Afghan Taliban splinter group names Mullah Rasool as leader

[That Guy]

I disagree. If we are to accept that people will die anyway in insurgency, more number of actors which are hostile to each other is a good thing for government. Desertion rates is not affected by the number of factions. Negotiations with a split enemy is easier. You get to pick which one to talk to. Divide and conquer the problem.

Peace deals themselves have caused fractures in insurgencies like the Irish one. Negotiating with a single force has an overrated element of convenience. In any case, people who don't like negotiations will break away and keep at their business. Better splinter before negotiations so that government is in a better position.

See what I am talking about:
‘Leader of breakaway Taliban faction killed’ - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

Except it doesn't work like that.

The article you posted proves nothing, in fact, the title is misleading, as it's just a leading figure, not the leader. The guy who got killed will simply be replaced, as that is the nature of an insurgency. Leaders are not too big to die, everyone is disposable.

Why do you not get that the more actors there are, the more violence there will be. The government's job is to keep violence to a bare minimum, so as civil life isn't affected, having more actors directly hinders that goal.

Even if the different factions are killing each other, they're killing each other in civilian areas, which means that civilians will inevitably get caught in the middle of the fire fight.

The army and intel units will also be stretched thin, as they'll now have to fight multiple leaders with multiple plots, and have to intercept multiple actions. It will cause chaos, and demoralize the military.

Sure, those that don't want peace can simply break away, but the most likely scenario will be that may that don't want peace, a number of them will have no choice BUT to accept peace, simply because they'll enjoy very little material support.

Your example of the IRA is bad. The IRA negotiated as a united movement, and the division only really occurred AFTER peace was achieved. Look at the CIRA and RIRA (both of whom are successor organizations to the IRA), they're basically dead. Sure they still commit terror attacks from time to time, but it is SOOOO miniscule that law enforcement can take care of them, without having to involve the army. That is the end goal for peace talks, to make any potential successor organization (that WILL appear) as toothless as possible, so that the insurgency will die.

 

[RabzonKhan]

That is the opposite of what would happen. The more groups there are, the higher the level of violence. One group is easier to control and deal with, a thousand smaller groups are harder to defeat. Look at any nation facing multiple insurgencies. You can stand by your statement all you want, but it is simply wrong.

Please, let’s not exaggerate. We are talking about Afghan Taliban, after the death of their leader a powerful splinter group has emerged and the important point to note is that the splinter group is from the same ethnic background, most of its leaders and foot soldiers come from the same area and to fund their terrorist activity they will have to fight for the same (commission from drug smuggling, smuggling goods between Pakistan and Afghanistan, Arab financiers etc.) resources.

Wouldn’t that make them weaker, why is it so difficult to understand?

This is the classic case of; a divide and conquer strategy, and the funny thing is that Afghan government did not have to put any efforts.

And as I gave you the example of TTP, internal rivalry and splinter groups weakened them and then it was easier for us to defeat them. We did not regain our territory through negotiations, we defeated Pakistani Taliban and their supporters on the battlefield.

The second round of talks were to be about a ceasefire, leading into a political settlement for the later talks.

Sorry to say, but that’s your kham khayali.

They've never begged Pakistan to bring the taliban to the negotiating table, they've begged Pakistan to hand over taliban leaders residing in Pakistan. There is a clear difference here. It's the US that's been pushing for a political settlement, which the Afghans have reluctantly accepted.

You are right they did ask Pakistan to hand over Taliban leaders, but that was not to put them front of the firing squad, the fact is almost all the Taliban that Pakistan handed over to Afghanistan were freed by Afghanistan in the anticipation that they will bring fellow Taliban leaders to the negotiation table.

The irony is Mullah Akhund, the Taliban’s shadow governor for Kunduz and Taliban’s former foreign minister, Mullah Hassan were released by Pakistan, the release of Akhund and Hassan was part of a deal that led to the opening of a Taliban office in Doha.

Rather than working for peace, Akhund and Hassan led the Taliban terrorists to take over Kunduz last October.

Karzai even said in one of his interviews that mullah Omar can stand for presidential election in Afghanistan.

He had also set up a High Peace Council for opening peace talks with the Taliban, which was led by the late former President Rabbani.

And as I said, Afghanistan was literally begging Pakistan to bring Taliban to the negotiating table.

I’m surprise you did not even know that?

Anyway, here are some links for you, and if you want more I can give you more links:

Karzai seeks Pakistani help in Taliban peace talks | Asia | DW.COM | 28.08.2013

Karzai seeks Pakistani help in Taliban peace talks

Aug 28 2013

Afghan leader Hamid Karzai seeks Pakistan help in Taliban talks - latimes

Afghan leader Hamid Karzai seeks Pakistan help in Taliban talks

February 17, 2012


Afghans in Pakistan for Taliban peace talks - Al Jazeera English

20 Nov 2013

The delegation’s arrival follows a breakthrough in negotiations during a summit between the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the British prime minister David Cameron and his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif.

Karzai formed the Afghan High Peace Council in 2010 to pursue a negotiated peace with the Taliban.

The history of Afghanistan suggests otherwise. The taliban couldn't be defeated by over 50+ nations, including a Super power and former superpowers. it's been 14 years, what makes you think the taliban can be defeated so easily now?

This is an accepted fact, the war can only end through negotiations. The US is pushing for this, the Chinese are pushing for this, the Russians are pushing for this, Iran is pushing for this, Pakistan is pushing for this, and it seems that the only nation NOT pushing for this is India.

First of all, Taliban do not represent Afghan nation.

50 nations fighting the Taliban is a joke, the fact is, this was and is United States war and to some extent British, the rest of the countries had mostly supporting role.

Let’s look at the troop’s numbers, Malaysia 2----Austria, Greece and Iceland each have 3, and 38 countries had less than 500 troops.

Do you know that the Taliban terrorists who were controlling 90% of Afghanistan collapsed in two months.

If George Bush had not started a stupid war in Iraq and had he focused on Afghanistan, Taliban would have been history.

The TTP and the Afghan taliban are different in nature and doctrine, despite bother being extremist. The Afghan taliban's goals are strictly related to Afghanistan alone, they have no desire to expand beyond Afghanistan's borders. The TTP's goals are international, as they plan on removing the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and eventually threatening to attack Afghanistan's northern neighbors. Their plan is to establish a global Caliphate.

You are right, TTP has a global agenda no doubt about that, but you are wrong to say that “the Afghan Taliban’s goals are strictly related to Afghanistan alone”

There is a saying, actions speak louder than words, let us look at their actions.

Afghan Taliban could have never captured 90% of Afghanistan without the help of Pakistani, Arabs, Chechen, and Uzbek terrorists. Nek Muhammad, Baitullah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsud, Fazlullah, Wali-ur-Rehman and Sufi Muhammad all had fought for Afghan Taliban’s.

Afghan Taliban's had turned Afghanistan into a terrorist hub, terrorists from around the world had their terrorist training camps there.

The list is long, but here are few examples:

We all know Al Qaeda had several terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

When Tahir Yuldashev co-foundeder of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan fled Uzbekistan, he was welcomed by the Taliban and allowed to open a terrorist training camp near the border with Uzbekistan.

ETIM (East Turkestan Islamic Movement ) and Chechen terrorist were also getting trainings in those camps.

Our own sectarian terrorists Sipah-e-Sahab and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi also had their own terrorist camps.

The Taliban had close relationship with LeJ founder Riaz Basra and gave him sanctuary in Afghanistan and had refused to hand him over, while he was wanted by the Pakistan government for the murder of hundreds of innocent Shias.

So now the question is, if the Afghan Taliban's had no global agenda then how come they were allowing all kinds of international terrorists to run their own terrorist training camps?

I suggest you should read, Taliban by Ahmed Rashid, In The Line Of Fire by Pervez Musharraf, Taliban the unknown enemy by James Fergusson and Fountainhead Of Jihad by Vahid Brown & Don Rassler.

You're also forgetting the capability of both the ANA and Pakistan. The ANA is simply ill-equipped to deal with the insurgency, and suffers heavily from both defections and desertions. The ANA is having a hard time sustaining it's numbers, and is not motivated at all to defend it's own country. It's dominated by the Northern tribes, in particular the Tajik. There are reports that say the reason behind the abandonment of Kunduz to the taliban was entirely due to tribal politics. The Tajik soldiers (that numbered ten thousand) simply didn't want to defend a Pashtun city, so they left, which ended up letting a few hundred taliban militants over run the city. Adding to this, the ANA simply doesn't have the equipment, or the expertise to deal with the insurgency for the long term.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has the will, the expertise, and the power to deal with the TTP.

PA (unlike the ANA) has a high level of nationalism instilled within each personnel. PA does NOT suffer from desertion, and does NOT suffer from defection. Every year, more and more men and women join the military, increasing it's numbers. PA also doesn't care about ethnicity, and welcomes everyone; in fact, it's recent drive of trying to get more and more minorities to join the military has made the PA even more resistant to sectarian divide.

PA has the high tech systems to search and destroy militant sanctuaries, which the ANA don't have. It has even inducted UCAVs to combat militants hiding in harsh terrain.

The ONLY reason why the TTP hasn't been wiped out is because of militant sanctuaries in Afghanistan. The TTP has very little support in Pakistan, which is why it has had to rely heavily on foreign fighters. Meanwhile, the only reason why the Afghan taliban hasn't been wiped out is because it has a lot of support from Afghan tribes that draws it's numbers from, mainly Pashtun. It is an organization that relies heavily on locals, which means it's numbers tend to be a vast majority of Afghan at all times.

The TTP control less than 1% of the territory in Pakistan (soon to be 0%), the Afghan taliban are said to control 20-50% of the Rural Afghanistan, with some presence over at least 70-80% of Afghan territory.

Frankly, your comparison doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


You make it sound easy. Anyway, corruption isn't Afghanistan's number one enemy, it's warlords. Many of the Afghan leaders are former tribal warlords, which has lead to certain tribes getting preferential treatment. Look at Abdul Rashid Dostum, many say he's the real power in Afghanistan, calling him a king maker. He's accused of arming Uzbek militias, by smuggling weapons and drugs, and hiding large cashes of weapons and ammunition. Many even accusing him of trying to turn parts of the ANA into his own personal army, by sending his own forces to join the ANA.

Anyway, the truth is that Afghanistan's tribal politics pretty much forces negotiations. The Afghan taliban cannot be beat, as long as Afghanistan itself isn't united, even if the Afghan taliban itself weaks and divides into different factions. There is a reason why the Afghan taliban emphasis so much about unity among it's own various militant leaders and groups. I suspect that this divide is going to be temporary precisely because the Afghan taliban understand unity is important, at least more than the current political leaders of Afghanistan.

I don’t disagree with you for most of the stuff you have said, but that is just one side of the coin, the other side is that US is still there in Afghanistan and as long as America is there, Taliban cannot take over Afghanistan
and don’t forget Afghan Taliban also had sanctuaries.

Afghan Armed Forces are basically only 8 to 10 years old and since 2013 they have taken over the security responsibilities of Afghanistan and with the exception of what happened in Kunduz, their overall the performance have been improving.

Warlords are part of the corruption that I was talking about.

 

[rubyjackass]

Except it doesn't work like that.

The article you posted proves nothing, in fact, the title is misleading, as it's just a leading figure, not the leader. The guy who got killed will simply be replaced, as that is the nature of an insurgency. Leaders are not too big to die, everyone is disposable.

Simple question. Is TTP the same after Baitullah Mehsud's killing? Don't throw movie dialogues at me. Leaders do matter.

Why do you not get that the more actors there are, the more violence there will be. The government's job is to keep violence to a bare minimum, so as civil life isn't affected, having more actors directly hinders that goal.

There might be more violence, one that comes out because of fratricide. Government's job is no-violence in the big picture. It does not mean capitulating before terrorists when they blackmail with violence.

Even if the different factions are killing each other, they're killing each other in civilian areas, which means that civilians will inevitably get caught in the middle of the fire fight.

Bhai ab kya karein. Gang wars happen and people get caught in between. That is the fact of life.

Your example of the IRA is bad. The IRA negotiated as a united movement, and the division only really occurred AFTER peace was achieved. Look at the CIRA and RIRA (both of whom are successor organizations to the IRA), they're basically dead. Sure they still commit terror attacks from time to time, but it is SOOOO miniscule that law enforcement can take care of them, without having to involve the army. That is the end goal for peace talks, to make any potential successor organization (that WILL appear) as toothless as possible, so that the insurgency will die.

Are you even reading what I wrote? You are just saying my point. Total peace is a mirage. There will be some ahole who does not want peace and their ilk will breakaway at the prospect of peace.

Right? So simply pick the most amenable group which gets maximum support and negotiate it. Kill the rest.


Arey you and your logic. If you are a leader of insurgency, and if your grand theory works and if really larger number of smaller insurgencies is more painful to Afghan government than a larger single insurgency, why would any movement like Taliban organize and fight together? They can always fight independently against government. Simple common sense hai naa? If we don't have the common sense, they would have it right? They fight together because their unity is bad for Afghan government. You want to tell them they got it wrong?

 

[That Guy]

Simple question. Is TTP the same after Baitullah Mehsud's killing? Don't throw movie dialogues at me. Leaders do matter.

The TTP is pretty much the same. Did AQ change after OBL died? No, it's still the same, in fact, it's probably more dangerous.

Also, I don't know what movie dialogue you're referring to. What I said is common sense.

There might be more violence, one that comes out because of fratricide. Government's job is no-violence in the big picture. It does not mean capitulating before terrorists when they blackmail with violence.

It's not about blackmail. The splintering of an insurgency directly results in such a thing, because the different splinter groups start fighting for influence and power.

Bhai ab kya karein. Gang wars happen and people get caught in between. That is the fact of life.

This isn't a gang war, this is an insurgency. This is a classic example of what people get wrong about COIN operations. The military isn't facing drug lords and money grubbing street thugs, they're facing a motivated and brainwashed zealots, willing to die for their cause, in order to achieve their political goals through violence. Gangs don't care who's in charge, as long as they're left alone, insurgents do.

Are you even reading what I wrote? You are just saying my point. Total peace is a mirage. There will be some ahole who does not want peace and their ilk will breakaway at the prospect of peace.

There is a DIFFERENCE between what you wrote and what I did. What you said is that there is no difference if the group splinters now or later, my point is the opposite; the situation get worse if the group splits before any peace deal, but if a peace deal is signed, there is good chance that it won't be as bad of a situation otherwise.

Right? So simply pick the most amenable group which gets maximum support and negotiate it. Kill the rest.

It doesn't work like that. The group will look to crush others, and consolidate power; the only way to consolidate power is to not appear weak. The group will stop negotiating and start a new campaign of violence, why do you think that Kunduz happened? Why do you think that the Afghan taliban have stopped negotiations? Why do you think the violence has gotten WORSE? Picking and choosing only works if there is someone willing to talk, and right now, because of the split, no one is willing to talk with the government; in fact, not even the government is willing to talk, simply because the government itself is split into two factions.

Arey you and your logic. If you are a leader of insurgency, and if your grand theory works and if really larger number of smaller insurgencies is more painful to Afghan government than a larger single insurgency, why would any movement like Taliban organize and fight together? They can always fight independently against government. Simple common sense hai naa? If we don't have the common sense, they would have it right? They fight together because their unity is bad for Afghan government. You want to tell them they got it wrong?

Do you even read the things you write? They're banded together because they want to come back to power under a united taliban government. If they split up and fought, it would end up like the Mujaheddin situation, where the various faction leaders started a civil war. The taliban want to avoid that if they come to power, but that's out of the picture now.

A divided insurgency is bad for both sides. Don't use straw man arguments, and don't insult me.

 

[rubyjackass]

The TTP is pretty much the same. Did AQ change after OBL died? No, it's still the same, in fact, it's probably more dangerous.

It is very different now. May be you forgot the days when TTP had both Waziristans, Swat and Bajaur(almost whole of FATA except inner areas like Tank) under their defacto control.

It's not about blackmail. The splintering of an insurgency directly results in such a thing, because the different splinter groups start fighting for influence and power.

This isn't a gang war, this is an insurgency. This is a classic example of what people get wrong about COIN operations. The military isn't facing drug lords and money grubbing street thugs, they're facing a motivated and brainwashed zealots, willing to die for their cause, in order to achieve their political goals through violence. Gangs don't care who's in charge, as long as they're left alone, insurgents do.

Even those zealots can cause more damage when they are united. Is it so hard to comprehend that coordination between smaller groups is dangerous?

There is a DIFFERENCE between what you wrote and what I did. What you said is that there is no difference if the group splinters now or later, my point is the opposite; the situation get worse if the group splits before any peace deal, but if a peace deal is signed, there is good chance that it won't be as bad of a situation otherwise.

What is the difference? The insurgency will be divided between two groups, those that accepted peace deal, those that do not. It does not matter much whether they divide after talks of before.

It doesn't work like that. The group will look to crush others, and consolidate power; the only way to consolidate power is to not appear weak. The group will stop negotiating and start a new campaign of violence, why do you think that Kunduz happened? Why do you think that the Afghan taliban have stopped negotiations? Why do you think the violence has gotten WORSE? Picking and choosing only works if there is someone willing to talk, and right now, because of the split, no one is willing to talk with the government; in fact, not even the government is willing to talk, simply because the government itself is split into two factions.

They can do short term gimmicks to display power, but long term, they will suffer like @Rabzon said. They have to compete whether for resources or legitimacy. If no one is willing to talk, still better. The army can then have a clear cut goal to eliminate them. Right now they are confused as to why they have to fight some savages who will anyway enter government through a peace deal. Once it is clear that there is no peace possible, the whole Afghan nation will fall in line behind their army.

Do you even read the things you write? They're banded together because they want to come back to power under a united taliban government. If they split up and fought, it would end up like the Mujaheddin situation, where the various faction leaders started a civil war. The taliban want to avoid that if they come to power, but that's out of the picture now.

A divided insurgency is bad for both sides. Don't use straw man arguments, and don't insult me.

Pfftt.. I asked a simple question. And you did not answer it except for the grape fruit theory that Taliban have a noble goal: To prevent a civil war after they capture power(yeah, in their dreams and in yours).

You are expecting some people with seventh century political wits to plan about political stability, that too about a scenario which will emerge after they overthrow Afghan government a half decade later. I will give it to you that they are very good military strategists. But politically they are not. Otherwise they would have controlled entire Afghanistan during their rule.

Afghan Taliban should hire you as a political strategist and follow your advice to splinter into factions so that they can be more effective( ). That will really help Afghan government.

 

[That Guy]

It is very different now. May be you forgot the days when TTP had both Waziristans, Swat and Bajaur(almost whole of FATA except inner areas like Tank) under their defacto control.

You're comparing apples to oranges, without considering the context. No, I am not forgetting anything, my comment still stands.

Even those zealots can cause more damage when they are united. Is it so hard to comprehend that coordination between smaller groups is dangerous?

Of course its dangerous, but you're completely missing the point. Two enemies are harder to fight than one. It's the "1 horse sized duck vs 100" duck sized horses argument, no matter what, you'd rather fight that one horse sized duck cause its easier to deal with.

What is the difference? The insurgency will be divided between two groups, those that accepted peace deal, those that do not. It does not matter much whether they divide after talks of before.

I just explained to you why it matters, do you not read my posts?

They can do short term gimmicks to display power, but long term, they will suffer like @Rabzon said.

Don't say that to me, say that to the people they kill, during these "gimmicks" which are designed to strengthen them, not weaken them. Kunduz strengthened the Afghan Taliban, that is proof enough to show that this argument is ridiculous.

They have to compete whether for resources or legitimacy.

Which results in an increase of violence, which ends up with making it a far more difficult job for the government to keep the peace. Again, ridiculous point to make.

If no one is willing to talk, still better. The army can then have a clear cut goal to eliminate them.

It's worse, because it elongates a war that can ONLY end through a political solution. If it was going to be won militarily, the Americans would have succeeded by now (14 years and still no end).

You're treating the ANA as if they're capable of fighting this insurgency to the bitter end, they're not. The ANA does not have the expertise, nor the equipment it needs to fight the Taliban. They're barely fighting them to a stalemate; while the Taliban have shown they can easily sustain their numbers, the ANA has shown that it can't. In the long run, it will be disastrous for the ANA if no deal is reached.

Right now they are confused as to why they have to fight some savages who will anyway enter government through a peace deal.

No they aren't. Don't make things up, just to strengthen your argument. The biggest problem with the ANA is that it is divided by ethnicity. The Tajik pretty much dominate the army and are treated as foreigners when they're deployed to the south. In fact, reports say that the Tajik abandoned Kunduz to the Taliban, because they didn't want to defend a pashtun city. Whatever the real reason, the fact that the ANA number ten thousand couldn't defend against a few hundred militants, this shows a clear lack of discipline within the ANA ranks. Not to mention that the ANA had to call in US forces to help retake the city. The ANA aren't prepared, and the only solution is political. Everyone agrees, the US, Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan, central Asia, etc.

Once it is clear that there is no peace possible, the whole Afghan nation will fall in line behind their army.

An assumption based on nothing. Meanwhile, history has shown that the Afghan nation has never been united, and likely never will be, it does matter what the situation is.

Pfftt.. I asked a simple question. And you did not answer it except for the grape fruit theory that Taliban have a noble goal: To prevent a civil war after they capture power(yeah, in their dreams and in yours).

I never said the Taliban had a noble goal, how DARE you accuse me of such things. I mere stated their logic, whether you agree with it is irrelevant. I did answer you point, again, whether you agree with it or not, is not my problem.

You are expecting some people with seventh century political wits to plan about political stability, that too about a scenario which will emerge after they overthrow Afghan government a half decade later.

So, instead of answering my point, you dismiss it entirely by using ad hominen attacks against me.

What makes you think it can't happen? Every single insurgency in Afghanistan has been a success to a degree. The central government is weak and corrupt, this gives support the Taliban, who dispense their own version of law quickly, and undermine the local governments and courts.

I will give it to you that they are very good military strategists. But politically they are not. Otherwise they would have controlled entire Afghanistan during their rule.

They almost did, 9/11 and the US invasion stopped them.

If they weren't good at politics, why aren't they on the US's list of international terror organizations? Or the fact that they have an active political office in Qatar, and turkey was willing to host them as well? Or the fact that they've forced the US to negotiations, and accept them as a part of Afghanistan's political future?

I'm not the one who's crazy, you are. If you can't see the evidence before you, that's your problem.

Afghan Taliban should hire you as a political strategist and follow your advice to splinter into factions so that they can be more effective( ). That will really help Afghan government.

How dare you insult me like this? Instead of having a proper debate, you start throwing around such indefensible insults.

If you're going to be too fucking stupid to have a proper debate, then fine.

@waz can you help.me out here?

 

[rubyjackass]

Of course its dangerous, but you're completely missing the point. Two enemies are harder to fight than one. It's the "1 horse sized duck vs 100" duck sized horses argument, no matter what, you'd rather fight that one horse sized duck cause its easier to deal with.

No, it is one horse sized horse vs 100 small-horse sized horses. Getting to make the horse participate in political process will take costly compromises. And he larger the horse more the compromise. Instead it is better to deal with smaller horses and the compromise required is only as big as the largest horse among the bunch.

I just explained to you why it matters, do you not read my posts?

I asked for a logical explanation. You only offered a sequence of events that would unfold. You are thinking avoiding bloodshed is the only goal and that is why we should let the Taliban be united. The goal is actually to defeat the sinister designs of these people. Avoiding bloodshed now will cost later. As you yourself admitted, they are brainwashed zealots who are hell-bent on achieving their goals even with violence. What makes you think they will simply let a democratic liberal Afghanistan flourish? If they are united, they will draw a larger pie in governance increasing the chances of overthrowing government.

Don't say that to me, say that to the people they kill, during these "gimmicks" which are designed to strengthen them, not weaken them. Kunduz strengthened the Afghan Taliban, that is proof enough to show that this argument is ridiculous.

Agree that Kunduz strengthened them. But they also lost people. The gimmicks are good military strategy obviously. But that is all they can do if there is a strong Afghan government. You can admit right now that Afghan government is weak and ask them to run away. Or let them defend their values against the savages.

Which results in an increase of violence, which ends up with making it a far more difficult job for the government to keep the peace. Again, ridiculous point to make.

The peace of a graveyard is worse than bloodshed. This war is better than dead bodies hanging to a pole in Kabul market.

It's worse, because it elongates a war that can ONLY end through a political solution. If it was going to be won militarily, the Americans would have succeeded by now (14 years and still no end).

Yes, a political solution that will allow reasonable people into political mainstream. Not one that allows savages to usurp power. I never said every Taliban should be eliminated. I only said dont go too far trying to placate them. Negotiate with the factions that will respect constitution or some constitution with reasonable accommodation. Simple.

You're treating the ANA as if they're capable of fighting this insurgency to the bitter end, they're not. The ANA does not have the expertise, nor the equipment it needs to fight the Taliban. They're barely fighting them to a stalemate; while the Taliban have shown they can easily sustain their numbers, the ANA has shown that it can't. In the long run, it will be disastrous for the ANA if no deal is reached.

No they aren't. Don't make things up, just to strengthen your argument. The biggest problem with the ANA is that it is divided by ethnicity. The Tajik pretty much dominate the army and are treated as foreigners when they're deployed to the south. In fact, reports say that the Tajik abandoned Kunduz to the Taliban, because they didn't want to defend a pashtun city. Whatever the real reason, the fact that the ANA number ten thousand couldn't defend against a few hundred militants, this shows a clear lack of discipline within the ANA ranks. Not to mention that the ANA had to call in US forces to help retake the city. The ANA aren't prepared, and the only solution is political. Everyone agrees, the US, Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan, central Asia, etc.

Dude. Surrender is no political solution. OK let us say the ANA is not confused about that. Let us say they are Tajik dominated and ran away or out of spite left Kunduz to the dogs.

You are confusing my stand with war advocacy. I always said political solution is the logical conclusion. But what I am also saying is:
1. Somethings should not be compromised by Afghan government in any settlement. For example, better fight than give up representative democracy.
2. Negotiate with the most prominent factions and accept the fact that some will always want to fight. There is no point in insisting that all of them should lay down arms and

An assumption based on nothing. Meanwhile, history has shown that the Afghan nation has never been united, and likely never will be, it does matter what the situation is.

OK. So you think that if people are to decide, they would rather back Taliban than government. In other words, I am just taking a note, Taliban has more support than government among people in the south according to you.

I never said the Taliban had a noble goal, how DARE you accuse me of such things. I mere stated their logic, whether you agree with it is irrelevant. I did answer you point, again, whether you agree with it or not, is not my problem.

This was YOUR logic:
Taliban is more dangerous to the government if they fight as factions and are disunited. But they are fighting united, because their goal is to avoid civil war after they capture power.

Avoiding civil war is a noble goal. So my accusation was right whether you like it or not.

So, instead of answering my point, you dismiss it entirely by using ad hominen attacks against me.

I did answer your point, albeit with a bunch of smileys. You are expecting too much of accommodation and political skills from those savages.

What makes you think it can't happen? Every single insurgency in Afghanistan has been a success to a degree. The central government is weak and corrupt, this gives support the Taliban, who dispense their own version of law quickly, and undermine the local governments and courts.

OK. There is a craze for vigilante justice. It is not an exclusive Afghan feature. But let us reserve judgement on how much support Taliban enjoys now. Only in Pakistani military circles and sources do I read the theory that Afghan government is anti-Pashtun and that Taliban is infact or to some degree a Pashtun insurgency. In Afghan press and even in Pakistani mainstream press, Afghan people whether Pashtun or not are always progressive and anti-Taliban.

They almost did, 9/11 and the US invasion stopped them.

Again, that was not great politics. They assassinated Massoud. Yeah, some great political maneuver.
[/QUOTE]
If they weren't good at politics, why aren't they on the US's list of international terror organizations? Or the fact that they have an active political office in Qatar, and turkey was willing to host them as well? Or the fact that they've forced the US to negotiations, and accept them as a part of Afghanistan's political future?
[/QUOTE]
Talks are happening because Americans are good at politics. They want to wash their hands off Afghanistan. Not listing them as terrorist organization was an American masterstroke. Not Taliban's genius.

I'm not the one who's crazy, you are. If you can't see the evidence before you, that's your problem.


How dare you insult me like this? Instead of having a proper debate, you start throwing around such indefensible insults.

If you're going to be too fucking stupid to have a proper debate, then fine.

@waz can you help.me out here?

Jeez, grow some skin.

 

[haviZsultan]

@Rabzon, @That Guy This is a good debate but I will say that the killing of Taliban leaders is useful. They will be replaced, true but when a leader dies of the Taliban the entire nation feels happy. I was celebrating when Baitullah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsud, Qari Hussain and Wali Ur Rehman were killed. There is no doubt that there is a great lift in morale for those people following the war on terror when a wanted terrorist commander is killed. This is why I think our focus should be on killing the TTP's commanders still.

It is true that another leader will replace the old one but we should also look at the boost of morale. Furthermore the leaders are the ones directing the attacks against Pakistan. Surely we want some payback and should ask it from their killings rather than through only some of the militants who commit the attack. Fazlullah still living and those terrorist leaders I mentioned each being killed by US drone strikes gives the impression that our Pakistan army is not doing enough in the war. Our enemies-we should kill them, particularly the leaders that should be our logic.

Though I would also like to note that Nek Muhammed was killed when he had negotiated peace with Pakistan and refused to attack our people. It is said the same was the case with Hakimullah. The US has been grossly negligent to our problems.

 

[That Guy]

No, it is one horse sized horse vs 100 small-horse sized horses. Getting to make the horse participate in political process will take costly compromises. And he larger the horse more the compromise. Instead it is better to deal with smaller horses and the compromise required is only as big as the largest horse among the bunch.



I asked for a logical explanation. You only offered a sequence of events that would unfold. You are thinking avoiding bloodshed is the only goal and that is why we should let the Taliban be united. The goal is actually to defeat the sinister designs of these people. Avoiding bloodshed now will cost later. As you yourself admitted, they are brainwashed zealots who are hell-bent on achieving their goals even with violence. What makes you think they will simply let a democratic liberal Afghanistan flourish? If they are united, they will draw a larger pie in governance increasing the chances of overthrowing government.


Agree that Kunduz strengthened them. But they also lost people. The gimmicks are good military strategy obviously. But that is all they can do if there is a strong Afghan government. You can admit right now that Afghan government is weak and ask them to run away. Or let them defend their values against the savages.


The peace of a graveyard is worse than bloodshed. This war is better than dead bodies hanging to a pole in Kabul market.

Yes, a political solution that will allow reasonable people into political mainstream. Not one that allows savages to usurp power. I never said every Taliban should be eliminated. I only said dont go too far trying to placate them. Negotiate with the factions that will respect constitution or some constitution with reasonable accommodation. Simple.

Dude. Surrender is no political solution. OK let us say the ANA is not confused about that. Let us say they are Tajik dominated and ran away or out of spite left Kunduz to the dogs.

You are confusing my stand with war advocacy. I always said political solution is the logical conclusion. But what I am also saying is:
1. Somethings should not be compromised by Afghan government in any settlement. For example, better fight than give up representative democracy.
2. Negotiate with the most prominent factions and accept the fact that some will always want to fight. There is no point in insisting that all of them should lay down arms and


OK. So you think that if people are to decide, they would rather back Taliban than government. In other words, I am just taking a note, Taliban has more support than government among people in the south according to you.

This was YOUR logic:
Taliban is more dangerous to the government if they fight as factions and are disunited. But they are fighting united, because their goal is to avoid civil war after they capture power.

Avoiding civil war is a noble goal. So my accusation was right whether you like it or not.


I did answer your point, albeit with a bunch of smileys. You are expecting too much of accommodation and political skills from those savages.

OK. There is a craze for vigilante justice. It is not an exclusive Afghan feature. But let us reserve judgement on how much support Taliban enjoys now. Only in Pakistani military circles and sources do I read the theory that Afghan government is anti-Pashtun and that Taliban is infact or to some degree a Pashtun insurgency. In Afghan press and even in Pakistani mainstream press, Afghan people whether Pashtun or not are always progressive and anti-Taliban.


Again, that was not great politics. They assassinated Massoud. Yeah, some great political maneuver.

If they weren't good at politics, why aren't they on the US's list of international terror organizations? Or the fact that they have an active political office in Qatar, and turkey was willing to host them as well? Or the fact that they've forced the US to negotiations, and accept them as a part of Afghanistan's political future?
[/QUOTE]
Talks are happening because Americans are good at politics. They want to wash their hands off Afghanistan. Not listing them as terrorist organization was an American masterstroke. Not Taliban's genius.

Jeez, grow some skin.[/QUOTE]
Your insults have no place in a debate. Growing some skin? How about you grow up, and stop acting like a 12 year old. I'm done, you have ruined any sense of respect I had for you. I will not engage in any further debate with you, as long as you continue to act in a poor manner.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Not listing them as terrorist organization was an American masterstroke. Not Taliban's genius.

It is true that Afghan Taliban are not mentioned on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, but the funny thing is Haqqani Network is on the list, now we all know that the Haqqani Network is part of Afghan Taliban, what should one make of it?

But wait a minute, it becomes more interesting, the Afghan Taliban are listed as Specially Designated Global Terrorists on the Treasury Department’s website.

And the confusion continues, Mullah Omar is listed as a terrorist and has a 10 million reward on the Reward for Justice Program, which is administrated by the US Department of State.

Another important US government department, The National Counterterrorism Center lists Afghan Taliban as terrorists.

Sirajuddin Haqqani who is the deputy leader of the current Afghan leader has a 5 million reward.

This whole drama started when Obama administration released five Afghan terrorists in exchange for the release of American soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who by the way was kidnapped by the Haqqanis. The Republicans criticized the prisoner exchange, saying that it sets a dangerous precedent my negotiating with terrorists, so to counter the Republican criticism the Obama administration came up with this “Afghan Taliban are not terrorist” rubbish.

Quite frankly I am very disappointed, Obama is not a war president, war is not his cup of tea, he has been a big disaster. But thank goodness this is his second term and he’ll be gone soon.

Source/links

http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt

ISLAMI'A TALIBAN; a.k.a. TALEBAN; a.k.a. TALIBAN ISLAMIC MOVEMENT;

a.k.a. TALIBANO ISLAMI TAHRIK), Afghanistan [SDGT].

Rewards for Justice - Wanted

Reward for Justice

Stop Terrorists. Save lives


Information that brings to justice…

Mullah Omar (Up to $10 Million Reward)

Mullah Omar's Taliban regime in Afghanistan sheltered Osama bin-Laden and his al-Qa'ida network in the years prior to the September 11 attacks.

Although Operation Enduring Freedom removed the Taliban regime from power, Mullah Omar remains at large and represents a continuing threat to America and her allies.

Interactive Map - 2014 Counterterrorism Calendar

The National Counterterrorism Center

The terrorists listed below are under indictment for multiple attacks against US persons and interests, for aiding terrorist activities, or are wanted for questioning in regard to terrorist attacks.

TERRORIST GROUPS

AFGHAN TALIBAN

 

[rubyjackass]

It is true that Afghan Taliban are not mentioned on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, but the funny thing is Haqqani Network is on the list, now we all know that the Haqqani Network is part of Afghan Taliban, what should one make of it?

But wait a minute, it becomes more interesting, the Afghan Taliban are listed as Specially Designated Global Terrorists on the Treasury Department’s website.

And the confusion continues, Mullah Omar is listed as a terrorist and has a 10 million reward on the Reward for Justice Program, which is administrated by the US Department of State.

Another important US government department, The National Counterterrorism Center lists Afghan Taliban as terrorists.

Sirajuddin Haqqani who is the deputy leader of the current Afghan leader has a 5 million reward.

This whole drama started when Obama administration released five Afghan terrorists in exchange for the release of American soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who by the way was kidnapped by the Haqqanis. The Republicans criticized the prisoner exchange, saying that it sets a dangerous precedent my negotiating with terrorists, so to counter the Republican criticism the Obama administration came up with this “Afghan Taliban are not terrorist” rubbish.

Quite frankly I am very disappointed, Obama is not a war president, war is not his cup of tea, he has been a big disaster. But thank goodness this is his second term and he’ll be gone soon.

Source/links

http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt

ISLAMI'A TALIBAN; a.k.a. TALEBAN; a.k.a. TALIBAN ISLAMIC MOVEMENT;

a.k.a. TALIBANO ISLAMI TAHRIK), Afghanistan [SDGT].

Rewards for Justice - Wanted

Reward for Justice

Stop Terrorists. Save lives


Information that brings to justice…

Mullah Omar (Up to $10 Million Reward)

Mullah Omar's Taliban regime in Afghanistan sheltered Osama bin-Laden and his al-Qa'ida network in the years prior to the September 11 attacks.

Although Operation Enduring Freedom removed the Taliban regime from power, Mullah Omar remains at large and represents a continuing threat to America and her allies.

Interactive Map - 2014 Counterterrorism Calendar

The National Counterterrorism Center

The terrorists listed below are under indictment for multiple attacks against US persons and interests, for aiding terrorist activities, or are wanted for questioning in regard to terrorist attacks.

TERRORIST GROUPS

AFGHAN TALIBAN

Yes, I totally forgot the bounty on Mullah Omar.

The Americans are weasels even towards their own population. And Obama is the worst pu$$y they had in years in foreign affairs. It's like he completely gave up control of foreign policy to people like Hillary. Otherwise which dumba$$ would bomb a decently running country like Libya and then start a war against Assad when there is much bigger plague like ISISor AQIM in the vicinity. And they trained 5 fighters so far for the Free Syrian Army. In India that would be grounds for impeachment! And then he still shamelessly says Assad should go and he wouldn't co-operate with Putin. It's outrageous to think this guy got a Nobel prize. His administration caused the destabilization of Iraq, Syria, dictatorship in Egypt, tolerated war on Gaza, civil war in Libya and a refugee crisis not seen since 1971.

Now after Syrian refugees are flooding the world in millions, he is running like chicken and complaining about his governors not accepting refugees. Some nice dramatic excuse to avoid taking in refugees.

The silver lining is that the West is for the first time seeing for itself what a humanitarian crisis would look like, the horrors they have caused by interfering in a country's internal affairs.

I also did not know about the American kidnapping or Treasury sanctions. Thanks for the info Rabzon. I will read on it.

 

[RabzonKhan]

@Rabzon, @That Guy This is a good debate but I will say that the killing of Taliban leaders is useful. They will be replaced, true but when a leader dies of the Taliban the entire nation feels happy. I was celebrating when Baitullah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsud, Qari Hussain and Wali Ur Rehman were killed. There is no doubt that there is a great lift in morale for those people following the war on terror when a wanted terrorist commander is killed. This is why I think our focus should be on killing the TTP's commanders still.

It is true that another leader will replace the old one but we should also look at the boost of morale. Furthermore the leaders are the ones directing the attacks against Pakistan. Surely we want some payback and should ask it from their killings rather than through only some of the militants who commit the attack. Fazlullah still living and those terrorist leaders I mentioned each being killed by US drone strikes gives the impression that our Pakistan army is not doing enough in the war. Our enemies-we should kill them, particularly the leaders that should be our logic.

Though I would also like to note that Nek Muhammed was killed when he had negotiated peace with Pakistan and refused to attack our people. It is said the same was the case with Hakimullah. The US has been grossly negligent to our problems.

HaviZsultan Sahib, please take some time and visit my thread “Pakistan’s war AQ AT TTP and USA, read post number 8, 10 and 12.

I have timeline, when the war started with Nek Muhammad and how he was killed. On post 12, I also have posted Musharraf interview with CNN, in the interview Musharraf very reluctantly acknowledges that Pakistan had an agreement with US to kill Pakistan’s enemies.

Pakistan's War......AQ, AT, TTP and USA?

 

[haviZsultan]

HaviZsultan Sahib, please take some time and visit my thread “Pakistan’s war AQ AT TTP and USA, read post number 8, 10 and 12.

I have timeline, when the war started with Nek Muhammad and how he was killed. On post 12, I also have posted Musharraf interview with CNN, in the interview Musharraf very reluctantly acknowledges that Pakistan had an agreement with US to kill Pakistan’s enemies.

Pakistan's War......AQ, AT, TTP and USA?

It would have been much more pleasing if our steel and fire had cut open or burned up our enemies like Hakimullah, Ilyas Kashmiri, Baitullah Mehsud, Qari Hussain and Wali Ur Rehman. I believe our performance in the war on terror was much better in the early years when we arrested Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and Ramzi Yousuf and to a limit Abdullah Mehsud. After that I can't speak well of our performance.

 

[RabzonKhan]

I'm lovin it!


More Than 50 Killed in Renewed Afghan Taliban Group Clashes
BY REUTERS 12/8/15

HERAT, Afghanistan (Reuters) - More than 50 people have been killed and dozens more wounded in renewed fighting between rival Taliban factions in Shindand district near the western Afghan city of Herat, a local police spokesman said on Tuesday.

The latest clashes underlined the fragmented state of the Islamist movement since the Taliban confirmed in July that its founder, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had died more than two years earlier in 2013.

Rival groups have rejected the authority of Omar's successor Mullah Akhtar Mansour and called for a new process to choose a leader. There has been intermittent fighting in which scores have been killed.

Read more