View Full Version : Pakistan


roadrunner
03-21-2011, 10:34 PM
Again, kids please restrict yourselves to your sandpits. You know who you are. I'm looking for proper discussions.

I've noticed some people (the same ones) retorting with Pakistan is the problem. So tell me what it is that Pakistan does that is the problem.

The Durrand Line has its own thread, and isn't a practical problem at all. What else? Post away.

Admin Khan
03-21-2011, 10:52 PM
Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan. Let's start with strategic depth and Taliban.

Talal
03-21-2011, 10:56 PM
Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan.

Admin Khan it would be better to elaborate on that in context of not just Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan but also vice versa.

what is your perception of both over the years ? as to what have been the foreign policies of Pakistan and Afghanistan towards each other

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 10:56 PM
What about its foreign policy?

Something specific to chew on, if possible.

Admin Khan
03-21-2011, 10:58 PM
Let's start with strategic depth and Taliban.

By the way, as you might know I am not "Anti-Pakistani citizens". I personally love the inhabitants of Pakistan, and many of my friends are Pakistani. Just so we are clear, we are speaking of GOP's policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan, etc. It's absolutely ignorant to generalize and speak bad of it's 170million people. So, I just though't I'd throw that out first.

RoadRunner,
Since you are fluent with defence related topics, how about you elaborate on Strategic depth, and Pakistan's support of the Taliban.

Admin Khan
03-21-2011, 11:07 PM
Admin Khan it would be better to elaborate on that in context of not just Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan but also vice versa.

what is your perception of both over the years ? as to what have been the foreign policies of Pakistan and Afghanistan towards each other

Self-destructive. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are horrible when it comes to foreign affairs. What Pakistan did to the Afghan people was unacceptable, and it still is unacceptable. What Pakistani inhabitants did was amazing, I am still shocked at how our brothers embraced millions of us. And I made the aforementioned very clear at the PF meeting we had. However, I will not tolerate the Pakistani government taking pride for what it's citizens did. It's our own people that embraced us, not Pakistan. And it's obvious and I am sure most Afghans know that Afghans who actually came to Pakistan worked hard for their money. Which is exactly why some don't even want to leave to Afghanistan since they now own businesses, and they have in reverse hired local Pakistanis. I once read this Urdu article in Wahdat daily[Karachi]on how beneficial Afghan refugees are to Karachi's economy. I mean, any Afghan can verify that they continuously send foreign currency to Karachi, and you will obviously know that the money adds up.

Admin Khan
03-21-2011, 11:07 PM
Talal and Roadrunner,

What do you think of the Taliban?

Toramana
03-21-2011, 11:09 PM
US foreign secretary Mandeline Albright during Clinton era called Pakistan international maigrine. One cannot but agree with her assertion. This canceride state is a problem for every other country in the region and the broader world except perhaps China. It is also a problem for nations inside its border except Punjab.

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:11 PM
Let's start with strategic depth and Taliban.

By the way, as you might know I am not "Anti-Pakistani citizens". I personally love the inhabitants of Pakistan, and many of my friends are Pakistani. Just so we are clear, we are speaking of GOP's policy vis-a-vis Afghanistan, etc. It's absolutely ignorant to generalize and speak bad of it's 170million people. So, I just though't I'd throw that out first.


I think there's many on here that don't realize this distinction. Pay attention to this, those that don't.


RoadRunner,
Since you are fluent with defence related topics, how about you elaborate on Strategic depth, and Pakistan's support of the Taliban.

I think what you're saying here is that Pakistan has used Afghanistan for strategic depth.

Let me ask you to consider this.

When the Soviets invaded, did Afghanistan not use Pakistan as strategic depth so that military/militant centres were still able to fund the resistance? Were you against the anti Soviet resistance? (open question btw, I sometimes wonder if it was a bad thing to do).

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:16 PM
US foreign secretary Mandeline Albright during Clinton era called Pakistan international maigrine. One cannot but agree with her assertion. This canceride state is a problem for every other country in the region and the broader world except perhaps China. It is also a problem for nations inside its border except Punjab.

Madeline Albright also said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids was acceptable.

Point out why you think Pakistan is so, instead of emotional outbursts. You seem to not know why you're angry.

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:19 PM
Talal and Roadrunner,

What do you think of the Taliban?

Taliban are a symptom of Afghanistan. The Afghan-Soviet war, the radicalization, what to do with all those radicals who only knew militancy. Pakistan just stamped the name Taliban onto these individuals.

I wish they'd unbrainwash themselves, but it will take a while. In the meantime, they're too much of a popular movement within Afghanistan to ignore. Reconciliation is the only answer, plus lots of funding for development.

Toramana
03-21-2011, 11:24 PM
Madeline Albright also said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi kids was acceptable.

Point out why you think Pakistan is so, instead of emotional outbursts. You seem to not know why you're angry.

If it were only Madeline Albright saying that, I would be skeptical...But almost every other expert of international affair and foreign policy official of countries in the wider world have directly or indirectly expressed such opinion about Pakistan...

Wrayun
03-21-2011, 11:25 PM
US foreign secretary Mandeline Albright during Clinton era called Pakistan international maigrine. One cannot but agree with her assertion. This canceride state is a problem for every other country in the region and the broader world except perhaps China. It is also a problem for nations inside its border except Punjab.

And they same people gave Pakistan billions in military and strategic aid to go kill thousands of Pukhtoons. It doesn't matter what a US policy maker says, what matters is what they do. Actions speaks louder than words.

Pakistan is an asset, a very dirty one. It is irreplaceable. The US/British will never let go of this puppy. Plus, Pakistanis are very flexible, far more than you can imagine. If it comes down right to it, they'd do anything to save their neck.

Just look at what they did to Pukhtoons, Bangalis, Balochis, and their beradaar Taliban and Mujahideen in Islam?

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:28 PM
btw. don't get me wrong. I'm not for the Pakistani establishment who do a great disservice to Pakistanis and Afghans in my opinion.

I've heard some people, perhaps Pakistanis who knows, say that "they" won the war for the Afghan people (the Afghan-Soviet war). Which of course is nonsense. Pakistan was just logistics.

One of the greatest mistakes Pakistan made was allowing General Zia into power. Again probably at the behest of foreign masters. He reigned down radicalization on both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both countries were made to suffer.

There was no need to radicalize either the Afghans or the Pakistanis. The Pashtuns would have fought the Soviets without the need for religion telling them to do so. That was a blunder of epic proportions.

Admin Khan
03-21-2011, 11:28 PM
Taliban are a symptom of Afghanistan. The Afghan-Soviet war, the radicalization, what to do with all those radicals who only knew militancy. Pakistan just stamped the name Taliban onto these individuals.

I think you are being a bit too lenient here. Pakistan supported and funded them, do you agree? During 1996-2001, Pakistan was very well aware that Afghanistan is on the verge of becoming the sole stone-age nation in the world. Why didn't Pakistan positively enlighten the men they exerted influence on? Pakistan was an important ally for the Taliban, and you and I both know that Pakistan was capable of influencing these young men. Today, most Afghans hate Pakistan simply because of the way they brainwashed young Afghans. I blame Afghans first though. So I hope you don't think I am blaming Pakistan for everything that has happened to Afghanistan. The fact is Pakistan supported a regime that pretty much made Afghanistan solely dependent on them. That's is exactly what Pakistan wanted, a friendly Afghanistan to help her in her problems.

Would you agree that Pakistan is playing a double game right now? There are many authoratative sources that show Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. Why is that Roadrunner?

Taliban, and Madrassas* for Afghanistan = Wooho!
Taliban, and Madrassas for Pakistan = Naha!

Madrassas*
I am not against Islamic education. If an individual want's to attend a Madrassa, he/she can feel free.


I wish they'd unbrainwash themselves, but it will take a while. In the meantime, they're too much of a popular movement within Afghanistan to ignore. Reconciliation is the only answer, plus lots of funding for development.
Pakistan's propaganda worked. The uneducated, illiterate Afghans fell for it because all they wanted was peace, even if that meant serving as a tool for Islamabad.

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:29 PM
If it were only Madeline Albright saying that, I would be skeptical...But almost every other expert of international affair and foreign policy official of countries in the wider world have directly or indirectly expressed such opinion about Pakistan...

So WMD did exist in Iraq them?

Where are they?

Pakistan isn't playing ball with India. It is with China. It is naturally not going to be in anyone's good books except perhaps Chinese ones.

Toramana
03-21-2011, 11:30 PM
Taliban are a symptom of Afghanistan. The Afghan-Soviet war, the radicalization, what to do with all those radicals who only knew militancy. Pakistan just stamped the name Taliban onto these individuals.

I wish they'd unbrainwash themselves, but it will take a while. In the meantime, they're too much of a popular movement within Afghanistan to ignore. Reconciliation is the only answer, plus lots of funding for development.

By the way what are Lashkar-i-Toiba, Jiash-i-Mohammad, Huzbul-Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Sipah-i-Sahaba, and the myraid of terror groups symptoms of? It is in the ideological foundations of Pakistan my friend...a country which is named "land of the faithful" and that uses and institutionalises jehad/terror as political and a foreign policy instrument cannot but have such degenerative impact on its own population as well as those in the neighbourhood.

But anyhow, carry on your discussion with Admin.

Admin Khan
03-21-2011, 11:31 PM
My next point will be Pashtuns. How Pakistan thinks it's okay for us to die. How our blood is cheap as opposed to others. How it's okay to fire drones at our people, innocent people for the most part.

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:46 PM
I think you are being a bit too lenient here. Pakistan supported and funded them, do you agree?


Agreed.


During 1996-2001, Pakistan was very well aware that Afghanistan is on the verge of becoming the sole stone-age nation in the world. Why didn't Pakistan positively enlighten the men they exerted influence on?


I don't know, but I can guess. Here's what I think though.

When it comes to radicals you can't tell them what to believe. You can only point out something sensible like, believe what you like, but try and unite into a formidable force that may bring stability.

If Afghanistan stabilized, it may have got more prosperous (we'll never know now). That money may have deradicalized the militants because that is what development does.

Would you agree that may have been the long term goal of uniting a powerful militia instead of an ongoing civil war?


Pakistan was an important ally for the Taliban, and you and I both know that Pakistan was capable of influencing these young men. Today, most Afghans hate Pakistan simply because of the way they brainwashed young Afghans.


The brainwashing wasn't necessary. One dumb mistake introducing religion into the region.

But the introduction of religion into the region was not Pakistan's doing. A number of countries were culpable. And would you not agree that the introduction of religion into the region has hurt Pakistanis also? (the Hudood Laws and other illogical laws based on Saudi Law codes).


I blame Afghans first though. So I hope you don't think I am blaming Pakistan for everything that has happened to Afghanistan. The fact is Pakistan supported a regime that pretty much Afghanistan solely dependent on them. That's is exactly what Pakistan wanted, a friendly Afghanistan to help her in her problems.



Would you agree that Pakistan is playing a double game right now? There are many authoratative sources that show Pakistan is supporting the Taliban. Why is that Roadrunner?


Pakistan I think is keeping its options open. When foreign soldiers withdraw, Pakistan doesn't want to have offended its neighbour who might start throwing stones at its windows. If you know what I mean.


Taliban, and Madrassas* for Afghanistan = Wooho!
Taliban, and Madrassas for Pakistan = Naha!

Madrassas*
I am not against Islamic education. If an individual want's to attend a Madrassa, he/she can feel free.


Where did you get this from?

I'm totally against these Madrassas. But most were created in Pakistan. They're a problem in Pakistan. Pakistanis don't realize it so much, but they are a huge problem.


Pakistan's propaganda worked. The uneducated, illiterate Afghans fell for it because all they wanted was peace, even if that meant serving as a tool for Islamabad.

The Afghans needed money and weapons and some bases to fight the Soviets from in Pakistan.

Pakistan let them, but for some stupid reason, they created lots of madrassas. I don't think Pakistan cared about the madrassas, it was foreign influence on the entire region. Pakistan is also a victim of them though I think.

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:50 PM
By the way what are Lashkar-i-Toiba, Jiash-i-Mohammad, Huzbul-Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Sipah-i-Sahaba, and the myraid of terror groups symptoms of? It is in the ideological foundations of Pakistan my friend...a country which is named "land of the faithful" and that uses and institutionalises jehad/terror as political and a foreign policy instrument cannot but have such degenerative impact on its own population as well as those in the neighbourhood.

But anyhow, carry on your discussion with Admin.

You don't know where they're from?

Radicalization by these madrassas during the Afghan-Soviet war caused many religious nutcases to get churned out. Instead of having them run loose in Pakistan, the GoP decided to "put them to use" in fighting for Kashmir.

These sorts of people were not present until the 1980s.

As for Kashmir, violence won't solve the dispute, and India is legally the country at fault there.

roadrunner
03-21-2011, 11:55 PM
My next point will be Pashtuns. How Pakistan thinks it's okay for us to die. How our blood is cheap as opposed to others. How it's okay to fire drones at our people, innocent people for the most part.

That's a very fair point.

The drones are illegal, and a war crime. Drones would not be fired anywhere in the west where there's civilians. They shouldn't be fired into Pakistan so cheaply.

If the Pakistani government are involved in it, then they too are just as despicable (though they deny it).

Admin Khan
03-22-2011, 12:09 AM
Agreed.

Awesome.

When it comes to radicals you can't tell them what to believe. You can only point out something sensible like, believe what you like, but try and unite into a formidable force that may bring stability.

When you support them, you are legitimizing their cause. When you consistently fund them, you stand behind them for their cause. That is where the Pakistani state becomes a hypocrite. It knows very well that it does not want the same government it's funding and supporting across the Durrand. Pakistan knew that by supporting a nation that barely has telecommunication access, it will have a Islamabad friendly, and Islamabad dependent Afghanistan. That is exactly what we witnessed.


You still didn't answer my question, I shall pose them again:

Do you support the Taliban?
What do you think of Pakistan supporting the Taliban? If the Taliban are our saviors, how about Pakistan proves it to Afghans first?



If Afghanistan stabilized, it may have got more prosperous (we'll never know now). That money may have deradicalized the militants because that is what development does.

That's not the question though. The question here is does Pakistan want a stabilized Afghanistan? RoadRunner, all Afghans want is for Pakistani officials to leave their foreign affairs alone. You don't hear of Afghan officials wanting to decide the fate of Pakistans future, do you? If yes, enlighten me. Pakistan wants a friendly Afghanistan, and it's doing all it can to depict it's future.



The brainwashing wasn't necessary. One dumb mistake introducing religion into the region.

I wouldn't blame Islam. I will blame Pakistan for supporting this extreme intrepretation of Islam. An intrepretation where even a cell phone with a camera became haram, because somehow the Pukhtuns might send nude photos to their counterparts. To say the least, that was the problem. We can not blame Islam for this at all. I'm sure you know that. Pakistan took advantage of the naive, illiterate, and uneducated Afghans, and in result, they served as her tool. At the end, it's the Pashtuns who suffered.


But the introduction of religion into the region was not Pakistan's doing. A number of countries were culpable. And would you not agree that the introduction of religion into the region has hurt Pakistanis also? (the Hudood Laws and other illogical laws based on Saudi Law codes).

Absolutely, the Pashtun belt is on fire right now. Once again, let's not blame religion for this. Let's blame brainwashing, and making nonsense justifiable with special hadiths. Such as the Hadith Sangar uses to call other Muslims who don't agree with him as non-Muslims, Singhs, and Kaffirs.




Pakistan I think is keeping its options open. When foreign soldiers withdraw, Pakistan doesn't want to have offended its neighbour who might start throwing stones at its windows. If you know what I mean.

It's a bit too late for that, Col Imam's death sort of showed us that, didn't it? The Pashtuns are fed up, we don't want to be a synonym for violence.




Where did you get this from?

It's an open secret. Ask anyone in Kandahar Province.
BBC News - Pakistani agents 'funding and training Afghan Taliban' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10302946)

So as you can see, Pakistan still supports the stone-age Afghanistan. Why is that Roadrunner? Don't you think we Pashtuns can also use our talent in Computer Science, Mathematics and various other disciplines as well?


I'm totally against these Madrassas. But most were created in Pakistan. They're a problem in Pakistan. Pakistanis don't realize it so much, but they are a huge problem.

There is nothing wrong with a Madrassa. A madrassa is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut your vegetables, and it can be used to kill someone. Blaming the knife would be a fallacy, I'm sure as a thinktank you agree.


The Afghans needed money and weapons and some bases to fight the Soviets from in Pakistan.

And Pakistan took advantage of their "Islamic brothers". There is a reason why I said I blame Afghans first and foremost. I'm not going to sit here and blame your people for the root cause of everything. That's not my style, as I'm sure you know by now.


Pakistan let them, but for some stupid reason, they created lots of madrassas. I don't think Pakistan cared about the madrassas, it was foreign influence on the entire region. Pakistan is also a victim of them though I think.
Pakistani government made billions out of this so car "War on terror". It's the locals of both sides that suffer. So yes, both Afghan citizens and Pakistani citizen suffered, while the Afghan and Pakistani government officials are banking $.

Admin Khan
03-22-2011, 12:10 AM
That's a very fair point.

The drones are illegal, and a war crime. Drones would not be fired anywhere in the west where there's civilians. They shouldn't be fired into Pakistan so cheaply.

If the Pakistani government are involved in it, then they too are just as despicable (though they deny it).
Thank you for being honest with your assessment. I appreciate it. I am glad you have noticed, and realized how cheap our blood is. I hope you can join your brethren in criticizing the Pakistani government for permitting this act of terror against the Pashtun people.

Admin Khan
03-22-2011, 12:12 AM
By the way what are Lashkar-i-Toiba, Jiash-i-Mohammad, Huzbul-Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Sipah-i-Sahaba, and the myraid of terror groups symptoms of? It is in the ideological foundations of Pakistan my friend...a country which is named "land of the faithful" and that uses and institutionalises jehad/terror as political and a foreign policy instrument cannot but have such degenerative impact on its own population as well as those in the neighbourhood.

But anyhow, carry on your discussion with Admin.

Don't be shy Toramana. You can join us as well.:hug1"

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 12:15 AM
Thank you for being honest with your assessment. I appreciate it. I am glad you have noticed, and realized how cheap our blood is. I hope you can join your brethren in criticizing the Pakistani government for permitting this act of terror against the Pashtun people.

This isn't a black and white issue here.

Many Pashtuns (actually most Pashtuns) live in Pakistan and are Pakistani nationals. I do not subscribe to this view you're Pashtun or Pakistani. Pakistan is a nationality, Pashtun is an ethnic group.

Anyway, back to the black and white issue. People can be against the drone strikes and regularly criticize them, and even be pro-American for example (I am anti-war btw). They can be against the drone strikes vocally and be anti-American. Being against the drone strikes tells very little about a person's other views, just that they recognize that it is unjust.

Admin Khan
03-22-2011, 12:18 AM
This isn't a black and white issue here.

Many Pashtuns (actually most Pashtuns) live in Pakistan and are Pakistani nationals. I do not subscribe to this view you're Pashtun or Pakistani. Pakistan is a nationality, Pashtun is an ethnic group.

Anyway, back to the black and white issue. People can be against the drone strikes and regularly criticize them, and even be pro-American for example (I am anti-war btw). They can be against the drone strikes vocally and be anti-American. Being against the drone strikes tells very little about a person's other views, just that they recognize that it is unjust.

I think you should read what I said again, please. What I said was very simple, and elementary. I said you should join your people in criticizing Pakistan for allowing Drone strikes. Hypothetically speaking, I can be Pro-Israeli, and yet criticize some of the Israeli policies. I think what you are saying is in general terms, since I never claimed Pakistan was an ethnic group.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 12:52 AM
When you support them, you are legitimizing their cause. When you consistently fund them, you stand behind them for their cause. That is where the Pakistani state becomes a hypocrite. It knows very well that it does not want the same government it's funding and supporting across the Durrand. Pakistan knew that by supporting a nation that barely has telecommunication access, it will have a Islamabad friendly, and Islamabad dependent Afghanistan. That is exactly what we witnessed.


This is my reply to this. I did answer it before.

What would your answer be to the Civil War in Afghanistan from 1992-1996? How would you have solved it?

If you and a friend go on a sea voyage in his wooden boat and it springs a leak, what do you do if both of you have nothing? He rows. You stick lots of chewing gum over the leak for example and it wrecks the woodwork. It gets you home. If you did nothing you both sink.

I do think a stable Afghanistan is in Pakistan's interest. The unification of the Taliban was said to be to aid caravan convoys going from Pakistan to central asia. So it does want stability i think. Though economically there would be some rivalry I think. I do feel you're incorrect in saying that it isn't in Pakistan's interest to have a stable Afghanistan though.




You still didn't answer my question, I shall pose them again:

Do you support the Taliban?
What do you think of Pakistan supporting the Taliban? If the Taliban are our saviors, how about Pakistan proves it to Afghans first?


The Taliban are not a good form of governance and very few people would want to live under them. If I were in a country that was tearing itself apart through warfare, and someone came along that I could go to in order to get some justice, then it would be an improvement on no justice.


That's not the question though. The question here is does Pakistan want a stabilized Afghanistan? RoadRunner, all Afghans want is for Pakistani officials to leave their foreign affairs alone. You don't hear of Afghan officials wanting to decide the fate of Pakistans future, do you? If yes, enlighten me. Pakistan wants a friendly Afghanistan, and it's doing all it can to depict it's future.


Pakistan sees Afghanistan as competition I think. But it wouldn't want it to be unstable. That would cause problems for Pakistan.


I wouldn't blame Islam. I will blame Pakistan for supporting this extreme intrepretation of Islam. An intrepretation where even a cell phone with a camera became haram, because somehow the Pukhtuns might send nude photos to their counterparts. To say the least, that was the problem. We can not blame Islam for this at all. I'm sure you know that. Pakistan took advantage of the naive, illiterate, and uneducated Afghans, and in result, they served as her tool. At the end, it's the Pashtuns who suffered.


This is one area I don't get about Pashtun Nationalists. The introduction of religion into the region was not even at the behest of the Pakistanis. The Pakistani government had many Pashtuns in it. They knew the Afghans would fight the Soviets. The introduction of this extreme form of Islam came about in order to secure funds from the Saudis for their support. There's a whole host of countries that supported this extreme religion entering the Af-Pak belt. But you're only fingering one country.


Absolutely, the Pashtun belt is on fire right now. Once again, let's not blame religion for this. Let's blame brainwashing, and making nonsense justifiable with special hadiths. Such as the Hadith Sangar uses to call other Muslims who don't agree with him as non-Muslims, Singhs, and Kaffirs.


What I meant (and I think you know) is that this extreme form of religion has all taken root in the Punjab and Sindh. It's a problem for Pakistan (=Punjab by your definition?)


It's a bit too late for that, Col Imam's death sort of showed us that, didn't it? The Pashtuns are fed up, we don't want to be a synonym for violence.


I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if Pakistan are playing a double game/balancing act. When NATO leaves, Pakistan remains. So it's not in their interests to be on poor terms with the powerholders in Afghanistan.


It's an open secret. Ask anyone in Kandahar Province.
BBC News - Pakistani agents 'funding and training Afghan Taliban' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10302946)

So as you can see, Pakistan still supports the stone-age Afghanistan. Why is that Roadrunner? Don't you think we Pashtuns can also use our talent in Computer Science, Mathematics and various other disciplines as well?


How can you use talents in Computer Science, Mathematics and other disciplines if you have a Civil War occurring? How do you solve the Civil War in Afghanistan?

When you solve the Civil War, and bring stability, you can then build these universities.


There is nothing wrong with a Madrassa. A madrassa is like a knife. A knife can be used to cut your vegetables, and it can be used to kill someone. Blaming the knife would be a fallacy, I'm sure as a thinktank you agree.


And Pakistan took advantage of their "Islamic brothers". There is a reason why I said I blame Afghans first and foremost. I'm not going to sit here and blame your people for the root cause of everything. That's not my style, as I'm sure you know by now.


Pakistani government made billions out of this so car "War on terror". It's the locals of both sides that suffer. So yes, both Afghan citizens and Pakistani citizen suffered, while the Afghan and Pakistani government officials are banking $.

I don't agree madrassas are alright. There's too much religion in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It needs to go.

Pakistan took advantage of the Afghans to fight the Soviets. The Afghans took advantage of Pakistan's strategic depth. Both rubbed each others backs. Both got burned by the creation of madrassas.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 12:55 AM
I think you should read what I said again, please. What I said was very simple, and elementary. I said you should join your people in criticizing Pakistan for allowing Drone strikes. Hypothetically speaking, I can be Pro-Israeli, and yet criticize some of the Israeli policies. I think what you are saying is in general terms, since I never claimed Pakistan was an ethnic group.

Certainly. I regularly criticize drone strikes. I've always been anti-drone strikes.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:01 AM
The replies are getting a bit long.

This is the question I'm interested in.

"How can you use talents in Computer Science, Mathematics and other disciplines if you have a Civil War occurring? How do you solve the Civil War in Afghanistan?

When you solve the Civil War, and bring stability, you can then build these universities."

How would you have brought stability to Afghanistan in 1994, 1995 when hundreds of thousands of people were being killed for no reasons?

If you can answer this, I'd support Pashtun Nationalism.

khushal
03-22-2011, 01:08 AM
This is what I see.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have been adversaries from day 1. Both sides were supporting resistances against their adversaries governments. From this environment, Afghanistan was forced to rely on the Soviet Union and Pakistan(adversary of India as well) was forced to rely on the US, China, and Saudi Arabia. It was pretty much of a stalemate until Saudi Arabia and Pakistan convinced the Afghan Leadership to leave alone the Pashtunistan issue and diversify its economic partners.
The diversification of its economic partners made the Soviets nervous which led them to support a coup against Daud. At the same time the US got involved into supporting the Pakistani backed Majahadeen intentionally increasing the chance of a Soviet invasion. When the Soviets invaded, then all the support of the free world was behind the Pakistani backed majahadeen.
Pakistan saw an opportunity to sanitize its western border from any future threat from Afghanistan by destroying Afghanistan and have it completely depend on Pakistan. Pakistan is continuing its policy of creating an Afghanistan which depends on it, but I believe these policies are a disservice to its own interests and ultimately will result in its own destabilization.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:12 AM
This is what I see.

Pakistan and Afghanistan have been adversaries from day 1. Both sides were supporting resistances against their adversaries governments. From this environment, Afghanistan was forced to rely on the Soviet Union and Pakistan(adversary of India as well) was forced to rely on the US, China, and Saudi Arabia. It was pretty much of a stalemate until Saudi Arabia and Pakistan convinced the Afghan Leadership to leave alone the Pashtunistan issue and diversify its economic partners.
The diversification of its economic partners made the Soviets nervous which led them to support a coup against Daud. At the same time the US got involved into supporting the Pakistani backed Majahadeen intentionally increasing the chance of a Soviet invasion. When the Soviets invaded, then all the support of the free world was behind the Pakistani backed majahadeen.
Pakistan saw an opportunity to sanitize its western border from any future threat from Afghanistan by destroying Afghanistan and have it completely depend on Pakistan. Pakistan is continuing its policy of creating an Afghanistan which depends on it, but I believe these policies are a disservice to its own interests and ultimately will result in its own destabilization.

.. and back in the real world now.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:23 AM
The Durand Line does irk me a bit, and Pashtuns have a legitimate concern regarding the Durand Line's existence.

I would like to see a referendum carried out there under appropriate conditions. But as I said, the Durand Line is not a practical problem.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:52 AM
Just look at what they did to Pukhtoons, Bangalis, Balochis, and their beradaar Taliban and Mujahideen in Islam?

The Bangalis? What did they do to them?

It was the Bangalis that backstabbed Pakistan as far as i know. Even when they'd won by fighting shoulder to shoulder with India, they manipulated history and falsified accounts of genocide against them. Explain if you would?

KhalsaWarrior
03-22-2011, 02:03 AM
I will hint on something that I have seen amongst Pakistani people, in person, in internet forums and in the media.

Conspiracy theory. An *overwhelming number of Pakistanis seem to revel in it. And more often than not these conspiracy theories seek to prevail the notion that most of the world is against Pakistan (=sole Muslim power in the world) and how every non-Muslim country is trying to sabotage Pakistan's rise. And above all Pakistan or Pakistanis are never to blame for the ills affecting their country. Taliban? Hey that was US and the Afghans problem! Zia and his radical Islamization? Well Zia was propped up by foreign powers! Its as if people are unwilling to believe that their own countrymen could be at fault for anything.

*Caveat - Not all Pakistanis can however be accused of the above crime. There are media people like Paracha and Najam Sethi who talk sense and are practical.

fzpz
03-22-2011, 02:31 AM
Your pseudo psycho-analysis is a disservice to reason. To think that (all) people don't blame someone else would be false. You can see these conspiracy theories in all peoples (including these forums). Attributing some narratives as a defining narrative to a people is dishonest. But i gues you can have a caveat* like not all indians support the killings of Kashmiris, like reasonable people like Arundhati Roy, or not all Sikhs have a anti-muslim disposition, like Kushwant Singh.

Quoting Paracha or Sethi is probably not the way to go about making whatever point you were trying to make. They certainly have their opinions, as they have a right to. But similarly to what Roy is thought of as in india, they have the a similar standing. Loved by others (indians, i notice they have a morbid obsession with parachi for his anti-pak musings in addition to his 'scholarship' on islam - he fits in well with new age muslim 'reformers'), they don't make sense (for good reason, as they are going off a false narrative) to the people that actually matter. Remember ones' left is someone else's right.

KhalsaWarrior
03-22-2011, 02:47 AM
Your pseudo psycho-analysis is a disservice to reason. To think that (all) people don't blame someone else would be false. You can see these conspiracy theories in all peoples (including these forums). Attributing some narratives as a defining narrative to a people is dishonest. But i gues you can have a caveat* like not all indians support the killings of Kashmiris, like reasonable people like Arundhati Roy, or not all Sikhs have a anti-muslim disposition, like Kushwant Singh.

What I saw in Pakistanis wrt conspiracy theories was overwhelming in terms of pure numbers. And your caveats are ineffective. Scroll back to the first page of this thread and you will find the thread starter blaming foreign powers for propping up Zia and hence to be blamed for Islamic radicalization in Pakistan. This is just one example. How many Indians would you find blaming others for their evils? Talk to an Indian about evils like caste system and they would probably defend it by posting some good points but never blame anybody else. You can take countless such examples.

Quoting Paracha or Sethi is probably not the way to go about making whatever point you were trying to make. They certainly have their opinions, as they have a right to. But similarly to what Roy is thought of as in india, they have the a similar standing. Loved by others (indians, i notice they have a morbid obsession with parachi for his anti-pak musings in addition to his 'scholarship' on islam - he fits in well with new age muslim 'reformers'), they don't make sense (for good reason, as they are going off a false narrative) to the people that actually matter. Remember ones' left is someone else's right.
I don't know how those two wouldnt make sense as they would do to every practical and realistic person in the world. They back up what they say by logic. On the other hand people like Zaid Hamid ( I hate to bring his name up but it serves a purpose here) spewing hate and unintelligent bravado have mass followings. That person embodies the culture of conspiracy theories and false bravado of Pakistani society.


A bit more of my pseudo psycho-analysis - I think this culture has largely pervaded the Pakistani society because of its distorted view of history, particularly sub-continental history and the need to use it as a justification for Pakistan. One had to paint sub-continental Muslims as the sufferers to justify the creation of Pakistan. And to preserve this idea and the nation, the powers that be chose to fan theories that India is out to gobble us and the whole western world and its CIA-Mossad-RAW axis is behind the evils that affect Pakistan.

fzpz
03-22-2011, 02:50 AM
Admin Khan, would you agree that Pakistan policy towards Afghanistan (whatever one may think of strategic depth etc) policy was in response to actions taken by Afghanistan first. Those actions include not recognizing Pakistan, supporting a failed insurgency and movement, providing a base for anti-Pak activities (up to present day), and the continuous conspiracy theories and hearsay. I recognize that conspiracy theories on both sides have a reason for their existence.

Btw, how hard would it have been to say Pakistanis when referring to 'inhabitants of Pakistan'? Remember the majority of an ethnic group called Pakhtuns are Pakistanis. They, just like any other Pakistani, can agree or disagree with the policies or actions of the GOP. And Pakhtuns do agree with some policies of the GOP, while some others don't. Unfortunately, just like Afghanistanis, they can't do jack sheet about it. Their opinions would be no different then any other Pakistani, who all decry the facilitation by Pakistan of the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent suffering of Afghanistanis, and increasingly Pakistanis. But we all ask, where is the condemnation of Afghanistanis for their anti-Pak actions?

I would like one thing from you. Could you please provide the outline of an acceptable resolution of issues between Pakistan and Afghanistan? Resolutions need not have a red line. What would the contours of peaceful relations between the states look like? Would a referendum suffice? Or only the literal changing of modern-day borders between the two states (majority pashtuns becoming part of Afghanistan, whatever they may think of such a solution)?

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 02:58 AM
I will hint on something that I have seen amongst Pakistani people, in person, in internet forums and in the media.

Conspiracy theory. An *overwhelming number of Pakistanis seem to revel in it. And more often than not these conspiracy theories seek to prevail the notion that most of the world is against Pakistan (=sole Muslim power in the world) and how every non-Muslim country is trying to sabotage Pakistan's rise. And above all Pakistan or Pakistanis are never to blame for the ills affecting their country. Taliban? Hey that was US and the Afghans problem! Zia and his radical Islamization? Well Zia was propped up by foreign powers! Its as if people are unwilling to believe that their own countrymen could be at fault for anything.

*Caveat - Not all Pakistanis can however be accused of the above crime. There are media people like Paracha and Najam Sethi who talk sense and are practical.

Pakistan is India's adversary. India is Pakistan's adversary. Do you deny India and Pakistan compete with each other to try and sabotage each other's rise? If you think India doesn't want to hold Pakistan down, then you're not as smart as these conspiracy theories you ridicule.

General Zia could be a conspiracy as there's no direct proof. The theory is outlined here
http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-great-game-renewed-i-4/ (http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-great-game-renewed-i-4/)

Third question. What would be the need for unifying a Taliban force if Afghanistan was stable enough to trade with Central Asia?

Failure to answer these questions means you're conspiracy theory assertion is incorrect. Pakistan has many faults for sure. But what you've picked out are Indian conspiracy theories that don't hold much water about Pakistan.

Here's a much better conspiracy theory.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265400 (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265400)

Or is that a incorrect too?

KhalsaWarrior
03-22-2011, 03:17 AM
Pakistan is India's adversary. India is Pakistan's adversary. Do you deny India and Pakistan compete with each other to try and sabotage each other's rise? If you think India doesn't want to hold Pakistan down, then you're not as smart as these conspiracy theories you ridicule.
India sure does and vice versa. But I dont see how this is connected. India too has its share of blaming most things on "ISI" or the invisible "foreign hand". But overtime this has subsided. We call the Maoist insurgency as the biggest problem facing us and we agree that its our own internal problem rather than foreign help that helped it grow.

General Zia could be a conspiracy as there's no direct proof. The theory is outlined here
http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-great-game-renewed-i-4/ (http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-great-game-renewed-i-4/)

Will read this conspiracy theory when I get time.

Third question. What would be the need for unifying a Taliban force if Afghanistan was stable enough to trade with Central Asia?
What are you trying to get at here? That Pakistan tried unifying Taliban as it wanted to trade with Central Asia? Pray tell me more. That could have been one of the reasons for Pakistan's support of the Taliban but not the biggest one.

Failure to answer these questions means you're conspiracy theory assertion is incorrect. Pakistan has many faults for sure. But what you've picked out are Indian conspiracy theories that don't hold much water about Pakistan.
I still hold on to my opinion. I read the following in the signature of a senior Pakistani member at defence.pk - "Pakistanis irrespective of their standing in society indulge and exult in gossip, conspiracies and rumours". That does say a lot, doesn't it?

Here's a much better conspiracy theory.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265400 (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265400)

Or is that a incorrect too?

It is perfectly correct. Hindu terror has been on the rise in the past decade and is a very disturbing sign.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 03:22 AM
What are you trying to get at here? That Pakistan tried unifying Taliban as it wanted to trade with Central Asia? Pray tell me more. That could have been one of the reasons for Pakistan's support of the Taliban but not the biggest one.


It's been explained in the previous pages in one of the long posts. Rather well I might add (by me). Read that.


I still hold on to my opinion. I read the following in the signature of a senior Pakistani member at defence.pk - "Pakistanis irrespective of their standing in society indulge and exult in gossip, conspiracies and rumours". That does say a lot, doesn't it?


Senior members on internet forums are irrelevant on the whole.

KhalsaWarrior
03-22-2011, 03:25 AM
It's been explained in the previous pages in one of the long posts. Rather well I might add (by me). Read that.
Ahh. Just read your explanation. Incredibly naive and self-serving I must say.

I would desist from posting on this thread for now. Inevitably, it looks like this going to become an India-Pakistan fight. That wouldn't be in the best interests of this debate. Afghans/Pashtuns of PF would be better served talking about the Durand line or other such issues. Roadrunner, Fzpz please feel free to PM me if you wish to carry on this debate

fzpz
03-22-2011, 03:29 AM
edit: will do pm.

khushal
03-22-2011, 03:36 AM
I will hint on something that I have seen amongst Pakistani people, in person, in internet forums and in the media.

Conspiracy theory. An *overwhelming number of Pakistanis seem to revel in it. And more often than not these conspiracy theories seek to prevail the notion that most of the world is against Pakistan (=sole Muslim power in the world) and how every non-Muslim country is trying to sabotage Pakistan's rise. And above all Pakistan or Pakistanis are never to blame for the ills affecting their country. Taliban? Hey that was US and the Afghans problem! Zia and his radical Islamization? Well Zia was propped up by foreign powers! Its as if people are unwilling to believe that their own countrymen could be at fault for anything.

*Caveat - Not all Pakistanis can however be accused of the above crime. There are media people like Paracha and Najam Sethi who talk sense and are practical.

I have also noticed this. But I blame this thinking on the Pakistani governments very effective strategy of shifting blame and anger from themselves and deflecting it towards India thereby shielding themselves from their own people overthrowing them and demanding change.

fzpz
03-22-2011, 03:38 AM
I have also noticed this. But I blame this thinking on the Pakistani governments very effective strategy of shifting blame and anger from themselves and deflecting it towards India thereby shielding themselves from their own people overthrowing them and demanding change.

The same could be said of Afghanistanis.

khushal
03-22-2011, 03:42 AM
The same could be said of Afghanistanis.

Im not following, what do you mean. That afghanistan blames pakistan for everything?

BLS_1919v2.0
03-22-2011, 03:59 AM
fzpz the right to claim the land of Pashtunkhwa and a proper referendum were legitimate demands. It is highly hypocritical that Pakistan went through three wars over Kashmir (justifying it under many things) yet do not accord the same to others. It is either fair or not...you can't eat the cake and have it too.

The policies of Pakistan vis a vis the Pashtuns are not the same as the others..and when stating such it is basically trying to hide the issue under the carpet. Like my relative says Pakistan is not a state rather a failed corporation under a set few on the brink of breaking. Pashtuns haven't benefited from it and have no real future in it. Regarding the policies of Pakistan, they have the right to justify them, just as a Pashtun has the right to go against them as they have had massively damaged the social and political framework of Pashtuns. This hasn't been the case for the other "pakistanis", so lets call them like we see them.

UP...don't over generalize history, there are many things that happened during those events that you mentioned that hardly constitute victories.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 04:13 AM
fzpz the right to claim the land of Pashtunkhwa and a proper referendum were legitimate demands. It is highly hypocritical that Pakistan went through three wars over Kashmir (justifying it under many things) yet do not accord the same to others. It is either fair or not...you can't eat the cake and have it too.


Kashmir was to be decided legally by the Instrument of Partition. One thing led to another, and plebiscite was to determine who it went to.

The NWFP was to be decided by a small vote. This vote in my opinion was strange in that it was only one particular region. But anyway, that was the legal aspect of it. So NWFP went to Pakistan. That was legal.

What happened in Kashmir was illegal, what happened in NWFP was legal. But a referendum would also be a good thing.


The policies of Pakistan vis a vis the Pashtuns are not the same as the others..and when stating such it is basically trying to hide the issue under the carpet. Like my relative says Pakistan is not a state rather a failed corporation under a set few on the brink of breaking. Pashtuns haven't benefited from it and have no real future in it. Regarding the policies of Pakistan, they have the right to justify them, just as a Pashtun has the right to go against them as they have had massively damaged the social and political framework of Pashtuns. This hasn't been the case for the other "pakistanis", so lets call them like we see them.

UP...don't over generalize history, there are many things that happened during those events that you mentioned that hardly constitute victories.

Why have the Pashtuns massively suffered under Pakistan?

If it were not for Pakistan's Pakhtunkhwa region, what would happen to Afghan refugees?

fzpz
03-22-2011, 04:34 AM
fzpz the right to claim the land of Pashtunkhwa and a proper referendum were legitimate demands. It is highly hypocritical that Pakistan went through three wars over Kashmir (justifying it under many things) yet do not accord the same to others. It is either fair or not...you can't eat the cake and have it too.

The policies of Pakistan vis a vis the Pashtuns are not the same as the others..and when stating such it is basically trying to hide the issue under the carpet. Like my relative says Pakistan is not a state rather a failed corporation under a set few on the brink of breaking. Pashtuns haven't benefited from it and have no real future in it. Regarding the policies of Pakistan, they have the right to justify them, just as a Pashtun has the right to go against them as they have had massively damaged the social and political framework of Pashtuns. This hasn't been the case for the other "pakistanis", so lets call them like we see them.

UP...don't over generalize history, there are many things that happened during those events that you mentioned that hardly constitute victories.

You seem confused as to what is legally recognized internationally as a disputed territory and one that is not. Also as to which ones calls for a plebiscite and most importantly, where is there an indigenous and active movement for separatism. I'll leave it up to your genius to figure out which one is which. Please no conspiracy theories regarding rehman not knowing what he signed or that the treaty expired after 100 years or that the pakhtuns of Pakistan want a seperate state (all evidence points otherwise, they are increasingly of the (popular view on pashtunforums about isi/army) narrative of right-wing Pakistanis.

Pashtuns haven't benefited from Afghanistan either. Maybe (nationalist/communists/sons of najibullah) pashtuns should make a break with their disastrous policies? certainly the pashtuns in afghanistan are incensed about Pakistan's policies, and they have every right to be. It would be a blatantly false assertion that Pakhtuns of Pakistan are 'going against' the state of Pakistan, when as i've said, they are more and more in agreement with their fellow countrymen. There is no insurrection against being part of Pakistan. In the future they all will fully integrate themselves with Pakistan. Too many interdependence, common interests and history. As it is now, the ones blabbering about anything will be confined to their keyboards.

It does not matter what your relatives thinks, we all think a lot about our opinions.

The reality is that more and more pakhtuns are joining the taliban and afghan resistence who are isi/army/ghq/punjos proxies hell bent on destabilizing afghanistan for the benefit of the punjab army. Wrora i tell you, the punjabi isi has so much control over the pakhtuns that they even can make them blow themselves up. The isi also brainwashed the afghanistanis to fight the liberators who bring all kinds of good benefit like secularism and atheism and evangelical missionaries. In the past they stopped the afghanistanis from getting the full benefit of communism. Of course if it wasn't for them communism would have prevailed and law and bar would have been all afghanistan. The stamps, hats, and flags, and songs would have some meaning. We could have also added balochistan to afghanistan because i said so, which would give us access to the ocean. Vile creatures the pakis are.:tongue:

fzpz
03-22-2011, 04:44 AM
As a fact, everyone knows that Pakistan and the US backed the Afghans against the Soviets, but lets not go into this educational, theoretical, hyperbolic list of who exactly the Taliban are??

When the British invaded Afghanistan, and were subsequently defeated on all occasions, who do we attribute the Afghan victories to??

Lets even go further back. Who do we attribute Mirwais Neeka's defeat and invasion of Persia to? Did some foreign agent tell him that he must kick Persia out of Pashtun lands? Bottom line, unlike others, pashtuns will never accept anyone trying to rule them. This is the most simple answer.

So then, why do some here even question today's Taliban in Afghanistan. You have their leader Omar Hotak refuse to recognize the Durrand line, how is he touting Pakistan's interests??

And lastly, what do you call a man who stands and defends his homeland? Todays Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of much wider nationalistic movements, and most people are naturally defending their homeland against invaders, as anyone else would do. Nothing peculiar about that.

The reason they have become so formidable is because there are no other moderate groups that are opposing the foreigners. On the contrary, the ones who wish to 'build' the country lack any spine to stand and tell the foreigners to get out, and end the failing war.

This is the reason the Taliban influence has spread nearly all over Afghanistan.

Admin Khan,

You need to have an internal dialogue with your fellow Afghanistani Pashtuns about the Taliban. Some (actually most) say that the Afghan resistence is doing what any human being would do if their homeland was invaded. Others say that they are all just stooges of the pakpunjos. The former would make more sense.

By the way, if the taliban were part of the larger 'nationalist' movement in Pakistan, they would've named themselves something other than the Tehreet e Taliban PAKISTAN. The Pakhtuns of Pakistan seem to be busy taking over Pakistan instead of seperating from Pakistan.

salahuddin
03-22-2011, 06:12 AM
You will never find a country where the police and lawyers dance around a murderer who shot a politician who referred to the Blasmphaey Laws as "kala qaqoon".

Plus you will not find a country on this planet whos president and prime minister did not have the gutts to attend the funeral of a killed colleague,because they fear the Clerics would kill them.

My above two points, shows what Pakistan is. It is a country that was born without an Identity, born into an Ideology that has destroyed it and will soon crumble to bits due to its arrogance and its support of Islamic Based Terrorists.

Pakistan is the only country in the world, that has nuclear bombs and Politicians who invent hadiths of Pakistan Army conquering India as fore told by some Prophet 1000 years ago.

Pakistan is the only country where a retired 80 year old general gets as much land that could shelter 4000 people.

Only One province beign Punjab, steals the water and electricity from its Minority provinces and return them the favor with high taxes.

Pakistan needs a Islamic dominated government in Afghanistan, because its very easy for Pakistan to use the Islam card to prevent a Nationalist take over.

Pakistan needs to hold onto Pakhtunkhwa because of the resouces.

Pakhtunkhaw which supplies around over 70 percent of electricity to Punjab, while the whole Pakhtunkhwa probably only uses the same amount of electrcity as Lahore.

Look at history as an example, throughout the birth of Pakistan, whenever there is an opposition towards Pashtuns progress as a nation, those opposition parties always end up being supported by Pakistan.

Get the hint/

Bengal_Tiger
03-22-2011, 06:30 AM
The Bangalis? What did they do to them?

It was the Bangalis that backstabbed Pakistan as far as i know. Even when they'd won by fighting shoulder to shoulder with India, they manipulated history and falsified accounts of genocide against them. Explain if you would?

Bengalis defeated your US backed NA-PAKistan army, which was also supported by China, Iran and the Arab world.

We smashed your army of rapists and terrorists. Why?

Because Bengalis, the Muslim majority in West Pakistan were prevented from having the democratically elected leader of Pakistan in to power. The NA-PAKistan army rejected the wishes of its people...yes Bengalis were the majority and WE were the main ones responsible for creating Pakistan.

So the NA-PAKistan army backstabbed its own people by turning against them and murdering them.

You Punjabis sided with Sikh Punjabis to conquer Muslim Pakhtunkhwa and give it to Sikh control, we worked to defend ourselves from a racist British-created state and have a Muslim run Bangladesh, even Mujib had alcohol banned.

Hard cheese traitor.

You Punjabi traitors have been boiling with anger at your painful and shameful defeat at our hands, it sucks to be a loser.

But hey that's life...Punjabi = loser.

graveyardofempires
03-22-2011, 07:33 AM
Blind leading blind

Bengal_Tiger
03-22-2011, 07:46 AM
From a previous post:

The irony of this is this is what the Punjabis told their soldiers about Bengalis and the Mukti Bahini, that Bengalis fighting against the Shia regime of Yahya Khan and Bhutto was actually a fight against Islam and that Bengalis were recieving help from non-Muslim India.

This propaganda has been deeply engrained in Pakistani society with Pakistanis considering Bengalis traitors, enemies of Islam, and having essentially fought against Islam in 1971.

For them Bengalis helped Hindus against a "Muslim" army and this was something so outrageous and sacrilegous, that Bengalis are a shameful, treacherous race and are not even Muslim.

This is a widespread mentality amongst many Pakistanis, however this is of course nothing more than a product of a military-security establishment filling an ignorant and illiterate population with propaganda.

1. The quarrel was a quarrel between two sets of Muslims, Bengalis and the Pakistani establishment (the PPP and the Islamabad junta).

2. Pakistan recieved support from non-Muslim America and China to kill Muslim Bengalis, Bengalis recieved support from India.

3. Even though the Pakistanis recieved support from non-Muslims to kill Muslims in East Pakistan, such things have happened many times in history:

a - Spanish Muslim statelets often sided with Christian Spanish kingdoms against fellow Muslims due to power struggles.

b - Punjabi soldiers fought with the British against the Bengali/Indian jihad of 1857 to restore Mughal rule.

c - There were many Punjabi "Muslims" who fought in the Sikh army of Punjabi despot, Ranjeet Singh and such Punjabi "Muslim" soldiers played a part in putting Muslim Pekhawar under non-Muslim Sikh rule

"His Mussulman Najibs rejected the appeals of their Hindustani, Afghan and Pathan co-religionists to crusade against the ‘infidel’ and instead helped to liquidate the crusaders. The year Ranjit Singh died, it was his Muslim troops led by colonel Sheikh Basswan that crossed the Khyber pass and carried Ranjit’s colors through the streets of Kabul in the victory parade."

http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/sher-e-punjab-maharaja-ranjit-singh/ (http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/sher-e-punjab-maharaja-ranjit-singh/)

So the "Muslim" Punjabis refused to listen to the Indian and Pashtun Muslims and fight against Ranjit Singh and it was "Muslim" Punjabi soldiers who fought for the Kafir Ranjit Singh and killed other Muslims.

So Punjabis allied with Sikhs to kill Muslims and put Muslims (Pashtuns) under direct Sikh rule.

Bengalis defeated a tyrannical regime to live freely in their own homeland and create an independent Muslim state and not control by some Sikh Punjabi warlord.

Also the TTP consider the Pakistan army as an apostate army because they the Pakistan army are working with non-Muslim America, to kill Muslims and fight against "Islam" (TTP version).

Also the anti-Qaddafi rebels and their Gulf Arab allies are working with non-Muslim America and "betraying" the Muslim government of Qaddafi, a tyrannical ruler who oppressed his people as did Yahya Khan did to Pakistanis (majority-Bengali).

So anyway loser...Dhalkor-runner or Bhangra-runner and to your Dhaalkhor, Bhangra jee, Sardar jee, Punjabi, Heera mandi buddies on here such as Luffy Singh, Talal Singh...

sucks to be a Punjabi...sucks to be a loser....

Bengalis have defeated and humiliated Punjabis....Pashtun Muslims, Balochi Muslims, Sindhi Muslims and Urdu-speaking Muslims all hold Bengalis in respect for this achievement....even your American buddies and the Zionist Jew Henry Kissinger couldn't save your Heera mandi bacon in 1971....lolzzzzz!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nWpwm6lhWUs/SN3L78erqcI/AAAAAAAAEG4/gROxuWl_GXc/s400/Henry+Kissinger+and+Shimon+Peres.jpg

Zionist Henry Kissinger on the left, who tried to help his buddies the dhaal-khor Sardar jee losers of the Punjabi NA-PAKistan army in 1971....only to be SMASHED by the Muslim generals of the Bengali liberation army, Colonel Osmani, Zia ur Rahman, Khaled Musharraf and others...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....sucks to be a sardar...ROFL!

BLS_1919v2.0
03-22-2011, 12:52 PM
You seem confused as to what is legally recognized internationally as a disputed territory and one that is not. Also as to which ones calls for a plebiscite and most importantly, where is there an indigenous and active movement for separatism. I'll leave it up to your genius to figure out which one is which. Please no conspiracy theories regarding rehman not knowing what he signed or that the treaty expired after 100 years or that the pakhtuns of Pakistan want a seperate state (all evidence points otherwise, they are increasingly of the (popular view on pashtunforums about isi/army) narrative of right-wing Pakistanis.

Pashtuns haven't benefited from Afghanistan either. Maybe (nationalist/communists/sons of najibullah) pashtuns should make a break with their disastrous policies? certainly the pashtuns in afghanistan are incensed about Pakistan's policies, and they have every right to be. It would be a blatantly false assertion that Pakhtuns of Pakistan are 'going against' the state of Pakistan, when as i've said, they are more and more in agreement with their fellow countrymen. There is no insurrection against being part of Pakistan. In the future they all will fully integrate themselves with Pakistan. Too many interdependence, common interests and history. As it is now, the ones blabbering about anything will be confined to their keyboards.

It does not matter what your relatives thinks, we all think a lot about our opinions.

The reality is that more and more pakhtuns are joining the taliban and afghan resistence who are isi/army/ghq/punjos proxies hell bent on destabilizing afghanistan for the benefit of the punjab army. Wrora i tell you, the punjabi isi has so much control over the pakhtuns that they even can make them blow themselves up. The isi also brainwashed the afghanistanis to fight the liberators who bring all kinds of good benefit like secularism and atheism and evangelical missionaries. In the past they stopped the afghanistanis from getting the full benefit of communism. Of course if it wasn't for them communism would have prevailed and law and bar would have been all afghanistan. The stamps, hats, and flags, and songs would have some meaning. We could have also added balochistan to afghanistan because i said so, which would give us access to the ocean. Vile creatures the pakis are.:tongue:

fzpz I am not confused at all. The referendum was rigged and the voting method was suspect. There are books written on this regard (and no not just wali khan). You are right Bacha Khan's movement or Samad Khan was not indigenous at all. BTW this so-called indigenous movement there has been armed and supported by Pakistan.

Actually in terms of foreign policy and Intelligence agencies most Pashtuns are not in line with Pakistan. These policies have brought a lot of damage and death to our regions. Why don't you see the outcomes in FATA, PATA and even now in the settled districts thanks to your country's muhibe watanwaal's policy. Pashtuns have benefited more from Afghanistan than Pakistan (historically, although a lot of loss as well). Either way, that is a argumentatively weak thing to do. So what if we didn't benefit from it, does it change the reality of Pakistan?

Are you from those areas that are suffering from the policies of Pakistan? Where did you get the idea to speak for 30 million Pashtuns? On one hand you call others conspiracy theorist and on the other you have made so many sweeping statements when the outcome of these policies are there on the ground.

I just used his comment about Pakistan because it is pertinent. And to honest that is what Pakistan has become, hasn't it?

P.S. nice attempt at sarcasm, now take away ISI and add RAW and india.....that was the propaganda that was spread about the operations in Swat and FATA. When I first heard this, It was disgusting, a total slap on our faces. Amm ba dae thabaa kaomaa ao pa darnaa drama joraoma.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:32 PM
Bengal Tiger,

This is a Pashtun forum. As such I, and I'm sure everyone else, don't want to see the typical Bangladesh mentality squabble that occurs everytime that war comes up.

If you really want it discussed I suggest you start your own quarantined post on this forum on another thread. I'm not going to discuss it on this one.

What I will say is everything you say has already been disproved, from the admission by Bangladeshi "scholars" that they faked the 3 million, to the admission that genocide was an exagerration, and even that the Bangladesh War Museum faked the deaths of Bangladeshis by putting up pictures of dead Biharis (who were killed by the Bangladeshis). An example here.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060319/asp/look/story_5969733.asp (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060319/asp/look/story_5969733.asp)

graveyardofempires
03-22-2011, 01:34 PM
we love you my bangladeshi friend
you are welcome
dont pay attention to trolls

Feroza_Banu
03-22-2011, 01:35 PM
i suggest this topic is turned into a sticky.... this issue is brought up one too many times... every new comer has this question and confusion..."why pakistan is a problem to Afghanistan"... if this thread is a sticky then every new comer can refer to it and either be clear about the topic or ask more questions.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:37 PM
fzpz I am not confused at all. The referendum was rigged and the voting method was suspect.


Why was the referendum rigged? What is the proof of this?


Actually in terms of foreign policy and Intelligence agencies most Pashtuns are not in line with Pakistan. These policies have brought a lot of damage and death to our regions. Why don't you see the outcomes in FATA, PATA and even now in the settled districts thanks to your country's muhibe watanwaal's policy. Pashtuns have benefited more from Afghanistan than Pakistan (historically, although a lot of loss as well). Either way, that is a argumentatively weak thing to do. So what if we didn't benefit from it, does it change the reality of Pakistan?


How have Pashtuns benefitted more from Afghanistan than Pakistan? Afghan refugees currently are being housed on Pakistani territory. If there was no Pakistan, where would they go? Would Iran put up with millions of refugees? I doubt it. I'm not saying Punjab or Sindh would either, BUT because Pakhtunkhwa is part of Pakistan, Afghan refugees have a place to go. They could all go there if they wanted to.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 01:38 PM
To the kiddies,

stick to your own threads. Don't spoil these ones.

Bengal_Tiger
03-22-2011, 02:25 PM
The response of the troll who started this thread is very useful as it illustrates a number of things. First of all let me introduce this troll. This troll is an anti-Bangladeshi, Punjabi nationalist troll who used to troll on Pakistani nationalist forums such as pakistanidefence.forum and also defence.pk. The first forum is a very aggressive, Pakistani nationalist forum full of bigots many of whom openly celebrate the 1971 genocide and also call for the expulsion of Afghan refugees from Pakistan.

Trollrunner, the Punjabi, started this thread in order to supposedly ask why such hostility exists to the state officially known as “The Federation of Pakistan”. In the course of this thread another poster raised the oppression of Bangladeshis as an example of the dark and shameful history of this British-created state. Trollrunner, the Punjabi, then responded by labelling Bangladeshis as “traitors”, for what? For defending themselves against a military junta who launched an attack on them after they had peacefully and legally pursued the democratic and legal route of elections?

Since I myself am a PROUD BANGLADESHI, I posted refuting Trollrunner with a number of points. Trollrunner is unable to provide a satisfactory response to any of this, including the illegitimacy of the Yahya Khan junta launching a Gaddafi-style campaign against its own citizens and the total legitimacy of the Bengali people to defend themselves after years of oppression culminating in them not being able to rule the country democratically (3 out of the 5 provinces of the then Pakistan were in favour of autonomy Bengalis wanted, East Pakistan, N.W.F.P and Balochistan).

I do not want to make this a Bangladeshi-centric thread because this thread is about Pakistan, suffice to say that 1971 and the two decades of oppression, racism and injustice which preceded it are very valid and pertinent points to raise when highlighting the very evil and unfair nature of the British-created state of Pakistan. On another note, what the ignorant Punjabi Sardar jee, Trollrunner is unaware is that I myself have stated on other fora that the 3 million number provided by the Awami League is inaccurate and the total was lower. However it was an illegal and brutal campaign of mass murder carried out against a people whose crime was merely to call for their democratic rights, it was an act of bloodletting 100 times greater than what dictator colonel Qaddafi is doing in Libya.

However that is all history now, and I wish to focus on things more relevant to Pashtuns. The people of Afghanistan have every right to be hostile to a state and military, that of Pakistan, which seeks to keep Afghanistan within its sphere of influence including if necessary by the sponsorship and patronage of radical militant groups ultimately supported by the ISI.

Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic state but the feeling of being an Afghanistani is something very real. An Uzbek in Afghanistan is loyal to Afghanistan and not to Uzbekistan, a Farsi speaker is loyal to Afghanistan and not to Iran or Tajikistan, and a Pashtun in Afghanistan is proud of his country. This is the state created by Baba Ahmed Shah Abdali (rahmatullahi alaih) and which unlike Jinnah’s (a British agent and grandson of a Hindu whose grandchildren are now non-Muslims in India) artificially created state of “Pakistan” (land of the pure, sic.) is a land where the people very much identify with that country. In “Pakistan” (sic.) the constituent ethnic groups however have not formed a pan-Pakistani identity. Punjabis view other races as inferior and themselves as the real Pakistanis and call Indian-origined “Mohajirs” as “kalu” (black) and despise them as inferior and discriminate against them, Punjabis dislike Pashtuns and call them “Khan Sahib”, “Pathan”, “gay Pathan”, “stupid Pathan” etc. Balochis will kill a Punjabi who enters into certain areas of Balochistan.

Afghanistan can be compared to Switzerland where each of the constituent peoples there, the French, Germans and Italians have countries which they could align themselves to i.e. France, Germany and Italy but are in fact loyal to the concept of Switzerland. Pakistan cannot be compared to anything, it is simply suis generis, a failed third world terrorist state run by a brutal and greedy feudal-military elite who misuse religion for their own selfish political aims. If Afghanistan can be compared to Switzerland, Pakistan can be compared to a toilet.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/italy/ethnomap.gif

http://www.evertype.com/standards/af/af-lang-th.jpg

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2009/03/04/cov12.jpg

Bengali leader Mujib (rahmatullahi alaih) with Bengali liberation forces including supreme military leader of Bengali liberation forces, Colonel Osmani on the far right who defeated the toilet that is "Pakistan".

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 03:06 PM
Alright. I didn't read any of that as it was just a personal attack.

If you would like to discuss Dravidesh, please start a new thread. I don't want it on this one.

khushal
03-22-2011, 04:35 PM
However that is all history now, and I wish to focus on things more relevant to Pashtuns. The people of Afghanistan have every right to be hostile to a state and military, that of Pakistan, which seeks to keep Afghanistan within its sphere of influence including if necessary by the sponsorship and patronage of radical militant groups ultimately supported by the ISI.

Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic state but the feeling of being an Afghanistani is something very real. An Uzbek in Afghanistan is loyal to Afghanistan and not to Uzbekistan, a Farsi speaker is loyal to Afghanistan and not to Iran or Tajikistan, and a Pashtun in Afghanistan is proud of his country. This is the state created by Baba Ahmed Shah Abdali (rahmatullahi alaih) and which unlike Jinnah’s (a British agent and grandson of a Hindu whose grandchildren are now non-Muslims in India) artificially created state of “Pakistan” (land of the pure, sic.) is a land where the people very much identify with that country. In “Pakistan” (sic.) the constituent ethnic groups however have not formed a pan-Pakistani identity. Punjabis view other races as inferior and themselves as the real Pakistanis and call Indian-origined “Mohajirs” as “kalu” (black) and despise them as inferior and discriminate against them, Punjabis dislike Pashtuns and call them “Khan Sahib”, “Pathan”, “gay Pathan”, “stupid Pathan” etc. Balochis will kill a Punjabi who enters into certain areas of Balochistan.

Afghanistan can be compared to Switzerland where each of the constituent peoples there, the French, Germans and Italians have countries which they could align themselves to i.e. France, Germany and Italy but are in fact loyal to the concept of Switzerland. Pakistan cannot be compared to anything, it is simply suis generis, a failed third world terrorist state run by a brutal and greedy feudal-military elite who misuse religion for their own selfish political aims. If Afghanistan can be compared to Switzerland, Pakistan can be compared to a toilet.


I'm forced to say this is very well said. Pakistan's creation was a crime against humanity and I think the Bangali leaders that decided to succeed from it would go down in history as the first ones to see that its creation was a mistake and only served western interests over its inhabitants interests.

Alchemist
03-22-2011, 04:40 PM
^ roadrunner, you are the troll who questioned his statement. If you didn't want to discuss it you wouldn't have responded but since you are such a good paki e-soldier you had to ask for it ...and now that you got it...you don't want it. Be a man and take your own advice ...don't be a kid. You don't have to have the last word in every argument.


You can always tell how good a person is by asking his neighbors about him.

It's not only Afghanistan that "hates" pakistan but also India and Bangladesh and even Iran. Why?

Simply because Pakistan exists as a Parasite in the region.
It exists today because of US Aid and IMF debts. During the war with the soviets, they received 10s of billions of dollars. Now they are home to 43 terrorist "organizations...never mind "the taliban". Everything from drug and guns smugglers and grave robbers, animal poachers come to pakistan to make money.
I am not going to sugar coat it like admin Khan....straight up - Pakistani people have no principles - more than 80% of them are reshowat khor, living off of bribe money. Their whole economy functions on bribe.
And last but not least... ISI ...**** of the universe.

I think there's many on here that don't realize this distinction. Pay attention to this, those that don't.



I think what you're saying here is that Pakistan has used Afghanistan for strategic depth.

Let me ask you to consider this.

When the Soviets invaded, did Afghanistan not use Pakistan as strategic depth so that military/militant centres were still able to fund the resistance? Were you against the anti Soviet resistance? (open question btw, I sometimes wonder if it was a bad thing to do).

the anti soviet resistance that Pakistan backed was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an infamous criminal warlord.
Pakistan didn't want to help the real heroes of Afghanistan because those Afghans would never accept the durrand line and would also work in the future to counter the militancy of Pakistan...which has continuously violated the sovereignty of Afghanistan. Most of the successful Afghan Commanders didn't even receive a tenth of the Aid given by the saudies and americans.


let's talk about the present. Here we have Pakistani backed terrorist organizations coming into Afghanistan to cause mayhem and destruction.


Suicide bombers recently detained by Afghan security forces have admitted to have received training in Pakistan. (http://isi-intersevicesintelligence.blogspot.com/2011/03/afghan-intel-links-jalalabad-bank.html)At a press conference, a spokesman to National Directorate of Security (NDS) told reporters that 90% of insurgency in the Afghanistan is planned in Pakistan.
And the remaining ten percent of the insurgent attacks are sketched in Afghanistan, but with equipment and ammunition provided by Pakistan.
Afghan forces have detained the facilitator of Jalalabad bank raid. The attack was mainly designed by Pakistani Taliban operating in lawless tribal belt across Afghan borders, NDS Spokesman Lotfullah Mashal told reporters.
"Insurgent attacks are designed in border regions, including Miranshah, Datakhil, Chaman, Bajawur, Wana, northern and southern Waziristan. Suicide attacks are mainly plotted by the leader of Pakistani Taliban Hakimullah Mehsud, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Sirajuddin Haqqani network," Mr Mashal said.
Mutiullah, coordinator of Kabul bank attack in Jalalabad that led to the death of dozens, said "They sent me two kalashnikovs, 10 magazines, 6 grenades and one suicide vest. And I kept them for ten days in my house."
Officials in NDS believe that most suicide bombers are Pakistani citizens and a limited number of misguided Afghans are cooperating with insurgents.
Ghamai, a 19-year-old suicide bomber has been arrested by NDS in border regions while crossing into Afghanistan.
"I want to say to all suicide bombers that going to paradise or hell depends on the will of Allah. Suicide boming will never lead us to paradise," said Ghamai.
Akhtar Nawaz is a 14-year-old suicide bomber from Waziristan, who had been forced by Pakistani Taliban to carry out a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, but surrendered himself to Afghan security after crossing border into eastern Khost province.
Last week, in the insurgent raid in Jalalabad, more than 40 civilians lost their lives and scores were hurt.
A couple of days after the attack, video footage of Kabul Bank attack aired by TOLOnews and TOLO televisions outraged Afghan people.
The footage showed a Pakistani suicide bomber dressed in police uniform shooting civilians stuck in Kabul Bank building.
Pakistan has long been under pressure of international community for failing to root out insurgent sanctuaries and safe havens on its soil.
.YouTube - World Youngest Suicide Bomber Aged 11; Pakistan ISI=Al Qaeda Send Them To Kill Afghans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QFqmwNOr3Q)

^ pakistani involved in suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

Thank you pakistan ....

BLS_1919v2.0
03-22-2011, 04:40 PM
Roadrunner, prior to the Soviet-Afghan Invasion, there was promise for Pashtuns in that country, the military was Pashtun, the political power, the intelligentsia had a large Pashtun populace. Had the Pashtuns been united under this state many of the interferences of the region probably would not have happened. Combine it with the resources of Pashtunkhwa there was a lot of promise. During Zahir Shah's time all the way down to the communists, higher education was free for Pashtunkhwa students, and many graduated from those universities.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Roadrunner, prior to the Soviet-Afghan Invasion, there was promise for Pashtuns in that country, the military was Pashtun, the political power, the intelligentsia had a large Pashtun populace. Had the Pashtuns been united under this state many of the interferences of the region probably would not have happened. Combine it with the resources of Pashtunkhwa there was a lot of promise. During Zahir Shah's time all the way down to the communists, higher education was free for Pashtunkhwa students, and many graduated from those universities.

I don't disagree at all. Sometimes Afghanistan is ahead of Pakhtunkhwa, sometimes Pakhtukhwa is ahead of Afghanistan (such as now).

It may go up and down in the future. HOW is that a problem? When one half of Pashtuns are going through economic hardship or warfare, they have another half that can help them out. This is not a bad state of affairs to be in.

Anything more about the referendum?

Alchemist
03-22-2011, 04:59 PM
I don't disagree at all. Sometimes Afghanistan is ahead of Pakhtunkhwa, sometimes Pakhtukhwa is ahead of Afghanistan (such as now).

It may go up and down in the future. HOW is that a problem? When one half of Pashtuns are going through economic hardship or warfare, they have another half that can help them out. This is not a bad state of affairs to be in.


how is pakhtunkhwa ahead of afghanistan?

elaborate.

khushal
03-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Roadrunner, prior to the Soviet-Afghan Invasion, there was promise for Pashtuns in that country, the military was Pashtun, the political power, the intelligentsia had a large Pashtun populace. Had the Pashtuns been united under this state many of the interferences of the region probably would not have happened. Combine it with the resources of Pashtunkhwa there was a lot of promise. During Zahir Shah's time all the way down to the communists, higher education was free for Pashtunkhwa students, and many graduated from those universities.

Exactly, this free education and other benefits that was available to KP was a threat to panjos.
The panjos viewed these benefits as tools that might inspire KP to separate or inspire KP to elevate as a society. They didnt want KP to feel too elevated where they feel equal or superior to the panjos.

To this day, the vast majority of KP population doesnt realize that the panjos policy of destroying Afghanistan actually depressed KP society.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 05:13 PM
Of course the Soviet invasion had nothing to do with anything.

In reality, the devilish Punjabis were controlling the Soviet 7th Company.

Seriously, grow up. I really am trying to understand the Nationalist viewpoint. But you lot are not doing a good job explaining it.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 05:14 PM
Not one of you have given an adequate explanation of how you would have stopped the Civil War of 1994 in Afghanistan.

tor_khan
03-22-2011, 05:55 PM
I suspect that many Muslim Panjabees don't actually respect themselves as Panjabees. See with Pashtoons in Pashtunkhwa there is a recognition amongst the Pashto literate that language and literacy in Pashto is one of the keys to self-realisation. Even with their lower levels of literacy, essentially Pashtoons = Pashto. We are recognised by our language.

But even lower-middle-class Panjabees seem ambivalent to Panjabee in a way that I don't fully understand. If Pashtoons have been lax, it is fair to say that urban Panjabees have done even less for the development and promotion of their language (in original Gurmukhi script), for reasons that I've never been able to establish beyond resentment at anything that might vaguely suggest a recent Hindu past. I still find that odd considering that overall, Panjabees tend to go easier on religious interpretation than other ethnic groups in Pakistan. However, in having displaced their own language, some of the biggest pushers of Urdu as a "unifying" "Muslim" language are the Panjabees themselves. That too, knowing that Urdu isn't native to them either. Surely the Panjabees have more going for them culturally-speaking than to hang on to some artificial construct that they have created for themselves in order to make themselves feel good?

Toramana
03-22-2011, 07:26 PM
Amin Khan, thanks ... I woul've joined but the discussion is almost over...and this da zra da zoor nisthwalai as BLS said that day....manana wrora

Bengal_Tiger
03-22-2011, 07:33 PM
True to form Trollrunner, was unable to respond to any of the points which I mentioned. He was the one who brought up Bangladesh, and I have the right to comment when a Punjabi troll who has trolled on many different fora insults my nation.

Leaving Trollrunner aside, apart from the politics I feel that many Afghans dislike Punjabis because of their nature which is sly, arrogant and cruel.

The Punjabis as a race have never done anything (excluding the Sikhs) apart from cause trouble e.g. create Qadianism, kill Turkish soldiers in Mecca etc.

http://umersultan.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mirza_ghulam_ahmad.gif

Son of Punjab, liar, false prophet, Punjabi and agent of the British, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian who created a false religion.

This absence of a history of any note, but a innate arrogance stemming from their culture, thus leads to an excessive emphasis on "Pakistan", since these losers have never had anything else in their history.

As for their "language", Punjabi. It is considered coarse and vulgar, and Punjabis being Punjabis true to their arrogant and mocking nature mock rural Punjabis who speak Punjabi as opposed to speaking "Urdu" e.g. in Lahore.

However the "Urdu" spoken in Lahore and elsewhere in Punjab is laughed at by real Urdu speakers e.g. in Karachi and India as a *******ized, mispronounced form of Punjabized Urdu.

Punjabis are a race who have contributed nothing and are hated by virtually all Muslim groups in South Asia e.g. Sindhis, Balochis, Indian Muslims, Afghan Muslims, Bengali Muslims and Pashtuns. Their source of pride is a state and an army created by the British.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/images/Pictures/GenMessery.jpg

First commander of the Pakistani Punjabi dominated army, Frank Messervy.

roadrunner
03-22-2011, 08:15 PM
I suspect that many Muslim Panjabees don't actually respect themselves as Panjabees. See with Pashtoons in Pashtunkhwa there is a recognition amongst the Pashto literate that language and literacy in Pashto is one of the keys to self-realisation. Even with their lower levels of literacy, essentially Pashtoons = Pashto. We are recognised by our language.

But even lower-middle-class Panjabees seem ambivalent to Panjabee in a way that I don't fully understand. If Pashtoons have been lax, it is fair to say that urban Panjabees have done even less for the development and promotion of their language (in original Gurmukhi script), for reasons that I've never been able to establish beyond resentment at anything that might vaguely suggest a recent Hindu past. I still find that odd considering that overall, Panjabees tend to go easier on religious interpretation than other ethnic groups in Pakistan. However, in having displaced their own language, some of the biggest pushers of Urdu as a "unifying" "Muslim" language are the Panjabees themselves. That too, knowing that Urdu isn't native to them either. Surely the Panjabees have more going for them culturally-speaking than to hang on to some artificial construct that they have created for themselves in order to make themselves feel good?

You think that's how Pashtuns are recognized more like.

I recognize Pashtuns in an entirely different way. Anyone can learn Pashto.

Punjabis actually have quite a good history also. They too have been brainwashed like the Pashtuns into forgetting their traditions.

Anyhow, perhaps you can answer the question of what you would have done in 1994 to stop the massacres in Afghanistan? (since noone else wants to answer it).

Admin Khan
03-22-2011, 10:21 PM
Greetings Roadrunner,

I hope you are in good health.

This is my reply to this. I did answer it before.

Do you mind showing me your answer to it?

Do you support the Taliban? Yes or No?


What would your answer be to the Civil War in Afghanistan from 1992-1996? How would you have solved it?

Educating the youth, and enlightening them about human rights. Whatever is the case, I wouldn't do what Pakistan did. The thread is about Pakistan, and what Pakistan did was unacceptable. It supported and funded a movement for it's strategic purposes.


I do think a stable Afghanistan is in Pakistan's interest.

No. A stable Afghanistan that serves Pakistani interests is in her interest. There is a reason why Pakistan begins to pull it's hair every time Manmohan Singh plans to visit Kabul.

I do feel you're incorrect in saying that it isn't in Pakistan's interest to have a stable Afghanistan though.

Let's try it again. If Pakistan wants a stable Afghanistan, it should refrain from meddling in Afghanistan's affair with it's strategic depth nonsense.


The Taliban are not a good form of governance and very few people would want to live under them. If I were in a country that was tearing itself apart through warfare, and someone came along that I could go to in order to get some justice, then it would be an improvement on no justice.

Awesome. Now the reason why most Afghans hate Pakistani officials is because they supported and funded the Taliban. Does it make sense to you now?


Pakistan sees Afghanistan as competition I think. But it wouldn't want it to be unstable. That would cause problems for Pakistan.

Afghanistan as competition? I beg to differ. I don't even think I have to elaborate.


This is one area I don't get about Pashtun Nationalists. The introduction of religion into the region was not even at the behest of the Pakistanis. The Pakistani government had many Pashtuns in it. They knew the Afghans would fight the Soviets. The introduction of this extreme form of Islam came about in order to secure funds from the Saudis for their support. There's a whole host of countries that supported this extreme religion entering the Af-Pak belt. But you're only fingering one country.

Logical fallacy? Let's look at my posts in the context of your thread. You made a thread about Pakistan, and I am telling you why most Afghans hate Pakistani officials. This thread isn't about why UAE recognized the Taliban. We can save that for another day. Pakistan supported and funded a movement that made Afghanistan on the verge of becoming the first stone-age nation. The aforementioned is exactly why most Afghans hate Pakistani officials. It's the foreign policy.




How can you use talents in Computer Science, Mathematics and other disciplines if you have a Civil War occurring?

When I made that comment, I was speaking in contemporary terms. As we speak, according to various sources, Pakistan is funding the Taliban. That is unacceptable to the Pashtun/Afghan people. As we speak, Pashtuns are victims of exoneration, that is also unacceptable. Rather then permitting foreign forces to attack the Pashtuns with drones, allow them to attain a higher education.

How do you solve the Civil War in Afghanistan?

Negotiation. Listening to each others causes. Educating the youth.


When you solve the Civil War, and bring stability, you can then build these universities.

Sure, but by funding and supporting a frankenstein that Pakistan itself didn't want for its own people, you are decreasing the probability of ever building universities.


I don't agree madrassas are alright. There's too much religion in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It needs to go.

With all due respect, that's pretty ignorant of you. Madrassas are not the problem. Religion is not the problem. I feel like I am repeating myself now, please refer to my previous posts. I elaborated on this.


Pakistan took advantage of the Afghans to fight the Soviets. The Afghans took advantage of Pakistan's strategic depth. Both rubbed each others backs. Both got burned by the creation of madrassas.
You think Afghans somehow benefited by Pakistan's strategic depth? How so? By being ruled by the Pakistani funded/supported Taliban?


You asked why many Afghans/Pashtuns hate Pakistan. The answer was given to you, but let me reiterate. The reason is because Pakistan supports and funds instability in Afghanistan. Pakistan funded a movement and a type of Sharia-law that she herself doesn't want in her nation. If Pakistan thinks the Taliban is the best form of government, she can test it and prove it to us first. She doesn't need to shove it down the throat of Afghans, nor does she have to brainwash innocent Pashtuns to legitimize and justify the movement.

khushal
03-22-2011, 10:46 PM
Its not just afghans that hate pakistani officials and its policies, but its every one of pakistans neighbors, and now that hate is spreading to its own citizens.

fzpz
03-22-2011, 10:57 PM
That certainly is true for afghanistani nationalists and indians. Not true for Iran or China. Which neighbors of afghanistan like it? You're treated like dog poop in iran, uzbekistan, tajiks refuse to recognize your tajikiness, and want partition. Hell pashtuns are in a state of civil war within their colonial buffer state construct of afghanistan. The only place you run to escape your wasteland is Pakistan. Where you're treated better than anywhere else. Pakistanis don't hate all afghans, just the incoherent and hard headed policies of certain sections of afghanistani society.

tor khan, urdu was taught in punjab before independence. Many poets of urdu are punjabis (ludhianvi, faiz, iqbal, jhalandari, gulzar etc). The original script of punjabi is shahmukhi, not gurmukhi. In addition the original punjabi literature was developed by punjabi muslims. I understand your agenda though.

admin khan, can you recognize that afghanistan started sponsoring a (failed) insurgency way back before the taliban were even created? Does not exonerate the subsequent reactions of the state of Pakistan, but it seems that the obsession with Pakistan amongst afghans (from afghanistan and non-representative nationalists) leads them to blame everything on Pakistan.

khushal
03-22-2011, 11:38 PM
That certainly is true for afghanistani nationalists and indians. Not true for Iran or China. Which neighbors of afghanistan like it? You're treated like dog poop in iran, uzbekistan, tajiks refuse to recognize your tajikiness, and want partition. Hell pashtuns are in a state of civil war within their colonial buffer state construct of afghanistan. The only place you run to escape your wasteland is Pakistan. Where you're treated better than anywhere else. Pakistanis don't hate all afghans, just the incoherent and hard headed policies of certain sections of afghanistani society.
.

Your becoming too emotional. Calm down, read the Qaran, and be in peace. Nobody is attacking you, we are merely criticizing policies by the state. Its not very noble of you to insult defenseless afghan refugees, that is cowardly. The afghan refugees didn't go to Pakistan they went to Pakhtunkwa(pukhtun side) and Pakistani officials stole the UN Aid that was meant for those refugees. they stole food from starving children, that is very shameful.

But Iran is no friend of Pakistan. Iranian infuenced people and pakistani influenced people in afghanistan clash with each other. Pakistan and the Taliban are used by the saudi's and friends to counter Iranian influence eastward. China has no choice but is forced to using Pakistan to contain and create a headache for India.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 12:00 AM
You think Afghans somehow benefited by Pakistan's strategic depth? How so? By being ruled by the Pakistani funded/supported Taliban?


Strategic depth was used by Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet war.

During the Afghan-Soviet War, the Afghan resistance used Pakistan's NWFP as strategic depth. Supplies to the Mujahideen were safe from Soviet bombardment and spread over a broader area than just Afghanistan.

So strategic depth is nothing new and Afghans have used Pakistan as strategic depth for themselves.

The situation is this. If India invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan would be there to be used to supply the Pakistani resistance, in the same way Pakistan was there to supply the Afghan resistance.

Both countries have used each other for strategic depth. Do you disagree with this? Or are you adamant that only Pakistan tried to use Afghanistan for strategic depth?


Educating the youth, and enlightening them about human rights. Whatever is the case, I wouldn't do what Pakistan did. The thread is about Pakistan, and what Pakistan did was unacceptable. It supported and funded a movement for it's strategic purposes.


You would educate youth. But HOW? There was a civil war going on. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans were being killed. What was more important? To stop the violence, or to try and educate powerhungry people? Do you think if Pakistan had said to Masood or Dostum or Hekmatyar to stop the Civil War, that the Civil War would have stopped?

I think some background would be helpful here.

As far as I am aware, the UN under Sevan suggested a five point peace plan for power sharing. It did not work. The reason it didn't work was predominantly down to what? Pakistan? Iran? I don't think either were at fault. It was the UN expecting everyone would listen to them, and not bothering to enforce their resolutions. Where did Pakistan fit into this equation? Pakistan did enter the equation later on in trying to unify the maniacs that militant deobandi Islam's spread had created.

Now if I'm wrong on this, explain to me how Pakistan was responsible for the Civil War? You might be correct and I'm missing something.

ScimitarXEdge
03-23-2011, 12:12 AM
Pakistan is an Imperial Invention; if Madeline Albright said such and such; it doesn't bear my weight, since clearly it's an attempt for Britain to distance itself and appear like the "good guy"; when they're the culprit.

Pakistan as a state institution is volatile and self destructive; not necessarily by desire but by action. Imagine if Pakistan handled Bangladesh diplomatically; Pakistan would be be massively powerful today, but instead imposing Urdu was more important than Islamic Unity.

We must recognize however, Pakistan as a state apparatus has always been multi ethnic. It's albeit centered within ethnicities of Northern Regions regions primarily. The issue should therefore not be about some imaginary Punjab-centrism. but Feudal Elite Centrism, which happens to be belted along Peshawar , Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Lahore. The Punjabis of Multan are just as sidelined as the Tribesman of FATA and the Balouch of Quetta.

The issue is that Nation-State Apparatus never work because they're intrinsically alligned with Elitism and thereby cannot serve the common people and in turn try to pit one group, in this case Punjabis or Pakhtuns against others.

Admin Khan
03-23-2011, 12:22 AM
Dear RoadRunner,

You ignored half of my post. I asked you questions, and raised some points that haven't been answered.

KingKhan
03-23-2011, 12:29 AM
I vote Admin Khan for President of Afghanistan. He's done more for his people then any Afghan politician in years. Also has a brain, unlike them as well. So that's my vote.

;)

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 12:30 AM
I'll answer them in a bit.

Those two points I would really like to see your answer to though if possible.

khushal
03-23-2011, 12:56 AM
Dear RoadRunner,

You ignored half of my post. I asked you questions, and raised some points that haven't been answered.

Admina,
Roads brains is not advanced enough to take in any information that you have delivered already. He is asking you questions that you have already answered.
Your going to end up repeating yourself over and over again. A donkey is going to have a better chance of understanding it than he ever can.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 01:02 AM
that's good news if it's been answered. You can copy and paste the answers then.

I haven't replied because it's time consuming, and most of the post overlaps. I'll get round to it eventually.

But since it's been answered, no doubts the reply to those two points is extremely simple, and should be made available fairly soon....

Admin Khan
03-23-2011, 01:23 AM
Greetings,

You said,

So tell me what it is that Pakistan does that is the problem.

That was the main topic of this thread. I told you exactly what the problem is. The problem is Pakistan supporting instability in Afghanistan. The problem is Pakistan meddling in Afghan affairs. Do you understand why Afghans/Pashtuns who inhabit Pakistan and Afghanistan hate the GOP and GOA? Pakistan played a hypocrites role.


During the Afghan-Soviet War, the Afghan resistance used Pakistan's NWFP as strategic depth. Supplies to the Mujahideen were safe from Soviet bombardment and spread over a broader area than just Afghanistan.

There is no doubt about that. The Mujahideen began to fight against the soviets because of American and Pakistani support. It was an American who landed in Pakistan and told the Pashtuns "Go free your country" little did they know they were fighting someone else's war, and serving someone else's interest all along. But that's not even the topic, nor concern here. The problem is with Pakistan, the Islamic brother of Afghanistan. How could the brother in Islam deceive the naive Muslim Pukhtuns?


The situation is this. If India invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan would be there to be used to supply the Pakistani resistance, in the same way Pakistan was there to supply the Afghan resistance.

You are being a bit naive here. You forget the fact that Pakistan made billions during the war on terror, and it has consistently received aid by the USA for carrying it's dirty work. What benefits did Afghanistan get from this "Strategic depth"? A powerful military? advanced infrastructure? All of what I mentioned is what Pakistan gained. Even today, Pakistan is supporting the Taliban, whilst receiving aid from the USA. I think the US is catching up to Pakistan's dirty game now. Pakistan is forcing Afghanistan to be dependent on her. That way, it can continue being Islamabads proxy.


Do you know understand why most Pashtuns/Afghans hate the government of Pakistan?

You would educate youth. But HOW? There was a civil war going on. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans were being killed. What was more important? To stop the violence, or to try and educate powerhungry people?

The violence can be stopped by educating the people. I am not asking you to pull out a notebook and teach them Linear Algebra. If Pakistan wanted to be play a positive role, it could've conducted UN meetings, and sat down with local Afghan cheifs to figure out ways to stop the war. But no, no! Pakistan took advantage of the weak Afghanistan. It made young, naive Afghans fight someone else's war, and they sort of made Afghanistan their 5th province for a good 6 years.

Do you think if Pakistan had said to Masood or Dostum or Hekmatyar to stop the Civil War, that the Civil War would have stopped?

Negotiation.

Now if I'm wrong on this, explain to me how Pakistan was responsible for the Civil War? You might be correct and I'm missing something.

I think I told you this already. I'm not one of those people that blames everything on ISI. I have answered the above way, way to many times now. Please, read all my posts in this thread and you will realize how Pakistan's role ended up being poison for Afghans.

I hope you answer all my points. Also, let's not derail the thread. Your question was answered, and I have yet to see a rebuttal.

KhalsaWarrior
03-23-2011, 01:49 AM
But even lower-middle-class Panjabees seem ambivalent to Panjabee in a way that I don't fully understand. If Pashtoons have been lax, it is fair to say that urban Panjabees have done even less for the development and promotion of their language (in original Gurmukhi script), for reasons that I've never been able to establish beyond resentment at anything that might vaguely suggest a recent Hindu past.

Tor Khan, as roadrunner pointed out, the Muslim Punjabis use Shahmukhi, which is a Nastaliq script derived from Arabic and probably introduced by the Mughals. The Nastaliq script predates Gurmukhi by about a 100 years.

fzpz
03-23-2011, 11:24 AM
Your becoming too emotional. Calm down, read the Qaran, and be in peace. Nobody is attacking you, we are merely criticizing policies by the state. Its not very noble of you to insult defenseless afghan refugees, that is cowardly. The afghan refugees didn't go to Pakistan they went to Pakhtunkwa(pukhtun side) and Pakistani officials stole the UN Aid that was meant for those refugees. they stole food from starving children, that is very shameful.

But Iran is no friend of Pakistan. Iranian infuenced people and pakistani influenced people in afghanistan clash with each other. Pakistan and the Taliban are used by the saudi's and friends to counter Iranian influence eastward. China has no choice but is forced to using Pakistan to contain and create a headache for India.

Just trying to inject reality my main man. Don't get defensive. I do love you despite our disagreements.:hug1"You're right, i should read the Qur'an. It would teach both of us not to make up crap.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 01:09 PM
I will answer your previous posts Admin Khan. I'm just interested in understanding Nationalists which is why further points creep up.


There is no doubt about that.


Then you agree that Afghanistan's government (in exile) USED Pakistan's KPW as strategic depth.

But the idea of Afghanistan being used as strategic depth for Pakistan is unacceptable to you.

Is this not hypocrisy?


I am not asking you to pull out a notebook and teach them Linear Algebra. If Pakistan wanted to be play a positive role, it could've conducted UN meetings, and sat down with local Afghan cheifs to figure out ways to stop the war. But no, no! Pakistan took advantage of the weak Afghanistan.


That's exactly what Pakistan tried to do.

Have you not heard of the UN 5 point plan and Peshawar/Islamabad Accords?

A lot of these meetings took place in Pakistan.

I'm looking at what more negotiations Pakistan should have done? It had tried to get the 5 point plan implemented, but lack of will by the UN caused it to falter.


I think I told you this already. I'm not one of those people that blames everything on ISI. I have answered the above way, way to many times now. Please, read all my posts in this thread and you will realize how Pakistan's role ended up being poison for Afghans.


If possible, I'd be greatful if you'd explain this to me as I'm trying to see things from your pov.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 01:20 PM
I have a question if anyone knows the answer btw.

Why were Rabbani and Masood given the role of Presidency and Defence Minister under the transfer of power agreement, and why did Hekmatyar oppose it?

Admin Khan
03-23-2011, 01:32 PM
I will answer your previous posts Admin Khan. I'm just interested in understanding Nationalists which is why further points creep up.



Then you agree that Afghanistan's government (in exile) USED Pakistan's KPW as strategic depth.

No. Pakistan used it's own land to make sure it gains influence over Pakistan. Afghanistan had no proper government. Nor were Afghans smart enough to know what's going on. Pakistan trained them[willingly] and sent them off to fight. It's not like Pakistan did Afghanistan a favor. Pakistan found herself a 5th province. A province that was backwards, and had one of the worlds lowest literacy rate. Training Mujahdeen[with Pakistanis free-will]was a golden opportunity for their own strategic depth. So in other words, training Afghans in Pashtunkhwa was part of Pakistans strategic depth, not Afghanistan. And if you want proof for this, just look at the outcome of the war. Pakistan made billions, Pakistan got US aircraft, and it was the Pashtuns who suffered on both sides of the war. Pakistan gained the most out of the civil war. She found herself a destabilized, Pakistan dependent Afghanistan. You being a Thinktank, I don't even think I have to make you understand how beneficial the war that Afghans fought was for Pakistan.



That's exactly what Pakistan tried to do.

Pakistan did the opposite. Pakistan funded, and supported the Mujahadeen for her own benefit. And that outcome shows us what Pakistan's intentions were. Afghanistan served as a proxy for Pakistan, and even as we speak, Pakistan is continuing it's dirty game. That's not what Afghans want Roadrunner, let's be a bit more realistic. You still didn't answer me very basic, yet elementary question.

Do you support the Taliban? What do you think of the Taliban? I want a very basic answer.

Have you not heard of the UN 5 point plan and Peshawar/Islamabad Accords?

If Pakistan wanted something to happen, it could've executed. All that is nothing but smokescreen for the international media. Pakistan's intentions are very clear, it want's a friendly, and dependent Afghanistan. And that is exactly what it pursued, an even today it's supporting the Taliban to pursue that goal. You can tell me all you want about these meetings but the reality is what we see, and what we witnessed.



If possible, I'd be greatful if you'd explain this to me as I'm trying to see things from your pov.
Brother, I don't mind elaborating. However, can you at least read my first few posts in this thread? I really showed you how the Pakistani government played a hypocrites role.

I'm not in a rush. We can take this slowly, that way I can learn from you. And you can learn from me. That's whole purpose of this site, learning.

Alchemist
03-23-2011, 04:07 PM
Not one of you have given an adequate explanation of how you would have stopped the Civil War of 1994 in Afghanistan.

We have been giving you more than adequate of an explanation to the cause of the civil war and all unrest in Afghanistan but you have your fingers in your ears and your foot in your mouth. The root of the problem, the civil war, has been Pakistan. Even after the taliban subdued all the different factions that were vying for power, the ISI protected the biggest war criminal from their wraths - namely Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. This criminal has killed more Afghans than soviets...he had links to the KGB KHAD and the ISI knew of it. He operates the biggest drug network in the region and is more famous for throwing acid on girls.


We did have a solution ...one posited by Majrooh....but who was then killed by Hekmatyar...pakistan's bff.


To gauge the level of support for the former king, Majrooh devoted the bulk of the following issue of the bulletin to a survey of Afghan refugees, which asked the question “Who would you like to be the national leader of Afghanistan?” The data-collection team put together by Majrooh contacted more than two thousand respondents in 106 of 249 camps, representing twenty-three of the twenty-eight provinces, the eight major ethnic groups, and all seven political parties. The result was that 72 percent of respondents wanted Zahir Shah as the national leader of Afghanistan. Only nine of the two thousand people surveyed, or 0.45 percent, wanted one of the leaders of the resistance parties in Peshawar, and a mere 12.5 percent indicated that they would like to see the establishment of “a pure Islamic state.” [8 (http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3p30056w&chunk.id=d0e5278&toc.id=d0e5202&toc.depth=1&brand=eschol&anchor.id=en9.8#X)]
Despite the limits and biases of a survey of this type, the overwhelming support expressed for Zahir Shah, combined with the direct rebuke of the resistance leaders, indicated that the majority of Afghans remained unmoved by the Islamic political rhetoric with which they had been relentlessly assailed for the better part of a decade. Zahir Shah’s support may have been largely nostalgic in nature and reflective of his stated view that government should play a limited and nonintrusive role in people’s lives. Or it may simply have stemmed from the fact that he was not part of the morass in Peshawar. Whatever the reasons, Majrooh demonstrated with a degree of empirical precision heretofore lacking what everyone had long assumed—namely, that the Afghan people, if given the option, would choose Zahir Shah as their ruler.
In response to calls for his return, Zahir Shah broke his usual silence on exile political affairs in a radio interview with the BBC World Service in which he stated his willingness to serve the Afghan people if called on to do so; he stressed that, if asked to return, he would under no circumstance seek the restoration of the monarchy. These assurances aside, Hizb-i Islami and other radical Islamic parties reiterated their absolute opposition to any negotiated settlement that would bring Zahir Shah back to Afghanistan, even if he were selected through a democratic election. Hekmatyar’s position, as well as that of other radical leaders, was that Afghanistan should be an Islamic state and that the head of state should be selected by a council of qualified Islamic scholars and leaders from among those who had played an active part in the jihad. Since he had remained in Europe throughout the war and had made no sacrifices for the jihad, Zahir Shah was disqualified a priori from consideration. Majrooh’s commentaries and refugee survey challenged that view and gave ammunition to those who sought a more moderate solution to the political crisis facing Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal.





You chid us by assuming Afghans to be backwards fools who can't come up with solution unless with the guiding hand of pakistan?

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 06:33 PM
Greetings,

You said,


That was the main topic of this thread. I told you exactly what the problem is. The problem is Pakistan supporting instability in Afghanistan. The problem is Pakistan meddling in Afghan affairs. Do you understand why Afghans/Pashtuns who inhabit Pakistan and Afghanistan hate the GOP and GOA? Pakistan played a hypocrites role.


There is no doubt about that. The Mujahideen began to fight against the soviets because of American and Pakistani support. It was an American who landed in Pakistan and told the Pashtuns "Go free your country" little did they know they were fighting someone else's war, and serving someone else's interest all along. But that's not even the topic, nor concern here. The problem is with Pakistan, the Islamic brother of Afghanistan. How could the brother in Islam deceive the naive Muslim Pukhtuns?

You are being a bit naive here. You forget the fact that Pakistan made billions during the war on terror, and it has consistently received aid by the USA for carrying it's dirty work. What benefits did Afghanistan get from this "Strategic depth"? A powerful military? advanced infrastructure? All of what I mentioned is what Pakistan gained. Even today, Pakistan is supporting the Taliban, whilst receiving aid from the USA. I think the US is catching up to Pakistan's dirty game now. Pakistan is forcing Afghanistan to be dependent on her. That way, it can continue being Islamabads proxy.


Do you know understand why most Pashtuns/Afghans hate the government of Pakistan?

The violence can be stopped by educating the people. I am not asking you to pull out a notebook and teach them Linear Algebra. If Pakistan wanted to be play a positive role, it could've conducted UN meetings, and sat down with local Afghan cheifs to figure out ways to stop the war. But no, no! Pakistan took advantage of the weak Afghanistan. It made young, naive Afghans fight someone else's war, and they sort of made Afghanistan their 5th province for a good 6 years.

Negotiation.


I think I told you this already. I'm not one of those people that blames everything on ISI. I have answered the above way, way to many times now. Please, read all my posts in this thread and you will realize how Pakistan's role ended up being poison for Afghans.

I hope you answer all my points. Also, let's not derail the thread. Your question was answered, and I have yet to see a rebuttal.


Salamoona Admin wrorra,

Let us hone in on the Taliban.

When you say someone else's battle, do you mean the Kashmir conflict? Or do you mean the war against the Russian Juggernaut?

I think the issue here is to define what the Taliban are. The Karzai administration's propaganda is to simply label them "our wayward brothers." And then he usually adds some propaganda to this labeling them as influenced wholly by Pakistan. This however is hard to accept as having any basis in reality.

What I have generally read on here, which to me defies reason, are claims that the Taliban are a pure creation of Pakistan vs a Salafi Frankenstein vs a group of Panjabies dressed to look like Pashtuns. I completely dismiss the latter theory because it is so incredulous that it is a waste of time to even discuss or entertain that last hypothesis.

First, its like Mike Scheuer says, the Afghans were already killing Russians with their father's rifles... all the US did was really offer increased lethality. He posits that the Afghans would have gone on fighting the incursions with or without the US and that the victory of said war is purely an Afghan achievement. Had the US not been involved, it would have merely turned into what we see today, a war of attrition.

So then, when we say that a whole generation of Afghans was brainwashed by Pakistan... or by Arabs, I would have to say that men like Hekmetyaar, Omar, Salam-Zaeef, and Sayyaf were already "made-men" and really needed not much convincing to do what they had chosen to do: namely, fight the Russian juggernaut on a basis enshrined in the defensive holy war principle. And I would argue that the a large chunk of the fighting forces under men like Abdul Haq, Sayaaf, and other non Taliban leaders were not that much different in their though processes.

I previously made the case here that this phenomena mirrors the southern Baptist style phenomena of rallying around God and Country in the US when an outside anti Christian (Communist and now Islam) appears on the horizen. The Southern Pulpits open up and the fiery hell and brimstone sermons commence. During the Clinton era, these figures receded into the background.

In Pashto history, this is also an undeniable cycle: Mir Wais obtained a religious edict to evict Gurgin, Ahmad Shah obtained an invite and fatwa from Shah Waliullah, and Amanullah rallied the Ghazis. This article details this religious reflex that kicks in when the Pashtun nation galvanizes against a threat. Its almost like the body's innate B-cell immune response.

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/Mad%20Mullahs.pdf (http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/Mad%20Mullahs.pdf)

Take as another example the commentary on the Tirah revolve in Pashtunkhwa:

"There were other contributory factors: a perception that the Amir of
Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman Khan, would support an anti-British Jihad; rumours that the Christian Greeks had been defeated by the Muslim Turks and that the Christian world was finally in retreat...."

http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/The%201897%20Revolt%20and%20Tirah%20Valley%20Opera tions.pdf (http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/The%201897%20Revolt%20and%20Tirah%20Valley%20Opera tions.pdf)

Usually, after the threat or the disorder was neutralized, such movements rapidly involuted and collapsed.

Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, I would have to state that Roadrunner is not too far off when it comes to the issue of internal stability. In fact, Kandahar itself supported this sentiment:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51578-2002Jan15 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51578-2002Jan15)

"During the Taliban time, you could walk the streets safely day and night. Now we have to sleep with guns for pillows because we can be robbed at any time," said Abdul Haddi, 35, a car dealer. "Now we have the freedom to listen to music, and nobody bothers us about wearing beards, but music does not put food on the table. We prefer extremism to instability."

Regarding the relationship between Kandaharis the Arabs themselves:

"To a certain extent, Taliban sympathies here also extend to Arabs who lived here and fought alongside the Taliban against its armed domestic opponents in northern Afghanistan, and who later were killed or wounded in the U.S. bombing campaign.

At Mir Weis Hospital, where a half-dozen injured and armed Arab fighters have been barricaded inside a prison ward for weeks, even the soldiers guarding the grounds this week said they strongly disagreed with the government's decision to suspend all food supplies to the detainees after they refused to surrender.

"It is a shameful violence to stop their food and kill them slowly. Every Muslim in the world has sorrow for these men," said Akhtar Mohammed, 40, a hospital guard. "We want a moderate Islamic government, but not one that will sell the Koran for dollars." The Arab prisoners, he added, "are dying but they are happy, because they will go to paradise.""

I also stated on here that when we compare the decade under the Taliban versus the decade under Karzai, where the former was sanctioned heavily and brutally by the international community and the latter has the full support of it, yet still provides a failing infastructure, how can one ignore the need for stability or the great difficulty involved in bringing it to Afghanistan?

Moreover, I asked this question earlier without a response, regarding the story of this man, Commander Dauran, an Afghan born in Afghanistan, a land owner, and now a Talib Commander.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242)

I asked, what does one consider Dauran? Do you consider him a wayward brother or what he appears to be: a man who sees non Muslims encroaching on his country's soveriegnty and thus a man who decided to obey the Prophet's edict regarding Muslim lands not needing a Caliphate order to initiate defensive holy war? I think its completely ignorant to simply label men like him as proxies and dupes of Pakistan or the Wahhabi phantom. Because then, this allows the labeling of anyone with anti occupation sentiments to be called a Pakistani proxy. And you will have to validate why everyone who feels that way deserves that label.

So I would pose 4 questions:

1) If the Talibs are men like Omar and others who were sons of the soil and fought for it in its time of need versus the soft handed effeminate elite like Karzai who fled in the face of danger... why does the Karzai government deserve our sympathy or empathy when it has not proved itself except as comprised of opportunists?

2) How sure are you that the Taliban forces are comprised completely of Pakistani dupes? Is it not fair to assume that a great many of these men are Commander Daurans who want the invader out, and as that villager from Qandahar above stated, who want a government that will not sell the Quran for a dollar?

3) In the absence of a viable alternative, and in an environment where everyone violently resisting US occupation is labeled a Talib without consideration of true affiliations, why should Pashtuns support an installed fabulously corrupt regime that now has the Northern Alliance Parliamentarian stamp on its head versus a movement that is comprised of Afghans/Pashtuns attempting to remove it?

4) Bottom line, I am asking whether there is any legitimate resistance movement in your eyes, and is it wrong to label everyone that resists a Talib?

Also, I would hard pressed to accept the simple label as Pakistani proxy for men like Hakimullah, per his blatant involvement in the Khost operation and his simulataneous strikes against Pakistani installations.

As I said above, I think this supports the notion that the current movement that has set the Pashtun lands on fire is an innate response to the presence of an outsider force seeking to impose its will on the Pashtuns. It appears that once TTP recognized that the Pakistani government was playing a double game, it turned its guns against it (hence the drone strikes against Hakimullah).

As I have also argued before, I think Roadrunner has a point regarding stability bearing slow but gradual improvement. Expecting the Taliban to have built Harvard in a day or the Empire state building in Kabul in 10 years seems absurd to me.

I view that movement as very similar to the nascent puritan community here in the US in the 1600s in Massachussetts Bay. Those were Christian Taliban that, as you well know, burned women alive in the masses for being suspected witches and instituted theocratic Christian law. However, they were left alone and no French man or outsider came in and galvanized opposition from the Puritans and forced a reactionary setback in their mode of thinking. The result was literary men like Nathanial Hawthorne, whose great grandfather was the head of the community and had sent many young women to their death, ended up writing books like the Scarlet Letter as ways to come to terms with the theocratic reactionary mindset that killed so many here in that early American community. That transition from violent theocracy to something stable took time.

The Taliban were already moving in that direction:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/02/us-afghanistan-minorities-idUSTRE6610BM20100702 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/02/us-afghanistan-minorities-idUSTRE6610BM20100702)

"In a brief idyll in 1992, after the fall of the Moscow backed-government but before civil war erupted, there were around 200,000 Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan compared with around just a few thousand today.
When warring factions fought over Kabul, razing entire neighborhoods in deadly rocket barrages, the two communities became targets partly because of their religion, but also because they didn’t have a militia of their own for protection.

Armed men stormed a temple in Kabul and tore a religious book to avenge the destruction of a mosque by fanatic Hindus in India. After complaining of extortion, intimidation, kidnappings, theft and even rape, those with the means fled to India where they live as aliens and require visas, like other foreigners.

Ironically the rise to power of the hard-line Islamist Taliban marked an improvement in the lives of those who remained — and some emigres even started to return."

“The Taliban did not suppress us — they respected our religion and if we had any problem they would resolve it immediately, let alone delay it until the next day,” says Singh.

“We have no shelter, no land and no authority,” says Awtar Singh, a senator and the only non-Muslim voice in Afghanistan’s parliament.
“No one in the government listens to us, but we have to be patient, because we have no other options,” says Singh, 47.


The end result?: The US removed the only movement in recent Afghan history that provided a stable and uncorrupt government and has activated a reactionary pathway that will only feed further radicalization in the region.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,714936,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,714936,00.html)

"Scheuer: We're really not in a position to push these people. Who's going to replace them? There isn't anyone less corrupt. Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban"

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 06:48 PM
We have been giving you more than adequate of an explanation to the cause of the civil war and all unrest in Afghanistan but you have your fingers in your ears and your foot in your mouth. The root of the problem, the civil war, has been Pakistan. Even after the taliban subdued all the different factions that were vying for power, the ISI protected the biggest war criminal from their wraths - namely Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. This criminal has killed more Afghans than soviets...he had links to the KGB KHAD and the ISI knew of it. He operates the biggest drug network in the region and is more famous for throwing acid on girls.


We did have a solution ...one posited by Majrooh....but who was then killed by Hekmatyar...pakistan's bff.






You chid us by assuming Afghans to be backwards fools who can't come up with solution unless with the guiding hand of pakistan?

Salamoona

I think you make very valid points. 100% percent agreement on Pakistan needing to keep its nose out of it all.

Even Salam-Zaeef reminisced about the days of yore during his youth when Zahir Shah was in power. The question is really, what would the return of the Muhammadzai dynasty have meant for Afghanistan, and in what form would it have returned?

However, in his latest text, Scheuer details that it is a complete lie that the West abandoned Afghanistan. Quiet the contrary, he notes that as early as the late 80s, Zalmaay Khalilzaad and others were attempting to subvert the rise of an Islamic government and was utilizing the Afghans that fled to the West as a means to erect a secular regime that would marginalize many of the groups that had participated in the anti Russian effort. I can provide the quotes and the evidences he cites for this.

The original federalist Zahir Shah and Nadir Shah eras deferred a lot of local leadership to the tribes/clans, especially nearer to the border. This resulted in a lot of stability. For that particular reason, in the Pashtun villages, local disputes were referred to the jirgas and resolved in the time honored fashion. Zina, as an example, was punishable by death per both pashtunwali and Islamic law codes. With the secular imposition, this local legal structure would have been subverted (as the Karzai government currently attempting to do).

Finally, as I stated when I first started posting here, if we were to separate Pakistan out of the equation and simply view KP in isolation.. does KP have a right to say what goes on in Kabul? The problem is that KP has had a historical role as recently as under Nadir and Amanullah Shahs when both Kings rallied Wazir and Mehsud tribesmen to dispose of problems in Kabul. So now, if the Wazir tribe and the Mehsud tribe object to the Northern Alliance dominated Karzai government, do they not have historical precedent on their side for doing so? And if they do it violently, do they also not have Nadir and Amanullah to thank for establishing this precedent?

Finally, how does one tease out the will of KP from the will of Pakistan? If the Pashtuns of Pakistan decide that Karzai has to leave and backs armed movements to depose his government will the insurgency still not be labeled a Pakistani movement? If this is the case, why does the relationship between Afghan Pashtuns and Pakistani Pashtuns flow one way in the minds of such naysayers where Kabul ought to dictate the outcomes of matters in KP lands but KP denizens cannot dictate what happens in Kabul?

Toramana
03-23-2011, 06:49 PM
Barakzai, I wonder sometimes, are you really someone from Pakistan defence forum or a genuine Barazai Afghan...Your stance is exactly what Pakistan's intelligence apparatus is maintaining via its hired mouthpieces.

Furthermore, Micheal Shuer and Tribal Analysis Center, are your only souces of information.

Neither Pashtun "always rising against foreign invasion" is an absolute truth nor they always "fighting in the name of jehad to establish a theocracy" is a universal rule. Furthermore, Gulbuddins, Ahmad Shah Masoud, etc. pampering by Pakistan's security interest as far back as in 1973 is an established fact that no degree of manipulation or mispresentation of truth can obscure....

graveyardofempires
03-23-2011, 06:51 PM
Toramana oh please now you are sounding like goatrunner

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 06:57 PM
Barakzai, I wonder sometimes, are you really someone from Pakistan defence forum or a genuine Barazai Afghan...Your stance is exactly what Pakistan's intelligence apparatus is maintaining via its hired mouthpieces.


I know who I am and we know who you are:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/hujra-12/gabariyusufzai-ghalchatajiks-andarabafghanistan-lastofdinosaurs-sultanfaghalgabari-10575/ (http://www.pashtunforums.com/hujra-12/gabariyusufzai-ghalchatajiks-andarabafghanistan-lastofdinosaurs-sultanfaghalgabari-10575/)

There is only serial poster that jumps forums and that is you. I definitively proved there your sentiments lie with Tajiks and not the Pashtun people per your Papin Khel lineage and your absurd claim that Tajik populations exert influence in Pakistan. What really asserts even more that the poster on those forums was you is that the poster was the only individual on the Tajik forums that could not speak a word of dari.

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 07:00 PM
Barakzai, I wonder sometimes, are you really someone from Pakistan defence forum or a genuine Barazai Afghan...Your stance is exactly what Pakistan's intelligence apparatus is maintaining via its hired mouthpieces.

Besides, I am content enough with my lineage that I could care less whether my point agrees with Ku Klux Clansmen, Doctor Octopus, or Pakistanis. If I see logic in something, I state it. Finally, I see your general silence on Roadrunner now that he has completely broke ranks with your viewpoint. A few days ago you were calling him a "nice guy." Mysteriously, you have grown silent on him and the salient points of his arguments (note that I do not agree with a number of them, but I will address that later when I get home).

Toramana
03-23-2011, 07:50 PM
Barakzai, I petty on you...I am not suffering from any kind of identity crisis neither the one based in religion nor the other rooted in tribalism. What I observe is, how perfectly aligned are your views with those of Pakistanis of both genres; the liberal secular as well as the fundamentalist. The clean shaven general of Pakistan army or an equally refined-looking civilian Pakistani ideologue/nationalist can have the same stance as an Islamist fundamentalists like General Hamid Gul and Qazi Hussain Ahmad when it comes to Taleban i.e. they are an indegenous Pashtun movement resisting foreign occupation. That is why one skeptically sees a Pakistani in you instead of an Afghan.

Now your argument runs like this.

"Pashtuns have always risen against foreign occupation" and "that they have always risen in the name of Islam"...And this not to mention the distortion of an established fact not just from onesource but multiple sources and perspectives...

graveyardofempires
03-23-2011, 08:26 PM
Toramana is here trying to say "If you are against the war in Afghanistan you support isi and pakistan interests" how is that even possible?

Azmal
03-23-2011, 08:58 PM
Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan. Let's start with strategic depth and Taliban.


Wrora,
Creation of Pakistan on historical afghan land as “successor of British Raj” in itself is greatest danger and threat for us Afghans. Ali Jenah speech regarding status of FATA two months after creation of Pakistan clearly state continuation of colonial British forward policy…ex.. political agents, and collative punishment. In addition to this, in absent of national coherence in Pakistan, political Islam has been the ONLY means at government’s disposal for survival….Thus naturally Pakistani creates and support terrorist in shape of Taliban and naturally Pakistan will do everything possible to radicalize Pashtons society. This is exactly the reason why Pashton nationalist parties have been prevented from so called FATA while the “Islamist” has been given free hand and state support in order.
In short occupation of Pashtonistan at hands of servants of colonial British NOT only threaten the survival of Afghan culture , heritage , identity and noble values , but even our existence as a people as well. Worst off they violate the sanctity of Islam by using Islam when it’s convenient…you can’t pick and choose parts of Islam to justify its society and then ignore the rest. That is a travesty to Islam. Holy Islam and our Pashton culture teaches us to be ruled by ourselves and not by others, and being apart of Pakistan a country which is not formed by our OWN authority is a violation of both ethics.

Azmal
03-23-2011, 09:13 PM
Taliban are a symptom of Afghanistan. The Afghan-Soviet war, the radicalization, what to do with all those radicals who only knew militancy. Pakistan just stamped the name Taliban onto these individuals.

I wish they'd unbrainwash themselves, but it will take a while. In the meantime, they're too much of a popular movement within Afghanistan to ignore. Reconciliation is the only answer, plus lots of funding for development.


Popular movement? Then why Taliban are against election?....lets us assume for sake of argument there is a culture/religious ideology behind the terrorist like Taleban movement…that sustains them. Then the question arises where does the motivation for that ideology comes from? … Deobandi School of Thought? and many others of the type, Paki state-funded Mufties, and Paki State sponsored Mullahs? Where this religious ideology comes from? Do you know that all these are not indigenous to the Pashtons at all? Pashtons being a proud nation/ethnicity with history going back thousand of years do not need a religious identity. In other words the use of religion as a means for acquiring political power either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. In fact the crisis of identity is with the Panjabi state Pakistan..which needs religion to bind it together in the absence of any meaningful contract between the various groups for a collective well being of all its citizens. You remove that religious motivation and preach secularism for a while…and the phenomena of Talebanisation will recede automatically ..because it is superfluous, imposed and NOT indigenous to the Pashton culture which offers a much better alternative identity.
Fact of matter is that terrorist like Taleban were not a force/movement until they were given a political agenda, to control Afghanistan and marginalize the Pasthon nationalists in the context of Pak-Afghan relations. Which means that there is nothing culture/religious about the Taleban, its the political agenda behind that facade which needs to be addressed / neutralized if there has to be a long lasting solution to the problem.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 09:48 PM
I know this is not adressed to me but one thing you are forgetting is the the strategic depth in KP was to pakistan's benifit. The pakistani establishment earned billions of $ from that period and maybe even their nuclear capability was part of the deal. Afghanistan has arguably gained nothing and has been fragmented and ethnic groups fighting each other supported by opposing countries.


All I hear are these hypotheses. If I were to start a rumour that Karzai is in reality Chairman Mao with a face disguise, then I could say like you that Karzai is Chairman Mao, but what evidence is there to justify this? None.

In the same way, I would ask you to provide evidence that being allowed nuclear weapons was part of this deal.

Dollars were given to the Pakistani establishment, and they probably pocketed it instead of building madrassas like they were supposed to. Any South Asian or Central Asian establishment would have done the same.

I can tell you what Pakistan did get out of it. It wasn't money or being able to go nuclear. It was to prevent the Soviet Union from threatening it.

LIKEWISE, should India invade Pakistan, Afghanistan would play strategic depth because it is in Afghanistan's interest to do so.

Explain what the difference between Pakistan playing strategic depth for Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet war, and Afghanistan playing strategic depth for Pakistan in the event of an Indian invasion would be?


so no I wouldn't call that hypocracy,


What is the difference then?


Its not as if Pakistan can always dictate what it wants, the pakistani elite will sell their mothers and daughters if they can gain money and power from it, same is true of Afghan elites and corrupt leaders.

The matter is really simple as long as there is pakistan, it will keep playing this strategic depth game in Afghanistan, As Afghans our priority is to work for the intrest of Afghanistan and if that means the destruction of Pakistan then so be it, The pakistani establishment has done exactly that. It has destroyed Afghanistan for its own survival and games with India. Our turn will come inshallah.


You really don't understand what I'm saying to you.

Strategic depth is a tactic that contributed substantially to the outcome of the Soviet-Afghan war.

It is in Afghanistan's interest to have Pakistan's KPW playing startegic depth for it. It is in Pakistan's military interest to have eastern Afghanistan support it in the event of an occupation. I will get onto the destruction of Afghanistan a little later, since again I see very little evidence for the assertions here.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 10:15 PM
No. Pakistan used it's own land to make sure it gains influence over Pakistan. Afghanistan had no proper government. Nor were Afghans smart enough to know what's going on. Pakistan trained them[willingly] and sent them off to fight. It's not like Pakistan did Afghanistan a favor. Pakistan found herself a 5th province. A province that was backwards, and had one of the worlds lowest literacy rate. Training Mujahdeen[with Pakistanis free-will]was a golden opportunity for their own strategic depth. So in other words, training Afghans in Pashtunkhwa was part of Pakistans strategic depth, not Afghanistan. And if you want proof for this, just look at the outcome of the war. Pakistan made billions, Pakistan got US aircraft, and it was the Pashtuns who suffered on both sides of the war. Pakistan gained the most out of the civil war. She found herself a destabilized, Pakistan dependent Afghanistan. You being a Thinktank, I don't even think I have to make you understand how beneficial the war that Afghans fought was for Pakistan.


From what I understood of this, you are saying that Pakistan allowed the Afghan mujahideen bases in Pakistan during the Afghan_Soviet war (strategic depth for Afghanistan) because it was part of a long term, rather devious, ploy to make Afghanistan subservient to it.

I'm sorry, but this is total paranoia not based in any fact.

Tell me what the plan was. How was Pakistan going to control anyone? Would Dostum be loyal to anyone. Dostum would switch sides in the blink of an eye to whoever was winning. How would Pakistan exert control over any of these warlords?


Pakistan did the opposite. Pakistan funded, and supported the Mujahadeen for her own benefit. And that outcome shows us what Pakistan's intentions were. Afghanistan served as a proxy for Pakistan, and even as we speak, Pakistan is continuing it's dirty game. That's not what Afghans want Roadrunner, let's be a bit more realistic.


Pakistan involved itself in Afghanistan for its own interests. I've read some internet Pakistanis talk about how Pakistan did it for Afghanistan, which is completely nonsense. Pakistan provided strategic depth for Afghanistan for its own interests. That is what every nation in the world does, or should do. It looks after its interests.

The Afghan mujahideen did not have to use Pakistani territory. But they did. Because it was in their interests to do so.


You still didn't answer me very basic, yet elementary question.

Do you support the Taliban? What do you think of the Taliban? I want a very basic answer.


Ideologically, definitely not. I'm anti war. Do you believe that the Taliban can be ignored for the moment as part of the Afghan government, or they're too powerful?


If Pakistan wanted something to happen, it could've executed. All that is nothing but smokescreen for the international media. Pakistan's intentions are very clear, it want's a friendly, and dependent Afghanistan. And that is exactly what it pursued, an even today it's supporting the Taliban to pursue that goal. You can tell me all you want about these meetings but the reality is what we see, and what we witnessed.


A friendly Afghanistan (ruled by Pashtuns presumably) would be in Pakistan's interests. A feudal Afghanistan, an unstable Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interests. Instability will cross the border and find its way into Pakistan imo.

What Pakistan wants is a friendly Afghanistan imo.


Brother, I don't mind elaborating. However, can you at least read my first few posts in this thread? I really showed you how the Pakistani government played a hypocrites role.

I'm not in a rush. We can take this slowly, that way I can learn from you. And you can learn from me. That's whole purpose of this site, learning.

You've mentioned foreign policy in your first posts in this thread. That does not have anything to do with what I asked. This is what I asked. This is what happened following the Soviet withdrawal. Who was at fault for the ensuing Civil War? This is who caused the instability in Afghanistan. If it was Pakistan, explain why you think so.


As far as I am aware, the UN under Sevan suggested a five point peace plan for power sharing. It did not work. The reason it didn't work was predominantly down to what? Pakistan? Iran? I don't think either were at fault. It was the UN expecting everyone would listen to them, and not bothering to enforce their resolutions. Where did Pakistan fit into this equation? Pakistan did enter the equation later on in trying to unify the maniacs that militant deobandi Islam's spread had created.

Now if I'm wrong on this, explain to me how Pakistan was responsible for the Civil War? You might be correct and I'm missing something.

roadrunner
03-23-2011, 10:33 PM
We have been giving you more than adequate of an explanation to the cause of the civil war and all unrest in Afghanistan but you have your fingers in your ears and your foot in your mouth. The root of the problem, the civil war, has been Pakistan. Even after the taliban subdued all the different factions that were vying for power, the ISI protected the biggest war criminal from their wraths - namely Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. This criminal has killed more Afghans than soviets...he had links to the KGB KHAD and the ISI knew of it. He operates the biggest drug network in the region and is more famous for throwing acid on girls.


Noone's given me an explanation of who caused the Civil War. I've heard many people blurt out Pakistan, but noone has told me how.

You do realize that the Civil War in Afghanistan started in 1991, well before the emergence of the Taliban? Who started it in 1991 is what I was asking? Don't blurt Pakistan. What did Pakistan do to instigate the Civil War? And give some evidence.

Let's assume the Afghan people wanted the ex-king back. Why wasn't he part of the 5-point UN peace plan? And why did Masood launch an attack on Kabul before the peace plan was finalized?

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 10:46 PM
Barakzai, I petty on you...I am not suffering from any kind of identity crisis neither the one based in religion nor the other rooted in tribalism. What I observe is, how perfectly aligned are your views with those of Pakistanis of both genres; the liberal secular as well as the fundamentalist. The clean shaven general of Pakistan army or an equally refined-looking civilian Pakistani ideologue/nationalist can have the same stance as an Islamist fundamentalists like General Hamid Gul and Qazi Hussain Ahmad when it comes to Taleban i.e. they are an indegenous Pashtun movement resisting foreign occupation. That is why one skeptically sees a Pakistani in you instead of an Afghan.

Now your argument runs like this.

"Pashtuns have always risen against foreign occupation" and "that they have always risen in the name of Islam"...And this not to mention the distortion of an established fact not just from onesource but multiple sources and perspectives...

Its "pity" as in "I pity you." Petty means "insignificant/trifeling."

I never said they rose "in the name of Islam" and were "sahaba" replicas. I am merely saying what John Esposito noted in his survey "Who Speaks for Islam?" And that is that folks in that region utilize Islam as a rallying tool similar to how religion is utilized as a rallying tool in the American south and midwest via the Baptist pulpit. It doesnt mean that they are all Jesus Christ Incarnate. Quit seeing the Islamic bogey man around each dark corner, it does you injustice. Its no different than how the Iranian people, communists and all rallied around the Islamist banner. Professor Gerade at Vanderbilt has stated this in his sound work on the Iranian revolution in regard to Islam serving as a galvanizing force for all sorts of people responding to incursions in Persia, especially against the Pahlavi regime.

Regarding Scheuer/Hoh/Tribal Analysis center, you have been incapable of debunking their work. Why would I quit quoting a doyen like Dr. Scheuer who continues to be spot on in his analyses and has no vested interest in seeing Islamists win their causes? Your criticism of utilizing him as a resource is absurd. To me, its like a nurse practitioner criticizing a high impact factor source like the New England Journal of Medicine (meaning an amateur criticizing a well regarded and established source)... or in the engineering field, like an auto mechanic saying that the IEEE journals were being cited too much (equally absurd). So until you deal with their work and do a point by point rebuttal of it, I'll keep smashing your arguments with their evidence leaving you in the dust as you answer with what I refer to now as "Toramanaisms."

Definition of Toramanaism?
Toramanaism: The act of defining any and all things one is uncomfortable with as an Islamist/Pakistani/Arab mediated plot. A subset of the psychological coping mechanism of denial.

You know Toramana, I continue to be depressed at your continued lack of logic. As one former engineer to someone like yourself (a current engineer) I thought that the field was built on evidence and logic as opposed to emotional driven rhetoric. Engineers are supposed to be the lethal witness in a court case because they see the world as it is, not as they want it to be. They are the ultimate pragmatists. Yet you defy this character type and continue to utilize the following strategy that even the youth like Graveyard pick up on:

Here is your algorithm:

1) ANP driven rhetoric comes out
2) If 1) is opposed with evidence to the contrary label it Pakistani or Arab motivated
3) of 2) does not work, continue to repeat until self is convinced that the opposing viewpoint is utterly and purely Hamid Gul generated.

So, brother to give you some rest, I'll give you what you want. I'll erect an alternate reality (nonreality) that you can live in to comfort yourself.
I'll let you assume that I am actually the fusion of a lab project:

They took Arab gametes and fused them with Pakistani gametes and created me in a lab in the Panjab. I then grew up in Hamid Gul's basement on a leash. I was taken to Pashtunkhwa and I learned pashto there and was given many books to study Pashtun culture. Being the lab creation that I was, my weak DNA started to break down and I had to be shipped to America for folks at the NIH to work on strengthening it. In my spare time, I enjoy dancing bangra and instead of praying salah, I sing the Pakistani national anthem as well as praises of the Panjab. I chose the name BarakzaiAbdali because the initials form B/A, or if you say it right, P/A, for my codename: PanjabiArab.

There you go Toramana, I hope this gives you comfort and allows you to rest comforted that you exposed Hamid Gul's laboratory creation. loool.

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 11:02 PM
Toramana is here trying to say "If you are against the war in Afghanistan you support isi and pakistan interests" how is that even possible?

Wrorre, they are uncomfortable with their own past mistakes and sins that either they or their parents committed when they left their people to fight the Russian juggernaut or now as they surrender their people over to the Pakistani fauj under some feudal banner called ANP. They refuse to comment on Commander Dauran as depicted by Paul Refsdahl because it reminds them of their humiliations and guilt. They know he is as Afghan as they come and that he represents the beating heart of the Afghan populace that rises against what they seek to impose upon it. They cannot, with their own hands, kill such a man who represents, in his most basic element, the proof positive that struggle against tyranny can proceed with even the most base weapons if one has the heart of a lion.

There were oppressors like this before. When the CIA agent held a gun to Che Guevara, after they caught him in Bolivia as he struggled against imperialism under the banner of an ideology that I do not agree with (yet I still admire his goals), they could not pull the trigger. He, per their own records, looked squarely at them and said "what, are you afraid to simply kill a man?" And the agent passed the gun to his Bolivian henchman who pulled the trigger.

These people, like Karzai Bibi/Toramana are comfortable letting the Americans kill Commander Dauran and his children because they do not want their own hands to get dirty. In Baygham's words, "why get your own hands dirty when you got a slave to do it for you!"

They sleep at night by labeling these folks that carry the banner against tyranny with terms like Terrorist/Fascist/Paki agent etc. In their heart of hearts they know that they are kil

Force them to comment on who this man is, and to justify how this individual is either brainwashed, indoctrinated by Pakistan, ISI created, or some secret Panjabi in Pashtun clothes:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242)

BarakzaiAbdali
03-23-2011, 11:14 PM
Noone's given me an explanation of who caused the Civil War. I've heard many people blurt out Pakistan, but noone has told me how.

You do realize that the Civil War in Afghanistan started in 1991, well before the emergence of the Taliban? Who started it in 1991 is what I was asking? Don't blurt Pakistan. What did Pakistan do to instigate the Civil War? And give some evidence.

Let's assume the Afghan people wanted the ex-king back. Why wasn't he part of the 5-point UN peace plan? And why did Masood launch an attack on Kabul before the peace plan was finalized?

I think I can offer you some information. Per Scheuer's latest book, a bio of Osama Bin Ladin, he says that of the factions, the contribution Pakistan made to the Civil War was as follows:

Saudi Intelligence and the ISI supported Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (he was a favorite of Turky Bin Faisal). Abdul Azzam on the other hand supported Mossoud. Mr. Bin Ladin appeared to support a Pashtun dominance as well and broke ranks with Azzam, but remained cordial. So I think that there is evidence that Pakistan did have its money on a particular horse. The dilemma was that they simulataneously backed Hekmetyaar in the assumption that if their other war horses lost, they could at least have someone sympathic to their cause. Bin Ladin collected the various factions together and attempted to bargain a peace between the factions to no avail. He was in Jalalabad and had not heard of the Taliban when they poured out of Helmand and approached Jalalabad. When they took it, they asked him his loyalties and made an armistace with them. However, even he was surprised by their rapid ascendency from the chaos of the Civil War. So it would seem reasonable to assume that where Sayyaf and Hekmetyaar could not win with their backers money/arms; Pakistan saw more promise in this nascent movement being cradled in the Arghandab and Urzogan that eventually gave birth to the Taliban and catalyzed what was likely to happen anyways. In the mean time, America (once again per Dr. Scheuer's excellent work) and western powers had not, as is popularly stated, abandoned Afghanistan. They were working heavily and actively to install a secular and irreligious government, which was ridiculous as they had utilized religious and devout men to win the war while soft handed, effeminate, elitists ran to mud baths in Italy.

BLS_1919v2.0
03-23-2011, 11:21 PM
Barakzai your initial argument on Khyber-Pashtunkhwa is fallacious. The reason Pashtunkhwa should be separated from the policy of Pakistan (in the way you described it) is simply that one of the intentions of Pakistan's policy was to sideline the Pashtuns east of the durand line. Pakistan, due to the initial history of its creation, has had a rough patch in that region so they had to formulate a policy which they perceived could sideline the Pashtuns east of the line politically. Second of all, had these policies bore any fruit for Pashtunkhwa Pashtuns then they wouldn't be the primary losers in it. Up until now, Pashtunkhwa has gone backwards in all counts thanks to this policy. And it is becoming even more clearer that those regions are at best a second tier region and at worse a backyard for strategic games. I don't think it is fair for you to make such statements and you have to stop going back "listening to kabul, etc". That is not the point. The 30 years of war in Afghanistan has had political consequences for Pashtuns on both sides, it is not as simple as saying they won't listen to kabul or Kabul won't accept them. The situation has fundamentally crossed that. When we look at Pashtun lands now we have to look at it from different perspective and with different actors.

Michael Scheur is a decent analyst at best, but he is by no means the only one....one can also take a look at Selig Harrison, Ahmed Rashid, etc.

P.S. ISI initially supported Hekmatyaar until the 90s bore a different outcome during the siege of Kabul. Azzam and OBL's break I believe also came from some internal issues of the Arab fighter's ranks.

fzpz
03-23-2011, 11:30 PM
I respect Selig Harrison for crying in an opinion piece about China building a hi-speed train through a tectonic collision zone, through the highest mountains in the world, to a place where there is no economic, cultural, or political viability of such an adventure by the chinese. The chinese are also putting in missile silos in Gilgit-Baltistan because they ran out of places to put them in all the mountains in Tibet. I suspect your crush on Harrison is more for his comical diatribes than actual reason or analysis.

BLS_1919v2.0
03-23-2011, 11:33 PM
I respect Selig Harrison for crying in an opinion piece about China building a hi-speed train through a tectonic collision zone, through the highest mountains in the world, to a place where there is no economic, cultural, or political viability of such an adventure by the chinese. The chinese are also putting in missile silos in Gilgit-Baltistan because they ran out of places to put them in all the mountains in Tibet. I suspect your crush on Harrison is more for his comical diatribes than actual reason or analysis.

fzpz typical lol. The man correctly predicted the 1965 war and has been one of the leading experts on the region. He has given many talks on the internal dynamics of Pakistan and probably runs circles on the likes muhibe watan when it comes to the politics of Baluchistan and Sindh. Of course he is not infallible and his article on the China-karakarom has its issues...but then again do you know of any experts who have not made similar mis-calculations? I can give you one, it is called operation Gibralter ;-).

BarakzaiAbdali
03-24-2011, 12:00 AM
Barakzai your initial argument on Khyber-Pashtunkhwa is fallacious. The reason Pashtunkhwa should be separated from the policy of Pakistan (in the way you described it) is simply that one of the intentions of Pakistan's policy was to sideline the Pashtuns east of the durand line. Pakistan, due to the initial history of its creation, has had a rough patch in that region so they had to formulate a policy which they perceived could sideline the Pashtuns east of the line politically. Second of all, had these policies bore any fruit for Pashtunkhwa Pashtuns then they wouldn't be the primary losers in it. Up until now, Pashtunkhwa has gone backwards in all counts thanks to this policy. And it is becoming even more clearer that those regions are at best a second tier region and at worse a backyard for strategic games. I don't think it is fair for you to make such statements and you have to stop going back "listening to kabul, etc". That is not the point. The 30 years of war in Afghanistan has had political consequences for Pashtuns on both sides, it is not as simple as saying they won't listen to kabul or Kabul won't accept them. The situation has fundamentally crossed that. When we look at Pashtun lands now we have to look at it from different perspective and with different actors.

Michael Scheur is a decent analyst at best, but he is by no means the only one....one can also take a look at Selig Harrison, Ahmed Rashid, etc.

P.S. ISI initially supported Hekmatyaar until the 90s bore a different outcome during the siege of Kabul. Azzam and OBL's break I believe also came from some internal issues of the Arab fighter's ranks.

Salamoona BLS wrorre. Thank you for your measured response. I think you misunderstood me. In my wildest dreams wrorre, I see a state spanning the major Pashtun cities of Qandahar, Jalalabad, and Peshawar. And I think we are just missing eachother in what I am attempting to say. In it, I attend your wedding and fire guns at Toramana's wedding if he invites me. But then there is reality.

I am trying to say that the general refrain (one that I believed and myself advocated) until I traveled there to Pashtunkhwa, was the view that Graveyard espouses. Basically, if you wanted to see a younger version of me, look right at Graveyard. He's not at all naieve... he's brave, patriotic, and a wonderful person. However, he also lives in idylls of the king, which all of us are raised on. Abdali and his exploits are our staples for breakfast lunch and dinner. All of us dream of the return of his daur.

What I am commenting on (and let me clarify that I DO NOT think that Graveyard holds this view) is this absurd scenario:

Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself vs Afghan troops/ANA soldiers/tribal soldiers pour across the border and retake it ---> holds a referendum --> joins Afghanistan proper ---> legitimate Pashtun leaders (i.e. Not Sherpao, not the Mianguls, etc) swear fealty to Karzai --> We throw flowers at eachother --> the monarchy resumes or a republic is created where basically transplant American governance style to Pashtunkhwa and you have a Pashtun Obama running in an election against a Pashtun McCain one day.

A possible scenario is Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself --> it looks out for its own interests and has free trade with whatever Afghanistan emerges and close links emerge over time.

I think the anecdotal evidence that the majority of Peshawaris that I meet think that Mullah Omar was perfect for Afghanistan but not to rule over them, and now they also think Karzai is in their dialect "Kriyaa titoo (they told me titto is urdoo for donkey)" makes it hard for me to believe in scenario 1 my friend.

Where I ought to caution you from wishful thinking is in regard to FATA itself and I can provide evidences. I can refer you to a well known source (a text on 19th century governance in Afghanistan) and I am married into the Wazirs and can provide you anecdote as well from this experience (here is where Toramana chimes in regarding my in laws having some admiration for Zia). I will provide these for you later as I am traveling at an airport and am writing fast. But the source (called Tribal Governance in 19th Century Afghanistan) indicates that Ahmad Shah Baba had great difficulty in securing loyalty from the Wazirs and never was able to extract tax from them. They and the Mehsuds were fiercly independent against Durrani rule. In fact, they never swore fealty to the crown.

The other thing is that Wana itself, per in laws of mine from there that are in the yargu khel malik lineage, was taken from adjacent tribes in Afghanistan. Despite this occuring way back, there is still bad blood, hence the fued between the Kharotiyaan and the Waziryaan. In fact, when Zahir Shah armed the Kharotyaan and when they made excursions under his directives after the creation of Pakistan, it was a disaster because it was liking army one tribe against its enemy. Many Wazirs were killed during these excursions. So now, imagine if an Afghan tribal army cross the frontier to reclaim it... do you think the Waziryaan would greet the Kharotyaan like brothers coming to free them from Pakistani hegemony??? And do you think the Kharotyaan would not seize and take lands?

BLS, these are realities and they have to be considered. That is what I mean when I advocate against a kabulcentric design where Afghanyaan march across the border and "retake" Pashtunkhwa". Each tribe, in the modern era, is well equipped to fight long and hard. You do not want Pashtun on Pashtun violence and massacres to occur for some pipe dream.

So once again, regarding the fracture of Pakistan... I am with you all the way brother. Regarding the rest of it... show me your vision and build the evidence otherwise, otherwise I cannot but help follow the evidence trail.

Regarding Scheuer, he has been spot on about the Afghan escalations that Obama would pursue and wrote about it in Imperial Hubris and Marching Towards Hell. He basically discussed the Mumbai Massacres before they happened... he is an amazing anti terrorism/security studies mind. I will look into your other recs though with great vigor.

Remember, I deeply respect you and Admin Khan. If you and Admin Khan create the Admin Khan/BLS insurgency I would have no problem saying its the best alternative. Until then, I have to go on assuming that the only show in town is Omar and his boys and that they have far more legitmacy than Hamid Bibi who is basically the left hand of Fahim Kaka.

BLS_1919v2.0
03-24-2011, 12:19 AM
Salamoona BLS wrorre. Thank you for your measured response. I think you misunderstood me. In my wildest dreams wrorre, I see a state spanning the major Pashtun cities of Qandahar, Jalalabad, and Peshawar. And I think we are just missing eachother in what I am attempting to say. In it, I attend your wedding and fire guns at Toramana's wedding if he invites me. But then there is reality.

I am trying to say that the general refrain (one that I believed and myself advocated) until I traveled there to Pashtunkhwa, was the view that Graveyard espouses. Basically, if you wanted to see a younger version of me, look right at Graveyard. He's not at all naieve... he's brave, patriotic, and a wonderful person. However, he also lives in idylls of the king, which all of us are raised on. Abdali and his exploits are our staples for breakfast lunch and dinner. All of us dream of the return of his daur.

What I am commenting on (and let me clarify that I DO NOT think that Graveyard holds this view) is this absurd scenario:

Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself vs Afghan troops/ANA soldiers/tribal soldiers pour across the border and retake it ---> holds a referendum --> joins Afghanistan proper ---> legitimate Pashtun leaders (i.e. Not Sherpao, not the Mianguls, etc) swear fealty to Karzai --> We throw flowers at eachother --> the monarchy resumes or a republic is created where basically transplant American governance style to Pashtunkhwa and you have a Pashtun Obama running in an election against a Pashtun McCain one day.

A possible scenario is Pakistan fractures --> Khybar Pashtunkhwa asserts itself --> it looks out for its own interests and has free trade with whatever Afghanistan emerges and close links emerge over time.

I think the anecdotal evidence that the majority of Peshawaris that I meet think that Mullah Omar was perfect for Afghanistan but not to rule over them, and now they also think Karzai is in their dialect "Kriyaa titoo (they told me titto is urdoo for donkey)" makes it hard for me to believe in scenario 1 my friend.

Where I ought to caution you from wishful thinking is in regard to FATA itself and I can provide evidences. I can refer you to a well known source (a text on 19th century governance in Afghanistan) and I am married into the Wazirs and can provide you anecdote as well from this experience (here is where Toramana chimes in regarding my in laws having some admiration for Zia). I will provide these for you later as I am traveling at an airport and am writing fast. But the source (called Tribal Governance in 19th Century Afghanistan) indicates that Ahmad Shah Baba had great difficulty in securing loyalty from the Wazirs and never was able to extract tax from them. They and the Mehsuds were fiercly independent against Durrani rule. In fact, they never swore fealty to the crown.

The other thing is that Wana itself, per in laws of mine from there that are in the yargu khel malik lineage, was taken from adjacent tribes in Afghanistan. Despite this occuring way back, there is still bad blood, hence the fued between the Kharotiyaan and the Waziryaan. In fact, when Zahir Shah armed the Kharotyaan and when they made excursions under his directives after the creation of Pakistan, it was a disaster because it was liking army one tribe against its enemy. Many Wazirs were killed during these excursions. So now, imagine if an Afghan tribal army cross the frontier to reclaim it... do you think the Waziryaan would greet the Kharotyaan like brothers coming to free them from Pakistani hegemony??? And do you think the Kharotyaan would not seize and take lands?

BLS, these are realities and they have to be considered. That is what I mean when I advocate against a kabulcentric design where Afghanyaan march across the border and "retake" Pashtunkhwa". Each tribe, in the modern era, is well equipped to fight long and hard. You do not want Pashtun on Pashtun violence and massacres to occur for some pipe dream.

So once again, regarding the fracture of Pakistan... I am with you all the way brother. Regarding the rest of it... show me your vision and build the evidence otherwise, otherwise I cannot but help follow the evidence trail.

Regarding Scheuer, he has been spot on about the Afghan escalations that Obama would pursue and wrote about it in Imperial Hubris and Marching Towards Hell. He basically discussed the Mumbai Massacres before they happened... he is an amazing anti terrorism/security studies mind. I will look into your other recs though with great vigor.

Remember, I deeply respect you and Admin Khan. If you and Admin Khan create the Admin Khan/BLS insurgency I would have no problem saying its the best alternative. Until then, I have to go on assuming that the only show in town is Omar and his boys and that they have far more legitmacy than Hamid Bibi who is basically the left hand of Fahim Kaka.

I see where you are coming from. However this has little to do with Afghanistan and more to do with what happened to Pashtunkhwa post-1893. Pashtunkhwa (and I told this to Admin khan, amir ul ghaznavi, etc) is that within Pashtunkhwa there are political gaps. These gaps are what differentiates between the peshawarite from a swatae from a wazir, etc. However, you have to remember that necessity is an important driver. In the event of a breakdown in the region it won't be possible for Pashtunkhwa (Khyber part) to be split from the other areas. The resulting scenario will push it towards a sort of unity. I think this is will also eventually led to unity with the Pashtuns to the west of the durand line.

Imagine a scenario of a breakdown of Pakistan with a possible civil war (or even stable Afghanistan). In either case there is an issue of dependence. Pashtunkhwa and Afghanistan will have to depend on each other for cultural and economic reasons. It can't be that Khyber-Pashtunkhwa will seek out a future in a vacuum, without it affecting the other Pashtun areas. FATA itself despite the tribal enmities, still has strong links west of the durand line (dare I say much stronger there than to Khyber-Pashtunkhwa).

Also remember the political actors have changed. Those days of a separate yousafzai confederacy, or khattak confederacy, of Ghilzai, wazir, etc are gone. Now for the most part political parties (or opportunities) are transcending. We have to really look at the actors who are politically or militarily active (taliban, a post-taliban without pakistan, anp, pkmap, post-these parties outside of Pakistan, etc). Only then can we gauge the situation further. Obviously with those political gaps, differences arise, but what nation or people don't have this? Even US, despite its development, is going to a cultural divide (or at least how they have marketed it, liberals vs conservatives, bible belt, etc). This is the nature of any society. However with more stability the two sides will come closer...it is the only natural bond and the only one artificially divided. Even today the amount of trade between the two is huge, imagine if Pashtunkhwa was autonomous and Afghanistan was stable...the possibilities are huge. It isn't an issue about retaking, those days are gone, now it is an issue of a scenario in a region that can prompt a change in how we view Central and South Asia. The line is almost non-existent to the locals, any major push can result in greater changes (remember no government including the talibs acknowledge).

Ideally the best scenario is to stabilize Afghanistan and make Pashtunkhwa an autonomous unified region (even within Pakistan). That, in my opinion, is the only logical format to overcome any political and regional gaps over the years.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 12:44 AM
I think I can offer you some information. Per Scheuer's latest book, a bio of Osama Bin Ladin, he says that of the factions, the contribution Pakistan made to the Civil War was as follows:

Saudi Intelligence and the ISI supported Abdul Rasul Sayyaf (he was a favorite of Turky Bin Faisal). Abdul Azzam on the other hand supported Mossoud. Mr. Bin Ladin appeared to support a Pashtun dominance as well and broke ranks with Azzam, but remained cordial. So I think that there is evidence that Pakistan did have its money on a particular horse. The dilemma was that they simulataneously backed Hekmetyaar in the assumption that if their other war horses lost, they could at least have someone sympathic to their cause. Bin Ladin collected the various factions together and attempted to bargain a peace between the factions to no avail. He was in Jalalabad and had not heard of the Taliban when they poured out of Helmand and approached Jalalabad. When they took it, they asked him his loyalties and made an armistace with them. However, even he was surprised by their rapid ascendency from the chaos of the Civil War. So it would seem reasonable to assume that where Sayyaf and Hekmetyaar could not win with their backers money/arms; Pakistan saw more promise in this nascent movement being cradled in the Arghandab and Urzogan that eventually gave birth to the Taliban and catalyzed what was likely to happen anyways. In the mean time, America (once again per Dr. Scheuer's excellent work) and western powers had not, as is popularly stated, abandoned Afghanistan. They were working heavily and actively to install a secular and irreligious government, which was ridiculous as they had utilized religious and devout men to win the war while soft handed, effeminate, elitists ran to mud baths in Italy.

It's not as simple as that.

Sayyaf was Saudi's man in Afghanistan. The GID supported him. Hekmatyar was probably ISI's man for a while. Dostum probably was Uzbekistan's man etc. They all had backing from somewhere or other.

But what caused the failure of the UN peace plan? Which man was it? Massoud for his pre-emptive strike on Kabul?

Or was it Rabbani for his sham election by the "Council of wise men", which violated the Peshawar Accords that everyone agreed to?

A bit later, in 1993, the Islamabad Accords were signed. Mujadidi became president of Afghanistan, but his term finished and it was Rabbani's turn. Again, Rabbani, once in power, did not vacate the presidency but tried holding onto it.

Since Rabbani's name comes up twice, who was pulling his strings? Pakistan?

It's very easy sitting blurting out Pakistan to everything. But the reality is it was nowhere like that.

ComradePashtun
03-24-2011, 12:54 AM
Pakizai,

You are treading on a flaw logic with your lateral Paki-defence mindset. I guess you too need to update since such hard end approach for Pashtun unity i.e. through Afghan tribal or otherwise even ANA conquest is essentially obsolete. Even if that was the case Kharoti and Waziri ancient clash won't set the standards. Try hard. If anything Waziris and Maseeds have championed collectivised Pashtun sense of macro and solidarity as a nation through the course of history. Had the Afghan government been just a little stronger when Pakistan came in to existence it could well have been an integral part of today's Afghanistan. And at times they were let down by Kabul either through choice or compulsion and pressure to take their independence for Angreezan first and then Filthistan.

Although I agree with alot in what you have made the effort draw on in term of how Afghans are fending against occupation, but that itself negates your Paki line of Mullah Omar being "the only game in the town." it's the people who are fighting not Mullah Omar who is most probably hiden in a safe-house.

Will add my view on the topic some other time, gotta catch up with something.

ComradePashtun
03-24-2011, 01:15 AM
Roadrunner,

In all honesty,at least in my view and probably history will prove it too, that the civil war was by and large an internal Afghan making. The question you are posing answer it first in foremost. Pakistan's manipulation cannot be ruled out. Your attribution of Afghans equating their use of Pakistan to strategic depth of Pakistan is comical. :-) I will reply to it when I have time and chance it is killing me using my phone now.

Michin Khel
03-24-2011, 01:41 AM
barakzai saab inter-tribal differences and clashes r not as such as you r assuming. Wazir and mehsud do have differences and enemity but they quickly become one outside waziristan and their unity is examplary.
Recently marwats and bhittanis had war but both associate with each other than with others because they are neighbours and r similar tribes in terms of dialect and culture.
We fight with each other but we also love each other, sorry its hard for me to explain the point in my broken english.

khushal
03-24-2011, 02:26 AM
Just trying to inject reality my main man. Don't get defensive. I do love you despite our disagreements.:hug1"You're right, i should read the Qur'an. It would teach both of us not to make up crap.

FZPZ,
It is in no ones interest for me to make things up, I saw this with my own eyes but here are some references.
POSSIBLE THEFT OF U.S. AFGHAN AID BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE G.A.O. - NYTimes.com (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D7113FF937A15750C0A9619482 60)

even Wikipedia has a minor reference about it.
Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan)

The theft of large sums of aid spurred Pakistan's economic growth, but along with the war in general had devastating side effects for that country.
The siphoning off of aid weapons in the port city of Karachi (http://www.pashtunforums.com/wiki/Karachi) contributed to disorder and violence there.

But back to topic.
What would have avoided a civil war in afghanistan was when the departure of soviet forces had commenced. A peace deal with the Najib Government should have been pushed and encouraged. The civil war in Afghanistan didnt start in 1992, it started the minute the soviets left in 1989. Pakistan's refusal to create an alternative leadership to Najib's administration ensured a collapse of the central government in Kabul and the inevitable civil that followed.
UN peace deals almost never work in any war ravaged region because they are not enforced, so I would say Pakistan is still to blame.

Refugee Cooperation - Publications - Afghanistan : "The Saga of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan" by Rostum Shah Mohmand. (http://www.refugeecooperation.org/publications/Afghanistan/06_mohmand.php)

The primary reason for the recurrence of conflict was that the Mujahideen had not developed a consensus alternative leadership. Nor had they agreed on how the contours and parameters of the new Islamic state were to be drawn. However, the Mujahideen factions were not alone to blame. The Government of Pakistan was also complicit. Regrettably, there was no spadework by the Pakistani ruling establishment on how to meet the eventuality of an Afghanistan that is no longer under the control of pro-communist parties. Equally, there was no attempt to seek to obtain an agreement with Najibullah so that upon his withdrawal there would be some rules of the game to observe.
The result was a civil war. With Afghanistan lying at their feet, the Mujahideen factions did not know how to adjust themselves to rule, administer, govern a country for the independence of which they had waged such a heroic struggle and given such huge sacrifices.

Calling the Majahedeen factions in Pakistan the afghan government in exile is the joke of century. They were not a government but proxies of Pakistan for strategic depth strategy in Afghanistan. Iran had similar proxies that was also called the Afghan government in exile.

BarakzaiAbdali
03-24-2011, 02:47 AM
Pakizai,

You are treading on a flaw logic with your lateral Paki-defence mindset. I guess you too need to update since such hard end approach for Pashtun unity i.e. through Afghan tribal or otherwise even ANA conquest is essentially obsolete. Even if that was the case Kharoti and Waziri ancient clash won't set the standards. Try hard. If anything Waziris and Maseeds have championed collectivised Pashtun sense of macro and solidarity as a nation through the course of history. Had the Afghan government been just a little stronger when Pakistan came in to existence it could well have been an integral part of today's Afghanistan. And at times they were let down by Kabul either through choice or compulsion and pressure to take their independence for Angreezan first and then Filthistan.

Although I agree with alot in what you have made the effort draw on in term of how Afghans are fending against occupation, but that itself negates your Paki line of Mullah Omar being "the only game in the town." it's the people who are fighting not Mullah Omar who is most probably hiden in a safe-house.

Will add my view on the topic some other time, gotta catch up with something.

LOOOOL, still hurting from the last smack down right?

OK Admins/Mods, you saw his barb above and he earned what follows.

So Comerag Piss-tongue

You still have not cleaned Karzai's genetic material off your face. LOOOOOL. Why is that? Is it because your half tajik half farsiban nature betrays you?

You show complete ignorance of the Waziri and Mehsud tribal dynamic. Unity? The Wazir and Mehsud unite in the settings of a common interest against outsiders... otherwise, they are about as adversial as the various other tribal clashes.

So please before you join the big boys, go clean your face.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 03:01 AM
This is a very very poor post.

FZPZ,
It is in no ones interest for me to make things up, I saw this with my own eyes but here are some references.
POSSIBLE THEFT OF U.S. AFGHAN AID BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE G.A.O. - NYTimes.com (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5D7113FF937A15750C0A9619482 60)


From that article.

"Groups with access to the shipments have traded, sold or hidden large amounts of the equipment, according to Pakistanis and Afghans and Western diplomats in Pakistan."

So this proves nothing of where the money went, just that some was stolen.


even Wikipedia has a minor reference about it.
Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan)

The theft of large sums of aid spurred Pakistan's economic growth, but along with the war in general had devastating side effects for that country.


That does your case no good at all. It proves you have no case if you need to resort to a wiki phrase that has no reference, and contains one of the more imbecilic ideas that tens of millions can bolster a multi billion GDP economy.

I've no doubt the rulers in Pakistan tried pocketing some of the money. But it is highly unlikely that it was anything significant to spur economic growth or some ridiculous idea like that.


But back to topic.
What would have avoided a civil war in afghanistan was when the departure of soviet forces had commenced. A peace deal with the Najib Government should have been pushed and encouraged. The civil war in Afghanistan didnt start in 1992, it started the minute the soviets left in 1989. Pakistan's refusal to create an alternative leadership to Najib's administration ensured a collapse of the central government in Kabul and the inevitable civil that followed.


ohhhhhhhh. So now Pakistan's fault was that following the Soviet departure, Pakistan refused to do anything and that is the cause of everything.

So you've gone from blaming Pakistan for interfering in Afghanistan to blaming Pakistan for not interfering. Quite desperate.


UN peace deals almost never work in any war ravaged region because they are not enforced, so I would say Pakistan is still to blame.


So Pakistan was behind the UN not enforcing the peace deal?


Refugee Cooperation - Publications - Afghanistan : "The Saga of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan" by Rostum Shah Mohmand. (http://www.refugeecooperation.org/publications/Afghanistan/06_mohmand.php)

The primary reason for the recurrence of conflict was that the Mujahideen had not developed a consensus alternative leadership. Nor had they agreed on how the contours and parameters of the new Islamic state were to be drawn. However, the Mujahideen factions were not alone to blame. The Government of Pakistan was also complicit. Regrettably, there was no spadework by the Pakistani ruling establishment on how to meet the eventuality of an Afghanistan that is no longer under the control of pro-communist parties. Equally, there was no attempt to seek to obtain an agreement with Najibullah so that upon his withdrawal there would be some rules of the game to observe.
The result was a civil war. With Afghanistan lying at their feet, the Mujahideen factions did not know how to adjust themselves to rule, administer, govern a country for the independence of which they had waged such a heroic struggle and given such huge sacrifices.


Again you've quoted someone that wanted Pakistani interference in Kabul affairs.

In actual fact, this author is wrong, and it's easily provable. Go look up the Peshawar Accords. These were the plans backed by Pakistan to ensure a stable transition after Najibullah. They didn't work, but through no fault of Pakistan. Who was to blame in your opinion? Rabbani perhaps, that old devious ISI agent? (He was anti-Pakistan in case you wondered).

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 03:04 AM
Roadrunner,

In all honesty,at least in my view and probably history will prove it too, that the civil war was by and large an internal Afghan making. The question you are posing answer it first in foremost. Pakistan's manipulation cannot be ruled out. Your attribution of Afghans equating their use of Pakistan to strategic depth of Pakistan is comical. :-) I will reply to it when I have time and chance it is killing me using my phone now.

So you believe there was no strategic depth tactic during the Afghan-Soviet war?

If so, you're completely wrong, and it's easily provable.

BarakzaiAbdali
03-24-2011, 03:07 AM
barakzai saab inter-tribal differences and clashes r not as such as you r assuming. Wazir and mehsud do have differences and enemity but they quickly become one outside waziristan and their unity is examplary.
Recently marwats and bhittanis had war but both associate with each other than with others because they are neighbours and r similar tribes in terms of dialect and culture.
We fight with each other but we also love each other, sorry its hard for me to explain the point in my broken english.

Salaam Luffy Khan Saib,

Dont worry, your English is not broken and you are doing fine. I dont disagree on their ability to unite. In fact the current insurgency shows that the durand line divide is torn asunder when a common cause against an invader is seen. However, the Kharoti Wazir rivalry is undeniable and it actually straddles the durand line. As an example, not too long ago, some Kharotyaan utilized the US firepower to launch a missile across the border into a Waziri household.

Whatever the case is, I wish for the best, but when you have Commander Azizullahs in the ANA, and other mercenaries you have a lost cause.

khushal
03-24-2011, 03:17 AM
Road,
Your calling it a government in exile, when in fact they were just proxies used to destroy the afghan state. If it was an actual government in exile, the civil war would not have ensued. Helmatyar, Rabanni and Masood were all opportunists that just wanted power but neither of them had any motivation to work for the afghan people interests. These opportunists were intentionally chosen by the Pakistani state because they served Pakistani interests and they were completely dependent on pakistan.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 03:21 AM
Road,
Your calling it a government in exile, when in fact they were just proxies used to destroy the afghan state. If it was an actual government in exile, the civil war would not have ensued. Helmatyar, Rabanni and Masood were all opportunists that just wanted power but neither of them had any motivation to work for the afghan people interests. These opportunists were intentionally chosen by the Pakistani state because they served Pakistani interests and they were completely dependent on pakistan.

Do you know anything about Afghanistan out of interest?

Rabbani had nothing to do with Pakistan. Hekmatyar was the only one for a period of time.

They all wanted power, yes, but they were also armed with the most powerful militias during the Afghan-Soviet war. Why do you think they would just lay down their arms following the Afghan-Soviet War? Because Pakistan says so?

khushal
03-24-2011, 03:31 AM
WE are well aware of the Pashawar accords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1992%E2%80%931996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_%281992%E2%80%931996))

Foreign Intrusion and Responsibility for the War

After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and the collapse of the Afghan communist Najibullah regime in 1992 the Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement (the Peshawar Accords) in early 1992. An Afghan interim government was appointed by the Peshawar Accords to initiate a process leading towards national elections. Pakistan was strictly opposed to the new developments in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan expert Neamatollah Nojumi states: "These new political and military developments in Afghanistan forced the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI to organize a military plan with forces belonging to Hekmatyar's Hezb-i Islami ... This militaristic plan aimed to capture Kabul and was in full force when ... the rest of the Muhajideen leaders in Pakistan agreed to the UN peace plan. On the eve of the successful implementation of the UN peace plan in Afghanistan the ISI, through Hekmatyar and non-Afghan volunteers, led hundreds of trucks loaded with weapons and fighters to the southern part of Kabul."[1] (http://www.pashtunforums.com/#cite_note-Neamatollah_Nojumi-0) Well-known Afghanistan expert, Amin Saikal, concludes in his book which was chosen by The Wall Street Journal as 'One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan': "Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia. ... Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic government leaders, especially Massoud (who had always maintained his independence from Pakistan), to subordinate their own nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions. ... Had it not been for the ISI’s logistic support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar’s forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul."

It was in Pakistans interests to destroy Kabul. Rabani, Hekmatyar, and Masood were Pakistan proxies since 1973 working against Daud's regime. The underlying causes of this whole mess started during Dauds regime. the rest were just effects of the decisions he made.

randolph85
03-24-2011, 04:11 AM
i don't get why roadrunner is defending a state that would gladly kill him for money.

khushal
03-24-2011, 04:40 AM
i don't get why roadrunner is defending a state that would gladly kill him for money.

Its called ignorance. the house slave always defended the ones that bought, sold, raped, and killed them as commodities.

salahuddin
03-24-2011, 05:12 AM
Road Runner

Pakistan supported Anti Govt Afghan rebels, there name was the Peshawer 7.

Pakistan supported them way before any soviet entered Afghanistan.

Pakistan supported the Panjshir valley rebellion against Afghanistan Government.

Sadly, Most Afghans joined hands with the ISI and choose superstitious beliefs over Modernisation and progressive, and now Afghanistan is one of the worlds most failed states due to this wrong decision.

Its time we tell all sides to go away, including the clerics.

Ban Wahabism and Ban Salafism, Reform Sufism and keep Shiaism to a limit. Encourage progressive thought, love all mankind, work with other countries in technology and education, do research and development, replace the 1000s of mosques and madrassahs into care shelters for the homeless and sick, keep one mosque per neightbourhood instead of 50 per street.

randolph85
03-24-2011, 05:15 AM
Its called ignorance. the house slave always defended the ones that bought, sold, raped, and killed them as commodities.


its sad, really. when one tries to find a sense of belonging by siding with man made notions of nation states, especially those that are more sound in ideology than reality. if pakistan was really created for muslims, than those very same muslims would be very much opposed to the artificial state that was created for them.

as with afghanistan, i feel a sense of belonging but i understand that it is a man made entity and afghanistan or no afghanistan i am still a muslim. the thing about afghanistan is that historically we have had some good leaders, some bad, and some downright awful. so an afghan can relate to the good, the bad or the ugly depending on their ideology, whereas pakistan has always been ruled by awful people since day 1.

randolph85
03-24-2011, 05:24 AM
Road Runner

Pakistan supported Anti Govt Afghan rebels, there name was the Peshawer 7.

Pakistan supported them way before any soviet entered Afghanistan.

Pakistan supported the Panjshir valley rebellion against Afghanistan Government.

Sadly, Most Afghans joined hands with the ISI and choose superstitious beliefs over Modernisation and progressive, and now Afghanistan is one of the worlds most failed states due to this wrong decision.

Its time we tell all sides to go away, including the clerics.

Ban Wahabism and Ban Salafism, Reform Sufism and keep Shiaism to a limit. Encourage progressive thought, love all mankind, work with other countries in technology and education, do research and development, replace the 1000s of mosques and madrassahs into care shelters for the homeless and sick, keep one mosque per neightbourhood instead of 50 per street.


now u just sound like that clown najib. blame pakistan and america but not even a peep about russia. except today the names have changed. u are not a genuine person and ur opinions hold no weight. i may agree with some of what u say but i would also agree with george bush if he were to say the sky is blue.

also, what is ur idea of modernization? because mine is higher living standards, education, security, infrastructure, and stability. whereas ur idea of the word is more likely than not night clubs, mcdonalds, ***** houses, herpes, fag marriage, winos, and abortions galore.

dont hijack a word like "modernization" to suit ur perveted and backwards idea of what society should look like.

khushal
03-24-2011, 06:05 AM
Do you know anything about Afghanistan out of interest?

Rabbani had nothing to do with Pakistan. Hekmatyar was the only one for a period of time.

They all wanted power, yes, but they were also armed with the most powerful militias during the Afghan-Soviet war. Why do you think they would just lay down their arms following the Afghan-Soviet War? Because Pakistan says so?

You forcing me to call you an idiot when you say things that make no sense.

It is a fact that reading makes you less of an idiot.
Ghost wars: the secret history of ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc4kRClTViIC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=rabani,+massod,+hekmatyar&source=bl&ots=B8Vt8KK01A&sig=uVPaHd4wy3As5aw7QTdhB5AIxHs&hl=en&ei=CgSLTbecLM6ftgeKqLm1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

"Some of our brothers deem armed struggle necessary to topple this criminal government." Rabbani declared at one meeting at the Faculty of islamic Law a few months later. They aquired weapons and built connections in the Afghan Army, but lacked a path to power. When daud cracked down on the Islamists a year later, Masoud, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, and the rest of the organizations member fled to Pakistan.
The Pakistani Government Embraced them. Douds nascent communist support had the Pakistan army worried. The exiled Islamists offered the army a way to pursue influence in Afghanistan. Massoud, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, and about 5000 other young exiles began secret military training under the direction of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's Afghan affairs adviser, Brigadier General Naseerullah Babar. Babar and Hekmatyar, both ethnic Pashtuns, soon became confidants, and together they harched a plan for an uprising against Daud in 1975. They drafted Massoud to sneak back into the Panjir and start the revolt from there. He did so, and the episode ended badly. Massoud fled to Pakistan for the seond time in two years.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 12:07 PM
WE are well aware of the Pashawar accords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1992%E2%80%931996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_%281992%E2%80%931996))

Foreign Intrusion and Responsibility for the War

After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and the collapse of the Afghan communist Najibullah regime in 1992 the Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement (the Peshawar Accords) in early 1992. An Afghan interim government was appointed by the Peshawar Accords to initiate a process leading towards national elections. Pakistan was strictly opposed to the new developments in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan expert Neamatollah Nojumi states: "These new political and military developments in Afghanistan forced the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI to organize a military plan with forces belonging to Hekmatyar's Hezb-i Islami ... This militaristic plan aimed to capture Kabul and was in full force when ... the rest of the Muhajideen leaders in Pakistan agreed to the UN peace plan. On the eve of the successful implementation of the UN peace plan in Afghanistan the ISI, through Hekmatyar and non-Afghan volunteers, led hundreds of trucks loaded with weapons and fighters to the southern part of Kabul."[1] (http://www.pashtunforums.com/#cite_note-Neamatollah_Nojumi-0) Well-known Afghanistan expert, Amin Saikal, concludes in his book which was chosen by The Wall Street Journal as 'One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan': "Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia. ... Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic government leaders, especially Massoud (who had always maintained his independence from Pakistan), to subordinate their own nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions. ... Had it not been for the ISI’s logistic support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar’s forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul."

It was in Pakistans interests to destroy Kabul. Rabani, Hekmatyar, and Masood were Pakistan proxies since 1973 working against Daud's regime. The underlying causes of this whole mess started during Dauds regime. the rest were just effects of the decisions he made.

Do you realize what wikipedia is? I'm just asking since you quote so often even after i point out to you that you yourself probably wrote this.

You've got one whole reference there, over something irrelevant actually, made by someone who has conveniently ignored that Masood had surrounded Kabul on the eve of the peace plan implementation (a slight bias I would say).

Worse still. You've not realized that Massoud and Hekmatyar were attacking Kabul in order to wrestle control from Najibullah. That wasn't the problem. Najibullah was to be removed as part of the UN peace plan. The Peshawar Accords were broken by Rabbani.

You really don't have the slightest clue about Afghanistan, do you? Are you really a non Pashtun?

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 12:15 PM
Road Runner

Pakistan supported Anti Govt Afghan rebels, there name was the Peshawer 7.


Pakistan supported Hekmatyar for a time, but not all the "anti-government rebels". The anti government rebels were supported by Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan etc. The "government rebels" were supported by Moscow.

Pakistan offered its territory to allow discussions for the smooth transition of power from the pro-Moscow regime of Najibullah to the powersharing regime of the warlords as part of the UN peace plan.

WHAT WENT WRONG? Where did the UN peace plan fail? The pro Moscow government had agreed to go. Who do you think instigated the problem afterwards, and why?


Pakistan supported them way before any soviet entered Afghanistan.


Pakistan did support the anti-Soviet factions, yes. But mainly to allow those factions strategic depth from where to launch attacks from.

Those anti-Soviet factions had their loyalties elsewhere.


Sadly, Most Afghans joined hands with the ISI and choose superstitious beliefs over Modernisation and progressive, and now Afghanistan is one of the worlds most failed states due to this wrong decision.

Its time we tell all sides to go away, including the clerics.

Ban Wahabism and Ban Salafism, Reform Sufism and keep Shiaism to a limit. Encourage progressive thought, love all mankind, work with other countries in technology and education, do research and development, replace the 1000s of mosques and madrassahs into care shelters for the homeless and sick, keep one mosque per neightbourhood instead of 50 per street.

You believe Afghanistan should have been part of the USSR, which is one option.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 12:45 PM
You forcing me to call you an idiot when you say things that make no sense.

It is a fact that reading makes you less of an idiot.
Ghost wars: the secret history of ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc4kRClTViIC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=rabani,+massod,+hekmatyar&source=bl&ots=B8Vt8KK01A&sig=uVPaHd4wy3As5aw7QTdhB5AIxHs&hl=en&ei=CgSLTbecLM6ftgeKqLm1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false)

"Some of our brothers deem armed struggle necessary to topple this criminal government." Rabbani declared at one meeting at the Faculty of islamic Law a few months later. They aquired weapons and built connections in the Afghan Army, but lacked a path to power. When daud cracked down on the Islamists a year later, Masoud, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, and the rest of the organizations member fled to Pakistan.
The Pakistani Government Embraced them. Douds nascent communist support had the Pakistan army worried. The exiled Islamists offered the army a way to pursue influence in Afghanistan. Massoud, Hekmatyar, Rabbani, and about 5000 other young exiles began secret military training under the direction of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's Afghan affairs adviser, Brigadier General Naseerullah Babar. Babar and Hekmatyar, both ethnic Pashtuns, soon became confidants, and together they harched a plan for an uprising against Daud in 1975. They drafted Massoud to sneak back into the Panjir and start the revolt from there. He did so, and the episode ended badly. Massoud fled to Pakistan for the seond time in two years.

That uprising amounted to nothing, so it did not contribute to Afghanistan's instability.

If you must know, Daud was supporting the Baloch insurgency of the early 70s. He had an interventionist policy on Pakistan (a Nationalist's dream). The objective was just to get him to back down. (Daud Khan had sent Afghan troops disguised as tribesmen into Pakistan's Bajaur before also). So one side was not much better than the other (probably Daud was worse as he was more aggressive over these incidents).

This is all irrelevant to what we're discussing though. You've not really got a clue it would seem.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 12:52 PM
i don't get why roadrunner is defending a state that would gladly kill him for money.

i'm not defending anyone. Accuracy instead of blurting Pakistan to everything that goes wrong is what I support.

I don't really care if the Durand Line stays or goes. It wouldn't make any difference anyway since everyone ignores it.

khushal
03-24-2011, 06:37 PM
Road,
you have a hard time following a debate.
you said the Peshawar 7 was a government in exile, I proved to you they were not, but a proxy of Pakistan.
You said that Rabbani had nothing to do with pakistan, I proved to you that he was pakistan's proxy since 1973.

I am aware that rabani broke the peshawar accords, but thats not the point, any one of the parties would have eventually broke it because they were all power hungary opportunists. My point about that quote is that the ISI supplied Hekamtyar knowing full well he was going to use it to destroy Kabul.

The point is the pakistan purpose and interest was to destroy the afghan nation and thats what happened.

BarakzaiAbdali
03-24-2011, 07:39 PM
I see where you are coming from. However this has little to do with Afghanistan and more to do with what happened to Pashtunkhwa post-1893. Pashtunkhwa (and I told this to Admin khan, amir ul ghaznavi, etc) is that within Pashtunkhwa there are political gaps. These gaps are what differentiates between the peshawarite from a swatae from a wazir, etc. However, you have to remember that necessity is an important driver. In the event of a breakdown in the region it won't be possible for Pashtunkhwa (Khyber part) to be split from the other areas. The resulting scenario will push it towards a sort of unity. I think this is will also eventually led to unity with the Pashtuns to the west of the durand line.

Imagine a scenario of a breakdown of Pakistan with a possible civil war (or even stable Afghanistan). In either case there is an issue of dependence. Pashtunkhwa and Afghanistan will have to depend on each other for cultural and economic reasons. It can't be that Khyber-Pashtunkhwa will seek out a future in a vacuum, without it affecting the other Pashtun areas. FATA itself despite the tribal enmities, still has strong links west of the durand line (dare I say much stronger there than to Khyber-Pashtunkhwa).

Also remember the political actors have changed. Those days of a separate yousafzai confederacy, or khattak confederacy, of Ghilzai, wazir, etc are gone. Now for the most part political parties (or opportunities) are transcending. We have to really look at the actors who are politically or militarily active (taliban, a post-taliban without pakistan, anp, pkmap, post-these parties outside of Pakistan, etc). Only then can we gauge the situation further. Obviously with those political gaps, differences arise, but what nation or people don't have this? Even US, despite its development, is going to a cultural divide (or at least how they have marketed it, liberals vs conservatives, bible belt, etc). This is the nature of any society. However with more stability the two sides will come closer...it is the only natural bond and the only one artificially divided. Even today the amount of trade between the two is huge, imagine if Pashtunkhwa was autonomous and Afghanistan was stable...the possibilities are huge. It isn't an issue about retaking, those days are gone, now it is an issue of a scenario in a region that can prompt a change in how we view Central and South Asia. The line is almost non-existent to the locals, any major push can result in greater changes (remember no government including the talibs acknowledge).

Ideally the best scenario is to stabilize Afghanistan and make Pashtunkhwa an autonomous unified region (even within Pakistan). That, in my opinion, is the only logical format to overcome any political and regional gaps over the years.

I dont disagree that the region was quiet united when It traveled through KP mainland closer to Peshawar/Nowshera... folks barely knew their tribe and clan lineages. This was a stark contrast to the medical service I pursued in the tribal areas where the tribal confederacies were distinct in Bajaur and Waziristan and Afridistan. The jirga/malik system resembled much more what goes on in the Quetta/Kandahar nexus area. So I would disagree with you in regard to FATA dissolving its traditional tribal confederacies. Regarding links across the lines... it depends because once again then, that claim becomes a double edged sword. The Ahmadzai Wazirs held a jirga post 2001, and unanimously declared enmity to Mr. Karzai.

They have no problem doing so as the Wazirs, as I had stated earlier had never sworn fealty to Ahmad Shah or even the Barakzai lineages. Nadir and Amanullah had to ask the Wazirs for help and could not order them to do anything:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iqkiRvaDThgC&pg=PA137&dq=dost+wazir+tribe&hl=en&ei=a8OLTeiwA6Pp0gHh9IC3Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dost%20wazir%20tribe&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=iqkiRvaDThgC&pg=PA137&dq=dost+wazir+tribe&hl=en&ei=a8OLTeiwA6Pp0gHh9IC3Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dost%20wazir%20tribe&f=false)

However, a few questions:

1) When you say Afghanistan will stabilize do you mean under NATO auspices? Do you mean under the Karzai government? Do you mean under a stalemate situation where Karzai has to comprimise with the Taliban or vice versa?

2) Regarding the US and Afghanistan comparison.... once again be careful there because American democracy took centuries to reach this point and started in RunnyMede in England... The picture you paint, of a tribal society gone party system is a bit idyllic. If this were the case, then Ahmad Wali Karzai would not be so able to rely on the Popalzai tribal network in and around Qandahar to sustain some element of power. In fact tribal ties cross the Taliban/Karzai regime order/disorder. So I'll require some more evidence for this scenario.

3) What role does Islam play in all of this?

4) How do you control for General Fahim, Qanooni, and a hose of other hosers who have their own power projections in mind?

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 08:56 PM
Road,
you have a hard time following a debate.
you said the Peshawar 7 was a government in exile, I proved to you they were not, but a proxy of Pakistan.


Complete foolishness. Establishing a connection between a person and Pakistan in the 1970s, doesn't mean that the same connection existed in the 1980s.

For this reason, the Peshawar 7 were not proxies of Pakistan. By the 1980s each warlord was supported by different nations. Dostum was supported by Uzbekistan, Rabbani by Iran, Hekmatyar by Pakistan, Massoud by Tajikistan.

Look these up. Do you get a sense of how clueless your idea that because during a period in the 70s they went to Pakistan for help against Daud, the same relationship existed in the 80s. They went to Pakistan because Pakistan had problems with Daud, but their loyalties were to Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc.


You said that Rabbani had nothing to do with pakistan, I proved to you that he was pakistan's proxy since 1973.


Rabbani was Iran's proxy. This is very well established. Saying that he was Pakistan's shows up how little you know of Afghanistan.


I am aware that rabani broke the peshawar accords, but thats not the point, any one of the parties would have eventually broke it because they were all power hungary opportunists. My point about that quote is that the ISI supplied Hekamtyar knowing full well he was going to use it to destroy Kabul.


All the warlords destroyed Kabul.

And the point is, if the peace process was followed, noone would have needed to destroy anything.


The point is the pakistan purpose and interest was to destroy the afghan nation and thats what happened.

Provide some proof. So far you have not.

It is not in Pakistan's interest to destroy Afghanistan and make it unstable. It is more in India's interests.

khushal
03-24-2011, 09:21 PM
Complete foolishness. Establishing a connection between a person and Pakistan in the 1970s, doesn't mean that the same connection existed in the 1980s.

For this reason, the Peshawar 7 were not proxies of Pakistan. By the 1980s each warlord was supported by different nations. Dostum was supported by Uzbekistan, Rabbani by Iran, Hekmatyar by Pakistan, Massoud by Tajikistan.

Look these up. Do you get a sense of how clueless your idea that because during a period in the 70s they went to Pakistan for help against Daud, the same relationship existed in the 80s. They went to Pakistan because Pakistan had problems with Daud, but their loyalties were to Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc.



Rabbani was Iran's proxy. This is very well established. Saying that he was Pakistan's shows up how little you know of Afghanistan.



All the warlords destroyed Kabul.

And the point is, if the peace process was followed, noone would have needed to destroy anything.
.

You are complete fool, In the 80's Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was a soviet colony. They were supporting Najib at the time. Dostom at the time was a high ranking member of the Afghan army who later became a general in the afghan army.
Rabbani's and Massoud's forces killed more Shia in Kabul than anyone else, how could he be Iran's ally, when they were fighting Iran proxies, the Hazara.

I already provided proof he was pakistans proxy since 1973, why dont you provide a source that he was not.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 10:28 PM
You are complete fool, In the 80's Tajikistan and Uzbekistan was a soviet colony. They were supporting Najib at the time. Dostom at the time was a high ranking member of the Afghan army who later became a general in the afghan army.


Which proves that they switch allegiances from decade to decade. But they usually will have their loyalties somewhere (usually to their ethnic group).


Rabbani's and Massoud's forces killed more Shia in Kabul than anyone else, how could he be Iran's ally, when they were fighting Iran proxies, the Hazara.


Then you haven't got a clue. Hazara Wahdats shifted sides in later 1992 to Hekmatyar's side, but were fighting with Massoud when he took Kabul.


"Jamiat-i Islami-yi Afghanistan (hereinafter known as Jamiat-i Islami). Jamiat-i Islami was one of the original Islamist parties in Afghanistan, established in the 1970s by students at Kabul University where its leader, Burhanuddin Rabbani, was a lecturer at the Islamic Law Faculty. Although Rabbani remains the official head of Jamiat-i Islami, the most powerful figure within the party was Ahmad Shah Massoud. Both Rabbani and Massoud are ethnic Tajiks (Persian-speaking Sunni Muslims) but from different areas. Massoud's ethnic power base has historically been in Parwan and Takhar provinces in the northeast, where he established a regional administrative structure in the late 1980s, the Supervisory Council of the North (SCN, Shura-yi Nazar-i Shamali). Massoud's forces have received significant military and other support from Iran and Russia, in particular."
http://www.dhushara.com/book/zulu/islamp/rawa.htm (http://www.dhushara.com/book/zulu/islamp/rawa.htm)



I already provided proof he was pakistans proxy since 1973, why dont you provide a source that he was not.


Why is it difficult to get through your skull that allegiances amongst warlords are just fleeting?

One warlord will be supported by one intelligence service in one decade, then a different one the next, depending on how the objectives change.

It's all above in the link. Massoud, Rabbani were not Pakistan's men during the Civil War. Hekmatyar probably was.

khushal
03-24-2011, 10:33 PM
your still a dumb*ss.

the support from russia and Iran came in the 90's when the Taliban came in the picture. Iran didnt want the Taliban to control Afghanistan, they even threaten to invade AFghanistan when the Taliban where in control.
In the 80's and early 90's they were ISI proxies. How could Russia support him in the 80's when he was getting money in the 80's from the CIA to give Russia a hard time.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 10:37 PM
your still a dumb*ss.

the support from russia and Iran came in the 90's when the Taliban came in the picture. Iran didnt want the Taliban to control Afghanistan, they even threaten to invade AFghanistan when the Taliban where in control.
In the 80's and early 90's they were ISI proxies. How could Russia support him in the 80's when he was getting money in the 80's from the CIA to give Russia a hard time.

ohhhh, but I thought when you prove that country X supported warlord X at any point in history, then that is proof of their interference whatever the timescale. At least that is YOUR theory with your 70s Pakistan supporting everyone, even though it's been proved otherwise.

Try this out then. If Hekmatyar was being supplied by Pakistan during the Civil War, why was Pakistan supplying Rabbani and Massoud, who were Hekmatyar's enemies in the war? To defeat their own man, dohhhhhhhhh?

khushal
03-24-2011, 11:03 PM
ohhhh, but I thought when you prove that country X supported warlord X at any point in history, then that is proof of their interference whatever the timescale. At least that is YOUR theory with your 70s Pakistan supporting everyone, even though it's been proved otherwise.

Try this out then. If Hekmatyar was being supplied by Pakistan during the Civil War, why was Pakistan supplying Rabbani and Massoud, who were Hekmatyar's enemies in the war? To defeat their own man, dohhhhhhhhh?

Hekmatyar was their man. Rabanni and Massoud broke their ties with pakistan once they were in power, which made pakistan angry.

But all this is beside the point. My point was that peace should have been made right after the soviet withdrawal.

roadrunner
03-24-2011, 11:29 PM
Hekmatyar was their man. Rabanni and Massoud broke their ties with pakistan once they were in power, which made pakistan angry.

But all this is beside the point. My point was that peace should have been made right after the soviet withdrawal.

well no again.

When the Soviets withdrew, the US, Pakistan, the West, Saudi Arabia were supplying the anti-Communist forces until 1992 when they stopped (not Pakistan alone - you presumably supported the Soviet presence in Afghanistan). Masood and Hekmatyar weren't getting money or arms from anyone at the time they took Kabul.

But after the Peshawar Accords broke down, warlords started arming again. Pakistan probably only supplied Hekmatyar during the initial stages, Rabbani and Massoud got their arms from Iran and Tajikistan. Though they all probably had quite a lot of arms from the previous war they were involved in.

It was always the case that Rabbani and Massoud would be closer to Iran and Tajikistan, and even the Moscow. Pakistan wanted power-sharing. some Iranian influence would have been alright, but also some Pakistani influence. Rabbani had other ideas with his "Council of Elders" vote.

khushal
03-24-2011, 11:39 PM
well no again.

When the Soviets withdrew, the US, Pakistan, the West, Saudi Arabia were supplying the anti-Communist forces until 1992 when they stopped (not Pakistan alone - you presumably supported the Soviet presence in Afghanistan). Masood and Hekmatyar weren't getting money or arms from anyone at the time they took Kabul.

But after the Peshawar Accords broke down, warlords started arming again. Pakistan probably only supplied Hekmatyar during the initial stages, Rabbani and Massoud got their arms from Iran and Tajikistan. Though they all probably had quite a lot of arms from the previous war they were involved in.

Who cares, they already were armed to the teeth. The afghan army had huge stockpiles of soviet weaponry which almost all of it went to Dostom and Massoud.

Who cares about all this. your question was how should have pakistan handled the afghan civil war, and I answered your question. Your going on and on about things that are not related to your question.

roadrunner
03-25-2011, 12:02 AM
You were blurting out Pakistan, so I was just trying to get to the bottom of why that was.

So we narrowed it down till the Peshawar Accords where things went wrong. Rabbani staying on as president and not handing over power sharing due to his election by the self-appointed "Council of Wise Men".

Finally a new peace deal, the Islamabad Accords tried the same power sharing formula. It came to Rabbani's turn again. He got elected by a self-appointed "Council of Wise Men" to stay as president for longer again.

Was Pakistan on the Council of Wise men?

khushal
03-25-2011, 12:18 AM
Your funny,

Dont worry about the pashawar accords and Islamabad accords or the Mars accords, all this is mumbo jumbo. Why would they work. The peace plan should have been pushed in 1989 with Najib's government, or Pakistan should have made an agreement with Najib and dissolved Pakistan's proxies. Pakistan was using the proxies to destroy Afghan infrastruture and eventually the afghan state.

gadoonwal
03-25-2011, 12:41 AM
US foreign secretary Mandeline Albright during Clinton era called Pakistan international maigrine. One cannot but agree with her assertion. This canceride state is a problem for every other country in the region and the broader world except perhaps China. It is also a problem for nations inside its border except Punjab.
Like isreal is cancer for the entire arab world ,right.
So pakistan is a cancer for the whole region.Both countries created by the west in the name of religion, both work for the west,s interests.
It is the US and British supporting pakistan/punjabis so Albright was wrong.
So why the West and US love so much pakistan?
Was used against USSR during sovet-afghan war and dumped till 9/11.
Still in use for the ISI=Cia so called war On terror.
Palkistan will be used again against the India,iran and china etc.
It is fake identity.The army generals and the politicains are the decendants of old british indian slaves.

roadrunner
03-25-2011, 12:48 AM
Your funny,

Dont worry about the pashawar accords and Islamabad accords or the Mars accords, all this is mumbo jumbo. Why would they work. The peace plan should have been pushed in 1989 with Najib's government, or Pakistan should have made an agreement with Najib and dissolved Pakistan's proxies. Pakistan was using the proxies to destroy Afghan infrastruture and eventually the afghan state.

well that might be the second dumbest thing I've read.

An unstable, destroyed Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interests because it will make Pakistan unstable also. Pakistan needed to open up trade routes to central asia, not remove them.

Why are the peace Accords irrelevant? If they had been followed, the power sharing agreement would have worked, and Afghanistan would probably not have had any Civil War.

How much do you REALLY know of Afghanistan as opposed to India, Khushal? You do realize that in 1989, Moscow was supporting Najibullah, and Najibullah was refusing to allow any non Communist government take over?

WHY do you keep insisting that all the exiled groups were PAKISTAN'S proxies? I've already proved that during the Civil War, many countries were supporting their faction including Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Moscow, and some others.

khushal
03-25-2011, 01:22 AM
well that might be the second dumbest thing I've read.

An unstable, destroyed Afghanistan is not in Pakistan's interests because it will make Pakistan unstable also. Pakistan needed to open up trade routes to central asia, not remove them.

Why are the peace Accords irrelevant? If they had been followed, the power sharing agreement would have worked, and Afghanistan would probably not have had any Civil War.

How much do you REALLY know of Afghanistan as opposed to India, Khushal? You do realize that in 1989, Moscow was supporting Najibullah, and Najibullah was refusing to allow any non Communist government take over?

WHY do you keep insisting that all the exiled groups were PAKISTAN'S proxies? I've already proved that during the Civil War, many countries were supporting their faction including Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Moscow, and some others.

You paki always assume that if anyone disagrees with you, automatically india is involved. says something about your paranoia.

They were paki proxies from 1973 but after 92, one by one started to break ties with Pakistan and started to get support from other nations such as iran, russia, india, and Saudi as the major players. Pakistan started to get nervious and needed a new proxy, thats when the taliban started came in to the picture.

But like I keep saying, thats beside the point. The Soviets were open to negotiating with the MAjahadeen, it was the majahadeen who were not interested, just like today the americans are open to negotiation but the taliban are the ones not interested. Like today, the majahadeen at that time number one condition was that foreign forces leave before any negotiations can take place.

But once the soviets left, Peace was possible. Najib was open to negotiations especially after the soviet union collapsed. His lifeline was slowly disappearing. But it was Pakistan that wanted to control afghanistan. Pakistan told their proxies that negotiations were not in their interest because why share the power with najib when they can have it all. We all know how that ended.

roadrunner
03-26-2011, 01:12 AM
You paki always assume that if anyone disagrees with you, automatically india is involved. says something about your paranoia.


Experience.


They were paki proxies from 1973 but after 92, one by one started to break ties with Pakistan and started to get support from other nations such as iran, russia, india, and Saudi as the major players. Pakistan started to get nervious and needed a new proxy, thats when the taliban started came in to the picture.


You don't have a clue about Afghanistan.

Pakistan was just logistics and strategic depth for the Afghan Mujahideen. They were getting weapons from all over the place, but because the US had the best weapons, countries like Iran were irrelevant when it came to supplying them. I often wonder why Iran didn't allow strategic depth for the Afghan Mujahideen. They did support Rabbani and Massoud after all.

It is true that Hekmatyar proved to be useless as Pakistan's man. But each of the other groups that formed the Peshawar 7 in the early 90s were not supported by Pakistan. When the Soviets left, and after the 1992 Najibullah step down, the US, Moscow, and Pakistan ceased supplying weapons (Pakistan wasn't supplying much anyway). At this point Rabbani and Massoud relied on "their" countries for support (Iran, Tajikistan). So when the Peshawar Accords were broken, Pakistan was not supplying them or backing them with anything.


But like I keep saying, thats beside the point. The Soviets were open to negotiating with the MAjahadeen, it was the majahadeen who were not interested, just like today the americans are open to negotiation but the taliban are the ones not interested. Like today, the majahadeen at that time number one condition was that foreign forces leave before any negotiations can take place.


This is the first thing you've got right on this thread.


But once the soviets left, Peace was possible. Najib was open to negotiations especially after the soviet union collapsed. His lifeline was slowly disappearing.


Incorrect again.

Najibullah was able to hold out against the Mujahideen for 3 years. It was only when Moscow stopped supplying him that he knew he had to step down, which he agreed to do as in the UN peace plan.


But it was Pakistan that wanted to control afghanistan. Pakistan told their proxies that negotiations were not in their interest because why share the power with najib when they can have it all. We all know how that ended.

This is clueless again.

I know you're desperate to prove Pakistan responsible, and I don't care who was responsible.

But you won't convince anyone through outright lies.

The UN peace plan was accepted. Hekmatyar and Massoud launch a grab for Kabul in early 1992. Kabul is captured. This is fine because it was what the UN peace plan demanded.

THE PROBLEM WAS WHERE THE UN PEACE PLAN FAILED WAS THE PESHAWAR ACCORDS. This was because Rabbani stayed on as president by his election by the Council of Wise Men. Rabbani was not Pakistan's man in 1992. This is where your Pakistan blame theory breaks down. It's difficult to understand for you, from what I've seen.

khushal
03-26-2011, 09:53 AM
You are by far the dumbest panjabi Ive come accross.

Your saying that america supplied the majahadeen with weapons because the americans had advanced weapons. 99% of the weapons used were russian and chinese made.

Najib and the Soviets were practically begging the Majhadeen to negotiate a peacefull settlement during the soviets occupation and after they left. They knew they had lost and knew it was a matter of time before Najibs government fell. Pakistan knew this as well and knew once the Najib government collapses, these idiotic leaders would be fighting each other. Najib even predicted this before his governments demise. there were many analysts that also predicted this, because like I stated before, there was no plan for a post Najib government.

But its useless arguing with you. you keep talking about nonsense.

roadrunner
03-26-2011, 05:27 PM
You are by far the dumbest panjabi Ive come accross.

Your saying that america supplied the majahadeen with weapons because the americans had advanced weapons. 99% of the weapons used were russian and chinese made.


The Russians weren't supplying the Mujahideen to kill their own troops, dohhhhhh.

The Mujahideen created replicates. Seriously, you're not Pashtun. You haven't got the slightest inkling of what's gone on in recent Pashtun history or of the Pashtun culture. It was not Pakistan, or Pakistan's proxy that broke the Peshawar Accords.


Najib and the Soviets were practically begging the Majhadeen to negotiate a peacefull settlement during the soviets occupation and after they left. They knew they had lost and knew it was a matter of time before Najibs government fell.


Wrong again. Najibullah was well in control of Afghanistan after 3 years. Moscow supplied him with weapons and he had no problem holding the Mujahideen off.

Read about it since you don't know about it. Najibullah controlled every major Afghan city 3 years after the Soviets had left.

His demise came when Moscow decided to stop giving him arms and supplies. Up till that point he was quite happy to stay and not negotiate.


Pakistan knew this as well and knew once the Najib government collapses, these idiotic leaders would be fighting each other. Najib even predicted this before his governments demise. there were many analysts that also predicted this, because like I stated before, there was no plan for a post Najib government.

But its useless arguing with you. you keep talking about nonsense.

Pakistan didn't know this. Neither did the US and the other allies. Right up till the point when the Communist government agreed to allow the UN to negotiate a peace deal, everyone was still supplying their lunatic.

There was a plan for the post Najibullah government. I've told you this hundreds of times before, but it doesn't go in. The plan was the UN peace plan. It worked until the Peshawar Accords were ignored.

So how is Pakistan responsible for this figment of the Nationalist's imagination that Pakistan caused the instability in Afghanistan after the Communist defeat?

dashtestan
03-27-2011, 12:54 PM
I didn't take the time to read any of this because I don't want to be depressed.
All I have to say is in my outrageous opinion is that the conjoined twins of Pakistan and Afghanistan should be one country because neither can survive without the other....

The British drew a line on the map...but who carved it into our hearts?

graveyardofempires
03-27-2011, 01:13 PM
this trollrunner is getting totally out of the line
all of his posts are just lies and bias.

roadrunner
03-27-2011, 05:06 PM
I didn't take the time to read any of this because I don't want to be depressed.
All I have to say is in my outrageous opinion is that the conjoined twins of Pakistan and Afghanistan should be one country because neither can survive without the other....

The British drew a line on the map...but who carved it into our hearts?

I don't mind that. Everyone ignores the Durand Line anyway.

roadrunner
03-27-2011, 05:10 PM
So I guess no Pashtun Nationalist or non Pashtun can give me an answer that won't be debunked as to what exactly it is that singles out Pakistan for the anti-bias.

It seems as though a lot of these internet Pashtun Nationalists have an agenda of spreading disinformation

khushal
03-27-2011, 09:01 PM
you havent dubunked anything.
your just a loudmouth idiot posting away nonsense.

This is how you argue.
person x: the sky is blue
you: no it is not blue that is wrong.
person x: look outside you idiot
you: nobody has debunked me

BarakzaiAbdali
03-27-2011, 09:09 PM
So I guess no Pashtun Nationalist or non Pashtun can give me an answer that won't be debunked as to what exactly it is that singles out Pakistan for the anti-bias.

It seems as though a lot of these internet Pashtun Nationalists have an agenda of spreading disinformation

Brother Khushaal is not a Pashtun nationalist... so that is likely why you are not getting a Pashtun nationalist answer from him. He is more properly, a Pashtun independent. In my past discussions with him he has not singled out Pakistan for blame... but he refuses to absolve it either. For example, he and I had a hearty discussion about America's own role (per my citizenship here) and he had his fair share of the blame for all parties.

Brother Khushaal, could you delineate for me, what role you saw Najib taking though? Say if the Muhajideen and subsquent Taliban were not Pakistani influenced, why should that have left Najib in power? He killed family members based out of Sher Surkh who were involved in the efforts against his Piryaan. So why would it be seen as a net positive for Afghans to have retained him in power? Or did I misread you?

roadrunner
03-27-2011, 09:55 PM
you havent dubunked anything.
your just a loudmouth idiot posting away nonsense.

This is how you argue.
person x: the sky is blue
you: no it is not blue that is wrong.
person x: look outside you idiot
you: nobody has debunked me

more like.

person x (you): the sky is blue because ISI changed it with their raygun
me: give me proof that ISI did that.
person x (you): i can't, but ISI is responsible for it.

roadrunner
03-27-2011, 09:56 PM
Brother Khushaal is not a Pashtun nationalist... so that is likely why you are not getting a Pashtun nationalist answer from him. He is more properly, a Pashtun independent. In my past discussions with him he has not singled out Pakistan for blame... but he refuses to absolve it either. For example, he and I had a hearty discussion about America's own role (per my citizenship here) and he had his fair share of the blame for all parties.


probably true, but i didn't say he was a Pashtun Nationalist. I'd go for a non Muslim Indian, or just non Pashtun.

khushal
03-28-2011, 02:32 AM
Brother Khushaal, could you delineate for me, what role you saw Najib taking though? Say if the Muhajideen and subsquent Taliban were not Pakistani influenced, why should that have left Najib in power? He killed family members based out of Sher Surkh who were involved in the efforts against his Piryaan. So why would it be seen as a net positive for Afghans to have retained him in power? Or did I misread you?


First I would like to make it clear I am no Najib sympathizer. Most afghans that were fighting during the soviet occupation were fighting to get the foreign forces out. In fact many laid down their arms when the soviets left. Najib's hold on power would have been limited with or without a peace deal since many in his own army and administration where questioning his judgment. A powersharing aggreement would not have ensured his grip on power but it would have been more likely that he would have eventually been sidelined.

Mohammad Najibullah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah)
In March 1990 his government successfully withstood a Khalqi coup d'état, headed by Defense Minister Shahnawaz Tanai. According to Halimzai, a few months before the coup Mohammad Zahir Ofoq, the head of a small communist party, met with Shahnawaz Tanai to make a strategy for the coup. Halimzai says "When we were discussing how to take over the control, I told them that the coup will be unsuccessful unless we have control of departments like Media, Defence, Ministry of Foreign Affairs in our hand. I told them that I am not willing to bring about such change. I said that you both should be aware of the all circumstances. We can't take over Kabul, and once we fail no power will stop Ashrar (Mujahedeen) to enter Kabul. Eventually they agreed and said that they will first create grounds for a coup afterwards will act. But they were actually planning the coup and just before the coup Mr. Ofoq went to India and after failing Mr. Tanai fled to Islamabad. And I was right, Dr. Najib's regime became weaker and in March 1992, Ashrar were wandering in the streets of Kabul, who were now Mujahedeen.


It would have been more beneficial to the afghans if the afghan governments collapse would have been prevented. The disenfranchised parties should have worked with the government instead of completely destoying it, creating chaos and have other regional powers play in afghan affairs. History has shown us that the breakdown and collapse of institutions has been a liability to society. This is to say if we are talking about the best interests of the afghan people.

One of the main reasons for the British success in India was that they just took over the Moghul institutions rather than destroying them. One of the main blunders of the recent Iraq war was bush promoting the idea of completely wiping Baathist institutions and creating new ones from scratch. These policies have done nothing but give regional powers the opportunity to interfere in that societies affairs.

While I believe the real blame goes back to Dauds policies towards the soviet union and his policies towards Pakistan. Pakistan just took advantage of a situation(the soviet invasion) where she can have leverage in shaping afghanistan future since almost all of the worlds aid to the majahadeen and refugees went through Pakistan. Pakistan choose to have divided majahadeeen factions. Pakistan choose to have madrasas built for afghan refugees instead of schools with a wider choice of curriculum. etc etc