Afghanistan belongs to Pakistan.

[az4er]

^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

OK, thats totally ridiculous. I'm from Pakhtunkhwa. I know exactly what goes on in pakistan and what the army does and doesn't do. I'm not going to resort to "Farhat Taj-ifying" and saying things like "I know such and such and have met or are related to such and such; and have been to ALL the major bases in pakistan", but I can tell you this much that my characterization of the army reflect that of many former and current generals of the pakarmy. Also, Islam is a religion, not an ideology. The intent as commanded by the Almighty is to protect humanity not oppress them.

Nonetheless, you talk about the support for the US war in pakistan, and you allude to the fact that the pakistan army is entirely supportive of it (wrong). While it is true that they aren't opposed to the war, but its not like they supportive it either. While vocally supporting the occupation, they support militant groups to launch attacks on US bases and personnel (Yeah, real support). Its called being selective to secure your interests. Nothing is in black and white. Look up Richard Armitage's comments after 9/11, the subsequent election of the MMA in the then NWFP and Balochistan and Musharraf's comments regarding it.

There is no segment of the pakistan army that is "in-conflict" with "top-brass". You seem to forget about who Hamid Gul and Zia-ul-Haq were? I can assure you, quite a few of their proteges and underlings are currently serving in the "top-brass" of the army.

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

LOL! FYI the pakarmy is still in North Waziristan. The only reason there was a surge within the ranks of the TTP was because of the Bajaur bombing by the pak-air force. Popular support shifted in their favor, but when the population realized the level of cruelty and the draconian methods they were faced with, they realized pakistan was the lesser of two evils. Today, in fear of a resurgent militant ideology, which is a result of pakistans own doing because of their Pashtunistan paranoia, they've reluctantly started to and allow development in these areas and drastically reduced militant indoctrination.

And I never said the pakistan army is a fortress of Islam; I said it has deluded individuals who think along the same lines as you; people have a monochromatic view of everything, when its not that simple.

[/QUOTE]"The unrest in Pakistan is principally due to Pakistans support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan"[/QUOTE]

What "unrest"? You mean militants and the insurgency? As aforementioned, its a result of pakistans own doing; invading NW US and bringing the MMA (to trick the US) to power in 2002 for "dallaray".

[/QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]

Why was pakistan even created in the first place? Was it not to be a separate homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent? That's what it says in all the history books. Do yourself a favor pick one up, you might learn a thing or two.

[Ghundal]

The hard facts which are indisputable show Pakistan support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan with supply routes and drone bases.

Pakistan has been serving US interests and has been cooperating with the US to prop up an illegal Karzai gov. Karzai in fact was ferreted aboard American aircraft from Islamabad to Kabul.

The facts are facts. Majority of US supplies come through Pakistan. Without Pakistan, the war was hardly possible.

There were about 4 drone bases.

The question should be this. Why is Pakistan supporting the US war?

[Admin Khan]

The hard facts which are indisputable show Pakistan support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan with supply routes and drone bases.

Pakistan has been serving US interests and has been cooperating with the US to prop up an illegal Karzai gov. Karzai in fact was ferreted aboard American aircraft from Islamabad to Kabul.

The facts are facts. Majority of US supplies come through Pakistan. Without Pakistan, the war was hardly possible.

There were about 4 drone bases.

The question should be this. Why is Pakistan supporting the US war?

Because a weak, and destabilized Afghanistan is in Pakistan's strategic interest. A strong, and healthy Afghanistan would serve as a potential adversary, if things go sour. Pakistan also made billions, that's why they supported the war.

[Ghundal]

Clerics have constantly opposed Pakistans support for the US war.


In regards to supposed Pak support for militant groups. Let's assume it is true for purposes of debate. Who is backing Karzai?

So an alliance of 50 well armed nations can't defeat a group that is armed with vintage soviet weaponry, so Pakistan must be the reason behind this?

So Pakistans reluctance to conduct operations requested by the US amounts to support?

If China feels that the state of New Mexico hinders its victory in Mexico, should the US conduct an operation for China? Does this even make any sense? If US refuses, is that support?

Support or no support, please explain how this has any relevance at all to the current scenario

Please explain to me why Pakistans support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan is not the issue that us being brought up.

Why?

[az4er]

^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.

No that is not what I said. You not only misunderstood and threw it on a tangent where you're now completely making up your own historical facts and analyses (Yet, you call my comments "ridiculous"). I never made the "assertion" that the CIA-ISI caused the Soviets to invade. I specifically stated the tandem "exacerbated" (key word) tensions, which played a key role in causing the Soviets to invade. The Soviets would never have bothered to have come in had there been no US presence on the other side. The "conflict" would've been limited internally. I never said the Mollahs didn't play a role; I stated they weren't solely responsible for the "uprising" (anothere key word) against the communists.

"Brezinksi is not the reason Soviets invaded."

Read Jesse Venturas, 63 Documents the Government doesn't want you to read. Then get back to me on that one.

"US funneling of weapons came much later by the way."

I never said anything about that. I talked about the exacerbation of the situation which led to the Soviet invasion. Wrora lag pa khabara poih sha kana. If you read my earliest comment to Admin Khan, I stated that "you can give a monkey a screw driver, but will he know how to use it?" I did not in any way undermine the effort put in by the Pashtuns in doing what needed to be done.

My point, once again, is that the Soviets would not have invaded and killed innocent Pashtuns had there been no US presence in pakistan. To sum it up in terms (I hope) even you can understand. Soviets minding business; CIA-ISI launch attack on development projects they have in Afghanistan and attack their bases next to the border; that causes them to interfere more in domestic Afghan affairs; communism; massive backlash; invasion; Reagan authorizes arms in 1983 (3 years after invasion). Simple as that. We can through this a million times, but I sincerely doubt it'd do any good.

[az4er]

Because a weak, and destabilized Afghanistan is in Pakistan's strategic interest. A strong, and healthy Afghanistan would serve as a potential adversary, if things go sour. Pakistan also made billions, that's why they supported the war.

Exactly! Thank you Admin Khan!

[Ghundal]

^ I understand what you are saying. The Soviet war and occupation of Afghanistan is due to US/Pak spy activity

And the German Nazi war on Europe was due to British and Russian spy activity too, right?

[Ghundal]

Because a weak, and destabilized Afghanistan is in Pakistan's strategic interest. A strong, and healthy Afghanistan would serve as a potential adversary, if things go sour. Pakistan also made billions, that's why they supported the war.

And what is defined as a strong Afghanistan?

[az4er]

Clerics have constantly opposed Pakistans support for the US war.


In regards to supposed Pak support for militant groups. Let's assume it is true for purposes of debate. Who is backing Karzai?

So an alliance of 50 well armed nations can't defeat a group that is armed with vintage soviet weaponry, so Pakistan must be the reason behind this?

So Pakistans reluctance to conduct operations requested by the US amounts to support?

If China feels that the state of New Mexico hinders its victory in Mexico, should the US conduct an operation for China? Does this even make any sense? If US refuses, is that support?

Support or no support, please explain how this has any relevance at all to the current scenario

Please explain to me why Pakistans support for the US war and occupation of Afghanistan is not the issue that us being brought up.

Why?

pakistan only supports militant groups operating in Afghanistan for the reasons Admin Khan mentioned.

Karzai was brought in by the Northern Alliance, who are in turn supported by the US government. Why he's there? because

1) He is a Pashtun.
2) A Durrani Pashtun.
3) He has Soviet era connections with in the CIA and is seen as moderate.


No, the people, regardless of whatever weapons they are using are the cause for it. Its in their blood not to bow down to anyone except their Creator. All pakistan does is that it influences the cause its fighting for, via brainwashed Pashtuns or through Muftis, Mollaiyan and Piraan. Many people believe you can't be a Pashtun unless you have a tribe, speak the language, follow Pashtunwali and ARE a Muslim. Islam is very sensitive to ALL Pashtuns and is something that is, as should be, taken very seriously; but because, unfortunately, many are illiterate and fail to understand they're often manipulated into thinking the wrong thing.

pakistans reluctance to operate is specifically due to its military. The civilian government is bought and paid for by the US. They act as lobbyists for the US government, authorizing drone bombings etc. The military refuses to operate because of the killing of its personnel. The pak-army doesn't want to operate further simply because its tantamount to a death sentence and they could use the militants housed there to extort more money from the US. They know it; and the US knows it. That's why the pakarmy was so reluctant to go into NW in 2004 and only went in after members of AQ attacked Musharraf. Basically you could the army's greed did, desperation to outdo india, and their fear of Balochis and Pashtuns seceding did this to them.

I used the term "selective" earlier. pakistan is once more being careful in which places it chooses to operate. Their support for the US occupation is nothing more than lip-service for American tax dollars. They don't want Afghanistan to stand on its own, not because of india, but because of Pashtunistan (they don't talk about that ever; even in the media). It was because of this they've refused to develop Pashtun areas or give them their due remittances and by manipulating Pashtuns using religion and then diverting their focus towards conflicts that benefit pakistan.

[az4er]

^ I understand what you are saying. The Soviet war and occupation of Afghanistan is due to US/Pak spy activity

And the German Nazi war on Europe was due to British and Russian spy activity too, right?

LOL. I don't see what you have an problem with believing? Its in line with the US government's modus operandi.

[Ghundal]

It is a well known fact that Karzai was flown into Afghanistan from Pakistan aboard American aircraft. Putting that aside since puppets really don't mean a thing

Pakistans support for the US war was simply due to lack of leadership and fear. They lacked the courage to take a defiant stand after Bush said "with us or against us."

Instead of refusing, Pakistan, in keeping with stereotypes, fell immediately in line, causing secular and former communist militants great happiness. Karzai was on the next plane to Islamabad with all the other leeches, and that is the simple version.

This is why Imran Khan's escalating candidacy is sending shivers down these clowns spines well because they know that he seeks to end Pak support for the war which is critical, and their position oddly enough depends on this support too.

So, what has happened is that Pakistan served US interests by supporting the war, but these interests conflicted with their own interests, and that is why there has been a breakdown in ties. Now this is all external.

No Afghan, especially a Pashtun needs some whiskey drinking Pakistani general to tell them about Islam.

What is being constantly done here is this continuous and implicit thought that Pashtuns are encouraged to act more in accordance to Islam than others.

This is rubbish.

Even before Islam, Pashtuns continuously defeated those who acted against them. I don't think Hamid Gul's grandfather was alive then, instructing the resistance. Maybe Brezinksi was?

Point is, convergence of interests have always existed. I don't know how conspiracy theories can be crafted out of plain facts.

The Pashtunistan issue can not be resolved by the ones who have been falsely drumming for the cause. Their credibility went out the window when they started a continuing trend of supporting foreign wars against the very people they claim to support. Hence, their nationalism is a complete farce.

In regards to this question I have posed, what is considered a strong Afghanistan? Admin Khan spoke of a strong Afghanistan.

The answer to this question depends on the disposition of the person answering it?

What is strong to most may not fit the criteria for the few.

Strong countries are free and independent countries only

While this is a disconnected post, the most important thing I would like to emphasize is who has the authority to term assume that Afghans are not aware of what they do?

For example, so if someone told some Afghan that fighting the Soviets will benefit the US and Pak, what is then expected? That the guy will call it a day and accept Soviet occupation for the simple reason of going against US/Pak interests?

So then the question is who is to assume what are Afghan interests, which nations does it share current convergent interests with?

Why do people assume that Afghans are clueless?

This is the most striking implicit message of these redundant debates.

No one in the universe tolerates war or occupation of their land

[az4er]

It is a well known fact that Karzai was flown into Afghanistan from Pakistan aboard American aircraft. Putting that aside since puppets really don't mean a thing

Pakistans support for the US war was simply due to lack of leadership and fear. They lacked the courage to take a defiant stand after Bush said "with us or against us."

Instead of refusing, Pakistan, in keeping with stereotypes, fell immediately in line, causing secular and former communist militants great happiness. Karzai was on the next plane to Islamabad with all the other leeches, and that is the simple version.

This is why Imran Khan's escalating candidacy is sending shivers down these clowns spines well because they know that he seeks to end Pak support for the war which is critical, and their position oddly enough depends on this support too.

So, what has happened is that Pakistan served US interests by supporting the war, but these interests conflicted with their own interests, and that is why there has been a breakdown in ties. Now this is all external.

No Afghan, especially a Pashtun needs some whiskey drinking Pakistani general to tell them about Islam.

What is being constantly done here is this continuous and implicit thought that Pashtuns are encouraged to act more in accordance to Islam than others.

This is rubbish.

Even before Islam, Pashtuns continuously defeated those who acted against them. I don't think Hamid Gul's grandfather was alive then, instructing the resistance. Maybe Brezinksi was?

Point is, convergence of interests have always existed. I don't know how conspiracy theories can be crafted out of plain facts.

The Pashtunistan issue can not be resolved by the ones who have been falsely drumming for the cause. Their credibility went out the window when they started a continuing trend of supporting foreign wars against the very people they claim to support. Hence, their nationalism is a complete farce.

In regards to this question I have posed, what is considered a strong Afghanistan? Admin Khan spoke of a strong Afghanistan.

The answer to this question depends on the disposition of the person answering it?

What is strong to most may not fit the criteria for the few.

Strong countries are free and independent countries only

While this is a disconnected post, the most important thing I would like to emphasize is who has the authority to term assume that Afghans are not aware of what they do?

For example, so if someone told some Afghan that fighting the Soviets will benefit the US and Pak, what is then expected? That the guy will call it a day and accept Soviet occupation for the simple reason of going against US/Pak interests?

So then the question is who is to assume what are Afghan interests, which nations does it share current convergent interests with?

Why do people assume that Afghans are clueless?

This is the most striking implicit message of these redundant debates.

No one in the universe tolerates war or occupation of their land

"Pakistans support for the US war was simply due to lack of leadership and fear. They lacked the courage to take a defiant stand after Bush said "with us or against us."

No. Even Musharaf would tell you that that is wrong. The US government would've never in their wildest imaginations attacked pakistan, because it happens to be massive and very well armed. As I said, it was for "dallaray". Just as in the Soviet War, there was no need for pakistan to meddle with Afghan affairs, its as simple as that.


"This is why Imran Khan's escalating candidacy is sending shivers down these clowns spines well because they know that he seeks to end Pak support for the war which is critical, and their position oddly enough depends on this support too."

LOL. Imran is the only political candidate right now that is backed by the ISI. Who do you think encouraged Masood Sharif, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Javed Hashmi to join the PTI? Did you know that super-bureaucrat Owais Ghani was among the founders of the PTI? Or that ISI media mouth-piece Shireen Mazari is his key foreign policy adviser? Also, did you know that Hamid Gul was one of Imran's original handlers under his "perfect-pakistan" scheme, and that Zia-ul-Haq promised Imran a key role within the pakistani political arena?

Musharraf promised him the office of PM; an offer which Khan reneged on when Musharraf refused to let ultimate authority reside with the office of PM, otherwise he was more than happy to take a handout from a "dictator". The PPP buried itself with memo-gate. The PML-N got into it pretty bad with the army after the Sharif brothers cut off the army's funding from Saudi Arabia. Wanna know more about pakistani politics?


"Point is, convergence of interests have always existed. I don't know how conspiracy theories can be crafted out of plain facts."

I should ask you the same thing. You tend to generalize, distort and go on different tangents. Your reading of history is selective. You see only what you want to and nothing else.


"No Afghan, especially a Pashtun needs some whiskey drinking Pakistani general to tell them about Islam."

That's why they have Madrassas, which are run by Pashtuns! Why do you think I keep mentioning the MMA?


"What is being constantly done here is this continuous and implicit thought that Pashtuns are encouraged to act more in accordance to Islam than others.

This is rubbish.

Even before Islam, Pashtuns continuously defeated those who acted against them. I don't think Hamid Gul's grandfather was alive then, instructing the resistance. Maybe Brezinksi was?"

First of all, who said what they were being "encouraged" to do is Islamic? I never denied that Pashtun's have defeated many a foe. I specifically talked the "influencing" of people's minds, i.e. manipulation and indoctrination, something I think you've been exposed to.


"The Pashtunistan issue can not be resolved by the ones who have been falsely drumming for the cause. Their credibility went out the window when they started a continuing trend of supporting foreign wars against the very people they claim to support. Hence, their nationalism is a complete farce."

I too can throw leaves in the air and call them butterflies, what're you saying? And who are the "ones" that you so callously seem to refer to? The ANP? Just because you say you can sing doesn't really mean you can. Once again you're seeing everything in black and white.

"For example, so if someone told some Afghan that fighting the Soviets will benefit the US and Pak, what is then expected? That the guy will call it a day and accept Soviet occupation for the simple reason of going against US/Pak interests??

Once again generalizing. Don't know how you even came up with that one?


"So then the question is who is to assume what are Afghan interests, which nations does it share current convergent interests with?"

The people?! If it was that way from the start, the mess we see today wouldn't exist.

"Why do people assume that Afghans are clueless?"

Afghanistan isn't homogeneous. Different interests and factions are at play. If you quit generalizing (word of the day) you might see that.

"This is the most striking implicit message of these redundant debates."

Kind of like the "implicit message" of your "redundant" statements?


Anyway, its been fun. I'll pick up on this tomorrow.

[Afghanistan2010]

I don't know enough about the realities on the ground to form a concrete opinion of the Taliban. I will leave that to Allah (swt) to judge that. I don't doubt there are sincere good mujahideen who sacrificed alot for the deen. Thats not my point.

A civil war is inevitable once the west leaves. How will Taliban handle that? Will they negotiate with people like Atta, Dostum, ismail khan and others?
Taliban attacked Hereat eventhough Ismail Khan offered to talk. Everyone knows Ismail Khan has done a great Job for Herat and he was one of few mujahideen who worked for his people. Why did the Taliban attack him. Can't they tolerate anyone who has a slightly different vision than themselves.

what civil war ? you mean these dogs , people of shaytan let us crush their skulls and butcher them like sheeps those who have killed thousands of my countrymen and raped women and destroyed villages and orphaned our people.

I and im not a fighter of the islamic emirate of afghanistan , i and i will advise everyone else to behead dogs like Dostum,Fahim , Ismail Khan and even i have to do it myself i will do it.

Ismail Khan has long ago fled Herat my good friend,the lions of the islamic emirate are roaming there.

can't you tolerate india occupying your country and zardari selling it to the americans ...? you ask a to tolerate people who have long ago started a war , you want us to tolerate some tyrants equal to ghaddafi and mubarak?...are you kidding.

stay away from the affairs of the islamic state of afghanistan,take care of your US,british enslaved pakistan which has a puppet government , selling their butts to the americans and everyone who pays and have long ago sold their mothers to indians and british colonialists.

take care that we will capture it also do not think that pakistan will be spared , im awaiting the glorious days when the islamic emirate of afghanistan and ttp unleash raids after raids on pakistan and captures it.

[Afghanistan2010]

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...

you are talking about kunar issue , i do not recognize pakistan at whole , i see it as no mans land til TTP captures it and declare it as islamic state.

Alhamdulillah the people of haq has defeated your napak army and your ISI and killed man ISI agents and other apostates.

[ufo973]

Watch other interesting videos uploaded by this guy
youtube.com/user/romin4you