Afghanistan: Civilians Bear Cost of Escalating Insurgent Attacks

[KAding]

This is an article accompanying a recent report from Human Rights Watch on the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.

Do any of the war crimes committed by Taleban or other soldiers fighting for Islam ever get punished? We frequently see reports of US and Coalition investigations into crimes committed by its soldiers. Are there any Islamic courts which deal with the conduct of the Islamic armed groups that are active in the Afghanistan war? I never quite understood this, who is supposed to judge actions of Muslims who claim to be on a legitimate jihad? What rules are they following, only Islamic rules of war? Or also international laws on war?

Afghanistan: Civilians Bear Cost of Escalating Insurgent Attacks
Rising Civilian Death Toll Points to Taliban, Hezb-e Islami War Crimes

(Kabul, April 16, 2007) – Civilian deaths from insurgent attacks in Afghanistan increased dramatically over the past 15 months, and many were the result of insurgents’ failure to respect the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 116-page report, “The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan,” describes how Afghan insurgent groups, primarily Taliban and Hezb-e Islami forces, sharply escalated bombing and other attacks in 2006 and early 2007. The report is based on dozens of interviews with civilian victims of attacks and their families and a lengthy review of available documents and records.

“Suicide bombings and other insurgent attacks have risen dramatically since 2005, with almost 700 civilians dying last year at the hands of the Taliban and other such groups,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. “The insurgents are increasingly committing war crimes, often by directly targeting civilians. Even when they’re aiming at military targets, insurgent attacks are often so indiscriminate that Afghan civilians end up as the main victims.”

The report documents how, in violation of the laws of war, insurgent forces have repeatedly, directly targeted civilians for attack, and how even attacks directed at Afghan and international military forces have often been launched without due regard for civilian life.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported on numerous cases in which Afghan government and international forces in Afghanistan appear to have conducted indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war.

This report explains that 2006 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001. Overall, at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects. An additional 52 civilians were killed in insurgent attacks in the first two months of 2007.

Increasingly, the Taliban has been targeting certain groups of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, journalists, doctors, religious leaders, and civilian government employees, condemning them as spies or collaborators. In 2006, at least 177 civilians were killed in assassinations, and similar ambushes and attacks have continued in 2007. A recent and horrific example was the Taliban’s summary execution of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi and his driver, Sayed Agha, in violation of the laws of war.

“The Taliban’s murders of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi and driver Sayed Agha were war crimes,” Mariner said.

The report contains numerous accounts from Afghan civilian victims and their relatives, speaking about insurgent attacks and their consequences. For instance, 9-year-old Sherzad (not her real name), severely injured in a suicide attack in the capital, Kabul, in March 2006, told Human Rights Watch about how shrapnel tore open her stomach, spilling her intestines. “Sometimes I dream about that day – I have nightmares,” Sherzad said. “I thought that I would not survive. I started saying the Kalimah [the martyrs’ prayer] when I was hurt that day, because I thought I was going to die.”

The report describes how insurgents have regularly carried out bombings and suicide attacks on military targets in crowded, highly populated areas, killing combatants and civilians without distinction or causing excessive civilian harm that was disproportionate to expected military advantages. Many Afghans told Human Rights Watch they could not understand why insurgent forces would choose to carry out attacks in civilian areas.

One man, burned in a July 2006 bombing near the Ministry of Justice in Kabul, told Human Rights Watch: “I didn’t see any ISAF people [international forces] that day near the ministry, I just saw my people, Afghan people. What was the target, the people?”

The report documents how insurgent attacks are increasingly affecting the civilian population outside southern and southeastern Afghanistan, the Taliban’s traditional stronghold. In 2006, nearly a third of recorded lethal bomb attacks, many of which caused significant civilian casualties, took place in other areas, including Kabul, the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif, and the western city of Herat.

Bombings in 2006 more than doubled compared to 2005. Human Rights Watch counted almost 200 bomb attacks in 2006, killing nearly 500 civilians. Many were illegal under international humanitarian law. Insurgents intentionally targeted civilian objects that served no military purpose, including schools, buses, or bazaars; carried out numerous bombings that killed combatants and civilians without distinction or caused excessive civilian casualties in relation to expected military advantages; and used attacks that appear to have been primarily intended to cause terror among the civilian population. All these methods are illegal under the laws of war.

Suicide attacks by insurgents have been especially deadly for civilians. In 2006 there were at least 136 suicide attacks in Afghanistan, a six-fold increase over 2005. At least 112 of the attacks – a majority – were on military targets, yet most killed more civilians than combatants: approximately 20 other attacks were intentionally aimed at civilians. Suicide attacks by insurgents in 2006 killed at least 272 Afghan civilians and 37 government or international forces: suicide attacks killed eight times as many civilians as combatants.

While suicide attacks are not inherently illegal under the laws of war, those carried out in Afghanistan often were. Human Rights Watch found that suicide attackers frequently failed to pinpoint their attacks on military targets, and often set off explosives in a manner likely to cause indiscriminate or excessive civilian casualties. Moreover, suicide attackers almost always disguised themselves as civilians, violating legal prohibitions against “perfidy” that are meant to uphold the distinction between civilians and combatants during war. Perfidious attacks further endanger civilians: numerous Afghan civilians have been mistakenly shot by international and Afghan government forces who erroneously believed them to be suicide attackers.

The new report also details how attacks on Afghan teachers and schools, especially girls’schools, doubled from their already high levels in 2005. The continuing attacks have forced hundreds of thousands of students out of classrooms. Taliban and other insurgent forces target schools on ideological grounds, claiming they are un-Islamic, or because in rural areas they often are the only symbols of government.

Human Rights Watch noted that military operations by Afghan government and international forces have also caused numerous civilian casualties. At least 230 civilians were killed during coalition or NATO operations in 2006, some of which appear to have violated the laws of war. There is no evidence that coalition forces intentionally target civilians, but in a number of cases international forces have conducted indiscriminate attacks or failed to take adequate precautions to prevent harm to civilians. Human Rights Watch has reported on several of these cases.

Human Rights Watch said today that continuing insecurity and armed conflict in Afghanistan are contributing to already low levels of government and development assistance, and to high levels of continuing displacement. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans are displaced in southern and southeastern provinces, and millions remain as refugees in Iran and Pakistan, reluctant to return to Afghanistan, especially to rural areas, because of poor security and developmental assistance.

“Many Afghans are already struggling to survive,” Mariner said. “The increased insurgent attacks on civilians, especially government and humanitarian workers, are making matters worse.”

Human Rights Watch called on the Taliban, Hezb-e Islami, and associated groups to cease all intentional attacks on civilians and civilian targets, and avoid all attacks which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants or which cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Human Rights Watch also called on insurgents to refrain from using perfidious attacks and stop all acts intended to instill terror among the civilian population.

Human Rights Watch also called on the government of Pakistan to take more effective action against insurgent forces located over the border, which use Pakistani territory to prepare or plan attacks that violate the laws of war.

Finally, Human Rights Watch called on Afghan and international forces to develop better rules of engagement to minimize civilian casualties during hostilities, for instance by locating military installations at greater distances from civilian areas, avoiding sending convoys through crowded areas whenever feasible, and improving how forces respond to real or perceived insurgent attacks to avoid mistakenly targeting civilians.

Source article: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/16/afghan15688.htm

Full 125 page HRW report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/afgh...tan0407web.pdf

[MTAFFI]

This is an article accompanying a recent report from Human Rights Watch on the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.

Do any of the war crimes committed by Taleban or other soldiers fighting for Islam ever get punished? We frequently see reports of US and Coalition investigations into crimes committed by its soldiers. Are there any Islamic courts which deal with the conduct of the Islamic armed groups that are active in the Afghanistan war? I never quite understood this, who is supposed to judge actions of Muslims who claim to be on a legitimate jihad? What rules are they following, only Islamic rules of war? Or also international laws on war?



Source article: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/16/afghan15688.htm

Full 125 page HRW report:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/afgh...tan0407web.pdf

very interesting article, I notice that it made a reference to the number of innocents killed by the Taliban last year was 700, eight times more civilians than occupational or governmental forces, I wonder what Muslims think of this sort of news? I wonder why there isnt an outrage shown in the media by Muslims for these groups killing their people in such high numbers

[siFilam]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

The insurgent of Taliban and other terrorist organizations are not from a specific country. Rather they are from many different regions of the world. An Islamic court of a particular Muslim country can’t deal with them just like US wouldn’t allow their soldiers to be tried by other countries. But that doesn’t mean that Scholars are not condemning these acts.

http://www.islamicnews.org.sa/en/sea...ews&start_from
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.p...7849f5f68068df

You won’t find these in NY Times or Washington Posts or any other western media. Because it completely defeats their position that Muslims are silent and indirectly support these acts.

And Allah knows best.
Wasalam
-SI-

[Muezzin]

Anyone who recklessly or deliberately kills civilians is a waste of genetic material.

If they're reckless, they don't care that they're endangering people's relatives or friends. And if they're deliberate, they're the lowest form of scum.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[MTAFFI]

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

The insurgent of Taliban and other terrorist organizations are not from a specific country. Rather they are from many different regions of the world. An Islamic court of a particular Muslim country can’t deal with them just like US wouldn’t allow their soldiers to be tried by other countries. But that doesn’t mean that Scholars are not condemning these acts.

You won’t find these in NY Times or Washington Posts or any other western media. Because it completely defeats their position that Muslims are silent and indirectly support these acts.

And Allah knows best.
Wasalam
-SI-

Really the Taliban are not from Afghanistan? What other countries, please provide some proof. Neither of the links reference the Taliban and neither condemn what the Taliban is doing. Western media doesnt mention this because it is not being told to them and whose fault is that? Muslims are indirectly supporting these acts, if this were being done by a Christian group or any other group that I have seen in history, on the scale it is being done it would be an outrage and would have been stopped before it escalated to this point. If the Imams and scholars and all the religious leaders truly opposed these acts they could be stopped or at least significantly slowed down, however due to this "silent support" it is not slowing and will not slow until many more casualties have been inflicted, pretty sad if you ask me :skeleton:

[wilberhum]

You won’t find these in NY Times or Washington Posts or any other western media. Because it completely defeats their position that Muslims are silent and indirectly support these acts.

Well not every one restricts there news to the NY Times or the Washington Post. I have seen it many times. But you miss major points.
What percent of Muslims do Islamic Fiqh Academy and Mufti Ebrahim Desai Represent? I bet it is a very small minority.
You can still find lots of calls to violence.
I, as a non-Muslim, still have a major problem with the fact that most Muslims will not condemn a terrorist. And I think silence = support.

[Muezzin]

I think this silent=support discussion is valid, but really belongs in a separate thread in World Affairs. Go make it :)

[Bittersteel]

I, as a non-Muslim, still have a major problem with the fact that most Muslims will not condemn a terrorist. And I think silence = support.

nothing you can do about it can you,if we stay silent?
and you have to define terrorism.Insurgents in Iraq,who attack foreign troops not women,innocent men or children are legitimate defenders in my opinion,like it or not.If they blow up an Abrams(well if they manage to) or an IFV or bring down a Black Hawk I won't protest for this 'violence' but if they blow up a school or hospital I definitely would.But so many of these incidents have occurred that people are tired of condemning them.

Christian group or any other group that I have seen in history, on the scale it is being done it would be an outrage and would have been stopped before it escalated to this point.

yes the US is predominantly a 'Christian Group' isn't it?tell me how many stopped the Iraq war from taking place.yes there was outrage but were they stopped?and Christian groups don't need to kill.They get what they want very easily.

Really the Taliban are not from Afghanistan?

not all of them are,most are definitely.Even British Muslims were reported to have been recruited by the Taliban.

[Muezzin]

For future reference: all further posts discussing the issue of 'silence is support', belong in this thread.

The topic of this thread is different. As such, any further replies which are not discussing the article in the first post will be deleted.

[mahdisoldier19]

very interesting article, I notice that it made a reference to the number of innocents killed by the Taliban last year was 700, eight times more civilians than occupational or governmental forces, I wonder what Muslims think of this sort of news? I wonder why there isnt an outrage shown in the media by Muslims for these groups killing their people in such high numbers

Really? 700 killed due to civilians?

I wonder what americans thought when over 1500 Iraqi innocent civilians are killed every month?

Taliban disown attacks, torching of schools

Publication time: 2 March 2006, 13:02

Taliban on Wednesday disowned attacks and torching of schools in different provinces of war-ravaged Afghanistan and termed it the deeds of the enemies of entire Afghan nation.



It is sad that some people level allegations against Taliban for killing teachers, students and torching schools, said Dr. Muhammad Hanif while talking to Afghan Islamic Press from an undisclosed location on Wednesday.



Taliban are not involved in these attacks as they are themselves teachers, he said, adding that these were the schools that gave the lesson of freedom to children.



Asked whether Taliban believe that present schools in Afghanistan are not against the Islam, Dr. Hanif replied, “Why not, we know that literatures against Islam is taught openly in these schools but teachers of these schools are good people and they are also giving the lesson of freedom to student.”



Most of the teachers are in close contacts with Taliban and meet us because they are against the foreign invasion on Afghanistan, he disclosed.



Dr. Muhammad Hanif rejected the impression that Taliban have been attacking and setting ablaze schools in Afghanistan.



While terming it a baseless propaganda against Taliban, Dr. Hanif said, “Those launching attacks and torching schools are the enemies of Kabul administration as well as the entire Afghan nation.”



A number of schools were torched in several provinces of Afghanistan and Taliban were held responsible for these attacks but Taliban did not accepted responsibility of such incidents not even for a single time.



Meanwhile, situation is still tense in Pul-e-Charkhi Jail today (Wednesday) as there was no sign which shows that the standoff has been resolved completely after negotiations between representatives of rioting prisoners and officials of National Reconciliation Commission.



Meanwhile three big buses were seen entering the jail today (Wednesday) but journalist standing outside the jail could not find out that who were in these buses and why it entered the jail.



Prisoners of Pul-e-Charkhi Jail went on rampage and clashed with guards. The standoff continuing since late Saturday night which claimed atleast four lives and wounding over 30.


Source: Afghan Islamic Press


What is ironic is the fact when the Taliban claim that they have killed a large number of US soldiers, the World claims they are lieing. But when NATO claims they have killed over 33 Taliban, the World believes. While both parties are not providing any evidence, just accusations.

Witness: Taliban dead may be civilians

Publication time: 24 August 2006, 12:21

Nato's claims to have killed 11 Taliban who were preparing an ambush in Afghanistan have been disputed by local people who have said that the dead were civilian grape-pickers. The Nato-led occupation force in Afghanistan said its troops spotted 15 Taliban near a main road in Kandahar late on Tuesday.



After realising they had been detected, the men then moved to a nearby compound which Nato aircraft then bombed, said Major Scott Lundy, a Nato spokesman.



Lundy said: "11 Taliban were killed in the air strike, while two insurgents were later seen leaving the compound."



But civilians in the Zhari area to the west of Kandahar city, said the dead were farmers who had been working in their grape fields in the cool of the evening.



"Those people who died in the bombing were civilians," Ahmad Shapour, a resident of the area, said by telephone.



Meanwhile the karzai puppet and Pakistani armies have agreed to conduct coordinated and simultaneous patrols with the US along their volatile border, a statement from the American-led occupants said on Wednesday.



Nato troops in charge of so call "security" in southern Afghanistan will also participate in patrols aimed at stopping pro-Taliban fighters from crossing the porous 2,450-kilometre-long (1,470-mile-long) border.



"In order to coordinate the movements along the border areas, the participants discussed and agreed to a proposal to conduct coordinated patrols ... on their respective sides of the border, simultaneously," the statement said.



Karzai regime regularly accuses Islamabad of not doing enough to prevent fighters and arms from entering from Pakistan.



Pakistan says that it has deployed more than 80,000 troops along the border at the request of the karzai and US governments.

Taliban Rejects NATO Claims About Mujahideen Casualties

Publication time: 10 September 2006, 20:10

Taliban Sunday, Sept. 10, said that only 14 Taliban fighters were martyred (Shahideen, insha Allah) during the eight-day long Medusa operation in Panjwai district of Kandahar province. While terming the ongoing Medusa operation in Kandahar a propaganda operation,



Taliban spokesman Qari Muhammad Yousaf said, "This all is a face to face fighting and during the whole operation our 14 fighters lost their lives. However, 50 NATO and ANA soldiers were killed during the operation and their (NATO and puppets) 15 military vehicles were destroyed. Taliban tactically retreated in Pashmul and Sufid Rawan areas while NATO forces bring out civilians of the area from their homes and shot them dead for the alleged support and assistance of Taliban fighters" Qari added.



While replying to a question Taliban spokesman said, "Taliban still present in the Panjwai and Zari". NATO claimed killing of more than 400 Taliban fighters during the eight-day long Medusa operation of Panjwai and Zari districts. Locals of the area reported killing of several civilians during the ongoing operation.

To be honest, human rights watch? You have to be kidding.

[MTAFFI]

Really? 700 killed due to civilians?

I wonder what americans thought when over 1500 Iraqi innocent civilians are killed every month?

I think they are thinking for one, that they arent the ones who are killing the 1500 civilians each month, and for two why are these people doing this to each other.

To be honest, human rights watch? You have to be kidding.

Why would anyone be kidding? The human rights watch is a perfectly legitmate group, in fact they have condemned the US several times and I see it praised all over this forum, why dont you go tell those people that the human rights watch is not legitimate

[mahdisoldier19]

I think they are thinking for one, that they arent the ones who are killing the 1500 civilians each month, and for two why are these people doing this to each other.


Why would anyone be kidding? The human rights watch is a perfectly legitmate group, in fact they have condemned the US several times and I see it praised all over this forum, why dont you go tell those people that the human rights watch is not legitimate

The human right watch can nowhere be allowed on the battlefield to examine casualties according to NATO , however the Taliban would welcome them to examine the thousands of civilians killed during the US Invasion of Afghanistan. Do you honestly think Human rights watch will be in the middle of Afghanistan examining, with taliban and NATO soldiers running after each other?

[MTAFFI]

The human right watch can nowhere be allowed on the battlefield to examine casualties according to NATO , however the Taliban would welcome them to examine the thousands of civilians killed during the US Invasion of Afghanistan. Do you honestly think Human rights watch will be in the middle of Afghanistan examining, with taliban and NATO soldiers running after each other?

A simple question, do you think that their findings are illegitimate, I would be careful about this answer as it would undermine the posts of many on this site, personally I do think that their findings are correct, why would they post them otherwise, they have no allegiance to any country, why would they falsify information?

[mahdisoldier19]

A simple question, do you think that their findings are illegitimate, I would be careful about this answer as it would undermine the posts of many on this site, personally I do think that their findings are correct, why would they post them otherwise, they have no allegiance to any country, why would they falsify information?

There is a difference between civilians, and policemen.

You do not need to address being careful, i will answer from an Afghan perspective that has been there before,during and after the Taliban rule.

Human rights watch highlights only certain aspects, considering it is pro-western which collides with taliban ( being accused of Anti-western). For instance, did human rights watch highlight the thousands that have been killed ( my relatives being the few as well ) during the US invasion of Afghanistan? Did human rights watch highlight that 1.5 million afghans were wiped out during the Russian invasion, leaving 6 million refugees?

Again i do not support the taliban, but if allegations are set, evidence must be provided. The problem with getting confessions from people in Afghanistan, is that by going to certain areas, people will say anything for money to provide for their families.

People speak of Geneva Conventions and international UN law? How many countries break these conventions and yet not a word is uttered?

However, i will not say that civilians do not die in the process of SBombing. Yes civilians sometimes get caught in the crossfire, but do the Taliban intentionally go towards the citizens? What logic is being used to defend this argument?

The number of 700 is completely exaggerated in my opinion, if that were the case, word would have spread very fast, and support for the Taliban would have failed. Obviously, you do not know the poshtun ghairut or culture to understand this issue if you are not a poshtun.

There must be a clear distinction between taliban and other fighting groups. It is not the Taliban who perform every single suicide bombing, but other foreign groups that have entered Afghanistan.

[wilberhum]

It is not the Taliban who perform every single suicide bombing

Then I conclude that you think the Taliban do perform some of the suicide bombing.

[wilberhum]

Taliban attack civilians to spread fear: Amnesty
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...27483920070419

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban insurgents are deliberately targeting Afghan civilians in order to instill fear and exert control over the population, the rights group Amnesty International said on Thursday.
In the second report from an international rights group this week accusing the Taliban of war crimes for targeting civilians, the London-based group called on all sides in the Afghan conflict to ensure that civilians are treated humanely.
"Afghan civilians are bearing the brunt of this conflict," Claudio Cordone, the group's senior director for research, said in a statement.
"But it is the Taliban who have a deliberate policy of targeting civilians -- they are killing teachers, abducting aid workers and burning school buildings," he said.
More than 4,000 people died in fighting last year as the Taliban intensified their insurgency to oust foreign troops. Afghan officials say about a quarter of those killed were civilians.
Amnesty International said at least 756 civilians were killed last year by bombs, mostly on roads or carried by suicide attackers, NATO and U.N. figures show.
"By using indiscriminate attacks such as suicide bombings in public places and by deliberately targeting civilian workers, the Taliban are committing war crimes," Cordone said.
"The fact that such attacks are widespread and carried out as part of Taliban policy makes

[mahdisoldier19]

Taliban attack civilians to spread fear: Amnesty
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...27483920070419

KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban insurgents are deliberately targeting Afghan civilians in order to instill fear and exert control over the population, the rights group Amnesty International said on Thursday.
In the second report from an international rights group this week accusing the Taliban of war crimes for targeting civilians, the London-based group called on all sides in the Afghan conflict to ensure that civilians are treated humanely.
"Afghan civilians are bearing the brunt of this conflict," Claudio Cordone, the group's senior director for research, said in a statement.
"But it is the Taliban who have a deliberate policy of targeting civilians -- they are killing teachers, abducting aid workers and burning school buildings," he said.
More than 4,000 people died in fighting last year as the Taliban intensified their insurgency to oust foreign troops. Afghan officials say about a quarter of those killed were civilians.
Amnesty International said at least 756 civilians were killed last year by bombs, mostly on roads or carried by suicide attackers, NATO and U.N. figures show.
"By using indiscriminate attacks such as suicide bombings in public places and by deliberately targeting civilian workers, the Taliban are committing war crimes," Cordone said.
"The fact that such attacks are widespread and carried out as part of Taliban policy makes

Amnesty International also accused the taliban of depriving women from education, when education was beginning for women during the taliban rule. Especially hearing a report from amnesty international, where is their report that Russia committed war crimes against Afghanistan? Where is their report of war crimes by NATO aerial bombing which killed thousands of afghans?

This is not how people debate on these issues, bring a source that gives proper evidence, not just accusations.

That is all you do is accuse, give me evidence hard evidence.

How can the Taliban install fear in the peoples hearts when over 70 percent of Afghanistan wants them?

Afghans say ’bring back Taliban’

KABUL: "The troops should just go," my luncheon companion said. "They should give power to the Taliban. The Taliban would get rid of the warlords in just two weeks.

The words were uttered with such venom that I was stunned. The speaker was not some bearded, turbaned fanatic, but a young man wearing blue jeans and a leather jacket. Wahid was a friend I had known for years.

Over plates of spicy aubergine, I’d asked how much better things were before the "Americans" came. (All foreign troops in Afghanistan are considered "Americans," regardless of their country of origin.)

Perhaps I should have anticipated his angry response. The 16-year-old son of a close friend of his had just been kidnapped by a criminal gang and was being held for ransom - just another sign that the security situation in Kabul is out of control.

In fact, most of my luncheon companions that day were more worried about such groups - usually allied to some former local warlord - than about terrorists tied to the Taliban.

"The Taliban did a lot of bad things," acknowledged Noorrahman, also seated at our table. "But they did some good things, too. It was maybe 60 percent good, 40 percent bad."

To a Westerner like myself, this sounded like heresy. "But cutting off people’s hands?" I asked. "Well, there was no theft after that," Noorrahman replied. "And what about no education for girls? No jobs for women?" I asked.

"So it’s better now that a girl goes to school and gets kidnapped and raped on the way?" Wahid replied.

One hears such sentiments more and more these days all across Afghanistan. It’s a bit like the way Russians in the 1990s spoke about the "good old days" before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when sausage cost 2 rubles and everyone could afford to vacation on the Black Sea.

So it is with many Afghans, who have convinced themselves that today’s corruption, violence and criminality is far worse than the fundamentalist strictures imposed by the Taliban.

My companions acknowledged they would have a lot to lose if the Taliban did come back to power. They could be beaten, imprisoned or worse for even associating in public with a Western woman.

Yet, to a man, the said they prefer the days when all you had to do was grow your beard, wind your turban around your head and pray five times a day to keep yourself out of trouble.

"You could leave your door unlocked at night," said Gardesh as he finished his lunch.

Of course, the fact that my dining companions were all ethnic Pashtuns probably had something to do with their sympathies for the Taliban.

In fact, it’s difficult to understand anything about Afghanistan without also understanding something about age-old ethnic animosities.

Pashtuns are the majority ethnic group, making up about 42 percent of the population, according to most sources (although I’ve never met a Pashtun who wasn’t convinced the actual figure was closer to 65 percent and has been artificially lowered to keep Pashtuns down).

The Taliban are predominantly Pashtun, and many of the traditions associated with the fundamentalist sect actually originated in Pashtun wali, their community’s tribal code of behavior, rather than Islam.

When the United States was looking for allies to oust the Taliban in 2001, it turned to a group known as the Northern Alliance - comprising mostly ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras warlords - who earned a fierce reputation battling among themselves, the Soviets and the Taliban.

Although the United States helped install President Hamid Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun, into power after the Taliban’s fall, many members of the Northern Alliance also gained significant posts.

That is something the Pashtuns will never forgive.

"When the Americans were coming to Kabul in 2001, all of us here were saying, ’If you plan to bring back the Northern Alliance, leave us alone with the Taliban,"’ grumbled Gardesh. "And look what they did: the warlords are back in power."

Pro-Taliban sentiment could be building toward a dangerous climax, judging from the luncheon companions.

What should be disturbing to the West is that this anger is being expressed by reasonable, educated people in Afghanistan, whose views on most matters I respect. They are honest, hard working and non-violent.

Are these men better off than they were five years ago? I think so.

What matters is that an awful lot of people here share their view. And the consequences of that could be disastrous.

Source http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=108091

[wilberhum]

"The Taliban did a lot of bad things,"

Exactly my point.

[mahdisoldier19]

Exactly my point.

"The Taliban did a lot of bad things," acknowledged Noorrahman, also seated at our table. "But they did some good things, too. It was maybe 60 percent good, 40 percent bad."

Misquotation, i am not here to say the Taliban were the great kings, i am simply here to state they were the best thing for Afghanistan at the time, and still are as they are reformed,

They revived the True Sharia, if you do not like, do not enter.

When it came to the bad, he meant music being banned, and certain non-islamic ideas and customs not being allowed, Alcohol as well.

[Pygoscelis]

Civilian bear costs? Ya they can be pricey, them civilian bears. But the military bears! They will cost you a FORTUNE!

[Zman]

:sl:/Peace To All

Human Rights Watch has previously reported on numerous cases in which Afghan government and international forces in Afghanistan appear to have conducted indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war.

[Zman]

:sl:/Peace To All

U.S. Does Not Consider Taliban Terrorists

Even as the Taliban attacks US, Canadian, and British forces, organization is left off terror list in 'political' decision

Courtesy Of: The Christian Science Monitor
By Tom Regan
May 2, 2006

When the US State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism [1] last Friday, it listed numerous state-sponsors terrorism, like Iran, and groups it considers Foreign Terrorist Organizations [2], like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hizbullah. Conspicously absent from the lists, however, was the Taliban.

In an article entitled "Terrorism's Dubious 'A' List," the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that the religious extremist organization has never been listed [3] as a terrorist groups by the US, Britain, the EU, Canada, Australia, or any coalition partners, despite the fact that during its six year rule in Afghanistan, it provided safe haven for Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and currently is staging terrorist attacks against coalition forces and waging a national campaign of intimidation and fear.

The new report did designate the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region as a terrorist "haven," however.

In a CFR Q&A on the Taliban, Christopher Langdon, a defense expert at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, describes the group as "An Insurgency Organization" that will periodically "Use terrorism to carry out its operations."[4]

According to Kathy Gannon, the former Associated Press bureau chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, these [Taliban] have at times aligned themselves with Al Qaeda fighters and with Mujahedeen (holy warriors) led by the anti-government warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

During the Soviet Occupation, Hekmatyar received more support from US and Pakistan agents than any other fighter.

"The Afghan Taliban is better organized today than it was in 2001," says Gannon, "They have more recruits [and they] have been able to take advantage of the lawlessness, the criminal gangs, and the corruption in the government."

Langton says Taliban forces "Have largely recovered from their initial defeat," and are proving a savvy enemy for coalition forces. Taliban fighters have become encouraged by the domestic opposition some NATO nations face as they deploy in former Taliban strongholds previously patrolled by US forces, he say. "They are very adept at reading these signals and seeing where the weaknesses lie."

...The steadily worsening situation in Southern Afghanistan is not the work of some ineffable Al Qaeda nebula. It is the result of the real depredations of the corrupt and predatory government officials whom the United States ushered into power in 2001, supposedly to help fight Al Qaeda.

Source:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.html