Tajiks Worldwide Community: Partition of Aoghanistan - 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

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Partition of Aoghanistan

#21 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:42 PM

Quote

How to avoid a humiliating Nato defeat by the Taliban

THE war in Afghanistan is as good as lost. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (Nato’s) current strategy of surging to pummel the Taliban into a negotiated settlement is a forlorn hope: why should the Taliban talk if they believe they are winning and Western forces are due to quit in the next few years anyway?

Plan A has therefore failed.

Is there a Plan B?

No, but alternatives can be offered. Leaving now would save a lot Western lives and money (100bn a year). Politically, it would satisfy the growing clamour in the US and Europe to bring home the boys (and girls).

Such a result would mean a Taliban victory, a humiliating strategic defeat for Nato and a boost for al-Qaeda.

Is there a halfway house between staying and losing in a few years, or quitting quickly and losing now?

One possible answer is partition.

It is not a new idea. The Soviets thought about northern secession before they lost their war in the late 1980s. The Iranians in the 1980s and 1990s tried to persuade its Shiite allies to create a Shiite corridor (most Afghans are Sunni) to link central and western Afghanistan with Iran.

The greatest of all recent Afghan leaders, the Tajik Lion of the Panshir, Ahmed Shah Massud, was asked to forge a greater Tajikistan. He refused. Nationalism runs deep in the country, but so do religious, tribal and ethnic divisions.

Afghanistan can boast of a nation state since 1761. Many of its neighbours are recent and largely artificial creations, especially ramshackle Pakistan, which was born of the savage bloodletting of the partition of the British Raj. At the same time, the British bequeathed the tragic legacy of the partition of Palestine. Other partitions, especially Korea, have not conjured up pleasant outcomes. In Afghanistan, however, a strategic defeat for the West in its long war with Islamic extremism would be a far more malign omen for the future.

I had first considered the partition option when I worked in Afghanistan in the early 1980s. During regular skirmishes with Soviet or Soviet-backed forces, the Afghan Mujahadeen group I was travelling with was often threatened by one of the 40 rival anti-Soviet groups of fighters. They were usually tribally based, and also intent on destroying Soviet rule, but quite keen to take a pop at insurgents supposedly on the same side.

In the period before western intervention in late 2001, the country was effectively sectioned between the Taliban Pashtun-led south and the non-Pashtun Northern Alliance. In 2002, accompanying British troops, I observed, once again, the many tribal, ethnic and religious cleavages.

Partition has recently been given fresh credibility because of Robert D Blackwill, a heavyweight Washington adviser and former US ambassador to India.

When he briefed an audience of foreign policy experts in London recently, I was perhaps one of the few in the room who did not dismiss his views out of hand. Despite the many difficulties, my own experience of the country suggested he had a point.

The original objective of the western intervention in 2001 was to crush al-Qaeda.

Blackwill, quoting Central Intelligence Agency figures, said there were 50 to 100 al- Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, and perhaps 300 in Pakistan. He asked: “Is it worth 100b n (a year) to keep them on one side of the Durand line rather than the other?”

The Durand line, an imperial diktat, was drawn as the border between British India and Afghanistan in 1893. It now separates the approximately 40-million (?) Pashtuns in Pakistan from their 15-million brothers in Afghanistan.

Blackwill proposes to cede the Pashtun homeland in the south and east to the Taliban and to defend the north, west and Kabul with a much smaller, and cheaper, foreign force of 35000 to 50000 troops, along with much more supportive local militias, who loathe the prospect of Pashtun Taliban rule.

To the objection that the Taliban would simply invite back al-Qaeda, he argued that it was an open question whether they had learned the lessons of the rapid Western invasion of 2001.

If they had not, “the skies over the south and east would be dark with predators”.

The iconoclastic US ambassador added that the residual foreign forces would be big enough to prevent an all-out civil war, which would inevitably result from a total western withdrawal. The corrupt and useless government of the Pashtun President Hamid Karzai could finally be ditched.

Blackwill did concede that it was “tragically true” that de facto partition would consign the southern women to a new dark age, but female empowerment was never one of the reasons why the US went to war in the first place.

The Taliban of course would never accept partition, and the Pashtuns, 42% of the Afghan population, would take revenge, not only on educated women, but also on the tribal and religious minorities unlucky enough to be marooned in the radically Islamist enclave.

But the prospect of re-establishing a larger Pashtun homeland might appeal to the Taliban as an alluring consolation prize. This would in turn lead to the dismemberment of Pakistan. Would this necessarily be a negative for the west?

Pakistan is a failed, corrupt and artificial state, which harbours not only Osama bin Laden and his allies, but fuels the current war in Afghanistan. It also supports terrorist organisations to destabilise Kashmir and India, as well as hosting training camps for Jihadists, who threaten the West in general and Britain in particular.

Moreover, a number of these trained Jihadists use Mozambique and SA as transit routes before operating in the West. Intelligence sources allege the African National Congress government turns a blind eye to Jihadist training camps in rural SA.

The real challenge to the West comes not from Afghanistan nor even from Iran. It comes from a nuclear-armed Pakistan falling to Islamic extremists.

The logic of Afghan partition could be applied next door. Large parts of the border areas, especially the Pashtun lands, could be ceded back to Afghanistan. Kashmir could be reunited, and probably given nominal independence, under United Nations or even Indian suzerainty.

The rump state of Pakistan would have to be denuclearised. US special forces have been involved with guarding the 100-200 nukes. They could just as easily destroy or, better, relocate the warheads, as well as decommission uranium-enrichment facilities with carefully placed high explosives.

Pakistan was truncated when it lost Bangladesh, but it remained bellicose.

A very small Pakistan, defanged of its nuclear weapons, would no longer be such a headache for the whole region or indeed for the West.

True, it might become another Gaza, a festering Islamist troublemaker, but India, so much more powerful, could be relied upon to keep a lid on the cauldron.

Sadly, the political reality is that Plan A for Afghanistan will proceed, and fail. Afghan partition is unlikely, Pakistan’s repartition even more so.

Nevertheless, if Pakistan cannot be trusted to organise a national cricket team, why should it be trusted with nukes?

Professor Paul Leslie Moorcraft (born 1948 in Cardiff, Wales) is the Director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis in London and visiting professor at Cardiff University's School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Europe's premier journalism centre. He is widely acknowledged to be one of the United Kingdom's leading commentators on security and defence issues and a specialist in crisis communications.

http://www.businessd....aspx?id=122536

0

#22 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:42 PM

Quote

افغان المپيک : د ملي سرود د نه غږېدا په دليل نه پوهېږو
بي بي سي پښتو ډاټ کام



په چين کې د افغان لوبغاړو د تېرېدلو پر مهال د ملي سرود پر ځای (وطن عشق تو افتخارم) سندره وغږول شوه.
د چين په گوانجو ښار کې د اسيايي لوبو په ترڅ کې د افغان ملي سرود پر ځاى د يوې بلې سندرې پر غږېدا افغان المپيک غور کوي .

د چين په گوانجو ښار کې د اسيايي لوبو د پيل په مراسمو کې د افغانستان د ملي سرود پر ځاى د ( وطن عشق تو افتخارم ) سندرې د خپرولو په دليل افغان المپيک فدراسيون نه پوهېږي .

د افغان المپيک کمېټې يوه چارواکي مصطفى وردگ بي بي سي ته وويل دى نه پوهېږي چا دا سندره د اسيايي لوبو تنظيمونکو ته سپارلې وه .

مصطفى وردگ چې له لوبغاړو سره چين ته تللى وايي نه پوهېږي چې ولې داسې شوي دي .

ده وويل پلټنه به کوي، خو دا يې هم زياته کړه چې ګنې له دوى څخه بښنه غوښتل شوې ده .

د نړيوالو لوبو تر پيل وړاندې عموما د هرهېواد له لوبيزو چارواکو څخه د لوبو تنظيمونکي ملي سرود غواړي .

ملي سرود د پيل په مراسمو او يا هم په هغو وختونو کې خپرېږي چې لوبغاړى مډال وگټي او د بيرغ د پورته کېدا پر وخت يې ملي سرود غږېږي


:D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:
0

#23 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:43 PM

Quote

Survey: Few Afghans Know Why NATO Invaded - It Remains War's Excuse, But Most Afghans Never Even Heard of 9/11

With NATO officials busily plotting another several years of occupation in the Lisbon Summit, the people of Afghanistan are by and large being left out. Not just of the planning, but even the reason behind the war.

After almost a decade of military occupation, a new survey by the International Council on Security and Development revealed that 92 percent of the Afghan men surveyed had never even heard of 9/11, the ostensibly casus belli for the entire conflict.

“The lack of awareness of why we are there contributes to the high level of negativity toward the NATO military operations,” insisted ICOS President Norine MacDonald. It was unclear however whether the few Afghans who had heard of 9/11 were any more upbeat about the seemingly endless war.

The poll also showed majority support in Southern Afghanistan for secession and the creation of an independent Pashtunistan (potentially including some of Pakistan’s tribal regions), and that 40 percent of the population believed NATO was occupying Afghanistan as part of a goal to destroy Islam.

Though the report from ICOS stressed the importance of communication with the Afghans it seems that such efforts will inevitably be dwarfed by the deleterious effect military occupation has on public opinion. MacDonald urged NATO to make it clear why Afghans’ future is “better with us than with the Taliban,” but recent NATO comments suggest not many officials even buy this anymore, leaving open the question of why the Afghans would.

http://news.antiwar....y-nato-invaded/

0

#24 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 04:44 PM

Quote

"... The research findings also indicate that 56% of the Afghans interviewed in the two southern provinces believe Afghan police are helping the Taliban and 25% of respondents believe that Afghan police end up joining the Taliban. Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed think that [...] Fifty-four percent of interviewees in the southern provinces would like to see the creation of ‘Pashtunistan’, an independent Pashtun state (which usually refers to incorporating Pashtun areas of both Afghanistan and Pakistan into a single ethnic state.) ..."

http://www.icosgroup...issing_variable s/press_release

0

#25 User is offline   AbuMuslim Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
53
Joined:
05-February 08

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:08 PM

Partition is impossible thats why massoud was against it.

Hazaras and uzbeks are concentrated mainly in single geographical areas. But tajiks and pahstuns are scattered and mixed all across afghanistna. how are u gonna deal with that. The pashtun minorities in balkh, qunduz, baghlan etc... vs the Large concentratin of tajiks in Laghman, Logar, Farah and significant minorities in ghazni, gardez , kandahar, jalalabad, and etc... how r u gonna address that??
I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life.
I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen One.
If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings,
I am quit of him and outraged by these words.
Movlana Jalaluddin Balkhi
0

#26 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:29 PM

Dear Admins, please delete this. I posted it double
0

#27 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:31 PM

View PostAbuMuslim, on 11 December 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Partition is impossible thats why massoud was against it.

Hazaras and uzbeks are concentrated mainly in single geographical areas. But tajiks and pahstuns are scattered and mixed all across afghanistna. how are u gonna deal with that. The pashtun minorities in balkh, qunduz, baghlan etc... vs the Large concentratin of tajiks in Laghman, Logar, Farah and significant minorities in ghazni, gardez , kandahar, jalalabad, and etc... how r u gonna address that??


Jalalabad City, Gardez city and it´s nearest regions that are populated by Tajiks and Tajik ''Sayyids'' will be part of us. Same as northern Kandahar, Lashkargah, Sistan, Farah etc. The Pashtuns in the north will get replaced by Tajiks who live in the centre of Pashtuns, like the Shamalzais of Zabul province and their sub-group the Tajikkhels. In Baghlan Pashtuns make only 10% and their number decrease day by day because many of them leave the province for Kandahar or even for Pakistan due the bad situation for them as Pashtuns. In Kunduz, many Pashtuns have started to return back to their traditional way of life, nomadism. Laghman, of course, the centre will be part of us as well as Logar, since the real non-Persianspeaking Logarian are Tajiks too and of course because of the Persianspeaking population of the region. The eastern and south-eastern parts will be left for Pashtuns. Ghazni will be ours. Even if that would mean to kill Pashtuns there. We know better than anyone that in war majority Pashtun popullation run away when soldiers near a city (f.e. Marjah or Char Dara). Know pardon to Pashtuns. They can create their Pakhtunistan in eastern and most southern Afghanistan and if they wish they can unite themself with Pathan Dalkhor condoms so they can get annexed by Pakistan to their territory. Only Uruzgan makes a problem because of the major Pashtun population. Either we go on the base of history and retake every district and send Pashtuns to south or we draw a line through the province.
0

#28 User is offline   AbuMuslim Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
53
Joined:
05-February 08

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:33 PM

View PostParsistani, on 11 December 2010 - 05:29 PM, said:

Dear Admins, please delete this


They are trying to change the demographics of northern areas and Herat and you speaking of taking over kandahar and jalalabad??

a bit too optimistic and unrealistic
I am the servant of the Qur'an as long as I have life.
I am the dust on the path of Muhammad, the Chosen One.
If anyone quotes anything except this from my sayings,
I am quit of him and outraged by these words.
Movlana Jalaluddin Balkhi
0

#29 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 11 December 2010 - 05:55 PM

View PostAbuMuslim, on 11 December 2010 - 05:33 PM, said:

They are trying to change the demographics of northern areas and Herat and you speaking of taking over kandahar and jalalabad??

a bit too optimistic and unrealistic


The topic below was your answer not that above.

No, today Pashtuns can´t play wrong games when it comes to demography. Of course, the government still use Daud documents for it´s Pashtun majority proofs but the new NGOs proved them wrong and in Herat the number of Pashtuns make only 10% while in Kunduz and other parts it´s shrink. Today, in Kunduz they make maybe 20%. The important thing is also they don´t have powers over such institutions to claim again any bias. We will f*** these mfkers if they try to stand infront of us. You also forget that those regions were before the arriving of Talibs already in the hands of Tajiks and their commanders and armies.
0

#30 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

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

Posted 12 December 2010 - 03:17 AM

If partition occurs, what should be the boundaries ?
0

#31 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 12 December 2010 - 09:02 AM

View PostNader Shah, on 12 December 2010 - 03:17 AM, said:

If partition occurs, what should be the boundaries ?


I already described it. Just read the comments of mine.
0

#32 User is offline   Sohrab Icon

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

Posted 13 December 2010 - 11:09 AM

View PostAbuMuslim, on 11 December 2010 - 05:33 PM, said:

They are trying to change the demographics of northern areas and Herat and you speaking of taking over kandahar and jalalabad??

a bit too optimistic and unrealistic


i quite agree with you.

by the way, whwere are you? why dont you come and join us here?
0

#33 User is offline   Kakar Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
58
Joined:
13-November 10

Posted 24 December 2010 - 09:40 PM

lol @ pashtuns losing jalalabad and gardez
0

#34 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 24 December 2010 - 11:36 PM

View PostKakar, on 24 December 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

lol @ pashtuns losing jalalabad and gardez


Gardez and Jalalabad are Tajik cities. We had it before Taliban and we will it back in post-Kharzai era. What will you do now? Gardez is part of the most eastern borders of Tajiks. The people will choice where they want. When the Russians came and the Northern Alliance Mujahedins moved to Paktia Psahtuns were running like chickens toward south and Pakistan. Will you have the balls and power to break a future army and militias of local Tajik warlords? The Zadrans are the only danger for Tajiks in Gardez but not an absolute and we dealed with them in the past and we deal with them in the future, inshallah.
0

#35 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

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

Posted 25 December 2010 - 12:24 AM

I heard a few words about including Kandahar and such, but it would be nice to have a map, a link to previous post of yours where you explain why those parts should be part of the new state of Khawaran/Aryana whatever you want to call it. I don't have the full picture.

The impression I get is that Kandahar is the heartland of the Pahtuns, so even though I have an ancestor from Kandahar (who was Shiite on pilgrimage to Iraq, probably a Tajik), I don't think it would be a good idea to create a permanent war the way Arabs and Jews have over Jerusalem. I don't mind giving Kandahar to Pashtuns if they are indeed the great majority. Let them have the places where they are a majority, just as we expect them to give up the places where they are a minority. We don't want to have an eternal war with Pashtuns. The breakup should be one that is fair enough that the conflict will end, if the breakup ever occurs. I am not bracing myself for a breakup, just talking about a hypothetical scenario.

In any case, unless you have power, talk is cheap. Tajiks can take over Kandahar if they wish, but they better be much much stronger than Pashtuns, and that is not the case. Boundaries of countries are based on power. If you don't have power, and try to get much more than your power allows you to get you end up like Georgia, even worse off than where you started, losing even your own ground.

Anyway, dear Parsistani, please think more realistically and there is no need to create more hatred. We need to build bridges to Pashtoons wherever possible and to the extent that there are people like Kakar in positions of power we should try to build bridges. Even your Khorasan state will have to live side by side and in peace with Pashtuns to prosper.

And I have no double standards, by the way. I think Iran needs to do the same thing with its neighbors. Instead of focusing on differences with Arabs and Turks, we need to build bridges and focus on commonalities. Goodwill begets goodwill. But if that does not work, of course we are not naive, and we need to be ready for the worst. We need to be powerful, and that is not just empty talk, it needs massive action. You want to build bridges and you want to be powerful when you do that so they respect you. I have no illusions for example about Arabs, but if they fear us, and we are truly powerful, they will make deals, just like they do with the US.

View PostParsistani, on 12 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

I already described it. Just read the comments of mine.

0

#36 User is offline   Kakar Icon

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
Group:
Members
Posts:
58
Joined:
13-November 10

Posted 25 December 2010 - 01:43 AM

View PostParsistani, on 24 December 2010 - 11:36 PM, said:

Gardez and Jalalabad are Tajik cities. We had it before Taliban and we will it back in post-Kharzai era. What will you do now? Gardez is part of the most eastern borders of Tajiks. The people will choice where they want. When the Russians came and the Northern Alliance Mujahedins moved to Paktia Psahtuns were running like chickens toward south and Pakistan. Will you have the balls and power to break a future army and militias of local Tajik warlords? The Zadrans are the only danger for Tajiks in Gardez but not an absolute and we dealed with them in the past and we deal with them in the future, inshallah.


u didnt deal with no one you retard. once again, LOOOOL @ pashtuns losing gardez and jalalabad
0

#37 User is offline   Nader Shah Icon

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

Posted 25 December 2010 - 02:41 AM

My impression is that both Jalalabad and Gardez are ancient Tajik cities. You can be sure that Iranians will soon wake up and defend their Tajik brethren, and give a good lesson to those Indic savages of the mountains who raped our lands. You will have to run with your turbans and disgusting tribal ways back to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. And Pakis won't protect you 'cause they care more about their Punjabi ass. You are cornered and bound to lose. Dare to challenge Iran and you will be driven back to your homeland.

View PostKakar, on 25 December 2010 - 01:43 AM, said:

u didnt deal with no one you retard. once again, LOOOOL @ pashtuns losing gardez and jalalabad

0

#38 User is offline   قزلباش Icon

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

Posted 25 December 2010 - 04:52 AM

View PostNader Shah, on 24 December 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

My impression is that both Jalalabad and Gardez are ancient Tajik cities. You can be sure that Iranians will soon wake up and defend their Tajik brethren, and give a good lesson to those Indic savages of the mountains who raped our lands. You will have to run with your turbans and disgusting tribal ways back to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. And Pakis won't protect you 'cause they care more about their Punjabi ass. You are cornered and bound to lose. Dare to challenge Iran and you will be driven back to your homeland.


Damn, Parsistani please tell me that you havent hacked Nader's account :lol:

Gardez does have genuine Persian heritage but i am not so sure about Jalalabad and i think that jalalabad only has a persian-sounding name due to Mughal influence.
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

#39 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 25 December 2010 - 11:27 AM

Quote

The impression I get is that Kandahar is the heartland of the Pahtuns, so even though I have an ancestor from Kandahar (who was Shiite on pilgrimage to Iraq, probably a Tajik), I don't think it would be a good idea to create a permanent war the way Arabs and Jews have over Jerusalem. I don't mind giving Kandahar to Pashtuns if they are indeed the great majority. Let them have the places where they are a majority, just as we expect them to give up the places where they are a minority. We don't want to have an eternal war with Pashtuns. The breakup should be one that is fair enough that the conflict will end, if the breakup ever occurs. I am not bracing myself for a breakup, just talking about a hypothetical scenario.


Noone want to drop the Pashtuns off from Kandahar. They can be there the majority but the city and the Oases belong to Tajiks and are mainly inhabitet by Tajiks, so-called Deqaan by Pashtuns. With a very strong army and letal weapons it would be very easy for us in a near future to wipe all Pashuns out there but since we Tajiks will never develope the same barbarian mentality and nature of Pashtuns we have to be happy with Kandhaar city and the northern parts which are dominantly populated by non-Qizilbash Shias. I will see what I can do to create such a map where every folk is situated. Pashtuns won´t be able to fight for Kandahar when we settle there 70 000 soldiers and build a wall like in Gaza or former Eastern Germany. Your belief that Pashtuns will accept any resolution is wrong. They do not even accept they are not welcomed in Kunduz where they are a minority and claim it as their Awghanland. There is no hope and futur for Pashtuns. KharZai is the last barrier for us. They claim because of the short ruling of Ahmad Shah Abdali Multani over Baluchistan and Sindh where Baluchs freed both regions from Pashtuns during the last days of him so we are not allowed to claim on lands that are stolen by nomading thugs from the Sulaiman Mountains where we resided for thousand of years, the home of greater Ismaeli community, the home of Bayazid Roshan and the home of heroic Rustamiaan dynasty?

Quote

In any case, unless you have power, talk is cheap. Tajiks can take over Kandahar if they wish, but they better be much much stronger than Pashtuns, and that is not the case. Boundaries of countries are based on power. If you don't have power, and try to get much more than your power allows you to get you end up like Georgia, even worse off than where you started, losing even your own ground.


Neither Pashtuns has power nor Tajiks at the moment. So can you explain how you describe their ''strongness''? It would be easy for us Tajiks to plant everywhere in the south and east IEDs to kill many Psahtuns as possible but we are Tajiks..not coward Pashtuns who run away when they see armed men. A Pashtun act as a man when he has the weapon to oppress the unarmed but he is a chicken and run cowardly away when armed men facing them. It was in the case of British era, Soviet era, today the Anglo-Saxon era etc. But unlike Pashtuns, we Tajiks are in forward for power and prestige. In addition, we binding new relationships only by wahabi-salafiy Pashtun called evil states from who we will profite economical and geographical, in that case USA, Russia, Iran, India, Germany, Italy and some others. Georgia´s situation was not differing from what is today in Afghanistan. But they worked forward to get powerful and thus teached Azerbaidjan and Armenia, both at the same time, a lesson they still don´t forget. In the Caucasus, Georgia is the only real power that could even deal with Turkey.

Quote

Anyway, dear Parsistani, please think more realistically and there is no need to create more hatred. We need to build bridges to Pashtoons wherever possible and to the extent that there are people like Kakar in positions of power we should try to build bridges. Even your Khorasan state will have to live side by side and in peace with Pashtuns to prosper.


Once we have succesed our goals we will reach them our hands to convert them to humanity and civility but when they act as barbarian we will finish them without any question. The most weak people today are the Pashtuns. Their society is breaking, their language is counted by the UN Language List as a dying language with no ''importance'', they flesh eachother like wild dogs, support terrorists and do not accept non-Pashtuns and frauds that made by their own...all just for power. But they have nothing. Their homes are dry like desert, their birth rate is the lowest one because of the high death rate among their children, the majority of aids infected and by other illness broken people are today Pashtuns. As long we are not finish with our own works for our own people, from Armenians to Nuristanis and Zadakis, we won´t cooperate with Pashtuns. You want to cooperate with Pashtuns who are part of the global terrorism, school burings, killing of innocent children, organ traders, opium farmers, suicide bombers, land-grabbers, (islamo-)fascists, anti-women, eyes-and-nose cutters, throwing axcid in the face of women and many more. Do you want to build a bridge to such people? The first terrorist and fascist in the court of history was Khushal Khan Khattak, a Pashtun, followed by the radical Bayazid Roshan, who was not a Pashtun but his words was heard and welcomed by all Pashtun tribes. What do you expect from their children who are today well-known terrorists of the globe? If you want to build a bridge to them, please do it, but you won´t be able. Because the bridge to them are only the Tajiks and you can´t circumvent us.

Quote

And I have no double standards, by the way. I think Iran needs to do the same thing with its neighbors. Instead of focusing on differences with Arabs and Turks, we need to build bridges and focus on commonalities.


Arabs call Iran as a snake country that need to cut off from it´s head so they can back come to power. Maybe you do not know but for Arabs it´s the shame shame when they lost Iran like they experienced it when Andaluse was lost to Franks.

Quote

Gardez does have genuine Persian heritage but i am not so sure about Jalalabad and i think that jalalabad only has a persian-sounding name due to Mughal influence.


Jalalabad was once part of the Badakhshi people, like Abu Fazle, one of the main architects and masters of Taj Mahal along side with his local brother Muhammad Lahori. As gift Jalalabad was build for him by Mughals on older ruins. Pashtun immigrants during Abdurrahman Khan came and were forcefully settled there. The city self is still a Persian city with a small Pashtun, Hazara, Turkmen population. If those Tajiks want to be part of their greater nation than they will be part of it. The Tajik population is a mixture of Wakhani Sakas, Balkhi, Badakhchani and Samanagani people who all speak Persian.
0

#40 User is offline   Parsistani Icon

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

Posted 27 December 2010 - 06:32 PM

Quote

Plan B in Afghanistan

US policy toward Afghanistan involves spending scores of billions of dollars and suffering several hundred allied deaths annually largely to prevent the Afghan Taliban from controlling the Afghan Pashtun homeland.

But the United States and its allies will not defeat the Taliban militarily. President Hamid Karzai's corrupt government will not significantly improve. The Afghan National Army cannot take over combat missions from ISAF in southern and eastern Afghanistan in any realistic time frame. And on December 15, the New York Times assessed that "two new classified intelligence reports offer a more negative assessment and say there is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border". That won't happen.

With these individual elements of US Afghanistan policy in serious trouble, optimism about the current strategy's ability to meet its objectives reminds one of the White Queen's comment in Through the Looking Glass: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

De facto partition offers the Obama administration the best available alternative to strategic defeat. The administration should stop setting deadlines for withdrawal and instead commit the United States to a long-term combat role in Afghanistan of 35,000-50,000 troops for the next 7-10 years.

Concurrently, Washington should accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for Americans to continue paying. The United States and its partners should stop fighting and dying in the Pashtun homeland and let the local correlation of forces take its course - while deploying US air power and Special Forces to ensure that the north and west of Afghanistan do not succumb to the Taliban. The United States would make clear that it would strike al-Qaida targets anywhere, Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition line, and sanctuaries along the Pakistani border using weapons systems that were unavailable before 9/11.

Accepting a de facto partition of Afghanistan makes sense only if the other options available are worse. They are.

One alternative is to stay the current course in Afghanistan. The United States deploys about 1,00,000 troops in Afghanistan, yet there are now only 50-100 al-Qaida fighters there. That is 1,000-2,000 soldiers per al-Qaida terrorist at $100 billion a year - far beyond any reasonable expenditure of American resources given the stakes involved. And even if many of the roughly 300 al-Qaida fighters now in Pakistan did move a few score miles north across the border, it would not make much of a practical difference - surely not enough to justify an indefinite major ground war.

Another alternative is for the United States to withdraw all its military forces from Afghanistan over the next few years. But this would lead to a probable conquest of the entire country by the Taliban. It would draw Afghanistan's neighbours into the fighting. It would raise the odds of the Islamic radicalisation of Pakistan, which would in turn call into question the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It would weaken the budding US-India strategic partnership, undermine Nato's future, and trigger a global outpouring of support for Islamic extremist ideology and increased terrorism against liberal societies. And it would be seen around the world by friends and adversaries alike as a failure of international leadership and strategic resolve by an ever weaker America.

A third alternative is to achieve stability in Afghanistan through successful negotiations with the Taliban. As CIA director Leon Panetta has said, however, so long as the Taliban think they are winning, they will remain intransigent. Despite the major intensification of drone attacks, the US cannot kill the Taliban into meaningful political compromise.

The analogy most cited to justify the current Afghanistan policy is the 2007 "surge" in Iraq. Yet as former US envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins has pointed out, by 2007, the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq had been decisively beaten by majority Shia militias, and it was only after this defeat that the Sunni Arabs turned to American forces for protection. The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, in contrast, is rooted in that country's largest ethnic group, not its smallest.

These Pashtun insurgents have been winning their civil war for the last several years, not losing it. In Iraq, by 2007 al-Qaida had made itself unwelcome among its Sunni Arab allies. In Afghanistan, al-Qaida is hardly present, and presents no comparable threat to the Afghan Taliban leadership. Pashtun elders are less influential than the Iraqi sheiks that brought their adherents over with them when they decided to switch sides. In short, the Iraq surge has little application to Afghanistan.

Historians may puzzle over why the president, despite his deep agonising as described in Bob Woodward's book on the war, deployed 1,00,000 troops into Afghanistan nearly 10 years after 9/11, why US policy makers spoke as if the fate of the civilised world depended on the pacification of Marja and Kandahar. Accepting the de facto partition of Afghanistan is hardly an ideal outcome in Afghanistan. But it is better than the alternatives.

The writer is a senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations and former US ambassador to India.

http://timesofindia....in-Afghanistan/ articleshow/7134317.cms

0

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • 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