Former Taliban Commander Mawlawi Azizullah Agha admits to Pakistani influence

[khushal]

You're presenting a false dichotomy, argument; his reasoning for joining the Government is not because he wants NATO, he just wants Afghans to die needlessly and stop being used as pawns.

Just like typical Graveyard/Ashraf statements one should not assume that being against one means support for the other. That's a false dichotomy

about India
so I guess the bombing of Indian embassies was their welcome party

did you read my whole post. then by your logic he should be fighting both the afghan government and the Taliban.

One india embassy bombing in ten years is not the smoking gun as being paki slave

[ScimitarXEdge]

did you read my whole post. then by your logic he should be fighting both the afghan government and the Taliban.

One india embassy bombing in ten years is not the smoking gun as being paki slave

No by his logic he doesnt want ANY fighting, as fighting puts people in harms way as he understands it

LOL

so then one ISI col. death isn't a smoking gun that they're against Pakistan.

see how that argument line works? lol

[khushal]

No by his logic he doesnt want ANY fighting, as fighting puts people in harms way as he understands it

LOL

so then one ISI col. death isn't a smoking gun that they're against Pakistan.

see how that argument line works? lol

If he does not want any fighting then he should work to end the occupation because knowing afghanistan history fighting has always existed when invaders were infringing on the people rights. Joining the government for money and selling its pitchline is not going to stop the fighting.

Nope, but creating instability in Pakistan is the smoking gun. why isnt the Taliban demanding Security guarantees for Pakistan if they are Paki slaves because that is all Pakistan wants. Is it not in Pakistans interest to have an unthreatening stable neighbor with NATO forces guaranteeing its security. Why doesn't Pakistan use its slaves to accomplish such a dream. Slaves are usually used to make you more stable and more secure, the Taliban has made the whole region unstable and insecure especially Pakistan.

Your conspiracy theory is becoming more and more fairy tale like.

[ScimitarXEdge]

that's pretty much what he's trying to do; including the Taliban into the mainstream and thus eliminate any scapegoat for an occupation to exist. Creating instability in Pakistan isn't a smoking gun since the Taliban aren't making any large scale headways in any other region of Pakistan instead of the regions Pakistan looks at as cannon fodder and furthermore the killied Coll. Imam AFTER he threatened to expose Pakistan, this is confirmed from even Pakistani News sources. Not exactly sounding like trying to create instability, sounds like trying to save Pakistan

The only conspiracy theory here is the idea that the guy is had ulterior motives for trying to have a peaceful resolution wth the Taliban; if he was really insincere, he'd advocate the government exterminate Taliban and not even bother giving them a chance, which is what the NATO mouthpieces say on the surface. For every alleged inconsistency you present, there's something that debunks it

[khushal]

that's pretty much what he's trying to do; including the Taliban into the mainstream and thus eliminate any scapegoat for an occupation to exist. Creating instability in Pakistan isn't a smoking gun since the Taliban aren't making any large scale headways in any other region of Pakistan instead of the regions Pakistan looks at as cannon fodder and furthermore the killied Coll. Imam AFTER he threatened to expose Pakistan, this is confirmed from even Pakistani News sources. Not exactly sounding like trying to create instability, sounds like trying to save Pakistan

The only conspiracy theory here is the idea that the guy is had ulterior motives for trying to have a peaceful resolution wth the Taliban; if he was really insincere, he'd advocate the government exterminate Taliban and not even bother giving them a chance, which is what the NATO mouthpieces say on the surface. For every alleged inconsistency you present, there's something that debunks it

You are looking at this from the american point of view. you are saying that the occupation exists because of the taliban, but most scholars would argue that the taliban popularity exists because of the occupation. Scholars even would argue that Al qaeda exists because of US troops in the middle east. Remember sadddams promise in 1991 that this would be the mother of all battles, he knew there would be reactions from the muslim world when there are hundreds of thousands of foreign troop stationed so close to mecca.

You have failed to realize the root of the afghan conflict. bringing central authority to afghan tribes who have had autonomous status for thousands of years will guarantee conflict. This has nothing to do with the Taliban or Pakistan but everything to do with the freedom and way of life of the tribesmen, their independent nature.

If al aziz wanted peace he would have joined zaeef instead of selling the governments pitchline. His strategy of joining the government to bring peace will solve nothing, the government is not really recognized byt he afghan people that is why most rural people go to the taliban to resolve local conflict.

[ScimitarXEdge]

No I am looking this from HIS point of view, people are dying and getting killed; US. are relentlessly trying to pursue Taliban as a scapegoat to impose their hegemony (i doubt anyone favoring the u.S. perspective would endorse that), the Pakistani ISI are manipulating the Taliban and dictating to them while the Taliban are cannon fodder, just so Pakistan can get furbished by their american allies. He sees it as all a game where only Afghans take the brunt of the damage

YOU however are seeing it from the Pakistani point of view.

And let's not use the "tribal nature" argument, at one time, if what you're saying were absolutely true, then there woud have been no afghanistan, Since concepts like Nation would violate the supposedly "unbending" autonomy of the tribes. While I am against Nationalism, I dont doubt for a second most tribes of 2011 don't concur with your notions.

[khushal]

No I am looking this from HIS point of view, people are dying and getting killed; US. are relentlessly trying to pursue Taliban as a scapegoat to impose their hegemony (i doubt anyone favoring the u.S. perspective would endorse that), the Pakistani ISI are manipulating the Taliban and dictating to them while the Taliban are cannon fodder, just so Pakistan can get furbished by their american allies. He sees it as all a game where only Afghans take the brunt of the damage

YOU however are seeing it from the Pakistani point of view.

And let's not use the "tribal nature" argument, at one time, if what you're saying were absolutely true, then there woud have been no afghanistan, Since concepts like Nation would violate the supposedly "unbending" autonomy of the tribes. While I am against Nationalism, I dont doubt for a second most tribes of 2011 don't concur with your notions.

The US is using Al Qaeda as a scapegoat, not the Taliban. Today they have recognized the Taliban as an indeginous organization fighting occupation. They are desperately trying to negotiate peace with them. It is the Taliban that has rejected any peace as long as US troops are in the country. This ISI enslavement is just a scapegoat to sideline the independent nature of the tribes which is the true obsticle to US hegemony.

http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/docs/pubs/06jun_groh.pdf

There was no afghanistan as a true nation except for the north and pashtun urban centers incorparated into the nation, Why do you think farsi has the upperhand and has always had the upper hand. Most of the population of this "Afghan Nation' were farsiwan and the pashtuns that wanted to become part of this "Afghan nation" were forced to learn farsi, the rural pashtuns did not want any part of it, they like their autonomy. Pakistan does not exist as a nation in FATA. Pro Pakistani pashtuns are nationalists because they hunger to part of a nation and pakistan is providing that better than Afghanistan currently.

The Great game exists because the Afghan tribes are unruly, if they were rulable, the great game would not exist. There would be a legitimate border and security agreements between the great powers and we would not be talking about it right now.

[ScimitarXEdge]

the U.S. is done using AlQaeda, and has been for awhile, that's why U.S. forces say there's no real demonstrable AlQaeda activity, so yes they are using the Taliban too, that's why they remain

The independent Nature argument is a scapegoat by those who want to draw attention from the Pakistani ISI control of the Taliban. The central authority argument is debunked by the fact the Taliban claim to want an "Islamic State" under Mullah Omar, which is central authority. Pashtuns themselves abandoned Pashto for farsi. It was not forced on them, in fact the rulers implemented PRO Pashtun policies EVEN gave Pashtuns lands in the North to extend Pashtun dominance.

The claim that the tribes never accepted central authority,if they didn't they'd have insurrected the national/state boundaries and totally expel and all state infrastructure. They would also reject any and all Natioal/State documentation like citizenship. They'd also be internally self sufficient in governing and resources.

The great game exists because of Afghanistan's location; if Afghanistan were some country in Africa, no one would care that much.

But of course leave it to people who want so desperately to make any scapegoat possible for the illegitimacy of the Taliban to invent a narrative even if it is historically false.

[khushal]

the U.S. is done using AlQaeda, and has been for awhile, that's why U.S. forces say there's no real demonstrable AlQaeda activity, so yes they are using the Taliban too, that's why they remain

The independent Nature argument is a scapegoat by those who want to draw attention from the Pakistani ISI control of the Taliban. The central authority argument is debunked by the fact the Taliban claim to want an "Islamic State" under Mullah Omar, which is central authority. Pashtuns themselves abandoned Pashto for farsi. It was not forced on them, in fact the rulers implemented PRO Pashtun policies EVEN gave Pashtuns lands in the North to extend Pashtun dominance.

The claim that the tribes never accepted central authority,if they didn't they'd have insurrected the national/state boundaries and totally expel and all state infrastructure. They would also reject any and all Natioal/State documentation like citizenship. They'd also be internally self sufficient in governing and resources.

The great game exists because of Afghanistan's location; if Afghanistan were some country in Africa, no one would care that much.

But of course leave it to people who want so desperately to make any scapegoat possible for the illegitimacy of the Taliban to invent a narrative even if it is historically false.

You don't know what your talking about.
Central authority is accomplished by how you govern. For example the soviets and the americans opted for a centralized government system forcing authority on the autonomous tribes which the tribes naturally reject hence the instability during both times. Zahir Shaw who ruled with a federal system who granted autonomy to the tribes had peace during his time. The Taliban also recognizes this autonomy because they know that central authority on the tribes does not work. Pakistan also rules this way and everyone is happy but lately with the invasion of FATA, instability has surfaced because the US has pressured Pakistan to violate their own constitution and their agreements with the tribes in FATA who they actually inherited from the British.

The great game exist because the pashtuns are unruly and Allah has put them in this location for a reason. If the Pashtuns were rule-able like the Tajiks and the Panjabis, then there would be no great game since they succumb to central authority. If the Pashtuns were a people in Africa, do you really think the Tajiks and Panjabis would have fought off central authority because they have no history of it. The great game has everything to do with the Pashtuns being independent natured and unruly.

your enslavement theory makes sense only to those that know nothing about Afghanistan. Your theory is based on Pakistani authorities want instability in their own country and the US wants instability in Afghanistan so they have a reason to stay there. The US needs no reason to be anywhere, they can be anywhere if they wish to be, they have the power.
Theya re still in a stable Iraq, a stable South Korea, a stable Germany, a stable Japan, a stable Italy, a stable Kuwait, a stable Saudi Arabia etc, so many to name. There is no reason to be there but protecting its interests not because there is a German Taliban or South Korean Taliban. The reason they are there is because they wish it it.

[afgpower]

The US is using Al Qaeda as a scapegoat, not the Taliban. Today they have recognized the Taliban as an indeginous organization fighting occupation. They are desperately trying to negotiate peace with them. It is the Taliban that has rejected any peace as long as US troops are in the country. This ISI enslavement is just a scapegoat to sideline the independent nature of the tribes which is the true obsticle to US hegemony.

http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/docs...06jun_groh.pdf

There was no afghanistan as a true nation except for the north and pashtun urban centers incorparated into the nation, Why do you think farsi has the upperhand and has always had the upper hand. Most of the population of this "Afghan Nation' were farsiwan and the pashtuns that wanted to become part of this "Afghan nation" were forced to learn farsi, the rural pashtuns did not want any part of it, they like their autonomy. Pakistan does not exist as a nation in FATA. Pro Pakistani pashtuns are nationalists because they hunger to part of a nation and pakistan is providing that better than Afghanistan currently.

The Great game exists because the Afghan tribes are unruly, if they were rulable, the great game would not exist. There would be a legitimate border and security agreements between the great powers and we would not be talking about it right now.

-

[ScimitarXEdge]

Khushal apparently had no idea what a "controlled" demolition is; obviously they're there because they wish it, but they need to make their presence seem legit in the public eye or else it would violate all their alleged treaties.

[khushal]

Khushal apparently had no idea what a "controlled" demolition is; obviously they're there because they wish it, but they need to make their presence seem legit in the public eye or else it would violate all their alleged treaties.

utter nonsense.

The US is losing its public support to be in Afghanistan because of the instability. If Afghanistan was stable, they would have public support for continued military presence just like they have public support to be present in germany, japan, saudi, iraq, etc. The public calls are getting louder to leave Afghanistan. Gen Stanley McChrystal was asked why not have secured military bases in Afghanistan and leave the rurals alone, his reply was "we cant have our bases surrounded by Chaosistan."

So by your logic, the Soviets wanted instability in Afghanistan so they would have a reason to be there which backfired because they were forced to leave. An unstable Afghanistan/Pakistan is not in the best interest of the US.

[khushal]

i reaally doubt that pashto or farsi has anything to do about the situation of afghanistan now......
every country in the world has an interest in afghanistan and i really dont know why... we can only guess. the only people who now are the leaders of the countries.

What are you blabbering about, I never said that.

[ScimitarXEdge]

utter nonsense.

The US is losing its public support to be in Afghanistan because of the instability. If Afghanistan was stable, they would have public support for continued military presence just like they have public support to be present in germany, japan, saudi, iraq, etc. The public calls are getting louder to leave Afghanistan. Gen Stanley McChrystal was asked why not have secured military bases in Afghanistan and leave the rurals alone, his reply was "we cant have our bases surrounded by Chaosistan."

So by your logic, the Soviets wanted instability in Afghanistan so they would have a reason to be there which backfired because they were forced to leave. An unstable Afghanistan/Pakistan is not in the best interest of the US.

losing public support, not LOST public support. The soviets invaded Afghanistan because it saw Afghanistan as one of its states. America just wants to make sure it's hegemonic threshold expands indefinitely.

Unstable Afghanistan is how they maintain power; if it worked for the British in India, it would work for the U.S. it's about maintaining the cycle of dependence and dependence is control. And Pakistan killing truckloads of Pashtuns and getting mainly Pashtun frontier corps dying for their cause isn't "destabilization"; that's just Pakistan crying wolf. Punjab has stayed largely untouched except maybe a handful of incidences. No one in Pakistan cares what happens to the Northern Provinces, they're cannon fodder. It'd be like if the U.S. army went into Compton and started killing gang members using Mexican-American soldiers with outdated weapons. Not going to destabilize anything

come on Khushal I thought you're a critical thinker.

[khushal]

losing public support, not LOST public support. The soviets invaded Afghanistan because it saw Afghanistan as one of its states. America just wants to make sure it's hegemonic threshold expands indefinitely.

Unstable Afghanistan is how they maintain power; if it worked for the British in India, it would work for the U.S. it's about maintaining the cycle of dependence and dependence is control. And Pakistan killing truckloads of Pashtuns and getting mainly Pashtun frontier corps dying for their cause isn't "destabilization"; that's just Pakistan crying wolf. Punjab has stayed largely untouched except maybe a handful of incidences. No one in Pakistan cares what happens to the Northern Provinces, they're cannon fodder. It'd be like if the U.S. army went into Compton and started killing gang members using Mexican-American soldiers with outdated weapons. Not going to destabilize anything

come on Khushal I thought you're a critical thinker.

I know this area Scimitar, I am from it. I thought your a student of evolution and would have thought this through, you don't seem like a person that believes in complex conspiracy theories.

The reason Panjab and Sindh have not been touched with too much violence is because they don't have FATA( an autonomous region that they inherited from the British) Panjab is not a tribal society. It is a feudal society. It is possible for Panjab and Sindh to have a violent struggle if they were to try to evolve from feudal societies to industrial societies. Although India is transforming from feudal to industrial peacefully so far which tells us peaceful transformation is possible.

Realistically Pashtuns are in a struggle here. Pashtuns of KP and Pashtuns of FATA are at odds with each other on how the Pashtun society should progress. FATA wants the old way intact and would like to hold on to their autonomy and KP wants to progress and be part of a nation. There is a struggle between these two groups. This war is about the old way vs the new way. Most society has had this war. Its a war about the feudals(KP) vs tribal(FATA). Even America's civil war was about an old way vs new way and its conflict to transform was violent. Americas civil war was about the Feudalists(Southerners)(Old way) vs Industrialists(Northerners)(new way).
The Contrarian: North-South Divide | History Today

Japan had its own civil war about its evolution from feudalism to industrialism.
Japan Civil War 1863-1868

This is a much more natural and logical struggle than your pak enslavement theory which is completely irrational and unnatural.
The function of socialization in ... - Google Books