Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by hit&run, Jul 19, 2012.
I thought a gutsy Afghan slapped Parvez Mian and so I came onto this thread.
Having seen the video, I must say Parvez was had by the boy and the girl!
If we arm afghanistan to the teeth then good things would come out of it.
Depending on who is on power dude. Let afghanistan settle down as a nation democratically . Let it prosper. That alone will ensure that pakistan cant do jack shit there. Then we dont even have to arm them to teeth. They will do a good job of doing that themselves
This roses and democracy shit doesn't work. Pakis are arming taliban and sending them across there border to afghanistan like they do in kashmir. Afghans need weapons to fight.
Do you know in early 90's afghans were actually defeating taliban and then pakis sent there own soldiers (without uniforms) to defeat afghanis. They even used there air force to win battles that they would have lost otherwise and afghans had no anti-aircraft weapons apart from rudementary ones.
What I meant is the stabilisation of Afghanistan. But for that, we have to even use our own Army if needed. And train them for that. I wont have problems with even giving them the Migs and other old gen aircrafts for training and for defence. But that said, only way to ensure Afghan stays in our pocket is the Stabilisation of the Afghan economy and Politics.
You do know what will happen if that fails right?
I had suggested earilier on DFI itself that we give them migs.
How will you get stability unless taliban is not eliminated ? tourism in kashmir only started once our army foiled majority of infiltrations and killed most of the terrorists or would tourism have re-started in kashmir while terrorists were gun totting around spraying bullets ? taliban and paki elements must be eliminated and due to that afghanistan will automatically start growing economically.
For India to have a decent economic relationship with afghanistan we need iran so we need to tell that hysteric woman clinton to piss off because pakis sure as hell wont allow us direct access to afghanistan.
I will leave that to the Americans till 2014 and even afterwords. (they are gonna stay there even after 2014).
Our efforts should be on the economic front mostly, But we should play support role to the americans and afghans in counter terror operations
I agree 100%. Iran is no where near the psychosis of Saudi and Pakis. Having a pro- Saudi/Paki Iran is not in our interest in any way
This exactly what USA will do they are a NATO ally now.
Can someone post the actual English version of the video? TIA.
and they , pak are paying the price for that temporary "success" - they economic ruinous condition today is in major part due to the cost of sending their own troops to do what should have been done by proxy ! - so back to "mad indian" 's idea of letting the afghanis do it with some weaponry assistance from india or indeed other friendly countries
I understand that it is ethnicity and race that groups people in Afghanistan? is this true - Tajiks and non-Pashtun people supports India while Pashtuns have their allegiance with their Pashtun brothers across the border in Pakistan controlled Pashtunkhwa?
Yes, the original video be linked up please.
Rather than just the questions being asked, one would like to listen to the complete flow of discussion. Thanks.
Anyways, even after knowing the duplicity of the Pakistanis on the matter, a result of which many Americans have been killed, the US has largely ignored and continued pampering them with more and more USD. On this, I am forced to question, was the life of an American who got killed in the 9/11 terror attacks any more important than the life of an American lost in Afghanistan?
Though what has caught my intention has been Najam Sethi's over the top reactions on US-Pak relations where he has continuously referred to the continuing weakening of position of Pakistan in Afghanistan in the "end-game", now is he doing it at the behest of the Americans or is he genuinely concerned, remains to be seen.
If I am not mistaken India has a good reputation even in Pashtoon dominated areas, at least the international opinion polls conducted in Afghanistan's Pashtoon dominated areas suggest so. Even the Indian investments being made in Afghanistan have spread out to Pashutoon areas and the response remains pretty good.
Ahmad Shah Masood - Tajik (always anti-Soviet, later pro-Northern Alliance, pro-Russia, pro-USA, pro-India)
Abdul Rashid Dostum - Uzbek (formerly pro-Soviet, later anti-Soviet, and finally again pro-Northern Alliance, pro-India, pro-USA, pro-Russia)
Mohammad Najibullah - Pashtun (always pro-Soviet and pro-India)
Mullah Omar - Pashtun (always anti Soviet, anti India, formerly pro USA, later anti USA)
Hamid Karzai - Pashtun (pro-India)
These are the main players. It's rather complicated.
Can't get in English and the translation is done by Pakistani channel for their Urdu speaking audience.
So there is no need to doubt the source or the translation. Sorry to only English speaking/understanding posters.
Pmaitra and thakur_ritesh have given some initial comments on this. But overall it does hold true that Pashtuns are not anti-India. Now coming down even to the Afghan Taliban, if you go by recent reports and interviews from former Taliban members like Abdul Salam Zaef (My LIfe with the Taliban author), you can realise this theme of not being anti-India inherently, atleast not any longer after 9/11 and Pakistan's duplicity coming out at the forefront.
The reality is that at this point, Taliban depend on Pakistan for survival and because of that, they will have to cater for their interest. Which of course will be an anti-India agenda. At the same time, they would like to reduce Indian hostility to them so that they can get some "aid" from India as well and hence reduce their sole dependance on Pakistan. A classic hedging strategy.(Taliban praise Delhi, deny anti-India stand)
IMO, our policy should be to have back channels open with the Afghan Taliban, but also emphasize that they will have to respect the constitution and compete in elections as a political party. If the people vote them in power, they can rule Afghanistan, until the next elections. There should also be clear red lines on anti-India terror groups like LeT or Haqqani network and that this would not be acceptable as they are responsible in killing innocent civilians.
^I dont know . . . how you have reached the above conclusion . . . but my opinion after lurking for a while on Pashtun Forums is that a good 70% of them are very Anti India . . . and that's among the English speaking western educated lot
to have diplomatic back channel open with Taliban is a TINA situation in my opinion . . .
but to expect them to respect a constitution that they will obviously find some way of terming non Islamic
and transfer power in a Democratic manner . . .is akin to Believing a Cat will go vegetarian
Separate names with a comma.