Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atmar & Saleh Call for Long-term US Military Presence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Toramana View Post
    I agree with UnknownPrince etc. here that Talal is expressing his own Punjabized views ... a weak Afghanistan where ethnic tensions could be manipulated is a far more favorable scenario for Punjabis than the unleashing of Pashtun and other nationalisms threatening the very existance of Pakistan...
    Talal is only saying that Pashtuns should stick together. There is nothing wrong with that.

    Comment


    • #17
      Unknown,

      By the way, seriously for the last time I am going to ask you, where are you from?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ComradePashtun View Post
        Talal is only saying that Pashtuns should stick together. There is nothing wrong with that.
        than ask him if he wants the durrand line to be erased and Pukhtane united.
        lets hear about that one than we can think about him being worried about the unity aming Pukhtane in AFG.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ComradePashtun View Post
          Talal is only saying that Pashtuns should stick together. There is nothing wrong with that.
          first of all in his view Pukhtane are on one side and minorities which he says are 40 percent on the other side.That is the biggest bias you can come across.even though there are many individuals who can be used easily by invading forces and these people merely represent any ethnicity,these individuals are the ones who were either involved in civil war or present corruption.Them wanting foreign permanant troops in Afg is irrelevant and for their personal protection.as for what america wants: talal thinks what america wants is the ultimate and Pukhtane are actually waiting for their god america to make a good plan for them.What talal is not telling you is how pakistan is getting fat pockets from the occupation of AFG and the occupation of Pukhtunkhwa.

          Comment


          • #20
            I fear in the long run US-NATO may impose Northern Alliance on western Pashtuns and Punjabis on the eastern Pashtuns if Pashtuns continued to resist their presence...Punjabis may barter atomic power for a suzrainty over the rest of oppressed nations e.g. Baluchis, Pashtuns, etc.

            Comment


            • #21
              May be Atmar and Salih are giving signals through such statements that US-NATO can stay in the north of Afghanistan....Seeking strong allies in a situation of civil strife....

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Toramana View Post
                May be Atmar and Salih are giving signals through such statements that US-NATO can stay in the north of Afghanistan....Seeking strong allies in a situation of civil strife....
                they dont own north Afghanistan,these are some opportunists who are tryng their luck.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Toramana, IN LONG TERM no one can be imposed on us in Afg. Lol What an irony! Everything will be fine inshallah.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Atmar is an ex commie Pashtun now a transformed neo-liberal. No wonder, he is Laghmanay. lol That U.S shifting to north is a recipe for disaster. It won't happen. Stop falling for that idiot Blackwell.
                    Last edited by ComradePashtun; 03-05-2011, 11:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There are extensive channels of contacts and contacts are made with segments of the original movement. Not my bad that u guys don't know it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What ever u guys think of Talal, he is a smart guy even if u guys think he speculates.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I don't think a permanent US-Nato military base in Afghanistan is a feasible alternative for the US, even when one considers the possibility of a strategic point of intel against China and Russia. As already noticed and can be observed through the various western media outlets, there is a lack of substitute for the predicament they are in right now, other than the total withdrawal of their forces. Progress has also been slow since the invasion of Afghanistan, which helped the opposing forces (Taliban) to re-adapt and organize. They are in larger numbers now, because the public has lost trust in the occupation.. Like it or not. One must not ignore the number of causalities.

                          So Its highly unlikely that the US might succeed in having a permanent presence in Afghanistan, unless, of course we have another sell-out leader.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ComradePashtun View Post
                            What ever u guys think of Talal, he is a smart guy even if u guys think he speculates.
                            no one has put a gun on your head to accept the reality regarding AFG.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              the only war america was involved in, that i can think of, where it didn't maintain an overt presence, is vietnam. but i may be wrong.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X