Taliban is said to have captured base in northeast Afghanistan

[CIS-TRANS]

Taliban militants seized a government military base and captured more than 100 Afghan forces in the country’s northeast, officials said Sunday.

The capture of the base in remote Badakhshan province came Saturday evening after four days of fighting, said Abdullah Nazari, chairman of the provincial council.

As in previous instances of Afghan forces losing ground to Taliban insurgents this summer, Nazari said that government soldiers put up a fight but received no backup from the central government.


“No one has told us why yet, but we expect an answer as to why our own security forces were left to fight alone for four days,” Nazari said. “The ministries of Interior and of Defense must both provide answers.”

Dozens of soldiers were killed or injured in the fighting in Warduj district, Nazari added.

The district governor in Warduj, Dost Mohammad, said 15 border police were killed in the fighting, which began Thursday and lasted until 5 p.m. Saturday afternoon, when the base was surrendered.

He said they fought for three days straight.

On Sunday, all of the detained security forces, more than 100, he said, were released by the Taliban.

Sources speaking to local media said several Afghan Local Police – a U.S.-backed government militia – and Afghan Border Protection Police stationed in and around the Teergaran base surrendered and handed over their weapons to the Taliban.

The base is in central Badakhshan, a mountainous province situated between Pakistan and Tajikistan. The strategic location of the base gives those inside the access to maintain security of the entire district in central Badakhshan.

Acting provincial governor Shah Waliullah Adeeb said he warned that if backup did not arrive, the base and Afghan forces were at risk. As the base was being besieged by at least 100 Taliban fighters, a border police commander made an agreement with the Taliban that led to the capture of 107 local and national police officers, Adeeb said.

In online statements, the Taliban confirmed the raid and claimed to have inflicted dozens of casualties on Afghan forces.

The fighting comes days before representatives of the Taliban and the Afghan government are set to meet in China for the second face-to-face talks aimed at reaching a peace agreement to end more than a decade of conflict.

As in the previous meeting earlier this month in Pakistan, U.S. and Chinese officials are also expected to attend as observers.

Although the talks have been endorsed by Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban’s Pakistan-based leader, some factions within the militant organization are believed to oppose negotiating with the Kabul government, which they deride as a tool of U.S. interests.

Taliban is said to have captured base in northeast Afghanistan - LA Times

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

'The Taliban are', not 'Taliban is'. The Taliban are, just like 'data', a plural.

 

[CIS-TRANS]

'The Taliban are', not 'Taliban is'. The Taliban are, just like 'data', a plural.

I have pasted as it reported, I think changing actual title is against forum rule.

 

[New Resolve]

'The Taliban are', not 'Taliban is'. The Taliban are, just like 'data', a plural.

We got bigger issues than grammer over here, if there is no stalemate it gets harder to convince both sides to make peace.

 

[Superboy]

Salafist scums

 

[waz]

That's a setback. I hope the ANA recovers lost ground.

 

[Superboy]

So is Taliban Sunni while the army is Shia?

 

[friendly_troll96]

'The Taliban are', not 'Taliban is'. The Taliban are, just like 'data', a plural.

I'm afraid the Taliban come in all shapes, sizes and beard lengths.

From a grammar blog:

It’s not unusual to find “Taliban” used as a singular collective noun when referring to the Islamic group as a single entity. Here are some examples:
“The Taliban is a concern, but it’s not public enemy number one” (Washington Post) … “the Pakistani Taliban has stepped up attacks” (Voice of America) … “the Taliban has no interest in reconciliation” (CNN) … “the Taliban has returned to those arid hills” (Boston Globe) … “The Taliban is using the idiom of justice as its calling card and recruiting card” (Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, quoted in the Wall Street Journal).

Only a few standard dictionaries have weighed in on this, since “Taliban” came into use in English less than 20 years ago.
The dictionary’s first citation for the name in English is from a January 1995 issue of Asiaweek:

“A powerful new armed faction, known as the Taliban or ‘religious students,’ mysteriously emerged in October and has already transformed the balance of power in southern Afghanistan.”

There’s an argument to be made for using “Taliban” as a singular in the US when referring to the Islamic organization itself, rather than the members of it.

In American usage, collective nouns like “company” and “government” are routinely treated as singular, though a British speaker would treat them as plural.

As for how to refer to an individual member of the group, we hear “a Taliban” more often than “a Talib,” etymology be damned. But the usual practice is to use “Taliban” as an adjective in phrases like “a Taliban fighter” or “a Taliban suicide bomber.”

Our position is that the plural use of “Taliban” for members of the movement is firmly established in common usage and is etymologically sound. But when speaking of the organization rather than its members (as in “The Taliban is growing”), it’s reasonable to use the word as a singular collective noun.
The Grammarphobia Blog: Hey, Mr. Taliban

 

[GiannKall]

Media are misleading the public. The word "Taliban" is used to describe every militant movement in the area. For example the people who cause problems in north afghanistan are not "Taliban" but Tajiks and Uzbeks. This base was captured by Tajiks

 

[Gazi]

Media are misleading the public. The word "Taliban" is used to describe every militant movement in the area. For example the people who cause problems in north afghanistan are not "Taliban" but Tajiks and Uzbeks. This base was captured by Tajiks

Tajik and Uzbek have their own Militia which covers under the term of "Northern Alliance" rather then Taliban. They are Anti Taliban and are not related to them in any way. This is purely Taliban involvement in the Attacks and most Probably Hakkani Network's because they are most active in North. Due to Tajik and Uzbeks being quite Influential part of current Afghan Political Setup so they wont go against Afghan Army or Security Forces in anyway as their own Warlords are Serving as Members in Afghan Parliament already so they are ALLIES of Afghan Army rather then Enemies.

This operation seems like Huge one for Taliban in North of Afghanistan all together as they have Captured 100+ security Personnel WITH WEAPONS in this Attack and that too in North Afghanistan where they didnt able to Penetrate back in 1990s even when they were Strongest in Afghanistan.

 

[GiannKall]

I will insist that the problems of insecurity that exist in northern Afghanistan are primarily because of Tajik and Uzbek rebels. There is a minortiy of them who fights against the government. There are also many warlords that are allied officialy with the government but they "blackmail" Kabul creating artificial insecurity