Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo) NewsFlash Northern Alliance enters Mazar-e-Sharif   (dailynews.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

2913 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Nov 2001 at 11:14 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

136 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2001-11-09 11:17:09 AM  
I wonder if a McDonalds resturaunt would prosper there?
 
2001-11-09 11:20:29 AM  
Let's roll.....
 
2001-11-09 11:21:31 AM  
Sharif don't like it... uh... rock the casba.
 
2001-11-09 11:22:48 AM  
If you read the article, it said this could not be independently confirmed. All we know is that the Alliance is claiming to have done this.
 
2001-11-09 11:23:14 AM  
FoxNews is reporting that they've really only made it through one of the mountain passes. They don't have the whole city...yet.
 
2001-11-09 11:29:33 AM  
[image from lonecrow.20m.com too old to be available]
 
2001-11-09 11:29:46 AM  
Good. Now they can get on with some really serious flogging.
 
2001-11-09 11:36:44 AM  
Mazar-e-Sharif is said to be faring quite well, although her back and shoulders are sore and she could probably use a shower right about now.
 
43%
2001-11-09 11:38:04 AM  
Great!

Soon the Northern Alliance will get an opportunity to beat the hell out of women and conduct the affairs of state like angry children.

..but they are || <--that much better than the Towely-ban.
 
2001-11-09 11:40:08 AM  
Pentagon had no independent knowledge of the reported breakthrough

Waiting patiently..... Hey the AP photos are great though.
 
2001-11-09 11:42:54 AM  
Just one question, are you going to leave Afghanistan in the hands of the Northern Alliance? Who are just a buttered down version of the Taliban with the essentially the same policies?
 
2001-11-09 11:43:39 AM  
Sweeeet
 
2001-11-09 11:45:07 AM  
I agree 43%.
 
2001-11-09 11:46:13 AM  
yes, in my opinion the Northern Alliance is only one or two shades better than the Taliban. Given the chance, I'm sure they'd treat the ethnic Pashtuns the same as Uzbeks or Tajiks are treated by the Taliban.

oh well.
 
2001-11-09 11:46:14 AM  
So it can't be independently confirmed. The fact of the matter is that the Taliban will fold. They say they are battle hardened and ready to die for Jihad. When we have been dropping bombs all around them for months, when they haven't eaten in weeks because their supply lines have been cut, when they are out of ammo and can do nothing but sit around and watch each others ears bleed, when they realize that their leadership is no where to be found, that's when they will lose the will to fight. They can't hold up under that kind of punishment, nobody can. People have to eat, they have to sleep, they have to have some kind o hope of victory of at least survival. Before long they wont be able to enjoy any of these necessities. This thing will end and the Taliban will be gone.
 
2001-11-09 11:46:28 AM  
Policy-
Yeah, we'll leave Afghanistan in the hands of NA for about 5-10 years, and then arm the new rebels...just like we once armed the Taliban.
*shrug*
 
fb-
2001-11-09 11:50:22 AM  
I thought the mighty Taliban would crush us like we were in vietnam. Where are all the nut jobs that said that now?
 
2001-11-09 11:55:35 AM  
Ha!

Fb- one battle does not win a war.

ALSO - it aint the US marching in there, its the Afghanis. When you set foot down there without getting it shot off, maybe you can crow a bit.

The Taliban won't crush the US.. but Afghanistan might. Give it time. Are you of call up age? How long did Vietnam go for?

:)
 
fb-
2001-11-09 12:00:31 PM  
Korzeniowski,

Let's see. Airbase in afghanistan. Major resupply road to tajikistan. Taliban fleeing.

I think this shiat is just about over. In this case, I think time will tell that this battle did win the war.
 
2001-11-09 12:03:33 PM  
I was gonna reply to Fb-'s above comments, then i realized i was talking to Fb- so i shouldn't waste my time on a media drone.
 
2001-11-09 12:04:33 PM  
I would like to see it over. I would like to see it over. I got my doubts, though. Its the events and shifts down the track that worry me.
 
2001-11-09 12:07:23 PM  
Wow, they sure are great fighters!

Run Mr. Taliban!
 
2001-11-09 12:10:44 PM  
...the Northern Alliance is only one or two shades better than the Taliban. Given the chance, I'm sure they'd treat the ethnic Pashtuns the same as Uzbeks or Tajiks are treated by the Taliban.

So? The welfare of the ethnic Pashtuns is not why this war is being waged. Let's keep our facts straight, people. The question is whether whichever "government" that takes over Afghanistan will launch terror attacks against the West. At this point, the NA seems a much safer bet than the Taliban (remember also that the NA is likely not going to be the government that takes over from the Taliban...that's why the U.S. has hemmed and hawed for so long in sending in our troops to start taking these cities...power vacuum, and all that).
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:11:45 PM  
11-09-01 11:45:07 AM ClownCollegeGraduate
I agree 43%.


Amusing ;)


On a less amusing note... I seriously hope they don't start slaughtering Pashtuns and Hazaris for revenge from when the taliban took the city... it could get horrid quickly.

Fb-:
Could you be any more preemptive? Have we even tried to hold the country yet? Or, are you one of the people of the opinion that the Northern Alliance is good and great, and won't resort to infighting, and won't start harboring terrorists? My god, you might as well have claimed that the south was destined to win the civil war with no trouble after Bull Run?

Hey, who wants to take bets as to how many civilians are going to die here in the next few days... 1,200's my bet. If both they and the US behave themselves, 200-300. If they misbehave, we could see 5,000-6,000.

Here's to hoping for the best....
 
2001-11-09 12:12:02 PM  
France surrenders.
 
fb-
2001-11-09 12:15:29 PM  
Rei,

Yeah, because this is just like the civil war.
 
zkm
2001-11-09 12:16:09 PM  
Any government is better than what they have now. The Taliban raped and murdered hundreds of random villagers, conducted hundreds of torture and execution seesions in a soccer stadium full of people forced to watch, and protecteda terrorist organization (actually more like was funded by said organization) that advocates the use of nuclear weapons to wipe out any and all cultures on the planet not conforming to its twisted ideals. Let's wait and see what happens before we pull out the crystal ball and decide its not worth the effort.

"But that's just the opinion of a media/corporate/government controlled drone/patriot robot. Because if I don't agree with your ideals I'm EVIL."
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:16:32 PM  
Pop quiz, HeatMiser:

Who was it who first welcomed in and sheltered Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
 
2001-11-09 12:16:53 PM  
What did Omar Sharif ever do to warrant invasion. I mean, sure, some of his recent roles may not be up to par with "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Doctor Zhivago," but that's no reason to take away his city. "The 13th Warrior" was not THAT bad.
 
2001-11-09 12:19:58 PM  
*yawn*

Who fancies a game of naked oiled twister combined with large amounts of alcoholic beverages?
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:20:32 PM  
Fb-:
It takes a complete lack of intelligence to say, "the northern alliance has taken a particular city after it was *bombed intensely* for a month, means that this war is going to be a joke.". Taking this city has been the primary focus of the US for this whole campaign thus far, and its almost taken till winter to do so - and, according to news reports, most of the taliban aren't getting slaughtered, but simply retreating to the much better defended areas to the south.

Again, I have to question the functioning capability of your frontal lobe to think that 1 city = ending war and fundamentalism in *afghanistan*. What's next, one bag of wheat = feeding all world hunger? One word = lasting peace in the middle east?

Wake up.
 
43%
2001-11-09 12:25:24 PM  
Rei I agree 43%.

i just got that...haha
 
2001-11-09 12:28:25 PM  
Yeah, from the rear.
 
2001-11-09 12:30:13 PM  
Yiipppeeeee, now they control a whole, what 11% of the country. WOOOHOOOO
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:31:55 PM  
BTW, HeatMiser, the answer to my question:

Who was it who first welcomed in and sheltered Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?

is:

Eastern warlord Haji Abdul Qadir. (Yes, he's a major commander in the Northern Alliance).

Unholy Alliance
 
2001-11-09 12:33:05 PM  
Mainstream sources say there are about 8 million people starving in Afghanistan, and the war has shut down relief efforts. 3 or 4 million will probably starve to death in the freezing mountains this winter. No big deal. Hardly worth commenting on, really.
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:33:11 PM  
Skwidd:
You don't care about civilians? Gee, thanks, Osama.

Apparently people are only worth something inside US borders.
 
2001-11-09 12:34:07 PM  
Rei:

most of the taliban aren't getting slaughtered, but simply retreating to the much better defended areas to the south.

That's fine with us, that's just where we want them. The key here is to separate the Taliban from the civilians, which is near impossible to do in a large city. THen they can become targets. Standing behind women and children, we'll never root them out.

Once they're out of Mazar and Kabul, we lock down the cities, keep them out, then let em sit it out in the hills for the winter. After they've marinated in the hills for a while, we... Hell, who cares, just let em rot out there forever. Afghanistan is just a few cities surrounded by a vast wasteland, we only need the cities. The wasteland they can have to try to eke out a living.
 
2001-11-09 12:36:25 PM  
The Northern Alliance is just a bit better than the Taliban in terms of human rights record. In terms of foreign policy, the NA will certainly not harbour terrorists, especially of the foreign-treat-native-Afghans-badly variety.

Most people in the Taliban joined because the Taliban were winning around 1995-6. Likewise, with a series of victories, the Northern Alliance will see its ranks bolster with a # of Pashtuns joining, angling to get a spot in any future government.

When Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat (major city in the west) fall, the time will have come for the Northern Alliance to establish a formal government, or for the exiled king to establish a constitutional monarchy, or whatever multi-party solution there is. There should be enough UN observers/peacekeepers around to ensure that a bloodbath v3 doesn't occur. (bloodbath v1 in 1992 when the Northern Alliance took over, bloodbath v2 in 1996 when the Taliban took over.)

BTW, the finance minister and 1-2 other of the NA's top council of 50 are Pashtun, although it is overwhelmingly non-Pashtun.

Bin Laden will be to the US as Adolf Eichmann was to Israel. He will be unable to sleep in the same place two nights consecutively. Of course showing anything where bin Laden is humiliated and showing it prominently on al-Jazeera would do wonders. The Six-Day War did wonders to end Nasser's image outside of Egypt.

Bin Laden's only hope at this point is to escape and show up in Mecca and call for a general revolution.

Shawn Pickrell
 
2001-11-09 12:39:44 PM  
You talk the talk,
but do you walk the walk?
 
2001-11-09 12:40:04 PM  
Who was it who first welcomed in and sheltered Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?

And? Hell, the U.S. supposedly supplied bin Laden with equipment in the past. Thing is, once you turn around and start flying planes into civilian "targets" on U.S. soil in the name of Allah, you tend to lose your "friend" status pretty farking quickly.

One would hope that it will be much more difficult for a person like bin Laden to come to any sort of power after the events of the last couple months.
 
2001-11-09 12:41:47 PM  
Most of this starvation began under the Taliban. The Taliban kicked all aid agencies out when the bombing started, figuring a humanitarian disaster would galvanise world sympathy towards them.

However, those who bash the Northern Alliance support the Taliban. I don't see too many social democrats in Afghanistan, do you?

Shawn Pickrell
 
2001-11-09 12:41:50 PM  
Welcome back Rei...

The last I'd heard, plans were to attempt development of a coalition government that represents all ethnic groups, as opposed to letting just one control the country as the Taliban have done and which the NA would like to do.

The problem, is getting everyone to agree to work together, and we have a problem with that ourselves with only two parties...

3Horn
 
zkm
2001-11-09 12:49:46 PM  
Exactly Stpickrell. The Afghani citizens were starving before this, and while right now its worse in the end they'll be much better off with the Taliban gone. The Northern Alliance isn't going to just turn into another Taliban and ignore outside suggestions; their getting a firsthand view of what happens when you do just that. I also think that this 'humanitarian disaster' is exactly what the Taliban wants. Now everyone is up in arms about the civilians starving, like this isn't because of the Taliban or wasn't practically happening before, and that the vast majority of the civilians don't want the Taliban gone to begin with.

"But that's just the opinion of a media/corporate/government controlled drone/patriot robot. Because if I don't agree with your ideals I'm EVIL."
 
fb-
2001-11-09 12:51:55 PM  
Rei,

Shouldn't you be on plastic.com right now?
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:54:28 PM  
3horn:
The loya jirga hasn't been progressing well, mainly due to internal conflicts. But even assuming that it does, unless you disarm the commanders (which won't happen without a fight) or keep a large semipermanent peacekeeping force in, it'll break down into war incredibly quickly.

Stpickrell:
the NA will certainly not harbour terrorists, especially of the foreign-treat-native-Afghans-badly variety.

Believe that only if you're willing to ignore past history. Not only are some commanders like Qadir famous for ties to bin Laden, some like Sayyef are vitrolic anti-americans, and almost all of them have resorted to terrorism on their own people to get their way.

Mailnride:
That's fine with us, that's just where we want them. The key here is to separate the Taliban from the civilians, which is near impossible to do in a large city. THen they can become targets. Standing behind women and children, we'll never root them out.

If you've seen any reports from local journalists at all, you'd know that very little military equiptment is actually seen in the cities, while large amounts have been seen in the countryside outside the cities. Again, the taliban has many things they can be demonized for, but trying to recklessly kill their own citizens isn't one of them. Certain regious of Kabul and Kandahar have actually been evacutated for safety reasons because they were close to Taliban military bases. And, your argument is hinged on the principle that we have some sort of a problem against shooting through human shields, a basis that has been shown time and time again over there to be false - we shoot through them without checking to see if there's anything behind the shield.

HeatMiser: You neglected to confront the fact that the Northern Alliance actually has a long history of sheltering/being terrorists. As much as the Taliban.
 
fb-
2001-11-09 12:56:53 PM  
Rei,

You need to tell me where you get all this top secret miliraty and logistical information from.
 
Rei
2001-11-09 12:57:46 PM  
Sqwidd:

Are we forgetting that the Taliban could have given him up and avoided the whole mess?

Picture this situation:

The taliban comes on the media all across the world saying that the leader of the Christian Coalition has been sending people to blow up buildings all across kabul and killed several thousand people. The US apologizes. They then say, "We demand that you turn him over. Not only that, but every member of the christian coalition. And, we demand that you let us send troops wherever we want in your country with the right to shoot whoever we suspect. And, we demand that you release all Afghans in your prisons. There will be *NO* negotiation." They then start sending their military towards us.

What would be our reaction?

We would *Laugh In Their Faces*

And yet, we do the *exact* same thing to them, and feel justified.
 
2001-11-09 12:59:14 PM  
Hrmmmm... I like Diet Coke.
 
fb-
2001-11-09 01:00:59 PM  
Rei,

You have completely convinced me that the Taliban is nobel, brave, and not only the greatest fighting force ever assembled, they are right and we are wrong.

I now see that our government is nothing more than an evil conspiracy factory desiged to slowly usurp our rights until we are evil facist robots.

Thanks.
 
Displayed 50 of 136 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report