Taliban getting whipped

  • Thread starter Thread starter MTAFFI
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 197
  • Views Views 22K
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070726/wl_nm/afghan_violence_dc

More than 50 Taliban killed in Afghan south: U.S. 2 hours, 9 minutes ago


KABUL (Reuters) - U.S.-led troops, backed by air power, killed more than 50 insurgents in a battle in Afghanistan's southern province of Helmand, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

There were no casualties among coalition troops in the 12-hour battle with Taliban militants, which finished early on Thursday, it said in a statement. No civilian injuries were reported, it added.

More than 160 insurgents have been killed in Helmand's Musa Qala district since Sunday, the military said.

The Taliban, who are leading an insurgency against the government and foreign troops, could not be reached for comment and because of the remoteness of the region there was no independent verification of the report.

Two residents phoned a Reuters reporter in the south to say that 17 people, 16 of them civilians, were killed in the bombing.

They said up to 30 people were wounded, most of them non-combatants.

Separately, one NATO soldier was killed on Thursday in a clash in southern Afghanistan, the alliance said.

Four policemen, including a commander, were wounded in a Taliban ambush in the north of the country near the town of Baghlan on Thursday, the commander said from his hospital bed.

A roadside bomb exploded near a Canadian convoy just south of the city of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, but there were no injuries to either soldiers or civilians, Canadian forces said.

Violence has surged in Afghanistan in the past 18 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban's government in 2001.

Civilian deaths are a sensitive issue for President Hamid Karzai's government and the foreign troops led by NATO and the U.S. military.

More than 330 civilians have been killed in foreign troops operations this year alone in Afghanistan, according to Afghan officials and Western aid workers.

Faced with criticism over perceived lack of economic and reconstruction development, rising crime, rampant corruption and booming illegal drugs, Karzai has warned that civilian deaths would have bad consequences for his government and the troops.

(With additional reporting Mirwais Afghan in KANDAHAR)
 
Just a reminder to all. Replies are to be directed to the topic and not to any poster. This is a hot, controversial topic and we all do have personal opinions. These opinions are upon our own perspectives. We probably will not agree with each other's views, but let us all respect the right of each person to have his own personal views based upon what he/she has seen or been told.

Keep our conflicting opinions based upon what we believe to be presentable facts and use them to validate our points, rather than resorting to arguments and attempts to cause another member to post out of anger.

Personal anger does not validate any statement, but it does manage to get a lot of posts deleted. If you want your words to be read, address them to an alleged fact and use verifiable evidence to show the statement is either false or true. None of us here have sufficient pull in the world for anybody to believe us simply because we say so.
 
MTAFFI said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070726/wl_nm/afghan_violence_dc

More than 50 Taliban killed in Afghan south: U.S. 2 hours, 9 minutes ago
Click to expand...

I wouldn't believe too much in that crap. They often like to exaggerate or even lie about their own and "enemy" causalities. just 60 months ago they said they killed 100 talibans at so and so place along with their commander. Few days later the commander came on news saying they are liars who can't hit a fly and just like to show that they are "killing" as many as they say are.
 
islamirama said:
I wouldn't believe too much in that crap. They often like to exaggerate or even lie about their own and "enemy" causalities. just 60 months ago they said they killed 100 talibans at so and so place along with their commander. Few days later the commander came on news saying they are liars who can't hit a fly and just like to show that they are "killing" as many as they say are.
Click to expand...

Truth is the first causality of war.
 
Taliban Claim to Kill 2nd Korean Hostage

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - A purported Taliban spokesman claimed the hardline militia killed a second South Korean hostage Monday because the Afghan government failed to release imprisoned insurgents. Afghan officials said they hadn't recovered a body and couldn't confirm the claim.

The Al-Jazeera television network, meanwhile, showed footage that it said was seven female hostages in Afghanistan.

Militant spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi said senior Taliban leaders decided to kill the male captive because the government had not met Taliban demands to trade prisoners for the Christian volunteers.

"The Kabul and Korean governments are lying and cheating. They did not meet their promise of releasing Taliban prisoners," Ahmadi, who claims to speak for the Taliban, said by phone from an undisclosed location. "The Taliban warns the government if the Afghan government won't release Taliban prisoners then at any time the Taliban could kill another Korean hostage."


(AP) An Afghan policeman is seen through a hole at a police checkpoint on the outskirts of Kabul,...
Full Image


Ghazni Gov. Marajudin Pathan said officials were aware of the Taliban's claim but hadn't recovered a body. He said police were looking but he couldn't say when they might find anything.

"Ghazni is a very vast area, so we really don't know where the body is," Pathan said.

Al-Jazeera showed shaky footage of what it said were several South Korean hostages. It did not say how it obtained the video, whose authenticity could not immediately be verified.

Some seven female hostages, heads veiled in accordance with the Islamic law enforced by the Taliban, were seen crouching in the dark, eyes closed or staring at the ground, expressionless.

The hostages did not speak as they were filmed by the hand-held camera.

The Taliban kidnapped 23 South Koreans riding on a bus through Ghazni province on the Kabul-Kandahar highway on July 19, the largest group of foreign hostages taken in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.

The Taliban has set several deadlines for the Koreans' lives. Last Wednesday the insurgents killed their first hostage, a male leader of the group.

It's not clear if the Afghan government would consider releasing any militant prisoners.

In March, President Hamid Karzai approved a deal that saw five captive Taliban fighters freed for the release of Italian reporter Daniele Mastrogiacomo. Karzai, who was criticized by the United States and European capitals over the exchange, called the trade a one-time deal.

On Sunday, Karzai and other Afghan officials tried to shame the Taliban into releasing the female captives by appealing to a tradition of cultural hospitality and chivalry. They called the kidnapping of women "unIslamic."

On Monday, South Korean officials changed their estimate of the number of women captives to 16, down from earlier reports of 18.

---

Associated Press writer Amir Shah contributed to this report from Kabul.




http://story.news.ask.com//article/20070730/D8QN3NNO0.html
 
What a great group. Give me what I want or I will kill inocent people. :scared:

And some people want to live under there rule. :hmm: :confused:
 
im afraid this hostage situation isnt gonna end well. the poor south koreans, wht were they doing there in the first place?
 
nevesirth said:
im afraid this hostage situation isnt gonna end well. the poor south koreans, wht were they doing there in the first place?
Click to expand...
I think they hoped to help people "Find Jesus".

How Evil can you get? :hiding:
 
Can someone explain to me why it is important to have female hostages wear headscarves (out of modesty?) and yet the hostage-takers (aka terrorists, murderers, 14th century thugs.....etc) propose to murder them if their demands aren't met and drag off their male compatriots to be murdered?

Doesn't that seem the least bit hypocritical? Where are all the Taliban cheerleaders in the forum? They seem to be AWOL on this.
 
Indeed. Surely kidnapping civilians and murdering them if your political and military demands are not met is not Islamic? Surely that is a criminal act, not one of legitimate resistance?
 
I think many Muslims need to understand that when non-Muslims discuss the Taliban and a Muslim member says something like "The Muslims will never lose", it sounds very much like a Christian stating.."The KKK will win, the Christians will never go down." I would hope the Taliban is not Islam, any more than the KKK were Christianity.
 
Keltoi said:
I think many Muslims need to understand that when non-Muslims discuss the Taliban and a Muslim member says something like "The Muslims will never lose", it sounds very much like a Christian stating.."The KKK will win, the Christians will never go down." I would hope the Taliban is not Islam, any more than the KKK were Christianity.
Click to expand...

some people on this forum should read this post very closely

Just because people claim to be Muslim, does not make them Muslim, what makes you Muslim is the way you live your life, these people definitely should not recieve any support from the Muslim community and they and everyone like them should be shunned. These are just more actions that prove they are only muslim by name and not by action
 
MTAFFI said:
some people on this forum should read this post very closely

Just because people claim to be Muslim, does not make them Muslim, what makes you Muslim is the way you live your life, these people definitely should not recieve any support from the Muslim community and they and everyone like them should be shunned. These are just more actions that prove they are only muslim by name and not by action
Click to expand...

Well, we all assume what they do is un-Islamic. We don't really know of course, since we are not scholars of Islam. Besides, whatever the talk of 'Muslim unity', it is clear there are widely differing interpretations on these matters. The Taliban are probably not making this up as they go, they no doubt have religious scholars who provide them with legal advice. We all know the complexity of the whole 'proselytizing' debate in Islam. Add to that the fact that this is a time of war. Are they prisoners of war? Or civilians? Do they qualify as war booty? Difficult questions no doubt for the scholars.

And then there are rulings like these:
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=10382&ln=eng

This says it "is permissible for you [Muhajedeen] take concubines [sex slaves] from among those whom you seized as war booty".

Surely un-Islamic, no? That would no doubt be the first reaction of many. I don't know. It seems to be allowed according to this respected website.

And then this ruling, which is very relevant to this case I suppose:
http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=13241&ln=eng&txt=prisoners of war
Detaining prisoners
Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests. He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter.
Click to expand...

This is about prisoners of war btw. I must I say though, the whole ruling is very confusing. It keeps stressing that the prisoners should be dealt with humanely, yet also says they can be killed or used as slaves if you don't get what you want from the enemy. It betrays the confusion about this matter within Islamic circles I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they would eventually release the Korean women after having killed the men.
 
Last edited:
yes it's allowed to kill enemy males if they are too much of a threat to the Islamic state.BTW,were you referring to the South Koreans captured by the Taliban?they were doing evangelistic work in a Muslim country where there is a war going on;you can't expect the taliban to be nice with the evangelists when even normal people in different countries don't like them.
 
Aziz said:
yes it's allowed to kill enemy males if they are too much of a threat to the Islamic state.BTW,were you referring to the South Koreans captured by the Taliban?they were doing evangelistic work in a Muslim country where there is a war going on;you can't expect the taliban to be nice with the evangelists when even normal people in different countries don't like them.
Click to expand...

I had hoped I could expect it from them not to kill these Korean civilians. That I my hope is in vain, unfortunately proves to me they are morally corrupt. If indeed Islam allows them to slaughter these civilians, I have no other choice but to make the same judgment about Islam.
 
f indeed Islam allows them to slaughter these civilians
Click to expand...
they might have been civilians but they were evangelists,their mission to cause disbelief in Muslims.I know of no such ruling concerning such a tight situation hope someone provides a link to it.

here is the slavery link:
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/aprq12y2.html
this gives the reasoning why slaves were freed and married later.

Off-topic:

Question:
> If the Prophet(PBUH) did not commit rape then why did he allowed
sex
>with slaves?
>
>The Answer:
>
>By: Sheikh Hani al-Jubayr
>
>The Judge at the Grand Court, Jeddah
>
>Note: With respect to the rules of slavery, such rules will not be
>applicable unless slavery exists in fact. If it does not exist, then
the
>rules can not be applied.
>

>A slave girl belongs to her master. He has the right to enjoy with her
in a
>legal way, and he can use her as a maid to help him. If she becomes
>pregnant and gives birth to his child, then she is promoted to the
status
>of a child's mother. She cannot thereafter be sold and will be totally
free
>when her master dies.
>
>
>
>Her master has to pay for her reasonable expenses. If she has sexual
>desire, her master is obligated to satisfy her or let her marry
someone
>else.
>
>The master has no right to let her marry someone or sell her unless he

>confirms that her womb is free. When he lets her marry someone else,
he may
>not touch her thereafter.
>
>
>
>Our religion encourages people to free slaves and made it a compulsory
act
>in some cases while it is promised a reward in other cases. Moreover,
it
>made the release of slaves a method of legally paying the Zakâh tax.
>
>
>
>I would like to point out that what existed in recent decades of
stealing
>free people and selling them is something not accepted in Islam.
>
>
>
>May Allah guide us all and may peace and blessing be upon Prophet
Muhammad.
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>
>
>From the fatwâ department:
>
>
>
>A soldier cannot have sex with the war captives. That would be rape.
The
>Muslim government must decide what to do with the war captives. The
first
>priority of the Muslim state would usually be to trade those captives
for
>Muslim prisoners of war held by the enemy. The state also has the
option to
>free the captives. If the state deems that it is not in its interests
to do
>so, it may thereafter distribute those captives as part of the spoils
of
>war.
>
>
>
>A person can only have relations with a slave girl after she has
legally
>become his property. Losing one's chastity is not a danger here. A
person
>becomes unchaste only when that person engages in unlawful sexual
>intercourse. When a husband and wife have sexual relations, neither
becomes
>unchaste, because they are both engaging in lawful sexual intercourse
and
>not fornication. The same can be said for when a man has sexual
relations
>with his slave girl. They both remain chaste because they are engaging
in
>lawful sexual relations and not fornication. The man cannot give other
men
>access to the slave girl. He cannot share her. If she has sex with
someone
>else, then she is committing fornication. If the master forces her to
have
>sex with someone else, then he is the one who is sinful. He is also an

>oppressor who is violating Islamic Law by abusing his slave.
>
>
>
>If he allows the slave girl to marry someone else, then he
relinquishes his
>right to have sexual relations with her. She may then only have sexual

>relations with her husband. It does not matter whether her husband is
a
>free man or also a slave.
>
>
>
>Fatwâ Department Research Committee of IslamToday.net chaired by
Sheikh
>`Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top