Retribution: It’s a message for NATO, says Taliban

Published: April 16, 2012

“Mujahideen attacks have now been set in motion. We now ask Nato’s leadership to open their eyes,” says Taliban spokesman. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Taliban said on Sunday that the coordinated attacks in Kabul and three other provinces were a message to Nato forces, whose spokesman recently claimed that there would be no repeat of Taliban’s ‘spring offensive’.

“These attacks are the beginning of the spring offensive and we had planned them for months,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told The Express Tribune.

He went on to add that the onslaught was a revenge for a series of incidents involving American troops in Afghanistan – including the burning of the Holy Quran at a Nato base and the massacre of 17 civilians by a US soldier – and vowed that there would be more such attacks.

A Nato spokesman German Brigadier General Carsten Jacobson had said that Afghan insurgents have so far shown no sign of planning a repeat of last year’s spring offensive against foreign elements.

“It is a message to Nato forces, whose spokesman recently said that there are no signs of Taliban’s spring offensive,” Mujahid said.

“Mujahideen attacks have now been set in motion. We now ask Nato’s leadership to open their eyes,” he added.

He told The Express Tribune the real targets of the coordinated attacks were the US, British embassies, Isaf headquarters, presidential palace and parliament, adding that no other embassy had been targeted.

“After the Mujahideen offered to take revenge, our military commanders in four provinces – Kabul, Nangarhar, Paktiya and Lugar – coordinated major attacks simultaneously. The attacks were launched in four provinces in an hour,” Mujahid said.

Former Afghan defence minister Shahnawaz Tanai said the Taliban attacks were a show of their existence and capability as a force in Afghanistan. He told The Express Tribune that the Taliban highlighted their own capabilities while exposing the weaknesses of Afghan intelligence and security operatives.

Afghan opposition groups called upon president Hamid Karzai to resign after Afghan security forces were unable to handle the attacks.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 16th, 2012.

on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Reader Comments (18)

  • Euler_89
    Apr 16, 2012 - 5:17AM

    Sigh… And the war in Afghanistan goes on.

    Recommend

  • Talha
    Apr 16, 2012 - 5:53AM

    “…sayS Taliban”? Funny how ET regurgitates Western sources, grammar mistakes included. Can you guys be any more obvious about your tilt?

    Recommend

  • MarkH
    Apr 16, 2012 - 6:15AM

    I bet it’d be a completely different picture if a NATO spokesman went to the press after every mission against the Taliban and after every single kill/injury giving details and a selection from a list of witty comments they saved up that they came up with while talking about marrying their cousins while nursing their wounds and pride.

    Recommend

  • Bhatti
    Apr 16, 2012 - 6:27AM

    Why does ET publish this guy’s face so often? Who’s he?

    Recommend

  • god
    Apr 16, 2012 - 6:35AM

    just nuke these scums. say ** to human right

    Recommend

  • Apr 16, 2012 - 7:42AM

    He also failed to add how after NATO quits Afghanistan, they will turn their sights on Pakistan.

    TTP will get a shot in the arm, to see their fellow Mujahideen succeed against a World Super Power, just like the anti-India militants had got after the Soviet withdrawal.

    India maybe right next door, but its borders are closed, it will be easier to implement sharia right next door in Pakistan.

    Recommend

  • syed baqar ahsan
    Apr 16, 2012 - 8:29AM

    These coordinated attacks appears to me a drama where are the kills.

    Recommend

  • addict
    Apr 16, 2012 - 8:41AM

    @Bhatti:
    protector, true believer.

    Recommend

  • harkol
    Apr 16, 2012 - 9:34AM

    Nato has two choices.

    Change rules of engagement for its forces to allow Full use of force against Taliban hiding in Pakistan, try to break them up before the announced departure in 2014 arrives.

    Withdraw from Afghanistan sooner than scheduled, but provide massive aid (military & financial) to Afghanistan forces, and let them fight their war with taliban. It is almost certain now that Taliban will fight it out with the rest of the folks, so, USA will need to choose sides. Pakistan has already chosen taliban so USA will need to go with the other sides, and arm them to the teeth. This will have a blowback on Pakistan, but what choice has Pakistan given to USA?

    Recommend

  • vasan
    Apr 16, 2012 - 9:42AM

    If it is message to NATO, couldnt they just TEXT/SMS it. Probably would have resulted in lesser violence

    Recommend

  • Straight Fire
    Apr 16, 2012 - 3:03PM

    @god:
    You shoot, we shoot … You bomb, we bomb … You nuke, we nuke … do the maths

    Recommend

  • Head Shot
    Apr 16, 2012 - 3:03PM

    @BruteForce:
    They are welcome …

    Recommend

  • Roflcopter
    Apr 16, 2012 - 4:37PM

    @MarkH, seems like you’re mad that superior NATO lost the war.

    Recommend

  • Roflcopter
    Apr 16, 2012 - 4:39PM

    @BruteForce, TTP is already on its last legs, I’m sorry but I’m afraid your dream won’t come true.

    Recommend

  • Apr 16, 2012 - 10:20PM

    We must realize that the WOT is still ongoing, and the terrorists are desperately attempting to halt our progress in the region. There is absolutely no need to hit the panic button and allow these attacks to dampen our spirits. This is what terrorists do, and these attacks reaffirm that the threat is still well and alive in the region. At the same time, it is important to realize that these attacks do not define our progress in the region. For example, the situation certainly would not have permitted the ANSF to assume the security responsibilities if the terrorists were dictating the terms in Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan would not have witnessed a democratically elected government. And the U.S. and NATO forces would not be on schedule for the 2014 withdrawal. Also, the number of militants reported killed, in comparison to the security personnel, attests to the ANSF’s ever-improving ability to independently protect the nation.

    The bottom line is that we will not let these attacks deter us from continuing our mission of bringing peace and stability to the region. And we will continue to target those who are looking to infiltrate the region with their acts of terror.

    Recommend

  • mike jones
    Apr 16, 2012 - 11:19PM

    @harkol:
    The problem is we have been going with full force for the past 10 years, and speaking about military aid we have no funds left.

    Recommend

  • observer
    Apr 17, 2012 - 9:26AM

    @Roflcopter

    @BruteForce, TTP is already on its last legs, I’m sorry but I’m afraid your dream won’t come true.

    While you and your friends in Bannu were looking the other way, the TTP broke open a jail and freed 400 of its comrades.

    It seems some entity, other than TTP, is on its last legs.

    Recommend

  • Jamset Ram C
    Apr 20, 2012 - 7:40AM

    @US CENTCOM:

    Thank you for your article, but you are using incorrect nomenclature when you refer to the Taliban as terrorists. The Taliban were the recognized Government prior to American occupation of Afghanistan, and therefore should be referred to as “Freedom Fighters” or “Guerrilla Fighters”. I prefer the term “Guerrilla Fighters” which has been a well known term in the English language since about 1809, and is understood by most English speakers. However, for the few who do not, the term “Guerrilla Fighters” refers to an irregular group of combatants who fight behind enemy lines in their own country, attack the enemy, in their own country, using tactics such as ambush and quickly withdraw.
    The term “Terrorist” is more appropriate when it is applied to fighting groups such as MEK, MKO. JUNDULLA, PKK, PAJK, and others. “Terrorists” are groups of fighters who are trained by foreign countries to create terror in another country. It is quite difficult to actually define terrorism, but the groups mentioned are reasonably good examples of terrorists. They are basically trained by Western Powers to infiltrate and disrupt countries they disagree with. Libya and Syria are good examples of this.
    Obviously, it would require many words to fully describe what terrorism means, but the few above may help you. Additionally, it may be to your advantage if you brush up on “The Articles of War” outlined in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Western countries appear to completely ignore the Conventions, but we have to start somewhere.

    Recommend

    Recommend

More in World