Pakistan: Haqqani Militant Network Has Ties With Government, Ambassador

[khushal]

No your argument is ALL tribes reject it; my argument is some tribes reject it some tribes accept it


if you dont know the difference them then I misjudged your intelligence.

So tell me which tribe accept it.

before you were under the impression that the resistance was an ISI slave method, have you finally rejected your conspiracy theory.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Popalzais?...Barakzais?...Mohmadzais? ...Hotaks? ...Ahmadzais?

[ScimitarXEdge]

S
before you were under the impression that the resistance was an ISI slave method, have you finally rejected your conspiracy theory.

Taliban are in fact an ISI product. this is a documented fact even by Ahmed Rashid a Pakistani.

[khushal]

Popalzais?...Barakzais?...Mohmadzais? ...Hotaks? ...Ahmadzais?

sources please.

[ScimitarXEdge]

sources please.

It Takes the Villages | Foreign Affairs

In a January 2010 poll conducted by ABC News and other organizations, 90 percent of the Afghans polled said they supported the government, whereas only six percent claimed to support the Taliban.

[khushal]

It Takes the Villages | Foreign Affairs

We are not talking about support but the autonomous nature of the tribes. Supporting the government is different than the tribes giving up their autonomy. Tribesmen are usually bribed to give support, as long as payment is given, the support will exist, once payment stops so will support. The British were masters at employing such tactics because of their enormous wealth.
Major Problems in American Foreign ... - Dennis Merrill, Thomas Paterson - Google Books


I will await to see if you can find any sources for your argument.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Supporting the government is different than the tribes giving up their autonomy.


I will await to see if you can find any sources for your argument.

what do you think supporting the government means?

you event your own definitions to deny evidence ....you sir live in pipe dreams

no other evidence is needed you just change goal posts.

[khushal]

what do you think supporting the government means?

you event your own definitions to deny evidence ....you sir live in pipe dreams

no other evidence is needed you just change goal posts.

no one is inventing anything. I am merely speaking the truth while you ignore the evidence I have submitted to you several times.
You can support something but it does not mean you are going to follow its authority. For example, the US bribed the shinwari tribe to support the Afghan government but that does not mean the shinwari came under the afghan authority, its just an agreement, they can make an agreement with Pakistan if they want to. Its their choice because they are autonomous.
U.S. Bribes the Shinwari Tribe, along Main Supply Route to Kabul | America at War

And they will switch allegiance as they see fit.
Major Problems in American Foreign ... - Dennis Merrill, Thomas Paterson - Google Books

The US supports the Afghan government but that does not mean it is under Afghan government authority.
If the tribes truly gave up its autonomy, then they have by definition detribalized, but it will take more than words, bribery or agreements to actually accomplish this.

Read about how Abdur Rahman successfully worked around the Pashtun tribes instead of confronting them.
Afghanistan: the mirage of peace - Chris Johnson, Jolyon Leslie - Google Books

And how the British learned not to confront them either.
Britain's FATA Policy

Your far fetched conspiracy theory is not sustainable and has been debunked, it just simply does not make sense. The violence in Afghanistan is much more complex and has more to do with the complex structure of its society than anything else.

I am still waiting for those sources you promised. I know you cant find them because what you say does not make sense.

[ScimitarXEdge]

no one is inventing anything. I am merely speaking the truth while you ignore the evidence I have submitted to you several times.
You can support something but it does not mean you are going to follow its authority. For example, the US bribed the shinwari tribe to support the Afghan government but that does not mean the shinwari came under the afghan authority, its just an agreement, they can make an agreement with Pakistan if they want to. Its their choice because they are autonomous.
U.S. Bribes the Shinwari Tribe, along Main Supply Route to Kabul | America at War

the article says nothing about supporting the Government though?

And they will switch allegiance as they see fit.
Major Problems in American Foreign ... - Dennis Merrill, Thomas Paterson - Google Books

this also isn't a unanimous statement; and plus it is trumped by the evidence I gave.

The US supports the Afghan government but that does not mean it is under Afghan government authority.
If the tribes truly gave up its autonomy, then they have by definition detribalized, but it will take more than words, bribery or agreements to actually accomplish this.

That make no sense; you're inventing your own meanings for terms here. Supporting the Government in the Afghan context means accepting it as authority. The support of the U.S. is a different kind of support.

Read about how Abdur Rahman successfully worked around the Pashtun tribes instead of confronting them.
Afghanistan: the mirage of peace - Chris Johnson, Jolyon Leslie - Google Books

doesn't trump my argument it says what I was saying before some tribes are wholly welcoming of authority, some aren't. Consistent with what evidence I found.

You really are bad at refuting points in their precise context.

And how the British learned not to confront them either.
Britain's FATA Policy

This is a an issue of whether tribes all unanimously reject central authority or not. Your're on a tangent.

Your far fetched conspiracy theory is not sustainable and has been debunked, it just simply does not make sense. The violence in Afghanistan is much more complex and has more to do with the complex structure of its society than anything else.

what conspiracy theory are you talking about? You invent some narrative that even your sources dont fully endorse.

I am still waiting for those sources you promised. I know you cant find them because what you say does not make sense.

uh it's not that I can't find them, I found one; you just keep changing goal posts. You're in what's called denial

[khushal]

^^^
You make no sense. It is funny how someone like you who have never visited Afghanistan is telling us what Afghanistan is all about. You are in a fairy tale if you believe a poll is evidence that tribes have given up their autonomy. You cant really supply an evidence.
Earlier you argue against Mustafa that Afghanistan was never a nation since the tribes are autonomous. You are contradicting yourself.

[ScimitarXEdge]

^^^
You make no sense. It is funny how someone like you who have never visited Afghanistan is telling us what Afghanistan is all about. You are in a fairy tale if you believe a poll is evidence that tribes have given up their autonomy. You cant really supply an evidence.

denying the evidence doesn't make it no longer evidence. You re simply a denier of evidence, nothing else.

Earlier you argue against Mustafa that Afghanistan was never a nation since the tribes are autonomous. You are contradicting yourself.

I never said that, I said AFghanistan as we know it today is British created.

only a contradiction in your distorted superficial sophmoric understanding of the debate.

I never claimed the tribes are ALL autonomous or even autonomous at all; I said they've always fought against each other and hence his idea of an ethnic nationhood is farcical.

[khushal]

You are wrong and in contradiction:
This is what you said.

The tribal uprisings and inter tribal fighting do not prove your point; they show that even amongst Pashtuns themselves they saw themselves as sovereign entities not a united nation bonded on cultural grounds. It would be foolhearty to claim otherwise.

A Nation where they shun their leadership, shun a central authority is not a defacto nation in anything except paper. 12 Million heads or not. You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a nation. There is no concrete reference to anything Pashtun and the term "Afghan" seems not always refer to Pashtuns according to Ibn Battuta. Your idea of who you are is largely mythological.

You seem to change things around whenever you feel like it. Support is not giving up autonomy, giving up autonomy can only be accomplished if the society can successfully detribalize. The only hint of this taking place is in KP. That is why KP Pashtuns are the only ones that are pro-nation.

Its not because the tribes have conflict with each other that makes Afghanistan a non real nation in the modern sense. It is because the tribes consider themselves as mini states themselves. There is internal conflict within every nation, some more than others. It is the responsibility of the federal or central government to ensure peace with in its inhabitants.
Whenever there is conflict within the United States, most of this conflict resides from state rights over federal law. Speaking from the political point of view, the US civil war was about state rights over federal law. Does the federal government have the right to tell states what to do. The same thing in Afghanistan, does the central government have the right to tell the tribes what to do. Finding this balance is key and it has been found in the past so you cant really say Afghanistan was never a nation, its like saying the US is not a nation.

[checkmate]

so Scimitar uses one form of debate with someone else and uses another with you, and makes totally contradicting arguments/statements simply to be a contrarian. Arguing for the sake of arguing.

[retro]

You are wrong and in contradiction:
This is what you said.


You seem to change things around whenever you feel like it. Support is not giving up autonomy, giving up autonomy can only be accomplished if the society can successfully detribalize. The only hint of this taking place is in KP. That is why KP Pashtuns are the only ones that are pro-nation.

Its not because the tribes have conflict with each other that makes Afghanistan a non real nation in the modern sense. It is because the tribes consider themselves as mini states themselves. There is internal conflict within every nation, some more than others. It is the responsibility of the federal or central government to ensure peace with in its inhabitants.
Whenever there is conflict within the United States, most of this conflict resides from state rights over federal law. Speaking from the political point of view, the US civil war was about state rights over federal law. Does the federal government have the right to tell states what to do. The same thing in Afghanistan, does the central government have the right to tell the tribes what to do. Finding this balance is key and it has been found in the past so you cant really say Afghanistan was never a nation, its like saying the US is not a nation.

In the US the President and judiciary routinely exceeds their mandate by overturning state laws. However in practice in most administrative matters. I don't think that local authorities are all that accountable to central government.

Since for the most part where central government tends to enforce national policy or law is in areas that require not only greater uniformity, but actual oversight and such as education, policing or tax inspection. Hence central government is typically populated by departmentalised, technocrats and bean counters. Who set local government targets and allocate budgets for infrastructural projects or are tasked with coordinating centrally planned responses.

[khushal]

In the US the President and judiciary routinely exceeds their mandate by overturning state laws. However in practice in most administrative matters. I don't think that local authorities are all that accountable to central government.

Since for the most part where central government tends to enforce national policy or law is in areas that require not only greater uniformity, but actual oversight and such as education, policing or tax inspection. Hence central government is typically populated by departmentalised, technocrats and bean counters. Who set local government targets and allocate budgets for infrastructural projects or are tasked with coordinating centrally planned responses.

Exactly, Whats happening in Arizona today about immigration policy is all about state rights over federal law. It is the feds responsibility to ensure a safe border and patrolling the border. The State government in Arizona feels that the Feds are not doing their job and they want to take the Federal law into their own hands. The controversy is does Arizona as a state have the right to ask people about citizenship or proof they have legal residence, do they have a right to deport people, do they have a right to patrol the national border. It was a federal judge that ruled they do not have this right.

This same thing applies in Afghanistan. If the Tribes feel that their rights are being violated by the central authority, then they will naturally rebel. The tribes main concern with the Afghan government is why the Afghan government is allowing foreign forces to invade their homes, why are they not being protected by the government, if the government is not going to protect them then they will have to arm and take the law into their own hands, the Taliban is stepping in to provide the Arms and Assistance.