Major Taliban Leader Arrested - Page 2

ashleykennedy · #11 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 12:48 PM

Chicago Tribune

Top Taliban leader arrested

Items compiled from Tribune news services
Published March 2, 2007

Quote:

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- Pakistan arrested a former Taliban defense minister who is regarded as a top figure in the Afghan insurgency, a Pakistani intelligence official said Friday.

Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, considered a key associate of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar, is the most senior leader from the hard-line militia to be arrested since U.S.-led troops ousted it from power in 2001.

Akhund was among five Taliban suspects arrested in a raid on a home in the southwestern city of Quetta earlier this week, said the official.

Two intelligence officials in Quetta confirmed the arrests but did not provide details.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ck=1&cset=true

Two unidentified intelligence officials but the news is firming up.

NJVet · #12 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 01:42 PM

many top leaders does that make know?
I'm suprised there is still any taliban left.

SenaxFlatulus · #13 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJVet";p=&quot

How many top leaders does that make know?
I'm suprised there is still any taliban left.

1. Is there a limit to the amount that are designated "top?"
2. Are you aware of the difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda?

nosider · #14 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

Where do you draw this conclusion? What evidence do you base your assertion that the UN is involved with this story in any way? Nothing was mentioned by the story regarding the UN. The initials UN were never even used.

The story mentions Bryan Ross, VP Cheney, Osama bin Laden, Musharraf, Mullah Akhund, Barnett Rubin, Mullah Omar, Zawahri, etc... no mention of the UN whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present)

"The 2001-present war in Afghanistan started in October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, marking the beginning of its War on Terrorism campaign, seeking to oust the Taliban and find al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Afghan Northern Alliance provided the majority of forces, while the U.S. and fellow NATO members the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, and Spain, along with Australia, Pakistan, and New Zealand, provided support. The U.S. military name of the conflict was Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)."

The United States is not the only country occupying Afghanistan. It still has allies, regardless of how much one might think the world disagrees with the US efforts. Also, these allies do not merely stand idly by while the United States takes a course of action. The UN does help out, regardless of whether their efforts are mentioned or not.

SenaxFlatulus · #15 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosider";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

Where do you draw this conclusion? What evidence do you base your assertion that the UN is involved with this story in any way? Nothing was mentioned by the story regarding the UN. The initials UN were never even used.

The story mentions Bryan Ross, VP Cheney, Osama bin Laden, Musharraf, Mullah Akhund, Barnett Rubin, Mullah Omar, Zawahri, etc... no mention of the UN whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present)

"The 2001-present war in Afghanistan started in October 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, marking the beginning of its War on Terrorism campaign, seeking to oust the Taliban and find al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Afghan Northern Alliance provided the majority of forces, while the U.S. and fellow NATO members the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, and Spain, along with Australia, Pakistan, and New Zealand, provided support. The U.S. military name of the conflict was Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)."

The United States is not the only country occupying Afghanistan. It still has allies, regardless of how much one might think the world disagrees with the US efforts. Also, these allies do not merely stand idly by while the United States takes a course of action. The UN does help out, regardless of whether their efforts are mentioned or not.

I understand the wikipedia topic and agree with it. I understand your assertion and agree with it too. I apologize if you thought I was trying to say otherwise. However, we're discussing a developing news story which has no mention of the UN or its role in recent developments. We're merely discussing within the context of the facts brought up in the developing story.

Why bring something else up?

Why not bring up other unrelated factors too?

For example: How will this affect China's AK-47 productions? Will the stock market rally as a result? Does the oil futures market go haywire or remain stable? Will the price of opium suddenly rise? When will the ramifications of this capture trigger a reformation of Islam, if at all? Can Congress pass another non-binding resolution congratulating the powers that be who were responsible for this?

Perhaps you could reframe your post to clarify what you meant. I'm just not getting it.

nosider · #16 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 02:44 PM

I quoth myself:

Quote:

The UN does help out, regardless of whether their efforts are mentioned or not.

"The Afghan Northern Alliance provided the majority of forces for the war, while the U.S. and fellow NATO members the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, and Spain, along with Australia, Pakistan, and New Zealand, provided support."

I now answer your questions using what I also previously said:

Quote:

Senax: Where do you draw this conclusion?
:nosider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present)

Senax: What evidence do you base your assertion that the UN is involved with this story in any way?
:nosider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001-present)

Senax:Why bring something else up?

Why not bring up other unrelated factors too?

For example: How will this affect China's AK-47 productions? Will the stock market rally as a result? Does the oil futures market go haywire or remain stable? Will the price of opium suddenly rise? When will the ramifications of this capture trigger a reformation of Islam, if at all? Can Congress pass another non-binding resolution congratulating the powers that be who were responsible for this?
Senax (answering his own question):We're merely discussing within the context of the facts brought up in the developing story.

If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask, and one of us will feel free to answer.

SenaxFlatulus · #17 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 03:01 PM

This is the post I'm questioning:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosider";p=&quot

I'm highly positive that the UN was able to use this element of surprise to the best of their abilities, and as one can not tell who they have because the press did not mention any names, the man they have could very well be Osama himself.

You're highly positive that the UN was able to use this element of surprise to what end?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosider";p=&quot

Also, should the UN use this time wisely, they may be able to head Osama off, were he not captured, as another post had mentioned that Osama was also discovered to be at these camps.

Not having any armed forces, the UN won't be heading anyone off. They'll have to rely on Nato, the UK, Australia, the U.S. or other countries in the region with boots on the ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosider";p=&quot

The UN has ample time to act to use this surprise attack to its fullest,

For what purpose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosider";p=&quot

and if they succeed, it would be greatly beneficial in the efforts towards weakening and ultimately destroying the Taliban forces.

using what methods?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nosider";p=&quot

That is, if further action is taken to make sure that a more dangerous leader does not take over as leader.

Since there are no guarantees in life, even when the UN is concerned....

... wait, let me rephrase that...

ESPECIALLY when the UN is concerned, the point raised by many on this board that the War on Terror will continue if/when we capture OBL. There probably will be worse to come down the pike in the future.

ashleykennedy · #18 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJVet";p=&quot

many top leaders does that make know?
I'm suprised there is still any taliban left.

Know you Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_leaders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...-Qaida_members

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - Mullah Muhammed Omar, the Taliban's one-eyed leader, eluded capture when American bombs ended his fundamentalist regime in Afghanistan in 2001. But a new report of his location is stirring an international uproar.

Quote:

With the upsurge in the violence throughout Helmand, international news agencies have been clobbered with telephone calls from self-proclaimed Taliban leaders. Some of these commanders are recognized as ‘real’ commanders while others cannot be independently verified as legitimate. Some of the known commanders still operating throughout Helmand include: Mullah Hayatullah Khan, Qari Hazrat, Hamidullah, Matiullah Agha, Mullah Qassim, Haji Aghar Mohammad, Mullah Abdul Rahim, Mullah Nizamuddin, Mullah Razayar Noorzai, and Haji Naimatullah. Recent rumors also put top level commander Mullah Dadullah as being somewhere in Helmand attempting to launch an offensive against the central government’s upcoming anti-poppy initiative.

http://www.afgha.com/?q=node/1899

It has been said that the Taliban are getting ready for a spring surge.

nonsqtr · #19 (**permalink**) 03-02-2007, 03:28 PM

Hmmm..... anyone up for a little waterboarding?

skeptic-f · #20 (**permalink**) 03-03-2007, 05:29 AM

It cannot be a coincidence that Pakistan was able to nab the third-highest Taliban official in the short period of Cheney's visit. Obviously, they must have known where he was operating for some time and picked him up in order to throw the U.S. a bone. This whole business makes you wonder what more we could squeeze out of the Pakistani government if we ratcheted up the pressure on them to cooperate more with the War on Terror.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode