Message Of Felicitation Of The Esteemed Amir-Ul-Momineen On The Occasion Of Eid-Ul-F

[ScimitarXEdge]

keep reading

already read it ...I refuted the main points ....it's been debunked

now stop spamming your beghairat paki slave.

[unknownprince]

your a flimsy boy who tries to play safe by attacking Afghans.

]Im not interested in trading crap with you. You want facts. Read below. You disagree, then there is only hatred in your heart for the person because maybe you can't imagine taking those stands.

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar - Indian Punchline


By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011




What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)
That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.
What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.
It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.


Posted in Military, Politics.
Tagged with Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke, Taliban, US 'surge' in Afghanistan.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011

[unknownprince]

your a flimsy boy who tries to play safe by attacking Afghans.

]Im not interested in trading crap with you. You want facts. Read below. You disagree, then there is only hatred in your heart for the person because maybe you can't imagine taking those stands.

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar - Indian Punchline


By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011




What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)
That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.
What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.
It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.


Posted in Military, Politics.
Tagged with Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke, Taliban, US 'surge' in Afghanistan.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011

[ScimitarXEdge]

all meaningless when Wikileaks shows that the Taliban take orders from the ISI

so clearly the Taliban dont want US Airbases because that would leave no room for Pakistani Bases.

[unknownprince]

all meaningless when Wikileaks shows that the Taliban take orders from the ISI

so clearly the Taliban dont want US Airbases because that would leave no room for Pakistani Bases.

LMAO, oh, and Taliban fight and die for Pakistan, and raise the Pakistani flag.

who said wikileaks is completely true? is this your Quran? Does it also say evolution is true?

You are a retard.
Did the Vietnamese die for China? Do Vietnamese have Russian bases in Vietnam? please let me know if they do LOL hahah

Im not going to get into this flat earth society argument because it is ridiculous to go through it a thousand times with a bunch of retards. Enjoy having yourself compared to the likes of Toramana LOL



Pakistan, like your American-born self supports the US war against Afghanistan.

[ScimitarXEdge]

http://worldmeets.us/outlookafghanis...#axzz1WkeToD4l

WikiLeaks Memos Say Ex-ISI Chief Plotted Karzai Assassination

"The documents indicate how ISI officials attend meetings of the Taliban and issue orders to militants. … and report that al-Qaeda, the Taliban and [ex-ISI chief] General Gul plotted to kill President Karzai; and that an ISI officer, Colonel Muhammad Yousaf, directed Taliban leader Maulvi Ezatullah to supervise the assassination plot."


http://worldmeets.us/outlookafghanis...#ixzz1WkqE4c8J

If Taliban are fighting for Afghanistan, why are they being "directed" by an Ex ISI officer Ashraf?

[ScimitarXEdge]

LMAO, oh, and Taliban fight and die for Pakistan, and raise the Pakistani flag.

You are a retard.
Did the Vietnamese die for China? Do Vietnamese have Russian bases in Vietnam? please let me know if they do LOL hahah

Im not going to get into this flat earth society argument because it is ridiculous to go through it a thousand times with a bunch of retards. Enjoy having yourself compared to the likes of Toramana LOL



Pakistan, like your American-born self supports the US war against Afghanistan.

But you fail to realize that PAKISTAN helped the U.S./Imperialist Invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and the Pakistani Military kill thousands of Pashtuns both across the Afghan border and tribal lands of Pashtunkhwah

And this is all from YOUR FAVORITE source, WIKILEAKS.....why are you rejecting Wikileaks now?


the Chinese didn't do any such thing with America

[unknownprince]

your a flimsy boy who tries to play safe by attacking Afghans.

]Im not interested in trading crap with you. You want facts. Read below. You disagree, then there is only hatred in your heart for the person because maybe you can't imagine taking those stands.

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar - Indian Punchline


By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011




What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)
That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.
What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.
It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.


Posted in Military, Politics.
Tagged with Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke, Taliban, US 'surge' in Afghanistan.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011

written by Mk Bhadrakumar, an Indian diplomat. I state this because you seem to only find a non-Muslims words and CNN as factual .

Oh, let me guess, Mk Bhadrakumar is part of the Taliban, right?

Im not wasting time trading crap with you.

[ScimitarXEdge]

is Wikileaks apart of the U.S. Imperial agenda?

[unknownprince]

But you fail to realize that PAKISTAN helped the U.S./Imperialist Invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and the Pakistani Military kill thousands of Pashtuns both across the Afghan border and tribal lands of Pashtunkhwah

And this is all from YOUR FAVORITE source, WIKILEAKS.....why are you rejecting Wikileaks now?


the Chinese didn't do any such thing with America

YOu RETARD. When did I say Wikileaks was my favorite source. I post an article? Are you so immature and stupid that to you that means I say it is the truth?

Pakistan supports the US war with supply routes you and drone attacks.

When have I said they did NOT. fool

American boy, intellectual fool, you make NO SENSE, and you derail threads. you waste.

[khushal]

Because one situation was used to liberate his people from corruption; the other is being used to help sow corruption i.e. from Pakistani ISI, which is a proxy of infidels.

Mirwais neeka also was aided by Moghuls and the sunni ottomans in arabia against shia iran and georgian christian alliance much like todays iran/hazara/tajik/US/Russian christain alliance. was he also a proxy of the moghuls and the sunni leadership in arabia

[ScimitarXEdge]

YOu RETARD. When did I say Wikileaks was my favorite source. I post an article? Are you so immature and stupid that to you that means I say it is the truth?

Pakistan supports the US war with supply routes you retard and drone attacks.

When have I said they did NOT. fool

'


If you endorsed their information; then you must accept that their information is valid.


Yes exactly Pakistan helps in Killing Pashtuns to help America, Taliban are killing Pashtuns to help Pakistan ......makes perfect sense.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Mirwais neeka also was aided by Moghuls and the sunni ottomans in arabia against shia iran and georgian christian alliance much like todays iran/hazara/tajik/US/Russian christain alliance. was he also a proxy of the moghuls and the sunni leadership in arabia

where was he aided by the Moghuls? evidence?

And Sunni Ottomans and the Arabs Shaikhs were in alliance with Mir Wais Nika against the Safawid threat that they all faced.

Much different than Pakistan who both helps America Kill Muslims in both Afghanistan AND their own soil, but is using Taliban to kill other Muslims.


the analysis you give is incongrument on EVERY level.

[unknownprince]

Mirwais neeka also was aided by Moghuls and the sunni ottomans in arabia against shia iran and georgian christian alliance much like todays iran/hazara/tajik/US/Russian christain alliance. was he also a proxy of the moghuls and the sunni leadership in arabia

I think Scimitar and the rest of the flat earth society would say yes that he was a proxy and fought for the mughals and Turks .

[ScimitarXEdge]

I think Scimitar and the rest of the flat earth society would say yes that he was a proxy and fought for the mughals and Turks .

I actually refuted the inconsistencies of Khushal's argument.