8 NATO forces dead in 3 days in Afghanistan - 05-13-2012, 09:25 PM
8 NATO forces dead in 3 days in Afghanistan
Key figure in country's Taliban peace negotiations assassinated
Author: From the CNN Wire Staff
Published On: May 13 2012 01:56:48 AM CDT Updated On: May 13 2012 12:56:35 PM CDT
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) - Two service members with NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan were killed Sunday, bringing the death toll among NATO troops to eight in three days.
The two died following an improvised explosive device attack in eastern Afghanistan, ISAF said.
Three others killed in the past few days are believed to be victims of so-called "green on blue" attacks, in which Afghan security forces turned their weapons on ISAF personnel.
Two of those were British troops, the British MInistry of Defense said. "Serving as part of an advisory team, the two servicemen were providing security for a meeting with local officials near patrol base Attal, in the Lashkar Gah district of Helmand province, when they were shot and killed by members of the Afghan Police Force."
The three other ISAF deaths include one service member killed in an insurgent attack, one killed by a roadside bomb, and one who died of non-combat related injuries, officials said.
Meanwhile, a key figure in the country's efforts to bring the Taliban to peace negotiations was assassinated Sunday in Kabul.
Gunmen killed Moulavi Arsala Rahmani while he was on his way to work Sunday morning, the Afghan interior ministry said.
Rahmani was a senator and Cabinet minister in the former Taliban government. In recent years, he was a senior member of the High Peace Council, established by President Hamid Karzai to ignite peace talks with the Taliban.
Authorities are searching for the attackers. The Taliban said it was not responsible for the killing.
The latest violence came as Afghanistan released a new list of areas in the country that will be handed over to Afghan authority.
The transition will take place gradually in the coming months, officials said.
The Afghan government "will now be responsible for the security of more than 75% of the Afghan population," ISAF commander Gen. John R. Allen said in a statement.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said once the move is implemented, "transition will have begun in every one of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan, including every provincial capital, and will cover almost two-thirds of the country's districts."
"This is thanks to the courage and determination of the Afghan people, the Afghan security forces and ISAF, and it is a result of the progress we have already made. Together, we are moving steadily closer to our shared goal: to see the Afghan forces fully in charge of their country's security by the end of 2014," Rasmussen said in a statement.
Gavin Sundwall, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy, said the announcement marks a "positive step forward in the evolution of Afghan leadership and our enduring partnership."
Kandahar city, until recently a Taliban stronghold, is among the areas being handed over to Afghan authority. The list announced Sunday is the third set of areas making the transition.
Included in the districts to be handed over, according to a statement from the Afghan government, are some of the more volatile parts of the country. Half of the insurgent stronghold Nurestan's districts will be handed over, as will all of restive Uruzgun province, where departing Australian forces are active.
Just over a third of the districts in violent Paktika province will also be handed over.
General Mohamed Zahir Azimi, spokesman for the defense ministry, said that at an upcoming NATO summit in Chicago, Afghan officials hope to get commitments from the international community for support after 2014. The country already has international commitments for $4.1 billion a year to fund the Afghan security forces until 2014, he said.
Despite the high praise for Sunday's announcements, the killings were a stark reminder that violence continues to rage.
In a recent e-mail announcing their spring offensive, called Al-Farooq, the Taliban mentioned that members of High Peace Council were among the people it would target this spring and summer.
However, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a text message Sunday that the group did not kill Rahmani.
Karzai condemned the killing, calling it "a terrible loss. He was a knowledgeable religious scholar, Mujahed, tribal leader, politician and a great pacifist."
"Enemies of Afghanistan must know that every Afghan wants peace and progress in their country and, thus Mawlavi Arsala was not alone in this journey," Karzai said in a statement.
He called on security agencies to find and bring justice to the perpetrators.
05-13-2012, 09:40 PM
who are you ranting at? who supports the war against afghanistan here?
|The Following User Says Thank You to faye For This Useful Post:|
05-13-2012, 10:43 PM
Why are some ok in saying that NATO's interests are sufficient enough for them to be 5th Column Citizens and cheer on war?
Why should NATO fail for your goals? Because of this war, all the economies of the West have become weak. The EU is about to split, and the IMF/World Bank is no longer significant.
05-13-2012, 10:47 PM
lol. just because people don't respond to every post you add to the forum, does not mean they don't have thoughts or feelings about them. i don't read them all, but i think the wars are all sh-t.
if people go to war or send peple to war, then deaths, disgusting abuses and woundings are to be expected.
when people actually evolve to a higher consciousness, if ever, they will be able communicate in adult fashion to negotiate and compromise.
until that day, the sh-t will continue to hit the fan, because clever, heartless a--holes, with agendas, are ruling the world and there are loads of poor to be used as cannon fodder and people who just plain,want to be murderers.
05-13-2012, 10:49 PM
UnknownPrince is trying to make this imaginary scenario that people support NATo so he can justify the Taliban; without it the Taliban have no leg to walk on. Most of us who oppose the Taliban have halted talking about NATO for several reasons
1.) We did it before ....If you remember in many Early threads from awhile ago e made threads against NATO Occupation and those who kowtow for Imperialistic interests in Afghanistan.
2.)we realized our past debates opposing NATO has been hijacked by people like UnKnownPrince and they're using our words and ideas as a propaganda tool for the Taliban; which was not the intending purpose.
We condemn NATO and the Taliban equally as two sides of the same coin.Notice UnknownPrince used to "thank" our posts religiously last year when we had a higher proportion of Anti-NATO/Imperialism threads.When we started condemning the Taliban more; he switched geas and started accusing us of kowtowing to NATO, eve though our Post/Thread history shows otherwise. Basically this isnt about Truth for them; it's about what serves the Taliban and their benefactors Pakistan and Gulf States interests and what doesn't
05-13-2012, 11:01 PM
The issue is some people seem to be very selective and have only one skewed interpretation of what counts as Pakistani interference.
The fact is that the whole conflict in general was only made possible by Pakistani air supply routes and ground supply routes given by Musharraf, but they seem to be OK with this because they are only having problems on another issue- and that is of the Durrand line which they seem to want to be enforced and also think is the reason for failure in Afghanistan.
These people however like to say that Musharaf was backing the Afghan insurgency, and they leave it at that.
In that regard they parrot a false narrative in which they are perfectly OK with NATO/ANA being supplied with lethal aid by Pakistan supply routes
This is not to say that Pakistan/Iran do not pursue their own interests in Afghanistan which are at odds with NATO, but so far. It would be ridiculous to deny this since the regional consensus is against a foreign presence in Afghanistan for THEIR own interests. The Pashtuns- the majority of Afghans- are opposed to the foreign presence. The majority- that is the Pashtun independent interest.
What I am pointing out is the contradictory nature of pushing one narrative of "Pakistani interference"/"Iran interference" and being perfectly OK with blatant examples of Pakistan/Iran interference where Iran has helped prop up a Tajik regime in Kabul, and Pakistan gives the supply routes to the NATO war that props up this Tajik regime led by a cosmetic Karzai.
In the process, the Pashtuns are the focus of the war from both sides.
05-13-2012, 11:10 PM
It only seems to you that it's being "Left at that" becuse we already condemned NATO a year ago; the Anti NATO position has been well established; no need to kick a dead horse. Now it is time the Taliban get their criticism and likewise with Pakistan and their support of the TALIBAN.
05-13-2012, 11:22 PM
most of what we think we know, outside of this chaos in afghanistan and pakistan is what us mushrooms, get fed through the media. if you have people on the ground giving you their side of the story this will also be place specific.
having watched the propaganda machine, for years now in the western media, against iran, i actually believe nothing that is said about iran, that makes it look as though there will, at some point be a need for israel, america or nato, to attack them.
pakistan it seems, is a country on life support from aid from the west, has much internal strife, and is therefore open to blackmail by powerful, aggressive countries, like yours truly, america. i imagine the government does not have much choice in some of the decisions it makes and the things that it does.
you have to remember that pakistan also has huge expensive disasters, like earthquakes and floods.
like i said to you elsewhere, you don't know that other countries would not have been hijacked, one way or another, into allowing the invasion of afghanistan.
so you are actually 'parroting' yourself, over and over, about pakistan.
we, i do anyway, hear you the first time.
|afghanistan, days, dead, forces, nato|