Pakhtoonistan...

[roadrunner]

Wonder why he wears a Pashtun cap.

He looks to have quite a bit of Chinese/Oriental admixture in him.

[roadrunner]

Maybe their support to Taliban led to their current situation 'by the current government'? Don't forget that the government still forms a huge number of Pukhtoons, only ignorants will deny this.

Pashtuns represent over half of Afghanistan's population.

This means more than half of the government should be Pashtun by proportionate representation.

It means around one quarter should be Tajik, and one tenth should be Uzbek.

Yet aside from Karzai how many Pashtuns have any power in the current Afghan government?

That's right virtually none, because it's a Tajik dominated government.

What equality are we talking about?

Equality being a proportional representation of the ethnic groups in the government.

Equality meaning everybody in all areas of Afghanistan have the same opportunities, rather than your beloved Tajik areas.

There is no way to progress a country by one place hogging all the resources.

I am equally critical if any other country is doing this.

Those set up by Abdur Rahman? Those by Nadir Khan? Zahir Shah? Or the Taliban? A non-corrupt and a 'equal' person doesn't care about minority or majority, mind you.

Zahir Shah sounded pretty good to me.

You'll need to point out specifics on how the rest were unequal, as I don't know what you mean.

[Shayesta]

Pashtuns represent over half of Afghanistan's population.

Not 'represent', they form around half of the population.

This means more than half of the government should be Pashtun by proportionate representation.

I am sorry but weren't you the one saying Pukhtoons are sidelined because 'majority' supports Taliban? Then why would the majority a.k.a. a Taliban supporter join the government which works against the Taliban!? :S

Yet aside from Karzai how many Pashtuns have any power in the current Afghan government?

It would be great if you could first clarify what type of power you are talking about? Because talking of 'strong presence', Ashraf Ghani is one of Afghanistan's most appreciated politicians; A Pukhtoon. How many Tajiks are as known and as popular to others as Pukhtoons named Karzai and Ghani?

That's right virtually none, because it's a Tajik dominated government.

Even if it is; So? Aren't they equally Afghans?

Equality being a proportional representation of the ethnic groups in the government.

Like?

Equality meaning everybody in all areas of Afghanistan have the same opportunities, rather than your beloved Tajik areas.

Entire Afghanistan is my beloved area so keep the 'your Tajik' or 'my Pukhtoon' area-debates to yourself, thanks. And since you yourself claim Pukhtoons support Taliban only, why would they take, or in fact [get, the support from a government who wants to fight against the Taliban? Does that even make sense to you? And if you want to talk about prosperity, just go to Jalalabad once and see how that 'Pukhtoon area' has flourished.

There is no way to progress a country by one place hogging all the resources.

Nor if one side keeps supporting the government and get the sources for it, and other side keeps supporting Taliban and still expect to get sources.

You'll need to point out specifics on how the rest were unequal, as I don't know what you mean.

That's what you will get if you got no idea what the history of Afghanistan is about. What's wrong about some of them, especially Zahir Shah, is they didn't speak a word of Pukhto themselves and yet were dreaming of an Pukhtunized nation. Higher positions were offered to Pukhtoons only in most areas where in Laghman in particular many non-Pukhtoons changed their last names to Pukhtoon last names in order to gain any higher position. And these are just a few to name.

[roadrunner]

Not 'represent', they form around half of the population.

What's the difference?

But alright, Pashtuns form over half the population of Afghanistan, if you want it expressed that way.

I am sorry but weren't you the one saying Pukhtoons are sidelined because 'majority' supports Taliban? Then why would the majority a.k.a. a Taliban supporter join the government which works against the Taliban!? :S

Probably because I didn't say it?

I said that the Pashtuns have been sidelined from the Afghan government.

This is not equality, but rather a minority grab of the rulership of Afghanistan.

It would be great if you could first clarify what type of power you are talking about? Because talking of 'strong presence', Ashraf Ghani is one of Afghanistan's most appreciated politicians; A Pukhtoon. How many Tajiks are as known and as popular to others as Pukhtoons named Karzai and Ghani?

Oh stop making such ridiculous claims.

One or two Pashtuns in good positions does not make the Afghan government remotely representative of the Afghan population. Here are three examples.

"In 2001 the United States lined up with the Tajik ethnic minority, whose small military force, the Northern Alliance, helped dislodge the Pashtun-based Taliban and has subsequently dominated the Karzai government. Tajik generals and their proxies still control the army as well as key secret police and intelligence agencies hated by the Pashtuns. Karzai, a Pashtun, has attempted to soften Tajik domination with Pashtun appointments to top security jobs, but the real power remains in the hands of a U.S.-backed Tajik clique."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012901448.html

"First, the composition of this army is predominantly non-Pashtun; it is dominated by the Tajiks and some Uzbeks. Out of a total of 92,000 members on a sunny day, more than 80,000 are Tajiks."
http://www.countercurrents.org/maitra111209.htm

"The army also charges the Tajik-dominated spy agencies with responsibility for some of the ferment inside Pakistan."v
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero123109.html

Even if it is; So? Aren't they equally Afghans?

If the Tajiks saw Pashtuns as equals, they would not be trying to hog the top positions of the government.

This question is directed at the wrong person.

Equality is hopefully what the Pashtuns want, not minority rule.

Like?

The government should represent the people.

Seats can be allocated according to the population composition.

Votes from each ethnic group will be useful for any election candidate.

Entire Afghanistan is my beloved area so keep the 'your Tajik' or 'my Pukhtoon' area-debates to yourself, thanks. And since you yourself claim Pukhtoons support Taliban only, why would they take, or in fact [get, the support from a government who wants to fight against the Taliban? Does that even make sense to you? And if you want to talk about prosperity, just go to Jalalabad once and see how that 'Pukhtoon area' has flourished.

It is better not to invent things that you claim I said when I did not. It makes your argument weaker than it already is.

But imo, the Afghan government should be reaching out to the Pashtuns and not alienating them as they are doing.

The more Pashtuns in government, the less Pashtun support for other groups.

It's the Tajiks in power that are alienating the Pashtuns.

Nor if one side keeps supporting the government and get the sources for it, and other side keeps supporting Taliban and still expect to get sources.

Cause and effect.

The government should take the first step and reach out to its population.

The fact that it does not, indicates it is neck deep in racists and power-hungry individuals.

That's what you will get if you got no idea what the history of Afghanistan is about. What's wrong about some of them, especially Zahir Shah, is they didn't speak a word of Pukhto themselves and yet were dreaming of an Pukhtunized nation. Higher positions were offered to Pukhtoons only in most areas where in Laghman in particular many non-Pukhtoons changed their last names to Pukhtoon last names in order to gain any higher position. And these are just a few to name.

"Born in 1914, and educated in France and Kabul, Zahir Shar is fluent in Italian, French and English as well as Pashto, and is known for being reserved and prudent."
http://web.archive.org/web/200711092...4/ai_n14407892

You need to brush up on your Afghan history quite clearly.

I'm not a book type of parrot when it comes to Afghan history.

[Zahed]

Zaher Shah could actually speak Pashtu? as far as I know from the book I read in Afghanistan and from people who 've worked for him his Pashtu wasn't strong at all which made him arrange translators when meeting up tribal elders from southern areas? moreover he was very important figure when it comes to Afghanistan's image internationally but all of it he wasted by creating tribal issues.

[Zahed]

'n since last few years the army has changed a lot. many people who were first irritated by other ethnic 've now come closer, more 'n more Pashtoons 're joining the army 'n like Aseer said Pashtoons themselves choose to support Taliban over the government so it wouldn't make sense if they form the LARGEST group in the army. many calls 've come for Pashtoons join the army 'n u can't simply blame the Tajeks if they don't want to be as active mate!

[roadrunner]

Roadrunner that link you posted is from 2007, Things have changed a lot in the past 3-4 years.

Things don't change so easily.

Adminstrations can easily acquire quislings to give a front of ethnic diversity that means nothing.

However, the current Afghan government isn't even that. It is still filled with Tajiks (and the odd Uzbek) in the important positions. This is because none of the minority groups never really gave up any power since 2001.

You don't need to take my word for it. The Pashtuns believe so

"Second, is the imposition of a non-Pashtun Tajik-dominated minority government after 9/11 on a historically Pashtun-led Afghanistan ever since it was founded in 1747. The Pashtuns are a plurality of at least 45 percent of the population and the Tajiks are no more than 25 percent. While President Hamid Karzai is a Pashtun, and there are several Soviet-era Pashtun mujahidin warlords in the government and parliament, the vast majority of rural Pashtuns despise them as quislings."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/afzal-..._b_485541.html

"It's a view based on seeing the Afghan Taliban as a Pashtun nationalist movement challenging the new Tajik-dominated political order in Kabul -- which is also deemed by many in Pakistan to be a proxy for India."
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=210551

So the government is still Tajik dominated. Any shift from 2007 is just to try to camouflage the obvious bias.

Pashtuns are heavily represented and the Taliban is soon to take over.Before you begin posting all this, you should carefully analyze the fact that the reason Pashtuns are not in the army is because Pashtoons refuse to join.

I can agree about the army. I understand why Pashtuns do not join that.

Focus on the spy agencies and the government.

They are not ethnically representative.

This and the government exclusion of Pashtuns cause the problems.

The Army general is a Pashtun, intelligence chief is a Pashtun, Army ranks are in Pashto, Provinces are all called Welayat a Pashto word. Parliament is divided into a Jirga, Loya Jirga, Masharano Jirga, Kasharano Jirga. All these are Pashto words and a lot more. Have in mind, from 1996-2001 when Kandahar was the capital. Kandaharis made the entire nation speak Pashto including in Pashto. So please, we 1 million Kandaharis did it in the past with the Hotaki Mullah Omar, we can do it again with someone else.

Army ranks are in Pashto and provinces are too? So what?

Whether the whole nation speaks Pashto or not is irrelevant.

It's not an equal political system.

As long as marginalization and unfairness exists, there will be problems.

[roadrunner]

'n since last few years the army has changed a lot. many people who were first irritated by other ethnic 've now come closer, more 'n more Pashtoons 're joining the army 'n like Aseer said Pashtoons themselves choose to support Taliban over the government so it wouldn't make sense if they form the LARGEST group in the army. many calls 've come for Pashtoons join the army 'n u can't simply blame the Tajeks if they don't want to be as active mate!

If you fill the US police force full of Africans and send them to patrol white neighbourhoods there will be problems.

People will be legitmately asking why are we being excluded.

The problem starts at the government level. Make it more equal, and the army will start looking more equal. So will the spy agency composition.

[khyaal]

What you mistakenly called as Tajik are the original inhabitant of Afghanistan with Aryan ancestry. So there is no problem of discrimination in Afghanistan. People with a Pakistani/Punjabi perspective are so used to look at issues every where with their own peculiar angle. The real Tajiks is a tiny minority who escaped to Afghanistan during Tzarist and Stalinist era.

Btw, the word Tajik doesn't denote any ethnicity, it just means Arabised people. It is just a word like Ajam which means non-Arabs which clearly isn't associated with any ethnic group.

[Espresso]

Wonder why he wears a Pashtun cap.

He looks to have quite a bit of Chinese/Oriental admixture in him.

Alright you need some education so here it is boy i ll teach you

Read: AS A SYMBOL OF NATIONALISM and NATIONAL UNITY ! which is read again: AFGHANISTAN ! got it

you wonder because you dont have it in your country which is read again : pakistan
where only a punjabi & mohajir wears a read again: pakistani cap

but read again:
A Sindhi wears a Sindhi cap
A Baluchi wears a Baluchi cap
A Pashtun wears a Pashtun cap
read again: which the late Ahemad Shah Masood wore as a symbol of AFGHANISTAN NATIONALISM .

class dismissed.

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

Roadrunner that link you posted is from 2007, Things have changed a lot in the past 3-4 years. Pashtuns are heavily represented and the Taliban is soon to take over.Before you begin posting all this, you should carefully analyze the fact that the reason Pashtuns are not in the army is because Pashtoons refuse to join. Kandahar has nearly 1million people and they probably don't even have 50 people in the Army. They are siding with the resistance instead. Same goes for the entire Southern Pashtun provinces. Pashtuns do not view Tajiks as problem at all. We are 50million in population(including our brothers across the line) and if we can handle superpowers and have them concerned and dissected we sure as hell can handle Tajiks. Put it this way, my tribe alone, just my tribe can probably knock off the entire Tajik ethnic group, so please, refrain from such thoughts. Tajiks have allied with the USA and the minute the USA exists, The Pashtuns will seek revenge.

The Army general is a Pashtun, intelligence chief is a Pashtun, Army ranks are in Pashto, Provinces are all called Welayat a Pashto word. Parliament is divided into a Jirga, Loya Jirga, Masharano Jirga, Kasharano Jirga. All these are Pashto words and a lot more. Have in mind, from 1996-2001 when Kandahar was the capital. Kandaharis made the entire nation speak Pashto including in Pashto. So please, we 1 million Kandaharis did it in the past with the Hotaki Mullah Omar, we can do it again with someone else.

good post wrora, out of curiosity pa qawm tsok ye?

[roadrunner]

What you mistakenly called as Tajik are the original inhabitant of Afghanistan with Aryan ancestry.

Tajiks imo are significantly mongoloid though mainly Caucasian.

I do not believe them to be true in the Aryan sense, more likely a cross-between the Persians, the Pashtuns, and the people of Tajikistan.

So there is no problem of discrimination in Afghanistan. People with a Pakistani/Punjabi perspective are so used to look at issues every where with their own peculiar angle. The real Tajiks is a tiny minority who escaped to Afghanistan during Tzarist and Stalinist era.

Real Tajiks are those in Tajikistan imo.

The Tajiks of Afghanistan are a bit more Pashtun, Persian, and Turkmen mixed.

Btw, the word Tajik doesn't denote any ethnicity, it just means Arabised people. It is just a word like Ajam which means non-Arabs which clearly isn't associated with any ethnic group.

Tajiks are those of the Tajik ethnic group.

[roadrunner]

Alright you need some education so here it is boy i ll teach you

Oh come now.

You're insignificant.

Trying to educate me only would make you look foolish.

Read: AS A SYMBOL OF NATIONALISM and NATIONAL UNITY ! which is read again: AFGHANISTAN ! got it

you wonder because you dont have it in your country which is read again : pakistan
where only a punjabi & mohajir wears a read again: pakistani cap

but read again:
A Sindhi wears a Sindhi cap
A Baluchi wears a Baluchi cap
A Pashtun wears a Pashtun cap
read again: which the late Ahemad Shah Masood wore as a symbol of AFGHANISTAN NATIONALISM .

class dismissed.

If he wore it as a symbol of "Afghanistan Nationalism", it would mean that to be nationalistic you would have to do it through appearing Pashtun.

What you mean is Afghanistan reconciliation. I don't know why i bother with the Gangetica sometimes.

[Espresso]

Oh come now.

You're insignificant.

Trying to educate me only would make you look foolish.



If he wore it as a symbol of "Afghanistan Nationalism", it would mean that to be nationalistic you would have to do it through appearing Pashtun.

What you mean is Afghanistan reconciliation. I don't know why i bother with the Gangetica sometimes.

why so serious

latimes.com

Pakistan left out of Afghan-Taliban talks, official says

'We are out of the loop,' a senior Pakistani security official says. The exclusion could endanger ties between Washington and Islamabad and ultimately doom the peace effort, analysts say.

By Alex Rodriguez and Laura King, Los Angeles Times
October 21, 2010
Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Kabul,

Advertisement

With talks accelerating between the Afghan government and portions of the Afghan Taliban leadership hiding in Pakistan, the Pakistani government appears to have been brushed aside, an exclusion that analysts warn could dramatically worsen Islamabad's already fragile relationship with Washington and Kabul and jeopardize prospects for peace in Afghanistan.

A senior advisor to Afghan President Hamid Karzai indirectly confirmed Wednesday that some Afghan Taliban leaders based in Pakistan were in talks with the Afghan government. "The ones who have the power and the authority are not the ones who are here in Afghanistan, so you can conclude from that where they are from," the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, a NATO official also speaking anonymously said that Western alliance troops have provided assistance to participants in the talks, including ensuring safe transit across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The official provided no other details of the role NATO played in aiding their travel.

In recent weeks, Karzai has stepped up efforts aimed at forging reconciliation with a Taliban insurgency at war with his government and U.S.-led troops for more than nine years. He formed a 70-member "peace council" to oversee formal negotiations and, in a Sept. 28 speech in which he broke into tears, urged Taliban "compatriots" to lay down their arms.

Though Karzai has long had tense, rocky relations with Islamabad, he said this year that Pakistan would play a vital role in any talks with the Taliban.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's government has repeatedly stated that it would welcome the role of facilitator in such talks. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Sunday in Brussels that though Afghanistan must lead the talks, "we are there to help."

But a senior Pakistani security official said Wednesday that Pakistan has not been involved in any talks between Kabul and Pakistan-based Taliban leaders. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

"We have no information whatsoever about these talks and who is participating. We are out of the loop," the official said. "If we can facilitate, [the Afghans] first have to determine what kind of help is required.... They'll have to tell us what our role is."

A policy of going ahead with peace talks without Pakistan's involvement, or even consent, could alienate Islamabad and ultimately endanger the potential success of those talks, experts say.

"If Pakistan isn't involved, it will again think that the U.S. is an unreliable ally that has bypassed it," said Talat Masood, an Islamabad-based security analyst and former Pakistani army general. "They could express their unhappiness by throwing out the whole process of cooperation."

Another Pakistani security analyst, retired Brig. Javed Hussain, said that leaving Pakistan out of talks probably would doom the chances for success, because Pakistan, particularly its Inter-Services Intelligence agency, exercises a large measure of control over Afghan Taliban leaders based in Pakistan. Without Pakistan's acquiescence, Hussain said, Afghan Taliban leaders aren't likely to go along with any peace proposal.

"I don't think the Taliban would agree to a full-scale settlement without Pakistan," Hussain said.

The Afghan Taliban's leadership, known as the Quetta Shura, is based in the southern Pakistani city of Quetta. And the Haqqani network, a wing of the Afghan Taliban behind many of the ambushes and suicide bombings directed at U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces, is based in North Waziristan, a region in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal badlands along the Afghan border. The Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network are believed to have been provided haven in Pakistan by the Inter-Services Intelligence. For years, Zardari's weak civilian government has held virtually no sway over the powerful intelligence agency.

Pakistan has long-standing bonds with Taliban leaders that date to the 1980s, when many of them were CIA- and Pakistani intelligence-backed Afghan mujahedin fighting the Soviet invasion. It has not taken action against Afghan Taliban commanders in Quetta or Haqqani militants in North Waziristan, despite repeated urgings from Washington to do so. Moreover, Islamabad sees its relationship with the Afghan Taliban as a valuable hedge against the desire of India, Pakistan's nuclear archrival to the east, to expand its influence in Afghanistan.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said publicly that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization helped facilitate the movement of Taliban figures so they could attend meetings, and described contacts as taking place at "the highest levels." That signals the likely involvement of the Afghan Taliban's Pakistan-based leadership.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that in some cases NATO troops secured roads to ensure that Taliban leaders on their way to the talks reached Afghan- or NATO-controlled regions safely. In one case, the paper said, Taliban leaders crossed over from Pakistan and boarded a NATO aircraft that flew them to Kabul. The paper reported that three of the Taliban leaders taking part in talks were members of the Quetta Shura and a fourth was a member of the Haqqani network's founding family.

The Afghan Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, is not believed to be in discussions with the Afghan government, the New York Times said.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Karzai's government has been in direct contact with Jalaluddin Haqqani, the elder leader of the militant network. The group's operations are overseen by Haqqani's son, Sirajuddin Haqqani. The Haqqani network operates in the same tribal regions used as sanctuary by the Pakistani Taliban, a homegrown insurgency that focuses its attacks on security and civilian targets in Pakistan.

Even if Pakistan hasn't been involved in early rounds of talks, experts doubt that it would remain on the sidelines for very long. Karzai understands the crucial role Islamabad would play in talks with the Taliban because of the influence Pakistan maintains over the insurgents' leaders, analyst Hussain said.

"Karzai knows that without Pakistan involvement, he will not be able to reach an agreement with the Afghan Taliban," Hussain said. "He knows that without Pakistan, he won't be able to make a move. He has no hold over the Taliban. Pakistan has a long relationship with the Taliban. Everyone knows it."

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

laura.king@latimes.com

Rodriguez reported from Islamabad and King from Kabul.

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Pakistan left out of Afghan-Taliban talks, official says - latimes.com

Afghanistan reconciliation :
hey bhagwan I mean why am i talking to a pakistani about this sorry dont mind you just dont deserve it after all you re just a READ AGAIN:

INSIGNIFICANT !

got it

have a nice day

[Mina]

Though I'm not a politic person, I would like to remind some people in here that you shouldn't always rely the internet when it comes to Afghan history as there are many interesting aspects of our history which isn't mentiioned online at all. You have to read our history books in order to understand our entire past. Zahir Shah lost his credibility amongst Pashtuns because his Pashto was very weak, Qandaharis in particular weren't happy with him having translators in his gathering with Pashtuns from southern areas. He did understand it but got to speak it at a much later point. My own grandfather was working for the government in his era and he had to speak Dari with every single relative of Zahir Shah. And some of you guys need to straight up your facts about Tajiks because after all Pashtuns have done to them, they don't even hate us enough for it.