Talk:Taliban insurgency

Start

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)

WP:MilHist Assessment

I do not know if the "outdated" tag is appropriate, as there is content updated as of June and July 2006.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)

Medusa merge?

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)

Hmm. I think that might lead to a POV fork though. --Guinnog 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

h-cz 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have removed the merge tags. Eleland 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge altogether

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)

why, we do have Iraqi insurgency also --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Combatant flags

I have removed the NATO and Canadian flags.

To have both the NATO and ISAF ensignas is redundant and confusing, as ISAF is "[...] 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)

Rename

I'd support renaming this to Afghan insurgency, since a large number of Afghans fighting are not related to the Taliban, other than through mass-media and politicians finding it easier to refer to them all as "Taliban". See Iraqi Insurgency for a similar name. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

be careful, there can be a disambiguation. Please provide sources for the claim --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Which claim? That many armed Afghan rebels aren't specifically related to the former ruling party? Easy enough...

• While the US and its allies use the term Taliban to describe all armed opposition, the actual armed resistance includes both former Taliban and other clan militias and warlords.
• [Just as in Afghanistan, where the term “Taliban” is being applied to any Afghan resisting US occupation
• The term "Taliban" is a generic reference to the insurgents who are a combination of Taliban fighters and foreign jihadi's
• Across the south, the term “Taliban” now encompasses a shifting array of tribes, groups, criminals, opportunists and people discontented with the government

Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "insurgents" and not "freedom fighters"? Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Danensis (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the use of the terms "insurgent(s)" and "insurgency" is laden with bias. While the phrase "freedom fighters" would be favoured by some, the term "resistance fighters" would be both more neutral and more appropriate, making the historic connection with the resistance groups that operated throughout Europe during World War II. Dlgrant (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) dlgrant

What I find hilarious is that all these disparate groups are commonly referred to as a single group by western military and media - "the Taliban". Considering that none of them have declared allegiance to the previous government of Afghanistan - the Taliban - or, in fact, even declared any desire to overthrow the "legitimate" government, means they are clearly not insurgents. QuantumG (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Resistance fighters" is neutral and keeps us at academic distance.Parrotistic (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Misc

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)

casaulties and army strength  !!

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)

Why does the picture claim it would show fighters which SURRENDERED to police forces? they still hold their firearms