At least 30 killed and dozens injured in Kabul mosque attack

[webfact]

At least 30 killed and dozens injured in Kabul mosque attack

 

 

KABUL: -- Afghan officials say at least 30 people have died in a suicide bomb attack in a mosque in the capital. Some 80 people are said to have been injured, several seriously, and the death toll is expected to rise.

 

The bomb was detonated as people gathered for a ceremony to commemorate the death of Shia martyr Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Muhammad.

 

The Taliban was quick to deny involvement.

 

Shortly afterwards, Sunni Muslim group ISIL claimed responsibility for the bombing, which came amid a series of sectarian attacks carried out by the militants.

Afghan government Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah labelled the bombing “a war crime and an act against Islam and humanity.”

 

Child victims

 

A number of children are said to be among the dead and at least ten more are receiving medical care, according to reports from one of two hospitals treating the majority of the injured.

 

The head of Isteqlal Hospital, Mohammad Sabir Nasib, said they had “received 38 wounded people and provided them with better treatment. Eight of the wounded are in a critical condition.”

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-11-22

[Americano555]

Just give us a yearly update, and  we'll be fine with that, as if anyone cares.

[AhFarangJa]

Just leave them to it......they will never stop fighting and killing ......"you do not think same as me you must die"

still in the 1400's....

[coma]

The Afghan. The place where all the ISIS grubs, getting their <deleted> kicked everywhere else, will re-org and start a new front. With both them and the Taliban together they would be hard to toss.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, coma said:

The Afghan. The place where all the ISIS grubs, getting their <deleted> kicked everywhere else, will re-org and start a new front. With both them and the Taliban together they would be hard to toss.

 

The Taliban are ethnic Pashtu and are Shia. ISIS is sunni. This bombing seems to be sectarian.

 

The fighting 'season' for the Taliban is over since it is now winter time. New Taliban offensives will probably not happen until Spring.

 

It might be useful to 'know thy enemy' before making preposterous predictions. It is almost certain that you will be subject to any Taliban aggression if you live outside Afghanistan. There is no need to be scared of the Taliban.

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies removed.  

 

[coma]

5 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

It might be useful to 'know thy enemy' before making preposterous predictions. It is almost certain that you will be subject to any Taliban aggression if you live outside Afghanistan. There is no need to be scared of the Taliban.

 

Are you serious ? What an utterly weird few sentences you have managed to put together here. No matter how many times I read this dribble I still cannot understand your point. Had a few beers under your belt have you ?

So am I [ in your infinite wisdom] certainly going to be subject to Taliban aggression if I live outside Afghan am I ? Can you please explain that to me further so I know which shoulder I need to be looking over. And how did you draw this ridiculous conclusion?  And secondly, why is there no need for me to be scared of the Taliban ? If I am certain to be subject to Taliban aggression considering I am not inside Afghan right know. And never will be again I hope.

Talk about contradicting one's self. Just sounds like the usual garbage that people who like shooting their mouths off about conflicts they know obviously know very little if anything about. Except for what they read in the newspapers.

I think you need to 'know thy self' before you go making any more " preposterous predictions". It cracks me up how people, like yourself, in this forum believe they know everything about every other member. 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, coma said:

 

Are you serious ? What an utterly weird few sentences you have managed to put together here. No matter how many times I read this dribble I still cannot understand your point. Had a few beers under your belt have you ?

So am I [ in your infinite wisdom] certainly going to be subject to Taliban aggression if I live outside Afghan am I ? Can you please explain that to me further so I know which shoulder I need to be looking over. And how did you draw this ridiculous conclusion?  And secondly, why is there no need for me to be scared of the Taliban ? If I am certain to be subject to Taliban aggression considering I am not inside Afghan right know. And never will be again I hope.

Talk about contradicting one's self. Just sounds like the usual garbage that people who like shooting their mouths off about conflicts they know obviously know very little if anything about. Except for what they read in the newspapers.

I think you need to 'know thy self' before you go making any more " preposterous predictions". It cracks me up how people, like yourself, in this forum believe they know everything about every other member. 

Rather a lengthy rant over a simple typo.

[Mosha]

 
The Taliban are ethnic Pashtu and are Shia. ISIS is sunni. This bombing seems to be sectarian.
 
The fighting 'season' for the Taliban is over since it is now winter time. New Taliban offensives will probably not happen until Spring.
 
It might be useful to 'know thy enemy' before making preposterous predictions. It is almost certain that you will be subject to any Taliban aggression if you live outside Afghanistan. There is no need to be scared of the Taliban.

Where do you get the Taliban, are shia from?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[coma]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Rather a lengthy rant over a simple typo.

 

Actually more to it than that. The guy hasn't got a clue what his talking about. It gets a little boring when jokers have 'shots at others' on subjects they clearly know little about. A simple example is in the post above this one. If he thinks that then he has never step foot in Afghanistan. So would be best for him to button up.

 

Yours sincerely.

[Stargeezr]

So, Shia, Sunni , Kurd,  or some  other tribe, this  is basically why  the conflicts in the Middle East

will never end. Just be very glad that we do not have to live  there  or near by.
We  are  the  fortunate  ones.

Geezer

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, Mosha said:

Where do you get the Taliban, are shia from?

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk
 

 

Thank you for calling me out on this. I had this discussion with a Pashtu work colleague in Kabul earlier this year. There is currently some dispute between UAE and Afghanistan and UAE has been making some difficulties for Afghans to travel to Dubai. I clearly misinterpreted the information I was given. I remember checking online at the time about the Shia Sunni mix in Afghanistan but I clearly got that wrong also.

 

So I now stand corrected on this and am grateful for having my knowledge corrected. Afghanistan and Pashtu are majority sunni.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

5 hours ago, coma said:

 

Are you serious ? What an utterly weird few sentences you have managed to put together here. No matter how many times I read this dribble I still cannot understand your point. Had a few beers under your belt have you ?

So am I [ in your infinite wisdom] certainly going to be subject to Taliban aggression if I live outside Afghan am I ? Can you please explain that to me further so I know which shoulder I need to be looking over. And how did you draw this ridiculous conclusion?  And secondly, why is there no need for me to be scared of the Taliban ? If I am certain to be subject to Taliban aggression considering I am not inside Afghan right know. And never will be again I hope.

Talk about contradicting one's self. Just sounds like the usual garbage that people who like shooting their mouths off about conflicts they know obviously know very little if anything about. Except for what they read in the newspapers.

I think you need to 'know thy self' before you go making any more " preposterous predictions". It cracks me up how people, like yourself, in this forum believe they know everything about every other member. 

 

Well, missing the word 'not' in a sentence clearly enrages you.

 

It is almost certain that you will not be subject to any Taliban aggression if you live outside Afghanistan.

 

I will clarify further and add Pakistan to the sentence since the Taliban crosses the border.

 

Other people noticed the mistake. Clearly challenging your words is somehow an affront. If you believe I do not know anything, why not be specific as another poster was? I guess any excuse for a rant, or double rant is a good one.

[coma]

1 minute ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Well, missing the word 'not' in a sentence clearly enrages you.

 

It is almost certain that you will not be subject to any Taliban aggression if you live outside Afghanistan.

 

I will clarify further and add Pakistan to the sentence since the Taliban crosses the border.

 

Other people noticed the mistake. Clearly challenging your words is somehow an affront. If you believe I do not know anything, why not be specific as another poster was? I guess any excuse for a rant, or double rant is a good one.

Talk to me about how you also "typo'd"  the Taliban being Shia. As I said in a previous post. Your entire post was and still is nonsense.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

7 minutes ago, coma said:

Talk to me about how you also "typo'd"  the Taliban being Shia. As I said in a previous post. Your entire post was and still is nonsense.

 

Still enraged? Have to push it to extremes?

 

What was not incorrect was my observation about your mindless fear mongering about ISIS and the Taliban. You have what basis for such claims?

 

Get a grip.

[coma]

17 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Still enraged? Have to push it to extremes?

 

What was not incorrect was my observation about your mindless fear mongering about ISIS and the Taliban. You have what basis for such claims?

 

Get a grip.

 

Nice response. Exactly how one reacts when they know they are totally defeated. But you still have a chance to salvage some pride if you can address the issue of you stating the Taliban are Shia. I have asked you on numerous occasions and you refuse.

Let us not forget you are the one that initiated a kind of "enraged' response with  a reply that was/is nothing but utter nonsense. And inflammatory IMO. With comments to such as I should  'know thy enemy" and don't make '" preposterous predictions ". Hahaha. Are you joking ? Know thy enemy ?? You don't even know who the enemy are dude. Go back to the newspaper stand.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

3 minutes ago, coma said:

 

Nice response. Exactly how one reacts when they know they are totally defeated. But you still have a chance to salvage some pride if you can address the issue of you stating the Taliban are Shia. I have asked you on numerous occasions and you refuse.

Let us not forget you are the one that initiated a kind of "enraged' response with  a reply that was/is nothing but utter nonsense. And inflammatory IMO. With comments to such as I should  'know thy enemy" and don't make '" preposterous predictions ". Hahaha. Are you joking ? Know thy enemy ?? You don't even know who the enemy are dude. Go back to the newspaper stand.

 

What evidence do you have of any concord between ISIS and the Taliban. What are the objectives of each organisation and how to they coincide? Your mindless, fear-mongering comment was absent any rationale.

 

You got something to back up your statement? Or is it just a preposterous prediction from someone who clearly does not know their enemy.

 

Is your incessant babbling about me a sign of your fear of these scary guys?

 

You perceive yourself as some keyboard warrior out to 'defeat' anyone who makes a typo? Your insecurities are showing.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

9 minutes ago, coma said:

 

Nope. Just you. And the Taliban are shia comment. That still cracks me up. You refuse to answer it and deflect with "it was a typo. I can see your going nowhere so I will end it now. 

 

My post was about your suggestion of some arrangement between ISIS and the Taliban. You edited it to distort its meaning into your endless personal attack.

 

Why no comment on the issue of an apparent ISIS bombing of a mosque. What does this signify?

 

This epic battle you are fighting in your soiled underwear is clearly amusing to you. You take observations from other posters to my comments as your own victories. Well done.

 

But you do not actually respond to any on topic issue. Clearly you have no interest beyond fear mongering, inane useful observations and baiting people into battles to fritter away your day.

 

Going to respond to any actual issue?

[coma]

2 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

My post was about your suggestion of some arrangement between ISIS and the Taliban.

 

Where did I suggest "some arrangement between ISIS and the Taliban"  ?

 

I said With both them and the Taliban together they would be hard to toss. As in, both operating in the same AO. They would be hard for Afghan government forces and their allies to defeat. Just like in Syria. With all those western back terror groups running around it makes things foggy to say the least. With more than one enemy in the AO it makes it so much harder to combat one particular group. Considering the Taliban is already the enemy, adding ISIS to the mix is only going to make it a much more precarious situation. Especially for the local populace. Who may find themselves joining the Taliban [the lesser of two evil] to take up the fight against ISIS. What will that do? It will empower the Taliban, possibly to levels not seen since before the invasion. Maybe with enough strength that when they are done with ISIS they will retake the entire country. Once again. Not good. Fifteen years of war down the drain. 

 

I am not fear mongering. I see the big picture. Do you ? Do you see now ? If ISIS gets a foothold in Afghanistan the country is gone. Something similar to the lawless crap hole that Somalia is today.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, coma said:

 

Where did I suggest "some arrangement between ISIS and the Taliban"  ?

 

I said With both them and the Taliban together they would be hard to toss. As in, both operating in the same AO. They would be hard for Afghan government forces and their allies to defeat. Just like in Syria. With all those western back terror groups running around it makes things foggy to say the least. With more than one enemy in the AO it makes it so much harder to combat one particular group. Considering the Taliban is already the enemy, adding ISIS to the mix is only going to make it a much more precarious situation. Especially for the local populace. Who may find themselves joining the Taliban [the lesser of two evil] to take up the fight against ISIS. What will that do? It will empower the Taliban, possibly to levels not seen since before the invasion. Maybe with enough strength that when they are done with ISIS they will retake the entire country. Once again. Not good. Fifteen years of war down the drain. 

 

I am not fear mongering. I see the big picture. Do you ? Do you see now ? If ISIS gets a foothold in Afghanistan the country is gone. Something similar to the lawless crap hole that Somalia is today.

 

Clearly it would be sensible to assume that the more insurgent organizations a government has to fight the more difficult it is. I was, and still am particularly interested in the implications of the mosque bombing in terms of any shift in alliances or objectives.

 

I do not agree that Afghanistan is destined to become a failed state. It has a central government, like Iraq and it has long known that any settlement with the Taliban will have to come through political means, not military. The US has finally come around to that point of view. ISIS is an import. They have been moving east as they have been pushed out of Syria and Iraq and this confused me when I thought that the Pashtu were Shia. Irrespective of that, it is likely that only military means can deal with ISIS since they are a foreign entity.

 

The US like the Soviets and the British Empire before them not only failed in Afghanistan but exacerbated ethnic and religious tensions. If the US had allowed a political accord with the Taliban 10 years ago, just at the time that they were starting to copy the suicide bombing model of Al Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS, then the situation would have been different now.

 

I do not expect Afghanistan to adequately deal with its security situation until its central government stabilizes. Having Co Presidents cannot work effectively. If the government can stop the capital flight and exodus of people who comprise the 2nd largest component of the recent waves of migrants into Europe, then it will be better able to tackle the insurgency. Meanwhile, events on the ground have a direct impact on me and my decisions about security, logistics and budgets to pay for them. Security costs have increased five fold since my last visit couple of months ago. Preparing for suicide bombings and kidnap attempts is different from preparing from other types of insurgency, so reliable assessment is important.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[SgtRock]

6 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

Having Co Presidents cannot work effectively. If the government can stop the capital flight and exodus of people who comprise the 2nd largest component of the recent waves of migrants into Europe, then it will be better able to tackle the insurgency.

 

When you internal security forces contain a large % of Taliban. You do not have a hope in hell of tackling insurgency.

 

Capital flight and exodus of people do not even come into the equation.

[onthesoi]

21 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 it is likely that only military means can deal with ISIS since they are a foreign entity.

 

It was military means that created and currently sustains ISIS, more of the same will only strengthen them further.  ISIS thrive in the chaos of war. 

 

The most damaging insurgents to date in afghan/iraq have been western forces by far, our impact & track record is appalling. 

 

....repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome and all that.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by onthesoi
.

[Mosha]

If the war ends, who is going to buy the weapons? While ever arms manufacturers make money these ME and Western Asia conflicts will continue. (1984 The war is not meant to be won).

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, SgtRock said:

 

When you internal security forces contain a large % of Taliban. You do not have a hope in hell of tackling insurgency.

 

Capital flight and exodus of people do not even come into the equation.

 

The previous poster suggested Afghanistan becoming a failed state like Somalia. I did not agree because I believe that a functioning central government can avoid going down that path. Money is a critical element for a government to function. Capital flight means that tax revenues are reduced.

 

I do not know how many Taliban are in the Afghan National Army but I do not agree with your assessment that it is a large percentage. The Taliban is seen as primarily a job opportunity by rural poor youths who get bonuses for achieving certain 'performance indicators' such as shooting a foreigner etc. A political settlement is the only way that the Taliban can be accommodated and only a functioning government can be a counterpart to any settlement negotiations. ISIS/DAESH is a different issue and I do not see how a diplomatic or political solution can be reached with them.

 

The security situation has worsened this year. ISAF now prohibits its contractors to use the road to the airport, so there is now a constant ferrying of people from the ISAF HQ next to the US Embassy to the airport, about 1 km away. The British Embassy has now adopted the same policy so Embassy staff hitch a ride on these Chinooks. Security barriers and movement restrictions are already a feature of daily life. But despite this, there is still a functioning government.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, onthesoi said:

 

It was military means that created and currently sustains ISIS, more of the same will only strengthen them further.  ISIS thrive in the chaos of war. 

 

The most damaging insurgents to date in afghan/iraq have been western forces by far, our impact & track record is appalling. 

 

....repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome and all that.

 

 

 

I believe that John Kerry was correct when, as Presidential Candidate he stated that policing is the appropriate way to deal with the terrorist 'nuisance'. I think he said it in 2004 but was excoriated for using the word nuisance, which I have no problem with.

 

You may be correct about the cause of ISIS but you do not comment on the methods for their defeat. They represent political Islam, so theoretically a political solution may work but I don't see how since their current objectives would be unacceptable to nationalists. A military solution through denying their ability to hold ground would relegate them to marginal criminal acts which are best dealt with through policing methods and the criminal justice system. All of which require functional central governments in these areas.

[onthesoi]

12 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

You may be correct about the cause of ISIS but you do not comment on the methods for their defeat. They represent political Islam, so theoretically a political solution may work but I don't see how since their current objectives would be unacceptable to nationalists. A military solution through denying their ability to hold ground would relegate them to marginal criminal acts which are best dealt with through policing methods and the criminal justice system. All of which require functional central governments in these areas.

The methods of their defeat as you put it.. Is to simply do nothing at all.  Afghan under the Taliban was a far better place compared to what happened after the US invasion.  How anyone can think the solution should be more military action after 15 years of military action is beyond me, thats 3 times longer than WWII. 

 

The Taliban were the last functioning goverment.  Let them get on with it.  If the afghanis dont like it then leave it up to them to fight for something better ...its the one thing they do very well, check the history books on that one.

 

The terrorist training camps shown on repeat video loop on fox news for the last twenty years were actually funded by the US in the 70s to train afghans to fight the russians.

 

It's time to stop meddling.

Edited November 23, 2016 by onthesoi

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

The methods of their defeat as you put it.. Is to simply do nothing at all.  Afghan under the Taliban was a far better place compared to what happened after the US invasion.  How anyone can think the solution should be more military action after 15 years of military action is beyond me, thats 3 times longer than WWII. 

 

The Taliban were the last functioning goverment.  Let them get on with it.  If the afghanis dont like it then leave it up to them to fight for something better ...its the one thing they do very well, check the history books on that one.

 

Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country. The Pashtu comprise around 35% of the population, according to some sources I have read. I do not believe that the Taliban was a functioning government. They represent a minority and could only rule by fear and oppression. They also did not really have any governing platform as we would know it apart from strict adherence to their religious beliefs.

 

One of my drivers during my first visits to Afghanistan, soon after the Taliban fell would talk about life under their rule. The mean were required to grow beards long enough for an official to grab. He was imprisoned for not having his beard long enough. His hatred of Pakistan who he blamed for the rise of the Taliban was intense.

 

Have you seen the movie Kite Runner? Life under the Taliban would have been unbearable

 

The US military demonstrated that they are the most powerful and effective military force in the world. However, under Bush, Rumsfeld and the neocons, they also demonstrated that they are the most clueless and useless national builders in the World. This was partly why there was such anger when Bush appointed the neocon Wolfowitz who was Dep Sec Def under Rumsfeld to be President of the World Bank, an institution that supports nation building. I also remember numerous conversations with US military and civilian officials that reinforced the notion that they were way out of their depth, operating on purely politically driven motives and manning a system that seemed to be designed to channel huge amounts of money to US corporations for the provision of 'services' - such money that was not lost to the rampant corruption of the Afghan officials of course.

 

There is a lot that can be said about the Afghanistan experience. I don't agree with your suggestion to leave them to themselves although I can understand the rationale behind such sentiments. My own view is that US unilateralism under the NeoCons was a primary reason for the failures of their military adventures. A proper multilateral approach (i.e. under the UN and not through a coalition of the willing) would have allowed the US to extricate itself and let experienced nation builders attend to a task that they had experience in. But right wing dogma refused to allow this. Any challenge to American exceptionalism is to be resisted at all costs.

[onthesoi]

What happened to vietnam when the US pulled out and left them to it ....compared to say Korea where they stayed and maintained their military action?

 

Your problem is you're drinking the US cool aid....so can't see the obvious solution.

Edited November 23, 2016 by onthesoi
.