Afghanistan belongs to Pakistan.

[Michin Khel]

Except Pakistan lost 5000 PaK soldiers. Correct me if I am wrong, but that does not look like victory?
Even recently, Pakistan is still looking for peace talks

Pakistan has no control over any of them

This is another myth

Pakistan just is unable to continue battling them in FATA and is unable to have a North Waziristan op

Pakistan has lost 10 thousands security forces, most of them in waziristan. Swat and bajaur operations were successful but wazirs and mehsuds are in different league.

[al-arab]

If you are sticked to your opinion then i wont argue any more. But i would answer your question that you have asked many times that "why i consider pakistan as my country?" and you always claim that pashtuns of pak are anti-pakistanis and that luffy like people are rare.
Answer: unlike rest of members i , shehbaz and few other members are living in pakistan. Most of the members here citizens of foriegn countries. But i am law abiding citizen of pakistan. We pashtuns of pakistan consider ourselves pakistanis. If was citizen of UK or canada then i would have different opinion. And by nature pashtuns are loyal and patriotic people , they dont perforate the bowel from which they eat. By nature they are not traitors. Pashtun of india would be a loyal to his country. Call me brainwash or some thing else but pakistan is my country and part of my identity.

Brother, I apologize if I offended you was not my intention although I could have sounded tough on you. My English is still not the best so I can sometime write things that I would not write in Arabic in that sense that it can be interpreted wrongly.

I wanted to include the fact that much of the younger Pakistani generation regard Pakistan as their homeland because they don't know the homeland of their ancestors. With history every Pakistani will regard it as their homeland which also was my point in my first post. Every american is well aware of their ancestry but they regard themselves as americans. But remember that usa is nearly 200 years older than Pakistan.

What I did not understand is that you can speak badly about Afghanistan the homeland of your ancestors and a country that is very old and the homeland of Pashtuns. I would myself never talk badly about any Arab country or its people.

What I objected against was your attitude towards Afghanistan yesterday where you called Afghanistan a country with only dust and praised Pakistan instead like it was an old country. (which it is not).

I am not an expert in Pakistan but I know enough of people from Pakistan (Baloch, Pashtun, Punjabi and Sindh) to know that the majority of them have an different culture, different language, different cuisine, different opinions and are well aware of their ancestors homeland. That homeland is not Pakistan.

Since you have lived in Pakistan all you life you know of the problems in Pakistan in terms of the 4 major ethnic groups and how they fight for control of the country. My point is that before Pakistan develop a strong identity of their own and manage to incorporate everyone from Kashmiri people to Baloch people in the state I don't see them succeed. That was my point and why I mentioned Bangladesh as a country, that although is younger than Pakistan but a stronger country because of the homogenous population (Bengali Muslims 90 percent majority) and the fact that Bengali people share the same language, culture and religion in Bangladesh and have lived there for centuries.

And unfortunately that has not been the case yet (Pakistan integrating all their peoples). Imran Khan can maybe change that Insha'Allah, so Pakistan yet again can respect their peoples and their Muslim neighbours and work together with them not against them. And before you start talking about Arabs, then yes, there are Arab countries that face similar problems. I have admitted that many times and talked about that. I have been a major critic of the rulling family of the country I live in to make an example and of the puppet government of my own country.

[Michin Khel]

Al-arab bro dont apologize, actually i should apologize for being rude to you.
Actually I dont hate Afghans and Afghanistan. Kunar issue raised by me is just my attempt at humour. I called afghanistan a land of sands and rocks, which is true but so is my region which is part of thal desert..it doesnt reflect my hate towards afghanistan. We pashtuns have ego problems, i do love afghanistan but i wont admit it. In this e-war with westren afghan teenagers, we throw insults at each other. They call me brainwashed and slave of punjabis and i would show indifference towards afghans and afghanistan...otherwise i strongely defend afghanistan and afghans on pakistani forums. Also i dislike only these immature teenagers, i respect and admire afghans like admin khan, barakzaiabdali, amir al ghaznavi, alchemist, randolph, schmitaredge, khushal...

[torkham]

al-arab - i believe luffy has the right to claim a national identity of the land that governs him and his neighbours, and I as an afghan pashtun applaud his strength to uphold his nationalism in the continued onslaught against pakistan and to his person (a character assassination); he unfailingly stands up and proclaims he is pakistani. being pakistani is his 'political' or 'sovereign ' identity. he has not in betrayed his pashtun roots, in the recent post i have seen. he had no choice in being born in a country that has become to be known as pakistan.

I believe what is important is to know one's roots, one's parents and ancestors, one's language and culture and not be a sell-out/traitor.

I also believe pakistani pashtuns (those of KPK and especially FATA) are the blood and soil what still is afghan land and the pakistani pashtuns who live there is peshawar, mardan, swat etc have maintained indominatable pashtun identity with all it admirable features despite the blind nationalism of a pakistan - which is correctly identified by al-arab as a country fabricated after '48(?)

In my opinion, Luffy needs separate his pashtun ethnicity (which is his blood heritage) from his pakistani nationality (which is ink on paper) and make it clear in PF posts.

Further it is important to know which identity, national or ethnic, is yours, which camp you belong to. The fortunate part of Afghan identity is that is still equated with pashtun despite the recent change that extends the term afghan to other ethnic groups resident in afghanistan. Unfortunately, with pakistan, the name purports to mean panjabi, afghan, kashmiri etc, but in realty pakistan is perhaps identified more with panjabi or sindhi, as political leader and majority is such.

[Michin Khel]

Actually torkham i do clarify my identity from time to time in my posts that i am pakistani by nationality and pashtun by ethnicity...
Whether i incline towards national or ethnic identity? To which camp i belong? It is a difficult question...i believe blood is thicker than water, i have seen it manifested on several occasion...if a punjabi and afghan are fighting, a lar pashtun would rush to support afghan...also generally we dont like punjabis that much unless he proves to be a nice person...now if i am asked to choose between good punjabi A and good Afghan B then i would naturally choose Afghan B. But if Afghan B is not good, insults me, look down upon me, call me paki dhaalkhor, slave of punjabi etc etc then i would'not choose him, i would kick his a$$.

[torkham]

Actually torkham i do clarify my identity from time to time in my posts that i am pakistani by nationality and pashtun by ethnicity...
Whether i incline towards national or ethnic identity? To which camp i belong? It is a difficult question...i believe blood is thicker than water, i have seen it manifested on several occasion...if a punjabi and afghan are fighting, a lar pashtun would rush to support afghan...also generally we dont like punjabis that much unless he proves to be a nice person...now if i am asked to choose between good punjabi A and good Afghan B then i would naturally choose Afghan B. But if Afghan B is not good, insults me, look down upon me, call me paki dhaalkhor, slave of punjabi etc etc then i would'not choose him, i would kick his a$$.

there are a few egotisitcal, arrogant hot heads here on PF who will insult, abuse, call names (true!!!), . . . ignore them. you are here to learn and share. learn and share. if you want to k!ck a!$$ go ahead your choice, but it is something best done live.

[Michin Khel]

there are a few egotisitcal, arrogant hot heads here on PF who will insult, abuse, call names (true!!!), . . . ignore them. you are here to learn and share. learn and share. if you want to k!ck a!$$ go ahead your choice, but it is something best done live.

I am not talking about e-afghans. By Punjabi A and Afghan B i meant persons in real life that i may encounter...and actually i dont consider you or any other afghan living in foriegn countries to be representatives of voices of afghan people of afghanistan...i was always strict about this criterea.
Actually i dont ignore any one, i am observing each of you...especially aspect of identity crisis of pashtuns in foriegn countries, is interesting for me..

[az4er]

Zaid Hamid is a wannabe Alex Jones or Webster Tarpley. His stories change with each passing event. First off Afghans, from Pakhtunkhwa and mainland Afghanistan fought off the Soviets. It doesn't matter where the guns came from, most of which didn't exceed your everyday run-of-the-mill AK-47, as opposed to the Soviets with their tanks and fighter jets. You can give a monkey a screwdriver, but will it know how to use it?

He is right about the ISI presence in Afghanistan but he fails to mention the reason they were there in the first place, i.e. to overthrow the communist Afghan government at the behest of the US government. He fails to mention that there were CIA/ISI bases all over FATA and Quetta from which attacks were launched on Soviet bases and development projects before and after the killing of Daoud Khan.

The rest of his diatribe is pretty much nonsense. As for the TTP, there is no doubt that the Americans were passive (as were the pakistanis) in its development, but to say outright that they created it is just stupid and dangerous, and illustrates the kind of ignorance that would have you institutionalized. The TTP, as most of us know came into existence when the pakistan army invaded North Waziristan to "eliminate" AQ; they went in after being pressured to go in by the US and without consulting the tribes or utilizing political agents. If anything pakistan created the TTP more than anyone else could have because they knowingly let members of AQ and other militant groups settle there, so they could sell them back one at a time to US government for "dallars".

They only properly invaded after musharraf himself escaped two attacks on his person by AQ. And when they did go in (2004), they conducted it so terribly that it led to the creation of the TTP and spawned a militant ideology which still persists. Also, rigging the 2002 elections and bringing the MMA into power didn't help either.

[Admin Khan]

^Well said, thanks for your time in typing your analysis.

Zaid Hamid in my opinion, is nothing but a modern day stooge, serving the interests of the Pakistani top brass. He was the same man who blamed the floods in Pashtunkhwa on India and Afghanistan. Such mickey-mouse commentators shouldn't be taken serious. To him, Pakistan is the holy land and anyone who questions it's motives may be deemed 'un-Islamic'.

[Admin Khan]

^Well said, thanks for your time in typing your analysis.

Zaid Hamid in my opinion, is nothing but a modern day stooge, serving the interests of the Pakistani top brass. He was the same man who blamed the floods in Pashtunkhwa on India and Afghanistan. Such mickey-mouse commentators shouldn't be taken serious. To him, Pakistan is the holy land and anyone who questions it's motives may be deemed 'un-Islamic'.

[Ghundal]

Zaid Hamid is a wannabe Alex Jones or Webster Tarpley. His stories change with each passing event. First off Afghans, from Pakhtunkhwa and mainland Afghanistan fought off the Soviets. It doesn't matter where the guns came from, most of which didn't exceed your everyday run-of-the-mill AK-47, as opposed to the Soviets with their tanks and fighter jets. You can give a monkey a screwdriver, but will it know how to use it?

He is right about the ISI presence in Afghanistan but he fails to mention the reason they were there in the first place, i.e. to overthrow the communist Afghan government at the behest of the US government. He fails to mention that there were CIA/ISI bases all over FATA and Quetta from which attacks were launched on Soviet bases and development projects before and after the killing of Daoud Khan.

The rest of his diatribe is pretty much nonsense. As for the TTP, there is no doubt that the Americans were passive (as were the pakistanis) in its development, but to say outright that they created it is just stupid and dangerous, and illustrates the kind of ignorance that would have you institutionalized. The TTP, as most of us know came into existence when the pakistan army invaded North Waziristan to "eliminate" AQ; they went in after being pressured to go in by the US and without consulting the tribes or utilizing political agents. If anything pakistan created the TTP more than anyone else could have because they knowingly let members of AQ and other militant groups settle there, so they could sell them back one at a time to US government for "dallars".

They only properly invaded after musharraf himself escaped two attacks on his person by AQ. And when they did go in (2004), they conducted it so terribly that it led to the creation of the TTP and spawned a militant ideology which still persists. Also, rigging the 2002 elections and bringing the MMA into power didn't help either.

Your presentation is flawed in that you seem to completely ignore the start point for the wars in Afghanistan, and that start point would be the militant communist/secularist assassination of Daud Khan. Daud Khan had informed the Soviets on several ocassions about subversive militant communist activity.

It is then the subsequent communist revolution that caused the reactionary mullahs to take up arms and resist.

Furthermore, the Soviet union was never invited to Afghanistan by a legal Afghan government.

Ignoring this start point and focusing only on spy activities of US and Pakistan in regards to that era is intellectually dishonest. Presenting this as the whole truth then is a disservice against the historical record.

It is not news that US and Pakistani interests were aligned with that of the Afghan resistance at the time. However, this alignment of interests has no significance in regards to the Afghan resistances objectives which was simply to end the foreign occupation of Afghanistan.

Before Daud Khan was assassinated by secular/communist terrorists, there was a lot of subversive communist and KGB activity, and it WAS not welcomed or tolerated by the Afghan masses which further goes to explain why the Soviets and their puppets were defeated

In regards to the TTP, it formed primarily in response to objections against Pakistans support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan. This is the central issue of contention . It is very ridiculous of Zaid to assume that TTP is an American funded group because TTP is active in both Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Pak Army cooperates with the US against TTP

TTP became more of an organization in response to Pak Army operation in Waziristan which was per the request of the US. PaK Army lost 5000 men, and subsequently signed agreements with some factions to cease hostilities.

However, the central issue of Pakistan support for US war still is there. I think with the recent events of the US-Pak tensions, and with Imran's rising candidacy, Pak maybe divesting from this war for good, and Imran appears very determined to diplomatically put a complete end to the war and assist the US in exiting Afghanistan and the region

[az4er]

^Well said, thanks for your time in typing your analysis.

Zaid Hamid in my opinion, is nothing but a modern day stooge, serving the interests of the Pakistani top brass. He was the same man who blamed the floods in Pashtunkhwa on India and Afghanistan. Such mickey-mouse commentators shouldn't be taken serious. To him, Pakistan is the holy land and anyone who questions it's motives may be deemed 'un-Islamic'.

Pakhair Admin Khan Graana! Hope you're doing well my friend!

That or he's a certifiably insane. But unfortunately you're right and this kind of dangerous thinking does pervade a very LARGE segment of the pakistani military, especially in the top ranks. I sum it up into 2 categories.

1) Pro-pakistani: "Modern", secular individuals who are willing to do whatever it takes to "protect" pakistan's interests (And that-mind you-includes putting their morals up for sale). A sizable amount of them are legacies-in that they've had relatives and family members who have either served in the pakistan or british imperial army. Almost 55% of the top-brass (Brigadier and up) of the pakarmy is made of people who'd fall into this category.

2) Fundamentalist Extremists (A twisted and more excessive form of pro-pakistani): Most of the military personnel who fall within this category are extreme Deoband/Wahabbi fundamentalists. Surprisingly, quite a few want to see a Caliphate type system adopted, except, they want everyone to convert to "mainstream" Islam and live by the Book (according to their interpretation of it); and most importantly the Caliph would be chosen from amongst themselves (?). The people who fall within this category are usually found in the operations departments of intelligence agencies (MI, ISI); the same people who deal with/support the various groups in the poonjab (LJ,AI, SSP, etc), FATA and Quetta (Afghan Taliban), and also endorse the kind of psychotic pseudo-theology that people like zaid hamid regurgitate. The vast majority of them lie within the mid-ranks of the pakarmy and about 30-35% make it into the upper echelons of the military. zia-ul-haq would probably be the most notable name to fall into this category.

The rest of the military is made up of lobbyists, who are either loyal to or support external interests. Most of them end up with big, cushy high paying jobs/pensions in the US or Europe.

[Ghundal]

^again, Pakistan Army does not operate on any Islamic footing. For the last decade it has been at the service of the US, and has been serving US interests

Perhaps before, they used to say they were a "fortress of Islam" but their support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan throws this theory out the window.

Today, the Pak Army's top brass is ruled by mostly people who have an appetite for whiskey.

There perhaps is a segment of the army which absorbs itself in Islamic ideology which is at conflict with the upper brass. Some say that there is an internal rift especially with Pakistans support for the US war

When Pak Army was defeated in Waziristan with over 5000 soldiers lost, many families refused to give their sons Islamic burial.

Again, Pakistan Army is not viewed as a "fortress of Islam" because their actions contradict this.

The unrest in Pakistan is principally due to Pakistans support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan

Mullahs consider this aspect of the Pak Army as very in-Islamic.


So I really don't know how one can continue to desperately push forth such a flimsy narrative that Pakistan Army is rooted in Islamic ideology since this is not factual at all

[az4er]

Your presentation is flawed in that you seem to completely ignore the start point for the wars in Afghanistan, and that start point would be the militant communist/secularist assassination of Daud Khan. Daud Khan had informed the Soviets on several ocassions about subversive militant communist activity.

It is then the subsequent communist revolution that caused the reactionary mullahs to take up arms and resist.

Furthermore, the Soviet union was never invited to Afghanistan by a legal Afghan government.

Ignoring this start point and focusing only on spy activities of US and Pakistan in regards to that era is intellectually dishonest. Presenting this as the whole truth then is a disservice against the historical record.

It is not news that US and Pakistani interests were aligned with that of the Afghan resistance at the time. However, this alignment of interests has no significance in regards to the Afghan resistances objectives which was simply to end the foreign occupation of Afghanistan.

Before Daud Khan was assassinated by secular/communist terrorists, there was a lot of subversive communist and KGB activity, and it WAS not welcomed or tolerated by the Afghan masses which further goes to explain why the Soviets and their puppets were defeated

In regards to the TTP, it formed primarily in response to objections against Pakistans support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan. This is the central issue of contention . It is very ridiculous of Zaid to assume that TTP is an American funded group because TTP is active in both Afghanistan and in Pakistan. Pak Army cooperates with the US against TTP

TTP became more of an organization in response to Pak Army operation in Waziristan which was per the request of the US. PaK Army lost 5000 men, and subsequently signed agreements with some factions to cease hostilities.

However, the central issue of Pakistan support for US war still is there. I think with the recent events of the US-Pak tensions, and with Imran's rising candidacy, Pak maybe divesting from this war for good, and Imran appears very determined to diplomatically put a complete end to the war and assist the US in exiting Afghanistan and the region

You seem to have misinterpreted my comments; I feel you think I may have communist leanings? Well I don't and I never said anything about who killed Daoud Khan or the Sovier invasion. I spoke of ISI (key-word "presence) activity in Afghanistan.

Its known fact that the form in which the ISI exists today is a direct result of US DoD overtures. It was to be modeled by the NSA. This happened in the 1960s and the reason for it was the Cold War. Daoud Khan tried to play both sides in his bid to develop Afghanistan, and reunite the Pashtuns.

The Soviets weren't pleased with Daoud's "double-game" and so reacted the way they did (I'm not sure if it was the KGB or PDPA). What history books tend to omit, that the CIA-ISI tandem played a massive role in exacerbating the situation. Zbignew Brezinski has gone on record admitting as such and goes on to gloat in his book about it. Had there been no CIA-ISI presence, I'm pretty sure the Soviet invasion would never have happened in the first place. Former pak-army chiefs Asif Nawaz, Mirza Aslam Beg have gone on the record admitting so. If pakistan hadn't meddled for "dallaray" in Afghanistan as they are today, the Soviets would've never invaded, because it didn't seek to serve them. Communism would've died on its own. The Soviets were well aware that Afghanistan lacked a true central authority, and hence relied heavily on locals such as Dostum, Tanai, Najibullah,etc. and even Massoud at one time. It was just a matter of time before they collaped; the system was unsustainable in a globalized economy. The KGB did nothing the CIA/ISI weren't doing in the first place. Look it up. Even the cause of the so-called Saur Revolution is attributed to Hekmatyar, who was responsible for killing some key PDPA activists; and who was extremely friendly with members of the pakarmy.

Remembering Our Warriors Babar “the great”

I don't think you understood what I wrote about the TTP (key-word passive). You repeated some of what I said?



Pa zma khabaray joray paih nashwai?

[Ghundal]

^I understood perfectly well what you said. You are saying that US/Pak spy activity caused the Soviets to invade. This is a ridiculous assertion.

Brezinksi is not the reason Soviets invaded.

No group in the world can force another to fight. Foreign occupation and meddling causes that and that is the reason the Afghan resistance came to be.

Brezinksi will obviously desperately attempt to claim credit for the defeat of the Soviets but in reality I don't know what role they played at all aside from arming the Afghan resistance with high tech weaponry that escalated the inevitable.


What you are saying is that the Soviet war and occupation of Afghanistan is due to US/Pak spy activity, and that their resulting defeat is also due to that. Brezinksi can say what he wants to say, it's insignificant, and aside from arming the Afghan resistance with weapons, there is nothing else to it. It's comparable to saying Iran spy activity caused the US to have war with Sadaam ruled Iraq. US was bent on war with Iraq. The same goes for the Soviets in regards to Afghanistan.

US funneling of weapons came much later by the way.

Obviously, US and Pak had an interest in Soviets getting defeated, but that's just convergent interests.

The indisputable facts remain that Daud Khan was assassinated by militant communists/secularists. There was a communist revolution. This is the start point

Until this point in time, all subversive activity is communist/secularist. In fact, they had been scheming for far longer before that.