Talk:Taliban insurgency

message: This is the article about the guerrilla war the Taliban are waging in southern Afghanistan, after the invasion. A short timeline is needed.--TheFEARgod 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I do not know if the "outdated" tag is appropriate, as there is content updated as of June and July 2006. Nevertheless, this is an article that needs constant attention as the situation develops, and needs to have updates cleanly integrated into the text, not just added as new sections. I am surprised to see this article so short, considering how major a topic this is, and how widely reported this is. Take a look at half of the other articles in the War on Terrorism category (or many other articles related to subjects of the last 50 years or less) and you'll see that in the modern era, with the multitude of media outlets and advanced technologies, there is tons of material available to the average citizen (and therefore the average Wikipedia editor) to be added here. In particular, I second the call for a timeline or chronology. LordAmeth 02:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: I believe Operation Medusa ought to be its own article; is is a major offensive involving thousands of troops, and has been ongoing for a week with no sign of stopping. Other operations such as Operation Anaconda have their own pages.
Should not the "Taliban insurgency" article focus on the activities of Taliban insurgents, rather than the people fighting against them?
Eleland 16:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I think that might lead to a POV fork though. --Guinnog 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think merging would help anything. Operation Medusa is a military operation led by NATO with plenty of events and media coverage and it ought to be separate topic. More, taliban insurgency article is presents the other position to report on the events and structure the information about happenings in long term time interval in afghanistan.
we need here a short overview of Medusa. With a ||see: Operation Medusa|| header --TheFEARgod 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: AgreedThat would solve this "merge issue", since Op. Medusa is a purely military operation, only partly associated with the insurgencyLan Di 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medusa merge? 

message: Or change the 2001 war into 2001-2002 conflict only, and move everything since the return of the Taliban here. --HanzoHattori 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why, we do have Iraqi insurgency also --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge altogether 

message: I have removed the NATO and Canadian flags. 
To have both the NATO and ISAF ensignas is redundant and confusing, as ISAF is "[[International Security Assistance Force |[...] a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan [...]]]". The ISAF consists mainly of NATO members, but NATO's role in ISAF is organisatory, not as a belligerent party per se.
I think no country in ISAF should have its flag in the box, they all work under an integrated command, and others countries have seen almost as much major action as the Canadians (particularly the Dutch). This only leads to "my country too"-ism.
The US stays because a major part of its forces are not under ISAF command.
--Victor falk 06:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatant flags

message: The topic's locked atm. I found two websites holding info that could be used as citation for the car accident triggering riots in Kabul in 2006 in the "2006 Escalation" section. Can someone confirm and add them? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5437226 | http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2006/jun/01/us-troops-fired-at-mob-after-kabul-accident/ --R04m3r (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: its written that the Talaban army strength is 25000 soldiers then why are the casaulties 40000 ???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.101.32 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The strength is the current number of active members. Casualties killed is the total for the conflict, which can be higher than the number currently active. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban strength and casualties 

message: Why does the picture claim it would show fighters which SURRENDERED to police forces? they still hold their firearms  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrendered? 

message: why is the article named "taliban insurgency", not "afghan resistance"? Why is there no article called Afghan resistance? typing this redirects to the "mujahideen" article which is terribly misleading to suggest that all Afghani people defending their homes from invaders are religious fanatics. There is an article called "French resistance", why is it not called "French communist insurgency" then so that it would be consistent with "taliban insurgency"? Articles like this are obviously edited by the US military and public authorities, wikipedia needs to take steps against this practice. I guess nobody would like to see the German government officials editing "French resistance" to "French communist insurgency", right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.57.137 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called an insurgency because that is what the majority of reliable sources call it. It has nothing to do with who edits the article, it is Wikipedia policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The Taliban have never been a legitimate government. Hamid Karzai easily won the 2004 Afghan presidential election, so claiming the Taliban insurgency is a resistance movement of patriotic Afghans is far from reasonable. Also, what's patriotic about ambulance bombing? The French Resistance wasn't a communist movement, although a minority of its members were communists. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

text: None of this indicates that they were ever the legitimate government, however. Either way, as Darknes Shines said, we go with what the sources call it. — Czello 06:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name bias 

message: The Taliban insurgency continued into 2012.
Timeline[edit]
August:
27 August:
Taliban insurgents in the Taliban-controlled southern Helmand area killed 17 civilians – fifteen men and two women[130] – who were attending a party. A government official said that the victims were beheaded for celebrating with music and mixgender dancing[131] in the Musa Qala district of Helmand, which ran contrary to the Taliban's extreme brand of Islam. Later, however, a provincial government official said that the 17 people killed were due to a fight between two Taliban commanders over two women (who were also killed). The civilians were either beheaded or had their throats cut, but some showed signs of gunshot wounds or beatings.[130]
The attacks were condemned by Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who ordered an investigation into the attack,[131] the leader of the NATO coalition led by the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. However, the Taliban has denied responsibility for the attack, saying that no Taliban members have ever killed civilians.
The attack occurred on the same day when two United States troops were killed by an Afghan soldier.[132]
10 Afghan soldiers were killed by the Taliban, also in the Helmand province.[130]
Well this content is all bull shit no one prove this. 
As the Taliban were posting they said we will allow all journalists and everyone who wanna see the place can come and talk to local people. This was just a propaganda by the Afghan government.
I wish you understand what i wrote here if you can prove this will be great or other wise please writhe something ells from that year you can find many facts that happened in that year. I will also look for those articles who were shared in some Afghan news sites about this matter.
:The content is supported by the Reliable Sources cited.50.111.32.130 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 2012 

message: Taliban is Sunni - Iran is Shia, Iran supported the Shias who are against the Taliban (Hasaras) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.36.197 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Iran definitely supported anti-Taliban factions back in the 90's. However there have been media reports ,  that as of 2015 Iran has been providing a level of support to them. Iran does support other Sunni factions such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad Gazkthul (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Iran]] don't support the Taliban 

message: Insurgency = rebelliousness. The presumption behind this chosen article title is, that in 2001-2002 the Taliban started to fight against the ‘legitimate (Karzai) government of Afghanistan’. But that seems a biased, Western- and American-centred presumption, resulting in a biased article title.
It is clear that a Taliban government was blown out of Afghanistan in 2001-2002 with force by the US and allies, and that US and allies in 2001, backed by the UN, installed a '(legitimate) Afghan government'. And probably that 'government' is indeed even sometimes successful in some areas and on some aspects of what Westerners consider 'governing a country'. That leaves unimpeded that the Taliban have never acknowledged that (Western-/UN-constructed) 'reality' and that that so-called 'Afghan government' never really governed and controlled the whole country: thus it is still a fiction, wishfull dream, of (many in) the (Western) world. Obviously, the (biased) title 'Taliban insurgency' is based on that fiction.From the Taliban's point of view, they are simply trying to take back ('their') Afghanistan from some (Western-backed puppet) regime. So, a neutral, factual title would be: 'Taliban's fight for [reconquest of] Afghanistan'. Colleague Darkness Shines here above, in 2012, contended that the article has this title because "that is what the majority of reliable sources call it". I challenge that, both in its factualness and in the apparent assumption that—even if many or all (Western) sources do call this Taliban fight 'insurgency'—we have no other choice than follow (biased, Western) news sources even in our article's titles. (The anonymous editor of 28 March 2012 exaggerated by saying that 'the US military is editing this page' but he was right as far as that the title seems chosen from a biased (US-centred) point of view.) --Corriebertus (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research.--92.237.23.242 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title biased 

message: I fixed a malformed citation for China's appearance in the list of alleged supporters. Note that the reference is from a Forbes Opinion contributor, and that there is no indication that it appeared in the print version of the magazine. Consensus has found this source to be generally unreliable, and that references to it should be treated as  opinion pieces or self-published sources. This contributor may or may not be an exception. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for [[China]]'s (alleged) support

message: With America recognising the Taliban and withdrawing troops, we can now mark this as a Taliban victory to the struggle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.131 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. The peace treaty is still tentative, and it depends on what unfolds in the future. BTW: All wars are started with a view to end them one day. Perhaps all sides come out as winners.Davidbena (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but the US's super tenuously defined victory conditions was the complete removal and destruction of the Taliban. It is now cutting a deal and running away with the Taliban still intact and retaking lost ground. That is a clear US defeat, much like Vietnam, and Taliban victory. The Taliban's victory conditions were defined as survive and get the Americans out, they've achieved that. It is an unequivocal Taliban victory. Maybe if the US and allies had done more to define what they'd consider a victory at the start, but their poor end of conflict definitions back then have led to what is essentially a defeat now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.131 (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace treaty 

message: I added this on the "War in Afghanistan" talk page as well
However, I thought it would be important to add here.. If anyone wanted to do something with this information.
There are of course no real estimates of Taliban losses. However, there are various sources that have compiled different numbers for different periods. None of them are truly cohesive though
The Watson Institute for example, undercounts Taliban losses. and I will provide reasons as to why that is the case...
take for example the 2016 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/War%20in%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%20UPDATE_FINAL_corrected%20date.pdf
This gives a tally 42,100
if we also take the 2019 Estimate https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/Direct%20War%20Deaths%20COW%20Estimate%20November%2013%202019%20FINAL.pdf
You will notice that the tally of 42,100 is also used.
The Newest estimate (Which is used within both the Taliban Insurgency, and War in Afghanistan article) give the new estimate of 51,191
Which only incorporates 2 separate 4 month reporting periods for the Ministry of Defense as stated within the source https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/figures/2021/Human%20and%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Afghan%20War%2C%202001-2021.pdf "From July 1 through November 5, 2019, Afghan National Defense Forces reported killing 10,259 militants/insurgents/terrorists and reported killing 10,091 from 6 November to 13 April 2021"
This is a clear undercount, simply considering even from 2016-2019 there were no additions. Within the 2014 version, they admit that any estimates are likely undercounted, and no records are actually kept https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2015/War%20Related%20Casualties%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%202001-2014%20FIN.pdf
However, I would like to highlight that various sources do give Taliban losses for certain periods of time For example, the "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" specifically page 261 by Antonio Guistozzi gives yearly totals (according to Al Somud) from 2002-2016 (omitting 2013) Overall, we can see nearly 80,000 Taliban deaths during that reporting period.
On top of this, the Ministry of Defense has at times given yearly totals, or various seasonal estimates Take for example this article https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/officials-count-around-30000-war-dead-afghanistan-year Which states in the year 2016, there were 30,000 deaths in the Afghan War, 18,500 of them Taliban Also various reports from the MOD can be found here https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release or also the Twitter account (which tends to be updated more often) https://twitter.com/MoDAfghanistan We see that in this month (June) alone so far over 1,300 Taliban have been killed in ANDSF operations?
I think it would be interesting to incorporate these numbers because as I highlighted above.. the Watson study is very flawed (at least in regards to Taliban figures) However, I am unsure about how to do that They could very quickly increase the Taliban fatalities of the war well over 100,000Njofallofall   (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban losses? 

message: To Whom It May Concern: Wikipedia editors may wish to review this interview here with the former President of Afghanistan (Hamid Karzai) made in 2020 and incorporate excerpts from it into this article, especially concerning his views on the civil war that raged between his liberal government (and its constituents) and the ultra-conservative Taliban party and its followers. Another good video-documentary of the current, unfolding crisis is this video here. This next video is very, very interesting (here) and gives an insight into the Afghani society. Of course, and this one here, too, is important, as well as this one here. Davidbena (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former [[President of Afghanistan|President]] Hamid Karzai's take on the Afghan civil war