Lindsay Graham's Bases

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Maalik, is the name of an Angel who presides over Hell and it is written as مالك
Which is Meem-Alif-Lam


Malik is arabic for Owner but means King, it is written as
: ملك

Meem-Lam-Kaf

The attribute of Allah is that he is Al-Malik. The King

Also the word for Angel is written as Meem-Lam-Alif-Kaf.

Bottom line - they are not derived off the same root word like you allege that Malik e yum e din is actually Maalik, the angel, malaaika, of hell,


Don't confuse your self genius.

Wrong, similar to the words, Hameed and even the name Muhammad, the ROOT HMD (hamd) provides a trunk on which these branch words stand. I I also submit to the following link that buttresses this and Lisaan Al Arab the classic Arabic dictionary provided the original argument but is not online.

http://quranicteachings.co.uk/malaika.htm

Also, to help our literacy challenged Tajik friend out a little and provide textual evidence within the Quran itself to support the ayah he raised is an ayah that expounds on the DEFINITE role given to angels in:

Surah 74 verse 31: And We have not made the keepers of the fire others than Malaika,

[khyaal]

Antagonism. A) The Zahir Shah government was the first government to reject Pakistan's candidacy into the inclusion of nation states. This was an initial volley and slap in the face for the new country. The goal was to renew the hold on the NWFP (incidentally sold off by Afghan Kings per their own folley). B) They beamed radio messages from the Surkh Push movement and attempted to
destabilize Pakistan from Afghanistan during the Abdul Ghaffar Khan era. C)

LOL. An alleged Barakzai becomes the advocat Punjab's illegitimate occupation of Pashtuns historical land which had never been part of the Indian Subcontinent and was forcefully made part of Pakistan which meant only the division of India.

Loui Dupree has clearly written in her book 'Afghanistan' that the occpation of Afghan land by the British never meant the extension of Indian Borders, rather it meant the expansion of the British sphere of influence.

I don't know how could you possibly ignore the fact that Afghanistan is and was the only legitimate owner of the occupied Pashtun/afghan land?

The Zahir government formed strong ties with the Soviets and the Indians that eventually backfired. Per Michael Scheuer, the expert on Bin Ladin, the Afghan Mujahideen would recall tales of Indian jets assisting Soviet incursions (see his article in the Diplomat). The summary of this is that Pakistan's military goal will be to maintain strategic depth and avoid allowing India the chance to put it in a pincer hold.”

wah wah wah! I don't know how to reply to this bul****. Ignoring the Pakistan's joining SEATO and CENTO and becoming the illegitimate child of the West, it was Afghanistan which is to blame for its relations with its closest neighbor Soviet Union and also India with which Afghanistan had historic relations long before there was any Pakis-stan

“1. To delve into this some more, I refer you to the classic paper on Afghanistan Pakistan relations by Khurshid Hasan, entitled quiet astutely, Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations in the Asian Survey Vol. 2, No 7 (1962). This source was written and reviewed by diplomats on both sides of the border and generally is the source written closest to the inception of Pakistan. The issue in each conflict is to get to the root and understand what the players are motivated by and figuratively, "who threw the first punch."

A. Per Dr. Hasan, the history speaks for itself. In September of 1947 Afghanistan threw out the first volley and was the ONLY nation in the world to oppose the entry of Pakistan into the realm of nation states.

B. The first ARMED incursions were encouraged by the Afghan government within days of the creation of Pakistan. Tribal militias were armed and entered territories that were not even traditionally within the sphere of particular tribal groups (e.g. Kharoti Pashtun tribal members were armed to invade parts of Waziristan). An added source to buttress this claim is by Ian Talbot, Pakistan: A Modern History, written in 2005.

Unfortunately, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When the Pakistanis felt that they were in the untenable position of having to defend against Indian action on both sides of their borders, they seek to do what most nation states would and defend their realm with the sorts of tactics they have employed since then. This includes the unfortunate treatment afforded to Balochis.”

Deal with the facts buddy

Wrora ! why do you claim to be a Barakzai and Abdali (I'm did sure your not a Pakhtun let alone Barakzai), making a sort of mockery of Great Ahmad Shah Baba, when your whole ideology is Punjab centric and you are using your energy in vain in preparing a false case for Pakistan/Punjab's occupation of Pashtun historic land?

[khyaal]

parsiwaan,
please refrain from spewing this paki boy nonsense. Barakzaiabdali, on several occasions, clearly stated he was from kandahar. If you can't debate professionally, then this site clearly isn't for you. We have hosted you as our brother(guest), but that gives you no right to insult our members and our community. We pashtuns are courteous and full of hospitality, but consider yourself warned. If you want to question islam[professionally with respect]that is fine. In fact, gaining knowledge is something i encourage. However, if you are here to mock my religion, clearly you are in the wrong place.

barakzai is from paki defence forum named as ajpirzada and is a hardcore punjabi. He is one of the moderators of that forum.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Groan and sigh.

OK, thats fine believe that I am not a Barakzai to heart's content. My subclan is Muhammadzai and I hail through the lineage of Sultan Azaam.

You are not reading my words carefully, or I am not typing them carefully enough. I tend to prefer the former since you somehow pulled the claim of Panjab centricity out of my words.

My statements clearly cast DOUBT on the legitimacy of the STRATEGIC DEPTH concept. I point out that it is a strategy devised and propounded by the Pakistani military that my or MAY NOT hold water.

In regard to East Pakistan, their military strategies appeared to NOT hold water.

My goal in this was to point out where the STRATEGIC depth concept emanated from what instigated it to form in regard to the actions of the Afghan state.

My exact point was that a FUTURE, STABLE Pashtunkhwa has to also recognize that even the Indian Military Journal has clearly written that ALL historical super threats to India emanate from the direction of the Afghan border (Sher Shah Suri, Ahmad Shah Abdali etc, Nadir Quli Beg, etc).

The Indians also have a "strategic COUNTER depth policy."

Therefore, Parsiwaan has to reconcile a few concepts:
1. He refers to the line of Nadir and Zahir as that of Panjabi centric agents who created the current mess.
2. If so, then how does one reconcile my fellow tribesman, Zahir's orders of incursions into the territory of the new state of Pakistan?

The only way one can reconcile this is by then admitting that Zahir's incusions were COUNTER productive and only perpetuated the problem.

With the creation of a Pashtunkhwa (unlikely with the parmenant bases) the new nation would have to be cognizent of a new Panjabi/Sindhi/even Balochi state near its borders that would have a CENTRIC policy develop as well if it felt that Pashtunkhwa's policy was going to affect its survival.

It matters not how much one likes or dislikes Pakistan to understand that any nation state, even Mexico, attempts survival maneuvers.

If it was a land grab issue, then the Afghan state ought to have utilized full military force to grab what it viewed was rightfully its own.

But the Chinese mind trap you have gotten yourself into by siding with Parsiwaan is that Zahir and his dad were agents and successfully destroyed Afghan hopes of recovering the grounds. Therefore, one has to admit that the incursions were A) useless and B) counterproductive.

If one goes the military route, one had to be ready to utilize crushing and unrelenting force.

[khyaal]

Beware! Toramana and Aseer Jana.

This secular versus religious by AJPIRZADA of paki defence forum and this waryun (who too seems to be from that forum) is just a ploy to polarize Pashtun(afghans) society on religious grounds. The main theme of their arguments and their intentions will always be to sustain Punjab's hegemony by keeping status quo in occupied Pashtun(afghan) land of Pakhtunkhwa.

[khyaal]

Groan and sigh.

OK, thats fine believe that I am not a Barakzai to heart's content. My subclan is Muhammadzai and I hail through the lineage of Sultan Azaam.

You are not reading my words carefully, or I am not typing them carefully enough. I tend to prefer the former since you somehow pulled the claim of Panjab centricity out of my words.

My statements clearly cast DOUBT on the legitimacy of the STRATEGIC DEPTH concept. I point out that it is a strategy devised and propounded by the Pakistani military that my or MAY NOT hold water.

In regard to East Pakistan, their military strategies appeared to NOT hold water.

My goal in this was to point out where the STRATEGIC depth concept emanated from what instigated it to form in regard to the actions of the Afghan state.

My exact point was that a FUTURE, STABLE Pashtunkhwa has to also recognize that even the Indian Military Journal has clearly written that ALL historical super threats to India emanate from the direction of the Afghan border (Sher Shah Suri, Ahmad Shah Abdali etc, Nadir Quli Beg, etc).

The Indians also have a "strategic COUNTER depth policy."

Therefore, Parsiwaan has to reconcile a few concepts:
1. He refers to the line of Nadir and Zahir as that of Panjabi centric agents who created the current mess.
2. If so, then how does one reconcile my fellow tribesman, Zahir's orders of incursions into the territory of the new state of Pakistan?

The only way one can reconcile this is by then admitting that Zahir's incusions were COUNTER productive and only perpetuated the problem.

With the creation of a Pashtunkhwa (unlikely with the parmenant bases) the new nation would have to be cognizent of a new Panjabi/Sindhi/even Balochi state near its borders that would have a CENTRIC policy develop as well if it felt that Pashtunkhwa's policy was going to affect its survival.

It matters not how much one likes or dislikes Pakistan to understand that any nation state, even Mexico, attempts survival maneuvers.

If it was a land grab issue, then the Afghan state ought to have utilized full military force to grab what it viewed was rightfully its own.

But the Chinese mind trap you have gotten yourself into by siding with Parsiwaan is that Zahir and his dad were agents and successfully destroyed Afghan hopes of recovering the grounds. Therefore, one has to admit that the incursions were A) useless and B) counterproductive.

If one goes the military route, one had to be ready to utilize crushing and unrelenting force.

Just let us know and I will be greatful if you could tell us which Pashtun(afghan) author or analyst have you read about the Durand Line issue.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Finally, as I have wrote it is utterly idiotic to state that lands the British set up cantonments were "on ice" so as to say.

If so, why not simply give them back to the Afghans and draft treaties with them to avoid such future conundrums?

Conquered land was just that, conquered. The same way Palestine is conquered.

It was, once again, an extremely piss poor performance by my own Barakzai clansmen in giving over any land to the British under any treaty.

Finally, Recall it was one of my distant past counsins, Sultan Muhammad Telai who basically drafted a treaty with the Singh's of the Sikh empire in regard to the NWFP

Once again, this shows what I have been attempting to prove all along. We Afghans made our bed, and now we have to lie in it. We have to hold ourselves responsible and either agree to A) Correct the problem or B) Quit complaining about split water.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Just let us know and I will be greatful if you could tell us which Pashtun(afghan) author or analyst have you read about the Durand Line issue.

I referred to Ian Talbot classic on Pakistan and the other journal articles in my prior posts. I shall not reproduce them here, but instead let you re-read the post. The way you ask the question is absurd. Its like saying: You must read the works of Obama to accurately judge the democratic platform. In this case, the ANP nationalist would step in for Obama in this example. That is partially true... you get a picture of the platform, but you have to read some impartial words by others, including the Republican criticisms. Some other authors works I have read on the subject include Stephen Tanners military History of Afghanistan, currently in high demand for the Royal Marines.

[khyaal]

How come you talk about Fasiwan issue when you don't even recognize the occupied status of Pakhtunkhwa where there is no disagreement between Pashtun(afghan) on this issue.

You don't even know why the Afghan ambassador opposed Pakistan's membership in the UN and what he said there. If you know just tell us.

[khyaal]

I referred to Ian Talbot classic on Pakistan and the other journal articles in my prior posts. I shall not reproduce them here, but instead let you re-read the post. The way you ask the question is absurd. Its like saying: You must read the works of Obama to accurately judge the democratic platform. In this case, the ANP nationalist would step in for Obama in this example. That is partially true... you get a picture of the platform, but you have to read some impartial words by others, including the Republican criticisms. Some other authors works I have read on the subject include Stephen Tanners military History of Afghanistan, currently in high demand for the Royal Marines.

Then why did you quote a Pakistani author 'Khurshid Hasan' on the Durand line issue and the Paki-afghan relations which shows just a one sided picture of the issue, why not afghan/pashtun version of history?

[Wrayun]

Beware! Toramana and Aseer Jana.

This secular versus religious by AJPIRZADA of paki defence forum and this waryun (who too seems to be from that forum) is just a ploy to polarize Pashtun(afghans) society on religious grounds. The main theme of their arguments and their intentions will always be to sustain Punjab's hegemony by keeping status quo in occupied Pashtun(afghan) land of Pakhtunkhwa.

BEWARE! BEWARE! everyone is like Khyaal bibi hiding under multiple nicks, the illuminated Phir and the Hindki Mushina khor....not to mention planet Pukhtoon! BEWARE! BEWARE!

Sorry to disappoint you. I am too busy to be on multiple platforms, multiple id's, multiple nicks, unlike some over aged, over grown, pseudo intellectuals.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Barakzai Afghanistan had the right to oppose it, considering some very important considerations:
- the so called referendum was boycotted by the ruling party in the only region in Pashtun lands that was given the right to vote.
- the treaty was between Britain and Afghanistan and it pertained to spheres of influence not set in stone boundaries.
- the ruling party in the settled areas themselves rejected the two choices opting and wanting a third or fourth (Bannu declaration).

It was legitimate to not accept Pakistan into UN on those grounds.

[khyaal]

@Baraakzai,

I'll repeat again. Tell us why the Afghan ambassador opposed Pakistan's membership in the UN and what he said there? If you know just tell us here.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Then why did you quote a Pakistani author 'Khurshid Hasan' on the Durand line issue and the Paki-afghan relations which shows just a one sided picture of the issue, why not afghan/pashtun version of history?

He is one of the authors amongst the others I noted. The other texts I read were written by pashtoon nationalist Fida Younis, former statesman in Afghanistan and close friend of Taizi saib.

[Toramana]

Then why did you quote a Pakistani author 'Khurshid Hasan' on the Durand line issue and the Paki-afghan relations which shows just a one sided picture of the issue, why not afghan/pashtun version of history?

Obviously, he is an imposter shifting position sometimes claiming Mohammadzai ancestry, sometimes Barakzai...All that he has said makes him extremly suspicious e.g. he is constantly towing Paki line as for political relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan or status of Pashtuns or Durnad Line is concerned .... More clues, when he talk about Sayed Ahmad Barelvi uniting Pashtuns but Afghan Sardars betraying him, Rahman Medical Center, Churchil's comment about Pashtuns, Quetta, antoganistic reference to ANP, PMAP, etc....

He claims Afghan ancestry but seems to be more anchored in Paki-stan. I have yet to meet an Afghan that is so pro-Pakistan.