Log in

View Full Version : Taliban militants launch attack on Kabul



Revy
18th January 2010, 09:34
KABUL, Afghanistan — Militants launched an audacious and sustained attack in central Kabul early on Monday, with loud explosions and gunfire echoing across the city. The Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org) said its fighters carried out the assault.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/18/world/asia/18afghan-inline1/articleInline.jpg (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/world/asia/18afghan-inline1.html',%20'18afghan_inline1',%20'width=720, height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=ye s')) Robert Reid/Associated Press
Smoke rising over Kabul on Monday





There were no immediate independent estimates of casualties, which some reports said appeared to be light. But the Taliban claimed to have killed 40 people.
Police and paramilitary officers at the scene said the onslaught began with an initial suicide bombing in the downtown area which includes the Justice Ministry, the Central Bank, the presidential palace and the Serena Hotel favored by Westerners. Hotel residents took cover in a basement as the fighting swirled above them, according to a BBC (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/british_broadcasting_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reporter at the hotel.
Militants have become increasingly bold in penetrating the capital as their campaign broadens in many parts of Afghanistan, prompting President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) to promise 30,000 additional American troops to reinforce the international coalition.
Initial reports spoke of an explosion caused by a rocket attack, but later assessments by police indicated that the blast came from a suicide bomber.
About 9:30 in the morning, according an off-duty police officer, a group of men arrived in the vicinity of the Froshga market in central Kabul wearing shawls. They threw them off, revealing suicide vests and an array of weaponry, before splitting into two teams, the police officer said.
A suicide bomber detonated his explosives in front of the Central Bank. Others went into the bank, where several other explosions were heard, while the second team went into the Froshga market building, climbing to the roof and firing from there.
There was pandemonium as hundreds of government forces — mostly police but including some Afghan National Army soldiers — poured into the area. “Should I hold my position or abandon it?” a worried soldier could be heard saying into his walkie-talkie.
About an hour later a second, larger explosion was heard, apparently from the vicinity of the Education Ministry and Maliksaghar Square, less than a mile away.
In the deserted square, with gunshots still ringing across it, the smoking hulk of a vehicle could be seen with two legs, apparently those of the suicide bomber, sticking out of the wreckage.
Some reports said the vehicle had been able to evade detection because it was an ambulance.
Within two hours, the Froshga market building was a smoking hulk.
A NATO (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_atlantic_treaty_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org) spokesman said that an explosion had been reported near the Central Bank in the city center and international troops were assisting in securing the area.
Kabul police, some with paramilitary equipment and machine guns, converged on the area along with Afghan National Army soldiers.
It was unclear if there were any hostages. Some police seemed overwhelmed.
One soldier was heard talking into his walkie-talkie. The voice on the other end said: “Should we hold our position or abandon it?”
“Hold it,” the soldier replied.
The Taliban said it had deployed 20 suicide bombers armed with both heavy and light weapons as well as explosive vests in their assault, according to a spokesman reached by telephone.
“They are fighting vigorously against Afghan forces and our some of our suicide bombers have blown themselves up, bringing heavy casualties to government officials,” said Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the insurgents in northern and eastern Afghanistan reached by telephone.
“The fighters and the suicide bombers are now in the Afghan National Bank , the Justice Ministry, and other official departments,” he said almost three hours after the fighting started. “Fighting is still going on but our men are still alive,” he said, claiming that 40 government officials had been killed. By noon, witnesses said, the fighting seemed to be over, save for scattered gunfire.
The attack seemed designed to undermine the already frayed authority of the Karzai government even as it seeks to move against the militants politically.
The presidential spokesman, Waheed Omar, said Sunday that the government will soon unveil a major new plan offering jobs, security, education and other social benefits to Taliban followers who defect.
The plan, in the final stages of preparation, will go beyond the government’s previous offers to the Taliban, Mr. Omer said at a news conference. “The mistakes we have committed before have been considered in developing this new plan,” he said. “We have not done enough.”


I bolded some rather interesting parts. given the brutality of the occupation I can imagine what the response from the US will be. when people's villages are being bombed, they bomb back. But the media is just going to spin this as America being the savior.

Wanted Man
18th January 2010, 19:13
This seems to be pretty significant. After almost a decade of occupation, instead of peace, the insurgency has been emboldened. With Obama sending in tens of thousands more troops, it seems the occupation force is in for years of attrition warfare.

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 19:23
The Taliban doesn't have popular support; especially not in Kabul. No sensible reports put them above 40% support anywhere. Even in their strongholds in the south. This isn't a popular uprising; it's a relatively small group of deranged religious fanatics who want to put the ultra-reactionary mullahs back in power. Most Afghanis welcomed the US invasion. That should give you an idea of just how much they hate the Taliban.

Nolan
18th January 2010, 19:26
Most Afghanis welcomed the US invasion.

Please tell me youre joking.

Bright Banana Beard
18th January 2010, 19:31
The Taliban doesn't have popular support; especially not in Kabul. No sensible reports put them above 40% support anywhere. Even in their strongholds in the south. This isn't a popular uprising; it's a relatively small group of deranged religious fanatics who want to put the ultra-reactionary mullahs back in power. Most Afghanis welcomed the US invasion. That should give you an idea of just how much they hate the Taliban.

If this is true, why the fuck do the USA has to keep sending new troops every year?

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 19:32
Please tell me youre joking.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45448000/gif/_45448025_afghan_heading466x245.gif
Tell it to the polls.

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 19:37
If this is true, why the fuck do the USA has to keep sending new troops every year?

Who knows. Maybe it's just to shore up the military-industrial complex. Unpopular militant groups can still pose a threat to governments. See FARC.

The fact of the matter is that the Taliban are unpopular.

RadioRaheem84
18th January 2010, 19:42
Yes, a lot of Afghans welcomed the invasion, some opposed and others were mixed. Almost all though oppose the occupation and what the US military has done in the region.

It's not such a cut and dry issue. Many people do not view the US as an imperialist force but a liberating one, even though they're highly mistaken. The US today tries to promote itself as a liberating force that lacks imperial ambitions. Instead it has sold itself off as promoter and bringer of liberal democratic values. Since the "fall of communism", liberal capitalist democracies see themselves as the true and last example of how a nation should be run. When they bust into other countries trying to bring this about, they presuppose that everyone will choose it over neo-feudal third world despotism. This is why a good portion of people do support US, UN or Western interventions. They see is as a good thing rather than an obvious imperial attempt to fashion a new state to fit the mold.

Bright Banana Beard
18th January 2010, 19:44
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45448000/gif/_45448025_afghan_heading466x245.gif
Tell it to the polls.

This doesn't account that Taliban are unpopular.

What Would Durruti Do?
18th January 2010, 19:46
Who knows. Maybe it's just to shore up the military-industrial complex. Unpopular militant groups can still pose a threat to governments. See FARC.

The fact of the matter is that the Taliban are unpopular.

The longer the war lasts, the more locals are going to be looking to alternatives to the occupation though. Which means support for the Taliban will increase. Protests calling for death to American troops have showed this. The Taliban are the only ones that can bring such violence that the angry people want to see.

It's a shame there isn't any class war alternative against both the imperialist forces and the Taliban.

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 19:57
This doesn't account that Taliban are unpopular.

It shows that around the time of the invasion, most Afghanis felt that the country was going the right way. And the direction of the country at that time was from the Taliban dictatorship, to liberal democracy under a foreign occupation.

You're right it doesn't show the Taliban are unpopular, but that wasn't the point I was making. I asserted that most Afghanis welcomed the US invasion around the start of the invasion. This graph supports my assertion.

FreeFocus
18th January 2010, 20:03
Leninpuncher, you need to consider more than just numbers. Who conducted the poll? What segments of the population did they poll? As socialists, we know that ethnic groups aren't a monolith, so asking one Afghan isn't the same as asking another when you fail to consider class. If this poll only asked, for example, Afghans with telephones or internet access, it's pretty clear what the class composition of the respondents was.

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 20:14
The longer the war lasts, the more locals are going to be looking to alternatives to the occupation though. Which means support for the Taliban will increase. Protests calling for death to American troops have showed this. The Taliban are the only ones that can bring such violence that the angry people want to see.

It's a shame there isn't any class war alternative against both the imperialist forces and the Taliban.

Yeah, I agree. But Afghanistan isn't in any position for a class war. They're barely industrialized, lot's of people there are very backwards and chauvinistic, very religious society and so on. I think a liberal capitalist democracy is their best hope at the moment. Everyone who follows a marxist perspective of history should agree here.

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 20:19
Leninpuncher, you need to consider more than just numbers. Who conducted the poll? What segments of the population did they poll? As socialists, we know that ethnic groups aren't a monolith, so asking one Afghan isn't the same as asking another when you fail to consider class. If this poll only asked, for example, Afghans with telephones or internet access, it's pretty clear what the class composition of the respondents was.

It was the ABC/BBC poll. which is very Kabul-centric and tends to understate Taliban support and overstate Karzai's support. But most experts agree that even when adjusted for the bias, the conclusions would be much the same, if slightly less definitive.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23500 This is a good article on the polls.

Wanted Man
18th January 2010, 21:31
What is the point of polls like that, anyway? It's not like some happy touchy-feely liberal democracy where democratic parties of several different stripes seek authority through parliamentary means, and the polls are an accurate measure of the approval that these parties enjoy. This is not the case in Afghanistan, now ranked as the second most corrupt nation in the world (after Somalia), under foreign occupation, with an all-out war going on that has only gotten worse, and so on. The Taliban is not some kind of parliamentary party that seeks approval from polls, but a force in an insurgency that is trying to win a war. When people support the Taliban, they don't walk up to the pollsters and tick a box that says "Favourable" next to "Taliban"...

Those statistics are interesting, but they only show that a majority of people did not support the Taliban, and would prefer to have just about anyone in power (no big surprises there) in 2001. And even though the poll is "very Kabul-centric", even though it overstates Karzai's support, the 2009 poll you posted shows that even then, dissatisfaction with the current direction of Afghanistan is growing. Quite a remarkable "progress" that the occupation has been making. That ZMag article you linked to shows exactly how meaningful such polls are in discussions like this, so why bring them up? Their stated support in flawed opinion polls says next to nothing about the actual situation.

Also, even with the years of Taliban governance fresh in mind, and even with these poll results, and all that, the insurgency is spreading, and increasingly manages to penetrate beyond their usual area of influence, as this news report shows. Meanwhile, the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt and out of touch, and the army under-performs. With that, any US hopes of a "clean" pull-out are gone, and instead they are sending thousands more boots on the ground, and more bases have been built, while existing ones are basically considered permanent now; there were already indications of this under Bush, and it's going even faster now.

Revy
18th January 2010, 21:53
they actually caught one of the bombings on tape.
AbReViD21Is

leninpuncher
18th January 2010, 22:03
What is the point of polls like that, anyway? It's not like some happy touchy-feely liberal democracy where democratic parties of several different stripes seek authority through parliamentary means, and the polls are an accurate measure of the approval that these parties enjoy. This is not the case in Afghanistan, now ranked as the second most corrupt nation in the world (after Somalia), under foreign occupation, with an all-out war going on that has only gotten worse, and so on. The Taliban is not some kind of parliamentary party that seeks approval from polls, but a force in an insurgency that is trying to win a war. When people support the Taliban, they don't walk up to the pollsters and tick a box that says "Favourable" next to "Taliban"...

Those statistics are interesting, but they only show that a majority of people did not support the Taliban, and would prefer to have just about anyone in power (no big surprises there) in 2001. And even though the poll is "very Kabul-centric", even though it overstates Karzai's support, the 2009 poll you posted shows that even then, dissatisfaction with the current direction of Afghanistan is growing. Quite a remarkable "progress" that the occupation has been making. That ZMag article you linked to shows exactly how meaningful such polls are in discussions like this, so why bring them up? Their stated support in flawed opinion polls says next to nothing about the actual situation.

Also, even with the years of Taliban governance fresh in mind, and even with these poll results, and all that, the insurgency is spreading, and increasingly manages to penetrate beyond their usual area of influence, as this news report shows. Meanwhile, the Afghan government is hopelessly corrupt and out of touch, and the army under-performs. With that, any US hopes of a "clean" pull-out are gone, and instead they are sending thousands more boots on the ground, and more bases have been built, while existing ones are basically considered permanent now; there were already indications of this under Bush, and it's going even faster now.

I probably shouldn't have posted the polls without attaching the Zmag article for clarification. The overall answers that the original polls gave don't change with the corrections. So the Taliban might enjoy just 15% support, rather than 2%.

I agree that the US should leave, because they're increasing support for the Taliban, as well as killing innocent people first-hand. The Karzai government is corrupt, but people still have some sort of say. And the government will go about industrializing the society, which will give people even more say as labour unions develop, and people begin to civilize. Then maybe one day they'll be ready for an actual revolution. Rather than this feudal Taliban insurgency.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik
18th January 2010, 22:23
If only the Taliban and the government murdered eachother so that the Communists take over the country again...:lol:

the last donut of the night
18th January 2010, 22:24
Yeah, I agree. But Afghanistan isn't in any position for a class war.

Class conflicts are a part of a class-divided society. They are inherent to capitalist society, for example, and do not go away. You don't choose to have them. Revolution is a whole


They're barely industrialized, lot's of people there are very backwards and chauvinistic, very religious society and so on.

Is that a reason for them to be occupied by an imperialist power? Also, their beliefs are not set in stone. Afghanistan witnessed a revolution in the 70s where many backwards and reactionary beliefs were directly challenged by men and women.


I think a liberal capitalist democracy is their best hope at the moment. Everyone who follows a marxist perspective of history should agree here.

Well, yes, but that is not going to happen. The US and its allied forces have absolutely no will nor reason to establish such a state in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a target of imperialism and capitalism. The US is trying to assert its hegemony in these places. It's all about big business. Look at the government the US supports in Afghanistan: it is usually just composed of the reactionary tribal lords we're supposed to be fighting.

My golden rule, based on the last 150 years, is that the US will never do anything for democracy, especially internationally. It's an assumption, of course, but it's almost always right. Rule of thumb.

NaxalbariZindabad
19th January 2010, 00:30
Polls about support for the Taliban have no value.

When Afghan police or US troops finds out someone supports the Taliban, they either kill them, or throw them in jail and torture them. In that context, what do you think pretty much all Afghans answer when a Western firm comes and ask them "Who do you support, Karzai or the Taliban"?

Pollsters probably promise anonymity, but I don't think a lot of Afghans are willing to take such life-and-death risks just for fun.

Revy
19th January 2010, 01:40
It shouldn't be about supporting one or the other. Afghans should oppose both US imperialism and the Taliban.

Prairie Fire
19th January 2010, 18:37
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45448000/gif/_45448025_afghan_heading466x245.gif
Tell it to the polls.


Purely out of curiosity, how was this poll conducted?

Many polls are conducted by telephone or internet.

If this was conducted by telephone/internet, Is it safe to say that the percentage of the population of Afghanistan that HAS a telephone or internet access wouldn't be the most opposed to the occupation?

I am genuinely curious now how this poll was conducted. As you were the one that posted this poll, comrade Leninpuncher, I think that you should be charged with the responsibility to let us all know how this poll was conducted, so go find that information and bring it back to us.

Was this poll conducted in Kabul, or the entire country?

Was it done door to door, especially in the South (Kandahar,etc)?

Was this poll conducted by occupation forces/ people in military fatigues/ accompanied by soldiers ( an occupied person will say anything to soldiers, especially in a country where people get pulled from their homes and sent to Bagrahm air force base to be tortured on tips.)?

You posted the poll; now put it in context. Come back with answers to these questions, otherwise we are at stalemate here.

KC
19th January 2010, 18:55
Edit