taliban.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We invaded in full back in 2001.

And we're still fighting the Taliban?

Pathetic.

Our Idiot In Chief took his eye off the ball and squandered our gains by shipping our troops off to Iraq, instead of finishing the job. Now, the Taliban is regaining strength, and we're probably going to have to fight them again, if the locals will allow it.

Originally posted by: dahunan
How many troops are in Iraq compared to Afghanistan?

Too many compared to not enough. :frown:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
When the Taliban is being assisted by locals and Pakistanis in areas taht we can not go effectively (or at all), it wouild be understandable.

Do you expect that they will just walk out in the open and say here I am, come fight me.

So what you're saying is we can't succeed? I fully agree with that. The Soviets couldn't succeed there either.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Did you bother to Google "resurgent taliban 2007" to locate your "myriad of recent articles"?

I simply assumed that you provided the most compelling article to support your argument...which it did not.

I did perform a search for articles on the Taliban, and short of the attempt on Cheney, there wasn't a whole lot of information that supported your assessment.

Also, since you disagree with my perception of the situation in Afghanistan, the burden of proof is on you to provide data that proves otherwise.

:laugh:

Don't you disagree with feralkid? Oh wait, you opined first! (I keep losing my internet rulebook.)

:laugh: