127 Martyred In Fierce Clashes Between Uzbek Mujahideen And Taliban In Waziristan

[Abu-Hafiza]

Wana (JUS): In a striking new development, the Waziristan area is in shock as heavily armed groups of Uzbek Mujahideen and local Taliban are engaged in the bloodiest clashes in the area yet. Scores of casualties on both sides have been reported besides civilian women and children.

This sad day comes in the time when an uneasy peace agreement is supposed to be in effect between Pak collaborator forces and de-facto Islamic Emirates of Waziristan. In the latest reports, the death toll has reached 127 that include martyrs from Uzbek Mujahideen group, the local Taliban members and civilians. There are unconfirmed reports have suggested that Uzbek Mujahideen have been forced to surrender.

(maqolaning davomi: http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=107606&list=/index.php

[infolife]

:( :( :(
I dont understand why Taliban supports Musharraf's demand for foreign mujaheeden to leave? How does tTaliban benefit from it?:rolleyes:

There have always been foreign mujaheeden within Taliban itself, Taliban has never been purely afghan.

why would they use the term foreign mujaheed anyway?
The early mujaheeden have been from different nationalities and backgrounds and have fought under one banner. Mujahid is a mujahid. why should the nationality matter?

[ДЖИГИТ]

Who is martyr, uzbeks or Pakistanis? Both are "muslims" fighting each other, what a BS. I would say the all go to hell for killing each other.

[Abu-Hafiza]

:( :( :(
I dont understand why Taliban supports Musharraf's demand for foreign mujaheeden to leave? How does tTaliban benefit from it?:rolleyes:

There have always been foreign mujaheeden within Taliban itself, Taliban has never been purely afghan.

why would they use the term foreign mujaheed anyway?
The early mujaheeden have been from different nationalities and backgrounds and have fought under one banner. Mujahid is a mujahid. why should the nationality matter?
Infolife, thats because Taliban and/or Pashtu tribes on Afghan-Paki border as in the article names de-facto waziristan government have an agreement with musharraf:
Pakistan would recognise the autonomy of Waziristan and stop its military campaign into tribal areas.
In return, tribal leaders agree to stop border crossing insurgency and disarm all foreign fighters (uzbeks, arabs, chechens and so on).
Foreign fighters as a whole didnt recognise that treaty. Everything was well untill some of them (especially uzbeks) tried to assassinate musharraf and tribal leaders who signed up for the treaty. So there are two camps in those areas: pro musharraf and anti musharraf. From one hand, if tribal leaders dont disarm foreign fighters then paki army would start the military campaign into waziristan.

[melo]

:( :( :(
I dont understand why Taliban supports Musharraf's demand for foreign mujaheeden to leave? How does tTaliban benefit from it?:rolleyes:

There have always been foreign mujaheeden within Taliban itself, Taliban has never been purely afghan.

why would they use the term foreign mujaheed anyway?
The early mujaheeden have been from different nationalities and backgrounds and have fought under one banner. Mujahid is a mujahid. why should the nationality matter?

Because everything is about power and control. This is obviously a power issue.

[infolife]

Who is martyr, uzbeks or Pakistanis? Both are "muslims" fighting each other, what a BS. I would say the all go to hell for killing each other.

Have you received a wahiy?

[ДЖИГИТ]

Have you received a wahiy?

At least I can ask you the same question, did you get wahiy thet they r martyrs?
But Muhammad s.a.w. was the last prophet, don't expect any other wahiys.It is evident when 2 muslims kill each other it is NOT called MARTYR, it rather called MURDER!!!

[Abu-Hafiza]

i don tthink Infolife said anything about anyone being martyr, anyways, non of us know what is going on there so it is early to jump into conclusions.

[infolife]

At least I can ask you the same question, did you get wahiy thet they r martyrs?
But Muhammad s.a.w. was the last prophet, don't expect any other wahiys.It is evident when 2 muslims kill each other it is NOT called MARTYR, it rather called MURDER!!!

I didnt say they are martyrs. I wouldnt call them martyrs even if they've died killing US soldiers,or any other kuffar. Allah knows best what's in their chest and it's not for me or for you to judge who goes to hell or who goes to paradise.

Be careful when you say things about what happens to people after they die. Only Allah knows and that's what I meant.

ps:dont be harsh

[ДЖИГИТ]

I didnt say they are martyrs. I wouldnt call them martyrs even if they've died killing US soldiers,or any other kuffar. Allah knows best what's in their chest and it's not for me or for you to judge who goes to hell or who goes to paradise.

Be careful when you say things about what happens to people after they die. Only Allah knows and that's what I meant.

ps:dont be harsh


Harsh are those who kill, and those extremists kill each other.
I am saying what islamic law says, don't kill, don't steal or you get punishment in hell.

[Abu-Hafiza]

Before giving fatwa on who goes to heaven or who goes to hell, I think we should concentrate on ourselves as we dont have any guarantees where we will go.

Djigit, in stead of fighting here over the issues that we dont have any knowledge of, why dont you tell us what hutba you have heard today on Friday prayer? There is a thread about that, your post there will be very much appreciated. The thread is here:
http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=9

[ДЖИГИТ]

Before giving fatwa on who goes to heaven or who goes to hell, I think we should concentrate on ourselves as we dont have any guarantees where we will go.

Djigit, in stead of fighting here over the issues that we dont have any knowledge of, why dont you tell us what hutba you have heard today on Friday prayer? There is a thread about that, your post there will be very much appreciated. The thread is here:
http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=9

But this thread not about that, don't worry, I'll have time to be there, but that is different topic. You are one cunny deviator.

Let's get back to topic. I wouldn't say they are martyrs, muslims killing muslims not called martyrs, again it is called murder.

[Abu-Hafiza]

Any complaints on the name,. please address them to the source, noone is calling anyone anything.

[ДЖИГИТ]

Any complaints on the name,. please address them to the source, noone is calling anyone anything.

Then what is this?

127 Martyred ...

[melo]

Then what is this?

it's the title of the article from the source

[ДЖИГИТ]

it's the title of the article from the source


Oooo, thanks I did'n know :rolleyes:

But are they still called martyrs?! :cool:

[melo]

Oooo, thanks I did'n know :rolleyes:

But are they still called martyrs?! :cool:

Don't roll your eyes at me. He already siad if you had any problems with the title, talk to the person who wrote the source article. And then you went ahead and asked the same question again.

[Professor]

Sometimes I assume that this land is cursed. no development, wars and ruins. Last 2 centuries all it's leaders either beheaded or assasinated including last ones Nadjibullah and Ahmad Shah Masud. Nadjibullah had more tragedic death then Saddam.
Those talibs from islamic medressah rushed into islamic Afaganistan to declare Islamic state..what nonsense they preached. Go to Africa, Europe or even North Pole to pengiuns. On their way to North they murdered thousands and even assisinated those 10 iranian diplomats in Mazari Sharif, becase of their mazhab.
people reading quran should act according to the wills of Allah but not memorize it as a poems. wrong misinterpretation of islam, banning women to attend schools, and more other ugly things and that caused non-moslem to think what they're going to face with the moslem world.
When those uzbeks enjoyed their worldly life, pakistani and afgani moslems made zikr of Allah. And now those groups going to build their emirates on afgan/pak soil. return to your land and preach islam there, teach your family and children.
its really sad to look what they do and with their deteriorating life trying to persuade you that you're one of misleadings.
I can;t say whether they're martyrs...but they're not mujahideens for sure.

[Aziz]

just some questions...
what are Uzbeks doing there?
who are they fighting?
why do they call themselves Mujahedeen?

[Zamon]

just some questions...
what are Uzbeks doing there?
who are they fighting?
why do they call themselves Mujahedeen?

those uzbeks are members of the so called terrorist gang " Uzbekistan Islamic Movement" they ran from Uzbekistan to Tajikistan first, try to "help" tajiks build Islamic state there, where tens of thousands tajik civilians dead, after Tajik islamists got some "hot" seats in new government they went to Afganistan, to help them build something, i dont know what, coz after Soviet left that area ( i just call area, i cant use word "country" about afghanistan) everybody start fight with each other, and all of them called themselves mujahedeen, Hekmatiyar, RAbbani Taliban, so uzbeks help to Taliban, fight with another group of fighters, then Uzbek Islamic Movement start flirting with Ben Ladens Al-Qaeda.....they were one of the "founders" of idea, blowing up the huge buddha statue in Bamian province, then september 11 in New York, yankees bomb whole afghanistan, and those uzbeks run to Pakistani border called Waziristan, where lifestyle almost like 8-9 centuries, sometime try to cross the border to Afganistan and kill some peopel there but lately they have some inner gang problems with each other (some Taliban leaders, locals and foregeners) so its biiiggg MESSS!

why they called mujahedeen i dont know, they like that name i guess coz in Afganistan everybody "mujahedeen"

[ДЖИГИТ]

Don't roll your eyes at me. He already siad if you had any problems with the title, talk to the person who wrote the source article. And then you went ahead and asked the same question again.

I'm rolling eyes @ what you said. And who told you that I am complaining to you about the title? I told my opinion, you guys can't stand it? - move on.

[ДЖИГИТ]

Sometimes I assume that this land is cursed. no development, wars and ruins. Last 2 centuries all it's leaders either beheaded or assasinated including last ones Nadjibullah and Ahmad Shah Masud. Nadjibullah had more tragedic death then Saddam.
Those talibs from islamic medressah rushed into islamic Afaganistan to declare Islamic state..what nonsense they preached. Go to Africa, Europe or even North Pole to pengiuns. On their way to North they murdered thousands and even assisinated those 10 iranian diplomats in Mazari Sharif, becase of their mazhab.
people reading quran should act according to the wills of Allah but not memorize it as a poems. wrong misinterpretation of islam, banning women to attend schools, and more other ugly things and that caused non-moslem to think what they're going to face with the moslem world.
When those uzbeks enjoyed their worldly life, pakistani and afgani moslems made zikr of Allah. And now those groups going to build their emirates on afgan/pak soil. return to your land and preach islam there, teach your family and children.
its really sad to look what they do and with their deteriorating life trying to persuade you that you're one of misleadings.
I can;t say whether they're martyrs...but they're not mujahideens for sure.


Mashrab wa hanged in Afganistan and before he was executed, he made dua: May Allah curse this land, have got this info I think in the book of Rumi "Ichingdagi ichingda", if I'm not mistaken.

[Aziz]

Afghans are real funny people...
there is a video recorded by mobile phone by a Saudi who goes to a place where Afghanis seek jobs, any jobs. He goes to them and says: I want to carry a plane, can you help me? Afghanis guy says: Do you mean a real plane? He replies: yes, how much do you want? Afghani says: No problem we can go with you and negotiate there.
I believe they would do anything for money!

[NifTy-Nix]

I don;t understand you guys. Are you muslims or what? Regardles of nationality, or place, those who died are our muslim brothers. The circumstances in which they died might be controversial, but still, we as a muslim should pray to Allah to seek forgiveness for them, as who can claim he is innocent, except Allah himself. And are any of you guys are Sheyk-ul Islam, who can understand Quran and Sunnah 100% or close to that? Do you guys have any authority or Ilm to back up your judgements? And who are you to judge anyways? Please open your eyes, this bloodshed is not what Afghanis wanted, nor it is of their own creation. It was brought to them, upon their nation first by soviets and now US. Just see the big picture. Such incidents happen because of our weakness, because we are dis-integrated and because we don't own up to our fellow muslims, not just in Afghanistan but throughout the world. And please don't act like you are all above those who died in that battlefield.

I pray to Allah to give strength to all of us and forgive our sins and weakness. Amin.

[Zamon]

i agree with the point that Islam World DO NOTHING! after Soviets left Afghanistan ISlamic world could send humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, teach their people to be doctors, engeneers, help them build streets, schools, hospitals indeed, no single country did anything for Afghani people. After Russians left Mujahedeen got the control over AFghanistan but they still keep fighting, then Taliban came to the power, still fighting and brutal human abuses, Taliban kill hundreds of own people men and women, Western Europe said something but Muslim World didnt pay any attention, its like supposed to be, and now after yankees there, everyone praying for mujahedeen....

ridciulous! same sh#$ in Sudan now, arabic militia kills thousands of sudanese, rape young and old women, exept west media in middle east no one even talk, i bet if say French will send troops to Sudan and kick some Government a@@ over there, whole world will start pray Sudanesee "mujahedeen" ......i guees we have to update praying.

[Abu-Hafiza]

We have a generation of brainwashed people who watch too much of television. How many of us have been to Afghanistan or Sudan for that matter and is if fair on people who live there for us to jump onto conclusions?

[Zamon]

We have a generation of brainwashed people who watch too much of television. How many of us have been to Afghanistan or Sudan for that matter and is if fair on people who live there for us to jump onto conclusions?

:) what do u suggesting? every muslim have to first visit Sudan or AFghanistan to make a judgment? but many people dont have opportunity go there, i read news papers, interviews of humanitarian aid workers, refugees, sourses like UN Refugee Office is good example, those people in refugee camp is witnesses, here problem that refugee and women being raped are not muslim, they are blacks and christians or different relegion, they forced to leave their area of living and now staying at UN Refugee camp, militants attacking even that camp too......

[Abu-Hafiza]

Zamon, do you think that media is objective and politically unbiased when it comes to the matters:
Uzbekistan
Russia
Chechnya
Samoli
Muslims in Europe
Terrorism

Frankly I think that media is very much biased and very one sided. Take chechnya for example. Before war on terror chechens were heros and freedom fighters in media. Now they are terrorists. Or Samoli. Even though UIC was very popular among locals, media always portraited them as extremists and Al Kaida and bringin silly excuse saying that they banned Khat (something like nosvoy in uzbekistan).

Now why should we assume that media is objective on their coverage ofDarfur crisis or Afghanistan?

OK, let me ask you this. Who is fighting in Darfur and why? Do you know any of the rebell groups names or the name of their commander or what they actually stand for?

[ThisIsMee]

The Hadith of the Prophet -peace be upon him- is as follows: "When two Muslims confront each other with their swords, then the killer and the killed both will go to hell. (The Companion of the Prophet says) I said, 'One is the killer but why will the killed go to hell?' The Prophet -peace be upon him- said, 'Because he was also anxious to kill the other person.'"(Reported by Imam Muslim in the Book on Trials, Hadith no. 5139). This is an authentic Hadith. The Qur'an also has a similar statement. Allah says, "Whosoever kills a Believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein forever, and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him." (Al-Nisa' 4:93)

There are many other Ayat and Ahadith on this subject. The purpose of these Ayat and Ahadith is to warn Muslims and to prevent them from fighting each other. Their purpose is not to give authority to us or to any Muslim to pass judgments on other people and to assign them to the Heaven or to the Hell. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is the Final Judge and He alone has that authory.
Copy Pasted From:

www.pakistanlink.com/religion/97/re11-14-97.html

[Zamon]

Zamon, do you think that media is objective and politically unbiased when it comes to the matters:
Uzbekistan
Russia
Chechnya
Samoli
Muslims in Europe
Terrorism

Frankly I think that media is very much biased and very one sided. Take chechnya for example. Before war on terror chechens were heros and freedom fighters in media. Now they are terrorists. Or Samoli. Even though UIC was very popular among locals, media always portraited them as extremists and Al Kaida and bringin silly excuse saying that they banned Khat (something like nosvoy in uzbekistan).

Now why should we assume that media is objective on their coverage ofDarfur crisis or Afghanistan?

OK, let me ask you this. Who is fighting in Darfur and why? Do you know any of the rebell groups names or the name of their commander or what they actually stand for?

no i cant tell the name of the commander, what i know is pro government militia, arab nationality most of them, from the south Sudan fight with non muslim africans from the North, africans in Sudan refused to live under sharia law, wich was supposed to be for whole country. Law been introduced by the Central Government.

[Abu-Hafiza]

no i cant tell the name of the commander, what i know is pro government militia, arab nationality most of them, from the south Sudan fight with non muslim africans from the North, africans in Sudan refused to live under sharia law, wich was supposed to be for whole country. Law been introduced by the Central Government.
So, would you agree that a part of Uzbekistan if it refuses to live under government constitution or criminal codex of Uzbekistan and desides to have start an armed rebellion against Uzbek authorities, thus massacaring anyone who doesnt support them say in Ferghana valley, they would have a plausable cause?

[Zamon]

uzbek constitution is secular, if lets say Uzbek government want Sharia ISlamic law for whole country and for all citizens, and christian citizens are majority, like in Sudan, in that case Uzbek government must take it to the considiration, make it like criminal code where majority muslim to be sharia law, killiing by stones like that, and where christians different punishment. almot 200 000 people already dead in Sudan....and that is real.

[Abu-Hafiza]

uzbek constitution is secular, if lets say Uzbek government want Sharia ISlamic law for whole country and for all citizens, and christian citizens are majority, like in Sudan, in that case Uzbek government must take it to the considiration, make it like criminal code where majority muslim to be sharia law, killiing by stones like that, and where christians different punishment. almot 200 000 people already dead in Sudan....and that is real.
Any country desides its own criminal code, be it sharia or not. Taking armed rebellion is a crime in any country under any law. So we don't have both sides of the story in Sudan. And we also know that media is biased in coverege of Sudan crisis. I am not defending the government or the rebells. I know what is going on there is not right, but we shoudl have all the fact and not just one side of the story. Media should have covered the rebell massacres of muslim population in Darfur as well.

Now coming back to Afganistan.

Media is somehow confused on its coverage of Afghanistan. Examples:
When taliban first emmerged, it was all over media hailing Taliban for bringing stability and disarming afghan people. The country was united for the first time since Soviet intervention. Us was the first country who. although briefly, opened an embassy in Afghanistan.

Dont forget the facts:
Afghanistan was war torn
Afghanistan didnt have any centralised government and was governed by the warlords
Afghanistan was armed to teeth and the only sourse of income would be either through narcotics or through killing someone and taking his posessions.
People were starving
Women were raped in their hundreds every day

What tlaiban did? It disarmed the population
It introduced the centralised government
It cut by 80% the production of opium and distribution of narcotics
It stopped the lawlessness in Afghanistan

Now noone in the world supported afghanistan. Afghanistan was left without any money or any sourse of income. At least Taliban was trying to deal with issues and was constantly under foreign intervention. I am not supporting Taleban neither but you should look into face of the facts as well. When media was covering pre-war afghanistan they were portraing tlaiban as the sourse of drugs in the whole world. Now even UN claims that drug production has increased by at least 80% and came to what it used to be prior to Taliban. When there is no law in a country, any law is good enough. Look at samolia. Sharia law was much better solution then lawlessness of the warlords. And what is happening in Afghanistan today?

Well, first of all, it is under occupation
Karzai government doesnt have any control of Afghanistan apart from central Kabul
All the usual suspects, old warlords are in their positions, including General Dustum, Rabbani and all the others. And media ic blaiming everything on Taleban. One funny thing I have witnessed myself.
Right after the occupation of Afghanistan I have read an article in Guardian that in the province of Ghor (i think it was) Amerikans have installed new governor. But later Karzai desided to change the governor and sent his nominee. Of course, the existing governor didnt agree and fighting began. I was reading news before the fighting actually began and there was no mention of Taliban at all as the province was fully liberated. And then when fighting took place and Americans desided to support Karzai, the opposition "became" taliban in headlines of the news straight away.

All I am trying to say is that we should check the facts before jumping into conclusions.

[Iceman]

Any country desides its own criminal code, be it sharia or not. Taking armed rebellion is a crime in any country under any law. So we don't have both sides of the story in Sudan. And we also know that media is biased in coverege of Sudan crisis. I am not defending the government or the rebells. I know what is going on there is not right, but we shoudl have all the fact and not just one side of the story. Media should have covered the rebell massacres of muslim population in Darfur as well.

Now coming back to Afganistan.

Media is somehow confused on its coverage of Afghanistan. Examples:
When taliban first emmerged, it was all over media hailing Taliban for bringing stability and disarming afghan people. The country was united for the first time since Soviet intervention. Us was the first country who. although briefly, opened an embassy in Afghanistan.

Dont forget the facts:
Afghanistan was war torn
Afghanistan didnt have any centralised government and was governed by the warlords
Afghanistan was armed to teeth and the only sourse of income would be either through narcotics or through killing someone and taking his posessions.
People were starving
Women were raped in their hundreds every day

What tlaiban did? It disarmed the population
It introduced the centralised government
It cut by 80% the production of opium and distribution of narcotics
It stopped the lawlessness in Afghanistan

Now noone in the world supported afghanistan. Afghanistan was left without any money or any sourse of income. At least Taliban was trying to deal with issues and was constantly under foreign intervention. I am not supporting Taleban neither but you should look into face of the facts as well. When media was covering pre-war afghanistan they were portraing tlaiban as the sourse of drugs in the whole world. Now even UN claims that drug production has increased by at least 80% and came to what it used to be prior to Taliban. When there is no law in a country, any law is good enough. Look at samolia. Sharia law was much better solution then lawlessness of the warlords. And what is happening in Afghanistan today?

Well, first of all, it is under occupation
Karzai government doesnt have any control of Afghanistan apart from central Kabul
All the usual suspects, old warlords are in their positions, including General Dustum, Rabbani and all the others. And media ic blaiming everything on Taleban. One funny thing I have witnessed myself.
Right after the occupation of Afghanistan I have read an article in Guardian that in the province of Ghor (i think it was) Amerikans have installed new governor. But later Karzai desided to change the governor and sent his nominee. Of course, the existing governor didnt agree and fighting began. I was reading news before the fighting actually began and there was no mention of Taliban at all as the province was fully liberated. And then when fighting took place and Americans desided to support Karzai, the opposition "became" taliban in headlines of the news straight away.

All I am trying to say is that we should check the facts before jumping into conclusions.

QFT!!! i agree with every word you said in that post! Top Post!

another example would be the media coverage of events taking place in Palestine in the US and UK, they are sometimes totally different.

[Aziz]

no i cant tell the name of the commander, what i know is pro government militia, arab nationality most of them, from the south Sudan fight with non muslim africans from the North, africans in Sudan refused to live under sharia law, wich was supposed to be for whole country. Law been introduced by the Central Government.


Zamon...I'm sorry to say that, but do you even know where Sudan is?
you're saying that Arab Sudanese are from the south and Africans in the north!!!c'mon...the northern borders of Sudan is Egypt and the southern is Kenya, Uganda and Zaire. Where do you ,logically, expect Arabs to be?
one more thing, in one of your post you said that the majority in Sudan are Christians, I think you have to revise your information.

[Zamon]

yep i misplaced events, from first civil war in Sudan

"The year before independence, a civil war began between Northern and Southern Sudan. The Southerners, anticipating independence, feared the new nation would be dominated by the North.

Historically, the north of Sudan had closer ties with Egypt and was predominantly Arab and Muslim while the south was predominantly black, with a mixture of Christianity and Animism"


.........and muslims 75% and rest of it different relegions.....u cant simpy ignore him.

[Zamon]

[QUOTE=Abu-Hafiza;668285]Any country desides its own criminal code, be it sharia or not. Taking armed rebellion is a crime in any country under any law. So we don't have both sides of the story in Sudan. And we also know that media is biased in coverege of Sudan crisis. I am not defending the government or the rebells. I know what is going on there is not right, but we shoudl have all the fact and not just one side of the story. Media should have covered the rebell massacres of muslim population in Darfur as well.

ok can YOU write your opinion, what is going in Sudan? why so many people dead and still dying over there? any solutions?

[Abu-Hafiza]

Zamon brother, this thread is not the thead about Sudan. If you go into Sudan now, you have to bring the history of first sudan civil war, the second civil war, SPLA, JEM, massacre of Al-Fashir and many many more events. You should also mention the fact that Darfur is oil-rich region and that Sudan made an agreement with Chinese and Iranian oil firms to excavate oil which is clearly not in US' or European interest. I did not deny that there is killing going on in Darfur, but you should also know that it is very very misleading to claim that Darfur crisis is "Muslims versus christians and animists", as most of Darfur is actually muslim itself.

This thread is about uzbeks in Afghanistan, I dont even know how we end up in Sudan. What I am trying to say is, I am not saying that you are wrong or I am right, all I am saying is that we shouldn't fall for propaganda and should try to check the facts, not just by reading the papers or listening to interviews.
I have worked in news sector and I know how news are gathered. There is a fierce competition between different agencies be the first to report the news and to find as dramatic news as possible. In those sircumstances it is sometimes impossible to be unbiased although all the agencies claim their neutrality. I say, dont believe everything you read or see on TV.

I also want to quote from the movie "The War Stories", the "credo" of journalists in reporting the war stories was:

"There is not truth, thats why they call it storries"

[Abu-Hafiza]

Wana (JUS): The situation in Waziristan remains tense and uncertain after week-long clashes between Uzbek Mujahideen, led by Mujahid Tahir Yaldeshev and local tribes including some members of the local Pakistani Taliban. The number of martyrs is now estimated at 184 as the fighting continues and peace efforts initiated by tribal elders continue to fail one after another.

According to sources cited by Urdu Daily Jasarat, around 50 Uzbek Mujahideen taken captive by the local tribes earlier in Wana were executed after the Peace Jirga failed to reach any solution however there is no independent confirmation of this. If true it would be the worst incident of its kind to be seen in the area. The local tribes demand that Uzbek Mujahideen disarm and confine their presence to the limited area but the Uzbeks refused to comply.

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=107639&list=/index.php

[Guardian]

it's disgrace! I strongly recommend those who don't know anything about Mujaheddeen and talk crap out of stories. Get an Afghani who was in war, he lived those days and ask them what are talebans and so called "mujahedeens". in fact some of those morons are completely mad and ready to drink blood out of their brothers' necks, they are mostly disgrace. General Dustum and Co, Pakistanis, Talibans, they all do lots crap. People are being abused, children and women raped, houses destroyed and lives ended ... that is hurting!

[Abu-Hafiza]

yuge. :) Bitta zakonomernostni sezdim shu dinga juda qattiq berilganlarda. Ular uchun tolibon ham, teroristlar ham hammasi yahshi odamlar. :)
Yana check the facts deb quyishniyam bilamiz. Iltimos kulgili postlarni komnata smeha boardiuga yozilik boshka joylarga emas.:)

Tolibonlar esa girt terroristlar. bitta quymay qirish kerak hammasini. Shunaka bir birini qurbon qilib yuq bub ketishsa yahshi bulardi.:)
Martingale
Birinchidan, man tolibonni "yaxshi" deganim yo'q. Ikinchidan, terroristlar haqida umuman gap ochganim yo'q. Mani aytayotgan narsalarim-mambalarni yaxshilab tekshirib ko'rish kerak.

Tolibonlarning halqni qurolsizlashtirgani ham bu fakt. Tolibon 1994 yili Qobulni olgunicha har kuni butun afg'oniston buyicha urush ketar edi. Toliblar paytida esa usha fuqorolar urushi faqatgina shimolga, o'zbek va tojik yerlariga ko'chdi. Mana buni uqib chiqing:
The initial goals of the Taliban were to disarm the country, end lawlessness and enforce the Islamic law or the Sharia on a united Afghanistan. The Taliban so far have been successful in bringing relative law and order in around 85% of the country that they control. They have done so mainly by disarming, and in certain cases by incorporating in their ranks, the previous warring groups. (See The Christian Science Monitor, January 7, 2000, Is Taliban's Afghanistan lease ready for renewal?)

Undan tashqari, tolibon paytida giyohvand moddalarning yuq qilinishi hamm atarafidan qabul qilingan fakt. Oddiy misol:
http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html

Uchinchidan, Tolibon parchalangan va bo'lingan afg'onistonni birlashtirgani ham fakt. Afg'onistonning 90 foizini qulga kiritgan.

Man sizga faktlarni keltirganman, nimasi kulgilik bo'ladi bularni? Qaysi biri noto'g'ri va aniq source la bilan ko'rsatib beringchi?
Man tolibon yaxshi deganim yo'q, ularning boshqaruvida juda katta hatolar bo'lgan. Lekin tolibon paytida odamlar kamida ko'chaga chiqishdan qo'rqishmagan, bunisi ham fakt. Siz nechta afg'onni ko'rgansiz? So'rab ko'ringchi ulardan, tolibondan oldin qobul qanaqa edi, keyin qana bo'lgan, deb?

Men tolibonga qo'shilmagan holda shunisini ham bilamanki, tolibon haqida tarqatilgan habarlarning ko'pchiligi "misleading". Agar sizda boshqa faktlar bo'lsa, marhamat bildiring odamni haqoratlamasdan.

[infolife]

yuge. :) Bitta zakonomernostni sezdim shu dinga juda qattiq berilganlarda. Ular uchun tolibon ham, teroristlar ham hammasi yahshi odamlar. :)
Yana check the facts deb quyishniyam bilamiz. Iltimos kulgili postlarni komnata smeha boardiuga yozilik boshka joylarga emas.:)

Tolibonlar esa girt terroristlar. bitta quymay qirish kerak hammasini. Shunaka bir birini qurbon qilib yuq bub ketishsa yahshi bulardi.:)

iltimos shunaqa kulgili postlarizi komnata smehaga yozsangiz.

usha qoraytirib yozilgan joydan keyin check the factsni ham qoshib qoymabsizku:) check qilsa teskari chiqib qoladi deb oyladizmi yo rostan?

ps:ohirgi gapga lekin odam na kulishni na yiglashni biladi...

[NifTy-Nix]

yuge. :) Bitta zakonomernostni sezdim shu dinga juda qattiq berilganlarda. Ular uchun tolibon ham, teroristlar ham hammasi yahshi odamlar. :)
Yana check the facts deb quyishniyam bilamiz. Iltimos kulgili postlarni komnata smeha boardiuga yozilik boshka joylarga emas.:)

Tolibonlar esa girt terroristlar. bitta quymay qirish kerak hammasini. Shunaka bir birini qurbon qilib yuq bub ketishsa yahshi bulardi.:)
Dinga berilganla diganizda nimani nazarda tutvos? Musulmon bo'lib, 5 vaqt namozini o'qiganlanimi? Ho'sh buni nimasi yomon? Mana dinga "berilmi" man musulmonman dib, har hil nomaqulchiliklarni qilib yurganlar zo'r musulmonmi? Ja zo'rsiz-ku a? Tolibonlani hammasini qirish kerak debsiz, unda o'zizzi terroristdan farqiz nima? Keyin tolibonla sizzi arpezzi hom o'rishdimi ulani shunchalik yomon ko'ras. Shunchalik hamma narsadan habardor bo'lsez ham, oldi orqaga qarab gapirish kerak, kallani faqat chiroy uchun ko'tarib yurishga berilmagandir.

[Joha]

JIHADUNSPUN is not trustable source or information. Brother and sisters refrain from going to that website.

Taliban 'invite' 10,000 Uzbeks to Helmand

By Massoud Ansari, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:55am GMT 25/03/2007

Islamic militants linked to Osama bin Laden have been offered a safe haven by the Taliban in Afghanistan, bringing them into conflict with British troops patrolling the lawless province of Helmand.
Uzbek gunmen, who fought a series of bloody battles last week with Pakistani tribesmen in the border region of Waziristan, where they had been living, have been told they should join the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan instead.

The move raises the prospect of a major upsurge in violence in Helmand, where 43 British soldiers have been killed in clashes with militants over the last five years.

The group of around 10,000 Uzbeks are led by Tahir Yuldashev, a close associate of the al-Qaeda terrorist chief, who is believed to be hiding out in the mountainous border area with his chief henchman Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The members of the Islamic Movement Union of Uzbekistan fell out with their Pakistani hosts after accusing some tribal leaders of acting as agents of the Pakistani government, which is under huge pressure from the US to crack down on Islamic militants. Pakistan government officials said that nearly 160 people, including 130 Uzbeks, were killed in the battle.

Taliban fighters intervened to broker a ceasefire but local officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that neither side is likely to back down. Taliban sources have revealed that they have offered the Uzbeks safe passage into Afghanistan in order to bring an end to the violence.

The militant group are wanted by the Uzbek government of President Islam Karimov and cannot return to their own country.

Lateef Afridi, a tribal leader and former national assembly member from the Frontier province, who is privy to details of the discussions, said: "These tribesmen are quite determined to flush them out. Given that these Uzbeks cannot be extradited back to their own country because they are all wanted there, one way they are considering to accommodate them is to send them to Afghanistan."

Mr Afridi said the Taliban felt compelled to give the Uzbeks a way out because if the battle continued between the local tribesmen and the foreign fighters, the Taliban elements would have to choose which side to back, unleashing further bloodshed. Another source added: "Both the sides are led by highly trained militants and if the fighting is not stopped, there will be massive killings."

A second tribal leader said the local and Afghan Taliban forces had already approached the Uzbeks and asked them to continue their jihad in Taliban-dominated areas in Afghanistan, in a bid to "reinvigorate their campaign of violence against Nato troops". They have been offered safe passage to either Kunar, Paktia or Helmand, where British troops are braced for a spring offensive from the Taliban.

Britain has announced plans to raise the UK military presence in Afghanistan to more than 7,000 troops. But the presence of a new wave of heavily armed guerrilla fighters is likely to leave troops stretched further and strengthen calls for an even greater military presence.

For Pakistan, forcing out the Uzbeks has the advantage of undermining support for Osama bin Laden.

His deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been spotted in Waziristan several times. If the local tribesmen succeed, it will deny bin Laden one more safe haven for his associates, according to one western diplomat.

The Uzbeks are believed to have killed more than 1,500 local tribesmen in the past two years and are blamed for kidnapping others.

Mr Afridi said: "The partial ceasefire was achieved only for a time being, when the Taliban leaders intervened, but it did not give both the parties enough time to carry out the dead. The corpses and broken limbs of the dead are scattered all over the area."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/wafg25.xml

[Abu-Hafiza]

Martin, re-read my posts. Have I claimed taliban was GOOD? Have you even understood what was the point of my posts? All I am trying to say is that (from the discussion with Zamon) news are not reported the way they should have been reported. They dont draw a correct picture. All those facts that I have brought, although accepted, have never been reported. Besides media was reporting it one way and later on reporting it in completely different manner.

I do not support taliban, I said it in my first post. I have only shared the article which was mentioning about UZBEKS and I think it is worth bringing to knowledge, whoever side they are, they are still your expats. They grew up in your cities and they speak your language. But I am warning people not to be poor slaves of western propaganda and everyone knows for sure that there is a propaganda war what west calls "war for hearts and minds". If there wasnt, there wouldnt be stations like Al Jazeera who reports things completely opposite to what CNN or Fox News reports.

[NifTy-Nix]

Mani notugri tushunibsiz. Man dinga qattiq berilganlar deb yomon manoda aytganim yuq. Bu, mani fikrim buyicha, uzbeklarni diniy munosabatiga kura bulinishidan bitta misol edi. Million bor inkor etishingiz mumkin yoki yuq, ammo bizni regionlarda dinga hamma ham bir hil munosabatda emas. Bazi narsalar yozilmaydi, ular gapiriladi va kuriladi. :) Lekin bu bilan man yo yahshi yo yomon ham demoqchi emasman. Man dinga qattiq berilganlar deb ham ularni yoki maqtab va yoki yomonkab ham yozganim yuq. No mani asosiy fikrim bu emas edi. Shart emas edi shu joyini quote qilish, chunki bu narsa mani yoki sizni fikringiz bilan uzgaradigan narsa emas. Asosiy fikrimga Abu-Hazfiza javob yozdilar va man javob qaytardim. Tolibonlar haqidagi fikrim ham ushatta. Birovni qikgan ishlariga qarab baho bersa arpasini hom urdi degani emas. Salomat buling!
Mani bilishimcha, tolibonla nima ish qilishganini hali yozib ko'rsatib o'tganiz yo'q. Mayli tolibonlani bir yoqqa qo'yib turaylik, o'zimizda asrni boshida bo'lgan, rusla "bosmachilik" harakati deb bizga o'qitgan harakat haqida ham shunaqa fikrdamisiz? Bilmadim-u, tolibonla o'z davlatida urush obormoqda, hali boshqa davlatga agressiya qilgani yoki boshqa davlatga soldat yuborib u bu terror operatsiyalari o'tkazgani haqida hech gap yo'q. birovni qurolsizlantirib , o'zi qurollanvoldi debsiz, ha boshqa davlatlarda qanaqa? usha USni oling butun boshli armiyasi va politsiyasi qurollangan-. boshqalani qurolsizlatirib o'zlari eng zamonaviy qurollani sotvolishvotti-yu? Bu har bir davlatni qurolli kuchlarini qurollantirishi kabi gap. MAni noto'g'ri tushunibsiz debsiz, to'g'ri tushunish uchun, to'g'ri yozingde, unaqa bitta narsani etib, keyin man boshqa ma'noda yozudim dimasdan.

Salomat bo'ling.

[NifTy-Nix]

Man 2nchi postimda tushuntirgande boshida shu manoda yozganman, betta savol suralishi kerak "man uzi tugri tushundimmi am I not rolling the balls?" degan. :)

Boshqa gaplarizga komment bergim kemiyapti, sababi juda ham childish argumentlar, mayli omadizni bersin siz bilan talashib utirishga manda vaqt yuq. Hop nima uchun childish, bitta misol keltiraman, siz yana USni manga misol qib kursatvosiz, aslida man USni oqlaganim yuq.
Man sizga USni oqladiz oqlamadiz divotganim yo'q, matter of fact har bir davlatda qurolli kuchlar digan narsa bor, shuni eslatdim holos. Bolalarcha tushchaga ega bo'lsez hammani ham o'zizga o'hshatmang taqsir. g'iybatchilik ham ja yahshi ish emas. salomat bo;ling.

[Gareeb]

Man sizga USni oqladiz oqlamadiz divotganim yo'q, matter of fact har bir davlatda qurolli kuchlar digan narsa bor, shuni eslatdim holos. Bolalarcha tushchaga ega bo'lsez hammani ham o'zizga o'hshatmang taqsir. g'iybatchilik ham ja yahshi ish emas. salomat bo;ling.

Gapirgan gapiga jawob berolmay aravani hadeeb uyoqdan buyoqqa sudrayveradiganlar bilan bahslashib mawzuning qo'rini to'kmaganiz yaxshi.

Ular shunaqa, aslida musulmonmiz degani bilan qalblarida musulmonlarga nisbatan it baliqdek achib ketgan nafratni bildirib qo'yishadi.

[Abu-Hafiza]

As clashes between Afghan and NATO troops and the Taliban continue, a British paper claimed the Taliban have “invited” thousands of Uzbek Islamists to the volatile Helmand province.

Uzbek militants, who last week clashed with Pakistani tribesmen in the border region of Waziristan have been told “they should join the Taliban,” The Sunday Telegraph claimed. According to the paper, around 10,000 Uzbek militants are hiding in the border region, under the command of Tahir Yuldashev, who is thought to be a close associate of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda chief.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=69082

I am sure that the number 10,000 is well over-estimated. This is another example of media misleadings. When this story first broke out, the claim was that there are um to 1000 uzbek militants. Now they conveniently added another zero to the number.

[Abu-Hafiza]

Good analitical article about this issue here:

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370289

[UzLand]

April 5, 2007, Dawn, a leading English daily published in Pakistan.
--
The game is up for Uzbeks

By Ismail Khan

THE clock has come full circle for the Uzbek militants in South Waziristan.

They are, in all probability, making their last stand – capping an
eventful journey that brought them first to Afghanistan and eventually
to Pakistan from their homes in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.
Welcomed by tribesmen with open arms, the militants from the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan faced little problem finding support and shelter
among the Ahmadzai Wazir tribes in Wana, the regional headquarters of
South Waziristan.

Qari Tahir Yaldashev, the IMU leader, aka Qari Farooq, became the star
speaker at mosques in the Wana region. Yaldashev had succeeded Jumma
Namangani, who was killed in a US air strike in northern Afghanistan in
Nov 2001.

It was in June 2001 that Pakistan, reluctantly acknowledging the
presence of foreign militants in the tribal region, launched its first
operation in Azam Warsak. The tip had come from the Inter Services
Intelligence (ISI). The encounter was bloody and shocking. Ten soldiers
of the Pakistan Army were killed, amongst them were two officers.

More troops were rushed in, but it was the March 2004 operation in
Kaloosha (South Waziristan) that made it clear to Pakistan’s military
strategists that they were fighting no ordinary enemy. They were pitted
against a hardened enemy.

What followed was a spate of ambushes, IED (improvised explosive
devices) and rocket attacks.

Over the next two years, around two hundred pro-government tribal
elders, intelligence operatives and their tribal moles, journalists and
government functionaries were ruthlessly killed and eliminated; most
were blamed on Uzbek militants.

Resentment against Uzbeks had been brewing in Wana for about a year now.
Fear and resentment had replaced the initial sympathy for them. Things,
however, began to change last year when senior Taliban figures from
Afghanistan ordered reshuffling in the militant hierarchy in Waziristan.
Maulavi Omar, who had succeeded Commander Nek Muhammad as overall
commander of the Ahmadzai Wazir militants and was known to harbour a
large number of Uzbek militants, was in turn replaced by Maulavi Nazir.

Three things happened in the past one year or so that sealed the Uzbeks’
fate. One, the Taliban and their supporters in Waziristan had begun to
realise that Uzbeks were turning into a liability because of their
alleged involvement in target-killings. The most prominent name to come
up was that of Saiful Asad.

Two, the Uzbek militants had allied themselves with militant commanders
led by deposed commander, Maulavi Omar, who was using their muscle as a
counterweight to Maulavi Nazir -- a key factor why the Taliban threw
their weight behind their nominee to ward off any threat against him.

Three and most importantly, there was a tribal dimension to the brewing
conflict. Omar came from the all-powerful Yargulkhel sub-clan of
Ahmadzai Wazir tribe and so were Haji Sharif and his brother, Noor
Islam. Maulavi Nazir was from the Ghulamkhel sub-clan, the weakest group
and one that had little influence within the tribal hierarchy. This
intra-tribal rivalry had a significant bearing on subsequent developments.

Moreover, the Uzbeks, particularly the ones led by Qari Tahir, were seen
as a liability in view of their reluctance to fight the Taliban’s
`jihad’ against the US forces in Afghanistan.

The tribal militants soon realised this group was more interested in
fighting Pakistan on its own turf. The argument used by the Uzbeks was
that `jihad against hypocrites’ takes precedence over `jihad against
infidels’ – an allusion to Pakistan’s collaboration with the USin the
`war on terror’.

Twice late last year, Maulavi Nazir held a meeting of his shura of
militant commanders to decide the fate of unruly Uzbeks and on both the
occasions, Qari Usman Jan, who represented Mr Yaldashev’s faction,
agreed to submit to the tribal command. What however, served as the
tipping point in this Uzbek-local stand-off that was continuing for a
year, was the murder of a widely respected Saudi, Sheikh Asadullah, on
March 13.

Asadullah, in his mid-50s, was, according to some government officials,
the moneybags in the entire tribal belt. He had succeeded Ahmad Saeed
Abdur Rehman Khaddar Al Canadi, an Egyptian-born Canadian known for
being a conduit for finances to Al Qaeda affiliates. He was killed in a
military action in Angor Adda, near the Pakistan-Afghan border, in Oct 2004.

Mr Asadullah, who was taking money to the widow of yet another
unidentified foreign militant also killed by Uzbeks, was ambushed to
death on the way. His tribal companion, an associate of Maulavi Nazir,
put the blame on the Uzbek militants.

Two weeks before this incident, a pro-government tribal elder who had
twice escaped attempts on his life by Uzbeks, decided to take on the
central Asian fighters with the help of his Darikhel tribesmen. Maulavi
Nazir, who had remained neutral hitherto, decided to jump into the fray.

For the first time since the tribal region was beset by militancy in
2002, tribal militant commanders, who had until now been fighting the
Pakistan Army, found themselves training their guns at each other. The
larger group, led by Maulavi Omar, supported the Uzbeks. The smaller
one, led by Commander Nazir, opposed the Uzbeks.

Therefore, all that is happening has little to do with the government’s
ingenuity – a government that has shown remarkable ignorance of tribal
history. One government official admitted it had fallen into the
government’s lap like a ripe fruit.

What does the present conflict mean? One needs to understand that it is
an Uzbek-only tribal campaign, targeting the so-called `Bad Uzbeks’. The
`Good Uzbek’ are clearly not the target. The same goes for other foreign
militants.

It is clear that the `bad Uzbeks’ have few choices. They will either
have to leave the Wana region as they are no longer welcome or fight the
last battle and die.

They had spurned a Taliban offer earlier to resettle in areas under
their control in Helmand and Zabul, fearing they would become sitting ducks.

Indications are that the first round of Uzbek-hunting would be followed
by bloody intra-tribal feuds. Tribesmen, who lost nearly two hundred of
their near and dear ones in targeted-killings to Uzbeks, would
henceforth be hunting for their tribal collaborators.

Little wonder then that the likes of Haji Sharif, Haji Omar, Javed
Karmazkhel, Maulavi Abbas, Noor Islam and Ghulam Jan, some of them key
militant commanders who had signed the failed peace agreements with
government in 2004, are now nowhere to be seen and their whereabouts not
known. Reports suggest that men folk of families whose near and dear
ones were killed allegedly by Uzbeks at the behest of their tribal
protectors, now form the bulk of the nearly nine hundred tribal
volunteers hunting the central Asians.

As for the government, it is free to claim credit for something with
which it had little to do in the first place. Nonetheless, by pure
default, it can take some solace from developments in Wana.

The ongoing campaign would not only tame the Uzbeks’ firepower but also
that of the tribal militants. The weakening of tribesmen would take care
of a good number of militant commanders in the ensuing intra-tribal
rivalries and hopefully bring some semblance of normality to the tribal
region.

The government would be glad to see its writ restored in the restive region.

[timurlenk]

it is very bad news to see uzbek karıdashlar died there for osama...
i dont believe osama as whatever he did something then that place occupied and attacked by usa.. he attacked twins then usa justified its occupucation of muslim lands and take petrol... in fact osama seems good partner of USA as whenever USA needs a reason then osama create something for USA...

[berlusconi]

they should kill them all. no one will feel sympathy for taliban