Taliban Kills Scores Of Afghan Soldiers, Attacks NATO Vehicles In Kandahar

Donate

Taliban Kills Scores Of Afghan Soldiers, Attacks NATO Vehicles In Kandahar

Taliban fighters during Operation al-Khandagh

On December 5, the Taliban announced that its fighters had carried out a coordinated attack on a base of the Afghan National Army (ANA) in the district of Shawalikot in the southern province of Kandahar.

Voice of Jihad, the official news agency of the Taliban, said that 25 soldiers and officers of the ANA were killed and many others were injured in the attack. The agency also acknowledged that 4 personnel of the Taliban were killed and injured.

Earlier, the Taliban said that its fighters destroyed two military vehicles of the NATO in the district of Daman and in the outskirt of the capital of Kandahar with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). According to the Afghan group’s claims, several service members of the NATO were killed and injured as a result of the attacks.

The NATO has not commented on the Taliban’s claims so far. The US-led coalition usually acknowledges its loses several days after the attacks for security reasons.

Kandahar is well-known as one of the main strongholds of the Taliban. Afghan government forces and the NATO carried out dozens of operations in the province during the last few years. However, the Taliban’s influence there is still strong.

More on this topic:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • verner

    anything that befell the occupiers from the west (in particular the disunited states of america) is something to cheer about. and fact is, the mongrels from washington dc is actively trying to find a way out
    of Afghanistan without it being too obvious that it is a defeated country that returns home after having spent trillions of $$, have a hearty larf at the losers.

    • χρηστος

      i agree and disagree……i prefer the US to ISIS or Taliban butchers.the lesser that 2 evils if you want ……

      • Barba_Papa

        The Taliban are not nice any by humanitarian definition, but they are not into global Jihad, just kicking out the West and installing their brand of Islam in Afghanistan again. The reason why we (as in the West) got into Afghanistan, kicking out Al Qaida has long since happened. By act of mission creep the Taliban have since become equated with Al Qaida and we continue to act as if when the Taliban comes to power Al Qaida will return to Afghanistan as well and turn the place one giant training camp for terrorism against the West again. That ship sailed so long ago it has already entered port on the other side of the ocean and its crew is busy having fun with hookers. Al Qaida doesn’t need Afghanistan as a training base. It has set up shop in Syria, Yemen, the Sinai, Libya and basically the entire Saharan region. Having the Taliban take over Afghanistan will be no different then Saudi Arabia. But without its massive oil wealth. It will suck for Afghan women, but should the West expend its blood and money to make the world safe for Afghan women? Especially if #METOO is to be believed our own women aren’t even safe yet.

        The real reason why the West, basically the US and its loyal vassals, continue to stay in Afghanistan is a multitude of things. First and foremost its conveniently next to Iran. And if war with Iran ever were to come you can bet that Baghram air base will be at the forefront of it. There’s also geopolitical chess with Russia and China, as the US sees Afghanistan as the gateway to the Central Asian republics. If it loses Afghanistan it will weaken its position in that region. There’s the US miltary industrial complex that demands that wars are being fought, as those are good for business. Blood for the Industrial Blood God! Skulls for the Wall Street Skull Throne! And there is of course the unwillingness to admit that the US has lost yet another war. That all the blood and money lost were for nothing. Sunken cost fallacy.

        • Ricky Miller

          I agree but there’s another real reason the U.S. stays in Afghanistan. The Deep State and related politicos are afraid that a withdraw and a Taliban victory will discredit America’s security establishment in the eyes of the voting public: “Not worth the cost? After all that, the Taliban won anyway? No more of that, somewhere else.” That’s what they are mostly afraid of.

          • Barba_Papa

            Losing South Vietnam did not discredit them that much either. When a nation really tires of a war it can stomach a withdrawal and enemy victory. You sigh, you pick up the pieces and go on. Easiest way to do that is secure a favorable condition to withdraw. Another surge, smash some Taliban, declare victory and if the Kabul government manages to hold out for a few years, who cares what happens by then. Then its backpage news. Surely by then some new war and some celebrity grabbing another one by his or her genitals will be frontpage news instead.

          • Ricky Miller

            Yes, true. But things have changed in the U.S. though. The Intelligence and military wings of the government have operated with minimal supervision since 9/11. They have near autonomy to drone as many people as thet want and engage in hostilities where they want nearl nearly without civilian supervision. They do not want Congress revising legislation that might put them back on a leash.

          • Barba_Papa

            Henceforth, start a surge, beat back the Taliban for long enough so the Kabul government can survive for a year or two on its own, then declare victory, the country stable and withdraw. In two years time when the Taliban take other things will dominate the news and things will go on as usual. After all, it worked in Iraq.

        • χρηστος

          your analysis is food for the brain

        • Concrete Mike

          Under the Taliban…poppy production was nearly eradicated.

          After 17 years of us there, record poppy crops and an opioïd crisis in north america.

          Someone made a pile of money…

          • Barba_Papa

            No argument there.

      • Tudor Miron

        “Prefer the US to ISIS”(c) your problem is that ISIS is nothing other than US irregular armed forces.

        • χρηστος

          ok i meant it without politics involved…..of course what you say is true

      • Sinbad2

        I disagree, the Taliban only kill in Afghanistan, the USA kills people on a global scale.
        They have killed 40 million mostly women and children since WWII, the USA is the devil.

        • χρηστος

          Afgranis are humans as well. do you think the Taliban will stop if they establish control of the whole country?what did Osama do in the past?aren t he fanatics of islam killing,raping European citizens by the dozens daily ?

          • Sinbad2

            Osama started his campaign because the USA occupied his country Saudi Arabia.
            The Taliban are fighting American invaders.
            The Syrians are fighting American invaders.
            If you look at every war on the planet, the one common element is the United States of America.

            So to stop all the wars, just kill America, or at the very least force the Americans to disarm.
            80 years of American aggression has to be stopped, one way or another.

      • Concrete Mike

        Afghanistan is for the pashtun majority…its not up to us to decide.

        • χρηστος

          defending the rights of minorities is a sign of civilization.

  • You can call me Al
  • Smaug

    Anyone else notice how South Front conspicuously only reports when the Taliban attacks the Afghan government and not, say, when the US attacks the Taliban?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/02/us-airstrike-kill-senior-taliban-commander-afghanistan

    • Concrete Mike

      Because its hard to tell wether the us attacks really taliban or just murders pashtun civilians. I agrre i would not want to touch a story like that.