Tajiks Worldwide Community: asif1986 - Viewing Profile

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

asif1986's Profile User Rating: -----

Reputation: 4 Neutral
71 (0.02 per day)
Most Active In:
General Discussion (31 posts)
05-December 08
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Jun 26 2012 08:49 AM
Icon   asif1986 has not set their status

Topics I've Started

  1. US costs soar 6 times for new war supply routes

    Posted 24 Jan 2012

    US costs soar 6 times for new war supply routes

    http://www.sundaysza... n?newsId=269114

    APNewsBreak: Pakistan’s closure of supply routes costs US 6 times more for new route

    http://www.washingto... x6BQ_story.html
  2. Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes

    Posted 1 Dec 2011

    http://online. wsj.co...Tabs%3Dcomments


    MOSCOW—Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn't seriously consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for Europe, Russia's ambassador to NATO said Monday.

    Russia has stepped up its objections to the antimissile system in Europe, threatening last week to deploy its own ballistic missiles on the border of the European Union to counter the move. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization says the shield is meant to thwart an attack from a rogue state such as Iran, that it poses no threat to Russia, and that the alliance will go ahead with the plan despite Moscow's objections.

    If NATO doesn't give a serious response, "we have to address matters in relations in other areas," Russian news services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as saying. He added that Russia's cooperation on Afghanistan may be an area for review, the news services reported.

    Threats to the NATO supply line through Russia come at an awkward time for the alliance. NATO has become increasingly reliant on the Russian route as problems in Pakistan—its primary supply route—have escalated. Over the weekend, Pakistan closed its border to trucks delivering supplies in response to coalition airstrikes Saturday that killed 25 Pakistani soldiers.

    NATO began shipping its supplies through Russia in 2009, after the so-called reset in relations between Moscow and the U.S., allowing the alliance a safer route for supplies into Afghanistan. But U.S.-Russian relations have been strained lately by the approach of elections in both countries. In the past week, the Kremlin has sharply stepped up its anti-Western rhetoric ahead of parliamentary elections on Dec. 4.

    Ivan Safranchuk, deputy director of the Moscow-based Institute of Contemporary International Studies, said Russia is unlikely to cut off the flow of NATO supplies to Afghanistan as an immediate response to missile-defense decisions. But Russia does want its objections to the missile shield to be taken more seriously, he said.

    "If the U.S. is not responsive, then a cutoff could be a reality at some point," Mr. Safranchuk said. "Russia would like the U.S. to be more serious about Russian concerns."
  3. Afghan court overturns election results

    Posted 23 Jun 2011

    http://www. google.co...5434198c816.3d1

    By Usman Sharifi (AFP) – 11 hours ago

    KABUL — An Afghan special court overturned a string of results Thursday from last year's fraud-hit parliamentary polls, causing deep splits in the political system with US troops poised to start withdrawing.

    The head of the tribunal, Sidiquallah Haqiq, read out a list of provinces where results had been recalculated at a press conference in Kabul.

    Lawmaker Mohammad Farhad Azimi, deputy secretary to the lower house, said that up to 60 separate results from the 249 seat Wolesi Jirga were affected.

    "They have introduced one to two new lawmakers in around 28 to 30 provinces," he told AFP. "This is wrong, it is a political decision."

    The court's move threatens to reopen deep splits between President Hamid Karzai and lawmakers opposed to him, potentially seizing up the heart of the political system shortly before foreign troops are due to begin pulling out.

    Lawmakers hostile to the special court, set up on Karzai's orders to investigate allegations of widespread fraud at elections in September, accuse the president of trying to use it to boost his support levels in parliament.

    The special court says Afghanistan's election commission should disqualify lawmakers whose elections it says are invalid, but as the commission does not recognise the court's legitimacy the future is unclear.

    Many lawmakers also reject the court's authority and a row over the issue delayed the inauguration of parliament, raising the spectre of a constitutional crisis when lawmakers threatened to open it without Karzai.

    Parliament was finally opened in January in Karzai's presence but the special tribunal continued its investigations.

    Lawmakers in parliament on Thursday held an angry debate in which many insisted they would not accept the tribunal's decisions.

    "The special court has no legal legitimacy," said Farkhunda Zahra Nadery, a Kabul lawmaker whose vote share was increased by the tribunal but who rejects its legitimacy.

    "The members of the lower house parliament are very angry and are unanimous in rejecting this decision."

    The debate came just hours after US President Barack Obama announced that 10,000 troops would leave Afghanistan between July and the end of this year, effectively marking the beginning of the end of the US war.

    All foreign combat troops are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, despite concerns from experts over whether Afghan forces and officials will be in a position to take control by then.

    Analysts in Afghanistan predict that the complicated saga around the status of the lawmakers could rumble on for some time.

    Martine van Bijlert of the Afghanistan Analysts Network wrote this month: "It is a standoff -- one of Afghanistan?s many -- with the main protagonists milling around, watching each other wearily, trying to gauge the others plans, waiting for a chance to strike, while all the while pretending to be minding their own business. And one that could go on for quite a while longer."
  4. Imran to stage sit-in against NATO supplies

    Posted 23 Apr 2011

    http://dailymailnews. ../index.php?id=3

    LAHORE – The Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan has called upon all the political parties, civil society, traders, lawyers and people from all walks of life to participate in the two-day sit-in in Peshawar today (Saturday).

    PTI Chief said that it was the responsibility of every countryman to attend the sit-in for the country’s integrity and sovereignty and give the world a massage that Pakistani nation could never compromise on national freedom and sovereignty.

    The two-day sit in will commence today (Saturday) to cut up the supply line of Nato forces in Afghanistan to press Pakistani and US governments to stop drone attacks killing innocent people.

    “We should show this to entire world that we are ready to lay our lives for dignity of our country,” he said.

    He criticized the government for its pro-US policies saying the rulers had sold the country’s sovereignty for American dollars and they have no business with the lives of innocent people but only to please the US and its allies. “How the drone strikes could be stopped if the government remains a silent spectator about the issue,” Imran Khan said.

    Major political parties

    extend support

    NOWSHERA – Various major political parties have announced to support the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) protest sit-in to be held here in Peshawar on April 23 and 24 against US drone attacks in the tribal areas
  5. The question of independent Pashtunistan —Musa Khan Jalalzai

    Posted 7 Apr 2011

    http://www. dailytime..._7-4-2011_pg3_3

    Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have remained strained due to the Durand Line dispute. Successive Afghan governments refused to recognise the Durand Line as a legitimate border between the two countries. The borderland is predominantly inhabited by Pashtun tribes who were divided by then Afghan ruler Abdul Rahman Khan’s wrong decision in 1893. This issue has been a major cause of strained relations between the two states. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan has realised the importance of the other.

    Afghan rulers followed the policy of confrontation towards Pakistan, while Pakistan, since its independence, has failed to evolve a pragmatic Afghan policy. The country followed a predominantly pro-American policy for the last 60 years. Since the creation of Pakistan, both the states have interfered in each other’s internal affairs time and again, but there has never been a turn to full-scale war. In 1971, during the Bangladesh war, the Afghan security forces were guarding Pakistan’s border. Similarly, Pakistan helped the people of Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention in 1979.

    The border dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan was created by Great Britain in 1893 in exchange for arms and cash offered to the Afghan ruler Amir Abdur Rahman Khan. The perception that Amir Abdur Rahman was under pressure to accept the Durand Line Treaty and had no freedom to negotiate with Great Britain, forcing him to sign the agreement, is totally wrong.

    Abdur Rahman was in a hurry and willingly demanded the settlement of the border dispute with British India and asked for sending a British Mission to Kabul in October 1888 and again in 1893. Sir Mortimer Durand was welcomed with a royal reception. Amir Abdur Rahman was well satisfied with the outcome of his negotiations with Sir Mortimer Durand. As Britain came to know that there was no proper discussion between Balochistan and Afghanistan on the Durand Agreement, it continued to reaffirm the Durand Line Agreement with the Afghan rulers from 1901 to 1973.

    Now, coming to the legality of the Durand Line as an internationally recognised border, Afghanistan has been adamantly denying the legitimacy of the Durand Line since 1947, while Pakistan accepts it as a legitimate border between the two states. Pakistan says that its legitimacy was confirmed for the first time by the statement of Mr Noel Baker, secretary of state for the Commonwealth in the British House of Commons on June 30, 1950. Moreover, in 1956, the ministerial council of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in a Karachi meeting also reaffirmed the recognition of the Durand Line as the internationally recognised boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    In 1949, when the Afghan national assembly rejected all treaties signed with Britain, including the Durand Line agreement, the people of Waziristan did not react warmly. They were now settled and enjoying a happy life within the boundaries of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Moreover, the humiliation of their tribal elders at the hands of Abdur Rahman and his colleagues in Kabul and their expulsion from Afghanistan forcefully ensured that neither the people of Waziristan nor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa show specific interest in an independent Pashtunistan. In their understanding, this is the political game Afghan and Pakistani rulers have been enjoying since 1947.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, Afghanistan extended the demand of independent Pashtunistan to some areas of Balochistan, but political parties and tribal chiefs reacted in a normal way. No Afghan ruler has sincerely responded to the feelings of the Pashtun tribes across the border. Zahir Shah once decided to make a compromise on Pashtunistan and enter into a confederation agreement with Pakistan. President Daud was willing to settle the issue with Pakistan between 1977 and 1978 during his visit to Pakistan. He visited Muhammad Ziaul Haq with this spirit and invited him to settle the border issue forever. In 1979, President Nur Muhammad Tarakai agreed to give up the claim of independent Pashtunistan provided Pakistan cut off support to the Afghan mujahideen groups. President Tarakai was a politician and was well aware of the consequences of military confrontation with Pakistan.

    President Dr Muhammad Najibullah once told my uncle Khan Jahan Khan that he cannot fire a single bullet towards Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and cannot hurt his Pashtun sisters, mothers and brothers. But the Afghan ruler neither offered the Pashtuns of Pakistan the citizenship of Afghanistan nor gave them the right of vote. They never accepted them as Afghans nor allowed them to visit Afghanistan without a Pakistani passport. This is the secret story of ‘independent Pashtunistan’ that Afghan rulers developed dramatically.

    My understanding is that this was just a political game the Afghan and Pakistani rulers played for protecting their political interests at the expense of the poor Pashtun people. Today’s backward and ethnically divided Afghanistan still demands the return of its land and people its ruler sold for nothing, but the international community now recognises the Durand Line as the Pak-Afghan legitimate border

    Some Afghan leaders are of the opinion that the Durand Agreement had a life of 100 years, and, as such, lost its legal standing in 1993. My answer to them is that the present-day Afghanistan has not been able to control its territory or extend the writ of the government to the whole of the country, how can it possibly manage the human, economic, political, health and food security of the people of both Afghanistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?

    Pashtuns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are not willing to join Afghanistan or struggle for an independent Pashtunistan. They understand they will not be able to manage an independent state economically. They have sympathy with their Afghan brothers but do not want to join them as we saw that the internally displaced persons (IDPs) of Pakistan preferred to remain in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa instead of taking refuge in Afghanistan. An independent Pashtunistan state is an economic impossibility and will be more dangerous for Afghanistan than for Pakistan.

    Finally, I must suggest that both Pakistan and Afghanistan must not allow the Durand Line to become a flashpoint. They should open-heartedly accept the independent status of each other. As most of the Asian frontiers and borders have not been demarcated by Asians themselves, but by colonial powers, therefore nobody can insist on the inviolability of any frontier, including the Durand Line. The Great Game and military confrontations between Russia and Great Britain caused the fixing of the Durand Line, which brought the Khyber Pass and Quetta under British-Indian control. In summation, Pakistan and Afghanistan as two Muslim neighbouring states must understand the importance of each other.

My Information

Member Title:
Advanced Member
2020 years old
January 1, 1

Contact Information



asif1986 hasn't added any friends yet.


asif1986 has no profile comments yet. Why not say hello?