dr najeeb speech on shah nawaz tanai

[BarakzaiAbdali]

How am I portraying him then?


Come up with his agendas, and compare it to ISI's agendas. Again you are ignoring that one had to choose the lesser evil for Afghanistan's future, ISI was definitely not that option.


It was this very same Massoud who was very familiar with ISI. It's a different thing he got neglected by ISI since ISI had found a new strategy in Afghanistan, namely Taliban.


Did he set up any Pukhtunistan movements then? As far as I know he did refuse to recognize the Durrand Line, but then, which Afghan president didn't?


So he was pro-Pukhtunistan a.k.a. united Pukhtoons, yet he sided Dostum because Dostum was Pukhtoon-hater? I am stuck here, please help me out? Besides, Dostum's cruelty towards Pukhtoons took an ugly turn during and after the Taliban regime, I can't remember he had any anti-Pukhtoon policy beforehand?


It's a different thing if you don't want Pukhtunistan-issue to come up and therefore think of a policy of your own, and it's another thing if you don't want Pukhtunistan-issue to come up and therefore join your country's arch enemy to succeed both sides policies. No?


I am glad we agree somewhere, same here.


This is why I keep repeating that we should never have given Russia that much time and space on our soil in first place, which mistake we had made already. Looking at Russian history we knew how cruel the Russian army was, they didn't give a damn about how many lives they lost, but as soon as they were given a position in a country it was best not to make things worse.


Surely rape did happen during war, every country in war faces it. But when Russia newly arrived in Afghanistan, they didn't go around raping women. A war broke up, houses were ruined, people were ruined, women lost everyone, they became vulnerable, and very easily raped. And till today's date Afghan women are facing this unfortunately reality, though now under NATO.


That's why one needs to try to make things as less horrific as possible, take Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as an example. We ourselves made ourselves occupied, last thing we should be doing in such cases is attack them on the very same soil we invited them on.


They are, nonetheless, arch enemies. Them bombing Afghan borders in late '40's, them creating anti-Afghan government camps, them arming people against Afghanistan is more than just a reality.


And that's in fact a very good thing. Maybe Pukhtoons on both sides had more understanding for each other, more sympathy and more awareness of facts. I really don't see that as a problem, do you? Yes, if he had policies in which he planned to reclaim entire Pakhtunkhwa, then we are talking.


Crisis Group
Books Googlei
Hazara Nation
UNHCR


I can't find the link where the incident was explained more accurately, but here a few:

Afghan Institute
Books Google
RAWA


Even if I have to believe the stories I got to hear personally, women were most vulnerable during Mujahideen era. I don't even have to post whatever links for it, millions of sources on-line claim the same, as well as the stories I heard during my stay in Afghanistan. The stories weren't pleasant, at all.


Brother, I am not a fool not to believe Russia never committed any rape, I am not living in such a huge denial. Rape has been taking place ever since the war started, women are crying tears of blood ever since the war started. My actual point was regarding the claim you made that Najibullah encouraged the Russians to rape women, urinate them and what not. I don't know how many links you can show that Najibullah himself or his men committed rape, but those for Mujahideen are in millions.


Each and every politician choose a side, I know on whose side Najibullah was. As much as we speak of Russians abusing our women, we should be concerned about our own Afghans abusing our own women much more because even today those ex-Mujahideen are doing whatever they were doing to women decades back.


They were fighting Pakistan's war even before Russia was in picture, and the fact USA only benefited from Russia's loss says enough about why the war took place, and who made it take place.


Okay, let's do it this way; Can you explain how Russians landed in Afghanistan? Tell me from the beginning, we will take it from there.


Such as?


So we agree that USA and Russia both had same goal, but different approach. Nonetheless, ask the Middle East who they see as their biggest enemy, and why? Hope you got my point.


Evidence that Najibullah solely was responsible for loss of millions of lives? No. Najibullah was a supporter of Russia, not it's leader. From Mujahideen, to Russians, to Khalqis, all of them were fighting for a victory. At the cost of Afghan civilians. And oh, the reference is not working.


Even though every single politician tried to flee Kabul, with Najibullah being no exception, I didn't see him flee the country? Please give me some sources so I actually know whether I am getting it right?


Who didn't serve foreigners back then? As much as we twist it, everyone served foreigners since we didn't have any government of our own, nonetheless we should have picked the least harmful for our future. That's the point I am making.


Eh, no. Pakistan bombed us in the '40's, they set up camps against our government, they armed insurgents against our nation, and even today they are doing the exact same thing. So since the '40's all Pakistan did is 'fight India'? Even Russia didn't destroy us as much as Pakistan's policy is, I can't believe you are actually ignoring this fact.


First they destabilized us for Pakhtunkhwa, now for USA. They remain the same sh*t, just with different topics each time.


Amanullah Khan could have been the answer to a modern Afghanistan, it's just a shame some brainless morons took his policies as an attack on Islam and destroyed the very little hope we had.


It was the Mujahideen who fought the Russians, not our people who in fact got as sick of Mujahideen. It is Taliban bombing foreigners, not our people who are in fact as sick of Taliban. Over past few decades we have only seen puppets, no government. True.


Afghanistan was peaceful back then, no one[/] massacred anyone back then.


Karzai by far is the least evil out of all the politicians we have, which is why we shouldn't keep wondering how 'Mister A' as compared to Karzai would have controlled Afghanistan. But even with Karzai it's the same thing, he only speaks, where is his action? The situation back then and right now is much different by the way, we can't compare these two eras.


Don't tell me Najibullah's did? Though, Hizb-e-Wahdat was very famous for those activities.


[i]100,000 is the number (which I am sure in fact is more) when Mujahideen where fighting amongst themselves (if I am not wrong), count those millions who lost their lives during Russian war with it, you will be surprised by the number.


The fact you are using India as an excuse to justify Pakistan's actions says enough why we are talking in black and white here. India won't benefit from a destabilized Afghanistan, while that was Pakistan's target. For the sake of goodness, keep India out of this.

P.S.; I will get back to other posts later on.

Here we go again. I am sure, that at the conclusion of all of this, I will once again be called a Pakistani and the haranguing will begin. It seems that fact based discussions lead one in such a direction; you know, being called a stooge of Pakistan, Saudi, closet Panjabie etc. I have actually begun to accept this terminology as meaning: smart, smarter, and smartest based purely on the interactions here. Here is the problem with living in this alternate universe where Pakistan, from its inception, decided to focus so much energy on destabilizing Afghanistan without us playing any role whatsoever. Why does this reality defying view do us a disservice? Because it shows just how far off we are from understanding how to pursue goals, whether they be strenghthening one's own nation state... or re-aquiring that which was rightfully ours.

So now, you'll have to find historical sources to buttress your claims about the Pakistani incursions initiating in the 40s without any interaction on the part of Afghanistan. I too grew up on those legends. I read up on it and discovered that the fault lies with our idiotic strategy for attempting to take back what the Zahir Shah government viewed as rightfully ours:

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.

So now, tell me, in a world where the language of force has been and continues to be fiat currency, why would we, once we determined we could not militarily grab the land, stoke a potential conflict that we had no arms or capability to win? I am about winning wars that one starts, with lethal measures if necessary. Going to the UN and crying like a baby over the KP land and then subsequently being dumb enough to arm Kharotis to invade Waziri territory (recall Waziris took wana from them way back when so it was not going to be simply an exchange of pleasantries).

Tell me, in history, has a stronger nation ever ceded land willingly to a militarily weaker nation simply because it asked for it? No, thats just plain dumb to think that by going to the UN and lodging a protest we were going to get anywhere.

*Mind you, this same UN that backed Pakistan is now the same UN/Nato that you believe will somehow bring a merciful peace to Afghanistan. So back then, they backed Pakistan and buttressed it with arms and now, suddenly, you think they are like Tinker Bell, ready to sprinkle "become a first world nation" dust all over the lands?

Another logical fallacy is the whole US and middle eastern view of the US commentary above. Its a straw man. In the initial, the Arab states had various sorts of relationships with the US depending on where the leaderships of their respective countries lay. Regarding the people, surveys show that it is not Americans themselves that the Muslim peoples of the Arab worlds hate... rather its American policies. In fact, in Scheuer's bio of Osama Bin Ladin, he viewed both the USSR and the US equally as threats to the Muslim world. So trust me, you have no argument there.

The great logical fallacy you make is human responses that occur to foreign armies. The idea that any Afghan rural villager was going to just stand by when a non Muslim regular standing Army from Russia marched into their village, even if they were bearing flowers, is absurd. Once again, there is not a region on earth, with Iraq being a prime current example, if a people not rising up against an incursion like that.

Regarding the Mujahideen killings, Rawa is hardly a citable source. Do better than that.

Regarding Amanullah, I beg to differ. How does one say that a leader is adept and intellectual when he cannot even grasp the condition and the ideologies of his people at the grassroots. Why do you think that the evolution of American society has always and will always been a liberal versus conservative paradigm? In fact, an study just recently discussed the break down between the southerners and northerners over the view of the Civil War. That is exactly why Presidential candidates are careful to not antagonize the south over gays rights, guns, abortion, etc. Merely because Tarzai and others decided that Ataturk had something going, did not validate Amanullah utilizing magical thinking about being able to force a modernization program on the masses.

Regarding the Taliban, once again, grab a chart of their key shura and see from whence their members derive. They are not wazirs, mehsuds, yusufzais, they are for the most part Durrani and Ghiljaay Pashtuns from the vale of Qandahar. The Afghan Taliban's membership is predominantly Afghan Pashtun.

Regarding Muj killings, once again, you confuse cause and effect. As I noted, when wars start, killing begins. You are blaming the victim here. If the rural masses do what they have always done and rise up bloodily against any occupation, why do you heap blame at their feet? Look at the way that Wazir Akbar's men killed British soldiers. Kipling and others detail genitalia being cut off the bodies of the British soldiers and stuffed in their mouths... Ghazis were brutal, even before teh Amanullah Shah period.

And once again, you make the historical fallacy of coupling the muj murders with the Taliban offensives, when the former spurred the latter's rapid progress.

Regarding najib and rape, I am sure the same could be said of Chemical Ali or Saddam Hussein or even Mubarak. Usually the security apparatuses of countries are the groups that implement these policies. However, just as when I monitor medical students and residents on the wards...the buck stops at the leadership. Moreover, the source I cited to you clearly states that Najib GAVE KHAD SWEEPING powers and that this instigated the results directly. Bottom line: leaders are responsible for their governments.

We cannot simply accept your anecdotal conversations with various women as evidence of how the Muj were worse. We need data and evidence that is not you or some random women.

Regarding Karzai, an effeminate elitist that fled the war to bask in the comforts of munching on sugared almonds and drinking green tea while his people bled is hardly deserving of leadership. He also backed the overthrow of Najib and was involved in the various party talks in Pakistan itself. So at best he is aloof and at worst he is an opportunist. His government's massive amounts of corruption are hardly the stuff of building governmental dreams.

Once we understand historical fact, we can formulate or discuss a policy that allows us to accomplish reasonable goals. If the goals are to destabilize Pakistan, then so be it, but do it with the aforementioned understanding of history and how to proceed. If the goals are to simply build a modern secular Afghanistan, then as Mr Ghaznavi has said, good luck, keep dreaming till the cows come home. If the goals are to build an Afghanistan that reflects the will of the people that have lived there, suffered, and fought for the land through it all, with a subsequent goal of outwards power projection for national security reasons (i.e. taking back Pashtunkhwa) then come up with a logical plan, once again based on fact and not pseudo history.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Ghaznavi wrorre, you and I may not see eye to eye theologically. And mind you, folks here have accused me of being everything from a rabid Pakistani to an Islamist that wants to murder to erect a Khilafaath. I think my admiration of your work shows otherwise, but I may be wrong. However, I deeply respect your powers of independent analysis. I can learn much from you, and urge you to correct me where I am wrong historically and possibly, intellectually.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

How am I portraying him, then?


Come up with his agendas, and compare it to ISI's agendas. Again you are ignoring that one had to choose the lesser evil for Afghanistan's future, ISI was definitely not that option.


It was this very same Massoud who was very familiar with ISI. It's a different thing he got neglected by ISI since ISI had found a new strategy in Afghanistan, namely Taliban.


Did he set up any Pukhtunistan movements then? As far as I know he did refuse to recognize the Durrand Line, but then, which Afghan president didn't?


So he was pro-Pukhtunistan a.k.a. united Pukhtoons, yet he sided Dostum because Dostum was a Pukhtoon-hater..........? I am stuck here, please help me out. Besides, Dostum's cruelty towards Pukhtoons took an ugly turn during and after the Taliban regime, I can't remember he had any anti-Pukhtoon policy beforehand?


It's a different thing if you don't want Pukhtunistan-issue to come up and therefore think of a policy of your own, and it's another thing if you don't want Pukhtunistan-issue to come up and therefore join your country's arch enemy to succeed both sides policies. No?


I am glad we agree somewhere, same here.


This is why we should never have given Russia that much time and space on our soil in first place, which mistake we had made already. Looking at Russian history we knew they didn't give a damn about how many lives they lost, but as soon as they were given a position in a country it was best not to make things worse.


Surely rape do happen during wars, every country in war faces it. When Russia newly arrived in Afghanistan, they didn't go around raping women. A war broke up, houses were ruined, people were ruined, women lost everyone, they became vulnerable, and very easily raped. And till today's date Afghan women are facing this unfortunately reality, though now under NATO/NA.


That's why one needs to try to make things as less horrific as possible, take Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as an example. We ourselves made ourselves occupied, last thing we should be doing in such cases is attack them on the very same soil we invited them on.


They are, nonetheless, arch enemies. Just like how you don't want Najibullah's actions to be justified, don't justify Pakistan's either because anyone could give ridiculous amount of evidences against Pakistan's motive as compared to Najibullah's.


And that's in fact a very good thing. Maybe Pukhtoons on both sides had more understanding for each other, more sympathy and more awareness of facts. I really don't see that as a problem, do you? Yes, if he had policies in which he planned to reclaim entire Pakhtunkhwa, then we are talking.


Crisis Group
Books Googlei
Hazara Nation
UNHCR


I can't find the link where the incident was explained more accurately, but here a few:

Afghan Institute
Books Google
RAWA


Even if I have to believe the stories I got to hear personally, women were most vulnerable during Mujahideen era. I don't even have to post whatever links for it, millions of sources on-line claim the same, as well as the stories I heard during my stay in Afghanistan. The stories weren't pleasant, at all.


Brother, I am not a fool not to believe Russia never committed any rape, I am not living in such a huge denial. Rape has been taking place ever since the war started, women are crying tears of blood ever since the war started. My actual point was regarding the claim you made that Najibullah encouraged the Russians to rape women, urinate on them and what not. I don't know how many links you can show that Najibullah himself or his men committed rape (or encouraged others to), but those for Mujahideen are in millions.


They were fighting Pakistan's war even before Russia was in picture, and the fact USA only benefited from Russia's loss says enough about why the war took place, and who made it take place. Had Pakistan been involved with us only during Russian war, then Pakistan would have made more sense.


Okay, let's do it this way; Can you explain how Russians landed in Afghanistan? Tell me from the beginning, we will take it from there.


Such as?


So we agree that USA and Russia both had same goal, but different approach. Nonetheless, ask the Middle East who they see as their biggest enemy, and why?


Evidence that Najibullah solely was responsible for loss of millions of lives? No, it's not. Najibullah was a supporter of Russia, not it's leader. From Mujahideen, to Russians, to Khalqis, all of them were fighting for a victory and all of them have had their shares in killing civilians. By the way, don't confuse Parcham for Khalq.


Even though every single politician tried to flee Kabul (with Najibullah being no exception if he truly tried to), he didn't leave his soil until and unless Taliban decided his destiny. Please do confirm with sources that fact has been otherwise.


Who didn't serve foreigners back then? As much as we like to twist it, everyone served foreigners since we didn't have any government of our own. Nonetheless, we should have picked the least harmful for our future. That's the point I am making.


Eh, no. Pakistan bombed us in the '40's which was before the Russian war, they set up camps against our government which was before the Russian war, they armed insurgents against our nation using Russian war as excuse, and even today they are doing the exact same thing now in the name of Taliban insurgencies. So ever since the '40's, all Pakistan did was 'fight India'? What for and why on Afghan soil? Even Russia didn't destroy us as much as Pakistan's policy is, and you are fooling yourself in believing their motive was not our instability? Wauw........


First they destabilized us for Pakhtunkhwa, now for USA. They remain the same sh*t with same motives but different ways, nothing else.


Amanullah Khan could have been the answer to a modern Afghanistan, it's just a shame some brainless morons took his policies as an attack on Islam and destroyed the very little hope we had.


It was the Mujahideen who were armed against the Russians, and the people got more fed up of those Mujahideen than Russians. It's Taliban who are being armed against NATO, and people are more fed up with Taliban than NATO. Either way, as I said, it's been our people who have been suffering.


Afghanistan was peaceful back then, there was no war back then so I wouldn't understand why 'massacre' would take place?


Karzai by far is the least evil out of all the politicians we have, which is why we shouldn't keep wondering how 'Mister A' as compared to Karzai would have controlled Afghanistan. But even with Karzai it's the same thing, he only speaks, where is his action? The situation back then and right now is much different by the way, we can't compare these two eras.


Don't tell me Najibullah's did? Though, Hizb-e-Wahdat was very famous for those activities.


100,000 is the number of Mujahideen-war only (which I believe is way more than 100,000), those millions during Russian war didn't die due to Russian attacks alone. Mujahideen were as active, it's a different thing people would love to believe otherwise.


The fact you are using India as an excuse to justify Pakistan's actions says enough about your 'patriotism'. Pakistan's enmity with Afghanistan didn't begin because of India, nor did they start interfering because of India. Stop using India as an excuse like a typical Pakistani.

Edit; I will get back to other posts later on.

Your own source also provides you with a logical chinese mind trap. Take a look at this source you cited:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

It is validating what I have always said regarding the presence of the Talib. It also validates what the Tribal Analysis Center was arguing and is now, thanks to you, an independent source that Toramana was asking for regarding the careful work that TAC puts into its presentations.

"Although taliban have never been, until recent times, at the pinnacle of military and political power, they are not new to Afghanistan. They have been a component of the religious establishment and have always ways lived in the shadow of other military, political, and economic groups. Mullah Shor Bazar, an Afghan fighter known for inflicting heavy losses on the British during the Third Anglo-Afghan war of 1919, was also a talib, as were Mirwais Khan Hotaki, and Mullah Mushki Alam, who fought against the British occupation of Afghanistan. During the national struggle against the Soviet invaders, taliban fought alongside the Mujahideen mainly under the leadership of Mohammad Nabi, one of the seven sanctioned Mujahideen leaders in Pakistan (also known as "Peshawar Tanzeem" Leaders)."

The caveat to this is that the paper is correct regarding the roots to their theology do not accord as well with traditional Afghan values.

Regarding the rise of the Taliban, once more the paper supports them being an independent phenomena from the Mujahideen, and appears to not accord with your grouping of the two together. If the only link you can generate is funding and arms as well as possible training by pakistan, you must do better. For as you justify Najib with the swan song of: everyone had to take sides... it was a necessity! So too can any groups of that era say, we had to take guns, moneys, and whatever we could take.

"According to the most widely circulated account amongst the residents of Qandahar, a group of "madrasee" (belonging or originating from a Madrasa) taliban, headed by Mullah Mohammad Omar arrived in Afghanistan with the intent to re-establish law and order and to re-organize themselves. They took residence in a school near Dand in Qandahar. On September 20, 1994, an Afghan family on its way to Herat from Qandahar, was looted, its male members molested, and its female members were raped by gangs manning one of the so-called "check points" along the route. One of the victims escapes and reaches the newly established Taliban compound. The story goes that Mullah Omar and his followers rushed to the scene, capturing the perpetrators, executing them on the spot and then collecting and burying the bodies of the victims."

Finally, the KICKER in your OWN source:

"In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war."

[khyaal]

You're doing that same reflexive thing again that I told you about that utilizes allegiance questioning and name calling as opposed stone cold pragmatic realities. No one said Pakistan did not intervene. In fact, I confirmed this above. The issue is what are you going to to about it?

Why are you trying to be naïve. I never challenged your allegiance I know about that, I challenged your complete lack of knowledge when you put forward a thread which showed your complete ignorance about the proper context of Afghanistan’s opposition to Pakis membership in the UN. Either you didn’t know about it or you deliberately ignored it, I don’t know but even ten year young afghan knows about Pakistan’s occupation of afghan land.

You appear to be not reading or watching the news regarding the last paragraph. Corruption is rife to hitherto not before seen levels. The Kabul bank is in shambles. Mr. Karzai has a parliament that he despises and cannot deal with because it appears to deny Pashtuns the rightful number of seats despite their population majority. Moreover, he is a nonentity and has not earned the right to lead as I stated before. He appears to be inept in leadership and his officials lack the basic capabilities to govern a non centralized state.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MA25Df02.html

You even have not read the article and put it here for reference against Karzai Saib. It says

“The United States' proxy war against Afghan President Hamid Karzai has taken a vicious turn, undermining the tenuous political equations in the country. Washington is displeased with Karzai's moves to accelerate reconciliation with the Taliban, while his pitch for a regional initiative and his agenda of a multi-vector foreign policy challenge US regional strategies”


This media trial of Karzai Saib didn’t just start with the concocted stories of corruption; it got initiated long before it. If you know after the fall of Taliban initially it was Commander Abdul Haq who was assassinated by the Paki intelligence agencies on his way to Torkham so it was not a smooth sail for Karzai either. The enemies wanted to either physically eliminate him or make him so controversial so that he could not be able to provide leadership to this war torn afghan society. During his election campaign he even send letters to the US embassy to provide proof of his corruption which they could not. Despite the fact that the whole media was against him he clearly defeated his opponent. But you should not consider it that we only support karzai as person, we will support any one in Afghanistan who has popular support and comes to power through electoral process be it Hikmatyar or someone else. We don’t have any favorite.

You and your likes have made a scape goat of Karzai Saib just to make everything look controversial but you should not forget that the sponsored insurgents have not targeted Karzai Saib alone every section of the state machinery including innocent civilians. They have kept on killing members
of the parliament, Afghan police, afghan army, NGO workers, artists, school girls, educational institutions, government offices etc. So your those who apparently hate Karzai (and we all know who they are) are in fact against the very existence of afghan state.

You also, once again appear to ignore the ground level reality that there are likely groups that within the insurgency that are fighting simply to remove what they view is an occupier or for other various reasons not relating to Pakistan. Simple logistical support from Pakistan or coming through Pakistan does not simply equate with Pakistani controlled. You would have to, for example, explain the utter lack of arms that Mr. Dauran is fighting with here in Paul Refsdah's documentary (not produced in Pakistan should you ask).

www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e5_1283088242

Any insurgency requires not only logistic support but also financial and intelligence network of which the simple madrassa Taliban are not capable of having. There is more than sufficient proof that the insurgency is actually sponsored by Paki intelligence agencies. Uncoordinated and whimsical insurgents can’t do much harm to the state or its institutions nor they could fight NATO forces unless they possess the required basic things for sustained insurgency.

Your options appear to be the following:

1) Rely on ANP and PMAP to foment an insurgency within KP. As I have stated, I wish for nothing more than for the KP brethren to want to return into Afghanistan, but I cannot simply agree with you that the masses there want it without data. You have offered none. Moreover, ANP and PMAP offer no leadership on the issue. I asked you to furnish an example of a modern Faqier-e-Ipi within the movements, ready, willing, and able to pursue violent rebellion like Bugti and you offered none. As I stated before, the only Pashtuns that appear to be fighting the state are the FATA folks under the Islamic banner, empirically buttressing what I am stating in the most recent posts. I think the pictures of Mr. Achekzai with his buddies in Karachi more than show that Politics as usual is in clear display when it comes to these parties doing anything meaningful.

Since you lack the very rudimentary knowledge about Afghanistan it is very difficult for you to understand the intricacies of politics in Pakhtunkwha either. So I won’t try to answer here in this thread.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Why are you trying to be naïve. I never challenged your allegiance I know about that, I challenged your complete lack of knowledge when you put forward a thread which showed your complete ignorance about the proper context of Afghanistan’s opposition to Pakis membership in the UN. Either you didn’t know about it or you deliberately ignored it, I don’t know but even ten year young afghan knows about Pakistan’s occupation of afghan land.



You even have not read the article and put it here for reference against Karzai Saib. It says

“The United States' proxy war against Afghan President Hamid Karzai has taken a vicious turn, undermining the tenuous political equations in the country. Washington is displeased with Karzai's moves to accelerate reconciliation with the Taliban, while his pitch for a regional initiative and his agenda of a multi-vector foreign policy challenge US regional strategies”


This media trial of Karzai Saib didn’t just start with the concocted stories of corruption; it got initiated long before it. If you know after the fall of Taliban initially it was Commander Abdul Haq who was assassinated by the Paki intelligence agencies on his way to Torkham so it was not a smooth sail for Karzai either. The enemies wanted to either physically eliminate him or make him so controversial so that he could not be able to provide leadership to this war torn afghan society. During his election campaign he even send letters to the US embassy to provide proof of his corruption which they could not. Despite the fact that the whole media was against him he clearly defeated his opponent. But you should not consider it that we only support karzai as person, we will support any one in Afghanistan who has popular support and comes to power through electoral process be it Hikmatyar or someone else. We don’t have any favorite.

You and your likes have made a scape goat of Karzai Saib just to make everything look controversial but you should not forget that the sponsored insurgents have not targeted Karzai Saib alone every section of the state machinery including innocent civilians. They have kept on killing members
of the parliament, Afghan police, afghan army, NGO workers, artists, school girls, educational institutions, government offices etc. So your those who apparently hate Karzai (and we all know who they are) are in fact against the very existence of afghan state.


[/COLOR]

Any insurgency requires not only logistic support but also financial and intelligence network of which the simple madrassa Taliban are not capable of having. There is more than sufficient proof that the insurgency is actually sponsored by Paki intelligence agencies. Uncoordinated and whimsical insurgents can’t do much harm to the state or its institutions nor they could fight NATO forces unless they possess the required basic things for sustained insurgency.



Since you lack the very rudimentary knowledge about Afghanistan it is very difficult for you to understand the intricacies of politics in Pakhtunkwha either. So I won’t try to answer here in this thread.

Magical thinking and assessments appear to be your strong suit. I have been there on multiple occasions, to Afghanistan at least 10 times and the Peshawar area once. However, visiting a place still doesnt indicate a knowledge of it. For instance, Mike Huckabee has been to Afghanistan twice... doesnt make him an authority though.

Learn to use your head. It will do your party some good as opposed to the repeatedly negative and unremarkable track record it has. Regarding the article, you have put yourself in a ludicrous position. On the one hand, NATO supports and props up Karzai. On the other hand, he has put himself in the untenable position of having an ethnically imbalanced parliament that NATO itself/US influences has pushed to "clip his wings". Yet, you are asking the insurgent and the average Afghan to trust NATO/UN. And once again, as I told Shayesta, per her "please to just leave old Crazy Hamid alone, he's our best hope," this same body was one the to back, and recognize Pakistan despite Afghanistan's pleas. Regarding Karzai as a leader... you are also in an untenable position there too, because only an inept person could have navigated himself into such a fix. Yet you propose this individual, who has a government under him that is unrepresentative of the people your party claims to represent (ie the pashtuns), as a guiding hope for the Afghan masses. This same self serving individual was running to the US to wash dishes in his brother Qayum's restaurant. When that didnt work out, because he preferred soft hands (you know dish washing makes the hands a little rough), he left right back to live in a Quetta orchard and drink tea and munch on almonds with that "great" leader and bastion of hope, Gul Agha Sherzai.

Regarding insurgencies, I refer you to the Sun Tzu's Art of War; you have obviously not read it. You brushed aside Refsdah's work, where he clearly shows the Afghan insurgents, and mind you they are Afghans, fighting with little more than Korean era weaponry. Tzu notes clearly that the base of an insurgency is to enjoy the support of the people. There are clearly pockets of Taliban resistance that find support from the people. Here is another reference since you have much reading to do. You are operating at about a C- level understanding of the region and of conflict in general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1578-2002Jan15

Once again, as I stated, it matters little whether an Afghan takes arms from Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, or whoever. A gun is a gun and it fires and kills a target. It is you that has to prove the moral imperitive is not on the side of the insurgency and that NATO, per its perplexing and complex goals above, has that moral imperitive.

[unknownprince]

Why are you trying to be naïve. I never challenged your allegiance I know about that, I challenged your complete lack of knowledge when you put forward a thread which showed your complete ignorance about the proper context of Afghanistan’s opposition to Pakis membership in the UN. Either you didn’t know about it or you deliberately ignored it, I don’t know but even ten year young afghan knows about Pakistan’s occupation of afghan land.



You even have not read the article and put it here for reference against Karzai Saib. It says

“The United States' proxy war against Afghan President Hamid Karzai has taken a vicious turn, undermining the tenuous political equations in the country. Washington is displeased with Karzai's moves to accelerate reconciliation with the Taliban, while his pitch for a regional initiative and his agenda of a multi-vector foreign policy challenge US regional strategies”


This media trial of Karzai Saib didn’t just start with the concocted stories of corruption; it got initiated long before it. If you know after the fall of Taliban initially it was Commander Abdul Haq who was assassinated by the Paki intelligence agencies on his way to Torkham so it was not a smooth sail for Karzai either. The enemies wanted to either physically eliminate him or make him so controversial so that he could not be able to provide leadership to this war torn afghan society. During his election campaign he even send letters to the US embassy to provide proof of his corruption which they could not. Despite the fact that the whole media was against him he clearly defeated his opponent. But you should not consider it that we only support karzai as person, we will support any one in Afghanistan who has popular support and comes to power through electoral process be it Hikmatyar or someone else. We don’t have any favorite.

You and your likes have made a scape goat of Karzai Saib just to make everything look controversial but you should not forget that the sponsored insurgents have not targeted Karzai Saib alone every section of the state machinery including innocent civilians. They have kept on killing members
of the parliament, Afghan police, afghan army, NGO workers, artists, school girls, educational institutions, government offices etc. So your those who apparently hate Karzai (and we all know who they are) are in fact against the very existence of afghan state.


[/COLOR]

Any insurgency requires not only logistic support but also financial and intelligence network of which the simple madrassa Taliban are not capable of having. There is more than sufficient proof that the insurgency is actually sponsored by Paki intelligence agencies. Uncoordinated and whimsical insurgents can’t do much harm to the state or its institutions nor they could fight NATO forces unless they possess the required basic things for sustained insurgency.



Since you lack the very rudimentary knowledge about Afghanistan it is very difficult for you to understand the intricacies of politics in Pakhtunkwha either. So I won’t try to answer here in this thread.

here again you are with your repetitive mantra of trying to deny the the Afghan resistance (Taliban, HIG, and MANY MANY others) their justified platform. You go on about logistical support coming from places within Pakistan. So what? They also get logistical support from every other arms dealer on both sides of the Durrand, from Russia, and any other place which is active in the arms market. For a resistance movement, what difference does it make where the weapons comes from?

So in other words, you want the Afghans to fight with swords, sticks, and stones? This is beyond absurd. So a man whose family is killed should sit at home, and serve the very people who killed them? Is this what you are suggesting?

Do you want to take the weapons out of the common Afghan man's home, to take their claws off so that the world can finish them once and for all?

You are OK with US keeping all their weapons and airplanes? You don't question where they get them from, but you want to take all the weapons away from the common Afghan! This will never happen.

And no, so from previous responses, it seems to me that you are not only opposed to the Afghan man who purely resists to expel the foreigner, but also the common Afghan man who takes up arms as matter of principle and revenge. Is this true? At least answer this.

do you seek to deny a man's right to badal?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

here again you are with your repetitive mantra of trying to deny the the Afghan resistance (Taliban, HIG, and MANY MANY others) their justified platform. You go on about logistical support coming from places within Pakistan. So what? They also get logistical support from every other arms dealer on both sides of the Durrand, from Russia, and any other place which is active in the arms market.

So in other words, you want the Afghans to fight with swords, sticks, and stones? This is beyond absurd. So a man whose family is killed should sit at home, and serve the very people who killed them? Is this what you are suggesting?

Do you want to take the weapons out of the common Afghan man's home, to take their claws off so that the world can finish them once and for all?

What brotherhood do you speak of?

It is interesting he propagandizes for NATO, indicating that a legitimate insurgency, representative of the grass roots (per this):

http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

"History tells a different story. The conflict is very complex, multi-dimensional and goes back three decades. In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets."

is somehow "bad" because it targets the operations of an illegitimate government.

Yet the Stryker Kill Team was "good" and wholesome for Afghans:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/2011...20110322115100

Watch, the response will be:

Khyaal: Hoh is wrong. He is an American pupeteer
Us: Really? Because he doesnt appear to want to do any puppeteering
Khyaal: I am from KP, but I know what is best for Afghanistan
Us: So you want to implement yet another experiment on us?
Khyaal: You dont know what you are talking about.
Us: Ok, show us some proof. Proof talks, walks, and flys straight on through. Anecdote doesnt.

[fzpz]

Just wanted the first one to say this is hella long. Few rapid-fire points regarding the discussion:

1. I can't for the life of me figure out how the hell nationalists haven't figured out that Islam HAS to play a primary role in galvanizing support for pashtun causes. Theories and ideologies (communism, atheism, secular nationalism) cooked up halfway around the world will never be acceptable to pashtuns. The only way pashtun nationalism is going to work is by incorporating religion as THE main catalyst. Otherwise they relegate themselves to internet warriors and/or expats bitching about the watan in foreign countries. They remind me of Iranian shahists on a much smaller and ineffective scale. Similar to the shahists, these people live in a bubble (tehran vs kabul) where the realities of the masses of their people never hits home to them. As a Paki nationalist, i'm more than happy to prop up and overplay these non-representative entities. And the more dreams they dream, the more the Pashtuns of Pakistan forget about 'their Pashtun brothers' (in the political and economic sense).

2. It would be an academic impossibility to prove or say that the people fighting in Afghanistan against invaders are stooges of anybody. It's illogical and unreasonable. These people are reacting to the realities they are facing. The paki establishment can't even protect its offices against those forces from being blown up, how the hell are they supposed to be 'controlling' them drop-lock and step? I understand that a lot of conspiracy theories are thrown out here about the isi, but the isi isn't simply capable of 'controlling' ANYBODY, much less 70% of Afghanistan that opposes invaders on their land. If that was the case (taliban being isi stooges), isi operatives wouldn't be getting killed left and right.

3. The issue of Pak-Afghanistan relations. More buffoonery. A) Pakistan didn't exist for most of the 40s. B) It was Afghanistan that started it, first by not recognizing Pakistan as a whole, and then by trying in futility to invade Pakistan to 'reclaim' lost land. It was thoroughly punched in the face by private Pak pashtuns who thrashed the afghanistanis. C) It continued its impossible pashtunistan policy by arming and training NAP and others for terrorism in Pakistan, only to be smacked in the face by the same forces who turned around and did nothing for their larger dreams. This was all before the Russians/communists/taliban/us invasion. It's simply that Afghanistan started, continued it, and still trying to continue it. That's where the fault lies. Denying it would be denying facts and reality.

[ScimitarXEdge]

How am I portraying him, then?

like he was a misunderstood hero, which he was not.

Come up with his agendas, and compare it to ISI's agendas. Again you are ignoring that one had to choose the lesser evil for Afghanistan's future, ISI was definitely not that option.

You're defining "future" by someone elses manufactured standards, Imperially created boundary lines of Asia. He was working for some manufactured and dysfunctional idea of what progress means based on a fabricated and logically false premises of what being modern means. His goal was to give ownership of Afghanistan to Russia; if he was working for Sovereignty he nor his men would take direct orders which they were OBLIGATED to obey. It only proves that he was not a Watandar, but a Slave of Russia. So his opposition to the ISI had nothing to do with Afghan wants, but Russian wants. That doesn't mean however ISI is what Afghanistan wants; it just means his motive was not to repel ISI for Afghanistan but rather Russian conquest for Hegemony. If he was for afghanistan he'd oppose Russia and Pakistan and the US geopolitical interests. The argument of picking the lesser evil is absurd because military imperial conquest would have made Russia a more pressing issue.

It was this very same Massoud who was very familiar with ISI. It's a different thing he got neglected by ISI since ISI had found a new strategy in Afghanistan, namely Taliban.

Agreed, I'm not contesting that, I'm not a Taliban supporter, but I find it absolute hypocrisy to oppose Taliban , Massoud and Hekmatyar but then try to exonerate Najibullah.

The only people I support are those who do not have innocent blood on their hands.

Did he set up any Pukhtunistan movements then? As far as I know he did refuse to recognize the Durrand Line, but then, which Afghan president didn't?

Does he have to? You forget about the nature of political stratagem. Your argument "Which President didn't". Is like someone saying "Well everyone's doing it". It's not about which Afghan President did or did not, to be honest I believe everyone manipulates ethnicity and patriotism to exploit and take advantage of people.

So he was pro-Pukhtunistan a.k.a. united Pukhtoons, yet he sided Dostum because Dostum was a Pukhtoon-hater..........? I am stuck here, please help me out. Besides, Dostum's cruelty towards Pukhtoons took an ugly turn during and after the Taliban regime, I can't remember he had any anti-Pukhtoon policy beforehand?

Well let's clarify something; when I say he was Pro-Pakhtunistan; I don't mean that there's something wrong with Pakhtuns being United. In Fact I want all Muslims to be United; because there are people who have vested interests in keeping Muslims divided and it's to our detriment; the whole afghanistan-pakistan mess is evidence of that. What I mean is He supported the Idea, not necessarily because it was out of some ethnic sympathy; but it was a good political manuver to manipulate Pashtun sentiments and gain support from Pashtun elements within Pakistan. When it came down to it, he left Afghans of all ethnicities and Pashtuns on both sides high and dry.

It's a different thing if you don't want Pukhtunistan-issue to come up and therefore think of a policy of your own, and it's another thing if you don't want Pukhtunistan-issue to come up and therefore join your country's arch enemy to succeed both sides policies. No?

Our arch Enemies wear the flags of NATO; Pakistan, Modern Iran, most of the Middle East and Modern Afghanistan exist as extensions of Colonial Rule. They create these situations to pit different groups against each other to maintain divide and rule. And they use their various proxies like Pakistani Government and even the Afghan Government, Iranian Government and Saudi Government to do it. So really it's all essentially different modes and faces of the same process.

I am glad we agree somewhere, same here.

Glad to see that, I'm not against Pashtun unity; I'm against ethnocentrism and religious extremism.. We forget Ahmad Shah Baba even though he fought Ghaljis , he turned to them and reconciled and he worked with Balouch, Tajiks, and yes even Punjabis to work together for a common cause for the greater good. That's what I am looking for.

This is why we should never have given Russia that much time and space on our soil in first place, which mistake we had made already. Looking at Russian history we knew they didn't give a damn about how many lives they lost, but as soon as they were given a position in a country it was best not to make things worse.

I agree with everything except the last sentence;

Surely rape do happen during wars, every country in war faces it. When Russia newly arrived in Afghanistan, they didn't go around raping women. A war broke up, houses were ruined, people were ruined, women lost everyone, they became vulnerable, and very easily raped. And till today's date Afghan women are facing this unfortunately reality, though now under NATO/NA.

Even though I did make a mention of actual rapes; in this instance I was using it as an analogy. I mean that You wouldn't tell a woman that if a rapist is attacking her, she should just allow him to do the act to spare her life. You'd tell her to fight back; Russia was doing something to us which would have irreparable damage; we would have been ruined if we didnt fight back.

That's why one needs to try to make things as less horrific as possible, take Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as an example. We ourselves made ourselves occupied, last thing we should be doing in such cases is attack them on the very same soil we invited them on.

Actually the people who claimed to be our leaders and thought they knew what was better for us , made us occupied. They never said to the Afghan Populace : do you want Russia here, do you want us to mold our polices around Soviet Union's geopolitical designs? The way Russia came to afghanistan was basically like a Home Intruder breaks into a house; If I broke into your house, I'm certain you'll attack me in your home. It would be completely irrational not to.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are bad examples; they became enslaved to the Russians.

They are, nonetheless, arch enemies. That's like justifying in saying only reason why Russia got into war with us is because we asked them to.

Correction; they're the proxies of our real Arch Enemies...European Imperialism. I don't see your analogy as being logically consistent;

#1. We didn't invite them, their commie puppets did. People who are puppets don't represent the population.
#2. Britain was an Imperialist entity, they made Pakistan, they made the boundaries of modern Asia/North Africa between Egypt and Burma.

And that's in fact a very good thing. Maybe Pukhtoons on both sides had more understanding for each other, more sympathy and more awareness of facts. I really don't see that as a problem, do you? Yes, if he had policies in which he planned to reclaim entire Pakhtunkhwa, then we are talking.

You're right they do it's only natural to bond with people who share more identical traits, I mean the very fact there are Pashtuns in this world is proof that people tend to collect into their various identities.

However, offering in this case he was trying to use Ethnicity to manipulate for Russian Agendas. The act itself would alienate other ethnicities as it would side line them.

Crisis Group
Books Googlei
Hazara Nation
UNHCR


I can't find the link where the incident was explained more accurately, but here a few:

Afghan Institute
Books Google
RAWA

See; these are basically the same types of evidence I have, they're testimonials not empirical data. You're telling me yours are fact but mine are suspect. You seem not to understand when I asked these questions; it wasn't denial of Mujahideen crimes; but to highlight that the evidence for them is primarily testimony, and same with Soviet Crimes. If yours are valid, then why are mine deemed invalid?

This is why I recommend not responding by just quoting specific sentences; but respond in the sentence's appropriate context.

Even if I have to believe the stories I got to hear personally, women were most vulnerable during Mujahideen era. I don't even have to post whatever links for it, millions of sources on-line claim the same, as well as the stories I heard during my stay in Afghanistan. The stories weren't pleasant, at all.

This isn't true by simply logic; women were most vulnerable during the Soviet era; by the fact that most of the time it was the male protectors being killed off. Hence leaving them open to Soviet Brigades without any defense. Now imagine if 1.5 Million Afghans were killed, mostly males, but many women too; thus this would logically conclude that their women were left exposed to exploitation and violation. 100,000 dead would definitely cause vulnerability but not to the same degree as the former

as someone else pointed out you're only factoring Urban centers where people who betrayed their own traditional culture and wilfully collaborated with the Russians resided as the measure of what happened in Afghanistan as a whole.

Brother, I am not a fool not to believe Russia never committed any rape, I am not living in such a huge denial. Rape has been taking place ever since the war started, women are crying tears of blood ever since the war started. My actual point was regarding the claim you made that Najibullah encouraged the Russians to rape women, urinate on them and what not. I don't know how many links you can show that Najibullah himself or his men committed rape (or encouraged others to), but those for Mujahideen are in millions.

Actually I never said he "encouraged", rather he participated. Look at it this way Hekmatyar himself never raped or killed, but the men he had under his leadership did. thereby he's responsible for their crimes.

Najib and KHaD were under direct supervision of the Soviets; in fact they were under obligation BY the Soviets to take their orders; hence they were collaborators. And thus it would be logically unmaginable that when Soviets engaged in rape that Najib and KHaD and Afghan Government Soldiers were compliant and in agreement with it. Otherwise they would have expelled the Soviets themselves.

Here's a quote which proves this has to be the case.

It's by Muhammad Hassan Kakar, a very famous Afghan Intellectual/Academic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QyT...ldiers&f=false

"When officers suspected the locals as Mujahideen or collaborators, they would hand them over to the regime officers and KHaD personell to kill them. The KHaD men had no choice but to carry out the order"

If Najib was the leader of KHaD, then how come KHaD were taking orders from Russians? Why did they have no choice in whether to obey Foreign Russian Invaders if they were Sovereign? The only logical conclusion was Najib was a wilfull participant and that the Afghan Government was not sovereign but under Russian domination.


As for being in the Millions; not even Human Rights groups made such a claim; Can you show evidence of the millions of rapes done by the Mujahideen? They definitely did rapes; but Millions would be impossible. If you said thousands I'd agree.

They were fighting Pakistan's war even before Russia was in picture, and the fact USA only benefited from Russia's loss says enough about why the war took place, and who made it take place. Had Pakistan been involved with us only during Russian war, then Pakistan would have made more sense.

Hardly; before Pakistan existed, Tribal groups and Religious groups were opposed to most of the reforms because it was in conflict with Afghan Morals. This dates back even as early as World War I era.

Okay, let's do it this way; Can you explain how Russians landed in Afghanistan? Tell me from the beginning, we will take it from there.

The Puppet Government let them in.

Such as?

Ideals of decency, gender dynamics, marriage rights and customs, sexual behavior and penaltties for lewdness and such, consumption of intoxicant substances, and other vices.

So we agree that USA and Russia both had same goal, but different approach. Nonetheless, ask the Middle East who they see as their biggest enemy, and why?

It depends, the Middle East is very complicated, many people over generations have eventually become indoctrinated into compliant colonial thinking. Like you mentioned in Uzbekistan and Tajkistan, eventually they were mentally enslaved; when earlier generations resisted. So whoever had the greater hegemony eventually controlled the masses.

Evidence that Najibullah solely was responsible for loss of millions of lives? No, it's not. Najibullah was a supporter of Russia, not it's leader. From Mujahideen, to Russians, to Khalqis, all of them were fighting for a victory and all of them have had their shares in killing civilians.

I never said he was "solely" responsible; he was an accomplice. Actually he was not just a supporter; he was their stooge. He took orders from them as already demonstrated. As for the rest of what you stated. I agree, they all violated the standards of Justice.

Even though every single politician tried to flee Kabul (with Najibullah being no exception if he truly tried to), he didn't leave his soil until and unless Taliban decided his destiny. Please do confirm with sources that fact has been otherwise.

Even if I take what you say as true; it doesn't bear any consequence on anything, It's merely a romanticization to give him more credence

Let me give you an analogy; Hitler didn't flee Berlin, that didn't make Hitler a Noble leader.

Who didn't serve foreigners back then? As much as we like to twist it, everyone served foreigners since we didn't have any government of our own. Nonetheless, we should have picked the least harmful for our future. That's the point I am making.

I notice in much of our discussion you keep reverting to the same style of retorts such as "Who didn't serve foreigners"? Even if others do it doesn't make Najib less of a a criminal and immoral person. Even then, I can say there were many who didn't "serve" foreigners, they asked for foreign help, perhaps met with foreigners. But when it came to what they actually did or didn't do, they had independent choices and could choose to do something independent of whatever another power dictates, hence They didn't serve foreigners. As Demonstrated by Dr. Kakar's book; this was not true in Najib's case, he had to take orders from Russia. This is evident by how much innocent blood they shed or rather didn't shed. Because it showed they weren't willing to put their people's lives on the line for nothing.

One such man was Muhammad Nabi Muhammadi. He was one of the rare good Mujahideen who never had any innocent blood split.

Eh, no. Pakistan bombed us in the '40's which was before the Russian war, they set up camps against our government which was before the Russian war, they armed insurgents against our nation using Russian war as excuse, and even today they are doing the exact same thing now in the name of Taliban insurgencies. So ever since the '40's, all Pakistan did was 'fight India'? What for and why on Afghan soil? Even Russia didn't destroy us as much as Pakistan's policy is, and you are fooling yourself in believing their motive was not our instability? Wauw........

Just because they did so in the 40's doesn't mean their strategy in the 80's was for any sort of destabilization, furthermore they were created in the 40's so it was the British THROUGH Pakistan creating destablization. What the British wanted to do is gain privatized trans-asian trade routes under their control without a direct administrative body because they were expended by WWII, Pakistan and India was the way to do it.

of course Pakistan armed the the Insurgents against the Russians; but that didn't mean that the Insurgents didn't have a legitmate motive for fighting the Russians or they were doing so for Pakistan. It just meant Pakistan had a vested interest in arming them. Just because a A corporation has a profit motive , doesn't mean people don't have legitimate reasons for buying a specific product.

First they destabilized us for Pakhtunkhwa, now for USA. They remain the same sh*t with same motives but different ways, nothing else.

No they did it because they, much like the Russians saw Afghanistan as a resource, and a territory for Geopolitical Games; which in turn were manufactured by the Imperial "Great Game".

Amanullah Khan could have been the answer to a modern Afghanistan, it's just a shame some brainless morons took his policies as an attack on Islam and destroyed the very little hope we had.

He could have yes; but instead he wanted to mold Afghanistan into being mentally colonized by the Europeans. I don't see how letting European men touch and kiss his wife was consistent with Islam; but I guess the morons didn't know better and somehow Amanullah did. The problem with this model of hope is it takes a very artificial Capitalist model, which assumes the indulgence of materialism is the way of progress. The world is suffering badly due to the Environmental deterioration of this lifestyle; that's why our families were compelled to immigrate, and why the world not just Afghanistan is suffering today.

For me I'm a global thinker; I don't just think of one part of the world; but being that Afghanistan is a nexus for the future of the world, my concern is definitely drawn to it.

It was the Mujahideen who were armed against the Russians, and the people got more fed up of those Mujahideen than Russians. It's Taliban who are being armed against NATO, and people are more fed up with Taliban than NATO. Either way, as I said, it's been our people who have been suffering.

of course they were armed against the Soviets; how else do you expect people to fight an Imperial Invader, with sticks and stones?

Afghanistan was peaceful back then, there was no war back then so I wouldn't understand why 'massacre' would take place?

That's just romanticism; Afghanistan was far from peaceful. It had many internal strifes and squabbles, dealing with the power struggles between classes. There was massive abuse of power by the Royals. Just because we have a few nice pictures of Paghman and people talk about the delicious fruits and nuts that were produced in Jalalbad, didn't mean things were peaceful.

Karzai by far is the least evil out of all the politicians we have, which is why we shouldn't keep wondering how 'Mister A' as compared to Karzai would have controlled Afghanistan. But even with Karzai it's the same thing, he only speaks, where is his action? The situation back then and right now is much different by the way, we can't compare these two eras.

Actually, even though I'm not a Karzai supporter; I actually have to agree with you in a sense. Karzai is useless, spineless, but he isn't as evil or corrupt as the others. Still corrupt, just not as much.

Don't tell me Najibullah's did? Though, Hizb-e-Wahdat was very famous for those activities.

KHaD was famous for it

here's evidence.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eLe...page&q&f=false

100,000 is the number of Mujahideen only, those millions during Russian war didn't die due to Russian attacks only. Mujahideen were as active, it's a different thing people would love to believe otherwise.

Most Human Rights Groups attribute it to the Soviets. I have not seen it attributed to anything else. Only in the 90's did the focus shift.

The fact you are using India as an excuse to justify Pakistan's actions says enough about your 'patriotism'. As I said, Pakistan's enmity with Afghanistan didn't begin because of India, nor did they start interfering because of India. Stop using India as an excuse like a typical Pakistani.

I'm not using India as an excuse; that's why Pakistan was using Afghanistan, Pakistan was keeping up with the issue of India because India was becoming closely alligned with the Soviets which America did not want.

Just because an idea is used by a certain organization doesn't mean another person who expresses a similar idea represents that organization. That's like saying if Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan it means they're agents of AlQaeda. Which is pure nonsense. And Illogical.

Pakistan's enmity with afghanistan didn't begin because of anything; it was manufactured by Britian to keep people fighting for useless squabbles.

[khyaal]

Magical thinking and assessments appear to be your strong suit. I have been there on multiple occasions, to Afghanistan at least 10 times and the Peshawar area once. However, visiting a place still doesnt indicate a knowledge of it. For instance, Mike Huckabee has been to Afghanistan twice... doesnt make him an authority though.

Learn to use your head. It will do your party some good as opposed to the repeatedly negative and unremarkable track record it has. Regarding the article, you have put yourself in a ludicrous position. On the one hand, NATO supports and props up Karzai. On the other hand, he has put himself in the untenable position of having an ethnically imbalanced parliament that NATO itself/US influences has pushed to "clip his wings". Yet, you are asking the insurgent and the average Afghan to trust NATO/UN. And once again, as I told Shayesta, per her "please to just leave old Crazy Hamid alone, he's our best hope," this same body was one the to back, and recognize Pakistan despite Afghanistan's pleas. Regarding Karzai as a leader... you are also in an untenable position there too, because only an inept person could have navigated himself into such a fix. Yet you propose this individual, who has a government under him that is unrepresentative of the people your party claims to represent (ie the pashtuns), as a guiding hope for the Afghan masses. This same self serving individual was running to the US to wash dishes in his brother Qayum's restaurant. When that didnt work out, because he preferred soft hands (you know dish washing makes the hands a little rough), he left right back to live in a Quetta orchard and drink tea and munch on almonds with that "great" leader and bastion of hope, Gul Agha Sherzai.

Regarding insurgencies, I refer you to the Sun Tzu's Art of War; you have obviously not read it. You brushed aside Refsdah's work, where he clearly shows the Afghan insurgents, and mind you they are Afghans, fighting with little more than Korean era weaponry. Tzu notes clearly that the base of an insurgency is to enjoy the support of the people. There are clearly pockets of Taliban resistance that find support from the people. Here is another reference since you have much reading to do. You are operating at about a C- level understanding of the region and of conflict in general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1578-2002Jan15

Once again, as I stated, it matters little whether an Afghan takes arms from Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, or whoever. A gun is a gun and it fires and kills a target. It is you that has to prove the moral imperitive is not on the side of the insurgency and that NATO, per its perplexing and complex goals above, has that moral imperitive.

Look Barakzai! Your are setting in the West and mostly rely on your conjectures and media reports of which you selectively prepare material which could suit your opinion making strategy but all these seem fabricated once you come here meet the people on the ground and look at the tactics of the sponsored insurgency.

Don't tell me any thing about Sun Tzu's Art of War. I won't get impressed by borrowed terminologies and the mention of mystifying alien personalities.

Pashtun in the past have made many insurgencies against the British in the British occupied afghan land now part of Pakistan. But I'm sure you don't know much about that. Even though the war technology was not that sophisticated at that time, Pashtuns still could not defeat the British due to the lack of financial and military support and lack of coordination which resulted in their complete subjugation to the British. So we know that it is not an insurgency, it is actually a proxy war aganisnt afghan state. The real advantage which the enemy has got is the contiguity of the occupied pashtun land which can not be completely cordoned off due to Pashtun population on both sides. This actually provides Punjab and ample opportunity of to take an edge in this war agaisnt afghan nation.

Another thing, you can't explain to me the presence of Qaami Lashkar in all the tribal belts against these sponsred insurgents. In Swat the same happened when just a few hundred terrorists took control of the whole of Swat and Malakand division. But you seem to totally unaware of it.

What we believe is that the enemies of afghanistan won't spare any person who could play the pivotal role in afghanistan stability and its bringing back to normalcy. The opposition of the Western media at the time of the elections and the winning of Karzai Saib is an ample proof of his popularity and credibility on his leadership. Enemies will anyway malign angles who rule afghanistan and try to be independent from Paki influence.

[khyaal]

here again you are with your repetitive mantra of trying to deny the the Afghan resistance (Taliban, HIG, and MANY MANY others) their justified platform. You go on about logistical support coming from places within Pakistan. So what? They also get logistical support from every other arms dealer on both sides of the Durrand, from Russia, and any other place which is active in the arms market. For a resistance movement, what difference does it make where the weapons comes from?

So in other words, you want the Afghans to fight with swords, sticks, and stones? This is beyond absurd. So a man whose family is killed should sit at home, and serve the very people who killed them? Is this what you are suggesting?

Do you want to take the weapons out of the common Afghan man's home, to take their claws off so that the world can finish them once and for all?

You are OK with US keeping all their weapons and airplanes? You don't question where they get them from, but you want to take all the weapons away from the common Afghan! This will never happen.

And no, so from previous responses, it seems to me that you are not only opposed to the Afghan man who purely resists to expel the foreigner, but also the common Afghan man who takes up arms as matter of principle and revenge. Is this true? At least answer this.

do you seek to deny a man's right to badal?

So you know me for quite some time but you have very few posts in the forum. BTW, what was your previous nick? Why do you always need to change your nick? To dupe people with your new appearance? Anyway I won't reply to your BS.

[unknownprince]

Just wanted the first one to say this is hella long. Few rapid-fire points regarding the discussion:

1. I can't for the life of me figure out how the hell nationalists haven't figured out that Islam HAS to play a primary role in galvanizing support for pashtun causes. Theories and ideologies (communism, atheism, secular nationalism) cooked up halfway around the world will never be acceptable to pashtuns. The only way pashtun nationalism is going to work is by incorporating religion as THE main catalyst. Otherwise they relegate themselves to internet warriors and/or expats bitching about the watan in foreign countries. They remind me of Iranian shahists on a much smaller and ineffective scale. Similar to the shahists, these people live in a bubble (tehran vs kabul) where the realities of the masses of their people never hits home to them. As a Paki nationalist, i'm more than happy to prop up and overplay these non-representative entities. And the more dreams they dream, the more the Pashtuns of Pakistan forget about 'their Pashtun brothers' (in the political and economic sense).

2. It would be an academic impossibility to prove or say that the people fighting in Afghanistan against invaders are stooges of anybody. It's illogical and unreasonable. These people are reacting to the realities they are facing. The paki establishment can't even protect its offices against those forces from being blown up, how the hell are they supposed to be 'controlling' them drop-lock and step? I understand that a lot of conspiracy theories are thrown out here about the isi, but the isi isn't simply capable of 'controlling' ANYBODY, much less 70% of Afghanistan that opposes invaders on their land. If that was the case (taliban being isi stooges), isi operatives wouldn't be getting killed left and right.

3. The issue of Pak-Afghanistan relations. More buffoonery. A) Pakistan didn't exist for most of the 40s. B) It was Afghanistan that started it, first by not recognizing Pakistan as a whole, and then by trying in futility to invade Pakistan to 'reclaim' lost land. It was thoroughly punched in the face by private Pak pashtuns who thrashed the afghanistanis. C) It continued its impossible pashtunistan policy by arming and training NAP and others for terrorism in Pakistan, only to be smacked in the face by the same forces who turned around and did nothing for their larger dreams. This was all before the Russians/communists/taliban/us invasion. It's simply that Afghanistan started, continued it, and still trying to continue it. That's where the fault lies. Denying it would be denying facts and reality.

Pakistan and the US are both friends to each other, nothing else. Pakistan will never escape the title of step-child of Britain and India as long as it exists. The facts are plain and simple that yesterday and today, the Pakistani establishment benefits from continued war against Afghanistan and Pashtuns. Yesterday, it was the Soviets who were squarely defeated, and today it is the US who is being defeated.

To pretend that Pakistan is some all innocent player is not true. As everyone is aware, the Pashtuns were divided along the Durrand line, a line made by a colonialist who could not subjugate the Pashtuns, so he decided to divide and conquer.

To this day, Pakistan continues to serve US interests with utmost seriousness. Fortress of Islam, Pakistan is NOT, but the forever known traitors will be brandished on them forever, and when the tables turn (which they will), there are many scores to settle. You just have to look back in history to see what the future holds.

Now, in regards to this charade being put on by Pashtun 'nationalists,' they don't have any positive actions that back their words. It is not them fighting in the trenches of Afghanistan against the foreign adversaries, but the Taliban and other groups that they truly oppose only due to the religious grounds on which they operate. This is the truth.

You have them wishing to take away the weapons of the Afghan warrior who is defending his homeland. They wish to believe that a man whose family was killed by the US has now become an agent for Pakistan.

I wish they could say this to such a man's face. Such heartlessness is not brave or macho, but rather pathetic and disgusting.

For such reasons, it is these ducks that will always flirt with foreigners only to be disposed of by the people who are defending their homelands.

Najib, Shuja, the list goes on.

Who do you think will follow in their dreaded fates?

[unknownprince]

So you know me for quite some time but you have very few posts in the forum. BTW, what was your previous nick? Why do you always need to change your nick? To dupe people with your new appearance? Anyway I won't reply to your BS.

??

Maybe you do not want to answer my question.

Let me repeat it,

please go and tell an Afghan man in Afghanistan whose family was killed by the US that he will become an agent of Pakistan if he picks up arms.

See what he says/does to you. In your posts, you continue to do two things, legitimize US, and criminalize the Afghan resistance.

Both are the most absurd things to wish for, and reveal you are very out of touch with reality.

[fzpz]

Pakistan and the US are both friends to each other, nothing else. Pakistan will never escape the title of step-child of Britain and India as long as it exists. The facts are plain and simple that yesterday and today, the Pakistani establishment benefits from continued war against Afghanistan and Pashtuns. Yesterday, it was the Soviets who were squarely defeated, and today it is the US who is being defeated.

To pretend that Pakistan is some all innocent player is not true. As everyone is aware, the Pashtuns were divided along the Durrand line, a line made by a colonialist who could not subjugate the Pashtuns, so he decided to divide and conquer.

To this day, Pakistan continues to serve US interests with utmost seriousness. Fortress of Islam, Pakistan is NOT, but the forever known traitors will be brandished on them forever, and when the tables turn (which they will), there are many scores to settle. You just have to look back in history to see what the future holds.

Now, in regards to this charade being put on by Pashtun 'nationalists,' they don't have any positive actions that back their words. It is not them fighting in the trenches of Afghanistan against the foreign adversaries, but the Taliban and other groups that they truly oppose only due to the religious grounds on which they operate. This is the truth.

You have them wishing to take away the weapons of the Afghan warrior who is defending his homeland. They wish to believe that a man whose family was killed by the US has now become an agent for Pakistan.

I wish they could say this to such a man's face. Such heartlessness is not brave or macho, but rather pathetic and disgusting.

For such reasons, it is these ducks that will always flirt with foreigners only to be disposed of by the people who are defending their homelands.

Najib, Shuja, the list goes on.

Who do you think will follow in their dreaded fates?

Not denying that they're not an innocent player. The facts speak for itself. It will wink on the drone strikes while publicly fooling the people that it is against it. I believe it was in wikileaks where Gilani said he's all for them as long as they take out who they're supposed to take out. And he said he'll just 'protest' in the assembly and everyone will forget about until the next one. Rinse and repeat. Pakistan's establishment will take as much benefit (from its perspective, and you could argue the strategy) as they can given the realities. You have a superpower next door in the form of an invasion of a neighboring country which has had a confrontational approach to Pakistan. They are of the thought that weakening afghanistan is in their long-term interest. This comes from a paranoia that pashtunistan is even applicable. Destroy the main proponents of that failed movement, badal isn't only a pashtun value. Disagree with you in you saying that the war against all pashtuns is in Pak's interest. Besides the resistance isn't pashtun centric.

I see we agree on the rest.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Pakistan and the US are both friends to each other, nothing else. Pakistan will never escape the title of step-child of Britain and India as long as it exists. The facts are plain and simple that yesterday and today, the Pakistani establishment benefits from continued war against Afghanistan and Pashtuns. Yesterday, it was the Soviets who were squarely defeated, and today it is the US who is being defeated.

To pretend that Pakistan is some all innocent player is not true. As everyone is aware, the Pashtuns were divided along the Durrand line, a line made by a colonialist who could not subjugate the Pashtuns, so he decided to divide and conquer.

To this day, Pakistan continues to serve US interests with utmost seriousness. Fortress of Islam, Pakistan is NOT, but the forever known traitors will be brandished on them forever, and when the tables turn (which they will), there are many scores to settle. You just have to look back in history to see what the future holds.

Now, in regards to this charade being put on by Pashtun 'nationalists,' they don't have any positive actions that back their words. It is not them fighting in the trenches of Afghanistan against the foreign adversaries, but the Taliban and other groups that they truly oppose only due to the religious grounds on which they operate. This is the truth.

You have them wishing to take away the weapons of the Afghan warrior who is defending his homeland. They wish to believe that a man whose family was killed by the US has now become an agent for Pakistan.

I wish they could say this to such a man's face. Such heartlessness is not brave or macho, but rather pathetic and disgusting.

For such reasons, it is these ducks that will always flirt with foreigners only to be disposed of by the people who are defending their homelands.

Najib, Shuja, the list goes on.

Who do you think will follow in their dreaded fates?

Beautifully said. You said in a few short words, what I have been saying for months. And you said it better.