Tajiks Worldwide Community: Pakistan and its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan - Tajiks Worldwide Community

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox

Parsistani Icon : (04 January 2016 - 10:02 PM) Someone here?
parwana Icon : (30 April 2014 - 05:21 PM) Posted Image
Parsistani Icon : (22 July 2013 - 04:02 AM) good morning :)
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:29 PM) Sohrab, Tajikam doesn't only consist of a forum. We have two major sections in this website. One is in Persian which is updated frequently and the other is in Persian (Cyrillic). Additionally, the English page is still running and has a vast amount of information on Tajiks and Persians.
Gul agha Icon : (03 May 2013 - 04:27 PM) http://www.facebook.com/Tajikamsite
Sohrab Icon : (01 May 2013 - 06:31 AM) Tajikam on facebook?
SHA DOKHT Icon : (01 May 2013 - 12:12 AM) Like our page on Facebook: https://www.facebook...541604162529143
Sohrab Icon : (29 March 2013 - 08:31 AM) H again, I thought the site would be closed, but it's still running.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:17 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:16 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 10:00 AM) Tajikistan was inhabited by the races of Cyrus the great (Sultan skindar Zulqarnain). The achmaniend dynasty ruled the entire region for several thousnd years.Cyrus the great's son cymbasis(Combchia)with forces migrated to Balkh ancient Bactaria or Bakhtar. Sultan Sumus the desecndant of Cyrus the great faught war against Alaxander of Macdonia in Bakhtar current tajikistan.
this ruling class was inhabited in the areas, like Balkh,fargana,alai,Tajikistan,badakhshan,Kabul,Takhar,Tashkorogan,Khutan,kashkar,Swat,Kashmir,Peshawar, hashtnager,Dir, Bajour,Gilgit,for serveral thaousand years.
Gabaro_glt Icon : (26 March 2013 - 09:46 AM) hellow
Gabaro_glt Icon : (25 March 2013 - 10:48 AM) Asssssssssalam o Alaikum
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:22 AM) I would like to here something from a tajik brother/sister living in Tajikstan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:20 AM) I have traced my ancestors migrated from Panj and Balkh ancient
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:19 AM) I am desendant of Sultan behram Gabari Tajik living in GilGit pakistan
Gabaro_glt Icon : (22 March 2013 - 05:17 AM) Salam to all brothers
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:48 AM) we are on facebook. Tajikam on facebook
Parsistani Icon : (01 June 2012 - 10:47 AM) salam guys.
Azim-khan Icon : (19 May 2012 - 11:19 AM) salom bachaho )
Resize Shouts Area

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Pakistan and its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan Post all related videos and reports in this thread.

#1 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 14 December 2010 - 08:48 PM

I am opening a thread regarding the support of Taliban by Pakistan, please post all the old/new videos or reports that shows relation between these 2. Can the admin make this topic sticky?
0

#2 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 01:55 PM

Quote

Pakistan encouraging Hamid Karzai in coalition with militants

By Dean Nelson, Praveen Swami and Ben Farmer in Kabul 6:00AM GMT 13 Dec 2010
General Ashfaq Kiyani, Pakistan's army chief, has launched a diplomatic offensive to persuade the United States, Britain and President Karzai to back the deal which would offer government posts to Taliban leaders prepared to renounce al-Qaeda.

It amounts to a direct challenge to Nato's current strategy to intensify the war against the Taliban-led insurgency in the hope of persuading its "reconcilable elements" to negotiate a peace.

Under General Kiyani's plan however, the insurgency's most feared faction, the "Haqqani Network" could play a role in a new 'broad-based government'.

Gen Kiyani and his intelligence chief have met President Karzai twice in recent months and he is understood to be considering their proposal.

The Afghan president is keen to improve relations with Pakistan amid fears that his United States backers may withdraw their support for him ahead of any settlement.

In a recent briefing in Islamabad, Gen Kiyani outlined his plan and Pakistan's deteriorating relationship with the United States.

If insurgency leaders "can renounce Al Qaeda and ask it to leave Afghanistan," and Taliban commanders were removed from the United Nations Security Council sanctions list, a new constitution could be drafted which focuses on Afghanistan's "history, culture and geography," he said.

One analyst of Afghan politics said: "facilitating the Haqqani Network fighting ISAF and Kabul is sabotaging the internationally-endorsed project to put together a new system in Afghanistan. Kiyani is waging war against it.

"The Haqqanis are the most heavily integrated with foreign militants, some of them al-Qaeda. It's mind-blowing that part of the insurgency which is blatantly in cahoots with foreign fighters is [being promoted as] apt for government," he added.

A spokesman for President Karzai told The Daily Telegraph any solution will be "Afghan-led' but confirmed his government was in talks with Pakistan.

"We have always maintained Pakistan can play a positive role by helping deny terrorists sanctuary and use its leverage over some Afghan Taliban," he said
http://www.telegraph...-militants.html


Quote

Pakistan peace plan: General Kiyani shows true colours

The peace plan being promoted by Pakistan's army chief General Kiyani is proof that David Cameron was wrong when he said in India that Islamabad "cannot look both ways" in the war on terror.

It has been looking both ways, and will continue to do so, until there is a settlement to the Afghan conflict.

His promotion of the Haqqani Network, the closest of all Taliban groups to al-Qaeda and one which has inflicted heavy casualties on Nato troops in Afghanistan, amounts to an admission of what Washington and its allies have long suspected: Pakistan simply does not share its goal of defeating the Taliban, but rather sees the insurgents as a long-term ally in its eternal conflict with India.

General Kiyani's diplomatic campaign for a peace plan marks a moment of honesty in which Pakistan is finally coming clean about its resentment towards the United States and clearly outlining its security goals.

In his recent briefing he described Pakistan as Washington's "most bullied ally" and said there was a conflict between their security interests in Afghanistan.

The United States considers the Taliban leader Mullah Omar and the Haqqani Network as mortal enemies, but Pakistan does not regard them as a threat to itself. While it may have concerns about them, it regards them as reliable foes of Pakistan's only real enemy: India, which backs the Karzai government and his Northern Alliance allies.

What Pakistan fears in Afghanistan is not a Taliban takeover but an extension of Indian influence, which it believes would pose a security threat in a country it regards as its backyard.

In the WikiLeaks disclosures, Washington's erstwhile ambassador to Islamabad acknowledged this and urged a review of India's aid operations in Afghanistan. President Obama, however, during his recent visit to India, hailed New Delhi's help in Afghanistan – causing further consternation within Pakistan's military leadership.

It's difficult to see how any US president could survive the return of the Taliban to power after nine years of American losses in Afghanistan, but General Kiyani's diplomatic offensive appears to be having some success in forcing Washington to rethink what it really regards as unthinkable.

In the meantime, Pakistan and India's proxy war in Afghanistan is out in the open and will have to be resolved in any Afghan settlement.


Quote

Taliban 'receives direct support from Pakistan'
Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan receive direct support from the "S" wing of Pakistan's main intelligence agency, according to a report published on Thursday.

By Isambard Wilkinson in Islamabad 6:09PM GMT 26 Mar 2009

American officials, quoted by The New York Times, said that members of Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were helping the Taliban with money, military supplies and strategic planning.

The report calls into question assurances given by every Pakistani government and most recently by President Asif Ali Zardari. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, Pakistan has promised to help the West to defeat the Taliban and break up al-Qaeda cells.

But the report quoted US officials as saying that the ISI's "S" wing maintains links with at least three armed groups striking inside Afghanistan. This branch of the agency deals with overseas intelligence-gathering and has a target of Western suspicion in the past.

The United States government will on Friday unveil a major review of the war in Afghanistan and outline how President Barack Obama plans boost troop numbers to take the fight to the Taliban.

Mr Obama's new strategy is expected to stress more co-operation with Pakistan to thwart the ambitions of the Taliban, as well as more international troops, vastly expanded Afghan security forces and a surge of civilian contractors to help development and rebuilding.

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to the region, has warned that the Taliban-led insurgency is receiving huge donations from individuals in Gulf states that when combined exceed the income the insurgents gain annually from the drugs trade.

General Ashfaq Kiyani, the army commander, told Western diplomats two years ago, when he served as head of the ISI, that a cell had been set up to counter the "S" wing's rogue activities. Pakistan helped found the Taliban in 1994 and aided its rise to power and the capture of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul in 1996.

Since then, Pakistan's establishment has played a delicate balancing act between retaining its own influence in Afghanistan through its Taliban proxies and jeopardising its relationship with America. US officials have evidence that senior Pakistani officials ordered the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, last year.

But this has become an increasingly dangerous policy for Pakistan. Some of its former proxies have now turned on their benefactor and begun attacks inside Pakistan itself, posing a direct threat to the country's stability and to Mr Zardari's government.

Yesterday's report suggested that the ISI drew a distinction between extremist groups focused on destabilising Pakistan and those primarily concerned with attacking Afghanistan. The ISI was allegedly opposing the former while helping the latter.

But US officials have occasionally leaked claims of the ISI's collusion with the Taliban in order to place pressure on Pakistan to do more against extremism.

The West has grown increasingly frustrated with its own lack of success in Afghanistan. As American attention has shifted from Iraq, Washington is refocusing efforts on Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Barack Obama's administration will today outline its new plan to deal jointly with the challenge posed by both countries.

America may increase the scope and range of its missile attacks on Pakistani soil that are launched from unmanned drone aircraft. Pakistan publicly complains that US missile strikes are "infringements of national sovereignty". However, many of the American drone aircraft are stationed and armed at a Pakistani airbase in the southern province of Baluchistan. Pakistan designates corridors and boxes inside its airspace within which the drones are allowed to operate.

Baluchistan's capital, Quetta, is deemed by Western intelligence officers to be the home of the Taliban's main shura or council. The Taliban's overall leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, is believed to have found refuge in the city.

The New York Times said there was evidence ISI operatives were meeting regularly with Taliban commanders. Pakistani officials said that operatives sometimes cultivate relationships with the Taliban as means of creating a backchannel with the "enemy".


Quote

Afghan war will fail unless Pakistan acts over militants

Posted Image
Look to these unwashed homos

Success in the Afghanistan war will elude Nato forces unless Pakistan acts to drive the Taliban from its sanctuaries in the country's border areas, according to American intelligence reports

The assessment, the combined conclusion of the main United States intelligence agencies, came as a much more positive face was presented by the White House on the eve of a review of strategy to be released on Thursday.

Robert Gibbs, President Barack Obama's spokesman, said that the review, ordered to take place a year after Mr Obama committed a "surge" of an additional 30,000 American troops in a speech at West Point, will cite "important progress in halting the momentum of the Taliban".

He said that the start of the withdrawal from Afghanistan would begin as planned by July 2011. "We have seen, through counter-terrorism, success at degrading senior al-Qaeda leaders. And we have seen greater co-operation over the course of the past 18 months with the Pakistani government."

But two new classified National Intelligence Estimate reports provide a much grimmer assessment, stating that there is only a limited chance of defeating the Taliban unless Pakistan drives out insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border.

The reports, one on Afghanistan and one on Pakistan, argue that although there have been gains for the US and Nato forces, the reluctance of Pakistan to close down Taliban sanctuaries in its lawless tribal region remains a major obstacle.

Last week, senior officers who briefed Robert Gates, the Pentagon Secretary, in Afghanistan said that although Pakistan had been driving some Taliban elements across the border into the clutches of American troops, members of the Taliban's Haqqani network were enjoying sanctuary in Pakistan.

Major General John Campbell, head of Regional Command (East), said that American forces were killing many Taliban but Pakistan was a significant problem. "The Haqqani network is probably the most dangerous enemy and they've got sanctuary in Pakistan. We shouldn't make any bones about it.

"They go back and forth across the border. They're financed better, they're better trained they bring in the more technologically advanced IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices]. But we've made a huge dent in the lower and midlevel leadership especially with Haqqani."

He said that it would "take a lot longer" in Afghanistan if the Pakistanis did not do more but he stressed that the Pakistanis "have stepped up their game" and growing co-operation with the Pakistani military "could be a game changer".

Mr Gibbs said that the review would address the Pakistan issue. "You will also see in the review an enumeration of the continued challenges that we have in that region.

"They will focus on a few different areas, but clearly we have to continue to strengthen capacity inside of Afghanistan. And we still have the ongoing challenge and threat of safe havens in Pakistan."

He added: "There are things that we still need Pakistan to continue to co-operate with us more on and continue to do in order to prevent further safe havens from impacting the progress that ultimately can be made in Afghanistan."

Mr Obama, who is expected to comment publicly on the findings of the review, held a two-hour meeting with 20 members of his member national security team on Tuesday to authorise minor amendments.

The death of Richard Holbrooke, US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, on Monday cast a shadow over the meeting, at which Obama and Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, paid tribute to the veteran diplomat. An empty chair at the talks signified Mr Holbrooke's absence.


Quote

Osama bin Laden 'living comfortably in Pakistan'

Osama bin Laden is alive and well and living comfortably in a house in the north-west of Pakistan protected by local people and elements of the country's intelligence services, according to a senior Nato official.

By Rob Crilly in Islamabad 1:10PM BST 18 Oct 2010

The latest assessment contradicts the belief that the al-Qaeda leader is roughing it in underground bunkers as he dodged CIA drones hunting him from the air.

"Nobody in al-Qaeda is living in a cave," according to an unnamed Nato official quoted by CNN.

He added that Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command, was also living in a house close by somewhere in the country's mountainous border regions.

Pakistani officials on Monday repeated their long standing denials that the Saudi-born terrorist mastermind was being given safe haven.

However, the Nato official said bin Laden was thought to have ranged from the mountainous Chitral area near the Chinese border, to the Kurram Valley which borders Afghanistan's Tora Bora, one of the Taliban strongholds during the US invasion in 2001.

North Waziristan, in particular, has become a nexus for Afghan, Pakistani and Arab militants as they plot attacks against Nato forces across the border in Afghanistan.

Earlier this month a leaked White House report accused its ally Pakistan of playing a double game by avoiding "military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in North Waziristan".

A senior Pakistani security official denied that bin Laden was being protected and said the latest allegations were designed to heap pressure on Islamabad ahead of talks in Washington this week that would focus on strengthening co-operation between the two countries.

"Every time something important is happening then things like this keep creeping out," he said. "If it's not bin Laden it's something else."


Quote

US and Pakistan talks come at a key time for Afghan war

The US and Pakistan will try in high-level talks this week to smooth tensions over American military incursions across the border from Afghanistan and allegations that Islamabad is not doing enough to target Taliban militants.

Washington has signalled its patience is running thin with Pakistan's reluctance to fight insurgents, a stance that has not changed despite billions in American aid.

"We have been pressing Pakistan to take more aggressive action inside its borders to deal with a threat that is of concern to us, a concern to the region and a threat to Pakistan itself," US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Monday. "But clearly, this is an ongoing threat and more needs to be done."

The Obama administration has tried to enlist greater Pakistani co-operation by stressing it is not just interested in counterterrorism but is willing to provide long-term aid to strengthen the country's economy and improve the living standards of its largely poor population.

Washington also moved swiftly to help Pakistan in the aftermath of massive flooding this summer, donating nearly $400 million and providing 30 military helicopters for rescue and relief missions.

But analysts said much of that goodwill may have been undone when US helicopters accidentally attacked a small Pakistani outpost near the Afghan border late last month, killing two soldiers.

"When the Nato choppers took out Pakistani soldiers, even pro-American Pakistanis felt a sense of outrage because we are supposed to be on the same team," said Mosharraf Zaidi, an independent political analyst and columnist in Islamabad. "If you want to win a country's hearts and minds, you can't be seen as bombing its people."

The incident led Pakistan to close a key Afghan border crossing to Nato supplies for about 10 days. The US eventually apologised, saying the pilots mistook the soldiers for insurgents.

The talks that start on Wednesday in Washington will be led by US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. They also will involve Pakistan's powerful army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has developed a strong rapport with senior US officials despite allegations that spies under his command have long aided the Taliban and other Islamist militant groups.

Underscoring those concerns, the Indian government claimed that Pakistan's intelligence agency was deeply involved in planning the 2008 attack that killed 166 people in Mumbai. David Headley, an American who pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to laying the groundwork for the assault, told Indian interrogators in June that Pakistani intelligence officers were deeply intertwined with Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group blamed in the attack, according to a government report obtained on Monday by The Associated Press.

Despite concerns about Pakistan's ties with militants, the US approved a five-year $7.5 billion civilian aid package for the country in 2009 and launched a high-level "strategic dialogue" this year to focus on areas like education, energy and health. The talks this week will be the third in the series.

During the last round in Islamabad in July, Clinton announced more than $500 million in aid for a variety of projects, including renovating hospitals, improving water distribution and upgrading hydroelectric dams.

The US had to re-examine its plans after the meeting, however, after Pakistan was hit by the worst floods in the country's history, with one-fifth of its territory swamped and some 20 million people affected.

Speaking to reporters in Washington on Tuesday, Frank Ruggiero, the deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, sidestepped questions about the US pressuring Pakistan to take stronger action against Afghan Taliban leaders who use Pakistan as a haven. The US has raised the issue many times with Pakistani officials, he said, and will continue to do so.

Mr Ruggiero also said Pakistan's flood recovery would be "a primary area for discussion." He declined to say whether the US would announce a new package of security assistance during the talks.

Pakistani officials plan to raise concerns about what they consider the slow pace of American aid, as well as the lack of access to American markets for Pakistani goods and the recent increase in U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal belt, Pakistani presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said.

The drone strikes and the Sept. 30 cross-border helicopter incursion have been widely seen in Pakistan as an attempt by Washington to put more pressure on Islamabad to go after Taliban militants who use its territory to attack foreign troops in Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama is under pressure to show progress in Afghanistan as a scheduled December review of the war approaches and the president looks to begin bringing troops home by July 2011.

Many analysts believe success in Afghanistan is impossible without Pakistan's co-operation. But they also doubt Pakistan will shift course and attack Taliban militants with whom it has historical ties and could be useful allies in Afghanistan once foreign troops withdraw.

The possibility for co-operation could improve as the US and Afghan governments step up efforts to facilitate peace talks with the Taliban – a process that seems to be gaining momentum and could be addressed at the talks this week. Pakistan could potentially help with such talks, but serious conflicts remain.

"There are people that the Pakistanis don't want involved in the talks and people they want involved in the talks, and there isn't necessarily a meeting of the minds with the U.S," said Mr Zaidi, the political analyst.


Quote

Pakistan: militant gunmen attack convoy of Nato tankers bound for Afghanistan

Gunmen in southern Pakistan have torched tankers carrying fuel destined for Nato troops in Afghanistan, one day after Pakistani authorities stopped supply convoys in protest at a cross-border air strike that killed three soldiers.

By Rob Crilly, Islamabad 6:55AM BST 01 Oct 2010

Suspected militants, with their faces covered, opened fire with small arms to scare off the drivers and then set fire to the vehicles, which were parked in Shikarpur just before dawn, said Abdul Hameed Khoso, the district police chief.

"Around 20 attackers armed with rocket launchers and assault rifles attacked these trucks. They set ablaze 27 trucks parked there," he said.

Some 80 per cent of supplies for international forces pass through Pakistan.

Although attacks by militants and looters are not rare, the latest incident comes at a time of heightened tension between Islamabad and Nato commanders in Afghanistan.

Three Pakistani soldiers were killed and three wounded on Thursday in two cross-border strikes by Nato helicopters forces chasing militants in Pakistan's northwestern Kurram region.

The Nato-led International Security and Assistance Force initially denied crossing the border before later admitting that its troops had entered Pakistani air space.

Hours later, Pakistani authorities halted tankers carrying supplies for Nato forces passing through the Khyber tribal region on the Afghan border.

Pakistan is a crucial ally for the United States in its efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, but analysts say border incursions and disruptions in Nato supplies underline an increasingly fraught relationship.

This week the country's ambassador to Brussels was ordered to submit a formal protest to Nato headquarters over three earlier, unauthorised attacks.

"Isaf/Nato has been asked not to participate in any military action that violates the UN mandate and infringes upon Pakistan's sovereignty," said a statement issued by the foreign ministry.

"In the absence of immediate corrective measures, Pakistan will be constrained to consider response options."


Hamid Gul, the dog who support Taliban and Al-Qaida
A good book Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam by Zahid Hussain, Columbia University Press, 2007, page 81-82 which reveals Hamid Gul´s Al-Qaida and Taliban backing and support. You can read it on Google Book page

http://www.washingto...8120803612.html

http://www1.economic...how/3799024.cms

http://blog.washingt...i_treacher.html H. Gul is backing Taliban and other networks



0

#3 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 02:15 PM




0

#4 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 02:15 PM

Taliban-ISI training camp

"It is a big joke in the regular army that many of the ISI officers are more Taliban than the Taliban," comments author Ahmed Rashid.
0

#5 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 02:15 PM






0

#6 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 02:18 PM





Great Holbrooke
0

#7 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 03:13 PM

Thanks for posting all these, i will see each of them.
0

#8 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 04:50 PM

COMMENT: From good Taliban to bad Taliban

Daily Times
Azizullah Khan
December 17, 2010

Nation states resort to different tactics to secure their national interests, ranging from diplomacy to proxies (fighters of state A who secure its interest in host state B). In the real world it is almost considered legitimate to secure a state’s interests through any means. ‘Proxies’ is a common phenomenon, but a major question to be considered is whether the benefits of proxies are worth the costs.

The international community is nearly unanimous on the point that Pakistan is backing some factions of the Taliban, for which they have coined the term ‘good Taliban’. Western analysts and political leaders call Pakistan’s approach a ‘pick-and-choose’ policy. They believe that Pakistan facilitates this faction of the Taliban as it is assumed that it will guard its interests in Afghanistan, i.e. to curtail Indian influence and have safe havens for India-centric jihadis. They are up in arms. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s notorious statement that Pakistan is “exporting terrorism” is probably best representative of what they are thinking about Pakistan. And they are asking us to do more. Recently, David Petraeus, US commander in Afghanistan, in an interview with ABC News said that “more clearly needs to be done in the tribal areas of Pakistan to weed out” terrorists.

‘Good Taliban’ are good, yes, because they are good in fighting, good in exploding themselves in bazaars and at shrines, good in demolishing schools, good in targeting the Pakistan Army and good in kidnapping teachers and doctors. They might be good at these things but not in friendship. The Taliban by their nature are like a snake, which, by its very nature, must bite, and nature cannot be changed.

If (a big if) they come to power in Afghanistan, they will establish a strong nexus between the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and their regime in Afghanistan. Then there will be double route traffic. Herds and herds of Taliban will be moving to and from Pakistan, some will be driven, others will move willingly and they will kill, destroy and pick up whatever will come in their way. There will be pitched battles among them and perhaps we will find ourselves standing in their rows.

In order to get insights about the future, we should take lessons from history. Ahmad Rashid notes in Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia that, as a consequence of its support to the first episode of jihad, which is now known as the ‘Mujahideen era’, “Pakistan which had no heroin addicts in 1979, had 650,000 addicts in 1986, three million by 1992 and an estimated five million in 1999.” Adding to this, we also received the Kalashnikov culture. As a result of Pakistan’s support to the second episode of jihad, which is now known as the ‘Taliban era’, we received TTP, the suicide bombing culture and ended up with large swathes of land out of state control.

And the situation is moving from bad to worse. A couple of weeks ago, a Washington-based NGO, Campaign for Innocent Victims of Conflict (CIVIC) released a report, which notes that there were probably more “civilian casualties — 2,100 deaths — in Pakistan in 2009 than in Afghanistan”. Furthermore, it warns that “losses have a long-lasting and devastating impact on civilians’ lives, provoke anger and undermine legitimacy of the Pakistani government”. “In 2009,” according to the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), “a total of 2,586 terrorist, insurgent and sectarian related incidents of terrorism were reported across the country that killed 3,021 people and injured 7,334.” In 2010 (until November), according to the same source, a total of 3,137 incidents of the same nature took place, which killed 9,343 people.

Some may argue that, for Pakistan, India’s influence in Afghanistan is tantamount to its encirclement, for which Pakistan has to take a few demanding decisions to secure its legitimate interests over there. An editorial titled ‘Pak-Afghan ties’ (Daily Times, December 7, 2010) brilliantly challenges this point of view: “We have to realise that our ‘assets’, i.e. the Afghan Taliban, are no one’s friends. We may think they are different from the local Taliban who are openly waging a war against Pakistan but the ground reality is that there is no such thing as the ‘good Taliban’. There is no guarantee that once the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan, they would cooperate with us. After 9/11, we saw that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden despite Pakistan’s insistence. Terrorists are no respecters of borders but due to our India-phobia, we continue to support them.”

If we want to decrease Indian influence in Afghanistan we have to bring a major shift in our strategic calculus and we have to extend our best possible support to the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan.

If we fail to do so, then it is very likely that there will be Lahori Taliban, Peshawari Taliban, Multani Taliban, Gujrati Taliban, Karachi Taliban and Sialkoti Taliban, so on and so forth.

Do you want this to happen?

http://www.dailytime...7-12-2010_pg3_6
0

#9 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 05:01 PM

my feeling was a child had written this article.
0

#10 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 05:11 PM

i think he was sayig things that were naked truth to everybody, and eventually he concluded that pakistan need to look at taliban not as its assets but potential future problem.
0

#11 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 17 December 2010 - 09:25 PM

View PostSohrab, on 17 December 2010 - 05:11 PM, said:

i think he was sayig things that were naked truth to everybody, and eventually he concluded that pakistan need to look at taliban not as its assets but potential future problem.


they are already a problem for Pakistan and it´s future existence. But since Pakis have some fanatic islamists and colonialists (Hamid Gul, Kayani, Ahmadzai etc.) who wish their influence in Afghanistan no matter how much their acts will cost they won´t be able to secure the state. Pakis will soon taste their own medicine. And America has already realised the Paki state as a terror-supporting constitution with strong anti-western and specially anti-american sentiments which allow them to stop all their aids to these brownies.

It seems also Iran is now concentrating itself on Pakis, too. Specially after the Paki bomb attack in Iran. I hope Iran will kick again some brownie Paki bottoms and bring these traditional slaves back under the dirt of their shoes.
0

#12 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 19 December 2010 - 02:58 AM

No need for Iran to get involved directly ... they can simply help the NWFP crazy talibans with training, arms, logistics, and a long term vision to destroy Pakistan. This is very easy to do ... and even if Iran did not get involved, much more harm will come to Pk from their Pashtun taliban than comes to Iran from such attacks.

View PostParsistani, on 17 December 2010 - 09:25 PM, said:


0

#13 User is offline   قزلباش Icon

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
325
Joined:
26-October 10

Posted 20 December 2010 - 02:19 PM

View PostNader Shah, on 18 December 2010 - 09:58 PM, said:

No need for Iran to get involved directly ... they can simply help the NWFP crazy talibans with training, arms, logistics, and a long term vision to destroy Pakistan. This is very easy to do ... and even if Iran did not get involved, much more harm will come to Pk from their Pashtun taliban than comes to Iran from such attacks.


Why would we want to destroy Pakistan?

enlighten me
هیچ وقت به خدا نگو یه مشکل بزرگ دارم
به مشکل بگو من یه خدای بزرگ دارم


Go tell the wolves that although the father has been killed,
The father's gun is with us still
Tell them that although all the men of the tribe have been killed,
There is a young boy in the cradle still

Bakhtiari Proverb
0

#14 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
1,155
Joined:
13-October 07

Posted 20 December 2010 - 05:05 PM

Actually it was just a moment of anger, not a serious proposition. I don't think Iran has that power. Pakistan's internal dynamics will be enough to bring them some kind of major crisis not too far into the future. Do I hope for that to happen ? Only to the extent that Pakistan has harmed Afghanistan, they should pay a price ... but that is already happening with Taliban extremism inside its borders. The corruption of their military and associated elite, and the slow pace of development of the country and the welfare of its citizen may lead to a popular uprising in the future or more crises in leadership at the very least.

The worst troubles of Afghanistan started after US hired Pakistan (ISI, Taliban sponsorship, Saudi Arabia (propaganda, recruitment, money) to arm Islamic thugs and throw them at the Soviets. Yet if the communists had stayed, the country would have been in better shape than it is today.

View Postقزلباش, on 20 December 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Why would we want to destroy Pakistan?

enlighten me

0

#15 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 24 December 2010 - 11:50 AM

No matter which future states will deal with Pakistan, Pakistan is going by his own action back to a 13th century country. The Taliban, Haqqani, the Arabs and many other nations that seek there safe from the civilised world are only the catalyst for Pak´s downfall. With downfall I do not meen the desintegration of the state but about a civil war, hatred of each ethnicity to eachother and so on. The first action comes always from slaves and the oppressed ones.
0

#16 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 24 December 2010 - 02:31 PM

View PostParsistani, on 24 December 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

With downfall I do not meen the desintegration of the state but about a civil war, hatred of each ethnicity to eachother and so on. The first action comes always from slaves and the oppressed ones.


that looks strange to me, downfall and civil war among the ethnic groups in a country like pakistan is nothing but immediate disintegratrion, that will be the final blow to the tajiks, hope it does never ever happen.
0

#17 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 24 December 2010 - 02:58 PM

View PostSohrab, on 24 December 2010 - 02:31 PM, said:

that looks strange to me, downfall and civil war among the ethnic groups in a country like pakistan is nothing but immediate disintegratrion, that will be the final blow to the tajiks, hope it does never ever happen.


Sometimes you act like a chicken. Hope that Tajiks do not unite themself with Persianspeaking people and Iran and Tajikistan don´t annex Pashtunistan and Pashtun regions as their buffer zone. Wake up and see behind policy. You nightmares are based on your experiences and the past history but those days are gone like a fart with the wind. Damn, you are a Tajik. Now act like a Tajik. I only see your fears, never seen any actions. Why don´t you go to Afghanistan and create a movements like many of us did?
0

#18 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,234
Joined:
10-October 07

Posted 25 December 2010 - 12:23 PM

View PostParsistani, on 24 December 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

Sometimes you act like a chicken. Hope that Tajiks do not unite themself with Persianspeaking people and Iran and Tajikistan don´t annex Pashtunistan and Pashtun regions as their buffer zone. Wake up and see behind policy. You nightmares are based on your experiences and the past history but those days are gone like a fart with the wind. Damn, you are a Tajik. Now act like a Tajik. I only see your fears, never seen any actions. Why don´t you go to Afghanistan and create a movements like many of us did?


talk in a civil manner, enough is enough, you have repeated this silly attitude against me so many times and i have ignored it. if you do it again i will stop responding to your posts, tha is the best i could do, as the admins are too useless to take any action.
0

#19 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Research Group
Posts:
2,094
Joined:
22-May 07

Posted 25 December 2010 - 12:50 PM

View PostSohrab, on 25 December 2010 - 12:23 PM, said:

talk in a civil manner, enough is enough, you have repeated this silly attitude against me so many times and i have ignored it. if you do it again i will stop responding to your posts, tha is the best i could do, as the admins are too useless to take any action.


Dear Sohrab Jan,

I´m sorry for that but you need to wake up and see things from the view of world policy, not what tribalists or alqaida or kharzai or whoever are wanting to reach. I have the feeling that you actually lost all your hopes and trust in human-beeings of Afghanistan. You know that I love you and the rest here like my own brothers and if I insulted you I apologize for it but your view is to pessimistic and does not represent the situation. There is much reasons to have a happy life. If Afghanistan is lost, it´s lost. Forget it. You live in UK. Be part of UK and root yourself there but if Afghanistan can be rescued than it´s also ok. But it shouldn´t change your attitude toward beautiful life. I hope you understand what I mean. You are to concerned about Afghanistan. Afghanistan was and is since it´s creation and even before that the country of thugs, haramians, tribalists, criminals, rapers, satanic people etc, otherwise why should be Afghanistan a 12th country?
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users