[Shahnawaz]

Afghanistan 'falling into Taliban hands'


Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 21, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into the group's hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area.
Despite the presence of tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid, the insurgents, driven out by the US invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries," the Senlis Council says in a report released today.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people, who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says that the frontline is getting ever closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN, which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when this will happen and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm for Afghanistan before time runs out".

Its 110-page report coincides with an equally severe warning from Oxfam. In a report for the House of Commons international development committee, the humanitarian and aid agency warns that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating significantly with the country's problems exacerbated by corruption in central and local government.

The report warns that urgent action is needed to avert a humanitarian disaster in which millions of Afghans face "severe hardship comparable with sub-Saharan Africa". Though the country has received more than $15bn in aid since 2001, the money is not getting to the people who need it most or to projects that could lead to sustained improvements in their lives, Oxfam says.

At least 1,200 civilians have been killed so far this year, it adds - half in operations by international or Afghan forces. There are four times as many air strikes by international forces in Afghanistan than in Iraq, Oxfam notes.

Senior British and US military commanders privately agree despite their public emphasis on short-term successes against Taliban fighters.

The insurgency is divided into a largely poverty-driven "grassroots" component and a concentrated group of "hardcore militant Islamists", says the Senlis Council, which has an office in Kabul and field researchers based in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.

It says that the Nato-led International Security Force, Isaf, should have double the current number of 40,000 troops and should include forces from Muslim countries as well as those Nato states which have refused to send troops to the country or insist, like France and Germany, that they must not be involved in combat operations.

There is no sign, despite pressure from the US and Britain, of any move within Nato to send reinforcements to Afghanistan.

While western governments, like the Senlis Council and Oxfam, are increasingly concerned about the lack of effectiveness of President Hamid Karzai's government, there is no agreement about how to solve the problems.

While the Senlis Council wants Nato forces' provincial reconstruction teams to take on a bigger role distributing aid, Oxfam says the military should stick to providing security. And while the council says opium poppies should be bought by the international community and used licitly for medical purposes, Oxfam argues that such a project would be impossible given the current state of Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...214813,00.html

[Akram2]

they might take afghanistan back but not pakistan

[jinnzaman]

they're already in Pakistan in NWFP and Balochistan.

PRETTY SOON THEY'LL EVEN BE OCCUPYING YOUR MASJID LOTTA!

:gasp!:

[Akram2]

^ beleive me they would never succeed in taking over punjab or sindh

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Akram2

^ beleive me they would never succeed in taking over punjab or sindh

Are you kidding me? They'd get punjab in a heartbeat. Many of the mujahideen in Afghanistan and Kashmir come from the punjab.

Its Sindh that might take a while, but the Islamization of all Muslim societies is inevitable.

[Akram2]

lol look what happend in Lal Masjid when they tried. My point is Punjab and sindh are not a religious place like the northern areas, even if they try they will get huge resistance resulting in civil war.

[muslimcrusader]

man words cant describe how i feel..

[MossadConspiracy]

hahahaha @ that

maybe they'll go on to take over England soon then flog you and your friends for making that lame rap video which is certainly a floggable/capital offense

[Akram2]

btw i heard that these reports are very disputed. They might have taken over deserted areas of afghanistan but most of the populated areas are not under there control.

[Blue_Phoenix]

Well doesn't this suck. Kicking out the Taliban was the one thing Bush did right and now he managed to screw that up too!

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Akram2

lol look what happend in Lal Masjid when they tried. My point is Punjab and sindh are not a religious place like the northern areas, even if they try they will get huge resistance resulting in civil war.

Sorry, I don't think that's a true reflection of Punjab. Punjab is a religious place, and Punjabis are religious. They just have a different vibe going on. In any case, dividing people into their ethnic groups just causes further divisions - look at Iraq for a prime example. The concept of Pakistan is a Muslim country built on a free state for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Akram2

btw i heard that these reports are very disputed. They might have taken over deserted areas of afghanistan but most of the populated areas are not under there control.

i dont know if theyre disputed or not but you have to carefully look into the way 'permanent presence' is defined in the study and the way taliban worshippers have chosen to interpret those words. Theres a big gap between the two. Still, its bad for the Taliban to have a presence (permanent or temporary) in any part of Afghanistan because that just means they kill people in those regions, most of whom are just innocent random people who never did anything to anybody

[Akram2]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Sorry, I don't think that's a true reflection of Punjab. Punjab is a religious place, and Punjabis are religious. They just have a different vibe going on. In any case, dividing people into their ethnic groups just causes further divisions - look at Iraq for a prime example. The concept of Pakistan is a Muslim country built on a free state for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent.

I agree with that there are lot of religious people in Punjab and Sindh, but on the other side there are a lot of liberal people too. All i am saying is if ever Talibans try to take punjab or sindh they will face huge resistance.

[Akram2]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

i dont know if theyre disputed or not but you have to carefully look into the way 'permanent presence' is defined in the study and the way taliban worshippers have chosen to interpret those words. Theres a big gap between the two. Still, its bad for the Taliban to have a presence (permanent or temporary) in any part of Afghanistan because that just means they kill people in those regions, most of whom are just innocent random people who never did anything to anybody

True, i know what you mean.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Akram2

I agree with that there are lot of religious people in Punjab and Sindh, but on the other side there are a lot of liberal people too. All i am saying is if ever Talibans try to take punjab or sindh they will face huge resistance.

Liberal elites tend to be corrupt and self-seeking individuals; the lack the qualities of effective organizations. Islamists are winning everywhere, whether its through democratic processes or through armed insurgencies.

Islam is indomitable. It has survived the trauma of colonization and various forces are re-organizing to bring about the destruction of the nation-state system and re-unify Muslim lands into a single state.

The question is not whether it will happen, but when it will happen. Either you can be a part of this movement or you oppose it.